Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/09/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 (Councilmember Lindberg Absent) 6:15 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – SLP High School Board Room (C350) Discussion Item 1. 6:15 p.m. Election Process 7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – SLP High School Board Room (C350) 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017 4. Approval of Agenda 5.Reports – None 6.Old Business – None 7.New Business 7a. 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2018. 7b. Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and 36th Street, LLC as revised. 8.Communications – None 9.Adjournment 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SLP High School Board Room (C350) 1.Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2.Presentations 2a. 2017 Evergreen Awards 2b. Recognition of Donations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of August 21, 2017 3b. Study Session Minutes August 28, 2017 3c. Special Study Session Minutes September 5, 2017 3d. City Council Minutes September 5, 2017 Meeting of September 18, 2017 City Council Agenda 4.Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and 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.) 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. The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Section 36-268-PUD 8 of the Zoning Code relating to the Major Amendment for The Elmwood, and to set the second reading for October 2, 2017. 8b. Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit CUP) to allow Places of Assembly at 6509 and 6515 Walker Street with conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 8c. 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving 2018 Preliminary General Fund Budget, 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Budget Public Hearing Date for December 4, 2017. 8d. First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of the Right-of-Way Ordinance and set second reading for October 2, 2017. 8e. Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation – Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Advertisement for Bids Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving final plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids (Project No. 5318-5004). 9.Communications – None Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting of September 18, 2017 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy. 4b. Adopt Resolution approving issuance of a Premises Permit for lawful gambling to be conducted by Community Charities of Minnesota at the proposed new location of Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 - 6509 Walker Street conditioned on City Council approval of a CUP for the American Legion to operate at this location. 4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of east-west stop signs at the intersection of W. Franklin Avenue & W. 18th Street/ Edgewood Avenue and rescind a portion of Resolution 5319 (“on the Edgewood and Franklin Avenues approach to W. 18th Street”). 4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of “No Parking” restrictions along Virginia Avenue, W. 28th Street, and Texas Avenue in accordance with the 2017 Connect The Park Bikeways (City Project #4017-2000) as well as to rescind Resolution Nos. 02-070 and 4943. 4e. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Minnesota Twins ($10,000) and The Toro Company ($10,000) to renovate the baseball and softball fields at Dakota Park. In addition to the monetary donation, the Minnesota Twins and Toro Company will provide volunteers for the renovation of the fields, scheduled for October 4, 2017. 4f. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from Zita Zogg for the purchase and installation of a memorial bench in Westwood Hills Nature Center ($2,200) honoring Willi Zogg. 4g. Adopt Resolution appointing additional election judges needed to staff the polls at the General Election to be held November 7, 2017. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: Special Study Session Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Discussion Item: 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Election Process RECOMMENDED ACTION: This item is being brought back at the request of council for further discussion and direction. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council want to continue to consider amending our current election processes to allow for implementation of the Ranked Choice Voting method for the next municipal election in 2019? Does Council need more information before deciding which course of action to take? SUMMARY: The council has discussed the topic of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) on numerous occasions since 2006. On May 8, 2017, the City Council adopted an ordinance that amended the city’s charter and eliminated the option for municipal primary elections. This amendment became effective on August 17, 2017. During discussions related to the charter amendment, council directed staff to schedule a discussion on the topic of RCV and to provide additional information regarding the method itself as well as the outcomes both Minneapolis and St. Paul have experienced in their municipal elections since implementing the RCV method. On June 5, 2017 the council held a special study session and heard a presentation from Jeanne Massey of FairVote MN on the methodology and use of RCV in local elections. The council further discussed the implementation of RCV in Minneapolis and St. Paul, the processes used in each city to administer elections, development of the rules that would govern the voting method, and reviewed election results data from both jurisdictions. At that time, the council agreed to another discussion to further explore the possibility of implementing RCV and directed staff to bring the topic back at a later date with an outline of the process that would need to be followed to change current election administration processes in time for the next municipal election in 2019. The City Attorney will be in attendance to review the legal process of changing current election practices and procedures to allow for the use of RCV in municipal elections. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Additional funds were put into the proposed 2018 budget to account for a potential increase in legal and administrative costs related to the implementation of RCV. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Exhibit A – Draft Timeline Minnesota Statute 410.12 Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special Study Session Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Title: Election Process DISCUSSION Is another Charter amendment required to implement RCV? Yes, the city would need to authorize instant runoff voting in the City Charter. City Council would then develop and enact procedures for instant runoff voting in the City Code. What is the legal process the city would need to follow to implement RCV? The Minnesota House Research Information Brief on Instant-Runoff Voting states: “Home-rule charter cities are not required to seek legislative authorization if the IRV process is incorporated into the city charter.” In Minneapolis, instant runoff voting is authorized by their city charter and election procedures for runoff voting are outlined in their city code. State statute provides four ways a city charter can be amended: 1.Under Minn. Stat. 410.12, Subd. 1-4, the Charter Commission may propose a charter amendment to be put to an election. 2.Under Minn. Stat. 410.12, Subd. 1-4, upon receipt of a valid citizen petition, the Charter Commission must propose a charter amendment to be put to an election. 3.Under Minn. Stat. 410.12, Subd. 5, the City Council can by ordinance propose a charter amendment which, after review by the Charter Commission, may be put to an election. 4.Under Minn. Stat. 410.12, Subd. 7, upon recommendation of the Charter Commission, the City Council may enact a charter amendment by ordinance adopted by affirmative vote of all of its members. The charter amendment becomes effective 90 days after passage and publication unless the City receives a valid petition requesting a referendum on the charter amendment within 60 days of the amendment being passed and published. If the requisite petition is filed within the prescribed period, the charter amendment does not become effective until it is approved by voters at an election. What types of procedures/rules would the city need to adopt for inclusion in the city code? If the city authorizes the use of instant runoff voting in the Charter, the city then needs to develop the rules and procedures that will govern the administration of elections because such provisions are not currently set forth in State law. Provisions for definitions, ballots, counting votes, counting write-in candidates, recounts, and voting equipment are examples of the types of rules that the city will need to adopt in the city code. It should be noted that while the city has some flexibility in terms of the rules and procedures that are implemented, all of the provisions must continue to meet all state and federal election laws where applicable. What happens if the Charter Commission does not recommend adoption of an ordinance to amend the charter to authorize the use of instant runoff voting for municipal elections? If the Charter Commission does not recommend amending the charter to authorize the use of instant runoff voting, the council can no longer adopt an ordinance amending the charter according to the provisions of Minn. Stat. 410.12, Subd. 7. The council could then choose to either stop the amendment process or follow the steps outlined in statute to put the proposed amendment to an election. What happens if a valid citizen petition is submitted after an ordinance has been adopted to amend the charter? Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. The petition must be signed by registered voters equal in number to at least five percent of the registered voters in the city or 2,000, whichever is less. If the requisite petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except that the Special Study Session Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Title: Election Process council may submit the ordinance at any general or special election held at least 60 days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance. What is the projected timeline that would need to be followed to amend the Charter to allow for the use of RCV at the next municipal election in 2019? A draft timeline is outlined in Exhibit A. The timeline shown is aggressive, assuming no challenges, election or public process/task force. Please note for planning purposes that the timeline is dependent on the amount of additional process and meetings desired by Council and consideration must be given to the possibility of a charter amendment being put to an election as a question on the ballot in 2018. What is the process/timeline that was followed in Minneapolis to implement RCV? • March 7, 2006 – Charter Commission rejects proposed ordinance amendment allowing for IRV • March 10, 2006 – Council creates Instant Runoff Voting Task Force • May 9, 2006 – IRV Task Force submits final report to Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) • May 23, 2006 – IRC proposes ordinance amendment to City Council • May 26, 2006 – Council refers proposed ordinance amendment to Charter Commission • August 2, 2006 – Charter Commission rejects proposed ordinance amendment allowing for IRV • August 4, 2006 – City Council approves ballot language for November General Election • November 7, 2006 – Minneapolis Charter Amendment for IRV passed by voters • April, 2008 – City Council adopts ordinance implementing rules of conduct for municipal elections • May – November, 2009 – Voter outreach and education campaign • November 3, 2009 – First RCV election in Minneapolis What other cities in the United States have implemented and used RCV? • Aspen, Colorado: Adopted in 2007 and first used in 2009; in 2010 voters opted to return to a traditional runoff system. • Basalt, Colorado: Adopted in 2002 and will be used when 3 or more candidates run for Mayor (has not yet occurred). • Berkeley, California: Adopted in 2004 and first used in 2010 for mayor & city council. • Burlington Vermont: Approved in 2005 for use in mayoral elections; IRV was subsequently repealed in 2010. • Cambridge, Massachusetts: In use since the 1940s in multi-winner RCV form for the nine seat city council and six seat school board. • Minneapolis, Minnesota: Adopted in 2006 and first used in 2009 for city offices. • Oakland, California: Adopted in 2006 and first used in 2010 for a total of 18 city offices. • Pierce County, Washington: Adopted in 2006 and used in 2008 and 2009 elections; voters repealed IRV in 2009. • Portland, Maine: Adopted in 2010 and first used in 2011. • St. Paul, Minnesota: Adopted in 2009 and first used in 2011 for city offices. • San Francisco, California: Adopted in 2002 and first used in 2004. • San Leandro, California: Adopted as option in 2000 charter amendment and first used in 2010 for mayor and city council. • Takoma Park, Maryland: Adopted in 2006 and first used in 2007 for city offices. • Telluride, Colorado: Adopted in 2008 and first used in 2011 for mayoral elections. Special Study Session Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Title: Election Process Exhibit A – Draft Timeline for Charter Amendment Nov. 2018 – March, 2019 August 24, 2018 August – Dec. 2018 90 days June 11, 2018 60 days Nov. 2017 – Jan. 2018 Charter Commission Review of Proposed Amendment Multiple meetings possible Public process Feb. 2018 Presentation of recommendation to council March 19, 2018 First Reading of Ordinance to amend Charter to allow for RCV Amendment recommended by Charter Commission Unanimous vote of Council – 7 votes Y N March-June, 2018 Council determines whether or not to send to election April 2, 2018 2nd Reading of Ordinance Unanimous vote required Amendment NOT recommended by Charter Commission Publish Ord. April 12, 2018 Petition Received? Y N Ordinance Amendment Effective July 11, 2018 Y Draft rules & procedures for election administration No change to RCV Ballot Language due to County Auditor July - August 2018 Draft & approve ballot language November 6, 2018 General Election Question Approved? N Y N 410.12 AMENDMENTS. Subdivision 1.Proposals.The charter commission may propose amendments to such charter and shall do so upon the petition of voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous state general election in the city. Proposed charter amendments must be submitted at least 17 weeks before the general election. Only registered voters are eligible to sign the petition. All petitions circulated with respect to a charter amendment shall be uniform in character and shall have attached thereto the text of the proposed amendment in full; except that in the case of a proposed amendment containing more than 1,000 words,atrueandcorrectcopyofthesamemaybefiledwiththecityclerk,andthepetitionshallthencontain a summary of not less than 50 nor more than 300 words setting forth in substance the nature of the proposed amendment.Suchsummaryshallcontainastatementoftheobjectsandpurposesoftheamendmentproposed and an outline of any proposed new scheme or frame work of government and shall be sufficient to inform the signers of the petition as to what change in government is sought to be accomplished by the amendment. The summary, together with a copy of the proposed amendment, shall first be submitted to the charter commission for its approval as to form and substance. The commission shall within ten days after such submission to it, return the same to the proposers of the amendment with such modifications in statement as it may deem necessary in order that the summary may fairly comply with the requirements above set forth. Subd. 1a.Alternative methods of charter amendment.A home rule charter may be amended only by following one of the alternative methods of amendment provided in subdivisions 1 to 7. Subd. 2.Petitions.The signatures to such petition need not all be appended to one paper, but to each separate petition there shall be attached an affidavit of the circulator thereof as provided by this section. A petitionmustcontaineachpetitioner'ssignatureininkorindeliblepencilandmustindicateafterthesignature the place of residence by street and number, or other description sufficient to identify the place. There shall appear on each petition the names and addresses of five electors of the city, and on each paper the names andaddressesofthesamefiveelectors,who,asacommitteeofthepetitioners,shallberegardedasresponsible for the circulation and filing of the petition. The affidavit attached to each petition shall be as follows: )State of ......................................................... ) ss. )County of ..................................................... .............. ................. being duly sworn, deposes and says that the affiant, and the affiant only, personally circulated the foregoing paper, that all the signatures appended thereto were made in the affiant's presence, and that the affiant believes them to be the genuine signatures of the persons whose names they purport to be. Signed ............................ (Signature of Circulator) Subscribed and sworn to before me this ....... day of ...... ....... Notary Public (or other officer) authorized to administer oaths Copyright © 2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 410.12MINNESOTA STATUTES 20171 Special Study Session Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: Election Process Page 5 Theforegoingaffidavitshallbestrictlyconstruedandanyaffiantconvictedofswearingfalselyasregards any particular thereof shall be punishable in accordance with existing law. Subd. 3.May be assembled as one petition.All petition papers for a proposed amendment shall be assembled and filed with the charter commission as one instrument. Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the city clerk shall determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested and whether the petition is signed by a sufficient number of voters. The city clerk shall declare any petitionpaper entirelyinvalidwhich is not attestedby the circulatorthereof as required in this section.Upon completing an examination of the petition, the city clerk shall certify the result of the examination to the council.If the cityclerkshallcertifythatthe petitionis insufficientthe cityclerkshallset forth in a certificate theparticularsinwhichitisdefectiveandshallatoncenotifythecommitteeofthepetitionersofthefindings. A petition may be amended at any time within ten days after the making of a certificate of insufficiency by the city clerk, by filing a supplementary petition upon additional papers signed and filed as provided in case ofanoriginalpetition.Thecityclerkshallwithinfivedaysaftersuchamendmentisfiled,makeexamination of the amended petition, and if the certificate shall show the petition still to be insufficient, the city clerk shall file it in the city clerk's office and notify the committee of the petitioners of the findings and no further action shall be had on such insufficient petition. The finding of the insufficiency of a petition shall not prejudice the filing of a new petition for the same purpose. Subd. 4.Election.Amendmentsshallbesubmittedtothequalifiedvotersatageneralorspecialelection and published as in the case of the original charter. The form of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment. Subd. 5.Amendments proposed by council.The council of any city having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments to the voters by ordinance. Any ordinance proposing such an amendment shall be submitted to the charter commission. Within 60 days thereafter, the charter commission shall review the proposed amendment but before the expiration of such period the commission may extend the time for review for an additional 90 days by filing with the city clerk its resolution determining that an additional time for review is needed. After reviewing the proposed amendment, the charter commission shall approve orrejecttheproposedamendmentorsuggestasubstituteamendment.Thecommissionshallpromptlynotify the council of the action taken. On notification of the charter commission's action, the council may submit to the people, in the same manner as provided in subdivision 4, the amendment originally proposed by it or the substituteamendmentproposed by the chartercommission.The amendmentshall becomeeffectiveonly whenapprovedbythevotersasprovidedinsubdivision4.Ifsoapproveditshallbefiledinthesamemanner as other amendments. Nothing in this subdivision precludes the charter commission from proposing charter amendments in the manner provided by subdivision 1. Subd. 6.Amendments, cities of the fourth class.The council of a city of the fourth class having a home rule charter may propose charter amendments by ordinance without submission to the charter commission. Such ordinance, if enacted, shall be adopted by at least a four-fifths vote of all its members after a public hearing upon two weeks' published notice containing the text of the proposed amendment and shall be approved by the mayor and published as in the case of other ordinances. The council shall submit the proposed amendment to the people in the manner provided in subdivision 4, but not sooner than three months after the passage of the ordinance. The amendment becomes effective only when approved by the votersasprovidedinsubdivision4.Ifsoapproved,itshallbefiledinthesamemannerasotheramendments. Copyright © 2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 2MINNESOTA STATUTES 2017410.12 Special Study Session Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: Election Process Page 6 Subd. 7.Amendmentby ordinance.Upon recommendationof thechartercommissionthecitycouncil may enact a charter amendment by ordinance. Within one month of receiving a recommendation to amend the charterby ordinance,the citymust publish noticeof a publichearingon the proposal and the noticemust contain the text of the proposed amendment. The city council must hold the public hearing on the proposed charter amendment at least two weeks but not more than one month after the notice is published. Within one month of the public hearing, the city council must vote on the proposed charter amendment ordinance. The ordinance is enacted if it receives an affirmative vote of all members of the city council and is approved by the mayor and published as in the case of other ordinances. An ordinance amending a city charter shall not become effective until 90 days after passage and publication or at such later date as is fixed in the ordinance. Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the city clerk. The petition must be signed by registered voters equal in number to at least five percent of the registered voters in the city or 2,000, whichever is less. If the requisite petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become effective until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters, except that the council may submit the ordinance at any general or special election held at least 60 days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action in adopting the ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of subdivisions 1 to 3 apply to petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance amending a charter, and to the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters. History:(1286) RL s 756; 1907 c 199 s 1; 1911 c 343 s 1; 1939 c 292 s 1; 1943 c 227 s 1; 1949 c 122 s 1; 1959 c 305 s 3,4; 1961 c 608 s 5,6; 1969 c 1027 s 3; 1973 c 503 s 1-4; 1986 c 444; 1998 c 254 art 1 s 107; 1999 c 132 s 42; 2005 c 93 s 1; 2008 c 331 s 7; 2010 c 184 s 43 Copyright © 2017 by the Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. 410.12MINNESOTA STATUTES 20173 Special Study Session Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: Election Process Page 7 Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 1. Call to Order President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:22 p.m. Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, and Thom Miller. Commissioners absent: Susan Sanger and Jake Spano. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Communications Coordinator (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes August 7, 2017 It was moved by Commissioner Lindberg, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the EDA minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Sanger and Spano absent). 4. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the EDA agenda as presented. The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Sanger and Spano absent). 5. Reports 5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Hallfin, to approve the EDA Disbursements. The motion passed 5-0 (Commissioners Sanger and Spano absent). 6. Old Business - None 7. New Business – None Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017 8. Communications – None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, Secretary Anne Mavity, President Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 7a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the proposed levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2018. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of estimated market value allowable for HRA purposes of $1,172,786. SUMMARY: The HRA levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. However they are committed to repaying the Development Fund via an interfund loan for the Highway 7 and Louisiana Ave project until 2019 or 2020 based on the current Long Range Financial Management Plan. Given this obligation, staff recommends the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2018 budget year. The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the City. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2018 to be $1,172,786 based on valuation data from Hennepin County which is an increase of $86,325 or 7.95% from 2017. The EDA is allowed to authorize the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the City Council. Council action is required before certification, which is also scheduled to occur following this action. All special taxing districts levies must be certified to the County auditor by September 29th. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed levy will help support infrastructure in redevelopment areas. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution 2018 HRA Levy Preliminary Budget Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption EDA RESOLUTION NO. 17 - ____ AUTHORIZING THE PROPOSED LEVY OF A SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTION 469.033, SUBDIVISION 6 AND APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the Authority to levy and collect a special benefit levy of up to 0.0185 percent of estimated market value in the City upon all taxable real property within the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of up to 0.0185 percent of estimated market value in the City for taxes payable in 2018; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.065, the Authority is required to adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and submit the same to the County Auditor by September 29; and WHEREAS, the Authority has before it for its consideration a copy of a proposed budget for its operations for the fiscal year 2018 and the amount of the proposed levy for collection in 2018 shall be based on this budget and the long range financial management plan, subject to any adjustments in the budget as finally approved prior to certification of the final special benefit levy. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority: 1.The proposed budget of $1,172,786 for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year 2018, as presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all respects approved, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the tax levy under Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07. 2.Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file the proposed budget with the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6. 3.The proposed special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to 0.0185 percent of estimated market value in City of St. Louis Park, currently estimated to be $6,339,381,200, with respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2018, subject to final approval by the Authority before certification of the special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption 4.Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes payable in 2018 and to take such other actions as are necessary to bring before the Board the final budget and levy to be sent to the county auditor on or before five working days after December 20, 2017. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the Economic Development Authority September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest: Melissa Kennedy, Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption HRA Levy 2018 Preliminary Budget 2016 2017 2018 Actual Revised Budget Proposed Budget Revenues: Property Tax Levy 999,060$ 1,086,461$ 1,172,786$ Interest Income 4,797 - - Total Revenue 1,003,857$ 1,086,461$ 1,172,786$ Expenditures: Services and Other Charges 15,107$ 15,000$ 15,000$ Transfer Out to Development Fund 1,927,196 1,077,961 1,157,786 Total Expenditures 1,942,303$ 1,092,961$ 1,172,786$ Beginning Cash Balance 944,946$ 6,500$ -$ Net Change (938,446)$ (6,500)$ -$ Ending Cash Balance 6,500$ -$ -$ Estimated Loan balance 3,075,428$ 1,997,467$ 839,681$ Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 7b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and 36th Street, LLC as revised. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA approve the revised Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and 36th Street, LLC so as to facilitate The Elmwood redevelopment to be constructed at 5605 W 36th Street? SUMMARY: As discussed at the August 7th Special Study Session, 36th Street, LLC (“Redeveloper”) has formally requested to reduce the size of the recently approved Elmwood mixed-use project from 6 stories and 85 units to 5 stories and 70 units due to higher than anticipated final construction cost estimates. Such a material change would normally require an amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment (Contract) approved May 15th. However, given that the May 15 th Contract has not been executed by either party, a new Contract for Private Redevelopment reflecting the revised building size, is proposed for formal approval. Under the new Contract, the Redeveloper would be obligated to construct a 5-story mixed use building with 70 housing units, restricted to residents aged 55+ (of which 17 would be affordable to households earning 60% of area median income), along with 4,400 square feet of ground floor commercial space and a minimum of 127 parking stalls. The Redeveloper also requested that the project’s required commencement and completion dates be revised to no later than February 15, 2018 and August 15, 2019, respectively. Additionally, the TIF Lookback section within the Contract has been further clarified and an allowance has been provided for a transfer to a qualified intermediary or title holder to facilitate a 1031 tax deferred exchange transaction. All other terms and conditions remain substantially unchanged from the previously approved Contract. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Despite the reduction in building size, The Elmwood’s revised financial pro forma reflects over $3.2 million in extraordinary site preparation costs making it financially infeasible without assistance. To offset a sufficient portion of these qualified redevelopment costs while retaining the same number of affordable housing units as previously approved, it is proposed that the EDA reimburse the Redeveloper up to $950,000 through pay-as-you-go tax increment generated by the project - the same amount previously approved. Given the project’s reduced taxable market value, it will require 7.5 years, or approximately 1½ additional years, to generate the proposed amount of tax increment assistance. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Redevelopment Contract Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 2 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT WITH 36TH STREET, LLC AND AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 2017 (ELMWOOD APARTMENTS) TO 36TH STREET, LLC. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows: Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale. 1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have approved the establishment of its Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 2017 (Elmwood Apartments) (the “Note”) for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs of the Project. 1.02. Approval of Agreement; Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and 36th Street, LLC (the “Owner”), as presented to the Board, 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 evidence of approval. Authority staff and officials are authorized to take all actions necessary to perform the Authority’s obligations under the Agreement as a whole, including without limitation execution of any documents to which the Authority is a party referenced in or attached to the Agreement, all as described in the Agreement. (b) The Authority hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to issue the Note in accordance with the Agreement. All capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise. (c) The Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $950,000 to the Owner in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner under the Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear interest at the lesser of 5.0% or the actual rate of financing obtained by the Owner, from the date of issue per annum to the earlier of maturity Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 3 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC or prepayment. The Note will be issued in the principal amount of Public Redevelopment Costs submitted and approved in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Agreement. The Note is secured by Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Note herein. The Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement. Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal and interest rate amounts adjusted as of the date of issue: (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 4 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC UNITED STATE OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY No. R-1 $_____________ TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE SERIES 2017 (ELMWOOD APARTMENTS) Date Rate of Original Issue __% ___________, 20__ The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) for value received, certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to 36th Street, LLC or registered assigns (the “Owner”), the principal sum of $__________ and to pay interest thereon at the rate of ______ percent (__%) per annum, solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings provided in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and the Owner, dated as of September 18, 2017 (the “Agreement”), unless the context requires otherwise. 1.Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments”) shall be paid on August 1, 2019 and each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2028 (“Payment Dates”) in the amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and including February 1, 2019 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal. Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the Owner may designate upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. 2.Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal, commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid. 3.Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean, on each Payment Date, Ninety-five percent (95%) of the Tax Increment attributable to the Minimum Improvements and Redevelopment Property that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding the Payment Date. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 5 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC (b)The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the Authority to pay the entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 2028. 4.Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid, without interest thereon, within thirty (30) days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event of Default is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the Owner in accordance with the Agreement. 5.Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise required to be made under this Note. (b)Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the Participation Amount as described in Section 3.4 of the Agreement, fifty percent (50%) of such Participation Amount will be deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the principal amount of this Note. Such deemed prepayment is effective as of the date of delivery of such statement to the Owner, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon request of the Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph. 6.Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $_________, issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly adopted by the Authority on September 18, 2017, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto. 7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner’s attorney Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 6 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.3(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such transfer. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due form, time and manner as so required. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Thomas K. Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 7 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC REGISTRATION PROVISIONS The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the Chief Financial Officer of the City, in the name of the person last listed below. Date of Registration Registered Owner Signature of Chief Financial Officer _________, 20__ 36th Street, LLC Federal Tax I.D No_____________ Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery. 3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note numbered R-1. The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. 3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the Chief Financial Officer of the City to perform the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and exchanges of the Note. (b)Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until such Payment Date. (c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 8 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC (d)Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner’s order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (f)Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (g)Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, Termination Dates and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement. Section 4. Security Provisions. 4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note. Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 9 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC 4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no purpose other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the Available Tax Increment in an amount equal to the Payment then due, or the actual Available Tax Increment, whichever is less. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority’s account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms. 4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the pledge on the Note. Section 5. Certification of Proceedings. 5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No.7b) Page 10 Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest Melissa Kennedy, Secretary 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 Fifth draft, August 10, 2017 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT By and Between ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 36TH STREET, LLC Dated as of: _____________________, 2017 This document was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered (MNI) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337-9300 http://www.kennedy-graven.com Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 11 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................................................1 ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions................................................................................................................2 ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority.............................................................................6 Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper ...............................................6 ARTICLE III Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property ...........................................................................8 Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions .......................................................................................8 Section 3.3 Issuance of Note .......................................................................................................8 Section 3.4. TIF Lookback.........................................................................................................11 Section 3.5. Business Subsidy ...................................................................................................12 Section 3.6. Payment of Authority Costs ...................................................................................12 ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements ..............................................................................14 Section 4.2. Construction Plans .................................................................................................14 Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction .................................................15 Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion ......................................................................................15 Section 4.5. Management ...........................................................................................................16 Section 4.6. Records and Reports ..............................................................................................16 Section 4.7. Inclusionary Housing .............................................................................................16 Section 4.8. Connectivity ...........................................................................................................17 Section 4.9. DORA ....................................................................................................................16 Section 4.10. Special Service District; Maintenance ...................................................................17 ARTICLE V Insurance Section 5.1. Insurance ................................................................................................................18 Section 5.2. Subordination .........................................................................................................19 Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 12 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ii ARTICLE VI Tax Increment; Taxes Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes .........................................................................20 Section 6.2. Review of Taxes ....................................................................................................20 Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement ..........................................................................................20 ARTICLE VII Other Financing Section 7.1. Generally ................................................................................................................21 Section 7.2. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage ..................................................21 Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination ..................................................................................21 ARTICLE VIII Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification Section 8.1. Representation as to Development.........................................................................22 Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement .....................................................................................22 Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants ................................................................23 ARTICLE IX Events of Default Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined .....................................................................................25 Section 9.2. Remedies on Default ..............................................................................................25 Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive............................................................................................26 Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver ....................................................26 Section 9.5. Attorney Fees .........................................................................................................26 ARTICLE X Additional Provisions Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable .............................27 Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity ............................................................................27 Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use ................................................................................................27 Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed ........................................................................27 Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections ...............................................................................27 Section 10.6. Notices and Demands ............................................................................................27 Section 10.7. Counterparts ...........................................................................................................28 Section 10.8. Recording ...............................................................................................................28 Section 10.9. Amendment ............................................................................................................28 Section 10.10. Authority Approvals ..............................................................................................28 TESTIMONIUM ...........................................................................................................................29 SIGNATURES ..............................................................................................................................29 Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 13 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 iii SCHEDULE A Redevelopment Property SCHEDULE B Authorizing Resolution SCHEDULE C Certificate of Completion SCHEDULE D Subordination Agreement SCHEDULE E Public Redevelopment Costs SCHEDULE F Projected Total Development Costs SCHEDULE G Site Plan SCHEDULE H Assessment Agreement Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 14 1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made as of the __ day of ______________, 2017, by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota (the “Authority”), and 36th Street, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Authority was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.1081 (the “Act”) and was authorized to transact business and exercise its powers by a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has undertaken a program to promote the development and redevelopment of land which is underutilized within the City, and in this connection created the Redevelopment Project No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in an area (hereinafter referred to as the “Project Area”) located in the City pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to undertake certain activities to prepare such real property for development and redevelopment by private enterprise; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has acquired certain property (the “Redevelopment Property”) in the Project Area to develop on that property a mixed-use facility consisting of senior rental housing and commercial space, further described herein (the “Minimum Improvements”); and WHEREAS, the Authority has established the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended (the “TIF Act”), made up of property in the Project Area including the Redevelopment Property; and WHEREAS, the Authority believes that the development of the Redevelopment Property pursuant to and in general fulfillment of this Agreement, is in the vital and best interests of the City, will promote the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and will be in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 15 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE I Definitions Section 1.1. Definitions. In this Agreement, unless a different meaning clearly appears from the context: “Act” means Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.090 to 469.1081, as amended. “Affiliate” means with respect to any entity (a) any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity or person controlling, controlled by or under common control with the entity, and (b) any successor to such party by merger, acquisition, reorganization or similar transaction involving all or substantially all of the assets of such party (or such Affiliate). For the purpose hereof the words “controlling”, “controlled by” and “under common control with” shall mean, with respect to any corporation, partnership, limited liability company or other business entity, the ownership of fifty percent or more of the voting interests in such entity or possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of management policies of such entity, whether through ownership of voting securities or by contract or otherwise. “Agreement” means this Agreement, as the same may be from time to time modified, amended, or supplemented. “Authority” means the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority. “Authority Representative” means the Executive Director of the Authority, or any person designated by the Executive Director to act as the Authority Representative for the purposes of this Agreement. “Authorizing Resolution” means the resolution of the Authority, substantially in the form of attached Schedule B to be adopted by the Authority to authorize the issuance of the Note. “Available Tax Increment” has the meaning provided in the Authorizing Resolution. “Business Day” means any day except a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday, a day on which the City is closed for business, or a day on which banking institutions in the City are authorized by law or executive order to close. “Business Subsidy Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 116J.993 to 116J.995, as amended. “City” means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. “Certificate of Completion” means the certification provided to the Redeveloper pursuant to Section 4.4 of this Agreement. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 16 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 “Construction Plans” means the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents on the construction work to be performed by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property which (a) shall be as detailed as the plans, specifications, drawings and related documents which are submitted to the appropriate building officials of the City, and (b) shall include at least the following for each building: (1) site plan; (2) foundation plan; (3) underground parking plans; (4) floor plan for each floor; (5) cross sections of each (length and width); (6) elevations (all sides); (7) landscape plan; and (8) such other plans or supplements to the foregoing plans as the Authority may reasonably request to allow it to ascertain the nature and quality of the proposed construction work. “County” means the County of Hennepin, Minnesota. “Development Pro Forma” means the financial pro forma for the Minimum Improvements attached hereto as Schedule E. “Event of Default” means an action by the Redeveloper listed in Article IX of this Agreement. “Holder” means the owner of a Mortgage. “HRA Act” means Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047, as amended. “Minimum Improvements” means construction on the Redevelopment Property of a five- story mixed use building consisting of approximately 70 units of rental housing restricted to residents aged 55+, approximately 4,400 square feet of commercial space, and associated surface and structured underground parking comprising 127 parking stalls, along with all associated infrastructure, sidewalks, landscaping and designed outdoor recreation area. “Mortgage” means any mortgage made by the Redeveloper that is secured, in whole or in part, with the Redevelopment Property and that is a permitted encumbrance pursuant to the provisions of Article VIII of this Agreement. “Note” means a Tax Increment Revenue Note, substantially in the form contained in the Authorizing Resolution, to be delivered by the Authority to the Redeveloper in accordance with Section 3.4 hereof to reimburse the Redeveloper for Public Redevelopment Costs. “Parcel” means any parcel of the Redevelopment Property. “Project” means the Authority’s Redevelopment Project No. 1. “Public Redevelopment Costs” has the meaning provided in Section 3.3(a) hereof. “Project Area” means the geographic area within the boundaries of the Project. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 17 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 “Redeveloper” means 36th Street, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, or its permitted successors and assigns. “Redevelopment Plan” means the Redevelopment Plan for the Project. “Redevelopment Property” means the real property described in Schedule A of this Agreement. “State” means the state of Minnesota. “Tax Increment” means that portion of the real property taxes that is paid with respect to the Redevelopment Property and that is remitted to the Authority as tax increment pursuant to the Tax Increment Act. “Tax Increment Act” or “TIF Act” means the Tax Increment Financing Act, Minnesota Statutes Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended. “Tax Increment District” or “TIF District” means the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District created by the City and the Authority and approved by the City on May 1, 2017. “Tax Increment Plan” or “TIF Plan ” means the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the TIF District approved by the City Council on May 1, 2017, and as it may be amended. “Tax Official” means any County assessor, County auditor, County or State board of equalization, the commissioner of revenue of the State, or any State or federal district court, the tax court of the State, or the State Supreme Court. “Termination Date” means the earlier of the following: (a) the date of receipt by the Authority of the final payment from Hennepin County of Tax Increments from the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District, (b) the date when the Note has been fully paid, defeased or terminated in accordance with its terms; or (c) the date of termination of the Note and this Agreement by the Authority due to an Event of Default as set forth in Section 9.2 hereof. “Transfer” has the meaning set forth in Section 8.2(a) hereof. “Unavoidable Delays” means delays beyond the reasonable control of the party seeking to be excused as a result thereof which are the direct result of strikes, other labor troubles, prolonged adverse weather or acts of God, fire or other casualty to the Minimum Improvements, litigation commenced by third parties which, by injunction or other similar judicial action, directly results in delays, or acts of any federal, state or local governmental unit (other than the Authority or City in exercising their rights under this Agreement), including without limitation condemnation or threat of condemnation of any portion of the Redevelopment Property, which directly result in delays. Unavoidable Delays shall not include delays experienced by the Redeveloper in obtaining permits or governmental approvals necessary to enable construction of the Minimum Improvements by the dates such construction is required under Section 4.3 of this Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 18 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 Agreement, so long as the Construction Plans have been approved in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 19 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE II Representations and Warranties Section 2.1. Representations by the Authority. (a) The Authority is an economic development authority duly organized and existing under the laws of the State. Under the provisions of the Act and the HRA Act, the Authority has the power to enter into this Agreement and carry out its obligations hereunder. (b) The Authority will use its best efforts to facilitate development of the Minimum Improvements, including but not limited to cooperating with the Redeveloper in obtaining necessary administrative and land use approvals and construction financing pursuant to Section 7.1 hereof. (c) The Authority will issue the Note, subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. (d) The activities of the Authority are undertaken for the purpose of fostering the redevelopment of certain real property that is occupied by substandard and obsolete buildings, which will revitalize this portion of the Project Area, increase tax base, and increase diverse housing opportunities. Section 2.2. Representations and Warranties by the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper represents and warrants that: (a) The Redeveloper is a limited liability company, duly organized and in good standing under the laws of the State of Minnesota, is not in violation of any provisions of its articles of organization or bylaws, is duly qualified as a domestic limited liability company and authorized to transact business within the State, has power to enter into this Agreement and has duly authorized the execution, delivery, and performance of this Agreement by proper action of its members. (b) If the conditions precedent to construction occur, the Redeveloper will construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all local, state and federal laws and regulations (including, but not limited to, environmental, zoning, building code and public health laws and regulations). (c) The Redeveloper will use reasonable efforts to secure all permits, licenses and approvals necessary for construction of the Minimum Improvements. (d) The Redeveloper has received no written notice or other written communication from any local, state or federal official that the activities of the Redeveloper or the Authority in the Project Area may be or will be in violation of any environmental law or regulation (other than those notices or communications of which the Authority is aware). The Redeveloper is Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 20 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 aware of no facts the existence of which would cause it to be in violation of or give any person a valid claim under any local, state or federal environmental law, regulation or review procedure. (e) Neither the execution and delivery of this Agreement, the consummation of the transactions contemplated hereby, nor the fulfillment of or compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement is prevented, limited by or conflicts with or results in a breach of, the terms, conditions or provisions of any corporate restriction or any evidences of indebtedness, agreement or instrument of whatever nature to which the Redeveloper is now a party or by which it is bound, or constitutes a default under any of the foregoing. (f) The proposed development by the Redeveloper hereunder would not occur but for the tax increment financing assistance being provided by the Authority hereunder. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 21 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE III Property Acquisition; Public Redevelopment Costs Section 3.1. Status of Redevelopment Property. (a) The Redevelopment Property consists of the Parcel described in Schedule A. As of the date of this Agreement the Redeveloper has acquired the Redevelopment Property. The Authority has no obligation to acquire the Redevelopment Property. (b) On March 20, 2017, the Redeveloper obtained final City approval of a Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) for the Redevelopment Property and has entered into a Planning Development Contract with the City, which PUD and Planning Development Contract are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Section 3.2. Environmental Conditions. (a) The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance provided to the Redeveloper under this Agreement neither implies any responsibility by the Authority or the City for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property. (b) Without limiting its obligations under Section 8.3 of this Agreement the Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Authority, the City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the Redevelopment Property (including without limitation any asbestos in any existing building), unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the actions or omissions of the indemnitees. Nothing in this section will be construed to limit or affect any limitations on liability of the City or Authority under State or federal law, including without limitation Minnesota Statutes Sections 466.04 and 604.02. Section 3.3. Issuance of Note. (a) Generally. The Authority has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to reimburse Redeveloper for a portion of the cost of demolition, soil correction, environmental remediation (including asbestos abatement), site preparation, and underground structured parking (collectively referred to as “Public Redevelopment Costs”), related to the Redevelopment Property, subject to the terms of this Section. (b) Terms. To reimburse the Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper, the Authority shall issue and the Redeveloper shall purchase the Note in the maximum principal amount of $950,000. The Authority shall issue and deliver the Note upon Redeveloper having: Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 22 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (i) delivered to the Authority written evidence satisfactory to the Authority that Redeveloper has incurred Public Redevelopment Costs in an amount least equal to the principal amount of the Note, which evidence must include copies of the paid invoices or other comparable evidence for costs of allowable Public Redevelopment Costs; (ii) submitted and obtained Authority approval of financing in accordance with Section 7.1; and (iii) delivered to the Authority an investment letter in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority. The terms of the Note will be substantially those set forth in the form of the Note shown in Schedule B, and the Note will be subject to all terms of the Authorizing Resolution, which is incorporated herein by reference. (c) Termination of right to Note. All conditions for delivery of the Note must be met by no later than the date which is less than five (5) years after the date of certification of the TIF District by the County and complies with the so-called five-year rule under Section 469.1763, subd. 3(c) of the TIF Act. If the conditions for delivery of the Note are not satisfied by the date described in this paragraph, the City has no further obligations under this Section 3.3. (d) Assignment of Note. The Authority acknowledges that the Redeveloper may assign the Note to a third party. The Authority consents to such an assignment, conditioned upon receipt of an investment letter from such third party in a form reasonably acceptable to the Authority. (e) Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that all Public Redevelopment Costs must be paid by the Redeveloper and will be reimbursed from Available Tax Increment pursuant to the terms of the Note. The Authority makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Tax Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Note will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Note. Any estimates of Tax Increment prepared by the Authority or its financial advisors in connection with the TIF District or this Agreement are for the benefit of the Authority, and are not intended as representations on which the Redeveloper may rely. Public Redevelopment Costs exceeding the principal amount of the Note are the sole responsibility of Redeveloper. Section 3.4. TIF Lookback. (a) Generally. The financial assistance to the Redeveloper under this Agreement is based on certain assumptions regarding likely costs and expenses associated with constructing the Public Redevelopment Costs related to the Minimum Improvements as provided in Schedule E. The Authority and the Redeveloper agree that those assumptions will be reviewed at the times described in this Section, and that the amount of Tax Increment assistance provided under Section 3.3 hereof may be adjusted accordingly. (b) Lookback Calculation. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 23 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (i) At the time of completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements, if the aggregate total amount of the Public Redevelopment Costs paid or incurred by the Redeveloper is less than the aggregate total amount of Public Redevelopment Costs projected in Schedule E, the total assistance provided for reimbursement of the Public Redevelopment Costs will be reduced on a dollar- for-dollar basis in the amount of such deficiency (the “Deficiency”) and the principal amount of the Note will be reduced by the amount of the Deficiency. (ii) Projected total development costs to construct the Minimum Improvements (the “Projected Total Development Costs”) are provided in Schedule F. Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper will provide the Authority with documentation of actual Total Development Costs. If actual Total Development Costs, excluding Public Redevelopment Costs, are less than the Projected Total Development Costs, the principal amount of the Note will be reduced by 50% of the excess of the Projected Total Development Costs over the actual Total Development Costs paid or incurred by or on behalf of the Redeveloper (the “Participation Amount”). Section 3.5. Business Subsidy. The Redeveloper warrants and represents that the Redeveloper’s investment in the purchase of the Redevelopment Property equals at least seventy percent (70%) of the County assessor’s estimated market value of the Redevelopment Property for the 2016 assessment year (which is the most current year for which values have been finalized by the County), calculated as follows: Aggregate cost of acquisition of Redeveloper Parcels ................$1,000,000 Assessor’s estimated market value of Redevelopment Property (pay 2017) .....................................................................$1,000,000 The acquisition cost) is 100% of the assessor’s most recent estimated fair market value of the Redevelopment Property. Accordingly, the parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in this Agreement does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business Subsidy Act. The Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the Authority and its governing body members, officers, agents, servants and employees thereof arising from application of the Business Subsidy Act to this Agreement, including without limitation any claim that the Authority failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to this Agreement. Section 3.6. Payment of Authority Costs. The Redeveloper agrees that it will pay, within thirty (30) days after written notice from the Authority, the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys retained by the Authority in connection with the creation of the TIF District and the negotiation in preparation of this Agreement and other incidental agreements and documents related to the development contemplated hereunder. The Authority will provide written reports describing the costs accrued under this Section upon request from the Redeveloper, but not more Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 24 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 often than intervals of forty-five (45) days. Any amount deposited by the Redeveloper upon filling its application for tax increment financing with the Authority will be credited to the Redeveloper’s obligation under this Section. Upon termination of this Agreement in accordance with its terms, the Redeveloper remains obligated under this section for costs incurred through the effective date of termination. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 25 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE IV Construction of Minimum Improvements Section 4.1. Construction of Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that it will construct or cause construction of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property in accordance with the approved Construction Plans and that it will, during any period while the Redeveloper retains ownership of any portion of the Minimum Improvements, operate and maintain, preserve and keep the Minimum Improvements or cause the Minimum Improvements to be maintained, preserved and kept with the appurtenances and every part and parcel thereof, in good repair and condition. Section 4.2. Construction Plans. (a) Before commencing construction of the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority Construction Plans for the Minimum Improvements. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the Minimum Improvements and shall be in conformity with this Agreement, the Redevelopment Plan and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The Authority will approve the Construction Plans in writing if (i) the Construction Plans conform to all terms and conditions of this Agreement; (ii) the Construction Plans conform to the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan; (iii) the Construction Plans conform to all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations; (iv) the Construction Plans are adequate to provide for construction of the Minimum Improvements; (v) the Construction Plans do not provide for expenditures in excess of the funds available to the Redeveloper for construction of the Minimum Improvements; and (vi) no Event of Default has occurred. No approval by the Authority shall relieve the Redeveloper of the obligation to comply with the terms of this Agreement, applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, or to construct the Minimum Improvements in accordance therewith. No approval by the Authority shall constitute a waiver of an Event of Default. If approval of the Construction Plans is requested by the Redeveloper in writing at the time of submission, such Construction Plans shall be deemed approved unless rejected in writing by the Authority, in whole or in part. Such rejections shall set forth in detail the reasons therefor based upon the criteria set forth in (i) through (vi) above, and shall be made within twenty (20) days after the date of receipt of final plans from the Redeveloper. If the Authority rejects any Construction Plans in whole or in part, the Redeveloper shall submit new or corrected Construction Plans within twenty (20) days after written notification to the Redeveloper of the rejection. The provisions of this Section relating to approval, rejection and resubmission of corrected Construction Plans shall continue to apply until the Construction Plans have been approved by the Authority. The Authority’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Said approval shall constitute a conclusive determination that the Construction Plans (and the Minimum Improvements, constructed in accordance with said plans) comply to the Authority’s satisfaction with the provisions of this Agreement relating thereto. The Redeveloper hereby waives any and all claims and causes of action whatsoever resulting from the review of the Construction Plans by the Authority and/or any changes in the Construction Plans requested by the Authority. Neither the Authority nor any employee or Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 26 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 official of the Authority shall be responsible in any manner whatsoever for any defect in the Construction Plans or in any work done pursuant to the Construction Plans, including changes requested by the Authority. (b) If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans or any component thereof after their approval by the Authority, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the Authority for its approval. For the purpose of this section, the term “material” means changes that increase or decrease construction costs by $500,000 or more. If the Construction Plans, as modified by the proposed change, conform to the requirements of this Section 4.2 of this Agreement with respect to such previously approved Construction Plans, the Authority shall approve the proposed change and notify the Redeveloper in writing of its approval. Such change in the Construction Plans shall, in any event, be deemed approved by the Authority unless rejected, in whole or in part, by written notice by the Authority to the Redeveloper, setting forth in detail the reasons therefor. Such rejection shall be made within ten (10) days after receipt of the notice of such change. The Authority’s approval of any such change in the Construction Plans will not be unreasonably withheld. Section 4.3. Commencement and Completion of Construction. (a) Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall commence construction of the Minimum Improvements by October 1, 2017. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the Redeveloper shall substantially complete the construction of the Minimum Improvements by February 1, 2019. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed or provided by the Redeveloper on the Redevelopment Property shall be in conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the Authority. (b) The Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors, and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, that the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall promptly begin and diligently prosecute to completion the development of the Redevelopment Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements thereon, and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified in this Section 4.3 of this Agreement. After the date of this Agreement and until the Minimum Improvements have been fully leased, the Redeveloper shall make reports, in such detail and at such times as may reasonably be requested by the Authority, but no more than monthly, as to the actual progress of the Redeveloper with respect to such construction and leasing. (c) The Redeveloper shall comply with the City’s Green Building Policy, adopted by the City Council on February 16, 2010 and as such policy may be amended as of the date of issuance of a building permit for the Minimum Improvements, and shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain “green” certification for the Minimum Improvements. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority either (a) evidence of certification from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) or similar certification or (b) in absence of actual certification, evidence in a form satisfactory to the Authority of Redeveloper’s best efforts to obtain such certification and an explanation of why certification was not feasible. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 27 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 Section 4.4. Certificate of Completion. (a) Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements (including the dates for beginning and completion thereof and the efforts regarding LEED certification described in this Section), the Authority Representative shall deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate in substantially the form shown as Schedule C, in recordable form and executed by the Authority. (b) If the Authority Representative shall refuse or fail to provide any certification in accordance with the provisions of this Section 4.4 of this Agreement, the Authority Representative shall, within thirty (30) days after written request by the Redeveloper, provide the Redeveloper with a written statement, indicating in adequate detail in what respects the Redeveloper has failed to complete the Minimum Improvements in accordance with the provisions of the Agreement, or is otherwise in default, and what measures or acts it will be necessary, in the opinion of the Authority, for the Redeveloper to take or perform in order for the Authority to issue the Certificate of Completion. (c) The construction of the Minimum Improvements shall be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the Authority Representative that all related site improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been substantially completed in accordance with approved Construction Plans, subject to landscaping and/or public art that cannot be completed until seasonal conditions permit. Section 4.5. Management. The Redeveloper shall at all times engage a property management company with substantial experience in operating mixed use developments, subject to approval by the Authority, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. The Redeveloper will submit evidence of such management upon request by the Authority. The Redeveloper has notified the Authority of, and the Authority has approved, the engagement of Main Street Companies as property management company. Section 4.6. Records and Reports. (a) The Authority and the City, through any authorized representatives, shall have the right at all reasonable times after reasonable written notice to inspect, examine and copy all books and records of Redeveloper relating to the Minimum Improvements. Such records shall be kept and maintained by Redeveloper through the Termination Date. (b) The Redeveloper also agrees to submit to the Authority written reports so as to allow the Authority to remain in compliance with reporting requirements under state statutes. The Authority will provide information to the Redeveloper regarding the required forms. Section 4.7. Inclusionary Housing Policy. The Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy, as adopted June 1, 2015, including without limitation the following: (a) Redeveloper agrees to reserve at least 20% of the apartment units in the Minimum Improvements (the “Affordable Dwelling Units”) for households earning 60% of Area Median Income (“AMI”) for at least 25 years following building occupancy. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 28 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (b) The monthly rental price for Affordable Dwelling Units shall include rent and utility costs and shall be based on sixty percent (60%) of AMI for the metropolitan area that includes St. Louis Park adjusted for bedroom size and calculated annually by Minnesota Housing in connection with establishing rent limits for the Housing Tax Credit Program. (c) The size and design of the Affordable Dwelling Units shall be consistent and comparable with the market rate units in the Minimum Improvements and is subject to the approval of the City. The Affordable Dwelling Units shall be distributed throughout the Minimum Improvements. (d) The Affordable Dwelling Units shall have a number of bedrooms in the approximate proportion as the market rate units. (e) Redeveloper agrees to prepare an affordable housing plan as defined in the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policy (the “Affordable Housing Plan”). The Affordable Housing Plan shall describe how the Redeveloper complies with each of the applicable requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Policy. The Affordable Housing Plan shall be prepared by the Redeveloper and must be approved by the City prior to or in conjunction with delivery of the Certificate of Completion for the Minimum Improvements. Section 4.8. Connectivity. The Redeveloper shall install dedicated wired connections for the Minimum Improvements in conformity with the terms and specifications provided in the Planning Development Contract. Section 4.9. DORA. The Redeveloper shall construct a designed outdoor recreation area (“DORA”) as depicted in the Site Plan attached hereto as Schedule G, for the use and enjoyment of residents and invitees of the Minimum Improvements and members of the general public. The DORA shall incorporate amenities to be mutually agreed upon by the Authority and Redeveloper, and which shall include public art (the “Public Art”) and may include street furnishings or landscaping, and/or decorative lighting elements. The parties agree and understand that the Redeveloper shall be responsible for the cost of any maintenance and repair of the Public Art (the “Art Maintenance”). If the Redeveloper fails to perform the Art Maintenance after thirty (30) days written notice from the Authority of the Redeveloper’s obligation to perform such maintenance (or such longer period of time as is reasonably necessary if the Maintenance cannot reasonably be completed within said thirty-day period), then the Authority or City may perform the Art Maintenance and forward evidence of the costs incurred in such Art Maintenance to the Redeveloper. The Redeveloper shall pay the Authority the costs of the Art Maintenance within sixty (60) days of receipt of such evidence. Section 4.10. Special Service District; Maintenance. (a) The Redeveloper understands that the Redevelopment Property currently lies within the City’s Special Service District No. 6 (the “Special Service District”) and is subject to existing special service charges. Upon written request of the Authority or City, the Redeveloper will file any petition required under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A in order to renew any levy of special service charges within the Special Service District. The detailed special services and service charges to be assessed will be Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 29 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 determined by mutual agreement of the parties, provided that parties hereby agree on the following general principles: (a) the special services will include maintenance of all streetscaping, streelighting and sidewalks within the right of way, but will not include snow removal; and (b) the special service charges will be allocated to properties within the special service district based on front footage. In accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 428A, special services will not include any service that is ordinarily provided throughout the City from general fund revenues except to the extent an increased level of service is provided in the special service district. Special service charges may be imposed only against that portion of the Redevelopment Property classified for commercial use. The Redeveloper further waives all rights to veto, appeal or otherwise object to imposition of a service charge levied in accordance with this paragraph. (b) By no later than December 31, 2018, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority for review and approval a plan for maintenance and operation of all pedestrian and landscaping improvements located within the Redevelopment Property (the “Maintenance Plan”). The Maintenance Plan must address, at a minimum: snow removal from pedestrian connections and sidewalks; maintenance and replacement of landscaping, irrigation and other Streetscaping; snow removal and maintenance of any surface parking and parking lots; and maintenance of the Plaza, but excluding maintenance covered by the Special Service District (the “Maintenance”); a description of how the Maintenance costs will be assessed to tenants; and enforcement mechanisms. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the Maintenance Plan, the Authority will approve or deny the Maintenance Plan in writing, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or denied. If the Authority denies approval of the Maintenance Plan, the denial shall set forth in detail the reasons therefor, and Redeveloper shall submit a new or corrected Maintenance Plan within thirty (30) days after written notification to the Redeveloper of the denial. (c) If the Redeveloper fails to perform the Maintenance in accordance with the Maintenance Plan, the Authority, at its option and following thirty (30) days written notice to the Redeveloper (or such longer period of time as is reasonably necessary if the Maintenance cannot reasonably be completed within said thirty-day period), may enter the Redevelopment property and perform the Maintenance. The Redeveloper agrees to permit the City to specially assess any costs of the Maintenance proportionately against the Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper, on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, acknowledges the benefit to the lots within the Redevelopment Property of the Maintenance and consents to such assessment and waives the right to a hearing, notice of hearing, or any appeal. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 30 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE V Insurance Section 5.1. Insurance. (a) The Redeveloper will provide and maintain at all times during the process of constructing the Minimum Improvements an All Risk Broad Form Basis Insurance Policy and, from time to time during that period, at the request of the Authority, furnish the Authority with proof of payment of premiums on policies covering the following: (i) Builder’s risk insurance, written on the so-called “Builder’s Risk -- Completed Value Basis,” in an amount equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Note, and with coverage available in nonreporting form on the so-called “all risk” form of policy. The interest of the Authority shall be protected in accordance with a clause in form and content satisfactory to the Authority; (ii) Comprehensive general liability insurance (including operations, contingent liability, operations of subcontractors, completed operations, and contractual liability insurance) together with an Owner’s Protective Liability Policy with limits against bodily injury and property damage of not less than $1,000,000 for each occurrence (to accomplish the above-required limits, an umbrella excess liability policy may be used). The Authority shall be listed as an additional insured on the policy; and (iii) Workers’ compensation insurance, with statutory coverage, provided that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers’ compensation. (b) Upon completion of construction of the Minimum Improvements and prior to the Termination Date, the Redeveloper shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, at its cost and expense, and from time to time at the request of the Authority shall furnish proof of the payment of premiums on, insurance as follows: (i) Insurance against loss and/or damage to the Minimum Improvements under a policy or policies covering such risks as are ordinarily insured against by similar businesses. (ii) Comprehensive general public liability insurance, including personal injury liability (with employee exclusion deleted), against liability for injuries to persons and/or property, in the minimum amount for each occurrence and for each year of $1,000,000, and shall be endorsed to show the City and Authority as additional insureds. (iii) Such other insurance, including workers’ compensation insurance respecting all employees of the Redeveloper, in such amount as is customarily carried by like organizations engaged in like activities of comparable size and liability exposure; provided that the Redeveloper may be self-insured with respect to all or any part of its liability for workers’ compensation. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 31 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (c) All insurance required in Article V of this Agreement shall be taken out and maintained in responsible insurance companies selected by the Redeveloper that are authorized under the laws of the State to assume the risks covered thereby. Upon request, the Redeveloper will deposit annually with the Authority policies evidencing all such insurance, or a certificate or certificates or binders of the respective insurers stating that such insurance is in force and effect. Unless otherwise provided in this Article V of this Agreement each policy shall contain a provision that the insurer shall not cancel nor modify it in such a way as to reduce the coverage provided below the amounts required herein without giving written notice to the Redeveloper and the Authority at least thirty (30) days before the cancellation or modification becomes effective. In lieu of separate policies, the Redeveloper may maintain a single policy, blanket or umbrella policies, or a combination thereof, having the coverage required herein, in which event the Redeveloper shall deposit with the Authority a certificate or certificates of the respective insurers as to the amount of coverage in force upon the Minimum Improvements. (d) The Redeveloper agrees to notify the Authority immediately in the case of damage exceeding $100,000 in amount to, or destruction of, the Minimum Improvements or any portion thereof resulting from fire or other casualty. In such event the Redeveloper will forthwith repair, reconstruct, and restore the Minimum Improvements to substantially the same or an improved condition or value as it existed prior to the event causing such damage and, to the extent necessary to accomplish such repair, reconstruction, and restoration, the Redeveloper will apply the net proceeds of any insurance relating to such damage received by the Redeveloper to the payment or reimbursement of the costs thereof. The Redeveloper shall complete the repair, reconstruction and restoration of the Minimum Improvements, regardless of whether the net proceeds of insurance received by the Redeveloper for such purposes are sufficient to pay for the same. Any net proceeds remaining after completion of such repairs, construction, and restoration shall be the property of the Redeveloper. (e) In lieu of its obligation to reconstruct the Minimum Improvements as set forth in this Section, the Redeveloper shall have the option of: (i) paying to the Authority an amount that, in the opinion of the Authority and its fiscal consultant, is sufficient to pay or redeem the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Note, or (ii) so long as the Redeveloper is the owner of the Note, waiving its right to receive subsequent payments under the Note. (f) The Redeveloper and the Authority agree that all of the insurance provisions set forth in this Article V shall terminate upon the termination of this Agreement. Section 5.2. Subordination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the rights of the Authority with respect to the receipt and application of any insurance proceeds shall, in all respects, be subordinate and subject to the rights of any Holder under a Mortgage allowed pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 32 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE VI Tax Increment; Taxes Section 6.1. Right to Collect Delinquent Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Authority is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the development through reimbursement of Public Redevelopment Costs. The Redeveloper understands that the Tax Increments pledged to payment on the Note are derived from real estate taxes on the Redevelopment Property, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To that end, the Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to statute to pay real estate taxes, that it is also obligated by reason of this Agreement to pay before delinquency all real estate taxes assessed against the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements. The Redeveloper acknowledges that this obligation creates a contractual right on behalf of the Authority to sue the Redeveloper or its successors and assigns to collect delinquent real estate taxes and any penalty or interest thereon and to pay over the same as a tax payment to the county auditor. In any such suit, the Authority shall also be entitled to recover its costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees. Section 6.2. Review of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to the Termination Date it will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Redevelopment Property through: (A) willful destruction of the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof; or (B) willful refusal to reconstruct damaged or destroyed property pursuant to Section 5.1 of this Agreement, except as provided in Section 5.1(e). The Redeveloper also agrees that it will not, prior to the Termination Date, seek exemption from property tax for the Redevelopment Property or any portion thereof or transfer or permit the transfer of the Redevelopment Property to any entity that is exempt from real property taxes and state law (other than any portion thereof dedicated or conveyed to the City in accordance with platting of the Redevelopment Property), or apply for a deferral of property tax on the Redevelopment Property pursuant to any law. Section 6.3. Assessment Agreement. (a) Upon execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall, with the Authority, execute an Assessment Agreement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subd. 8, specifying an assessor's minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property and Minimum Improvements constructed thereon. The amount of the minimum Market Value shall be $8,100,000 as of January 2, 2018, and $16,200,000 as of January 2, 2019 and each January 2 thereafter, notwithstanding the status of construction by such dates. (b) The Assessment Agreement shall be substantially in the form attached hereto as Schedule H. Nothing in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the discretion of the assessor to assign a market value to the property in excess of such assessor's minimum Market Value. The Assessment Agreement shall remain in force for the period specified in the Assessment Agreement. (c) Nothing in this Agreement or in the Assessment Agreement shall limit the right of the Redeveloper, or its successors and assigns, to bring a tax petition challenging a Market Value determination that exceeds the established minimum Market Value for the Redevelopment Property; provided that if the Redeveloper brings such a challenge, the Redeveloper must inform the Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 33 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 Authority of such tax petition in writing. During the pendency of such challenge, the Authority will pay principal and interest on the Note only to the extent of the Available Tax Increment attributable to the minimum Market Value of the Redevelopment Property; provided that if the Redeveloper fails to notify the Authority of the tax petition, the Authority shall have the right to withhold all payments of principal and interest on the Note until the Redeveloper’s challenge is resolved. Upon resolution of Redeveloper’s tax petition, any Available Tax Increment deferred and withheld under this Section shall be paid, without interest thereon, to the extent payable under the assessor’s final determination of Market Value. (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 34 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE VII Other Financing Section 7.1. Generally. Before issuance of the Note, the Redeveloper shall submit to the Authority or provide access thereto for review by Authority staff, consultants and agents, evidence reasonably satisfactory to the Authority that Redeveloper has available funds, or commitments to obtain funds, whether in the nature of mortgage financing, equity, grants, loans, or other sources sufficient for paying the cost of the developing the Minimum Improvements, provided that any lender or grantor commitments shall be subject only to such conditions as are normal and customary in the commercial lending industry. Section 7.2. Authority’s Option to Cure Default on Mortgage. In the event that any portion of the Redeveloper’s funds is provided through mortgage financing, and there occurs a default under any Mortgage authorized pursuant to Article VII of this Agreement, the Redeveloper shall cause the Authority to receive copies of any notice of default received by the Redeveloper from the holder of such Mortgage. Thereafter, the Authority shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure any such default on behalf of the Redeveloper within such cure periods as are available to the Redeveloper under the Mortgage documents. Section 7.3. Modification; Subordination. The Authority agrees to subordinate its rights under this Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage securing construction or permanent financing, in accordance with the terms of a subordination agreement substantially in the form attached as Schedule D, or such other form as the Authority approves. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 35 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE VIII Prohibitions Against Assignment and Transfer; Indemnification Section 8.1. Representation as to Development. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that its purchase of the Redevelopment Property, and its other undertakings pursuant to the Agreement, are, and will be used, for the purpose of development of the Redevelopment Property and not for speculation in land holding. Section 8.2. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement. The Redeveloper represents and agrees that prior to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for all of the Minimum Improvements: (a) Except only by way of security for, and only for, the purpose of obtaining financing necessary to enable the Redeveloper or any successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, to perform its obligations with respect to undertaking the redevelopment contemplated under this Agreement, and any other purpose authorized by this Agreement, the Redeveloper has not made or created and will not make or create or suffer to be made or created any total or partial sale, assignment, conveyance, or lease, or any trust or power, or transfer in any other mode or form of or with respect to this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof or any interest therein, or any contract or agreement to do any of the same, to any person or entity whether or not related in any way to the Redeveloper (collectively, a “Transfer”), without the prior written approval of the Authority (whose approval will not be unreasonably withheld, subject to the standards described in paragraph (b) of this Section) unless the Redeveloper remains liable and bound by this Redevelopment Agreement in which event the Authority’s approval is not required. Any such Transfer shall be subject to the provisions of this Agreement. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term Transfer does not include (i) acquisition of a controlling interest in Redeveloper by another entity or merger of Redeveloper with another entity; (ii) any sale, conveyance, or transfer in any form to any Affiliate or to any entity a member of which is an Affiliate of Redeveloper or any member Redeveloper; or (iii) the lease of all or part of the Redevelopment Property to a qualified intermediary or an exchange accommodation title holder to facilitate a 1031 tax deferred exchange transaction. (b) In the event the Redeveloper, upon Transfer of the Redevelopment Property or any portion thereof either before or after issuance of the final Certificate of Completion, seeks to be released from its obligations under this Redevelopment Agreement as to the portions of the Redevelopment Property that is transferred, the Authority shall be entitled to require, except as otherwise provided in the Agreement, as conditions to any such release that: (i) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the Authority, necessary and adequate to fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Redeveloper as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 36 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (ii) Any proposed transferee, by instrument in writing satisfactory to the Authority and in form recordable in the public land records of Hennepin County, Minnesota, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, and expressly for the benefit of the Authority, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under this Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Redeveloper is subject as to such portion; provided, however, that the fact that any transferee of, or any other successor in interest whatsoever to, the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof, shall not, for whatever reason, have assumed such obligations or so agreed, and shall not (unless and only to the extent otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement or agreed to in writing by the Authority) deprive the Authority of any rights or remedies or controls with respect to the Redevelopment Property, the Minimum Improvements or any part thereof or the construction of the Minimum Improvements; it being the intent of the parties as expressed in this Agreement that (to the fullest extent permitted at law and in equity and excepting only in the manner and to the extent specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement) no transfer of, or change with respect to, ownership in the Redevelopment Property or any part thereof, or any interest therein, however consummated or occurring, and whether voluntary or involuntary, shall operate, legally, or practically, to deprive or limit the Authority of or with respect to any rights or remedies on controls provided in or resulting from this Agreement with respect to the Redevelopment Property that the Authority would have had, had there been no such transfer or change. In the absence of specific written agreement by the Authority to the contrary, no such transfer or approval by the Authority thereof shall be deemed to relieve the Redeveloper, or any other party bound in any way by this Agreement or otherwise with respect to the Redevelopment Property, from any of its obligations with respect thereto. (iii) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property governed by this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the Authority. (iv) At the written request of Redeveloper, the Authority shall execute and deliver to Redeveloper and the proposed transferee an estoppel certificate containing commercially customary and reasonable certifications. In the event the foregoing conditions are satisfied then the Redeveloper shall be released from its obligation under this Agreement, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property that is transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed. Section 8.3. Release and Indemnification Covenants. (a) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Redeveloper releases from and covenants and agrees that the Authority, the City, and the governing body members, officers, agents, servants, and employees thereof (the “Indemnified Parties”) shall not be liable for and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties against any loss or damage to property or any injury to or Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 37 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements. (b) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement (including without limitation any failure by the Authority to perform any procedure required under law in connection with establishment of the TIF District), the Redeveloper agrees to protect and defend the Indemnified Parties, now and forever, and further agrees to hold the aforesaid harmless from any claim, demand, suit, action, or other proceeding whatsoever by any person or entity whatsoever arising or purportedly arising from this Agreement, or the transactions contemplated hereby or the acquisition, construction, installation, ownership, maintenance, and operation of the Redevelopment Property. (c) Except for any willful misrepresentation or any willful or wanton misconduct or negligence of the Indemnified Parties as hereinafter defined, and except for any breach by any of the Indemnified Parties of their obligations under this Agreement, the Indemnified Parties shall not be liable for any damage or injury to the persons or property of the Redeveloper or its officers, agents, servants, or employees or any other person who may be about the Redevelopment Property or Minimum Improvements. (d) All covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements and obligations of the Authority contained herein shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations, promises, agreements, and obligations of such entity and not of any governing body member, officer, agent, servant, or employee of such entities in the individual capacity thereof. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 38 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE IX Events of Default Section 9.1. Events of Default Defined. The following shall be “Events of Default” under this Agreement and the term “Event of Default” shall mean, whenever it is used in this Agreement, any one or more of the following events, after the non-defaulting party provides thirty (30) days written notice to the defaulting party of the event, but only if the event has not been cured within said thirty (30) days or, if the event is by its nature incurable within thirty (30) days, the defaulting party does not, within such thirty-day period, provide assurances reasonably satisfactory to the party providing notice of default that the event will be cured and will be cured as soon as reasonably possible: (a) Failure by the Redeveloper or Authority to observe or perform any covenant, condition, obligation, or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Agreement. (b) If, before issuance of the certificate of completion for all the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall (i) file any petition in bankruptcy or for any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution, or similar relief under the United States Bankruptcy Act or under any similar federal or State law, which action is not dismissed within sixty (60) days after filing; or (ii) make an assignment for benefit of its creditors; or (iii) admit in writing its inability to pay its debts generally as they become due; or (iv) be adjudicated a bankrupt or insolvent. Section 9.2. Remedies on Default. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in Section 9.1 of this Agreement occurs, the non-defaulting party may: (a) Suspend its performance under this Agreement until it receives assurances that the defaulting party will cure its default and continue its performance under the Agreement. (b) Upon a default by the Redeveloper under this Agreement, the Authority may terminate the Note and this Agreement. (c) Take whatever action, including legal, equitable, or administrative action, which may appear necessary or desirable to collect any payments due under this Agreement, or to enforce performance and observance of any obligation, agreement, or covenant under this Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 39 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 Agreement, provided that nothing contained herein shall give the Authority the right to seek specific performance by Redeveloper of the construction of the Minimum Improvements. Section 9.3. No Remedy Exclusive. No remedy herein conferred upon or reserved to any party is intended to be exclusive of any other available remedy or remedies, but each and every such remedy shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute. No delay or omission to exercise any right or power accruing upon any default shall impair any such right or power or shall be construed to be a waiver thereof, but any such right and power may be exercised from time to time and as often as may be deemed expedient. To entitle the Authority to exercise any remedy reserved to it, it shall not be necessary to give notice, other than such notice as may be required in this Article IX. Section 9.4. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement contained in this Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and shall not be deemed to waive any other concurrent, previous or subsequent breach hereunder. Section 9.5. Attorney Fees. Whenever any Event of Default occurs and if the non- defaulting party employs attorneys or incurs other expenses for the collection of payments due or to become due or for the enforcement of performance or observance of any obligation or agreement on the part of the defaulting party under this Agreement, the defaulting party shall, within ten (10) days of written demand by the non-defaulting party, pay to the non-defaulting party the reasonable fees of such attorneys and such other expenses so incurred by the non- defaulting party. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 40 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ARTICLE X Additional Provisions Section 10.1. Conflict of Interests; Representatives Not Individually Liable. The Authority and the Redeveloper, to the best of their respective knowledge, represent and agree that no member, official, or employee of the Authority shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Agreement, nor shall any such member, official, or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement that affects his personal interests or the interests of any corporation, partnership, or association in which he, directly or indirectly, is interested. No member, official, or employee of the City or Authority shall be personally liable to the Redeveloper, or any successor in interest, in the event of any default or breach by the Authority or for any amount that may become due to the Redeveloper or successor or on any obligations under the terms of the Agreement. Section 10.2. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state, and local equal employment and non-discrimination laws and regulations. Section 10.3. Restrictions on Use. The Redeveloper agrees that until the Termination Date, the Redeveloper, and such successors and assigns, shall devote the Redevelopment Property to the operation of the Minimum Improvements as described in Section 4.1 hereof, and shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any improvements erected or to be erected thereon, or any part thereof. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property will be used for a sexually-oriented business, a pawnshop, a check- cashing business, a tattoo business, a gun business, a payday loan agency, or for the sale of tobacco products including without limitation “vaping” or hookah shops. Section 10.4. Provisions Not Merged With Deed. None of the provisions of this Agreement are intended to or shall be merged by reason of any deed transferring any interest in the Redevelopment Property and any such deed shall not be deemed to affect or impair the provisions and covenants of this Agreement. Section 10.5. Titles of Articles and Sections. Any titles of the several parts, Articles, and Sections of the Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in construing or interpreting any of its provisions. Section 10.6. Notices and Demands. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, a notice, demand, or other communication under the Agreement by either party to the other shall be sufficiently given or delivered if it is dispatched by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered personally, to the following addresses (or to such other addresses as either party may notify the other): Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 41 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 To Redeveloper: 36th Street, LLC Attn: Manager 5605 W. 36th Street, #202 St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55436 To Authority: St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Attn: Executive Director 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2518 Section 10.7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Section 10.8. Recording. The Authority may record this Agreement and any amendments thereto with the Hennepin County recorder. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs for recording. The Redeveloper’s obligations under this Agreement are covenants running with the land for the term of this Agreement, enforceable by the Authority against the Redeveloper, its successor and assigns, and every successor in interest to the Redevelopment Property, or any part thereof or any interest therein. Section 10.9 Amendment. This Agreement may be amended only by written agreement approved by the Authority and the Redeveloper. Section 10.10. Authority Approvals. Unless otherwise specified, any approval required by the Authority under this Agreement may be given by the Authority Representative, except that final approval of issuance of the Note shall be made by the Authority’s board of commissioners. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 42 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and Redeveloper have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 2017 by Anne Mavity and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 43 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 36TH STREET, LLC By Donald Kasbohm Its Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________, 2017, by Donald Kasbohm, the Manager of 36th Street, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 44 A-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE A REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY Lot 1, Block 1, Elmwood Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 45 B-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE B AUTHORIZING RESOLUTION ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF, AND PROVIDING THE FORM, TERMS, COVENANTS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF ITS TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE, SERIES 20__ TO 36TH STREET, LLC. BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Authority”) as follows: Section 1. Authorization; Award of Sale. 1.01. Authorization. The Authority and the City of St. Louis Park have approved the establishment of its Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF District”) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (“Project”), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose of financing certain improvements within the Project. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.178, the Authority is authorized to issue and sell its bonds for the purpose of financing a portion of the public development costs of the Project. Such bonds are payable from all or any portion of revenues derived from the TIF District and pledged to the payment of the bonds. The Authority hereby finds and determines that it is in the best interests of the Authority that it issue and sell its Tax Increment Revenue Note, Series 20__ (the “Note”) for the purpose of financing certain public redevelopment costs of the Project. 1.02. Approval of Agreement; Issuance, Sale, and Terms of the Note. (a) The Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and 36th Street, LLC (the “Owner”), as presented to the Board, 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 evidence of approval. Authority staff and officials are authorized to take all actions necessary to perform the Authority’s obligations under the Agreement as a whole, including without limitation execution of any documents to which the Authority is a party referenced in or attached to the Agreement, all as described in the Agreement. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 46 B-2 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (b) The Authority hereby authorizes the President and Executive Director to issue the Note in accordance with the Agreement. All capitalized terms in this resolution have the meaning provided in the Agreement unless the context requires otherwise. (c) The Note shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $950,000 to 36th Street, LLC (the “Owner”) in consideration of certain eligible costs incurred by the Owner under the Agreement, shall be dated the date of delivery thereof, and shall bear interest at the lesser of 5.0% or the actual rate of financing obtained by the Owner, from the date of issue per annum to the earlier of maturity or prepayment. The Note will be issued in the principal amount of Public Redevelopment Costs submitted and approved in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Agreement. The Note is secured by Available Tax Increment, as further described in the form of the Note herein. The Authority hereby delegates to the Executive Director the determination of the date on which the Note is to be delivered, in accordance with the Agreement. Section 2. Form of Note. The Note shall be in substantially the following form, with the blanks to be properly filled in and the principal and interest rate amounts adjusted as of the date of issue: (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 47 B-3 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 UNITED STATE OF AMERICA STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY No. R-1 $_____________ TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE SERIES 20__ Date Rate of Original Issue __% ___________, 20__ The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) for value received, certifies that it is indebted and hereby promises to pay to 36th Street, LLC or registered assigns (the “Owner”), the principal sum of $__________ and to pay interest thereon at the rate of ______ percent (__%) per annum, solely from the sources and to the extent set forth herein. Capitalized terms shall have the meanings provided in the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the Authority and the Owner, dated as of ____________, 2017 (the “Agreement”), unless the context requires otherwise. 1. Payments. Principal and interest (“Payments ”) shall be paid on August 1, 2019 and each February 1 and August 1 thereafter to and including February 1, 2028 (“Payment Dates”) in the amounts and from the sources set forth in Section 3 herein. Payments shall be applied first to accrued interest, and then to unpaid principal. Interest accruing from the date of issue through and including February 1, 2019 shall be compounded semiannually on February 1 and August 1 of each year and added to principal. Payments are payable by mail to the address of the Owner or such other address as the Owner may designate upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Authority. Payments on this Note are payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the Payment Date, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. 2. Interest. Interest at the rate stated herein shall accrue on the unpaid principal, commencing on the date of original issue. Interest shall be computed on the basis of a year of 360 days and charged for actual days principal is unpaid. 3. Available Tax Increment. (a) Payments on this Note are payable on each Payment Date solely from and in the amount of Available Tax Increment, which shall mean, on each Payment Date, Ninety-five percent (95%) of the Tax Increment attributable to the Minimum Improvements and Redevelopment Property that is paid to the Authority by Hennepin County in the six months preceding the Payment Date. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 48 B-4 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (b) The Authority shall have no obligation to pay principal of and interest on this Note on each Payment Date from any source other than Available Tax Increment and the failure of the Authority to pay the entire amount of principal or interest on this Note on any Payment Date shall not constitute a default hereunder as long as the Authority pays principal and interest hereon to the extent of Available Tax Increment. The Authority shall have no obligation to pay any unpaid balance of principal or accrued interest that may remain after the final Payment on February 1, 2028. 4. Default. If on any Payment Date there has occurred and is continuing any Event of Default under the Agreement, the Authority may withhold from payments hereunder under all Available Tax Increment. If the Event of Default is thereafter cured in accordance with the Agreement, the Available Tax Increment withheld under this Section shall be deferred and paid, without interest thereon, within thirty (30) days after the Event of Default is cured. If the Event of Default is not cured in a timely manner, the Authority may terminate this Note by written notice to the Owner in accordance with the Agreement. 5. Prepayment. (a) The principal sum and all accrued interest payable under this Note is prepayable in whole or in part at any time by the Authority without premium or penalty. No partial prepayment shall affect the amount or timing of any other regular Payment otherwise required to be made under this Note. (b) Upon receipt by Redeveloper of the Authority’s written statement of the Participation Amount as described in Section 3.4 of the Agreement, fifty percent (50%) of such Participation Amount will be deemed to constitute, and will be applied to, prepayment of the principal amount of this Note. Such deemed prepayment is effective as of the date of delivery of such statement to the Owner, and will be recorded by the Registrar in its records for the Note. Upon request of the Owner, the Authority will deliver to the Owner a statement of the outstanding principal balance of the Note after application of the deemed prepayment under this paragraph. 6. Nature of Obligation. This Note is one of an issue in the total principal amount of $_________, issued to aid in financing certain public redevelopment costs and administrative costs of a Project undertaken by the Authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, and is issued pursuant to an authorizing resolution (the “Resolution”) duly adopted by the Authority on ________, 2017, and pursuant to and in full conformity with the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended. This Note is a limited obligation of the Authority which is payable solely from Available Tax Increment pledged to the payment hereof under the Resolution. This Note and the interest hereon shall not be deemed to constitute a general obligation of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof, including, without limitation, the Authority. Neither the State of Minnesota, nor any political subdivision thereof shall be obligated to pay the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto except out of Available Tax Increment, and neither the full faith and credit nor the taxing power of the State of Minnesota or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note or other costs incident hereto. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 49 B-5 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 7. Registration and Transfer. This Note is issuable only as a fully registered note without coupons. As provided in the Resolution, and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Note is transferable upon the books of the Authority kept for that purpose at the principal office of the City Finance Director, by the Owner hereof in person or by such Owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender of this Note together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Authority, duly executed by the Owner. Upon such transfer or exchange and the payment by the Owner of any tax, fee, or governmental charge required to be paid by the Authority with respect to such transfer or exchange, there will be issued in the name of the transferee a new Note of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same dates. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3.3(d) of the Agreement, this Note shall not be transferred to any person or entity, unless the Authority has provided written consent to such transfer. IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that all acts, conditions, and things required by the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen, and to be performed in order to make this Note a valid and binding limited obligation of the Authority according to its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened, and have been performed in due form, time and manner as so required. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority have caused this Note to be executed with the manual signatures of its President and Executive Director, all as of the Date of Original Issue specified above. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Executive Director President Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 50 B-6 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 REGISTRATION PROVISIONS The ownership of the unpaid balance of the within Note is registered in the bond register of the City Finance Director, in the name of the person last listed below. Date of Registration Registered Owner Signature of City Finance Director _________, 20__ 36th Street, LLC Federal Tax I.D No_____________ Section 3. Terms, Execution and Delivery. 3.01. Denomination, Payment. The Note shall be issued as a single typewritten note numbered R-1. The Note shall be issuable only in fully registered form. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by check or draft issued by the Registrar described herein. 3.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable by mail to the owner of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the month preceding the Payment Date, whether or not such day is a business day. 3.03. Registration. The Authority hereby appoints the City Finance Director to perform the functions of registrar, transfer agent and paying agent (the “Registrar”). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the Authority and the Registrar with respect thereto shall be as follows: (a) Register. The Registrar shall keep at its office a bond register in which the Registrar shall provide for the registration of ownership of the Note and the registration of transfers and exchanges of the Note. (b) Transfer of Note. Upon surrender for transfer of the Note duly endorsed by the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form reasonably satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar shall authenticate and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, a new Note of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar may close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the month preceding each Payment Date and until such Payment Date. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 51 B-7 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 (c) Cancellation. The Note surrendered upon any transfer shall be promptly cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the Authority. (d) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When the Note is presented to the Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the same until it is satisfied that the endorsement on such Note or separate instrument of transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar shall incur no liability for its refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems improper or unauthorized. (e) Persons Deemed Owners. The Authority and the Registrar may treat the person in whose name the Note is at any time registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Note, whether the Note shall be overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal of and interest on such Note and for all other purposes, and all such payments so made to any such registered owner or upon the owner’s order shall be valid and effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability of the Authority upon such Note to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. (f) Taxes, Fees and Charges. For every transfer or exchange of the Note, the Registrar may impose a charge upon the owner thereof sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for any tax, fee, or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. (g) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Note. In case any Note shall become mutilated or be lost, stolen, or destroyed, the Registrar shall deliver a new Note of like amount, Termination Dates and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of such mutilated Note or in lieu of and in substitution for such Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith; and, in the case the Note lost, stolen, or destroyed, upon filing with the Registrar of evidence satisfactory to it that such Note was lost, stolen, or destroyed, and of the ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar of an appropriate bond or indemnity in form, substance, and amount satisfactory to it, in which both the Authority and the Registrar shall be named as obligees. The Note so surrendered to the Registrar shall be cancelled by it and evidence of such cancellation shall be given to the Authority. If the mutilated, lost, stolen, or destroyed Note has already matured or been called for redemption in accordance with its terms, it shall not be necessary to issue a new Note prior to payment. 3.04. Preparation and Delivery. The Note shall be prepared under the direction of the Executive Director and shall be executed on behalf of the Authority by the signatures of its President and Executive Director. In case any officer whose signature shall appear on the Note shall cease to be such officer before the delivery of the Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. When the Note has been so executed, it shall be delivered by the Executive Director to the Owner thereof in accordance with the Agreement. Section 4. Security Provisions. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 52 B-8 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 4.01. Pledge. The Authority hereby pledges to the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note all Available Tax Increment as defined in the Note. Available Tax Increment shall be applied to payment of the principal of and interest on the Note in accordance with the terms of the form of Note set forth in Section 2 of this resolution. 4.02. Bond Fund. Until the date the Note is no longer outstanding and no principal thereof or interest thereon (to the extent required to be paid pursuant to this resolution) remains unpaid, the Authority shall maintain a separate and special “Bond Fund” to be used for no purpose other than the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note. The Authority irrevocably agrees to appropriate to the Bond Fund on or before each Payment Date the Available Tax Increment in an amount equal to the Payment then due, or the actual Available Tax Increment, whichever is less. Any Available Tax Increment remaining in the Bond Fund shall be transferred to the Authority’s account for the TIF District upon the termination of the Note in accordance with its terms. 4.03. Additional Obligations. The Authority will issue no other obligations secured in whole or in part by Available Tax Increment unless such pledge is on a subordinate basis to the pledge on the Note. Section 5. Certification of Proceedings. 5.01. Certification of Proceedings. The officers of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the Owner of the Note certified copies of all proceedings and records of the Authority, and such other affidavits, certificates, and information as may be required to show the facts relating to the legality and marketability of the Note as the same appear from the books and records under their custody and control or as otherwise known to them, and all such certified copies, certificates, and affidavits, including any heretofore furnished, shall be deemed representations of the Authority as to the facts recited therein. Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be effective upon approval. (The remainder of this page is intentionally blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 53 B-9 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority August 21, 2017 Executive Director President Attest Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 54 C-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE C FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION (The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.) Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 55 C-2 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) and 36th Street, LLC (the “Redeveloper”) entered into a certain Contract for Private Redevelopment dated _____________, 2017 (the “Contract”); and WHEREAS, the Contract contains certain covenants and restrictions set forth in Articles III and IV thereof related to completing certain Minimum Improvements; and WHEREAS, the Redeveloper has performed said covenants and conditions insofar as it is able in a manner deemed sufficient by the Authority to permit the execution and recording of this certification; NOW, THEREFORE, this is to certify that all construction and other physical improvements related to the Minimum Improvements specified to be done and made by the Redeveloper have been completed and the agreements and covenants in Articles III and IV of the Contract have been performed by the Redeveloper, and this Certificate is intended to be a conclusive determination of the satisfactory termination of the covenants and conditions of Articles III and IV of the Contract related to completion of the Minimum Improvements, but any other covenants in the Contract shall remain in full force and effect. Dated: _______________, 20__. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Authority Representative Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 56 C-3 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________, 20__ by ______________________, the __________________ of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public This document drafted by: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 57 D-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE D Form of Subordination Agreement THIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is made as of this _____ day of __________, 20__, between _______________ (the “Lender”), whose address is at _________________________, and the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (“Authority”), whose address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, 55416. RECITALS A. 36th Street, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”), is the owner of certain real property situated in Hennepin County, Minnesota and legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”). B. Lender has made a mortgage loan to Redeveloper in the original principal amount of $__________ (the “Loan”). The Loan is the evidenced and secured by the following documents: (i) a certain promissory note (the “Note”) made by Redeveloper dated __________, 20__, in the amount of $___________; and (ii) a certain mortgage, security agreement and fixture financing statement (the “Mortgage”) made by Redeveloper dated __________, 20__, filed __________, 200_, as Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________ encumbering the Property; and (iii) a certain assignment of leases and rents (the “Assignment”) made by Redeveloper dated __________, 20__, filed __________, 200_, as Hennepin County Recorder/Registrar of Titles Doc. No. __________ encumbering the Property. The Note, the Mortgage, the Assignment, and all other documents and instruments evidencing, securing and executed in connection with the Loan, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Loan Documents.” C. Authority is the owner and holder of certain rights under a certain Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”) by and between Redeveloper and Authority dated ____________________, 2017. D. Redeveloper is entitled under the Contract to acquire a certain Tax Increment Tax Revenue Note, Series 20__ in the original principal amount of $____________ (the “TIF Note”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and as an inducement to Lender to make the Loan, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto represent, warrant and agree as follows: Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 58 D-2 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 1. Consent. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is making the Loan to the Redeveloper and consents to the same. The Authority also consents to and approves the collateral assignment of the Contract and TIF Note (when and if issued) by the Redeveloper to the Lender as collateral for the Loan; provided, however, that this consent shall not deprive the Authority of or otherwise limit any of the Authority’s rights or remedies under the Contract and TIF Note and shall not relieve the Redeveloper of any of its obligations under the Contract and TIF Note; provided further, however, the limitations to the Authority’s consent contained in this Paragraph 1 are subject to the provisions of Paragraph 2 below. 2. Subordination. The Authority hereby agrees that the rights of the Authority with respect to [_____________________] under the Contract are and shall remain subordinate and subject to liens, rights and security interests created by the Loan Documents and to any and all amendments, modifications, extensions, replacements or renewals of the Loan Documents; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed as subordinating (a) the requirement contained in the Contract the Property be used in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.3 of the Contract, (b) the Authority’s rights under the TIF Note to suspend payments in accordance with the TIF Note, and (c) the Authority’s rights under the Assessment Agreement referenced in Section 6.3 of the Contract. 3. Notice to Authority. Lender agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to notify Authority of the occurrence of any Event of Default given to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents, in accordance with Section 7.2 of the Contract. The Lender shall not be bound by the other requirements in Section 7.2 of the Contract. 4. Statutory Exception. Nothing in this Agreement shall alter, remove or affect Lender’s obligation under Minnesota Statutes, §469.029 to use the Property in conformity to Section 10.3 of the Contract. 5. No Assumption. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is not a party to the Contract and by executing this Agreement does not become a party to the Contract, and specifically does not assume and shall not be bound by any obligations of the Redeveloper to the Authority under the Contract, and that the Lender shall incur no obligations whatsoever to the Authority except as expressly provided herein. 6. Notice from Authority. So long as the Contract remains in effect, the Authority agrees to give to the Lender copies of notices of any Event of Default given to Redeveloper under the Contract. 7. Governing Law. This Agreement is made in and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. 8. Successors. This Agreement and each and every covenant, agreement and other provision hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns, including any person who acquires title to the Property through the Lender of a foreclosure of the Mortgage. 9. Severability. The unenforceability or invalidity of any provision hereof shall not render any other provision or provisions herein contained unenforceable or invalid. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 59 D-3 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 10. Notice. Any notices and other communications permitted or required by the provisions of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given or served by depositing the same with the United States Postal Service, or any official successor thereto, designated as registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, bearing adequate postage, or delivery by reputable private carrier and addresses as set forth above. 11. Transfer of Title to Lender. The Authority agrees that in the event the Lender, a transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at foreclosure sale, acquires title to the Property pursuant to a foreclosure, or a deed in lieu thereof, the Lender, transferee, or purchaser shall not be bound by the terms and conditions of the Contract except as expressly herein provided. Further the Authority agrees that in the event the Lender, a transferee of Lender, or a purchaser at foreclosure sale acquires title to the Property pursuant to a foreclosure sale or a deed in lieu thereof, then the Lender, transferee, or purchaser shall be entitled to all rights conferred upon the Redeveloper under the Contract, provided that no condition of default exists and remains uncured beyond applicable cure periods in the obligations of the Redeveloper under the Contract. 12. Estoppel. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender, for the purpose of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that: (a) No default or event of default by Redeveloper exists under the terms of the Contract on the date hereof; (b) The Contract has not been amended or modified in any respect, nor has any material provision thereof been waived by either the Authority or the Redeveloper, and the Contract is in full force and effect; (c) Such other reasonable certifications as the Lender may request. 13. Amendments. The Authority hereby represents and warrants to Lender for the purpose of inducing Lender to make advances to Redeveloper under the Loan Documents that Authority will not agree to any amendment or modification to the or any TIF Note issued under the Contract that materially affects the collection of Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Contract) in any way affects the Property without the Lender’s written consent. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 60 D-4 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed and delivered as of the day and year first written above. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________, 20__, by _______________________ and ______________________ the President and Executive Director, respectively, of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of such public body. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 61 D-5 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 [LENDER] By: Its STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ___________, 20__, by _______________________ and ______________________ the __________________, of __________________, a ________________, on behalf of such____________________. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 62 D-6 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 Exhibit A of Subordination Agreement PROPERTY Lot 1, Block 1, Elmwood Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 63 E-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE E PUBLIC REDEVELOPMENT COSTS Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 64 F-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE F PROJECTED TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 65 G-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE G SITE PLAN Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 66 H-1 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 SCHEDULE H ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT ______________________________________________________________________________ ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT and ASSESSOR’S CERTIFICATION By and Between ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 36TH STREET, LLC This Document was drafted by: KENNEDY & GRAVEN, Chartered 470 U.S. Bank Plaza Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 67 H-2 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made on or as of the ___________, 20__ by and between the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body, corporate and politic (the “Authority”) and 36th Street, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”). WITNESSETH, that WHEREAS, on or before the date hereof the Authority and Redeveloper have entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment dated _________________, 2017 (the “Redevelopment Contract”), pursuant to which the Authority is to facilitate development of certain property in the Authority of St. Louis Park hereinafter referred to as the “Property” and legally described in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Redevelopment Contract the Redeveloper is obligated to construct certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) upon the Property; and WHEREAS, the Authority and Redeveloper desire to establish a minimum market value for the Property and the Minimum Improvements to be constructed thereon, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, Subdivision 8; and WHEREAS, the Authority and the City Assessor (the “Assessor”) have reviewed the preliminary plans and specifications for the improvements and have inspected such improvements; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties to this Agreement, in consideration of the promises, covenants and agreements made by each to the other, do hereby agree as follows: 1. The minimum market value which shall be assessed for ad valorem tax purposes for the Property described in Exhibit A, together with the Minimum Improvements constructed thereon, shall be $8,100,000 as of January 2, 2018, and $16,200,000 as of January 2, 2019 notwithstanding the progress of construction by such date, and as of each January 2 thereafter until termination of this Agreement under Section 2 hereof. 2. The minimum market value herein established shall be of no further force and effect and this Agreement shall terminate on the earlier of the following: (a) the date of receipt by the Authority of the final payment from Hennepin County of Tax Increments from the Elmwood Apartments Tax Increment Financing District, or (b) the date when the Note, as defined in the Redevelopment Contract, has been fully paid, defeased or terminated in accordance with its terms. The event referred to in Section 2(b) of this Agreement shall be evidenced by a certificate or affidavit executed by the Authority. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 68 H-3 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 3. This Agreement shall be promptly recorded by the Authority. The Redeveloper shall pay all costs of recording. 4. Neither the preambles nor provisions of this Agreement are intended to, nor shall they be construed as, modifying the terms of the Redevelopment Contract between the Authority and the Redeveloper. 5. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties. 6. Each of the parties has authority to enter into this Agreement and to take all actions required of it, and has taken all actions necessary to authorize the execution and delivery of this Agreement. 7. In the event any provision of this Agreement shall be held invalid and unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. 8. The parties hereto agree that they will, from time to time, execute, acknowledge and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged and delivered, such supplements, amendments and modifications hereto, and such further instruments as may reasonably be required for correcting any inadequate, or incorrect, or amended description of the Property or the Minimum Improvements or for carrying out the expressed intention of this Agreement, including, without limitation, any further instruments required to delete from the description of the Property such part or parts as may be included within a separate assessment agreement. 9. Except as provided in Section 8 of this Agreement, this Agreement may not be amended nor any of its terms modified except by a writing authorized and executed by all parties hereto. 10. This Agreement may be simultaneously executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which shall constitute but one and the same instrument. 11. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 69 H-4 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________, 20__ by Anne Mavity and Thomas K. Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 70 H-5 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 36TH STREET, LLC By Donald Kasbohm Its Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of __________, 20__, by Donald Kasbohm, the Manager of 36th Street, LLC, a M innesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 71 H-6 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 CERTIFICATION BY CITY ASSESSOR The undersigned, having reviewed the plans and specifications for the improvements to be constructed and the market value assigned to the land upon which the improvements are to be constructed, hereby certifies as follows: The undersigned Assessor, being legally responsible for the assessment of the above described property, hereby certifies that the values assigned to the land and improvements are reasonable. City Assessor for the City of St. Louis Park STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ____________, 20__ by _____________________, the City Assessor of the City of St. Louis Park. Notary Public Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 72 H-7 498863v5 MNI SA285-110 EXHIBIT A of ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of Property Lot 1, Block 1, Elmwood Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Economic Development Authority Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 7b) Title: Revised Redevelopment Contract with 36th Street, LLC Page 73 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Presentation: 2a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2017 Evergreen Awards RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is requested to present the 2017 Evergreen Awards to the following recipients: • 4383 Glen Place – Joan Abbot and Karen Roehl (Browndale Neighborhood) • 3025 Oregon Avenue South – Renee Beer (Oak Hill Neighborhood) POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The Evergreen Award is presented each year in recognition of properties which are uniquely designed with well-maintained landscapes with an emphasis on parcels that are visible to the passerby. Businesses, apartments and houses are all eligible to receive the award. The judges selecting the Evergreen Award recipients this year were comprised of City staff that have a keen interest in flowers, plants, landscaping and landscape design. There were five judges inspecting this year’s nominations. There were eight nominations this year spread throughout the City. Winners are presented with an award certificate, a Dwarf Alberta Spruce tree and “Evergreen Award Winner” signs posted in their boulevard for two weeks. Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, will be at the meeting to present the awards to the winners. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to promoting an integrating arts, culture and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Office Assistant Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 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 Amount For MN Twins $10,000 Renovation of the fields at Dakota Park. In addition to the monetary donation, both organizations are also providing volunteers for the renovation. The Toro Company $10,000 Zita Zogg $2,200 Purchase and installation of a memorial bench in Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring Willi Zogg. Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA AUGUST 21, 2017 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jake Spano and Gregg Lindberg. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), Police Chief Harcey, Fire Chief Koering, Deputy Director and Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Astein Osei, St. Louis Park School Superintendent, Sarah Johnson, Sandy Seline, Tom Bravo, Judy Hoskins, St. Louis Park School Administrative Staff; Jake Schwedering, CenterPoint Energy; and Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek. 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. St. Louis Park School District Referendum Update Mr. Osei introduced the presenters, who spoke on the upcoming bond referendum for St. Louis Park schools. Ms. Seline discussed planned improvements and financial impacts of the referendum. Mr. Bravo explained details related to facilities improvements. Ms. Johnson discussed the district’s strategic plan for 2015- 2020 and how the referendum will help to provide better education for St. Louis Park students, which will energize and enhance their spirit. Ms. Seline noted that the tax impact for families living in a $250,000 St. Louis Park home will be about $12 per month or $148 per year, based on the tax value of each home. She also noted that the school district, as well as the city, received a very good review on the bond rating, which will be an asset in helping to move the referendum forward. She added that a financial advisory committee has been appointed to help develop the district budget and ensure fiscal responsibility. Ms. Johnson pointed out the district’s increasing enrollment; aging facilities; need for flexible learning spaces to accommodate next century learning; and need for improved technical infrastructure to support learning. She also pointed out the need for schools of City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 the future to become community centers for after school, evening and weekend gathering spaces. A video was shown providing details of the proposed changes to the schools. It was noted that two questions will be provided to voters: 1. to vote for an operating referendum with no tax increase; and, 2. to vote for a bond referendum of $100.9 million, which will provide improvements at the middle and high school. Mr. Bravo and Ms. Hoskins went on to explain what changes would take place and the list of projects if the referendum passes. These include improvements and changes to the following: • Remodeling of the early childhood and Spanish Immersion School space to accommodate the district office and updating the kitchen, while maintaining the Central clinic, gymnastics gym, and pool. • Remodeling the elementary schools (with the Spanish Immersion School moving to Cedar Manor); securing all entrances; adding air conditioning; updating furniture; and updating all kitchens. • Additions to the Middle School of classrooms, science labs, expanded lunchroom, updated kitchen; office with a secure entry; performing arts space; orchestra room; renovated media center; and 10 next century classrooms with flexible areas for pods. • Relocation of the district office from the High School to Central and renovation of the former district office space into classrooms. • Additions to the High School of a new commons area; new learning commons; media center, and new centralized kitchen. Also, renovation of the weight, fitness and locker rooms. Councilmember Mavity congratulated the group and welcomed new Superintendent Osei. She said as she is running for re-election this year, she has been receiving many questions regarding the referendum. She asked if the group could provide a two-minute elevator speech with key messages related to the referendum. Mr. Osei stated that a one-page document is available in tonight’s council report materials. He added that public education is preparing students for jobs that do not even exist today. If the district wants to remain competitive, the facilities must match the learning expectations in order to prepare students for when they move on to college and beyond. Councilmember Brausen stated he appreciated the presentation and noted he is also running for re-election. He stated that he would endorse the referendum and encourage voters to support it. Councilmember Brausen also asked if there are provisions for minority hiring and awarding business to minority companies. Mr. Osei stated that St. Louis Park’s student population is 42% of color, and yet the district staff does not reflect the diversity of the student population. He stated they are working to hire more teachers of color. Councilmember Brausen stated it is important to be intentional on this work. Councilmember Miller added that his three children are in the school district, and he is proud of the team looking after the school district. He asked about other school districts and why there is such a difference when looking at the costs of support per student. Mr. Osei stated that he is not sure what other school districts bond referendums involve; City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 however, in St. Louis Park, the community is tremendous in supporting their schools year after year. He added that this will be the largest bond referendum the district has ever pursued, noting they will continue to be great stewards of the dollars. Mr. Osei stated if he can ever be of assistance to the council, he would be happy to answer questions any time, adding that he feels very strongly about reducing disparities in the district. He asked all of those present to feel free to reach out to him, adding that he wants to work together to create an exceptional opportunity for students in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Hallfin stated he is a product of St. Louis Park schools, as is his wife and son. He noted that a task force with councilmembers and school board members has been developed in St. Louis Park, who work together and have a relationship. Councilmember Hallfin stated the city and school need to be in concert with each other, and he is championing this referendum. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked why the district needs to upgrade all the kitchens in schools and also build a new central kitchen. Why can’t healthy foods be prepared in each of the school’s kitchens versus in one central kitchen? Mr. Bravo noted that the equipment is old in the school kitchens, and they don’t have the proper equipment to do scratch cooking. Additionally, the cost for doing scratch cooking in each individual kitchen would be too high, so the cooking will be done in the central kitchen and brought into each school’s kitchen for serving. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that the cost per year of the new bond referendum is estimated to be $144 per year per household. She asked Mr. Osei about the current referendum; what the total yearly cost with all referendums is; and how the cost compares for all current referendums. Mr. Osei stated he would get back to Mayor Pro Tem Sanger at a later date with an answer to this question. 2b. Presentation of Grant from CenterPoint Energy Fire Chief Koerig introduced Mr. Schwedering from CenterPoint Energy, who presented a community grant to the city in the amount of $2,500 to partially offset the cost of two Firefighter Decontamination Units. Chief Koerig thanked CenterPoint Energy, noting that this is a way to reduce cancer occurrence in firefighters from toxins and contaminants. He added that he hopes this is a way to protect the health and lives of our firefighters. 2c. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office Update Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek presented an update to the council on the activities of the Sheriff’s Office, including information on the #NOverdose Campaign. Sheriff Stanek stated that the #NOverdose campaign is in place to lower the quantity of opiates available on the street and the level of prescription drug misuse, called diverted drugs. He added that he has asked the state government to declare this a public health issue, and noted that he and his staff will be presenting more information at the State Fair, Minnesota Twins games, and several school town hall meetings later this fall. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Councilmember Hallfin stated that he attended a National League of Cities meeting recently, where he learned about a safe house in Massachusetts that was open and available for people to walk in and begin rehabilitation. He asked if Hennepin County has anything like this. Sheriff Stanek stated no, but the county does have some resources available to refer people to. He stated that the Sheriff’s Office is good at enforcement but not at prevention. That is why they try to work with the school districts, kids, and parents. He noted that there is additional help from local police and first responders; however, the number of people misusing these drugs keeps increasing. Councilmember Mavity thanked Sheriff Stanek for his update, adding that the city has had the first of four sessions with the St. Louis Park Police Department to discuss the community policing approach. She asked the sheriff if he could speak about his perspective on the Hennepin County policing approach, especially as it relates to use of military weaponry, and immigration. Sheriff Stanek stated that the county has implemented the recommendations from President Obama’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Polarizing events happen every day, and they have to figure out how to respond. He added that the best plan is to work with your community from the beginning. Additionally, the Sheriff’s Office does not purchase anything in the military weaponry category. However, he noted that if an armored car can be used to transport money from a grocery store to a bank, then the county force should have that level of protection, as well. Sheriff Stanek stated that with regard to immigration, his office works with Immigration and Customs Enforcement within the law and does not provide sanctuary for criminals. He stated that they transition subjects held at the Hennepin County Jail to ICE when required to do so by Federal law. 2d. Recognition of Donations Mayor Pro Tem Sanger noted that the International Society of Arboriculture donated $2,000 for expenses related to Natural Resources Coordinator Jim Vaughan’s attendance at the 2017 International Society of Arboriculture Leadership Workshop in Champaign, IL. Additionally, Gordon and Nancy Justus donated $50 for park maintenance and enhancements at Westwood Hills Nature Center in honor of former Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Member Dick Johnson’s 90th birthday. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Special Study Session Minutes August 7, 2017 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve the Special Study Session August 7, 2017 Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. 3b. City Council Minutes August 7, 2017 It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve the City Council August 7, 2017 Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 3c. Special City Council Meeting Minutes August 11, 2017 It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve the Special City Council August 11, 2017 Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar 4a. Adopt Resolution No. 17-121 in support of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office #NOverdose Drug Abuse Awareness and Prevention Public Awareness Campaign. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 17-122 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 2841 Idaho Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 08- 117-21-43-0016. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 17-123 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3231 Webster Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0018. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 17-124 to authorize the execution of Addendum A- Sponsoring Agency Agreement between Minnesota Task Force 1 and the City of St. Louis Park. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 17-125 and Resolution No. 17-126 to recognize Parks Public Service Worker Wade Carroll for 29 years of service, and Utilities Public Service Worker Joel Suhl for 27 years of service. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 17-127 of Support for submission of a Job Creation Fund application to the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) on behalf of a St. Louis Park company. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 17-128 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the International Society of Arboriculture in an amount not to exceed $2,000 for all related expenses for Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, to attend the 2017 International Society of Arboriculture Leadership Workshop in Champaign, Illinois. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 17-129 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Gordon and Nancy Justus in the amount of $50 for park maintenance and enhancements at Westwood Hills Nature Center in honor of Dick Johnson’s 90th birthday. Mr. Johnson is a former Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Member as well as a long-time nature center volunteer. 4i. Moved to Item 8a. Councilmember Miller requested that Consent Calendar item 4i be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda to 8a. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended and to move Consent Calendar item 4i to the Regular Agenda as item 8a; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 5-0. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Youth Representatives to Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to appoint Eli Curran-Moore to the Police Advisory Commission and Carmen Garrigos to the Human Rights Commission as youth members for one-year terms beginning August 31, 2017. The motion passed 5-0. 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Adopt Resolution Authorizing the implementation of the Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program, a shallow rent subsidy program to assist low income households with children attending school in St. Louis Park. Resolution No. 17- 130 Councilmember Miller stated he is strongly in favor of this program, which gives families a fighting chance to stay in St. Louis Park and work toward financial goals. Ms. Schnitker stated this program is a great partnership with the city, the school district, and STEP. She added that families have to be at 50% median income or below to qualify for the program, and staff hopes to begin taking applications in September and October. The program will start in December. She also noted that the first year the program will serve approximately seven households. Councilmember Mavity agreed this is a wonderful program, modeled after a successful program in Richfield. She added that it is a rental assistance program, not a service program, and is well within what the city does. She stated it will be administered by the Housing Authority. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she has concerns about this program and is against it. She added that historically, tax payer money has not gone to subsidize rent. The city’s preservation fund has assisted in the past. She is concerned that this will be an ongoing and growing problem, it will grow, and it is not a proper role for the city. She added this type of assistance has been handled by the county and Federal Government, with Section 8 funds, and she is concerned it will become a never-ending program. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she would prefer to put money into a loan fund to assist owners to make repairs on their properties at a discounted loan rate in exchange for agreeing to keep their rental rates affordable. Councilmember Brausen stated he is in favor of the resolution, adding it is not unusual for the city to be involved in this type of program. He added that the city needs to help families stay in their homes and in the school district, noting that anything the city can do to provide a hand-up is worthy of city resources. He stated that there are lots of different tools in the “tool kit,” and he is in favor of the city trying this. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of August 21, 2017 Councilmember Mavity stated that she attended a community housing forum last week at Lenox, and 100 people were there to learn about the loss of housing in multi-family markets. She added that the message she received from residents is this is a priority for our community. The Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program is a way to get involved. It was moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 17-130 authorizing the implementation of the Kids in the Park Rent Assistance Program. The motion passed 4-1. (Councilmember Sanger opposed) 9. Communications – None 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Sue Sanger, Acting Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Minutes: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA AUGUST 28, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Anne Mavity, and Thom Miller. Councilmembers absent: Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, and Sue Sanger Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Communications and Marketing Manager (Ms. Larson), Assistant Zoning Manager (Mr. Morrison), Solid Waste Program Specialist (Ms. Barker), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Public Works Services Manager (Mr. Merkley), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Rebecca Ryan, Next Generation Consulting; Steering Committee Members: Larry North Rachel Harris, Julie Sweitzer, Lisa Genis, Matt Flores, Justin Grays; Jim Hanlin, Nemer Feiger; Dr. Maggie Henjum. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – September 25, 2017 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for Sept. 25, 2017. Councilmember Mavity noted the Affordable Housing Preservation topic for Sept. 25 and asked if additional information from recent SWLRT meetings regarding affordable housing could be included in this discussion. Mr. Harmening stated yes, adding that updates on Section 8 housing and advance notice of sale ordinance will also be included. Councilmember Mavity added that she also has concerns about landlords being less willing to rent to people with a criminal history, noting she wants to revisit this issue, especially as it pertains to a tenant’s past and not current behavior. Both Councilmembers Miller and Brausen agreed and are in favor of this discussion. Mr. Harmening also noted the recent talk given by graduating St. Louis Park High School senior Jayne Stephenson on community gardens and greenhouses. He stated that he wants to understand how much of a priority this topic might be for scheduling a study session. 2. Vision 3.0 Findings and Recommendations Consultant Rebecca Ryan of Next Generation Consulting presented a summary of findings and her recommendations from the Vision 3.0 process. The Vision 3.0 recommendations include five aspirations for the future. These aspirations address the themes of: climate change, parks and recreation, schools, transportation and racial equity. The five aspirations are: Confronting Climate Change, Fostering Our Health and Well-Being, Caring for Our Youth, Getting around Town and Embracing Diversity. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2017 Ms. Ryan summarized the process of public input, overall trends and the Vision 3.0 aspirations. She noted that the neighborhood meetings brought the greatest diversity, while the online survey respondents were 93% white. She noted how important participation from a diverse group of residents was to the council during this process and added that children and high school students participated, as well. Mayor Spano asked how this compares to the demographics of age groups in St. Louis Park. Mr. Ryan stated she did not know but would find out. Ms. Ryan noted that there were 4999 comments from the community, with rich resident input. This input will be tempered against critical trends in various areas and followed by recommendations. She noted that overall, people in St. Louis Park are very happy, but added that there is some room for improvement. Ms. Ryan added the number one mention in the list of top values was equity and inclusion for all, regardless of race, age, or other. Councilmember Brausen asked if this question was suggested in the list or if it was spontaneously suggested by respondents. Ms. Ryan stated that the question was, “How can this community be more welcoming to you, and how can you feel more at home in this community?” She stated that she could not verify that the response was a result of this question, but at 68% of neighborhood meetings, the topic of equity did make its way to the top. She added that at the neighborhood meetings, people were more likely to express ideas of isolation or frustration, noting that 42% were feeling isolated. Ms. Ryan added that social connections was the second most preferred idea. Additional concerns were transit and mobility (related to safety, ease, and convenience) and the natural environment (including climate change, and parks and recreation). Ms. Ryan noted that people are committed to supporting children and the schools in St. Louis Park; embracing diversity and inclusion; and ending poverty for the middle class through transportation. Ms. McMonigal stated that Ms. Larson was very instrumental in the visioning process and played a large role in developing and carrying out the communications plan. Additionally, 9 staff members formed a Communication and Outreach Committee for the project. They recruited potential Steering Committee members; made decisions on outreach; helped staff chalkboards and sandwich boards around the community; and led some of the neighborhood/community meetings. Mayor Spano stated that this is a testament to the efforts of staff and volunteers and thanked all who participated. He added that the meetings were great, yet there is one thing that was a disparate response between white and non-white persons in how they view their community. He stated that there is a good number of people in the community who feel isolated and alone, and he feels sad about it. He added that he hopes this process will lead to a place where this issue can be addressed. Councilmember Brausen stated that he appreciated everyone’s work. He noted that he would like trends 2 and 3 to address caring for our youth and our elderly, stating that he would like this to be explicit since St. Louis Park is an aging community. He also appreciated all the comments on racial equity. Ms. Ryan added that the Steering Committee discussed affordable housing quite a bit and noted that residents look at this issue differently. She added that it not only involved Section 8 and inclusionary housing, but apartment dwellers. Affordable housing means different things to different people, City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2017 including seniors being concerned about being able to continue to live here based on a fixed income; longtime residents concerned that their children cannot afford to live here; residents wanting to move up to their next home but not being able to afford it, and the working poor, who may not be able to stay in their housing and therefore have to uproot their children from the school district. She added there will need to be clarity on this. Councilmember Mavity asked why affordable housing falls out during the aspirations portion, adding that it feels unresolved, incomplete, and not represented in all of the discussions. Ms. Ryan stated that affordable housing was discussed in every communication, adding that it really is a regional issue. She stated that while St. Louis Park is doing a lot to encourage availability of affordable housing, if it is not a regional approach, the solution is unclear. Councilmember Mavity stated that in the last vision process, there were four items that guided the city. If those items correspond to the aspirations in this report, it feels like housing and growth and single family is missing. Ms. Ryan stated that possibly housing is included in the transit piece, in the same way sustainability became part of the way the community does business. Councilmember Mavity stated she is not sure if housing fits neatly into transit, especially considering the import role it plays. Councilmember Brausen stated he would not be averse to housing being the #6 aspiration. He added that the other disconnect was that only parks were mentioned in the fostering well-being piece. He noted that walking and biking trails all fit into well-being, also. Councilmember Miller liked the Venn Diagram Ms. Ryan used in her presentation. He added that he liked the fact that there was a great turnout from the non-white community and that he was glad to get data on the racial equity topic. Councilmember Miller asked how the group came to the conclusion that residents value climate change, noting that he does not see that listed as a value, and wondered if the report took a big jump to reach all five aspirations. Ms. Ryan noted that each of the five aspirations stemmed from trend conversations and community conversations. Councilmember Miller stated that he did not see some of the values as feedback or futuristic trends but more as staff concerns or city council concerns, adding that he did not understand some of the connections. Councilmember Mavity added that the values represent council and staff feedback, resident feedback, and futuristic data. Ms. Ryan stated that in the next version of the report she will do a better job of calling out each aspiration and incorporating the trends with community input. She added that the chalkboards were also a great and highly visible way to get a lot of ideas; however, some items were not even mentioned. She noted that the neighborhood meetings were most productive, as they were the most diverse. Mayor Spano noted a comment related to how folks trust the city and how it is managed, adding that this is a testament to Mr. Harmening, city staff, and past councils and how they have built trust. He asked about a statement regarding neighbors wanting more accidental gatherings and what that meant. Ms. Ryan stated that people want more neighborhood places like coffee shops or cafes where they can gather and meet their neighbors or have small localized social gatherings. Mayor Spano also noted the section related to equity and inclusion training and the idea of doing a series of courageous conversations open to the community. He added that this type of conversation creates energy. He also noted that children to seniors support the idea of “sustainability,” adding that he wants to discuss this further. Councilmember Mavity stated that she is learning more from seniors and empty nesters and their concerns about their ability to stay in their homes. She stated that the city values “children first,” City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2017 adding it might be time to look also at “seniors first” and caring for the elderly, with a more strategic focus with housing, transportation and social services. She stated that she is not sure how to do this, but it needs to be addressed. Councilmember Mavity added that she was happy with the results of the visioning process. She asked what was learned about the process, and what could be done differently or better next time when gathering feedback. Ms. McMonigal noted that the wish chalkboards had mixed results. The value of the chalkboard events might be increased if a survey were added. She noted that the surveys were valuable and that going to where the people are and live is the best model for getting surveys completed. The Steering Committee Members also commented: Rachel Harris stated that the sandwich board process worked well, along with taking it to the people. It gave people pause. She added that some said they had never been talked to about the visioning process, and the flip side chalk board allowed people to participate in short amounts of time. Julie Sweitzer stated that she was at the Aquila Fair, which represented the most diverse group. She noted that some comments were valuable and useful and serious, adding that she believes in going to where people are. Lisa Genis stated that she went to the library over the noon time during the week because she wanted connect with as many people as possible. She noted that she met Somali and Russian immigrants; moms with kids; and seniors. She also got a personal perspective on her neighbors’ feelings. She stated the Children First Ice Cream Social was also a very helpful event. Justin Gray stated it was difficult to connect with people who work, it is important to make the visioning process accessible for working parents, single parents, or those who don’t have resources to allow them to attend. Larry North said he was at the Rec Center and noted that some residents wanted a survey to fill out and send back to the city, especially if there was one place for them to make comments. Ms. McMonigal stated that the next step will be to finalize the report and to get responses from the three absent council members after Labor Day. She added that a timeline and a study session report will then be presented to council. Ms. McMonigal added that there will be a celebration this fall to thank all those involved in the visioning process, including the boards and commissions. 3. Walker Lake Area Update Mr. Morrison presented the Walker Lake Area logo and branding that was chosen by the task force. The group recommended “Historic Walker Lake,” and with council’s consent, the neighborhood would like to begin implementing the new brand this fall. Establishing the brand and identifying the area includes marketing and planning for area improvements such as way-finding and other streetscape elements. It is important to the neighborhood to have the brand in place soon and to start promoting the area and implementing place-making elements to generate more activity. Councilmember Mavity stated that she assumes this will help guide people to the Walker Lake area but asked how the new branding will stay consistent with other branding in the area. Mr. Hanlin stated that the design stays true to the font and color palette of the current neighborhood, and also as the area grows with the SWLRT City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2017 Councilmember Brausen stated that the council will want feedback from the two council members who represent this area but noted that he felt positive about the way-finding signs. Mr. Hunt noted that the Walker Building is currently under contract to be purchased by Dr. Maggie Henjum, who proceeded to present her renovation plans to the council. Dr. Henjum has a health and wellness business in St. Paul and is looking to open another business in the Walker Building. She is a resident of the Sorenson neighborhood and grew up in St. Louis Park, as well. Dr. Henjum said that her business focuses on patient-centered values and is community driven, with events and relationships that are developed with other healthy businesses. She stated that phase 1 of the project is complete, and phase 2 will review soil mitigation issues and costs. Councilmember Miller asked if there will be a retail center in the building, noting this area would like to recreate the retail that was meant to be there years ago. Dr. Henjum stated there will be businesses related to wellness in the building, along with a People’s Organic store, Mill City Running, a physical therapy clinic, and a gym. Councilmember Miller asked what other opportunities are available for Dr. Henjum in the area. She noted that revitalizing the whole area; developing a sense of the city center; portraying more youthfulness; and creating a destination would be additional opportunities. Mayor Spano asked about her plan for aesthetics of the building. Dr. Henjum stated that she would love to expose the natural original brick, seal cracks, take down the awnings, work on ventilation and remove any asbestos. She added that the logo is perfect for her business, as well. Mr. Hunt noted that some grant opportunities will also be brought forward related to revitalizing the building. 4. Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapters 22 & 8) Ms. Barker, Mr. Merkley, and Ms. Boettcher presented the report. Ms. Barker noted the changes in Chapter 22 (Solid Waste Management), which includes a total re-write of the chapter to update definitions; bring curbside program requirements in line with current practices; clarify and improve recycling requirements for multi-family buildings; add recycling requirements for new and expanding commercial buildings; revise standards for backyard compost bins; and update bulk materials container (dumpster) requirements. Ms. Barker also noted the change in Chapter 8 (Business and Licenses), which includes updating relevant definitions with Chapter 22 and adding requirements for licensed solid waste collectors to label collection containers for recycling and organics recycling used at multi-family and commercial locations. Among Chapter 22 changes, Ms. Barker noted that if a cart is stored in the alley right-of-way, it is currently in violation. Councilmember Brausen asked for clarity as Ward 4 does not have alleys. Ms. Barker stated that carts can be stored outside, behind the building line adjacent to any street. The ordinance will be changed to allow residents to keep carts in the alley right-of-way along the garage, as is currently the practice. Councilmember Mavity asked about smaller homes with single car garages along Yosemite and Zarthan. She noted that these folks are not doing organics because they are too close to the lot lines, and doing organics in the back yard is burdensome. She asked Ms. Barker if the ordinance City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Title: Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2017 should be clarified so organics recycling can work for these smaller lots. Ms. Barker stated that they will look into this issue. Mayor Spano noted that in winter, it can be a challenge for people who have a sloped driveway, because they are not always able to put the bins in the yard, and many end up in the street. Ms. Barker noted that the ordinance states trash bins cannot be put onto snow banks, but it is a constant challenge, especially when plows come through. Ms. Barker also noted that a pilot project will be starting this fall with every-other-week garbage collection. Councilmember Miller asked how many are in the pilot and what area it is in. Ms. Barker stated the pilot would potentially be open to the 5,000 households that have a 20- or 30- gallon garbage cart and are also signed up for organics recycling. Councilmember Miller stated that the garbage collection every-other-week will be fine, but recycling will need to be every week collection. Ms. Barker noted that collection frequency will be discussed in depth when the contracts are negotiated. Ms. Barker added that weekly collection for multi-family recycling is already a necessity, and the city will do more outreach and address this with multi-family residents. Ms. Barker noted that at least 50% of household waste materials could be recycled, but space is often insufficient in multi- family buildings to accommodate the necessary bins. Chapter 22 will be amended to require that weekly recycling capacity be equal to or greater than weekly garbage capacity at multi-family buildings. Councilmember Brausen asked about delivered packages and boxes that come to homes and if the city attorney has given an opinion about an ordinance that requires manufacturers to take their packages back after an item is delivered to a household. Mr. Harmening stated this has been discussed; however, there are limits as to what can be done. He noted he would check further into this issue. Ms. Barker added that these types of policies are often better implemented on a regional or industry level, but staff will watch for information on this when they attend an upcoming recycling conference. Ms. Barker noted that education is an important aspect for both multi-family residents and businesses and will be required under the updated ordinance. Additionally, businesses will be required to do recycling. There are state and county tax incentives for businesses to recycle and do organics. Another change in Chapter 22 will be to address soft-sided dumpster bags. Councilmember Brausen noted construction and solid waste Bagsters® that sit on driveways for months. They need to be used and moved out. He asked about license fees for using Bagsters®. Ms. Barker stated that this issue is being defined now, and the city is enforcing a 14-day limit under temporary structures. Mr. Harmening added that staff will look into this further, as well. Ms. Barker noted the Chapter 8 changes, including labeling requirements for what is accepted in a recycling cart or dumpster placed at commercial or multi-family buildings. She stated that the next step will be to forward all ordinance drafts to the city attorney and work to get the word out in September to residents and impacted businesses about the changes. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 7 Title: Study Session Minutes of August 28, 2017 Councilmember Brausen thanked staff for this summary, noting he appreciates this effort as it reflects one of the city’s goals of being a leader on environmental issues. He added that staff has strong support from the city council on this issue. The new ordinance would go into effect November 10, 2017. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Councilmember Mavity had a question related to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) written report. She stated that she was concerned that there was no mention of Bass Lake in the report. Mr. Harmening stated that Bass Lake is in the city stormwater plan, so it will be addressed. However, this will need to be done in partnership with the MCWD plan in order to help with costs. He added that he will check further on it and report back. The meeting adjourned at 9:36 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. Update on Special Law Related to the Elmwood TIF District 6. July 2017 Monthly Financial Report 7. Resolution of Support for the MCWD Watershed Management Plan ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Minutes: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:31 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Thom Miller, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, and Anne Mavity. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jake Spano and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth). Guests: None. 1. 2018 Budget Mr. Harmening noted that this is the final check-in before considering the preliminary tax levy on September 18, 2017. Mr. Simon provided a presentation, noting the upcoming schedule for budget considerations, including setting the preliminary property tax levy. Also, the 2018 budget CIP, fees, utility rates, debt model, and the city’s long-range financial management plan (LRFMP) will be reviewed and discussed. Mr. Simon presented comparison of the outcomes of a 5.80% tax levy increase; a 5.35% tax levy increase; and a 4.95% tax levy increase. A 4.95% tax levy increase would result in an approximate reduction of $124,000 when compared to a 5.35% tax levy increase. Mr. Simon displayed a pie chart depicting a percentage breakdown of the tax levy and explained what each included. Mr. Simon reviewed the various estimated tax impacts with the 3 levy options on a median value home whose value increased from $240,100 to $254,200 higher than the prior year. Councilmember Brausen asked if Option C shifts certain expenditures projected for 2018 to 2017. Mr. Simon stated that staff looked at one-time 2018 budget items that could be included with the revised 2017 budget and purchased this year. Mr. Simon presented the HRA levy, noting that it goes up and down based on the market value of the city. He reviewed the formula to calculate the HRA levy that would pay back the interfund loan for the Highway 7 and Louisiana project. He explained how that loan will be paid off by 2019 or 2020. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked if the HRA levy is always the maximum. Mr. Simon confirmed that has been the city’s policy. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of September 5, 2017 Mr. Simon asked whether the council is comfortable with Option A for a 5.8% levy increase. Mr. Harmening stated that staff would recommend not going below 4.95% for the preliminary levy at this time. Councilmember Mavity asked what will not get done with Options B and/or C that are included in Option A. Mr. Simon stated that there is a $135,000 difference between Option A and B that is in Council Programs for items that may come up. Ms. Deno stated that staff started at 5.35% and added money to Council Programs to get to 5.8%. Mr. Simon stated that with Option C, staff also looked at one-time expenses that can be moved from 2018 to 2017 but made no change to service levels. Mr. Harmening stated that service delivery would continue at the same levels with Options B or C. To get to this level, some shifts would be done with one-time purchases made in 2017 and then removed from 2018 expenditures. Councilmember Mavity asked if staff can foresee any impact if there would be a Federal Government shutdown. Mr. Simon stated that there are not a lot of federal funds tied into the budget, but potential impacts could be with the Safer Grant for two firefighters (which has been received every month totaling over $100,000 per year) and with the Build America Bonds of $160,000 and potentially any federally funded road projects. Councilmember Brausen stated his support for a 5.35% preliminary levy and would not be inclined to drop it below 5% as he supports having a reserve fund in case of a federal shutdown disruption. He noted that this year, the city dipped into $120,000 of Council Program money to finance solar lighting, and a similar circumstance may occur again next year. Councilmember Brausen noted that if some of the 2018 one-time purchases are shifted to 2017, and the levy is set at 5.35%, then it may be possible to have more than $75,000 in Council Programs. Mayor Pro Tem Miller agreed and suggested taking advantage of the 2017 fund balance to make those one-time expenditures so Council Programs can be increased, even with a 5.35% levy. Ms. Deno explained that Council Programs is a newer line item. Prior to the addition of Council Programs, if there was an additional program mid-year, the city manager was asked to find funds for it. She stated that if the public or staff asks about the use of the Council Programs account, staff indicates that it is for climate action, race equity, environmental programming, or a specific program that has federal cuts. The council and staff discussed how to best identify the Council Programs line item in the budget to assure transparency. Mr. Harmening stated that with a 5.35% levy increase, the Council Programs distribution can be higher than the proposed $75,000. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that is correct, and he supports making 2018 one-time expenditures in 2017. Councilmember Mavity stated support for 5.35% as a preliminary levy and to allocate more money to Council Programs. She advised that during door knocking, she has heard more from residents about property taxes than she has ever heard before. Because of that, she is concerned that if the school bonding referendum passes, it will go into effect with the city’s 2018 budget. Councilmember Mavity noted that residents do not differentiate. It is one packaged amount to pay. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of September 5, 2017 Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that he is also sensitive to that issue. Councilmember Lindberg stated he appreciates that staff brought forward an option to go below 5%. Psychologically, it’s a worthy discussion. But Option B for 5.35% is his preference for the preliminary levy, with the idea that, consistent with past pattern, the final levy is marginally lower. With regard to the Council Programs, he supports a different title so it can be better explained. Councilmember Lindberg stated that the levy increases over time have reflected the city’s policy and initiatives, but he has some hesitation in this vote because there has been a more than 20% increase over the course of time that he has served on the council. Councilmember Lindberg stated that every penny invested in staff and major initiatives are worth the money but asked where the balance is between doing the great things the council believes in while maintaining a sustainable tax bill for single-family homeowners who bear a significant burden. He stated that his preference is for a 5.35% preliminary levy and then coming in somewhat under that for the final levy. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he can support 5.35% preliminary levy and would like to consider coming in under 5% for the final levy. Councilmember Brausen stated he supports 5.35% as the preliminary and final levy because he thinks it is important to have funds available. He noted that property values have increased 6% so he thinks 5.35% will be fine, noting it would still be lower than the 5.8% in 2016. He stated that at some point, the economy will not be as good, and then the city may have to consider more significant levy decreases. It was the consensus of the city council to support a 2018 preliminary property levy of 5.35% increase and to direct staff to populate the Council Programs line item and reallocate dollars to increase Council Programs to $198,000, with the offset coming from making one-time 2018 purchases in 2017. It was also the consensus of the city council to support the maximum HRA levy so the loan can be paid down. The meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Thom Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Minutes: 3d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 5, 2017 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Miller called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m., noting that Mayor Spano is in Washington D.C, to lobby for the Southwest LRT, including a visit to the White House. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Thom Miller, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, and Anne Mavity. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jake Spano and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth). Guests: Meg McCormick, Karen Bjorgen, Martha Ingrem, and representatives of Sholom Community Alliance, LLC 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Best Friends Day / Twin Cities Strut Your Mutt Proclamation Mayor Pro Tem Miller read in full a proclamation recognizing Animal Society’s Best Friends Day and the Twin Cities Strut Your Mutt event being held at Wolfe Park on September 10, 2017. Meg McCormick, Twin Cities Strut Your Mutt volunteer event committee member, accepted the proclamation and thanked the city for hosting this event for the third consecutive year. She also thanked staff and local supporters who have contributed toward this effort and commented on the importance of this organization. 2b. Proclamation Honoring Karen Bjorgen Mayor Pro Tem Miller read in full a proclamation honoring Karen Bjorgen for helping to launch the INSPIRE program and for providing 20 years of dedicated service since its inception. Karen Bjorgen accepted the proclamation, thanked her husband, Park Nicolett, and others. She explained the work of INSPIRE to provide support and education for stroke and brain injury survivors and their families. Ms. Bjorgen stated that informational brochures are available for those interested. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes August 14, 2017 It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve the August 14, 2017 Study Session Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Spano absent). 3b. Special Study Session Minutes August 21, 2017 It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the August 21, 2017 Special Study Session Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Spano absent). 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar 4a. Approve for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of July 29, through August 25, 2017. 4b. Approve entering into an agreement with RJM Construction to provide construction management services for the Westwood Hills Nature Center’s Interpretive Center Building project. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 17-131 approving 2017 Minnesota Laws, Chapter 1, Article 6, Section 21 (“Special Law”) relating to the Elmwood Tax Increment Financing District. 4d. Moved to 8a. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 17-132 of support for the updated Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Watershed Management Plan (WMP). 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 17-133 approving the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) Joint Powers Agreement. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 17-134 authorizing installation of “No Parking” restrictions on the north-south curbline of the W. 26th Street stub west of Toledo Avenue and rescind Resolution No. 15-036. 4h. Moved to 8b. Mayor Pro Tem Miller noted the request that Consent Calendar item 4d be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda to 8a. Councilmember Mavity requested that Consent Calendar item 4h be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda to 8b. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent Calendar item 4d to the Regular Agenda as item 8a and Consent Calendar item 4h to the Regular Agenda as item 8b; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Spano absent). City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Approve Appointment to the Human Rights Commission It was noted that a mid-term vacancy occurred on the Human Rights Commission due to a recent resignation. Given the ranking approach utilized by the city council during last spring’s appointment process, Brenda Gilson is next in line for appointment. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the appointment of Brenda Gilson to the Human Rights Commission for the remainder of the term expiring May 31, 2018. Councilmember Brausen thanked the resigning member for service to the city. The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Spano absent). 6. Public Hearings 6a. Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence Private Activity Revenue Bond Refinancing. Resolution No. 17-135 Mr. Simon presented the staff report, noting that the city had issued prior Series 2006 bonds for refinancing the acquisition, development, construction, and equipping of a 76-unit multi-family housing development for the benefit of Sholom Community Alliance at 3610 Phillips Parkway. Mr. Simon stated that Sholom Community Alliance has proposed to refinance the Roitenberg Family Assisted Living Residence through the redemption and prepayment of the Series 2006 bonds and is asking the city to issue its revenue bonds in one or more series as taxable or tax-exempt obligations in an estimated aggregate principal amount not to exceed $12.5 million. Mr. Simon noted that on November 21, 2016, the city approved a similar resolution, but at the end of last year, the city was told the borrower would not move forward. However, in July of this year, the city was informed that the markets had changed enough that they wanted to restart the refinancing process. If approved, the bonds will close in the next few weeks. Mayor Pro Tem Miller opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Pro Tem Miller closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 17-135, Authorizing the Issuance of Revenue Bonds for the Benefit of Sholom Community Alliance, LLC and Approving the Form of and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of the Revenue Bonds and Related Documents. Councilmember Brausen asked about the administration fee. Mr. Simon explained that the $200,000 goes away, and the refinanced bonds results in the city receiving approximately $300,000 over the life of the new bonds in administration fees to the Housing Rehab Fund. The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Spano absent). City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Authorize execution of the Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the National Football League (NFL) Super Bowl LII Councilmember Brausen stated that the Super Bowl is a very large corporate event, and personally he is not overly supportive of the event because he views the National Football League (NFL) as everything wrong with corporate America in that they exploit local communities; are profit driven to the extreme; and do not always take care of their employees as well as they could. He acknowledged that he is in the minority in taking this position and appreciates that St. Louis Park is entering into a cooperative agreement with the City of Minneapolis to provide policing and public safety during this large event. Councilmember Brausen assured St. Louis Park constituents, as they may see some St. Louis Park Police and Fire personnel at these events, that they are being compensated at a fair rate through the cooperative agreement. He also assured the community that the City of St. Louis Park is not engaged in additional corporate give aways as the City of Minneapolis and State of Minnesota have done with the NFL. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that the City of Minneapolis will also be reimbursed. Mr. Harmening assured the council that the needs of St. Louis Park will come first from a policing and fire perspective, and the City of Minneapolis understands that. Councilmember Brausen thanked staff for their work to make sure the city comes first. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to authorize execution of the Intergovernmental Cooperative Agreement with the City of Minneapolis for the National Football League (NFL) Super Bowl LII. The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Spano absent). 8b. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Installation of Parking Restrictions on W. 36th Street and Brunswick Avenue and rescind Resolution No. 87-111 Councilmember Mavity stated she asked for this item to be removed from the consent agenda for further discussion of fairly straight forward and simple no parking restrictions requested by local businesses along 36th Street so their trucks can come and go. She stated that the city would normally accommodate this request; however, the Elmwood Neighborhood is under a traffic and parking study, so it feels disruptive and less transparent to the whole community to impose additional changes at this time. Councilmember Mavity stated she would like this item laid over so it can be considered with the entire traffic study in Elmwood. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to hold over consideration of a resolution authorizing installation of parking restrictions on W. 36th Street and Brunswick Avenue and rescind Resolution No. 87-111 so it can be considered in conjunction with the Elmwood traffic study. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 5, 2017 The motion passed 5-0 (Councilmember Sanger and Mayor Spano absent). 9. Communications – None 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Thom Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing the 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to continue to levy the full 0.0185% of estimated market value allowable for HRA purposes of $1,172,786. SUMMARY: The HRA levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. However, they are committed to repaying the Development Fund via an interfund loan for the Highway 7 and Louisiana Ave. project until 2019 or 2020 based on the current Long Range Financial Management Plan. Given this obligation, staff recommends the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2018 budget year. The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the City. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2018 to be $1,172,786 based on valuation data from Hennepin County which is an increase of $86,325 or 7.95% from 2017. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed levy will help support infrastructure in redevelopment areas. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Title: 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PRELIMINARY HRA LEVY FOR 2018 WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the "Authority"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the HRA Act; and WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of estimated market value of the City; and WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance with the budget procedures of the City in the amount of $1,172,786; and WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council: 1.That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2018, such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the limitations contained in the HRA Act. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Gambling Premises Permit – Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving issuance of a Premises Permit for lawful gambling to be conducted by Community Charities of Minnesota at the proposed new location of Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 - 6509 Walker Street conditioned on City Council approval of a CUP for the American Legion to operate at this location. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the applicant meet the criteria for this issuance of a gambling premises permit? SUMMARY: Community Charities of Minnesota has submitted an application to the City of St. Louis Park for a gambling premises license at the American Legion’s new location. – 6509 Walker Street. For more than ten years, Community Charities managed the licensed gambling for the American Legion at their previous address – 5605 West 36th Street. Community Charities of Minnesota is a non-profit charitable fundraising organization currently operating at Texa Tonka Lanes, Park Tavern and similar establishments throughout the state. All current requirements for issuance of the license have been met Prior to a gambling premises permit being issued, approval of a CUP will be required for the new location. The CUP is listed as an item for approval on the regular agenda. If the city council approves the application and the CUP, the resolution of approval will be forwarded to the State Gambling Control Board, who is responsible for issuing the gambling premises permit. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Authorized gambling organizations pay the city a local gambling tax of $3,000 annually or 3% of gross receipts, whichever is less. Organizations who do not expend 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park are required to contribute 10% of net profits to a fund regulated by the city. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Kay Midura, Assistant – City Clerk’s Office Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Title: Gambling Premises Permit – Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 RESOLUTION NO. 17-_____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING TO BE CONDUCTED BY COMMUNITY CHARITIES OF MINNESOTA AT FRANK LUNDBERG AMERICAN LEGION POST #282, 6509 WALKER STREET, ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 15 provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization conducting gambling on a premises within the City of St. Louis Park must expend 90 percent of its lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization is required to pay to the city a local annual gambling tax of $3,000 per premises or 3% of gross receipts less prizes, whichever is less; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization is required to contribute to a fund administered and regulated by the city, for distribution by the City for lawful purposes authorized under Minnesota Statute an amount equal to 10% of the organization’s net profits derived from each individual site within the city; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization that either expends 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures within the City of St. Louis Park or conducts the gambling activity on a premises owned and operated by a nonprofit organization are exempt from making the 10% contribution to the City; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization is required to submit local monthly tax payments and gambling reports to the City Clerk’s Office no later than 25 days after the end of the preceding month; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the State Gambling Control Board a premise permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed above meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Traffic Study No. 682: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at Franklin Ave & W. 18th St/ Edgewood Ave RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of east- west stop signs at the intersection of W. Franklin Avenue & W. 18th Street/ Edgewood Avenue and rescind a portion of Resolution 5319 (“on the Edgewood and Franklin Avenues approach to W. 18th Street”). POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority. SUMMARY: Engineering staff received a request in July 2017 to replace the existing east-west YIELD signs with STOP signs at the intersection of W. Franklin Avenue & W. 18th Street/ Edgewood Avenue. Both STOP and YIELD traffic control devices have similar warrant criteria in the Minnesota Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MnMUTCD). The Traffic Committee discussed the request in August and recommended to support the request after seeking public feedback. Engineering staff sent letters to nearby property owners in September. Staff received 2 responses in support of the proposed change. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Location Map Resolution 5319 - to be partially rescinded Prepared by: Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study No. 682: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at Franklin Ave & W. 18th St/ Edgewood Ave RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF FRANKLIN AVENUE AT W. 18TH STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 684 WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park has studied and has determined that it is appropriate to replace existing YIELD signs with STOP signs at the intersection of Franklin Avenue at W. 18th Street and Edgewood Avenue; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Engineering Director is hereby authorized to: 1.Repeal the portion of Resolution 5319 stating, “on the Edgewood and Franklin Avenues approach to W. 18th Street” authorizing the installation of east-west YIELD signs at Franklin Avenue and W. 18th Street/ Edgewood Avenue. 2.Install east-west STOP signs at the intersection of Franklin Avenue and W. 18th Street/ Edgewood Avenue. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 3 Title: Traffic Study No. 682: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at Franklin Ave & W. 18th St/ Edgewood Ave LOCATION MAP Existing: Yield Signs Proposed: Stop Signs City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Title: Traffic Study No. 682: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs at Franklin Ave & W. 18th St/ Edgewood AvePage 4 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of “No Parking” restrictions along Virginia Avenue, W. 28th Street, and Texas Avenue in accordance with the 2017 Connect The Park Bike ways (City Project #4017-2000) as well as to rescind Resolution Nos. 02-070 and 4943. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The authorization of parking restrictions is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority. SUMMARY: Connect the Park is the city’s 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP ) to add bikeways, sidewalks, and trails throughout the community. 2017 is the third year of sidewalk and trail construction and the second year of installing bikeways in the community. The bikeway along W. 28th Street from Virginia Avenue to Blackstone Avenue and Texas Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to W. 28th Street was approved by the City Council on February 6, 2017. Various Connect the Park segments have been under construction over the past several months. Parking restrictions on the north and south curb lines of Virginia Avenue, W. 28th Street, and the west curb line of Texas Avenue promote the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and drivers. These parking restrictions separate the modes of transportation on roads with bikeways. These restrictions were included in all plans shared with the public during the public information process. The Engineering Department recommends the implementation of these parking restrictions to support the bikeway system. The parking restrictions will be installed in the spring of 2018 in conjunction with the installation of on-street pavement markings. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to enact the parking restrictions are already included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan as a part of Project No. 4017-2000 Connect the Park project. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Location Map Resolution 02-070 – to be rescinded Resolution 4943 – to be rescinded Prepared by: Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution PROJECT UPDATE: The 2017 Connect the Park project was brought to the Council on February 6, 2017 for approval. Construction began in the spring. The following is an update on the status of the bikeways, sidewalks, and trails construction. Sidewalks The project sidewalk segments on: •Barry Street •Xenwood Avenue •W. 36 ½ Street The sidewalk segments are in the final stages of being completed. The City is waiting on Xcel Energy to remove four utility poles so the last few panels of concrete can be installed. This work is expected to be fully completed by early October 2017. Trails The project included trail segments on: •Utica Avenue from North Cedar Lake Regional Trail to the pedestrian overpass of Hwy 100 near W. 27th Street. The Utica trail segment from just north of W. 27th Street to the North Cedar Lake Regional Trail has been delayed due to the acquisition of trail easements. The easements have recently been acquired; however staff believes it is too late in the year to begin the bidding and construction process. Staff is recommending that this project be bid over the winter and construction occur in early 2018. Favorable construction pricing and weather should allow the work to be completed in a timely manner. Bikeways The project included on- street bikeways on: •Texas Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to W. 28th Street •Virginia Avenue from North Cedar Lake Trail to W. 28th Street •W. 28th Street from Virginia Avenue to Utica Avenue •W. 33rd Street from Virginia Avenue to Rhode Island Avenue The parking bays on W. 28th Street adjacent to Ainsworth Park have been completed. The pavement striping and signage associated with the installation of the bikeways will be completed in the spring of 2018. Staff received bids that were approximately 30% higher than the engineer’s estimate. Upon discussing this with the bidders it was determined that the amount of striping to be completed in the metro before the season ends helped to elevate the prices. Many of the contractors suggested installing the pavement markings and signage in the spring would result in much more favorable bids. Page 3 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS NO. 02-070 AND 4943, AND INSTALLING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON VIRGINIA AVENUE, W. 28TH STREET, AND TEXAS AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota is committed to being a connected and engaged community, and; WHEREAS, The City is continuing the implementation of the Connect the Park initiative which includes the construction of a bikeway on Virginia Avenue, W. 28th Street, and Texas Avenue, and; WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has completed a full public process to inform interested parties about the proposed bikeway and subsequent parking restrictions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Engineering Director is hereby authorized to: 1.Rescind Resolution 02-070 – to remove redundant parking restrictions on W. 28th Street which are covered in the following resolution items. 2.Rescind Resolution 4943 – to remove redundant parking restrictions on W. 28th Street which are covered in the following resolution items. 3.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the west side of Virginia Avenue from 95 feet northwest of the north right-of-way line of W. 28th Street to the north right-of-way line of W. 28th Street. 4.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the east side of Virginia Avenue from 120 feet northwest of the north right-of-way line of W. 28th Street to the north right-of-way line of W. 28th Street. 5.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the north side of W. 28th Street from the east right- of-way line of Virginia Avenue to 73 feet east of the east right-of-way line of Quebec Avenue. 6.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the north side of W. 28th Street from 30 feet west of the west right-of-way line of Pennsylvania Avenue to 35 feet east of the east right-of- way line of Pennsylvania Avenue. 7.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the north side of W. 28th Street from 90 feet west of the west right-of-way line of Oregon Avenue to the west right-of-way line of Dakota Avenue. Page 4 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution 8.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the south side of W. 28th Street from the west right- of-way line of Virginia Avenue to the west right-of-way line of Dakota Avenue. 9.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the west side of Texas Avenue from 260 feet north of the north right-of-way line of Minnetonka Boulevard to the north right-of-way line of Minnetonka Boulevard. 10.Install “NO PARKING” restrictions on the east side of Texas Avenue from the south right- of-way line of W. 28th Street to the north right-of-way line of Minnetonka Boulevard. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk 0 500 1,000250 Feet ´ Connect the Park - No Parking ResolutionVirginia Ave. S., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. S. Legend No Parking Parcels 28th St. W.28th St. W. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution Page 5 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave.., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution Page 6 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave.., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution Page 7 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution Page 8 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Title: Connect the Park – Virginia Ave., W. 28th St., and Texas Ave. No Parking Resolution Page 9 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Donation from MN Twins & The Toro Company for Renovation of Fields at Dakota Park RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Minnesota Twins ($10,000) and The Toro Company ($10,000) to renovate the baseball and softball fields at Dakota Park. In addition to the monetary donation, the Minnesota Twins and Toro Company will provide volunteers for the renovation of the fields, scheduled for October 4, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its 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. The Minnesota Twins and The Toro Company are graciously donating a total of $20,000, plus volunteers for the renovation of the fields, to Operations and Recreation Department. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used to renovate the baseball and softball fields at Dakota Park. The Minnesota Twins also gave a $5,000 grant to the Girls Fastpitch Softball Association in 2016 to purchase equipment. Staff appreciates having their support to assist in improvements to City facilities and programs. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Administrative Assistant Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Accept Donation from MN Twins & The Toro Company for Renovation of Fields at Dakota Park RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,000 FROM THE MINNESOTA TWINS AND THE TORO COMPANY TO RENOVATE THE FIELDS AT DAKOTA 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, the Minnesota Twins and The Toro Company donated a total of $20,000, plus volunteers, to be used to rebuild the baseball and softball fields at Dakota Park. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the Minnesota Twins and The Toro Company with the understanding that it must be used to rebuild the baseball and softball fields at Dakota Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Accept Donation for Memorial Bench Honoring Willi Zogg from Zita Zogg RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from Zita Zogg for the purchase and installation of a memorial bench in Westwood Hills Nature Center ($2,200) honoring Willi Zogg. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its 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. Zita Zogg graciously donated $2,200 for the purchase and installation of a memorial bench. The donation is given with the restriction that the memorial bench ($2,200) be placed in Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring Willi Zogg. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used to purchase and install a bench in Westwood Hills Nature Center. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Senior Office Assistant Reviewed by: Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Accept Donation for Memorial Bench Honoring Willi Zogg from Zita Zogg RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,200 FOR A MEMORIAL BENCH TO BE PLACED IN WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER HONORING WILLI ZOGG 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, Zita Zogg donated $2,200 to purchase and install a memorial bench in Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring Willi Zogg; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Zita Zogg with the understanding that it must be used to purchase and install a bench in Westwood Hills Nature Center honoring Willi Zogg. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4g EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Appointing Additional Election Judges for the 2017 General Election RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution appointing additional election judges needed to staff the polls at the General Election to be held November 7, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUMMARY: On June 19, 2017, council adopted Resolution No. 17-105, appointing 125 judges for the Primary and General Elections of 2017. Since that time, new judges have been recruited to serve at the polling places on Election Day, and those names are being presented for approval with this resolution. The total number of election judges serving in the precinct polling places for the General Election is 121. In an effort to accommodate judges unable to work the entire 15-18 hour day, many of our judges will be working in half-day shifts. Once again, the City Clerk’s Office will offer two types of election judge training sessions at various times in October – one for equipment training (electronic poll books) and one for forms & procedures training. Every effort is being made to ensure excellent service to our voters FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Election expenses for judges are included in the adopted 2017 Budget. Election judge hourly pay is as follows: $9.50 for regular election judges, $10 for absentee ballot judges; $10 for co-chair judges; and $11 chair judges. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Kay Midura – Assistant – City Clerk’s Office Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Appointing Additional Election Judges for the 2017 General Election RESOLUTION NO. 17-______ RESOLUTION APPOINTING ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES TO SERVE AT THE GENERAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2017 WHEREAS, The 2017 General Election is to be held on November 7, 2017 and the City must act to appoint judges of the election by resolution of the City Council; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 17-105 was adopted on June 19, 2017; and WHEREAS, Additional judges have been recruited to staff the polls on Election Day; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the following persons are hereby appointed as additional regular Election Judges Last Name First Name Claus-Yurik Dorothy Dolan Ziff Lillian Jewell Rob Metzker Kathy Rainey William St. Lawrence Annette Thornberg Hope Thornsjo Lucille Virum Barb Weaver Julie BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any substitutions or additions as deemed necessary. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Section 36-268-PUD 8 of the Zoning Code relating to the Major Amendment for The Elmwood, and to set the second reading for October 2, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the proposed Major Amendment to PUD 8 to allow for reductions to The Elmwood redevelopment? SUMMARY: The applicant requests a major amendment to the Elmwood Planned Unit Development to reduce the project size. The request is due to higher than anticipated final construction cost estimates. The proposed changes and reductions to the development are as follows: Previously Approved Proposed Dwelling Units 85 70 Stories 6 stories 5 stories Number of Affordable Units 17 dwelling units (20%) 17 dwelling units (24%) Commercial Area (sq. ft.) 4,920 4,393 Number of Bedrooms 158 134 Number of Parking Spaces 188 127 DORA 21.2% 20.5% FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Despite the reduction in building size, The Elmwood’s revised financial pro forma continues to reflect over $3.2 million in extraordinary site preparation costs making it financially infeasible. To offset a sufficient portion of these qualified redevelopment costs, but retain the same number of affordable housing units as previously approved, it is proposed that the EDA reimburse the Redeveloper up to $950,000 through pay-as- you-go tax increment generated by the project - the same amount previously approved. Given the project’s reduced taxable market value, it will require 7.5 years, or approximately 1½ additional years, to generate the proposed amount of tax increment. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion, Zoning Analysis, Elevation Comparison, Site Plan Comparison, Floor Plan Comparison, Ordinance Draft, Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 DISCUSSION SITE LOCATION MAP: SITE INFORMATION: Site Address: 5605 36th Street West Site Area: 0.99 acres Zoning: PUD – Planned Unit Development Comprehensive Plan: MX Mixed Use Neighborhood: Elmwood BACKGROUND: City Council approved the Elmwood PUD in March 2017 which allowed for the construction of a six story, mixed-use building with 85 residential units, approximately 4,900 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 21.6% DORA and 188 parking stalls. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Description: The developer requests a major amendment to Section 36-268 PUD 8 of the city’s zoning ordinance which established the zoning for the Elmwood development, due to extraordinarily high costs of constructing two levels of below ground parking. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 Uses: The proposal includes a mix of commercial space, residential amenity space and dwelling units on the ground floor, and residential units on floors two through five. The ground floor mix of uses has not changed, and 60% of the frontage facing 36th Street remains commercial and other active uses. A portion of the commercial space has been repurposed into storage (400 square feet), and the overall mix of ground floor uses meet the requirements of the approved PUD. The size of the ground floor residential units have been slightly reduced to allow for additional storage and amenities that were previously located within the parking garage. Residential units are located on floors two through five, and no changes have been made to those units. Height: The applicant proposes to reduce the height of the building, from six stories totaling 77 feet to five stories totaling 68 feet in height. Unit & Bedroom Count: The amendment includes fewer residential units. The previously approved plans included 85 residential units with a total of 138 bedrooms. The amendment proposes 70 dwelling units with 112 bedrooms. Although the number of units in the proposed project has decreased, the dwelling unit mix has not changed: 1 bedroom (14%), 1 bedroom + den (24%), 2 bedroom (43%), and 2 bedroom + den (19%). The development retains a high percentage of 2 bedrooms and 2 bedrooms + den units (62%) to appeal to people looking to downsize from single-family homes. Parking: The original plans included 188 parking spaces, of which only 159 stalls were required per city code (1 parking stall per bedroom). The PUD amendment proposes 127 parking stalls, which is seven fewer than required per code. The applicant could reduce the number of two bedroom units to meet the parking requirement, but have requested a higher two bedroom unit count with a slight reduction in parking. Staff is supportive of a reduction in parking in this location due to future transit service in the area, and the 55+ age restrictions in the building. In light of the reduction in parking, staff recommends a parking management plan be included as part of the Planning Development Contract to manage resident, guest, and commercial parking usage and location. Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA): The proposed development plans illustrate DORA through the inclusion of the 8,100 square feet outdoor space in the rear of the building and 750 square feet on the building’s roof. The previously approved plans called for 1,050 square feet of rooftop DORA, but Fire Code allows a maximum of 750 square feet. The plans have been revised to adhere to the Fire Code. This reduces the overall DORA from 21.6% to 20.5%. The plans continue to exceed the city’s minimum 12% DORA requirements. Landscaping: There is a minor reduction in overall landscaping due to the decreased shrubs and perennials planted within the rooftop DORA. No landscaping has changed at grade on the site plan. Public Input: An additional neighborhood meeting was not warranted, as the project was originally presented as being either a 70-unit or 85-unit mixed use development during the neighborhood meeting held in November, 2016. Staff received one phone call from a nearby resident, and the resident was supportive of the updated plans. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends adherence to the original conditions of approval, with the addition of a Parking Management Plan, and that Section 36-268 PUD 8 and the Official Exhibits for The Elmwood be amended as proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 19, 2017. There were no comments from the public, and the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval of the major amendment subjects to conditions recommended by staff. Zoning Compliance Table: Factor Required Adopted Proposed Use Commercial Mixed Use-Commercial and Residential No Change Lot Area 2.0 acres, or less with City Council approval 0.99 acres No Change Height No maximum with PUD 76.9 feet 68’2” Building Materials Minimum of 60% Class I materials 63.4% Class I 36.6% Class II 60.7% Class I 39.3% Class II Density 50 units/acre, or more with PUD 85.8 units/acre 70.7 units/acre Floor Area Ratio None with PUD 2.75 2.3 Ground Floor Area Ratio N/A 0.44 No Change Off-Street Parking Residential: 112 spaces •1 space/bedroom Commercial: 20 spaces •1 space/250 square feet for Commercial-office space 162 underground spaces 17 off-street surface spaces 9 On-street spaces Total Provided: 188 spaces Total Required: 158 spaces 100 underground spaces 18 off-street surface spaces 9 On-street spaces Total Provided: 127 spaces Total Required: 134 spaces Bicycle Parking 10% of required vehicle parking (14) •126 spaces in underground ramp •10 exterior bike spaces Total: 136 bike spaces •54 interior bike storage •10 exterior bike spaces Total: 64 bike spaces DORA 12% total lot area Ground Floor: 8,100 sq. ft. Rooftop: 1,060 sq. ft. Total: 9,160 sq. ft., 21.2% Ground Floor: 8,100 square feet Rooftop: 750 sq. ft. Total: 8,850 sq. ft., 20.5% Landscaping See Landscaping section Setbacks None with PUD Front (North): 10’ to 13’, Plaza 0’, Patios 4’ Side (East): 1’ Rear (South): varies, 17’- 64’ Side (West): 10’ No Change City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 Approved Elevation Proposed Elevation City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 Approved Site Plan Proposed Site Plan City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 Approved Ground Floor Proposed Ground Floor City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 ORDINANCE NO. ____-17 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTION 36-268-PUD 8 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5605 W 36TH STREET THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 17-21-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance Section 36-268-PUD 8. Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates the following described lands as Mixed Use. Lot 1, Block 1, Elmwood Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Sec. 3. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268-PUD 8 is hereby amended to add the following changes: Section 36-268-PUD 8. (a) Development Plan The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following Final PUD signed Official Exhibits: 1. C0.0– Cover Title Sheet 2. C0.1 – Site Survey 3. C0.2 – Preliminary Plat 4. C0.3 – Final Plat 5. C1.0 – Removals Plan 6. C2.0 – Site Plan 7. C2.1 – Green Roof Layout & Landscape Plan 8. C2.2 – Rooftop Green Roof Layout & Landscape Plan 9. C3.0 – Grading Plan 10. C4.0 – Utility Plan 11. C5.0 – Civil Details 12.C5.1 – Civil Details 13.C5.2 – Civil Details 14. L1.0 – Landscape Plan 15. LT1.0 – Lighting Plan 16. LT1.1 – Lighting Specifications 17. A010 – Floor Plan – Level (-2) & (-1) (-1) & 1 18. A011 – Floor Plan – Level 1 & 2 2 & 3 19. A012 – Floor Plan – Level 3 & 4 4 & 5 20. A013 – Floor Plan – Level 5 & 6 Roof 21. A014 – Floor Plan – Roof 22. A200 – Exterior Elevations 23. A201 – Exterior Elevations 24. Shadow Study City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 25. Front Perspective 1 26. Front Perspective 2 27. Rear Perspective 28. Exterior Vignettes 29. Parking Management Plan The site shall also conform to the following requirements: 1) The property shall be developed with 85 70 residential units and a minimum of 4,920 4,393 square feet of ground floor commercial space. 2) At least 179 118 off-street parking spaces shall be constructed. At least nine (9) public on-street parallel parking spaces shall be constructed on 36th Street West and one public on-street loading bay shall be installed adjacent to the site. 3) The maximum building height shall not exceed 77 69 feet and six five stories. 4) The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor recreation area based on private developable land area. (b) Permitted with Conditions (1) Multiple-family dwellings. The conditions are as follows: a. Multiple-family dwellings are permitted on all floors of the building. b. Residential units are limited to a maximum of 35 percent of the ground floor area of the building. c. Multiple-family dwellings shall not exceed 40 percent of building frontage along 36th Street West. d. Uses associated with the multiple-family dwellings, including, but not limited to the residential office, fitness facility, mail room, assembly rooms or general amenity space are limited to a maximum of 45 percent of the ground floor area of the building. (2) Commercial uses. Commercial uses are only permitted on the first floor, and are limited to coffee shops, office, private entertainment (indoor), retail shops, service, showrooms and studios. The conditions are as follows: a. All parking requirements must be met for each use. b. Hours of operation shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. c. Restaurants are prohibited. d. In vehicle sales is prohibited. (3) Civic and institutional uses. Civic and institutional uses are limited to education/academic, library, museums/art galleries, indoor public parks/open space, police service substations, post office customer service facilities, public studios and performance theaters. The conditions are as follows: a. All parking requirements must be met for each use. b. Hours of operation for shall be limited to 6 a.m. to 12 a.m. c. In vehicle sales is prohibited. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 (c) Accessory Uses Accessory uses are as follows: (1) Incidental repair or processing which is necessary to conduct a permitted use and not to exceed ten percent of the gross floor area of the associated permitted use. (2) Home occupations complying with all of the conditions in the R-C district. (3) Catering, if accessory to food service, delicatessen or retail bakery. (4) Gardens. (5) Parking lots. (6) Outdoor seating, public address (PA) systems are prohibited. (7) No outdoor uses or storage allowed. (d) Special Performance Standards (1) All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design, landscaping, parking and screening requirements. (2) Each commercial, civic or institutional tenant space on the ground floor shall have a direct and primary access to and from the 36th Street (north) building façade and the access shall remain open during business hours. (3) All trash, garbage, waste materials, trash containers, and recycling containers shall be kept in the manner required by this Code. All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view within a waste enclosure. (4) Signage shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with the following conditions: a. Pylon signs are prohibited; b. Freestanding monument signs shall utilize the same exterior materials as the principal buildings and shall not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle or automobile circulation and visibility; c. Maximum allowable number, sizes, heights and yards for signs shall be regulated by section 36-362, MX requirements. d. Wall signs of non-residential uses shall only be placed on the ground floor and exterior walls of the occupied tenant lease space, and/or a monument sign. e. Wall signs shall not be included in calculating the aggregate sign area on the lot if they meet the following outlined conditions: 1. Non-residential wall signs permitted by this section that do not exceed seven percent of the exterior wall area of the ground floor tenant lease space. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 2.The sign is located on the exterior wall of the ground floor tenant lease space from which the seven percent sign area was derived. 3. No individual wall sign shall exceed 80 square feet in area. (5)Façade. The following façade design guidelines shall be applicable to all ground floor non-residential street-facing facades: a.Minimum ground floor transparency shall be 65% at the pedestrian level. b.No more than 10% of total window and door area shall be glass block, mirrored, spandrel, frosted or other opaque glass, finishes or material including window painting and signs. The remaining 90% of window and door area shall be clear or slightly tinted glass, allowing views into and out of the interior. c.Active permitted uses, not including storage areas or utility closets, shall be maintained for a minimum depth of 15 feet. d.Visibility into the space shall be maintained for a minimum depth of ten feet. This requirement shall not prohibit the display of merchandise. (6)Awnings. a.Awnings shall be constructed of heavy canvas fabric, metal and/or glass. Plastic and vinyl awnings are prohibited. b.Backlit awnings are prohibited. Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 17-21-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing July 19, 2017 First Reading September 18, 2017 Second Reading October 2, 2017 Date of Publication October 12, 2017 Date Ordinance takes effect October 27, 2017 Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 2, 2017 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 September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA JULY 19, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper, Torrey Kanne, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Jennifer Monson, Meg McMonigal 1.Call to Order – Roll Call 2. Approval of Minutes of June 21, 2017 Commissioner Robertson made a motion to approve the minutes of June 21, 2017. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0. 3.Public Hearings A.The Elmwood – Major Amendment to PUD Location: 5605 36th Street West Applicant: 36th Street LLC Case No.: 17-21-PUD Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. The applicant has proposed a five- story, 70 unit mixed-use building with 4,393 square feet of commercial space, 20.5% DORA and 127 parking spaces. Ms. Monson explained that the only changes to the site plan include an additional parking stall added within the surface parking lot and the removal of a residential patio staircase. All other changes take place within the interior of the building and on the roof. The development continues to be marketed toward residents aged 55+ and the dwelling unit mix remains the same. Ms. Monson discussed the proposed reduction in parking of the PUD amendment. She stated that staff is supportive of a reduction in parking in this location due to future transit service in the area, and because of the 55+ age restrictions in the building. She said staff has recommended a parking management plan be included as part of the Planning Development Contract. Ms. Monson reviewed uses, height, DORA and landscaping. Chair Peilen asked if the 127 parking spaces are resident parking only. Ms. Monson responded it is not specified where each use is but the 127 does accommodate guest parking. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Title: The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about underground parking. She spoke about PLACE project’s need to rent parking from businesses along 36th St. She said given the reduction in Elmwood parking PLACE probably will not be renting parking spaces at that location. Ms. Monson responded likely not. She added that there is a large surface parking lot across the street by Hoigaard Village and a large surface parking lot at Burlington Coat. Chair Peilen opened the public hearing. As there was no one present wishing to speak she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Robertson said overall the changes don’t alter the project visually from the original PUD. He said he understands the client’s need to work with the budget. He said he didn’t vote for the original PUD because he didn’t think it met the spirit of mixed use. He said he wouldn’t be voting to recommend approval of the amendment for the same reason. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she understands Commissioner Robertson’s view but she does like the amendment proposal, especially the project size and because of the number of two bedroom units. Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of Major Amendment to Section 36-268 PUD 8 subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-1 (Robertson opposed). 4. Other Business: None 5. Communications: None 6. Adjournment Chair Peilen adjourned the meeting at 6:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution granting a Conditional Use Permit CUP) to allow Places of Assembly at 6509 and 6515 Walker Street with conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the CUP request meet the criteria of the zoning ordinance? SUMMARY: The Paul Revere Masonic Center (PRMC) is currently operating at the subject property. They recently reduced the size of their operation and are in the process of remodeling the building to convert it from a single-use building to a two-tenant building. The PRMC will continue to operate in one tenant space. The second tenant space is proposed to be leased to the American Legion. The American Legion proposes to operate the existing kitchen and an assembly area on the east side of the building. While the assembly area is a multi-use space, it is expected to be used primarily as a food service area where meals and drinks will be served to club members and guests. The American Legion formerly operated at 5605 36th Street, but had to vacate the space in anticipation of the redevelopment of the property with the Elmwood mixed-use building that was approved by the city in March of 2017. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on August 29, 2017, at which approximately 16 people attended and spoke in favor of the application. Some comments were received expressing concerns about the proximity of the sale of alcohol to the Central Community Center, where children are present. Additionally, one person expressed concern about the design of the on-street parking on Walker Street. Staff noted that the code requires the proposed use to be at least 100 feet away from a parcel zoned Residential, and the Central Community Center is over 400 feet away. Staff also noted that Walker Street is scheduled for reconstruction, and the Engineering Department will be in contact with the businesses in the area to discuss design options. The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing. One person spoke at the public hearing, Megan Phimster, resident at 3451 Zarthan Ave S and co-chair of the Sorenson Neighborhood, in favor of the application. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 4-0 vote. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Aerial Photo Draft Resolution Draft Planning Commission Minutes Development Plans Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 DISCUSSION LOCATION: [SW1] Adjacent uses include manufacturing to the east, commercial printing and office to the north and auto repair to the west. BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Plan: Commercial Zoning: C-2 General Commercial Zoning Regulations: The American Legion is classified within the “Places of Assembly” land use category. Places of Assembly are facilities designed to accommodate larger groups of people having shared goals, desires or interests that are not customarily business related. Social, educational, recreational, religious, and dining activities may be included. Characteristics may include large group meetings or activities with peak parking demands and noise. If the floor area devoted to food or beverage sales exceeds 50% of the total gross floor area, the facility will be classified as a restaurant. The American Legion qualifies as an assembly use as it is a club serving active and retired military personnel, along with their families and guests. The area of the building dedicated to food and beverage sales is highlighted in yellow and is approximately 1,990 square feet in area, which represents approximately 20% of the gross floor area of the building. Places of Assembly are allowed by CUP with the following conditions that are specific to the Assembly use: City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 a. All buildings shall be located a minimum of 30 feet from any lot line of a lot in an R district. The residential property closest to the subject building is the Central Community Center, which is located 440 feet away. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. While Walker Street is not a collector or arterial, it intersects with Lake Street to the west and Wooddale Avenue to the east. Both of which are collector streets. Additionally, this section of Walker Street services commercial uses and the Central Community Center. It is not adjacent to residential uses. The American Legion will not generate significant traffic on local residential streets. c. Seating capacity shall be limited to 150 persons. They propose to have a seating capacity of 100. d. Parking shall meet zoning code requirements, unless it is a religious or other institution that requires walking because of a religious tenet or other rule, then 1 space per every 8 seats shall be required. The entire building was previously occupied by the Masonic Center, and it was legally non-conforming to the parking requirements. Per code, a property that is non- conforming to the parking requirement can expand its use or building, but it has to provide additional parking to meet the increased parking requirement resulting from the expansion. In this case, as noted in the table and description below, the increased parking requirement is one parking space. To meet code, the Masons are creating three additional parking spaces by reconstructing their parking lot resulting in a more efficient use of the space. Additional Parking Spaces - Railroad Property Lease: In addition to the on-street and on- site parking spaces noted above, the Masons are leasing 12 spaces on the railroad property adjacent to the subject property. The Masons have been leasing this land and maintaining Existing Parking Conditions Required Parking Existing Parking Masons Assembly and Office uses: 86 parking spaces 10 on-street 12 on-site 22 parking spaces Under the proposed floor plan, the American Legion will be leasing assembly and office space previously occupied by the Masons. The American Legion will remodel the assembly and office area, resulting in an increased parking requirement for the building from 86 spaces to 87 spaces. Proposed Parking Conditions Required Parking Proposed Parking Masons & American Legion Assembly and Office uses: 87 parking spaces 10 on-street 15 on-site 25 parking spaces Difference: +1 parking spaces +3 parking spaces City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 parking on it since 1979. Staff is recommending that it be a condition of the CUP approval that the Masons continue leasing the spaces from the railroad. Additional Parking Spaces – Public Parking: There is a substantial amount of public parking in the immediate vicinity. There is a municipal parking lot located on the north side of Walker Street which contains 29 parking spaces. There is also an additional 39 public parking spaces on Walker Street. These are public parking spaces, so they are shared spaces with all the other commercial businesses in the area. Shared Parking: The Masons have been utilizing the entire building as an assembly and office space since 1979, and there are no known parking problems resulting from the use. The advantage of the Mason and American Legion Assembly uses are that their peak times are in the evenings. This peak time complements the businesses in the area which have peak times typically during the week day when the activity at the Masons and American Legion are typically lower. The American Legion will have a smaller peak during the lunch hour, but they expect their on-site parking lot, railroad parking lot, and the 10 adjacent on-site parking spaces to handle the lunch peak time. e. In multi-tenant buildings, noise shall be contained within that space dedicated to the place of assembly use. No noise shall be audible within common areas or in adjacent units. The American Legion will share the building with the Masonic Lodge. The American Legion assembly area is separated from the Masonic Lodge by a corridor and several walls. Based on past experience with the American Legion, noise is not expected to be a problem. f. In multi-tenant buildings, the place of assembly shall have a separate entrance or shall have an interior entrance that is within 50 feet of a common building entrance. The American Legion and the Masonic Lodge are separated by a common corridor that provides access from the front and back sides of the building. g. With intoxicating liquor, the following additional conditions apply: i. Buildings shall be located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious institution or community center. The building is located 420 feet from a residential parcel, which is occupied by the Central Community Center. ii. Separate pedestrian ways shall be constructed to allow for the separation of pedestrian and vehicular movements within the parking lot. The parking lot improvement located behind the building includes a new sidewalk along the building to provide safe pedestrian passage through the parking lot. iii. The use must be in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the neighborhood in which it is located and conditions of approval may be added as a means of satisfying this requirement. The property is guided commercial in the comprehensive plan. The assembly use is an allowed use in the commercial zoning district. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 Aerial Photo City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36- 194(d)(5) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT PLACES OF ASSEMBLY LOCATED AT 6509 AND 6515 WALKER STREET FINDINGS WHEREAS, Paul Revere Masonic Center, LLC, has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate laces of Assembly at 6509 and 6515 Walker Street within a C-2 General Commercial Zoning District having the following legal description: Lots 1 to 5, Block 35, Rearrangement of St Louis Park including also west 15 feet of vacated Mound Street. WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No. 17-24-CUP and the effect of the proposed Places of Assembly on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the requested Places of Assembly will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community. Nor will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and that the proposed Places of Assembly is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. WHEREAS, the contents of Case No. 17-24-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Places of Assembly at 6509 and 6515 Walker Street is hereby approved with the following conditions: 1. The property shall be used and developed in accordance with the attached Exhibit A: Site Plan, Exhibit B: Landscaping Plan and Exhibit C: Floor Plan. 2. The property owner shall keep a lease in effect with the railroad to maintain 12 parking spaces on the railroad property. 3. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 4. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the use for which the conditional use permit ceases. 5. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 7 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 8 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 D R A F T UNOFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson, Ethan Rickert (youth member) MEMBERS ABSENT: Torrey Kanne, Richard Person, Joe Tatalovich STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson, Gary Morrison 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Peilen called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of August 16, 2017 Commissioner Carper made a motion to approve the minutes of August 16, 2017. Chair Peilen seconded the motion. The motion failed on a vote of 2-0. 3. Public Hearings A. Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 Location: 6509 and 6515 Walker Street Applicant: Paul Revere Masonic Lodge and the American Legion Case No.: 17-24-CUP Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The request for a conditional use permit is to operate a Places of Assembly. The Paul Revere Masonic Center has reduced the size of its operation and are in the process of remodeling the building to convert it to a two-tenant building. The second tenant space is proposed to be leased to the American Legion. Mr. Morrison explained that the American Legion proposes to operate the existing kitchen and an Assembly area on the east side of the building. The Assembly area is expected to be used primarily as a food service area where meals and drinks will be served to club members and guests. Mr. Morrison reviewed conditions specific to Assembly use. He provided a detailed review of parking conditions. He discussed conditions regarding intoxicating liquor. The application does meet all conditions. Mr. Morrison stated a neighborhood meeting was held on August 29, 2017. Commissioner Carper asked about the use of surrounding buildings and related traffic. Mr. Morrison responded uses include NTB, the historic Walker Building which consists of small offices/low occupancy, print shops, manufacturing, therapeutic massage, and a school City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 9 Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 maintenance facility. He said traffic is pretty light during the week. The main traffic is down Lake St. going west to Louisiana. Commissioner Carper asked Mr. Morrison to point out the location of the Community Center. He asked about programming for children at the center. Mr. Morrison responded Spanish Immersion is in the building. There is some thought to relocate that use and make the Community Center an administrative school building. Carper asked about traffic controls at Walker Street and Lake. Mr. Morrison responded that is a two-way stop. Carper asked about access for the American Legion. Mr. Morrison showed property lines for the building right along the south side wall. Everything else south of that is public right-of-way. He spoke about the agreement the city has with the neighboring property that will not allow the PRMC or American legion to have access to the right- of-way to the east, and that the gate will have to be removed. Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggested that bike racks be added to the site plan. Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about number of employees of American Legion and parking. Kristine Strout, 2935 Rhode Island Ave. S., manager, said they have about 12 total employees, with three during the day shift. She would like employees to park in the public parking except for the closers. She’d like closers to park near the building. She said the American Legion is family friendly, and kids do come in with their families to eat. The Chair opened the public hearing. Megan Phimister, 3451 Zarthan Ave. S., co-chairs the Sorensen Neighborhood Association. Both she and her co-chair Lois Zander support the request. The Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said new businesses are coming to the area and there is a lot of potential for revitalization. She said she supports the request with concern about the addition of bike racks. Commissioner Carper said it is a reasonable request. Chair Peilen supports the request. Commissioner Carper made a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Place of Assembly uses at 6509 and 6515 Walker Street with conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0. NOPARKING12 8 7 10 TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING = 42 (32 ONSITE) 20'15'9'TYP15'18'24'18'8.5'9'TYP8'8'8'6.7' 13.2'5.8'2'R 10'R 2'R 2'R 3'R 15'R 5'R END CURB WITH 3' TAPER END CURB WITH 3' TAPER 3' TAPER TO FLAT CURB PROPOSED LIGHT POLE-TYP COORDINATE WITH LIGHTING PLAN CONCRETE WALK TYP-SEE DETAIL B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL B612 CURB & GUTTER TYP-SEE DETAIL ADA PARKING SIGNS MOUNTED ON EXISTING BUILDING TYP-SEE DETAIL 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS 5' CURB CUT W/ 3' TAPERS FLAT CURB TYP-SEE DETAIL CONCRETE STOOP SEE ARCH. CONCRETE STOOP SEE ARCH. CONCRETE STOOP SEE ARCH. CONCRETE STOOP SEE ARCH. END CURB WITH 3' TAPER MATCH EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT FUTURE PROPERTY TO BE ACQUIRED FROM MNDOT "DO NOT ENTER" SIGN VEHICLE WHEEL STOP BLOCK TYP-SEE DETAIL BUILDING PROTECTION TYP-SEE ARCH. 10'R PERMEABLE PAVEMENT SEE DETAIL LOUCKS CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION W:\2017\17198\CADD DATA\CIVIL\_dwg Sheet Files\C2-1-SITE PLANPlotted: 08 /07 / 2017 12:33 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL MASONIC LODGE/ AMERICAN LEGION 6509 WALKER ST. ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PAUL REVERE MASONIC CENTER 3509 WALKER ST. ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55410 06/28/17 CITY SUBMITTAL 07/06/17 MCWD SUBMITTAL 08/07/17 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No. Trevor D. Gruys- PE 53706 17198 TDG TDG/MDC 06/28/17 C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 EXISTING PARKING EXHIBIT C1-3 DEMOLITION PLAN C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C8-1 CIVIL DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L8-1 LANDSCAPE DETAILS LP1-1 LIGHTING PLAN SITE PLAN C2-1 N  23 CIVIL LEGEND WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. Gopher State One Call SITE NOTES 1. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE DETAIL SHEET(S) AND STATE/LOCAL JURISDICTION REQUIREMENTS. 2. ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND ACCESSIBLE ROUTES SHALL BE PROVIDED PER CURRENT ADA STANDARDS AND LOCAL/STATE REQUIREMENTS. 3. ALL CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 4. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO THE OUTSIDE FACE OF WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. TYPICAL FULL SIZED PARKING STALL IS 9' X 18' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. ALL CURB RADII SHALL BE 5.0' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. BITUMINOUS IMPREGNATED FIBER BOARD TO BE PLACED AT FULL DEPTH OF CONCRETE ADJACENT TO EXISTING STRUCTURES AND BEHIND CURB ADJACENT TO DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS. 8. SEE LIGHTING PLAN FOR SITE LIGHTING DESIGN INFORMATION. CURRENT ZONING: C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPOSED ZONING: C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AREA:0.63 AC DISTURBED AREA:0.38 AC EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.59 AC (93%) PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA: 0.55 AC (87%) SITE DATA YARD (BUILDING) SETBACKS: FRONT 5 FT MINIMUM SIDE 0 FT MINIMUM REAR 0 FT MINIMUM OFF-STREET PARKING AND DESIGN STANDARD REQUIREMENTS* SETBACKS: OFF-STREET PARKING = NO REQUIRED SETBACKS UNLESS PROPERTY ABUTS AN R DISTRICT MINIMUM PARKING LAYOUT DIMENSIONS (90 DEGREE PATTERN): PARKING SPACE WIDTH = 9 FT PARKING SPACE LENGTH = 18 FT MANEUVERING LANE WIDTH = 24 FT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS EXISTING PARKING = 34 STALLS PARKING REMOVED = -24 STALLS PROPOSED PARKING = 27 STALLS TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED = 37 STALLS OFF-STREET PARKING CALCULATIONS EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 0 STALLS REMOVED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 0 STALLS PROPOSED ACCESSIBLE PARKING:2 STALLS TOTAL 2 STALLS REQUIRED ACCESSIBLE PARKING: 2 STALLS** **REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSIBLE SPACES FOR 26-50 STALLS ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE AND STRIPING NOTES 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SITE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ALL ACCESSIBLE STALLS, LOGOS AND CROSS HATCH LOADING AISLES WITH WHITE PAVEMENT MARKING PAINT, 4" IN WIDTH. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAINT ANY/ALL DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC ARROWS, AS SHOWN, IN WHITE PAINT. 4. ALL SIGNAGE SHALL INCLUDE POST, CONCRETE FOOTING AND STEEL CASING WHERE REQUIRED. 5. ALL SIGNAGE NOT PROTECTED BY CURB, LOCATED IN PARKING LOT OR OTHER PAVED AREAS TO BE PLACED IN STEEL CASING, FILLED WITH CONCRETE AND PAINTED YELLOW. REFER TO DETAIL. 6. ANY/ALL STOP SIGNS TO INCLUDE A 24" WIDE PAINTED STOP BAR IN WHITE PAINT, PLACED AT THE STOP SIGN LOCATION, A MINIMUM OF 4' FROM CROSSWALK IF APPLICABLE. ALL STOP BARS SHALL EXTEND FROM DIRECTIONAL TRANSITION BETWEEN LANES TO CURB. 7. ALL SIGNS TO BE PLACED 18" BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. PAVEMENT TYPES NOTE: SEE PAVEMENT SECTIONS ON SHEET C8-1 FOR TYPE AND DEPTH INFORMATION. CONCRETE SIDEWALK BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 Page 10 NOPARKING923 923923 923 923923923 92392412 8 7 10 TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING = 42 (32 ONSITE) 3 GF 5 FG 3 GF 5 FG 3 GF STC 1 SKH STM NS NS 3 MAJ LANDSCAPE EDGING TYP. DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE SKH 1 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST Gleditsia triacanthos `Skycole`B & B 2.5"Cal SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING GF 9 GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC Rhus aromatica `Gro-Low`5 gal 24" SPRD 48" o.c. CONIFEROUS SHRUBS QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING MAJ 3 MANEY JUNIPER Juniperus chinensis `Maneyi`5 gal 18" SPRD 60" o.c. GRASSES QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME MIN CONT MIN SIZE SPACING FG 10 FEATHER REED GRASS Calamagrostis x acutiflora `Karl Foerster`1 gal 24" o.c. GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME NS NATIVE SEED SHORT/DRY GRASS MIX & SHORT/DRY WILDFLOWER MIX AS PROVIDED BY PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC OR EQUAL STC STONE COBBLE 6-8" ST. CLOUD ANGULAR GRANITE RIP RAP - HAND PLACE ROCKS TO MINIMIZE VOID SPACES. INFILL VOID SPACES WITH 1 1/2" ST. CLOUD GRANITE ROCK TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3" TO ENSURE NO FABRIC IS VISIBLE. STM STONE MULCH 1.5" BUFF LIMESTONE ROCK - 3" MINIMUM DEPTH OVER FILTER FABRIC PLANT SCHEDULE LOUCKS CADD files prepared by the Consultant for this project are instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of this project by others without written approval by the Consultant. With the Consultant's approval, others may be permitted to obtain copies of the CADD drawing files for information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. CADD QUALIFICATION W:\2017\17198\CADD DATA\LANDSCAPE\_dwg Sheet Files\L1-1-LANDSCAPE PLANPlotted: 08 /07 / 2017 12:49 PM7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE QUALITY CONTROL MASONIC LODGE/ AMERICAN LEGION 6509 WALKER ST. ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA PAUL REVERE MASONIC CENTER 3509 WALKER ST. ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA 55410 06/28/17 CITY SUBMITTAL 07/06/17 MCWD SUBMITTAL 08/07/17 REVISED CITY SUBMITTAL Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Nathan W. Ekhoff - LA 52050 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No.17198 TDG NWE 06/28/17 C1-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 EXISTING PARKING EXHIBIT C1-3 DEMOLITION PLAN C2-1 SITE PLAN C3-1 GRADING, DRAINAGE & EROSION CONTROL PLAN C8-1 CIVIL DETAILS L1-1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L8-1 LANDSCAPE DETAILS LP1-1 LIGHTING PLAN LANDSCAPE PLAN L1-1 N WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. Gopher State One Call GENERAL NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID. INSPECT SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. VERIFY LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN AND/OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S LAYOUT. ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE WORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURBS/GUTTERS, TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING PLANTING OPERATIONS. ANY DAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL INSTALLATION BEGINS (MINIMUM 10' - 0" CLEARANCE). ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB/GUTTER AND OTHER EXISTING ELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND/OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 Page 11 ISSUE/REVISIONS 06-05-2017 PROJECT # 17342PROPOSED TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FOR:THE AMERICAN LEGIONat PAUL REVERE MASCONIC CENTER6509 Walker StreetSt. Louis Park, MN 55426A2.1 REMODELING FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 A2.1 NORTH 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 2 2 4 6 8 20 VESTIBULE 100 100 TOILET 101 TOILET 102 MECHANICAL 103 102101 ASSEMBLY 110 PULL TABS 112 OFFICE 113 STOR. 114 OFFICE 115 COOLER KITCHEN 120 HALL 121 STORAGE 122 113 114115 110 112 111 MEETING HALL STOR. PRAYER CHAPELOFFICEMECHANICALWM BANQUET HALL 4 HALLWAY City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282 Page 12 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving 2018 Preliminary General Fund Budget, 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Budget Public Hearing Date for December 4, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: •Does the City Council desire to set the 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy at $31,884,702 which is a 5.35% change over the 2017 Final Property Tax Levy? •Does the City Council desire to hold the Public Hearing at which the Budget and Levy will be discussed on Monday, December 4, 2017 and then adopt the 2018 Budgets, Final Property Tax Levy, Final HRA Levy, and 2018-2027 Capital Improvement Plan at the Regular City Council Meeting on December 18, 2017? SUMMARY: Included is information pertaining to the 2018 Preliminary Budget and 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy. In addition, a proposed calendar of upcoming budget and tax levy dates is shown. Once the preliminary levy is set, it can be decreased but not increased. As we move ahead with our 2018 budget process and planning we will continue to have discussions and provide more information prior to the December 4th public hearing and final adoption on December 18th. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed tax levy will help support necessary city services to be provided during 2018. VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration and are an important part of the budgeting process. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Title: 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: On June 26, 2017, staff met with the City Council to discuss the 2018 Budget process. Council agreed that staff should follow recommendations from the “2018 Budget Production Guidelines” when preparing the 2018 Budget. Assumptions for the 2018 Budget included a pattern similar to past years; a levy increase, modest increase in other fees and charges where appropriate to fit with business costs, maintain high quality and responsive service delivery, hold expenditures flat where possible with adjustments for some modest growth based on essential business needs, funding for a wage and benefit contribution increase, utility rate adjustments, and continued long range financial planning. At the August 14th and September 5th, 2017 City Council study sessions, the City Council reviewed information regarding the 2018 budget and directed staff to prepare a 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy increase of 5.35% when compared to the 2017 Final Property Tax Levy. 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy There are some important key items to keep in mind for the 2018 Preliminary Tax Levy: •There are no levy limits in place for 2018. •Local Government Aid (LGA) for 2018 has been certified, St. Louis Park will receive $566,591 which is $21,121 more than the $545,470 certified in 2017. These dollars go into the Capital Replacement Fund and will be part of the long range financial management plan. •For the 2017 assessment, St. Louis Park’s taxable market value increased by 6.6% with all of the dominant property types increasing in value. Composition of the change is summarized as +5.8% for single-family homes, +7.0 for condos, +4.8 for townhomes, +9.5% for apartments, and the commercial-industrial sectors at +6.9%. As can be surmised by the above figures, there will be a slight shift of the property tax burden to commercial, condos, and apartment properties for the Payable 2018 tax period. This shift will be mitigated somewhat when considering all taxing jurisdictions that make up the typical property tax bill (in the aggregate, other County jurisdictions increased at higher rates for single-family homes but at lower rates for apartments and commercial properties). •The 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy once adopted on September 18, 2017, can be decreased but not increased after that date. •Council Programs line item was adjusted to the $198,000 which is the same as 2017 for initiatives and/or other programs items like climate action plan. In addition, any changes to federal programs or unanticipated program needs could be offset by this line item. One- time items and adjustments were offset in the general fund to maintain the 5.35%. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Title: 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption 2017 City Final Levy and 2018 City Preliminary Levy A synopsis of prior year levy information and the 2018 Proposed Preliminary Levy Range is shown below: 1. The 2017 Preliminary levy was $30,464,756, which was 6.50% more than 2016. 2. The 2017 Final levy was $30,264,073, which was 5.80% more than 2016. 3. At this point in time, the budgets which have been submitted and debt service needs would require a 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy increase of approximately of 5.35%. 2017 2018 $ Change % Change Final Levy Proposed 2017 to 2018 2017 to 2018 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY General Fund 24,748,436$ 25,644,220$ 895,784$ 3.62% Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00% Capital Replacement Fund 1,767,700 1,767,700 - 0.00% Debt Service-current 2,139,937 3,164,782 1,024,845 47.89% Debt Service-future 300,000 - (300,000) -100.00% Employee Benefit Fund 200,000 200,000 - 0.00% Housing Rehabilitation Fund 100,000 100,000 - 0.00% Council Programs (1)198,000 198,000 - 0.00% TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVIES 30,264,073$ 31,884,702$ 1,620,629$ 5.35% 1= Council programs line item is anticipated to be used for Council programs/initiatives such as the climate action plan for 2018 and/or possible changes to federal programs or unanticipated program needs. Additional Tax Levy Information By Law, the City Council is required to approve a 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy which must be certified to Hennepin County by September 30, 2017. Hennepin County will mail out parcel specific notices in mid to late November. Setting Dates for Public Hearing and 2018 Budget Adoption The City is required to hold a regularly scheduled meeting at which the budget and levy will be discussed and public input is allowed, prior to final budget and levy determination. This public input meeting must occur after November 24, 2017. Past practice has been to hold the public input meeting and then schedule a subsequent meeting to adopt the final budget. If the City Council chooses to continue this practice, then the dates would be the regular meeting on December 4, 2017 for the public input meeting and December 18, 2017 for adoption of the 2018 Budget, Tax Levy, HRA Levy, and 2018-2027 Capital Improvement Plan. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8c) Page 4 Title: 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption NEXT STEPS: As the 2018 budget process continues, the following preliminary schedule snapshot has been developed for Council: October 9 Review and discussion of 2018 budget, CIP, utility rates and LRFMP. Directors or their designees in attendance as needed. October 16 Public Hearing - 1st Reading of Fees, and adoption of 2018 Utility Rates November 6 (If necessary) Final budget or CIP discussion prior to Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and budget presentation. 2nd Reading of Fees on Consent. November (Date-TBD) – Live Facebook chat on 2018 budget and CIP. December 4 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and budget presentation December 11 (If necessary) Continuation of Public Hearing and any budget discussion. December 18 Council adopts 2017 Revised Budget, 2018 Budgets, final tax levies (City and HRA), and 2018 - 2027 CIP. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8c) Page 5 Title: 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING 2018 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET, 2018 PRELIMINARY PROPERTY TAX LEVY, AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE 2018 BUDGET AND FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes require approval of a preliminary property tax levy and a preliminary budget on or before September 30th of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget document; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, that the Preliminary 2018 Budget shall be as follows: 2018 Preliminary General Fund Revenues: Property Taxes $25,644,220 Licenses and Permit 3,924,648 Fines and Forfeits 269,200 Intergovernmental 1,825,223 Charges for Services 2,186,185 Miscellaneous 1,515,047 Transfers In 1,929,090 Interest on Investments 160,000 Total General Fund Revenues $37,453,613 Expenditures: Personnel $ 29,219,077 Supplies 1,798,014 Services and Other Charges 6,071,830 Non-Departmental 364,692 Total General Fund Expenditures $37,453,613 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing will be held on December 4, 2017; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied for collection in 2018 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes: City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8c) Page 6 Title: 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption 2018 Preliminary TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY Levy General Fund $25,644,220 Debt Service 3,164,782 Capital Replacement Fund 1,767,700 Park Improvement Fund 810,000 Council Programs 198,000 Employee Administration Fund 200,000 Housing Rehabilitation Fund 100,000 TOTAL TAX LEVIES $31,884,702 And BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Financial Officer is hereby authorized and directed to transmit this information to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Revenue, if applicable, in the format requested as required by law. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Motion to approve first reading of the Right-of-Way Ordinance and set second reading for October 2, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does this ordinance help protect the City’s interests regarding small wireless facilities? SUMMARY: On May 30, 2017, Gov. Dayton signed into law a bill amending Minnesota’s Telecommunications Right-of-Way User Law. The amendments cleared up any confusion about whether wireless providers are treated the same as other telecommunications right-of-way users under state law, but created a separate, streamlined permitting system for placement of small wireless facilities on city-owned structures in rights of way. Most of the bill provisions became effective on May 31, 2017. In the last month, staff has received inquiries from Mobilite and AT&T regarding what our process is for installing Small Cell Wireless Facilities within the right-of-way. City Attorney, Soren Mattick, has advised staff that in order to regulate these facilities and have them located within the right-of-way, we need to incorporate the provisions of the new law into our city code. Our current right-of-way ordinance, Section 24-251 was adopted in 1976. In order to incorporate the new language, we have updated the entire chapter. In addition to the Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit, the updated chapter includes provisions for restoration, relocation, and delay that apply to all permits and do not exist in our current code. The new chapter is based on the League of Minnesota Cities Model Right-of-Way Ordinance. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The updated ordinance also includes an update to our fee schedule. See discussion for more information. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion New State Law Requirements Summary Draft Ordinance Prepared by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Reviewed by: Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance DISCUSSION Background: On May 30, 2017, Gov. Dayton signed into law a bill amending Minnesota’s Telecommunications Right-of-Way User Law. The amendments cleared up any confusion about whether wireless providers are treated the same as other telecommunications right-of-way users under state law, but created a separate, streamlined permitting system for placement of small wireless facilities on city-owned structures in rights of way. Most of the bill provisions became effective on May 31, 2017 In the last month, staff has received inquiries from Mobilite and AT&T regarding what our process is for installing Small Cell Wireless Facilities within the right- of- way. City Attorney, Soren Mattick, has advised staff that in order to regulate these facilities and have them located within the right-of-way, we need to incorporate the provisions of the new law into our city code. Currently, our code allows for excavation and obstruction permits. What follows is a summary of the major changes in the ordinance to incorporate Small Cell Wireless Facility Permits and to better assist staff in managing our right-of-way. Small Cell Wireless Facility Timeframe for Responding to Permits The new law requires approval or denial of a permit within 90-days. Upon receipt of a Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit, the City must provide a written notice of incompleteness to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application. Since we do not currently have a Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit in our code, we do not have the ability to determine what “incomplete” means or what we require of providers for these permits. If we were to receive an application, we would need to approve or deny it within 90-days or it would be considered approved. These timeframe limitations do not apply to excavation or obstruction permits. Fees When we manage rights of way, we incur costs. When we establish a fee, it must be based on the actual costs incurred by the city in managing the public right of way. The updated ordinance includes a fee structure for Small Cell Wireless Permits. These fees are based on estimated staff time to process, review, and inspect the installation of small cell wireless facilities. The new ordinance also includes a delay penalty. This may be collected from any Permittee that impact the public due to unreasonable delays in the right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. Small Cell Wireless Facility Rent A city may elect to charge each small wireless facility attached to a wireless support structure owned by the local government unit a fee (rental fee), in addition to other fees or charges allowed under the law, consisting of: (1) up to $150 per year for rent to occupy space on a wireless support structure; (2) up to $25 per year for maintenance associated with the space occupied on a wireless support structure; and (3) an additional monthly fee for electricity used to operate a small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from a utility, at the rate set forth in the statute. Small Cell Wireless Facility Agreements This law also does not affect existing agreements approved before May 31, 2017. We currently have a Master Licensing Agreement with Verizon Wireless to collocate small cell wireless facilities. This agreement will stand until it expires in 2022. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 3 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance The amendments allow cities to enter co-location agreements with telecommunications right-of- way users, if they choose, as long as the co-location agreement for small wireless facilities is made available in a substantially complete form no later than six months after the effective date of this act or three months after receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider. Our City Attorney has recommended that we develop an agreement for providers. We are working on this draft agreement. It will be shared with the city council within 6 months. Right of Way Patching and Restoration The updated ordinance includes a section that clearly defines what is required for patching and restoration of the right-of-way after work is complete. It also includes provisions that allow the City to complete the work should the Permittee not do so in a satisfactorily or timely manner. Mapping Data Each right-of-way user shall provide mapping information to city of the work proposed to be completed and as-builts of the work after completion. This will assist the City with accurate record keeping and assist with city led construction projects. Location and Relocation of Facilities Provisions are included in the ordinance that formalize the requirement for right of way users to relocate, at their cost, facilities within the right-of-way. It also includes a timeline requirement for when relocation work needs to be completed by, and the ability to charge users for costs incurred by the city because relocation is not completed in the scheduled timeframe. Adoption Process and Schedule Staff has developed the following steps and schedule for adopting the ordinance: Study Session - Report September 11, 2017 First Reading September 18, 2017 Second Reading (adopt ordinances, approve summary, and authorize summary publication) October 2, 2017 Submit Summary to Sun Sailor October 5, 2017 Summary Publication October 12, 2017 Ordinance Effective Date October 27, 2017 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: The ordinance update includes updates to the City’s fee Schedule to incorporate Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit fees. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 4 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance NEW STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING PLACEMENT OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES IN RIGHTS OF WAY A summary of the provisions of the new law: •Small wireless facilities and wireless support structures are a permitted use, except that in districts zoned as single-family residential use or district identified as historic (either by federal law or ordinance), a local government unit can require a conditional use permit. •Cities must not require an applicant for a small wireless facility permit to provide any information that the applicant previously had provided to the city in a different application for a small wireless permit (which the applicant must identify by specific reference number). •Cities must not require an application to provide information that is not reasonably necessary to review a permit application for compliance with generally applicable and reasonable health, safety, and welfare regulations, or to demonstrate compliance with applicable Federal Communications Commission regulations governing radio frequency exposure, or other information required by this section. •Permits for small cell facility collocation or placement of a new wireless support structure must specify that the term of a small wireless facility permit equals the length of time that small wireless facility is in use, unless the permit is revoked under this section. •The total application fee for a small wireless facility permit must comply with the statutory requirement regarding costs related to the permit. •The city must allow applicants for small wireless facility permits to file a consolidated permit application to collocate up to 15 small wireless facilities (or a greater number if agreed to by a local government unit), provided that all the small wireless facilities in the application are located within a two-mile radius, consist of substantially similar equipment, and are to be placed on similar types of wireless support structures. •The city has 90 days after the date a small wireless facility permit application is filed to issue or deny the permit, or the permit is automatically issued. •To toll the 90-day clock, the city must provide a written notice of incompleteness to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, identifying all missing documents or information, and providing the applicant with a time to cure that complies with the statute3. •If the city receives applications within a single seven-day period from one or more applicants seeking approval of permits for more than 30 small wireless facilities, the city may extend the 90-day deadline by an additional 30 days. If a city elects to invoke this extension, it must inform in writing any applicant to whom the extension will be applied. •A city cannot require placement of small wireless facilities on any specific wireless support structure other than the one proposed in the permit application. •A city must not limit the placement of small wireless facilities, either by minimum separation distances between small wireless facilities or maximum height limitations, except that each wireless support structure installed in the right of way after the effective date of this act shall not exceed 50 feet above ground level (unless the local government unit agrees to a greater height). City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 5 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance •A city can set forth in its ordinance separation requirements for placement of wireless support structures in relation to other wireless support structures. •A city still may deny permit for health, safety, and welfare reasons or for noncompliance with decorative wireless support structures or signs. •A city cannot require a person to pay a small wireless facility permit fee, obtain a small wireless facility permit, or enter into a small wireless facility collocation agreement solely in order to conduct routine maintenance of a small wireless facility; replace a small wireless facility with a new facility that is substantially similar or smaller in size, weight, height, and wind or structural loading; or install, place, maintain, operate, or replace micro wireless facilities suspended on cables strung between existing utility poles in compliance with national safety codes. •A city cannot require an applicant to apply for or enter any individual license, franchise, or other agreement with the local government unit or any other entity, other than the optional standard small wireless facility collocation agreement. •A city may require notice of any work that will obstruct a public right of way. •A city is not required to have a separate agreement, but can choose to enter collocation agreements with applicants locating small wireless facilities onto city owned structures to address terms and conditions of the use of the structures. If a city chooses to do so, then it must make the agreement available to the public in a substantially complete format no later than six months after the effective date or three months after receiving a small wireless facility permit application from a wireless service provider. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 6 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____-17 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE SECTIONS 24.251-24.256 AND REPLACING THEM WITH SECTIONS 24.251-24.288 REGULATING CITY RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND AMENDING APPENDIX A, FEE SCHEDULE TO ADD PERMIT, RENT, MAINTENANCE, AND ELECTRIC FEES FOR SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 24, Article VII, Division II is repealed in its entirety and replaced by adding the following: Sec. 24.251 Findings, purpose, and intent. To provide for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, and to ensure the integrity of its streets and the appropriate use of the rights-of-way, the city strives to keep its rights-of-way in a state of good repair and free from unnecessary encumbrances. Accordingly, the city hereby enacts this chapter of this Code relating to rights-of-way permits and administration. This chapter imposes reasonable regulation on the placement and maintenance of facilities and equipment currently within its rights-of-way or to be placed therein at some future time. It is intended to complement the regulatory roles of state and federal agencies. Under this chapter, persons excavating and obstructing the rights-of-way will bear financial responsibility for their work. This chapter provides for recovery of out-of-pocket and projected costs from persons using the public rights-of-way. This chapter shall be interpreted consistently with 1997 Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 123; and 2017 Minnesota Session Laws, Chapter 94, substantially codified in Minnesota Statutes 237.16, 237.162, 237.163, 237.79, 237.81, and 238.086 (the “Act”) and the other laws governing applicable rights of the city and users of the right-of-way. This chapter shall also be interpreted consistent with Minnesota Rules 7819.0050—7819.9950 and Minnesota Rule Chapter 7560 where possible. To the extent any provisions of this chapter cannot be interpreted consistently with the Minnesota Rules, that interpretation most consistent with the Act and other applicable statutory and case law is intended. This chapter shall not be interpreted to limit the regulatory and police powers of the city to adopt and enforce general ordinances necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. Sec. 24.252. Election to manage the public rights-of-way Pursuant to the authority granted to the city under state and federal statutory, administrative and common law, the city hereby elects, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 237.163 subd. 2(b), to manage rights-of-way within its jurisdiction. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 7 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Sec. 24.253. Definitions. The following definitions apply in this chapter of this Code. References hereafter to “sections” are, unless otherwise specified, references to sections in this chapter. Defined terms remain defined terms, whether or not capitalized. Abandoned facility. A facility no longer in service or physically disconnected from a portion of the operating facility, or from any other facility, that is in use or still carries service. A facility is not abandoned unless declared so by the right-of-way user. Applicant. Any person requesting permission to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way or to place a small wireless facility or wireless support structure in the public right-of-way. City. The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota. For purposes of Section 24.279 city also means the city’s elected officials, officers, employees and agents. Collocate or collocation. To install, mount, maintain, modify, operate, or replace a small wireless facility on, under, within, or adjacent to an existing wireless support structure that is owned privately or by a local government unit. Commission. The State Public Utilities Commission. Congested right-of-way. A crowded condition in the subsurface of the public right-of-way that occurs when the maximum lateral spacing between existing underground facilities does not allow for construction of new underground facilities without using hand digging to expose the existing lateral facilities in conformance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 216D.04 subdivision 3, over a continuous length in excess of 500 feet. Construction performance bond. Any of the following forms of security provided at permittee’s option: •Individual project bond; •Cash deposit; •Security of a form listed or approved under Minnesota Statutes Section 15.73 subdivision 3; •Letter of Credit, in a form acceptable to the city; •Self-insurance, in a form acceptable to the city; •A blanket bond for projects within the city, or other form of construction bond, for a time specified and in a form acceptable to the city. Degradation. A decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by excavation in or disturbance of the right-of-way, resulting in the need to reconstruct such right-of-way earlier than would be required if the excavation or disturbance did not occur. Degradation cost. Subject to Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 means the cost to achieve a level of restoration, as determined by the city at the time the permit is issued, not to exceed the maximum restoration shown in plates 1 to 13, set forth in Minnesota Rules parts 7819.9900 to 7819.9950. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 8 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Degradation fee. The estimated fee established at the time of permitting by the city to recover costs associated with the decrease in the useful life of the right-of-way caused by the excavation, and which equals the degradation cost. Department. The City of St. Louis Park Engineering Department Director. The Engineering Director for the City of St. Louis Park. Delay penalty. The penalty imposed as a result of unreasonable delays in right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration as established by permit. Emergency. A condition that (1) poses a danger to life or health, or of a significant loss of property; or (2) requires immediate repair or replacement of facilities in order to restore service to a customer. Equipment. Any tangible asset used to install, repair, or maintain facilities in any right-of-way. Excavate. To dig into or in any way remove or physically disturb or penetrate any part of a right- of-way. Excavation permit. The permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may excavate in a right-of-way. An Excavation Permit allows the holder to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit. Excavation permit fee. Money paid to the city by an applicant to cover the costs as provided in section 24.263. Facility or facilities. Any tangible asset in the right-of-way required to provide Utility Service. Five-year project plan. Shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next five years High density corridor. A designated portion of the public right-of-way within which telecommunications right-of-way users having multiple and competing facilities may be required to build and install facilities in a common conduit system or other common structure. Hole. An excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length less than the width of the pavement. Local representative. A local person or persons, or designee of such person or persons, authorized by a registrant to accept service and to make decisions for that registrant regarding all matters within the scope of this chapter. Management costs. The actual costs the city incurs in managing its rights-of-way, including such costs, if incurred, as those associated with registering applicants; issuing, processing, and verifying right-of-way or small wireless facility permit applications; inspecting job sites and restoration projects; maintaining, supporting, protecting, or moving user facilities during right-of-way work; determining the adequacy of right-of-way restoration; restoring work inadequately performed after providing notice and the opportunity to correct the work; and revoking right-of-way or small City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 9 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance wireless facility permits. Management costs do not include: (1) payment by a telecommunications right-of-way user for the use of the public right-of-way; (2) unreasonable fees of a third-party contractor used by the city as part of managing public right-of-way, including but not limited to any third-party contractor fee tied to or based upon customer counts, access lines, revenue generated by the telecommunications right-of-way user, or revenue generated for the city; or (3) the fees and cost of litigation relating to the interpretation of Minnesota Session Laws 2017, Chapter 94; Minnesota Statutes Sections 237.162 or 237.163; or any ordinance enacted under those sections; or the city fees and costs related to appeals taken pursuant to Section 24.287 of this chapter. Micro wireless facility. A small wireless facility that is no larger than 24 inches long, 15 inches wide, and 12 inches high, and whose exterior antenna, if any, is no longer than 11 inches. Obstruct. To place any tangible object in a right-of-way so as to hinder free and open passage over that or any part of the right-of-way. Obstruction permit. The permit which, pursuant to this chapter, must be obtained before a person may obstruct a right-of-way, allowing the holder to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of that right-of-way, for the duration specified therein. Obstruction permit fee. Money paid to the city by permittee to cover the costs as provided in section 24.263. Patch or patching. A method of pavement replacement that is temporary in nature. A patch consists of (1) the compaction of the subbase and aggregate base, and (2) the replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement for a minimum of two feet beyond the edges of the excavation in all directions. A patch is considered full restoration only when the pavement is included in the city’s five-year project plan. Pavement. Any type of improved surface that is within the public right-of-way and that is paved or otherwise constructed with bituminous, concrete, aggregate, or gravel. Permit. Has the meaning given “right-of-way permit” in Minnesota Statues, Section 237.162 and includes a small wireless facility permit. Permittee. Any person to whom a permit to excavate or obstruct a right-of-way or to whom a small wireless facility permit has been granted by the city under this chapter. Person. An individual or entity subject to the laws and rules of this state, however organized, whether public or private, whether domestic or foreign, whether for profit or nonprofit, and whether natural, corporate, or political. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 10 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Registrant. Any person who (1) has or seeks to have its equipment or facilities located in any right- of-way, or (2) in any way occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, the right-of-way or place its facilities or equipment in the right-of-way. Restore or restoration. The process by which an excavated right-of-way and surrounding area, including pavement and foundation, is returned to the same condition and life expectancy that existed before excavation. Public right-of-way or right-of-way. The area on, below, or above a public roadway, alleyway, highway, street, cartway, bicycle lane or public sidewalk in which the city has an interest, including other dedicated rights-of-way for travel purposes and utility easements of the city. A right-of-way does not include the airwaves above a right-of-way with regard to cellular or other nonwire telecommunications or broadcast service. (Note: this definition does not include other public grounds that may be the subject of other city requirements.) Right-of-way permit/small wireless facility permit. Either an excavation permit or an obstruction permit or a permit to place a small wireless facility in the public right-of-way or any combination of the three depending on context, required by this chapter. Right-of-way user. (1) A telecommunications right-of-way user as defined by Minnesota Statutes Section 237.162 Subdivision 4; or (2) a person owning or controlling a facility in the right-of-way that is used or intended to be used for providing utility service, and who has a right under law, franchise, or ordinance to use the public right-of-way Service or utility service. Includes (1) those services provided by a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216B.02 Subdivisions 4 and 6; (2) services of a telecommunications right-of-way user, including transporting of voice or data information; (3) services of a cable communications system as defined in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238; (4) natural gas or electric energy or telecommunications services provided by the city; (5) services provided by a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 308A; and (6) water, and sewer, including service laterals, steam, cooling or heating services. Service lateral. An underground facility that is used to transmit, distribute or furnish “gas, electricity, communications, or water from a common source to an end-use customer. A service lateral is also an underground facility that is used in the removal of wastewater from a customer’s premises. Small wireless facility. (1) a wireless facility that meets both of the following qualifications: (i) each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet in volume or, in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all its exposed elements could fit within an enclosure of no more than six cubic feet; and (ii) all other wireless equipment associated with the small wireless facility, excluding electric meters, concealment elements, telecommunications demarcation boxes, battery backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfers switches, cutoff switches, cable, conduit, vertical cable runs for connection of power and other services, and any equipment concealed from public City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 11 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance view within or behind an existing structure or concealment, is in aggregate no more than 28 cubic feet in volume; or (2) a micro wireless facility. Small wireless facility permit fee. Money paid to the city by permittee to cover the costs as provided in section 24.263. Supplementary application. An application made to excavate or obstruct more of the right-of-way than allowed in, or to extend, a permit that had already been issued. Telecommunication right-of-way user. A person owning or controlling a facility in the public right- of-way, or seeking to own or control a facility in the public right-of-way that is used or is intended to be used for providing wireless service or transporting telecommunication or other voice or data information. For purposes of this division, a cable communication system defined and regulated under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, and telecommunication activities related to providing natural gas or electric energy services, a public utility as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216B.02, a municipality, a municipal gas or power agency organized under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 453 and 453A, or a cooperative electric association organized under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 308A, are not telecommunications right-of-way users, except to the extent these entities are offering wireless services. Temporary surface. The compaction of subbase and aggregate base and replacement, in kind, of the existing pavement only to the edges of the excavation. It is temporary in nature except when the replacement is of pavement included in the city’s two-year plan, in which case it is considered full restoration. Trench. An excavation in the pavement, with the excavation having a length equal to or greater than the width of the pavement. Two year project plan. Shows projects adopted by the city for construction within the next two years. Utility pole. A pole that is used in whole or in part to facilitate telecommunications or electric service. Wireless facility. Equipment at a fixed location that enables the provision of wireless services between user and equipment and a wireless service network, including: (1) equipment associated with wireless service; (2) a radio transceiver, antenna, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration; and (3) a small wireless facility. Wireless facility does not include: (1) wireless support structures, (2) wireline backhaul facilities, or (3) coaxial or fiber-optic cables between utility poles or wireless support structures, or that are not otherwise immediately adjacent to or directly associated with a specific antenna. Wireless service. Any service using licensed or unlicensed wireless spectrum, including the use of Wi-Fi whether at a fixed location or by means of a mobile device that is provided using wireless facilities. Wireless service does not include services regulated under Title VI of the City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 12 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including a cable service under United States Code, title 47, section 522 clause (6). Wireless support structure. A new or existing structure in a public right-of-way designed to support or capable of supporting small wireless facilities, as reasonably determined by the city. Wireline backhaul facility. A facility used to transport communications data by wire from a wireless facility to a communications network. Sec. 24-254. Administration. The director is the principal city official responsible for the administration of the rights-of-way, right- of-way permits, small wireless facility permits, and the ordinances related thereto. The director may delegate any or all of the duties hereunder. Sec. 24-.255. Registration and right-of-way occupancy. (1) Registration. Each person who occupies or uses, or seeks to occupy or use, or seeks to place any equipment or facilities, small wireless facilities, or wireless support structures in or on the right-of-way, including persons with installation and maintenance responsibilities by lease, sublease or assignment, must register with the city. Registration will consist of providing application information. (2) Registration prior to work. No person may collocate, construct, install, repair, remove, relocate, or perform any other work on, or use any facilities, small wireless facilities, or wireless support structures, or any part thereof, in any right-of-way without first being registered with the city. (3) Exceptions to registration. Nothing herein shall be construed to repeal or amend the provisions of a city ordinance permitting persons to plant or maintain boulevard plantings or gardens in the area of the right-of-way between their property and the street curb. Persons planting or maintaining boulevard plantings or gardens shall not be deemed to use or occupy the right-of-way, and shall not be required to obtain any permits or satisfy any other requirements for planting or maintaining such boulevard plantings or gardens under this chapter. However, nothing herein relieves a person from complying with the provisions of the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216D, Gopher One Call Law. Sec. 24-256. Registration information. (1) Information required. The information provided to the city at the time of registration shall include, but not be limited to: (a) Each registrant's name, Gopher One-Call registration certificate number, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 13 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance (b) The name, address and e-mail address, if applicable, and telephone and facsimile numbers of a local representative. The local representative or designee shall be available at all times. Current information regarding how to contact the local representative in an emergency shall be provided at the time of registration. (c) A certificate of insurance or self-insurance: (1) Verifying that an insurance policy has been issued to the registrant by an insurance company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota, or a form of self-insurance acceptable to the city; (2) Verifying that the registrant is insured against claims for personal injury, including death, as well as claims for property damage arising out of the (i) use and occupancy of the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, and (ii) placement and use of facilities and equipment in the right-of-way by the registrant, its officers, agents, employees and permittees, including, but not limited to, protection against liability arising from completed operations, damage of underground facilities and collapse of property; (3) Naming the city as an additional insured as to whom the coverages required herein are in force and applicable and for whom defense will be provided as to all such coverages; (4) Requiring that the city be notified thirty (30) days in advance of cancellation of the policy or material modification of a coverage term; (5) Indicating comprehensive liability coverage, automobile liability coverage, workers compensation and umbrella coverage established by the city in amounts sufficient to protect the city and the public and to carry out the purposes and policies of this chapter. (6) The city may require a copy of the actual insurance policies. (7) If the person is a corporation, a copy of the certificate is required to be filed under Minnesota Statutes Section 60A.07 as recorded and certified to by the Secretary of State. (8) A copy of the person's order granting a certificate of authority from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission or other authorization or approval from the applicable state or federal agency to lawfully operate, where the person is lawfully required to have such authorization or approval from said commission or other state or federal agency. (2) Notice of changes. The registrant shall keep all of the information listed above current at all times by providing to the city information as to changes within fifteen (15) days following the date on which the registrant has knowledge of any change. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 14 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Sec. 24.257. Reporting obligations. (1) Operations. Each registrant shall, at the time of registration and by December 1 of each year, file a construction and major maintenance plan for underground facilities with the city. Such plan shall be submitted using a format designated by the city and shall contain the information determined by the city to be necessary to facilitate the coordination and reduction in the frequency of excavations and obstructions of rights-of-way. The plan shall include: (a) The locations and estimated beginning and ending dates of all projects to be commenced during the next calendar year (in this section, a “next-year” project); and (b) To the extent known, the tentative locations and estimated beginning and ending dates for all projects contemplated for the five years following the next calendar year (in this section, a “five-year project”). The term “project” in this section shall include both next-year projects and five-year projects. By January 1 of each year, the city will have available for inspection in the city’s office a composite list of all projects of which the city has been informed of the annual plans. All registrants are responsible for keeping themselves informed of the current status of this list. Thereafter, by February 1, each registrant may change any project in its list of next-year projects, and must notify the city and all other registrants of all such changes in said list. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a registrant may at any time join in a next-year project of another registrant listed by the other registrant. (2) Additional next-year projects. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the city will not deny an application for a right-of-way permit for failure to include a project in a plan submitted to the city if the registrant has used commercially reasonable efforts to anticipate and plan for the project. Sec. 24.258. Permit requirement. (1) Permit required. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no person may obstruct or excavate any right-of-way without first having obtained the appropriate right-of-way permit from the city to do so. (a) Excavation permit. An excavation permit is required by a registrant to excavate that part of the right-of-way described in such permit and to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of-way by placing facilities described therein, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. (b) Obstruction permit. An obstruction permit is required by a registrant to hinder free and open passage over the specified portion of the right-of-way by placing equipment described therein on the right-of-way, to the extent and for the duration specified therein. An obstruction permit is not required if a person already possesses a valid excavation permit for the same project. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 15 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance (2) Permit extensions. No person may excavate or obstruct the right-of-way beyond the date or dates specified in the permit unless (i) such person makes a supplementary application for another right-of-way permit before the expiration of the initial permit, and (ii) a new permit or permit extension is granted. (3) Delay penalty. In accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1000 subpart 3 and notwithstanding paragraph 2 of this section, the city shall establish and impose a delay penalty for unreasonable delays in the right-of-way excavation, obstruction, patching, or restoration. The delay penalty shall be established from time to time by city council resolution. (4) Permit display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. Sec. 24.259. Small wireless facility permit requirement. (1) Small wireless facility permit. Except as otherwise provided in this Code, no person may install a new or replacement wireless support structure for a small wireless facility or collocate a small wireless facility in a public right of way without first having obtained the appropriate small wireless facility permit from the city to do so. (2) Term. The term of a small wireless facility permit shall be equal to the length of time that the small wireless facility is in use, unless the permit is revoked. (3) Permit display. Permits issued under this chapter shall be conspicuously displayed or otherwise available at all times at the indicated work site and shall be available for inspection by the city. (4) Special exceptions for small wireless facilities. As required by state law, a person is not required to pay a small wireless facility permit fee, obtain a small wireless facility permit, or enter into a small wireless facility collocation agreement solely in order to conduct any of the following activities: (a) routine maintenance of a small wireless facility; (b) replacement of small wireless facility with a new facility that is substantially similar or smaller in size, weight, height, and wind or structural loading than the small wireless facility being replaced; or (c) installation, placement, maintenance, operation, or replacement of micro wireless facilities that are suspended on cables strung between existing utility poles in compliance with national safety codes. Persons that perform these excepted activities shall provide the city advance notification of these activities if the work will obstruct a public right-of-way. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 16 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Sec. 24.260. Permit applications. Application for a permit under this chapter is made to the city. Excavation, obstruction, and small wireless facility permit applications shall contain, and will be considered complete only upon compliance with, the requirements of the following provisions: (1) Registration with the city pursuant to this chapter; (2) Submission of a completed permit application form, including all required attachments, and scaled drawings showing the location and area of the proposed project and the location of all known existing and proposed facilities. (3) Payment of money due the city for: (a) permit fees, estimated restoration costs and other management costs; (b) prior obstructions or excavations; (c) any undisputed loss, damage, or expense suffered by the city because of applicant's prior excavations or obstructions of the rights-of-way or any emergency actions taken by the city; (d) franchise fees or other charges, if applicable. (4) Payment of disputed amounts due the city by posting security or depositing in an escrow account an amount equal to at least 110% of the amount owing. (5) Posting an additional or larger construction performance bond for additional facilities when applicant requests a permit to install additional facilities and the city deems the existing construction performance bond inadequate under applicable standards. Sec. 24.261. Issuance of permit; conditions. (1) Permit issuance. If the applicant has satisfied the requirements of this chapter, the city shall issue a permit. (2) Conditions. The city may impose reasonable conditions upon the issuance of the permit and performance of the applicant thereunder to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use. In addition, a permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state, and federal laws, including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes sections 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rules chapter 7560. (3) Small wireless facility conditions. In addition to subdivision 2, the erection or installation of a wireless support structure, the collocation of a small wireless facility, or other installation of a small wireless facility in the right-of-way, shall be subject to the following conditions City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 17 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance a. A small wireless facility shall only be collocated on the particular wireless support structure, under those attachment specifications, and at the height indicated in the applicable permit application. b. No wireless support structure installed within the right of way shall exceed 50 feet above ground level in height except that a wireless support structure that replaces an existing wireless support structure in the public right-of-way that is greater than 50 feet above ground level in height may be placed at the height of the existing wireless support structure. c. No wireless facility constructed in the right-of-way after May 30, 2017 may extend more than ten feet above a wireless support structure existing on May 30, 2017. d. Where an applicant proposes to install a new wireless support structure in the right of way, the city may impose separation requirements between such structure and any existing wireless support structure or other facilities in and around the right of way. e. Where an applicant proposes collocation on a decorative wireless support structure, sign, or other structure not intended to support small wireless facilities, the city may impose reasonable requirements to accommodate the particular design, appearance, or intended purpose of such structure; f. Where an applicant proposes to replace a wireless support structure, the city may impose reasonable restocking, replacement, or relocation requirements on the replacement of the structure. (4) Small wireless facility agreement. A small wireless facility shall only be collocated on a wireless support structure owned or under the control of the city, or any other city asset in the right of way, after the applicant has executed a standard small wireless facility collocation agreement with the city. The standard collocation agreement may require payment of the following: a. Management costs; b. Up to $150 per year for rent to collocate on the city structure; c. $25 per year for maintenance associated with the collocation; d. A monthly fee for electrical service as follows: 1. $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 maximum watts; 2. $182 per radio node over 100 maximum watts; or 3. The actual cost of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the foregoing. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 18 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance The standard collocation agreement shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, the required small wireless facility permit, provided however, that the applicant shall not be additionally required to apply for or enter into any individual license, franchise, or other agreement with the city in order to collocate. Issuance of a small wireless facility permit does not supersede, alter or affect any then-existing agreement between the city and applicant. Sec. 24.262. Time for review of applications. (1) Deadline for action. The director shall approve or deny a small wireless facility permit application within 90-days of receiving a completed application. The small wireless facility permit, and any associated encroachment or building permit shall be deemed approved if the city fails to approve or deny the application within the review periods established in this section. (2) Consolidated applications. An applicant may file a consolidated small wireless facility permit application addressing the proposed collocation of up to 15 small wireless facilities, or a greater number if agreed by the city, provided that all small wireless facilities in the application: a. are located within a two-mile radius; b. consist of substantially similar equipment; and c. are to be placed on similar types of wireless support structures. In rendering a decision on a consolidated permit application, the city may approve some small wireless facilities and deny others, but may not use denial of one or more permits as a basis to deny all small wireless facilities in the application. (3) Tolling of deadline for action. The 90-day deadline for action may be tolled if: a. The city receives applications within a single seven-day period from one or more applicants seeking approval of permits for more than 30 small wireless facilities. In such case, the city may extend the 90-day deadline for all such applications by an additional 30 days by informing the affected applicants in writing of such extension. b. The applicant fails to submit all required documents or information and the city provides written notice of incompleteness to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Information delineated in the notice is limited to documents or information publicly required as of the date of application and reasonably related to the city’s determination whether the proposed equipment falls within the definition of a small wireless facility and whether the proposed deployment satisfies all health, safety, and welfare regulations applicable to the small wireless facility City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 19 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance permit request. Upon applicant’s submittal of additional documents or information in response to a notice of incompleteness, the city has 10 days to notify the applicant in writing of any information requested in the initial notice of incompleteness that is still missing. Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. Requests for information not requested in the initial notice of incompleteness do not toll the 90-day deadline for action. c. The city and applicant may agree in writing to toll the review period. Sec. 24.263. Permit fees. (1) Excavation permit fee. The city shall impose an excavation permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover the following costs: a. city management costs; and b. degradation costs, if applicable. (2) Obstruction permit fee. The city shall impose an obstruction permit fee in an amount sufficient to recover city management costs. (3) Small wireless facility permit fee. The city shall impose a small wireless facility permit fee for the placement of small wireless facilities and wireless support structures in the public right-of-way in an amount sufficient to recover: a. city management costs; and b. city engineering, make-ready, and construction costs associated with collocation of small wireless facilities. (4) Costs of initial engineering survey and preparatory construction work associated with collocation. Any initial engineering survey and preparatory construction work associated with collocation must be paid by the cost causer in the form of a onetime, nonrecurring, commercially reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and competitively neutral charge to recover costs associated with a proposed attachment. (5) Payment of permit fees. No excavation, obstruction, or small wireless facility permit shall be issued without payment of the respective excavation, obstruction, or small wireless facility permit fees. The city may allow applicant to pay such fees within thirty (30) days of billing. (6) Nonrefundable. Permit fees that were paid for a permit that the city has revoked are not refundable. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 20 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Section 24.264. Right-of-way patching and restoration. (1) Timing. The work to be done under the excavation permit, and the patching and restoration of the right-of-way as required herein, must be completed within the dates specified in the permit, increased by as many days as work could not be done because of circumstances beyond the control of the permittee or when work was prohibited as unseasonal or unreasonable under Section 24.267. (2) Patch and restoration. Permittee shall patch its own work. The city may choose either to have the permittee restore the right-of-way or restore the right-of-way itself. (a) City restoration. If the city restores the right-of-way, permittee shall pay the costs thereof within thirty (30) days of billing. If, following such restoration, the pavement settles due to permittee’s improper backfilling, the permittee shall pay to the city, within thirty (30) days of billing, all costs associated with correcting the defective work. (b) Permittee restoration. If the permittee restores the right-of-way itself, it shall at the time of application for an excavation permit post a construction performance bond in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.3000. (c) Degradation fee in lieu of restoration. In lieu of right-of-way restoration, a right- of-way user may elect to pay a degradation fee. However, the right-of-way user shall remain responsible for patching and the degradation fee shall not include the cost to accomplish these responsibilities. (3) Standards. The permittee shall perform excavation, backfilling, patching and restoration according to the standards and with the materials specified by the city and shall comply with Minnesota Rule 7819.1100. (4) Duty to correct defects. The permittee shall correct defects in patching or restoration performed by permittee or its agents. The permittee upon notification from the city, shall correct all restoration work to the extent necessary, using the method required by the city. Said work shall be completed within five (5) calendar days of the receipt of the notice from the city, not including days during which work cannot be done because of circumstances constituting force majeure or days when work is prohibited as unseasonable or unreasonable under Section 24.267. (5) Failure to Restore. If the permittee fails to restore the right-of-way in the manner and to the condition required by the City, or fails to satisfactorily and timely complete all restoration required by the City, the City at its option may do such work. In that event, the permittee shall pay to the City, within thirty (30) days of billing, the cost of restoring the right-of-way. If permittee fails to pay as required, the City may exercise its rights under the construction performance bond. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 21 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Sec. 24.265. Joint applications. (1) Joint application. Registrants may jointly apply for permits to excavate or obstruct the right-of-way at the same place and time. (2) Shared fees. Registrants who apply for permits for the same obstruction or excavation, which the city does not perform, may share in the payment of the obstruction or excavation permit fee. In order to obtain a joint permit, registrants must agree among themselves as to the portion each will pay and indicate the same on their applications. Sec. 24.266. Supplementary applications. (1) Limitation on area. A right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit is valid only for the area of the right-of-way specified in the permit. No permittee may do any work outside the area specified in the permit, except as provided herein. Any permittee which determines that an area greater than that specified in the permit must be obstructed or excavated must before working in that greater area (i) make application for a permit extension and pay any additional fees required thereby, (ii) be granted a new permit or permit extension. (2) Limitation on dates. A right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit is valid only for the dates specified in the permit. No permittee may begin work before the permit start date or, except as provided herein, continue working after the end date. If a permittee does not finish the work by the permit end date, it must apply for a new permit for the additional time it needs, and receive the new permit or an extension of the old permit before working after the end date of the previous permit. This supplementary application must be submitted before the permit end date. Sec. 24.267. Other obligations. (1) Compliance with other laws. Obtaining a right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit does not relieve permittee of its duty to obtain all other necessary permits, licenses, and authority and to pay all fees required by the city or other applicable rule, law, or regulation. A permittee shall comply with all requirements of local, state, and federal laws, including but not limited to Minnesota Statutes, Section 216D.01-.09 (Gopher One Call Excavation Notice System) and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560. A permittee shall perform all work in conformance with all applicable codes and established rules and regulations, and is responsible for all work done in the right-of-way pursuant to its permit, regardless of who does the work. (2) Prohibited work. Except in an emergency, and with the approval of the city, no right-of- way obstruction or excavation or collocation of a small wireless facilities or installation or maintenance of a wireless support structures may be done when seasonally prohibited or when conditions are unreasonable for such work. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 22 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance (3) Interference with right-of-way. A permittee shall not so obstruct a right-of-way that the natural free and clear passage of water through the gutters or other waterways shall be interfered with. Private vehicles of those doing work in the right-of-way may not be parked within or next to a permit area, unless parked in conformance with city parking regulations. The loading or unloading of trucks must be done solely within the defined permit area unless specifically authorized by the permit. (4) Trenchless excavation. As a condition of all applicable permits, permittees employing trenchless excavation methods, including but not limited to Horizontal Directional Drilling, shall follow all requirements set forth in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216D and Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560 and shall require potholing or open cutting over existing underground utilities before excavating, as determined by the director. Sec. 24.268. Denial of permit. (1) Reasons for denial. The city may deny an application for a permit for failure to meet the requirements and conditions of this chapter or if the city determines that the denial is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare or when necessary to protect the right- of-way and its current use. (2) Procedural requirements. The denial or revocation of a permit must be made in writing and must document the basis for the denial. The city must notify a telecommunications right-of-way user in writing within three business days of the decision to deny a permit. If a permit application is denied, the telecommunications right-of -way user may cure the deficiencies identified by the city and resubmit its application. If the telecommunications right-of-way user resubmits the application within 30 days of receiving written notice of denial, it may not be charged an additional filing or processing fee. The city must approve or deny the revised application within 30 days after the revised application is submitted. Sec. 24.269. Revocation of permits. (1) Substantial breach. The city reserves its right, as provided herein, to revoke any right-of- way permit or small wireless facility permit without a fee refund, if there is a substantial breach of the terms and conditions of any statute, ordinance, rule, or regulation, or any material condition of the permit. A substantial breach by permittee shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: (a) The violation of any material provision of the right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit; (b) An evasion or attempt to evade any material provision of the right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit, or the perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any fraud or deceit upon the city or its citizens; (c) Any material misrepresentation of fact in the application for a right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit; City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 23 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance (d) The failure to complete the work in a timely manner, unless a permit extension is obtained or unless the failure to complete work is due to reasons beyond the permittee's control; or (e) The failure to correct, in a timely manner, work that does not conform to a condition indicated on an order issued pursuant to Section 24.271. (2) Written notice of breach. If the city determines that the permittee has committed a substantial breach of a term or condition of any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation or any condition of the permit, the city shall make a written demand upon the permittee to remedy such violation. The demand shall state that continued violations may be cause for revocation of the permit. A substantial breach, as stated above, will allow the city, at its discretion, to place additional or revised conditions on the permit to mitigate and remedy the breach. (3) Response to notice of breach. Within twenty-four (24) hours of receiving notification of the breach, permittee shall provide the city with a plan, acceptable to the city that will cure the breach. Permittee's failure to so contact the city, or permittee's failure to timely submit an acceptable plan, or permittee's failure to reasonably implement the approved plan, shall be cause for immediate revocation of the permit. (4) Revocation. Revocation of a right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit shall be made in writing within three business days of the decision to revoke the permit and shall document the basis for the revocation. (5) Reimbursement of city costs. If a right-of-way permit or small wireless facility permit is revoked, the permittee shall also reimburse the city for the city's reasonable costs, including restoration costs and the costs of collection and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with such revocation. Sec. 24.270. Installation requirements. The excavation, backfilling, patching, and restoration, and all other work performed in the right-of-way shall be done in conformance with Minnesota Rules 7819.1100 and 7819.5000 and other applicable local requirements, in so far as they are not inconsistent with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 237.162 and 237.163. Installation of service laterals shall be performed in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7560 and these ordinances. Service lateral installation is further subject to those requirements and conditions set forth by the city in the applicable permits and/or agreements referenced in section 24.274 subdivision 2 of this ordinance. Sec. 24.271. Inspection. (1) Notice of completion. When the work under any permit hereunder is completed, the permittee shall furnish a completion certificate in accordance with Minnesota Rule 7819.1300. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 24 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance (2) Site inspection. Permittee shall make the work-site available to the city and to all others as authorized by law for inspection at all reasonable times during the execution of and upon completion of the work. (3) Authority of director. (a) At the time of inspection, the director may order the immediate cessation of any work which poses a serious threat to the life, health, safety, or well-being of the public. (b) The director may issue an order to the permittee for any work that does not conform to the terms of the permit or other applicable standards, conditions, or codes. The order shall state that failure to correct the violation will be cause for revocation of the permit. Within ten (10) days after issuance of the order, the permittee shall present proof to the director that the violation has been corrected. If such proof has not been presented within the required time, the director may revoke the permit pursuant to section 24.269. Sec. 24.272. Work done without a permit. (4) Emergency situations. Each registrant shall immediately notify the director of any event regarding its facilities that it considers to be an emergency. The registrant may proceed to take whatever actions are necessary to respond to the emergency. Registrant’s notification to Gopher State One Call regarding an emergency situation does not fulfill this requirement. Within two (2) business days after the occurrence of the emergency, the registrant shall apply for the necessary permits, pay the fees associated therewith, and fulfill the rest of the requirements necessary to bring itself into compliance with this chapter for the actions it took in response to the emergency. If the city becomes aware of an emergency regarding a registrant's facilities, the city will attempt to contact the local representative of each registrant affected, or potentially affected, by the emergency. In any event, the city may take whatever action it deems necessary to respond to the emergency, the cost of which shall be borne by the registrant whose facilities occasioned the emergency. (2) Non-emergency situations. Except in an emergency, any person who, without first having obtained the necessary permit, excavates or obstructs or places a small wireless facility or wireless support structure in the right-of-way must subsequently obtain a permit and, as a penalty, pay double the normal fee for said permit, pay double all the other fees required by the city Code, deposit with the city the fees necessary to correct any damage to the right-of-way, and comply with all of the requirements of this chapter. Sec. 24.273. Supplementary notification. If the obstruction or excavation or the placement of a small wireless facility or wireless support structure in the right-of-way begins later or ends sooner than the date given on the permit, permittee shall notify the city of the accurate information as soon as this information is known. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 25 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Sec. 24.274. Mapping data. (1) Information required. Each registrant, permittee shall provide mapping information required by the city in accordance with Minnesota Rules 7819.4000 and 7819.4100. Within ninety (90) days following completion of any work pursuant to a permit, the permittee shall provide the director accurate maps and drawings certifying the "as-built" location of all equipment installed, owned and maintained by the permittee. Such maps and drawings shall include the horizontal and vertical location of all facilities and equipment and shall be provided consistent with the City's electronic mapping system, when practical or as a condition imposed by the director. Failure to provide maps and drawings pursuant to this subsection shall be grounds for revoking the permit holder's registration. (2) Service laterals. All permits issued for the installation or repair of service laterals, other than minor repairs as defined in Minnesota Rules 7560.0150 subpart 2, shall require the permittee’s use of appropriate means of establishing the horizontal locations of installed service laterals and the service lateral vertical locations in those cases where the director reasonably requires it. Permittees or their subcontractors shall submit to the director evidence satisfactory to the director of the installed service lateral locations. Compliance with this subdivision 2 and with applicable Gopher State One Call law and Minnesota Rules governing service laterals installed after December 31, 2005 shall be a condition of any city approval necessary for: (a) payments of contractors working on a public improvement project including those under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429; and (b) city approval under the development agreements or other subdivision or site plan approval under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 462. The Director shall reasonably determine the appropriate method of providing such information to the city. Failure to provide prompt and accurate information on the service laterals installed may result in the revocation of the permit issued for the work or future permits to the offending permittee or its subcontractors. Sec. 24.275. Location and relocation of facilities. (1) Rule. When directed by the city, a right-of-way user shall promptly and at his, her, or its own expense, with due regard for seasonal working conditions, permanently remove and relocate its facilities in the right-of-way when it is necessary to prevent interference, and not merely for the convenience of the city, in connection with: (1) a present or future City use of the right-of-way for a public project; (2) the public health or safety; or (3) the safety and convenience of travel over the right-of-way. The registrant shall restore any rights-of- way to the condition it was in prior to removal and relocation. Placement, location, and relocation of facilities must comply with the Act, with other applicable law, and with Minnesota Rules 7819.3100, 7819.5000, and 7819.5100, to the extent the rules do not limit authority otherwise available to cities. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 26 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance (2) Relocation schedule notification procedures. The director shall notify the registrant or permit holder at least three months in advance of the need to relocate existing facilities. The director shall provide a second notification to the registrant or permit holder one month before the date by which the relocation must be completed. To the extent technically feasible, all utilities must be relocated within one month or in a time frame determined by the director. (3) Delay to city project. If the registrant or permit holder fails to meet the relocation schedule due to circumstances within the owner’s control, the city may charge the owner for all costs incurred by the city because the relocation is not completed in the scheduled timeframe. (4) Joint trenching. All facilities shall be placed in appropriate portions of the right-of-way so as to cause minimum conflict with other underground facilities. When technically appropriate and no safety hazards are created facilities shall be installed, constructed, or placed within the same trench. Notwithstanding the foregoing, gas and electric lines shall be placed in conformance with Minnesota Rules part 7819.5100 subpart 2, governing safety standards. (5) Corridors. The city may assign a specific area within the right-of-way, or any particular segment thereof as may be necessary, for each type of facilities that are or, pursuant to current technology, the city expects will someday be located within the right-of-way. All excavation, obstruction, or other permits issued by the city involving the installation or replacement of facilities shall designate the proper corridor for the facilities at issue. A typical crossing section of the location for utilities may be on file at the director’s office. This section is not intended to establish “high density corridors.” Any registrant who has facilities in the right-of-way in a position at variance with the corridors established by the city may remain at that location until the city requires facilities relocation to the corridor pursuant to relocation authority granted under Minnesota Rules part 7819.3100 or other applicable law. (6) Nuisance. One year after the passage of this chapter, any facilities found in a right-of-way that have not been registered shall be deemed to be a nuisance. The city may exercise any remedies or rights it has at law or equity, including, but not limited to, abating the nuisance or taking possession of the facilities and restoring the right-of-way to a useable condition. (7) Limitation of space. To protect the health, safety, and welfare, or when necessary to protect the right-of-way and its current use, the city shall have the power to prohibit or limit the placement of new or additional facilities within the right-of-way. In making such decisions, the city shall strive to the extent possible to accommodate all existing and potential users of the right-of-way, but shall be guided primarily by considerations of the public interest, the public’s needs for the particular utility service, the condition of the right-of-way, the time of year with respect to essential utilities, the protection of existing facilities in the right-of-way, and future city plans for public improvements and development projects which have been determined to be in the public interest. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 27 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Sec. 24.276. Pre-excavation facilities location. In additions to complying with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 216D.01-.09 (“One Call Excavation Notice System”) before the start date of any right-of-way excavation, each registrant who has facilities or equipment in the area to be excavated shall mark the horizontal and vertical placement of all said facilities. Any registrant whose facilities are less than twenty (20) inches below a concrete or asphalt surface shall notify and work closely with the excavation contractor to establish the exact location of its facilities and the best procedure for excavation. Sec. 24.277. Damage to other facilities. When the city does work in the right-of-way and finds it necessary to maintain, support, or move a registrant's facilities to protect it, the city shall notify the local representative as early as is reasonably possible. The costs associated therewith will be billed to that registrant and must be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any facilities in the right-of-way which it or its facilities damage. Each registrant shall be responsible for the cost of repairing any damage to the facilities of another registrant caused during the city's response to an emergency occasioned by that registrant's facilities. Sec. 24.278. Right-of-way vacation. If the city vacates a right-of-way that contains the facilities of a registrant, the registrant’s rights in the vacated right-of-way are governed by Minnesota Rules 7819.3200. Sec. 24.279. Indemnification and liability By registering with the city, or by accepting a permit under this chapter, a registrant or permittee agrees to defend and indemnify the city in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rule 7819.1250. Sec. 24.280. Abandoned and unusable facilities. (1) Discontinued operations. A registrant who has determined to discontinue all or a portion of its operations in the city must provide information satisfactory to the city that the registrant's obligations for its facilities in the right-of-way under this chapter have been lawfully assumed by another registrant. (2) Removal. Any re gistrant who has abandoned facilities in any right-of-way shall remove it from that right-of-way if required in conjunction with other right-of-way repair, excavation, or construction, unless this requirement is waived by the city. Sec. 24.281. Appeal. A right-of-way user that: (1) has been denied registration; (2) has been denied a permit; (3) has had a permit revoked; or (4) believes that the fees imposed are not in conformity with Minn. Stat. § 237.163, Subd. 6; or (5) disputes a determination of the director regarding Section 24.274 subdivision 2 of this ordinance may have the denial, revocation, fee imposition, or decision reviewed, upon written request, by the city council. The city council shall act on a timely written City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 28 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance request at its next regularly scheduled meeting, provided the right-of-way user has submitted its appeal with sufficient time to include the appeal as a regular agenda item. A decision by the city council affirming the denial, revocation, or fee imposition will be in writing and supported by written findings establishing the reasonableness of the decision. Sec. 24.288. Division not applicable to city work. The provisions of this division shall not be applicable to any work being performed by the city or pursuant to a contract with the city. Section 2. City Code Appendix A is amended by deleting the strikethrough language and adding the underlined language as follows: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $12 per 10 linear feet AdministrativeBase Fee (all permits) $60 Work in Public Right-of-Way Permits Delay penalty 2 times total permit fee Excavation or Obstruction Permit Administrative Base Fee (all permits) Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10 inch" diameter) $60 $60 per hole Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400) Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit Permit fee $1500 per antenna Rent to occupy space on a city-owned wireless $150 per year per antenna support structure Maintenance associated with space on a city- $25 per year per antenna owned wireless support structure Electricity to operate small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from a utility $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts; $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; Actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii). Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect following its passage and publication on XXXXXX XX, 2017. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 29 Title: First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2017, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Public Hearing First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: September 18, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation – Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Advertisement for Bids RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving final plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids (Project No. 5318-5004). POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to move forward with the renovation of Water Treatment Plant #4? SUMMARY: Water Treatment Plant #4 is located at 4701 West 41st Street. It was removed from service on December 28, 2016. Staff has been working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a retrofit of the treatment plant. The City Council approved the consultant contract with AECOM to finalize plans for construction on July 17, 2017. The new treatment plant design will remove the current contaminants and is designed with the flexibility to add additional treatment processes in the future. Project Schedule: The following is the proposed schedule: Open Bids October 26, 2017 City Council approves construction contract November 6, 2017 Contractor begins project November 2017 Construction complete Fall 2018 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated cost for this project is $4,715,300. This project is included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding will be provided using General Obligation Revenue Bonds to be repaid by the Water Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Reviewed by: Debra M. Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 2 Title: Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation – Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Advertisement for Bids DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: Water Treatment Plant #4 (SLP4) is located at 4701 West 41st Street. Staff has been working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a retrofit of the treatment plant. The MPCA hired the consulting firm AECOM to design the revised treatment plant to 90% plans. The City Council approved the consultant contract with AECOM to finalize plans for construction on July 17, 2017. SLP4 is a water supply well in the City’s local water distribution system. The City removed SLP4 from service on December 28, 2016 due to concerns with trichloroethylene (TCE) effluent concentrations that were above the health risk limit (HRL) but below the maximum contaminant level (MCL). AECOM submitted the 90% plans to the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) and has received their approval. The review of the plans by MDH took longer than anticipated. Staff has also been working with the consultant on minor changes which were requested by the City when the consultant was under contract with the MPCA. The MPCA did not make the changes requested by the City because it was not part of their scope. These minor changes have delayed the schedule slightly. The completion of the work is still planned for Fall of 2018. Generator and Chlorine Room Staff worked with the consultant to change the design of the plant to include a new 500kw generator. The plan designed under the MPCA contract had two 250 kw generators (one existing and one new). Having two generators has more maintenance and also provides another item within the plant which could fail. During a power outage if one of the generators was to fail, the plant would need to shut down as it takes the power of both generators to run the plant. Chlorine is needed to treat the water and must be handled with care. The MPCA design for the chlorine room required the 150 lb. chlorine cylinders to be brought in to the building using a ramp along the side of the building. Removing the existing 250w generator and installing a new 500kw generator in another location of the plant allows the chlorine room to be moved into the space currently occupied by the existing generator. This allows entrance to the chlorine room from the driveway which staff believes will be much safer for handling the chlorine cylinders. Another benefit of having one 500 kw generator is the ability to enter the Xcel Energy off peak program. Xcel Energy will sell us power at a discounted price for all the power used on the property in exchange for switching to generator power during peak periods. This program is already in place at City Hall and several other treatment plants and has been working well. The existing generator at SLP4 is still in good condition. Staff plans to utilize this generator at Well #8 which currently does not have a back-up generator. This will provide redundancy in the system in case of a power outage. After SLP4 goes out to bid, staff will be working with a consultant on relocating the existing generator to Well #8. The estimated cost for the change in generators is approximately $365,000. Ozone Equipment Ozone equipment will be a part of the plans and specifications. As discussed last November, this equipment is not needed for the treatment of the current contaminants in the well, but would be used in the future should other contaminants, such as 1,4 Dioxane, reach the well. The ozone equipment is included in the bid document as a bid alternate. The cost of the ozone equipment is estimated to be around $700,000. If the ozone equipment is not installed at this time, the treatment plant will be constructed in the same layout, with space to add the ozone equipment in the future. City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 3 Title: Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation – Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Advertisement for Bids Financial Consideration: This project is included in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2017 and 2018. Below is a summary of the costs and funding sources. Estimated Costs Construction costs $3,500,000 500 kw generator 365,000 Contingency (10%) $386,500 Engineering and administration (12%) $463,800 Total $4,715,300* *This cost is higher than the July 17 report due to the generator improvements. *Includes the expense for the Ozone equipment Funding Sources General Obligation Revenue Bonds/Water Fund $4,715,300 Staff is asking for approval of the plans and specifications and the authorization to advertise the project for bid. The proposed schedule is shown below. Project Schedule: The following is the proposed schedule: Open Bids October 26, 2017 City Council approves construction contract November 6, 2017 Contractor begins project November 2017 Construction complete Fall 2018 City Council Meeting of September 18, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 4 Title: Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation – Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Advertisement for Bids RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING FINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 5318-5004 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Project Manager related to the Water Treatment Plant #4 modifications. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Project Report regarding Project 5318-5004 is hereby accepted. 2.Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the project report. 3.The proposed project, designated as Project No. 5318-5004, is hereby established and ordered. 4.The final plans and specifications to construct these improvements, as prepared under the direction of the Project Manager, or designee, are approved. 5.The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official City newspaper and in relevant industry publications an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6.The Project Manager, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council September 18, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk