HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/02/16 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
FEB. 16, 2021
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.
Closed executive session at 5:30 p.m.; Economic development authority (EDA) at 6:20 p.m.;
Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Following the closed executive session, some or all members of the St. Louis Park City Council
will participate in the Feb. 16 EDA and city council meeting by electronic device or telephone
rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place at 5005
Minnetonka Blvd. 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
•952.562.2887 – item 6a - Allocation of 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
•952.562.2888 – item 8a – Ordinance re: outdoor seating in the I -G general industrial zoning district
5:30 p.m. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
1. Police security briefing* (Verbal)
*The meeting will be closed as permitted by MN Statute Section 13D.05 Subd. 3 (d) to receive a
security briefing from Police Chief Harcey regarding procedures and plans to protect public
buildings and infrastructure, to discuss issues related to security systems, to discuss emergency
response procedures , and to discuss security deficiencies in or recommendations regarding public
services, infrastructure and facilities in response to civil unrest. Disclosure of the information
discussed would pose a danger to public safety or compromise security procedures or responses.
6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
1.Call to order
2.Roll call
3.Approval of minutes
3a. EDA meeting minutes of Feb. 1, 2021
7.New business
7a. Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution approving the preliminary
development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC.
Meeting of Feb. 1 6, 2021
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. Recognition of Kori Shingles and Jason West for MRPA Presidential Award for work on
race, equity, and inclusion REI
2b. Recognition of donations
2c. Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update
3.Approval of minutes
3a. City council meeting minutes of Jan. 4, 2021
3b. Study session meeting minutes of Jan. 11, 2021
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. Adopt Resolution approving renewal of liquor licenses for the license term March 1, 2021
through March 1, 2022.
4b . Approve the amendment to the amended and restated agreement, between the city and
T-Mobile Central LLC, for communication antennas and related equipment on the city’s
water tower at 8301 West 34th Street for Agreement No. 21-17.
4c . Approve Amendment No. 2 to City Agreement No. 14-04, between the city and T-Mobile
for communication antennas on the city’s water tower at 2541 Nevada Avenue South.
4d . A dopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $200 donation from Linda Mell for the
purchase of a tree in Wolfe Park and a $300 donation from Lynn Camp and Lesley Dionne
for the purchase of a memorial tree in Wolfe Park in honor of Dave and Ruth Bowman.
4e . Designate Northdale Construction Company as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $348,900 for the Booster Station at
Water Treatment Plant #8, Project No. 5321-5004.
4f . Adopt Resolution authorizing staff to amend the cooperative agreement with Hennepin
County. The agreement is for a feasibility study to consider connections across the BNSF
Railroad adjacent to Highway 100 - Project No. 4018-2000.
4g . Adopt Resolution delegating authority to make electronic fund transfers to the chief
financial officer.
4h . Adopt Resolution setting liquor license fees for the license term March 1, 2021 – March
1, 2022 pursuant to Minnesota statute 340A.408 and section 3-59 of the St. Louis Park
City Code.
4i . Designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $557,979.17 for the 2021 Street
Maintenance– Project No. 4021-1200.
4j . Adopt Resolution providing for the sale of general obligation bonds in the amount of
approximately $12,385,000. (Requires 6 of 7 affirmative votes.)
4k . Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Jan. 6, 2021
Meeting of Feb. 1 6, 2021
City c ouncil agenda
5. Boards and commissions -- None
6. Public hearings
6a. Public hearing to consider allocation of 2021 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds
Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take testimony, and then close the
hearing. Motion to adopt Resolution approving proposed use of 2021 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and authorize execution of
sub-recipient agreement with Hennepin County and third-party agreements.
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial
zoning district
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending
Section 36- 244(e) pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning
district and set second reading for March 1, 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 sc hedule. 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: February 16, 2021
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Feb. 1, 2021
1. Call to order
President Brausen called the meeting to order at 6:27 p.m.
2. Roll call
Commissioners present: President Brausen, Rachel Harris, Lynette Dumalag, Larry Kraft, Nadia
Mohamed, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano
Commissioners absent: none
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Director of Community Development (Ms.
Barton), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Sr. Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan),
Senior Planner (Ms. Monson), Senior Management Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Pappas)
3. Approval of minutes
3a. EDA meeting minutes of Jan. 4, 2021
It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to approve the
EDA meeting minutes of Jan. 4, 2021 as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar
4a. Accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 26 through Jan. 22, 2021.
It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Kraft, to accept for filing
EDA disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 26 through Jan. 22, 2021.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Dumalag abstained).
4b. Adopt EDA Resolution approving the proposed Assignment and Assumption of
redevelopment contract between Sidal Crossroads Co., LLC and CP4 7201 Walker, LLC.
It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Harris, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 21-01 approving the proposed Assignment and Assumption of
redevelopment contract between Sidal Crossroads Co., LLC and CP4 7201 Walker, LLC.
Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: EDA meeting minutes of February 1, 2021
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Reports - none
6. Old business - none
7. New business - none
8. Communications – none
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:31 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, secretary Tim Brausen, president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA Resolution approving the preliminary de velopment
agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support the proposed preliminary development agreement
with Wooddale Station LLC which f ormaliz es the resp ective p arties’ o bligations relative to
preparing a mixed-use de velopment plan and contracts for the SWLRT Wooddale Station Site?
Summary: At the December 14, 2020 study session, the EDA selected Saturday Properties and
Anderson Companies (Wooddale Station LLC) as its partner development team for
redevelopment of the SWLRT Wooddale Station Site. Staff was directed to prepare a
Preliminary Development Agreement (PDA) between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC in
which the parties pledge to work cooperatively together toward a mutually acceptable mixed-
use development plan and a purchase and redevelopment contract for the site. The purpose of
the P DA is to f ormalize t he p arti es’ resp ective responsibilities relative to f urth er d efining the
SWLRT Wooddale Station redevelopment project consistent with the parties’ mutual objective s.
The P DA also provides Wooddale Station LLC with formal permission to access the site to
conduct its due diligence. Further included in the agreement is an outline for applying for land
use and zoning changes as well as tax increment financing assistance. During the term of the
PDA, Wooddale Station LLC would be provided with exclusive rights to ne gotiate acquisition of
the subject property with the EDA. Wooddale Station LLC also agrees to reimburse the EDA for
all reasonable o ut-of-pocket administrative costs (such as legal and financial consulting f ees)
incurred in connection with review and analysis of the propose d redevelopment. The PDA
would terminate if : (1) the development team does not secure an execute d purchase
agreement with the owner of the parcel adjoining the EDA property by July 31, 2021 and a
revised redevelopment proposal has not been preliminarily accepted by the EDA within 30 days
after receipt of such a proposal, (2) the EDA has not approved a purchase and redevelopment
contract with Wooddale Station LLC by March 31, 2022, or (3) by mutual written agreement of
the parties or a determination by either party that negotiations have reached an impasse.
Financial or budget considerations: The precise purchase price of the EDA parcel as well as the
amount of financial assistance necessary to bring the proposed SWLRT Wooddale Station
redevelopment to fruition will require f urther discussion with the development team once the
project’s actual components are fully defined. It is anticipated that implementation of the
proposed redevelopment plans for the SWLRT Wooddale Station Site w ill require Tax Increment
Financing assistance.
Strategic priority consideration: The proposed project is intended to mee t all the city’s
strat egic p riorities.
Supporting documents: EDA Resolution ; Preliminary development agreement
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, e conomic development coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager/EDA e xecutive director
Page 2 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
EDA Resolution No. 21 - ____
E DA Resolution approving a preliminary development agreement between the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Wooddale Station LLC
Whereas, pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to
469.1082, as amended, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”)
administers its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), for the purpose of facilitating the
redevelopment of certain substandard property within the Project; and
Whereas, the Authority owns certain property within the Project (the “Authority
Parcel”), and Wooddale Station LLC (the “Developer”) has entered negotiations with a third
party to acquire certain other property adjacent to the Authority Parcel within the Project (the
“Third -Party Parcel” and together with the Authority Parcel, the “Development Property”), all
located on the south side of the proposed Southwest LRT Wooddale Station; and
Whereas, the Development Property has been the subject of certain preliminary
negotiations between the parties for purposes of constructing a mixed-use (multi-family
residential and commercial) development on the Development Property, together with related
parking (the “Development”); and
Whereas, the Authority and the Developer have negotiated a Preliminary Development
Agreement (the “Agreement”), providing for the performance of certain activities on the part of
the parties in preparation for the negotiation of a definitive Purchase and Redevelopment
Contract in connection with the Development Property, as presented for the Authority’s
consideration ; and
Whereas, the Board has reviewed the Agreement and finds that the approval and
execution of the Agreement are in the best interest of the City and its residents. and will spur
redevelopment of underutilized and blighted property, encourage commerce and alternative
transportation, and enhance the City’s tax base .
Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
that the Agreement as presented to the Board of Commissioners is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that
are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the
Agreement by such officials shall be conclusive evid ence of approval.
It is further resolved that the President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to
execute on behalf of the Authority the Agreement, and any documents referenced therein
requiring execution by the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority, its obligations
thereunder.
It is further resolved that Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any
actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution.
Page 3 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Board of Commissioners
February 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, executive director Tim Brausen , president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”), dated ____2021, by and
between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic
under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Authority”), and Wooddale Station LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company (the “Developer”);
WI TNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to promote development of certain property within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) in the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”), located at
5950 36th Street West and 5802 36th Street West and described in Exhibit A hereto (the
“Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is made up of two parce ls, with the 5950 36th Street West parcel
owned by the Authority (the “Authority Parcel”) and the 5802 36th Street West parcel owned by a
third party (the “Third-Party Parcel”); and
WHEREAS, the Authority has determined that it is in the best interests of the Authority and
of the City as a whole that the Developer be designated as the sole developer of the Property
during the term of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer desires to acquire the Property for purposes of constructing a
mixed -use (multi-family residential and commercial), mixed -income, transit -oriented development
on the Property incorporating affordable housing, renewable energy sources, public spaces, and
public art, as well as related automobile parking and bicycle facilities (the “Development”); and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the Authority provide tax increment financing
under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “Tax Increment Act”)
or other public financial assistance to offset a portion of the public costs of the Development; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer are willing and desirous to undertake the
Development if (i) a satisfactory agreement can be reached regarding the Authority’s commitment
for public costs necessary for the Development; (ii) satisfactory mortgage and equity financing, or
adequate cash resources, for the Development can be secured by Developer; (iii) the parties reach
a satisfactory resolution of zoning, land use, public infrastructure, and site design issues; (iv) the
Developer successfully acquires the Third-Party Parcel; and (v) the economic feasibility and
soundness of the Development and other necessary preconditions have been determined to the
satisfaction of the parties; and
WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into this Agreement setting forth their respective
responsibilities in connection with the Property.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and of the mutual covenants and
obligations set forth herein, the Authority and the Developer hereby agree as follows:
Page 4 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
1.During the term of this Agreement, the Authority agrees to designate the Developer as the
sole developer of the Authority Parcel and to negotiate solely with the Developer relative to the
acquisition and development of the Authority Parcel. As consideration for this designation, the
Developer shall pay a deposit of $10,000 (the “Development Deposit”) to the Authority upon
execution of this Agreement, which Development Deposit shall be nonrefundable, but subject to
the provisions of Section 18 hereof. If the parties execute a Purchase and Redevelopment
Contract (as described hereinafter) and proceed to closing on the conveyance of the Authority
Parcel, all Development Deposit amounts paid to the Authority by the Developer shall be applied
to the purchase price of such property.
2.The parties agree to work cooperatively towards defining the Development and its
components (including but not limited to site design, building plans and specifications, number of
market-rate and affordable residential units, commercial square footage, building stories and
height, sustainable and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) components, public art and
structured parking, stormwater management, streets and sidewalks, and all other necessary public
infrastructure improvements), determining its financial feasibility, the infrastructure necessary to
service it, and the approvals necessary to bring it to fruition, as well as to negotiate in good faith
toward a definitive Purchase and Redevelopment Contract (the “Contract”) and a related planning
development contract regarding the Development, all generally consistent with the concept
proposal for the Development presented to the Authority by the Developer on December 14, 2020
(the “Concept Proposal”). Certain particulars of the Concept Proposal, including initial renderings,
site plan, and other development metrics, are attached hereto as Exhibit B. The parties agree that
negotiation and approval of the Contract shall be based on the Concept Proposal, including the
Exhibit B metrics, to the extent determined to be feasible and warranted based on evaluation and
review by the parties of the relevant facts pursuant to this Agreement.
3.Developer shall prepare a project pro forma (including a detailed list of various revenue
sources and the respective amounts necessary to bring the Development to fruition) and submit it
to the Authority for its review.
4.Developer shall work to secure satisfactory mortgage and equity financing, and additional
forms of financing necessary to bring the Development to fruition. The Authority will cooperate
with Developer in connection with any application for grants or similar funds to be applied to the
Development.
5.Developer shall work with the owner of the Third-Party Parcel to execute a purchase
agreement for Developer’s acquisition of such parcel. Developer understands that the Authority
will not exercise any condemnation power or intervene in any way to facilitate the acquisition of
the Third-Party Parcel by the Developer, and that any obligation of the parties to proceed to a
definitive Contract for the Authority Parcel is subject to Developer’s ability to acquire the Third-
Party Parcel in an arms-length transaction with the current owner. To this effect, Developer shall
work to secure an executed purchase agreement with the owner of the Third-Party Parcel by July
31, 2021. If Developer is unable to secure an executed purchase agreement for the Third-Party
Parcel by such date, Developer shall provide notice of the same to Authority, and Developer shall
Page 5 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
have thirty (30) days after the giving of such notice to propose a revised development (not
including the Third-Party Parcel) to the Authority (the “Revised Proposal”). Approval of such
Revised Proposal shall be at the sole discretion of the Authority. If the Authority approves the
Revised Proposal, this Agreement shall continue according to its terms. If the Authority rejects the
Revised Proposal, this Agreement shall terminate pursuant to paragraph 18 hereof.
6.Developer understands the Development will be subject to the City’s Green Building Policy
and Inclusionary Housing Policy in effect at the time of execution of the Contract, and agrees to
abide by the requirements of such policies if the parties enter into the Contract.
7.In connection with this Agreement, Authority hereby grants to the Developer, its agents,
employees, officers, and contractors (the “Authorized Parties”) a right of entry on the Property for
the purpose of performing all due diligence work and inspections deemed necessary by the
Developer to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement (the “Permitted Activities”). The
Authorized Parties shall have access to the Property five (5) days a week between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. to perform the Permitted Activities. Developer hereby agrees to be
responsible for any and all costs related to the Permitted Activities conducted on Property, and to
restore the Property to its original condition upon completion of the Permitted Activities.
Developer agrees to indemnify, save harmless, and defend the Authority and its officers and
employees, from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, liability and expense in
connection with personal injury and/or damage to the Property arising from or out of any
occurrence in, upon or at the Property to the extent caused by the act or omission of the
Authorized Parties in conducting the Permitted Activities on the Property, except (a) to the extent
caused by the negligence, gross negligence, willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton
misconduct by the Authority, its officers, employees, agents or contractors; and (b) to the extent
caused by a “Pre-Existing Condition” as defined in this paragraph 7. “Pre -Existing Condition” shall
mean any geologic or soil condition, any defect in the condition of improvements located on the
Property, or any condition caused by the existence of hazardous substances or materials in, on, or
under Property, including without limitation hazardous substances released or discharged into the
drainage systems, soils, groundwater, waters or atmosphere, which condition existed as of the
date of this Agreement and became known or was otherwise disclosed or discovered by reason of
the Authorized Parties’ entry onto the Property.
8.The Authority agrees to cooperate with the Developer in determining the municipal
regulatory or other approvals required for the Development including, but not limited to, land use
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, zoning and plat changes, permits, and any other
necessary municipal or other approvals, including any agreements, approvals or permits necessary
with respect to the light-rail station located adjacent to the Property.
9.The Authority agrees to cooperate with the Developer in obtaining guidance from the City
on Developer’s applications for any approvals or land use guidance and zoning and plat changes
that may be required in connection with the Development. However, the Authority makes no
guarantees as to any approvals or land use guidance and zoning and plat changes that may be
required in connection with the Development.
Page 6 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
10.The Authority and City will review existing traffic studies pertinent to the Development and
undertake any additional traffic studies deemed necessary by the Authority and City in their sole
discretion. The Developer agrees to pay the cost of any such studies pursuant to paragraph 15
hereof.
11.The Developer agrees to complete an Application for Tax Increment Finance Assistance
(the “Application”) and to pay the required application fee of $3,000 to the Authority, in addition
to the Administrative Deposit described in paragraph 15 hereof.
12.The Authority agrees to direct its staff and legal and financial consultants to review and
analyze the Application and the Development’s pro forma and help determine the terms of tax
increment or other financial assistance required for the Development, consistent (to the extent
determined warranted and appropriate) with the metrics set forth in Exhibit B.
13.The Authority agrees to undertake an analysis to determine the feasibility of creating a tax
increment financing district in connection with the Development and Property, the cost of which
analysis incurred by the Authority shall be paid by Developer pursuant to paragraph 15 hereof. The
Developer will cooperate with the Authority’s review and analysis and provide to the Authority all
documents and information reasonably requested by the Authority in connection with that effort.
14.If, in the Authority’s sole discretion, the Development is feasible and public financial
assistance is indicated, the Authority and the Developer will negotiate towards a definitive Contract
providing generally for (a) purchase of the Authority Parcel by the Developer; (b) pay-as-you -go tax
increment assistance in an amount determined by the Authority to be necessary to make the
Development financially feasible, generally consistent (to the extent determined warranted and
appropriate) with the metrics set forth in Exhibit B; and (c) timely construction of the Development
by Developer. Any definitive Contract is subject to approval by the Authority’s board of
commissioners. It is expressly understood that the Contract, when executed, will supersede this
Agreement in all respects. Execution and implementation of the Contract shall be subject to:
(a)A determination by the Authority in its sole discretion that its undertakings
are feasible based on (i) the projected tax increment revenues and any other revenues
designated by the Authority, including any grants; (ii) the purposes and objectives of any tax
increment, development, or other plan created or proposed for the purpose of providing
financial assistance for the Development; and (iii) the best interests of the City and Authority.
(b)A determination by the Authority that any financial assistance is reasonably
necessary in order to make the Development financially feasible, and that any such
assistance is limited to the amount necessary to achieve financial feasibility based on
Developer’s pro forma and review of all the facts and circumstances.
(c)A determination by the Developer that the Development is both
marketable and economically feasible and in the best interests of the Developer, and that
the Developer is able to meet all the requirements of the Contract (subject to any
contingencies contained therein).
Page 7 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
15.Upon the execution of this Agreement, Developer shall deposit with the Authority an
administrative deposit of $50,000 for the Authority’s costs described herein (the “Administrative
Deposit”). The Developer will reimburse the Authority for all out-of-pocket costs in curred by the
Authority in connection with review and analysis of the Development if such costs exceed the
amount of the Administrative Deposit. Such costs include fees paid to attorneys, the Authority’s
financial advisor, and any planning and engineering consultants retained by the Authority in
connection with review of the Development. The Developer must pay such costs to the Authority
within 10 business days after receipt of a written invoice from the Authority describing the amount
and nature of the costs to be reimbursed, together with supporting documentation therefor. If
this Agreement is terminated or expires prior to approval and execution of a definitive Contract,
any remaining funds in the Administrative Deposit shall be returned to Developer, subject to the
terms of paragraph 16 hereof.
16.This Agreement may be terminated by either party at any time upon 10 day’s written
notice to the other party (a) if in the respective sole discretion of the Authority or Developer, an
impasse has been reached in the negotiation or implementation of any material term or the
completion or execution of any material condition of this Agreement or the Contract, and the
parties have been unable to resolve such impasse through good-faith negotiations within 30 days
after the party determining the impasse has notified the other party in writing of such
determination; (b) by mutual written agreement of the parties hereto; or (c) pursuant to
paragraph 18 hereof. Upon such termination, no party shall have any further obligations to the
others under this Agreement, except that Developer remains obligated to pay any costs payable
under paragraph 15 that were incurred by the Authority pursuant to this Agreement before the
effective date of termination. The Developer acknowledges that all Development Deposit amounts
are nonrefundable if this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this paragraph, subject to the
provisions of paragraph 18.
17.In expansion and not in limitation of paragraph 16 hereof, Developer agrees to notify the
Authority and to terminate this Agreement as soon as reasonably practicable if the Developer
determines that the proposed Development is not marketable and economically feasible and/or
Developer is unable to secure the financing necessary for the Development, or if the Developer for
any reason is unable to bring the Development to fruition.
18.This Agreement shall terminate by its terms if the Developer does not succeed in securing an
executed purchase agreement with the owner of the Third-Party Parcel by the date provided in
paragraph 5 and the Revised Proposal has not been preliminarily approved by the Authority within
30 days after receipt of such Revised Proposal from Developer, or if the governing body of the
Authority has not approved the Contract by March 31, 2022. Upon such termination, the Developer
remains obligated to pay any costs payable pursuant to this Agreement that were incurred by the
Authority prior to such date. The Developer acknowledges that all Development Deposit amounts
are nonrefundable if this Agreement terminates pursuant to this paragraph or due to the failure of
either of the conditions set forth in paragraphs 14(a) or (b), but Developer and the Authority agree
that in the event of such termination, all Development Deposit amounts shall be applied to any sums
owed by Developer pursuant to Section 15. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
Page 8 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
19.Notice or demand or other communication between or among the parties shall be
sufficiently given if sent by mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or delivered personally:
(a)As to the Authority:
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
(b)As to the Developer:
Wooddale Station LLC
c/o Saturday Properties LLC
3546 Dakota Ave S, Suite D
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
With a copy to:
Anderson Companies
3340 Republic Avenue, Suite 50
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
20.This Agreement may be executed simultaneously by manual or electronic signature
in any number of counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
21.This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Minnesota. Any disputes, controversies, or claims arising out of this Agreement shall
be heard in the state or federal courts of Minnesota, and all parties to this Agreement waive any
objection to the jurisdiction of these courts, whether based on convenience or otherwise.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
Page 9 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority has caused this Agreement to be duly executed in its
name and behalf and its seal to be duly affixed hereto and the Developer has caused this
Agreement to be duly executed as of the date and year first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic
under the laws of the State of Minnesota
By: _________________________________
Its President
By: _________________________________
Its Executive Director
Page 10 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
WOODDALE STATION LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company
By: Wooddale Station Manager LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company
its Managing Member
By: Saturday Properties LLC,
a Minnesota limited liability company
Its: Member
By: ________________________________
Name: _____________________________
Its: ________________________________
By: Anderson Companies Development, LLC
a Minnesota limited liability company
Its: Member
By: ________________________________
Name: _____________________________
Its: ________________________________
Page 11 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
EXHIBIT A
Property
Authority Parcel:
Lot 1, Block 3, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Third-Party Parcel:
Tract A: (abstract property)
Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 29, St. Louis Park, together with the South ½ of vacated alley adjoining said
lots, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Tract B: (Torrens property)
Parcel 1: That part of Lots 12 to 14 inclusive Southerly of Railroad right-of-way, and all of Lots 15 to
19 inclusive, Block 29, Rearrangement of St. Louis Park including ½ of the vacated alley adjoining
said Lots 13 to 19 inclusive, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the
Registrar of Deeds in and for said County.
Parce l 2: That part of the following described property;
That part of Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” and that part of
the adjoining vacated alleys, all described as commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of
Block 30, “Rearrangement of St. Louis Park” distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said
Southwesterly line from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly to a point
on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line from the
Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continuing Northeasterly along the last described
course distance of 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at a right angle 20.57 feet; thence
Northeasterly at a right angle 86.47 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing
Northeasterly along the last described course to the center line of the vacated alley adjoining the
East line of said Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23; thence South along said center line and its extension to the
center line of the vacated alley adjoining the South line of said Lot 20; thence West along the last
described center line to its intersection with the extension South of a line drawn from the actual
point of beginning to a point on the South line of said Lot 20 distant 79 feet East from the
Southwest corner of said Lot 20; thence North to the actual point of beginning, which lies Easterly
of the East line of Lot 7, said Block 29 extended Northerly, according to the record plat thereof.
Abstract and Torrens Property
Torrens Certificate No. 1004417
Page 12 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
EXHIBIT B
W ooddale Station Development Metrics
Page 13 Economic development authority meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 7a)
Title: Preliminary development agreement between the EDA and Wooddale Station LLC
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Presentation: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Recognition of Kori Shingles and Jason West for MRPA Presidential Award for work on
race, equity, and inclusion (REI)
Recommended action: The city council is respectfully requested to recognize Kori Shingles and
Jason West for receiving the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association Presidential award for
their work on race, equity, and inclusion (REI). Minnesota Recreation and Park Association
representative, Cindy Walsh will be in attendance to prese nt.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) annually recognizes
outstanding parks and recreation projects and programs. Jason West and Kori Shingles were
awarded the Presidential Award for their work on race, equity, and inclusion. Jason and Kori
developed a Race and Equity Advisory Committee that includes professionals from other cities
and counties. This committee organized training for two advisory boards and are also planning
to offer training to all members within the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA)
organization. Many cities do not have REI staff and are not as far along on their journey. Kori
and Jason saw this need and took the initiative to help train others.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable .
Strategic priority consideration: 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.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
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
Linda Mell $200 Purchase of a tree for Wolfe Park
Lynn Camp and
Lesley Dionne $300 Purchase of a memorial tree for Wolfe Park in honor of
Dave and Ruth Bowman
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: February 16, 2021
Presentation: 2c
Executive summary
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update
Recommended action: No action required. Becky Bakken, President of Discover St. Louis Park,
will be in attendance to provide an annual update on the activities of our destination marketing
organization.
Policy consideration: Are the activities of DSLP in keeping with the expectations of the city
council?
Summary: Every year DSLP prepares an annual report on their activities and results. Bakken will
present a short annual review and answer any questions. Attached is a copy of the 2020 Year-
End Presentation.
This year has proven to be like no other the tourism industry has ever faced. As you will see in
the presentation, 2020 proved to be incredibly challenging for DSLP and the entire hospitality
sector. The year ended with revenues down 72% over 2019. With the help of funding from the
city through the CARE’s program, DSLP was able to make difficult decisions and pivot its focus
to remain vital. DSLP is positioned to effectively promote the area and ensure a timelier and
more aggressive economic comeback when the time is right.
Per DSLP’s by-laws, the mayor and city manager have permanent seats on the DSLP board.
Financial or budget considerations: Pursuant to state law the city retains five percent of the
lodging tax proceeds collected monthly from the hotels.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: 2020 DSLP end of year presentation
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant
Reviewed by: Tom Harmening, city manager
1111YE Forecast 2020
CLOSE TO MINNEAPOLIS.
FAR FROM ORDINARY.
Uber-close to Minneapolis attractions.
A stone’s throw from hiking and biking trails.
Walking distance to restaurants and shopping.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 2
222
A Destination Marketing Organization
Representing St. Louis Park
And Golden Valley
Discover St. Louis Park’s mission is to strengthen the awareness of
St. Louis Park and Golden Valley as a prime meeting and
visitor destination, stimulate economic development
and support community growth.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 3
33
Minnesota State Statute
M.S. 469.190 Local Lodging Tax
Ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from
any tax imposed under subdivision 1 shall be
used by the statutory or home rule charter city
or town to fund a local convention or tourism
bureau for the purpose of marketing and
promoting the
city or town as a tourist or
convention center.
Discover St. Louis Park is a
non-profit organization 501 (c) 6,
With a governing board of directors.
3
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 4
$16 billion in gross sales
273,000 full and part-time jobs
6.1 billion in wages
1.04 billion in state and local sales tax
18% of all MN sales taxes
To fund roads, parks and trails, bridges
The average MN household would owe an
additional $625 without the tax revenue
generated by travel and tourism
4
Tourism in Minnesota -2019
11 billion or 70% of all MN tourism revenues are in the metro region
Hennepin County: 5.6 billion and 86,892 jobs
What will 2020 Look like?
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 5
55
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 6
Definitions
Occupancy
Rooms sold divided by rooms available multiplied by 100. Occupancy is always expressed as a
percentage of rooms occupied.
Average Daily Rate (ADR)
Room revenue divided by rooms sold, displayed as the average rental rate for a single room.
Revenue Per Available Room (RevPAR)
Room revenue divided by rooms available.
Supply
The number of rooms times the number of days in the period.
Demand
The number of rooms sold or rented (excludes complimentary rooms).
Revenue
Total room revenue generated from the sale or rental of rooms.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 7
77
US States –November 2020 Occ
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 8
88
US States –November 2020 ADR
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 9
99
US States –November 2020 RevPAR
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 10
1010
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 11
1111
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 12
1212
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 13
A Ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from any tax imposed under subdivision 1 shall be used by the Tax SP SummaryDiscover St. Louis Park
A Picture Paints A Thousand Words
Nine Hotel Properties
13
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 14
52%60%51%65%68%79%74%83%77%79%58%47%68%50%59%64%73%74%80%79%81%76%73%57%47%70%47%57%27%11%14%21%23%28%27%26%19%14%27%Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD
2018 2019 2020
Occupancy
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 15
$136$181$113$124$129$134$131$128$130$132$120$110$132$117$114$114$149$125$138$138$132$138$135$120$112$130$118$119$113$83$87$91$96$93$89$89$88$80$102Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD
Average Daily Rate (ADR)
2018 2019 2020
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 16
$70$109$58$81$88$105$97$107$99$104$69$52$90$58$67$73$109$92$111$108$107$105$98$120$112$91$55$68$30$9$12$19$22$26$24$23$17$11$28Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD
2018 2019 2020
Revenue Per Available Room
(REVPAR)
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 17
1717
-
20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
DSLP Lodging Tax SLP Summary
Collection began in March of 2011
Inventory was relatively consistent through 2017
Two hotels (268 hotel rooms) were added in 2018
Seven Hotels / 1,117 Rooms
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 18
DSLP Lodging Tax GV Summary
18
Collection began in January 2017
Two Hotels / 244 Rooms
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2017 2018 2019 2020
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 19
DSLP Lodging Tax Summary
$746,249 $805,421 $828,223 $860,761
$978,573
$1,226,779
$1,268,411
$-
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
+32,538 +117,812
19
+53,766 +59,172 +22,802 +207,389 +42,067
2020 Est. YE
$357,289
-$911,122
%28.17
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 20
2020
25%
20%
16%
16%
16%
7%
Travel Spending by Sector
Food & Beverage
LODGING
R
Transportation
Recreation
Other
FOOD &
BEVERAGE
OTHER
RETAIL
RECREATION
TRANSPORTATION
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 21
A Ninety-five percent of the gross proceeds from any tax imposed under subdivision 1 shall be used by the Tax SLP SummaryForecasting 2021
21
St. Louis Park Golden Valley
2021*2020 2019 *2021*2020 2019 *
Lodging Tax: SLP/95%SLP/95%SLP/95%Lodging Tax: GV/95%GV/95%GV/95%
January $12,146.82 $55,546.34 $60,734.08 20%January $2,120.87 $9,457.72 $8,483.47 25%
February $12,074.01 $64,519.08 $60,370.05 20%February $2,859.51 $10,250.33 $11,438.07 25%
March $14,586.12 $28,867.56 $72,930.59 20%March $3,439.80 $5,738.25 $13,759.21 25%
April $36,972.70 $3,239.65 $105,636.28 35%April $7,708.84 $2,070.79 $19,272.12 40%
May $36,582.15 $8,765.00 $91,455.38 40%May $6,832.82 $2,870.96 $17,082.05 40%
June $42,520.40 $14,950.62 $106,301.01 40%June $8,127.80 $3,372.79 $20,319.51 40%
July $53,518.39 $17,623.54 $107,036.78 50%July $10,235.08 $5,188.21 $20,470.16 50%
August $50,964.80 $22,329.88 $101,929.59 50%August $9,919.92 $4,832.14 $19,839.83 50%
September $49,735.54 $20,179.81 $99,471.08 50%September $9,223.02 $5,286.29 $18,446.04 50%
October $38,897.05 $21,450.88 $97,242.62 40%October $6,762.82 $4,796.31 $16,907.05 40%
November $19,799.38 $13,816.52 $65,997.94 30%November $3,087.34 $3,831.65 $10,291.13 30%
December $15,243.86 $7,695.31 $50,812.85 30%December $2,629.20 $2,760.362 $8,763.99 30%
Total:$383,041.22 $279,254.19 $1,019,918.25 Total:$72,947.02 $185,072.63 $185,072.63
2021 Increase of:$103,787.04 2021 Increase of:$12,491.22
38% of 2019
Combined Inc: $116,278.26
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 22
MN Tourism & Hospitality
Survey conducted by
Explore MN Tourism/Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank
The survey, yielded a total of 681 responses from a cross-section of tourism and hospitality businesses across the state,
including food and drink, attraction and entertainment, and lodging (motels, resorts, B&Bs, campgrounds and vacation home
rentals). The survey was conducted Dec. 8-15, addressing business impact between September and early December.
As of mid-December, nearly half of restaurants/ foodservice operators (47%)
feared they would face insolvency in Q1 2021.30% of hotels expected to face
insolvency in Q1 2021 and 60% by summer (consistent with the American
Hotel & Lodging Association’s (AHLA) projection that 600 of Minnesota’s
1000 hotels could face foreclosure). As noted above 85% of hotels and 80%
of restaurants/foodservice saw significantly lower revenue this fall.It is true
that this data pre-dates both the passage of PPP 2.0 and the January 10 re-
opening announcements, and while the picture may look slightly better
today, it is clear that these sectors will require significant help going forward
to remain viable and to get back to supporting the nearly 300,000 jobs in this
industry.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 23
2020 Marketing Highlights
Pandemic-Related Initiatives / Website Homepage Updates
•COVID-19 Info & Resources / Small Business Resources
•Lists of Restaurants & Stores in SLP & GV offering takeout/delivery
•Hotels with special offers –fi rst responder pricing / space to work, etc.
Lavender Magazine –Discover St. Louis Park featured in March 26 issue
Virtual Jigsaw Puzzles –featuring the artwork of Adam Turman; first in MN to offer these
Facebook Live Videos
•Woodland Wednesdays –highlighting local nature areas that are “hidden gems” –e.g.,
Minnehaha Creek Preserve, General Mills Nature Preserve
•The Dish with Trish –spotlighting restaurants & entertainment venues with safe outdoor
options –e.g., REVEAL Rooftop Bar, Park Tavern
Website Blogs
•“A Bee -autiful Day in St. Louis Park” –a bee-themed exploration of the city, complete
with a Spotify playlist
•“A Doggone Good Vacation” –pet-friendly hotels, restaurants & shops for travelers
•“22 Ways to Enjoy Minnesota’s Sweet Spot While Social Distancing”
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 24
2020 Marketing Highlights
Most Viral Organic Post Ever –“Clays Galaxy Drive In Now Open” –June 16
•Organic reach of 247,990
•33,098 engagements (reactions/comments, shares & post clicks)
Summer Digital Marketing Campaign –July 28
“Enjoy a Sweet (and Safe) Getaway”
•75,000 emails to Duluth, Rochester, Brainerd, & Moorhead
16.6% open rate, 2.51% CTR
•Addressable geofencing digital ad campaign
305,165 impressions, 174 conversions
State Fair Social Media Campaign –Aug 26 to Sept 7
•Spotlighted 14 businesses offering State Fair food & merchandise
•6 from Golden Valley, 8 from St. Louis Park
•“Donut Holes on a Stick” from Valley Pastries –most popular post
Growing Social Media Presence
•We now have over 9,000 followers and likes on Facebook
(9%in crease over 2019)
•We have increased our Instagram followers by 16%
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 25
2020 Sales Highlights
Maintain Partnerships
•Explore MN Tourism (EMT)
-Statewide promotional efforts along with our efforts. Often promote specific
things happening in our market. Provided $21,000 in grant funds for 2020 and an
additional $17,500 for 2021
•Meet Minneapolis/Sports Minneapolis
-Share leads with our hotels
-City Wide event participation
-Group participation with large events USA Volleyball/2024
-West Suburban presence on their site
Greater Metro Marketing Group AND MN Sports
-Shared funds to promote the area
Stay Connected with Planners
-IDSS
-CVENT
Facilitate any Sales Leads with St. Louis Park and Golden Valley venues
Poised and Ready to foster economic growth when the Time is Right!
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 26
QUESTIONS
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 2c)
Title: Discover St. Louis Park (DSLP) update Page 27
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Jan. 4, 2021
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Senior Management
Analyst (Ms. Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas)
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of donations
Mayor Spano noted that Mark Coin donated $250 to the St. Louis Park Fire Department
for education programs.
3. Approval of minutes - none
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of November 28 through
December 25, 2020.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 21-001 designating the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor as the city’s
official newspaper for 2021.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 21-002 declaring 2021 city council meeting dates.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 21-003 appointing councilmembers to the office of mayor
pro tem for the 2021 calendar year.
4e. Approve the second reading and adopt Ordinance No.2602-21 amending
Chapter 36 pertaining to zoning and approve summary ordinance for publication.
4f. Approve the joint powers agreement for the distracted driving vehicle program
between the City of Richfield and the City of St. Louis Park. (This item was
removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item
8b.)
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 21-004 to approve a gift certificate policy for ad hoc
committee members.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 4, 2021
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 21-005 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $163,102.57 for project no. 4019-1000 pavement management (Area
7) with GMH Asphalt Corporation, Contract No. 74-19.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 21-006 accepting donation to the fire department from
Park Coin for fire prevention programs and equipment.
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 21-007 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $144,410.94 for project no. 5318-5006 Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) System Replacement with Telemetry and Process Controls,
Inc., Contract No. 100-19.
4k. Approve easement purchase at 3440 Beltline Blvd for the Beltline Blvd SWLRT
pedestrian improvements project.
Councilmember Brausen requested that consent calendar item 4f be removed and
placed on the Regular Agenda to 8b.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move
consent calendar item 4f to the regular agenda as item 8b; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and commissions - none
6. Public hearings - none
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions, and discussion items
8a. First reading of ordinance establishing a second voting youth member on city
boards/commissions
Ms. Solano presented the report to the council.
Mayor Spano noted he wants youth members to have a vote and is excited about this
change to the ordinance, which will allow for greater youth engagement in the city.
Councilmember Harris agreed with Mayor Spano noting that youth members on
commissions have been a bright spot. She asked which commissions currently have two
youth members. Ms. Solano stated the ESC has two youth voting members. Ms. Solano
noted that the planning commission will remain with one non-voting youth member.
Councilmember Harris stated youth membership on the ESC worked very well, and this
is an exceptional ordinance to engage youth.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 4, 2021
Councilmember Kraft noted he is thrilled about the ordinance and not surprised about
council support, adding he presented this in September as a study session topic. He
pointed out youth have initiated the climate action plan, gun violence and racial issue
protests, and added having them on our commissions reinforces the message that youth
voices matter.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to
approve first reading of ordinance amending the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances
Chapter 2 to add a second voting youth member to the Community Technology Advisory
Commission, Human Rights Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Police
Advisory Commission, and to set second reading for Jan. 19 2021.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Approve joint powers agreement for the distracted driving vehicle program
between the City of Richfield and City of St. Louis Park
Councilmember Brausen pointed out this program focuses on distracted driving and is a
federally funded program called Toward Zero Death (TZD). He noted the agreement will
be between the City of Richfield and St. Louis Park, will make use of an undercover
vehicle, and make stops related to seatbelt use, speeding, and distracted driving.
Councilmember Brausen added in Minnesota between 2015- 2019 there were 15,000
car crashes with 3,300 injuries and 32 deaths, adding many are still not abiding by the
no texting and driving laws which are in place. Councilmember Brausen stated this is an
opportunity to notify our citizens about the laws in place to keep everyone safe and
convey that it is time to obey them.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to
approve the joint powers agreement for the distracted driving vehicle program between
the City of Richfield and the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Councilmember Harris stated on Wednesday, Jan. 6, at 6 p.m. the planning commission
is reviewing the proposal related to the townhouse development at Texa-Tonka by
Paster Company. She noted the proposal will be viewable on the city website and city
planner Jennifer Monson will be available to answer questions and provide information
on how to access the meeting. All are welcome.
Councilmember Brausen stated this is his eighth and possibly final year on the city
council so he wanted to thank residents and his colleagues who continue to serve,
adding he looks forward to the opportunity to meet in person this year. He stated
democracy is better served if we are working together in front of the public.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of January 4, 2021
Mayor Spano noted the process for applying for boards and commissions is now open
and more information is on the city website. He also stated the city has new grant
funding available for businesses impacted by COVID-19 and that information is also on
the city website, with priority given to first time applicants.
Mayor Spano noted this past weekend was the first time he went to the new Westwood
Hills Nature Center, stating the AIA has awarded a very prestigious award for its design,
which is forward-thinking and bold, as well as set apart from others. He thanked the
architects for their building design and stated all are excited to use it soon.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Minutes: 3b
Unofficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Jan. 11, 2021
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), CFO (Ms.
Schmitt), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Deputy City Manager/Human
Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), City
Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Sustainability Manager (Ms. Ziring), Senior Management Analyst (Ms.
Solano), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas)
Guests: Stacy Kvilvang, Ehlers
1. Annual TIF district management report
Ms. Kvilvang presented the report.
Mayor Spano noted while TIF dollars may not be used for city buildings, they can be used for
SWLRT related projects and fiber optics, and he questioned how this is different.
Ms. Kvilvang explained legislation in 2001 stated TIF dollars cannot be used for public facilities;
however, other traditional public improvements that promote or enhance development in
certain areas, such as SWLRT and fiber optics, is allowed.
Councilmember Kraft asked about pooling from TIF districts and if 25% can be pooled. Ms.
Kvilvang stated that is correct.
Councilmember Kraft noted when pooling, there are still obligations the city must pay. He
asked if the city still pools after obligations are paid off. Ms. Kvilvang stated with TIF, pooling
can be up to 25%, but in St. Louis Park, the city provides 95% of the TIF to pay TIF Note
obligations as long as the obligations are outstanding.
Councilmember Kraft asked when comparing an increase in market value, are you comparing
base value to future value. Ms. Kvilvang stated no, the comparisons happen every year and it is
comparing to current year market values.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
Councilmember Kraft stated this is a misleading comparison as base value does not remain the
same over time. Ms. Kvilvang stated, however, on the flip side there are properties that
decrease in value over time.
Councilmember Kraft asked what TIF investment has done for the city. Ms. Kvilvang stated TIF
has facilitated developments that have put St. Louis Park on the national map, such as The West
End and Excelsior & Grand. She added these, and many other developments have increased the
city’s market value and moved the city from an AA to an AAA bond rating, along with increasing
housing opportunities for folks as it upgraded the city’s rental housing stock.
Ms. Kvilvang continued that TIF has expanded the city’s housing stock allowing for more multi-
family housing units including new Class A layered affordable units. It is an especially important
tool since there is no available land to build on in St. Louis Park. This has given the city the
ability to go up and add market value and residents.
Councilmember Mohamed asked if pooling from housing goes back only to housing, and if
redevelopment pooling goes back into redevelopment. Ms. Kvilvang stated some
redevelopment can go towards affordable housing also, but the majority goes to
redevelopment since TIF from two housing districts goes towards affordable housing.
Councilmember Mohamed asked what the difference is between obligation due date and
expiration date for TIF. Ms. Kvilvang explained when a pay as you go note is issued, there is a
last day of payment, but the obligation may be paid off earlier.
Councilmember Mohamed asked related to affordable housing, if TIF is applied for under the
inclusionary housing policy, and if that is a condition for development companies, is that a local
decision. Ms. Kvilvang stated yes, that is a minimum so investment can be done for affordable
housing. She added if it is in a housing district, a minimum of 20% of the units must be
affordable.
Councilmember Harris stated fiber optics was mentioned as a reinvestment as it encourages
future development. She asked if TIF could be used for elements of the city’s Climate Action
Plan (CAP). Ms. Kvilvang clarified TIF must be used for capital costs or redevelopment.
Councilmember Harris asked if TIF can be used for water conservation or technology to reduce
water consumption. Ms. Kvilvang stated it must be used for qualified redevelopment purposes.
Councilmember Harris stated residents have said if the city did not use as many TIF districts, we
could capture additional tax money faster and therefore lower the annual tax levy. She asked if
this is true. Ms. Kvilvang stated without TIF, the city would not have that development or tax
base.
Councilmember Harris asked if there is merit in reducing the term in TIF districts to capture
dollars sooner. Ms. Kvilvang stated it is recommended to do it for the shortest term and pay off
obligations early. She added if paid off early, a percentage can be sent back on an annual basis
and the council is then given flexibility.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
Councilmember Harris asked if there is a maximum on the number of TIF districts the city can
have in a year. Ms. Kvilvang stated no.
Councilmember Harris stated she is supportive of the two policy questions in the staff report
and would like to see more flexibility with TIF to be used for climate change mitigation.
Mayor Spano stated he is also supportive of the two policy questions.
Councilmember Rog asked how the city subjectively finds the difference between the cost of
doing business and the fact that this would not have occurred without TIF. Ms. Kvilvang stated
each project goes through a financial analysis to determine whether TIF is needed for the
project to move forward.
Councilmember Harris stated some say TIF is a subsidy for private development. Ms. Kvilvang
stated it is but without it you would not get developments in the city.
Councilmember Rog asked about public benefit determination unique to cities and if cities can
add more specificity to their benefit. Ms. Kvilvang stated yes.
Councilmember Rog asked when the most recent time is the council reviewed the public
benefit for TIF policy. Mr. Hunt stated the council reviews TIF on an annual ongoing basis and
especially since council has been more interested in affordable housing and using TIF in relation
to the inclusionary housing policy.
Councilmember Rog stated she would like the council to look more at public benefit of TIF at a
future time. Mr. Hunt added that the TIF policy stipulates what it can be used for. He indicated
that each staff report states how the proposed TIF would be utilized along with a list of how its
usage would benefit the community.
Councilmember Rog asked if council has ever refused or not approved a TIF request
recommended by staff for a project. Mr. Hunt stated none that he could recall. Mr. Harmening
agreed, adding there may have been a project where TIF was negotiated, and it met standards
but then the council decided not to move forward. He noted there have also been projects
brought forward to council that did not receive TIF, but those usually did not go far.
Mr. Hunt stated TIF allows the city to create affordable housing and include green features in
housing, that could not be afforded without it.
Councilmember Rog stated while she likes the Texa Tonka project, the city is paying $2.9 million
in requested TIF for about 20 affordable units. She asked if that is a good return on investment
for taxpayers or is it better to purchase a NOAH building and update that, which would be more
affordable. Mr. Harmening stated the city has done the community visioning process and has
development priorities in place, adding staff uses that as guidance for what the city should be
striving for. He stated when developers come to St. Louis Park, they also know those priorities
and if the project is in alignment with what council wants, staff pursues it.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
Councilmember Rog stated she is inviting council to be more thoughtful about ROI on TIF
adding this is a potential area of exploration. She stated the city is subsidizing a lot of market
rate housing and there is an opportunity to add more specificity to what the city gets for those
taxpayer dollars.
Councilmember Rog stated related to the policy questions, she has questions and concerns and
the second question also warrants more consideration with ROI. She supports seeking
legislation for ownership as an option and does not support lowering affordable units.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if a developer can use TIF for any costs and if there are any
restrictions. Ms. Kvilvang stated there are state restrictions including land acquisition, building
removal, soil cleanup, parking among others and TIF cannot be used for city buildings. She
added if the project is affordable housing, TIF can be used for nearly anything.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if there is a scorecard for this and if it is more weighted toward
families. Ms. Kvilvang stated staff puts together a scorecard. Ms. Barton added staff follows the
council’s goals.
Councilmember Dumalag asked about pay as you go and if some developers use that as
collateral, what happens if the developer defaults. Ms. Kvilvang stated if taxes are paid it is fine,
but if not, the bank will take over on a default, adding if it is not cured the city can then
terminate the TIF note.
Councilmember Brausen stated TIF has been a wonderful tool for the city over the past 20
years, which has helped development regularly. He supports the policy questions and noted
Texa Tonka is a classic example of how to leverage future funds the city will receive. He noted
by agreeing to invest those funds later, the city will generate affordable housing units. He
added until the city started adding requirements to TIF, there was no affordable housing.
Councilmember Brausen stated there is no risk at all on this and taxes will pay debt off in 12
years and continue to capture and pay for affordable housing costs. He stated it is a win-win,
and if developers do not get TIF, there will be no affordable housing. He added it makes good
sense to him, encourages developers to come to St. Louis Park, and he supports this.
Councilmember Brausen added the 1100% increase in taxable market value is tremendous and
the return on investment has been wonderful. He stated Texa Tonka will be a great example
and will develop that corner and all the property values in the area will increase, and this is how
to redevelop and renew the city.
Councilmember Rog stated there is value in some assumptions around TIF and how it is used in
the city. She stated going forward she wants to continue to question the return on investment,
adding TIF can be subjective and it is the council’s job to look out for taxpayers and have more
scrutiny. She added the Texa Tonka project did not evolve only because of TIF, noting it had to
do with the mall being for sale and opportunistic availability of properties.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
Councilmember Rog stated here the city has over 1000% increase in tax value but in Roseville
they have 900% increase in taxability and only 1% of tax based tied up in TIF. She stated St.
Louis Park does not need 12% of our tax base tied into TIF.
Councilmember Kraft stated it seems St. Louis Park does TIF well adding he is not sure what
that means, but it has had a significant impact. However, the city spends a lot on it. He stated it
is difficult to understand, the council should endeavor to understand it better, and he agrees
with Councilmember Rog on looking further into it. He added there are arguments against TIF
stating the city needs to examine the “but for” clause more carefully.
Councilmember Kraft stated he supports the policy questions but is not in favor of reducing
rental percentages to go to affordable and is interested in owner-occupied. He added he would
like to see market value information also as it relates to how much is pooled and how much the
city captures in tax dollars.
Mayor Spano stated staff is acting at the council’s direction but council can look at changing TIF.
He stated we talk about this like it is a gift to developers, but the council can look at this further
to get some quantification as to what the city gets now, at the back end, and the difference
between the two.
Ms. Kvilvang stated she can provide that information to the council.
Mr. Hunt added staff goes through the TIF process with Ehlers and does not provide developers
any more dollars than necessary to enable a project to proceed and tells them if their project
does not meet the city’s TIF policy requirements. He added if developers do not meet the “but
for” test, staff will not recommend TIF be used.
It was the consensus of the council to support the majority of the staff recommendations.
2. Long term funding of Climate Action Plan (CAP)
Mr. Harmening presented the report.
Councilmember Kraft thanked staff for the report and stated he believes funding for the CAP
needs to be increased, pointing out every single square inch of the US was warmer than
normal, with the last 7 years being the warmest on record.
Councilmember Harris asked if staff has the funds currently to meet the council’s goals for 2030
and beyond. Ms. Ziring outlined the report of what is needed to get the community to carbon
neutrality by 2040.
Councilmember Harris stated St. Louis Park is not an island and asked if there are efforts in
other communities and regionally to do a broad climate plan. Ms. Ziring stated there is lobbying
at the state level going on for changes around the advanced energy code and efforts on a
Hennepin County climate plan and several city coalitions. She added the city joins these groups
if their initiatives are in line with our CAP, while taking advantage of as many partnerships as
possible.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
Mr. Hoffman added Edina and Bloomington also have sustainability commissions and St. Louis
Park is looking to work on initiatives with them.
Mr. Harmening stated staff is also working on energy requirements for new construction.
Councilmember Harris asked if our goals for 2030 are attainable no matter how much money is
put into the CAP. Mr. Harmening stated that depends, as the biggest carbon creators in the city
must participate in the program and if they do not, it will be difficult. He added the city does
not have the tools today to require businesses or compel them to take action.
Ms. Ziring stated that the goals are attainable, and it is important to have hope, but the
estimates that alluded to $1.9-2.4 million are based on 100% participation from businesses and
residents to meet the strategies within each goal. She added the goals are lofty but attainable.
Councilmember Harris stated she is committed to the CAP and the goals adopted but hesitates
to put a lot of money in up front until the city can get a sense of industry cooperation.
Councilmember Rog agreed this problem cannot be solved alone and asked where St. Louis
Park can be a leader. She stated many cities have CAPs now, and she proposed considering
what being a leader looks like. She stated she values what staff is doing and even if we have
limited resources, there is potential to do big things. She added one of these might be the tree
initiative, which could position the city as a leader, adding there would also be communications
and marketing potential.
Councilmember Rog added installing solar on affordable housing and requiring savings be
passed on to renters, as well as doing street closures, are bold actions against climate change
and are opportunities to make a difference. She added policy and mandates are ways that do
not cost the city very much, and costs can be passed along to others.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she is supportive of increasing allocations for the CAP, noting
that in 2020 most people were working from home. She asked how racial equity will be
included in this work.
Mayor Spano stated these questions feel like “means” questions, adding he is not afraid to
spend more money to achieve the CAP, but asked if there are ways to do that without doing
that. He asked staff to come with recommendations on where the funds can come from for
whatever reduces our carbon footprint by the greatest amount. He stated he is interested in
programs that get the city the greatest bang for the buck to reduce carbon emissions.
Councilmember Mohamed agreed with Mayor Spano and said that more investment should go
to the CAP, as well as staff coming up with more ideas and presenting to council, to get to the
priorities.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is in favor of spending more money on the CAP but added
staff has presented a list of what can be done and given council a price tag for the next 10
years, and he does not want to kick this back to staff. He added if we make cuts to the budget,
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
staff will have to look for new revenue sources, and the CAP must be done to survive as a
species. He stated he is guardedly optimistic with the new administration providing some funds,
but noted incentives are important also. He pointed out if the council were to cut the city parks
program it would get them half-way to the funds needed.
Councilmember Kraft stated he appreciated the council’s comments and likes being a leader in
this. He stated he is willing to look for additional resources and go to the community on this. He
added there needs to be an evaluation methodology added as well as looking at these big
investments. He noted a scorecard must be developed and stated this will need to overlap with
other strategic objectives--including racial equity--in the methodology, noting this is not a one
size fits all. Councilmember Kraft suggested the ESC work on this first and bring it back to
council for review.
Councilmember Kraft stated these resources should come from utility fees, usage-based tax on
utilities, such as natural gas; however, he would be concerned about the regressive nature and
would want to exempt lower income folks. He is open to a separate levy such as the HRA levy
and ways to get the community more invested, such as the tree program which provides carbon
reduction over time and could be an on-ramp for the community.
Councilmember Rog stated in the interest of climate action, the city invested a couple million
dollars extra into the nature center to get to net zero, and yet the nature center was the lowest
emitter of carbon, while the REC center is the highest. She stated the investment in the nature
center was done because it was a model, but she does not understand what the priorities are
given the council’s choices. She added she also likes the scorecard idea and asked if our goal is
to reduce carbon or to be a model.
Councilmember Rog stated the city needs to get serious about this and look at all activities we
do here, what are the biggest emitters, and then look at stopping or reallocating those activities
to get to carbon reduction.
Councilmember Kraft agreed and added this will need a multi-approached model.
Mr. Harmening summarized comments by the council stating resources will need to be
redirected and priorities adjusted.
Mr. Harmening added if the city reduces carbon emissions from commercial and industrial and
residential buildings, while also supporting the tree program, it may help but will not get the
city to its 2030 goals. He stated incentivizing commercial and industrial businesses, while doing
marketing and education and promoting the biggest emitters of carbon to reduce their carbon
generation, would be a start. Ms. Ziring added that if the city is to address the biggest carbon
producers first, it should start with commercial and multifamily buildings followed by travel.
Councilmember Kraft stated part of hitting the goal by 2030 is getting residential use down by
30%. He agreed on prioritization but added they will have to be careful on it being an all or
nothing deal. Therefore, the evaluation method will be important in the short term. He stated
he would like to see staff come back with thoughts on how to raise the additional dollars
necessary, the possibility of adding an additional levy, and how to fund and make tradeoffs.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
Mr. Harmening stated this will be a process and will be included in upcoming budget
discussions. He stated to continue to fund our core services, we would need to reallocate
discretionary resources adding, however, this will have consequences.
Councilmember Kraft added substituting something for another area or money already being
spent that could be leveraged, such as through the waste program, might be a way to expand
funding for climate change. He added TIF for affordable housing and overlapping this with
NOAH which tends to be energy efficient, is another program to look at and a way of
reorganizing the way the city is already spending funds.
Councilmember Dumalag added she is open to looking at additional revenue ideas and
leveraging NOAH incentives to turn older housing into energy efficiency housing. She added she
is also open to looking at a levy as well to allocate resources to the CAP.
Mr. Harmening stated that the city will need to invest more and incent commercial and multi-
family buildings, however there is no way to compel them to do this. He added the city will
need to do the things it has most control over and get community buy-in. He added the city will
still plan to roll-out the climate champions program this year as well.
3. Future study session agenda planning and prioritization
Councilmember Brausen noted the topic of agenda and video presentations.
Councilmember Kraft asked about the retreat and adding more study sessions when the council
is not meeting. Mr. Harmening stated staff is looking at both items as a topic of discussion for
the next study session.
Councilmember Kraft stated in the Texa Tonka written report, in the future, he would like to
see the table include numbers by apartment unit type, including affordable apartments, to
make a comparison.
Councilmember Harris pointed out the planning commission held a public hearing regarding the
Texa Tonka development on January 6 which is available for viewing on the city website.
However, she added the audio quality was not up to standard and public comments could not
be heard. She stated staff is directing comments be heard at the January 19 council meeting.
Mr. Harmening added this will not be an official public hearing, but residents will be allowed to
speak on the topic.
Ms. Barton noted staff has also contacted residents who spoke at the planning commission and
offered them to speak on January 19, and to submit their comments in writing. She stated a
communication was mailed to the whole neighborhood again.
Councilmember Harris added she supports the TIF request for cleaning the contaminated areas
where the dry-cleaning business was at Texa Tonka.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Title: Study session minutes of January 11, 2021
Councilmember Rog stated in the Texa Tonka report, it notes promoting of housing for large
families; however, the largest units are only 2 bedrooms. She stated going forward, she would
like to know what the council’s definition is on housing for large families is, adding perhaps this
should be more concrete.
Councilmember Kraft noted the report on legislative priorities and stated he had sent request
to staff to add support for the national popular vote interstate compact.
Councilmember Kraft also asked to have the advanced building energy codes standards added
to the legislative list as a top priority.
Councilmember Rog noted the Fernhill written report, adding the residents there are grateful
to be part of Connect the Park, and she supports this as well.
The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4 Application for Tax Increment Financing assistance – Texa-Tonka Apartments
5. Home-based businesses
6. 2021 legislative issues and priorities
7. 2022 Pavement Management update – West Fern Hill (4021-1000)
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: 2021 – 2022 liquor license renewals
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving renewal of liquor licenses for
the license term March 1, 2021 through March 1, 2022.
Policy consideration: Do the applicants meet the requirements for renewal of their liquor
licens es?
Summary: On Jan. 5, 2021 the city distributed liquor license renewal materials to current liquor
license holders. Establishments were requested to submit state and city renewal applications,
certification of liability insurance, proof of workers compensation insurance, CPA statements
when applicable, and license f ees. Establishments listed in Exhibit A of the attached resolution
have met the criteria necessary for renewal of th eir liq uor licens e.
During the 2020-2021 licensing p eriod, the f ollowing changes took place:
•Texas-Tonka Liquor, 8242 Minnetonka Blvd. – New ownership
•Pinot’s Palette, 4712 Excelsior Blvd. – closed
•Lucky Cricket, 1607 West End Blvd. – did not renew
•Blaze Pizza, 8126 Hwy. 7 – did not renew
•Yangtze River Restaurant, 5625 Wayzata Blvd. – requesting to downgrade from full on-
sale intoxicating to on -sale wine and on-sale 3.2
Financial or budget considerations: Fees received for liquor license renewals are budgeted and
cover the costs of administering and enforcing liquor licensing regulations and requirements.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic the city manager approved an option for on-sale license holders
to pay the ir fees in two installments. If chosen, this option required that half of the license fee
be paid by Jan. 31, 2021. The remaining balance will be due by July 31, 2021. Exhibit A contains
information on which license holders will pay in installments.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Exhibit A
Prepared by: Chase Peterson-Etem, office assistant
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: 2021 – 2022 liquor license renewals
Discussion
Background: Liquor licensing is regulated by St. Louis Park City Code, Chapter 3 and abides by
state statutes related to liquor licensing. The licensing period for liquor is one year, beginning
March 1.
Renewal of licenses is done in accordance with the following sections of the city code:
City Code Sec. 3-64. Renewal application.
(a) Applications for the renewal of an existing liquor license shall be made at least 45 days
prior to the date of the expiration of the license and shall state that everything in the prior
application remains true and correct except as otherwise indicated on the renewal application.
(b) Renewal applications for an on-sale License for a restaurant shall include a certified
public accountant's statement showing total sales, food sales, liquor sales and percentage of
total sales of the restaurant for the previous year.
Review and regulations:
City code Sections 3-57 and 3-70 require on-sale intoxicating licensees to maintain the following
food/liquor ratio:
• On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License must have a minimum of 50% of gross receipts
attributable to the sale of food.
During the 2020-2021 licensing year, one establishment did not meet the food/liquor ratio
requirement:
• The Loop, 5331 16th Street. W.
City code states “the city may place the license of any on-sale intoxicating liquor license on
probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of food is reported, or found to be, less
than 50 percent of gross receipts for any busine ss year.” However, because of the COVID-19
pandemic, The Loop’s ability to maintain this ratio was impacted by periods of mandatory
closure and staff is recommending that The Loop not be put on probation since the food/liquor
ratio was not able to be calculated for a full 12 month operational period. Staff is working with
this establishment to ensure the food to liquor ratio is maintained moving forward.
As required in City Code Section 3-70, all prope rty tax payments for establishments are current.
Staff Recommendation: The city clerk’s office reviews all the application information and works
with the police department and the State of Minnesota to ensure that all licensees meet the
necessary criteria for issuance of the next year’s term of their liquor license. All licen se
renewals and applications listed on Exhibit A of the resolution have met the requirements for
license. Staff recommends the approval and issuance of the appropriate license to each
establishment listed on Exhibit A for the term of March 1, 2021 to March 1, 2022.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: 2021 – 2022 liquor license renewals
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving renewal of liquor licenses
for the license period March 1, 2021 through March 1, 2022
Whereas, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3
provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division
of the Minnesota department of Public Safety, and
Whereas, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met, and
Now therefore be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that the applicants and
establishments listed in Exhibit A have met the criteria necessary for issuance of their
respective liquor licenses, and the applications are hereby approved for March 1, 2021 to
March 1, 2022.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council February 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: 2021 – 2022 liquor license renewals
Exhibit A
Establishment Name Address License Type Total Fee Total Paid
AC St. Louis Park 5075 Wayzata Blvd. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
Applebee's Neighborhood Grill & Bar 8312 Highway 7 on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
Best of India 8120 Minnetonka Blvd on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 1/2 - $1,375
Board & Brush - St. Louis Park 5810A W. 36th Street on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 1/2 - $1,375
Bunny's 5916 Excelsior Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
Copperwing Distillery 6409 Cambridge Street Cocktail room on-sale and micro
distillery off-sale $800.00 $800.00
Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Courtyard Minneapolis West 9980 Wayzata Blvd. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
Crave 1603 West End Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
Cub Foods 5370 16th Street W off-sale 3.2 $200.00 $200.00
Cub Foods Knollwood 3620 Texas Ave S off-sale 3.2 $200.00 $200.00
Cub Liquor 5370 16th Street W off-sale $380.00 $380.00
DoubleTree Minneapolis Park Place 1500 Park Place Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
Frank Lundberg American Legion
Post 282 6509 Walker St. on-sale intoxicating club & Sunday
Sale $700.00 $700.00
Fresh Thyme Farmers Market 4840 Excelsior Blvd., Ste A off-sale 3.2 $200.00 $200.00
Fresh Thyme Liquor 4840 Excelsior Blvd., Ste B off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Homewood Suites 5305 Wayzata Blvd 3.2 on-sale and on -sale Sunday $750.00 $750.00
Knollwood Liquor 7924 Hwy 7, Suite A off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Life Café 5525 Cedar Lake Road on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 $2,750.00
Liquor Boy 5620 Cedar Lake Rd off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Lunds & Byerlys St. Louis Park 3777 Park Ctr Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
Lunds & Byerlys Wines & Spirits 3777 Park Ctr Blvd off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Marriott Mpls West 9960 Wayzata Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
McCoy's Public House 3801 Grand Way on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
MGM Wine & Spirits 8100 Highway 7 off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Mill Valley Kitchen 3906 Excelsior Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S on-sale intoxicating club & Sunday
Sale $700.00 $700.00
Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes 3401 Louisiana Ave S on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
Parkway Pizza 6325 Minnetonka Blvd. on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 $2,750.00
Prime Deli 4224 Minnetonka Blvd. on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 $2,750.00
Punch Bowl Social 1691 Park Place Blvd. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
Raku Sushi & Lounge 5371 16th St W. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
REM5 Virtual Reality Laboratory 4950 35th St. W. on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 $2,750.00
Rojo Mexican Grill 1602 West End Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
Showplace 14 #8863 1625 West End Blvd. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
St. Louis Park Liquor 6316 Minnetonka Blvd off-sale $380.00 $380.00
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4a) Page 5
Title: 2021 – 2022 liquor license renewals
Steel Toe Brewing 4848 35th Street W. brewer off-sale; taproom on-sale
& Sunday sale $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Target Store T-2189 8900 Highway 7 off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Taste of India 5617 Wayzata Blvd on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 1/2 - $1,375
Texas-Tonka Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Texa-Tonka Lanes 8200 Minnetonka Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
TGI Friday's 5875 Wayzata Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
The Block 7007 Walker St. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
The Dampfwerk Distillery Co. 6311 Cambridge St. Cocktail room on-sale and micro
distillery off-sale $1,000.00 $1,000.00
The Local - West End 1607 Park Place Blvd on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 1/2 - $4,475
The Loop 5331 16th St reet W. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
Top Ten Liquors 5111 Excelsior Blvd off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Trader Joe's #710 4500 Excelsior Blvd off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S off-sale $380.00 $380.00
Wok in the Park 3005 Utah Ave South on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 $2,750.00
Yangtze River Restaurant 5625 Wayzata Blvd on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 $2,750.00
Yard House #8354 1665 Park Place Blvd. on-sale intoxicating & Sunday Sale $8,950.00 $8,950.00
Yum! Kitchen and Bakery 4000 Minnetonka Blvd. on-sale wine and 3.2 $2,750.00 $2,750.00
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th
Street
Recommended action: Motion to approve the amendment to the amended and restated
agreement, between the city and T-Mobile Central LLC, for communication antennas and
related equipment on the city’s water tower at 8301 West 34th Street for Agreement No. 21-17.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: In 1996, the city negotiated an antenna lease agreement with T-Mobile (f/k/a
American Portable Telecom) for placement of nine communication antennas on the Park Glen
water tower. The agreement was for a 5-year term with the option of three renewable 5-year
terms. With the assistance of the city attorney, staff revised the lease language and
renegotiated a new agreement with T-Mobile. The number of antennas (9), number of auxiliary
boxes (6) and other related equipment is not changing. The agreement is for a 5-year term with
the option of two renewable 5-year terms. In 2017 the amended and restated agreement
became the new lease, inclusive of all prior amendments.
T-M obile desire s to amend the agreement to remove 9 antennae, replace with 6, remove 9
RRU, replace with 6 to upgrade to newest technology.
The agreement has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by the City Attorney.
Financial or budget considerations: The annual lease rate for 2021 is $38,663.67. This remains
unchanged from the previous agreement due to no increase in equipment. The rent structure is
based on the number and type of antennas/auxiliary boxes and their height above ground on
the tower. The financial terms of this agreement require annual lease payments with a 5%
annual rate increase.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
1
FIRSTAMENDMENT TO AMENDMED AND RESTATED WATER TOWER ANTENNA LEASE
AGREEMENT
THIS FIRSTAMENDMENT TO AMENDMED AND RESTATED WATER TOWER ANTENNA LEASE
AGREEMENT First Amendment the date of the last party to execute this Amendment
, by and between The City of St. Louis Park, whose address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, MN 55416-2290 ("City"), and T-Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited liability company whose
address is 12920 SE 38th Street, Bellevue, WA 98006 ("Lessee").
Recitals
The Parties hereto recite, declare and agree as follows:
A. City and Lessee entered into an AMENDMED AND RESTATED WATER TOWER ANTENNA LEASE
AGREEMENT , dated January 6, 2017 (that amended and restated the prior lease dated July 15, 1996,
as amended, with respect to the Premises located at 8301 W. 34th Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426.
B. City and Lessee desire to enter into this First Amendmentin order to modify and amend certain provisions
of the Lease.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Lessee
covenant and agree as follows:
1. City Consent. City hereby grantsLessee the right and consents to Lessee upgrade in the
Communication Facility and the installation of equipment as described and depicted in on Exhibit -C-1
which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, which equipment shall be considered part of the
under the Lease.
2.. The last paragraph of Section 6 (a) of the Lease shall be amended
to include the following:
In the event that City reasonably believes that Lessee is causing interference where
prohibited under the Lease, and such interference necessitates emergency response, City
shall contact Lessee by telephone at er: NOC 877-
611-5868 or by email at NOC@T-Mobile.com. City shall follow up with such telephone
call with a written notice as well.
3. Notices. Section 21 G shall be amended to include the following:
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Network Operations Center (NOC)
877-611-5868
NOC@T-Mobile.com
4.Exhibit D. Exhibit Dof the Lease shall be removed and replaced with Exhibit D-
5.Approvals. City represents and warrants to Lessee that the consent or approval of no third party,
including, without limitation, a lender, is required with respect to the execution of this First Amendment, or if any
such third party consent or approval is required, City has obtained any and all such consents or approvals.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th Street Page 2
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
2
5. Authorization. The persons who have executed this First Amendment represent and warrant that
they are duly authorized to execute this First Amendment in their individual or representative capacity as indicated.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this First Amendment on the day and year first
written above.
City:
The City of St. Louis Park
Lessee:
T-Mobile Central LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company
By:By:
Name:Name:
Title:Title:
Date:Date:
____________________________
T-Mobile Legal approval as to form
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th Street Page 3
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
3
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th Street Page 4
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN 4
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th Street Page 5
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
5
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th Street Page 6
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN 6
EXHIBIT C-1
Attached hereto
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th Street Page 7
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
7
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 8
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
8
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 9
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
9
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 10
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
10
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 11
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
11
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 12
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
12
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 13
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
13
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 14
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
14 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 15
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
15
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 16
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
16
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 17
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
17
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 18
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
18 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th StreetPage 19
Site Number: A1P0032A
Region: Central
Market: MN
19
D-1
To
WATER TOWER ANTENNA LEASE AGREEMENT
(Lease Rent Schedule)
T-Mobile Lease Rent Schedule at EWT 3 located at 8301 W. 34th Street
T-Mobile Site No. A1P0032A / City No. 21-17
2021
Annual Rent
2022
Annual
Rent
2023
Annual
Rent
2024
Annual
Rent
2025
Annual
Rent
2026
Annual
Rent
2027
Annual
Rent
2028
Annual
Rent
$38,663.67
(paid) $40,596.85 $42,626.69 $44,758.03 $46,995.93 $49,345.73 $51,813.01 $54,403.66
1.Rent shall increase by 5% for each year of the agreement
2.Annual payment is due prior to January 1 of each year (i.e. 2021 rent is due by 12/31/2020).
3.The lease provided for an initial 5-year term (ending 12/31/2021) and2 additional 5-year terms
(ending 12/31/2031).
Revised 7/1/2020
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Lease Amendment No. 1 to City Agreement No. 21-17 with T-Mobile for 8301 West 34th Street Page 20
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No. 14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada
Avenue South (Site A1P0911A)
Recommended action: Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to City Agreement No. 14-04,
between the city and T-Mobile for communication antennas on the city’s water tower at 2541
Nevada Avenue South.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: On April 19, 2004 the city council approved the original lease agreement with T-
Mobile allowing for the placement of antennas and related equipment on water tower #4.
O n June 2, 2008 the city council approved City Project No. 2007-1500 and authorized staff to
enter into an agreement with Odland Protective Coatings (OPC) to recoat and rehabilitate
water tower #4. On November 21, 2008 the city received and approved a formal request from
T-Mobile to reduce their annual rent under their original agreement for the time period from
November 1, 2008 to Ap ril 30, 2009 (representing most of the time period of the project delay,
without proration for May 2009) by $1,837.86 (based on the city’s rent formula).
T-M obile desire s to amend the agreement to remove 9 antennae, replace with 6, remove 6
RRU, replace with 6, remove 3 TMA, remove 1 COVP to upgrade to newest technology.
The amendment has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by the City Attorney.
Financial or budget considerations: The annual lease rate for 2021 of $41,526.34 has not
changed from the previous agreement due to no increase in equipment. The rent structure is
based on the number and type of antennas/auxiliary boxes and their height above ground on
the tower. The financial terms of this agreement require annual lease payments with a 5%
annual rate increase.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Amendment No. 2 to City Agreement No. 14-04
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approve d by: Tom Harme ning, city manager
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 2
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 3
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 4
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 5
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 6
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 7
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 8
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 9
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 10
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 11
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 12
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 13
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 14
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 15
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 16
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 17
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 18
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue SouthPage 19
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Lease Amendment No.2 to City Agreement No.14-04 with T-Mobile for 2541 Nevada Avenue South Page 20
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Accept monetary donations to operations and recreation department
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $200 donation
from Linda Mell for the purchase of a tree in Wolfe Park and a $300 donation from Lynn Camp
and Lesley Dionne for the purchase of a memorial tree in Wolfe Park in honor of Dave and Ruth
Bowman.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept these gifts 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.
Linda Mell graciously donated $200 for the purchase of a white pine tree to be installed in
Wolfe Park. Lynn Camp and Lesley Dionne graciously donated $300 for the purchase of a shade
tree to be installed in Wolfe Park in honor of Dave and Ruth Bowman.
Financial or budget considerations: These donations will be used for the trees at the locations
designated above .
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, senior office assistant
Reviewed by: Jim Vaughan, natural resources coordinator
Cynthia S. Walsh, director of operations and recreation
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4d)
Title: Accept monetary donations to operations and recreation department
Resolution No. 21-___
Resolution approving acceptance of donations totaling
$500 for the purchases of memorial trees in Wolfe Park
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the
donor; and
Whereas, Linda Mell donated $200 and Lynn Camp and Lesley Dionne donated $300.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that these
gift are hereby accepted with thanks to Linda Mell with the understanding that it must be used
for a tree in Wolfe Park and Lynn Camp and Lesley Dionne with the understanding that it must
be used for a memorial tree in Wolfe Park .
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council Feb. 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4e
Executive summary
Title: Bid tabulation: Booster Station at Water Treatment Plant #8 – Project No. 5321-5004
Re commended action: Motion to designate Northdale Construction Company as the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$348,900 for the Booster Station at Water Treatment Plant #8, Project N o. 5321-5004.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue to move forward with making
these necessary improvements to the city’s water system?
Summary: A total of three bids were received for this project. Please see bid results below.
Contractor Schedule No.1
Northdale Construction Company $ 348,900
Municipal Builders, Inc. $ 393,000
Swan Companies, Inc. $ 406,118
Engineer’s Estimate $ 350,000
The project includes installation of a booster station in the Kilmer Neighborhood to ensure
adequate water pressure and water flow to hydrants in the neighborhood.
A review of the bids indicates Northdale Construction Company submitted the lowest base bid.
In reviewing the qualifications of Northdale Construction Company, staff determined the
contractor meets the requirements of the specifications and are qualified to do the work in the
proposal. Therefore , staff recommends that a contract be awarded to Northdale Construction
Company in the amount of $348,900.
Financial or budget considerations: This project was planned for and included in the city’s
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2021. This project will be paid for using water utility
funds.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Contract award recommendation letter
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, project engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4e ) Page 2
Title: Bid tabulation: Booster Station at Water Treatment Plant #8 – Project No. 5321-5004
Discussion
Background: Bids were received on Jan. 26, 2021 for the Booster Station at Water Treatment
Plant #8. This water plant is located at 9701 W 16th Street.
An area near Water Treatment Plant (WTP) #8 experiences low pressure and inadequate fire
flows to hydrants. After evaluating the options, the city decided to create a high-pressure zone
with the booster station located near WTP #8 to provide adequate pressures and fire flows.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on Jan. 14 and Jan. 21,
2021 and the Finance and Commerce on Jan. 12 through Jan. 16, 2021. In addition, plans and
specifications are made available electronically via the internet by our vendor QuestCDN.com.
Tw enty (20) contractors/vendors obtained plan sets, including one (1) Disadvantaged Business
Enterprise (DBE). Three contractors submitted bids on the project.
Present considerations: Staff has analyzed the bids and determined that Northdale
Construction Company is a qualified contractor that can complete this work per the contract
documents. The low bid is 36.5% lower than the CIP. Based on the low bid received, cost details
are as follows ; this project is paid for using water utility funds:
CIP Low Bid
Construction Cost $ 550,000.00 $ 348,900.00
Engineering & Administration (10%) $ 50,000.00 $ 34,890.00
Total $ 600,000.00 $ 383,790.00
Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. To address this,
past practice has been to show a contingency for all aspects of the project. What follows is a
table that shows this 10% contingency and how this would affect the project costs. These
contingency costs do not exceed the CIP funding. As a result, if overruns occur, there are
adequate funds to cover these costs.
Low Bid Contingency (10%) Engineering (10%) Total
Water utility $348,900.00 $34,890.00 $34,890.00 $418,680.00
Ne xt steps: Construction is anticipated to begin in spring 2021 and should be completed by July
of 2021.
January 26, 2021
Jay Hall
City of St. Louis Park
7305 Oxford St
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: Booster Station
Project No. 5321-5004
Recommendation to Award Bid
Dear Mr. Hall:
The bids submitted electronically via E -Bid at QuestCDN today at 11.00 AM are shown below:
Northdale Construction Company, Albertville, MN $348,900
Municipal Builders, Inc Nowhen, MN $393,000
Swan Companies, Inc, Columbia Heights, MN $406,118
The apparent low bidder is Northdale Construction Company with a lump sum bid price of $348,900.
Sambatek believes that Northdale’s bid price is reasonable. The bid is less than the engineers estimate
of $350,000.
We have reviewed the bids and recommend that the bid be awarded to Northdale Construction
Company based on the following:
Northdale’s bid is complete and meets all requirements.
I have has successfully worked with Northdale Construction Company on the previous similar Booster
Station project in Shoreview MN.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
Naeem Qureshi, P.E.
Attachments
Page 2 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Bid tabulation: Booster Station at Water Treatment Plant #8 – Project No. 5321-5004
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4f
Executive summary
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian
Connection Study
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing staff to amend the cooperative
agreement with Hennepin County. The agreement is for a feasibility study to consider
connections across the BNSF Railroad adjacent to Highway 100 - Project No. 4018-2000.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to study the feasibility of non-vehicle crossings of
the BNSF railroad corridor at Highway 100?
Summary: In 2017, the city applied for and received a $20,000 grant from Hennepin County to
study the feasibility of safe and efficient non -vehicular crossings of the BNSF railroad corridor
near Highway 100 and West End. Construction of a bridge in this area is identified as a part of
the Connect the Park implementation plan. The intended outcome of the study is to identify
conceptual routes and provide high level cost estimates; these will help with CIP planning and
future grant applications.
A crossing at this location would close a large gap in the pedestrian and bicycle system. The
nearest legal crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists from Highway 100 is 0.5 miles to the east at
the Jewish Community Center or 1.5 miles to the west at Louisiana Ave nue . Th e gap to the west
will be reduced to 1 mile with the completion of the Dakota Ave nue bridge later this year.
The study was intended to commence last year. However, due to the ongoing COVID-19
pandemic and funding considerations, the study was put on pause. The city and county are
looking to amend the current cooperative agreement for this study to extend the completion
date to the end of 2021. Amending the cooperative agreement requires council approval.
Financial or budget considerations: This study is partially funded by Hennepin County for
$20,000. The remaining funds, currently estimated at $30,000, will come from engineering
department operating budget.
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: Resolution
Amendment to cooperative agreement
Cooperative agreement
Location map
C ouncil meeting report, Jan. 16, 2018 (pgs . 21 – 28)
Prepared by: Ben Manibog, transportation engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving amendment to cooperative agreement with Hennepin
County for city project 4018-2000
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park desires safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle
connections across the BNSF railroad corridor adjacent to Highway 100; and,
Whereas, Hennepin County has agreed to contribute a lump sum of $20,000 for a
feasibility study referred to as the “West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study”; and,
Whereas, the city will be responsible for the development of the West End Bike and
Pedestrian Connection Study; and,
Whereas, The City Council of the City of St. Louis Park deems it proper and in the public
interest to amend the existing cooperative agreement with Hennepin County (County Project
1719) to complete a feasibility study included for City Project 4018-2000; and,
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely, and reliably.
Now therefore be it resolved, the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and
directed for and on behalf of the city to execute and amend the cooperative agreement with
Hennepin County for City Project 4018-2000.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
-1 - _____
Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
County Project No. 2171900
City of St. Louis Park
County of Hennepin
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT NO. PW 27-05-17
THIS AMENDMENT No. 1 is made between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate
under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of St.
Louis Park, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred
to as the "City", and collectively “Parties”. This Amendment No. 1 is effective as of the date of the
final signature.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County and the City previously entered into Hennepin County Agreement No.
PW 27-05-17 on February 23, 2018 (the “Agreement”) wherein the County agreed to participate in the
costs to prepare a feasibility study of a bikeway and pedestrian connection across Trunk Highway (TH)
100, under County Project No. 2171900, hereinafter referred to as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the Project is not anticipated to be completed within the three years of the Agreement
execution date (February 23, 2021) and the City has requested to extend the time period as stipulated
herein; and
WHEREAS, the Parties hereto, therefore, desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set forth.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
I
In Section IV of the Agreement, the first paragraph under said Section IV in the Agreement is
hereby amended to read as follows:
“It is understood and agreed by the City that the West End Bike and Pedestrian
Connection Study proposed herein shall be completed by December 31, 2021. The
funds the County has set aside for the Project will be available for payment to the City
until December 31, 2021. It is further understood and agreed by the City that the
Page 3 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
CP 2171900
-2 -_____
County will not participate in the costs of the West End Bike and Pedestrian
Connection Study as set forth herein if the City has not invoiced the County by
December 31, 2021.”
Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions in said Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
thereto shall remain in full force and effect.
(this space left intentionally blank)
Page 4 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Amendment No. 1 to
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
CP 2171900
-3 -_____
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be executed by
their respective duly authorized officers and agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK
(Seal) By:_______________________________
Mayor
Date:______________________________
And:______________________________
Manager
Date:______________________________
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
REVIEWED BY
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: By:
County Administrator
By: Date:
Assistant County Attorney
Date: And:
Assistant County Administrator, Public Works
Date:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
By:
County Highway Engineer
Date:
Page 5 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
CONTRACT NOD
1 3 - 1 8
CllY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
County Project No. 1719
City of St. Louis Park
County of Hennepin
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR
COST PARTICIPATIONIN FEASABILITY STUDY
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this ____ day of _____ _
20_, by and between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the
State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of St. Louis Park, a body
politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City has requested County participation in the costs to prepare a feasibility
study of a bikeway and pedestrian connection across Trunk Highway 100; and
WHEREAS, the above mentioned feasibility study has been identified as County Project No.
1719 and shall be hereinafter referred to as the "West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study";
and
WHEREAS, the City will be responsible for development of the West End Bike and
Pedestrian Connection Study; and
WHEREAS, the costs incurred by the City to prepare the West End Bike and Pedestrian
Connection Study are eligible for participation under Hennepin County's bikeway cost participation
policy; and
WHEREAS, the County desires to participate in the costs to be incurred by the City to prepare
the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study; and
WHEREAS, it is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under the
provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 162.17, Subdivision 1, and Section 471.59.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
I
The City shall be the lead agency and it or its agents shall be responsible to ensure that all work
and services required for the completion of the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study are
in accordance with the provisions provided for herein, as well as any and all applicable laws,
regulations and guidelines. - 1 -Page 6 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
C.P. 1719
. The City or its agents shall be responsible for the collection of any and all data required to
complete the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study. It is understood that the County will
provide the City with existing pertinent data as may be available.
All plans, designs and reports prepared in accordance herewith shall be prepared by or under
the direct supervision of a professional engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota, and said plans,
designs and reports shall be certified as required by law.
II
At the request of the County, the City or its agents shall furnish the County with any working
copies of any plans, designs or reports at any time during the study process.
The County retains the right to, at any time, review and comment on the plans, designs or
reports of the City or its agents in regards to the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
proposed herein. III The City shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work of its agents and shall ensure that
all necessary revisions or corrections resulting from errors and omissions on the part of the City or its
agents are promptly made without additional compensation by the County. Acceptance of the work
by the County shall in no way relieve the City or its agents of the responsibility for subsequent
corrections of any such errors or omissions and also the clarification of any ambiguities. IV It is understood and agreed by the City that the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection
Study proposed herein shall be completed within three years from date of agreement execution.
Upon completion of the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study the City shall furnish
the County with three (3) copies of the completed study. V The County will participate in the costs to prepare the West End Bike and Pedestrian
Connection Study as provided herein. The County's cost participation shall be a lump sum amount of
Twenty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($20,000.00). The City understands and agrees that the
County's total and only participation in the costs to prepare the West End Bike and Pedestrian
Connection Study shall be $20,000.00.
Upon completion of the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study the City shall notify
- 2 -
Page 7 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
C.P. 1719
the County and submit an invoice for one hundred percent (100%) of the County's share of the costs.
Upon review approval of the completed West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study by the
County Highway Engineer or designated representative, the County shall reimburse the City for its
share of the costs.
Said invoice should include the date of the invoice, the invoice number, the name of the project
manager (Mr. Robert Byers, P.E.), project name and county project number (C.P. 1719), contract
number and purchase order number. Invoices and supporting documentation should be mailed to:
Hennepin County Accounts Payable, P.O. Box 1388, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1388. An electronic
copy of all invoices should also be submitted to Mr. Robert Byers, P.E. at robert.byers@hennepin.us.
The County will within forty five ( 45) days of said invoice, deposit with the City funds totaling
the amount of said invoice. VI It is understood that the monetary reimbursement to the City provided for herein is for the
County's total share of the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study and that nothing herein
shall be construed as a commitment by the County to participate in the construction costs of any
improvements implemented as a result of the West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study. VII All records kept by the City and the County with respect to this project shall be subject to
examination by the representatives ofeach party hereto. VIII The City agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the County, its officials, officers,
agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages,
losses, costs or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting directly or indirectly from
any act or omission of the City or said city's consultant or sub consultant, anyone directly or
indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the
performance of the services required by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of
the City to perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this contract.
The City's liability shall be governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466 or
other applicable law. IX It is agreed that each party to this Agreement or their agents shall not be responsible or liable to
the other party or to any other person whomsoever for any liabilities, claims, actions or causes of - 3 -Page 8 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
C.P. 1719
actions, judgments, damages, loses, fines, penalties, expenses of any kind or character arising out of
or by reason of the performance of any design or construction work or part hereof by the other as
provided herein; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and expense any action or
proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of whatsoever character arising in
connection with or by virtue of performance of its own work as provided herein.
The County's and the City's liability is governed by the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 466.
The County and the City each warrant that they are able to comply with the aforementioned
indemnity requirements through an insurance or self-insurance program.
X
It is further agreed that any and all employees of the City and all other persons engaged by said
City in the performance of any work or services required or provided for herein to be performed by
the City shall not be considered employees of the County, and that any and all claims that may or
might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act or the Minnesota Economic Security Law on
behalf of said employees while so engaged and any and all claims made by any third parties as a
consequence of any act or omission on the part of said employees while so engaged on any of the
work or services provided to be rendered herein shall in no way be the obligation or responsibility of
the County. XI Any alteration, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only
be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement and signed by
the parties hereto. XII The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to
civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall
be considered a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. XIII The matters set forth in the "whereas" clauses at the beginning of this Agreement are
incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference.
(this space left intentionally blank)
- 4 -
Page 9 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Agreement No. PW 27-05-17
C.P. 1719
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
(Seal)
Date: J / /7 (1 f:,
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ATTEST:
By: __ fVl__,___. ----'-�-D�_,, ___ _Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
Date: ____ 2-__,/_2-_o--'-/_I fJ ___ _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By�L.� � �ty Attorney
Date: /�f 3.// ·7------'-----'--------
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
B���
� iantCounty Attorney
Date: Sp.:a/1(
B�{A.�
airfitsCounty Board
Date: 2.. -1,,o 'I /r
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
By: c � ... c;.) �-:Ct:.\ ►A � Director, Transportation Project Delivery Department
Date: 2/� f 1 6'
- 5 -
Page 10 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
RESOLUTION NO. 18-012
RESOLUTION APPROVING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR
CITY PROJECT 4018-2000
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park desires safe and efficient pedestrian and bicycle
connections across the BNSF railroad adjacent to Highway 100; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has agreed to contribute a lump sum of $20,000 for a
feasibility study referred to as the "West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study; and
WHEREAS, the City will be responsible for the development of the West End Bike and
Pedestrian Connection Study, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park deems it proper and in the
public interest to enter into a cooperative agreement with Hennepin County (County Project 1719)
to complete feasibility study included for City Project 4018-2000.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the Mayor and the City Manager are hereby
authorized and directed for and on behalf of the City to execute and enter into a cooperative
agreement with Hennepin County for City Project 4018-2000.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) ss
CITY OFST. LOUIS PARK· ) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION
The undersigned, being the duly qualified City Clerk of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
certifies that the foregoing resolution is a full, true and correct copy of the original Resolution No.
1'8-012 adopted at the St. Louis Park City Council meeting held on January 16, 2018.
WITNESS my hand and the Seal of the City of St. Louis Park this 17t? d y of January, 2018.
Page 11 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
¬«100
OLD CEDAR L A K E R D
CEDAR LAKE R D
C E D A R L A K E R D
GAMBLE DR
QUENTINAVESPARK PLACE BLVD25 1/2 ST W
PARKDALE DR
WEBSTERAVE SC E D A R W O O D R DQUENTINAVES
UTICAAVESHILLLNSWESTRIDGE LNUTICAAVESDUKE DRWESTENDBLVDWESTSIDE DR NATCHEZAVESOTTAWAAVESPRINCETONAVESPARKWOODS RDSB HWY100 S TO PARKD DRNBHWY100STOEBI3942 3 R D S T W
0 500 1,000250
Feet ´
Study Area for Hennepin County Co-Operative Agreement
Legend
Potential bridge
location
2019 Bikeway
Future BikewaysStudy BikewaysStudy Sidewalks2018 Trails
Future TrailsExisting SidewalksExisting Trails
Page 12 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4f)
Title: Amend cooperative agreement w/ Hennepin County – West End Bike and Pedestrian Connection Study
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4g
Executive summary
Title: Electronic f unds transfer delegation of authority
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution delegating authority to make electronic
fund transfers to the chief financial officer.
Policy consideration: Not applicable
Summary: Minnesota Statute, section 471.38, subdivision 3 requires formal approval to
authorize electronic funds transfers. If the proper controls are in place, a charter city may make
electronic funds transfers for various types of claims.
The purpose of formally delegating the authority to make electronic transfers is to comply with
Minnesota le gal compliance standards which are tested by the external auditors during the
annual audit. Previously the statute applied only to school districts but was expanded to also
include charter cities. Without the delegation and proper controls the city would not be
allowed to complete electronic funds transfers, which would impede some of the current
business practices. We do process electronic payments currently, and the update of the statute
requires us now to adopt a resolution annually.
The city council must annually delegate its authority to a business administrator or chief
financial officer or the officer’s designee. In addition, controls should be establish ed around
documentation, initiation, communication, and approval requirements. The city currently has
the proper controls in place but also needs to formally delegate electronic funds transfer
authority to the chief financial officer in order to utilize this process.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
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 February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Electronic funds transfer delegation of authority
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution delegating authority to make electronic funds transfer
Whereas, e lectronic funds transfer is the process of value exchange via mechanical
means without the use of checks, drafts, or similar negotiable instruments.
Whereas, in accordance with Minnesota Statute 471.38, a local government may make an
electronic funds transfer for the following:
(1) for a claim for a payment from an imprest
payroll bank account or investment of excess money;
(2) for a payment of tax or aid anticipation certificates;
(3) for a payment of contributions to pension or retirement fund;
(4) for vendor payments; and
(5) for payment of bond principal, bond interest and a fiscal agent service charge from
the debt redemption fund.
Whereas, the city utilizes electronic funds transfer for disbursements related to the
transmittal of payroll, payroll withholdings, debt service payments and other disbursements.
Whereas, Statute 471.38 requires that certain controls be enacted in order for a local
government to utilize electronic funds transfer, including that the governing body annually
delegate the authority to make electronic funds transfers to a designated business
administrator or chief financial officer or the officer’s designee.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1. Pursuant to Minnesota Statute 471.38 the city council delegates the authority to
make electronic funds transfers on behalf of the city to the city’s chief financial
officer or their designee.
2. The chief financial officer is directed to take all steps necessary for compliance with
Minnesota Statute 471.38.
3. This delegation of authority shall remain in effect until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
Reviewed for administration:
Adopted by the City Council Feb. 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4h
Executive summary
Title: Resolution adopting liquor license fees
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution setting liquor license fees for the license
t erm March 1, 2021 – March 1, 2022 pursuant to Minnesota statute 340A.408 and section 3-59
of the St. Louis Park City Code.
Policy consideration: Are the proposed liquor license fees in line with the limits allowed under
M.S.A. C hapt er 340A? Will the p ropos ed f ees allow the city to cov er the costs related to the
administration and enforcement of liquor licensing activiti es ?
Summary: City code provisions pe rmit the council to set liquor license fees annually, by
resolution, in amounts no greater than those set forth in M.S. Ch. 340A. The city annually
reviews and completes a fee study on the costs of providing license administration and
enforcement. Based on this analysis and due to the ongoing effects of the COVID-19 pandemic
on local businesses, staff is not proposing any fee increases for the upcoming license period.
State law sets the limits on the annual fees that may be charged for certain types of liquor
licen ses. Where there is no state restriction, the city can se t the f ee at an amount to reflect the
cost of issuing the license and other costs directly related to enforcement. License fees may not
be used as a means of raising revenues.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed fees were used to calculate projected
revenues in the 2021 budget. In response to COVID-19 and the ongoing limitations placed on in
person dining, on-sale liquor license hold ers s ubmitting applications for ren ewal for t h e
upcoming license period were provide d with an option to split payment of their annual license
fee.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicabl e.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Resolution adopting liquor license fees
Discussion
Current and proposed liquor license fees are detailed below. On-sale intoxicating license fees
are higher due to the additional staff time typically required for enforcement activities
(restaurants are open Sundays and some have 2 a.m. closing) and general administration and
oversight of the license . Off-sale licenses generally require less staff time because alcohol is not
consumed on the premises and they are open fewer hours. Additionally, off-sale licens e fees
and all background investigation fees are subject to the limits set forth in state statute.
Current and proposed liquor license and background investigation fees:
Liquor license type 2020 fee 2021 fee
Effective 3/1/2021
Fee amount
set by
Brewpub Off Sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Brewers Off Sale Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Microdistillery Cocktail Room $600 $600 City
Microdistillery Off -Sale $200 $200 City
Off Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $200 City
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $380 STATE
Off Sale Intoxicating Liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280 $280 STATE
On Sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $750 City
On-Sale Culinary Class $100 $100 City
On Sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750 $8,750 City
On Sale Brewer’s Taproom $600 $600 City
On Sale Sunday Liquor $200 $200 STATE
On Sale Wine $2,000 $2,000 STATE
Club (per # members): 1 - 200 $300 $300 STATE
201 - 500 $500 $500 STATE
501 - 1000 $650 $650 STATE
1001 - 2000 $800 $800 STATE
2001 - 4000 $1,000 $1,000 STATE
4001 - 6000 $2,000 $2,000 STATE
6000+ $3,000 $3,000 STATE
Temporary On Sale Liquor $100/day $100/day City
Background investigation 2020 fee 2021 fee Fee set by
New License Applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in -state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
$500 in-state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
STATE
New Store Manager $500 $500 STATE
On Sale license renewal
per 340A.412 Subd. 2
$500 $500 STATE
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Title: Resolution adopting liquor license fees
St. Louis Park liquor licenses by type:
License type License fee Fee set by Total Number in
St. Louis Park
Total
On-sale intoxicating $8,750 City 21 $183,750
On-sale Sunday $200 STATE 23 $4,600
On-sale wine $2,000 STATE 10 $20,000
On-sale club $700 STATE 2 $1,400
On-sale 3.2 $750 City 11 $8,250
On-sale taproom $600 City 1 $600
On-sale cocktail room $600 City 2 $1,200
Off-sale intoxicating $380 STATE 13 $4,940
Off-sale 3.2 $200 City 3 $600
Off-sale brewer $200 City 1 $200
Off-sale microdistillery $200 City 2 $400
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Title: Resolution adopting liquor license fees
Resolution No. 21 -____
Resolution adopting liquor license fees for the license term
March 1, 2021 – March 1, 2022
Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
Whereas, the St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the city council to establish
annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in M.S.A.
Chapter 340A; and
Whereas, it is necessary for the city to maintain fees in an amount necessary to cover the
cost of administration and enforcement of regulating liquor in the city; and
Whereas, fees called for within the Section 3-59 of the city code and Minnesota Statute
Chapter 340A are hereby set by this resolution for the license term effective March 1, 2021
through March 1, 2022; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
fees for liquor licenses are hereby adopted as follows:
Liquor License Type Fee
Brewpub off-sale malt liquor $200
Brewers off-sale malt liquor $200
Microdistillery off-sale $200
Off-sale 3.2 malt liquor $200
Off-sale intoxicating liquor $380
Off-sale intoxicating liquor fee per
M.S. 340A.408 Subd.3(c )
$280
On-sale brewer’s taproom $600
On-sale cocktail room $600
On-sale 3.2 malt liquor $750
On-sale intoxicating liquor $8,750
On-sale Sunday liquor $200
On-sale wine $2,000
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Temporary on-sale liquor $100/day
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Title: Resolution adopting liquor license fees
Investigation type Fee
New license applicant
(non-refundable)
$500 in -state applicant;
actual costs for out-of-
state applicant may be
billed up to a maximum
of $10,000.
New store manager $500
On-sale license renewal per
340A.412 Subd. 2
$500
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council Febr uary 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4i
Executive summary
Title: Bid tabulation: award bid for 2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200
Recommended action: Motion to designate Bituminous Roadways, Inc. the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize e xecution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $557,979.17 for the
2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to continue to implement our Pavement
Management program?
Summary: This year’s street maintenance project will be p erformed in A rea 5 of the city’s eight
pavement management areas and on streets that are part of the Commercial Industrial
Rehabilitation p rogram. It includes work in the Amhurst, Aquila, Cobblecrest and Shelard Park
neighborhoods. This routine maintenance involves e dge milling the existing pavement and
overlaying a thin layer of bituminous. Bids were received on Feb. 4, 2021. Ten (10) bids were
receive d for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows:
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. $557,979.17
Park Construction Company $562,679.40
GMH Asphalt Corporation $597,533.06
Asphalt Surface Technologies Corp $598,887.22
C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc $604,744.45
Molnau Trucking LLC $608,828.30
Northwest Asphalt, Inc. $638,503.62
S.M. Hentges & Son, Inc.$644,708.51
Valley Paving Inc $677,411.91
Omann Brotheres $735,996.32
Engineer’s Estimate $667,783.05
A review of the bid indicates Bituminous Roadways, Inc. submitte d the lowest responsible bid.
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. has completed this type and size of work successfully in other cities.
Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $557,979.17.
Financial or budget considerations: This project was planned for and included in the city’s
adopted 2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). This project is funded by the pavement
management fund. Funding details are provided in the discussion section.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion; Location map; Overall 2021 financial summary
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, project engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director; M elanie S chmitt, chi ef f inancial officer
Approve d by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for 2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200
Discussion
Background: Most streets in St. Louis Park were reconstructed between the mid-60s to early
80s. There are many variables, i.e., weather, traffic, soils, utility cuts, etc. that contribute to a
pavement’s deterioration. In general, pavement lifecycle can range from 20 to 30 years.
Applying this standard to St. Louis Park, most of the streets in the city have exceeded their
useful life.
Fortunately, the city’s streets are still in relatively good condition. This is due to the fact that
the streets were built well, are situated on good soils, utilize curb and gutter for drainage , and
have been well maintained. However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance
strategies are needed to prolong their life. Also, more extensive maintenance is needed to
“catch” certain streets and extend their life before total reconstruction is necessary.
In 2004, to ensure that our streets continue to serve the community, the city council approved
the pavement management program for local residential streets. The program’s basic elements
consist of:
•Evaluating and rating the street segments in a consistent and objective manner
•Identifying segments in need of extensive maintenance or reconstruction
•Applying the appropriate maintenance strategies at the appropriate times
•Establishing a dedicated source of funding for the program
•Implementing the identified projects on an 8-year/area cycle
In order to evaluate the condition of street segments, the industry uses something called an
Overall Condition Index. The Overall Condition Index (OCI) is a methodology used to evaluate
and rate pavements on a range of 100 (newly surfaced pavement) to 0 (failed pavement). When
the pavement management program was developed and then implemented in 2004, the
council established a goal of maintaining a street network with an overall condition index (OCI)
of 70. This goal then info rms the capital planning and revenue needs identified in our capital
improvement plan (CIP).
The pavement management program breaks out the city into 8 pavement management areas.
Each area has about 15 miles of local streets. These areas are used to structure our 10-year
capital improvement plan (CIP).
Each year we perform pavement rehabilitation in one pavement management area. Not all the
streets are rehabilitated. An average of 5 miles of the approximate 15 miles of street segments
in that area are sele cted to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation includes removing and replacing all
or a portion of the pavement on the street. Curb and gutter are inspected and may be replaced
as a part of the project. In addition, sidewalk, underground utilities along these street segments
are also reviewed and replaced if the condition warrants.
In general, pavements with an overall condition index (OCI) of 60 or less are selected for
rehabilitation. If there are more than 5 miles of streets with a rating under 60, there will not be
enough available funding. Street segments with ratings closer to 60 are held over for the next
time we are in that pavement management area. Depending on street condition, operations
may pave a 1-inch asphalt overlay to hold these streets together until we are back in the area.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for 2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200
When the condition of the roads in pavement management area 5 was reviewed to identify the
segments to be included in the 2028 pavement rehabilitation project, the number of street
segments that had a pavement condition index of under 60 exceeded available funding for that
year. In addition, the types of pavement distresses on these streets are such that we are
concerned that the streets will not hold together until we are back in the area in 2036. To extend
the life of these streets until 2036, we are performing an edge mill and overlay. This maintenance
strategy will provide a new pavement surface for the pedestrians, bicyclists and vehicles that use
these streets, reducing the likelihood of additional cracks and potholes f orming on the roads. Due
to the number of segments, we are unable to address this with in-house forces.
Another street maintenance project in the 2021 CIP is the Commercial and Industrial Street
Rehabilitation project (4022-1050), which include s work in the Shelard Park neighborhood. This
program was created to address deteriorating streets in the commercial and industrial areas of
the city to continue to ensure that the city’s street infrastructure serves the community.
Because the planned street maintenance work for this project is like the street maintenance
work in Area 5, staff combined the two projects into one contract to be bid together. Overall
cost savings can be realized by combining the projects due to economy of scale and only having
to administer one construction contract.
This maintenance will extend the life of these streets 15 to 20 years, creating a new pavement
surface until we are next in the area for full depth pavement replacement. This work includes
the edge mill and thin overlay of selected streets in pavement area 5 and the Shelard Parkway
area (see map).
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on Jan. 7 and Jan. 14,
2021, and in Finance and Commerce Jan. 7 through Jan. 20, 2021. In addition, plans and
specifications are made available electronically via the internet on our OneOffice site. Twenty -
nice (29) contractors/vendors purchased plan sets, three (3) of which were Disadvantaged
Business Enterprises (DBE).
Financial considerations: During design, investigation into the existing pavement thickness
indicated that there was adequate pavement structure in place on these street segments to
perform a 1.5-inch overlay vs. the 3-inch overlay planned for during the CIP budget
development. Also, no incidental utility work was identified on the segments. This resulted in a
substantial reduction in the overall project cost. Bids were received on Feb. 4, 2021 for this
project. Based on the low bid received, cost and funding details are revised as follows:
Street Maintenance Project CIP Estimate Low Bid
Construction cost $1,538,000.00 $557,979.17
Engineering & Administration $150,300.00 $83,696.87
Total $1,688,300.00 $641,676.04
Funding Sources
Pavement Management $1,364,050.00 $641,676.04
Sanitary sewer $115,000.00 $0.00
Storm sewer $28,750.00 $0.00
Watermain $80,500.00
Operations budget $100,000.00 $0.00
Total $1,688,300.00 $641,676.04
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for 2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200
Attached is the overall financial summary for the transportation and maintenance projects
included in the 2021 CIP. As each project is brought to the council for final approval and for bid
award, this summary will be updated to reflect the bids received. Final numbers will depend on
bids received.
The total debt levy increase for 2023 is projected to be 3.80% for the projects included in the
2021 CIP. This assumes using 10-year bonding. It is recommended to issue a longer 15-year
term for the Louisiana bridge project to reduce 2023 and 2024 levy impact to 2.3% debt levy
increase ; this will be discussed during the 2021 budget process.
Due to the nature of our construction projects, unexpected costs do come up. To address this,
past practice has been to show a contingency for all aspects of the project. What follows is a
table that shows this contingency and how this would affect the project costs. If overruns occur,
there are adequate funds to cover these costs.
Low Bid
Contingency
(10%)
Engineering
(15%) Total
Pavement management $557,979.17 $55,797.92 $83,696.87 $697,473.96
Total $557,979.17 $55,797.92 $83,696.87 $697,473.96
Next steps: Construction is anticipated to begin in spring 2021 and should be completed by July
of 2021.
AQUI
LAAVES
FREDE
RI
C
K
AVE
36TH ST W
35TH ST W
34TH ST W
33RD ST W
CAVEL
L
AVE
S
AQUILAAVESMINNETONKA BLVD
BOONEAVESAQUILAAVES36TH ST W BOONEAVES34TH S T W
FLAG
A
VE S
WYOMINGAVESSUNSETRIDGE RDA Q UIL A CIR SENSIGNAVESCAVEL
L
AVES32ND ST W
HIGHWAY16931ST ST W31STSTW
YUKONAVES30 1/2 ST W
XYLONAVESENSIGNAVESBOONEAVESAQUILALNSHIGHWAY
1
6
9HIGHWAY 169AQUI
LAAVESGETTYSBURGAVES34TH S T W
ZINRANAVESXYLONAVESXYLONAVESWYOMINGAVESCAVELLA
V
E
S
PHILLIPS PKWYWYOMINGAVESFLAGAVESGETTYSBURGAVESMINNEHAHA CIRNDECATURAVE SHIGHWAY169CAVELLAVES29TH ST W
28TH ST
W
HIGHWAY169HILLSBOROAVESMINNEHAHA C IR S36 TH ST WJORDANA
V
E
S
GETTYSBURG
AVESINDEPENDENCEA
V
E
S
HILLSBOROAVESH
I
G
H
WA
Y
1
6
9
36TH ST WHIGHWAY
1
6
9
28TH S
T
W
HIGHWAY 169HIGHWAY169HIGHWAY169HIGHWAY 169±
2021 Street Maintenance Project
Page 5 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4i)
Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for 2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200
14TH
ST W
INDEPENDENCEAVESHIGHWAY169FORD RDS E R V I C E D R H W Y 394 N
MELROSEAVESFORD LN
LANCASTERAVEJORDANAVE S
HIGHWAY
169SERVICEDRHWY169WHIGHWAY169K
I
L
ME
R
AVEHIGHWAY169INTERSTATE 394
WAYZATA BLVD
I
NTERSTATE3
9
4
INTERSTATE394SHELARDPKWYFORD RD
IN TE R S TATE 3 9 4INTERSTATE394
IN TE R S TATE 3 9 4
HIGHWAY 169I N T E R S T A T E 3 9 4 HIGHWAY 169IN
T
E
R
S
T
A
T
E
394
±
2021 Street Maintenance Project
Page 6 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4i)
Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for 2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200
Overall financial summary
2021 budget
Louisiana bridge
4018-1700
Monterey project
4021-2000,
4020-1101
Pavement mill and
overlay
4021-1200, 4022-
1050 2021 project balance
GO Bonds 10,739,050 8,310,604 914,652 - 1,513,794
Pavement management fund 3,717,622 293,043 2,196,094 697,474 531,011
Municipal state aid 752,233 657,452 94,781 - 0
State Of MN bridge bonds 1,502,755 1,502,755 - -
Federal grant 560,000 - - 560,000
Stormwater 967,702 532,623 142,740 - 292,339
Water 582,263 484,458 29,124 - 68,681
Sewer 316,250 - 375,703 - (59,453)
Operations budget 100,000 - - 100,000
Total funding 19,237,875 11,780,935 3,753,094 697,474 3,006,372
Awarded Cost Estimate Awarded
2021 Transportation and maintenance projects and funding - actual
2021 Budget
Louisiana
bridge
4018-1700
Monterey
project
4020-1101,
4012-2000
Pavement mill
and overlay
4021-1200,
4022-1050
Beltline
Pedestrian
Improvements
4022-2000
Citywide
speed limits
4021-1300
City Hall
parking lot
maintenance
4021-1600
Alley
construction
4020-1500
GO Bonds 10,739,050 8,762,133 3,020,875 - 1,103,228 200,000 - -
Pavement management fund 3,717,622 281,772 - 1,364,050 - - 38,588 432,250
Municipal state aid 752,233 - - - - - - -
State Of MN bridge bonds 1,502,755 1,502,755 - - - - - -
Federal grant 560,000 - - - 560,000 - - -
Stormwater 967,702 512,140 107,812 115,000 - - - 232,750
Water 582,263 465,825 35,938 80,500 - - - -
Sewer 316,250 - 287,500 28,750 - - - -
Operations budget 100,000 - - 100,000 - - - -
Total funding 19,237,875 11,524,625 3,452,125 1,688,300 1,663,228 200,000 38,588 665,000
2021 Transportation and maintence projects and funding -CIP
Page 7 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4i)
Title: Bid tabulation: Award bid for 2021 Street Maintenance – Project No. 4021-1200
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4j
Executive summary
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution providing for the sale of general obligation
bonds in the amount of approximately $12,385,000. (Requires 6 of 7 affirmative votes.)
Policy consideration:
•Does the City Council desire to issue general obligation (G.O.) charter bonds in the
amount of $11,050,000 for pavement management, the Louisiana Bridge and Wooddale
Bikeway project?
•Does the City Council desire to issue general o bligation charter bonds in the amount of
$1,335,000 for the park improvement fund in 2021?
Summary: The G.O. bonds of $12,385,000 are proposed to be issued under the authority
provided by the city’s charter. These bonds will fund the current year sid ewalk and trail proj ects
(pavement management), Beltline Pedestrian improvements, Park improvement fund, and the
Louisiana Bridge proj ects . Since these are proposed to be issued as charter authorized bonds,
the recommended action will require approval by at least 6 of the 7 city council members.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed bond issues will be consolidated into one for
potential inv estors to b id. The G.O. Bonds w ill have a term o f 10 y ears, with the exception of
the Louisiana bridge, which is 15 years . These bonds will be repaid with tax levy and/or utility
revenues at an e stimated True Interest Cost (TIC) ranging from 1.20%-1.56%.
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.
Next Steps: March 15, 2021 award sale of the bonds.
Supporting documents: Re solution
Presale report
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, deputy city manager/HR director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution providing for the issuance and sale of
general obligation charter bonds in the approximate aggregate
principal amount of $12,385,000
Be it resolved by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
1.Findings.
(a)Pursuant to Section 6.15 of the City Charter (the “Charter”) and
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475, as amended (the “Act”), the City is authorized to issue
general obligation bonds for any purpose permitted by state law upon a vote of at least
six (6) members of the City Council.
(b)The City has determined to finance various park improvements, the City’s
2021 pavement management projects, and the construction of the Louisiana Avenue
Bridge and Beltline pedestrian improvements (collectively, the “Capital Projects”).
(c)The City proposes to issue its general obligations in the approximate
aggregate principal amount of $12,385,000 (the “Charter Bonds”), pursuant to the City
Charter and the Act, to provide financing for the Capital Projects.
2.Sale of C harter Bonds.
(a)The City Council finds it necessary and expedient to the sound financial
management of the affairs of the City that the City issue its Charter Bonds in the
approximate aggregate principal amount of $12,385,000, pursuant to the City Charter
and the Act, in order to provide financing for the Capital Projects.
(b)The City is authorized by Section 475.60, subdivision 2(9) of the Act to
negotiate the sale of the Charter Bonds, it being determined that the City has retained
an independent municipal advisor in connection with such sale.
3.Authority of Municipal Advisor. Ehlers and Associates, Inc., the municipal advisor
to the City (the “Municipal Advisor”), is authorized and directed to negotiate the sale of the
Charter Bonds. The City Council will meet at 6:30 P.M. on Monday, March 15, 2021, to consider
proposals on the Charter Bonds and take any other appropriate action with respect to the
Charter Bonds.
4.Authority of Bond Counsel. The law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as
bond counsel for the City (“Bond Counsel”), is authorized to act as Bond Counsel and to assist in
the preparation and review of necessary documents, certificates and instruments relating to
the Charter Bonds. The officers, employees and agents of the City are hereby authorized to
assist Bond Counsel in the preparation of such documents, certificates, and instruments.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
5.Covenants. In the resolution awarding the sale of the Charter Bonds, the City
Council will set forth the covenants and undertakings required by the Act.
6.Official Statement. In connection with the sale of the Charter Bonds, the officers
or employees of the City are authorized and directed to cooperate with the Municipal Advisor
and participate in the preparation of an official statement for the Charter Bonds and to deliver
it on behalf of the City upon its completion.
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 February 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
February 16, 2021
Pre-Sale Report for
City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota
$12,385,000 General Obligation Bonds,
Series 2021A
Prepared by:
Ehlers
3060 Centre Pointe Drive
Roseville, MN 55113
Advisors:
Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor
Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor
Keith Dahl, Financial Specialist
BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT'S WHAT WE DO.
BUILDING COMMUNITIES. IT'S WHAT WE DO. 123) info@ehlers-inc.com � 1 (800) 552-1171 ii)www.ehlers-inc.com
Page 4 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
Beltline Pedestrian Improvements - $1,130,000
Page 5 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
-
-
Page 6 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
The amount of premium can be restricted in the bid specifications. Restrictions on premium
may result in fewer bids but may also eliminate large adjustments on the day of sale and
unintended impacts with respect to debt service payment. Ehlers will identify appropriate
premium restrictions for the Bonds intended to achieve the City's objectives for this financing.
Review of Existing Debt:
We have reviewed all outstanding indebtedness for the City and find that there is an
opportunity to refund the City's General Obligation Bonds, Series 2010C (Louisiana Court
Apartments), General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds, Series 2008B and the Taxable General
Obligation Housing Improvement Area Bonds, Series 2012A. Ehlers will work with staff on the
timing and structuring of these refinancing.
We will continue to monitor the market and the call dates for the City's outstanding debt and
will alert you to any future refunding opportunities.
Continuing Disclosure:
Because the City has more than $10,000,000 in outstanding debt (including this issue) and
this issue is over $1,000,000, the City will be agreeing to provide certain updated Annual
Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statement annually, as well as providing notices
of the occurrence of certain reportable events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
(the "MSRB"), as required by rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The City
is already obligated to provide such reports for its existing bonds and has contracted with
Ehlers to prepare and file the reports.
Arbitrage Monitoring:
The City must ensure compliance with certain sections of the Internal Revenue Code and
Treasury Regulations ("Arbitrage Rules") throughout the life of the issue to maintain the tax
exempt status of the Bonds. These Arbitrage Rules apply to amounts held in construction,
escrow, reserve, debt service account(s), etc., along with related investment income on each
fund/account.
IRS audits will verify compliance with rebate, yield restriction and records retention
requirements within the Arbitrage Rules. The City's specific arbitrage responsibilities will be
detailed in the Tax Certificate (the "Tax Compliance Document") prepared by your Bond
Attorney and provided at closing.
The Bonds may qualify for one or more exception(s) to the Arbitrage Rules by meeting 1) small
issuer exception, 2) spend down requirements, 3) bona fide debt service fund limits, 4)
reasonable reserve requirements, 5) expenditure within an available period limitations, 6)
investments yield restrictions, 7) de minimis rules, or; 8) borrower limited requirements.
We recommend that the City review its specific responsibilities related to the Bonds with an
arbitrage expert in order to utilize one or more of the exceptions listed above.
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
February 16, 2021
Page 3
Page 7 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
Page 8 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
PROPOSED DEBT ISSUANCE SCHEDULE
Pre-Sale Review by City Council:
Distribute Official Statement:
Due Diligence Call to review Official Statement:
Conference with Rating Agency:
City Council Meeting to Award Sale of the Bonds:
Estimated Closing Date:
Attachments
Estimated Sources and Uses of Funds
Estimated Proposed Debt Service Schedule
Resolution Authorizing Ehlers to Proceed with Bonds Sale
EHLERS' CONTACTS
Stacie Kvilvang, Senior Municipal Advisor
Jason Aarsvold, Senior Municipal Advisor
Keith Dahl, Financial Specialist
Silvia Johnson, Public Finance Analyst
Alicia Gage, Senior Financial Analyst
February 16, 2021
Week of March 1, 2021
Week of March 8, 2021
Week of March 8, 2021
March 15, 2021
April 15, 2021
(651)697-8506
(651)697-8512
(651)697-8595
(651)697-8580
(651)697-8551
The Preliminary Official Statement for this financing will be sent to the City Council at
their home or email address for review prior to the sale date.
Presale Report
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
February 16, 2021
Page 5
Page 9 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$12,385,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Issue Summary
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Total Issue Sources And Uses
Dated 04/15/2021 | Delivered 04/15/2021
Park
Improvements
Pavement
Management
Louisiana
Bridge
Beltline
Improvements
Issue
Summary
Sources Of Funds
Par Amount of Bonds $1,335,000.00 $1,365,000.00 $8,555,000.00 $1,130,000.00 $12,385,000.00
Total Sources $1,335,000.00 $1,365,000.00 $8,555,000.00 $1,130,000.00 $12,385,000.00
Uses Of Funds
Total Underwriter's Discount (1.000%)13,350.00 13,650.00 85,550.00 11,300.00 123,850.00
Costs of Issuance 11,425.93 11,682.67 73,220.02 9,671.38 106,000.00
Deposit to Capitalized Interest (CIF) Fund 9,485.67 10,852.11 86,346.18 8,971.26 115,655.22
Deposit to Project Construction Fund 1,300,000.00 1,325,218.00 8,310,604.00 1,103,228.00 12,039,050.00
Rounding Amount 738.40 3,597.22 (720.20)(3,170.64)444.78
Total Uses $1,335,000.00 $1,365,000.00 $8,555,000.00 $1,130,000.00 $12,385,000.00
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Issue Summary | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 10 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$12,385,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Issue Summary
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total
04/15/2021 -----
02/01/2022 --115,655.22 115,655.22 115,655.22
08/01/2022 --72,790.00 72,790.00 -
02/01/2023 130,000.00 0.450%72,790.00 202,790.00 275,580.00
08/01/2023 --72,497.50 72,497.50 -
02/01/2024 905,000.00 0.500%72,497.50 977,497.50 1,049,995.00
08/01/2024 --70,235.00 70,235.00 -
02/01/2025 905,000.00 0.600%70,235.00 975,235.00 1,045,470.00
08/01/2025 --67,520.00 67,520.00 -
02/01/2026 915,000.00 0.650%67,520.00 982,520.00 1,050,040.00
08/01/2026 --64,546.25 64,546.25 -
02/01/2027 915,000.00 0.750%64,546.25 979,546.25 1,044,092.50
08/01/2027 --61,115.00 61,115.00 -
02/01/2028 925,000.00 0.850%61,115.00 986,115.00 1,047,230.00
08/01/2028 --57,183.75 57,183.75 -
02/01/2029 935,000.00 1.050%57,183.75 992,183.75 1,049,367.50
08/01/2029 --52,275.00 52,275.00 -
02/01/2030 945,000.00 1.200%52,275.00 997,275.00 1,049,550.00
08/01/2030 --46,605.00 46,605.00 -
02/01/2031 960,000.00 1.350%46,605.00 1,006,605.00 1,053,210.00
08/01/2031 --40,125.00 40,125.00 -
02/01/2032 965,000.00 1.450%40,125.00 1,005,125.00 1,045,250.00
08/01/2032 --33,128.75 33,128.75 -
02/01/2033 845,000.00 1.500%33,128.75 878,128.75 911,257.50
08/01/2033 --26,791.25 26,791.25 -
02/01/2034 590,000.00 1.600%26,791.25 616,791.25 643,582.50
08/01/2034 --22,071.25 22,071.25 -
02/01/2035 595,000.00 1.700%22,071.25 617,071.25 639,142.50
08/01/2035 --17,013.75 17,013.75 -
02/01/2036 605,000.00 1.750%17,013.75 622,013.75 639,027.50
08/01/2036 --11,720.00 11,720.00 -
02/01/2037 620,000.00 1.850%11,720.00 631,720.00 643,440.00
08/01/2037 --5,985.00 5,985.00 -
02/01/2038 630,000.00 1.900%5,985.00 635,985.00 641,970.00
Total $12,385,000.00 -$1,558,860.22 $13,943,860.22 -
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $112,634.19
Average Life 9.094 Years
Average Coupon 1.3840026%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.4939604%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.4917284%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.3730633%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.5945400%
IRS Form 8038
Net Interest Cost 1.3840026%
Weighted Average Maturity 9.094 Years
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Issue Summary | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 11 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$12,385,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Issue Summary
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total
02/01/2022 --115,655.22 115,655.22 (115,655.22)--
02/01/2023 130,000.00 0.450%145,580.00 275,580.00 -275,580.00 289,359.00
02/01/2024 905,000.00 0.500%144,995.00 1,049,995.00 -1,049,995.00 1,102,494.75
02/01/2025 905,000.00 0.600%140,470.00 1,045,470.00 -1,045,470.00 1,097,743.50
02/01/2026 915,000.00 0.650%135,040.00 1,050,040.00 -1,050,040.00 1,102,542.00
02/01/2027 915,000.00 0.750%129,092.50 1,044,092.50 -1,044,092.50 1,096,297.13
02/01/2028 925,000.00 0.850%122,230.00 1,047,230.00 -1,047,230.00 1,099,591.50
02/01/2029 935,000.00 1.050%114,367.50 1,049,367.50 -1,049,367.50 1,101,835.88
02/01/2030 945,000.00 1.200%104,550.00 1,049,550.00 -1,049,550.00 1,102,027.50
02/01/2031 960,000.00 1.350%93,210.00 1,053,210.00 -1,053,210.00 1,105,870.50
02/01/2032 965,000.00 1.450%80,250.00 1,045,250.00 -1,045,250.00 1,097,512.50
02/01/2033 845,000.00 1.500%66,257.50 911,257.50 -911,257.50 956,820.38
02/01/2034 590,000.00 1.600%53,582.50 643,582.50 -643,582.50 675,761.63
02/01/2035 595,000.00 1.700%44,142.50 639,142.50 -639,142.50 671,099.63
02/01/2036 605,000.00 1.750%34,027.50 639,027.50 -639,027.50 670,978.88
02/01/2037 620,000.00 1.850%23,440.00 643,440.00 -643,440.00 675,612.00
02/01/2038 630,000.00 1.900%11,970.00 641,970.00 -641,970.00 674,068.50
Total $12,385,000.00 -$1,558,860.22 $13,943,860.22 (115,655.22)$13,828,205.00 $14,519,615.25
Significant Dates
Dated 4/15/2021
First Coupon Date 2/01/2022
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $112,634.19
Average Life 9.094 Years
Average Coupon 1.3840026%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.4939604%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.4917284%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.3730633%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.5945400%
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Issue Summary | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 12 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$12,385,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Issue Summary
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Detail Costs Of Issuance
Dated 04/15/2021 | Delivered 04/15/2021
COSTS OF ISSUANCE DETAIL
Municipal Advisor $67,500.00
Bond Counsel $18,000.00
Rating Agency Fee $19,500.00
Miscellaneous $1,000.00
TOTAL $106,000.00
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Issue Summary | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 13 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$1,335,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Park Improvements
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S
105% of
Total
02/01/2022 --9,485.67 9,485.67 (9,485.67)--
02/01/2023 130,000.00 0.450%11,940.00 141,940.00 -141,940.00 149,037.00
02/01/2024 130,000.00 0.500%11,355.00 141,355.00 -141,355.00 148,422.75
02/01/2025 130,000.00 0.600%10,705.00 140,705.00 -140,705.00 147,740.25
02/01/2026 130,000.00 0.650%9,925.00 139,925.00 -139,925.00 146,921.25
02/01/2027 130,000.00 0.750%9,080.00 139,080.00 -139,080.00 146,034.00
02/01/2028 135,000.00 0.850%8,105.00 143,105.00 -143,105.00 150,260.25
02/01/2029 135,000.00 1.050%6,957.50 141,957.50 -141,957.50 149,055.38
02/01/2030 135,000.00 1.200%5,540.00 140,540.00 -140,540.00 147,567.00
02/01/2031 140,000.00 1.350%3,920.00 143,920.00 -143,920.00 151,116.00
02/01/2032 140,000.00 1.450%2,030.00 142,030.00 -142,030.00 149,131.50
Total $1,335,000.00 -$89,043.17 $1,424,043.17 (9,485.67)$1,414,557.50 $1,485,285.38
Significant Dates
Dated 4/15/2021
First Coupon Date 2/01/2022
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $8,505.58
Average Life 6.371 Years
Average Coupon 1.0468791%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.2038348%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.2066148%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.3730633%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.3487938%
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Park Improvements | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 14 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$1,365,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Pavement Management
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S
105% of
Total
02/01/2022 --10,852.11 10,852.11 (10,852.11)--
02/01/2023 --13,660.00 13,660.00 -13,660.00 14,343.00
02/01/2024 130,000.00 0.500%13,660.00 143,660.00 -143,660.00 150,843.00
02/01/2025 130,000.00 0.600%13,010.00 143,010.00 -143,010.00 150,160.50
02/01/2026 135,000.00 0.650%12,230.00 147,230.00 -147,230.00 154,591.50
02/01/2027 135,000.00 0.750%11,352.50 146,352.50 -146,352.50 153,670.13
02/01/2028 135,000.00 0.850%10,340.00 145,340.00 -145,340.00 152,607.00
02/01/2029 135,000.00 1.050%9,192.50 144,192.50 -144,192.50 151,402.13
02/01/2030 140,000.00 1.200%7,775.00 147,775.00 -147,775.00 155,163.75
02/01/2031 140,000.00 1.350%6,095.00 146,095.00 -146,095.00 153,399.75
02/01/2032 140,000.00 1.450%4,205.00 144,205.00 -144,205.00 151,415.25
02/01/2033 145,000.00 1.500%2,175.00 147,175.00 -147,175.00 154,533.75
Total $1,365,000.00 -$114,547.11 $1,479,547.11 (10,852.11)$1,468,695.00 $1,542,129.75
Significant Dates
Dated 4/15/2021
First Coupon Date 2/01/2022
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $10,079.42
Average Life 7.384 Years
Average Coupon 1.1364458%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.2718703%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.2741825%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.3730633%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.3977330%
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Pavement Management | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 15 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$8,555,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Louisiana Bridge
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S 105% of Total
02/01/2022 --86,346.18 86,346.18 (86,346.18)--
02/01/2023 --108,687.50 108,687.50 -108,687.50 114,121.88
02/01/2024 535,000.00 0.500%108,687.50 643,687.50 -643,687.50 675,871.88
02/01/2025 535,000.00 0.600%106,012.50 641,012.50 -641,012.50 673,063.13
02/01/2026 540,000.00 0.650%102,802.50 642,802.50 -642,802.50 674,942.63
02/01/2027 540,000.00 0.750%99,292.50 639,292.50 -639,292.50 671,257.13
02/01/2028 545,000.00 0.850%95,242.50 640,242.50 -640,242.50 672,254.63
02/01/2029 550,000.00 1.050%90,610.00 640,610.00 -640,610.00 672,640.50
02/01/2030 555,000.00 1.200%84,835.00 639,835.00 -639,835.00 671,826.75
02/01/2031 565,000.00 1.350%78,175.00 643,175.00 -643,175.00 675,333.75
02/01/2032 570,000.00 1.450%70,547.50 640,547.50 -640,547.50 672,574.88
02/01/2033 580,000.00 1.500%62,282.50 642,282.50 -642,282.50 674,396.63
02/01/2034 590,000.00 1.600%53,582.50 643,582.50 -643,582.50 675,761.63
02/01/2035 595,000.00 1.700%44,142.50 639,142.50 -639,142.50 671,099.63
02/01/2036 605,000.00 1.750%34,027.50 639,027.50 -639,027.50 670,978.88
02/01/2037 620,000.00 1.850%23,440.00 643,440.00 -643,440.00 675,612.00
02/01/2038 630,000.00 1.900%11,970.00 641,970.00 -641,970.00 674,068.50
Total $8,555,000.00 -$1,260,683.68 $9,815,683.68 (86,346.18)$9,729,337.50 $10,215,804.38
Significant Dates
Dated 4/15/2021
First Coupon Date 2/01/2022
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $85,721.47
Average Life 10.020 Years
Average Coupon 1.4706743%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.5704743%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.5685536%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.3730633%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.6629033%
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Louisiana Bridge | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 16 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
St Louis Park, Minnesota
$1,130,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2021A
Beltline Improvements
Assumes Current Market Non-BQ AAA Rates plus 20bps
Debt Service Schedule
Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I CIF Net New D/S
105% of
Total
02/01/2022 --8,971.26 8,971.26 (8,971.26)--
02/01/2023 --11,292.50 11,292.50 -11,292.50 11,857.13
02/01/2024 110,000.00 0.500%11,292.50 121,292.50 -121,292.50 127,357.13
02/01/2025 110,000.00 0.600%10,742.50 120,742.50 -120,742.50 126,779.63
02/01/2026 110,000.00 0.650%10,082.50 120,082.50 -120,082.50 126,086.63
02/01/2027 110,000.00 0.750%9,367.50 119,367.50 -119,367.50 125,335.88
02/01/2028 110,000.00 0.850%8,542.50 118,542.50 -118,542.50 124,469.63
02/01/2029 115,000.00 1.050%7,607.50 122,607.50 -122,607.50 128,737.88
02/01/2030 115,000.00 1.200%6,400.00 121,400.00 -121,400.00 127,470.00
02/01/2031 115,000.00 1.350%5,020.00 120,020.00 -120,020.00 126,021.00
02/01/2032 115,000.00 1.450%3,467.50 118,467.50 -118,467.50 124,390.88
02/01/2033 120,000.00 1.500%1,800.00 121,800.00 -121,800.00 127,890.00
Total $1,130,000.00 -$94,586.26 $1,224,586.26 (8,971.26)$1,215,615.00 $1,276,395.75
Significant Dates
Dated 4/15/2021
First Coupon Date 2/01/2022
Yield Statistics
Bond Year Dollars $8,327.72
Average Life 7.370 Years
Average Coupon 1.1357999%
Net Interest Cost (NIC)1.2714913%
True Interest Cost (TIC)1.2737961%
Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 1.3730633%
All Inclusive Cost (AIC)1.3975829%
Series 2021A GO Bonds - P | Woodale Bikeway | 2/ 4/2021 | 3:55 PM
Page 17 City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Series 2021A general obligation bonds
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4k
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 6, 2021 – 6:25 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Jessica Kraft,
Tom Weber
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Jacquelyn Kramer, Sean Walther, Jennifer Monson
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of December 2, 2020
Commissioner Weber made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner Eckholm
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Texa-Tonka Apartments
Applicant: Texa-Tonka Apartments LLC/Paster Properties
Case Nos: 20-26-CP, 20-27-S, 20-28-PUD
Jennifer Monson, planner, presented the staff report. She explained the applicant is
requesting a comprehensive plan amendment, preliminary and final plat and
preliminary and final PUD and noted these requests in detail. Ms. Monson stated staff
recommends approval subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Commissioner Weber asked about utility construction and traffic in the area and at the
Minnetonka and Texas intersection. He also asked if there is a buffer between the
proposed residential doors facing Minnetonka Boulevard and the public sidewalk.
Ms. Monson stated the developers will need to obtain permits for work in the right-of-
way and that typically lanes are not permitted to shut down entirely. She added that
there is a grade change and ample landscaping between the residential units and the
public sidewalk .
Sean Walther added the right-of-way dedication provides enough space to
accommodate a future right -hand turn lane and a bike lane.
Commissioner Beneke asked if this will be 20% affordable housing and that would allow
developer to apply for tax increment financing (TIF ) funds.
City council meeting of February 16 , 2021 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes January 6, 2021
Ms. Monson stated there are multiple ways for TIF to be approved, including a
redevelopment district or a TIF housing district. A housing TIF district requires 20% of
the housing units to be affordable to households earning up to 50% of the area median
income (AMI).
Commissioner Eckholm asked what the cost will be for the townhomes.
Mr. Sturdivant, the applicant, clarified the townhomes will not be for sale; they will be
rented, and indicated the final rental rates have not been determined as the project will
not be delivered to the market until 2022. He also stated some of the units will be
affordable at 50% AMI and the remainder will be at market rate, depending on the market.
Chair Kraft asked how the development responds to the small area plan for Texa Tonka
and fits in with community feedback.
Ms. Monson stated the plan showed a 3-story building on the site with 18,000 sq uare
feet commercial as well as townhomes . She added the community feedback was
overwhelmingly in favor of mid -size housing as well as architectural style to blend in
with the rest of the mid-century style in the Texa Tonka area. She said of those that
opposed the development shown, half of those wanted to see less density and shorter
buildings and half indicated they would support higher density and taller buildings.
Chair Kraft opened the public hearing.
Scott Breyfogle, 2904 Sumter Ave., stated that he has concerns about increased traffic
on Sumter Avenue and parking in front of homes. He is concerned about property taxes
and how this proposal will affect property taxes for homes on Sumter, and that he has
concerns about construction noise. There are several people that work from home on
Sumter and that construction will cause noise pollution.
John Honsa, 2931 Sumter, stated that he is a 20-year resident and that many people
who responded to the city’s survey did not live in the neighborhood. He had concerns
about a 5-story building and the view and privacy from Sumter Avenue toward the east
side of the building since there are no trees in Rainbow Park between Sumter and the
property. He also voiced concerns about north bound traffic on Texas/Virginia/Cedar
Lake Road, stating that turning onto Cedar Lake Road is already difficult.
G eena Brown stated that she lives immediately south of the dentist at 3011 Texas and is
supportive of the project and more residential in the area in general, but wanted to echo
voices that were coming out of the neighborhood that she would prefer a three story
building rather than a 4-5 story building. She also stated that she would prefer to see more
affordable units, and that what is provided is not enough for an affordable family area.
One caller could not be heard at all and was asked to call back.
Commissioner Weber asked if there is enough parking at the development for all
residents, given the underground parking. He asked if this would be a concern to
residents in the nearby area.
City council meeting of February 16 , 2021 (Item No. 4k) Page 3 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes January 6, 2021
Ms. Monson stated the development has four more parking spaces than is required by
code. She stated staff does not anticipate any overflow parking and there is no parking
on Texas Avenue due to the bike lane. She stated the developer is providing 134 parking
spaces on site and no overflow parking is anticipated onto area side streets.
Darla Hoffer, 3024 Sumter Ave., stated she lives two blocks from the development. She
has concerns about inappropriate height and a 5-story building, and is concerned about
people being to see into backyards.
The audio for Ms. Hoffer’s call was poor. Ms. Monson stated that Ms. Hoffer submitted
a comment letter prior to the commission’s meeting, which had five points of concern
including height, privacy, and taxes. She stated the letter was shared with the
commission prio r to the meeting.
Mr. Walther stated because of technical difficulties on the calls this evening, the public
will be allowed to comment at the city council meeting and are also invited to contact
staff with their comments, which will then be passed on to the commission and the
council as well.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Chair Kraft directed any additional callers to call during the city council meeting to voice
any concerns they have.
Commissioner Weber added public comments could possibly be made on a city hall
voice mail and recorded, and then passed on to the commission and council as well.
Commissioner Eckholm agreed with both Mr. Walther and Commissioner Weber.
Chair Kraft directed staff to have the public reach out to Ms. Monson at city hall or on
the city website .
Commissioner Eckholm stated he likes this de velopment, adding he also lives in the
area. He stated this is a great use of the site and he enjoys how the area is coming back
to life . He stated he is impressed with the commitment to electric vehicle chargers and
likes the design features that Paster has included to fit the vision of the small area plan .
Commissioner Weber agreed adding putting this next to a park is wonderful. He again
noted the intersection and asked staff to be thoughtful of turn lanes and mid-block
crossing lights in the area.
Commissioner Beneke also supported the plan stating all the details were well thought
out. He stated it is a well-thought-out plan and it is exciting to see the area being built out.
Chair Kraft agreed, and stated she supports the project which will reactivate the
intersection, and the townhomes, businesses and the architecture responds well to the
neighborhood, while the character fits in well with the mall across the street.
City council meeting of February 16 , 2021 (Item No. 4k) Page 4 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes January 6, 2021
Commissioner Dagane added he is excited also about the project stating it adds value to
the area and helps lower-income families and he will support this project.
Commissioner Weber made a motion, Commissioner Eckholm seconded, recommending
approval of the changes as proposed by staff.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
B. SLP Living, 9908 and 9920 Shelard Parkway
Applicant: Mortenson Development, Inc.
Case Nos: 20-32-CP, 20-33-S, 20-34-PUD
Jacqu elyn Kramer, associate planner, presented the staff report. She noted the
developer is asking for approval of a comprehensive plan amendment, a preliminary
plat, and PUD amendment ordinance .
Ms. Kramer stated the council approved of the development in March 2018, but that
based on the market impacts of Covid -19 and other factors, the project has changed.
She stated 20% of the multi-family units will be affordable at 50% AMI . She stated 233
units are proposed. There is on level of parking on ground floor and 6 levels of living
space above .
Ms. Kramer stated staff recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment,
the preliminary plat, and the PUD amendment ordinance subject to the conditions
recommended by staff.
Commissioner Beneke asked about parking restrictions at the development. Ms. Kramer
stated a draft parking plan was submitted which deals with impacts of parking on
neighbors. She noted one of the criteria is the number of cars per unit can be limited.
Commissioner Weber asked if the development is surrounded mostly by commercial
buildings. Ms. Kramer stated to the west of the site is a condo building with some
offices, and to the north there is some office and further north is more multi-family
residential.
Chair Kraft opened the public hearing.
There were no callers.
The applicant, Brent Webb, Mortenson Construction thanked St. Louis Park and city staff
for their guidance on this project. He noted their website is updated ongoing related to
this development and they are open to any questions from the commission or residents.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Eckholm stated he likes to see highest and best use on sites, and this is an
excellent way to get more residents in St. Louis Park. He stated he typically does not like
City council meeting of February 16 , 2021 (Item No. 4k) Page 5 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes January 6, 2021
to see so much parking on a site but recognizes this is the nature of this type of project
adding he is in support of this project.
Chair Kraft agreed, adding this project makes sense for this site, against the highway and
it provides more variety of residences for folks. She stated it is easily accessible to
downtown and has good amenities and she is in support of the project.
Commissioner Eckholm made a motion, Commissioner Weber seconded, recommending
approval of the comprehensive plan amendment, the preliminary plat, and the PUD
amendment ordinance subject to the conditions recommended by staff.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
4. Other Business
A. Election of officers – each year the officers of chair and vice chair are rotated to
build leadership skills among commissions . The new officers would start at the
January 20, 2021 meeting.
It was the consensus of the planning commission to nominate Commissioner
Eckholm as chair and Commissioner Beneke as vice chair.
B. Annual report and 2021 work plan –
It was the consensus of the planning commission to approve the annual report and
2021 work plan as presented.
5. Communications
Mr. Walther noted the 2021 schedule for planning commission meetings, with three
meetings being moved due to holidays in 2021.
Commissioner Weber noted the commission is meeting on the evening of a very
traumatic day in the history of the country and he stated the commission went ahead to
meet despite this and continued on with the democratic process.
Mr. Walther noted the city is accepting applications to fill openings for all boards and
commissions including the planning commission which has a regular member vacancy as
well as a youth vacancy. Mr. Walther stated he will also look at which commissioners
are at the end of their term, as they will need to reapply to if they wish to be considered
for reappointment for another three years. Commissioner Eckholm stated it is his and
Chair Kraft terms are ending.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Public hearing: 6a
Executive summary
Title: Public hearing to consider allocation of 2021 Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds
Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take testimony, and then close the
hearing. Motion to adopt Resolution approving proposed use of 2021 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and authorize execution of sub-recipient
agreement with Hennepin County and third -party agreements.
Policy consideration: Does the city council concur with the recommendations made for the
allocation of $163,482 in 2020 CDBG funds?
Summary: Each year the city receives an allocation of federal CDBG funds and must decide how
to use those funds. CDBG funds are U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds
distributed through Hennepin County. The city must submit its proposed use of the allocation
to Hennepin County. Prior to submittal, the city must hold a public hearing. The city has not
been notified of its estimated 2021 direct allocation , so for planning purposes staff is using the
2020 direct allocation amount of $163,482 as an estimate.
This year’s proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the city’s prioritie s to preserve existing housing
and increase affordable home ownership opportunities by allocating $133,482 to the low -
income deferred rehab loan program and $30,000 to Homes Within Reach land trust program.
Beginning in 2018, 15 percent of the overall CDBG budget is required to be set aside by
Hennepin County for public service activities and awarded through a single, combined,
competitive RFP covering all the cities in the county program.
Financial or budget considerations: CDBG funds allow cities discretion, within HUD guidelines,
to fund projects that meet the national low-income objectives and the needs of the cities. The
federal budget has not been finalized so the estimate 2021 funding amount of $163,482 may
change. The 2021 CDBG year runs from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Marney Olson, assistant housing supervisor
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, city manager
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Public hearing to consider allocation of 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
Discussion
Background: The national objectives of the CDBG program are to benefit low- and moderate-
income persons, prevent or eliminate slum or blight, and/or to meet a particular urgent
community development need. Additionally, t he CDBG program allows for up to 15 percent of
allocated funds to be used to fund public services. The city council has typically focused CDBG
funds on improvements to the housing stock for low-income families or on affordable
homeownership program. Beginning in 2018, Hennepin County began setting aside 15 percent
of the overall CDBG budget for public service activities awarded through a single , combined,
competitive RFP . Prior to that date, cities were allowed to allocate up to 15 percent of their
individual award to social service agencies . Henn epin County now manages the RFP process and
sends information to a long list of public service providers throughout the metro, including past
recipients. The city has provided a letter of support to STEP for their application in previous
years and will sup port their 2021 application upon request.
In the past the city used to also fund rehabilitation and improvements for affordable housing
providers in St. Louis Park. Due to federal regulations requiring Davis Bacon Wage laws, other
regulatory requirements related to the use of federal funding for multifamily properties and St.
Louis Park’s limited CDBG award, small CDBG awards both complicated and increased the costs
of these projects. The two programs the city continues to fund with CDBG dollars are for
in dividual owner-occupied properties, to which the federal regulations that impact multifamily
properties do not apply.
Present considerations: The proposed use of the $163,482 estimated allocation include
$133,482 for the low -income deferred rehab loan administered by Hennepin County and
$30,000 to Homes Within Reach affordable housing land trust. If there are any increases or
decreases to the allocation, the deferred rehab loan will be adjusted accordingly. These two
programs address the need for affordable housing support the city council’s strategic priority to
providing a broad range of housing for the community.
The low -income deferred loan program is a program for homeowners with annual incomes at
or below 80 percent of area median income. The rehab focuses on improvements to bring
homes into code compliance, address deferred maintenance and provide long-term
maintenance-free housing. The maximum loan amount is $30,000 and is deferred until the sale
of the home or forgiven after 15 years. There are currently 44 households on the waiting list,
demonstrating the need to continue allocating CDBG dollars to this program. The county has
seen an increase in requests in 2020 in all of the cities for which they administer this program.
Homes Within Reach is a program of the West Hennepin Housing Land Trust (WHAHLT) that
purchases homes and sells them to low-income homeowners. Buyers purchase the house only
and lease the land for 99 years for a nominal amount, thus providing affordable
homeownership opportunities. St. Louis Park funds are leveraged with Met Council and
Hennepin County HOME funds. The city has partnered with Homes Within Reach since 2006. To
date, Homes Within Reach has purchased, rehabbed and sold 19 homes in St. Louis Park.
The St. Louis Park Housing Authority reviewed the recommended proposal for use of 2021
CDBG funds at the January 2021 board meeting and supports the allocation as proposed.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Public hearing to consider allocation of 2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution approving proposed allocation for 2021 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program funds and authorizing
execution of subrecipient agreement with urban Hennepin County and any
third -party agreements
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement
with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has developed a proposal for the use of 2021 Urban
Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant funds;
Now therefore be it resolved that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the following
projects for funding from the 2021 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Urban Hennepin
County/Consolidated Pool.
Activity Budget
Low Income Deferred Rehab Loan $133,482
Affordable Housing Land Trust – Homes Within Reach $30,000
It is further resolved that the city council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and its’
City Manager to execute the subrecipient agreement and any required third -party agreement
on behalf of the city to implement the 2021 Community Development Block Grant program.
It is further resolved that should the actual amount of the FY2021 CDBG available to the
city be different from the preliminary amount provided to the city, the city council hereby
authorizes the city manager to adjust the following activity budget proportionally to reflect the
actual amount of funding available.
Activity Budget
Low Income Single Family Home Rehab Loan 100% of any increase or decrease
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 16, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: February 16, 2021
Action agenda item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial
zoning district
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending Section 36-
244(e) pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning district and set second
reading for March 1, 2021.
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to amend Section 36-244 to allow outdoor seating
in the I-G zoning district.
Summary: Mary Loeffelholz, co -owner of Dampfwerk Distillery, applied to amend the zoning
ordinance to allow outdoor seating as an accessory use in the I-G district.
Background: Dampfwerk Distillery and its cocktail room are located at 6311 Cambridge Street.
They opened a temporary outdoor seating area in 2020 as a result of the pandemic and the city
emergency powers that allows businesses in the city to apply for temporary uses even though
the use, or an aspect of the use, is not permitted by city codes.
Dampfwerk is reviewing their future operations and desires to permanently operate an outdoor
seating area after the pandemic restrictions are lifted. The I-G district , however, does not allow
outdoor seating, except employee break areas. Therefore, the applicant proposes the attached
zoning text amendment to allow outdoor seating in the I-G district with the listed conditions.
Present considerations: Attached is a copy of a proposed ordinance. In summary, the ordinance
proposes to allow outdoor seating with the same conditions that are required for outdoor
seating in other zoning districts:
1.Require a wall to separate the outdoor seating from adjacent residential areas.
2.Sound volume limits when located within 500 feet of residential.
3.Hours of operation limited to 7am to 10pm when located within 500 feet of residential.
4.Additional parking only required when outdoor seating exceeds 500 square feet or 10%
of the gross building area, whichever is less .
The planning commission conducted a public hearing on Jan. 20, 2021. No comments were
received from the public. The p lanning commission recommended approval.
Financial or budget considerations: None
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance
Excerpt of planning commission minutes
Zoning map
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 February 16, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning district
Discussion
Outdoor seating is currently not allowed in the I-P industrial park district and the I-G general
industrial park district, except employee break areas. There are, however, some uses in the I-G
district that might utilize outdoor seating such as Dampfwerk Distillery, Copperwing Distillery
and Warehouse Winery. Therefore, the following amendment to the I-G district is proposed so
that the existing and future uses may utilize outdoor seating in a manner allowed by similar
uses in other districts.
Proposed zoning amendment for Section 36-244(e) accessory uses in the I-G general industrial
district:
(10)Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use with
the following conditions:
a.The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six -
foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper
story above the principal use.
b.If the outdoor seating area is located within 500 feet of a residence, then no speaker or
other electronic device which emits sound, or the playing of any band, orchestra,
musician or group of musicians, or the use of any device to amplify the music of any
band, orchestra, musician or group of musicians, are permitted where the noise or
music is plainly audible at the residence above the normal conversation level occurring
in the outdoor seating area.
c.The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential use.
d.Additional p arking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less.
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of
outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building
area, whichever is less.
The applicant requests the ability to provide outdoor music, recorded or live. As noted below,
in the existing outdoor seating regulations in other zoning districts, speakers and other
electronic devices are not allowed when the outdoor seating is located within 500 feet of
residential. While the city is concerned about noise becoming a nuisance to residential
properties in the vicinity of the outdoor seating, staff conducted some research to see how, and
if, other cities accommodate music in outdoor seating areas. Staff found that music is
commonly allowed with a condition similar to what is proposed. The intent of the condition is
to establish the conversation volume level as the limit allowed. Therefore, music is allowed if it
is not louder than the conversation typical of the outdoor seating area. This will limit the type
of music allowed and the type of equipment allowed in some areas depending on the proximity
to residential uses.
Existing outdoor seating regulations: City of St. Louis Park allows outdoor seating in the C -1
neighborhood commercial, C-2 general commercial, O office, BP business park, MX-1 vertical
mixed -use and MX-2 neighborhood mixed -use districts with conditions.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning district
Zoning Map: The zoning map is attached for reference. The I-G general industrial district is
shaded dark gray and is primarily located in three areas of the city. The amendment, if
approved, would apply to all of these areas as long as the business is able to meet the
conditions associated with the outdoor seating. The general location of the city’s I-G districts
are described below.
Louisiana Avenue South and Oxford Street: This area includes a variety o f industrial uses along
Oxford Street and a short section of Cambridge Street between Edgewood Avenue South and
the railroad tracks. This area is serviced by the Louisiana Avenue light rail station. It includes
uses such as the Municipal Service Center and Japs Olson both located west of Louisiana
Avenue South. The above referenced Dampfwerk and Copperwing distilleries and Warehouse
Winery, all located east of Louisiana Avenue South along with other industrial uses.
Highway 100 and County Road 25: This are a includes the Nordic Ware facility and Extra Space
self -storage.
Southwest corner of Highway 100 and Cedar Lake Road: This area includes Westside Center and
an autobody repair shop.
There are two other small areas that include one industrial building at the south west corner of
Alabama Avenue South and 36th Street West used mainly for storage by Nordic Ware, but also
includes the Jonny Pops manufacturing facility. There is also a property south of Cedar Lake
Road near Edgewood Avenue South which is used by the city as part of its streets and
operations services.
Planning commission review: The planning commission conducted a public hearing on January
20, 2021. No comments were received. The planning commission recommended approval of
the draft ordinance.
Recommendation: Motion to approve the first reading of Ordinance amending Section 36-244(e)
pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G General Industrial zoning district and set second reading
for March 1, 2021.
Next Steps: The ordinance is scheduled for a second reading on March 1, 2021.
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning district
Ordinance No. ___-21
Ordinance regarding outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial district
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, an application was received from Dampfwerk Distillery to amend the I-G
General Industrial district to allow outdoor seating as an accessory use , and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (case no. 20-37-ZA), and
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to the City
Code:
Section 1. Chapter 36, Section 36-244(e) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to add the following underlined text to the list of land use descriptions.
(10)Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory use with
the following conditions:
a.The use must be separated from any adjacent residential use by a building wall or six -
foot fence. This provision will not apply if the residential use is located on an upper
story above the principal use.
b.If the outdoor seating area is located within 500 feet of a residence, then no speaker or
other electronic device which emits sound, or the playing of any band, orchestra,
musician or group of musicians, or the use of any device to amplify the music of any
band, orchestra, musician or group of musicians, are permitted where the noise or
music is plainly audible at the residence above the normal conversation level occurring
in the outdoor seating area.
c.The hours of operation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. if the use is located
within 500 feet of a residential use.
d.Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not exceed 500
square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use, whichever is less.
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for that portion of
outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building
area, whichever is less.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect March 26, 2021.
First Reading February 16, 2021
Second Reading March 1, 2021
Date of Publication March 11, 2021
Date Ordinance takes effect March 26, 2021
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning district
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2021
Thomas K. Harmening, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning district
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 20, 2021 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jim Beneke, Imran Dagane, Matt Eckholm, Courtney Erwin, Jessica Kraft,
Tom Weber
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Jacquelyn Kramer, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther
3.Public Hearings
B. I-G general ind ustrial zoning code amendments
Applicant: Mary Loeffelholz
Case Nos: 20-37-ZA
Gary Morrison, assistant zoning administrator, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Weber noted if Copperwing’s outdoor seating currently is for emergency
use only now during Covid. Mr. Morrison stated yes and set to e xpire in 2021 when
emergency rules end.
Commissioner Beneke asked if there is a reason that industrial areas did not allow for
this before. Mr. Morrison stated the rules have been adopted as they went along and
have been business-driven, from district to district.
Chair Eckholm noted 500 feet away from the location boundary and asked if there is any
residential within 500 feet. Mr. Morrison stated yes there is.
Commissioner Erwin asked if approved how soon before it would go into effect. Mr. Walther
stated once council takes action, it is published and then it is 15 days until effective.
Chair Kraft opened the public hearing.
Ms. Loeffelholz, the applicant, stated they did have a temporary outdoor patio during
the emergency order and had tremendous response. She stated they saw it as an
important amenity and wanted to make it more year-round structure and more
permanent for the community.
There were no callers on the line.
Chair Kraft closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Weber made a motion, Commissioner Kraft seconded, recommending
approval of the I-G General Industrial zoning code amendment as presented.
The motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
MINNETONKA BLVD
EXCELSIOR BLVDCEDAR LAKE RD34TH ST W
WALKER ST
LAKE ST W
27TH ST W
ALABAMA AVE STEXAS AVE SFRANCE AVE SOXFORD STFLAG AVE SFLORIDA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SIDAHO AVE SLIB
R
A
R
Y
L
N
41ST ST WJERSEY AVE SW
O
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
SLOUISIANA AVE S38TH ST W
37TH ST W
FORD RD
KENTUCKY AVE SSHELARD PKWY
CEDARLAKERDS35TH ST W
VERNON AVE SGORHAM A
V
E
PARK GLEN
R
D INGLEWOOD AVE SKIPLING AVE SBELT LINE BLVDBROWNDALEAVE39TH ST W
CLUB RD
MORNINGSIDE RDBRUNSWICK AVE SJOPPA AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N PARK PLACE BLVD S28TH ST WMELROSEAVE 25 1/2 ST W
NORTH STZARTHAN AVE SBROOKSID
E
AVEMARYLAND AVE S31ST ST W
16TH ST W
FORESTRD
HAMILTON ST
ZINRAN AVE SEDGEBROOK DRTOLEDO AVE SGOODRICH AVE
B A S SWOOD RDUTICA AVE S1ST ST NW23RD ST W
361/2 ST W
36TH ST WELIOT VIEW RD
26TH ST W
GLENHURST AVE S2ND ST NWXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE SAQUILALNS32ND ST W NEVADA AVE SM
O
N
T
E
R
E
Y
D
R
VIRGINIA CIR S NATCHEZ AVE SFRANKLIN AVE
W
24TH ST WWESTWOODHILL
S
D
R
MEADOWBROOK RDVALLACH
E
R
AVE
DAKOTA AVE SSALEM AVE S22ND ST W
LYNN AVE S43 1/2 ST W 40TH LN W
29TH ST W
40TH ST W OTTAWA AVE S25TH ST W
BOONE AVE SW
O
O
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
GAMBLE DR
30 1/2 ST W
BR
O
W
N
L
O
W
A
V
E
BROOK AVE S34 1/2 ST W
Q
U
E
B
E
C
A
V
E
S14TH ST W
BURDPL
S TANLEN R D
RALEIGH AVE SPARKLANDSRDMACKEY AVE SXYLONAVESSERVICERDP A R K C O M M O N S D RKILMER AVEVICTORIA
W
A
Y
SOUTH ST
CEDARWOOD RDJORDAN AVE SP
ARKER R D
SUMTER AVE SCOLORADO AVE SDART AVE
SUTAH AVE SAQUILAAVESCA
V
EL
L
A
V
ESKENTUCKYLN
22ND LN W
35 1/2 ST WRIDGE DRM
O
N
I
T
O
R
S
T BLACKSTONE AVE SVERMONT ST
FORD LN
RANDALL A
V
E
32 1/2 ST W
EDGEWOOD AVE SWYOMING AVE ST
A
F
T
A
V
E
S
STEPHENS DRINDEPENDENCEAVES
REPUBLIC
A
VEDECATURLN MONTEREY AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE S13TH LN W
CAVEL
LLN
PAR K C E N T E RBLVD13 1/2 ST W
PRINCETON AVE SPARKDALE DR
OREGON AVE SPHILLIPS PKWYLANCASTERAVEGLENHURSTR
DVIRGINIAAV
E
S
SBHWY100STOWBHWY7YUKON AVE S33RD ST W
MEADOWBRO
O
K
BLV
D
HIGHWOODRD
GLEN PLSUMTERDRHILLSBOROAVES24TH CT W
EXCELSIOR WAYV IC T O RIAC
R
V
WOOD
L
A
N
D
D
R QUEBECDR
DECATUR AVE SBROOKLNMINNEHAHA C IRSBROOKV
I
EW
DR
CEDAR S
T
O AK LEAFDR
FO
R
E
S
T
L
N
42 1/2 ST WHILLLNSFRONTAGE RDWOOD LN
LOUISIANA CT SFAIRWAY LNOAKPARK V I L L A G E D R
T E X A T O N KAAVEJEWISHCCTU R N A R O U N D
ENSIGN AVE SV IC TORIA
C
I
R WILLOW LN SBOONE CTAUTO CLUB WAY
DEVANEY ST
FREDERI
C
K
A
V
E
AQUILA CIR S
OTTAWA PLWESTRIDGE LN24TH PL W
SUNSET RIDGE RDFORD CIR
TEXAS CIR S
ID
AHO
A
VES
23RD ST W
34TH ST W
28TH ST WPENNSYLVANIAAVES
DAKOTA AVE S29TH ST WBLACKSTONE AVE S32ND ST W AQUILAAVES MARYLAND AVE S18TH ST W
23RD ST W
GETTYSBURG AVE SLAKE ST W36TH ST W
31ST ST W
2 3 R D STWQUEBEC AVE S31ST ST WUTAH AVE S34TH ST W
COLORADO AVE SXENWOOD AVE S33RD ST WOREGON AVE SJOPPA AVE SJERSEY AVE S25TH ST W
18TH ST W
R
A
L
E
IG
H
A
V
E
S
31ST ST W
HIGHWAY 100 S33RD ST W WEBSTER AVE SCEDARLAKERDS
R
H
O
D
E
I
SLANDAVESPENNSYLVANIA AVE SKIPLING AVE SSUMTER AVE SDAKOTA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SSUMTER AVE SUTICA AVE SPRI
NCETONAVESNATCHEZ AVE S13TH LN W
31ST ST W
ZARTHAN AVE S32ND ST W
PENNSYLVANIA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SKENTUCKY AVE S16TH ST W
22ND ST WFORD RDOXFORD ST
23RD ST W VIRGINIAAVESDAKOTA AVE S25 1/2 ST W
INGLEWOOD AVE S43 1/2 ST W
26TH ST W
31ST ST WZARTHAN AVE S27TH ST W
VIRGINIAAVESSALEM AVE SYOSEMITE AVE S33RD ST W
41ST ST WJORDANAVES TOLEDO AVE SOTTAWA AVE S36 TH ST W
RALEIGH AVE
S
25TH ST WOREGON AVE S18TH ST W
37TH ST W FRANCE AVE S28TH ST W XENWOOD AVE SCOLORADO AVE SUTICA AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SXYLON AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE S37TH ST WNEVADA AVE S18THSTWBLACKSTONE AVE SBOONE AVE SCOLORADOAVES31ST ST W
RHODE ISLAND AVE S23RD ST W
LYNN AVE SQ U EBECAVESBRUNSWICK AVE S22ND ST W
BRUNSWICK AVE S26TH ST W
BROOKVIEW DR
40TH ST WDAKOTA AVE STEXAS AVE SKILMERAVE27TH ST W
HAMPSHIRE AVE SZARTHAN AVE SHUNTINGTONAVES42ND ST W
22ND ST W
32ND ST W
FRANKLIN AVE W
24TH ST W
2 5 T H ST W
29TH ST W
RALEIGH AVE S16TH STW
RHODE ISLAND AVE S16TH ST W
OTTAWA AVE SVIRGINIAAVESQUENTIN AVE S35TH ST W
16 TH S T W
UTAH AVE SALABAMA AVE SSUMTER AVE S33RD ST W
PENNSYLVANI
AAV
E
SYUKON AVE SBOONE AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SAQUILA AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE S14TH ST W
XYLON AVE SCAVELL AVE S35TH ST WCOLORADO AVE S29TH ST W
39TH ST W
OTTAWA AVE SXYLON AVE S14TH ST W
OTTAWAAVESFLAG AVE SWEBSTER AVE SNEVADA AVE S37TH ST WUTAH AVE SHAMPSHIRE
AVE
SEDGEWOOD AVE SLYNN AVE SJOPPA AVE SALABAMA AVE S27TH ST WHAMPSHIRE AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S22NDSTW
FLORIDA AVE SCAMBRIDGE ST
36TH ST W
CAMBRIDGE ST RALEIGH AVE SXENWOOD AVE SRHODE
I
S
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
S
26TH ST W
DAKOTA AVE SIDAHO AVE SQUEBEC AVE SINGLEWOOD AVE SSA
L
EM
A
V
E
S
MEADOWBR
O
OKBLV
DVIRGINIAAVES32ND ST W NATCHEZ AVE SQUEBEC AVE S28TH ST W
WYOMINGAVESZARTHAN AVE S39TH ST W VERNON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SPRINCETON AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SWALKER ST41ST ST WYOSEMITE AVE S26TH ST W
UTICAAVESMONTEREY AVE SALABAMA AVE SFRANKLIN AVE W
AQU
IL
A
A
V
E
S28TH ST W
29TH ST W
16TH ST W
WEBSTER AVE SUTAH AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SPUD 1
PUD 2
PUD 4
PUD3 PUD 5
PUD 6
PUD 8
PUD 7
PUD 9
PUD 17
£¤
?A@
£¤
£¤
\]^
\]^
?A@
?A@
GWX
GWX
GWX
?A@
GWX
?A@
GWX
GWX
GWX
Westwood HillsNature Center
Cedar Manor School
Minneapolis Golf Club
Knollwood Mall
Benilde-St.MargaretSchool
Bass LakePreserve
Wolfe Park
MeadowbrookGolf Course
Louisiana Oaks Park
Aquila Park
St. Louis ParkSenior High School
St. Louis ParkMiddle School
MethodistHospital
JewishCommunity Center
ShelardPark
City Hall
Dakota Park
Peter HobartSchool
KeystonePark
Hannon Lake Victoria Lake
Cobble CrestLake
Westwood Lake
LamplighterPond
MeadowbrookLake
South OakPond
Twin Lake
City of MinnetonkaCity of Plymouth
City of Golden Valley
City of Hopkins
City of Edina City of MinneapolisTDM Zone ATDM Zone B
Recreation Center
Fire Station#2
Oak HillPark
MunicipalService Center
Park NicolletClinic
Fire Station#1
PoliceStation
MinnehahaCreek
PUD 10
PUD 13
PUD 12
PUD 11
PUD 14
PUD 15
PUD 16
5
5
7
3
3
5
7
17
25
100
100
100
394
394
169
169
169
Official Zoning Map
Effective: January 28, 2021
Prepared by the City of St. Louis Park
Community Development Department
Zoning Districts
POS Park and Open Space
R-1 Single-Family Residence
R-2 Single-Family Residence
R-3 Two-Family Residence
R-4 Multiple-Family Residence
R-C High-Density Multiple Family
MX-1 Vertical Mixed-Use
MX-2 Neighborhood Mixed-Use
C-1 Neighborhood Commercial
C-2 General Commercial
BP Business Park
O Office
I-P Industrial Park
I-G General Industrial
PUD Planned Unit Development
Floodplain
FloodFringe
Floodway
Travel Demand Management Boundary
±
0 0.5 1
Miles
PUD No. Ordinance No.
2471-15
2475-15
PUD-2 2483-15
2481-15
2502-16
PUD-4 2488-16
2489-16
2503-16
PUD-6 2501-16
2500-16
2517-17
PUD-8 2515-17
PUD-9 2518-17
PUD-10 2520-17
PUD-11 2531-18
PUD-12 2536-18
PUD-13 2538-18
PUD-14 2552-19
PUD-15 2582-20
PUD-16 2584-20
PUD-17 2588-20
PUD-1
PUD-3
PUD-5
PUD-7
City council meeting of February 16, 2021 (Item No. 8a)
Title: First reading of ordinance pertaining to outdoor seating in the I-G general industrial zoning district Page 7