HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/11/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
NOVEMBER 20, 2017
6:00 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:00 p.m. Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site
2. 6:45 p.m. Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
Written Reports
3. Solid Waste Ordinance Revision (Chapter 22)
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Community Room
1.Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2.Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special City Council Meeting Minutes November 13, 2017
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
6a. Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
Recommended Action: Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, take testimony, and
then close the public hearing. Motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance
prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products and set second reading for December 4,
2017.
7.Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
Meeting of November 20, 2017
City Council Agenda
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
Recommended Action: Motion to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending
Chapter 36 of the City Code relating to zoning to allow a 3rd shift with conditions at
Industrial zoned properties when adjacent to residential zoned properties, and to set the
second reading for December 4, 2017.
8b. Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution calling a public hearing on the
issuance of conduit revenue bonds to provide permanent financing for the affordable
housing portion of PLACE’s Via Project.
9. Communications – None
Meeting of November 20, 2017
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing the award of the 2018 Arts and Culture Grants.
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of parking restrictions on the north side of W.
Lake Street between 5622 and 5624 W. Lake Street.
4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions in front of 2829
Louisiana Avenue South.
4d. Designate Municipal Builders, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution
of a contract with the contractor in the amount of $3,107,100.00 for the Water Treatment
Plant #4 Rehabilitation Project No. 5318-5004.
4e. Adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Renewed Lease with the State of
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for Webster Park.
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: November 20, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and discuss the proposals received for the Southwest
Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site and provide staff
direction.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA wish to pursue entering into a Preliminary
Development Agreement with Sherman Associates for the Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment
Site?
SUMMARY: In July a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station
Redevelopment Site (located at the southeast quadrant of CSAH 25 and Beltline Blvd.) was
distributed to the development community. Three development teams, Kraus Anderson, Flaherty
& Collins, and Sherman Associates, ultimately submitted proposals. A summary of each proposal
can be found in the Discussion section of this report and a more detailed Metrics of Developer
Responses is attached. Staff evaluated and scored the proposals based on the criteria outlined in
the RFP. The development teams with the two top scoring proposals were then asked to present
their proposed projects to a team of six staff members and a representative from Ehlers (the EDA’s
financial advisor). Following the development teams’ presentations, staff determined Sherman
Associates’ proposal most closely aligned with the city’s vision, development objectives and
preferred programming for the site. As such, staff is recommending that Sherman Associates be
selected as the development team with which the EDA should partner to redevelop the SWLRT
Beltline Blvd. Station Site. Sherman Associates is a Minneapolis-based, fully integrated
development company with an extensive portfolio of successful urban/suburban mixed-use,
mixed-income, TOD projects, substantial affordable housing experience, and the financial capacity
to develop a project of the scale envisioned by the city.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The precise purchase price of the EDA and
City-owned parcels as well as the amount of financial assistance necessary to bring the desired
project to fruition at the Beltline site will require further discussion with the developer once the
project’s actual components are more fully defined. Implementation of both public and private
redevelopment plans for the Beltline Blvd. Station Site will likely require TIF assistance.
VISION CONSIDERATION: This project is intended to meet all the city’s Vision objectives.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary Metrics of Developer Responses
Summary of Sherman Associates’ Proposal
Sherman Associates’ Profile
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site
DISCUSSION
Property Description
The Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site is located at the southeast quadrant of the CSAH
25 (an extension of State Highway 7) and Beltline Blvd. intersection; less than ½ mile east of
Highway 100. The site is bounded by CSAH 25 on the north, Beltline Blvd. on the west and the
Cedar Lake Regional Trail and the future SWLRT line (with its Beltline Blvd. Station) on the
south as shown in the illustration below. The site consists of four parcels: 4601 Highway 7, 3130
Monterey Ave S, road right of way, and 4725 Highway 7 referenced respectively as Parcels A,
B,C, and D. Parcels A and B are owned by the city’s EDA. Parcel C is former right-of-way (for
which the city is in the process of clearing title). Parcel D is being acquired by the Metropolitan
Council for the SWLRT project.
The Development Objectives for the site listed in the Request for Proposals are as follows:
•Construct a signature, transit-oriented development (TOD),
•Transform the SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site into an active, TOD-
focused place with:
-Mixed use development (including multi-family residential, office and small
commercial components),
-Housing density to support transit ridership,
-Mixed income housing (both market rate and affordable),
-High-quality shared site amenities,
•Optimize the site’s development and employment potential,
•Integrate development with the adjacent SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station and connect with
the surrounding areas,
•Build a parking structure for required park-and-ride purposes,
•Demonstrate high standards for environmental sustainability.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site
The preferred Development Program for the site described in the Request for Proposals
includes:
•Multi-story, multi-family, mixed-use (commercial and residential), mixed-income,
residential buildings. The concept plan considers more than 180 multi-family dwelling
units. See city’s Inclusionary Housing Policy (Attachment F) for city’s affordable housing
requirements.
•At least 8,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space.
•Adequate parking to serve the needs of the proposed redevelopment, primarily located
below buildings or in structures.
•A multi-story office building of at least 80,000 square feet containing ground floor
retail/service spaces. Structured underground parking may be included but is not required.
•Multi-story parking structure to accommodate the Metropolitan Council’s required 268-
park-and-ride stalls. Requires hazardous materials removal and soil remediation.
•Design of the parking structure must be coordinated with the city, SWLRT project and the
Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) to ensure park-and-ride and site requirements are
met.
•The parking structure may be designed to accommodate the required parking for the
adjacent office building.
Summary of Developer Proposals
The city received development proposals from the following development teams as summarized
below:
Flaherty & Collins (Indianapolis) proposal included one, square-shaped, 5-story apartment
building with a total of 297 apartment units of which 20% would be affordable at an unspecified
percentage of AMI, a one story 29,150 SF grocery on the corner of Beltline and CSAH 25 with
potentially 2 to 4 stories of office above (upwards of 65,850 SF) as determined by market demand
along with the required public parking ramp with architectural treatments to blend with other
project elements. It featured a large courtyard in the middle of the apartment building, solar
components above the parking ramp and a public plaza with public gathering elements and public
art across from the station. It offered $5,000,000 for the land and estimated the project’s financing
gap at more than $29 million.
Kraus Anderson (Minneapolis) proposed two, 5-story mixed use buildings with a total of 190
apartment units of which 10% would be affordable at an unspecified percentage of AMI, a one
story (with mezzanine) 49,575 SF grocery on the corner of Beltline and CSAH 25 with an
abundance of surface parking, 23,000 SF of additional retail and restaurant space, and a possible
2-level, 50,000 SF office building above the required parking ramp. It featured one large level of
underground parking, numerous sustainable features (including a strong solar component and
green roofs) as well as 16,130 SF plaza with public gathering elements and public art. It offered
$1,600,000 for the land and estimated the project’s financing gap at more than $7.5 million not
including the parking ramp.
Sherman Associates’ (Minneapolis) proposal included two, 6-story apartment buildings each with
120 units of which 20% would be affordable to households at 50% AMI, a 3 to 4-story, 72,000 SF
Class A office building that anchors the corner of the Beltline & CSAH 25 intersection, 8,000+ SF
of neighborhood commercial, a 500+ stall parking garage adjacent to the future SWLRT station as
well as a variety of well-planned and integrated multi-purpose green spaces and public gathering
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site
areas (including one across from the station) that feature native landscaping and public art.
Sherman Associates’ off-site 4- megawatt solar garden would offset nearly all of the Beltline
redevelopment’s energy impact. It offered $5,800,000 for the land and estimated the project’s
financing gap at nearly $11 million not including the parking ramp.
Developer Selection
Staff evaluated and scored the proposals according to the criteria outlined in the RFP:
I. Site and Building Plans: Degree to which proposal meets or exceeds city’s TOD vision,
development objectives, and Beltline Area Framework & Design Guidelines; integrates
with the station area, pedestrian and neighborhood connections; and exhibits site
synergies as well as creative and efficient design (up to 20 points).
II. Project Program: Proposed commercial and housing components, square footages and
mix as well as number of affordable housing units above city requirements (up to 20
points).
III. Development Team: Overall experience of company and project principals with similar
projects and the type of development being proposed; financial and team member
capacity to implement proposal; previous experience of development team working
together; and ability of development team to meet regularly with city staff to refine
project plans (up to 15 points).
IV. Economic Impact: Proposed property purchase price, estimated taxable market value of
completed project, hiring of minority contractors and workers, and project’s overall
employment potential (up to 20 points).
V. Community Benefits: Connectivity of proposed project to the surrounding area; quality
of public spaces, including gathering areas/plazas, green space, landscaping, public art
(up to 10 points).
VI. Sustainability: Inclusion of green building elements that meet and exceed city
requirements, on-site energy generation, waste reduction, measures to reduce trip
generation and degree to which project meets city’s Net Zero Energy/Emissions goals
(up to 15 points).
The development teams with the two top scoring proposals were then asked to present their
proposed projects to a team of six staff members and a representative from Ehlers (the EDA’s
financial advisor). Following the development teams’ presentations, staff determined Sherman
Associates’ proposal most closely aligned with the city’s vision, development objectives and
preferred programming for the site. As such, staff is recommending that Sherman Associates be
selected as the development team with which the EDA should partner to redevelop the SWLRT
Beltline Blvd. Station Site. Sherman Associates is a Minneapolis-based, fully integrated
development company with an extensive portfolio of successful urban/suburban mixed-use,
mixed-income, TOD projects, substantial affordable housing experience, and the financial capacity
to develop a project of the scale envisioned by the city.
Next Steps: Staff seeks direction relative to its recommendation of Sherman Associates as the
developer for the Beltline Station Site. If the Council/EDA wishes to move forward with Sherman,
staff will prepare a Preliminary Development Agreement for consideration at an upcoming Study
Session.
Summary Metrics of Developer Reponses to Beltline RFP
Page 1 of 2
Apt Unit %Residential Office Commercial Total Ramp Total Total Dev Total M/WBE Land
Project Team Units Mix Affordable Buildings SF SF & Uses Gross SF Parking Parking Cost Mkt Value Initiatives Offer
Flaherty & Collins 297
Studios - 59
Alcove - 32
1-bdrm - 146
2-bdrm - 60 20% @ ?
1 - square-
shaped bldg
w/ significant
internal
courtyard
5 stories
"Between 2-4
stories
(65,850 SF)
could be
included
above grocery
as determined
by mkt
demand"
29,150
grocery
361,659
(266,659
housing,
29,150
grocery,
65,850 office)
750 stalls
(268 P&R stalls
+ additional
stalls for
commercial).
Ramp to have
architectural
treatments to
blend with
other project
elements
870 total
(268 P&R +
602 for res &
all
commercial.
All residential
pkg in ramp or
underground
$111,073,603
(including only
750 parking
stalls and no
office parking) Not specified
Shaw-Lundquist is one of
the largest Asian-American
contractors in US. Will
partner with trades and
community non-profits to
identify potential minority
workers & subcontractors $5,000,000
Kraus-Anderson 190 Not specified 10% @ ?
2 bldgs
5 stories
Possible
50,000 SF
above ramp
49,575 +
grocery w/
mezzaanine,
23,000 +
retail &
restaurant
237,075
(164,500
housing,
49,575 +
grocery,
23,000 office)
917 stalls
5-levels w/ one
441-stall
underground
level to have
architectural
treatments
(metal panels)
to blend with
other project
elements
1,054 total
(268 P&R, 250
grocery, 149
retail, 250
residential,
137 office).
Substantial
pervious eco-
surface pkg
$73,330,348
(not including
office space &
Park & Ride)$69,800,000
Will partner with trades
and community non-
profits to identify potential
minority workers &
subcontractors. Provides
apprenticeships & training
programs & has
designated person to
secure employment
M/W/BE opportunities $1,600,000
Sherman Associates 240
Studios - 20
Alcove - 18
1-bdrm - 110
1-bdrm + den - 20
2-bdrm - 72
20% at 50%
AMI
2 bldgs
6 stories
72,000 SF
3 stories
8,000
neighborhood
retail (i.e. coffee
shop)
278,000
(198,000
housing,
72,000 office,
8,000 retail)
550 stalls,
4-levels
(268 P&R +
282 office)
837 total (130
surface, 82
underground
for north
building, 75
underground
for south
building +
ramp)
$73,401,331
(with
$13,750,000
parking ramp
total project =
$87,151,331)Not specified
Extensive experience with
M/WBE initiatives. Will
engage Craftsman
Construction to "manage
small and underutilized
business & workforce
engagements to ensure
goals are met"$5,870,600
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 5
Summary Metrics of Developer Reponses to Beltline RFP
Page 2 of 2
Estimated Sustainable TOD Placemaking Company
$ Gap Features Elements Elements Experience
$29,432,880
(excludes cost
of 120 needed
parking stalls
and office
parking)
Solar arrays over
parking, LED lighting,
electric vehicle
charging stations.
Several LEED certified
projects, comply with
GBP, no LEED
commitment. Will
partner with Ameresco
Nice Ride bike sharing,
ped connections, bike
connection from trail
bridge to ramp, indoor
bike parking & repair
Apt courtyard to contain
numerous amenities. Public
plaza w/ "room for art",
seating areas and plantings
across from station. Will
engage Musicant Group to
prepare community plaza
plans
Indianapolis-based F&C has
developed 30 projects, worth $2
billion, 6,300+ apt units, 400,000
SF retail & 25,000 SF office.
Major fully integrated mixed-use,
mixed- income dev company.
Team has substantial experience
with high quality, mixed-use
projects
$7,560,000
(excludes cost
of office space
or Park &
Ride)
Numerous sustainable
features, pg 19, 33,
strong solar
component, green roof,
no LEED commitment.
Will partner w/ LHB
3 covered walkways, 1st
floor retail, transit plaza,
Easy-to-navigate ped
connections to/from site &
16,130 sf plaza w/ public
gathering elements and art in
NE corner), metal panel on
ramp. Integrated stormwater
mgmnt/landscape elements.
Mpls-based, family-owned fully
integrated dev company w/
substantial mixed real estate
portfolio and $900 million
bonding capacity. All local team
has substantial experience with
high quality, mixed-use projects
$10,700,000
(assumes $3
million in
grants &
excludes cost
of parking for
Park & Ride &
office bldg)
Clean energy provided
via offsite solar garden;
green roofs, walls &
stormwater features,
numerous other
sustainable elements.
No LEED commitment.
Aim for net-zero energy
goal,
Artist-created bike racks
with storage lockers, bike
repair station at SW
corner of ramp, Nice Ride,
Rideshare?, walking paths
w/ wayfinding
Flexible, central "Piazza"
capable of hosting special
events, along with smaller
Campos (plazas) w/ street
furnishings for outdoor
seating, public art, native
prairie gardens.
Mpls-based, fully integrated dev
company that has developed
approx 8,500 housing units &
600,000 SF of commercial &
hotel space; $2 billion.
Substantial affordable housing
experience. All local team has
substantial experience with
mixed-use, mixed income
projects.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 6
BELTLINE STATION PROJECT SUMMARY
November 20th, 2017
Sherman Associates proposes a vibrant, mixed-use development at the intersection of Highway 7 (County
Road 25) & Beltline Boulevard in Saint Louis Park. Project deliverables include mixed income rental
housing, office, commercial and a park-and-ride facility. The project will incorporate comprehensive
energy efficiency measures. It will enhance connections to transit and the surrounding community. The
dynamic mix of uses will invigorate the streetscape, increase tax base and spur economic activity. The
following is a high-level summary of the project:
Proposed Redevelopment:
Mixed-Use/Mixed-Income Housing | Office/Commercial | Parking Garage
- Housing 1: 120 Units - 80% Market Rate 20% Affordable
- Housing 2: 120 Units - 80% Market Rate 20% Affordable
- Office/Commercial: 80,000 SF (8,000 SF dedicated to commercial/retail uses)
- Parking Garage: 550 Stalls - 268 dedicated to park-and-ride, 282 dedicated to office
Proposed Acquisition Price:
Area 1: $3,443,075
-Consists of land with approximate boundaries of RFP Parcels A & B
Area 2: $ 2,427,525
-Consists of land with approximate boundary of RFP Parcel C
Proposed Closing Dates:
Area 1: Quarter 4, 2018
-Consists of land with approximate boundaries of RFP Parcels A & B
Area 2: Quarter 4, 2019
-Consists of land with approximate boundary of RFP Parcel C
Anticipated Project Construction Completion Dates:
- Housing 1: Quarter 1, 2020
- Housing 2: Quarter 1, 2021
- Office/Commercial: Quarter 1, 2021
- Parking Garage: Quarter 1, 2021
Rental Rates:
-Housing 1:80% Market Rate - 20% Affordable (Affordable at 50% AMI)
-Housing 2:80% Market Rate - 20% Affordable (Affordable at 50% AMI)
-Office/Commercial:$16 - $18 PSF Net
Total Development Costs:
-Approximately $73.4 million (excludes parking garage)
-Cost & of design EDA/Met Council owned parking garage TBD
Requested City Assistance
-25 years TIF for housing projects
-10 years TIF for office project
-Support in pursuit of gap financing and 4% Housing Tax Credits
233 Park Avenue South, Suite 201, Minneapolis, MN 55415 P 612.332.3000 F 612.332.8119 www.Sherman-Associates.com
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 7
ENCLOSED
Conceptual Site Plan
Conceptual Renderings
233 Park Avenue South, Suite 201, Minneapolis, MN 55415 P 612.332.3000 F 612.332.8119 www.Sherman-Associates.com
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 8
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN – BELTLINE STATION Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment SitePage 9
Page 10CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - HOUSING - BELTLINE STATION Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site
CONCEPTUAL RENDERING - OFFICE - BELTLINE STATION Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1) Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment SitePage 11
Sherman Associates Real Estate Development | Property Management Residential | Commercial | Hospitality | Community Impact | Historic
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 12
–––-
Building Communities.
Enriching Neighborhoods.
Sherman Associates is committed to the development of quality urban housing, hospitality, and commercial products. With the belief that the healthiest neighborhoods are comprised of a variety of people and uses, Sherman strives to create mixed-use developments, incorporating a variety of housing types and leveraging multiple financing tools.
$250 million
Annual pipeline
$2 billion
Total real estate development
completed
600,000
Square feet of commercial and
hotel space
8,500
Residential units developed
5
States actively
developing
400+
Total employees
35
Years of experience Photo by Spacecrafting Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 13
++--–
Project Examples
EAST TOWN BLOCK | East End Apartments, Hilton Canopy
Hotel, Trader Joes, commercial space
PAPER BOX LOFTS | Historic Redevelopment 800 W BROADWAY | Community Impact, Mixed-use
Redevelopment
RIVERSIDE PLAZA | Affordable Historic ENCORE | Boutique Luxury Residence LONGFELLOW STATION | Transit-oriented, Mixed-use
Development
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 14
Why Sherman?
Sherman’s vision is fueled by the desire to develop and operate with a long-term perspective. This allows us unwavering commitment to create developments that have a positive impact on the community.
Sherman’s Development team is innovative, smart, and determined. The collaboration and support of our legal, compliance, construction, and asset management teams serve as an advantage in executing a vision that builds communities and enriches neighborhoods.
Vision Oriented
Long Term Impact
Sherman Associates is driven to leverage our expertise, developing the best solution for cities and neighborhoods. We have become an industry leader in market rate and affordable multi-family housing, and mixed-use developments.
Creative & Experienced
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 1)
Title: Developer for SWLRT Beltline Blvd. Station Redevelopment Site Page 15
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at his time. Staff desires to update the Council about this
property and receive direction.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the EDA interested in pursuing any of the options listed below
relative to the Walker Building and the Historical Society’s space needs?
SUMMARY:
Upon discussion with the St. Louis Park Historical Society at the April 17th Study Session, it was
the consensus of the Council/EDA to have staff explore potential options relative to how the
Walker Building could be preserved through various ownership scenarios, as well as how the
Historical Society’s space needs could be met. To that end, staff has met with the owner of the
Walker Building, the former prospective buyer of the Walker building, and has met several times
with the Historical Society. As a result of those meetings, staff has developed several potential
options for the Council/EDA to consider relative to the Walker Building and/or the Historical
Society’s space needs.
Option 1 – Monitor the sale of the property and work with the prospective buyer in some
manner to see that the buildings’ historic character is maintained and, if
possible, restored.
Option 2 – Provide an Annual Stipend to the Historical Society to offset its lease payments.
Option 3 – Provide the Historical Society with the funds to acquire the Walker Building.
Option 4 – Purchase of the Walker Building by the EDA, subsequently leasing space to the
Historical Society.
Option 5 – Provide STEP with the funds to acquire the Walker Building and allow it to be
the Property Owner and Manager.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Walker Building is listed for sale at
$775,000. The building will likely require some additional work in order to obtain a Property
Maintenance Certificate. The building is currently configured as an office building. In order for
the building to accommodate public displays and assembly it will need to become fully sprinkled
and meet ADA requirements. The cost of further environmental investigation and any necessary
remediation also will need to be considered. The additional cost to restore the building’s historic
character is further unknown.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Minutes of April 17, 2017 Study Session
Proposal from STEP and the SLP Historical Society
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmenng, City Manager and EDA Executive Director
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
DISCUSSION
Building background: The Walker Building is located at 6516-6524 Walker Street northwest of
the Highway 7/Wooddale Ave interchange. It was originally constructed by lumber baron TB
Walker between 1888 and 1892 making it St. Louis Park’s oldest standing commercial building.
It is a two-story structure (with a full limestone basement) comprised of a total of 18,270 square
feet that was fully remodeled in 1999 with additional improvements made in 2007 and 2009. Today
it is listed as a multi-tenant Class C office building. The property’s current taxable market value is
$573,000 and is configured for multi-tenant office use. There are currently seven businesses
leasing space in the building. Therefore, there is little likelihood that an interested party would
purchase the property and demolish the structure in order to redevelop the parcel. The property is
currently listed for sale at $775,000. The building will likely require some additional work in order
to obtain a Property Maintenance Certificate. The building is partially sprinkled. In order for the
building to accommodate public assembly (as desired by the Historical Society) it would need to
become fully sprinkled and meet current ADA requirements. According to the former prospective
buyer’s environmental consultant who reviewed the building, “further investigation is
recommended to determine if additional contaminants other than VOCs have impacted the soil on
the subject property.” The cost of further environmental investigation and any necessary
remediation would need to be considered by any purchaser. The additional cost to restore the
building’s historic character is further unknown.
Upon discussion with the St. Louis Park Historical Society at the April 17th Study Session, it was
the consensus of the Council/EDA to have staff explore potential options relative to how the
Walker Building could potentially be preserved through various ownership scenarios as well as
options for the Historical Society’s space needs. To that end, staff has met with the property owner,
the former prospective buyer, and has met several times with the Historical Society. As a result of
those meetings, staff has developed several potential options for the Council/EDA to consider
relative to the Walker Building and/or the Historical Society’s space needs. Each of these options
will require further refinement, but are preliminarily presented to gauge the Council/EDA’s level
of financial support and interest, and to provide staff direction.
Option 1 – Monitor the sale of the property and work with the prospective buyer in some
manner to see that the buildings’ historic character is maintained and, if possible, restored.
Staff could offer assistance to potential buyers, in a manner similar to that given to the previous
potential buyer; however, in this scenario, the city would have limited control over the prospective
buyer and their use of the building, provided it met the city’s requirements. Furthermore, any use
of the building by the Historical Society would largely be at the discretion of the prospective buyer.
Option 2 – Provide an Annual Stipend to the Historical Society to offset its lease payments.
The SLP Historical Society has expressed it has limited financial resources, and the resources it
does have are dependent upon memberships and fundraising efforts, which are inconsistent. In an
effort to facilitate a consistent presence in one location, the EDA could provide the Historical
Society with an annual stipend to offset its lease payments within the Walker Building, or another
building that suits their needs. Such a stipend would be consistent with the financial support the
city provides other local nonprofit organizations. The cost to lease first floor space within the
Walker Building could range between $36,000 and $48,000 annually depending upon the square
footage leased. Such a long term lease may provide the guaranteed cash flow necessary to allow
the current owner to continue operating the building as an office building. This arrangement would
allow the Historical Society to lease space for office purposes, but unless improvements are made
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
to the building, it would not allow for public assembly (such as meetings and display space).
Potentially, such improvements could be negotiated as part of a long-term lease. This option could
potentially provide the Historical Society with a long term location in a historic building and
potentially allow the Walker Building to continue operating largely as it does currently.
Option 3 – Provide the Historical Society with the funds to acquire the Walker Building.
As previously stated, the Historical Society is not in a financial position to acquire property. The
EDA could offer a grant or loan (on flexible terms) to the Historical Society to provide the
necessary funds to acquire the Walker Building. The Historical Society could be required to repay
a portion of the loan through fund raising efforts over a negotiated term. The building is currently
listed for sale at $775,000. The building will likely require some additional work in order to obtain
a Property Maintenance Certificate. As noted above, additional improvements will be necessary
to allow for public assembly within the building. The cost to achieve this could be substantial.
Board members of the Historical Society have questioned the feasibility of this option as they feel
the volunteer organization lacks the necessary personnel and expertise to be the owner and property
manager of an office building with tenants on a long term basis.
Option 4 – The EDA purchases the Building and leases space to the Historical Society.
The EDA could purchase the building, make the necessary improvements, and lease office space
to the Historical Society. As a lessee, the Historical Society, in conjunction with the city, could
begin fundraising and seek historic preservation grants to pay for the improvements necessary to
enable the building to accommodate public displays and assembly, as well restoring the building’s
historic character. This option requires the EDA to enter the property’s chain of title and be liable
for all aspects of the property as the fee owner. It also requires the EDA to be the ongoing property
manager of a commercial structure with tenants whose maintenance concerns would have to be
addressed on a timely basis and whose leases would have to be regularly administered. Any tenants
required to be relocated from the building as a result of the EDA’s ownership of the property could
potentially expose the EDA to costly relocation claims. Lease revenues would result in semiannual
property tax payments to the County. This option would likely require the hiring of a commercial
property management firm by the City/EDA to operate and maintain the building.
Option 5 – Provide STEP with the funds to acquire the Walker Building, becoming the
Property Owner and Manager. In staff’s discussions with Ted Ekkers, president of the
Historical Society, he expressed the Board’s reluctance to owning and managing the Walker
Building. Staff therefore encouraged him to seek out either a sympathetic property management
firm or some other organization that could competently serve that role. Ted subsequently spoke to
representatives of STEP, located across the street from the Walker Building, who indicated that
they would be interested in owning and managing the Walker Building and leasing space to the
Historical Society (and possibly other community organizations). For its part, owning the Walker
Building would enable STEP to relocate and expand some of its current operations which are in
need of expansion space. STEP, with its full time staff and active Board of Directors, indicated it
would be receptive to being the fee owner and property manager of the building, as well as
retaining the building’s current tenants whose rental revenue could be used to offset the building’s
operating expenses. Such an arrangement could allow the Historical Society to initially occupy
office space on the east side of the ground floor. Upon entering into a lease, the Historical Society
could begin fundraising and seeking historic preservation grants to pay for the improvements
necessary to enable the building to accommodate public displays and assembly, as well restoring
the building’s historic character. The EDA would be asked to provide a grant or forgivable loan to
STEP pursuant to a financing agreement to enable STEP to acquire the Walker Building and make
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
necessary improvements. This option would allow the EDA to remain out of the property’s chain
of title, renovation, and management efforts. Further information relative to this option along with
a draft timeline are outlined in the attached proposal from STEP.
Next Steps: Staff seeks the EDA’s feedback and direction relative to the above options. Additional
follow-up work will be necessary to implement any option selected.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
APRIL 17, 2017
The meeting convened at 5:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Deputy City Manager/Human
Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Principal
Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Manager (Ms. Larson), Planning and Zoning
Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Police Chief Harcey, Fire Chief
Koering, and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guest: Jeanne Anderson and Henry Solmer, St. Louis Park Historical Society
1. Walker Building - 6524 Walker Street
Ms. Anderson, representing the St. Louis Park Historical Society, stated the society has been
looking for a permanent home. The property at 6524 Walker Street is for sale and has been
identified by the society as a possible location for them. The building dates back to 1892 and is
the oldest commercial structure remaining in the community. Ms. Anderson noted the society
hopes the city would play a significant role in helping secure the building for their use. She
reviewed the society’s proposal with the council members.
Ms. Anderson added that the owner of the building has made many improvements, but the building
has been on the market since September 2015. The society would like it to come off the market as
soon as possible. While the building has not been appraised, the owner is asking $775,000 for it.
Ms. Anderson noted that the society cannot get a bank loan or ask for donations to purchase the
building. She stated they would need up front money in order to purchase it and would then pay
the money back as they were able. She noted there are three options:
1) City grant to buy the property
2) City loans to purchase with a flexible repayment plan based on fundraising. The society
would repay all or some of the amount of the loan over time
3) City purchase of the building and lease to the society for $1 per year. She added this is the
most common arrangement with other cities and their historical societies.
With all of the above options Ms. Anderson noted the society would need to hire a professional
fundraiser/executive director to raise donations to buy the building.
Councilmember Lindberg asked Mr. Hoffman about the condition of the building. Mr. Hoffman
stated the building is structurally sound, with a solid foundation and no evidence of rot. He stated
some mechanicals might need replacement, as well as the roof, and it would need updates to allow
for ADA access.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
Mr. Solmer thanked Ms. Anderson and Mr. Ekkers, Chair of the St. Louis Park Historical Society,
for their dedication. He stated it would be a dream to own this building, and it would be great to
see the building saved; however, he felt the society would be best served if the city owned the
building, and the society was able to use some area of the building. He added the society would
not be able to own and operate the building by themselves.
Councilmember Mavity arrived at 5:20 p.m.
Councilmember Miller stated he is interested in preserving this building and in moving forward
with the city owning it. He added he sees this as a community building to be used by community
organizations, including the historical society, as well as others like the Nest.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Miller, stating it is critical to preserve the
building and to help develop an historic area of the Walker Lake area. She added she is not sure
this is the right spot for the Nest, but she would like it to be considered. Additionally, she noted
the city may want to lease it to the school district, adding the city needs to purchase the building
quickly before it is demolished.
Mr. Harmening stated the city has not spoken to the owner yet, but if the council wants to pursue
it, the city will do so.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is in favor of temporarily acquiring the title to the building for
the historical society and added that if the city is committed to redeveloping this area, they will
need to decide how best to do it and include more community engagement. He added it would be
useful to look at the visioning before making any decisions, adding he does not want to be
pressured into this.
Councilmember Mavity stated she has met with the historical society board and members, noting
the society does need a home. She added it makes sense for the city to invest in the building;
however, the city is not a management company and so would want a long-term private ownership.
She added the city could help to get the building on the national register and work with the owner
on an incentive for this, but again stated the city should not be managing the building or be a long-
term landowner.
Councilmember Lindberg agreed with Councilmember Mavity, and does not want the city to be in
the business of land ownership, especially when considering ongoing costs and renovating costs.
He added this is expensive, and he doesn’t favor a financial commitment or a property acquisition.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he has concerns and wants to be wise, not jumping into this
without a plan. He added he hopes for a creative solution.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would be willing to take a leap here and help the society, noting
the council needs to get behind this effort and is in a position to do so. He asked if the purchase of
the building would involve creative financing or if the city would purchase it outright.
Mr. Harmening stated that if the council was interested in being assertive, the city has the resources
to do this through an EDA or HRA levy. However, he added that he views this project as more of
an economic development project for that area of the city, which the historical society can be part
of. He added it might be best to work with a developer and a private owner so that the city would
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 7
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options
not have to manage the building, noting also that the city cannot underestimate the renovation costs
of this building, in addition to the purchase price.
Ms. Anderson stated that if the city or the society owned the building and it was placed on the
National Historic Register, they would be eligible for state grants, which would help with
reconstruction costs. A management company would manage the property.
Councilmember Sanger asked what the society knows about the building’s owner; to what extent
is the owner sympathetic to historic preservation; and would the owner be inclined to work with
the city. Ms. Anderson stated the owner wants the society to have the building, and he cares about
the building’s historical nature very much. After the building is sold, he would want to hold onto
part of the first floor for a time.
Councilmember Mavity stated the city will want to be sure they are not playing the marketplace
on this and that the owner is motivated to sell.
Mayor Spano said related to the issue of the Nest, he strongly encouraged the students to maintain
their vision and ideas of what they want. He asked Mr. Hoffman if the students wanted to do a
coffee shop or food prep in the building, would the remodel for that be expensive, and would there
be much work needed. Mr. Hoffman stated the building is classified as office space currently and
would need to be modernized and remodeled to meet code. He noted the costs would be high.
Mayor Spano added the city does not really have a downtown area and asked the council what the
broader vision is for this area. He stated the council has not had this discussion yet, adding that
other entities in this area might come to the council and ask the city to purchase their building also,
so care will have to be taken about setting precedent. However, he added that the city does need
to move forward on taking control of this building to create a sense of continuity, especially since
it is the oldest commercial building in the city. He noted that the downtown area buildings in his
hometown are all on the national historic register and that creates community, pride. It is a central
place people can go to and remember. Mayor Spano added this is an opportunity to get control of
one vintage building and is worth pursuing.
Mr. Harmening added if anyone would ask why the city purchased the building, he would say it
helps leverage additional redevelopment in the area. If the historical society is part of this
redevelopment, all the better.
It was the consensus of the council to have staff explore further options and the building owner’s
interest in working with the city.
Councilmember Lindberg noted that there needs to be communication with the public about this
building, as well.
RE: Exploration of options for the Walker Building November 10, 2017
STEP’s interest in the Walker Building
STEP is interested in exploring a partnership for the city to finance STEP’s purchase of the Walker
Building (6516-6524 Walker St) through either a grant or a forgivable loan. STEP would keep its core
operations at its current building (6812 Lake Street) and share use of the Walker Building with other
community assets. Staff is presently collecting information to bring to STEP’s Board of Directors.
STEP’s contribution would be:
•Managing the whole process
•Managing the purchase
•Managing the building
•Managing the remodeling
Role of the St. Louis Park Historical Society
The Historical Society has been the leader in pushing for solutions to preserve and restore the Walker
Building. The Historical Society engaged in conversations with STEP to explore a potential partnership.
The concept is that the city would assist STEP in purchasing the building. The arrangement would include
the SLP Historical Society being housed in part of the Walker Building, with the long-term goal of
creating a St. Louis Park History Museum on part of the main floor of the Walker Building. The Historical
Society would be involved in securing historic preservation grants to restore and preserve the building.
Initial use
STEP would occupy the west side of the ground floor, the garage addition, and much of the basement.
The SLP Historical Society will occupy the east side of the ground floor. The second floor will be leased to
tenants (which will fund a majority of the building’s operating expenses). Over time, other community
entities may be able to move in.
What this does for STEP
Since 1975 STEP has identified, addressed, and responded to the critical and emergency needs of
residents in St. Louis Park. This would strengthen STEP’s promise to the community.
Expansion into the Walker Building would allow STEP to expand and improve current operations.
•Clothes Closet could be moved to Walker warehouse garage, allowing for greater selection and
expansion to household items for residents.
•The Holiday Toy Shop and Back to School distributions would be housed in the flexible
warehouse garage alongside the Clothes Closet.
•New Community Welcome Center. STEP could host a collaborative resource center for all
community members, but targeted to new families in our community. It would be a
clearinghouse of city, school, and community asset information.
•Freed up space at the Lake Street building would allow to expand the food shelf shopping area
and warehouse, allowing for more efficient food sourcing and greater selection for residents.
•Additional STEP staff offices would allow for additional staff.
•Community Room Space could accommodate larger groups, such as group volunteer projects,
volunteer training, meetings, classes, and other organizational events.
•Partnerships with other services would be available. STEP’s current space limits work with
partners. Flexible space for walk-in legal clinics, tax advisors, housing resources, nutrition
education, employment services, etc.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options Page 8
What this does for the city
This would benefit the community at large by achieving the following goals:
•Support STEP’s mission and solidify current location.
•Provides path for restoring historic nature of the Walker Building.
•Improves and enlivens Historic Walker Lake district.
•Insures that positive entities occupy the building consistent with the vision for the area.
•Creates a permanent home for the SLP Historical Society in a self-sustaining manner.
•Makes this simply a “funding a place for STEP” transaction for the city council and takes away all
the ownership issues, tenant issues and building management and reconstruction issues.
Draft timeline for Walker Building initiative
NOV 17 STEP enters into purchase agreement with 19th Century Enterprises LLC. Purchase
agreement would allow 90-day period for due diligence and an additional 90 days to
secure a funding agreement with the City.
NOV 17 –
FEB 18
STEP performs due diligence including city inspection, title, leasing agreements, and
phase 2 environmental review.
NOV 17 –
FEB 18
STEP draws up preliminary remodel and rehab plan, including cost estimates.
NOV 17 –
FEB 18
STEP and the SLP Historical Society negotiate anticipated terms of lease relationship
and expectations relating to historic renovations decisions and fund seeking.
NOV 17 –
FEB 18
STEP Board of Directors will decide on any issues that are raised through the due-
diligence process.
NOV 17 –
FEB 18
City will determine whether and how it will financially partner in the initiative.
FEB - MAY 18 STEP Board of Directors will decide whether the city financial partnership meets the
needs for this initiative.
FEB - MAY 18 STEP and City will sign a financing agreement to meet requirements and satisfy
funding item in the purchase agreement.
MAY 18 Once due diligence and financing has been satisfied, the sale to STEP will close.
MAY 18 Upon the sale, STEP will assume current lease agreements under their existing terms.
MAY 18 Upon the sale, STEP and the SLP Historical Society will enter into lease agreement.
MAY 18 - ? Pre-occupancy remodeling will be performed (primarily on ground floor).
After MAY 18 STEP and the SLP Historical Society will begin to occupy the ground floor.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 2)
Title: Walker Building and Historical Society Space Options Page 9
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Written Report: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Solid Waste Ordinance Revisions (Chapter 22)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide the City Council with an
update to the proposed changes and additions to Chapter 22.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed revision to
requirements for multi-family property recycling in the Chapter 22 ordinance?
SUMMARY: A summary of the proposed changes to Solid Waste Management Ordinance
(Chapter 22) was presented to the City Council (August 28, 2017), stakeholders (two sessions) and
city staff. The input received resulted in several edits to clarify intent and create consistency within
the City Code.
The most significant change being proposed is to the multi-family recycling weekly service
capacity requirement (Section 22-38a.). In the initial draft, recycling needed to have weekly
capacity equal to or greater than garbage. This requirement has been revised to require a minimum
recycling capacity of 20 gallons per dwelling per week. A detailed description of this change is
provided in the “Discussion” section of this report. A summary of all changes are listed in
Attachment A (attached).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
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
Attachment A – Chapter 22 Summary of Updates
Prepared by: Emily Barker, Solid Waste Program Specialist
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revision (Chapters 22)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: After the August study session, solid waste staff made a few changes based
on feedback from Council. In addition, staff sought feedback from stakeholders. Two listening
sessions were held (October 18 and October 24) regarding the proposed ordinance changes for
multi-family and commercial recycling. Staff gave a short presentation and then listened to
stakeholder feedback. Stakeholder attendance at the listening sessions was minimal. Comments
were also accepted in writing from other stakeholders who were unable to attend the meetings.
Staff had an opportunity to discuss the proposed ordinance with the City of Coon Rapids, which
recently passed a similar ordinance. One thing staff had not accounted for in the initial multi-
family requirement (recycling to be equal to or greater than garbage) was “move in/move out
waste” and the challenges it presents for multi-family properties in relation to garbage service
levels. On a day to day basis, about half of the materials being discarded by residents could be
recycled. Unfortunately, when residents move, they have limited options for large items such as
mattresses and furniture, and these items often end up in the garbage. This regular need to discard
bulk waste means that buildings often have larger trash dumpsters to accommodate the material.
Requiring recycling to be at the same or higher capacity as garbage would mean adding recycling
service that would largely go unused. To assist in addressing this issue, staff will work to promote
reuse and recycling education to reduce waste incurred during move in/move out periods.
In addition to the feedback from stakeholders, the city’s Minnesota GreenCorps member has
visited several properties throughout the city since early October and gathered detailed information
regarding current recycling capacity. This data has helped staff better understand the realities of
recycling in St. Louis Park multi-family buildings. Based on the information gathered thus far,
under the initial proposed requirement few buildings would be currently compliant.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Based on the feedback received and information gathered, city
staff is proposing to amend the weekly recycling service capacity requirement to focus on the
recycling component and to leave the garbage service level up to individual buildings. As now
proposed, multi-family buildings will need to have a minimum weekly recycling service capacity
of 20 gallons per dwelling unit. The 20 gallon requirement is based on approximate usage by
households in the city’s single-family program (prorated to account for smaller average household
size). For reference, the cart or dumpster equivalents would be as follows: 20 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑢𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑𝑢𝑢=𝑂𝑂𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑 96 𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑐𝑐𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢5 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑢𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑𝑢𝑢𝑔𝑔=𝑂𝑂𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑 𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑢𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 𝑦𝑦𝑔𝑔𝑐𝑐𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑢𝑢𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑢𝑢𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐10 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑𝑔𝑔𝑔𝑔 𝑢𝑢𝑔𝑔𝑑𝑑𝑢𝑢𝑔𝑔
In comparing this requirement to data gathered, many properties are currently compliant or very
close to compliant. The city will work with buildings that do need to significantly increase their
recycling to meet the July 1, 2018, effective date.
In addition to better meeting the recycling needs of multi-family buildings, staff believe this will
be easier for the city to verify and enforce since calculating the recycling capacity requirement for
a given building is very straightforward (# of units x 20 gallons).
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revision (Chapters 22)
NEXT STEPS:
Item Date
First Reading of Ordinances December 4, 2017
Second Reading of Ordinances December 18, 2017
Date of Publication December 28, 2017
Date Ordinance takes effect
-Multi-family capacity (Section 22-38a.)
January 12, 2018
July 1, 2018
Special Study Session Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: Solid Waste Ordinance Revision (Chapters 22)
Attachment A
CHAPTER 22 SUMMARY OF UPDATES
Definitions
•Several definition changes and additions.
o Solid waste, garbage, recyclable materials, organic materials
o Eliminate “refuse”
Residential Curbside Collection Program
•Organics recycling – add, not addressed in current ordinance
•Cart storage – to allow storage along garages in alleys
•Frequency of collection for garbage – to allow for potential every-other-week
•Time of collection – extending to match actual practice
Multi-Family Recycling
•Weekly service capacity – Recycling already required in all MF buildings; expanding to
require recycling minimum of 20 gallon per dwelling unit per week
•Education – provided to all residents at move in and at least 1x per year
Commercial Recycling
•Existing buildings – reiterate state law
o Went into effect January 1, 2016
o Buildings with 4 cubic yards or more of garbage/week must have recycling for at
least 3 material types
o Exempts industrial, agriculture, mining
•New construction or expanded square footage for existing buildings
o Recycling required for all buildings, immediately adjacent to garbage
o Organics required if food establishments present, immediately adjacent to garbage
o Weekly Recycling + Organics Capacity ≥ Weekly Garbage Capacity
•All commercial buildings
o Education – provided to all tenants at least 1x per year
Backyard Composting
•Compost bins – allow wood, wire mesh, concrete block, or commercially available bins
Bulk Material Containers
•Language to address soft-sided dumpster bags (e.g. Bagsters®)
•Containers for construction and demolition (“C&D”) only allowed 6 months in 12-month
period, with permit
•Containers for solid waste (not C&D) only allowed 14 days in 6-month period
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 13, 2017
1. Call to Order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, and Gregg Lindberg.
Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director
(Ms. Deno), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guests: Rachel Harris, Margaret Rog, Rick Speckmann, MRA Corporation
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Canvass Results of Municipal General Election held on November 7, 2017.
Resolution No. 17-174
Councilmember Brausen congratulated all the candidates, including the winners, and the
voters, especially from Ward 2 - Precinct 7 for its 40% turnout rate. He stated that he would
like to challenge residents, especially younger voters, to participate more in their local
government, including voting in municipal elections. Councilmember Brausen said that as
a young voter, he certainly understood the excitement and exhilaration of supporting
George McGovern, which was like sweeping to the polls or caucuses for a Barack Obama
or a Bernie Sanders. However, municipal government has a much bigger impact on a
person’s daily life, and you can have a much bigger impact on local government than you
can by voting or campaigning for a national candidate. Think globally, but act locally, and
vote in your municipal elections!
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
adopt Resolution No. 17-174, declaring results of the Municipal General Election held
November 7, 2017.
The motion passed 4-0.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Award of the 2018 Arts and Culture Grants
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the award of the 2018
Arts and Culture Grants.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities proposed to be funded by the 2018 grant
program in keeping with the City Councils expectations?
SUMMARY: The Council has supported the annual Arts and Culture Grant program since its
inception in 2006. The grant program is intended to fund art projects and cultural activities that
build bridges between artists and communities, engages people in creative learning, and promotes
artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park. This program is funded through the
city’s budget process. St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts provides technical assistance.
The Grant Committee is comprised of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Friends of the
Arts, city staff, Discover St. Louis Park and community members. The committee reviewed the
applications and identified applicants whose proposals best met the objectives and are compatible
with the Council’s strategic direction for arts and culture. For the 2018 grant process, thirteen
applications were received. The following four best met the criteria and were recommended for
approval:
Alysha Boie: $5,000 to be used for creation and implementation of a St. Louis Park Arts and Craft
Fair at the ROC in fall 2018.
Twin Cities Gospel Choir: $2,869 for a community music conference and concert at the St. Louis
Park Rec Center and ROC entitled the “One Nation Music Festival” set for June 23, 2018.
The Park Theater Company: $3,500 for the production and presentation of two performances of
Music Moves Around the World with the St. Louis Park Community Band and Meadowbrook
Gospel Choir under the musical direction of Roderick Phipps Kettlewell. The event will take place
at the ROC in May 2018.
Caron Bell: $8,631 for the creation and installation of a permanent interior mosaic mural that
celebrates the Rec Center’s newest venue, the ROC. Unveiling date set to be the Children First Ice
Cream Social 2018.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This program is funded from the
Development Fund. The total amount granted for art projects in 2018 will be $20,000.
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: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Supervisor
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Award of the 2018 Arts and Culture Grants
RESOLUTION NO. 17-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AWARD OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ARTS & CULTURE GRANTS TO ALYSHA BOIE, TWIN CITIES GOSPEL CHOIR,
THE PARK THEATER COMPANY AND CARON BELL
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park created this program in 2006 with the assistance
of Friends of the Arts and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation to create and support a grant
program to fund art projects and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and
communities, engage people in creative learning, and promote artistic production and cultural
experiences in St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, thirteen applicants responded to the call for proposals and were evaluated by
a committee comprised of representatives of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Friends
of the Arts, city staff, Discover St. Louis Park and community members; and
WHEREAS, the committee recommends the City Council fund four (4) grant proposals
for a total of $20,000.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, authorizes execution of grant agreements with the following organizations based
on the review committee’s recommendations and the applicants’ proposals.
1. Alysha Boie is awarded a maximum of $5,000.
2.Twin Cities Gospel Choir is awarded a maximum of $2,869.
3.The Park Theater Company is awarded a maximum of $3,500.
4.Caron Bell is awarded a maximum of $8,631.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study 686: Modify Parking Restrictions at 5622 and 5624 W. Lake Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of parking
restrictions on the north side of W. Lake Street between 5622 and 5624 W. Lake Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The authorization of parking restrictions is allowed per the City’s
established regulatory authority.
SUMMARY: Staff received a request in August 2017 to evaluate the state of parking on W. Lake
Street between Xenwood Avenue and Webster Avenue. The requestor had concerns for delivery
access to their business due to parked vehicles blocking the driveway. After evaluating the
surrounding parking restrictions, it was determined that restricting parking between 5622 and 5624
W. Lake Street was the best solution to the issue.
Restricting the area to “no parking” still allows vehicles to load and unload at 5624 W. Lake Street
while keeping the access into and out of the driveway at 5622 W. Lake Street clear. Any vehicle
that is parked and blocking the driveway may be subjected to parking enforcement.
A letter was sent to the surrounding business owners, property owners, and residents soliciting
feedback. Staff received two responses in favor of the restriction and no responses opposing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to enact the parking restrictions is
minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Location Map
Prepared by: Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study 686: Modify Parking Restrictions at 5622 and 5624 W. Lake Street
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION INSTALLING PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON
W. LAKE STREET BETWEEN 5622 AND 5624 W. LAKE STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 686
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota received a request from an interested
party to evaluate the existing parking restrictions on W. Lake Street between Xenwood Avenue
and Webster Avenue.
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has completed a process to inform
interested parties about the Traffic Committee recommendation to install parking restrictions on
the north side of W. Lake Street between 5622 and 5624 W. Lake Street.
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.Install “No Parking” restrictions on the north side of W. Lake Street from the southernmost
shared property line of 5622 and 5624 W. Lake Street to 40 feet northeast.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
LAKE ST W WEBSTER AVE SXENWOOD AVE SMI
N
N
E
T
O
N
K
A
B
L
V
D
VERNON AVE S5622
5624
5703
5700
5801
3105
5551
5714
5600
5621
5726
3121
3101
5619
5720
5701
3130
5601
3161
3201
3148
3140
31215555
5623
3147
3129
5627
5709
5717
5725
3141
3209 3200
3160
3156
3152
3133
3208
3137
3153
3157
5
7
3
2
57
3
3
57
3
757403053
3057
3
0
7
3
3
0
6
1
3
0
6
5
3
0
6
7
3051
3
0
7
1
3
0
6
3
3055
3
0
7
5
5500
3081
3083
3127
5524
0 100 20050
Feet ´
TS 686 - Extents Map - 11/20/17
Legend
Proposed "No Parking" Restrictions
Property Lines
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Traffic Study 686: Modify Parking Restrictions at 5622 and 5624 W. Lake Street Page 3
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study 687: Permit Parking at 2829 Louisiana Avenue
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit
parking restrictions in front of 2829 Louisiana Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority and policy.
SUMMARY: On November 2, 2017, staff received a request from Mark Holman, son of Arthur
Holman, to restrict on-street parking in front of the home of 2829 Louisiana Avenue. Arthur has a
medical situation that requires curbside access to vehicles in front of his property.
The City’s Traffic Policy and past practice allows for permit parking in these types of situations.
It has been the City’s practice to use permit parking, which can then be removed when the
individual needing the access no longer resides there or no longer needs the access. Staff considers
the request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking for disabled access at 2829
Louisiana Avenue. This recommendation is based on the following:
1. A resident of the household has limited mobility and is eligible for a disabled parking
permit.
2. Conflicting parking tendencies with neighbors will be eliminated.
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
Map
Prepared by: Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study 687: Permit Parking at 2829 Louisiana Avenue
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
PERMIT PARKING IN FRONT OF 2829 LOUISIANA AVENUE
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 687
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it
is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance in
front of 2829 Louisiana Avenue South.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless the
vehicle prominently displays a City-issued parking permit. Emergency vehicles, governmental
vehicles, and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while work is conducted are exempt from
these restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain
in effect until the resident no longer needs the restriction or has moved.
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 install the following
controls.
1.Permit parking at 2829 Louisiana Avenue South.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
29TH ST WLOUISIANA AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SMARYLAND AVE S2854
2906
2813 2818
2817 2824
2821 2830
2825 2836
2829 2842
2833 2848
2901
2905
2909
2900
2908
2912
2837 2854
2900
2809 2812
2817
2821
2825
2829
2833
2837
2841
2845
2849
2816
2901
2853
2905
2820
2824
2909
2912
2828
2915
2832
2836
2840
2844
2848
29162917
2857
2815
291829152915
2812
0 100 20050
Feet ´
TS 687 - Extents Map - 11/20/17
Legend
Proposed Permit Parking Restrictions
Property Lines
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4c)
Title: Traffic Study 687: Permit Parking at 2829 Louisiana Avenue Page 3
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Award Bid for Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation Project No.
5318-5004
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Municipal Builders, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the contractor in the amount of
$3,107,100.00 for the Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation Project No. 5318-5004.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to move forward with
the rehabilitation of Water Treatment Plant #4?
SUMMARY: A total of five (5) bids were received for this project. Please see bid results below.
CONTRACTOR BASE BID ALTERNATE TOTAL BID
Municipal Builders Inc. $3,107,100.00 $906,900.00 $4,014,000.00
Rice Lake Construction Group $3,161,900.00 $824,500.00 $3,986,400.00
Shank Constructors, Inc. $3,200,000.00 $847,900.00 $4,047,900.00
L.S. Black Constructors Inc.$3,280,000.00 $825,000.00 $4,105,000.00
Magney Construction Inc. $3,274,700.00 $940,000.00 $4,214,700.00
Engineers Estimate $3,165,000.00 $700,000.00 $3,865,000.00
A review of the bids indicates Municipal Builders, Inc. submitted the lowest base bid. Municipal
Builders, Inc. has completed these types of projects and they have good references regarding past
projects. Staff recommends that a contract be awarded to the contractor in the amount of
$3,107,100.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and included in
the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP ) for 2018. This project will be funded using General
Obligation Bonds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Mark Hanson, Superintendent of Public Works
Jay Hall, Utility Superintendent
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Bid Tabulation: Award Bid for Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehab. Project No. 5318-5004
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized
advertisement for bids on September 18, 2017. Bids were received on November 13, 2017 for the
Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehabilitation Project. This project is located at 4701 West 41st Street.
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). The revised treatment plant will remove the TCE below the HRL.
Ozone Equipment – Alternate 1
Ozone equipment was included in the bid documents as Alternate 1. The reason for making this
portion an alternate is because the 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 a level which may pose a health concern. The consultant estimated the extra cost
for the ozone equipment installed to be $700,000.00. The treatment plant is designed with the same
layout in either scenario so the space is available to add ozone equipment in the future.
After receiving the bids, staff discussed the bid and bid alternate with AECOM, our design
consultant. The base bid is in alignment with the engineer estimate; however, the bid alternate is
significantly higher than what these systems have cost with other projects. As a result of this, Staff
in cooperation with AECOM is recommending that the City award the base bid and not move
forward with Alternate 1 (installation of ozone equipment).
This recommendation is being made for the following reasons:
•The contractor was provided with two manufacturers (Primozone and Pinnacle) who could
provide the ozone equipment for the water treatment plant. The supplier who provided the
cheaper cost of the ozone equipment with this bid (Pinnacle) was sold to a new company
called Aerobics Systems, Inc. in September of 2017. Aerobics Systems informed AECOM
that they bought Pinnacle for the technology and they are unsure if they will be servicing
current municipal clients in the future. It is undetermined at this time who may provide
long-term service for the Pinnacle ozone equipment. The City does have the option to get
the ozone equipment from Primozone but the cost of the ozone equipment would be
approximately $60,000 more than the Pinnacle equipment.
•While completing the design of the facility, AECOM estimated that the cost of the ozone
equipment alone was $465,990.00. This cost was based on a price which was given to
AECOM from one of the manufacturers. On the bid documents the contractor with the
lowest cost for the bid alternate provided a material price of $730,000.00. This is a 57
percent increase. The consultant believes the large difference in the price of this equipment
may be due to the recent change in ownership.
•In the future, the City could purchase the equipment directly from the manufacturer and
contract out the installation. It is estimated that it would take approximately six months of
time from the date of purchase to have the ozone equipment installed and operational.
•At this time, the ozone equipment is not needed to treat the water. As technology changes,
there may be a better or more efficient way to accomplish the removal of the 1,4 Dioxane.
Not purchasing the equipment at this time leaves the opportunity open to get the most
efficient technology when it is needed.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Bid Tabulation: Award Bid for Water Treatment Plant #4 Rehab. Project No. 5318-5004
• AECOM has completed an operation and maintenance cost estimate to determine how
much it would cost to run the plant with ozone treatment. It would cost approximately
$65,000.00 per year for the additional cost of putting the ozone equipment into operation.
This cost is above any current costs expected with the new treatment facility. There is an
option to install the ozone equipment in the treatment plant and bypass this equipment until
needed. The consultant has informed us that if the equipment sits too long without use that
it may not be ready for operation when needed. As an example, the gaskets in the
equipment could dry out over time and leak when it is first put into operation.
Bidding information
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on October 12 and
October 19, 2017. In addition, plans and specifications are noticed on the City Website and are
made available electronically via the internet by our vendor QuestCDN.com. This project was
advertised in Finance and Commerce as well. Email notification was provided to five minority
associations and final printed plans were available for viewing at Dodge Data, Construct Connect,
Minnesota Builders Exchange, The Blue Book Building & Construction Network, and at City Hall.
Thirty four (34) contractors/vendors purchased plan sets with one (1) Disadvantaged Business
Enterprises (DBE) identifying themselves as subcontractors.
Financial Consideration
Staff has analyzed the bids and determined that Municipal Builders, Inc. is a qualified contractor
that can complete this work per the contract documents. Based on the low bid received, cost details
are as follows:
Estimate Low Bid
Construction Cost $3,165,000.00 $3,107,100.00
Contingencies (10%) $316,500.00 $310,710.00
Engineering & Administration (15%) $474,750.00 $466,065.00
Total $3,956,250.00 $3,883,875.00
If the City Council were to choose to move forward with Alternate 1, the contractor would change
from Municipal Builders, Inc. to Rice Lake Construction Group.
Construction Timeline
City construction is anticipated to begin in late November 2017 and should be completed by
November of 2018.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amended Lease Agreement with MnDOT for Webster Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Execution of a Renewed
Lease with the State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) for Webster Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue this lease with MnDOT?
SUMMARY: For the last 46 years the City of St. Louis Park has operated and maintained a public
park facility, Webster Park, located on Webster Avenue and West 33rd Street. A portion of this
park area is property owned by the MnDOT.
The State continues to offer a no cost lease to the City in return for maintenance and upkeep of the
property. MnDOT drafted Amendment No. 9, a two-year lease that will expire on November 30,
2019. The City will be able to renew the lease at that time. This amendment is consistent with the
terms and conditions of previous lease agreements. The prior lease was for two years.
Long term staff is pursuing the conveyance of the property from MnDOT to the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for maintenance of this park are
already included in the Park and Recreation Department budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Amended Lease Agreement with MnDOT for Webster Park
RESOLUTION NO. 17-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A RENEWED
LEASE WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, Department of Transportation, is the fee owner of a
vacant land parcel on the northwest quadrant of the junction of T.H. 7 and T. H. 100 within the
City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, under the terms and conditions of lease agreements
with the State of Minnesota, has operated and maintained a public park facility on this site for
several years; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota is offering to renew a lease with the City of St. Louis
Park which would allow the City to continue operation and maintenance of a public park on this
site through November 30, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has, in past years, allowed the City to maintain the
property in lieu of rent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that the
continued lease of this property for public park use is in the best interest of the citizens of St. Louis
Park, and that the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute said lease.
Reviewed for St. Louis Park: Adopted by the City Council November 20, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, take testimony, and
then close the public hearing. Motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance prohibiting the
sale of flavored tobacco products and set second reading for December 4, 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Will the restriction on the sale of flavored tobacco products be
of benefit to the community’s public health?
SUMMARY: The City Council discussed options for further regulating tobacco sales this year
during several Study Sessions, including March 6, May 15, June 26, and October 2, 2017.
Information was provided by Hennepin County Public Health on the long-term public health
concerns of youth beginning to consume tobacco products. During the October 2, 2017 Study
Session the Council discussed possible regulation of various flavored tobacco products and
reviewed a draft ordinance as prepared by the City Attorney.
Many tobacco products are now offered in a variety of enticing flavors and in colorful packaging.
These products are readily available in many licensed retail stores for purchase and considered as
starter products that promote youth initiation of tobacco use. This proposed ordinance would
amend City Code Chapter 8, Division 3, Subdivision X, by prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco
and flavored tobacco products as regulated by the code, including penalties for violation. There
are other housekeeping changes proposed to be made to generally update the code related to
tobacco.
Notice of the ordinance being considered was mailed to all tobacco license holders over thirty days
in advance. Informational meetings were offered by staff on October 25 and 26 to explain the
proposed regulation and answer questions. Only one person, who represented the Independent
Vapor Retailers of Minnesota, attended.
If adopted, the effective date for prohibiting retails sales of all flavored tobacco products would be
May 1, 2018.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Email from IVRM
Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Letter Supporting Flavored Tobacco Restrictions (Rcd 11/15)
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Federal law prohibits flavored cigarettes, except for menthol cigarettes.
Tobacco companies offer items such as cigars, chew, blunt wraps, e-cigarettes and the tobacco
used in hookahs in flavors like candy, chocolate, bubble gum, and fruit. Research in this area
indicates that flavored tobacco use is more common in youth than adults. Of those middle and high
school students who reported using tobacco products, an estimated 70% had used flavored tobacco
products in the last month. 1
As part of the City’s annual Tobacco Establishment license inspection to verify compliance with
ordinance requirements, inspectors surveyed each of the 23 licensed establishments and identified
the type of tobacco products being sold. Below is the summary of the 2017 survey indicating that
many retailers sell flavored tobacco products of some type:
Product # of Establishments
Cigarettes
Menthol and regular
23
Little Cigars/Cigarillos
Menthol, fruit and regular
19
Large Cigars
Menthol and regular
7
Chew/snuff/dip/snus
Flavored
17
E-cigarettes
Menthol, fruit and regular
9
Outlined below is a summary of how other cities in Minnesota have regulated flavored tobacco
products:
• Minneapolis adopted an ordinance that became effective January of 2016 restricting the
sale of flavored tobacco products (excluding menthol, mint and wintergreen) to tobacco
product shops only and excludes those under 18 years of age from entering those
establishments. The ordinance also sets minimum pricing of cigars - single and multi-
packs. Recently, Minneapolis City Council approved restricting the sale of menthol, mint
and wintergreen flavor tobacco products to tobacco only shops and liquor stores. This will
take effect on August 1, 2018.
• St. Paul adopted an ordinance effective January 2016 that states no person shall sell, offer
for sale, or otherwise distribute any flavored tobacco. This restriction does not apply to
retail stores that derive at least 90% of their revenue from the sale of tobacco products,
tobacco related devices, electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery
products and where the retailer ensures that no person under 18 years of age is permitted
to enter at any time. The ordinance also sets minimum pricing of cigars - single and
multi-packs. At that time, menthol, wintergreen or mint were not included as a flavored
tobacco product. On November 1, 2017 the St. Paul City Council amended the ordinance
1 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6438a2.htm?s_cid=mm6438a2_w;
https://oup.silverchair-
cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/ntr/15/2/10.1093/ntr/nts178/2/nts178.pdf?Expires=1489874220&Signature=WsP6Igib33cuad
WcXye35S8UpOo8T3QroKUvWWv8Sp0HtDZsJz7hcvib6Wv~0abVQkhUjK~UsmohahYRE1YItSYPssI61qmqe62Ru7WZeuNAUWf-
iBWyuBkuDBmDgtBpYZ1FVt~CcpqExYOKM7bMeTbGly6EM4MxKTcw-
y4qIN2jwtfyYOdkWWVVqmd1LRKFuCzjmT10CiEh3s3Axly2SONF6V8LkUMwyIEd~qjNRTXxLZEDJHXpGSnQeMjOiqAtWOh9BFnSu5h6SzaCsRjgo1Ir
Fez~fM9pn39woe1uFsKnocxrIOTaipSTCzSHMhfzdKmfGfjQ0PFKYNE89JVp1w__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIUCZBIA4LVPAVW3Q
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
to include menthol, wintergreen and mint as flavored tobacco. The restrictions become
effect November 1, 2018. Also, liquor stores were added as a place where these products
could be sold.
• Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Maplewood, and Richfield have implemented various
regulations on packaging and minimum pricing.
ANALYSIS: A review of all relevant current City Code and Licensing requirements suggest
consideration of a solution different from other cities, although with a similar goal of reducing the
path to tobacco product use. Current regulations in effect include:
• Prohibit the sampling of any tobacco product within the business;
• All tobacco products must be available only to the employees;
• Paraphernalia sales are not permitted;
• Minimum age to purchase any tobacco product is 21 years.
Based on the regulatory framework created by these current code sections, the specialty tobacco
shop and liquor store models used by some other cities to allow certain products to be sold from,
is not a practical solution. The lack of any tobacco only retailers in St. Louis Park is probably due
to the business model not being supported by the parameters in effect.
Prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products, which is proposed to include cigars, e-cigs,
vaping liquid and all other tobacco products that have any added flavor other than menthol, mint
and wintergreen, would be the same for all retailers. Menthol, mint and wintergreen have been in
regular use for many decades and historically have not directly been marketed to youth. Menthol,
mint and wintergreen would be exempt from the list of prohibited flavored tobacco products as
presented in the proposed ordinance.
The proposed ordinance would not create specific tobacco destinations within the city where
special products are available. Removing flavored tobacco products from all retail display and
sale is believed to be an effective step in reducing the tendency for youth from beginning tobacco
use, and the long term health consequences.
A similar approach to prohibiting flavored tobacco products was approved by San Francisco during
June and goes into effect January 1, 2018. It is reportedly the first city to completely prohibit the
sale of flavored tobacco products.
During development of the ordinance, Hennepin County Public Health and the Public Health Law
Center provided review assistance to the city. A few areas of Chapter 8 for tobacco licensing were
identified by the City Attorney in this process for minor housekeeping changes. These have been
included to keep code language consistent with State requirements and for effective administration.
Informational Meetings
A notice of the upcoming information meetings, October 25 and 26 and the scheduled first reading
of the proposed ordinance amendment was mailed out October 10th to all tobacco establishment
license holders.
Only one person attended the meeting. This person represented Independent Vaping Retailers of
Minnesota (IVRM), a non-profit group that was formed to help fight for the rights and regulations
of the Independent Business Owners and Entrepreneurs representing Vapor Retail and
Manufacturing businesses in Minnesota. Attached is an email staff received from Cap O’Rourke,
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
President of O’Rourke Strategic Consulting, summarizing what he presented to staff at the
meeting. Staff did not include reports listed in Mr. O’Rourke’s email because of the large number
of pages for each report.
Another person requested a copy of the draft ordinance sent to her, along with a list of currently
licensed establishments. No other comments have been received.
Staff has not heard from any of the licensed establishments regarding this proposed amendment to
prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco.
NEXT STEPS: If the Council approves the first reading, the second reading is scheduled for
December 4, 2017. Publication of the summary ordinance would occur December 14, 2017 and
the effective date for the ordinance is specified as May 1, 2018. Delayed implementation allows
retailers sufficient time to sell their inventory of flavored tobacco products regulated under this
ordinance. Staff will conduct annual inspections near this date to assist store operators with
ensuring all flavored tobacco products have been removed from the premises.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
From: Cap O'Rourke [mailto:cap@orourkesc.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 3:33 PM
To: Ann Boettcher
Subject: Proposed SLP Flavoring Ordinance
Ann
Here is the follow-up email from our discussion the other night to discuss limiting flavors in tobacco products
sold in St. Louis Park. I work with a coalition of small businesses in Minnesota that manufacture and sell vapor
products and we feel strongly - that by including vapor in this new ordinance - you are actually hurting public
health by making it harder for smokers to access a less harmful alternative.
Virtually all vapor products have some level of flavoring that is key in helping adults switch from smoking.
Prohibiting flavors essentially removes vapor products from being sold.
I have attached some recent studies and reports (all done by independent organizations) that show the benefits
of vaping and how vapor products can be part of the solution to eliminating the effects of smoking.
1. the most recent study, just published this month by researchers in Georgetown, Michigan, and Yale shows
that by switching smokers to vaping we could reduce the number of premature deaths by 1.6-6.6 million over
the next 10 years. Tobacco Control
2. Here are two more comprehensive reports about vapor products from the Royal College of Physicians and
Public Health UK. RCP is an internationally recognized health organization that first warned of the dangers of
smoking in 1962. They state that vapor products are at least 95% safer than smoking and should be encouraged
as an alternative to smoking. Public Health England also supported vapor products as a smoking
alternative. BOTH organizations found no data supporting the notion that youth vaping will lead to smoking.
(Reports attached)
3. A report issued this spring by over 25 tobacco researchers and anti-tobacco advocates’ highlights the need
for a new nicotine policy that embraces harm reduction options such as vapor products. (Liberating Nicotine
From smoke – attached).
I could share many more studies showing the benefits of vaping as a harm reduction option for the countless
number of smokers, as well as additional data diminishing the concerns that students who are experimenting
with vapor will end up smoking. Passing an ordinance that would essentially remove vapor products from
shelves BUT leave combustible tobacco products on them is simply a backwards health policy it also sends the
message to that smoking is MORE harmful than vaping when the scientific data simply does not support this.
The truth is that the youth smoking rate not only continues to fall but the rate of smoking overall, when vaping
came more prevalent. In the most recent Monitoring the Future study found a decline of youth
experimentation with vapor products.
Regards,
Cap O'Rourke
President
O'Rourke Strategic Consulting
612.483.1863
@ORourkes
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
ORDINANCE NO. ____-17
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE RELATING TO TOBACCO
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 8-1 of the City Code shall be amended by adding the following definition:
Flavored product means any tobacco product, tobacco-related device, electronic delivery
device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product that contains a taste or smell, other than the taste or
smell of tobacco, menthol, mint or wintergreen that is distinguishable by an ordinary customer either
prior to or during the consumption of the tobacco product, electronic delivery device, or nicotine or
lobelia delivery product, including, but not limited to, any taste or smell relating to chocolate, cocoa,
vanilla, honey, or any candy, dessert, alcoholic beverage, fruit, herb, or spice. A public statement or
claim, whether express or implied, made or disseminated by the manufacturer of a tobacco product,
tobacco-related device, electronic delivery device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product, or by any
person authorized or permitted by the manufacturer to make or disseminate public statements
concerning such product or device, that the product or device has or produces a taste or smell other
than tobacco, menthol, mint or wintergreen shall constitute presumptive evidence that the product or
device is a flavored tobacco product.
Nicotine or lobelia delivery product means any product containing or delivering nicotine or
lobelia intended for human consumption, or any part of such product, that is not a tobacco product
or an electronic delivery device, as defined in this section. Nicotine or lobelia delivery product does
not include any product that has been approved or otherwise certified for legal sale by the United
States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco-cessation product, as a tobacco-
dependence product, or for other medical purposes, and is marketed and sold for such approved
purpose.
SECTION 2. Section 8-372 of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Sec. 8-372. License required.
(a) No person shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco-related device, or electronic
delivery device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product without first having obtained a license to
do so from the city.
(b) No license shall be issued for the sale of tobacco, tobacco-related device, or electronic
delivery device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product at any place other than the applicant’s place
of business; nor shall any single license be issued at more than one place of business.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
(c) Complete applications shall be reviewed by the city for verification and investigation of
the facts set forth in the application, including criminal background investigation of the applicant.
The city may order and conduct such additional investigation as deemed necessary.
(d) The city shall make the determination whether to approve or deny the license. Any denial
shall be communicated to the applicant in writing, specifying the reasons for denial. The applicant
may appeal the denial in accordance with the procedure specified in section 8-36.
(e) Complete applications for issuance of annual licenses shall be submitted to the city at least
thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the license. The determination regarding approval or
denial of the license renewal shall be communicated to the applicant in writing, specifying the
reasons if the application is denied. The applicant may appeal the denial in accordance with the
procedure specified in section 8-36.
SECTION 3. Section 8-373 of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Sec. 8-373. Denial of license.
The following will be grounds for denying the issuance or renewal of a license under this
subdivision, and if a license is mistakenly issued or renewed to a person, it shall be revoked upon
the discovery that the person was ineligible for the license under this section:
(1) The applicant is under the age of 18 years.
(2) The applicant has been convicted of any violation of federal, state or local law, ordinance
or other regulation relating to tobacco, tobacco-related devices, or electronic delivery
devices, nicotine or lobelia delivery products or drug paraphernalia.
(3) The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco-related devices, or electronic
delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery products revoked.
(4) The applicant fails to provide any information required on the license application, or
provides false or misleading information on such license application.
(5) The applicant is prohibited by federal, state or other local law, ordinance or other regulation
from holding a license under this subdivision.
SECTION 4. Section 8-374 of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Sec. 8-374. Regulations Adopted.
(a) It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco,
tobacco-related device, or electronic delivery device or nicotine or lobelia delivery product:
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
(1) To any person under the age of 21 years.
(2) By means of any type of vending machine.
(3) By means of self-service merchandising whereby the customer does not need to make a
verbal or written request to an employee of the licensed premises in order to receive the
tobacco, tobacco-related device, or electronic delivery device or nicotine or lobelia delivery
product. All such products shall be stored behind a counter or other area not freely
accessible to customers.
(4) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine, marijuana or
other type of deleterious, hallucinogenic or toxic or controlled substance, except nicotine,
and not naturally found in tobacco, tobacco-related devices or electronic delivery devices.
(5) By any other means or to any other person prohibited by federal, state or other local laws,
ordinances or other regulations.
(6) That meets the definition of flavored product.
(b) Tobacco sSampling of tobacco, electronic delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery
products within an establishment selling any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related devices,
electronic delivery devices or nicotine or lobelia delivery product is prohibited.
(c) No person shall sell, offer to sell or distribute liquid, whether or not such liquid contains
nicotine that is intended for human consumption and use in an electronic delivery device that is
not contained in child-resistant packaging as that term is defined in Code of Federal Regulations,
title 16, section 1700.15 (b)(1), as in effect on January 1, 2015. A licensee that fails to comply with
this subpart is subject to administrative penalty pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 461.12, subd. 2.
SECTION 5. Section 8-375 of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Sec. 8-375. Responsibility for sales.
Actions of their employees in regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco-related devices, or electronic
delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery products by an employee shall be considered a sale
by the licensed owner.
SECTION 6. Section 8-376 of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Sec. 376. Compliance checks and inspections.
All premises licensed under this subdivision shall be open to inspection by the city during
regular business hours. From time to time the city may conduct compliance checks by engaging
minors persons over 15 years of age but under 21 years of age to enter the licensed premises to
attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco-related devices, or electronic delivery devices. or nicotine or
lobelia delivery products.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
SECTION 7. Section 8-377 of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Sec. 8-377 Illegal acts.
Unless otherwise provided in this subdivision, the following acts shall be a violation of this
subdivision:
(1) Illegal procurement. It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any person to purchase
or attempt to purchase, or otherwise obtain, any tobacco, tobacco-related devices, or
electronic delivery device or nicotine or lobelia delivery product on behalf of a person
under the age of 21 years. It shall also be a violation of this subdivision for any person to
sell or otherwise provide such products to any person under the age of 21 years. It shall be
a violation of this subdivision for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce a person under
the age of 21 years to illegally purchase or otherwise obtain or use tobacco, tobacco-related
device, or electronic delivery device, or nicotine or lobelia delivery product.
(2) Use of false identification. It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any person under
the age of 21 years to attempt to disguise their true age by use of a false form of
identification, whether identification is that of another person or one in which the age of
the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than the actual
age of the person.
SECTION 8. Section 8-378 of the City Code shall be amended by deleting the strikethrough
language and adding the underlined language as follows:
Sec. 8-378 Violation; penalty.
(a) Generally. Any violation of this subdivision shall be grounds to revoke or suspend a license
under this subdivision.
(b) Criminal penalty. As set forth in M.S.A. ch. 609, it shall be a:
(1) Misdemeanor for anyone to sell tobacco, a tobacco-related device, or electronic delivery
device or nicotine or lobelia delivery product to a person under the age of 21 years for the
first violation. Whoever violates this subdivision a subsequent time within five years of a
previous conviction under this subdivision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) Misdemeanor to furnish tobacco, a tobacco-related device, or electronic delivery device,
or nicotine or lobelia delivery product to a person under the age of 21 years. Whoever
violates this paragraph a subsequent time is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(3) Misdemeanor for anyone to sell, or offer to sell a flavored product in violation of section
8-374(a)(6).
(4) Petty misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 21 years to sell, furnish or give away any
tobacco, tobacco-related device, or electronic delivery device, nicotine or lobelia delivery
product. This subsection shall not apply to a person age 18-20 years while working as an
employee of a business holding a license granted pursuant to this subdivision.
(c) Presumed penalties for Violations: The presumed penalties for violations are as follows
(unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive business days’ suspension):
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
Type of Violation 1st Violation 2nd
Violation
within
36 months
3rd
Violation
within
36 months
4th
Violation
within
36 months
1. Commission of a felony related to the
licensed activity.
Revocation
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Sale of tobacco, tobacco-related device,
or electronic delivery device or nicotine
of lobelia delivery product while license
is under suspension.
Revocation
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Sale of tobacco, tobacco-related device,
or electronic delivery device, or nicotine
or lobelia delivery product to underage
person.
$500
$1,000
and 1 day
$2,000
and 30 days
Revocation
4. Refusal to allow government inspectors
or police admission to inspect premises.
5 days
15 days
Revocation
N/A
5. Illegal gambling on premises.
3 days
6 days
18 days
Revocation
6. Failure to attend mandatory education
training.
$250
$750 and
1 day
$2,000 and
3 days
Revocation
7. Prohibited sale or offer for sale of
flavored products.
$500
$1,000
and 1 day
$2,000
and 30 days
Revocation
8. Prohibited sale or offer for sale of liquid
intended for human consumption in an
electronic delivery device that is not
contained in child resistant packaging.
$500
$1,000 and
and 1 day
$2,000
and 30 days
Revocation
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 11
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
The penalty for violations without a presumptive penalty shall be determined by the City
Council. The imposition of the presumptive penalty shall be a written notice to the licensee and
may be appealed through an administrative hearing process as set by the city manager. The city
manager's decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal to the city clerk
within ten days of receiving written notice of the city manager's decision.
(d) Multiple violations: At a licensee’s first appearance before the Council, the Council must
act upon all of the violations that have been alleged in the notice sent to the licensee. The Council
in that case must consider the presumptive penalty for each violation under the first appearance
column in subsection (B) above. The occurrence of multiple violations is grounds for deviation
from the presumed penalties in the Council’s discretion.
(e) Subsequent violations: Violations occurring after the notice of hearing has been mailed,
but prior to the hearing, must be treated as a separate violation and dealt with as a second
appearance before the Council, unless the City Manager and licensee agree in writing to add the
violation to the first appearance. The same procedure applies to the second, third, or fourth
appearance before the Council.
(f) Subsequent appearances: Upon a second, third, or fourth appearance before the Council
by the same licensee, the Council must impose the presumptive penalty for the violation or
violations giving rise to the subsequent appearance without regard to the particular violation or
violations that were the subject of the first or prior appearance. However, the Council may
consider the amount of time elapsed between appearances as a basis for deviating from the
presumptive penalty imposed by this Section.
(g) Computation of violations: Multiple violations are computed by checking the time period
of the three (3) years immediately prior to the date of the most current violation.
(h) Other penalties: Nothing in this Section shall restrict or limit the authority of the Council
to suspend up to sixty (60) days, revoke the license, impose a civil fee not to exceed two thousand
dollars ($2,000.00), to impose conditions, or take any other action in accordance with law;
provided, that the license holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the manner
provided in this Chapter.
(i) Additional Requirements. In addition to civil penalties, every licensee that has been found
in violation of this Chapter must enter into and complete an education training program approved
by the City’s Police Department.
(j) Exceptions and defenses. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the providing of
tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a person under the age of 21 as part of a
bona fide religious, spiritual or cultural ceremony. It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation
of this subdivision for a person to have reasonably relied upon proof of age as set forth by state
law.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect on May 1, 2018.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 12
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2017, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
Public Hearing November 20, 2017
First Reading November 20, 2017
Second Reading December 4, 2017
Date of Publication December 14, 2017
Date Ordinance takes effect May 1, 2018
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
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a) Page 13
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products
ORDINANCE NO. _____-17
AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO
This ordinance prohibits the sale flavored tobacco in any licensed tobacco establishment. This
includes any tobacco product, tobacco-related device, electronic delivery device, or nicotine or
lobelia delivery product that contains a taste or smell, other than the taste or smell of tobacco,
menthol, mint or wintergreen. This ordinance shall take effect May 1, 2018.
Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2017
Jake Spano /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 14, 2017
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
November 15, 2017
Members of the City Council
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Members of the St. Louis Park City Council,
I am writing on behalf of the Twin Cities Medical Society in support of the ordinance to restrict the sale of flavored
tobacco in St. Louis Park. We are a membership organization that represents approximately 4,500 physicians and
medical students living and working in the seven-county Twin Cities metro area. Advocating for policies that
advance public health, including tobacco, is a key part of our organization's mission. We applaud your recent
passage of an ordinance raising the tobacco sales age to 21 in St. Louis Park. This policy was a major step toward
protecting youth from the harms of tobacco, but our work is not yet done.
We have supported ordinances like this in St. Paul, Minneapolis and Shoreview. Removing flavored tobacco from
stores where kids frequent is the next step in reducing Minnesota youth smoking initiation rates. Flavored tobacco
restrictions are effective and St. Louis Park has the opportunity to join the forerunners of this movement to
prevent the tobacco industry from further targeting our young people.
Smoking rates among youth are on the decline but flavored e-cigarette use is rising at an alarming rate. A quarter
of Minnesota high school students have tried flavored cigars. Flavored tobacco is cheap and appealing to youth,
making it a gateway to a lifetime of nicotine addiction. By taking these products out of the stores youth visit daily,
St. Louis Park will help prevent another generation from becoming lifelong tobacco users.
Adopting this regulation will minimize the availability and norm of flavored tobacco use among our kids. Thank you
for standing up for a healthier future for St. Louis Park. Your leadership is an invaluable asset to the community.
Sincerely,
Matt Hunt, MD
President of the Twin Cities Medical Society
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 6a)
Title: Sale of Flavored Tobacco Products Page 14
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve First Reading of an Ordinance amending
Chapter 36 of the City Code relating to zoning to allow a 3rd shift with conditions at Industrial
zoned properties when adjacent to residential zoned properties, and to set the second reading for
December 4, 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the conditions as recommended in the proposed ordinance
sufficient to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential properties?
SUMMARY: Lyman Lumber (Applicant) operates a building supply distribution center at the
Westside Center located at 5320 23rd Street. The Applicant would like to expand its operation by
starting a 3rd shift. It is unable to do so, however, due to Section 36-242(10) of the zoning
ordinance which prohibits industrial uses from operating between 10pm and 6am Monday through
Saturday when the industrial property is located adjacent to a residential property. Therefore it is
requesting an amendment to the code to allow a third shift with specific conditions listed in the
proposed ordinance (attached).
The Applicant believes the third shift would not impact the residential property because all
activities conducted during the 3rd shift will be conducted indoors, shipping and receiving will not
be permitted, equipment will not be permitted outdoors, and the building is located more than 300
feet from a property line of residential property. The proposed industrial activities and proposed
conditions of approval are discussed in the attached report.
A neighborhood meeting was conducted on October 4, 2017. Seven people attended. Attendees
were given a tour of the building and they walked around the building while the industrial activities
were operating. The tour confirmed that noise was not noticeable from outside. Concerns were
expressed about the daytime operations. The Applicant outlined steps to mitigate their concerns
at the meeting, and followed up with the attached letter.
A public hearing was conducted by the planning commission on October 18, 2017. Nobody from
the neighborhood spoke. The planning commission is recommending approval of the amendment.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Ordinance
City Maps
Noise Study
Letter from Applicant
Excerpt of Unofficial Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The full text of Section 36-242(10), along with the proposed amendment is
attached. In summary it prohibits businesses located in the Industrial Park and General Industrial
zoning districts from operating between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am when the industrial property
is located adjacent to a property zoned residential. There are exceptions to this provision, and they
include:
1. Administrative or office functions.
2.Maintenance or clean-up work conducted entirely within the building.
Additionally, the portions of an industrial property located at least 100 feet away from a residential
property are exempt from this provision if the industrial property is separated from a residential
property by a right-of-way that is at least 66 feet wide.
History of Existing Regulation: Section 36-242(10) was amended into the code as part of the 1990
recodification. The recodification included several task forces, each assigned specific sections of
code to review and generate recommendations for. One task force was assigned to the Edgewood
Industrial Park area. This task force recommended 27 code amendments, one of which is the
section of code which is the subject of this amendment.
The Edgewood Industrial Park
area is pictured to the left. It is
bound by residential to the
north and west. Prior to the
1990 amendment, there were
numerous complaints from
these residential properties
regarding noise during the day,
night and into the weekend.
Section 36-242(10) was
created to provide relief to the
residential properties from the
noise. The noise included
impacts from machinery, truck
shipments, and outside storage
activities.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
Lyman Lumber: While the existing ordinance was drafted in large part to address impacts resulting
from industrial activity at the Edgewood Industrial Park, Lyman Lumber believes they can operate
the third shift in a manner that will not create impacts to the residential properties in close
proximity to them which is the intent of the existing ordinance.
To accomplish this, the activity during the third shift will be entirely contained within the building.
There will be no truck or any other type of vehicle activity outside the building. All doors and
windows will remain closed to contain noise inside the building. Noise generated by the exterior
HVAC equipment cannot be perceived from the residential property line.
In addition to the steps taken to ensure the operation does not impact residential properties, the
circumstances surrounding the Westside Center have some notable differences from the Edgewood
Industrial Park that contribute to reducing potential impacts:
1.The industrial buildings at Edgewood Industrial Park are approximately 30 feet away from
residential properties while the Westside Center building is approximately 300 feet away from
the closest residential property.
2.The Westside Center property is not directly abutting single-family residential, while
Edgewood Industrial Park is directly adjacent to 20 single-family homes.
3.The residential property directly abutting Westside Center is the parking lot for an apartment
building. The apartment building is located approximately 650 feet away from the Westside
Center building.
The proposed amendment does not allow activity in the outdoor storage area shown to the west
of the building during the extended business hours (third shift).
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment includes several conditions designed to reduce
and eliminate potential impacts the extended business hours may have on residential properties in
close proximity to an industrial business operating a third shift. The conditions are summarized
below:
1. A Registration of Land Use is approved authorizing specified activities to occur during the
extended business hours. The Registration of Land Use (RLU) application requires the
business to detail the operations it intends to conduct during the evening hours. This allows
the city the opportunity to review the proposed operations for potential impacts. It also limits
the business to those activities listed in the RLU. It is not allowed to add additional activities
without applying for a new RLU.
2. All business activities to be conducted during the extended business hours shall be conducted
entirely indoors. This provision prohibits activities relating to outdoor storage,
shipping/receiving, and any other vehicle activity outside the building. For example, Lyman
Lumber has an extensive outdoor storage area that results in activity during the day. This
provision prohibits the outdoor storage area from being accessed during the extended business
hours.
3. All windows, doors, docks, and similar openings shall remain closed during extended business
hours. Keeping these openings closed during the extended business hours is important to
containing the noise and lights within the building.
4. The portion of the building housing the activities occurring during the extended business hours
shall be located at least 300 feet from properties zoned Residential and improved with a
residential use. The buffer not only limits the number of properties citywide that can benefit
from the amendment, but it also creates a buffer between the building and residential
properties. There are three areas in the city that benefit from the amendment. They are
discussed in more detail below. In reviewing the areas we see that the 300 foot buffers are
improved with a mixture of landscaping, buildings, right-of-way, and open space. This buffer
provides needed space to diminish any residual noise and light impacts resulting from the
operation.
5. There shall be no outbound or incoming deliveries or vehicular traffic other than traffic
generated by employees. Truck traffic is a significant contributor to noise and light impacts.
This provision, together with the other conditions, reinforces that vehicle activity is prohibited
during the extended business hours.
6. Vehicles and any type of motorized equipment shall not be started or allowed to idle outside
the building during the extended business hours. This provision again reinforces the city’s
concerns about truck traffic. Specifically, it addresses attempts to run vehicles in preparation
of activities to be conducted during regular business hours. It also prohibits trucks from
starting or lining up in anticipation of resumption of regular business hours activities. This
provision applies for all situations, including during the winter months when businesses desire
to start vehicles early so they can warm up.
7. Employee parking shall be located as far from the residential properties as possible. This
provision is intended to address the noise generated from employees arriving and departing at
various hours.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
8.Between 10:00 p.m. on Saturday and 10:00 p.m. on Sunday the business is limited to
administrative or office functions or maintenance or cleanup work conducted entirely within
a structure. This provision maintains the intent of the existing ordinance to limit business
activities during the day on Sunday.
9.Outdoor employee smoking or break areas shall not be located between the building and a
residential property. This is intended to address potential noise impacts from employees on
break.
Citywide Application of Proposed Amendment: While the proposed amendment is submitted by
Lyman Lumber to address their specific situation, the city needs to consider potential impacts the
proposed amendment may have elsewhere in the city. Attached to this report are four maps that
show three industrial areas in the city that may take advantage of the proposed amendment.
Area 1.
Highlighted is one industrial property that may benefit from the proposed ordinance. The
existing building is a multi-tenant building housing several small office and industrial
businesses. It, however, falls within the required 300 foot buffer. Therefore, it does not qualify
for the extended business hours. The only portion of the property outside the required 300 foot
buffer is a sliver of land on the east side of the property (highlighted on the map). This land
while outside the 300 foot buffer is unlikely to be built on due to required setbacks. Therefore,
it is unlikely that businesses locating on this property will be able to operate extended business
hours as currently proposed.
Area 2.
This includes two properties. First, is the Westside Center property which is discussed above.
Second, is the city owned land on the eastern edge of the Edgewood Industrial Park. This land
is used by the city for making woodchips and soil available to residents. It is also used for
various low impact outside storage of materials needed for general city maintenance
operations.
Area 3.
This area includes two properties. One is the Diamond Hill Industrial building located between
County Road 25 and the railroad tracks. Approximately half of the building is located within
the 300 foot buffer and does not qualify for the extended business hours. The west portion of
the building is outside the 300 foot buffer and qualifies for the extended business hours. It is
located adjacent to County Road 25 and other properties zoned industrial. The industrial
properties located to the west of the Diamond Hill Industrial building can operate 24 hours per
day, seven days a week because they are not located adjacent to residential.
The second property in Area 3 is the Minikahda storage property located to the north of
Minikahda Oaks neighborhood. Most of the property falls within the 300 foot buffer and would
not qualify for the extended business hours. There is, however, a small sliver of land along the
north property line that qualifies for the extended business hours. This area is currently
improved with a row of mini-storage units. It backs up to a property zoned Business Park
which is improved with a multi-tenant building occupied with a mixture of office and industrial
uses.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
Staff believes the impacts of the proposed amendment are minimal city wide. There are three
existing buildings and one city owned parcel that benefit from the change. The conditions of
approval further mitigate impacts to residential properties.
Neighborhood Meeting: A neighborhood meeting was conducted for this proposed zoning
amendment. The intent of the neighborhood meeting was to allow the neighbors of Lyman Lumber
to visit the site and see the proposed operations. They were able to witness the noise and lights
first hand.
Seven people attended. Four people live in the single-family neighborhood to the south of Lyman
Lumber. Three people live in the condominiums to the west of Lyman Lumber. Concerns were
expressed about the number of times Lyman Lumber violated the regular business hours by starting
operations before six am. The violations consist of activities in the outdoor storage area and
shipping/receiving. These concerns are a violation to the existing ordinance, and can be addressed
through enforcement by the city. The Branch Manager, however was unaware of the violations,
and gave out his phone number so neighbors can call if it continues. He assured them that he will
address it. Lyman Lumber is also working to schedule deliveries so trucks will arrive at specified
times instead of idling on-site waiting for an opening. Attached is a letter that details how Lyman
Lumber will mitigate the impacts from trucks conducting shipping and receiving activities, back-
up beepers from equipment used in the outdoor storage area, and lighting of the outdoor storage
area and the service road that goes around the outdoor storage area.
The tour of the site included walking around the building while the operation was running. This
confirmed that the noise was not noticeable from outside the building as long as the doors remain
closed.
Lyman Lumber conducted a noise study earlier in the year. The study showed that noise generated
by Lyman Lumber does not exceed the levels generated by Highway 100. Copies of the noise
study were handed out and is attached.
Planning Commission Public Hearing: The planning commission conducted a public hearing on
October 18, 2017. Nobody spoke at the public hearing.
Commissioners asked questions about the activities that will be occurring at night at Lyman
Lumber. Staff and the Applicant explained that the activities Lyman Lumber will be conducting
during the evening hours consists of applying a finish to cement siding. This involves painting
and baking the finish. All activities will occur indoors. This activity was being conducted during
our tour, and it was noted that the equipment, including the ventilation system, could not be heard
while standing outside the building. The exterior lighting will be altered from the standard security
lighting that is currently on at night.
A copy of the minutes is attached.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
ORDINANCE NO. ____-17
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF
THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE TO ALLOW A THIRD SHIFT WITH
CONDITIONS AT INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTIES WHEN ADJACENT TO
RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 36 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to add the following
section:
Sec. 36-242. Industrial restrictions and performance standards; general provisions.
***
(10) Where industrial uses are located on sites which abut R districts, or are separated from R
districts by a right-of-way 66 feet or less in width, all activities including trucking are
limited to normal hours of operation except for those specifically excluded. Normal hours
of operation are defined as being between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday inclusive and includes all manufacturing, processing, loading,
unloading, truck maneuvering and movement of equipment and other materials. It does
not include administrative or office functions or maintenance or cleanup work conducted
entirely within a structure.
Properties in the I districts situated so that railroad tracks, street and highway rights-of-
way which are greater than 66 feet in width are located between the property in the I
district and the R district are exempt from this requirement, except for that part of the site
within 100 feet of a property line abutting any residentially used property.
Where industrial uses are located on sites which abut properties located in an R district,
operations may be conducted between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Monday
through Sunday, as authorized below:
a.Extended Business Hours. A business may operate a third shift, extend its business
hours beyond 10:00 p.m. or start earlier than 6:00 a.m. with the following
conditions:
1.A Registration of Land Use is approved authorizing specified activities to occur
during the extended business hours.
2.All business activities to be conducted during the extended business hours shall
be conducted entirely indoors.
3.All windows, doors, docks, and similar openings shall remain closed during
extended business hours.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
4.The portion of the building housing the activities occurring during the extended
business hours shall be located at least 300 feet from properties zoned
Residential and improved with a residential use.
5.There shall be no outbound or incoming deliveries or vehicular traffic other
than traffic generated by employees working on-site.
6.Vehicles and any type of motorized equipment shall not be started or allowed
to idle outside the building during the extended business hours.
7.Employee parking shall be located as far from the residential properties as
possible.
8.Between 10:00 p.m. on Saturday and 10:00 p.m. on Sunday the business is
limited to administrative or office functions or maintenance or cleanup work
conducted entirely within a structure.
9.Outdoor employee smoking or break areas shall not be located between the
building and a residential property.
b.Temporary Permit. A temporary permit to operate between 10:00pm and 6:00 am
may be issued under the following conditions:
1.The person conducting operations outside of normal business hours shall apply
for a temporary permit for hours of operation between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
The application for such permit shall specify the name and address of the
applicant, the location of the temporary operation, the nature of the activity, the
anticipated duration of such activity and the name and telephone number of the
responsible person available on the premises while temporary operations are
being conducted.
2.A temporary permit may be granted for a period not to exceed 15 days. A person
receiving a temporary permit may apply for extensions, provided that the
number of days in which temporary permits are granted shall not exceed 90
days in any calendar year.
3. A permit shall not be issued to any applicant which has had two violations of a
temporary permit and/or this chapter within a period of one year preceding the
date of application.
4.A permit issued pursuant to this section shall be revoked upon a violation of
this chapter or the terms of the permit by the permit holder.
5.No permit shall be issued for the time from 10:00 p.m. Saturday to 6:00 a.m.
Monday.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts
6.When a permit is issued for a period of time exceeding five days, notice shall
be sent to owners of residential property abutting the property for which a
permit is granted informing them of the terms of the permit. The holder of the
temporary permit shall reimburse the city for the cost of such notice.
7.Employee parking during temporary operations shall be located on the site as
far as possible from parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for
residential use, or has an occupied institutional building, including but not
limited to schools, religious institutions, and community centers.
8.The fee for a temporary permit shall be as established by the city council.
9. Outdoor activity of any type, including trucking, shall be prohibited.
10.A business shall apply for a temporary permit at least one business day before
the after-hour activity is to commence. The city shall act upon the temporary
permit within one business day of receiving the request.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect December 29, 2017.
First Reading November 20, 2017
Second Reading December 4, 2017
Date of Publication December 14, 2017
Date Ordinance takes effect December 29, 2017
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Full Parcel Boundary
The Part of Industrial Parcels Eligible for 3rd Shift*´
Industrial Parcels to BecomeEligible for Third Shift
Number of Affected
Industrial Parcels :5
0 1,200 2,400 3,600 4,800600Feet
*Under Proposed Conditions
1.
2.
3.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 10
Full Parcel Boundary
The Part of Industrial Parcels Eligible for 3rd Shift*´
Industrial Parcels to BecomeEligible for Third Shift
0 300 600 900150Feet
*Under Proposed Conditions
1.
Parcel Owner: Block Builders Llp.
Parcel ID: 0811721320051
INSET 1.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 11
Full Parcel Boundary
The Part of Industrial Parcels Eligible for 3rd Shift*´
Industrial Parcels to BecomeEligible for Third Shift
0 600 1,200 1,800300Feet
*Under Proposed Conditions
2.Parcel Owner: City of St. Louis Park
Parcel ID: 0911721220007
INSET 2.
Parcel Owner: Westside Partners Lllp
Parcel ID: 0911721240096
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 12
Full Parcel Boundary
The Part of Industrial Parcels Eligible for 3rd Shift*´
Industrial Parcels to BecomeEligible for Third Shift
0 300 600 900 1,200 1,500150Feet
*Under Proposed Conditions
3.Parcel Owner: Diamond Hill Center Llp
Parcel ID: 0602824120178
INSET 3.
Parcel Owner: PS Mid West One Llc
Parcel ID: 0602824140099
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 13
SBP Associates, Inc.SBP Associates, Inc.SBP Associates, Inc.SBP Associates, Inc.
22502 Beach Road
Deerwood, MN 56444
Phone: 952-920-1500
November 30, 2016
Mr. Matt Fiala
Lyman Roofing and Siding
5320 West 23rd Street, Suite 180
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Mr. Fiala:
Re: Noise Study Results
Lyman Roofing and Siding (Lyman) in St. Louis Park, Minnesota contracted with SBP Associates,
Inc. (SBP) to conduct noise monitoring to identify the noise impacts of its operations on nearby
residences, relative to City and State noise standards. This letter presents the results of this
noise monitoring study.
Noise Descriptors and Minnesota Noise Rules
The State of Minnesota and City of St. Louis Park have noise standards that are designed to be
consistent with sleep, speech, annoyance, and hearing conservation requirements for receivers
within areas grouped according to land use activities. The Minnesota standards are as follows:
7:00 AM to 10:00 PM 10:00 PM to 7:00 AM
L10 L50 L10 L50
NAC-1 (Residential) 65 60 55 50
NAC-2 (Commercial) 70 65 70 65
NAC-3 (Industrial) 80 75 80 75
L10 means the sound level which is exceeded for 10 percent of the time for a one-hour period.
L50 means the sound level which is exceeded 50 percent of the time for a one-hour period.
Sound levels are expressed in dBA. A dBA is a unit of sound level expressed in decibels and
weighted for the purpose of approximating the human response to sound.
The impact of the Lyman operations noise on a residential area is limited by the NAC-1 values.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 14
Lyman and Area Noise Sources
Sources of noise at the Lyman facility include vehicles entering and leaving the facility, fans/motors in
the building that are part of a manufacturing process, and fork lifts that are used to load and unload
delivery trucks. Background noise levels are primarily defined by noise from Highway 100 traffic.
Test Equipment
Testing was conducted with a Type 1 CEL Model 593 analyzer. The analyzer was field calibrated prior to
and after each test period. Testing was conducted according to MPCA rules.
Noise Monitoring Location
Noise monitoring was conducted at a location on facility property that is adjacent to the nearest
residential area. The monitoring location is shown in the attached figure.
Noise Monitoring Results and Lyman Impacts
Monitoring Conditions
Noise monitoring was conducted on November 11, 2016. Four separate hours of noise monitoring were
conducted to reflect various operating conditions.
•The first hour of monitoring was conducted with the doors to the processing area open
representing a worst-case condition in terms of the manufacturing operations.
•The second hour of noise monitoring was conducted with the doors to the manufacturing
operations closed.
•The last two hours of monitoring were conducted with truck loading/unloading operations
taking place, which included the noise from two fork lifts.
Background Noise – Highway 100
The background noise impacts in the area are dominated by Highway 100 traffic. In order to determine
the impacts of Lyman relative to the Standards, it is necessary to account for these impacts. The impacts
of the noise from Highway 100 vary depending upon traffic conditions and meterological conditions.
Based on spot checks of the noise levels during the monitoring it was found that the measured L90 noise
level was a good approximation of these impacts. Therefore, the L90 noise levels were subtracted from
the monitoring results to determine the impacts of the Lyman facility operations.
Distance to Nearest Residence
The distance from the monitoring location to the Lyman operations is approximately 425 feet, and the
distance to the nearest resident to the Lyman operations is 600 feet. Based on spherical spreading of
noise from the Lyman operations, the noise impacts at the residence would be 3 dBA less than the level
measured at the monitoring location.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 15
Lyman Roofing and Siding Noise Monitoring Study Results – November 11, 2016
Test Start
Time
Measured Noise Levels Lyman Impacts
at Monitoring
Location(1)
Adjustment for
Distance to
Residence(2)
Lyman Impacts
at Residence
L10 L50 L90 L10 L50 L10 L50 L10 L50
1 2:50pm 52.5 49.5 48.0 50.6 44.2 -3.0 -3.0 47.6 41.2
2 4:08pm 53.0 50.0 48.5 51.1 44.7 -3.0 -3.0 48.1 41.7
3 5:30pm 54.5 52.5 50.5 52.3 48.2 -3.0 -3.0 49.3 45.2
4 6:35pm 57.5 55.5 54.0 54.9 50.2 -3.0 -3.0 51.9 47.2
(1) Measured L10 and L50 adjusted for background noise from Highway 100 represented by the measured L90 value.
(2) Based on spherical spreading of noise from a point source and a distance to the monitoring location of 425 feet
and a distance to the residence of 600 feet.
Conclusions
The monitoring study results demonstrate that the Lyman operations encountered during the
monitoring period are within State and City Standards for daytime and nighttime operations.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have regarding this noise study.
Sincerely,
Stephen Platisha, P.E.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 16
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial DistrictsPage 18
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 18, 2017 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Peilen, Ethan Rickert (youth member)
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Gary Morrison
3.Public Hearings
B.Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Industrial Uses Third Shift
Applicant: Lyman Lumber
Case No.: 17-25-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He
spoke about the applicant’s desire to expand the operation by starting a 3rd shift.
He reviewed Section 36-242(1) of the ordinance which prohibits businesses
located in the Industrial Park and General Industrial zoning districts from
operating between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. when the property is located
adjacent to a property zoned residential.
Mr. Morrison summarized nine conditions which are proposed for the
amendment.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the property location, operation activities and the adjacent
properties.
Mr. Morrison discussed citywide application of the proposed amendment and
three industrial areas in the city that may take advantage of the proposed
amendment.
Mr. Morrison stated a neighborhood meeting was conducted to allow the
neighbors to visit the site and see the proposed operations. He said the tour of the
site included walking around the building while the operation was running.
Noise was not noticeable from outside the building as long as the doors remain
closed. He commented that Lyman Lumber conducted a noise study in early
2017.
Commissioner Person asked about the operation activities of Lyman Lumber
during a third shift.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 19
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
October 18, 2017
Page 2
Mr. Morrison responded activities according to code could include any industrial
activity that would be manufacturing, processing, and storage conducted entirely
within the building overnight. Lyman Lumber’s activity would be applying a
finish to cement siding.
Commissioner Carper noted a correction to be made to page one, paragraph one
of the staff report. Hours of operation referred to should be 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.,
rather than 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Commissioner Kanne asked about noise and the ventilation system.
Mr. Morrison responded that the ventilation system could not be heard outside of
the building. The dominant outdoor noise is the highway. He spoke about the
noise study conducted which found the exact same results.
Commissioner Kanne asked about employee rules.
Mr. Morrison said there is no trucking activity during 3rd shift. Employee
vehicles shouldn’t be idling. He noted that employee parking is the farthest
distance on the site from residential property. He said the city shouldn’t have an
ordinance written specifically for Lyman Lumber. We want to make sure the
ordinance applies equitably city-wide.
Vice Chair Robertson spoke about items like lighting, ventilation and decibel
limits. He asked if some of these items should be in the ordinance.
Mr. Morrison said the general code addresses lighting. Regarding noise and
speakers outside, he said staff could look at that.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, stated the city nuisance ordinance
currently does have decibel level restrictions for noise of long duration. Police do
have the discretion to identify noise of shorter duration a nuisance.
Commissioner Kanne asked the applicant for his response to the more general
conditions of approval and assurance that those conditions could be met.
Applicant, Mark Thieroff, Attorney for the Applicant, directed commissioners to
look at the site drawing which illustrates the distance employee parking would be
from residential. He spoke about over the road truck deliveries which will be
controlled by purchase order indicating delivery time. Improved on-site signage
will also coordinate with that process.
Scott Richter, applicant, spoke about activities and operations which will occur
during the third shift.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 20
Unofficial Minutes
Planning Commission
October 18, 2017
Page 3
Vice Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing
to speak, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper said he supports and encourages responsible companies to
do business in St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment pertaining to extended business hours for Industrial uses
adjacent to residential properties. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Zoning Ordinance Amendment to Allow a 3rd Shift in Industrial Districts Page 21
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: November 20, 2017
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution calling a public hearing on the
issuance of conduit revenue bonds to provide permanent financing for the affordable housing
portion of PLACE’s Via Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to take the necessary steps to allow this
project to move forward?
SUMMARY: PLACE, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, has proposed the acquisition,
construction, and equipping of a mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development on
property located at 5725, 5925, and 5815 Highway 7, 3565 and 3575 Wooddale Avenue, 5814 and
5816 36th Street, 3520 Yosemite Avenue, and the western portion of 3548 Xenwood Avenue in the
City to include 299 apartments (200 affordable and 99 market rate), a hotel, space for small
businesses, live/work spaces for creative, and an e-generation facility.
On May 22, 2017, the City issued $27,185,503 (2017 Series Note) in a multifamily housing revenue
note which matched the bond allocation from the State. The 2017 Series Note was issued as short-
term financing for the project. The borrower has been working on permanent financing with respect
to the affordable housing component of the project and has requested the City proceed with
refunding a portion of the 2017 Series Note (short-term financing) in order to provide permanent
financing for the affordable housing project in the amount of $22,000,000.
NEXT STEPS: Provided the City Council adopts the resolution calling for the public hearing, the
City Council will conduct the public hearing on December 18, 2017 and will be asked to consider a
resolution providing final approval to the issuance of the bonds and related documents.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The bonds will not impact the City’s debt
capacity, does not constitute a general or moral obligation of the City, and will not be secured by the
taxing powers of the City or any assets or property of the City. Per the City’s private activity revenue
bond policy PLACE will pay an annual administration fee in the amount of 1/8th of 1% (0.125%) of
the outstanding principal of the bonds which will be deposited in the Housing Rehab Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Kennedy & Graven Attorney Letter
Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
RESOLUTION NO. 17-_____
RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF VIA
AFFORDABLE LIVING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND VIA
APARTMENTS, LLC OR AFFILIATES, PARTNERS, OR MEMBERS
THEREOF
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “City”), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), the City is
authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of
revenue bonds to provide funds to finance multifamily housing developments.
1.02. On May 22, 2017, the City issued its Multifamily Housing Revenue Note (PLACE St.
Louis Park Multifamily Housing Project), Series 2017 (the “Series 2017 Note”), in the original
aggregate principal amount of $27,185,503, the proceeds of which were loaned to Via Affordable
Living Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (“Via Affordable Living”), whose
general partner is PLACE E-Generation One LLC, a Delaware limited liability company nonprofit
company registered to do business in Minnesota (“PLACE E-Generation One”) and an affiliate of
PLACE, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Via Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited
liability company whose sole member is PLACE E-Generation One LLC (“Via Apartments,” and
together with Via Affordable Living, the “Borrower”), for the purposes of (i) financing the
acquisition, construction, and equipping of all or a portion of approximately 299 affordable and
market-rate apartments (the “Project”) to be constructed as part of a larger mixed-use, mixed-
income, transit-oriented development on property located at 5725, 5925, and 5815 Highway 7, 3565
and 3575 Wooddale Avenue, 5814 and 5816 36th Street, 3520 Yosemite Avenue, and the western
portion of 3548 Xenwood Avenue in the City; (ii) financing capitalized interest during the
construction of the Project; and (iii) paying costs of issuance of the Series 2017 Note. The Project
will be owned and operated by the Borrower.
1.03. The Series 2017 Note was issued as short-term financing for the Project and was sold
to Anchor Bank, N.A., a national banking association.
1.04. The Borrower has determined to refund a portion of the Series 2017 Note with respect
to the affordable housing component of the Project (the “Affordable Housing Project”) and has
requested that the City issue revenue obligations, in one or more series, as taxable or tax-exempt
obligations (the “Bonds”), in the maximum principal amount of $22,000,000, for the benefit of the
Borrower or affiliates, partners, or members thereof, in order to provide permanent financing for a
portion of the Affordable Housing Project.
1.05. Under Section 147(f) of the Code, prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the City Council
must conduct a public hearing after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating generally in
the City at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing. Under Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the
Act, a public hearing must be held after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating
generally in the City at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
Section 2. Public Hearing. The City Council shall meet at 7:30 p.m. on Monday,
December 18, 2017, to conduct a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds by the City. Notice of
such hearing (the “Public Notice”) will be published as required by Section 462C.04, subdivision 2
of the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code. The City Clerk of the City is hereby authorized and
directed to publish the Public Notice, in substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A, in the
Sun-Sailor, the official newspaper of and a newspaper of general circulation in the City, at least
fifteen (15) days before the meeting of the City Council at which the public hearing will take place.
At the public hearing reasonable opportunity will be provided for interested individuals to express
their views, both orally and in writing, on the proposed issuance of the Bonds.
Section 3. Preliminary Approval. The City Council hereby provides preliminary
approval to the issuance of the Bonds in the estimated principal amount not to exceed $22,000,000,
subject to: (i) a public hearing as required by the Act and Section 147(f) of the Code; (ii) final
approval following the preparation of bond documents; and (iii) final determination by the City
Council that the permanent financing of a portion of the Affordable Housing Project and the
issuance of the Bonds are in the best interests of the City.
Section 4. Costs. The Borrower will pay the administrative fees of the City and pay, or,
upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are issued.
Section 5. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute
a guaranty or firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the Borrower. The
City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and accordingly not to
issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to herein, should the
City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in the best interest of the City not to
issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount referred to in Section 4
hereof, or should the parties to the transaction be unable to reach agreement as to the terms and
conditions of any of the documents required for the transaction.
Section 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 20,
2017
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
EXHIBIT A
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF VIA AFFORDABLE LIVING
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND VIA APARTMENTS, LLC OR AFFILIATES,
PARTNERS, OR MEMBERS THEREOF
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(the “City”), will hold a public hearing on Monday, December 18, 2017, at or after 7:30 p.m. at City
Hall, located at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the City, to consider a proposal that the City approve
and authorize the issuance of its revenue bonds, in one or more series, as taxable or tax-exempt
obligations (the “Bonds”), in an estimated maximum principal amount of $22,000,000, pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), for the benefit of Via Affordable Living
Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (“Via Affordable Living”), whose general
partner is PLACE E-Generation One LLC, a Delaware limited liability company nonprofit company
registered to do business in Minnesota (“PLACE E-Generation One”) and an affiliate of PLACE, a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation and an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and Via Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability
company whose sole member is PLACE E-Generation One LLC (“Via Apartments,” and together
with Via Affordable Living, the “Borrower”), or any affiliates, partners, or members thereof.
Proceeds of the Bonds are expected to be used by the Borrower to (i) provide permanent financing
for a portion of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of approximately 152 units of affordable
apartments (the “Project”) to be constructed as part of a larger mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-
oriented development on property located at 5725, 5925, and 5815 Highway 7, 3565 and 3575
Wooddale Avenue, 5814 and 5816 36th Street, 3520 Yosemite Avenue, and the western portion of
3548 Xenwood Avenue in the City; (ii) fund required reserves, if any; and (iii) pay costs of issuance
of the Bonds. The Project will be owned and operated by the Borrower. The Borrower intends to
apply the proceeds of the Bonds to the affordable housing component of the Project.
Following the public hearing, the City Council will consider a resolution granting approval to
the issuance of the Bonds.
The Bonds will be special, limited obligations of the City, and the Bonds and interest thereon
will be payable solely from the revenues and assets pledged to the payment thereof. No holder of
any Bond will have the right to compel any exercise of the taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds
or the interest thereon, or to enforce payment against any property of the City except money payable
by the Borrower to the City and pledged to the payment of the Bonds. Before issuing the Bonds, the
City will enter into one or more agreements with the Borrower, whereby the Borrower will be
obligated to make payments at least sufficient at all times to pay the principal of and interest on the
Bonds when due.
At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council will give all persons who
appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal. In addition,
interested persons may direct any questions or file written comments respecting the proposal with
the City Clerk, at or prior to said public hearing.
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
Dated: [Date of Publication]
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
MINNESOTA
/s/ Melissa Kennedy
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
JULIE A. EDDINGTON
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9213
Email: jeddington@kennedy-graven.com
November 13, 2017
Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2216
Re: Resolution calling a public hearing on the issuance of conduit revenue bonds to provide permanent
financing for an affordable housing project
Dear Tim,
As you know, the City of St. Louis Park (the “City”) has been working with PLACE, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation, an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (the “Code”), and a publicly supported charity, to finance the acquisition, construction, and
equipping of a mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development on property located at 5725, 5925,
and 5815 Highway 7, 3565 and 3575 Wooddale Avenue, 5814 and 5816 36th Street, 3520 Yosemite Avenue,
and the western portion of 3548 Xenwood Avenue in the City. On May 22, 2017, the City issued its
Multifamily Housing Revenue Note (PLACE St. Louis Park Multifamily Housing Project), Series 2017 (the
“Series 2017 Note”), in the original aggregate principal amount of $27,185,503, the proceeds of which were
loaned to Via Affordable Living Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (“Via Affordable
Living”), whose general partner is PLACE E-Generation One LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
nonprofit company registered to do business in Minnesota (“PLACE E-Generation One”) and an affiliate of
PLACE, and Via Apartments, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company whose sole member is PLACE
E-Generation One LLC (“Via Apartments,” and together with Via Affordable Living, the “Borrower”), to
finance the acquisition, construction, and equipping of all or a portion of approximately 299 affordable and
market-rate apartments (the “Project”) to be constructed as part of a larger mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-
oriented development on property located at 5725, 5925, and 5815 Highway 7, 3565 and 3575 Wooddale
Avenue, 5814 and 5816 36th Street, 3520 Yosemite Avenue, and the western portion of 3548 Xenwood
Avenue in the City. The Series 2017 Note was issued as short-term financing for the Project. The Borrower
has been in the process of obtaining permanent financing with respect to the affordable housing component of
the Project (the “Affordable Housing Project”) and has requested that the City proceed with refunding a
portion of the Series 2017 Note in order to provide permanent financing for the Affordable Housing Project.
Enclosed is a resolution to be considered by the City Council on November 20, 2017, calling a public
hearing on the proposed issuance by the City of one or more series of taxable or tax-exempt obligations (the
“Bonds”) in the estimated maximum principal amount of $22,000,000 to provide permanent financing for the
Affordable Housing Project. The Bonds will be issued pursuant to the terms of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter
462C, as amended (the “Act”).
Offices in
Minneapolis
Saint Paul
St. Cloud
470 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
www.kennedy-graven.com
Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer
City Council Meeting of November 20, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: Call for Public Hearing - PLACE Private Activity Revenue Bond Financing (Housing)
If the City Council adopts the enclosed resolution, the City Council will be asked to conduct the
public hearing required under the Act and the Code on Monday, December 18, 2017. Following the public
hearing, the City Council will be asked to consider a resolution providing final approval to the issuance of the
Bonds and authorizing the execution of documents in connection therewith.
The Borrower will agree to pay the out-of-pocket expenses of the City with respect to this transaction
as well as the City’s administrative fee.
I will attend the City Council meeting on November 20, 2017 and can answer any questions that may
arise during the meeting. Please contact me with any questions you may have prior to the City Council
meeting.
Sincerely,
Julie A. Eddington