HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002/06/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 17, 2002
7:30 p.m.
7:15 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Annual Human Rights Student Essay Presentation Contest, City Winner
The 2002 recipient is 8th Grader Abigail Burkhart.
2b. Proclamation of Recognition for Ashley Tomoson
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of June 3, 2002
b. Special Study Session Minutes of June 3, 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).
2
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$46,040.00 for Curb & Gutter Annual Maintenance Repairs, Project No. 02-07
and Alley Improvement Project-4000 block between Toledo & Utica Avenues,
Project No. 02-12
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this
Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an informational meeting with
abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date
of July 15, 2002
3. Motion to authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Andrea
Myklebust for the fabrication and installation of the Allegory of Excelsior public
artwork in Park Commons East/Excelsior and Grand.
4. Motion to Approve a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County
for Participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program in FY 2003- 2005.
5. Motion to authorize execution of an agreement for engineering and architectural
services with Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass in an amount not to exceed
$66,500 for design work of the Rec Center roof over the West Arena.
6. Motion to approve modifications and renovations requested by Sholom
Community Alliance.
7. Motion to approve payment to School District #283 of $73,000 from Cable TV
franchise fees for the year 2002, comprised of an operations grant of $35,000 and
a video equipment grant of $38,000.
8. Motion to accept the following reports for filing:
a. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 20, 2002
b. Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002
c. Housing Authority Minutes of May 8, 2002
d. Vendor Claims
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Refunding of 1994 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds
3
To refund the 1994 GO Tax Increment Bonds
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution awarding the sale of $6,135,000
general obligation tax increment refunding bonds, series 2002.
7b. First Reading of an Ordinance Regulating Sale and Application of
Phosphorous Fertilizer
This ordinance requires retailers dealing in fertilizer to make phosphorous-free
fertilizer available for sale at all locations in the city and requires commercial
fertilizer applicators to post informational signs at sites that have been fertilized.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance regulating sale and
application of phosphorous fertilizer and to set second reading
for July 1, 2002.
7c. Traffic Study No. 561: Installation and rescinding of parking restriction on
Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th Street.
This report considers rescinding parking restrictions on Zarthan Avenue and W.
16th Street and installing new parking restrictions at Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th
Street.
Recommended
Action:
Traffic Study No. 561: Motion to adopt the attached resolution
rescinding Resolution Numbers: 3448, 6591, 86-53, 96-65,
7381, 6928, 5717, and 6470 and adopting the attached resolution
authorizing the restriction of parking on the south side of the
south frontage road of I-394, 200 feet east and 200 feet west of
Zarthan Avenue; the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from
the south frontage road of I-394 to 200 feet south of W. 16th
Street; and no parking Monday to Friday (Except holidays on
west side only) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from 200 feet south of W.
16th Street to 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road and authorizing
installation of 3-way stop signs at the Zarthan Avenue
intersection with the south frontage road of I-394.
7d. Appeal by Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson of Board of Zoning Appeals
Decisions of April 2 to Grant A Variance to Niaz Real Estate Corporation for
a Proposed Office at 4050 Brookside Ave.
Case #02-17-VAR
Staff
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the variance to allow
vehicles to back into public street, subject to conditions included
in the resolution.
4
8. Boards and Commissions
a. Bassett Creek Watershed Commission
There is currently one open seat on the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission. On
Monday, June 3, Council and staff interviewed two possible candidates.
Motion: Formally appoint Paul Anderson to the Bassett Creek Watershed
Commission
b. Housing Authority
Shone Row was appointed to the Housing Authority on January 5, 1998 to a term
expiring June 30, 2002. As her term comes to an end, Ms. Row has expressed her
interest in being re-appointed to the Housing Authority. She is currently the Secretary
to this commission. Terms are for five years.
Motion: Reappoint Shone Row to the Housing Authority for a term to expire June
30, 2007
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
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 2a
Meeting of June 17, 2002
2a. Annual Human Rights Student Essay Presentation Contest, City Winner
The 2002 recipient is 8th Grader Abigail Burkhart.
Background:
Each year, the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission participates in the League Of
Minnesota Human Rights Commissions’ Student Essay Contest. Students throughout the state
in grades six, seven and eight submit essays to their local city human rights commissions. Each
local commission then selects one city winner to enter into the state contest. For 2002, the state
winners are: 1st Place, Allison O’Rourke of Roseville, 2nd place, Chad Schwarze of Plymouth
and 3rd place tied winners, Emily Blau of Golden Valley and Tanya Whitcomb of Paynesville.
For the 2002 essay contest students were asked to relate the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights or the Bill of Rights to a current event. Abigail Burkhart, the St.
Louis Park city winner, chose to write about article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights titled Right of Life, Liberty & Personal Security and Amendment 5 of the Bill of Rights
pertaining to rights of due process of law. The Mayor will present our St. Louis Park student
winner with an award certificate and a $25 gift certificate to a local book store.
6
Item # 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 3, 2002
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Chris Nelson,
Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmember Ron Latz was absent.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Planning and
Zoning Supervisor (Ms. Jeremiah); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations--None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of May 20, 2002
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes of May 13, 2002
From Councilmember Velick: add that Councilmember Velick was present at the Study
Session meeting.
From Councilmember Sanger: Item 7, Paragraph 2, add: There was consensus for staff to
do so.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
City Manager Charlie Meyer suggested the Mayor call for an Executive Session at the end
of the City Council meeting regarding the Wolfe Park settlement.
Mayor Jacobs stated an Executive Session shall follow the City Council meeting.
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
7
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 Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the agenda.
The motion passed 6-0.
4b. Approval of Consent Items
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
the following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 6-0.
1. Approve second reading of text amendments to Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code
(Zoning) to add “Mikvah” as an accessory use in Single Family Residential Districts,
adopt Ordinance No. 2225-02, approve summary and authorize publication. (Case No.
02-20-ZA)
2. Approve second reading of Ordinance amending Chapter 36 of the Municipal Code
related to changing several land uses from permitted with conditions to conditional uses
in commercial zoning districts, to amend the intensity classification table threshold
intensities, and to lower the intensity thresholds for requiring conditional use permits in
the C1 district to those that exceed Class 4, adopt Ordinance No. 2226-02, approve
summary, and authorize publication. (Case No. 02-16-ZA and Case No. 02-23-ZA)
3. Approve Resolution No. 02-057 authorizing the restriction of parking to “No Parking 7
a.m. to 6 p.m. Weekdays” on the east side of Colorado Avenue from Excelsior
Boulevard to 80 feet south of Excelsior Boulevard. Traffic Study No. 564
4. Approve designation of Thomas & Sons Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $583,444.84
for the 2001 Sidewalk Improvement Project--Phase B – City Project No. 99-07B
5. Approve Resolution No. 02-058 that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of
preparing a formal City Engineer’s Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a
proposed alley improvement project in the 2900 block between Florida and Edgewood
Avenues, north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
6. Approve following reports for filing:
6a. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of April 25, 2002
6b. Vendor Claims
8
5. Public Hearings--None
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public--None
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. Request of Holle Construction on Behalf of Santorini’s Restaurant for a Major
Amendment to a Continued Special Permit for Rooftop Events at 9920 & 9908
Wayzata Blvd.
Case No. 02-05-CUP
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Janet Jeremiah said the Applicant is agreeable to a
continuance of this item in order to do additional work on some of the code issues. Ms.
Jeremiah said the Applicant has signed a waiver in regard to the State deadline law.
Tony Nicklow, owner of Santorini’s Restaurant, restated his opinion that he should not be
responsible for the 1990 parking requirements. Mr. Nicklow said he is agreeable to a
continuance to June 17, 2002.
Dangie Nicklow expressed her discontent regarding an article in the Sun Sailor stating that
Santorini’s Restaurant held a wedding without permits. Ms. Nicklow said Santorini’s
Restaurant did not have any party without a permit last year. She would like the article to
be corrected. Councilmember Nelson suggested she write a letter to the paper’s editor.
Betty Charney and Allan Charney requested their upcoming wedding rehearsal dinner not
be cancelled due to a prohibition of rooftop events at Santorini’s.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to defer
consideration until June 17, 2002 to allow time for the applicant to address the feasibility
of meeting Building and Health Code requirements.
The motion passed 6-0.
7b. Albert O. Foster’s Request for a Major Amendment to a Continued Special
Permit for a 1,010 Square Feet Office in the R-4 District at 1425 Hampshire
Avenue South #113 (Park Point Apartments). Case No. 02-22-CUP
Ms. Jeremiah said the Applicant, Albert O. Foster, is present to answer questions.
Mr. Foster, 1425 Hampshire Avenue South, indicated his business has been located in the
apartment for seven years, and he distributed a few letters from adjoining apartment
residents in support of Mr. Foster to the Council. Mr. Foster said he owns and operates a
dotcom business, and 100% of his business communications are via the Internet, fax, or
telephone. He has two part-time employees, no customers visit the apartment, and no
plastic products are stored anywhere on-site. According to Mr. Foster, Park Point
9
Apartments is not affordable housing, and he said during his seven-year occupancy, there
have always been vacancy signs.
Councilmember Velick said she appreciates Mr. Foster’s earnest intent, however, an R4 is
for standalone offices only. Mr. Foster responded that he thinks, in an R4, an in-home
business in a residential apartment is allowed, but with restrictions. Mr. Foster requested
the Council allow the CUP adjustment for just his business, i.e., as long as he occupies the
apartment unit. He thinks the concern regarding setting a precedent is much less than it is
perceived to be.
Councilmember Nelson agreed with Mr. Foster that Park Point Apartments is not
affordable housing, however, it is residential housing. Councilmember Nelson’s concern is
the mixing of business and residential. He said he will vote to deny. Councilmember
Nelson added that affordable office space is located just east of Park Point Apartments.
Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Nelson, and she said it is not personal
to the Applicant. Councilmember Sanger does not want the Council to be in a position of
making a case-by-case determination for every business. She will support the resolution
for denial.
It was moved by Councilmember Velick, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to deny a
resolution approving the Special Permit amendment subject to the conditions included in
the resolution.
The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Foster asked if he could have until October 1, when his lease ends, to move out; and is
his application fee refundable? Mr. Foster said when he spoke to Staff, they were
supportive of his request, and he said if he had been told there would be little chance of
approval, he would not have spent the money to apply. He strongly requested that all or
part of the application fee be refunded. Mr. Foster added that it will be a burden for him to
move.
Councilmember Nelson said he is unsure about the time issue, that is between the
Applicant and Staff. Councilmember Nelson does not know if refunding an application fee
is something the Council does, but Staff can discuss that with the Applicant on the record if
it is clear-cut, or off the record if it is not. Mayor Jacobs does not know if there is a
precedent for the Council to follow in regard to such a refund.
Ms. Jeremiah said she told Mr. Foster that there is ordinance in the zoning code that relates
to the return of application fees, which is based on when the public hearing is held as many
of the costs are incurred during the advertisement phase, e.g., direct mailings and, in this
case, that took place at the Planning Commission hearing. Generally, at this point there
would be no refund. Ms. Jeremiah asked City Attorney Tom Scott if the Council could
even consider waiving the fee. Ms. Jeremiah thinks there is no precedent. Mr. Scott said
10
he will determine what the options are, and he noted it may be possible to refund the fee.
From an administrative standpoint, Mr. Scott perceives the time issue to be a non-issue.
Mayor Jacobs reiterated that Staff will work something out in regard to the time issue on
this application fee.
8. Boards and Commissions--None
9. Communications--None
11. Adjournment
At 8:05 p.m., it was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa,
to move to Executive Session to discuss settlement of litigation concerning Wolfe Park soil
corrections.
The motion passed 6-0.
Council adjourned to Executive Session. Present were Councilmembers Brimeyer, Nelson,
Sanger, Santa, Velick, and Mayor Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); City Clerk
(Ms. Reichert); and Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh).
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to close
Executive Session and reconvene in Regular Session.
The motion passed 6-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
settlement in the amount of $90,000 relating to the Wolfe Park grading lawsuit against
Close Landscape, et al., and authorize the Mayor, City Manager, and City Attorney to sign
any necessary settlement documents.
The motion passed 6-0.
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
11
Item # 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Minutes of June 3, 2002
The meeting convened at 8:30 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Susan Santa, Susan Sanger, Chris
Nelson, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan); Superintendent of Buildings and Structures (?) (Mr.
Panning; Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Rec Center Roof
Council and staff discussed options for repair of the West Arena Roof at the Recreation Center
roof. Ms. Walsh reported that the roof had been inspected and staff has met with engineering
consultants to determine best options.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the less expensive option of injecting an epoxy into the rotting
beam was viable. She specifically asked how long the city could expect the epoxy to remain
structurally sound. Mr. Panning, Ms. Walsh and Mr. Hoffman all stated that the less expensive
option had a life expectancy of approximately 5 years, but may remain sound for a longer period.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he would prefer to take a long range approach in the interest of safety.
Councilmember Santa also stated that she believed the confidence of persons attending activities
in the arena was eroded due to the appearance of scaffolding “holding up the roof”. She
encouraged staff to move forward with the more permanent solution.
Councilmember Nelson asked about the architecture and design of the steel beams proposed as a
more permanent solution. Staff stated that they believed the design would not be compromised
by the new beams. Councilmember Nelson also asked how the project would be financed.
Mr. Meyer responded that there was bonding capacity, but that decisions regarding capital
improvements in the city would have to be made soon. He also stated that if staff moved
forward on the more permanent solution, that we would only be committing the city to
preliminary engineering work at this time. The project was not planned until spring of 2003, and
budget discussions would be taking place within the next 60 days.
Following discussion, council directed staff to move forward with replacement of the roof.
2. Introduction of Environmental Coordinator
Jim Vaughan was present at the meeting to inform the Council about new job duties he has taken
on and outlined some of the initiatives he proposed to be taking. The primary focus of the
12
position is to address environmental issues in the city and to provide education to the public
regarding environmental issues. Mr. Vaughan will be addressing issues related to the Reilly site
and on-going engineering concerns, the forestry program, wildlife management, NDPES
programs (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and other related programs and
issues.
Mr. Vaughan informed the council that he will is working on development of the deer
management program and that he was proposing that the city take a comprehensive approach to
deer management that considers the relationship to other environmental factors. He will be
working with other cities, as well, to address concerns regarding deer.
3. Phosphorous Ordinance
Councilmember Sanger encouraged staff and council to consider adopting an ordinance which
bans the sale of fertilizer containing phosphorous in the city and which requires retailers to post
information regarding environmental concerns.
Councilmember Nelson was not supportive of restricting sales and felt it would be
unenforceable. He believed the controls placed on use by legislation recently passed was
sufficient.
Mayor Jacobs also questioned enforcement of a ban on sale.
Mr. Meyer suggested that rather than attempting to control sales made by retailers, it may be
more palatable to simply require that retailers carry zero-phosphate fertilizers.
Council also discussed enforcement and inspection of fertilizer applicators. Mr. Vaughan
suggested that if the ordinance included a requirement for posting of areas where fertilizer is
used, staff could more easily perform an analysis of the products being used.
After discussion, council directed staff to move forward with an ordinance requiring retailers to
make zero-phosphate fertilizer available and to post information regarding use of fertilizers
containing phosphorous at the point of sale; and which requires commercial applicators to post
all sites where fertilizer has recently been applied. Council also directed staff to move forward
with a public education campaign regarding fertilizer use and the environment.
4. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:04 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
13
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of June 17, 2002
7a. Refunding of 1994 General Obligation Tax Increment Bonds
To refund the 1994 GO Tax Increment Bonds
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve resolution awarding the sale of $6,135,000
general obligation tax increment refunding bonds, series 2002.
Background: The 1994 GO Tax Increment Bonds have a call date of September 1, 2002. At
this time, the Council is requested to consider refunding these bonds in order to obtain a lower
interest rate and therefore incur less interest costs over the term of the bond. The current interest
rate ranges from 4.5% to 4.875%. We anticipate the new interest rate will range from 2.75% to
4%. Given this, the present value savings, (after issuance costs), is estimated at $154,968. The
future value savings are estimated at $178,379. Issuance costs on this bond are estimated at
$40,000.
The original bond issue was $7,195,000 and the total refunding bond issue would be $6,135,000.
The City would make an additional principal payment on the old bond in the amount of $505,000
on September 1, 2002 bringing the outstanding amount to $6,135,000.
Principal and interest payments on the old bond as well as the proposed refunding bond are
secured by tax increment revenues generated by development within the Excelsior Boulevard,
Trunk Highway Seven, and Oak Park Village Tax Increment Districts.
The bonds are scheduled for sale on June 17, 2002. The proceeds would be held until September
1, 2002 at which time, the old bonds would be paid off. The new bonds will not have a call
feature.
Issues: Due to the possibility of issuing additional debt in the City’s name during 2002, the
issue of bank qualification has risen. If the bond issue is not “bank qualified”, the City would
pay a higher interest rate. Steve Bubel has indicated that this refunding issue can be bank
qualified if the issuance costs and underwriter costs are paid “out of pocket”. The total costs to
be paid “out of pocket” are approximately $86,050.
In reviewing the feasibility of this, it has been determined that the interest loss on investments on
hand would be approximately the same as the interest that would be paid out if the issue costs
were included in the bond issue.
Other: The attached resolution will be updated with sale information before the Council
meeting.
14
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the 1994 General Obligation Tax Increment
Bond Refunding.
Attachments: Resolution awarding the sale of $6,135,000 general obligation tax increment
refunding bonds, series 2002
Prepared By: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
15
RESOLUTION NO. 02-061
A RESOLUTION AWARDING THE SALE OF $6,135,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT
REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002;
FIXING THEIR FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS;
DIRECTING THEIR EXECUTION AND DELIVERY;
AND PROVIDING FOR THEIR PAYMENT
BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County,
Minnesota (City) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of Bonds.
1.01. It is hereby determined that:
(a) the City has duly established the following project areas and tax increment districts:
(i) Excelsior Boulevard Redevelopment Project; (ii) Oak Park Village Redevelopment Project, and
(iii) the Highway 7 Development District (collectively referred to herein as the "Districts"), pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047, Chapter 472A, and Sections 469.174 to
469.179 and predecessor statutes (Act);
(b) the control, authority and operation of the Districts were transferred to the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority (Authority) by Resolution No. 88-134 of the City, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.094; and
(c) by Resolution No. 90-4 of the Authority and Resolution No. 90-29 of the City, the
geographical areas of the project areas associated with the Districts were expanded and joined (such
expanded coterminous area is referred to herein as the “Project Area”); and
(d) the City is authorized by Section 469.178 of the TIF Act to issue and sell its general
obligations to pay all or a portion of the public development and redevelopment costs (Costs)
related to the Project Area as identified in the redevelopment plan and program and tax increment
financing plan (Plans) for the Districts;
(e) the City is authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 475 (Act) and Section 475.67,
subdivision 3, of the Act to issue and sell its general obligation bonds to refund obligations and the
interest thereon before the due date of the obligations, if consistent with covenants made with the
holders thereof, when determined by the City Council to be necessary or desirable for the reduction
of debt service cost to the City or for the extension or adjustment of maturities in relation to the
resources available for their payment;
(f) Section 475.67, subdivision 4 of the Act permits the sale of refunding obligations
during the six month period prior to the date on which the obligations to be refunded may be called
for redemption;
16
(g) it is necessary and desirable to reduce debt service costs that the City issue
$6,135,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 (Bonds) to refund
certain outstanding general obligations of the City, the proceeds of which have been or may be used
to pay certain costs in the Project Area;
(h) the outstanding bonds to be refunded (Refunded Bonds) consist of the $7,195,000
General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of 1994, dated February 1, 1994, of which
$6,135,000 in principal amount is currently outstanding and is callable on September 1, 2002.
(i) the Mayor and City Manager are authorized and directed to execute a Tax Increment
Pledge Agreement between the City and the Authority (Pledge Agreement) in substantially the form
on file in City Hall, pursuant to which the Authority pledges certain Available Tax Increment (as
defined in the Pledge Agreement) to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds.
1.02. The proposal of ________________________________________ (Purchaser) to
purchase $___________ General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 (Bonds)
of the City described in the Official Terms of Proposal thereof is found and determined to be a
reasonable offer and is accepted, the proposal being to purchase the Bonds at a price of
$____________ plus accrued interest to date of delivery, for Bonds bearing interest as follows:
Date of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
Date of
Maturity
Interest
Rate
2003 2007
2004 2008
2005 2009
2006
True interest cost: _________
1.03. The sum of $___________ being the amount proposed by the Purchaser in excess of
$_________ will be credited to the Debt Service Fund hereinafter created. The City Manager is
directed to retain the good faith check of the Purchaser pending completion of the sale of the Bonds,
and to return the good faith checks of the unsuccessful proposers forthwith. The Mayor and City
Manager are directed to execute a contract with the Purchaser on behalf of the City.
1.04. The City will forthwith issue and sell the Bonds pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 475 (Act) in the total principal amount of $6,135,000, originally dated July 16, 2002, in the
denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereof, numbered No. R-1, upward, bearing
interest as above set forth, and which mature serially on September 1, without option of prior
payment, in the years and amounts as follows:
17
Date of Date of
Maturity Amount Maturity Amount
2003 540,000 2007 1,190,000
2004 595,000 2008 1,240,000
2005 625,000 2009 1,285,000
2006 660,000
1.05. Term Bonds. To be completed if Term Bonds are requested by the Purchaser.
Section 2. Registration and Payment.
2.01. Registered Form. The Bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The
interest thereon and, upon surrender of each Bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check
or draft issued by the Registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; Interest Payment Dates. Each Bond will be dated as of the last interest
payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the Bond has been paid or
made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to
which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the Bond will be dated as
of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest payment
date, in which case the Bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on the Bonds
is payable on September 1 and March 1 of each year, commencing March 1, 2003, to the registered
owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the immediately
preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The City will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating
agent and paying agent (Registrar). The effect of registration and the rights and duties of the City
and the Registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
(a) Register. The Registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a
bond register in which the Registrar provides for the registration of ownership of Bonds and
the registration of transfers and exchanges of Bonds entitled to be registered, transferred or
exchanged.
(b) Transfer of Bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a Bond duly endorsed by
the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form
satisfactory to the Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an attorney
duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the Registrar will authenticate and
deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new Bonds of a
like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor. The Registrar
may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the fifteenth day of the
month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest payment date.
18
(c) Exchange of Bonds. When Bonds are surrendered by the registered owner
for exchange the Registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new Bonds of a like
aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the owner's
attorney in writing.
(d) Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be promptly
cancelled by the Registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the City.
(e) Improper or Unauthorized Transfer. When a Bond is presented to the
Registrar for transfer, the Registrar may refuse to transfer the Bond until the Registrar is
satisfied that the endorsement on the Bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and
genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The Registrar will incur no
liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(f) Persons Deemed Owners. The City and the Registrar may treat the person in
whose name a Bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the Bond,
whether the Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account
of, the principal of and interest on the Bond and for all other purposes, and payments so
made to a registered owner or upon the owner's order will be valid and effectual to satisfy
and discharge the liability upon the Bond to the extent of the sum or sums so paid.
(g) Taxes, Fees and Charges. The Registrar may impose a charge upon the
owner thereof for a transfer or exchange of Bonds sufficient to reimburse the Registrar for
any tax, fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or
exchange.
(h) Mutilated, Lost, Stolen or Destroyed Bonds. If a Bond becomes mutilated or
is destroyed, stolen or lost, the Registrar will deliver a new Bond of like amount, number,
maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the
mutilated Bond or in lieu of and in substitution for a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon the
payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the Registrar in connection therewith;
and, in the case of a Bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the Registrar of
evidence satisfactory to it that the Bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the ownership
thereof, and upon furnishing to the Registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity in form,
substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the City and
the Registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the Registrar will be
cancelled by the Registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the City. If
the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost Bond has already matured or been called for
redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new Bond prior to
payment.
2.04. Appointment of Initial Registrar. The City appoints the City Finance Director of the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as the initial Registrar. The City reserves the right to designate a
successor Registrar, in which case the following terms apply. The Mayor and the City Manager are
authorized to execute and deliver, on behalf of the City, a contract with the Registrar. Upon merger
19
or consolidation of the Registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or
trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized to
act as successor Registrar. The City agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the
Registrar for the services performed. The City reserves the right to remove the Registrar upon 30
days' notice and upon the appointment of a successor Registrar, in which event the predecessor
Registrar must deliver all cash and Bonds in its possession to the successor Registrar and must
deliver the bond register to the successor Registrar. On or before each principal or interest due date,
without further order of this Council, the City Director of Finance must transmit to the Registrar
monies sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due.
2.05. Execution, Authentication and Delivery. The Bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the City Manager and executed on behalf of the City by the signatures of the Mayor and
the City Manager, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed
facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears
on the Bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a Bond, such signature or facsimile
will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in
office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a Bond will not be valid or obligatory for any
purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this Resolution unless and until a certificate of
authentication on the Bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized
representative of the Registrar. Certificates of authentication on different Bonds need not be signed
by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a Bond is conclusive
evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this Resolution. When the Bonds have
been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the City Manager will deliver the same to the
Purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale heretofore
made and executed, and the Purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the purchase
price.
2.06. Temporary Bonds. The City may elect to deliver in lieu of printed definitive Bonds
one or more typewritten temporary Bonds in substantially the form set forth in Section 3 with such
changes as may be necessary to reflect more than one maturity in a single temporary bond. Upon
the execution and delivery of definitive Bonds the temporary Bonds will be exchanged therefor and
cancelled.
Section 3. Form of Bond.
3.01. The Bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially the following form:
20
[Face of the Bond]
No. R-_____ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA $__________
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT
REFUNDING BOND, SERIES 2002
Date of
Rate Maturity Original Issue CUSIP
July 16, 2002
Registered Owner: Cede & Co.
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal corporation
in Hennepin County, Minnesota (City), acknowledges itself to be indebted and for value received
hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner specified above or registered assigns, the principal
sum of $6,135,000 on the maturity date specified above, with interest thereon from the date hereof
at the annual rate specified above, payable September 1 and March 1 in each year, commencing
March 1, 2003, to the person in whose name this Bond is registered at the close of business on the
fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding month. The interest
hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof are payable in lawful
money of the United States of America by check or draft by
__________________________________________, ______________, Minnesota, as Bond
Registrar, Paying Agent, Transfer Agent and Authenticating Agent, or its designated successor
under the Resolution described herein. For the prompt and full payment of such principal and
interest as the same respectively become due, the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the City
have been and are hereby irrevocably pledged.
The City Council has designated the issue of Bonds of which this Bond forms a part as
"qualified tax exempt obligations" within the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986, as amended (the Code) relating to disallowance of interest expense for financial
institutions and within the $10 million limit allowed by the Code for the calendar year of issue.
21
This Bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $_________ all of like
original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date and interest rate, all issued pursuant
to a resolution adopted by the City Council on June 17, 2002 (the Resolution), for the purpose of
providing money to refund the outstanding principal amount of certain general obligation bonds of
the City, pursuant to and in full conformity with the home rule charter of the City and the
Constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.67 and
the Minnesota Tax Increment Financing Act, and the principal hereof and interest hereon are
payable primarily from tax increments resulting from increases in taxable valuation of real property
in certain tax increment financing districts within the Project Area as set forth in the Resolution to
which reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith
and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged for payment of this Bond and the City Council has
obligated itself to levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the City in the event of any
deficiency of tax increments pledged, which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or
amount. The Bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered Bonds in denominations of
$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities.
As provided in the Resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this Bond is
transferable upon the books of the City at the principal office of the Bond Registrar, by the
registered owner hereof in person or by the owner's attorney duly authorized in writing, upon
surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar,
duly executed by the registered owner or the owner's attorney; and may also be surrendered in
exchange for Bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or exchange the City
will cause a new Bond or Bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or registered owner, of
the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate and maturing on the same
date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental charge required to be paid with
respect to such transfer or exchange.
The City and the Bond Registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this Bond is
registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this Bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of
receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the City nor the Bond Registrar will be
affected by any notice to the contrary.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts,
conditions and things required by the home rule charter of the City and the Constitution and laws of
the State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in the
issuance of this Bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the City in
accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed as so
required, and that the issuance of this Bond does not cause the indebtedness of the City to exceed
any constitutional, statutory or charter limitation of indebtedness.
This Bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit
under the Resolution until the Certificate of Authentication hereon has been executed by the Bond
Registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its
City Council, has caused this Bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual
22
signatures of the Mayor and City Manager and has caused this Bond to be dated as of the date set
forth below.
Dated:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
(facsimile) (facsimile)
City Manager Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the Resolution mentioned within.
By
Authorized Representative
_________________________________
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this Bond, will be
construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants UNIF GIFT MIN ACT _________ Custodian _________
in common (Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants under Uniform Gifts or
by entireties Transfers to Minors
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with
right of survivorship and Act . . . . . . . . . . . .
not as tenants in common (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
________________________________________
23
ASSIGNMENT
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
________________________________________ the within Bond and all rights thereunder, and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________________ attorney to transfer
the said Bond on the books kept for registration of the within Bond, with full power of substitution
in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor's signature to this assignment must correspond with the name
as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
Signature Guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the
Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program
(“SEMP”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program (“MSP”) or other
such “signature guarantee program” as may be determined by the Registrar in addition to, or in
substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.
The Bond Registrar will not effect transfer of this Bond unless the information concerning
the assignee requested below is provided.
Name and Address: __________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
(Include information for all joint owners if this Bond
is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
24
PROVISIONS AS TO REGISTRATION
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within Bond has been registered on the
books of the Registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Signature of
Date of Registration Registered Owner Finance Director
Cede & Co.
_____________________ Federal ID #13-2555119 _______________________
3.02. The City Manager is directed to obtain a copy of the proposed approving legal
opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis, Minnesota, which is to be complete except
as to dating thereof and will cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each Bond.
Section 4. Payment; Security; Pledges and Covenants.
4.01. (a) The Bonds are payable from the General Obligation Tax Increment
Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 Debt Service Fund (Debt Service Fund) hereby created, and
all Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Pledge Agreement) received by the City from
the Authority pursuant to the Pledge Agreement is hereby pledged to the Debt Service Fund.
(b) The debt service fund, if any, heretofore established for the Refunded Bonds
as defined in the resolution providing for the issuance and sale of the Bonds, is terminated,
and all monies therein are hereby transferred to the Debt Service Fund herein created. If a
payment of principal or interest on the Bonds becomes due when there is not sufficient
money in the Debt Service Fund to pay the same, the City Director of Finance will pay such
principal or interest from the general fund of the City, and the general fund will be
reimbursed for those advances out of the proceeds of the tax increments when collected.
(c) There is hereby appropriated to the Debt Service Fund (i) any amount over
the minimum purchase price of the Bonds paid by the Purchaser and (ii) the accrued interest,
if any, paid by the Purchaser upon closing and delivery of the Bonds.
4.02. It is determined that estimated collection of tax increments pledged by the Authority
under the Pledge Agreement for the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds will produce at
least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet when due, the principal and interest
payments on the Bonds and that no tax levy is needed at this time.
4.03. The City Clerk is directed to file a certified copy of this resolution with the Taxpayer
Services Division Manager of Hennepin County and to obtain the certificate required by Section
475.63 of the Act.
25
4.04. It is hereby determined that upon the receipt of proceeds of the Bonds (Proceeds)
together with the funds appropriated under Section 5.02 hereof for payment of the Refunded Bonds
that an irrevocable appropriation to the debt service fund for the Refunded Bonds will have been
made within the meaning of Section 475.61, Subdivision 3 of the Act and the City Manager is
hereby authorized and directed to certify such fact to and request the Taxpayer Services Division
Manager to cancel any and all tax levies made by the resolution authorizing and approving the
Refunded Bonds.
Section 5. Refunding; Findings; Redemption of Refunded Bonds.
5.01. The Refunded Bonds are the General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds of
1994, of the City, dated February 1, 1994, of which $6,135,000 in principal amount is callable on
September 1, 2002. It is hereby found and determined that based upon information presently
available from the City's financial advisers, the issuance of the Bonds is consistent with covenants
made with the holders thereof and is necessary and desirable for the reduction of debt service cost to
the municipality.
5.02. There is hereby appropriated for payment of principal and interest on the Refunded
Bonds (a) all Proceeds, less amounts deposited in the Debt Service Fund under Section 4.01, and (b)
such additional funds received by the City from the Authority under the Pledge Agreement as are
needed to prepay all of the principal of, interest on, and redemption premium, if any, on the
Refunded Bonds. It is hereby found and determined that the net Proceeds will be sufficient to
prepay all of the principal of, interest on and redemption premium (if any) on the Refunded
Bonds.
5.03. The Refunded Bonds maturing on September 1, 2003 and thereafter will be
redeemed and prepaid on September 1, 2003. The Refunded Bonds will be redeemed and
prepaid in accordance with their terms and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth
in the forms of Notice of Call for Redemption attached hereto as Attachment B which terms and
conditions are hereby approved and incorporated herein by reference. The Registrar for the
Refunded Bonds is authorized and directed to send a copy of the Notice of Redemption to each
registered holder of the Refunded Bonds.
Section 6 Authentication of Transcript.
6.01. The officers of the City are authorized and directed to prepare and furnish to the
Purchaser and to the attorneys approving the Bonds, certified copies of proceedings and records of
the City relating to the Bonds and to the financial condition and affairs of the City, and such other
certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the facts within their knowledge or
as shown by the books and records in their custody and under their control, relating to the validity
and marketability of the Bonds, and such instruments, including any heretofore furnished, may be
deemed representations of the City as to the facts stated therein.
6.02. The Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to
certify that they have examined the Official Statement prepared and circulated in connection with
the issuance and sale of the Bonds and that to the best of their knowledge and belief the Official
26
Statement is a complete and accurate representation of the facts and representations made therein as
of the date of the Official Statement.
6.03. The City authorizes the Purchaser to forward the amount of Bond proceeds allocable
to the payment of issuance expenses (other than amounts payable to Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
as Bond Counsel) to Resource Bank & Trust Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota on the closing date
for further distribution as directed by the City's financial adviser, Ehlers & Associates, Inc.
Section 7. Tax Covenant.
7.01. The City covenants and agrees with the holders from time to time of the Bonds
that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or agents any action
which would cause the interest on the Bonds to become subject to taxation under the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated
thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its officers,
employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary to
ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the Code and applicable
Treasury Regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the
Bonds.
7.02. The City will comply with requirements necessary under the Code to establish
and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the Bonds under Section 103 of
the Code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods for
investments, limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the Bonds, and
the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States.
7.03. The City further covenants not to use the proceeds of the Bonds or to cause or
permit them or any of them to be used, in such a manner as to cause the Bonds to be "private
activity bonds" within the meaning of Sections 103 and 141 through 150 of the Code.
7.04. In order to qualify the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt obligations" within the
meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code, the City makes the following factual statements and
representations:
(a) the Bonds are not "private activity bonds" as defined in Section
141 of the Code;
(b) the City hereby designates the Bonds as "qualified tax-exempt
obligations" for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the Code;
(c) the amount of the Bonds does not exceed the outstanding amount
of the rerfunded bonds;
(d) the average maturity of the Bonds is not later than the average
maturity date of the Refunded Bonds; and
27
(e) the Bonds have a maturity date which is not later than the date
which is 30 years after the date the original tax-exempt obligation related to the Refunded
Bonds was issued.
7.05. The City will use its best efforts to comply with any federal procedural
requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by this section.
Section 8. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of City.
8.01. The Bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten or
printed fully registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in Section 1.03 hereof. Upon initial
issuance, the ownership of each Bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York,
New York, and its successors and assigns (DTC). Except as provided in this section, all of the
outstanding Bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the
name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
8.02. With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the City, the Bond Registrar and the
Paying Agent will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other
financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository
(Participants) or to any other person on behalf of which a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds,
including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the
records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds,
(ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of Bonds, as
shown by the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar,) of any notice with respect to the
Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other
person, other than a registered owner of Bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of,
premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may
treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept
by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of
principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers
with respect to such Bonds, and for all other purposes. The Paying Agent will pay all principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered
owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, and all such payments will
be valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the City's obligations with respect to payment of
principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No
person other than a registered owner of Bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond
Registrar, will receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon
delivery by DTC to the City Manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to
substitute a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words "Cede & Co.," will refer to such new
nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the City Manager will promptly deliver a copy
of the same to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent.
28
8.03. Representation Letter. The City has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations (Representation Letter) which shall govern payment of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds and notices with respect to the Bonds. Any
Paying Agent or Bond Registrar subsequently appointed by the City with respect to the Bonds will
agree to take all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Representation letter with
respect to the Bond Registrar and Paying Agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times.
8.04. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. In the event the City, by resolution of the
City Council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in
the Bonds that they be able to obtain Bond certificates, the City will notify DTC, whereupon DTC
will notify the Participants, of the availability through DTC of Bond certificates. In such event the
City will issue, transfer and exchange Bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other
registered owners in accordance with the provisions of this Resolution. DTC may determine to
discontinue providing its services with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving notice to the City
and discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no
successor securities depository is appointed, the City will issue and the Bond Registrar will
authenticate Bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will
apply to the transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof.
8.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to
the contrary, so long as a Bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC,
payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the Bond and notices with
respect to the Bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC's
Operational Arrangements, as set forth in the Representation Letter.
Section 9. Defeasance. When all Bonds and all interest thereon, have been discharged as
provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the
holders of the Bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the City for the
prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the Bonds will remain in full force and
effect. The City may discharge all Bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the
Registrar on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If any Bond should
not be paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the Registrar a sum
sufficient for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit.
Section 10. Continuing Disclosure.
10.01. The City hereby covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of
the provisions of the Continuing Disclosure Certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Resolution, failure of the City to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Certificate is not to be
considered an event of default with respect to the Bonds; however, any Bondholder may take such
actions as may be necessary and appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by
court order, to cause the City to comply with its obligations under this section.
10.02. "Continuing Disclosure Certificate" means that certain Continuing Disclosure
Certificate executed by the Mayor, City Manager and City Clerk and dated the date of issuance and
29
delivery of the Bonds, as originally executed and as it may be amended from time to time in
accordance with the terms thereof.
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Member
_________________________, and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor
thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
30
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) SS.
)
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting Clerk of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the attached and
foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the City Council of the City held on June 17,
2002 with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and correct copy of
the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of $_________ General Obligation Tax
Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 of the City.
WITNESS My hand officially as such City Clerk and the corporate seal of the City this
______ day of _______________, 2002.
City Clerk
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(SEAL)
31
STATE OF MINNESOTA DIRECTOR OF PROPERTY TAXATION'S
CERTIFICATE AS TO
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN REGISTRATION WHERE NO AD
VALOREM TAX LEVY
I, the undersigned Director of Property Taxation of Hennepin County, Minnesota, hereby
certify that a resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, on
June 17, 2002, relating to General Obligation Tax Increment Refunding Bonds, Series 2002, in the
amount of $_________, dated July 16, 2002, has been filed in my office and said obligations have
been registered on the register of obligations in my office.
WITNESS My hand and official seal this ____ day of ____________, 2002.
_____________________________
Director of Property Taxation
Hennepin County, Minnesota
(SEAL)
By___________________________
Deputy
32
ATTACHMENT B
NOTICE OF CALL FOR REDEMPTION
$7,195,000
GENERAL OBLIGATION TAX INCREMENT REFUNDING BONDS OF 1994
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
CUSIP #: _______________
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by order of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, there have been called for redemption and prepayment on
September 1, 2002
all outstanding bonds of the City designated as General Obligation Increment Refunding Bonds of 1994,
dated February 1, 1994, having a stated maturity date of September 1, 2009, totaling $6,135,000 in principal
amount.
The bonds are being called at a price of par plus accrued interest to September 1, 2002, on which
date all interest on said bonds will cease to accrue. Holders of the bonds hereby called for
redemption are requested to present their bonds for payment at the main office of U.S. Bank
National Association, in the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, on or before September 1, 2002.
If by mail: If by hand:
U.S. Bank National Association U.S. Bank National Association
Corporate Trust Operations 180 East Fifth Street
P.O. Box 64111 3rd Floor - Bond Drop Window
St. Paul, MN 55164-0111 St. Paul, MN 55101]
It is recommended that you mail your bonds registered or certified mail to guard against
loss.
In compliance with the Interest and Dividend Compliance Act of 1983 and Broker
Reporting Requirements, the redeeming institution is required to withhold a specified percentage
of the principal amount of your holdings redeemed unless they are provided with your social
security number or federal employer identification number, properly certified. This Compliance
should be fulfilled through the submitting of a W-9 Form which may be obtained at a Bank or
other Financial Institution.
The Registrar will not be responsible for the selection or use of the CUSIP number, nor is
any representation made as to the correctness indicated in the Redemption Notice or on any
Bond. It is included solely for convenience of the Holders.
33
Additional information may be obtained from:
U.S. Bank National Association
Corporate Trust Division
Bondholder Relations (612) 244-0444]
Dated: June 17, 2002.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL
By
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
34
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7b
Meeting of June 17, 2002
7b. First Reading of an Ordinance Regulating Sale and Application of
Phosphorous Fertilizer
This ordinance requires retailers dealing in fertilizer to make phosphorous-free
fertilizer available for sale at all locations in the city and requires commercial
fertilizer applicators to post informational signs at sites that have been fertilized.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance regulating sale and
application of phosphorous fertilizer and to set second reading
for July 1, 2002.
Backround: Legislation adopted at the most recent legislative session bans the use of fertilizers
containing phosphorous in metropolitan counties except under certain circumstances. This
legislation goes into effect on January 1, 2004. The bill also allows cities to adopt ordinances
which complement this legislation provided those ordinances are in effect prior to August 1,
2002. At the Council Study Sessions of June 3 and June 10, 2002, council and staff discussed
creating a City Phosphorus Ordinance.
Provisions of the Ordinance: This ordinance is intended to ensure that our residents have
access to phosphorous-free fertilizers at retail stores in the City and also requires retailers to
display educational materials to assist residents in making responsible choices about fertilizer.
The information we intend to provide to the stores will also inform the public about the ban on
phosphorous fertilizers which is effective January 1, 2004. This portion of the ordinance which
regulates sale will go into effect prior to the August 1st deadline as required by statute.
A second part of the ordinance requires that signs be posted when fertilizer is applied. This
regulation is intended to assist in enforcement efforts once the statutory ban goes into effect.
These provisions are effective at the same time as the legislative ban; January 1, 2004.
Education: As discussed at the last Study Session, staff will also be educating the public of the
harmful effects of phosphorous in our water bodies. Through educational outreach, staff hopes to
create awareness and demand for use of non-phosphorous containing fertilizer and promote the
State Statute and City Ordinance, which regulate the use of phosphorous fertilizers. The City will
be providing signage to commercial retailers and require these items to be posted next to
fertilizer displays.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared By: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
ORDINANCE NO. _______-02
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 34: VEGETATION
TO INCLUDE ARTICLE IV: FERTILIZER SALES AND APPLICATION
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 34 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, is hereby amended to add a
new Article IV as follows:
ARTICLE IV. FERTILIZER SALES AND APPLICATION
Sec. 34-210. Purpose.
Studies have determined that lake water quality is affected by the amount of lawn fertilizer and
other chemicals entering the lakes as a result of storm water runoff or other causes. The purpose
of this ordinance is to define regulations which will aid the City in managing and protecting its
water resources which are enjoyed by its residents and other users..
Sec. 34-211. Definitions
(a) "Commercial Applicator" is a person who is engaged in the business of applying fertilizer
for hire.
(b) "Noncommercial Applicator" is a person who applies fertilizer during the course
of employment, but who is not a commercial lawn fertilizer applicator.
(b) "Fertilizer" means a substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrients that is
used for its plant nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to have value in
promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not include animal and vegetable manures that
are not manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products exempted by Rule by the
Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture.
(d) “Commercial Retailer” is any person, firm, corporation, franchise or commercial
establishment providing goods and services for sale to the general public.
Sec. 34-212. Regulations for Retail Sale of Commercial Lawn Fertilizers.
Commercial Retailers providing lawn fertilizers for sale to the general public are subject to the
following regulations:
(a) Phosphorous-free fertilizers shall be made available for sale in adequate amounts at all
locations in the City.
(b) Phosphorous-free fertilizer and fertilizer with phosphorous must be separately displayed
and clearly marked as to whether or not the fertilizer contains phosphorous.
(c) A sign or brochure containing regulations and information about use of fertilizers
containing phosphorous will be provided by the city and shall be prominently posted next
to any fertilizer display.
36
Sec. 34-213. Regulations for Lawn Fertilizer Applicators.
Commercial and non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators are subject to the following
regulations:
(a) Lawn fertilizer applicators shall permit the City to sample any commercial lawn fertilizer
applications to be applied within the City at any time.
(b) All commercial or non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators shall, upon request of the
City, produce a copy of the product Material Data Safety Sheet of the lawn fertilizer used
for any fertilizer application.
(d) Commercial and non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators shall comply with the
provisions of the Minnesota Fertilizer and Soil Conditioner Law as contained in
Minnesota Statutes Sections 17.711 through and including 17.729 and amendments
thereto; and with Pesticide Control provisions as contained in the Minnesota Statutes
Chapter 18B.
(e) All commercial and non-commercial lawn fertilizer applicators who apply fertilizers to
turf areas must post or affix signs on the property where the fertilizer is applied. The
signs shall comply with the following criteria and contain the following information:
(1) The signs must project at least eighteen (18) inches above the top of the grass line.
The signs must be of a material that is rain resistant for at least a twenty-four (24)
hour period and must remain in place up to twenty-four (24) hours from the time
of initial application.
(2) The following information must be legibly printed on the signs in letters no less
than 1/2 inch high:
(a) The name of the business, entity, or person applying the fertilizer; and
(b) The following language: "This area was fertilized on (date of fertilizer
application). For questions please call (phone number of business, entity
or person applying the fertilizer)”. The signs may include the name of the
fertilizer used and indicate phosphorous content of the fertilizer.
(c) The sign must be posted on a lawn or yard between two (2) feet and five
(5) feet from the sidewalk or street. For parks, golf courses, athletic fields,
playgrounds, or other similar recreational property, the signs must be
posted immediately adjacent to areas within the property where fertilizer
has been applied and at or near the entrance to the property.
SECTION 2. Sections 34-210 through 34-212 shall take effect 15 days following
publication.
SECTION 3. Section 34-213 shall take effect January 1, 2004
(Signature Block)
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7c
Meeting of June 17, 2002
7c. Traffic Study No. 561: Installation and rescinding of parking restriction on
Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th Street.
This report considers rescinding parking restrictions on Zarthan Avenue and W.
16th Street and installing new parking restrictions at Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th
Street.
Recommended
Action:
Traffic Study No. 561: Motion to adopt the attached resolution
rescinding Resolution Numbers: 3448, 6591, 86-53, 96-65,
7381, 6928, 5717, and 6470 and adopting the attached resolution
authorizing the restriction of parking on the south side of the
south frontage road of I-394, 200 feet east and 200 feet west of
Zarthan Avenue; the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from
the south frontage road of I-394 to 200 feet south of W. 16th
Street; and no parking Monday to Friday (Except holidays on
west side only) from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. from 200 feet south of W.
16th Street to 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road and authorizing
installation of 3-way stop signs at the Zarthan Avenue
intersection with the south frontage road of I-394.
Background: In 2001 the City Council authorized the reconstruction of the Zarthan Avenue
intersection with the south frontage road of I-394 and its intersection with W. 16th Street. The
reconstruction was proposed to provide a better connection from the south frontage road to W.
16th Street as the existing frontage road terminates at a cul-de-sac west of Park Place Boulevard.
As a part of this project, it was contemplated that parking restrictions on Zarthan Avenue would
be implemented upon completion of construction.
In reviewing the existing parking restrictions in this area staff found eight (8) resolutions, some
which over lapped or were in conflict with each other. Therefore, it is staff’s recommendation
that the eight (8) existing resolutions be rescinded via resolution and that one (1) new resolution
be adopted implementing the revised restrictions. Staff has reviewed the proposed parking
restrictions with adjacent property owners, as necessary, and they generally support the
modifications. The proposed resolution would change the existing parking as follows:
1. Eliminate the existing on-street “One-Hour Parking” along the east and west sides of
Zarthan Avenue between W. 16th Street and the south frontage road of I-394. Instead, it
is recommended that no on-street parking (no parking anytime) be allowed in this same
area.
38
2. With the reconfigured intersection of Zarthan Avenue with W. 16th Street, staff proposes
to rescind the previous resolutions since their descriptions no longer apply to the new
roadway. Instead, it is recommended that on-street parking be removed from the entire
intersection area and on Zarthan Avenue to a point 200 feet south of its intersection with
W. 16th Street.
3. The Rottlund Townhome Development north of W. 16th Street included the widening of
W. 16th Street to the north between Zarthan Avenue and Blackstone Avenue and the
construction of parking bays. It is recommended that the existing parking restrictions,
“No Parking 8 a.m. – 4 p.m.”, be removed.
4. On the south side of W. 16th Street between Zarthan Avenue and Alabama Avenue there
are two (2) resolutions which conflict. One prohibits parking and the second resolution
restricts parking Monday – Friday from 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. The first resolution is the more
recent and is what the signage currently reflects. It is recommended the second
resolution be rescinded.
5. The parking restrictions on Zarthan Avenue south of W. 16th Street (no parking Monday
– Friday 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.) are part of another resolution which is recommended to be
rescinded. It is proposed that the same parking restrictions be included in the proposed
resolution with the updated description.
Neighborhood Meeting Comments: On April 17, 2002 staff sponsored a neighborhood
meeting for area residents to discuss the proposed parking restrictions. A total of twelve (12)
people attended the meeting. Staff reviewed the existing and proposed parking restrictions along
with the developer’s construction schedule for the townhouses, and the City’s schedule for street
reconstruction.
Residents commented that any on-street parking adjacent to the townhouses on Zarthan Avenue
would be beneficial. There is adequate off street parking, but this area is more convenient.
Staff indicated that four (4) spaces could be accommodated along the west side of Zarthan
Avenue between the southerly driveway of the CSM Development and the beginning of the turn
lane into the townhouse development. There is no other area available for on-street parking
along this section of Zarthan Avenue.
The residents have been notified that this issue will be brought back for Council action on June
17, 2002.
Discussion/Issues: A few residents desire parking restrictions to remain in place on the north
side of W. 16th Street west of Zarthan Avenue while the development is under construction. The
street in this area has been widened and could be used for parking now. If restrictions are
removed now, construction workers will likely use this area for parking and some residents have
expressed this as a concern. Adequate off street parking, on the construction site for construction
workers, is currently available. So, parking restrictions in this area could remain in place for a
while. However, the parking restrictions in this area should be removed no later than November
39
1, 2002 (expected completion of construction) so the new townhouse residents will have that
planned parking available for their use.
Of greater concern to staff is the residents’ request for convenience parking on the west side of
Zarthan Avenue, north of W. 16th Street (the 4 spaces described above). Staff is concerned that
allowing this parking will create safety issues similar to those along Minnetonka Boulevard and
Louisiana Avenue which were recently discussed by Council. Zarthan Avenue is functionally
classified as a minor arterial and carries a significant amount of traffic (which is expected to
continue to increase). Allowing parking as requested will decrease safety and increase
operational (maintenance) problems. Can parking be accommodated? Yes. Is it necessary? No.
Should it be allowed? Staff would recommend not allowing it.
There are no other issues known by staff at this time.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council rescind the following resolutions:
3448 6591 86-53 96-65
7381 6928 5701 6470
It is also recommended that the City Council adopt the following parking restrictions:
• “No-parking anytime” along the south side of the south frontage road of I-394 from a
point 200 feet east and 200 feet west of the (its) intersection with Zarthan Avenue.
• “No-parking anytime” along the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from its (the)
intersection with the south frontage road of I-394 to a point 200 feet south of W. 16th
Street.
• “No parking Monday – Friday 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. except holidays” (west side only) along
the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from a point 200 feet south of W. 16th
Street to a point 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road.
It is also recommended the City Council authorize the installation of 3-way stop signs at the
intersection of Zarthan Avenue and the south frontage road of I-394. Temporary stop signs have
been in place since construction started in 2001 and it is recommended they become permanent.
Finally, it is recommended that the parking restrictions on Zarthan Avenue become effective at
the completion of the roadway and traffic signal construction. The removal of parking
restrictions on the north side of W. 16th Street should become effective no later than November
1, 2002 to coincide with occupancy of the last townhouse building.
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Maria Hagen, Engineering
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
40
RESOLUTION NO. 02-062
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTIONS RELATED TO PARKING
RESTRICTIONS ON ZARTHAN AVENUE AND WEST 16TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 561
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
revised parking and traffic controls are necessary at this location; and
WHEREAS, eight (8) existing parking resolutions currently prescribe traffic controls in
this area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the following resolutions be rescinded:
Resolution Number Resolution Date
3448 January 22, 1968
6591 July 7, 1980
86-53 April 21, 1986
96-65 May 6, 1996
7381 May 2, 1983
6928 August 17, 1981
5701 March 21, 1977 *
6470 January 7, 1980
* Effective date to rescind Resolution No. 5701 is to be November 1, 2002.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 17, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
41
RESOLUTION NO. 02-063
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING RESTRICTION
ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF I-394
AT ZARTHAN AVENUE; THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF
ZARTHAN AVENUE FROM THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
OF I-394 TO 200 FEET SOUTH OF W. 16TH STREET; AND NO PARKING
MONDAY TO FRIDAY (EXCEPT HOLIDAYS ON WEST SIDE ONLY)
FROM 7 A.M. TO 6 P.M. FROM 200 FEET SOUTH OF W. 16TH STREET
TO 130 FEET NORTH OF CEDAR LAKE ROAD AND 3-WAY
STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ZARTHAN AVENUE AND
THE SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD OF I-394
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 561
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No-parking anytime” along the south side of the south frontage road of I-394
from a point 200 feet east and 200 feet west of its intersection with Zarthan
Avenue.
2. “No-parking anytime” along the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from its
intersection with the south frontage road of I-394 to a point 200 feet south of W.
16th Street.
3. “No parking Monday – Friday 7 a.m. – 6 p.m. except holidays” (west side only)
along the east and west sides of Zarthan Avenue from a point 200 feet south of W.
16th Street to a point 130 feet north of Cedar Lake Road.
4. 3-way stop signs at the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and the south frontage
road of I-394.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 17, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
42
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7d
Meeting of June 17, 2002
7d. Appeal by Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson of Board of Zoning Appeals
Decisions of April 2 to Grant A Variance to Niaz Real Estate Corporation for
a Proposed Office at 4050 Brookside Ave.
Case #02-17-VAR
Staff
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution approving the variance to allow
vehicles to back into public street, subject to conditions included
in the resolution.
Subject:
Niaz Real Estate Corporation has applied for a variance from the requirements of Section 36-
194(c)(25)(c) and Section 36-361(b)(3)(d) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to allow
vehicles to back into the public street at 4050 Brookside Ave. in the “C-2” General Commercial
District.
C2
C2
R2 R2
RC
E x c e ls io r B lv d .Brookside Ave.4050
43
Proposal:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing, non-conforming single family dwelling in a
commercial district. The applicant originally proposed to build a 608 square foot office with a
1488 square foot second-story apartment. The proposal required a variance from the requirement
for access to open-space, plazas, and pedestrianways. The City Council denied that variance on
May 6, 2002.
On June 10, 2002, the applicant submitted a revised plan for about 750 square feet of leasable
office space on the second story of a building with tuck-under parking and a lobby on the first
floor. This proposal eliminates the need for the open space variance but still requires the
turnaround variance to allow vehicles to back into the public street. The proposal would involve
use of the existing curb cut and retention of existing on-street parking. Staff is currently
reviewing the proposal to ensure that adequate visibility exists with the proposed location of the
new building five feet back from the street right-of-way. The proposal involves a driveway
along the south property line that accommodates the potential access easement with the
neighboring property.
Site Data:
Zoning C2, General Commercial
Owner Niaz Real Estate Corporation
Lot Shape Rectangle
Lot Width 40 feet
Lot Depth 52 feet
Lot Area 2080 square feet
Background:
On February 28, 2002, Mr. Dost Niaz filed a request for two variances on behalf of Niaz Real
Estate Corporation. The corporation purchased the property in March 2001. However, a point-
of-sale inspection was never done. The property is zoned C2-General Commercial and currently
has a vacant non-conforming single family dwelling on it. Upon receiving orders recently from
the Inspections Division, the owner boarded up the house to prevent vandalism. The properties
to the north, west, and northeast are commercial. The properties to the east and south are
residential. The house immediately south is also zoned C2 and is also a nonconforming use.
However, it is occupied as a residence.
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) held a public hearing on April 2, 2002 to consider the
variances for the original mixed-use proposal. One business owner and several nearby residents
testified (see approved BOZA minutes). Staff reasoned that all seven findings for approving
44
variances were met for the request to allow vehicles to back into a public street and
recommended that BOZA approve the variance, which it did on a 4-0 vote. In order to maintain
on-street parking and ensure safety, staff is recommending conditions prohibiting more than one
curb cut to the property and ensuring adequate visibility is maintained. Staff found that only two
of the required seven findings for approving variances were met for the request to eliminate the
need for access to open space and recommended that BOZA deny the variance. Instead, BOZA
approved the variance on a 3-1 vote.
In the above photo, the curb cut for the driveway that
formerly served 4054 Brookside can be seen. The GIS
program distorts the lot lines slightly in relation to the
aerial photo. The dwelling on 4054 Brookside
actually is set back 3 feet from the north property line.
After the BOZA hearing, the property owner to the south submitted information related to a
potential access easement on the subject property that allowed access to a tuck-under garage on
the property to the south. The garage no longer exists, and the current owner typically parks on
Brookside Ave. Hennepin County documents from the early 1980’s showed the existence of an
easement on 4050 Brookside to the benefit of 4054 Brookside Ave. More recent deeds do not
show that easement carried over. However, no record was found to vacate that easement.
Therefore, the lack of records on the current deed may be due to a clerical error. However, the
existence of such an easement would not prevent construction of the revised proposal.
On April 8, the city received a letter from Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson appealing the
BOZA’s decision per Sec. 36-33(d)(6) of the Zoning Code (see attachment). Notice of the
appeal was advertised in the paper on April 24 and mailed to the applicant and all property 404640504054Driveway
45
owners within 350 feet. On May 6, 2002 the City Council heard the appeal and adopted a
resolution denying the open space variance. The City Council deferred consideration of the
turnaround variance to allow time for Mr. Niaz to consider development options. Mr. Niaz
submitted a revised plan on June 10th that does not require an open space variance but still
requires a variance to the vehicle turnaround requirement.
Analysis:
Section 36-33(d) of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant
variances from the strict application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose
conditions and safeguards provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason
of exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and
exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this
ordinance would result in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or
undue hardship upon the owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a
manner customary and legally permissible within the zoning district in which said
lot is located.
The size of this lot makes development of the property virtually impossible without need of at
least one variance. When 4050 and 4054 Brookside Ave. were zoned commercial, the thought
was probably that they would be re-developed together. A larger redevelopment would probably
eliminate the need for both variances. However, the city must still consider proposals to re-
develop the properties individually.
The current proposal requires only one variance. Staff believes the conditions of the lot provide
adequate findings for the variance to allow backing into the public street, since it would not be
possible to meet dimensional requirements for a reasonable amount of parking and turnaround on
the property. In order to develop a turnaround and parking on the property, a variance would be
necessary to reduce the required width of a two-way drive aisle, since you cannot accommodate
the required 25 feet drive aisle width and the 18 feet length of a parking space on a 40 feet wide
lot. Otherwise, redevelopment would require land assembly with neighboring property.
With regard to the turnaround variance, staff recommends conditions of approval, because it is
not customary to have two curb cuts on a 40-foot wide lot, and a second curb cut would further
reduce safety and eliminate needed on-street parking. Also, it is important to ensure that the
building setback provides adequate visibility for vehicles backing out over the public sidewalk
and into the street.
Therefore, staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided
only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property and adequate visibility exists.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other
land or structures in the district in which said land is located.
46
Most properties in the C2 zoning district are significantly larger. The size of this property
prevents construction of a standard parking lot. Therefore, one driveway with a limited amount
of backing into the public street seems warranted provided adequate visibility exists.
Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one
curb cut is included to provide access to the property and adequate visibility exists.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
The revised plan includes about 750 square feet of leasable office space, which requires three
parking spaces. Staff’s only remaining concern with the proposal is ensuring adequate visibility
of the sidewalk and street exists with the proposed front building setback of only five feet. Staff
has requested that the applicant submit a survey drawing of the revised proposal that shows the
location of the existing sidewalk, curb and surrounding buildings. If adequate visibility does not
exist, it may be possible to redesign the building lobby to accommodate better visibility.
Otherwise, the office may need to be reduced to 622 gross leasable area, so that only two parking
spaces would be required. Staff believes this would still allow a reasonable use of this very
small property. It would also require a variance either to allow backing into the public street or
for a reduced two-way drive aisle width.
Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one
curb cut is included to provide access to the property and adequate visibility exists.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
Staff agrees with the applicant that the granting of the variances will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property. The proposed two-story building is within
guidelines for the C2 district. The proposed building meets minimum setbacks and can be
designed to meet all building / fire code requirements.
The revised proposal includes three parking spaces and could potentially be reduced to only two.
While it is always less than desirable to have vehicles backing into the public street, staff
believes the limited number of vehicles proposed to back out of this property is acceptable as
long as there is only one driveway/curb cut on the property and adequate visibility exists. These
conditions would improve safety and limit the number of conflicts with pedestrians and other
vehicles.
Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one
curb cut is included to provide access to the property and adequate visibility exists for backing
into the public street.
47
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, comfort, or morals of the area.
The applicant proposes to replace a dilapidated house with a new office building. The granting
of the variance will enable the applicant to make these improvements and, with conditions, will
not unreasonably impact the character of the neighborhood or impair the health, safety, comfort,
or morals of the area.
Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one
curb cut is included to provide access to the property and adequate visibility exists.
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
or Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan guides this property as a commercial use, for which it is currently
zoned. The variance would allow the applicant to remove a non-conforming use and provide a
new building housing an office The intent of the zoning ordinance with regard to turnarounds
for off-street parking is to promote safety by eliminating the need for vehicles to back into the
public street. Single-family residential properties are exempt from this requirement due to the
limited traffic. The minimum setbacks for residential homes ensure that adequate visibility is
maintained for people backing out of their driveways. Since the size of this property prevents
any use that would generate substantially more traffic than a single-family residence, staff
believes the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning is met for the turnaround variance,
provided the number of potential conflict points are limited and adequate visibility exists. The
latter may require a setback that is more than the minimum allowed in the Commercial District.
Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one
curb cut is included to provide access to the property and proposed setbacks ensure adequate
visibility.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
As mentioned earlier in the report, staff investigated other possible uses of the property with the
applicant, and concluded that any redevelopment of this property alone would require at least
one variance. However, some design modifications to the office proposal may be necessary to
ensure that public safety is maintained.
48
Staff believes that this finding has been satisfied for the turnaround variance, provided only one
curb cut is included to provide access to the property and the proposed building setback provides
adequate visibility.
Recommendation:
Staff and the BOZA believe all seven findings have been met for the variance to allow backing
into the public street provided the following conditions are met:
1) only one curb cut/driveway access is provided in a location that preserves all existing on-
street parking; and
2) the building setback provides adequate visibility for vehicles backing into the public street.
Alternative Motion:
If the Council believes the turnaround variance should be denied, the Council should adopt a
resolution with findings for denying the variance. An alternative variance could be considered.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Appeal letter
Revised site plan and axiometric (if available)
City Council Minutes May 6, 2002
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
49
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 02-064
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VARIANCE FROM SECTION 36-361(B)(3)(D) OF
THE ORDINANCE CODE TO ALLOW VEHICLES TO BACK INTO THE PUBLIC
STREET SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE “C-2”
GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AT 4050 BROOKSIDE AVENUE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
FINDINGS
1. On February 28, 2002, Niaz Real Estate Corporation filed an application seeking a
variance to eliminate the requirement of access to open space and to allow vehicles to
back into the public street on the property located in the C-2 General Commercial
District, at 4050 Brookside Avenue for the following legal description, to wit:
The South 40 feet of Lot 1, Brookside Subdivision No.2, Hennepin County, Minnesota
2. On April 2, 2002, the Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing, received testimony
from the public, discussed the application and approved a resolution approving both
variances.
3. On April 8, 2002, staff received a letter appealing the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision
to the City Council.
4. On May 6, 2002, the City Council held a public hearing, received testimony from the
public, discussed the application and approved a resolution denying the variance to
eliminate the required access to open space for residential. The City Council deferred
consideration of the variance to allow vehicles to back into the public street until June 17,
2002 to allow the applicant time to explore options for the property.
5. On June 10, 2002 the applicant submitted revised plans to the City that eliminated the
need for the open space variance but still required the variance to allow vehicles to back
into the public street.
6. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, City Council
makes the following findings on the variance to allow vehicles to back into the public
street:
a. The requested variance does meet the requirements of Section 36-33(d) of the
Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the Board of Zoning Appeals to grant
variances. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or other
extraordinary and exception conditions of the lot, the strict application or the
50
terms of this chapter would result in peculiar and practical difficulties or
exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner of the lot in developing or using
the lot in a manner customary and legally permissible within the use district in
which such lot is located.
b. Conditions applying to the structure or land are peculiar to the property or
immediately adjoining property, and do not apply, generally, to other land or
structures in the use district in which the land is located.
c. Granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
d. Granting of the variance would not impair and adequate supply of light and air to
the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets,
increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety provided certain conditions
are met.
e. Granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact on the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health,
safety, and comfort of the area provided certain conditions are met.
f. Granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code and
the comprehensive plan provided certain conditions are met.
g. Granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
Therefore, conditions necessary for granting the requested variance do exist.
7. The contents of variance Case File 02-17-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
The applicant’s request for a variance to allow vehicles to back into the public street is hereby
approved subject to the following conditions:
1) only one curb cut is included to provide access to the property; and
2) the building is setback an adequate distance from the public right-of –way to ensure that
adequate visibility is provided for vehicles backing into the public street as determined by the
City prior to issuance of a building permit
based on the findings setforth above.
51
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council June 17, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
52
Exhibit “A”
The South 40 feet of Lot 1, Brookside Subdivision No.2, Hennepin County, Minnesota
53
Excerpts
City Council Minutes
May 6, 2002
5b. Appeal by Carol Engelkes and Betty Danielson of Board of Zoning Appeals
Decisions of April 2 to Grant Variances to Niaz Real Estate Corporation for a
Proposed Office and Apartment at 4050 Brookside Ave. Case #02-17-VAR
Resolution No. 02-049
Mr. Korman presented a Staff report. He said the Applicant’s proposal does not meet the
condition requiring access to open space; the four proposed parking spaces meet zoning
code requirements with the exception of the required turnaround to prevent backing into the
public street (hereafter referred to as “backing out”). The proposal requires two variances:
one to allow vehicles to back out onto Brookside Avenue, which would require two
curbcuts; and relief from the requirement for access to open space. BOZA approved the
variance for backing out. Staff recommended BOZA deny the variance for access to open
space, however, on a 3-1 vote, BOZA approved the variance.
Mr. Korman reported that since the BOZA meeting, new information has been received,
i.e., Appellants recall a longtime owner of 4054 Brookside having spoken about the
existence of a driveway easement allowing access to a tuck-under garage at the rear of her
home, which is currently owned by Gail Goebel. The garage no longer exists, and the
current property owner typically parks on Brookside Avenue. If an easement exists or if
adverse possession has taken place, it may not allow construction of the Applicant’s
proposed building.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Ed Engelkes, 4058 Brookside Avenue, stated the variance for parking should not be
granted because tandem parking without an access drive would require backing out, which
would be unsafe; a two-unit apartment would require six off-street parking spaces; the
Applicant is incumbent to develop his lot in a manner suitable for the size of the parcel
without reducing the value of adjoining properties; the seven criteria are broad; and a
commercial designation is inappropriate due to the narrow and shallow dimensions of the
parcel.
Gail Goebel, 4054 Brookside Avenue, distributed a copy of her Abstract of Title showing
access to eight feet for use of a driveway at 4050 Brookside Avenue. Ms. Goebel stated
she occasionally uses the driveway to park her car.
Councilmember Sanger asked, if the easement is valid, would the proposed new building
infringe on the easement? Mr. Korman said the proposed building would have a three-foot
setback from the south property line and it would encroach five feet into the easement and,
he added, BOZA did not have knowledge of the easement at the time of the Applicant’s
54
request. Mr. Korman stated, even with a valid easement, a permitted use on the property
would be viable that could meet the required setbacks but the proposal would have to
change.
Councilmember Latz said, given the possibility of a valid easement, perhaps the
appropriate action would be to continue this matter.
Sandy Behnken, 4154 Xenwood Avenue, said there is major traffic congestion at the
Excelsior Blvd. and Brookside Avenue intersection; inadequate parking; and there is no
continuous sidewalk access to Jackely Park.
Beatrice Benda, 4187 Brookside Avenue, submitted a drawing from Nancy Coleman,
which depicted a dangerous curved corner of the intersection. Ms. Coleman’s concerns
regard traffic congestion and the lack of a turn around.
Ms. Benda is concerned about the proposed elimination of open space, i.e., green space.
She thinks a traffic study would be appropriate, and Ms. Coleman is requesting an accident
analysis.
Kim Hochstein, 4046 Brookside Avenue, is concerned that the new building is proposed to
be two stories, buildings on that side of the street are one story; and current parking is
inadequate.
The Applicant, Mr. Niaz, said a title search in February 2001 revealed no easement. Mr.
Niaz said the property will not be used for his Minneapolis West Taxi company. Mr. Niaz
offered his abstract to the Council for review. He would like to use the office for real estate
purposes.
Councilmember Latz asked how many units are planned for the property, and Mr. Niaz
responded it would be only one unit, approximately 1,100-1,200 square feet and the office
would be about 600 square feet, with two outdoor and two indoor parking spaces.
Ruby Erkeladean, 4063 Brookside Avenue, said cars were parked at the 4050 Brookside
address all winter, and she mentioned the Applicant lists his taxi business as being located
at 4050 Brookside.
Deb Danielson, 3217 Sumter, appeared on behalf of her mother, Betty Danielson, 4059
Brookside Avenue, and Ms. Danielson asked the Council to consider the concern for traffic
on Brookside. She thinks it would be inappropriate to allow vehicles to back out onto
Brookside.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Nelson said he agrees with Staff’s findings and recommendations, the
open space requirement is important and it would not work with residential on the second
floor, it is an extremely small lot, perhaps a small commercial would work.
55
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a
resolution denying the variance to eliminate need for access to open space based upon
findings included in the resolution and approving the variance to allow vehicles to back
into public street, subject to conditions included in the resolution.
It is Councilmember Nelson’s understanding that two vehicles are allowed to park on the
property associated with commercial development.
Councilmember Sanger said she supports denying both variances.
Mr. Scott suggested deferring the matter to the next meeting, and Mr. Korman said in
regard to a timeline that would be doable.
Councilmember Nelson said he will vote to deny the variance regarding the open space.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to amend the
motion; and deny the variance on the open space requirement.
Mr. Scott said no resolution was prepared to address just that issue, the current resolution
jointly addresses both variances. Mr. Scott suggested the motion be amended for a
resolution to be prepared denying the access to the public open space variance.
Councilmember Nelson said he made the motion because he will vote that Council follow
Staff recommendations and grant the variance on the parking, however, it may be better to
get a sense from the Council regarding the backing out of vehicles.
Councilmembers Brimeyer and Velick said they would vote to deny the whole thing.
Councilmember Latz said he would favor granting the backing out variance. With the
addition of a residential unit above the office building, Councilmember Latz thinks the
Applicant is creating his own hardship, and he sees no grounds to grant that variance.
Mayor Jacobs would vote to deny the open space variance, and he is gravely concerned
about the backing out, parking, and the impact of an easement. Mayor Jacobs favors
exploring deferment.
Councilmember Santa said it is valid to discuss open space and, for the Applicant, she
thinks other than on-street parking, the Applicant has little choice. She would like to have
the easement issue resolved before Council makes any decision, however, that puts the
Applicant in a position of having to wait longer. Councilmember Santa added, the Council
was asked to address open space and backing out, and people have a clear idea how they
feel about open space and backing out.
56
Councilmember Nelson said he does not want to risk a vote on a variance if the Applicant
must wait two years; he wants to split the motion and ask Staff to prepare findings
accordingly.
Councilmember Latz is concerned about not having a specific commercial proposal in front
of the Council when a decision is made to grant the variance, however, he does not want
the issue to be tied up for two years by denying the variance. Councilmember Latz
supports the backing out variance, and he is prepared to defer that variance for two weeks
or whatever is appropriate. He does, however, want a specific proposal specifying findings
in regard to any denial the Council would enter, therefore, he is not comfortable splitting
the motion. Councilmember Latz would like to defer the question for two weeks, e.g.,
come up with specific findings of denial on the open space and wait to see what will
happen in regard to the backing out variance.
Councilmember Nelson said specific findings are in the packet on Page 35.
Councilmember Nelson continued: Finding 5, A-E, deal with the open space appeal, and
Finding 6 deals with the backing out appeal, and Finding 7, 1-4, contains the standard
verbage. Councilmember Latz said, make the resolution that and he will be satisfied.
Mayor Jacobs said he understood Councilmember Nelson’s motion to be just that.
Councilmember Nelson said it was but he did not go to that specificity—but he will have
that as his motion.
Mr. Scott said his recommendation would be to have the motion include directing Staff to
prepare findings consistent with a denial of the variance relating to the access to open
space, and the findings and the document would then be presented to the Council.
Councilmember Latz said Finding 5, A-E, only cites the standards to be addressed and it
does not go into any specific facts that are being found.
Ms. Jeremiah said all facts in the Staff report become part of the resolution and the record.
Councilmember Latz said that is satisfactory to him in terms of details.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 02-049 denying the application of Niaz Real Estate Corporation for a
variance to eliminate the requirement of access to open space on the property located at
4050 Brookside Avenue, based upon findings included in the resolution.
The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Brimeyer opposed).
Mayor Jacobs suggested deferring action on the parking variance until June 17, 2002.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to defer
voting on the parking variance to allow vehicles to back into the public street until June 17,
57
2002 or sooner, if the Applicant wishes to come in and have Council decide something
sooner.
Councilmember Latz added, if the Applicant wishes to defer it longer than that, the
Applicant will have to agree in writing to an extension so that it will not become effective
without a decision from the Council.
The motion passed 7-0.
58
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
June 17, 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. Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. as the lowest responsible
bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$46,040.00 for Curb & Gutter Annual Maintenance Repairs, Project No. 02-07
and Alley Improvement Project-4000 block between Toledo & Utica Avenues,
Project No. 02-12
2. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report, establishes this
Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an informational meeting with
abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing date
of July 15, 2002
3. Motion to authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Andrea
Myklebust for the fabrication and installation of the Allegory of Excelsior public
artwork in Park Commons East/Excelsior and Grand.
4. Motion to Approve a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County
for Participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block
Grant Program in FY 2003- 2005.
5. Motion to authorize execution of an agreement for engineering and architectural
services with Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass in an amount not to exceed
$66,500 for design work of the Rec Center roof over the West Arena.
6. Motion to approve modifications and renovations requested by Sholom
Community Alliance.
9. Motion to approve payment to School District #283 of $73,000 from Cable TV
franchise fees for the year 2002, comprised of an operations grant of $35,000 and
a video equipment grant of $38,000.
10. Motion to accept the following reports for filining
e. Human Rights Commission Minutes of March 20, 2002
f. Planning Commission Minutes of May 15, 2002
g. Housing Authority Minutes of May 8, 2002
h. Vendor Claims
59
CONSENT ITEM # 1
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 17, 2002
1. Bid Tabulation: Motion to designate Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. as the lowest
responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $46,040.00 for Curb & Gutter Annual Maintenance Repairs, Project
No. 02-07 and Alley Improvement Project-4000 block between Toledo & Utica
Avenues, Project No. 02-12
Background: Bids were received on Wednesday, June 12, 2002 for the construction of a
concrete alley in the 4000 block between Toledo & Utica Avenues; and for the annual random
curb & gutter repair project. These projects were combined since they primarily involve
concrete work and, in the hopes of receiving lower bids. A combined Advertisement for Bids
was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 22 and May 29, 2002 and in the
Construction Bulletin on May 17 and May 24, 2002. Following is a summary of the bid results:
Bidder
#02-07
Bid Amount
#02-12
Bid Amount
Total
Bid Amount
Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. $14,884.50 $31,155.50 $ 46,040.00
Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. $18,093.00 $40,253.00 $ 58,346.00
Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $23,567.00 $35,049.25 $ 58,616.25
Engineer’s Estimate $22,000.00 $36,850.00 $ 58,850.00
Evaluation of Bids: A total of three (3) contractors submitted bids. A review of the bids
indicates Ron Kassa Construction submitted the lowest bid. This contractor has satisfactorily
completed a number of projects for the City. Staff has determined that Ron Kassa Construction
submitted the lowest responsible bid and recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in
the amount of $46,040.00.
Financial Considerations: Funding for the random curb & gutter repairs comes from the Public
Works Operations budget and the Water Utility fund. All costs of the alley paving project will
be assessed to the abutting property owners. A total of 29 properties will be assessed.
Assessment Considerations: The assessment hearing was held on May 6th (continued from
March 18th). Property owners had 30 days to file an appeal from the date of the assessment
hearing. The 30-day appeal period expired on June 6, 2002 and as of June 11th, the City has
received no appeals.
Prepared by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
60
CONSENT ITEM # 2
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 17, 2002
2. City Engineer’s Report: Alley Paving – 2900 block between Florida and
Edgewood Avenues – Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this
report, establishes this Improvement Project, directs staff to sponsor an
informational meeting with abutting property owners, and sets a Public Hearing
and Assessment Hearing date of July 15, 2002.
Background: On June 3, 2002, the residents in the 2900 block between Florida Avenue and
Edgewood Avenues submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance
with the City’s standard for alleys. The petition was signed by enough property owners (61%) to
advance the project. The City’s policy states that at least 51% of the properties must sign the
initial petition.
City Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy:
The City’s Alley Paving Special Assessment Policy is as follows:
A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed as follows when
at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement:
1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all
properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT)
2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly
benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT)
B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the alley, if
an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if, no garage exists,
there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley.
C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the cost of
the improvement.
D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years.
Discussion: The City’s standard design for alley paving includes six (6)-inch thick concrete
pavement 10 feet in width with driveway apron connections between the paved alley and
abutting paved driveways. Private driveways outside the alley right-of-way are the responsibility
of the property owner. In accordance with City practice, the driveway connections will match
existing materials and grades. Pavement grades will be established to provide positive drainage
without requiring storm sewer construction.
Financial Considerations: The City’s Policy for funding alley improvements requires the
abutting property owners to pay 100% of the improvement costs. The Policy also provides for
the assessments to be levied as direct and indirect benefits based upon abutting frontage.
Estimated assessments and an estimated payment schedule have been attached for informational
purposes. A summary of the estimated costs and proposed assessments, based upon the City’s
Assessment Policy for alley improvements is as follows:
61
Estimated Costs:
Construction Costs $ 51,136
Contingency (10%) $ 5,114
Subtotal $ 56,250
Engineering & Administrative (12%) $ 6,750
TOTAL $ 63,000
Revenue Sources:
Special Assessments $ 63,000
Alley Improvement Project Timetable:
Should the City Council approve the City Engineer’s Report, it is anticipated that the following
schedule could be met:
• City Engineer’s Report to City Council, June 17, 2002
Council sets date for Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing
• Staff holds informational meeting with residents July 9, 2002
• City Council holds Public Hearing & Assessment Hearing July 15, 2002
• Advertise for bids July/August
• Bid Opening August 8, 2002
• End of 30 Day Appeal on Assessments August 15, 2002
• Bid Tab Report to Council, Council can award the bid and order
the project or delay the project if there are any assessment
appeals
August 19, 2002
• Construction September, 2002
Feasibility: The project, as proposed herein, is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible under the
conditions noted and at the costs estimated.
Public Involvement Process: Staff will schedule an informational meeting for July 9th, prior to
the Public Hearing/Assessment Hearing, to inform residents of the process and to review the
preliminary plans. The Council will be notified of the meeting place and time. Once the project
is awarded, staff will schedule another meeting with the affected property owners to discuss the
construction schedule.
Attachments: Resolution
Property owner list with estimated assessments
Prepared by: Maria Hagen, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
62
RESOLUTION NO. 02-059
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT,
ESTABLISHING AN ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
DIRECTING STAFF TO SPONSOR AN INFORMATIONAL MEETING,
AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING AND ASSESSMENT HEARING
DATE OF JULY 15, 2002
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the alley paving in the 2900 block between Florida and Edgewood
Avenues, north of Minnetonka Boulevard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The City Engineer’s Report regarding the alley paving in the 2900 block between Florida
and Edgewood Avenues is hereby accepted.
2. This proposed alley paving improvement project is hereby established.
3. An improvement hearing and an assessment hearing is scheduled to be held on July 15,
2002 for affected property owners.
4. Staff is authorized to hold a neighborhood meeting for those owners.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 17, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
63
ESTIMATED COST:
70% Direct Benefit (garage or access)
30% Indirect Benefit (dust, noise, and mud)
Direct Benefit cost: 840 feet at $52.50 per lineal foot
Indirect Benefit cost: 1169 feet at $16.17 per linea lineal foot
total $63,000.00
direct $44,100.00
indirect $18,900.00
********* Indirect ******************** Direct **********Total
Indirect Direct Direct &
Address Ind feet % Indirect Allocation Dir feet % Direct Allocation Indirect
2901 Florida Ave. So.80 6.84 $1,293 0 0.00 $0 $1,293
08-117-21-44-0187
2913 Florida Ave. So.80 6.84 $1,293 0 0.00 $0 $1,293
08-117-21-44-0186
2917 Florida Ave. So.40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0185
2921 Florida Ave. So.40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0184
2925 Florida Ave. So.40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0183
2929 Florida Ave. So.40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0182
2933 Florida Ave. So.40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0181
2937 Florida Ave. So.45 3.85 $728 45 5.36 $2,363 $3,090
08-117-21-44-0180
2941 Florida Ave. So.44 3.76 $711 44 5.24 $2,310 $3,021
08-117-21-44-0179
2900 Edgewood Ave S 40 3.42 $647 0 0.00 $0 $647
08-117-21-44-0165
2904 Edgewood Ave. So 40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0166
2908 Edgewood Ave. So 70 5.99 $1,132 70 8.33 $3,675 $4,807
08-117-21-44-0167
2910 Edgewood Ave. So 50 4.28 $808 50 5.95 $2,625 $3,433
08-117-21-44-0168
2920 Edgewood Ave. So 40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0169
2924 Edgewood Ave. So 40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0170
2932 Edgewood Ave. So 80 6.84 $1,293 80 9.52 $4,200 $5,493
08-117-21-44-0171
2940 Edgewood Ave. So 89 7.61 $1,439 0 0.00 $0 $1,439
08-117-21-44-0172
6504 Minnetonka Blvd 71 6.07 $1,148 71 8.45 $3,728 $4,875
08-117-21-44-0173
6508 Minnetonka Blvd.40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0174
6512 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0175
6516 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0176
6520 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.42 $647 40 4.76 $2,100 $2,747
08-117-21-44-0177
6524 Minnetonka Blvd 40 3.42 $647 0 0.00 $0 $647
08-117-21-44-0178
Total 1169 100.00 $18,900 840 100.00 $44,100 $63,000
64
CONSENT ITEM # 3
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 17, 2002
3. Motion to authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Andrea
Myklebust for the fabrication and installation of the Allegory of Excelsior public
artwork in Park Commons East/Excelsior and Grand.
Background:
During meetings in December of 2001 and January 2002, the City Council/EDA met with
the Artist and reviewed her ideas for the development of the “Allegory of Excelsior”.
These conversations were followed up by a meeting between the City Council/EDA and the
Artist on February 25. During this meeting the Artist presented a new approach for
addressing certain Council/EDA issues associated with her previous design ideas.
During the February study session the City Council/EDA indicated they were in general
consensus with the approach the Artist was proposing and in March entered into a contract with
her for the preparation of detailed design plans.
During the June 10 study session the Artist reviewed the proposed design plans. The City
Council asked staff to present a contract for Council consideration which would authorize the
Artist to fabricate and install the artwork.
The approximate cost for the Allegory of Excelsior is $177,000 (includes a contingency). This
estimate does not include sales tax, landscaping work or lighting associated specifically with the
artwork. Upon factoring in these other costs, including a plaque identifying the artwork, the total
project cost is estimated to range from $175,000 to $200,000. The funding source proposed for
this artwork is the Development Fund.
Attached is a draft of the contract between the City and Andrea Myklebust. The contract
specifies the artwork needs to be fabricated and installed by May 1, 2003. The City Attorney
assisted in drafting this contract.
Attachments:
• Contract
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
65
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made on _____________, 2002 between the City of St. Louis
Park, hereinafter referred to as the OWNER, and Andrea Myklebust, hereinafter referred to as
the ARTIST.
WHEREAS, the OWNER has accepted the proposal “Allegory of Excelsior” created by
the ARTIST and hereinafter referred to as the ART WORK, for a sculpture in the Excelsior and
Grand redevelopment project. More specifically the ART WORK will be located in the traffic
circle within the intersection of Park Commons Drive and Grand Way. A copy of said proposal
as accepted is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" (hereinafter "Proposal").
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and undertakings contained herein, the parties agree as follows:
Article 1. Scope of Services
1.1 General
a. The ARTIST shall perform all services and furnish all supplies, materials and equipment as necessary for the execution, fabrication, transportation, and installation of the ART WORK at the site.
b. The ARTIST shall at all stages of execution, fabrication and installation coordinate its
work with the OWNER and its consultants (Jack Becker, FORECAST Public Artworks) as well
as TOLD Development Company, the developer of the Excelsior and Grand project.
1.2 Execution of the Work
a. The ARTIST shall install the foundation for the ART WORK by not later than
September 1, 2002. The ARTIST shall complete the fabrication and full installation of the ART
WORK by not later than May 1, 2003. Such schedule may be amended by written agreement
between the OWNER and the ARTIST.
b. The OWNER shall have the right to review the ART WORK at reasonable times during the fabrication thereof. The OWNER shall be allowed to photograph or film the
fabrication and installation of the ART WORK.
c. The ARTIST shall complete the fabrication and ensure installation of the ART WORK in conformity with the approved Proposal.
d. The ARTIST shall present to the OWNER in writing for further review and approval
any significant changes in scope, design, color, size, material or texture of the ART WORK not
permitted by or not in conformity with the Proposal. A significant change is any change in the
scope, design, color, size, material, texture or location of the site of the ART WORK which
affects installation, scheduling, site preparation or maintenance for the ART WORK or the
concept of the ART WORK as represented in the Proposal.
66
1.3 Delivery and Installation
a. The ARTIST shall notify the OWNER in writing when it proposes to install the
footing for the ART WORK.
b. The ARTIST shall notify the OWNER in writing when the fabrication of the ART WORK is completed and the ARTIST is ready for its delivery and installation at the site.
c. The ARTIST agrees to notify the OWNER no fewer than (30) days prior to the
ARTIST'S intended time of footing installation and delivery of the ART WORK to determine the
particulars of delivery time, location and agent designated by the OWNER.
1.4 Post Installation
a. Within 30 days after the installation of the ART WORK, the ARTIST shall furnish the
OWNER with a minimum of twenty-four (24) digital photographs on a disk which document the
process and development of the ART WORK from beginning fabrication through completion.
b. The ARTIST shall be notified of any dates and times for presentation ceremonies
relating to the ART WORK.
c. Upon installation of the ART WORK, the ARTIST shall provide to the OWNER
detailed written instructions for appropriate maintenance and preservation of the ART WORK.
1.5 Final Acceptance
a. The ARTIST shall advise the OWNER in writing when all services in Sections 1.1
through 1.4 (c) have been completed in substantial conformity with the Proposal.
b. The OWNER shall notify the ARTIST in writing of OWNER'S final acceptance of the
ART WORK
c. Final acceptance, shall be effective on one of the two dates, whichever occurs earlier:
(1) the date of the OWNER written notification to ARTIST of final acceptance; or, (2) the 60th
day after receipt by OWNER of written notice given by ARTIST under Section 1.5 (a) unless
prior to the expiration of the 60 day period, the OWNER gives the ARTIST written notice
specifying and describing the services which have not been completed or other reason(s) for
which the ART Work has not been accepted.
1 .6 Risk of Loss
The risk of loss or damage to the ART WORK shall be borne by the ARTIST until final
acceptance by the OWNER, and the ARTIST shall take such measures as are necessary to
protect the ART WORK from loss or damage until final acceptance.
67
1.7 Liability, Indemnification and Insurance
a. The ARTIST agrees to indemnify, defend and hold OWNER and its officers, employees, and agents harmless from any and all loss, cost, damage and expense (including
reasonable attorney's fees and court costs) resulting from, arising out of, or incurred by reason of
any claims, actions or suits based upon or alleging bodily injury, including death, or property
damage arising out of or resulting from ARTIST'S operations, duties or responsibilities under
this agreement, whether such be by ARTIST itself or by any subcontractor or by anyone directly
or indirectly employed by either of them.
b. The ARTIST and all employees of the ARTIST shall each effect and maintain
insurance to protect the ARTIST from claims under workers compensation acts; claims for
damages because of bodily injury including personal injury, sickness or disease, or death of any
of their employees or of any person other than their employees; and from claims for damages
because of injury to or destruction of tangible property; including loss of use resulting therefrom;
and from claims arising out of their performance of professional services caused by errors,
omissions, or negligent acts for which the ARTIST is legally liable.
1.8 Title
Title of the ART WORK shall pass to the OWNER upon OWNER'S final acceptance of the completed ART WORK.
Article 2. Compensation and Payment Schedule
2.1 Not To Exceed Fee
The ARTIST acknowledges receiving $26,250 from the OWNER in consideration for design
services performed by the ARTIST for the ART WORK. In addition to this amount, the
OWNER shall pay the ARTIST up to $151,150 which shall constitute full compensation for all
fees, services, expenses, and materials to be performed and furnished by the ARTIST under this
agreement. This fee includes a contingency ($15,900) but does not include sales tax,
landscaping work or lighting associated with the ART WORK. The fee shall be paid in the
following installments:
a. Ten percent (10%) within thirty (30) days after execution of this agreement.
b. Payment of invoices to be submitted by the ARTIST not more than monthly, for
expenses and materials, upon receipt of the same, to a maximum of eighty percent (80%) of the contract price.
c. Ten percent (10%) within thirty (30) days after final acceptance. If the ARTIST elects to utilize the OWNER'S services and materials during installation, those fees shall be deducted from the final payment due the ARTIST.
68
2.2 Permits
ARTIST is responsible for obtaining any and all permits from any governmental agency required
to perform any aspect of the fabrication and installation of the ART WORK. ARTIST
acknowledges that a building permit is required to be obtained from the City of St. Louis Park
for the ART WORK, including the footing and foundation.
Article 3. Time of Performance
3.1 Duration
The services to be required of the ARTIST as set forth in Article 1 shall be completed in
accordance with the schedule for completion of the ART WORK pursuant to Section 1.2,
provided that such time limits may be extended or otherwise modified by written agreement
between the ARTIST and the OWNER.
3.2 Construction Delays
If, when the ARTIST completes fabrication or procurement of the ART WORK in accordance
with the approved schedule and notifies the OWNER that the ART WORK is ready for
installation, the ARTIST is delayed from installing the ART WORK within the time specified in
the schedule as a result of the construction of the site not being sufficiently complete to permit
installation of the ART WORK, the OWNER shall provide storage, or reimburse the ARTIST for
reasonable transportation and storage costs incurred for the period between the time provided in
the schedule for commencement of installation and the date upon which the site is sufficiently
complete to reasonably permit installation of the ART WORK.
3.3 Early Completion of ARTIST Services
The ARTIST shall bear any transportation and storage costs resulting from the completion of the ARTIST'S services prior to the time provided in the schedule for installation.
3.4 Time Extensions
The OWNER shall grant a reasonable extension of time to the ARTIST in the event that there is
a delay on the part of the ARTIST in performing its obligations under this Agreement due to
conditions beyond the ARTIST'S control or Acts of God which render timely performance of the
ARTIST'S services impossible or unexpectedly burdensome. Likewise the ARTIST shall grant a
reasonable extension of time to the OWNER in the event that there is a delay on the part of the
OWNER in performing its obligations under this Agreement due to conditions beyond the
OWNER'S control or Acts of God which render timely performance of the OWNER'S services
impossible or unexpectedly burdensome. Failure to fulfill contractual obligations due to
conditions beyond either party's reasonable control will not be considered a breach of contract;
provided that such obligations shall be suspended only for the duration of such condition.
69
Article 4. Warranties
4.1 Warranties of Title
The ARTIST represents and warrants that: (a) the ART WORK is solely the result of the artistic effort of the ARTIST; (b) except as otherwise disclosed in writing to the OWNER, the ART WORK is unique and original and does not infringe upon any copyright; (c) that the ART WORK, or a duplicate thereof, has not been accepted for sale elsewhere; and (d) the ART WORK is free and clear of any liens from any source whatsoever.
4.2 Warranties of Quality and Condition
The ARTIST represents and warrants that: (a) the execution and fabrication of the ART WORK
will be performed in a workmanlike manner; (b) the ART WORK, as fabricated and installed,
will be free of defects in material and workmanship, including any defects consisting of inherent
qualities which cause or accelerate deterioration of the ART WORK; and (c) maintenance
recommendations submitted by the ARTIST to the OWNER hereunder, if followed, will achieve
their intended result.
The warranties described in this Section 4.2 shall survive for a period of five years after the final
acceptance of the ART WORK. The OWNER shall give notice to the ARTIST of any observed
breach with reasonable promptness. The ARTIST shall, at the request of the OWNER, and at no
cost to the OWNER, cure reasonably and promptly the breach of any such warranty which is
curable by the ARTIST and which cure is consistent with professional conservation standards
(including, for example, cure by means of repair or refabrication of the ART WORK).
Article 5. Reproduction Rights
5.1 General
The ARTIST retains all rights under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C., 101 et. seq., and all
other rights in and to the ART WORK except ownership and possession, except as such rights
are limited by this Section 6.1. In view of the intention that the ART WORK in its final
dimension shall be unique, the ARTIST shall not make any additional duplicate reproductions of
the final ART WORK, nor shall the ARTIST grant permission to others to do so except with the
written permission of the OWNER. The ARTIST grants to the OWNER and its assigns a royalty-
free, irrevocable license to make dimensional reproductions of the ART WORK for educational
and/or non-commercial purposes, including but not limited to reproductions used in advertising,
calendars, posters, brochures, media, publicity, catalogues, museum, educational and
development projects, or other similar publications, provided that these rights are exercised in a
professional manner.
5.2 Notice
All reproductions by the OWNER shall contain a credit to the ARTIST and a copyright notice substantially in the following form: [ARTIST'S NAME], date of publication.
70
5.3 Registration
The ARTIST may cause to be registered, with the United States Register of Copyrights, a copyright of the ART WORK in the ARTIST'S name.
Article 6. ARTIST'S Rights
6.1 Identification
The OWNER shall, at its expense, prepare and install at the site a plaque identifying the ARTIST, the title of the ART WORK, and the year of completion; and shall reasonably maintain such notice to the extent as may be practicable.
6.2 Maintenance
The OWNER recognizes that maintenance of the ART WORK on a regular basis is essential to the integrity of the ART WORK. The OWNER shall take reasonable steps to assure that the
ART WORK is properly maintained and protected, taking into account the instructions of the
ARTIST provided in accordance with Section 1.4 (c).
6.3 Alteration of the Work or of the Site
a. Except as provided under subsection 6.3(b), below, The OWNER agrees that it will not
intentionally damage, alter, modify or change the ART WORK without the prior written
approval of the ARTIST.
b. The OWNER reserves the right to alter the location of the ART WORK; relocate the
ART WORK to another site; and remove the ART WORK from public display for maintenance
or any other reason . The following provisions shall apply to relocation or removal:
(i) While the OWNER shall attempt to remove ART WORK in such a way as to
not affect the ART WORK, it is the parties understanding that such removal may result in
damage, alteration, modification, destruction, distortion or other change of the ART WORK. The
ARTIST acknowledges that this provision shall qualify under 17 U.S. C. Section 113,(d) so as to
waive rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 106A.
(ii) If, at the time of removal, it is determined that the ART WORK may be
removed without damage, alteration, modification, destruction, distortion or other change,
OWNER shall give notice as required by 17 U.S.C. Section 113 (d) (2) and (3). On completion
of the ART WORK, the ARTIST agrees to file the records, including ARTIST'S identity and
address, with the Register of Copyrights as provided under 17 U.S.C. Section 113 (d) (3). The
ARTIST further agrees to update information with the Register of Copyrights so as to permit
notification of intent to remove the ART WORK.
6.4 Permanent Record.
The OWNER shall maintain on permanent file a record of this Agreement and the location and
disposition of the ART WORK.
71
Article 7. ARTIST as Independent Contractor
The ARTIST shall perform all work under this Agreement as an independent contractor and not
as an agent or an employee of the OWNER. The ARTIST shall not be supervised by any employee or official of the OWNER, nor shall the ARTIST exercise supervision over any employee or official of the OWNER.
Article 8. Assignments, Transfer, Subcontracting
8.1 Neither this Agreement nor any interest herein shall be transferred by the ARTIST. Any such
transfer shall be null and void.
8.2 Subcontracting by ARTIST
The ARTIST may subcontract portions of the services to be provided hereunder at the ARTIST'S
expense provided that said subcontracting shall not negatively affect the design, appearance, or
visual quality of the Proposal and shall be carried out under the personal supervision of the
ARTIST. The ARTIST must obtain approval from the OWNER prior to hiring any
subcontractor. If the OWNER does not approve the hiring of any subcontractor, another
subcontractor must be submitted for approval by the OWNER.
Article 9. Termination
If either party to this agreement shall willfully or negligently fail to fulfill in a timely and proper
manner, or otherwise violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations material to this
agreement, the other party shall thereupon have the right to terminate this agreement by giving
written notice to the defaulting party of its intent to terminate specifying the grounds for
termination. The defaulting party shall have thirty (30) days after receipt of the notice to cure the
default. If it is not cured, then this agreement shall terminate. In the event of default by the
OWNER, the OWNER shall promptly compensate the ARTIST for all services performed by the
ARTIST prior to termination. In the event of default by the ARTIST, all finished and unfinished
drawings, sketches, photographs, and other work products prepared and submitted or prepared
for submission by the ARTIST under this agreement shall at the OWNER'S option become its
property, provided that no right to fabricate or execute the ART WORK shall pass to the
OWNER and the OWNER shall compensate the ARTIST pursuant to Article 2 for all services
performed by the ARTIST prior to termination; or the ARTIST shall refund all amounts paid by
the OWNER in exchange for all finished and unfinished related ART WORKs. Notwithstanding
the previous sentence, the ARTIST shall not be relieved of liability to the OWNER for damages
sustained by the OWNER by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the ARTIST, and the
OWNER may reasonably withhold payments to the ARTIST until such time as the exact amount
of such damages due the OWNER from the ARTIST is determined.
Article 10. Compliance
The ARTIST shall comply with Federal, State, and City statutes, ordinances and regulations
applicable to the performance of the ARTIST'S services under this agreement.
72
Article 11. General Terms
11.1 Records Access. The ARTIST shall provide OWNER access to any books,
documents, papers, and records which are directly pertinent to the specific
contract, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and
transcriptions, for three years after final payments and all other pending matters
related to this agreement are closed.
11.2 Subcontractor Payment. The ARTIST shall pay any subcontractor involved in the
performance of this agreement within ten (10) days of the ARTIST’s receipt of
payment by OWNER for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor. If
the ARTIST fails within that time to pay the subcontractor any undisputed amount
for which the ARTIST has received payment by the OWNER, the ARTIST shall
pay interest to the subcontractor on the unpaid amount at the rate of 1-1/2 percent
per month or any part of a month. The minimum monthly interest penalty
payment for an unpaid balance of $100 or more is $10. For an unpaid balance of
less than $100, the ARTIST shall pay the actual interest penalty due to the
subcontractor. A subcontractor who prevails in a civil action to collect interest
penalties from the ARTIST shall be awarded its costs and disbursements,
including attorney’s fees, incurred in bringing the action.
11.3 Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this agreement, the ARTIST
shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because
of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, marital
status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age. The ARTIST
shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices
setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all
qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The ARTIST
shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its
subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such
work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work.
11.4 Data Privacy. The ARTIST shall comply with the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13,
the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act. The ARTIST shall not disclose
non-public information except as authorized by the Act.
11 .5 At the request of OWNER, the ARTIST shall attend such meetings of the City
Council relative to the work set forth in this Agreement. Any requests made by
the OWNER shall be given with reasonable notice to ARTIST to assure
attendance.
11.6 Should any section of this Agreement be found invalid, it is agreed that the remaining portion shall be deemed severable from the invalid portion and
continue in full force and effect.
73
11.7 Governing Law. This agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of
Minnesota.
Article 12. Entire Agreement
This writing embodies the entire agreement and understanding between the parties hereto, and
there are no other agreements and understandings, oral or written, with reference to the subject
matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby.
Article 13. Modification
No alteration change, or modification of the terms of the Agreement shall be valid unless made
in writing and signed by both parties hereto and approved by appropriate action of the OWNER.
Article 14. Authorized Agents
The OWNER shall appoint an authorized agent for the purpose of administration of this agreement. The ARTIST is notified the authorized agent for the OWNER is as follows:
Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
(952) 924-2580
The OWNER is notified the authorized agent for the Artist is as follows:
Andrea Myklebust
3322 38th Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55406
(651) 696-6417
ARTIST OWNER
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
____________________________________ ___________________________________
Andrea Myklebust Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST
____________________________________ ___________________________________
City Attorney Cynthia Reichert
City Clerk
74
CONSENT ITEM # 4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 17, 2002
4. Motion to Approve a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Joint
Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin
County for Participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community
Development Block Grant Program in FY 2003- 2005.
Background:
The Joint Cooperation Agreement sets forth broad shared powers for carrying out housing and
community development activities. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) requires the agreement in order for Hennepin County to qualify as an urban county and
receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnership
Program (HOME) entitlement funds.
The purpose of the Agreement is to authorize Hennepin County and St. Louis Park to cooperate
to undertake community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities for the benefit
of eligible St. Louis Park residents to be funded from the annual CDBG and HOME
appropriations for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004 and 2005. The current Joint Cooperation Agreement
expires this year, and the new agreement would become effective October 1, 2002.
The new Joint Cooperation Agreement has two significant changes from the previous agreement.
• The first revision (Section IV. D.1.) deals with the need for timely expenditure of funds.
HUD is enforcing a requirement that unexpended CDBG funds cannot total more than 1.5
times the last grant allocation. To address the need for countywide timely expenditure of
funds, the time for implementing activities is being decreased from 24 months to 18 months.
• The second change (Section V. A.) increases the county administrative fee from 10 – 13% of
the grant total. This admin fee increase is designed to offset increasing county property tax
expenditures and will include a set aside for countywide fair housing efforts.
County staff provided a deliberative process for city participation in the revisions to the Joint
Cooperation Agreement and staff believes the revisions are appropriate. Staff believes that the
timeliness change should not provide a hardship for St. Louis Park, as we have consistently
expended funds in a timely manner. The administrative fee increase was discussed at length, and
the county reduced their original proposed increase from 15% to 13%. This is the first
administrative increase Hennepin County has proposed since the inception of CDBG, and is
consistent with administrative fees in Dakota and Ramsey Counties.
75
Recommendation:
Staff recommends the City Council move to pass a Resolution authorizing the execution of a
Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County for
continued participation in the Urban Hennepin County CDBG in FY 2003-2005.
Attachments: Joint Cooperation Agreement
Resolution
Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
76
RESOLUTION NO. 02-060
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR PARTICPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
IN FISCAL YEAR 2003 – 2005
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in
effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and
WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in
order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development
Block Grant and HOME Programs.
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the
City and County be executed effective October 1, 2002, and that the Mayor and the City
Manager/Administrator be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 17, 2002
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Res CDBG Coop 6-17-02
77
Contract No. A04232
JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, State
of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," A-2400 Government Center, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each hereinafter respectively referred
to as "COOPERATING UNIT," said parties to this Agreement each being governmental units of the State
of Minnesota, and made pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59:
WITNESSETH:
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY agree that it is desirable and in the interests of their citizens
that COOPERATING UNIT shares its authority to carry out essential community development and
housing activities with COUNTY in order to permit COUNTY to secure and administer Community
Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership funds as an Urban County within the
provisions of the Act as herein defined and, therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
promises contained in this Agreement, the parties mutually agree to the following terms and conditions.
COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that by the execution of this Agreement that it understands
that it:
1. May not also apply for grants under the State CDBG Program from appropriations
for fiscal years during which it is participating in the Urban County Program; and
2. May not participate in a HOME Consortium except through the Urban County.
I. DEFINITIONS
The definitions contained in 42 USC 5302 of the Act and 24 CFR §570.3 of the Regulations are
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof, and the terms defined in this section have the
meanings given them:
A. "Act" means Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended,
(42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.).
B. "Regulations" means the rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the Act, including
but not limited to 24 CFR Part 570.
C. "HUD" means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
D. "Cooperating Unit" means any city or town in Hennepin County that has entered into a
cooperation agreement that is identical to this Agreement, as well as Hennepin County,
which is a party to each Agreement.
78
E. "Consolidated Plan" means the document bearing that title or similarly required statements
or documents submitted to HUD for authorization to expend the annual grant amount and
which is developed by the COUNTY in conjunction with COOPERATING UNITS as part
of the Community Development Block Grant Program.
F. "Metropolitan City" means any city located in whole or in part in Hennepin County which is
certified by HUD to have a population of 50,000 or more people.
II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to authorize COUNTY and COOPERATING UNIT to cooperate
to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities,
specifically urban renewal and publicly assisted housing and authorizes COUNTY to carry out these and
other eligible activities for the benefit of eligible recipients who reside within the corporate limits of the
COOPERATING UNIT which will be funded from annual Community Development Block Grant and
HOME appropriations for the Federal Fiscal Years 2003, 2004 and 2005 and from any program income
generated from the expenditure of such funds.
III. AGREEMENT
The term of this Agreement is for a period commencing on October 1, 2002 and terminating no
sooner than the end of the program year covered by the Consolidated Plan for the basic grant amount for
the Fiscal Year 2005, as authorized by HUD, and for such additional time as may be required for the
expenditure of funds granted to the County for such period. COUNTY may notify COOPERATING
UNIT prior to the end of the Urban County qualification period that the Agreement will automatically be
renewed unless it is terminated in writing by either party. Either COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT
may exercise the option to terminate the Agreement at the end of the Urban County qualification period.
If COUNTY or COOPERATING UNIT fail to exercise that option, it will not have the opportunity to
exercise that option until the end of a subsequent Urban County qualification period. COUNTY will
notify the COOPERATING UNIT in writing of its right to elect to be excluded by the date specified by
HUD.
This Agreement must be amended by written agreement of all parties to incorporate any changes
necessary to meet the requirements for cooperation agreements set forth in the Urban County
Qualification Notice applicable for the year in which the next qualification of the County is scheduled.
Failure by either party to adopt such an amendment to the Agreement shall automatically terminate the
Agreement following the expenditure of all CDBG and HOME funds allocated for use in
COOPERATING UNIT's jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, this Agreement may be terminated at the end of
the program period during which HUD withdraws its designation of COUNTY as an Urban County under
the Act.
This Agreement shall be executed by the appropriate officers of COOPERATING UNIT and
COUNTY pursuant to authority granted them by their respective governing bodies, and a copy of the
authorizing resolution and executed Agreement shall be filed promptly by the COOPERATING UNIT in
the Hennepin County Department of Housing, Community Works and Transit, and in no event shall the
Agreement be filed later than June 30, 2002.
79
COOPERATING UNIT and COUNTY shall take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the
applicant's certifications required by Section 104(b) of the Title I of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; the Fair
Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974; and other
applicable laws.
IV. ACTIVITIES
COOPERATING UNIT agrees that awarded grant funds will be used to undertake and carry out,
within the terms of this Agreement, certain projects involving one or more of the essential activities
eligible for funding under the Act. COUNTY agrees and will assist COOPERATING UNIT in the
undertaking of such essential activities by providing the services specified in this Agreement. The parties
mutually agree to comply with all applicable requirements of the Act and the Regulations and other
relevant Federal and/or Minnesota statutes or regulations in the use of basic grant amounts. Nothing in
this Article shall be construed to lessen or abrogate COUNTY's responsibility to assume all obligations of
an applicant under the Act, including the development of the Consolidated Plan, pursuant to 24 CFR Part
91.
COOPERATING UNIT further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COOPERATING UNIT will, in accord with a COUNTY-established schedule, prepare and
provide to COUNTY, in a prescribed form, requests for the use of Community
Development Block Grant Funds consistent with this Agreement, program regulations and
the Urban Hennepin County Consolidated Plan.
B. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that, pursuant to 24 CFR §570.501 (b), it is subject
to the same requirements applicable to subrecipients, including the requirement for a written
Subrecipient Agreement set forth in 24 CFR §570.503. The Subrecipient Agreement will
cover the implementation requirements for each activity funded pursuant to this Agreement
and shall be duly executed with and in a form prescribed by COUNTY.
C. COOPERATING UNIT acknowledges that it is subject to the same subrecipient
requirements stated in paragraph B above in instances where an agency other than itself is
undertaking an activity pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT. In
such instances, a written Third Party Agreement shall be duly executed between the agency
and COOPERATING UNIT in a form prescribed by COUNTY.
D. COOPERATING UNIT shall implement all activities funded for each annual program
pursuant to this Agreement within eighteen (18) months of the authorization by HUD to
expend the basic grant amount.
1. Funds for all activities not implemented within eighteen (18) months shall be transferred
to a separate account for reallocation on a competitive request for proposal basis.
2. Limited extensions to the implementation period may be granted upon request only in
cases where the authorized activity has been initiated and/or subject of a binding
contract to proceed.
80
3. If COUNTY is notified by HUD that it has not met the performance standard for the
timely expenditure of funds at 24 CFR 570.902(a) and the COUNTY entitlement grant
is reduced by HUD, according to its policy on corrective actions, then the basic grant
amount to any COOPERATING UNIT that has not met its expenditure goal shall be
reduced in a manner proportionate to the reduction in the COUNTY grant.
E. COOPERATING UNIT will take actions necessary to assist in accomplishing the
community development program and housing goals, as contained in the Urban Hennepin
County Consolidated Plan.
F. COOPERATING UNIT shall ensure that all programs and/or activities funded, in part or in full
by grant funds received pursuant to this Agreement, shall be undertaken affirmatively with regard
to fair housing, employment and business opportunities for minorities and women. It shall, in
implementing all programs and/or activities funded by the basic grant amount, comply with all
applicable Federal and Minnesota Laws, statutes, rules and regulations with regard to civil rights,
affirmative action and equal employment opportunities and Administrative Rule issued by the
COUNTY.
G. COOPERATING UNIT that does not affirmatively further fair housing within its own
jurisdiction or that impedes action by COUNTY to comply with its fair housing certification
shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funding for any activities.
H. COOPERATING UNIT shall participate in the citizen participation process, as established
by COUNTY, in compliance with the requirements of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended.
I. COOPERATING UNIT shall reimburse COUNTY for any expenditure determined by HUD
or COUNTY to be ineligible.
J. COOPERATING UNIT shall prepare, execute, and cause to be filed all documents
protecting the interests of the parties hereto or any other party of interest as may be
designated by the COUNTY.
K. COOPERATING UNIT has adopted and is enforcing:
1. A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within
its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in nonviolent civil rights
demonstrations; and
2. A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring
entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent
civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
COUNTY further specifically agrees as follows:
A. COUNTY shall prepare and submit to HUD and appropriate reviewing agencies, on an
annual basis, all plans, statements and program documents necessary for receipt of a basic
grant amount under the Act.
81
B. COUNTY shall provide, to the maximum extent feasible, technical assistance and
coordinating services to COOPERATING UNIT in the preparation and submission of a
request for funding.
C. COUNTY shall provide ongoing technical assistance to COOPERATING UNIT to aid
COUNTY in fulfilling its responsibility to HUD for accomplishment of the community
development program and housing goals.
D. COUNTY shall, upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree to administer local
housing rehabilitation grant programs funded pursuant to the Agreement, provided that
COUNTY shall receive Twelve percent (12%) of the allocation by COOPERATING UNIT
to the activity as reimbursement for costs associated with the administration of
COOPERATING UNIT activity.
E. COUNTY may, at its discretion and upon official request by COOPERATING UNIT, agree
to administer, for a possible fee, other programs and/or activities funded pursuant to this
Agreement on behalf of COOPERATING UNIT.
F. COUNTY may, as necessary for clarification and coordination of program administration,
develop and implement Administrative Rules consistent with the Act, Regulations, HUD
administrative directives, and administrative requirements of COUNTY.
V. ALLOCATION OF BASIC GRANT AMOUNTS
Basic grant amounts received by the COUNTY under Section 106 of the Act shall be allocated as
follows:
A. COUNTY shall retain thirteen percent (13%) of the annual basic grant amount for the
administration of the program. Included in this administrative amount is funding for annual
county-wide Fair Housing activities.
B. The balance of the basic grant amount shall be made available by COUNTY to
COOPERATING UNITS in accordance with the formula stated in part C and the procedure
stated in part D of this section for the purpose of allowing the COOPERATING UNITS to
submit funding requests. The allocation is for planning purposes only and is not a guarantee
of funding.
C. The COUNTY will calculate, for each COOPERATING UNIT, an amount that bears the
same ratio to the balance of the basic grant amount as the average of the ratios between:
1. The population of COOPERATING UNIT and the population of all
COOPERATING UNITS.
2. The extent of poverty in COOPERATING UNIT and the extent of poverty in all
COOPERATING UNITS.
3. The extent of overcrowded housing by units in COOPERATING UNIT and the
extent of overcrowded housing by units in all COOPERATING UNITS.
82
4. In determining the average of the above ratios, the ratio involving the extent of
poverty shall be counted twice.
D. Funds will be made available to communities utilizing the formula specified in C of this
Section in the following manner:
1. COOPERATING UNIT qualifying as a Metropolitan City (having populations of at
least 50,000) will receive annual funding allocations equal to the HUD formula
entitlement or the COUNTY formula allocation, whichever is greater.
2. Other COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of $75,000 or
more will receive funding allocations in accordance with the formula allocations.
3. COOPERATING UNITS with COUNTY formula allocations of less than $75,000
will have their funds consolidated in a pool for award in a manner determined by
COUNTY. Only the COOPERATING UNITS, whose funding has been pooled, will
be eligible to compete for these funds.
E. The COUNTY shall develop these ratios based upon data to be furnished by HUD. The
COUNTY assumes no duty to gather such data independently and assumes no liability for
any errors in the data furnished by HUD.
F. In the event COOPERATING UNIT does not request a funding allocation, or a portion
thereof, the amount not requested shall be made available to other participating
communities, in a manner determined by COUNTY.
VI. METROPOLITAN CITIES
Any metropolitan city executing this Agreement shall defer their entitlement status and become
part of Urban Hennepin County.
This agreement can be voided if the COOPERATING UNIT is advised by HUD, prior to the completion
of the re-qualification process for fiscal years 2003-2005, that it is eligible to become a metropolitan city
and the COOPERATING UNIT elects to take its entitlement status. If the agreement is not voided on the
basis of the COOPERATING UNIT’s eligibility as a metropolitan city prior to July 13, 2002, the
COOPERATING UNIT must remain a part of the COUNTY program for the entire three-year period of
the COUNTY qualification.
VII. OPINION OF COUNSEL
The undersigned, on behalf of the Hennepin County Attorney, having reviewed this Agreement,
hereby opines that the terms and provisions of the Agreement are fully authorized under State and local
law and that the COOPERATING UNIT has full legal authority to undertake or assist in undertaking
essential community development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban renewal and
publicly-assisted housing.
Assistant County Attorney
83
VIII. HENNEPIN COUNTY EXECUTION
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
, 2002, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this Agreement, the
COUNTY agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF
MINNESOTA
By:
Chair of its County Board
And:
Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator
Attest:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
And:
Assistant County Administrator, Public Works and
County Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM: RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
Assistant County Attorney Director, Housing, Community Works and Transit
Department
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION:
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
84
IX. COOPERATING UNIT EXECUTION
COOPERATING UNIT, having signed this Agreement, and the COOPERATING UNIT'S governing
body having duly approved this Agreement on , 2002, and pursuant to such approval and
the proper city official having signed this Agreement, COOPERATING UNIT agrees to be bound by the
provisions of this Joint Cooperation Agreement, contract A .
CITY OF
By:
Its Mayor
And:
Its City Manager
ATTEST:
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant to:
Plan A Plan B Charter
June 28, 2018
85
CONSENT ITEM # 5
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 17, 2002
5. Motion to authorize execution of an agreement for engineering and
architectural services with Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass in an amount
not to exceed $66,500 for design work of the Rec Center roof over the West
Arena.
Background
Since the north outside beam on the west arena failed in the fall of 2000, we have made some
temporary improvements to the arena to make the space useable while we determined what the
long-range plan should entail. The outside beam on the north side of the building cracked
because the wood had become rotten. At the time it failed, it was a structural beam that
supported the roof on the north side of the building. Since that time, the north wall was built up
with concrete block to a height that supported the roof so that the beam no longer needed to serve
as a structural support.
Recommendation of an Engineering/Architectural Firm
The Inspections and Parks and Recreation staff have interviewed firms that are capable of
evaluating our situation and designing a steel bar joist and metal roof structure. Staff
recommends the firm of Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass to work with the City on the Phase
One portion of the building. This firm will complete the design work for Phase One, which will
bring us to the point of bidding out the project. A second phase of this will entail bidding
development of final construction plans and project management of the roof replacement.
Inspections Director, Brian Hoffman, has worked with this firm on numerous occasions and has
found them to be competent, responsive, and cost effective. Their proposed fee of $66,500 will
include the preliminary architectural and engineering design work for a new roof structure. The
firm will also work with the Inspections Department on any code issues as it relates to the ice
arena and its connections to the Rec Center.
Next Steps
If Council authorizes execution of an agreement with Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass, the
planning will start in June. Once the above firm has had an opportunity to explore the options
available for roof replacement, staff will discuss these options and cost estimates with the City
Council. The actual roof replacement, if approved, will be done as a 2003 CIP item beginning in
April of 2003 when the hockey season has been completed. The goal would be to have the roof
in place and the arena available for use in early September.
Recommendation
Staff recommends approving a contract with Krech, O'Brien, Mueller & Wass to design the Rec
Center roof located above the West Arena.
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
86
CONSENT ITEM # 6
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 17, 2002
6. Sholom West Revenue Bonds: Motion to approve modifications and renovations
requested by Sholom Community Alliance.
Background:
On July 20, 1998 the City of St. Louis Park authorized the issuance and sale of Nursing Home
Revenue Bonds for the Sholom Home West, Inc. project. This debt is conduit debt and is not an
obligation of the City.
On May 23, 2002, staff received notification from Jim Newstrom, CFO for Sholom Community
Alliance, that the organization would like to request permission to undertake improvement
projects. In accordance with requirements specified in the Bond documents, Sholom is to
receive consent for additions or improvements to mortgaged property.
The improvements being requested are somewhat related to the other modifications that are
currently being made to the campus (the construction of the Roitenberg Family Assisted Living
residence – a 76-unit Assisted Living facility). The improvements consist of room renovation
resulting from the proximity between the new Roitenberg facility and the current Sholom Home
West structure, kitchen modifications, and the remodeling of space for an Adult Day Care center.
Sholom anticipates paying for this project with reserves and contributions. Room renovation and
kitchen modifications are estimated at $277,457. This portion of the project will be funded
through reserves. New equipment for the kitchen is estimated at $127,761. This will be repaid
over time by entering into a service contract for the delivery of meals with the Roitenberg facility
dining rooms. The Adult Day Care Center cost is estimated at $250,000. $200,000 is already
committed from the Minneapolis Jewish Federation’s current Capital Compaign and the
remaining $50,000 is anticipated to be funded with additional contributions.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the renovations and modifications.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Jean D. McGann
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
87
CONSENT ITEM # 7
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of June 17, 2002
7. Motion to approve payment to School District #283 of $73,000 from Cable TV
franchise fees for the year 2002, comprised of an operations grant of $35,000 and
a video equipment grant of $38,000.
Background:
The School District has received funding from Cable TV franchise fees since 1982, and since
1996 the Telecommunications Commission has reviewed the District’s request and
recommended action to the City Council. The Commission has traditionally felt that franchise
fees should be used to produce programming and District video text display for Educational
Access Channel 14, a benefit available to all Cable TV viewers.
In 2001 at the recommendation of the Commission, the Council increased the operations grant to
$35,000, which covers most of the District Video Technician’s salary and benefits.
Since 1998, the Commission has recommended separate grants for operations and equipment,
basing the equipment grants on District proposals. At the May 9, 2002 meeting, the Commission
passed a motion to approve the District’s request with
one-half of the equipment grant to be allocated now and one-half later, contingent on the District
submitting the required quarterly programming reports.
Budget Information
Franchise fees collected from Time Warner Cable have grown because of annual price increases
and the rapid growth of digital cable services.
However, after the Federal Communications Commission reclassified cable modem services as
information services on March 14, 2002, Time Warner notified the City that it would no longer
pay franchise fees on Roadrunner high speed data services. As a result the City will collect
about $17,000 less in franchise fees for 2002, after rapid increases for several years.
Time Warner Cable Customer Growth
Date Total customers Basic only Roadrunner Digital Cable
5/00 12,925 1,683 - -
5/01 13,165 1,774 1,706 2,600
5/02 13,071 1,434 2,841 3,374
88
Five Year Grant History
Year Operations
Grant
Equipment
Grant
Total Grant to
School District
Total Franchise
Fees
1998 25,000 8,000 33,000 255,387
1999 25,000 7,500 32,500 279,970
2000 25,000 12,900 37,900 310,713
2001 35,000 15,000 50,000 379,000
2002 Propose 35,000 Propose 38,000 74,000 Estimate 362,000
Equipment Grant Descriptions
Recent past equipment grants (in addition to a $25,000 operations grant)
1998 $8,000 for an automatic playback system
1999 $7,500 for digital camcorders/tripods
2000 $12,900 for district to use for personnel and equipment
2001 $15,000 used for Apple G4 computer + a 21” monitor, 2 digital cameras, a teleprompter,
a Videonics digital video switcher, a tripod + other accessories.
2002 Propose $39,000 to complete the replacement of equipment in studio #1 2 studio
cameras & camera heads, tripods and dollies, 1 Videonics digital video switcher, 1 mini-
DV mastering deck; one 400-500 gigabyte mass storage device, 6 digital camcorders &
tripods for classes to check out.
Recommendation
Motion to approve payment to the School District of $73,000 for 2002, comprised of an
operations grant of $35,000 and a video equipment grant of $38,000.
Attachments: Unapproved Telecommunications Minutes of May 9, 2002 (excerpt)
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
89
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF MAY 9, 2002 at 7:00 p.m.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL, WESTWOOD ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Bob Jacobson,
and Mary Jean Overend
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rick Dworsky
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator, John McHugh,
Community TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Marble, Director of Information Services; Charlie Fiss,
Media Technician; Ted Pawlicki, Junior High Video
Technician; and Linda Samson, Recording Secretary
5. New Business
A. Review School District programming reports and initial proposal for 2002 grant funds
A copy of Tom Marble’s report was distributed to the Commissioners. Mr. Marble is the
Director of Information Services, St. Louis Park schools. Mr. Marble was accompanied by Ted
Pawlicki, junior high video technician and Charlie Fiss, media technician.
Mr. Marble remarked he would like a new computer program to replace Scala, which is used for
the channel 14 videotext. He said there is exploration regarding the continuance of televising the
school board meetings live on channel 14. Mr. Marble said the high school has equipment for
one working studio, and a second working studio is in the works to better accommodate students.
The two studios haven’t been used this school year since the district chose to store remodeling
construction materials there.
Commissioner Overend asked if the school could provide information regarding student demand
for video and studio resources, and Mr. Marble and Mr. Fiss replied yes. Mr. Marble said a
substantial amount of previous grant monies from the Cable Commission was used at the senior
high level, and that money should be dispersed throughout the district to include the junior high
and elementary levels.
Mr. Pawlicki said he works with technical education, three classes per day with four to six
students for ten days, and the students produce a five to seven minute video. He said the gifted
and talented students having been working to produce a new show, and at the end of the year
they will have a news show.
Mr. Marble said there is an after-school video club with seven students. Grant money has been
used to purchase a higher end editing system for productions; one final cut pro was also
purchased for the junior and senior high schools. A Mac G4 system, 4 digital camcorders, a
digital switcher and video walkman were purchased for the JHS for ~$11,000.
90
Mr. Marble said video production is becoming pervasive for several types of class subjects, e.g.,
the social sciences and science classes, and there is tremendous demand pressure from teachers
and students for equipment; and all is on the digital format.
Mr. Marble reported his direction comes from the technology advisory group at the senior high.
Commissioner Jacobson asked, Outside of grant activities, what value does the
Telecommunications Commission have? Mr. Dunlap responded—grant administration.
Mr. Fiss said the lack of programming on channel 14 has been due to his absence since last mid-
November. Mr. Marble said one position operates channel 14. Commissioner Jacobson said one
justification for grant money is the operation of channel 14. It was noted that a large amount of
grant money has been earmarked for equipment purchases. Mr. Fiss said he will provide
quarterly reports for channel 14 programming.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if the school is nearly 100% Macintosh, and Mr. Fiss replied yes,
and in homes it is nearly 100% PCs. Commissioner Jacobs said that is the dilemma, how do
students get anything out of that? Mr. Marble said at the senior high the percentages are 50/50.
Mr. Marble said 40 PCs were installed in a lab due to a foreign language learning grant. Mr.
Marble confirmed an advisory group directs the activities of the media/video school district
employees.
Commissioner Huiras asked about the inventory lists and associated grant amounts. Mr. Marble
said operating grants have been used to pay salaries of those who run channel 14 and the
operations of the school district. He said technology receives some money from a levy to lease
equipment, for technical support, to pay salaries, maintenance and construction, and for data
networking.
For the record, Commissioner Jacobson said the Telecommunications Commission wants a log
of channel 14 programming.
There was discussion regarding the life cycles of various equipment, junior high equipment
inventory, and nonfunctional equipment.
Mr. Marble confirmed that the Telecommunications Commission would like quarterly reports in
advance of their meetings, and for channel 14 programming, the Telecommunications
Commission would like to know:
What programs were aired (w/date of premiere showing)
The length of the programs
From where the programs premiered, e.g., the junior high or the senior high
Mr. Marble said the school district is now providing him with budgets sheets related to the
grant(s). He would like to keep the technology levy and grant monies separate.
Commissioner Huiras would like an inventory update.
91
Mr. Dunlap noted that for last year the operating grant was $35,000, and the equipment grant
was $15,000.
It was moved by Commissioner Huiras, seconded by Commissioner Browning, to approve the
operations grant for 2002 for $35,000, however, the equipment grant is to be separate.
The motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Huiras mentioned his concern regarding the cost of franchising fees. Mr. Dunlap
responded the cable franchise fees will rise even if Road Runner is taken out, and the anticipated
dollar loss is $70,000. The issue of refunds is uncertain.
Commissioner Jacobson suggested that Mr. Marble and Mr. Fiss figure out their needs for the
next two years and submit a request promptly.
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobson, seconded by Commissioner Huiras, to approve the
proposal for equipment for $38,000.
Commissioner Browning said he prefers one-half of that be allocated now and one-half later.
Mr. Dunlap stated that last year’s equipment grant was $15,000.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Overend, to amend the
motion, and he would like to suggest one-half of the amount be allocated now and one-half later,
contingent on the District submitting the required quarterly programming reports.
The motion passed 5-0.
Commissioner Jacobson withdrew his motion.
92
Item # 8a
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes—March 20, 2002
Westwood Room, 3rd Floor, City Hall
Present
Commission Members: Cassandra Boddy, Herbert Isbin, Paul Pyykkonen, Kristin Siegesmund,
and Emily Wallace-Jackson
Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison
Call to Order
Chair Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
February Minutes: The February minutes were unavailable for approval.
Martha McDonell, staff liaison, reported that three individuals have returned applications for a
position on the Human Rights Commission.
April Agenda: Moved by Herbert Isbin and seconded by Kristin Siegesmund to approve the
March 20, 2002 agenda. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Reports
Cassandra Boddy reported hearing about an incident at Cedar Manor School regarding an
unwelcomed appellation. The appellation included the name “Osama Bin.” Additional
discriminatory actions, some by fifth graders, have involved the police. Boddy and other
students will address the Cedar Manor fifth graders regarding discriminatory actions and their
impacts and consequences.
Emily Wallace-Jackson, a member of the Cultural Compus diversity forum committee, said she
will help distribute posters for the upcomming forum and other board members were encouraged
to distribute the posters throughout the community.
Herbert Isbin said the next League of Minnesota Human Rights Commission board meeting will
take place in Shoreview on March 23rd, and everyone is invited. Late this year, the League will
meet in St. Louis Park.
Herbert Isbin referred to the Albuquerque human rights office and human rights Commission.
He said one day a year is set aside to recognize individuals who have made contributions to
human rights. Isbin added it is an excellent idea to honor students to promote human rights
education.
93
Old Business
2002 Work Plan: Moved by Herbert Isbin to change peace to harmony in the St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission 2002 Draft Work Plan. Isbin said he doesn’t understand the
implications of peace in its entirety, but harmony tends to blend. Kristin Siegesmund favors the
use of peace over harmony. It was suggested to add harmony to the Work Plan.
There was additional discussion regarding changing the Work Plan from a one-year plan to a
two-year plan.
Kristin Siegesmund said she likes having the goals clearly stated in the Work Plan. She strongly
favors devoting a space or an area in Park Commons designated to have a human rights theme.
There was unanimous agreement that Goal 1 requires immediate attention.
Cassandra Boddy asked if, throughout the Work Plan, vision should be envision (see, for
example, Goal 1, Objective 1).
The Commission favors a Youth Award (Goal 3, Objective 2), and Herbert Isbin is pleased with
the Work Plan’s inclusion of youth from the community.
Cassandra Boddy would like to reach a greater number of people, and to encourage them to
become involved in human rights.
Emily Wallace-Jackson likes Goal 5, promoting partnerships, but does not fully agree with
Objective 2, developing a database.
Herbert Isbin stated he is concerned about the word partnership because it connotes a detailed
organization (see, Goal 5). There was discussion about integration.
Paul Pyykkonen would like the needs of individuals with disabilities to be included and,
specifically, the issue of accessibility to various community events and businesses to be
addressed. Pyykkonen was asked to provide, at a future meeting, specific examples of how the
Human Rights Commission in Golden Valley has helped individuals with disabilities gain access
to businesses, since he previously served on the Golden Valley commission before moving to St.
Louis Park.
It was suggested that Human Rights City be defined in the Work Plan.
Hate Crimes Response Plan: Martha McDonell said the Human Rights Commission is on the
City Council agenda for April 1st at 7:00 p.m., and Lorin Kramer will discuss the revised bias
plan.
Student Essay Contest Winner: The honor for Abigail Burkhart is postponed until May . It
was felt that our local award should be presented after the state winner is chosen.
94
Adjournment
Moved by Herbert Isbin and seconded by Paul Pyykkonen to adjourn. The motion passed
unanimously. The Commission adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Martha McDonell, Staff Liaison
95
Item # 8b
Official Minutes
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 15, 2002 – 6:40 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Phillip Finkelstein, Michael Garelick,
Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Gothberg
STAFF PRESENT: Julie Grove, Janet Jeremiah, Nancy Sells
1. Call to order – Roll Call
Co Vice-Chair Robertson called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. The Planning
Commission had just returned from a tour of City development projects and study areas.
2. Approval of Minutes of May 1, 2002
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes of May 1, 2002. The motion
passed 5-0-1. Commissioner Bissonnette abstained.
3. Hearings: None
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
6. Communications
A. Home Renewal Programs
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator for the City, provided an overview
of the City’s Home Rehab programs. She explained that the goals of the various
housing programs are to preserve and enhance existing housing stock. She
reviewed the Community Fix-up Fund Loan program, Emergency Loan program,
Deferred Loan program, Energy Loan program and the First Time Homebuyer
Low Interest Mortgage program.
Ms. Larsen explained that the City’s investment and activity in housing has
increased significantly since 1999 due to the creation of a Housing Division
96
within the Community Development Dept. and a change in city funding of
housing programs. She said that almost 200 homes were improved through the
various programs during 2001.
Ms. Larsen provided information about the Home Renewal program which was
created to encourage the development of move-up housing. Seven homes have
been completed since the inception of the program five years ago.
Ms. Larsen discussed the Housing Redevelopment Fund which funded a pilot
neighborhood revitalization effort in the Blackstone neighborhood. Over half of
the owner occupied residences in that neighborhood were improved through the
loan program.
Ms. Larsen said that a pilot rehab program has very recently been created to
address repairs for city-wide blighted properties.
Ms. Larsen commented on the Housing Improvement Area program which is a
rehab program for condo associations for common area improvements. She stated
that the Cedar Trails Condo Association is currently involved in the petitioning
process for this loan program.
Ms. Larsen reviewed multi-family housing rehab activity including Louisiana
Court, Wayside Apartments and Vail Place.
Ms. Larsen discussed the public housing and Section 8 housing voucher program
administered by the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park.
Ms. Larsen commented on marketing efforts of the various housing programs.
Commissioner Garelick commended Ms. Larsen on the housing initiatives in
place but expressed his concern about the need for programs for middle income
residents. He commented that he doesn’t believe there is real move-up housing in
St. Louis Park.
Ms. Larsen responded that his points were well made. She explained that state
and CDBG funding tools tend to focus on lower income. Ms. Larsen went on to
say that housing has become a topical issue everywhere. She said that staff is
proposing a symposium for the Planning Commission, City Council and Housing
Authority on housing in St. Louis Park late this summer. Ms. Larsen said that
staff proposes to present 2000 Census income data at the meeting as a means to
identify the existing situation of housing in the City and to discuss future policy
directions.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that Commissioner Timian, the School Board representative
to the Planning Commission, has asked if school district representatives could
also be invited to the joint meeting. She added that the joint meeting would be a
97
good time to bring up any issues or concerns the Planning Commission does not
feel are being adequately addressed by current housing programs. Ms. Jeremiah
said the meeting is being proposed for sometime in August, depending on when
Census income data becomes available to staff.
In response to Commissioner Garelick’s request for information about the City
housing maintenance code, Ms. Jeremiah responded that Brian Hoffman, Director
of Inspections, will make a presentation to the Planning Commission on June 5
with regard to the housing maintenance code and the point of sale inspections.
There was a discussion about affordable housing. Commissioner Morris
commented that there is perhaps sticker shock regarding what is currently
considered affordable housing. He went on to say the joint meeting is necessary
to determine if the City is meeting its goals for affordable housing or if it is only
meeting the goals of move-up housing.
Ms. Larsen said the housing issues are large and she believes the joint meeting
will be helpful.
Commissioners thanked Ms. Larsen for her presentation.
7. Other
Commissioner Garelick thanked staff for providing a tour of project sites prior to the
meeting. He suggested that the Planning Commission might hold occasional study
sessions which would help them become more productive and effective in the
community.
8. Adjournment
Co Vice-Chair Robertson adjourned the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
98
Item # 8c
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, May 8, 2002
Westwood Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, Judith Moore, William Gavzy and Anne
Mavity (5:05 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Shone Row
STAFF PRESENT: Tamra Bokal, Kathy Larsen and Michele Schnitker
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for April 10, 2002
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the minutes of April 10th, 2002.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of
3-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy and Moore voting in favor.
3. Public Hearing: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business:
a. Home Renewal Program - 4247 Wooddale Ave S., Development Agreement
Ms. Larsen explained that the purchase took place in February followed by the
request for proposals. Ms. Larsen said bid packets were sent out to about 60
different developers. She stated that only two bids were received, including bids
from Windwood Homes and Al Stobbe homes, who has built three homes through
St. Louis Park's Home Renewal Program. Ms. Larsen said that both proposals
met all of the financial and design criteria.
99
Ms. Larsen stated that staff was recommending the proposal of Windwood Homes
based on a price of $68,000 for the land. Al Stobbe Homes offered $64,400. Ms.
Larsen explained that Windwood already has a buyer for the home. Ms. Larson
also stated that the agreement is contingent upon Windwood providing a grading
plan that meets approval from the City's Engineering Department.
Commissioner Mavity asked what qualifies as move-up housing. Ms. Larsen
responded that a home with three to four bedrooms and two bathrooms qualifies
as move-up housing.
Commissioner Gavzy asked about the cost of acquisition and demolition. Ms.
Larsen responded that the purchase price was $65,000 and the demolition cost is
estimated to be between $5,000 and $10,000. Commissioner Gavzy asked what
mechanisms are in place to ensure that the homes are built according to the plans.
Ms. Larsen stated that the developer must work with the Inspection Department,
who in turn will work with Ms. Larsen to ensure the house is built as designed.
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the development agreement with
Windwood Homes for 4247 Wooddale Ave S. Commissioner Mavity seconded
the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
b. Collection Losses
Ms. Schnitker stated that HUD requires the Housing Authority to write-off debts
from previous tenants that may not be able to be collected. She explained the
write-off of $1,746 would not preclude the HA from collecting these debts.
Commissioner Gavzy commented that the collection number was very low
compared with previous years and that the HA must be doing a very good job of
collecting past due amounts.
Commissioner Mavity moved approval of Resolution Number 503 to write-off
collection losses for Public Housing. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion,
and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy,
Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
c. Approval of Lawn Maintenance Contract for Hamilton House
Ms. Schnitker explained that staff was recommending the approval of the contract
with Dave Eide for two years for mowing. She stated that the cost of mowing
would be $100 per mowing for the first year and then
renegotiated for the second year.
100
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the Lawn Maintenance Contract.
Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
d. Approval of the Public Housing Operating Budget for Fiscal Year Ending 2003
Ms. Schnitker explained that she talked with HUD and other housing authorities
and discovered that the Louisiana Court units could be treated similarly to a
contract with one line item for expenses. Ms. Schnitker stated that the operating
subsidy is about $10,000 greater than FY 2002. She said expenses are slightly
higher than the previous year. Ms. Schnitker explained that the increases included
salary adjustments and a projected $10,000 operating subsidy to be paid to
Louisiana Court due a shortfall between their rents and expenses.
Ms. Schnitker said the HA would begin funding most of the non-routine expenses
previously funded out of the Operating Budget to the Capital Fund since the
houses are in much better condition, require less repair and the repairs are more
predictable.
Commissioner Gavzy asked why the income statement through the end of March,
indicates a loss of $52,000. Ms. Schnitker responded that this amount includes
prepaid expenses including $30,000 in insurance expense.
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of Resolution No. 504 - Public Housing
Operating Budges for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2003. Commissioner Moore
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
e. Approval of Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Management
Operations Certification
Ms. Schnitker explained this is a certification required by and submitted to HUD.
The certification includes measurement information on management, physical
condition, financial condition and resident satisfaction surveys. Ms. Schnitker
stated that HUD has put the resident surveys on hold. She also said that HUD
completed the physical inspections in March.
Ms. Schnitker explained that the management portion includes criteria such as
work order timeliness, vacancy days and capital fund expenditures.
Commissioner Mavity asked what score the HA would receive for PHAS.
Ms. Schnitker responded that she couldn't determine what score HUD would give
the HA, but that a high performer is a score of 90 or above. Ms. Schnitker also
said that only the management portion is submitted at this time and that the
financial condition is submitted at a later date.
101
Commissioner Mavity moved approval of Resolution No. 505 - Public Housing
Assessment System Management Operations Certification. Commissioner Moore
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0, with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 5-2002
Commissioner Courtney moved ratification of Claims List No. 5-2002.
Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0, with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
b. Communications
Commissioner Moore asked about the utilization of Section 8. Ms. Schnitker
responded that the HA is still overutilized but that the rate should start to decrease
through attrition.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:45p.m. Commissioner Mavity
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary