HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/03/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 4, 2002
7:30 p.m.
5:30 p.m. – Joint Meeting of City Council and School Board, Community Rm.
7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of February 19, 2002
b. Study Session Minutes of February 11, 2002
c. Study Session Minutes of February 19, 2002
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or
which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to
an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Property owners have requested a public hearing April 1, 2002 to consider the
establishment of a special service district along Excelsior Boulevard between
Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive and a hearing April 15, 2002 to consider the
imposition of a service charge within the district.
2. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance for a Zoning Map amendment to
change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General
2
Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540,
3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line, approve summary and authorize
publication.
3. Motion to hire Lewis & Associates to conduct a franchise fee audit for 2000 and
2001, as recommended by the Telecommunications Commission.
4. Motion to approve the final payment for Barber Construction Company Inc. in the
amount of $1,413.30 for the completion of Contract No. 105-01.
5. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 2002
b. Housing Authority Minutes of January 9, 2002
c. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
5a. Public Hearing – West Suburban Housing Partners Private Activity Revenue
Bond
The Public Hearing is to consider issuing Private Activity Revenue Bonds for the
benefit of West Suburban Housing Partners
Recommended
Action:
Motion to hold Public Hearing, receive comments and approve
preliminary resolution.
5b. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling
Premises Permit for the MN Youth Boxing Club at Al’s Liquors, located at
3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve or deny the
resolution authorizing renewal.
5c. Public Hearing to consider allocation of 2002 Community Development Block
Grant Funds
Resolution approving the proposed use of $269,981 in 2002 Urban Hennepin County
CDBF Funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin
County and any related Third Party Agreements.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the Resolution
approving proposed use of funds for 2002 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds, and authorizing
execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and
any related Third Party Agreements.
3
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions - None
7a. Firefighters Contract for 1/1/02 – 12/31/02
A one-year agreement for Firefighters was reached settling the contract for the City
and Union for 2002.
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and
International Association of Firefighters Local 993, establishing
terms and conditions of employment for one year: 1/1/02 –
12/31/02.
7b. Police Sergeant Contract for 1/1/02 – 12/31/02
A one-year agreement for Sergeants was reached settling the City and Union for
2002.
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and
Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) #218, establishing
terms and conditions of employment for one year: 1/1/02 –
12/31/02.
7c. The request of the City of St. Louis Park for a Conditional Use Permit for the
placement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of topsoil fill on Oak Park
Village Park in the northwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Walker
Street.
Case No. 02-08-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit subject to conditions listed in the resolution.
7d. The request of the City of St. Louis Park for a Conditional Use Permit for the
placement of approximately 10,400 cubic yards of fill on Wolfe Park for soil
corrections and final amphitheater and parkway grading at 3700 Monterey
Drive.
Case No. 02-09-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit subject to conditions listed in the resolution.
4
7e. Request of Edith Mmuma for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Regarding State Licensed Residential Facilities in the R-3 Two-Family
Residential District
Case No. 02-04-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve First Reading of a zoning ordinance text
amendment to allow a State Licensed Residential Facility in each
unit of a Two-Family Dwelling in the R-3 District and set
Second Reading for March 18, 2002.
8. Boards and Committees
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make
arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD
952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
5
ITEM # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 19, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmember Brimeyer was absent.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Fire Chief (Mr.
Stemmer); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations
2a. Fire Department Presentation
Mayor Jacobs summarized the events leading to the acquisition of three defribulators, also
referred to as AEDs, by the St. Louis Park Fire Department. The people and entities
responsible for the donation of the three AEDs are Mrs. Sonny Klein, the Sonny Klein
Memorial Fund, St. Louis Park Firefighters Local 993, Indelco Plastics Corporation, and
Firefighter Windschitl and Firefighter Winiecki.
Mrs. Klein thanked the St. Louis Park firefighters, and stated the Klein family is happy to
help the fire department with the donations of the AEDs.
Mayor Jacobs read the inscription on the plaque of the most recently donated AED. The
plaque reads: “Donated to the St. Louis Park Fire Department from the Sonny Klein
Memorial Fund and the St. Louis Park Firefighter’s Local 993—October 2001.” The two
older AEDs were donated on August 27, 2000 and November of 1999.
On behalf of the St. Louis Park Fire Department and the citizens of St. Louis Park, Fire Chief
Luke Stemmer thanked Mrs. Klein for her generosity.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of February 4, 2002
6
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes of January 28, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If
discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item
may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the
agenda.
The motion passed 6-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to approve the
following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 6-0.
1. Approve plans and specifications for the Wolfe Park Amphitheater and authorize
staff to solicit bids
2. Approve plans and specifications for the Wolfe Park Soils Correction Project and
authorize staff to solicit bids
3. Approve plans and specifications for the Oak Park Village site and authorize staff
to solicit bids
4. Approve remaining liquor licenses renewals for Doubletree Park Place Hotel,
Holiday Inn, Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes, Texa-Tonka Lanes, and Thanhdo
Restaurant for March 1, 2002 through February 28, 2003
5. Approve Resolution No. 02-014 final payment to Ron Kassa Construction, in the
amount of $8,015.10, for completion of the Louisiana Avenue bus bay, revised
signal system and concrete walk (Contract No. 103-01)
6. Accept the following reports for filing:
a. Planning Commission Minutes of January 16, 2002
b. Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of August 10, 2001
c. Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes of October 12, 2001
d. Park and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of December 5, 2001
e. Vendor Claims
7
5. Public Hearings
Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises
Permit for the Animal Humane Society at Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes, located at
3401 Louisiana Ave S. Resolution No. 02-013
Cindy Reichert, City Clerk, said a public hearing is required for the renewal of a gambling
premises permit for the Animal Humane Society at Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes. Notice
was given to property owners within 350 feet of Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes, and no
comments were received from those parties. The application is in order and Staff
recommends approval.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
Resolution No. 02-013 authorizing renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for the Animal
Humane Society at Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes, located at 3401 Louisiana Ave S.
The motion passed 5-1. (Councilmember Nelson opposed).
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions--None
8. Boards and Committees--None
9. Communications
Councilmember Nelson—Councilmember Nelson asked City Manager Charlie Meyer for
an update regarding the City’s budget. Councilmember Nelson referenced the
February/March edition of the Park Perspective that mentioned an additional spending cut of
approximately $580,000 from the City’s budget over and above the cuts made in the property
tax increase as of the levy approval meeting in December 2001.
Mr. Meyer responded he has a standing issue with department heads to find $580,000 in
savings. Mr. Meyer continued, as of Friday, February 15th, a press release from the League
of Cities, of which St. Louis Park is a member, indicated the governor is considering
implementing certain state aid cutbacks if the legislature does not act on a timely basis,
however, an outline received by Mr. Meyer has indicated the House and Senate have reached
an agreement on a 2002-03 temporary budget revision in order to eliminate the nearly
$2,000,000,000 deficit in the State’s budget. At this time, a rough outline suggests no major
cuts in local government aid to cities, other than a $14,000,000 item on local government aid,
which is a special surcharge, and Mr. Meyer believes it will not apply to St. Louis Park.
8
Councilmember Santa—Councilmember Santa reminded everyone about the free Home
Remodeling Fair this Sunday, February 24th at the Eisenhower Community Center, 1001
Highway 7, Hopkins.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
9
ITEM # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of February 11, 2002
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan
Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer (Mr. Moore),
Director of Finance (Ms. McGann), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening),
Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Housing
Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), and City Clerk (Ms.
Reichert).
1. Elmwood Study Consultant
Ms. Erickson stated that Hennepin County and city staff have proposed to proceed with SRF
Consulting Group for the Elmwood study and would like to introduce the team to the City
Council. She introduced Monique MacKensie, the project manager, and Barry Warner. A
representative of Hennepin County was also in attendance at the meeting.
Mr. Warner described the study area for Elmwood study as well as the team they have put
together. He mentioned the talents each person has and how those will be applied to the study.
Ms. MacKensie spoke briefly on how SRF plans to move through the process, the anticipated
timeframe of the study, and how they plan to arrange stakeholder participation.
Councilmember Latz suggested including the Sorenson neighborhood in the citizen task force.
Mr. Harmening stated that it is important to consider that the purpose of the study is to develop
long-term strategies and to build flexibility into the plan as future development and re-
development occurs.
Councilmember Brimeyer inquired about Hennepin County’s expectations are in regards of the
study. The representative from Hennepin County replied that they were hoping to integrate
transit into the development plans in the area and to build a model for the future.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that Hennepin County may not want to fund the public/stakeholder process
and the city may have to fund that portion of the study.
Mr. Harmening stated that Hennepin County has agreed to fund $100,000 of the study. He
added that the City may have to supplement any optional tasks that are suggested by SRF, such
as a detailed traffic study and the Highway100/36th St interchange.
10
2. Ensuring Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Development Guidelines (Beltline)
Ms. Jeremiah updated Council on the request from Beltline Industrial Park. She stated that staff
felt it is important to consider a change in policy in the context of the larger community and not
solely based on the Beltline site in question.
Mr. Scott would prefer to see a CUP process for the restricted uses as well as conformation with
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Harmening suggested that the policy should apply broadly to the city as a whole.
Mr. Harmening would like to proceed with action that would allow the application for Beltline
Industrial Park to move forward. Council agreed that they did not want to hold up the Beltline
application. Staff agreed to move forward with changes to the ordinance at a future date.
3. Detached Garages
Greg Ingraham, Planning Consultant, was present at the meeting. He reported his findings to the
City Council and felt that the biggest concerns are two-story garages and garages with windows
near and overlooking neighboring properties. He recommended simplifying garage height
measurements and to look at other building components such as living space, mass, and
windows.
Councilmember Latz felt that it is important to allow residents to get the most use out of their
space as possible and garage space can provide that opportunity.
Council discussed whether windows should be allowed in garages. The Council agreed that
plumbing should not be allowed in garages. Council decided to simplify the height requirements
and to allow a sliding scale of allowed height based on principal structure setbacks.
4. West Suburban Housing Partners Private Activity Revenue Bonds
Council raised several questions about the bonds rating of “A-”. Ms. McGann informed Council
that Mr. Bubul, Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, felt that the rating was acceptable but were
looking for a “Aa1” rating. She added that Mr. Bubul discouraged staff from accepting anything
less than the “A-” rating.
Todd Urness, West Suburban Housing Partners, requested more time to seek other financing
with a better bond rating. The Council agreed to the delay.
Council discussed the affordable units that are to be in the development and how they are going
to distributed. Mr. Urness stated that they had reduced the number of affordable housing units to
gain the Council’s approval.
Councilmember Latz expressed his concern about the reduction in the number of units of
affordable housing. Councilmember Nelson stated that he was comfortable with the number as
presented. Councilmember Latz voiced his strong opinion for the need of affordable housing in
the metropolitan area and how these units are not being built fast enough. Councilmember Santa
11
agreed with Councilmember Latz about the need for affordable housing but was concerned about
concentrating the housing in one area.
Mayor Jacobs felt that the higher number of affordable housing units was better.
Mr. Meyer inquired whether financing for the development would be easier to find if there was a
higher number of affordable units. Mr. Urness stated that financing would be easier if that was
the case.
Councilmember Latz would like to see if they can increase the number of two and three bedroom
units.
Mr. Meyer reminded the Council that six affirmative votes are needed for the bonds to be issued.
5. Community Development Block Grant Funds for 2002
Ms. Schnitker outlined the allocation proposal for the 2002 Community Development Block
Grant funds, stating that the allocations would be disbursed towards home renewal, blight
removal, the emergency repair program, Wayside House improvements, and to build a park
shelter at the Meadowbrook apartment complex. Ms. Schnitker added that a reallocation from
2001 is proposed to assist Vail Place in the construction of seven unit building for low income,
mentally disabled adults.
Council approved the proposal and encouraged staff to move forward to obtain the funding from
Hennepin County.
6. Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape from Quentin Ave. to Monterey Ave. – Proj. 99-05
A representative from SRF Consulting Group was in attendance at the meeting and gave a
presentation on the streetscape plans and project schedule.
Council inquired about the use of pavers to delineate the crosswalks and the style of lights at
these points. The representative from SRF stated that Hennepin County would not allow pavers
to be used on Excelsior Blvd as delineation for crosswalks.
Council considered the possibility of accidents at Excelsior and Grand Avenues and considered
installing an additional right turn lane from Excelsior Boulevard to Grand Ave. They were
concerned that the pedestrian crosswalk would stop traffic causing cars behind to swerve into
traffic. Mr. Meyer stated that the design intended to slow traffic in that area and that the traffic
engineers had specifically designed the plan to slow traffic and allow for safe pedestrian
crossing. Ms. Hagen stated that Hennepin County did not raise any issues about the right turn
lane.
Councilmember Nelson felt that if there is a warrant for right turn lane then they should build it,
but felt that traffic engineering should be left to the engineers.
Mr. Harmening reported that the proposed Special Service District #3 was well received by the
affected property owners.
12
7. Joint Powers Agreement for Taxi Licensing
Mayor Jacobs thanked Mr. Hoffman for his good work on this item.
Mr. Hoffman explained the Joint Powers Agreement that would govern over taxi licensing in the
cities who participated. The agreement would create a board with rulemaking powers and the
power to issue taxi vehicle and taxi driver licenses to allow operation in the member cities and
the airport. Council agreed that it was a good idea.
Councilmember Latz would like to see the police enforce the policy that only taxis licensed from
the board would be allowed to operate within city limits.
8. Communications
Mayor Jacobs asked Council if they supported the idea of a task force to consider smoker’s rights
in the community. He would like to have the issue resolved by the business community rather
than have local government force any regulations.
Councilmember Nelson felt there was not a need for this but would stand by if it proceeded.
Council agreed that they should present an open dialog but should set a time limit to the task
force. Council wanted to make sure that a desired outcome was not dictated to the task force.
9. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
13
ITEM # 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of February 19, 2002
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Santa, Sue Sanger,
Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer (Ms. Hagen),
and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management District Rules
Maria Hagen and Tom Scott presented an issue where the Minnehaha creek Watershed District is
proposing to implement rules which would impose a permit process and restrict development in
the district. Mr. Scott gave an overview of the structure of the Watershed District and how their
regulations affect St. Louis Park. Mr. Scott explained the rule making process used by the
MCWD and stated that he did not believe they had the authority to make rules governing
development in individual communities.
Council asked for clarification on when the proposed permits would be required and under what
conditions. Mr. Meyer stated that the impact of the proposed rules on residential properties was
not great, but that the impact on commercial developments was very significant. Ms. Hagen
used the example of trails around the Mpls chain of lakes and how these proposed rules would
eliminate future maintenance on the trails.
Council directed staff to contact the MCWD to express St. Louis Park’s opposition to the
proposed rules.
2. Redistricting
Cindy Reichert presented an overview of the redistricting process to the council and asked for
their input regarding redrawing ward lines and establishing polling precincts. Council proposed
that neighborhood boundaries be followed wherever possible and that the ward lines should
remain essentially the same with minor adjustments to achieve balance in population between
wards. Council also agreed with the direction proposed by staff where the number of polling
places would be reduced if possible to control election costs and facilitate placement of judges.
Staff agreed to prepare a memo summarizing council’s priorities for redistricting.
3. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
14
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5a
Meeting of March 4, 2002
5a. Public Hearing – West Suburban Housing Partners Private Activity Revenue
Bond
The Public Hearing is to consider issuing Private Activity Revenue Bonds for the
benefit of West Suburban Housing Partners
Recommended
Action:
Motion to hold Public Hearing, receive comments and approve
preliminary resolution.
Background: West Suburban Housing Partners is requesting the City to issue up to $9,165,000
in Private Activity Revenue Bonds. The proceeds of this issue will be used to construct an 88
unit multi-family housing project located at 36th Street and west of Rainbow Foods. The bond
issue will be issued in two series. The first series would be a non-taxable issue in the amount of
$6,965,000 and the second series would be a taxable issue in the amount of $2,200,000.
The application material and financial statements were provided to the City Council on
November 26, 2001 study session. The preliminary resolution granting approval for this bond
issue was approved in December of 2001. An application to the State of Minnesota for an
allocation authorizing the issuance of tax-exempt obligations was granted in an amount not to
exceed $6,965,000. Additional discussions on this issue were held on the February 4th and
February 25th Study Sessions.
At this time, Council is requested to approve another preliminary resolution for this bond issue.
The reason for approving another preliminary resolution for this bond issue is that West
Suburban Housing Partners has not completed all of the appropriate items that are needed to
proceed. The final resolution will be presented towards the end of April, which complies with
the 120-day requirement dictated by the State of Minnesota on allocations.
If West Suburban Housing Partners has not secured the appropriate bond rating of the Banking
institution, as indicated in the application materials, the bonds will be issued and placed in
escrow. This is called “parking” the bonds. The bonds will remain in escrow until all
requirements are met. Once the requirements are met, the old bonds will be paid off with the
bond proceeds of a new bond issue.
Recommendation: Motion to approve preliminary resolution to issue Private Activity Revenue
bonds for West Suburban Housing Partners in the amount not to exceed $9,165,000.
Attachments: Resolution granting preliminary authorization to issue bond
Prepared By: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
15
RESOLUTION NO. ____________
RESOLUTION RELATING TO A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO BE
ACQUIRED, OWNED AND OPERATED BY WEST SUBURBAN HOUSING PARTNERS
VII LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A MINNESOTA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND THE
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS TO FINANCE THE COSTS THEREOF UNDER
MINNESOTA STATUTES, CHAPTER 462C, AS AMENDED; GRANTING PRELIMINARY
APPROVAL THERETO, ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN
REIMBURSEMENT REGULATIONS UNDER THE
INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986, AS AMENDED
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), is a home rule charter city duly
organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota.
1.02. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Act”), the City is
authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Act by providing for the issuance of
revenue bonds to provide funds to finance multifamily housing developments located within the
City. As a condition to the issuance of such revenue bonds, the City must adopt a housing
program providing the information required by Section 462C.03, subdivision 1a, of the Act (the
“Housing Program”). Under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended
(the “Code”), prior to the issuance of the Bonds a public hearing duly noticed must be held by
the City Council. Under Section 462C.04, subdivision 2, of the Act, a public hearing must be
held on each housing program after one publication of notice in a newspaper circulating
generally in the City, at least fifteen days before the hearing.
1.03. A public hearing was held on the Housing Program on March 4, 2002 after
publication of notice on February 13, 2002 in the Sun-Sailor, a newspaper circulating generally
in the City with respect to: (i) the required public hearing under Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”); (ii) the Housing Program; and (iii) the
preliminary approval of the issuance of the Bonds. The City submitted the Housing Program to
the Metropolitan Council for review and comment.
1.04. West Suburban Housing Partners VII Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited
partnership (the “Company”) has proposed that the City, pursuant to the Act, issue its revenue
bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,165,000, in one or more
series at one time or from time to time (the “Bonds”), the proceeds of which will be loaned by
the City to the Company to be applied by the Company to the acquisition and construction of an
eighty-eight (88) unit multifamily housing development known as “At the Park” (the “Project”)
located near the intersection of 36th Street and Phillips Parkway in the City. The Company will
16
apply the proceeds of the loan to the acquisition costs of the Project, the costs of the construction
of the Project, and the payment of certain costs related to the issuance of the Bonds.
1.05. Under Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the
bonding authority of the State of Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be made
pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended (the “Allocation
Act”).
Section 2. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Company to the
City to date, the City Council of the City hereby makes the following preliminary findings,
determinations, and declarations:
(a) The Project consists of a multifamily housing development designed and intended
to be used for rental occupancy.
(b) The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Company and the proceeds of the
loan will be applied to the acquisition of the Project, the construction of the Project, and the
payment of costs related to the issuance of the Bonds. The City will enter into a Loan
Agreement with the Company requiring loan repayments from the Company in amounts
sufficient to repay the loan when due and requiring the Company to pay all costs of maintaining
and insuring the Project, including taxes thereon.
(c) In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and the financing of the
acquisition and construction of the Project and the related costs, the City’s purpose is and the
effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare of the City and its residents by retaining and
improving multifamily housing developments and otherwise furthering the purposes and policies
of the Act.
(d) The issuance of the Bonds to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project is
in the public interest.
(e) The Bonds will be limited obligations of the City payable solely from the
revenues pledged to the payment thereof, and will not be a general obligation of or be secured by
the taxing power of the City.
Section 3. Allocation of Bonding Authority. An application for allocation of the bonding
authority of the State of Minnesota has been made pursuant to the requirements of the Allocation
Act and the Minnesota Department of Finance has granted an allocation pursuant to the
Allocation Act authorizing the issuance of tax-exempt obligations in a principal amount not to
exceed $6,965,000.
Section 4. Housing Program. The Housing Program has been prepared and submitted to
the Metropolitan Council for its review substantially in accordance with the requirements of the
Act. The Metropolitan Council has acknowledged receipt of the Housing Program and submitted
written comments to the City with respect to the Housing Program.
17
Section 5. Preliminary Approval. This Council hereby gives preliminary approval to the
issuance of the Bonds in the approximate aggregate principal amount not to exceed $9,165,000
to finance all or a portion of the costs of the Project pursuant to the Housing Program of the City,
subject to final approval following the preparation of bond documents, and subject to final
determination by this Council that zoning requirements have been met, site plan issues have been
resolved and the financing of the Project and the issuance of the Bonds are in the best interest of
the City.
Section 6. Costs. The Company will pay any administrative fees of the City and pay, or,
upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are issued.
Section 7. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not constitute
a guarantee or a firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the
Company. If, based on comments received at a public hearing to be held pursuant to this
resolution, or other information made available to or obtained by the City during its review of the
Project, it appears that the Project or the issuance of Bonds to finance or refinance the costs
thereof is not in the public interest or is inconsistent with the purposes of the Act, the City
reserves the right not to give final approval to the issuance of the Bonds. The City also retains
the right, in its sole discretion, to withdraw from participation and accordingly not issue the
Bonds should the City Council, at any time prior to the issuance thereof, determine that it is in
the best interests of the City not to issue the Bonds or should the parties to the transaction be
unable to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents for the
transaction.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
18
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5b
Meeting of March 4, 2002
5b. Public Hearing to Consider Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling
Premises Permit for the MN Youth Boxing Club at Al’s Liquors, located at
3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve or deny the
resolution authorizing renewal.
Background:
The MN Youth Boxing Club has submitted an application for a Gambling Premises Permit at
Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd. The organization holds a Class B license and
conducts lawful gambling at this site only. The Association supports a boxing gym in St. Paul
MN and also supports several other boxing gyms throughout the State of Minnesota. The MN
Youth Boxing Association makes annual donations to the Parktacular Celebration and has
indicated that they intend to continue making contributions to Parktacular. In 2001 the
contribution made to Parktacular totaled $10,000. The application is for a two-year premises
permit to run from April 1, 2002 through March 31, 2003.
The Police Department has conducted an investigation of the officers and employees of the
association and has determined no cause to deny the license based on the ciminal investigation.
The City Council must act by resolution to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to
the State Gambling Control Board.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
19
RESOLUTION NO. 00-___
A RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT
FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING
MN Youth Boxing Club
at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 15 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and
WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site
unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the
organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit;
therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant
listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is
hereby approved
MN Youth Boxing Club
at Al’s Liquors, located at 3912 Excelsior Blvd.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
__________________________________
City Clerk
20
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 5c
Meeting of March 4, 2002
5c. Public Hearing to consider allocation of 2002 Community Development Block
Grant Funds
Resolution approving the proposed use of $269,981 in 2002 Urban Hennepin County
CDBF Funds, and authorizing execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin
County and any related Third Party Agreements.
Recommended
Action:
Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to adopt the Resolution
approving proposed use of funds for 2002 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant funds, and authorizing
execution of Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and
any related Third Party Agreements.
Background:
The City annually receives about $270,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds via Hennepin County. Federal statutes and regulations determine what activities
are eligible under the CDBG program. The national objectives of the program are:
• Benefit low and moderate income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median area
income, or $54,400 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median area
income, or about $38,350 for a family of four).
• Prevention or elimination of slum or blight.
• Meet a particular urgent community development need.
In recent funding years, the Council has expressed a continued interest in targeting CDBG funds
with an emphasis on capital improvement projects to address specific programs of interest. At
the February 11, 2002 City Council study session, the Council discussed the proposed allocations
for the 2002 grant year, and reviewed current CDBG activity. The Council re-affirmed the
commitment to focus the limited CDBG funds on single family and multifamily housing
rehabilitation efforts.
2002 CDBG Allocation of Funding:
The City will receive $269,981 in 2002 CDBG funds. As was discussed during the City Council
study session on February 11, the proposed funding allocations would continue the Council’s
focused approach for expending CDBG funds and meet the program’s national objectives. The
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park discussed the proposed allocation at its February 20, 2002
Board meeting.
21
Based on the February 11, 2002 study session discussion, the Council is asked to approve the
following use of 2002 Community Development Block Grant funds. Additional detailed
information regarding the proposed allocation is provided in the attached staff memo from the
February 11, 2002, study session.
Activity Budget
Scattered Site Acquisition – Home Removal $ 74,981
Scattered Site Acquisition – Blight Removal $ 75,000
Single Family - Emergency Repair Program $ 60,000
Multifamily Rehab: Wayside House $ 40,000
Meadowbrook Collaborative Park Shelter $ 20,000
Total $269,981
Next Steps:
After the public hearing on March 4, 2002, and authorization of the proposed CDBG funding by
the Council, staff will submit the Request for Funding to Hennepin County.
Attachments: February 11, 2002 Study Session Memo regarding CDBG Funds for 2002
Resolution
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
22
COPY OF REPORT
STUDY SESSION
Meeting of February 11, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
THROUGH: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
FROM: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, Michele Schnitker, Housing
Supervisor, Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for 2002
(July 1, 2002- December 31, 2003).
PURPOSE:
Staff would like to discuss with the City Council and receive direction on CDBG funding
priorities for the upcoming grant year. The City’s current initiative to identify and address single
family properties needing improvement provides a comprehensive housing programs framework
in which CDBG funds can be used to complement and enhance the City’s initiative.
BACKGROUND:
The City will receive $269,981 in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds
in 2002 through Hennepin County. The national objectives of the program are:
• Benefit low and moderate income persons (moderate is defined as up to 80% of median
income or $54,400 for a family of four, and low is defined as up to 50% of median income or
$38,450 for a family of four).
• Prevention or elimination of slum or blight.
• Meet a particular urgent community development need.
Over the past several years, the City Council has focused CDBG funds to support capital hard
cost activities (sticks and bricks) with a small portion for multifamily related support services.
The emphasis has been to address improvements to the housing stock for low-income families,
both single family owners and multifamily tenants. A review of current CDBG activity is
provided as an attachment to this report.
PROPOSED 2002 CDBG ALLOCATION
The proposed activities for the allocation of CDBG funds reflect the priorities described in
Vision St. Louis Park and the Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business.
The following proposed allocations would continue the emphasis on capital improvements
benefiting low-income residents as well as enhance the City’s current initiative to address single
family properties as identified in the housing condition survey.
23
Table: Proposed 2002 Allocation
CDBG Activity Proposed Allocation
Home Renewal $74,981
Blight Removal $75,000
Emergency Repair Program $60,000
Wayside Improvements $40,000
Meadowbrook Collaborative Park
Shelter
$20,000
Total $269,981
Home Renewal: $74,981.
The Home Renewal Program is an existing project and is consistent with the City’s focus on
“sticks and bricks”. Although this tool is limited due to high housing market values and few
blighted properties, staff believes this remains a viable tool. The activity generated by our new
housing inspection/rehab initiative may lead to additional projects. The allocation of $74,981
would increase this fund to $126,981. This program is administered by City staff.
Blight Removal: $75,000.
This project would provide a tool to remove vacant, blighted properties that cannot be addressed
through the Home Renewal program. For example, the recently completed housing survey
identified 2 blighted vacant single family homes that currently cannot be redeveloped as move-
up housing. One of the properties is on a non-conforming lot that would require variances, and
the other lot, which is 40’ x 51’ is zoned C2. Removal of the homes on these properties may
result in a net loss of housing units, but the units are currently vacant and blighted. This
initiative would likely be administered by City staff.
Emergency Repair Program: $60,000.
This program is consistent with the Council’s focus on stick and bricks and has proven its
responsiveness to low income seniors and vulnerable residents. The individual grant amount has
been held at $3,000 since inception and staff suggests increasing the individual homeowner grant
amount from $3,000 to $4,000. The allocation of $60,000 is a significant increase that reflects
the need for this program. Again with the activity generated by the City’s new housing initiative,
this program will likely see additional activity to warrant this level of funding. This program is
currently administered for the City by CASH.
Wayside House Improvement: $40,000
Wayside House has requested CDBG funds for renovations to the apartment buildings at 1341
and 1349 Jersey Ave. Wayside provides supportive housing to recovering chemically dependent
low-income women, or women and their children. In 2001, the Family Housing Fund conducted
a structural and programmatic analysis of all supportive housing programs in Hennepin County.
The analysis for Wayside recommended improvements to address drainage and ponding
problems, upgrade landscaping, fencing, and site lighting. In addition recommendations were
made to improve the 1341 building exterior; to repair wide stucco cracks, and clean and reseal
joints between stucco and windows. A coating would then be applied over the entire stucco
surface. The total project cost is estimated to be $86,000.
24
Wayside staff has indicated that the grading improvement is the most critically needed
improvement. The grading and exterior improvements are consistent with the Councils’ focus on
capital improvements and this activity is consistent with CDBG funded rental renovations at the
Perspective and PPL properties of Louisiana Court. Wayside will be seeking funding for the
additional improvements not covered by this allocation.
Meadowboork Collaborative Park Shelter: $20,000
The City maintains a park on private land at the Meadowbrook Apartment complex. The City
and Meadowbrook owner entered into a 10-year land lease agreement four years ago. This
project proposes that CDBG funds be allocated for a park shelter to provide shade during the
City sponsored summer program and to provide a rain shelter.
This is considered an improvement to a public facility and is eligible for CDBG funds since 51%
or the area residents are low and moderate income. CDBG guidelines would require that a land
lease agreement be in place between the City and the owner. Construction of a shelter would
provide an incentive for the owner to extend the land lease agreement.
Although the Park and Rec. Dept. has not prioritized this shelter on its 5-year CIP, they do
support its construction. Park and Rec. would manage the project and ensure that the shelter is
consistent with others throughout the city.
Vail Place: $25,000 (Reallocation from 2001 MF Revitalization Pilot)
Vail Place is proposing a 7-unit apartment building for mentally disabled adults at 3647 Sumter
Ave S. Their developer, PPL, has requested $25,000 to assist with the construction of the new
building. This project is CDBG eligible, as the tenants will be low income, mentally disabled
adults. The total project cost is $1,037,626. Other potential funding sources not yet secured
include: MHFA, Hennepin County HOME and Affordable Housing Incentive Fund, Federal
Home Loan Bank, and First Mortgage. Funds have been secured from Vail Place itself, and the
Thorpe Foundation.
CDBG funds allocated for the MF Revitalization Pilot (see attachment, Status of Current CDBG
Activity) could be shifted to this project. An allocation could be made that is contingent upon
the developer securing other funding sources and receiving all required City approvals.
The City Council is not required to act upon this proposed reallocation at the upcoming Public
Hearing for the Grant Year 2002 allocation. The project has been reviewed by BOZA and does
meet zoning requirements, but the building permit application has not yet been made.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff requests Council direction on the ideas presented above. The following is a schedule of
action required by the City to receive 2002 CDBG funds:
February 20, 2002 Notice of public hearing is published
March 4, 2002 Public hearing; passage of Resolution outlining proposed activities
March 8, 2002 Submission of application to Hennepin County
Attachment: Status Report of Current CDBG Activity
25
RESOLUTION NO. 02-017
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS FOR 2002
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS
WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, through execution of a Joint Cooperation
Agreement with Hennepin County, is cooperating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park developed a proposal for the use of Urban
Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis park held a public hearing on March 4, 2002 to obtain
the views of citizens on local and urban Hennepin County housing and community development
needs and priorities for the City’s proposed use of $269,981 from the 2002 Urban Hennepin
County Community Development Block Grant.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of St. Louis Park approves the following
projects for funding from the 2002 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program and authorizes submittal of the proposal to Hennepin County.
Activity Budget
Scattered Site Acquisition – Home Removal $ 74,981
Scattered Site Acquisition – Blight Removal $ 75,000
Single Family -Emergency Repair Program $ 60,000
Multifamily Rehab: Wayside House $ 40,000
Meadowbrook Collaborative Park Shelter $ 20,000
Total $269,981
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes and directs the
Mayor and its City Manager to execute a Subrecipient Agreement and any required Third Party
Agreements on behalf of the City to implement the 2002 CDBG program.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
26
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of March 4, 2002
7a. Firefighters Contract for 1/1/02 – 12/31/02
A one-year agreement for Firefighters was reached settling the contract for the City
and Union for 2002.
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and
International Association of Firefighters Local 993, establishing
terms and conditions of employment for one year: 1/1/02 –
12/31/02.
Background:
The City and the Firefighters have agreement on a contract for 2002 and request Council
approval. The previous contract, which expired 12/31/01, had been in effect for 2 years.
Negotiations ended up centering on wages and insurance.
When negotiations began several months ago, both Union and Management were discussing a
variety of contract changes. Discussions were open, positive and very constructive. With the
issue of budget concerns at hand, we were only able to negotiate a one-year agreement at this
time. Many concepts discussed at the table needed more time to develop language to
accommodate some changes. We decided to recommend a basic one-year contract since we will
be at the table again at the end of the year. Our new Fire Chief Luke Stemmer is interested in
continuing discussions with fire staff
The union agreed with a 3.5% wage increase, which will also be applied to longevity. The
insurance contribution will increase to $510/mo., consistent with other non-supervisory
employees for 2002. Wage and Insurance changes are retroactive to January 1, 2002.
Listed below are the changes to the proposed contract. The proposed contract is on file with the
City Clerk. More detail is available upon request.
Summary of Contract Changes
1. Duration: 1 year - 1/1/02 through 12/31/02.
2. 13.6 delete language: “Vacation days requested shall have precedence over requested
holidays and “. 13.6 language will then read as follows: Holidays may be requested to be
used in conjunction with requested vacation days.
Comment: Language not used.
27
4. Article 16 Clothing Allowance: remove dates in contract language.
5. Insurance: Increase contribution to $510/mo retroactive to January 1, 2002 consistent
with other non-exempt (non-supervisory) employees.
6. Article 27 Longevity: Increase rates 3.5% retroactive to January 1, 2002.
7. Article 28 Wages: Increase wages for Firefighter and Lieutenant 3.5% retroactive to
January 1, 2002.
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution
approving a Labor Agreement between the City and International Association of Firefighters
Local; 993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/02 –
1/31/02.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
28
RESOLUTION NO. 02-018
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL 993
JANUARY 1, 2002–DECEMBER 31, 2002
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement, City Contract #
between the City of St. Louis Park and International Association of Firefighters Local 993
effective January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
29
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of March 4, 2002
7b. Police Sergeant Contract for 1/1/02 – 12/31/02
A one-year agreement for Sergeants was reached settling the City and Union for
2002.
Recommended
Action:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution approving a Labor Agreement between the City and
Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) #218, establishing
terms and conditions of employment for one year: 1/1/02 –
12/31/02.
Background:
We recently completed negotiations on a new contract with our Police Sergeants. By unanimous
vote, the Sergeants approved the 2002 proposal. The previous contract, which expired 12/31/01
had been in effect for 3 years. Negotiations centered on wages, insurance, changing to the flex
leave program and performance pay.
The union agreed with a 3.5% wage increase and $610/mo. as the employer contribution to the
insurance programs, consistent with other supervisory employees for 2002. Wage and Insurance
changes are retroactive to January 1, 2002.
Discussion at the negotiation table centered on the flex leave program. The Sergeants were
interested in moving from the sick and vacation program to the flex leave program (combined
leave program in place for nonunion employees). By bringing in the flex leave program; many
other changes were needed in the contract. Flex leave effected the following contract language:
holidays, severance, funeral leave along with adding a Short-Term Disability program. Since
flex leave goes hand in hand with flexible scheduling, the section relating to availability pay and
overtime was eliminated.
Another change to the contract was to bring in a performance pay program. This program does
not take away from the base wage, instead it provides for an additional 2.5% performance pay
lump sum after 1 year and above average performance as determined by the Chief of Police. We
are excited to bring a performance pay component into a supervisory group.
Listed below is a summary of changes to the proposed contract. Since the changes to the
contract are numerous, a summary of the changes is provided below. The proposed contract,
which includes all detailed language changes, is on file with the City Clerk for your review.
Summary of Contract Changes
1. Duration: 1 year - 1/1/02 through 12/31/02.
30
2. 3.8 – Definitions, 7.7 Choice of Remedy: Remove references to Civil Service.
Comment: We no longer have Civil Service in the Police Department.
4. Seniority 9.3: Delete section concerning vacation selection based on seniority.
5. Insurance: Increase contribution to $610/mo retroactive to January 1, 2002 consistent
with other exempt (supervisory) employees.
6. 13.2 Uniforms: Change issuance of uniform allowance from Investigative Sergeant to
Support Services Sergeant.
Comment: we no longer have the position of Investigative Sergeant.
7. Effective 5/4/02 add Flex Leave Program: The Sergeants will transfer from the
vacation/sick program to the flex leave program in May. The flex program for the
Sergeants is consistent with the flex program provided to our exempt (supervisory) non-
union employees in our personnel manual. Short Term Disability will be provided along
with the implementation of the flex leave program.
With the change to flex leave, vacation and sick leave programs will be eliminated.
Holiday hours change from 112 hours to 80 hours. Severance changes with a different
payout and accrual schedule since flex leave is a combined leave program.
8. Funeral leave eliminated: Funeral leave will be eliminated on 5/4/02 and the city will
issue a one time 3 day (24 hours) funeral leave credit to be granted on account of a death
in the immediate family of the employee. Once the funeral leave bank is used, it will not
be replaced. If not used, it will not be converted to pay or any other type of leave.
9. Delete 25.2 Community policing supplement pay of $200. Replace with performance
pay program, see below.
10. Delete Article 26 Availability pay: This section requiring a 2080 work year and
overtime will be eliminated when we bring in the flex leave program. Our sergeants are
exempt (supervisory employees) who work a flexible schedule without overtime.
11. Add performance pay: New to the contract is a section on performance pay as follows:
The City of St. Louis Park encourages its EMPLOYEES to excel in the performance of
their job duties and to enhance the City’s quality of service. Performance pay program
eligibility begins 1/1/02. To recognize excellence and above average performance and
service, the position of Sergeant may be eligible to receive performance pay as follows:
After 12 months: After completion of 1 year (12 months) of participation in the
performance pay program and employment in the position of Sergeant, the EMPLOYEE
may be eligible for a 2.5% performance pay lump sum amount based on the contractual
base wage for that position. In order to be eligible for this pay, the EMPLOYEE must
successfully complete both 1 continuous year (12 months) in the Sergeant position and
31
receive an above average performance evaluation for work performed over the past 12
months. The criteria used for the evaluation and final approval of evaluation is
determined by the Chief of Police. The performance pay is grievable but not arbitrable.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving a Labor
Agreement between the City and Law Enforcement Labor Services #218, Police Sergeants,
establishing terms and conditions of employment for the duration of 1/1/02 – 1/31/02.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
32
RESOLUTION NO. 02-019
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC. LOCAL #218
POLICE SERGEANTS
JANUARY 1, 2002–DECEMBER 31, 2002
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its
Charter; now therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the Mayor and
City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining Agreement, City Contract #
between the City of St. Louis Park and Law Enforcement Labor Services Inc. (LELS) Local
#218 Police Sergeants effective January 1, 2002 – December 31, 2002.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
33
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of March 4, 2002
7c. The request of the City of St. Louis Park for a Conditional Use Permit for the
placement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of topsoil fill on Oak Park
Village Park in the northwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Walker
Street.
Case No. 02-08-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit subject to conditions listed in the resolution.
Background:
In September, 2001, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a CUP for the City to
hire contractors to move approximately 40,000 cubic yards of fill from Park Commons to Oak
Park Village Park. The fill was stockpiled on the northern section of the park and will be spread
throughout the park this Spring. However, the existing fill does not include topsoil for final
grading and to provide a suitable base for field turf.
The City of St. Louis Park is currently requesting a CUP to allow approximately 20,000 cubic
yards of engineered topsoil to be added to the park. The engineered topsoil consists of
approximately 80% sand to ensure adequate drainage and durability of the field surfaces. An
irrigation system and other improvements are also planned for the park. On February 13th,
Cindy Walsh, Park & Recreation Director met with representatives of 3300 on the Park
condominiums to discuss the project.
On February 20, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
approval of the CUP on a vote of 4-0 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The
conditions have been included in the attached resolution.
Issues:
What route is proposed to haul the topsoil fill?
How long will the hauling take place and what will be the hours of operation?
How will dust be managed?
What route is proposed to haul the fill?
Trucks will use Louisiana Avenue to access the site from either Oak Leak Drive or the parking
lot just north of Walker Street. The contractor will be required to keep the Oak Leaf Drive
access open so that the residents of 3300 on the Park can get out of their building.
Staff anticipates that the trucks will carry about 17 yards of material at a time. If a 17-yard truck
is used, staff estimates that there will be approximately 1200 truck loads delivering topsoil to the
34
site later this Spring. This may vary depending on the type of vehicles that are used by the
contractor. The City is expected to award the contract in early April, with topsoil deliveries
beginning when weight restrictions are lifted from roadways around May 15th.
How long will the hauling take place and what will be the hours of operation?
It is expected that the hauling will take approximately two weeks. Staff recommends limiting the
hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and from 9:00 am to 4:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. This is more restrictive than the noise ordinance limits on construction activity.
How will dust be managed?
The Park & Recreation Director will ensure that the contract includes requirements for
controlling dust as necessary. This is generally less a problem in the Spring due to normal
rainfall. However, it will be addressed in the event of dry conditions.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the request of the City for a Conditional Use Permit to place 20,000 cubic yards of
topsoil fill at Oak Park Village Park subject to the following conditions:
1. The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00
p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 am and 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
2. The City shall ensure that the contract addresses dust control as necessary.
Attachments:
• Planning Commission Draft Minutes Excerpts
• Proposed Resolution
• Letter from Cindy Walsh to Residents
• Oak Park Village Master Plan
• Oak Park Village Park Grading Plans
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
Excerpts
Unofficial Minutes - Planning Commission
February 20, 2002
B. Case No. 02-08-CUP Request by City of St. Louis Park for Conditional Use
Permit for the placement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of topsoil fill on
Oak Park Village Park in the northwest quadrant of Louisiana Avenue and Walker
Street
Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation, provided a report on the placement of
topsoil fill on Oak Park Village Park, which will be mainly for the field areas. The topsoil
will be a mix of about 80% sand and 20% topsoil.
Commissioner Timian asked about parking availability. Ms. Walsh said there are
approximately 200 parking spaces in the southeastern corner of the park and 35-
50 parking spaces just south of Oak Leaf Drive. Staff will pursue a no parking
policy for the cul-de-sac.
Staff recommends approval with conditions placed on the hours of operation for
hauling and the City shall ensure the contract addresses dust control as necessary.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chair
Gothberg closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the conditional use permit
subject to conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed 4-0.
36
RESOLUTION NO. 02-020
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-79(a) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF FILL FOR
PROPERTY ZONED R-4 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT OAK PARK VILLAGE PARK
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. The City of St. Louis Park has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 36-79(a) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
placement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of fill within a R-4 Multi-Family Residential
District located at Oak Park Village Park for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
Lot 1 of Block 2 of Oak Park Village Park
Lot 1 of Block 5 of Oak Park Village Park
Park 2 of Oak Park Village Park
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-08-CUP) and the effect of the proposed placement of fill on the
health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the placement of fill will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor
hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
placement of fill is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 02-08-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit the placement of approximately 20,000 cubic yards of
fill at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A
Grading Plans such documents incorporated by reference herein.
37
2. The hours of fill operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Saturdays.
3. The City shall ensure that the contract addresses dust control as necessary.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-08-CUP:N/res-ord
38
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of March 4, 2002
7d. The request of the City of St. Louis Park for a Conditional Use Permit for the
placement of approximately 10,400 cubic yards of fill on Wolfe Park for soil
corrections and final amphitheater and parkway grading at 3700 Monterey
Drive.
Case No. 02-09-CUP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit subject to conditions listed in the resolution.
Background:
In July, 2001, the Planning Commission and City Council approved a PUD for Park Commons
East, which included some grading along the south edge of Wolfe Park. Subsequently, plans for
the amphitheater have been refined. Additional fill and topsoil is needed to complete the
amphitheater and Wolfe Parkway edge. Also, some additional soil correction is needed on the
east side of the park (meadow area) to properly cover glass and provide an adequate topsoil for
turf in that area.
The City of St. Louis Park is currently requesting a CUP to allow approximately 10,400 cubic
yards of soil to be added to the park. An irrigation system and other improvements to the
amphitheater area are also planned. Cindy Walsh, Park & Recreation Director, will attend the
City Council meeting to explain the project and answer questions. A letter sent to area residents
to explain the project is attached.
On February 20, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended
approval on a vote of 4-0 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The conditions have
been included in the attached resolution.
Issues:
What routes are proposed to haul the fill?
How long will the hauling take place and what will be the hours of operation?
How will dust be managed?
What routes are proposed to haul the fill?
Trucks will enter the site from Monterey Drive (via an old construction entrance) for soil
corrections at the base of the slope. Trucks will also enter from Excelsior Boulevard through the
39
Park Commons East redevelopment project to deposit soil in the amphitheater area. Those
trucks will use the new Grand Way and Wolfe Parkway to reach the south end of the park. They
will avoid driving directly in front of the existing condominiums along the new Park Commons
Drive. However, other construction activity will continue in the Phase One redevelopment area.
Staff anticipates that the trucks will carry about 17 yards of material at a time. If a 17-yard truck
is used, staff estimates that there will be approximately 600 truck loads delivering soil to the site
later this Spring. This may vary depending on the type of vehicles that are used by the
contractor. The City is expected to award the contract in early April, with soil deliveries
beginning when weight restrictions are lifted from roadways around May 15th. It is anticipated
that the new streets will have the first lift of asphalt by then. Careful coordination between the
park and redevelopment projects is being discussed.
How long will the hauling take place and what will be the hours of operation?
It is expected that the hauling will take approximately a week to ten days total. Due to the
amount of existing construction activity in that area, staff is not recommending any additional
limits on the hours of operation, but such limits could be considered.
How will dust be managed?
The Park & Recreation Director will ensure that the contract includes requirements for
controlling dust as necessary. This is generally less a problem in the Spring due to normal
rainfall. However, it will be addressed in the event of dry conditions.
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution
approving the request of the City for a Conditional Use Permit to place approximately 10,400
cubic yards of fill at Wolfe Park subject to the following conditions:
1. Trucks shall enter/exit Wolfe Park directly from Monterey Drive or from Wolfe
Parkway via Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way.
2. The City shall ensure that the contract addresses dust control as necessary.
Attachments:
• Planning Commission Draft Minutes Excerpts
• Proposed Resolution
• Letter from Cindy Walsh to Residents
• Wolfe Park Amphitheater and Soil Correction Plans
Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
40
Excerpts
Unofficial Minutes - Planning Commission
February 20, 2002
C. Case No. 02-09-CUP Request by City of St. Louis Park for Conditional Use
for the placement of approximately 10,400 cubic yards of fill on Wolfe Park for
soil corrections and final amphitheater and parkway grading at 3700 Monterey
Drive
Ms. Walsh explained the amphitheater design, and spoke about soil corrections in regard
to Wolfe Park.
Commissioner Timian asked how many inches of topsoil will be placed over the
fabric, and Ms. Walsh responded it will be about twelve inches. He also asked
about debris migration into the pond. Ms. Walsh said the construction limits are
up to the edge of the trail. Ms. Walsh noted the Minnesota Pollution Agency
recommended placing fabric in the amphitheater area, and staff will follow that
recommendation.
Staff recommends approval with conditions placed on truck traffic and dust
control.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Chair
Gothberg closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson to approve the conditional use permit
subject to conditions listed in the staff report. The motion passed 4-0.
41
RESOLUTION NO. 02-021
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 36-79(a) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF FILL FOR
PROPERTY ZONED R-3 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
LOCATED AT WOLFE PARK
(SOUTHWEST QUADRANT OF 36TH STREET AND MONTEREY DRIVE)
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. The City of St. Louis Park has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use
Permit under Section 36-79(a) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of
placement of approximately 10,400 cubic yards of fill within a R-3 Two Family Residential
District located at Wolfe Park for the legal description as follows, to-wit:
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-09-CUP) and the effect of the proposed placement of fill on the
health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the placement of fill will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor
hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
placement of fill is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 02-09-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
42
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit the placement of approximately 10,400 cubic yards of
fill at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the
following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A
Wolfe Park Amphitheater Plans and Exhibit B Wolfe Park Soil Correction Plans
such documents incorporated by reference herein.
2. Trucks shall enter/exit Wolfe Park directly from Monterey Drive or from Wolfe
Parkway via Excelsior Boulevard and Grand Way.
3. The City shall ensure that the contract addresses dust control as necessary.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
02-09-CUP:N\res-ord
43
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7e
Meeting of March 4, 2002
7e. Request of Edith Mmuma for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Regarding State Licensed Residential Facilities in the R-3 Two-Family
Residential District
Case No. 02-04-ZA
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve First Reading of a zoning ordinance text
amendment to allow a State Licensed Residential Facility in each
unit of a Two-Family Dwelling in the R-3 District and set
Second Reading for March 18, 2002.
Background:
State statutes require “state licensed residential facilities” or “housing with services
establishments” serving 6 or fewer persons to be considered permitted single-family residential
use of property for the purposes of zoning (see attached memo with State statute excerpts).
Cities may place conditions, such as distance requirements, on other “non-statutory group
homes”. St. Louis Park has included several conditions for the latter.
Edith Mmuma operates “housing with services establishments”, which provide sleeping
accommodations to adult residents, at least 80% of which are 55 years of age or older. She
currently operates such an establishment in a single-family home at 2833 Yosemite Avenue. The
establishment has been issued a license as an “assisted living home care provider” (see
attachment). The City Attorney has made a determination that the facility falls under the State
statute requirement as a permitted single-family residential use. Since Ms. Mmuma’s use is
classified as a State licensed residential facility, she has withdrawn the portion of her request
relating to non-statutory group homes (see attached letter).
Ms. Mmuma is interested in purchasing the property at 6019 W. 39th St. for another State
licensed residential facility (see attached location airphoto). The property is zoned “R-3” Two-
Family Residential and designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Medium-Density Residential.
There is an existing building on the property, which used to be a nursing home with 6 bedrooms.
The building has been vacant for eight years. Edith would like to construct a second level on the
building (see attached concept plans). The purpose of the addition would be to allow two
assisted living home care facilities, each serving 6 or fewer persons, to be housed on the site. In
other words, she would like to serve a total of 12 assisted living residents on the site. In effect,
she would be creating a two-family dwelling unit with each unit housing a State licensed
residential facility. The existing building is non-conforming with regard to the front yard
setback, so Ms. Mmuma is also applying for a variance to allow the addition. The variance is
being heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals on February 28, 2002. Other plan changes will also
be required to meet current ordinances.
44
The “R-3” Two-Family Residence District currently permits a single-family dwelling or a two-
family dwelling without any special conditions other than size of the lot and typical performance
standards for setbacks, parking, etc. The “R-3” District also allows a State licensed residential
facility serving 6 or fewer persons. Staff has interpreted this as allowing either a two-family
residence or one State licensed residential facility serving 6 or fewer persons on the lot. The City
Attorney has agreed with staff’s interpretation regarding the language in our current ordinance.
An ordinance amendment is therefore required before two residential facilities could be placed in
a two-family dwelling.
On January 14, 2002, a neighborhood meeting was held to discuss Edith’s proposal for the W.
39th St. property . The neighborhood residents were generally supportive of Ms. Mmuma’s
proposal. However, they were concerned that other less desirable State licensed residential
facilities might also be permitted (see analysis below).
On February 6, 2002 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended approval
of an ordinance amendment as recommended by staff on a vote of 7-0.
Issues:
Does State law require cities to permit State licensed residential facilities in each unit of
a two-family dwelling?
Would the ordinance amendment affect other properties?
What other types of facilities are allowed under the State licensed and mandated
category?
Are any additional changes proposed to the ordinance amendment?
Analysis of Issues:
Does State law require cities to permit State licensed residential facilities in each unit of
a two-family dwelling?
The City Attorney has indicated that Ms. Mmuma’s request is consistent with the intent of State
law, since a two-family dwelling is the equivalent of two attached single-family dwellings. He
has indicated that it would likely be difficult to deny such a proposal under the current Statute.
In general, the City Attorney recommends amending our ordinances for consistency with State
law.
Would the ordinance amendment affect other properties?
The proposed ordinance amendment would affect all two-family dwellings in the “R-3” Two-
Family Residential District. Therefore, consideration should not be restricted to the property on
which the use is currently proposed.
What other types of facilities are allowed under the State licensed and mandated
category?
45
The attached memo provides some additional information regarding the types of residential
facilities that are permitted by State law. Facilities whose primary purpose is to treat juvenile
sex offenders are clearly not permitted. The description of the use in the Zoning Code states the
following:
STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL FACILITY - A State licensed and mandated
residential facility occupied by persons in need of specialized treatment or protection and
resident staff who live together as a single housekeeping unit, usually for a limited period
of time. The use includes outpatient group counseling, some supervision and treatment
programs. The maximum number of clients served is specified by Minnesota State Statute
which may be amended form time to time. Persons served may include the mentally
retarded and severely physically handicapped.
This is distinguished from non-statutory group homes, which are described in the Zoning Code
as follows:
GROUP HOME/NON-STATUTORY - Occupancy of a residential structure by persons in
need of specialized treatment or protection and resident staff who usually live together as
a housekeeping unit for a limited period of time. This use may include outpatient group
counseling, some supervision, forced detention, treatment for mental illness and drug
addiction, protective shelter, halfway house, and release programs.
Cities are allowed to place greater restrictions on the latter, and St. Louis Park has done so. Ms.
Mmuma has withdrawn her request to make any changes to our restrictions on non-statutory
group homes.
Are any additional changes proposed to the ordinance amendment?
Ms. Mmuma has proposed the following ordinance amendment:
Sec. 36-165. “R-3” Two-Family District
(b) Permitted uses:
(3) State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons per individual
residential living unit.
Since existing multiple family dwellings are also permitted in the “R-3” District, and Ms.
Mmuma’s proposal could be interpreted as allowing a facility in each multi-family unit, staff and
the Planning Commission propose the following:
(3) State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons per individual
dwelling unit of a single-family or two-family dwelling.
46
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment
subject to the proposed change as stated above. The changes are included in the attached
ordinance.
Attachments:
Proposed ordinance
Memo regarding State requirements
Assisted living home care provider information
Ms. Mmuma’s application
Ms. Mmuma’s letter regarding withdrawal of a portion of her request
Location airphoto of 6019 W. 39th Street
Unapproved Concept Plans
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
47
ORDINANCE NO.______
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTION 36-165(b)(3)
State Licensed Residential Facilities
In the R-3 Two-Family Residential District
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 02-04-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-165(b)(3) is hereby amended to
read as follows:
(3) State licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons per individual
dwelling unit of a single-family or two-family dwelling.
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 02-04-ZA are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 18, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
02-04-ZA:N\ord-res
48
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
March 4, 2002
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section
of the regular agenda for discussion.
1. Property owners have requested a public hearing April 1, 2002 to consider the
establishment of a special service district along Excelsior Boulevard between
Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive and a hearing April 15, 2002 to consider the
imposition of a service charge within the district.
2. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance for a Zoning Map amendment to
change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General
Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540,
3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line, approve summary and authorize
publication.
3. Motion to hire Lewis & Associates to conduct a franchise fee audit for 2000 and
2001, as recommended by the Telecommunications Commission.
4. Motion to approve the final payment for Barber Construction Company Inc. in the
amount of $1,413.30 for the completion of Contract No. 105-01.
5. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
d. Planning Commission Minutes of February 6, 2002
e. Housing Authority Minutes of January 9, 2002
f. Vendor Claims
49
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 4, 2002
1. Motion to order a public hearing on April 1, 2002 to consider the adoption of an
ordinance to create Special Service District #3 between Quentin Avenue and
Monterey Drive and to order a public hearing for April 15, 2002 to consider the
adoption of a resolution for the imposition of a service charge within the district.
Background:
Over the past six years, the City has implemented two segments of the Excelsior Boulevard
Streetscape Improvement Program. The final segment will be built in 2002. This third segment
of Excelsior Boulevard runs from Quentin Avenue to Monterey Drive.
As with both previous projects, the City has worked with adjacent property owners to create a
“special service district.” The district provides a means of ensuring that the investment made
through the various public improvements will be adequately maintained. A special service
district needs to be established for the final piece of the Excelsior Boulevard Improvements.
Attached is information on the proposed Special Service District, the Preliminary District Budget
and the Preliminary Cost Allocations as it would impact each property owner in the designated
area.
What has been the extent of communication with the affected property owners?
During December of 2001, City staff met individually with property owners within the proposed
area of Special Service District #3 to discuss the improvements and to introduce the concept of a
special service district. On January 25, 2002, a meeting was held at which more specific
information was provided and Preliminary District Budgets and Cost Allocations for each
property were distributed. Representatives of seven (out of the 16) affected property owners
attended the meeting. Information from the meeting was subsequently sent to each of the
affected properties. Staff then personally met with five of the property owners or their
representatives and has contacted all the property owners to answer questions or address any
concerns regarding the proposed district.
How many petitions have been received requesting a public hearing?
There are a total of 22 separate tax parcels in the proposed district. Of those, the EDA owns
three. To date, nine property owners representing 12 parcels along Excelsior Boulevard have
submitted petitions requesting that the City Council conduct a public hearing to discuss the
establishment of a special service district and impose service charges pursuant to Minn. Stat.
428A.01 - .101 (2000). These property owners represent approximately 61% of the affected land
area and approximately 33% of the tax capacity of property that would be subject to the service
charge. According to State Statute, 25% of the land area and 25% of the net tax capacity of
50
property subject to the service charge are required in order for the Council to convene such a
hearing.
Recommendation:
Given that the minimum petition requirements have been satisfied, staff recommends that the
City Council approve the request to conduct the required public hearing April 1, 2002 to consider
the adoption of an ordinance for the establishment of a special service district along Excelsior
Boulevard between Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive and conduct a similar required hearing
April 15, 2002 to consider adoption of a resolution relative to the imposition of a service charge
within the district.
Attachments:
• Special Service District handout
• Preliminary Operating Budget
• Preliminary Cost Allocation
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
51
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 4, 2002
2. Motion to approve second reading of ordinance for a Zoning Map amendment to
change the zoning map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General
Commercial for properties located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue South, 3550, 3540,
3532 and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line, approve summary and authorize
publication.
Background:
On January 2, 2002, after continuing the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of the Zoning map amendment.
On January 22, 2002, the City Council approved the following relative to the subject property:
♦ A Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from industrial to
commercial subject to approval of the Metropolitan Council.
♦ Text changes to the Plan By Neighborhood chapter of the Comprehensive Plan limiting the
following commercial uses: outdoor sales, restaurants with in-vehicle sales or service, motor
fuel station, motor vehicle service and repair, motor vehicle sales, uses that serve
intoxicating liquor, shopping centers over 50,000 square feet, and single retail uses/tenants
in excess of 20,000 square feet.
♦ First reading of a zoning map change from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial
subject to the Metropolitan Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan land use change.
♦ First reading of a zoning text amendment that would add “Post Office Customer Service” as
a new land use permitted by conditional use permit in the C1-Neighborhood Commercial
and C2-General Commercial zoning districts. The City Council will hold second reading on
March 4.
Second reading of the zoning map amendment was postponed until the City Council could
review the legal opinion of the City Attorney relative to whether Comprehensive Plan text could
be used to limit commercial uses in a commercial zoning district. During a discussion of the
matter at the February 11, 2002, Study Session, the City Attorney recommended that
amendments be made to the Zoning Ordinance that would require several landuses currently
permitted with conditions in commercial zoning districts to be permitted as conditional uses.
Staff will be taking these amendments to public hearing at the Planning Commission on March
20, 2002.
The Metropolitan Council approved the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the subject
properties on February 11, 2002.
52
Recommendation:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of an Ordinance changing the Zoning
Map designation from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial for the subject properties.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Draft Summary Ordinance
Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
53
ORDINANCE NO. 2219-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3533 RALEIGH AVENUE SOUTH
3550, 3540, 3532 BELT LINE BOULEVARD
AND THE SOUTH 180 FEET OF 3510 BELT LINE BOULEVARD
FROM IP-INDUSTRIAL PARK TO C2-GENERAL COMMERCIAL
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959,
Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93; amended December
17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by
changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their
existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for
the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit:
That part of Lot 3, Block 2, BELT LINE INDUSTRIAL PARK, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn easterly,
perpendicular to the west line of said Lot 3, from a point on said west line, distant 150.00
feet southerly from the northwest corner of said Lot 3, as measured along said west line.
plus
That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition, which lies
Northeasterly of a line drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of
said Lot 1 from a point in said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet Northeasterly from the
intersection of the Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly line with the South line
of Block 3, “Westmoreland Park”, according to the recorded plat thereof, except for the
Northeastern 450 feet thereof. (Torrens)
plus
Those parts of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16, Block 2, that part of the vacated alley in Block 2,
that part of Lot 2, Block 3, that part of the vacated alley in Block 3, and that part of
vacated Westmoreland Avenue (now known as Princeton Avenue), all in “Westmoreland
Park” described as beginning at the Southwest corner of said Lot 2; thence North along
the West line of said Lot 2 and its extension to the center line of the vacated alley in said
Block 3; thence East along said center line, and its extension, to the center line of vacated
Westmoreland Avenue; thence Northerly along the last mentioned center line to the
Southeasterly line of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition; thence
Northeasterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 1 to its intersection with a line
54
drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 from a point
on said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet Northeasterly from the intersection of the
Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly line with the South line of Block 3,
“Westmoreland Park”, thence Southeasterly along said right angle line to its intersection
with the Southwesterly extension of the Southeasterly line of said Lot 1 having a bearing
of South 29 degrees 29 minutes 30 seconds West; thence Southwesterly along the last
described extension to the South line of said Block 3; thence West along said South line
to the point of beginning.
plus
That part of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition, which lies
Southwesterly of a line drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of
said Lot 1 from a point in said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet Northeasterly from the
intersection of the Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly line with the South line
of Block 3, “Westmoreland Park” according to the recorded plats thereof. (Torrens)
plus
Lot 1 and Lots 3 to 9 inclusive, Block 3, “Westmoreland Park”, according to the recorded
plat thereof; and
That part of the vacated Westerly half of Westmoreland Ave., now known as Princeton
Avenue, adjoining Lot 1, Block 3, Westmoreland Park, which lies between the extensions
across it of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 and the center line of the alley in said
Block 3; the North half of the vacated alley in said Block 3 adjoining Lot 1 in said Block
3 and lying between the extensions across it of the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 and
the Easterly line of said Lot 1; the South half of the vacated alley in said Block 3
adjoining Lots 3 to 6 inclusive, in said Block 3, and lying between the extensions across
it of the Northwesterly line of said Block 3 and the Easterly line of Lot 3 in said Block 3.
(Torrens)
plus
Those parts of Lots 15 and 16, Block 2, and of vacated Westmoreland Avenue (now
known as Princeton Avenue), all in “Westmoreland Park”, which lie Northeasterly of a
line drawn Southeasterly at right angles to the Northwesterly line of Lot 1, Block 2, Belt
Line Industrial Park 2nd Addition from a point in said Northwesterly line distant 429 feet
Northeasterly from the intersection of the Southwesterly extension of said Northwesterly
line with the South line of Block 3, “Westmoreland Park”, according to the recorded plats
thereof. (Abstract)
from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days following its publication.
55
Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
01-54-Z:n\res-ord
56
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2219-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDIANCE CODE CHANGING
BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3533 RALEIGH AVENUE SOUTH
3550, 3540, 3532 BELT LINE BOULEVARD
AND THE SOUTH 180 FEET OF 3510 BELT LINE BOULEVARD
FROM IP-INDUSTRIAL PARK TO C2-GENERAL COMMERCIAL
This ordinance states that the zoning for the property located at 3533 Raleigh Avenue South,
3550, 3540, 3532 Belt Line Boulevard and the south 180 feet of 3510 Belt Line Boulevard shall
be changed from IP-Industrial Park to C2-General Commercial.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: March 13, 2002
01-54-Z-sum:N-res-ord
57
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of March 4, 2002
3. Motion to hire Lewis & Associates to conduct a franchise fee audit for 2000 and
2001, as recommended by the Telecommunications Commission.
Background:
At the direction of the Telecommunications Commission, staff sent out a Request for Proposal
and organized an Audit Review Committee to select the most qualified Certified Public
Accounting firm to perform an audit of franchise fees. The Telecommunications Commission
passed a motion unanimously on February 21, 2002 to recommend to the City Council that the
City hire Lewis & Associates to conduct a franchise fee audit for 2000 and 2001, as
recommended by the Audit Review Committee.
Staff has proposed performing an audit of franchise fees on several occasions to the
Telecommunications Commission, as a matter of due diligence.
The RFP Process:
Staff prepared a Request for Proposal that discussed two key tasks: the franchise fee audit and a
review of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) forms that relate to Basic cable service.
Staff added the FCC forms review to find out what it would cost to hire the expertise to assure
that the cable company’s proposed 2002 Basic cable and converter rates were in compliance with
all FCC rules. The RFP was sent to 8 firms that specialize in cable television and
telecommunications auditing, and 3 responded.
On January 23, 2002 the Audit Review Committee discussed the responses to the City's RFP.
The Committee included Deputy City Manager Clint Pires, Finance Director Jean McGann,
Telecommunications Commissioner Dale Hartman, Community TV Coordinator John McHugh,
and Civic TV Coordinator Reg Dunlap.
The Committee discussed the 3 proposals, ranked them using a point system and talked about the
next steps in the process.
Lewis & Associates received the highest score from each member of the Committee to conduct
the franchise fee audit, easily had the highest aggregate score, and addressed the RFP
requirements directly and thoroughly.
58
The Audit Committee used this point system to review all the proposals:
Maximum
Points
(of 100)
Description
5 Personal references
20 Franchise fee audit experience
15 Primary staff is CPA
20 Technical proposal (external quality control, field reviews of
their audits)
20 Lowest price
20 Completeness of proposal
The aggregate scores were:
Score Firm
424 Lewis & Associates (Hollywood, Florida)
357 Ashpaugh & Sculco (Winter Park, Florida)
294 Rothman Gordon (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)
The consensus of the Audit Review Committee was to recommend Lewis & Associates for the
franchise fee audit and to defer to the Telecommunications Commission on whether to proceed
with the FCC forms review. The Committee did not recommend hiring any of the firms to
review the FCC forms because the expense was significantly higher than expected, and that it
would be worthwhile to wait for the outcome of the audit.
Auditing Firm References:
As recommended by the Audit Review Committee, staff checked references for Lewis &
Associates (attached), and found them to be universally favorable after talking with six (6)
people who have represented cities or counties that have hired this firm.
Telecommunications Commission Recommendation:
At its February 21, 2002 meeting, the Telecommunications Commission concurred with the
Audit Review Committee to recommend proceeding with the franchise fee audit and not with the
FCC forms review.
Firm Audit only FCC Form review only Total
Lewis &
Associates
$11,000 fixed fee
+
$3,000 expenses
$3,500 per form + travel
fee of $125 per hour =
$17,000 + expenses
$31,000 +
expenses
Ashpaugh
& Sculco
$22,000 $24,500 $46,500
Rothman
Gordon
$7,000-$10,000 +
costs of
representing the
City
$3,000 + costs of
representing the City
$10,000-$13,000
+ costs of
representing the
City
59
Budget considerations:
The City budgeted $5,000 for 2001 to conduct a franchise fee audit as an estimate. Lewis &
Associates proposes to do the audit for $11,000 as a fixed fee and for expenses not to exceed
$3,000.
The audit will be conducted in 2002 so staff will recommend an amended budget amount for this
item. The Cable TV Fund has sufficient monies available to support this audit. Also, this is the
first franchise fee compliance audit ever performed in St. Louis Park.
Also, if the auditor determines that additional franchise fees are due to the City, the cable
company will have to reimburse the City for all expenses of the audit. The franchise ordinance
states:
(3) Verification and Inspection of Records. The City shall have the right to
inspect the Company's income records. The City may, but is not required to, audit
such records and to recompute any amounts determined to be payable under this
Franchise Ordinance. If the audit reveals Company's franchise fee payment was
less than the amount the auditor found to be due and owing, the Company shall
reimburse the City for all expenses incurred by the City in conducting the audit, and
the Company shall submit payment of the difference to the City immediately upon
receipt of notice of the discrepancy.
Attachments: Lewis & Associates References: Summary Comments
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap & John McHugh, Cable TV Coordinators
Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
60
Lewis & Associates References: Summary Comments
Vicki Gray, Orange County, CA (Time Warner, AT&T, Cox, Comcast)
Yasmin Green, Cable Officer for Flint, MI (Comcast)
Doug Essman, Collier County, FL (Time Warner)
Sally Koenecki, Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission (MN) Mediacom
Trina ? (Worked directly with Lewis) Cape Coral, FL (Time Warner)
Dennis Newman, Telecom Manager for City of Winston-Salem (Time Warner)
How happy are you, overall, with the experience of hiring Lewis to do your audit?
• He’s wonderful, he takes care of everything. Knows what to ask.
• Very pleased, couldn’t ask for a more complete and clear report. Can’t recommend him highly
enough.
• Very happy
• For what you describe, financial audits, he’s fine. Compliance audits mean something else to me, but
that’s not what you’re doing.
• We were fully satisfied with Mr. Lewis's audit. Overall, Mr. Lewis did a very good job and we would
consider using him again.
Was he professional and easy to work with?
• All said yes
Did he return phone calls or emails in a timely fashion?
• All said yes
Meet deadlines as agreed upon?
• All said yes
Can he communicate his findings effectively with a City Council or advisory commission?
• Down to earth. Speaks common persons language.
• Two others said he prepared a report and staff delivered the presentation to Council.
Were his reports comprehensive, clear and accurate? Are you satisfied with the reports?
• All said yes
• One commented: Good detailed report. Found a large chunk of money for us: $160,000.
Did he work professionally with the cable company?
• All said yes
Were there any problems or delays accessing documents or anything else?
• All said no
Was the final cost of the audit what you expected or were there additional fees or expenses?
• All said yes, and two commented that expenses were slightly less than expected.
Was the expense of the audit worthwhile in your case?
• All said yes
Would you personally hire him again?
All said yes
61
CONSENT ITEM # 4
RESOLUTION NO. 02-015
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
BITUMINOUS TRAIL
AT DAKOTA PARK
CITY PROJECT NO. 99-08A
CONTRACT NO. 105-01
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated September 24, 2001, Barber
Construction Company, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the bituminous trail at
Dakota Park as per Contract No. 105-01.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance
of the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City
Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's
receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 4, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
62
CONSENT ITEM # 5a
Official Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 6, 2002 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Phillip Finkelstein, Michael
Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: City Attorney Tom Scott, Janet Jeremiah, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
Chair Gothberg called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Chair Gothberg welcomed the newest Planning Commissioner, Phillip Finkelstein.
2. Approval of Minutes of January 16, 2002
Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the minutes of January 16, 2002. The
motion passed 7-0.
3. Hearings:
A. Case No. 02-05-CUP Request for Major Amendment to an Existing Special
Permit for rooftop events at Santorini Restaurant – 9920 & 9908 Wayzata
Boulevard
Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, reported on the Santorini
Restaurant request. The applicant will submit revised plans to address parking
needs and compliance with their original special permit. In order to be ready for
consideration on February 20, 2002, the applicant must submit the plans within
one week, which they have agreed to do.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
It was moved by Commissioner Morris to continue the public hearing until
February 20, 2002 (or later) to allow staff time to work with the applicant to
resolve certain issues. The motion passed 7-0.
B. Case No. 02-04-ZA Request by Edith Mmuma for Zoning Ordinance text
amendments regarding state licensed residential facilities in the R-3 Two Family
Residential District
63
City Attorney Tom Scott was present to answer legal questions. Ms. Jeremiah
provided a staff report. She noted that the applicant and staff attended a
neighborhood meeting and the proposed location for the two-family state licensed
residential facility and most of their concerns were addressed. They did request
more information regarding other types of state licensed residential facilities that
may be able to locate in existing two-family residences in their neighborhood.
That information is contained in the report and memo attachment. Ms. Jeremiah
noted that a setback variance is also being requested by the applicant for 6019 W.
39th Street but that request will be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Commissioner Morris asked for a definition of a single family unit and ordinary
limits on the number of unrelated individuals who can reside in one unit. Ms.
Jeremiah said a dwelling unit must have normal housekeeping facilities, i.e., a
kitchen, a bathroom, and sleeping accommodations. She added that separate
kitchen, bath, and sleeping facilities with separate entrances are considered
separate dwelling units. Other than permitted state licensed residential facilities
and group homes, the ordinary limit on unrelated individuals is four in one unit.
Commissioner Robertson asked if a building official has checked on ADA or
Chapter 1341 requirements to determine if such requirements are applicable. Ms.
Jeremiah said a building official has taken a preliminary look. It is her impression
that as long as there are two separate dwelling units, and each one could be
classified as a single family unit, there is little required by ADA.
Chair Gothberg opened the public hearing.
Ms. Mmuma addressed the Planning Commission. She reported on the events
that led her to operate her existing assisted living home care facility at 2833
Yosemite and her interest in operating two adjoining facilities at 6019 W. 39th St.
She addressed demographic changes and an interest in providing a home
environment rather than an institutional environment as reasons for creating small
residential facilities for older persons requiring some assistance. She noted that
she would probably have no more than 5 residents in each unit to avoid the need
for two commercial kitchens. When asked about the status of buying the W. 39th
St. property, she noted that she has a purchase agreement and really needs two
units to make it work. That is why she is requesting the ordinance amendment.
Mr. Jay Isenberg, 3505 West 28th Street, Minneapolis, is Ms. Mmuma’s architect,
and he provided a personal recommendation for Ms. Mmuma who cared for his
mother for two years. He said he is available to answer architectural questions or
issues on Ms. Mmuma’s behalf; and he encourages and supports the Planning
Commission to endorse these types of developments in the future for the elderly.
Mr. Joel Songstad, Ms. Mmuma’s real estate agent, 5424 Benton Avenue, Edina,
introduced himself to the Planning Commission. He noted that he believes Ms.
Mmuma’s concept will succeed.
64
Commissioner Garelick moved to approve the zoning ordinance text amendment
as recommended by staff. The motion passed 7-0.
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda: None
B. Other New Business: None
6. Communications
A. Letter of withdrawal – Loffler Companies
Commissioner Garelick asked why Mr. Loffler withdrew his request. Ms. Jeremiah said
Mr. Loffler is looking at other properties and voluntarily withdrew.
B. Recent City Council Action -- January 22, 2002, February 4, 2002
C. Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda – January 24, 2002
D. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes – December 27, 2001
7. Miscellaneous: None
8. Adjournment
Chair Gothberg adjourned the meeting at 6:44 p.m.
Minutes prepared by: Respectfully submitted by:
Linda Samson Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
65
CONSENT ITEM # 5b
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, January 9, 2002
Westwood Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Anne Mavity (5:15 p.m.),
Judith Moore and Shone Row (5:20 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Michele Schnitker and Cindy
Stromberg
OTHERS PRESENT: Rosemary Foley, Steve Carlson
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:12 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for December 12, 2001
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the amended minutes of December 12th,
2001. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-
0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
3. Public Hearing:
a. Amended Housing Authority 5-year and Annual Agency Plan
Ms. Schnitker explained that a few minor changes were made this year. The most
significant change is adding criminal background checks for the Section 8
program as required by HUD. Ms. Schnitker also talked about a change to the flat
rent, which had always been at 100% of the fair market rent. She explained that
because the fair market rents jumped significantly in the fall of 2001, staff is
recommending that flat rents now be based on 90% of fair market rents.
Ms. Schnitker stated that only 2 families are near the flat rent threshold.
Commissioner Gavzy asked what the regulations say in regard to establishing flat
rents. Ms. Schnitker explained that HUD says only that the flat rent should reflect
the market rent for each unit.
66
Commissioner Gavzy opened the public hearing and introduced Rosemary Foley
and Steve Carlson. Mr. Carlson spoke first and gave his address as 1825 Chicago
Ave S, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mr. Carlson stated that both he and Ms. Foley
represent CHARP (Community Housing Advocates for Responsible Plans). He
explained that CHARP is made up of consumers and service providers who
review public housing plans to provide feedback and advocacy for the lowest
income individuals within the community. Ms. Carlson stated that he thought the
plan was well constructed beginning from the mission statement.
Ms. Foley introduced herself and gave her address as 525 Portland Ave,
Minneapolis MN. She stated that she thought this was one of the best-written
plans she has read. She explained that CHARP was very happy with the
preferences chosen and that most housing authority plans she has reviewed have
an exclusion for those who do not live or work in the community.
Ms. Foley commented that there was no income data for the waiting list in the
plan. She stated that this information is needed so that CHARP can compare who
is on the waiting list with who is being housed. Ms. Schnitker responded that this
information is currently unavailable in report form with the current software. Ms.
Foley asked Ms. Schnitker what the income targets are. Ms. Schnitker replied
that for Public Housing 40% must below 30% of median income and 75% of new
admissions for Section 8 must be below the 30% median income range. Ms.
Schnitker stated that Public Housing was above 90% and Section 8 was at 78%,
but fell slightly last month. Ms. Foley asked if lease up data for minorities is
available. Ms. Schnitker responded that it was possible that this information
could be obtained.
Ms. Foley recommended a strategy of housing families with economic hardships.
Ms. Schnitker responded that without that strategy, nearly 100% of those housed
by the public housing program are below 30% of median income. Ms. Foley
asked what the average income is. Ms. Schnitker replied that the average income
within the Public Housing program is between $6,000 and $7,000.
Ms. Foley also commented that the Housing Authority might want to expand their
strategy to include targeting racial and ethnic minorities to insure that these
groups are being housed. Commissioner Mavity asked if comparing the waiting
list and who is being housed could clear up any questions in regard to this issue.
Ms. Foley responded that this information could address this issue as well as
others.
Ms. Foley asked what the total search time allowed is for Section 8 voucher
holders to find a unit. Ms. Stromberg responded it is a maximum of 120 days.
Ms. Foley asked if there were comments from the Resident Advisory Board. Ms.
Schnitker stated that there were no comments when she called the members,
however she talked with the members about meeting quarterly to provide more
67
feedback. All members said they would be interested in attending. Ms. Foley
mentioned that other housing authorities give a small stipend or provide childcare
for these meetings to encourage attendance.
Commissioner Gavzy closed the public hearing.
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business:
a. Approval of Amended 5-Year and Annual Agency Plan, Resolution No. 499
Certifying Compliance with the Housing Authority Plans and Related Regulations
Ms. Schnitker explained that the Board would need to certify that the HA has met
all the requirements in order to submit the plan to HUD. Ms. Schnitker
mentioned that she had not received written certification back from the County to
certify the plan is consistent with the Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. She
did receive a verbal approval from Hennepin County and stated that the
certification is just waiting for a signature.
Commissioner Moore moved to certify the amended 5-Year and Annual Agency
Plan. Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in
favor.
b. Section 8 Home Ownership Program
Ms. Schnitker stated that the Authority is looking for guidance from the Board as
to whether the Authority should continue exploring the concept of Section 8
Home Ownership. She explained that the vouchers would be used toward
mortgage payments for participants on the program. The subsidies can be used
for 15 to 20 years.
Ms. Schnitker also stated that the Section 8 subsidy could be used to offset not
only the mortgage payment but also insurance, taxes and repairs. She also
mentioned that HUD has not set aside any money to fund the administration of
this program, but that funds may be available through the state.
Ms. Schnitker explained that the Section 8 program is now fully utilized and will
have the Wayside project-based units coming on board soon. She stated that any
units set aside for the ownership program would take units from the rental
program.
68
Commissioner Courtney commented that she did not feel the Authority has the
staff capacity to handle a new program of this level of intensity. Commissioner
Moore stated that philosophically she feels the Authority's mission is to provide
rental subsidy and that this type of program will reduce the number of low-
income renters helped. Commissioner Mavity said that she feels that the mission
of the Housing Authority is to help low-income individuals obtain housing,
whether through rental or ownership assistance.
Commissioner Gavzy stated he is opposed to Section 8 homeownership because it
keeps the individuals in the system longer and also because he disagrees with
using taxpayer dollars to finance assets for individuals.
Commissioner Courtney stated that this does not seem like the time to explore
such a program and she would recommend that the Authority wait one year before
bringing this back to the Board. Commissioner Mavity added that she would like
to have more information from other housing authorities that have started home-
ownership programs when this is brought back before the Board. Commissioners
Moore, Gavzy and Row also voiced they would like to hold off on exploring this
program at least one year.
c. Section 8 Administrative Plan Amendment, Resolution No. 500
Ms. Schnitker stated that the Authority contracts with Nan McKay to provide
revisions to the Administrative Plan. The recent updates were mandates by HUD
and include screening and eviction for drug related or criminal activity. Other
changes included not lowering payments for individuals who have reduced
income for failure to meet welfare requirements. A mandatory earned income
disallowance for disabled individuals which provides a 100% disallowance in the
first year and a 50% disallowance in the second year will go into effect for
Section 8.
Commissioner Courtney suggested changes to the wording of the resolution.
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the Section 8 Administrative Plan
Amendment. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed
on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row
voting in favor.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 1-2002
Commissioner Courtney moved ratification of Claims List No. 1-2002.
Commissioner Row seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0
with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
69
b. Communications
Ms. Schnitker mentioned that all the work on Louisiana Court is completed with
the exception of the final landscaping. They were able to meet the December 31st
deadline for the tax credit.
Ms. Schnitker stated that she spoke with Finance and they indicated they would
be able to break down the reserve accounts and dollar amounts.
Ms. Schnitker said that she spoke with Cindy Reichert, the City Clerk regarding
meeting with the City Council. Ms. Reichert stated that each Board or
Commission is to give an annual update to the City Council and come to a study
session to talk about the progress. Ms. Schnitker proposed putting together the
year-end accomplishments and meeting with the Council later this spring. She
suggested talking about it further at the next meeting.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 7:20 p.m. Commissioner Row
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity, Moore and Row voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary