HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/08/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session
August 14, 2006
6:30 PM
Council Chambers
5:45 p.m. Box Lunch
6:15 p.m. Board and Commission Interview – Housing Authority
Discussion Items
Approximate
Times
1. 6:30 p.m. Park and Rec Advisory Commission Year End Report
2. 7:00 p.m. Budget Discussion
3. 8:00 p.m. Duke Joint Powers Agreement
4. 8:30 p.m. Move Up Housing
5. 9:00 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda
Written Items
6. Flood Mitigation
7. Historic Preservation Study
8. STEP Lease
9. Meadowbrook Land Lease Approval
10. France Avenue Turnback
11. Sun Sailor Update
9:10 p.m. Adjourn
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD
(952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 1 - Parks And Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report
Page 1
1. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report Parks & Recreation
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) will meet with the City Council at the
August 14 study session to provide an update on what the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission has been involved with in the community. The Commission Chair, Tom
Worthington, will also review the goals for 2006.
The attached 2005 Annual Report from the PRAC will assist the Council in preparing for the
above discussion topics and any related areas of interest to the Council.
Attachments: 2005 PRAC Annual Report
2006 PRAC Annual Report
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Tom Worthington, Chair
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 1 - Parks And Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report
Page 2
St Louis Park
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
Year-end Report, 2005
2005 Commissioners and Officers:
Tom Worthington, Chair Dana Strong, Vice Chair
R. Bruce Cornwall Steve Hallfin
Kirk Hawkinson George Foulkes
Richard Johnson Sarah Lindenberg
In this past year, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission focused on the following
priorities:
♦ Adult Athletic Fee Review – Members and staff reviewed and compared fee structure with
other cities and ensured competitive structure.
♦ Annual Youth Association Meeting – Sponsor’s annual meeting of all youth associations to
receive updates and answer questions.
♦ City Owned Property / Excess Land –Commission members served on task force which
reviewed City owned property and advised how to proceed with land.
♦ Code of Conduct – Implemented Code of Conduct for all City recreation facilities and fields
(attached).
♦ Fund Raising Events –
5 K Run: The event was held Sunday, May 15, 2005 in Wolfe Park. Members volunteered
and participated in the event which raised $3,800 for the scholarship fund.
Commissioners’ Twilight Swim & Skate: Members held this event at the Rec Center on
Saturday, August 6, 2005. Swimming was offered from 7:30 – 10 p.m. and ice skating was
offered from 7:30 – 9 p.m. The fee charged was $2 per person or $6 per family and
concessions were available. $242.10 was raised for the scholarship fund from this event.
♦ Hold monthly Commission meetings at different locations: Members held meetings at
different park locations including the newly renovated Browndale and Nelson park buildings.
Annually, the commission visits parks with new or renovated items prior to their commission
meeting.
♦ Permanent Off-Leash Dog Park – Commission members participated in the task force
which researched and located a permanent dog park at Dakota Park.
♦ Staff Appreciation Breakfast – The commission sponsors an annual breakfast for the Parks
and Recreation staff to convey their appreciation.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 1 - Parks And Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report
Page 3
Code of Conduct for St. Louis Park
City Recreation Facilities and Fields
- Adapted from several other city and community sources, including Waseca City Parks Code of
Conduct, National Youth Sports Coaches Association, and National Alliance for Youth Sports.
• Encourage good sportsmanship by demonstrating positive support for all players, coaches,
and officials at every game.
• Expect a sports environment which is free from drugs, tobacco, and alcohol and refrain from
their use at all sporting events.
• Applaud all good effort and good plays, or remain silent.
• Support the coaches in their teaching. Allow coaches to coach without outside interference.
• Treat all officials and coaches, adult and youth, with dignity and respect.
• Help children learn honesty, fair play and good sportsmanship.
• Do your best to make sports fun for everyone involved.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 1 - Parks And Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report
Page 4
Elements of Code of Conduct Implementation
Partners: Sports Associations
• Recommend that youth sports organizations adopt policies that encourage good
sportsmanship and appropriate adult (including parent and spectator) and player
behaviors.
• These policies should provide an action plan for response to conduct issues.
• Associations will be encouraged to adopt sports advocate programs to help control
inappropriate sideline behavior.
External: General Public
• St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department will post conduct guidelines at sports
facilities and athletic fields.
• The St. Louis Park Code of Conduct will be available on the City’s web site,
www.stlouispark.org, and from the Parks and Recreation Department, 952/924-2540.
Internal: Park and Recreation Sporting Activities
• St. Louis Park Parks and Recreation Department will support the Code of Conduct for
City and Association sponsored sporting activities and promote this document through
training opportunities in addition to the facility reservation process.
• Training on youth motivation, skill development, sportsmanship and rule interpretation
will be recommended for youth athletic coaches.
• Investigate sports advocate programs for controlling inappropriate sideline behavior.
Approved 10/19/04.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 1 - Parks And Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report
Page 5
2006 Parks and Recreation Advisory
Commission Goals
♦ City Vision: Review and tie into commission’s goals.
♦ Events –
5 K runs: volunteer and run (summer and fall)
Movie or sports: broadcast/band at Wolfe Park Amphitheater. (Movie night may be an issue.)
♦ Neighborhood Groups - Better ties with groups; members attend neighborhood meetings.
♦ Recreation Activities - Suggest activities for adults and 55+ individuals (i.e. canoeing, bike
rides, shuffle board, free films). Suggested inviting Mary Juberian from Community
Education to a meeting to review what activities they offer.
♦ Recreation Resources - Discuss “on-call recreation” resources which would include staff and
fees (i.e. renting canoes).
♦ Staff Appreciation Breakfast – An annual event sponsored by the Commission.
♦ Trail forum - how facilities, trails, and bicycle trails are used; what’s good; what’s bad;
buffers needed. (Cooperate with Three Rivers Park District.)
♦ Youth Sports Association Relationship – Suggested Commission members attend some of
the association’s monthly meetings or invite associations to Commission’s meetings to
tighten their relationship.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 2 - 2007 Budget Discussion Report
Page 1
2. 2007 Budget Discussion Finance
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to present the preliminary budget information to the City
Council and receive feedback regarding the proposed tax levy adjustment for 2007.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council must adopt a preliminary property tax levy for 2007 and certify it to Hennepin
County by September 15 or else we will be limited to taxing just the amount levied for 2006.
City staff has prepared preliminary revenue and expenditure budgets for purposes of estimating
the amount of property taxes necessary to balance the expenditure budget for the tax supported
funds. This item will come back to the City Council for approval at the September 5, 2006
meeting. More in-depth budget discussions will be held with the Council this fall prior to final
budget and property tax levy approvals in December.
Departments were instructed to prepare “hold-the-line” budgets. There were no generally
applied percentage increases. The directors have been very diligent in making budget
adjustments only for documented increases. The budget which will be presented to the Council
does not propose any notable service level increases.
Employee Costs
The City of St. Louis Park budget for 2007 has several changes that will impact the tax levy.
Employee costs are the major expenditures in the tax supported budgets. A 3.0 % cost of living
adjustment (COLA) has been negotiated with four of our five employee bargaining units for
2007. We have also used that figure for calculating the budget for the other bargaining unit and
the exempt employees. This raises our costs by about $600,000 annually.
Maintaining service levels in both the Community Development and Inspections departments
necessitates adding a .75 full-time equivalent (FTE) and a 1.0 FTE employee, respectively. Both
of these departments are using equivalent staff on a temporary basis to fill needs. This has added
approximately $100,000 to the general fund above our agreed base pay increases.
Pension difficulties at the state level will cost both the city and employees more money. Neither
the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) Coordinated Plan nor the Police and Fire
Plan are adequately funded on an actuarial basis. To partially resolve that problem the rates that
we pay for each employee’s retirement are increasing. For Coordinated Plan members, the city
will pay 0.25% more for each dollar of salary earned. The figure jumps to 1.2% more for sworn
public safety officers. This adds another $97,000 to our budget.
Other General & Park Fund Costs
There are three major areas where additional costs have been identified. The costs of our
prosecution contract, software maintenance, and the Municipal Service Center (MSC) have
budget implications.
The prosecution contract has not been changed in several years. The hourly costs of those
attorneys will increase from the current $75 per hour. While we are still negotiating the amount
of increase, we have budgeted for $100 per hour at this time. That seems to be a comparable
market price from our research of other communities. This will increase the budget by $52,000.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 2 - 2007 Budget Discussion Report
Page 2
As we continue to add software systems (e.g. web streaming, GovDelivery, etc), we also have to
budget for the annual license agreements for support and enhancements. For 2007, the cost will
increase $40,000.
Through the process of reorganizing the MSC we have identified that there was some available
fund balance that was being used as a cushion in case expenditures were higher than anticipated.
This process allowed the departmental payments to be lower than the actual budgeted expenses.
For 2007, this gap is about $170,000.
When we make the transition from a separate internal service fund to the Park & Recreation
Fund, we will need to address this strategically. The fund balance is estimated to be $150,000 at
the end of 2006. Staff’s recommendation is to slowly transition to a balanced budget model over
several years. This will mean transferring $100,000 from the MSC fund balance to Park &
Recreation for vehicle maintenance in 2007. The property tax levy will then pick up the
remaining $70,000. For 2008, we will use the remaining $50,000 and allow the property taxes to
cover $120,000. In 2009, we will have a fully balanced budget with a tax levy of $170,000 to
cover all the remaining costs of vehicle maintenance services.
Debt Service
The 2005 General Obligation (GO) bonds were structured so that the levy would be increased in
two steps. The 2006 levy was for $269,800. That increases to $496,200 for 2007 where it will
remain for the rest of the bond issue. Along with some fluctuations in the levies for the 1999 and
2003 GO bonds, a total increase of $231,000 will be included in the 2007 tax levy. This is a
1.2% increase in the tax levy all by itself.
Other Funds
There are two other funds that rely on property taxes – Park Improvement and Pavement
Management. Our budget recommendation is to hold those two budgets at the same level of tax
support for 2007. The levies will remain at $1,010,000 and $415,000 respectively.
Revenues
Total non-tax revenues have not changed significantly for 2007. We are projecting an increase
of about $405,000 over 2006 amounts. The major increases are $135,000 in building permit
fees, $110,000 in interest earnings, and $108,000 in recreation fees. There are other small
increases, but they have been partially offset by reductions in grant revenue as homeland security
grants become harder to come by.
Overall Effect
Based upon the Study Session discussion in late July, we are striving to present a budget to the
Council which would require a levy increase of not more than 5.2 % - 4% for operations and
1.2% for debt service needs. In order to achieve a 5.2 % levy increase cap, we still need to
decrease proposed expenditures by approximately $190,000 and/or increase revenues. If we do
not, a 6.2% levy adjustment would be necessary. Staff will continue working to reduce this
amount prior to certifying the preliminary levy.
A chart listing tax changes for homes of various values will be distributed at Monday’s meeting.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 2 - 2007 Budget Discussion Report
Page 3
Questions for Council Discussion:
1. Does the City Council want to make significant changes to the proposed 5.2% to
6.2% tax levy adjustment prior to the preliminary levy certification?
2. Are there other budget items that the City Council would like addressed prior to the
preliminary levy certification?
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 1
3. Joint Powers Agreement with Golden Valley for Duke Project Community
Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to share with the City Council the preliminary draft Joint
Powers Agreement regarding the proposed Duke Realty development.
BACKGROUND:
As has been previously discussed, Duke Realty is planning to redevelop a portion of the
approximately 43.5 acres located in the southwest corner of Highways 394 and 100. The site is
mostly in St. Louis Park (SLP), but approximately 15 acres of the area straddles the Golden
Valley/St. Louis Park boundary line. About 6 acres of this site is in Golden Valley (GV) and 9
acres is in SLP (see attached map). Redevelopment of this site will be greatly enhanced if it can
be developed as if it were a single parcel wholly within a single city, rather than split in two.
A Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) has been proposed as a means to treat this site as if it were a
single parcel completely within SLP. The agreement is constructed from very significant past
efforts by SLP and GV to prepare a joint power agreement. That effort ended in 2002 when the
developer backed away from plans to redevelop this area.
The proposed agreement gives SLP overall authority for the parcel including responsibility for
development approvals, on-going land use regulations and provision of public services. The draft
agreement is attached for your review.
A key component of the agreement is SLP’s authority to control the property’s land use. SLP
will apply its “official controls” (zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance, etc) to the property
with one exception, the connection of 16th street to Wayzata Boulevard.
Extension of 16th street into the Duke development site is a component of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan; but, connection of 16th Street directly through the Duke site to Wayzata
Boulevard at Hwy 100 has been an issue of great concern to GV. The proposed agreement gives
SLP the authority to extend 16th Street into the Duke site as it sees fit, but gives GV the final
authority as to whether 16th street will connect to the portion of Wayzata Boulevard within GV.
Sixteenth Street or another public or private street could be connected to Wayzata Blvd at SLP’s
discretion, but only along the portion of Wayzata Blvd within SLP.
It is possible that once the planning and design of Duke’s development begins in earnest; and,
specific plans and traffic analyses are available, GV may conclude that connecting 16th Street to
Wayzata Blvd as directly as possible is a good thing, but that decision will be GV’s. Until more
detailed development plans and traffic analyses have been prepared, it is impossible to evaluate
whether connecting 16th Street to Wayzata Blvd connection is needed or desired from anyone’s
perspective. The Joint Powers Agreement simply clarifies who gets to decide whether it
happens.
Another key element of the agreement addresses property taxes. While SLP will collect all the
fees for licenses, permits, etc; real estate taxes will be split between the two cities. Property
taxes from the 15 acre SLP/GV project area will be split proportionate to the amount of the
project area in each city. Nine acres of the project area is in SLP and 6 acres is in GV.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 2
Therefore 60% of the tax capacity of the project area will go to SLP and 40% of the tax capacity
will go to GV. This split of tax capacity, based on the amount of land each city has in the project
area, will occur no matter where the actual buildings and other improvements are located within
the project area. Hennepin County staff has indicated agreement to this approach. Further work
will be needed to document and ensure the County’s commitment to use this approach as long as
the JPA is in place.
While it is hoped that this agreement is close to a final document, it is still only a draft. There
have been extensive discussions on the agreement with GV staff but it has not yet gone to their
city council. The County, the Developer and both City Councils will need to approve the
document. The city boundary splitting the project area also posses challenges to creation of
potential tax increment districts. Current law does not allow TIF districts between two cities.
Further work will need to be done on this issue assuming Duke seeks TIF assistance for their
project. Further discussions with City Council will occur on the JPA as we move forward both
with this document and preparation of plans for Duke’s development.
Attachments: Draft Joint Powers Agreement
Map of Project Area (supplement)
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 3
JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT
AGREEMENT made this ____ day of ________________, 20___, by and between the
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“St. Louis Park”), and the
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“Golden Valley”).
RECITALS
A. Minn. Stat. § 471.59 et seq. authorizes cities to enter into joint powers
agreements.
B. Highways I-394 and T.H. 100 functionally isolate approximately six (6) acres
within Golden Valley from the remainder of the City of Golden Valley. This property is legally
described on the attached Exhibit “A” (“Subject Property”).
C. The Subject Property is occupied by small office buildings, parking lots and
roads.
D. The owner of the Subject Property intends to redevelop the Subject Property as
part of one project which includes approximately nine (9) acres of adjoining property in St. Louis
Park under common ownership (the “Project”). This nine (9) acre property is legally described
on the attached Exhibit “B” (“St. Louis Park Property”). The development concept for the
Project is depicted on Exhibit “C” (“Concept Plan”).
E. The parties desire to achieve efficiency in development approval, on-going land
use regulations, general police power, property tax administration and in providing City services
to the Subject Property.
NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL
COVENANTS, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1. LAND USE CONTROLS.
A. To the extent provided in this Paragraph 1, St. Louis Park will adopt, administer
and enforce all “official controls” as the term is defined in Minn. Stat. § 462.352, Subd. 15 for
the Subject Property to the same extent as if the Subject Property was within its corporate limits,
except that Golden Valley shall retain the authority to determine if 16th Street will be connected
from the east side of the Subject Property to the portion of Wayzata Boulevard located in Golden
Valley. Such official controls are intended to be exercised in such a manner as to extend to the
Subject Property the same comprehensive plan designation and official controls as are applicable
to the St. Louis Park Property. Nothing in this Agreement or the Concept Plan, however, shall
be construed to be a limitation on St. Louis Park’s regulatory authority in its application of
official controls to the Project, including without limitation matters with respect to traffic
congestion attributable to the Project.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 4
B. St. Louis Park shall administer and enforce official controls, including without
limitation environmental review, zoning, and subdivision controls, for the Project and all new
buildings and land uses within the Subject Property. Until such time as St. Louis Park has issued
a building permit for a new building within the Subject Property, Golden Valley shall administer
and enforce all official controls for existing buildings and land uses within the Subject Property.
Thereafter, St. Louis Park shall administer and enforce its official controls for all existing and
new buildings and land uses within the Subject Property.
C. If within seven (7) years from the date of this Agreement, St. Louis Park has not
granted final approval for planned unit development for the Project substantially consistent with
the Concept Plan, then this Agreement shall automatically terminate with no further action
required by either party. If a complete planned unit development application has been submitted
to and is under consideration by St. Louis Park, this seven (7) year period shall toll until such
time as the City Council takes final action on the pending application. St. Louis Park shall notify
Golden Valley when/if it has approved the planned unit development for the Project. Nothing
herein shall be interpreted to prevent the owner of the Subject Property or of the St. Louis Park
Property to seek amendments to the Concept Plan for the Project.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS. St. Louis Park will conduct all
environmental reviews and enforce environmental laws relating to the Subject Property with
respect to the Project and following its approval to the same extent as if the Subject Property was
within its corporate limits. St. Louis Park will be the Local Government Unit (LGU) for
purposes of administration of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), Minn. Stat., 103G et seq.,
and Responsible Government Unit (RGU) for purposes of environmental review pursuant to
Minn. Stat. 116D.01, et seq.
3. GENERAL ORDINANCES. At such time as St. Louis Park issues a building
permit for a new building within the Subject Property, St. Louis Park will exercise on behalf of
Golden Valley their common powers to adopt and enforce general police power ordnances
within the Subject Property to the same kind and extent it applies its general police power
ordinances within the City of St. Louis Park. Until such time, the Subject Property shall be
subject to municipal authority relating to general police power in the same manner and to the
same extent as presently exists.
4. PUBLIC SAFETY. At such time as St. Louis Park issues a building permit for a
new building within the Subject Property, St. Louis Park will provide police services and enforce
criminal statutes and St. Louis Park City Ordinances within the Subject Property to the same
kind and extent it provides such overall services and enforcement within the City of St. Louis
Park. Until such time, the Subject Property shall be subject to municipal authority and services
relating to public safety in the same manner and to the same extent as presently exists.
5. FIRE PROTECTION. At such time as St. Louis Park issues a building permit
for a new building within the Subject Property, St. Louis Park will provide fire inspection and
protection services for the Subject Property to the same kind and extent it provides such overall
services within the City of St. Louis Park. Until such time, the Subject Property shall be subject
to municipal authority and services relating to fire protection in the same manner and to the same
extent as presently exists.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 5
6. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND REDEVELOPMENT. At such time as St. Louis
Park issues a building permit for a new building within the Subject Property, St. Louis Park will
provide sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water and other available public utilities to the Subject
Property and collect fees and user charges for all such utility services. St. Louis Park may
undertake redevelopment activities pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 469, install public
improvements, issue bonds pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 475, and levy special assessments
pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 429, impose charges pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter 444, and
utilize other financing sources and authorities common to Golden Valley and St. Louis Park,
including without limitation, to the extent available, tax increment financing or tax abatement.
Sanitary sewer and/or water may be provided by Golden Valley pursuant to further agreement of
the parties. Until such time, the Subject Property shall be subject to municipal authority with
respect to public utilities and redevelopment as described in this paragraph in the same manner
and to the same extent as presently exists. If after approval of the Project, pursuant to its official
controls, St. Louis Park elects to utilize, to the extent available, tax increment financing, tax
abatement or similar or successor redevelopment financing or assistance methods to facilitate
redevelopment of the Subject Property and the St. Louis Park Property, Golden Valley shall
cooperate by approving application of the selected methods to the Subject Property in the manner
determined by St. Louis Park so long as the effect on the Subject Property and the St. Louis Park
Property is directly proportionate to the respective tax capacity of each.
7. BUSINESS AND LIQUOR LICENSES. At such time as St. Louis Park issues a
building permit for a new building within the Subject Property, St. Louis Park’s business and
liquor licensing regulations will apply to the Subject Property and shall be enforced within the
Subject Property by St. Louis Park. Until such time, the Subject Property shall be subject to
municipal authority relating to business and liquor licensing regulations in the same manner and
to the same extent as presently exists.
8. NO RETAINED AUTHORITY. At such time as St. Louis Park issues a
building permit for a new building within the Subject Property, Golden Valley hereby grants to
the City of St. Louis Park all of the municipal powers Golden Valley has with respect to the
Subject Property, except for the power to levy and collect property taxes pursuant to this
Agreement. Until such time, Golden Valley shall have retained such municipal powers except to
the extent provided in Paragraphs 1 and 2.
9. FEES. All license fees, permit fees, inspection fees, development fees, special
assessments, connection charges, storm water utility fees and the like collected from the Subject
Property will be retained by St. Louis Park, unless Golden Valley provides certain services in
which instance the payments shall be directed to Golden Valley.
10. PROPERTY TAXES. The tax capacity of, and the power to levy on and collect
property taxes from the Subject Property, with respect to Golden Valley, and from the St. Louis
Park Property, with respect to St. Louis Park, are not altered by this Agreement except as
follows: the entire Project area shall be one tax parcel for tax capacity purposes with the tax
capacity allocated sixty percent (60%) to St. Louis Park and forty percent (40%) to Golden
Valley. This allocation applies regardless of where the improvements are located within the
Project area.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 6
11. ANNEXATION. Nothing herein precludes the owner(s) of the Subject Property
from exercising rights under Minn. Stat. Ch. 414 or successor statute relating to municipal
boundary adjustments; provided, however, that neither the fact of this Agreement, any facts or
circumstances created by it, nor the altered governmental relationships created by it with respect
to the Subject Property shall be used as grounds for, or to support, any annexation or detachment
concerning the Subject Property.
12. TERM. The Agreement shall be an initial term of sixty (60) years, commencing
on __________________________, with automatic ten (10) year renewals thereafter unless a
written cancellation notice is received by either party on or before two (2) years prior to the end
of any given renewal term. This Agreement shall also terminate at any time upon the Subject
Property being detached from Golden Valley and annexed into the City of St. Louis Park.
13. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended at any time by agreement
of the parties; provided, however, that the owner(s) of the Subject Property shall have received
three (3) months advance written notice of the proposed amendment prior to the presentation of
the proposed amendment to the governing bodies of each of Golden Valley and St. Louis Park.
For purposes of the address for notice(s) to the owner(s) of the Subject Property, the Cities shall
use the addresses available through then-current property tax records.
14. NOTICES. Any notice required hereunder shall be hand delivered or by certified
mail at the following addresses unless the other party is given notice of a change of address by
certified mail:
City of St. Louis Park
Attention: City Clerk
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
City of Golden Valley
Attention: City Clerk
7800 Golden Valley Road
Golden Valley, MN 55427
15. RECORDING. This document will be recorded against the Subject Property and
the adjoining St. Louis Park Property.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 7
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of St. Louis Park and the City of Golden Valley
have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers pursuant
to the authority granted by the attached resolutions adopted by the City Council of St. Louis Park
and the City Council of Golden Valley.
Date:___________________, 20____.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BY:__________________________
Its
AND_________________________
Its
Date:___________________, 20___.
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
BY:__________________________
Its
AND_________________________
Its
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 3 - Duke Joint Powers Agreement
Page 8
CONSENT OF PROPERTY OWNER
Duke Realty Corporation, the fee owner of the Subject Property and adjoining St. Louis
Park Property, on behalf of itself, its successors or assigns, acknowledges and consents to the
content of this Joint Powers Agreement dated _______________________ between St. Louis
Park and Golden Valley.
DUKE REALTY CORPORATION
By:______________________________
Its:_________________________
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 4 - Move Up Housing Activity Report
Page 1
4. 2006 Move Up in the Park Report Community Development
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of this discussion is to apprise Council of the 2006 “Move Up in the Park” housing
activity. This report provides a brief recap of the move up housing programs’ activity through
June 2006.
ACTIVITY SUMMARY
The Move Up program resulted from the Housing Summit’s emphasis of facilitating and
promoting the expansion of existing homes as the most effective tool to achieve more family size
homes in the city. While the Move Up in the Park program successfully kicked off last year,
2006 is proving to be an even more active year of vigorous home improvement activity. A
synergy between the marketing of our “Move up in the Park” programs and services, with strong
remodeling interest is leading to resident use that is outpacing projections.
• In the first six months, the transformation loans, design services and remodeling advisor
visits are on pace to exceed 2006 estimates. Already eighteen homes have been
significantly expanded using the transformation loan.
• In the first six months of 2006, more discount loans were used than in the first half of
2005. Loan activity tends to pick up in the second half of the year, so we should exceed
last year’s activity. St. Louis Park far exceeds the use this program by any other city
except Minneapolis and St. Paul.
• The remodeling home tour attracted more residents than last year’s.
• The ever popular four community home remodeling fair attracted another 2,000
attendees, approximately half of them St. Louis Park residents.
• Neighborhood home improvement and energy workshops will be scheduled for fall.
• Bidders have been selected to construct new homes on two of the vacant public parcels,
with the bid opening of two more lots scheduled for August 18. The first multi-lot parcel
is being let for developer proposals.
The Move Up in the Park Program Update is attached. It includes a table which provides a
snapshot of the current use of the Move Up programs and services along with funding levels. It
also includes a description of each of the program components.
NEXT STEPS
This program kicked-off with robust marketing through the Home Remodeling Fair, Park
Perspective, Cable TV, Star Tribune West Metro and direct mailings in 2005. Those
promotional efforts have been very effective and the Move UP housing program is an
unqualified success. The Move up Housing Programs sometimes gets lost in the greater publicity
that generated by the excess land sale process, but the number of residents that have benefited
from the Move Up programs far exceeds the number of excess land lots that we will ever sell.
The City Council deserves credit for the forethought to create and fund these programs. The
community deserves to know about the program’s success. To this end, staff is preparing a slide
show to be presented at an upcoming Council Meeting. The goal is to provide greater visibility to
for the Move-Up Housing programs. The intent is to have a presentation ready for early this fall.
Attachment: Move Up in the Park Programs Update
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor and Kathy Larsen, Housing
Programs Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 4 - Move Up Housing Activity Report
Page 2
MOVE UP IN THE PARK PROGRAMS UPDATE
The current status of the Move Up in the Park Program is described below. Included is a table
which provides a snapshot of the current use of the Move Up programs and services along with
funding levels. Also included is a description of each of the program components.
Table 1. Move Up Housing Activity Report, January 1 – June 30, 2006
Activity
Goal To Date Annual
Budget
Expended
6/30/2006
Remaining
Transformation Loan 15 18 $475,000 $312,753 $162,247
Architectural Design Service 100 63 $22,500 $14,175 $8,325
Remodeling Advisor 150 137 $19,500 $17,810 $1,690
Discount Loans 80 40 $150,000 $87,195 $62,805
Home Remodeling Tour 1,000
attendees
1,200 $5000 $5000 $0
Home Remodeling Fair 2,000
attendees
2,000 $0 $0 $0
Neighborhood Home Improvement
and Energy Workshops
4 0 $2,500 $0 $2,500
Vacant Public Land for Single
Family Homes
Bidders
selected for
2 parcels
Description of Programs
The Move Up in the Park initiatives include educational, technical and financial activities
designed to motivate and assist residents with renovation to their homes. The overall initiatives
are more successful than projected, especially for the technical and design assistance, and
program costs are being held in line. Each of the programs is described below.
• Transformation Loan
The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median
area income ($92,000 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides
deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost. Loan repayment at
0% interest is deferred until the home is sold - if the resident remains in the home for 30
years, the loan will be forgiven. This in effect establishes a revolving loan pool which will
continue to fund future expansions.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 4 - Move Up Housing Activity Report
Page 3
This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of
the project to selecting contractors. The average loan exceeded $17,000.
o Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost
must exceed $35,000.
o The maximum loan amount is $37,500, if construction costs are $150,000.
o The City has established a revolving loan pool, administered by a third party.
o The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower.
• Architectural Design Service
This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming
remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions.
Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the
American Institute of Architects and local architects. All homeowners considering
renovations would be eligible for this service regardless of income, however to ensure
committed participants, residents make a $25 co-pay. The projection of 50 visits during the
first year was exceeded. Resident surveys not only provided ideas to refine the program, but
indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service. An evaluation meeting with the AIA
and involved architects provided further ideas to refine the program for 2006.
• Remodeling/Rehab Advisor
The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or
value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction
process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. More than twice
as many residents requested this service than anticipated. Resident surveys indicated that
homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City contracts with
the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service.
• Discount Loan Program
This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate
on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) home improvement loans. The
MHFA’s Community Fix-up Fund is restricted to Minnesota residents residing in cities that
elect to participate in the program. Residents with incomes of $63,000 or less qualify for a
greater discount than those with incomes of $90,000 or less. Eligible improvements include
most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas.
The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund is the funding source for the discount loan program,
and CEE is the loan administrator.
St. Louis Park implemented the discounting of MHFA loans in late 1999 as a pilot project.
Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be third among all Minnesota cities to use
the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St. Paul.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 4 - Move Up Housing Activity Report
Page 4
Chart 1. Historical Discount Loan Activity
Discount Loans by Year
19
52
125
84
40 36
82
10
50
90
130
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
YearNumber of Loans
• Home Remodeling Tour
The 2nd annual Home Remodeling Tour of six recently remodeled homes proved very
popular with an average 450 residents visiting each of the six tour homes. The Tour’s goal is
to provide residents hands-on examples of remodeling and expansion projects of typical St.
Louis Park housing, to motivate and encourage residents to enlarge and enhance their homes.
• Annual Home Remodeling Fair
The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka
and Golden Valley co-sponsored the 2006 Fair. Over 2,000 residents from the four cities
attended the one day event, with over half of the attendees living in St. Louis Park. The fair
provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about
permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling.
The fair is now a self-sustaining event where vendor registration fees more than cover the
costs of the event.
• Neighborhood Home Improvement and Energy Workshops
Four neighborhood workshops are planned for fall 2006. The timing of the workshops is to
continue the excitement and buzz about remodeling into the fall. The purpose is to provide
concrete education about codes and zoning, design and rehab assistance and information
about the city’s financial incentives including existing loan programs. City staff and CEE
will conduct the workshops, prepare brochures and handle mailings.
• Vacant Public Land
The first parcels were let for bid in June and bidders selected in July. Two additional parcels
were let in July and bidders will be selected in August.
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 5 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 1
5. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next Study Session agenda.
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes is set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for the study session on August 28, 2006.
Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Discussion Item: 081406 - 5 - Future Study Session Agenda
Page 2
Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Monday, August 28, 2006
7:00 p.m. Study Session starts
Discussion Items
A. Highway 100 – Public Works (45 minutes)
Update on the Highway 100 full-build project and possible financial implications.
B. Village in the Park II TIF Assistance – Community Development (30 minutes)
Discussion of Rottlund’s request for assistance for Phase II of Village in the Park Project.
C. Duke Concept Plan – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will discuss/introduce the preliminary site plan for Duke’s proposed “West End”
project (I-394 & Hwy 100) for Council’s initial reaction to the plan.
D. Budget Discussion – Finance (45 minutes).
Finance Department to lead Council in a discussion about the 2007 budget (only if
necessary)
E. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Reports
St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grants – recommended list of projects for funding
9:35 p.m. End of Meeting
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 6 - Flood Mitigation Projects Update
Page 1
6. Flood Mitigation Projects Update Public Works
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To update Council on actions taken by staff in Flood Areas 10, 24, 25, and 26 as well as to
provide information regarding the recently completed Twin Lakes drainage area study.
BACKGROUND:
At the June 12, 2006 Study Session, Council was provided a report and engaged in a discussion
regarding recent drainage study findings and various proposed flood mitigation projects. The
discussion generally covered the following:
1. Proposed flood improvement alternatives identified for Areas 10, 24, 25, and 26 (see
attachment).
2. An overall picture of how these problem areas are inter-connected with the greater Twin
Lakes Area watershed.
3. The results of a financial evaluation of the storm water utility in relation to currently
proposed and potential future projects.
4. An opportunity to review current storm water project and financing practices and to
provide direction to staff for dealing with current and potential future projects.
The following questions and issues were also presented to Council for current and future
consideration:
1. Protection of commercial properties has not been done to date. Should flood mitigation
projects for commercial properties be eligible for the city’s flood mitigation program?
2. Can project costs be reduced? Should the city be paying 100% of these costs? Should
some of these improvements / costs be at property owner expense?
3. Should some of these requested projects be delayed (how long) or denied?
4. If there are not adequate funds available for all the flood protection projects requested,
how should projects be prioritized?
5. The City does have some DNR grant funding available to assist in the cost of funding the
proposed projects for Areas 10, 24, 25 and 26. However, the funds must be incurred by
December 31, 2007. Other flood improvement projects adjacent or nearby to Minnehaha
Creek (under development or not yet determined) have $700,000 in separate DNR grant
funds available for their implementation. How should projects be prioritized based on
funding availability?
6. Should storm water utility rates be increased beyond previously discussed / planned
increases?
7. Should general obligation bonds be considered for financing some of these
improvements?
8. Should development funds be considered for financing some of these improvements?
9. Should special assessments be considered for financing some of these improvements?
As a result of the June 12 Study Session discussion, staff was directed to continue with further
investigative and preliminary design work for the proposed flood mitigation projects as
discussed, followed by a subsequent update to Council.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 6 - Flood Mitigation Projects Update
Page 2
PROJECT UPDATES:
It is staff’s intent to construct the following projects early in 2007 in order to utilize available
State grant funding before the expiration date of December 31, 2007. Following is an update on
activities since June:
Area 24 (Edgewood Drainage Area):
The Edgewood Area can generally be described as two sub-areas: the commercial/industrial
properties located between Edgewood and Florida Avenues (2200 Block), and a group of
Townhomes located in the 2300 Block of Hampshire Avenue North. As expressed in a previous
report of the Edgewood Area prepared by Barr Engineering, various flood mitigation measure
alternatives and costs were presented, ranging from floodproofing of individual properties to
larger improvements of a more regional nature, including various combinations thereof. For
simplification, these were presented in a matrix format.
Staff and Council have historically felt that construction of a regional pond is the preferred long-
term approach for mitigating the flooding situation in the above described industrial/commercial
area. As previously reported, no readily available area exists to construct such a pond and
previous attempts to develop a pond mutually acceptable to all affected property owners have not
been successful. Since June, staff has contacted the affected property owners one more time to
assess the possibility of developing a regional pond project. Those conversations indicate a
regional pond project is not possible at this time. Since this project does not appear possible at
this time, individual property owners will be advised to implement individual fixes, at their own
expense, should they feel they are necessary or needed. In conjunction with that, the use of city
flood protection monies through the City’s Flood Protection Program for individual property
fixes proposed will not be approved by staff as that would be inconsistent with the City’s
proposed long term regional pond mitigation measure. Staff intends to notify these property
owners of our findings and determinations later this month.
Barr Engineering and City staff have also been working with representatives of the Hampshire
Avenue Townhomes to better understand the existing flooding problems and possible solutions.
A site visit with residents in July confirmed that actual flooding experiences generally match the
analysis provided in the Barr report. At this time, further investigative work on the existing
infrastructure system (public and private) is being done to determine, design, and recommend the
final flood mitigation measures. Currently these measures are a combination of overland
protection (diking or diversion), retrofitting of existing storm pipes with backflow prevention
devices, and pumping systems. Included at this location are 2-3 single family properties on the
west side of Hampshire where a small detention area is also being considered. Staff’s intent is to
develop these solutions with the property owners, determine estimated costs, and present Council
with a subsequent report and recommended projects within the next 2-3 months.
Areas 10, 25, & 26 (Dakota and Jersey Drainage Area):
This study area comprises the following locations: Area 25 (Jersey Avenue at 28th Street), Area
26 (27th Avenue between Dakota and Colorado) and Area 10 (the alley between Florida and
Edgewood Avenue north of W. 28th Street). In February of 2005, Barr Engineering completed a
study that provided several improvement options at various costs. In April of 2005, Council
discussed and approved the pursuing of an intermediate improvement pending further
completion of the Barr Twin Lakes Study and availability of funding. This intermediate option
can generally be described as follows:
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 6 - Flood Mitigation Projects Update
Page 3
Intermediate Option
Area 25 - purchase or floodproof 2756 Jersey Ave. &
floodproof 2800 Jersey Ave.
Area 26 - Construct swale in Dakota Park; lower 27th
Street; install pipes under railroad tracks; raise
driveways
Area 10 - Floodproof Edgewood Avenue garages
Property owners in Areas 10 and 25 have recently been sent letters encouraging them to apply
for flood proofing grants which are the planned mitigation measure for these two areas. In
addition, Barr Engineering is in the process of developing a preliminary plan for the storm
drainage improvements for Area 26. Topographic surveys have recently been completed, soil
borings are being performed, and notification of private utilities for locates have been conducted.
Initial contacts are also being made with CP Railroad to begin the approval process for installing
new drainage pipes beneath the railroad tracks and to the east. A preliminary plan is expected to
be completed within the next month along with an estimated cost. Staff is planning an open
house for area residents soon thereafter to solicit their input on this proposed project. From that
input we expect to be able to finalize plans and present them to Council later this year where we
will request project approval and authorization for bidding with construction planned in 2007.
TWIN LAKES STUDY REPORT:
The Twin Lakes Area study by Barr Engineering was originally commissioned to investigate
downstream conditions associated with the flood areas described above (Areas 10, 24, 25, and
26). This was necessary to assure that flood improvements in these areas would not negatively
affect properties downstream, and vice-versa. These downstream areas include but are not
limited to the Novartis Area, properties along 25 ½ Street, and properties even further
downstream near Twin Lakes. The results of the study verified that the proposed improvements
for Areas 10, 24, 25, and 26 can proceed as proposed.
In addition to the above, the hydraulic model provided the following:
1. Identification of flooding problems for one home along the north side of 25 ½ Street and
3 homes along the south side of 25 ½ Street between Alabama and Webster, along with
possible solutions.
2. Establishment of a 100-year flood elevation for the area between 25 ½ Street and the
Novartis property. It is our intent to utilize Barr’s model and study to revise the FEMA
floodplain and FIRMs. Currently, many property owners in this area are required to
obtain flood insurance while their homes are not located within the 100-year elevation, as
determined by the Barr model.
3. Identification of areas / opportunities for flood plain management and water quality
projects to help accommodate possible future redevelopment, long term water quality
goals of the city, and possible state and federal water quality treatment requirements.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 6 - Flood Mitigation Projects Update
Page 4
At this time, FEMA is in the process of updating their flood insurance rate maps for all of
Hennepin County. Barr Engineering is currently working with FEMA’s consultant to provide
them the required information from their model to accurately update maps that cover the City of
St. Louis Park.
We have recently received indications that FEMA intends to re-issue revised maps for review
sometime later this fall (likely October). A public review and comment period as part of the
FEMA process will then proceed. Based upon our understanding of the process, it is likely that
official adoption of revised maps by FEMA could occur about 9-12 months from now unless
FEMA encounters further difficulties. We expect to be receiving soon more information from
FEMA regarding this process and will provide an update accordingly.
SUMMARY:
Staff, with the assistance of Barr Engineering, is moving ahead with the development of flood
mitigation projects in Areas 10, 24, 25, and 26 with the intent of constructing them in 2007.
Over the next 2-3 months, it is expected that plans and estimated costs will be developed for
Council consideration and approval. Further discussion and direction with regard to financing,
including policies with regards to public and private obligations, could be pursued at that time if
necessary. Efforts to provide the necessary information to FEMA for update of the Flood
Insurance Rate Maps is also being pursued.
Attachments: Improvement Location Areas and Floodplain Exhibit (Figure 7) (Supplement) Prepared By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 7 - Historic Preservation Study
Page 1
7. Historically Significant Property in St. Louis Park Community Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
At the request of the Council, Staff has investigated how to address the issue of historically
significant properties in the City. Council will need to provide direction if it wishes staff to
proceed further.
BACKGROUND:
The Council last discussed the issue of historic properties in the City at the March 13, 2006
Study Session and directed Staff to investigate methods for preserving historic and
architecturally significant housing.
RESEARCH:
Staff first investigated what other first-ring suburbs have done in regard to historic preservation.
Finding no local examples, Staff looked to the first-ring suburbs of Chicago, Illinois and the
first-ring suburban neighborhoods of Phoenix, Arizona. In each case the cities’ first step was to
identify important historic properties and districts and then to take legislative action to protect
the properties.
Staff also contacted several historic preservation experts and the Minnesota Historical Society.
Individuals contacted were not familiar with historic preservation efforts taking place within
first-ring suburbs in Minnesota, but offered several suggestions regarding potential contacts. At
the suggestion of Tim Quigley, a principal at the firm Quigley Architects, Staff contacted
Charlene Roise. Ms. Roise is the principle investigator for Hess, Roise and Company, a
historical consulting firm operating out of Minneapolis.
Ms. Roise provided staff with the following typical process for completing a review of a City’s
architectural history (attached), as follows:
1. Research and Context Development – research of local records and documents to create a
broad understanding of how the City developed over time to create what Ms. Hess calls a
‘framework’ for completing the field research.
2. Reconnaissance fieldwork – an inventory of portions or the entire City to identify sites
for more detailed survey work.
3. Detailed fieldwork – an inventory of specific details regarding historic properties that
merit potential preservation.
The proposal by Ms. Roise for the completion of the Research and Context Development phase
of the survey would cost $30,000. Please note that the budget submitted would cover only the
first phase. Additional funds would be required to complete the fieldwork phases of the
historical survey.
Typically, after the completion of a report identifying significant structural features or sites for
preservation, development of a historic preservation ordinance and a historic preservation
commission would occur. If the Council chooses to take no legislative action, the report could
be used to enhance the plan by neighborhood and historic preservation chapter of the
Comprehensive Plan. It could also be used to reevaluate the remodeling and renovation
information and materials offered to homeowners by the City.
If the City Council wishes to pursue historic preservation further at this time, funding for
identifying the structures and/or areas to be preserved must be found. No funding for this
initiative is available in the 2006 budget and has not yet been inserted in the 2007 proposed
budget.
Attachments: Minutes from the March 13, 2006 City Council Study Session
Proposal by Hess, Roise and Company (supplement)
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
March 13, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki, Susan Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman); Director of Finance (Ms. McGann);
Assistant Finance Director (Ms. Bursheim); Accounting Manager (Mr. Swanson); Accountant
(Ms. Monson); Accountant (Mr. Simon); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke);
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
Guest: David Bacille from PFM Asset Management.
* * *
4. Historic/Architecturally Significant Housing and Architectural Design Guidelines—
Council Policy
Councilmember Sanger requested the Council discuss historic housing, architecturally significant
housing and architectural design guidelines. Councilmember Sanger led the discussion. She
would like to develop guidelines for exteriors and have guidelines available for residents.
Councilmember Sanger said the preservation of historic housing can add character to a
neighborhood and help reinforce a sense of community history.
Councilmember Basill would like to explore historic and architecturally significant housing and
architectural design guidelines. Mayor Jacobs said he has trepidations about standards, but
Councilmember Sanger said guidelines. Councilmember Omodt would like to pursue discussion
regarding recommendations for historic and architecturally significant housing; however,
architectural design guidelines would be tough. Councilmember Finkelstein added that perhaps
the city could make guidebooks more available, guidelines are not adequate. Councilmember
Carver is interested in pursuing historic and architecturally significant housing, however, historic
housing would need to be defined. Councilmember Carver said it is worthwhile to preserve
Frank Lloyd Wright homes in St. Louis Park.
The consensus of the Council is to direct staff to pursue historic housing and architecturally
significant housing. Deputy City Manager Nancy Gohman will talk to City Manager Tom
Harmening about Council’s directive.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 8 - Step Lease
Page 1
8. STEP Lease of the 5925 Highway 7 Building Community Development
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
Update the City Council/EDA on the St. Louis Park Emergency Program’s (STEP) timeline for
finding a permanent location.
BACKGROUND:
Since December 2004 STEP has leased on an interim basis the EDA’s building located at 5925
Highway 7. Their current lease with the EDA expires in March of 2007. Finding permanent
space continues to be a challenge. Despite exhaustive efforts, STEP has been unable to find an
existing building they can buy and renovate; or, land they can buy and build on.
Once a building or land suitable for STEP’s needs has been found, moving to a new location will
be a lengthy and complicated undertaking. This is especially true if STEP must renovate an
existing building or construct a new facility.
STEP has prepared, with help from City staff, a timeline to illustrate the actions necessary for
them to relocate under different scenarios (see attached chart). STEP’s preferred scenario is to
buy and renovate an existing building. The lead time for this scenario is approximately 8 months
after a building is found. The lead time to construct a new building is 12 to 13 months and for
leasing space, it is 5 months.
STEP’s current lease ends in March 2007. Unless the lease term is extended, STEP does not have
enough lead time to buy or build a facility. Their only, and least preferred option, is to find space
to rent.
Staff is recommending that the EDA extend STEP’s lease to give them as much time as possible
to find or build a facility which they can own. How long the EDA can continue to lease the 5925
Hwy 7 building to STEP depends on the timing of construction of a new Wooddale & Hwy 7
interchange. Currently it is expected that the earliest a new interchange can be built is 2009-10.
To accommodate that schedule the 5925 Hwy 7 building would need to be demolished in the
summer/fall of 2008. In discussions with Public Works/Engineering, it was concluded that STEP
could continue to occupy the 5925 Hwy 7 building through June 2008 without interfering with
the interchange project.
Staff is recommending that STEP’s lease be extended to June 2008 to facilitate their continued
efforts to find new space. The preparation of a timeline which identifies the key actions and
decision points for relocation is an excellent and useful step forward. The City should continue
to work with STEP to help them find a permanent home. In the near future staff will bring
forward a lease amendment for STEP which reflects their timeline for relocating.
Attachments: STEP Relocation Planning Timeline
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 8 - Step Lease
Page 2
STEP Relocation Committee
Planning Timeline - with extended lease
Soomek City
Building
Buy New
Building
Lease New
Space
Build on
Vacant Land
2007 March Current lease
expires
Continue
looking for a
building to
purchase
Look for land to
purchase
April
May
FIND Identify
land to purchase
June
Make purchase
offer on land
July
Hire builder.
Start drawings
August
Secure
construction
financing
September
Close &
finalize
construction
drawings
October
FIND or
STOP looking
to buy
START looking
to lease
Construction
phase - Follow
rezoneing process
if needed. Get
permits. Follow
through with
building
contractors to
complete all work.
November Make purchase
offer
Keep looking to
lease
December Secure
mortgage
Negotiate new
location lease
2008 January
Close & begin
remodeling
drawings
Sign / finalize
lease & begin
remodeling
drawings
February Start
remodeling
construction. Get
permits. Hire
contractors.
Complete all
work.
Start remodeling
construction. Get
permits. Hire
contractors.
Complete all work.
March
April Notify
community of
new address May
June Extended lease
expires MOVE MOVE MOVE
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 8 - Step Lease
Page 3
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 9 - Meadowbrook Parkland Lease
Page 1
9. Meadowbrook Parkland Lease Community Development/Housing
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the status of the public parkland lease
between the City and the Meadowbrook Manor apartment complex and to ask the Council to
consider renewing the lease, which expires on August 31, 2006, for an additional 10 years.
BACKGROUND:
Ten years ago, the City entered into a public/private partnership to develop a public park and
playground area within the Meadowbrook Manor Apartment complex. Representatives from the
Meadowbrook Collaborative, including the Park Nicollet Foundation, had approached the City
with an identified need for a place for children at Meadowbrook to play that was both safe and
near their home. Over 100 children reside in the Meadowbrook complex.
City staff, representatives from the Collaborative and the property owner met and identified the
park site and determined the following proposed improvements.
• New playground equipment
• A small sun/picnic shelter
• A basketball court
• A drinking fountain
• Additional landscaping
The City entered into a 10-year lease with Meadowbrook Manor to lease a one-acre site within
the complex to use for park purposes. Rent for the term of the lease was $1.00.
The first phase of the project included installing new playground equipment and landscaping
improvements. The improvements were completed in 1997 and funded primarily with private
sector donations. The Meadowbrook Collaborative was awarded a $5,000 Neighborhood
Revitalization Grant to assist in funding the improvements, ensuring the project’s viability. The
site has been utilized for Park and Recreation summer programming and other Collaborative
activities serving the children at Meadowbrook for the past 10 years.
In addition to the park, the construction of a basketball court, funded through the Park
Improvement fund, was completed in another location within the development in 2000. The
final phase, the sun/picnic shelter constructed in 2003, was funded with Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.
Under the lease the City is responsible for inspecting and maintaining the equipment and
facilities. Meadowbrook is responsible for mowing the property, removing litter and debris from
the Park and for providing maintenance services associated with the removal of snow and ice
from the site.
Within the next few years, it is quite likely that the playground equipment will need replacement
and the basketball court resurfacing. Estimated costs for these improvements are approximately
$35,000 for playground equipment replacement and $12,000 for resurfacing the basketball court.
Potential resources to fund the improvements include private donations, foundation grants, park
improvement fund, the City’s Neighborhood Grant program and CDBG funds.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 9 - Meadowbrook Parkland Lease
Page 2
The current lease expires on August 31, 2006 and the Collaborative has requested that the City
consider entering into a lease for an additional 10 years.
Attachments: Draft Parkland Lease
Map of designated parkland and basketball court (supplement)
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 9 - Meadowbrook Parkland Lease
Page 3
LEASE OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PARK
USE AT MEADOWBROOK MANOR
1. This lease, made and entered into this ____ day of ______________, 2006 is between
Helena Bigos, d/b/a Meadowbrook Manor Apartments, 6860 Excelsior Boulevard, St.
Louis Park, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “Meadowbrook”), and the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, a body politic and corporate (hereinafter referred to as “City”).
2. This lease is a renewal and restatement, with modifications of a ten year lease between
the parties which terminates on August 31, 2006.
3. Meadowbrook hereby leases to the City for public park purposes the property outlined in
red on the attached Exhibit “A” and labeled “Public Park and Basketball Court”
(hereinafter referred to as “the Park”), which Exhibit is hereby incorporated as part of this
lease.
4. Meadowbrook grants the City permission to grade and seed the Park, resurface the
basketball court and, at the City’s sole discretion, install new or replace existing park and
playground equipment and similar facilities consistent with park usage.
5. The term of this lease shall be from September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2016, unless
terminated early by either party giving ninety (90) days written notice to the other party.
In the event that Meadowbrook desires to terminate said lease prior to August 31, 2016
the cost for the removal and reinstallation onto public property of all improvements made
to the Park shall be borne solely and exclusively by Meadowbrook.
6. In consideration of the use of the park property for public park purposes, the City agrees
to pay to Meadowbrook as rental for the term of this lease the sum of $10.00 payable in
one installment to be made prior to September 1, 2006.
7. The City will, at its option, either transfer ownership of all equipment, structures and
facilities to Meadowbrook or remove all such items and restore the Park property to its
original condition at the termination of this lease.
8. The City will maintain the property by inspecting and repairing the Park equipment and
facilities during the term of this lease. Meadowbrook agrees to mow the grass and
control weeds at proper intervals, remove litter and debris from the Park, empty trash
receptacles and to provide all maintenance services associated with the removal of snow
and ice from the site.
9. The City will defend, indemnify and hold Meadowbrook harmless for any claims,
demands, liability, and costs and expense arising from injury to and death of any person
or loss or damage to property attributable to any acts or omissions of the City or as the
result of its occupancy of the Park.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 9 - Meadowbrook Parkland Lease
Page 4
10. Meadowbrook will defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless for any claims,
demands, liability, and costs and expense arising from injury to and death of any person
or loss or damage to property attributable to any acts or omissions of Meadowbrook or as
the result of its lease of the Park to the City.
11. This lease supersedes all prior proposals, oral or written, and all negotiations,
conversations or discussions heretofore had between the parties related to the use by the
City of any Meadowbrook property for park purposes.
12. In the event either party fails to perform any of the agreements contained herein, the other
party may, at its option, immediately terminate this lease by written notice.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date as
first above written.
Helena Bigos, d/b/a Meadowbrook
Manor Apartments
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:_________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
By:_________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 1
10. France Avenue Turn-back Public Works
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To provide Council with an update on the Hennepin County proposal to turn back to the City
France Avenue (north of Minnetonka Boulevard). This matter is proposed to be brought to the
City Council on August 21, 2006 for formal approval.
BACKGROUND:
Hennepin County has proposed turning France Avenue (north of Minnetonka Boulevard) back to
the City since the early 1990’s. This section of roadway has not developed into a significant
arterial as they had expected it to. The County does not see that occurring in the future and
believes this road would fit much better under City ownership and management rather than under
theirs. They would like to negotiate this turn-back with us so they can get out of “local street”
ownership.
Their original proposal in the early 90’s was to either overlay the road or pay us $80,000 in lieu
of that. City officials did not feel that offer was realistic and declined. Several times in the
interim, the County made the same offer with the same result. The most recent proposal (2006)
by the County is they will pay us a total of $320,000 (over a 3-year period) to take this road over
plus $20,000 participation in a sidewalk should we install one within three years after we take
over the road. The road was overlaid in 2002, so it is still in relatively good condition.
The last time Council reviewed this (January 2006) staff was directed to work with Hennepin
County staff to prepare the necessary documents to approve / authorize this jurisdictional change
/ turnback. Staff recently received the necessary documents from Hennepin County to move
forward this initiative.
TURNBACK DETAILS:
Turn-backs like this are governed by and approved by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT). The only requirements in this case are for each body (City/County)
to pass the necessary resolutions agreeing to this. No public hearings are required. Upon receipt
of the proper resolutions, Mn/DOT will approve the turn-back. This turn-back will be a
designated Municipal State Aid route, will be eligible for reconstruction with State Aid
construction Funds, and will earn State Aid maintenance funds of approximately $15,000 per
year.
Because the south portion of this street is on the Minneapolis/St. Louis Park City boundary,
Minneapolis will be a joint owner and share in jurisdictional control with St. Louis Park. Joint
ownership is required by Mn/DOT and occurs where the street is on the boundary of each city –
the joint segment would be from Minnetonka Boulevard north to Cedar Lake Avenue.
The transfer is expected to happen over a three year period as follows:
1. City approves the necessary resolutions (2) and the agreement for jurisdictional transfer
2. Hennepin County approves the necessary resolution and the agreement for jurisdictional
transfer
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 2
3. Documents are submitted to the Commissioner of Mn/DOT for approval
4. Mn/DOT Commissioner writes orders revoking CSAH 17 and establishing France Ave as
an MSAS route (about January 2007)
5. Hennepin County pays City $105,000 upon receipt after Commissioner’s order is
received (about March 2007)
6. Hennepin County pays City $105,000 one year later (about March 2008)
7. Hennepin County pays City $110,000 one year later (about March 2009)
8. St. Louis Park and Minneapolis take over operational control of France Ave
Hennepin County retains operational control and maintenance responsibility for France Ave all
at their expense until they make final payment to the City.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has obtained or prepared the necessary documents for this action and intends to request
Council approval of them on August 21 as a consent item. The documents are attached for your
review prior to the Council meeting on the 21st. The City Attorney and the Mn/DOT have been
involved in the review of these documents.
Attachments: Resolution of Concurrence (for revocation and jurisdictional transfer)
Resolution Establishing a MSA Street (designation of the new City route)
Agreement No. PW 27.05.06 (Jurisdictional Transfer Agreement)
Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, P.E., Public Works Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-__________
RESOLUTION OF CONCURRENCE IN THE
JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER AND
REVOCATION OF CSAH 17
WHEREAS a portion of County State Aid Highway No. 17 (CSAH 17) lies within the
corporate limits of St. Louis Park;
WHEREAS the County of Hennepin and the City of St. Louis Park have agreed on the
jurisdictional transfer of CSAH 17 between CSAH 25 (Lake Street) and TH-12/I-394, subject to
the provisions of Agreement No. PW 27-05-06;
WHEREAS the County is requesting the revocation of the County State Aid Highway 17
designation as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of CSAH 17 (France Avenue South) and CSAH 25 (West
Lake Street), thence northerly along the existing alignment of CSAH 17 (France Avenue) a
distance of 0.93 miles to the intersection of France Avenue and the west line of Section 32,
Township 29 North, Range 24 West, the west limits of the City of Minneapolis, thence northerly
on a nonexistent alignment along the west lines Sections 32 and 29, Township 29 North, Range
24 West a distance of 0.57 miles to the intersection with TH-12/I-394, and there terminating,.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that, with the revocation by the County of the above-described County State Aid Highway,
said revocation is in all things approved,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Agreement No. PW 27-05-06 with Hennepin
County setting conditions for the jurisdictional transfer of a portion of CSAH 17 to the City of
St. Louis Park be approved and that the payment as stipulated in said agreement be considered
payment in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 21, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 06-__________
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FRANCE AVE
AS A MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET
WHEREAS, it appears to the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the street
hereinafter described should be designated a Municipal State Aid Street under the provisions of
Minnesota Law.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the road described as follows, to-wit:
France Avenue South, beginning at the intersection of CSAH 25 (West Lake Street),
thence northerly along the existing alignment of France Avenue a distance of
approximately 0.93 miles to the intersection of France Avenue with the west line of
Section 32, Township 29 North, Range 24 West, the west limits of the City of
Minneapolis, and there terminating,
Be, and hereby is established, located, and designated a Municipal State Aid Street of
said City, subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Transportation of the State of
Minnesota.
BE lT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
forward two certified copies of this resolution to the Commissioner of Transportation for his
consideration, and that upon his approval of the designation of said road or portion thereof, that
same be constructed, improved and maintained as a Municipal State Aid Street of the City of St.
Louis Park to be numbered as Municipal State Aid Street as determined by the Minnesota
Department of Transportation.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 21, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 5
Agreement No. PW 27-05-06
County State Aid Highway No. 17
C.P.0625
City of St. Louis Park
County of Hennepin
AGREEMENT FOR JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER
THIS AGREEMENT. Made and entered into this ________ day of August, 2006, by and
between the County of Hennepin, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of St. Louis Park, a body politic
and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "City".
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the County and the City have been negotiating to bring about the transfer of
jurisdiction of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 17 (France Avenue) between CSAH 25 (West
Lake Street) and the north City limits from the County to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressed its intent to accept jurisdiction of CSAH 17 between
the referenced limits as shown in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and by this reference
made apart hereof: and
WHEREAS, CSAH 17 lies within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, dependent upon the condition of the roadway, the County normally overlays
the roadway or provides a cash equivalent for same to a City in conjunction with a jurisdictional
transfer of a County roadway to a City; and
WHEREAS, the City has expressed its intent to construct a sidewalk along CSAH 17
between CSAH 25 and West 22nd Street after the jurisdictional transfer is completed; and
WHEREAS, the smooth and orderly implementation of said roadway transfer is in the
best interests of the public; the City, and the County; and
WHEREAS, it is contemplated that said work be carried out by the parties hereto under
the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 2005, Section 162.17, Subdivision I and Section 471.59.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED:
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 6
Agreement No. PW 27-05-06
CSAH 17; C.P.0625
I
That the County may revoke the designation of CSAH 17 as a County State Aid Highway
between the referenced limits within the City as shown in Exhibit "A", and the City will accept
jurisdiction of that portion within its limits under provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section
162.02 (2004).
The City agrees to accept such conveyance subject to existing encumbrances such as permits
and easements.
II
Upon approval of this Agreement, the County will request that the Commissioner of the
Minnesota Department of Transportation remove CSAH l7 between the referenced limits from
the County State Aid Highway System. The City, by this Agreement, concurs in this change of
designation and jurisdiction.
III
The jurisdictional transfer of the roadway shall occur and become effective and all County
interest related therewith shall cease upon issuance of the Commissioner Order by the
Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation as set forth in Section II. Upon
issuance of said order the County shall remove all County route markers from the subject
segment of CSAH 17 and all directional signage related thereto.
IV
It is understood and agreed by the parties hereto that the County shall pay to the City Three
Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($320,000.00) over a three year period as full
payment of an overlay cash equivalent for that segment of roadway transferred to the City from
the County. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties and upon issuance of the
Commissioner Order by the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Transportation, the
City shall invoice the County for S105,000.00. Thereafter, City shall invoice the County for
$105,000.00 and $110,000.00 respectively on the annual anniversaries of said issuance of the
Commissioner's Order. Payments shall be made to the City by the County for the full amount
due stated on the invoices within forty five (45) days of the invoice date.
It is further understood and agreed that the County shall pay the City Twenty Thousand Dollars
and No Cents ($20,000.00) as its participation in the construction of a sidewalk by the City along
CSAH 17 between CSAH 25 and West 22nd Street. Upon completion of construction of the
sidewalk by the City, the City shall invoice the County for the referenced $20,000.00 and the
County shall pay the City for the full amount due stated on the invoice within forty five (45) days
of the invoice date. It is understood by the parties that the County will not pay the City the
referenced $20,000.00 if the City does not construct a sidewalk along CSAH 17 between CSAH
25 and West 22nd Street within three years of issuance of the Commissioner's Order.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 7
Agreement No. PW 27-05-06
CSAH 17; C.P.0625
V
Although the City shall assume jurisdictional control of the roadway within the referenced limits,
it is understood by the parties that the County will maintain operational control and shall be
responsible in all ways for the maintenance of the CSAH 17 segment between CSAH 25 and
22nd Street West on behalf of the City (including snow and ice control) until final payment of the
$320,000.00 is paid the City by the County as set forth in Section IV. It is further understood that
the transfer of the operational control of the roadway from the County to the City shall occur no
later than October l, 2009.
VI
The County shall provide the City with the following information and records, to the extent that
they are available for the route to be transferred.
1. As-built construction plans and microfilm records.
2. lnventory data.
3. History of most recent betterments.
VII
Each party to this Agreement shall not be responsible or liable to the other or to any other
person whosoever for any claims, damages, demands, judgments, fines, penalties, expenses,
actions, or causes of actions of any kind or character arising out of or by reason of the negligent
performance of any work or part hereof by the other in connection with the roadway
jurisdictional transfer provided for; and each party further agrees to defend at its sole cost and
expense any action or proceeding commenced for the purpose of asserting any claim of
whatsoever character arising in connection with or by virtue of past and future work performed
by it on the transferred roadway.
VIII
In order to coordinate the services of the County with the activities of the City so as to
accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the Hennepin County Engineer or a designated
representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the County and serve as liaison
between the County and the City.
In order to coordinate the services of the City with the activities of the County so as to
accomplish the purposes of this Agreement, the City's Director of Public Works or a designated
representative shall manage this Agreement on behalf of the City and serve as liaison between
the City and the County.
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 8
Agreement No. PW 27-05-06
CSAH 17; C.P.0625
IX
It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein
and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties
relating to the subject matter hereof. All items referred to in this Agreement are incorporated or
attached and are deemed to be part of this Agreement.
Any alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only
be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by
the parties hereto.
X
The provisions of Minnesota Statutes 2005, Section 181.59 and of any applicable local
ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of
Hennepin County shall be considered apart of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.
(this space left intentionally blank)
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 9
Agreement No. PW 27-05-06
CSAH 17; C.P.0625
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, The parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
(Seal) By: _____________________________
Mayor
Date: ___________________________
And: ____________________________
Administrator
Date: ___________________________
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
ATTEST:
By: ___________________________ By: ____________________________
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board Chair of its County Board
Date: _________________________ Date: ___________________________
And: ____________________________
Assistant /Deputy/ County Administrator
Date: ___________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: __________________________ AND: ___________________________
Assistant County Attorney Assistant County Administrator, Public Works
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By: __________________________ By: _____________________________
Assistant County Attorney Director, Transportation Department and County
Engineer
Date: _________________________ Date: ___________________________
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 10 - France Avenue Turnback
Page 10
Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 27-05-06
Exhibit "A"; Sheet I of I
City Council Study Session
Written Report: 081406 - 11 - Sun Sailor Circulation Meeting
Page 1
11. St. Louis Park Sun Sailor Administrative Services
PURPOSE OF REPORT:
To provide Council with an update on the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor’s response to concerns
Council has expressed over newspaper circulation in the city.
BACKGROUND:
On July 12, 2006 St. Louis Park staff met with staff from the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor and Sun
Publications about distribution practices and policies within our community. The meeting was
very informative and productive. During the meeting we talked about a number of topics
including delivery to residents, service to rental units and owner-occupied condos and
townhouses, bulk drops and the availability of the Sun Sailor on the web.
GENERAL INFORMATION ON DELIVERY:
The Sun Sailor is delivered, free of charge, to a majority of residents (65 percent) in the
community. Residents who live outside of a delivery area, or who reside in a building which
does not permit delivery, may subscribe to weekly mail delivery for $84/year or pick it up for
free at City Hall, the library, or the Rec Center. Residents also have the option to stop or resume
free delivery if they wish. The newest method for access to Sun Sailor is to use the Internet at:
http://www.mnsun.com/sl/. The web version has advantages since it has expanded photo
sections.
Rental & Multiple units
Delivery to rental properties and condos is dictated by the management of that property. Bulk
drop is the method typically used at these locations, but if management does not want bulk drops,
the Sun Sailor cannot be left at the facility. The Sun Sailor is willing to work with managers of
properties to try to encourage and enhance delivery. The Sun Sailor is open to attending a
SPARC meeting to talk about getting information out to residents in multiple units.
Sun Sailor via the Internet
The electronic version of Sun Sailor is popular and easily accessible. Since this meeting, the Sun
Sailor has published information on how to subscribe to the paper and access information via the
web. We will also publish this information in the upcoming Park Perspective and on the official
city web site.
Bulk drops to make Sun Sailor available
We requested more copies of the Sun Sailor be dropped at locations where the community
gathers. More copies will be available at City Hall, Rec Center and library. The city will also
get a list of other community gathering places to Sun Sailor for additional bulk drops in the city.
Staff will continue to work with the Sun Sailor on circulation issues and ideas.
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager