Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/12/20 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular7:20 p.m.. - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 20, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of December 6, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. Study Session meeting of September 13, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented c. Study Session meeting of September 27, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented d. Study Session meeting of October 25, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented e. Study Session meeting of November 8, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented f. Study Session meeting of November 22, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as prese g. Study Session meeting of July 26, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as prese 5. Approval of agenda 2 a. Consent agenda Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda. Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s) b. Agenda Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s) *c. Resolutions and Ordinances Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances 6. Public Hearing 6a. Zarthan Ave/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District This report considers a resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Zarthan/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Recommended Action: Motion to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the resolution establishing the Zarthan Ave/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopting the Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 7a. Variance Appeal, 6200 Minnetonka Boulevard Recommended Action: Motion to uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision to deny the variance request. 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. PPL Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project This report considers various City Council actions to formalize the City’s role as a partner in the Louisiana Court Redevelopment project prior to the application 3 deadline for General Obligation Bond allocation of December 27, 1999. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of Contract for Redevelopment By and among City of St. Louis Park and Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Housing and Project for Pride in Living. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Housing Authority of St. Louis Park. Motion to adopt Resolution requesting condemnation of certain real estate by the Housing Authority. Motion to adopt Resolution giving preliminary approval to a proposed issue of multifamily housing revenue bonds. 8b. Towing Contract for Years 2000 through 2004 Award of new towing contract to replace current contract which expires on December 31, 1999 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the attached five-year contract with All Hours Towing for towing services. *8c. This report discusses a resolution for adopting a Standard Operating Policy for Code Administration. Proposed resolution unifies the direction of Council & Inspection staff by establishing parameters for City Code administration within a Standard Operating Policy Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution supporting the Inspection Department Standard Operating Policy for Code administration. *8d. Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment Revising Permit Fees for Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Permits. Proposed changes simplify the method in which fees for plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits are calculated and provide a more accurate fee for service relationship. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the ordinance revising plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit fees, approve summary and authorize 4 summary publication. *8e. Police Uniform Contract Two-year contract to supply the St. Louis Park Police Department with clothing, footwear, leather goods, flashlights, handcuffs, mace, ballistic vests and other uniform items. Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2001. *8f. Resolution to Adopt the 2000 Budget This action is the final step in the budget process for the next fiscal year Recommended Action: Motion to approve resolution adopting the 2000 budget *8g. Second Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for 2000 This action would increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%. Rates effective January 1, 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to waive second reading and approve summary ordinance for publication *8h. Resolution Approving the Property Tax Levy for 2000 Resolution approving the property tax levy for 2000. The total property tax levy proposed is 1.6% higher than the levy approved for 1999. The increase will generate an additional $199,629 to help support the City’s operating budget of $32 million next year. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution. *8i. Advancement of Funds from the MSA Account This report considers advancing funds from the City’s Municipal State Aid (MSA) account for repayment of the construction costs associated with Cedar Lake Road Phases I, II, and III and several other minor MSA financed projects. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to advance funds in the 5 amount of $720,000 to repay MSA approved construction costs. *8j. Amendment to Ordinance 1325 Second Reading of Ordinance amending the legal description for street vacation granted by Ordinance 1325 Dated March 1, 1976 Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of corrected ordinance to vacate a portion of Meadowbrook Road, adopt the ordinance and to authorize publication of summary ordinance. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Housing Authority Minutes of November 10, 1999 Action: By consent, accept reports for filing *b. Planning Commission Minutes of December 1, 1999 Action: By consent, accept reports for filing *c. Vendor Claim Report Action: By consent, accept reports for filing 10. Unfinished Business a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s) 11. New Business *11a. Approval of lease agreement for a free standing communications antenna with Sprint Spectrum L.P. (SSLP). Authorization to enter into a lease agreement between the City and SSLP for space west of the groundwater treatment facility at 7120 W. Lake Street for a free standing communications antenna for an initial lease term of five (5) years with option for four (4) additional five (5) year renewal terms. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached resolution authorizing execution of lease agreement. *11b. Traffic Study No. 548: Three way stop signs at Alabama Avenue So. and W. 32nd Street 6 This report considers a request by area residents for a three way stop condition at the intersection of Alabama Avenue So. and W. 32nd Street. Recommended Action: Motion to accept this report for filing and adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of three way stop signs at the intersection of Alabama Avenue So. and W. 32nd Street. *11c. Traffic Study No. 549: HealthSystem Minnesota request for parking restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle. This report considers a request from HealthSystem Minnesota to place “One Hour” parking restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the change in parking restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle to “One Hour” parking from Louisiana Avenue west to the westerly driveway for 3900 Louisiana Circle. *11d. Authorize publication of notice of availability of Park Commons East EAW for public comment. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize the publication of the notice of availability of the Park Commons East EAW. 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract payments Final- None Action: By consent adopt resolutions. Partial Action: By consent approve and authorize payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 7 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 6, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations a. Recognition of Board and Commission resignees Mayor Jacobs noted that it was the spirit of volunteerism that makes St. Louis Park a great city. He presented Certificates of Appreciation to the following residents for their dedicated service on the Commissions. Sally Velick Charter Commission Phil Finkelstein Charter Commission Therese Samudio Charter Commission Walter Hartman Housing Authority Judith Moore Human Rights Commission John Archbold Human Rights Commission Christine Stephenson Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Pete Chubb Parks and Recreation AdvisoryCommission b. National League of Cities Conference Update Councilmember Latz noted that on behalf of St. Louis Park, Councilmembers Brimeyer and Latz accepted an Innovation Award at the National League of Cities conference for the book on home renovation ideas that staff developed in conjunction with other municipalities. 3. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. 8 Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); Director of Finance (Ms. McGann); City Assessor (Mr. Stepnick); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); Parks and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh); Engineering Superintendent (Mr. Moore); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Chief Building Official (Mr. Shoppe); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of November 15, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented. 4b. Special City Council Meeting of November 15, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 7-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider the 2000 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy Ms. McGann, Director of Finance made a presentation highlighting the proposed budget for 2000 as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Stepnick, City Assessor presented a staff report outlining data on the trends of property values on both commercial and residential in St. Louis Park. He noted that there was a Senior Citizens Tax Deferral program available through the State of Minnesota (651-296-3781) and explained the This Old House law. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 9 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Second Reading of an Ordinance Regulating Operation of Lawful Gambling in St. Louis Park Cindy Larsen, City Clerk presented a staff report and recommended approval with an effective date of January 1, 2000. Bruce Berthiume, 3125 Oregon Avenue South, “My concern with the proposed administrative tax is that our organization would end up being over 25% of the cost of the whole fund due to the amount of the sales that we have. Our organization does not feel that is right. We feel that the burden that the St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters would have would be greater than our share as far as the administrative costs”. Cindy Larsen, City Clerk stated that the City was not allowed by Statute to adjust that for organizations. Ed McDevitt, 3379 Brownlow Avenue South, “In checking with our bookkeeper, I found out that we did not spend any money outside of the St. Louis Park area and I would be in favor of the 90% trade area restriction. He briefly commented on how the game of Bingo was a great benefit to the public and recommended limiting the number of additional forms required by organizations”. Cindy Larsen, City Clerk stated that rather than completing new sets of forms, organizations would be required only to make a photocopy of forms already prepared for the State Board. She noted that the only additional form was the lawful purpose expenditure form. Councilmember Latz stated that he reviewed the data from the organizations on the amount of proceeds being spent within the trade area and after extrapolating, questioned the need to impose any legislative trade area restrictions at this time when almost all of the organizations in St. Louis Park are currently spending their money in St. Louis Park (trade area). He was also concerned if the language in the ordinance would get at the information that was actually desired. Tom Flugar, 2900 Pennsylvania Avenue, noted an error in the staff report in Section 13-1608. The amount of tax to be collected should be 2% rather than 3% as stated in the draft ordinance. He asked if the amount that a certain organization would contribute could be capped. Ms. Larsen, City Clerk indicated that the Statute was very well defined and this was not possible. It was moved by Councilmember Latz to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication with the exception of the portion regarding the trade area restriction. The motion failed for lack of a second to the motion. 10 Councilmember Young believed that if the Council extrapolated with the information that received from the organizations to date we would find that the other organizations are giving less than 90% to the trade area and this may be a reason why they have not responded yet. He stated that the City has had significant problems with some organizations in the past where virtually 100% of their proceeds never stayed in St. Louis Park or the trade area and we can prevent this from happening in the future. Councilmember Sanger concurred with Councilmember Young. She asked staff to clarify how the City could adjust 2% tax rate annually depending on what the expenses are. Ms. Larsen, City Clerk explained that at the end of the year if the City finds that they collected too much or too little, they can act to change the ordinance to modify the amount of tax collected. She indicated that a new vote was not necessary unless the City decided they wanted to change the ordinance. Councilmember Sanger questioned if something couldn’t be built into the ordinance that indexes the tax based on the cost so it is predictable for organizations of what the tax will be from year to year. Mr. Meyer, City Manager suggested that the percentage be adjusted one time in the future which would be either up or down within the 3% range. Mr. Scott, City Attorney concurred with the City Manager. She noted that the trade area was for lawful purposes within the trade area, but was very loosely defined and City could set parameters. Councilmember Nelson questioned what the cost impact was going to be on the organizations to obtain certification from a CPA. Ms. McGann, Director of Finance stated that statute already requires organizations to do an annual audit and that certification by a CPA stating that the organization is in compliance with state and local ordinances is already part of that audit. She did not see that this would be an additional expense to the organizations. Councilmember Nelson stated that since the CPA was being asked to certify that the funds are being expended in the trade area this would be new information and be an additional cost to the organization. He stated that he believed that the attitude of the City Council was that this is money generated in St. Louis Park, therefore it is ours and we should be able to spend it. He did not agree with that attitude. He stated that he would be voting against the ordinance. Tom Flugar, 2900 Pennsylvania Avenue and Bruce Berthiume, 3125 Oregon Avenue South, indicated that their audits were done at the end of their individual fiscal year not calendar year. 11 Councilmember Sanger asked if organizations do their reporting to the state on a fiscal year which is different than the calendar could this be accepted and the City monitor base this on the individual’s fiscal year rather than a calendar year. Ms. Larsen indicated that this was possible. Mr. Meyer, City Manager suggested taking out the dates in the ordinance to reflect this. Councilmember recommended a friendly amendment to the ordinance requiring certification starting with the next fiscal year for an organization that ends on or after January 1, 2000. Councilmember Latz asked staff to read the letter that was sent to organizations requesting information. Ms. Larsen read a copy of letter that was sent to each organization. Councilmember Latz stated that he found it difficult to determine any percentages of what was currently being directed toward the trade area from the information organizations had submitted in response to that letter. He would prefer not to make a decision without having this information. Councilmember Young believed that it was important to move forward on this issue to set guidelines for future organizations that will protect the City and won’t have to be revisited again. Mr. Meyer, City Manager clarified the amendments to the ordinance: That the trade area restriction reporting would apply to the fiscal year beginning after January, 2000 and simplify language in Section 13-1607 to read “In addition each organization must submit an annual report to the City listing all lawful purpose expenditures . . .” Councilmember Young accepted the Councilmember Sanger’s friendly amendment. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication. The motion passed 5-2. Councilmembers Latz and Nelson opposed. 8b. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Minnesota Youth Athletic Services operating at the Classic Bar & Cafe, 4700 Excelsior Blvd It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson was opposed. 8c. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for VFW Post 5632 operating at 5606 West 36th Street It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson was opposed. 8d. Resolution of approval for Year 2000 Liquor License Renewals 12 It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve renewal of licenses contingent on full compliance with ordinance requirements. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. Amendment to Ordinance regarding the presence and conduct of pets in City parks Ms. Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director recommended amending the amended ordinance to change language to read park shelters rather than picnic areas. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve second reading of the amended ordinance that allows pets in all park with additional amendment. The motion passed 7-0. 8f. Second Reading of ordinance to rezone land in the northwest quadrant of Zarthan Avenue and West 16th Street to R-4, Multiple Family Residence District. Case No. 99-25-Z It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve second reading of an ordinance and to authorize publication, based upon a finding that the R-4 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed 7-0. 8g. Request by Microcenter, Inc. for a Minor Amendment to a Special Permit to allow certain property Improvements 3700 Highway 100 South Case No. 99-26-CUP Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the Special Permit minor amendment, subject to the seven conditions outlined in the staff report. David Bishop, Director of Construction Services of Microelectronics was present to answer questions. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if funds were being escrowed for landscaping and parking lot improvements that are called for at a later date to ensure that its done. Ms. Peterson indicated that staff was recommending that at the time of a certificate of occupancy is issued that a letter of credit would be submitted to the City covering the cost of Phase II improvements. Councilmember Sanger questioned the number of handicapped parking spaces required. Staff clarified the calculation for the number of handicapped parking spaces based on the MN State Disability Code. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to a Special Permit for Microcenter, Inc. subject to conditions in the resolution. The motion passed 7-0. 13 8h. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for 2000 Ms. McGann, Director of Finance presented staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to waive first reading and set second reading for December 20, 1999. The motion passed 7-0. 8i. Resolution Appointing Jean McGann as Alternate to LOGIS Board of Directors By consent, Council moved to approve the resolution authorizing appointment. 8j. Request by Silvercrest Properties, LLC to amend final plat resolution for Silvercrest Addition to extend final plat filing deadline to January 6, 2000 Case No. 99-15-S 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard By consent, Council moved to adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 99-102, extending final plat filing deadline to January 6, 2000. 8k. Amendment to Ordinance 1325 By consent, Council moved to approve first reading of Ordinance and set second reading for December 20, 1999. 8l. Resolution to Amend the 1999 Budget By consent, Council moved to approve the resolution. 8m. Resolution to authorizing policy on Naming of Parks, Trails, and Facilities in the City of St. Louis Park By consent, Council moved to approve the resolution. 8n. First Reading of Ordinance Amendment Revising Permit Fees for Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Permits George Shoppe, Chief Building Official presented staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve first reading of ordinance amendment revising plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit fees. Set second reading for December 20, 1999. 8o. Year 2000 Major Equipment Purchases By consent, Council moved to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report and authorizes staff to acquire equipment scheduled for replacement in year 2000 as allowed by Statue, Charter, or Ordinance. 14 8p. Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for participation in the Federal Aid Preservation Program at various traffic signal locations throughout the City By consent, Council moved to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Hennepin County Agreement No. PW-05-99. 8q. Authorization to Use City Property for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail By consent, Council moved to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the use and dedication of City property for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Single Audit Report By consent, Council accepted report for filing. b. Charter Commission Minutes of March 25, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. c. Charter Commission Minutes of October 13, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of October 20, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. e. Planning Commission Minutes November 3, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. f. Housing Authority Minutes of October 13, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. g. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 28, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. h. Vendor Claims By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) 15 It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to appoint Lynn Littlejohn to the Human Rights Commission. The motion passed 7-0. 11. New Business 11a. Contract Extension for Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Related Activities Consultant Services contract No. 72-98 By consent, Council moved to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 72-98 with ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 11b. Contract Extension for Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Laboratory Services - Contract No. 1893 By consent, Council moved to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract NO. 1893 with Quanterra Environmental Services for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2000. 11c. Avalon Bay Preliminary Development Agreement By consent, Council moved to approve the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement with Avalon Bay relating to Phase I of the Park Commons redevelopment project. 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments FINALS Contractor Amount Contract Amount Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $7,351.72 City wide random curb & gutter & sidewalk repair work Contract NO. 58-99 Thomas & Sons Construction $22,582.24 Grading, base, storm sewer, curb & gutter & bituminous paving Contract No. 59-99 Kevitt Excavation, Inc. $103,256.34 Park Commons Demolition/Site Restoration Contract No. 57-99 Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation $54,980.88 16 Contract Sealcoat Contract No. 16-99 By consent, Council adopted resolutions. PARTIALS Contractor Amount Nadeau Utility, Inc. $48,350.34 Entry signage and site improvements Contract No. 54-99 Killmer Electric $13,021.17 Installation of EVP Signal System Contract No. 18-99 By consent, Council adopted resolutions. 14. Communications From the City Manager - Update on installation of a railroad switch in the South Oak Hill Neighborhood. Councilmember Brimeyer reported that he learned about some funding options and mechanisms for public art and Councilmember Latz commented on a Virtual Computer Technology session he attended for the design of developments during their recent trip to Los Angeles for the National League of Cities Conference. 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. City Clerk Mayor 17 Item # 4b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION September 13, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Chris Nelson, Jim Brimeyer, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Kathy Larsen), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Superintendent of Engineering (Mr. Moore), and City Clerk (Ms. Cindy Larsen). 1. Mn/DOT Noise Wall Beth Noondorf and Jim Hanson of MnDOT presented to Council the project, construction issues, and proposed timetable. They stated that funding has been allocated and construction is proposed to begin in the year 2000. Ms. Noondorf and Mr. Hanson also presented a map of the proposed construction site. Councilmember Brimeyer asked what criteria was used to determine where the noise wall should be placed. Mr. Hanson stated that 811 areas around the state were used in the study. The criteria for determining noise wall priorities were decibel levels, density of homes, and noise barrier construction. The overall cost for each area was determined and priorities were set. Discussion continued on traffic noise and whether a sound wall would make a noticeable difference. Mr. Meyer asked how MnDot determines the consensus of the neighborhoods. Mr. Hanson stated that MnDot would like at least a 60% agreement with the plan. A neighborhood meeting will be held on September 28th at the Rec Center at 6:30 p.m. On January 22, 2000 a letter will be sent out to the residents of the affected neighborhoods. Mr. Moore suggested residents living with a block and a half on each side of the noise wall should be invited to an educational meeting. 2. Stormwater Utility Fund Councilmember Brimeyer pointed out that the rate for commercial property was significantly higher than residential. Mr. Merkley stated that the rates were determined for each property 18 class based on projected run off. Mr. Merkley said that a rate had been set that could provide payback in five to ten years. Discussion turned to how the average sum of land use is calculated. Councilmember Nelson asked what capital projects could be undertaken with the fund and if the prospective income could pay for future needs. Mr. Rardin stated that the fund would be subsidized in the beginning from the general fund and eventually become self-sustaining. Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has information on public reaction in other communities. Mr. Merkley responded that they did not. Councilmember Sanger wondered if it was sensible to increase the rates to deal with additional flooding problem areas. Mr. Merkley stated that after the funding for current projects was secure they could look at modifying the rate. Discussion concentrated on how current sewer operations are funded and possible changes the Council might see in the General Fund requests. The impact on businesses was also discussed. Councilmember Santa was concerned about the impact on commercial properties in her ward and asked if the rates would be revisited in a few years. Councilmember Sanger replied that once the bonds were issued the rates could not be revisited. Mr. Meyer asked if Council agreed on several points. He asked if there was support for the utility, were the rates good, and are the charges comparable. The Council agreed that all of those were correct. Mr. Merkley stated that even if the rate were reduced, maintenance projects would still be done and paid for out of the utility fund. Mr. Rardin believed that there was limited capacity for the Public Works department to complete all projects due to previous commitments to complete the sidewalk and trails plan and Park Commons. Council reached the conclusion that it would be best to implement Option two, which would adopt the proposed stormwater utility ordinance and fee suggestions. Mr. Meyer said that staff would be returning with a proposed public participation and education process. Mr. Merkley stated that he would bring forward a draft ordinance. 3. Project for Pride in Living – Louisiana Court Mr. Harmening began by giving a brief background of the item. Ms. Kathy Larsen was introduced as the new Housing Programs Coordinator. 19 Mark Ruff, Ehlers and Associates, Inc., presented the plans for possible financing of the renovation and rehabilitation. Barb McCormick, Project for Pride in Living, was also in attendance. Mr. Ruff stated that the City could enter into the project with an adequate amount of security and that the plan was fiscally feasible. Councilmember Brimeyer wanted to ensure that condemnation would not be pursued as an option. Mr. Harmening asked Council if condemnation should be considered if the circumstances warranted. Councilmember Latz felt the project could be seen as too much of a reward for poor management of the property. Councilmember Young stated that he did not see the budget capacity to undertake this project. He was concerned that the physical improvements of the project would not reach the improvement goals they had hoped for. Councilmember Brimeyer asked why the Park Commons TIF was used as security for the bond. Mr. Ruff replied that it was to provide additional security to the lender issuing the bonds. He reminded Council that Park Commons is only one of several options. Councilmember Sanger suggested that the Council view other properties maintained by Project for Pride in Living. Councilmember Young was concerned about the consequences if the housing project became non-affordable. Councilmember Nelson was in support of the project but was concerned about the fiscal aspect. Councilmember Young asked if a more aggressive inspection program would improve the development. Barb McCormick of PPL responded that the inspection program does not address management issues. She added that PPL has proven that they can bring change to the social climate and improve management decisions. Councilmember Young questioned whether changing the management standards should be financed by the City. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that someone must change to benefit the community and that government should deal with social issues. Councilmember Sanger asked PPL how other properties have fared in terms of improved social condition. Ms. McCormick stated that it may take weeks to months to remove undesirable tenants. She added that the physical changes would come quickly, within the first year. Also cash flows, physical and social structures will improve. The standards will be visibly raised within three to four years. Mayor Jacobs concluded that there was a consensus to go forward. Mr. Harmening stated that first the preliminary development agreement between PPL and the City of St. Louis Park would be drawn up and then the status of the Met Council grant would be looked into. 20 4. Business Subsidy Policy Mr. Harmening explained that though the city already had policies in place, new legislation is requiring all cities to adopt the policy as proposed by the state. He did not feel there were conflicts between the two. 5. Railroad Study Dick Koppy stated that the City of Hopkins was reluctant to implement the strategic plans. He also said the City of Minnetonka had already reconciled the situation. He asked the Council if St. Louis Park would like to take a similar action. Mr. Meyer stated the City should try to accomplish the removal of the second blockage. Mr. Koppy replied that all blocking will be done in Hopkins. He added that the railroad company was willing to accept the short-term solution. Mr. Koppy informed the Council that he would be visiting the City of Hopkins the following day with a consultant. Mr. Meyer raised the issue of the funding source. Council consensus supported the short-term solution. 6. Rec Center Financing The Council agreed with the staff recommendation to transfer funds from the Public Improvement Revolving Fund, to set an annual transfer amount for the Rec Center bonds, receive future Zamboni payments as revenue, and that additional funds should come from the Matured Special Assessment Fund. 7. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 21 Item # 4c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION September 27, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley); Operations Superintendent (Mr. Backlund); Cable Television Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap); and City Clerk (Ms. Cindy Larsen). 2. Amending or renewing the Paragon Cable Franchise to upgrade to 750 MHz Kim Roden and Matt Haviland of Paragon Cable were in attendance at the meeting to address concerns about the need for an amendment to the existing cable television franchise. Ms. Roden first gave a brief summary of Paragon’s proposed extension/renewal. Mr. Haviland then gave an overview of services provided in St. Louis Park, current bandwidth capability, system architecture, construction plans for the proposed upgrade and services that would be available in the future. Councilmember Sanger asked for assurance that future needs could be addressed and current problems with reception would be alleviated. She also asked how costs would be distributed to pay for an upgrade. Ms. Roden responded that an expanded system would be better able to handle demand for services and that rates would be established to cover the cost of the upgrade. Councilmember Latz asked what the annual gross revenue from St. Louis Park was. Mr. Dunlap estimated that to be approximately $4 million annually. Councilmember Latz did not feel an extension to the current franchise agreement was necessary. He believed that language in the current agreement already required Paragon to complete the system upgrade. Ms. Roden disagreed with Councilmember Latz’s interpretation of the language contained in the franchise agreement. After discussion it was agreed that the City’s Attorney should be consulted about the language and terms of the existing franchise agreement and that the item should be discussed again following receipt of that information. 22 2. CSM Project – Blackstone Neighborhood Staff asked Council to address several items related to the proposed from CSM Corporation for a proposed hotel and residential redevelopment project at 5901 Wazata Boulevard. Several representatives of the developer were also present to answer council’s questions. Specific issues raised were: • Project economics/Amount of TIF assistance • Local contribution requirements • Acquisition dynamics • Fiscal disparity impact • Planning/Zoning process • Impact on the Neighborhood Councilmember Latz asked about the disposition of the billboard on the site. He was not in favor of a city contribution that would go toward removal of the billboard. Mr. Carlin stated that Naegele would find relocation an acceptable alternative. Councilmember Latz pointed out that if the billboard were moved rather than removed, the cost of the fiscal disparity would be offset. Councilmember Nelson asked how acquisition of existing structures and properties was going. Mr. Palmatier stated that homeowners were waiting for assurances that this project would indeed be completed and did not feel there would be significant opposition. Mayor Jacobs was supportive of the proposal and felt that staff should move forward with negotiation of a development agreement. Councilmember Nelson stated that he did not want condemnation to be part of the acquisition process. He also requested more information on the billboard and how it’s disposition would affect the project’s feasibility. Mr. Harmening summarized the discussion saying that council: • Was generally in support of the project • Wanted fiscal disparities taken from the district • Did not want condemnation to be part of the process • Wanted projects to service the local contribution • Wanted to see options for billboard disposition. He informed council that he would initiate the rezoning of the property. Councilmember Santa wanted the neighborhood to know that if this project did not go through, another one would. Councilmember Sanger asked that no improvements be made to 16th street that would encourage traffic to use that street to access the development. 23 3. Towing Contract Chief John Luse and Captain Rod Walker discussed options for renewing the city’s towing contract. They presented a comparison survey and discussed response time, chain of evidence, length of the contract and a cancellation clause. A representative of All Hours Towing, the city’s current contractor stated that a longer contract would give them the ability to purchase of property rather than utilize their current lease agreement. He also pointed out that in practice, other cities generally renew rather than request bids as contracts expire. 4. Lawful Gambling Andrea Poehlor, Attorney with Campbell Knutson, was present to answer Council questions regarding the City’s authority to conduct financial audits of gambling organizations in the city. It was her opinion that because the State is the licensing authority, the city had little authority to require additional investigation beyond an initial background check provided for by statute, unless part of a criminal investigation. The extent of the initial background check could, however, be more extensive than what is currently being done. Following discussion, council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which imposed a trade area restriction for distribution of proceeds from lawful gambling conducted in the city, and to also provide an option to establish a city-administered fund of up to 10% of the net profits to be used for administration and regulation of gambling activity in the city. Council also directed staff to prepare materials in advance of first reading informing gambling organizations about the proposed ordinance. 5. Storm Water Utility Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator, presented to council guidelines for dealing with flood problem areas, the draft flood proofing grant program, the policies for the city’s stormwater utility and the draft stormwater ordinance. He pointed out changes to the policies which had been incorporated as a result of previous discussions with Council. Mr. Merkley also outlined a plan for the public information process which would include articles in the Park Perspective and the St. Louis Park Business Line, a presentation to the Business Council and utility bill stuffers. He offered to present public feedback to the council at a future study session meeting. 6. Snow and Ice Policy 24 Harlan Backlund, Public Works Operations Superintendent, presented Council with a draft policy for “Snow Plowing, Clearing, and Ice Control” reflecting the current practice of the City. Staff noted that at times it is impossible to clear snow from designated sidewalks in conformance with Ordinance requirements. In addition, staff identified several sidewalks and trails now being cleared by the City which have not been authorized for clearing by the Council. Council questioned the current practice regarding overall City maintenance of sidewalks and requested staff to bring back relevant information to a future Study Session. 8. Executive Session A motion to adjourn the study session and move to executive session for discussion of threatened litigation by Christianson (3212 Coolidge Ave S) was made by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger. Motion passed unanimously. 9. Adjournment The study session reconvened at 10:24 p.m. and was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 25 Item # 4d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION October 25, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: Charles Meyer (City Manager), Tom Harmening (Director of Community Development), Mike Rardin (Director of Public Works), Reg Dunlap (Cable Television Coordinator), and Cindy Larsen (City Clerk). 1. Settlement of Hoogesteger Eminent Domain Mr. Harmening passed along handouts outlining the acquisition and negotiation process to date and expenses. He stated that one of two things could happen with the case: it will still go to the Commissioner’s hearing and a settlement would be made, or they may have to continue the condemnation proceedings. It was understood that the stipulation agreement would return to the council at a later date. 2. Contribution to MACTA Legislative Fund After Mr. Dunlap introduced the topic with a brief presentation, Councilmember Young suggested that Senator Steve Kelley, along with other legislators, be invited to discuss the topic with the Council. Councilmembers Latz and Nelson both felt concern about lack of control individual municipalities would have under the proposed legislation. Mr. Meyer explained that there may be advantages to the bill and Senator Kelley should be invited to speak to the Council. The Council agreed that $5,000 should be contributed to the fund. 3. Cable TV Franchise Councilmember Latz abstained from discussion for this item. Council agreed with the recommendation to continue discussions with Paragon Cable to upgrade systems without extending the franchise. Mr. Dunlap inquired as to which law firm should be used to assist staff in the process. Mr. Meyer and the Council agreed that Campbell Knutson, the City’s Civil attorney, had the expertise needed on this issue. 4. Communications Mr. Jacobs mentioned the Year 2000 town meetings. 26 Council was reminded that November 15, 1999 would be the City Manager’s evaluation. Mr. Meyer asked Council to begin thinking about a retreat with department staff after the first of the year. 5. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 27 Item # 4e UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 8, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: Charles Meyer (City Manager), Tom Harmening (Director of Community Development), Kathy Larsen (Housing Programs Coordinator), Michelle Schnitker (Housing Supervisor), Mike Rardin (Director of Public Works), and Cindy Larsen (City Clerk). 1. Blackstone Neighborhood – Targeted Revitalization Representatives of the Blackstone neighborhood, Chris Johnson and Dan Hulke, were in attendance. Ms. Schnitker stated that staff was looking for direction and comments on the issue of continuing the discussions with the Blackstone neighborhood. Ms. Sanger expressed her support for the proposal. Mr. Johnson stated that there is neighborhood support. Ms. Schnitker and Mr. Harmening stated that the survey is intended to identify the opportunities and obstacles that may exist in terms of making significant improvements to the neighborhood. After the survey is complete the results would be communicated to the Council. Councilmember Sanger said that she viewed the project as a demonstration project and could envision other applications for the same process. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that he had concerns with the proposal. Since the neighborhood in question contains a small number of homes (approx. 100) that are surrounded by industry, he wondered how long the neighborhood could remain viable. He did not want the survey to create false expectations. He was concerned that if the survey indicated the neighborhood had little chance to remain viable, the residents could view additional investment as unwarranted. Councilmember Nelson stated that during corporate planning discussions, it was suggested that the design be commercial. Mr. Meyer added that the redevelopment value was very high. Mr. Harmening stated that $100,000 was needed in seed money to leverage the funding source. Ms. Sanger was concerned that continuous discussion would send a message of instability to the neighborhood. Mayor Jacobs stated that the survey would give staff answers. The Council was supportive to the idea of a survey if the right questions were asked. Mr. Nelson asked staff to determine how many owner occupied homes were in the neighborhood. 28 Mr. Meyer replied that a process could be developed and brought back to Council. He suggested the use of Decision Resources to determine other methods and processes for obtaining info and designing the survey. 2. Policy for Naming of Parks, Trails, and Facilities Council agreed with the process that was presented, and that a written format would ensure fairness for the naming parks, trails, and facilities with a few minor changes. The report will be brought before Council on December 6, 1999. 3. Sidewalks and Trails Mr. Rardin discussed the options for the “Share the Road” applications. He stated the Council would need to consider three points, as follows: community need, if there is a value or benefit associated with the improvements, and is the cost of the project acceptable. He then discussed the difference between the neighborhood need and the community need. He also highlighted the list of criteria the staff had been asked to generate. Councilmember Nelson asked about a specific area where a community improvement affects the livability of the neighborhood. Councilmember Sanger asked how an area would be put on the list. Mr. Rardin replied that they must bring it forward to staff and council. Mr. Meyer felt that a discussion on the issue of funding should take place soon. Councilmember Sanger wanted detailed discussion on a crossing near Ottawa Ave & Hwy 7. Mr. Rardin felt that a plan should be adopted, then funding can be sought. 4. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 29 Item # 4f UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 22, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Housing Programs Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Chief Building Official (Mr. Shoppe), Environmental Health Officer (Mr. Camilon), and Administrative Clerk (Ms. Olson). 1. Louisiana Court Redevelopment Mr. Harmening introduced Barb McCormick and Ron Price from Project for Pride in Living (PPL), and Steve Bubul of Kennedy & Graven. Ms. Larsen reported that the project had been presented to the Met Council and staff had recently received word that the project was one of the highest candidates to receive award money. She also reported that a meeting was going to take place for the funders of the project. Ms. Larsen stated that staff was working to develop a preliminary agreement with PPL and a cooperative agreement with the Housing Authority to develop the Hollman Units. Mr. Harmening stated the upcoming dates and deadlines for the project and Council action. Mr. Bubul then gave a review of the responsibilities and roles of the City, Housing Authority, and PPL listed in the contract summary. Councilmember Nelson asked if PPL felt condemnation was necessary for the properties that have not yet been acquired. Mr. Bubul felt that it was not necessary to decide at the present time. Councilmember Nelson then asked if condemnation costs were included in the budget if condemnation was needed. He also asked if the project would be scaled back if the properties were not acquired. Ms. McCormick replied that they may not be successful in acquiring all properties and the project would be most successful with all properties attained. She would like to reevaluate the viability of the project with Council if all properties are not acquired. She stated that the property owners would not consider selling if prices were not raised significantly, and that PPL had created a five- percent error margin in the budget in the event that appraisal values differed. Councilmember Santa wondered if property owners felt that recent inspections and the ensuing improvements may have increased the property value. Councilmember Latz was concerned that properties not acquired in the project would benefit in terms of higher rent rates due to the improvements in the other buildings. 30 Councilmember Sanger expressed her concern over eminent domain issues. Mr. Harmening stated that, similar to the Park Commons project, eminent domain can move quickly to the end of a negotiated settlement. Ms. McCormick stated that with the federal grant dollars, they would still be required to administer relocation programs. Mayor Jacobs felt there was not a consensus among the group. He stated that perhaps they should explore the possibility of eminent domain. Councilmember Latz felt the project was not feasible if all properties were not acquired. Councilmember Nelson was concerned with the budget for the project and inquired about the quick take option versus eminent domain. Councilmember Brimeyer felt the project should be dealt with quickly and completely or it should not proceed. He also pointed out that this project is much different from any in the past. Councilmember Nelson asked if the budget provided for attorney fees if needed. Mr. Harmening stated that it was not a closed budget yet and alterations could be made. He suggested that staff develop several scenarios that Council could review. Councilmember Sanger was concerned about the continuing role of the City and liability issuesafter the project has been completed. It was concluded that staff would return to Council with more information. 2. Plumbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Fee Revisions Mr. Hoffman introduced staff members George Shoppe and Manny Camilon, and their roles within the Inspections department. Mr. Hoffman stated that the current fee table increases the permit price as the cost the of work increases. He mentioned that this sometimes causes incongruity with the value of the permits and is unfair to the homeowners who want higher quality work to improve their home. He also stated that the proposed fee revisions will use a flat fee table for most single family permits with a standard State surcharge and overall revenue will be slightly increased. Councilmember Sanger asked if the new fee table would cover all costs. Mr. Hoffman replied that if fees were further increased, it would discourage citizens from obtaining permits. Councilmember Sanger then asked if there was a plan for future fee increases. Mr. Hoffman responded that they would use a fee appendix at regular intervals. The Council agreed that the item should move forward at the next Council meeting. 3. Philosophy of Code Enforcement Mr. Hoffman began by stating that a new policy is needed to develop an easier process for dealing with code enforcement issues. He emphasized the need to educate homeowners. The policy outlines a three-tiered process of responding to all complaints, responding to focus areas of deterioration, and systematically inspecting the entire City to ensure fair and consistent enforcement. Councilmember Santa and Mayor Jacobs both agreed with the plan. 31 Councilmember Brimeyer wondered whether the systematic inspections should begin now to determine the cycle length of such inspections. He also felt that the major points of inspection should be defined before implementing the new policy. Mr. Camilon stated that during an inspection if obvious violations were visible they would have the ability to act upon it because the new policy involves a neighborhood inspection program. Councilmember Brimeyer then asked if each violation was noted. Mr. Camilon replied that everyone in the neighborhood would receive a letter indicating the violations for their home and that re-inspection would occur seven days later. Mr. Meyer stated that the policy is different from any used in the past. The Inspections department will do a reasonable sweep first to catch the grosser violations. He emphasized that inspections would not be used as a comprehensive sweep for punitive enforcement and the enforcement through the courts would be the last course of action. Councilmember Sanger felt staff needed to address the standards for gross violations and set a timeline of steps taken for resolving such a problem. Mr. Hoffman said they would give a reasonable timeline but the end result would still be accomplished. He pointed out that through the courts, it may take several months to resolve and the homeowner would usually pay a ticket without cleaning up the property. Mr. Meyer told Council that Mr. Camilon’s position would ensure regular management and follow-up. Mr. Brimeyer felt that the top ten violations to look for should be addressed in non-complaint inspections. Council agreed that the item come back with a resolution at the next meeting. 4. EDA Budget Ms. McGann gave a visual presentation outlining the significant aspects and changes in the budget. She indicated there may be more revisions before the next Council meeting. Mr. Brimeyer asked if TIF money was used in the development fund. Mr. Harmening replied that due to State requirements, TIF money cannot go into the development fund. Mr. Latz asked how interest amounts were calculated. Ms. McGann replied that the amount was calculated based on past earnings. Mr. Kleve stated that staff hoped to further promote the loan program since there is currently only one loan recipient. Mr. Harmening stated that extra TIF money in Victoria Ponds would be used to pay for the Hutchinson Spur Trail project. He then said that other TlF districts are being tapped in order to fund the Park Commons project. He emphasized that there may seem to be a lot of funds in the budget but they are all obligated. Mr. Meyer stated the timeline for organizing the budget had been difficult, giving credit to both Mr. Kleve and Ms. McGann for their hard work. 32 5. Communications Mr. Meyer reported that Hopkins had reached a railroad agreement. Mr. Meyer also described his meeting with the McKnight foundation and stated that the outcome was one of enthusiasm. Council discussed plans for a retreat in the next several months. Mr. Meyer informed Council that the 2000 utility rate report would be addressed in the next several meetings. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 33 Item # 4g UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION July 26, 1999 The meeting convened at 7:15 p.m. Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Susan Santa, Susan Sanger, Robert Young, Chris Nelson, Ron Latz, Jim Brimeyer and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening), Planning Coordinator (Ms. Erickson); Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Anderson); Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin) and City Clerk (Ms. Larsen). 1. Financial Audit Presentation Rob Tautges and Jeff Wilson of Tautges Redpath gave a presentation of the City’s recent financial audit. The presentation covered financial highlights from 1998 as well as other financial and statistical information and analyses as presented in the 1998 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 2. Zoning Ordinance Amendments Staff asked Council to provide policy direction concerning zoning controls/standards for accessory structures in residential districts and provided updates to Council regarding other Zoning Ordinance amendments which have been initiated by the Planning Commission. Mr. Harmening stated that the real issue is building height and that language in the amendments simplifies where measurements begin. He added that the Zoning Ordinance will be easily defined for both the applicant and inspectors. Mr. Harmening then asked Council to determine the height of the buildings, in particular if they would want two story garages. Councilmember Brimeyer stated that with the new ordinance for recreational vehicles homeowners should have an option to where they can put them. The question was raised on the number of structures that could be on a property. Ms. Erickson stated that there is not currently a reference to the number of accessory buildings allowed in the ordinance. Council then discussed the matter of holding public hearings on the matter. 3. MSP/Mill City Site Mr. Harmening gave a brief introduction of the item, discussing the traffic and roadway configuration concerns that Council had discussed in a prior study session. 34 Mr. Rardin stated that a left turn movement at Highway 7 and Louisiana Ave would create traffic congestion in all four directions. Staff suggested installing a signal at Walker Ave and Lake St. at Louisiana Ave. This would improve the operational characteristics. 4. Park Commons Letter of Intent Mr. Harmening highlighted the major points of the letter of intent, indicating the commitment and expectations of each party. Council discussed the possibility of changes in the language of the letter. They questioned the requirement of twenty-four minimum for-sale townhomes. Councilmember Young stated that he understood the market concept of luxury rental property. Councilmember Sanger wondered whether it was feasible for construction to be completed before 2003. 5. Water System Emergency Power Needs Mr. Rardin asked for Council direction. The Council discussed the needs of the fire department and the installation of sprinkler systems in newer buildings. Councilmember Sanger asked how often in the past five years have the generators been needed. Mr. Rardin replied that they are needed whenever the pumps are out of service. Councilmember Latz felt reluctant to add more charges to the water rates. Councilmember Sanger suggested that a policy be set allowing Council to direct staff what is an acceptable level of risk and staff to determine what options are most cost effective. Councilmember Santa stated that she believed staff has demonstrated good judgement in the past and felt confident relying on that judgement in the future. 6. Lawful Gambling Councilmember Young was concerned about the trade area restrictions and the coverage of expenses. Council discussed the trade area restrictions and suggested that one hundred percent of the revenue be spent within it. They also discussed audit procedures for organizations and the recipients of the gambling proceeds when licenses are renewed. Council was in support of the proposed fees and taxes. Council directed staff to submit a draft ordinance at the next study session. 7. Council Salaries Mr. Meyer informed Council that the City Charter specificall y calls for a public hearing in this matter. Councilmember Nelson suggested that the item be put on the agenda. He also felt that an increase should be made for Economic Development Authority commissioners. He suggested that EDA commissioners receive $3,600 per year and the president should receive $4,600. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Nelson. 8. Budget Update 35 Council discussed the individual expenditure by department and the restrictions of levy limits. Mr. Latz suggested that perhaps prices could be raised at the Rec Center to cover the on-going capital costs. Council agreed that staff should prepare recommendations to be heard in August. 9. Communications Council briefly discussed budgetary impacts and justification of Council and EDA salary increases. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. City Clerk Mayor 36 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6a Meeting of December 20, 1999 6a. Zarthan Ave/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District This report considers a resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and establishing the Zarthan/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1. Recommended Action: Motion to close public hearing. Motion to adopt the resolution establishing the Zarthan Ave/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopting the Tax Increment Financing Plan Therefor. Background: At the September 27, 1999 study session staff provided the EDA/Council with the final TIF proposal from CSM/Rottlund corporation for the redevelopment of 5901 Wayzata Blvd/Sexton- NSP site into a Marriott Springhill Suites with 95 rooms, a Marriott TownePlace Suites with 124 rooms, and 82 owner-occupied townhomes. There was enough interest in the project for the EDA/Council to direct staff to proceed with the rezoning and TIF process. The EDA/Council also directed staff to negotiate a development agreement with CSM/Rottlund at this study session. On October 6, 1999, the Planning Commission initiated the rezoning of the southern portion of the subject site to be in conformance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning was approved by the Planning Commission on November 3, 1999. The City Council approved the first reading of the rezoning at its November 15, 1999 meeting. Second reading of the rezoning was approved by the City Council on December 6, 1999. On November 1, 1999, the EDA/Council approved a resolution requesting/calling for a public hearing on the creation of a TIF district at Zarthan and 16th Street related to this project. On November 15, 1999, The EDA approved a preliminary development agreement with CSM and Rottlund to be the developers of a project at Zarthan Ave and 16th Street. On December 1, 1999, the Planning Commission approved a resolution finding the Zarthan/16th Street TIF district to be in conformance with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. At the December 13, study session staff presented the EDA/Council with the business points in relation to this project. General agreement was reached on the length of the district, the use of condemnation, phasing, and local contribution. It was also agreed that fiscal disparities will be 37 taken from within the district. The density of the project was discussed and it is possible that the number of townhomes will be increased by up to 8 units. Synopsis of the proposed TIF: The Zarthan/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District consists of 12 parcels of land and the adjacent rights-of-way. A map of the TIF district is provided in the Project Plan which is attached to this report. CSM and Rottlund are requesting $3,944,997 in TIF assistance for this project in a period not to exceed 20 years. It is estimated that the market value of the site will increase from approximately 4 million to 24 million by implementing this project. The local contribution is estimated at $525,000 (future value). Other Issues: YHR, the city’s consultant, has reviewed the parcels and buildings that are proposed to be included in the Zarthan/16th Street TIF district. The results of the review confirm that this area does qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District. Attachments: • Tax Increment Financing Plan (copy attached to EDA report) • Resolution Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 38 RESOLTUION NO. 99-150 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE ZARTHAN AVE./16TH STREET TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN THEREFOR. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed that the City establish the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District therein and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (the ''Plan"); all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 through 469.1081 and 469.174 through 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act") all as reflected in the Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration. 1.02. The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Plan and has caused the Plan to be prepared.. 1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the adoption and approval of the proposed Plan, including, but not limited to, notification of Hennepin County and School District No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be included in the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District, notice of a potential redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a review of and written comment on the Plan and Program by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published notice as required by law. Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plan and Program. 2.01. The Council hereby finds that the Plan is intended and, in the judgment of this Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for redevelopment in the public purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plan, which is hereby incorporated herein. Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District. 39 3.01. The Council hereby finds that the Zarthan Ave./16th Street Tax Increment Financing District is in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1). 3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Tax Increment Financing Plan, that the Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plan will afford maximum opportunity consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District by private enterprise. 3.03. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), in order to qualify the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399. 3.04. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3.05. The City of St. Louis Park elects to calculate fiscal disparities for the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177, subdivision 3, clause b, which means the fiscal disparities contribution will be taken from within the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District. Section 4. Public Purpose 4.01. The adoption of the Plan conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the State and thereby serves a public purpose. Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plan and Program. 5.01. The Plan, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the findings and statements of objectives contained therein, is hereby approved, ratified, established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development Director. 5.02. The staff of the City, the City’s advisors and legal counsel are authorized and directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plan and to negotiate, draft, prepare and 40 present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and contracts necessary for this purpose. 5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax capacity of the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District, as described in the Plan, and to certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or decreased; and the City of St. Louis Park is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with a list of all properties within the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District, for which building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of this resolution. 5.04. The Economic Development Director is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plan with the Commissioner of Revenue. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 41 EXHIBIT A RESOLUTION No. 99-150 The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.175, Subdivision 3 are as follows: 1. Finding that the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1). The Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District consists of 12 parcels, with plans to redevelop the area for commercial and housing purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels in the Zarthan Ave./16th St. Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets, utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District, not including outbuildings, are structurally substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance (See Appendix F of the TIF Plan). 2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the Zarthan Ave./16th St. Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan. The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: The proposed Tax Increment Finance District will be established in an area that has been substandard and underutilized for many years. Eighty-three percent of the structures on the site are structurally substandard. It is cost prohibitive to rehabilitate these substandard structures. The most feasible way to remove the blight is through a complete redevelopment of the Tax Increment Finance District. In order for the redevelopment to occur a land write- down is necessary to bring the cost of the land down to market value. Without this land write-down, it is cost prohibitive to redevelop the Tax Increment Finance District and the developer is not willing to take on a project that does not have an adequate return on investment. The developer has documented the need for assistance in a formal application to the City. The increased market value of the site that could reasonable be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by the Plan: The TIF 42 District is currently occupied by a large warehouse, 3 single family houses, an office/commercial building, and several vacant parcels. If no tax increment assistance were provided, the only reasonably anticipated development would occur on the vacant parcels, which make up less than 25% of the total area to be redeveloped. There is no scenario in which development of the available vacant land could create an increase in market value that equals or exceeds $17.7 million (which is the estimated $22.9 million increase in market value projected for the hotel and housing development, less the $5.2 estimated present value of tax increment for 25 years). Any significant new development in this area requires acquisition and reconfiguration of parcels and demolition of existing structures. It has been the City’s experience that such costs preclude redevelopment without public intervention. Therefore, the City reasonably concludes that any increase in market value at this site would be minimal without tax increment assistance, and certainly less than the $17.7 benchmark value. 3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of the municipality as a whole. The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on December 1, 1999. The Planning Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City. 4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No. 1 by private enterprise. The project to be assisted by the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District will result in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality development to the City. 43 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 7a Meeting of December 20, 1999 7a. Variance Appeal, 6200 Minnetonka Boulevard Recommended Action: Motion to uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals’ decision to deny the variance request. Background: November 1, 1996 - On an inspection in response to a complaint, I informed Mr. Manthey of the maximum allowable height of a fence located in the front yard. At this time, the posts were in the ground, and the fencing was just starting to be installed. I informed Mr. Manthey that the fence could not be completed at its proposed height of six (6) feet unless a variance was first granted. November 4, 1996 - A re-inspection of the property concluded that the fence was completed at a height of six (6) feet. A letter was sent to Mr. Manthey informing him of the violation and requiring that either the fence is lowered to 3 1/2 feet or a variance applied for to permit the six- foot fence in the front yard. Mr. Manthey was given five (5) days to respond. January 3, 1997 - A second letter was sent informing Mr. Manthey that the property was still not in compliance. The letter again informed Mr. Manthey of the two options, and requested a response by January 27, 1997. This date was the deadline for a variance application. January 29, 1997 - The property was again inspected, and we noted the six-foot fence was still being maintained on the property. A third letter was sent to Mr. Manthey which included a citation for violating the ordinance. (Cit #4970014017). We requested a response by February 5, 1997 as to how this issue would be resolved. (The fine for the citation was paid.) February 25, 1997 - Mr. Manthey applied for a variance (Case # 3-97 VAR) to the Board of Zoning Appeals’ (BOZA) meeting on March 27, 1997. March 27, 1997 - The BOZA heard Case #3-97 VAR and unanimously adopted Resolution No. 3-97 denying the Mr. Manthey’s request on a vote of 3-0. April 7, 1997 - Mr. Manthey appealed the BOZA’s decision to the City Council. December 15, 1997 - The City Council heard the appeal request of Mr. Manthey. After some debate, the City Council upheld the decision of the BOZA on a unanimous vote of 7-0 thereby denying his request for variance. 44 February 25, 1999 - A final notice was sent to Mr. Manthey requesting the fence be lowered to 3 1/2 feet to bring it into compliance. A deadline for bringing the fence into compliance was April 1, 1999. April 2, 1999 - A site inspection revealed that the fence was not lowered to 3 1/2 feet and was still six feet in height. April 8, 1999 – The City requested a formal complaint be prepared against Mr. Manthey for not bringing his property into compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. October 14, 1999 – An agreement to suspend prosecution was filed to allow Mr. Manthey the opportunity to again apply for a variance from the provision of the Zoning Ordinance. October 30, 1999 – Mr. Manthey applied for a variance to permit the 6-foot fence in the front yard. November 30, 1999 – The Board of Zoning Appeals heard Case No. 15-99 and adopted Resolution No. 15-99 denying the Mr. Manthey’s request on a vote of 4-1. The BOZA recommended that staff research the fence section of the ordinance to determine if it is still appropriate. December 8, 1999 – Mr. Manthey appealed the BOZA’s decision to the City Council. Analysis: Is the fence ordinance still appropriate? City staff, the Planning Commission, and the City Council recently reviewed the fence ordinance and made certain amendments to clarify standards and improve enforcement. This was done in conjunction with a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments were adopted on second reading on October 4, 1999. The front yard height limit was deemed appropriate at that time and was not amended. Staff is not recommending any further review at this time. Alternatives: Staff has identified the following alternatives for the City Council. 1. The City Council may uphold the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals. If the Council chooses this option, they should move to deny the variance request and uphold the Board of Zoning Appeals’ Resolution of Findings denying the variance. 2. The City Council may grant a variance to permit a fence in the front yard with a height of six feet instead of the maximum 3.5 feet. If the Council chooses this option, they should indicate their findings and direct staff to prepare of Resolution of Approval with the findings to present at the January 3, 2000 City Council meeting. 45 3. Based on a recommendation of the BOZA, the City Council may direct staff to research the fence section of the Zoning Ordinance again to determine whether the code is still appropriate. This recommendation could be in conjunction with Alternative 1 or 2. Recommendation: Staff recommends alternative No. 1 Attachments: Staff Report Adopted Resolution #15-99 Applicant’s Letter Requesting Appeal Excerpts BOZA Minutes Prepared by: Scott Moore, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved by:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 46 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of December 20, 1999 8a. PPL Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project This report considers various City Council actions to formalize the City’s role as a partner in the Louisiana Court Redevelopment project prior to the application deadline for General Obligation Bond allocation of December 27, 1999. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of Contract for Redevelopment By and among City of St. Louis Park and Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Housing and Project for Pride in Living. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Housing Authority of St. Louis Park. Motion to adopt Resolution requesting condemnation of certain real estate by the Housing Authority. Motion to adopt Resolution giving preliminary approval to a proposed issue of multifamily housing revenue bonds. Background: The City of St. Louis Park, its Housing Authority and the nonprofit Project for Pride in Living (PPL) are undertaking a major redevelopment of the Louisiana Court Apartment Complex, which has been identified through Vision St. Louis Park and the Louisiana Court Task Force as one of the more physically and socially distressed housing projects in the City. The Louisiana Court Complex exemplifies the rental property addressed in the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan 2000 - 2020, which describes typical rental property in the City as being owned by smaller property owners that tend to have few financial and management resources to address the needs of an aging housing stock. The complex consists of 16 prototypical 1960’s 2-½ story walk up apartment buildings owned by eight separate owners. PPL as developer on this project, proposes to purchase eleven of the sixteen buildings from six owners, reconfigure the existing site plan and complete minor building renovations - five buildings will remain under current ownership. The consolidation of ownership by PPL, an affordable housing development specialist, will also serve to develop and sustain a long-term support network for residents living in affordable housing. Twelve of the 124 affordable units will be Hollman units. The total project budget is between $9.5 to $9.8 million, with construction estimated to begin July 2000 and completed within 20 months. PPL will be 47 securing additional project funding from the MHFA, the Family Housing Fund, Low-Income Tax Credits and Hollman dollars. The City of St. Louis Park’s partnership role is outlined in the attached Summary of the Redevelopment Agreement. To date the City’s financial role includes commitment of $140,000 in Community Development Block Grants, $300,000 of secured Hennepin County HOME Funds and $1,000,000 from the Livable Community Demonstration Account grant. In addition to the above funds, the City is considering submitting an application for a General Obligation bond allocation, which if secured will assist PPL with acquisition and renovation costs. Issuance of General Obligation bonds for an affordable housing redevelopment project with the Met Council providing the debt service reserve would prove a model for other municipalities struggling with similar aging multifamily housing stock and the associated social concerns. Outlined below are summaries relating to four Resolutions to be considered by the Council regarding the proposed PPL Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project: Contract for Private Redevelopment among City of St. Louis Park, Housing Authority and Limited Partnership Created by PPL. Attached is a summary prepared by Kennedy & Graven which outlines the major business points of the agreement, as well as the full agreement. City staff, Kennedy & Graven, Ehlers & Associates, and PPL have met on three occasions to create the document. The council considered the agreement at the Study Session of November 22, and the Housing Authority discussed it at the December 8, 1999 Board Meeting. Input from all parties has been incorporated into the final draft. Cooperation Agreement with St. Louis Park Housing Authority The Council has reviewed the Cooperation Agreement between SLPHA and the City at the Council Study Session of November 22, 1999, and the HA approved the agreement at its November 10, 1999 Board Meeting. The agreement is necessary to allow the development and administration of 12 Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Program (MHOP) public housing units (Hollman units) within the Louisiana Court development. Specifics of the agreement are: • This agreement is similar to previous Cooperation Agreements entered into by the City and Housing Authority for other St. Louis Park public housing units. • The agreement is necessary to permit PPL to obtain $859,140 in funding from the MHOP program for 12 Hollman units within the Louisiana Court development. • This agreement authorizes the owner to make a payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) for the 12 Hollman units. The payment is 5% of “sheltered” rents, which is defined as rent excluding utilities, this is the same amount paid for all other public housing in the City. • HUD guidelines state that a Cooperation Agreement must be in place prior to development, however it does not obligate the City if the project does not proceed. Condemnation of Certain Real Estate By the Housing Authority. 48 Basic to the optimum success of the Louisiana Court project is acquisition of eleven of the sixteen complex buildings. The full public benefit of consolidated ownership, connections to social networks, renovation of blighted buildings and reconfiguration of the site will be maximized only if the developer is successful in acquiring the eleven impacted buildings. Council has been informed that the developer’s acquisition discussions with two parties have been unsuccessful. The Council directed staff to conduct analysis of the potential costs and risks to the City, if eminent domain proceedings were to be considered. These risks were discussed at the study session of December 13, 1999, at which Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy & Graven cited that potential increased costs/risks were manageable. The Housing Authority is being asked to serve as the agency to actually undertake the eminent domain proceedings due to the nature of the project and the powers given to them statutorily. It is proposed that the “quick take” approach be used. Staff has regularly provided Louisiana Court project updates to the Housing Authority at their monthly meetings. At the meeting of December 8, 1999 staff and consultants reviewed and discussed with the Board the consideration of using condemnation as a tool for the developer to acquire all eleven impacted buildings. At the January Housing Authority Board meeting, staff will relay the Council’s direction, and appropriate Board actions will be discussed. Application For Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds. The Council has discussed the issuance of $4.5 million in General Obligation bonds to assist the developer with acquisition and renovation costs. The City’s risk has been analyzed and discussed by Ehlers & Associates at previous study sessions. Additionally, the LCDA grant includes $330,000 for the debt service reserve to further alleviate the City’s risk. Staff has recently been advised that submitting a request for $5 million dollars in GO bonds (rather than the originally proposed $4.5 million) would allow the City the ability to issue up to $5 million in bonds in the event additional dollars are required. Staff desires to discuss this with the Council. The application is due December 27, 1999 along with a deposit of 1% of the bond amount and a nonrefundable application fee of $1,000. The developer and City will each pay fifty percent of the deposit and application fee of approximately $50,000; the deposit fee will be returned to the City after issuance of the bonds. Staff and representatives from Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy & Graven will be in attendance at the meeting on December 20,1999. Attachments: • Summary of Contract for Private Redevelopment among City, Housing Authority and Limited Partnership Created by PPL 49 • Resolution approving a Contract for Redevelopment among the City, the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park Housing and PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership. • Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Housing Authority of St. Louis Park. • Resolution of the City of St. Louis Park Authorizing Execution of a Cooperation Agreement. • Resolution Requesting Condemnation of Certain Real Estate by the Housing Authority. • Resolution to Give Preliminary Approval to a Proposed Issue of Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds. Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 50 SUMMARY OF CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG CITY, HOUSING AUTHORITY AND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CREATED BY PPL December 15, 1999 1. Property Acquisition • Redeveloper enters purchase agreements to acquire all property. If PPL is unable to secure purchase agreements, the Authority may (but is not required to) acquire such parcels by exercise of the powers of eminent domain. • If the Authority commences condemnation, PPL must pay 50% of all expenses. Either party may abandon condemnation proceedings at any time before the Authority takes title, in which case each party is liable for 50% of all costs. If the Authority takes title and bonds are issued, all costs of acquisition will be reimbursed from bond proceeds. • Redeveloper will provide City with title commitment in the principal amount of the Bonds. • Redeveloper will be responsible for relocation of all tenants, temporary or otherwise. Must hire a relocation consultant acceptable to the City, and receive a certification from the consultant that all relocation payments and agreements have been made in accordance with law. Redeveloper must use best efforts to permit existing tenants to remain and minimize permanent relocation. • Redeveloper must provide environmental analysis of the property to the City for review. Redeveloper also indemnifies City against any claims related to environmental conditions on the property. 2. Improvements • Redeveloper must rehabilitate and improve the existing facilities to create 60 1BR units, 40 2BR units, 12 2BR MHOP units (formerly referred to as “Hollman units”), and 12 3BR units (created by combining 1BR units), along with all site and landscape improvements. • Rehabilitation will be governed by standards described in an approved “scope of work,” which is an exhibit to the Contract and must be updated before bonds are issued. • Redeveloper required to submit detailed construction plans for internal reconfigurations, site work and landscaping. • All improvements must be commenced and completed according a schedule to be determined. 51 • All contracts will be let under a competitive bidding procedure, and comply with requirements of various granting agencies. The arrangements for construction management, and identify of the manager, are subject to prior approval by the Authority and City. • Redeveloper must maintain usual and customary insurance for the life of the Bonds, with the City named as additional insured. 3. Issuance of Bonds • City will issue general obligation bonds in maximum principal amount of $5,000,000, subject to all terms and conditions of the Contract. • Bonds mature no later than 30 years, have 120% debt service coverage (breach of which entitles City to replace PPL as project manager), and provide debt service and operating reserves acceptable to the City. • City receives typical fee for private activity bonds (1/8 % of outstanding Bonds), contingent on cash flow being available to pay that amount. • City has first mortgage on all property. • Issuance of Bonds is contingent on satisfaction of conditions, including:  all permits obtained and construction plans approved  all property acquired (at or before closing)  all other financing sources are available or committed to City’s satisfaction  bond documents approved by the City (including loan agreement, mortgage, master disbursing agreement, etc.)  allocation for tax-exempt housing revenue bonds received from the State  City’s financial advisor has submitted a report finding that bonds are necessary and appropriate, Redeveloper’s pro forma shows sufficient revenues to meet debt service coverage requirements, Bonds will not impair other activities of the City or Authority, and proposed rents are supportable by market conditions  City has approved a management plan and a transit, employment, security and service plan for residents. • City and Redeveloper will each pay 50% of the nonrefundable application fee ($1,000) and the refundable deposit ($50,000) for bond allocation. 4. Other Financing. • The parties will work cooperatively to secure all other funding sources for the project, which currently include:  MHOP grant. 52  County HOME funds.  Family Housing Fund.  MHFA grant or loan.  LCDA grant.  City CDBG grant.  Tax credits. • Disbursement of funds will be subject to the same conditions as for issuance of the bonds, and will made under a master disbursing agreement agreed to by all funders. • Redeveloper will pay the City or Authority a $75,000 fee for staff time, paid from proceeds of the Bonds. All other costs are born by the parties respectively. 5. Miscellaneous. • City must approve any transfer of the property while Bonds are outstanding. • Redeveloper indemnifies and defends the City for all claims related to the project. • Redeveloper pays attorney fees incurred by City in the case of default. 53 RESOLUTION NO. 99-151 RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT AMONG THE CITY, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND PPL LOUISIANA COURT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council ("Council") of the City of St. Louis Park ("City") as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City has determined a need to provide certain financial assistance to PPL Louisiana Court, Limited Partnership (the “Redeveloper”) in order to acquire and rehabilitate certain rental housing facilities in the City intended for low and moderate income persons (the “Project”). 1.02. There has been presented before the Council a Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Contract”) among the City, the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park (“Authority”), and the Redeveloper, setting forth the terms and conditions of development of the Project and the City’s participation in that effort. 1.03. The Council has reviewed the Contract and finds that the execution thereof and performance of the City’s obligations thereunder are in the best interest of the City and its residents. Section 2. City Approval; Further Proceedings. 2.01. The Contract as presented to the Council is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the Mayor and City Manager, provided that execution of the documents by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the City the Contract and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the City, and to carry out, on behalf of the City its obligations thereunder, all subject to final approval of the Contract by the Authority. 2.03. The Council further recommends that the Authority approve and execute the Contract as soon as practicable after the date hereof. 54 Attest: Adopted by City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 55 COOPERATION AGREEMENT This Agreement made and entered into this _____ day of _____________, 1999, by and between the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park (the "Authority") and the City of St. Louis Park, State of Minnesota (the "Municipality”). In consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows; 1. Whenever used in this Agreement: (a) The term "MHOP Units" means twelve (12) units of low-rent housing hereafter to be developed with the financial assistance of the United States of America acting through the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (the "Government") and located within a one hundred and twenty-two (122) unit apartment development (the "Development") to be owned by a low income housing tax credit partnership ("Owner") and located at 2740 & 2750 Louisiana Avenue and 2704, 2705, 2711,2717, 2722, 2730, 2741, 2742, & 2754 Louisiana Court. (b) The term "Taxing Body" or "Taxing Bodies" means the State of Minnesota and any and all political subdivisions or taxing units thereof in which the MHOP Units are situated and which would have authority to assess or levy real or personal property taxes, or to certify such taxes to a taxing body or public officer, to be levied for its use and benefit with respect to the MHOP Units if they were not exempt from such taxation. (c) The term "Shelter Rent" means the total of all charges to all MHOP Unit tenants for dwelling rents and nondwelling rents (excluding all other income of the MHOP Units) less the cost of all dwelling and nondwelling utilities. 2. The Authority shall endeavor: (a) to secure a contract with the Government for capital grants and annual contributions for the MHOP Units involving a transfer of such funds from the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority ("MPHA"); and (b) to cause to be developed and provide for the administration of the MHOP Units. 3. (a) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.040, the MHOP Units are exempt from all real and personal property taxes levied or imposed by any Taxing Body for so long as either (i) the MHOP Units are owned by a public body or governmental agency and are used for low-rent housing purposes, (ii) the MHOP Units are subject to the requirements of Section 5 of the United States Housing 56 Act of 1937; (iii) the contract between the Authority and the Owner in connection with the MHOP Units continues to obligate the Owner to operate the MHOP Units as a low income housing project, or (iv) any obligations issued in connection with the MHOP Units or any moneys due to the Government in connection with such MHOP Units remain unpaid, whichever period is the longest (the "Exemption Period"). (b) During the Exemption Period, the Municipality, on behalf of the Taxing Bodies, agrees that it will not levy or impose any real or personal property taxes upon the MHOP Units or upon the Authority with respect thereto. Because the MHOP Units consists of twelve (12) units located within and under common private ownership with one hundred and ten (110) additional housing units which comprise the Development, the property tax taxes and property tax exemption shall be determined as follows: (i) the tax capacity of the total Development shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which equals the total number of MHOP Units and the denominator of which equals the total number of housing units in the Development and (ii) the product thereof shall be deducted from said tax capacity. (c) During the Exemption Period, the Authority shall cause the owner to make annual payments in lieu of taxes ("PILOT") in payment for the public services and facilities furnished from time to time without other cost or charge for or with respect to the MHOP Units. Each PILOT shall be made at the time when real property taxes on the MHOP Units would be paid if it was subject to taxation, and shall be in an amount equal to the lesser of either (i) five percent (5%) of the Shelter Rent actually collected but in no event to exceed five percent (5%) of the Shelter Rent charged with respect to such MHOP Units during the preceding calendar year, or (ii) the maximum amount permitted to be paid by applicable State law in effect on the date such payment is made. (d) Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.040, subdivision 3, the County shall distribute the PILOT among the Taxing Bodies in the proportion which the real property taxes which would have been paid to each Taxing Body for such year if the MHOP Units were not exempt from taxation; provided, however, that no payment for any year shall be made to any Taxing Body in excess of the amount of the real property taxes which would have been paid to such Taxing Body for such year if the MHOP Units were not exempt from taxation. (e) In the event the PILOT is not paid, no lien against the MHOP Units or assets of the Authority shall attach, nor shall any interest or penalties accrue or attach on account thereof. 4. During the Exemption Period, the Municipality, or other appropriate Taxing Body, without cost or charge to the Authority or tenants of the MHOP Units (other than PILOT) shall: 57 (a) Furnish or cause to be furnished to the MHOP Units public services and facilities of the same character and to the same extent as are furnished from time to time without cost or charge to other dwellings and inhabitants in the Municipality; (b) Vacate such streets, roads, and alleys within the area of the MHOP Units as may be necessary in the development thereof, and convey without charge to the Authority or Owner of the MHOP Units such interest as the Municipality, or other Taxing Body may have in such vacated areas; and, in so far as it is lawfully able to do so without cost or expense to the Authority, the Owner of the MHOP Units or to the Municipality or other Taxing Body, cause to be removed from such vacated areas, in so far as it may be necessary, all public or private utility lines and equipment; (c) In so far as the Municipality or other Taxing Body may lawfully do so, (i) grant such deviations from the building code of the Municipality or other Taxing Body as are reasonable and necessary to promote economy and efficiency in the development and administration of the MHOP Units, and at the same time safeguard health and safety, and (ii) make such changes in any zoning of the site and surrounding territory of the MHOP Units as are reasonable and necessary for the development and protection of the MHOP Units and the surrounding territory; (d) Accept grants of easements necessary for the development of the MHOP Units; and (e) Cooperate with the Authority by such other lawful action or ways in the Municipality or other Taxing Body that the Authority may find necessary in connection with the development and administration of the MHOP Units. 5. In the initial development of the MHOP Units, the Municipality further agrees, on behalf of all Taxing Bodies, that within a reasonable time after receipt of a written request therefor from the Authority: (a) that it will accept the dedication of all interior streets, roads, alleys, and adjacent sidewalks within the area of the Development, together with all storm and sanitary sewer mains in such dedicated areas, after the Owner of the MHOP Units, at its own expense, has completed the grading improvement, paving, and installation thereof in accordance with specifications acceptable to the Municipality or other Taxing Body; (b) that it will accept necessary dedications of land for, and will grade, improve, pave, and provide sidewalks for, all streets bounding the Developments as are necessary to provide adequate access thereto (in consideration whereof the Owner shall pay to the Municipality or other Taxing Body such amount as are or could be assessed against the Development); and 58 (c) that it will provide, or cause to be provided, water mains, and storm and sanitary sewer mains, leading to the Development and serving the bounding streets thereof (in consideration whereof the Owner of the MHOP Units shall pay to the Municipality or other Taxing Body such amount as are or could be assessed against the Development). 6. If by reason of the Municipality's or other Taxing Body's failure or refusal to furnish or cause to be furnished any public services or facilities which it has agreed hereunder to furnish or cause to be furnished to the Authority, the Owner or tenants of the MHOP Units, the Authority or the Owner of the MHOP Units incurs any expense to obtain such services or facilities, then the Authority may cause to be deducted the amount of such expense from any PILOTS due or to become due to the Municipality or other Taxing Body in respect to the MHOP Units. 7. No Cooperation Agreement heretofore entered into between the Municipality and the Authority shall be construed to apply to any MHOP Units covered by this Agreement. 8. No member of the governing body or any other public official of the Municipality or other Taxing Body who exercises any responsibilities or functions with respect to the MHOP Units during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the MHOP Units or any property included or planned to be included in the MHOP Units, or any contracts in connection with the MHOP Units or property. If any such governing body member or such other public official of a Taxing Body involuntarily acquires or had acquired prior to the beginning of his/her tenure any such interest, he/she shall immediately disclose such interest to the Authority. 9. During the Exemption Period this Agreement shall not be abrogated, changed, or modified without the consent of the Government. The privileges and obligations of the Municipality and other Taxing Bodies hereunder shall also remain in full force and effect with respect to each MHOP Units so long as the beneficial title to such MHOP Units is held by the Authority or by any other public body or governmental agency, including the Government authorized by law to engage in the development or administration of low- rent housing projects. If at any time the beneficial title to, or possession of, any MHOP Units is held by such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government, the provisions hereof shall inure to the benefit of and may be enforced by, such other public body or governmental agency, including the Government. 59 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Municipality and the Authority have respectively signed this Agreement and caused their seals to be affixed and attested as of the day and year first above written. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: _____________________________ Its Chairperson And: ____________________________ It’s Executive Director CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By: ______________________________ Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor And: _____________________________ Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 60 RESOLUTION NO. 99-152 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A COOPERATION AGREEMENT WHEREAS, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, proposes to develop and administer a Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Program low-rent housing project that consists of 12 dwelling units, and WHEREAS, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, shall enter into a Cooperation Agreement with the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, in connection with such project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK shall enter into a Cooperation Agreement with the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK in substantially the attached form. 2. That the Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Cooperation Agreement, in quadruplicate, on behalf of said CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK. 3. That this resolution shall take effect immediately. Attest: Adopted by City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 61 RESOLUTION NO. 99-153 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONDEMNATION OF CERTAIN REAL ESTATE BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota (the “Authority”) was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “Act”), and has the powers to plan and implement housing programs for low and moderate income persons, including without limitation housing development projects as defined in the Act; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to undertake certain housing development projects intended to alleviate a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing for persons of low or moderate income and their families as such income is determined by the Authority; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to enter into agreements with the Authority regarding projects undertaken under the Act, and is further authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 to perform functions for the Authority that the City is authorized to provide for itself; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized under its home rule charter to issue bonds for any public purpose not prohibited by law; and WHEREAS, the Authority and City are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.192 to make loans to private parties for any purpose that the City and Authority are authorized to carry out under the Act; and 62 WHEREAS, PPL Louisiana Court, Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership (the “Redeveloper”) has proposed to acquire certain property in the City (the “Redevelopment Property”) that is occupied by rental housing facilities (the “Facilities”), and to renovate the Facilities for use as a multifamily rental housing facility intended primarily for low and moderate income persons (such activities collectively referred to as the “Project”); and WHEREAS, in order to make development of the Project financially feasible, the City and Authority propose to assist in financing the Project in accordance with the terms of a Contract for Private Redevelopment (“Agreement”) approved by the City as of this date; and WHEREAS, the Authority and City believe that the development of the Project pursuant to the Agreement, and fulfillment generally of the Agreement, are in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety, morals, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of the applicable State and local laws and requirements under which the Project has been undertaken and is being assisted; and WHEREAS, the City hereby finds that it is necessary and for a public purpose to acquire the property described on the attached Exhibit A in order to carry out the housing redevelopment objectives of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is reasonably necessary, proper, and convenient, for a public purpose, and in the interest of the public health, convenience, and general welfare of the citizens of the City that title to and possession of the real estate hereinafter described be acquired for the furtherance of the Project; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the funding and construction schedule for the Project makes it necessary to acquire title and possession of the real estate hereinafter described 63 prior to the filing of the final report of the condemnation commissioners to be appointed by the district court; and WHEREAS, the Authority has the legal authority to acquire real estate in order to carry out housing redevelopment objectives consistent with the Act; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to request that the Authority proceed as soon as practicable with acquisition of the property described on Exhibit A attached hereto through use of the power of eminent domain and the quick take provisions of Minn. Stat. § 117.042. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK (“City”) THAT: 1. The City hereby requests that the Authority’s Board of Commissioners authorize acquisition, by negotiation or condemnation, of the property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and the City hereby determines that acquisition of such property by condemnation is necessary and for a public purpose. 2. The City also requests that the Authority retain the law firm of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, as special counsel to the Authority in this matter, and direct said counsel to proceed to acquire such property by condemnation, utilizing the quick take provisions of Minn. Stat. § 117.042 pursuant to the payment or deposit of the Authority’s approved appraisal of value for the property as determined by staff. Attest: Adopted by City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 64 EXHIBIT A Parcel 1: (PID No. 08-117-21-31-0013) Property Address: 2750 Louisiana Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Property to be acquired: Lot 2, Block 1, Louisiana Court, St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, Minnesota. Parcel 2: (PID No. 08-117-21-31-0014) Property Address: 2705 Louisiana Court, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Property to be acquired: Lot 3, Block 1, Louisiana Court, St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, Minnesota. Parcel 3: (PID No. 08-117-21-31-0016) Property Address: 2717 Louisiana Court, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Property to be acquired: Lot 5, Block 1, Louisiana Court, St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, Minnesota. Parcel 4: (PID No. 08-117-21-31-0017) Property Address: 2722 Louisiana Court, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Property to be acquired: Lot 6, Block 1, Louisiana Court, St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, Minnesota. 65 RESOLUTION NO. 99-154 GIVING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL TO A PROPOSED ISSUE OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a public body corporate and politic under the laws of Minnesota (the “Authority”) was created pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “Act”), and has the powers to plan and implement housing programs for low and moderate income persons, including without limitation housing development projects as defined in the Act; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Act, the Authority is authorized to undertake certain housing development projects intended to alleviate a shortage of decent, safe and sanitary housing for persons of low or moderate income and their families as such income is determined by the Authority; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized by the Act to enter into agreements with the Authority regarding projects undertaken under the Act, and is further authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 to perform functions for the Authority that the City is authorized to provide for itself; and WHEREAS, the City is authorized under its home rule charter to issue bonds for any public purpose not prohibited by law; and WHEREAS, the Authority and City are authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.192 to make loans to private parties for any purpose that the City and Authority are authorized to carry out under the Act; and WHEREAS, it has been proposed that the City undertake to issue general obligation bonds (the “Bonds”) pursuant to its city charter to finance the acquisition and rehabilitation of a 124-unit multifamily housing facility located at 2705 Louisiana Court, 2740 Louisiana Avenue, 2750 Louisiana Avenue, 2711 Louisiana Court, 2704 Louisiana Court, 2717 Louisiana Court, 2730 Louisiana Court, 2741 Louisiana Court, 2742 Louisiana Court, 2754 Louisiana Court, and 2722 Louisiana Court in the City known as “Louisiana Court” (the “Project”) by PPL Louisiana Court Limited Partnership (the “Company”); and WHEREAS, it is desirable that the Project be retained as affordable housing for low and moderate income households in the City; and WHEREAS, in order to make development of the Project financially feasible, the City and Authority propose to assist in financing the Project in accordance with the terms of a Contract for Private Redevelopment (“Agreement”) between the City, the Authority and the Company approved by the City as of this date; and 66 WHEREAS, under applicable federal tax law, the City must obtain an allocation of issuance authority pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A (the “Allocation Act”) in order to issue tax- exempt bonds for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Service has issued Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and WHEREAS, the City or the Company may incur certain expenditures which may be financed temporarily from sources other than bonds, and reimbursed from the proceeds of a bond; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota: 1. The City hereby states its preliminary intention to issue the Bonds for the Project in an aggregate principal amount up to approximately $5,000,000, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the Allocation Act, the City Charter, the Agreement and the final agreement among the City, the Company and the initial purchaser of the Bonds as to the terms and conditions thereof. 2. The City Manager and other City staff are authorized to cooperate with the Company in the preparation and submission to the Minnesota Department of Finance of an Application for Allocation for Bonding Authority for Tax Exempt Financing under Federal Tax Law, in accordance with the provisions of the Allocation Act. 3. Upon receipt from the Company of the amount of 50% of the required application deposit and application fee in accordance with the Contract, the City shall issue its check or checks to the Department for the amount of the application deposit and application fee. 4. The City or the Company may make expenditures for the Project, and the City reasonably intends to reimburse itself or the Company for such expenditures from the proceeds of the Bonds. 5. This resolution is intended to constitute a declaration of official intent for purposes of Treas. Reg. § 1.150-2 and any successor law, regulation, or ruling. 67 Attest: Adopted by City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 68 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8b Meeting of December 20, 1999 8b. Towing Contract for Years 2000 through 2004 Award of new towing contract to replace current contract which expires on December 31, 1999 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute the attached five-year contract with All Hours Towing for towing services. Background: Police staff met with the City Council at the September 27, 1999, study session to discuss the development of a new towing contract for police-related towing services. To create a more competitive bidding process and to broaden the eligibility parameters for towing contractors, the following steps were proposed: 1. Expand radius for impound lot from 2 miles to 5 miles. 2. Extend contract length from 2 years to 5 years. 3. Continue 30 minute response time maximum. 4. Work with City Attorney to resolve any confusion or ambiguity in existing contract language. Analysis: In response to our bid advertisement, two bids were received for the towing contract; one from All Hours Towing, the current contractor, and one from Schmit Towing. Both companies are based in St. Louis Park. The bid summary is as follows: 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Schmit Towing Towing Charge $75.00 $80.00 $85.00 $90.00 $95.00 Daily Storage $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 $45.00 $50.00 Example – 1 day total $105.00 $115.00 $125.00 $135.00 $145.00 All Hours Towing Towing Charge $44.70 $44.70 $44.70 $44.70 $44.70 Daily Storage $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 $25.00 Example – 1 day total $69.70 $69.70 $69.70 $69.70 $69.70 69 Following the bid opening, Schmit Towing has raised the question of whether or not All Hours Towing is a “responsible” bidder and, therefore, whether or not All Hours Towing can be awarded the new contract. Schmit Towing has indicated, through their attorney, John Mulligan, that several questions exist regarding the performance of All Hours Towing under previous contracts. First, there is the $20.00 administrative fee which has been charged by All Hours Towing. While this practice has only come to my attention recently, it has apparently been in place for many years. Dick Hughes of All Hours Towing states he has held the City’s towing contract for 13 years and has been charging the $20.00 administrative fee for at least six years. Mr. Hughes believes the $20.00 administrative fee to be a common practice in the industry, and further states both he and his attorney do not believe this practice was prohibited by previous contracts. Police staff who served as liaisons to the towing contract six to ten years ago have retired and indicate they cannot confirm or deny what Mr. Hughes might have interpreted as tacit approval by the police department for this administrative fee. These retired staff officers are unfamiliar with the tax advantages Mr. Hughes claims to achieve through the use of this administrative fee but state it was rare to receive a complaint regarding the dollar amount charged by All Hours Towing for a police tow. During the drafting of the new towing contract, the practice of charging an administrative fee has been discussed with our City Attorney, and language has been inserted in Section 3 specifically prohibiting this practice. Additionally, our City Attorney has advised me that if Mr. Hughes and his attorney did not believe this practice was prohibited in previous contracts, then this practice could not be used to support the claim that All Hours Towing is an irresponsible bidder in the current contract process. The second question raised by Mr. Schmit’s attorney, referencing paragraph 1 of the contract and “state and federal” regulations, was unclear. Because paragraph 1 deals with City ordinance and State statutes regarding the care, storage and return of vehicles towed by police request, not “regulations regarding tow truck maintenance and inspection and driver regulations,” I called Mr. Schmit for clarification on this point. Mr. Schmit stated the reference to paragraph 1 may have been a misunderstanding between himself and his attorney and further stated the issue of fleet and driver regulations was much less important to him than the $20.00 administrative issue. Police staff contacted the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Division, for further clarification. We were advised that there were few applicable commercial vehicle regulations for tow trucks not operating under state contract and with gross weight of less than 27,000 pounds. Additionally, they found no record of violations or sustained complaints against All Hours Towing. Conclusion All Hours Towing has submitted the lower competitive bid, and our City Attorney has indicated that All Hours Towing is a responsible bidder despite concerns raised by Mr. Mulligan on behalf 70 of Schmit Towing; therefore, it is our recommendation that the contract be awarded to All Hours Towing. Attachments: Bid documents are available for review in the City Clerk’s office. Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 71 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8c* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *8c.. This report discusses a resolution for adopting a Standard Operating Policy for Code Administration. Proposed resolution unifies the direction of Council & Inspection staff by establishing parameters for City Code administration within a Standard Operating Policy Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution supporting the Inspection Department Standard Operating Policy for Code administration. Background First discussion seeking Council support occurred during the August 23, 1999 study session. With preliminary approval, Inspections Department staff developed a policy for City Code Administration by comparing our community's needs with several code enforcement policies & philosophies from other cities, resulting in the proposed standard operating policy. Issues and Analysis • Proactive Enforcement: Currently, staff responds to all code violations on a complaint only basis. This reactive enforcement has had its successes, but also had problems. For example, staff has gone out to enforce a registered complaint but had to overlook obviously similar violations in the same neighborhood because no registered complaints had been filed on the latter violation. Staff recognized this very inconsistent enforcement pattern and developed the proposed three-tiered policy to improve our code administration. This policy is intended to create and maintain equity in the city-wide code enforcement. Staff is now seeking council support in adopting this policy for the Inspections Department to incorporate. • Concerns: Some concerns have been raised that inspectors will become overzealous in their enforcement with the adoption of this proposed policy. In fact, the policy was intentionally developed with limitations built into it to avoid such a response and it will be the duty of the immediate supervisor(s) to ensure that the intent and parameters of this standard operating policy is adhered to: 1. Staff will take time to educate & answer questions of code violators. 72 2. Focus areas will be limited to a block or sub-neighborhood when Inspections becomes aware of multiple violations in an area. 3. Systematic inspections will generally be conducted from public property ("curbside inspection") when time and resources allow. Code enforcement inspectors will explain that correction orders are not a result of a registered complaint, but rather an effort to achieve citywide compliance with codes intended to improve the community. The department through reorganization and a concerted effort to improve effectiveness has created a supervisory position to coordinate the inspectors' activities to insure timely appropriate action and follow-up to code violations. • Benefits of adopting proposed policy: Members of the City of St. Louis Park residential community, business community and City Hall staff will benefit from the implementation of this proposed policy: 1. Cleaner, healthier and safer community. 2. Improved overall appearance within the City. 3. Proactive inspections versus sporadic reactive result in consistent program. 4. Community members will be more supportive when Inspections Department can demonstrate code violation corrections in a more timely manner. 5. Community members will be more apt to correct their own violations when they know the Inspections Department is enforcing code violations in a fair and consistent manner. Attachment: Inspection Policy Resolution Prepared by: Manny Camilon, Jr., Environmental Health Official Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 73 RESOLUTION NO. 99-155 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE INSPECTION DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING POLICY FOR CODE ADMINISTRATION. WHEREAS, the City Council supports a standard operating policy for code enforcement for the following reasons: • To ensure compliance with City codes through education, cooperation and enforcement when necessary; • To ensure better residential and commercial property maintenance; • To assure neighborhoods the City is aware of obvious violations without residents having to always complain; • To reduce the number of complaints to the Council and administration; • To maintain the City's credibility through consistent, fair and timely enforcement; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Standard Operating Policy for Code Administration contained herein is hereby adopted this 20th day of December 1999. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 74 City of St. Louis Park Inspections Department Standard Operating Policy for City Code Administration It is the intent of the St. Louis Park Inspections Department to promote the following code administration policy: Through consistent uniformity and fairness, the Inspections Department will ensure effective administration of the City Codes for the purpose of preserving the integrity of St. Louis Park's neighborhoods, commercial and industrial community and overall quality of life within the City. Policy parameters for routine code administration are integrated into a three-tiered approach: 1. The Department will respond to all complaints registered with our Department regarding code violations, regardless if the complainant discloses his/her name. The Department will always take time to educate residents on the ordinance code and encourage abatement of the violation in a timely manner. 2. The Department will identify and respond to focus areas of deterioration in the City, requesting all violations observed in the immediate area be abated in a timely manner. Examples are junk vehicles, property neglect, etc. 3. The Department will, over a period of time, conduct systematic inspections of the complete City - when time and resources allow - for the purpose of providing consistent and fair enforcement. The code enforcement inspector will identify him/herself and explain the conditions under which the inspections were conducted. 75 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8d* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *8d. Second Reading of Ordinance Amendment Revising Permit Fees for Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Permits. Proposed changes simplify the method in which fees for plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits are calculated and provide a more accurate fee for service relationship. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the ordinance revising plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit fees, approve summary and authorize summary publication. Background First reading of the proposed ordinance amendment was approved December 6, 1999, following a discussion during the November 22, 1999 Study Session. The current permit fee schedule for plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits has been in use since November 1986. The fee schedule is a regressive table based upon the contract price of the work being completed. In October 1995 the ordinances were amended to provide a minimum fee of $21.00 for all permits. There has been no increase in the table to account for inflationary costs necessary to provide the relevant inspection services. Issues and Analysis ♦ Fees relevant and proportional to services provided: The current permit fee by valuation creates inequity for homeowners and contractors. Fee amounts may increase when the applicant accurately states the cost of work. For a furnace replacement permit, fees increase dramatically if a homeowner installs a more expensive high efficiency furnace rather than a cheaper low efficiency type. Staff’s time and effort for this inspection service is not significantly different. However, the person who spent more money to save energy and improve the value of their home is penalized with a higher fee. In some cases, this may be almost double the permit cost. This same phenomenon occurs when a contractor charges more because they include a warranty or other valuable benefits to the homeowner. Establishing a flat fee for routine replacement of water heaters, furnaces, and electrical services helps to level the field when contractors are bidding on a job. This also helps improve relationships between contractors and the City by eliminating any questions by staff of the stated value when it seems extremely low. Flat fees for permits are also easy to explain when a resident is requesting information about replacing an appliance. 76 Fee for Service permits are intended to generate sufficient revenue to allow the municipality to provide the associated inspection services. The services include not just the cost of the field inspector but also the cost of receiving applications, plan review, processing applications, issuing permit, follow-up, record keeping and overall department administration. Other costs such as the operational overhead of the City may also be included in assessing the actual costs to provide a service. Permit fees have remained unchanged since 1986. In 1995 a revision increased the minimum permit fee to $21.00. In no case can the department provide an inspection and cover the costs incurred with the $21.00 permit fee. Also, revenue for some areas of permits such as plumbing does not even fully compensate for even the cost of a staff inspector. ♦ Simple and easily understood method of calculating fees: The current fee is a regressive percentage table based solely on valuation with multiple tiers and a different percentage for each tier. In addition, there is a minimum fee of $21.00, which essentially negates the bottom tiers of the fee table. This itself has led to some confusion in the calculation of fees. When issuing permits, we are required by the State of Minnesota to collect a surcharge for each permit. The surcharge must be figured in one of two ways, depending how the permit fee is calculated. Permits, which are based solely on value, are charged .0005 times the valuation. Permits, which have a flat or single fee, are charged a consistent fifty cents. The current method of determining all permit fees by valuation has resulted in many contractors submitting incorrect surcharge amounts resulting in significant staff time necessary to balance the fees and surcharges. Rather than simply increasing our permit fee tables for inflation the amendment revises the method by which we calculate many fees. This addresses the above concerns by increasing the relationship between services provided and revenue generated and is more consistent with what other cities are charging. The amended fee tables in each code section are designed to be user friendly and easier to explain to contractors and homeowners. Flat fees will be utilized for most types of permits issued for single family homes because the majority of the permits are for the installation or replacement of a single item. By going to this flat fee, the State Surcharge becomes an automatic fifty cents. This is typically what contractors are use to paying in other cities. ♦ Effect on revenue: The effect on total permit revenue is relatively minor and indicated in attachment “A”. The fee structure is designed so that in future years, if needed, the fees can be increased by a relatively modest amount by increasing the base fee and charge for single fixtures. Although the proposed base fee may still not cover our costs in many instances, it is believed this is a fair compromise between maintaining fees low enough to encourage contractors and residents to request a permit when work is being done but yet high enough to cover most of 77 the cost incurred. The most important criteria is looking at the overall revenue generation versus the expenditures for providing these services. In this regard we believe we are in keeping with the intent of offering a true fee for service. ♦ Effective date: Fee revisions for the permits are easiest for the City and contractors to implement at the beginning of the year when construction activity is at an annual low. The proposed effective date for this amended ordinance is January 3, 2000. Attachments:Revenue Analysis Proposed Amended Ordinance Prepared by: George Shoppe, Chief Building Official Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 78 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ REVENUE ANALYSIS The analysis is based on actual revenue for the period from January 1, 1999 to November 1, 1999. The projected revenue uses the valuation of the same period with the Proposed Fee Table. PERMIT TYPE REVENUE 1999 TO DATE PROJECTED NEW REVENUE NET CHANGE IN REVENUE Plumbing 61,000 82,000 21,000 Mechanical 116,000 98,000 (18,000) Electrical 109,500 134,000 24,500 Sewer and Water 12,500 16,000 3,500 TOTAL 299,500 330,000 +31,000 (Increase approximately 10% per year.) 79 ORDINANCE NO. 2151-99 Amending sections 15-242, 253 and 262 Permit Fees for Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Permits Section 15-242. Permit Fees. The fees for such permits shall be as follows: (1) Minimum Fees. In no case shall the fee charged for any permit issued under this ordinance be less than $21.00. (2) Fee Schedule. Permit fees shall be paid to the City as set forth in the following schedule: CONTRACT PRICE % OF CONTRACT PRICE $0.00 to 500.00 2.75% 501.00 to 1,000.00 2.50% 1,001.00 to 5,000.00 2.25% 5,001.00 to 10,000.00 2.00% 10,001.00 to 25,000.00 1.75% 25,001.00 to 50,000.00 1.50% 50,001.00 and over 1.25% (State Surcharge is .0005 of mechanical valuation under $1,000,000, or 50¢, whichever is greater. For valuations over $1,000,000, call Inspections Department for the surcharge fee.) All plumbing, sewer and water permits for installation, replacement or repair shall be $35.00 + 1.75% of the contract price. Exception: The following permits for single family dwellings defined as R-3 occupancies by State Building Code: 1) Installation, replacement of repair of a single plumbing fixture $35.00 2) Replacement or repair of sewer service or water service $35.00 Section 15-253. Permit Fees. 80 (1) Minimum Fees. In no case shall the fee charged for any permit issued under this ordinance be less than $21.00. (2) Permit fees shall be paid to the City as set forth in the following schedule: CONTRACT PRICE % OF CONTRACT PRICE $0.00 to 500.00 2.75% 501.00 to 1,000.00 2.50% 1,001.00 to 5,000.00 2.25% 5,001.00 to 10,000.00 2.00% 10,001.00 to 25,000.00 1.75% 25,001.00 to 50,000.00 1.50% 50,001.00 and over 1.25% (State Surcharge is .0005 of electrical valuation under $1,000,000, or 50¢, whichever is greater. For valuations over $1,000,000, call Inspections Department for the surcharge fee.) All mechanical permits for installation, replacement or repair shall be $35.00 + 1.75% of the contract price. Exception The following permits for single family dwellings defined as R-3 occupancies by the State Building Code. 1) Installation of a fuel burning appliance including fuel piping to the unit Or Replacement of a central heating appliance $50.00 2) Installation, replacement or repair of a single mechanical appliance $35.00. Section 15-262. Permit Fees. The fees for electrical permits shall be as follows: (1) Minimum Fees. In no case shall the fee charged for any permit issued under this ordinance be less than $21.00. (2) Fee Schedule. Permit fees shall be paid to the City as set forth in the following schedule: CONTRACT PRICE % OF CONTRACT PRICE $0.00 to 500.00 2.75% 81 501.00 to 1,000.00 2.50% 1,001.00 to 5,000.00 2.25% 5,001.00 to 10,000.00 2.00% 10,001.00 to 25,000.00 1.75% 25,001.00 to 50,000.00 1.50% 50,001.00 and over 1.25% (State Surcharge is .0005 of electrical valuation under $1,000,000, or 50¢, whichever is greater. For valuations over $1,000,000, call Inspections Department for the surcharge fee.) All electrical permits for installation, replacement or repair shall be $35.00 + 1.75% of the contract price. Exception The following permits for single family dwellings defined as R-3 occupancies by the State Building Code. 1) Installation, replacement or repair of a single electrical appliance or device $35.00. Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 82 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8e* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *8e. Police Uniform Contract Two-year contract to supply the St. Louis Park Police Department with clothing, footwear, leather goods, flashlights, handcuffs, mace, ballistic vests and other uniform items. Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2001. Background: The current Police Uniform Contract with Uniforms Unlimited expires on December 31, 1999. During the past several years, only one vendor, Uniforms Unlimited, has submitted a bid for the police uniform contract. In 1993, a two-year contract was proposed in the hopes of encouraging bids from other vendors. It was also anticipated that a two-year contract would result in lower bid prices, as the vendor would have two years to sell items to the department, and the overall two-year average would be lower. The vendor would also have continuity in items purchased by the department and would be able to keep a larger inventory on hand. A two-year contract also reduces contract preparation by both staff and the vendor. Because of these benefits, a two-year contract has again been prepared for the years 2000-2001. Advertisements for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on November 10th and 17th, 1999. The bid opening was at 10:00 a.m. on November 30, 1999, at the City Hall Council Chambers. Only one bid was submitted, and it was complete as required. The name of the bidder is Uniforms Unlimited, the same vendor who has held the contract for the past 14 years. The amount budgeted for uniforms in the year 2000 is $47,200.00 which includes uniform items for officers, staff, CSO’s, Dispatchers, Reserves, Explorers and the Emergency Response Unit. The individual items in the bid have increases ranging from 0% to over 5%; however, the total increase is within the budgeted amount. Attachments: Bidding documents and rate schedule available for review in the City Clerk’s office. Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 83 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8f* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *8f. Resolution to Adopt the 2000 Budget This action is the final step in the budget process for the next fiscal year Recommended Action: Motion to approve resolution adopting the 2000 budget Background: The 2000 Proposed Budget document was presented to the City Council in August of this year. The budget hearing was held on December 6, 1999 as part of the regular Council meeting. State law required adoption of the budget and tax levy at a meeting subsequent to the public hearing on the budget. Approval of the property tax levy is done by separate Council action and is part of the agenda for this meeting. Attachments: Proposed resolution Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 84 RESOLUTION NO. 99-156 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2000 BUDGET WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve an annual budget for each fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget document for 2000; and WHEREAS, City Council has held the required public hearing on the budget and proposed tax levy for 2000; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the budget for 2000 is hereby approved; and the totals of the budget the major divisions thereof are as follows: Revenues: Appropriations: General Property Taxes 9,679,205$ Personal Services 18,885,896$ Business License Permits 328,500 Supplies, services and other charges 17,954,953 Non-Business License Permits 1,053,600 Capital Outlay 2,573,793 Intergovernmental 6,621,632 Transfers Out 1,884,913 Charges for Services 2,047,762 Total Appropriations 41,299,555 Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 381,742 Less Interfund Chrgs. & Transfers (5,447,361) Enterprise 9,234,903 Net Appropriations 35,852,194 Special Assessments 105,621 Miscellaneous Revenue 1,785,040 Refunds and Reimbursements 3,750,872 Fund Balance / Reserves-Dec 31 37,343,108 Transfers In 2,794,913 Total Revenues 37,783,790 Less: Interfund Chrgs. & Transfers (6,357,361) Net Revenue 37,783,790 Fund Balance / Reserves-Jan 1 41,768,873 Total Available 73,195,302$ Total Requirements 73,195,302$ * Transfer out is lower than transfer in by the $910,000 EDA transfer. AVAILABLE RESOURCES REQUIREMENTS and as supported by the detailed proposed budget document; and 85 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the City Manager be directed to cause the appropriate accounting entries to be made in the books of the City. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 86 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8g* Meeting of _December 20, 1999 *8g. Second Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for 2000 This action would increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%. Rates effective January 1, 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to waive second reading and approve summary ordinance for publication Background: This action provides for a two- percent (2%) rate increase for both water and sewer charges. The 2% increase applies for both the flat service charges as well as the volume charges. The proposed increase in considered an inflationary increase. No change is proposed in refuse rates in accordance with plans made when the rates were lowered when the service contract was changed. The City has provided for very moderate annual increases in the water and sewer rates. It is the City’s intent to increase rates a modest levels each year and at the same time provide for adequate levels of capital reserves. By maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves the need for extraordinary rate increases is avoided. Maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves also avoids the need to issue debt or otherwise borrow for necessary improvements to the utilities’ infrastructure systems. The “impact” of the rate increase is different for each customer. This is because a portion of the rate is volume-based. The more water consumed the higher the impact of the rate increase. The proposed increase for 2000 is the same percentage increase that was approved for 1999. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Summary notice for publication Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 87 ORDINANCE NO. 2152-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE 2000 WATER RATES, SECTION 9-101, AND THE 2000 SEWER RATES, SECTION 9-231 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Sec. 1. Section 9-101 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Rates. The rate due and payable to the City by each water user with the City for billings on or after January 1, 1999 2000 for water taken from the City water supply system shall be $.669 $.682 per 100 cubic feet. All charges for single and multiple-family dwelling users shall be determined and payable on a quarterly basis, and all charges for commercial, industrial and institutional users shall be determined and payable on a monthly or quarterly basis provided, however, that there shall be a service charge to each water user for each quarter year period during which water service is furnished as follows: Service Charges -- January 1,1999 2000 Meter Size 5/8 inch $3.49 $3.56 5.38 5.49 3/4 inch 3.92 4.00 6.54 6.67 1 inch 5.07 5.17 9.57 9.76 1 and 1/2 inch 7.47 7.62 16.17 16.49 2 inch 10.83 11.05 25.03 25.53 3 inch 19.05 19.43 47.13 48.07 4 inch 32.12 32.76 76.29 77.82 6 inch 62.07 63.31 149.52 152.51 8 inch 95.73 97.64 236.29 241.02 10 inch 131.44 134.07 318.51 324.88 12 inch 157.01 160.15 373.87 381.35 Water Rates--0.682 per 100 cubic feet Sewer Rates--1.42 per 100 cubic feet of water monthly service charge of $3.55 quarterly service charge of $10.65 Monthly Quarterly 88 In case the meter is found to have stopped or to be operating in a faulty manner, the amount of water used will be estimated in accordance with the amount previously used for the comparable period of the last previous year. Where service is for less than the billing period, the service charge will be prorated accordingly.” Sec. 2. Section 9-231 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Sewer Rental Rates. Charges for sewer service to residential and non-residential users within the City provided in Section 9-230 hereof for billings on or after January 1, 1999 2000 shall be: $1.39 $1.42 per 100 cubic feet of water consumption as measured during the winter quarter (or otherwise determined in Section 9-231 (1)), and a service charge of $3.48 $3.55 monthly, or $10.44 $10.65 quarterly per dwelling or account.” Sec. 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 89 Summary ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE WATER RATES, SECTION 9-101 AND T THE SEWER RATES, CECTION 9-231 Summary: This ordinance established the water and sewer rates for all utility bills generated on or after January 1, 2000. Both water and sewer rates will be increased by 2%. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be in effect 15 days following its publication Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Jeffrey Jacobs Mayor \s\ A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk Published in the Sun-Sailor December 29, 1999 90 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8h* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *8h. Resolution Approving the Property Tax Levy for 2000 Resolution approving the property tax levy for 2000. The total property tax levy proposed is 1.6% higher than the levy approved for 1999. The increase will generate an additional $199,629 to help support the City’s operating budget of $32 million next year. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution. Background: The Mayor and City Council’s receipt of the 2000 Proposed Budget document in August initiated a number of events which leads up to the final approval of the budget and tax levy for the new fiscal year. In September, the City Council approved a preliminary tax levy and budget and set the public hearing date. The approval of the tax levy is one of two final actions required. The other action is the adoption of the 2000 budget which follows the levy approval. Analysis: The final levy approved by the Council may not exceed the preliminary levy - the final levy amount detailed in the resolution is the same as the preliminary levy approved by the Council in September. The levy is at the levy limit imposed by the 1997 State Legislature for the levies in 1999 and 2000. As required by law, the amount specified in the resolution is net of the Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA). The increase in the levy - as detailed in the resolution and net of HACA - is 1.60%. 1999/00 Proposed vs. 1998/99 98/99 99/00 $% Gross Levy 12,373,887$12,573,516$199,629$1.60% Less: HACA (2,852,708)(2,897,551)44,843 1.60% Levy as Reported to the County 9,521,179$9,675,965$154,786$1.60% Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 91 RESOLUTION NO. 99-157 Resolution Approving the 1999 Tax Levy, Collectible in 2000 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 1999, collectible in 2000 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes: General Fund 7,620,277$ Parks & Recreation Fund 1,893,384 Parks Improvement Fund 52,838 G.O. Debt Service 109,466 Total 9,675,965$ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota, and to the Local Government Aids/Analysis Division, Department of Revenue, State of Minnesota, as required by law. Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Attest: City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 92 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8i* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *8i. Advancement of Funds from the MSA Account This report considers advancing funds from the City’s Municipal State Aid (MSA) account for repayment of the construction costs associated with Cedar Lake Road Phases I, II, and III and several other minor MSA financed projects. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution requesting the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to advance funds in the amount of $720,000 to repay MSA approved construction costs. Background: During 1995, 1996, and 1997 the City Council approved plans and specifications and authorized receipt of bids for the reconstruction of Cedar Lake Road Phase I, II, and III from Trunk Highway 169 to Quentin Avenue. That construction completed the reconstruction of Cedar Lake Road from Trunk Highway 169 to Quentin Avenue/Hwy. 100 east ramp. This project is one of the larger projects to be constructed in St. Louis Park at a cost of nearly 5.5 million dollars. A significant portion of the project costs were funded through expenditure of the City’s MSA funds. Prior to 1995, the City did not expend all its MSA funds in order to generate a fund balance in anticipation of the 1995-1997 Cedar Lake Road projects. However, due to the size of the Cedar Lake Road project, the fund balance was not able to finance the entire project. This was anticipated at the inception of the project. Considerations: A Mn/DOT funding mechanism became available in 1996 which allows the City to advance funds from future allocations to its MSA account at no interest. This advance may be done on an annual basis to a maximum amount of one years total MSA allocation. The City currently receives about $1,250,000 in MSA funds annually. Out of the money allocated, about $425,000 is used to fund maintenance activities on the City’s MSA system, leaving approximately $825,000 available for construction. It is anticipated that advancing funds will be necessary for 2000 through the year 2001 before the account balance becomes positive. Assuming no changes in this, the City will have about $500,000 of MSA funds available for additional projects in 2002 with about $825,000 available annually thereafter. Recommendation: It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached resolution requesting Mn/DOT advance funds in the amount of $720,000 from its 2000 allocation to fund past MSA construction costs in the City. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 93 RESOLUTION NO. 99-158 RESOLUTION REQUESTING ADVANCEMENT OF MUNICIPAL STATE AID FUNDS FOR MUNICIPAL STATE AID STREET PROJECTS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has designed and constructed approved Municipal State Aid Street Projects in 1995 through 1997 which will require State Aid Funds in excess of those available in its State Aid Construction Account; and WHEREAS, said City previously planned to proceed with the construction of said project(s) through the use of advance encumbrances from the general State Aid Construction Account to supplement the available funds in its State Aid Construction Account; and WHEREAS, repayment of the funds so advanced will be made in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 162.14, Subdivision 6 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8820. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission of Transportation be and is hereby requested to approve this advance for financing approved Municipal State Aid Street Projects of the City of St. Louis Park in an amount of $720,000 in accordance with Minnesota Rules 8820.1500, Subparagraph 9, and to authorize repayments from the following year’s accruals to the Construction Account of the Municipal State Aid Street fund for said City. Attest: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 94 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8j* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *8j. Amendment to Ordinance 1325 Second Reading of Ordinance amending the legal description for street vacation granted by Ordinance 1325 Dated March 1, 1976 Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of corrected ordinance to vacate a portion of Meadowbrook Road, adopt the ordinance and to authorize publication of summary ordinance. Background: On December 6, 1999, the City Council approved the first reading of the subject ordinance on behalf of a request from the property owner at 3938 Meadowbrook Road to correct the legal description for a street vacation granted by Ordinance 1325 in 1976. On March 1, 1976, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1325 vacating a portion of Meadowbrook Road north of the intersection of Oxford Street and Meadowbrook Road. 100 606 0 4 6 1068 0 N 6 4 3 6 'E 6080R=356.68R=276.68 C O M P A N Y 164.12VAC 3-9-7640 40 3333 30.6 60POWELL RD DOC NO 2890680 ADOWBROOK RDP A R K IN D U S T R IA L A D D N 1 2 CARLSON'S CREEKSIDE ADDN1 MINNEHAHA C R E E K 7 8 .0 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 8 0 2 2 8 100232.5763.848 5 .8 1 10081.57305 3 9 .6 9 643.7 175 4008 0 8 0 8 0226.92 27227.122 7.18 0 2 5 8 0 4 0 569.8 275.11 37.233 89.46N 6 4 3 7 'E R= 431.688 0 8 0 8 0227.3130239.3230.261 0 0 1 0 014 4 14 41 0 0 1 1 1 .1 4 468.6D=16 02'56"S28 25'WS50 05'E S50 05'E 15N50 05'W N89 59'E 153.25 80.12136.7851.37230.41 7 70235.11 159.66 3 0 94.57 170.08 237.35 9 N0 15'47"E1441 4 4310.91D=64 23'1441 4 4263.74 2 3 4 2 3 4 1 12 13 14 1 5 6 7 15 OL 1 OL 1 (3) (4) (4) (5) (6) (7) (2) (3) (4) (20) (21) (1) (2) (5) (6) (7) (8) (16) (9)(18)(19) 94 (4) # SUBJECT VACATEDSTREET O X F O R D S T R E E T 95 The property owner at 3938 Meadowbrook Road requested this correction when Hennepin County refused to include this vacated property on the certificate of title. Hennepin County refused stating that the original legal description included in Ordinance 1325 was ambiguous because it described a portion of Meadowbrook Road that, according to the map, was not intended to be vacated. The attached Ordinance amends the legal description so that it corresponds with the intent of the original right-of-way vacation. Attachments: Ordinance Ordinance Summary Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 96 ORDINANCE NO. 2153-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1325 ADOPTED ON MARCH 1, 1976 VACATING A STREET (portion of Meadowbrook Road north of the intersection of Oxford Street and Meadowbrook Road) THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. This ordinance amends Ordinance No. 1325 adopted on March 1, 1976 by correcting the legal description for the property to be vacated approved in said ordinance. Section 2. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the street proposed to be vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the street, and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on February 4, 1976 as directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the street is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said street be vacated. Section 3. The following described street, as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: That part of Meadowbrook Road dedicated in the plat of CARLSON’S CREEKSIDE ADDITION which lies north of a line drawn perpendicular to the West line of said road and passing through a point marking the most southerly corner of Lot 7, Block 1, PARK INDUSTRIAL ADDITION. reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park an easement over, and across all but the north 20 feet of the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, public utility and drainage purposes. Section 4. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. 97 Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 98 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2153-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1325 ADOPTED ON MARCH 1, 1976 VACATING A STREET (portion of Meadowbrook Road north of the intersection of Oxford Street and Meadowbrook Road) This ordinance amends the legal description for Ordinance No. 1325 adopted on March 1, 1976 so that it corresponds with the actual vacated right of way. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 29, 1999 99 Item # 9a* MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 10th, 1999 Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg, Judith Moore and Shone Row MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson and Paula Jordan OTHERS PRESENT: League of Women Voters Representative 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes Board minutes omitted from the October Board meeting in error will be approved at December 15th Board Meeting. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business : None 6. New Business: a. Action Plan Update - Year 2000 Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Moore and Row were in favor of tabling the Action Plan Update - Year 2000 until the December 10th board meeting because of their desire to have a more lengthy review and discussion on this item. 100 b. Cooperation Agreement - Resolution No. 465 Ms. Schnitker stated that staff is requesting that the Board adopt Resolution No. 465, authorizing the execution of the Cooperation Agreement with the City of St. Louis Park for the development and administration of the twelve MHOP units (Metropolitan Housing Opportunity Program) referred to as Hollman Units. This Cooperation Agreement is specifically for the twelve Hollman Units at the Louisiana Court Development. This agreement must be in place in order for Project in Pride in Living to obtain the $859,000 in funding from the MHOP Program to finance the twelve units. This agreement will be brought to the City Council at the December 6th meeting. Ms. Schnitker stated that the agreement states that during the exemption period, the municipality, on behalf of the taxing bodies, agrees that it will not levy or impose any real or personal property taxes upon the MHOP Units or upon the Authority. The Authority shall cause the owner to make annual payments in lieu of taxes ("PILOT") in payment for the public services and facilities furnished from time to time without other cost or charge for or with respect to the MHOP Units. On this project the taxes will be approximately two to four thousand dollars per year, this is approximately 5% of the shelter rent. The shelter rent is defined as the dwelling rents minus the utility expenses. Commissioner Gothberg moved to approve Cooperation Agreement Resolution No. 465. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. Commissioner Courtney added an amendment to Resolution No. 465 in the second phrase, paragraph two. The second phrase is to read: That the Chairman and Executive Director are hereby authorized and directed to execute said Cooperation Agreement, in quadruplicate, on behalf of said Housing Authority of St. Louis Park. Resolution No. 465, as amended, was accepted on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Moore and Row voting in favor. c. Snowplowing Contract Award Sharon Anderson reported that the current contract with Pro-Lawn Services, was to expire on May 31, 2000. The contractor submitted a letter on August 27, 1999, giving the Authority a thirty-day termination of their contract, stating that they have discontinued their snow removal operations in this area. Proposals were submitted to several contractors for this service with Paragon Lawns submitting the only proposal. They provide the same service for Westwood Convalescent Center and the Center is pleased with Paragon's service. 101 Staff is recommending that the Board approve the two-year contract to Paragon Lawns at the listed fees. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the snowplowing contract with Paragon Lawns for Hamilton House. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Moore and Row voting in favor. d. PH Leasing Occupancy Policy Revisions - Resolution No. 466 Ms. Schnitker reported that the HUD rule states that the HA's admission plan "must be designed to provide for a deconcentration of poverty and income mixing". Last month the Board approved a resolution stating that the current LOP met the (Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act) QHWRA requirement for deconcentration. The policy revisions will enable the HA to meet the HUD requirements for income targeting and income mixing, and requirements for the treatment of income changes resulting from welfare program requirements. Ms. Schnitker stated that at this time staff is recommending two LOP revisions; 1. A statement that the HA will comply with the income targeting requirements of QHWRA; 40% of households admitted in a fiscal year must have incomes below 30% of the area median income; and 2. A statement that a family's monthly contribution to rent will not be decreased where a decrease in income is the result of noncompliance with the conditions of public assistance or where public assistance is decreased due to an act of fraud by a member of the family. Staff is recommending that the Board approve the resolution authorizing the revisions to the LOP to include the provisions on: income targeting" and "income changes resulting from welfare program requirements". Commissioner Moore moved to approve Resolution No. 466. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion passed with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Gothberg, Moore and Row voting in favor. e. Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) Advisory Score Ms. Schnitker reported to the Board that the St. Louis Park HA received its HUD advisory score under the new Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS). The score is a composite of scores for four indicators based on a 102 physical inspection of the HA properties by a HUD independent contractor and Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) indicator scores previously submitted. The PHAS Advisory score for the St. Louis Park HA is 84.3. The Authority's current score under PHMAP is 100. Ms. Schnitker stated that the most significant point reduction was received in the physical inspection component. A HUD independent contractor based this component on the inspections of a random sampling of our properties. For measuring and grading purposes, each deficiency noted by the inspector was further broken down into two areas, critical and severe. Ms. Schnitker further stated that staff is proceeding to address deficiencies noted on the inspection reports with a priority being placed on items that were graded as severe. The advisory score will be used as a tool to prepare for the final implementation of PHAS to ensure that we maintain our "High Performance" status. A score of 90 or above will continue to be required. f. Ottawa Development Agreement Not available 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No 99-11 Ms. Schnitker explained the new format of the report, which was completed by the Accounting Department using the newly purchased software. The Board asked that titles be added to the top section of the report identifying Public Housing, Section 8 Certificates and Section 8 Vouchers along with more information under the description column. Commissioner Gothberg moved to approve Claims List No. 99-11. Commissioner Row seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Moore, Gothberg and Row voting in favor. b. Communications (1) Monthly Report for November, 1999 The report was accepted and filed. (2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House Report Sharon Anderson noted that at this time there was nothing significant to 103 report to the Board at this time. (3) Home Renewal Program Habitat Program Update Kathy Larson reported that staff had hoped to have a development agreement for the 2929 Ottawa property. The bids went out and only one proposal was received which was $15,000 less than the appraised value of the lot; therefore the offer was rejected. The bids will be let out again. Ms. Schnitker reported that staff's plan is to lower the price of the lot and extend the bidding time. Builders indicated that adding the cost of new construction to the existing purchase price of the lot would diminish their profit considerably in today's market. These factors resulted in the low number of bids received. Many individuals showed interest in the lot and were given a list of contractors who may be willing to work with them on new construction. (4) Perspectives Video Ms. Schnitker noted that because of the Housing Authority tour today, along with the Board meeting, time did not allow for viewing the Perspectives video. The video could be viewed at a later date. (5) Action Plan Update The Board requested that the Action Plan Update be tabled until the December 15th meeting, in order to provide adequate time for discussion of the Action Plan. The Board agreed to start the meeting at 4:30 p.m. 8. Other Ms. Schnitker reported on the 1999 CIAP Award Letter. Under the modernization program, HUD awarded the Authority $241,287 for fiscal year 1999. 9. Adjournment Commissioner Gothberg moved to adjourn. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. Commissioners' Gavzy, Moore, Row, Gothberg and Courtney voted in favor. Respectfully Submitted _________________________ Shone Row Secretary 104 Item # 9b* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 1, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Carver, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Michelle Bissonnette STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Tom Kleve, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson, Greg Ingraham, Consultant 1. Call to Order – Roll Call Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of November 3, 1999 Mr. Carver moved approval of the minutes of November 3, 1999. The motion passed 5- 0-1 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Timian and Velick voting in favor and Morris abstaining. 3. Hearings: A. Case No. 99-28-S -- Request of Novartis Nutrition for Preliminary and Final Plat approval for Novartis Addition; and Case No. 99-29-CUP -- Request of Novartis Nutrition for an amendment to a continued special permit to permit more than one building on a lot at 5320 W. 23rd Street; and Case No. 99-30-VAC -- Request of Novartis Nutrition to vacate a portion of West 24th Street Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented the staff report. She stated that in regard to the Special Permit amendment, staff has not had an opportunity to analyze the proposed building addition. For the preliminary and final plat there are a number of revisions that are required for accuracy and consistency with the requirements of the subdivision ordinance. She stated that staff is recommending that all three of the requests be continued until the December 15, 1999 Planning Commission. Mr. Timian asked if there is an issue with the fire trucks if the road is vacated. 105 Ms. Peterson stated that there would not be an issue with the fire trucks since the fire department would still have adequate access to the property through Utica Avenue and 23rd Street. Chair Morris opened the public hearing. Brian Ruhl, 2220 Ridge Drive, Sunset Ridge condominiums asked “Does this have to do then simply with the location near the Win Stevens area. I guess one of the concerns that I have, one of many I should say, is with regard to the potential for future noise problems coming from Novartis. I have called over there a number of times in the past. A couple of years ago, I dealt with a person who I would guess I would call a liaison for the company and we talked about the issue of noise that was emanating from the rear or north side of their building. He addressed that problem and said that they were going to be doing their best to insulate to take care of a fan type or blowing type sound problem. He was wonderful to work with, but he is now gone, I believe, from the company and the noise has since reoccurred and increased. To me, simply by the fact that we live there, it is an ongoing issue with us and we would like to have it addressed”. Chair Morris asked if staff would comment on any noise issues regarding this. Maybe the issue could be addressed when the special permit is considered. Ms. Peterson stated that staff would have the Inspections Department look into the complaint as to whether it is violating a noise ordinance. That would be the first step. If it is not actually violating a noise ordinance, perhaps there is some other means of asking them to reduce the noise. Chair Morris asked Mr. Ruhl if there is a specific time reference that the problem occurs. Mr. Ruhl stated that it is an evening problem with the noise levels. Daryl MacIntosh, 2551 Xenwood Avenue, stated “I am concerned about the height of the new structure, noise level, and the odor (Ovaltine). Secondarily, the flood plain back in that area and how that road is going to be affecting that. I would like to hear comments on that”. Chair Morris stated that the odor is a valid point. Like McGarvey coffee, Novartis has a distinctive fragrance that emanates by reason of their operation. Some people may like mocha vanilla and certain flavors that come out, but other people find objection or have allergies and are sensitive to those scents and smells. Odor and emission may be an environmental issue. I do see that occasionally the front of the building is coated in a white powder and I am not certain if that is environmentally correct or not. I would like to know if that is in conformance with our other ordinances. 106 Ken Dube, 2550 Webster Avenue, “I would like to make a couple requests, that people speak more loudly and I would like to suggest on future mailings that staff include a drawing of the area so we can see more clearly what is proposed”. Chair Morris stated that he believes that when residents receive a notice that it does say on their notice that there is a plan available to see at the City Clerk’s office rather than mailing those plans out since they are rather large and extensive sometimes. Jan Loftus, Administrative Secretary indicated that the above statement is not on the notice. Chair Morris recommended that staff include on the notices that that plan is available at City Hall for review. Chair Morris asked if there is any one else wishing to speak at the hearing. Since there was not, without closing the hearing Chair Morris brought the discussion back to the Commissioners. Mr. Timian asked when the Commissioners would hear back on the environmental issues on this project. Ms. Peterson indicated that the Commission would hear back on the environmental issues at the next meeting on December 15th. Mr.Gothberg moved to continue the Public Hearing to the next Planning Commission Meeting on December 15, 1999 meeting. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. 4. Old Business - None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda B. Other New Business i. Establishment of Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1 Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator, presented the staff report and recommended approval of the resolution finding the Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 107 Chair Morris asked if the Commission’s scope of review is limited to conformance to the Comprehensive Plan or is this a time to bring questions regarding the TIF District to the forefront. Mr. Kleve stated that he would entertain any questions related to the TIF District, but the review tonight is specific to whether or not the district is in conformance with the plan. Mr. Garelick asked that since this site is in such close proximity to the Honeywell site, are there plans or thoughts of a possible joint connection because that land is vacant at this time. Will that land eventually turn into something like this, could it be done? Mr. Kleve indicated that at this time there is not a plan to connect the Honeywell site to this site. This is a stand alone project as proposed and is not tied to any future redevelopment on the Honeywell site. Mr. Gothberg asked if the dedicated park land is going to be maintained by the City as that part of this plan. Mr. Kleve stated that the park land will be dedicated park land that will be maintained by the City and will be a City park. Mr. Gothberg asked that on the concept plan it shows a lot of parking spaces along the southwestern edge of West 16th Street adjacent to the park site. Are those parking places primarily for the park or are they included in parking for the proposed townhomes? Mr. Kleve stated that the Commissioners would actually have an opportunity to review some of those questions during the PUD process when the Commission will have another opportunity to look at the site plan. I am not well versed in the issues of the parking and I don’t know if anyone else from the Planning Staff is prepared to discuss that tonight. Chair Morris stated that Mr. Gothberg was going to a question that he was going to ask. He asked if approving the TIF with the concept plan shown in here commits the Commission to this specific plan. We are looking at this drawing and maybe not wanting to see some things that are on here, but this is what is being proposed. Are we committed to just the Comprehensive Plan or if this drawing that is in here is part of it, are we limited in the scope of the TIF to include this drawing. Mr. Gothberg stated that it is really his concern that part of the Comprehensive Plan was to make sure that a neighborhood park is included that is very accessible to the neighborhood as a whole and, if that parking along the south side is intended for additional parking for the townhomes, then I don’t feel that really 108 meets the requirements or the scope of the Comprehensive Plan. A better location for the parking would be up within the townhouse district maybe along the north side of the park site with the park extending all the way to the street. I also have a concern about the location of the pond in the southwest corner because between the parking and the pond location, it tends to reflect the park site as being part of the townhouse as opposed to a neighborhood park. I much prefer to see the pond on the northwest corner of that park area just to make sure that it is truly a neighborhood park as opposed to being perceived as a townhouse park. I think that really is the jist of my questions. Mr. Gothberg stated that one other question that I have is when I drove through there yesterday, West 16th Street appears to be pretty narrow and I refreshed my memory on the Comprehensive Plan. It states that if new development is accessed from 16th Street it will require the dedication of additional right of way. I noticed on this plan that it appears that the cross street appears in direct alignment with West 16th Street where in actuality today 16th Street is slightly offset. I am not sure if this plan addresses the issue of a wider road way with that access off of West 16th Street or not. In reality, if today I am supposed to say that this concept plan meets the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan, in my opinion what we are seeing today does not really meet the direction of the Comprehensive Plan which is really the root issue with respect to my questions. Mr. Kleve stated that I think all you are doing tonight is approving the general concept, the idea of having medium density residential on the southern portion of the site and then the hotel use on the northern portion of this site. Specific issues of parking and how the site is going to be finally laid out will be on the site plan which can actually change and you will be able to see the parking configuration and how the site will be laid out in the PUD. You will have another shot at this. Basically, what we are addressing tonight is whether or not the concept is in conformance with the plan, the concept being medium density residential in the southern portion of the site and the hotel use on the northern portion of the site. Ms. Jeremiah stated that it would be appropriate to address, as part of the Commission’s recommendation, any modification to this concept plan or to basically call attention to different parts of the Comprehensive Plan that you want addressed as they are refining their plan. Although I don’t disagree with Mr. Kleve’s statements that this is basically a general finding, I still think it is appropriate to make those statements since these plans have been before you a couple of times now and you will have the opportunity to review them in more detail. At any point of the process where you feel that it isn’t fully complying with the Comprehensive Plan, I think it is appropriate for you to state that. Mr. Gothberg stated that this is my point. I think we basically agree with the rezoning approval with the concept of having townhomes at the southern edge of the property and development on the northern edge. If this concept was not included and the discrepancies with what is shown on the concept versus the Comprehensive Plan, I don’t think I would have raised the questions, but I think 109 the concept plan definitely does not reflect the total scope of the Comprehensive Plan so its really a matter of what we say we are approving or not agreeing with. Chair Morris stated he is in favor with Mr. Gothberg’s comments. I agree that when I looked at the concept plan I started nit-picking and I saw things I didn’t want to see and that is why I initially asked the question about why we are here this evening. I do feel that we have to express some changes that we may see reflected. My immediate concern is with what Mr. Gothberg said in that the layout of the proposed park does seem to be more of a townhome park than it would be a community park being separated by the townhouse, railroad, the row of parking and the pond. It seems to be just isolated where it is and not street friendly at all. I also noted that the parking on West 16th Street leaves no pedestrian access to the park unless you go through the townhouse complex so I see a lot of issues with the park dedication in general. I have some questions related to traffic circulation and access points but that is nothing other than the general concept of the park. I believe that two of the Commissioners and the sentiment of the Commission is that we want to look at the PUD with a different view to the TIF District. Mr. Timian asked if the concept is supposed to be a pocket park. Ms. Peterson stated that as it is shown right now the park area including the pond site is about 1.4 acres which is certainly larger than what is there today and would provide for a nice neighborhood park. The Park and Recreation Department is hoping to work with neighborhood to find out what they would like to have in the park. They are thinking about something along the lines of maybe a ball field that is not regulation size, but would allow for neighborhood games, maybe some trails and that kind of thing. Ms. Velick asked whether or not staff envisions, or is hopeful that in the future, communities such as this with park and townhomes could be seen on the opposite corner by the Honeywell site and, if so, is it zoned for that. Ms. Jeremiah indicated that the vacant portion of the Honeywell site is zoned C-2 Commercial, however you can do a substantial amount of housing in our Commercial districts and we have promoted that idea on the Honeywell site. There has been a restriction placed on that property through private negotiations that the City was not party to and that is an operations agreement with Home Depot which had restricted the use of that site as residential. That has been the major stumbling block to getting this type of development on the Honeywell site. There has been a number of residential developers who have expressed interest in that site and the City will continue to work with the property owners involved to see if we can bring that to fruition, however they are still exploring the possibility of another big box on that site and you may see a proposal come before you for that. We can’t necessarily control the types of proposal that come forward for that property. 110 In answer to a question from Ms. Velick for clarification of Home Depot’s affect on other builders on the site next to theirs, Ms. Jeremiah stated that Home Depot actually owns their portion of the Honeywell site and there are a number of different property owners. Arby’s owns their site and Ryan Companies owns the substantial remainder of the site. Those parties have entered into an Operations and Maintenance Agreement and one of Home Depot’s conditions of that agreement is that the future development on the vacant site would be retail and not be housing or some other use which is the restriction that is an issue. The City is not party to that and it is not related to zoning of the site which would allow residential. Chair Morris stated I’m not sure Commissioner Velick if you were on the Commission when Home Depot and the whole Honeywell site were under consideration. One of the discussion items was that Zarthan Avenue had aging single family residential and by bringing some residential into the Honeywell site, we could stimulate development of the Zarthan Avenue and a few blocks in that area and upgrade housing. Because of the way the housing stock was, it is possible that by stimulating townhomes and residential to the north and West 16th Street we can start bracketing an aging neighborhood and maybe bring that into some kind of new housing function. There was a question on consideration of who would buy houses facing the rear of a Home Depot and that is why the berming and landscaping went in to make it more attractive for housing on the west side of Zarthan. In general, that was the discussion that was held at the time of the Honeywell site approvals. Mr. Garelick asked how it is that a private enterprise has more affect on zoning than the City can for a specific lot. Ms. Jeremiah stated that I don’t know if I can fully answer that, but basically their agreement is not in conflict with our zoning because retail is clearly allowed on the site and in fact we gave concept approval to an additional 110,000 square feet of retail on that site. As you have all seen, it has laid dormant for a number of years and we see that the market doesn’t appear to be strong for uses in that category, but Home Depot is holding out for a similar use. I shouldn’t say similar because they wouldn’t want competition, but there are other provisions that prevent certain types of retail on that site. Apparently this is legal and perhaps if our foresight had been 20-20, there may have been a way for the City to prevent them from entering into that type of agreement. We were not aware of it at the time and didn’t make any type of condition. Mr. Garelick stated as a point of information. I don’t know if it was in the Star Tribune, but there was a report on the big boxes nationally and what they were saying is that the trend of big boxes is out and what the individual neighborhoods and cities are going for now are small shopping centers where the neighbors can basically shop with a neighborhood feel. So maybe somewhere down the road 111 when we have our choices again between a big box and a little neighborhood, experience has shown us what can and cannot happen. Chair Morris stated that we have a staff recommendation to approve and find that the TIF District is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gothberg made a motion that we find the concept of having townhomes on the southern portion of the site and the hotel development on the northern portion of the site does meet the Comprehensive Plan, however the concept plan as shown with the arrangement of the park site and some of the parking does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Morris stated that as an editorial comment, the resolution that was prepared by staff should also include another whereas to the affect that the Planning Commission approves the TIF District and finds it in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, but there are elements of the TIF relating to the park that we do not find in conformance. Chair Morris asked if that additional whereas would impair the approval of the TIF District. Ms. Jeremiah stated that she would suggest that rather than having basically a split finding, that you make a conditional finding. In other words, you would find that the modifications are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan subject to your review of the detailed project through the PUD process, so you are basically putting them on notice that you will probably be requesting design changes to the detailed plan, but the general parameters to the project with regard to density and the types of uses are in conformance. Again, I would state that the modifications are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan subject to potential changes that would be recommended to the site design through the PUD process. Chair Morris asked if the suggested amendment is acceptable to the maker of the motion. Mr. Gothberg indicated that the amendment is acceptable. Mr. Carver stated that he will vote for the motion as amended because, if you refer to the Comprehensive Plan, it specifically states that the park is shown in the Comprehensive Plan in a particular place, but it also says that there will not need to be a Comprehensive Plan amendment if the park is moved around. What we originally contemplated is that the development of this particular plot may require the movement of the park around. While I agree with Mr. Gothberg’s statements concerning making sure that the park does come out looking like a community park rather than looking like a wholly owned park of the townhomes there, I think what is generally being proposed is in conformance with what the Comprehensive Plan requires. For what it is worth, I think the idea of having the park down toward the railroad tracks isn’t such a bad idea simply because when you play in the park and play ball it’s not a bad idea to be away from where you 112 have two streets crossing. Although it is true that it won’t be as visible and while I certainly agree with the comments about parking places sort of isolating it, I think it’s general location as a concept is not all bad. Mr. Kleve stated that from his perspective he would prefer that the Commission approve the resolution as written with noted comments because, technically, the site plan is really not part of the TIF plan. Staff included it in the report for lack of a better map show how the site should be laid out. Normally, when you approve a TIF Plan you are approving the boundaries of the district and the general layout of the district as to north and south and how it would lay as to the uses as are proposed. I would like to suggest that we stay with the resolution as presented to make sure we are covered and are following the statues as our finding. I don’t think it is a big issue if we would add the comments Ms. Jeremiah has mentioned, but I prefer to stick with the resolution as printed if possible. Chair Morris stated that the plan that we are looking at is listed as Appendix B which describes it as only as a boundary map of the redevelopment project. In support of Mr. Kleve’s request, to get the TIF project on tract and going without some tenuous type of maybes, if we just approved that the proposal submitted to us is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan having noted that the boundary map contains a layout that is not totally acceptable, but knowing full well that it will come forward as a PUD. That would get the Comprehensive Plan conformity for the TIF without bringing up the whole issue of what it is going to look like in the future. He asked if the maker of the motion would care to either withdraw the motion or amend your own motion. Mr. Gothberg withdrew his motion. Chair Morris stated that staff recommends that the Commission accept the resolution as drafted by staff which would set up a TIF District and that the Commission would be reviewing a PUD at a later date. Ms. Velick moved to adopt the resolution finding the proposed establishment of Zarthan Avenue/16th Street Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 to be in conformance with the general plans for development and redevelopment as described in the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park.. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. Mr. Gothberg also recommended that staff work closely with the Park and Recreation Department as well as, the neighborhood group relative to the actual layout of the park and any parking as early as possible because that may facilitate things when we get to the PUD. Chair Morris asked staff if there is a time frame for the PUD. 113 Ms. Peterson indicated that it is quite possible that the Commission would see a PUD in about 2-3 months, since there are some additional issues to be worked out. ii. Case No. 99-32-RE -- Sale of public land to the Jewish Community Center (JCC) Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented the staff report and stated that staff recommends approval of a resolution finding that the sale of a portion of the property is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Garelick asked who sponsored the appraisal on the property back in February, 1999 and what actually is the purchase price that we are looking for. He asked if it is fair market value at this point determining the value of the property. Ms. Peterson stated that she didn’t know who sponsored the appraisal, but as far as the purchase price goes, it is something under a half a million dollars, about $300,000 - $400,000. She provided computations for the appraisal value. She stated that the Community Development department does believe that this is fair market value. The purchase price is the value that has been appraised. Ms. Velick asked if the City will then pay for the storm sewer pipes that need to be replaced. Ms. Peterson stated that at this point there are no pipes that need to be replaced, it’s just that the City would need to retain easements for the property where the existing pipes are located and if they needed to be replaced in the future the City would bear the cost of that. Mr. Timian asked if the City would be purchasing land somewhere else to replace that land for park. Ms. Peterson stated that this is currently not considered City park land and she does not believe there would be plans to acquire the same amount of property elsewhere. Chair Morris stated that by the resolution the Commission is being asked to determine whether the sale of the land is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. What I am hearing, and what my own questions are, is more to the issue of should we or shouldn’t we sell it and if we are getting a good deal for it. It is appropriate for the Commission to make comments on the sale to put in the record, but I don’t know that we have any jurisdiction in saying that it is not a good sales price. Ms. Peterson indicated that this is correct. 114 Chair Morris stated that we are finding that Parcel B has no public purpose, but our report is that we need a trail, sewer easement, and we need to get to and from Parcel A which is going to have a storm pond on it. Are we developing a public need for the property. I have a discrepancy in my mind that we are saying we really don’t need it all for everything that people may think it is used for so it could be sold, but we need to keep part of it. It is not a clear cut issue of whether or not it is in conformance. Another issue is that if you are going to have a land locked Parcel A with a storm pond on it you better have an access road to get to and from it, so just a storm easement for the pipes doesn’t get you to and from your pond. I question when we are going to develop these matters of the easements, trail, access to Parcel A. If we find that the sale is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan will something come back to the Planning Commission regarding the division of the parcel or the easements to be retained. Ms. Peterson stated that the concept plan that the JCC has put forward to the City Council as part of their request to purchase this property includes using this property for a parking lot expansion that would accommodate a building expansion on their part of the property. In light of that, what City staff is recommending is that this is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan because there would be easements over the existing utilities which would enable Public Works to get into those utilities when needed for repair and replacement. If a trail is needed in this area, it is not known at all if a trail would be desired over this area in the future. It would be over the utility easement and access to Parcel A would actually be over the utility easement. Community Development staff is comfortable that provided that those easements remain in place this would protect the public space that is needed for Parcel B. As far as this coming back to the Commission, any expansion by the JCC would require a replatting to combine Parcel B with their parcel and the replatting would also need to address the fact that parcel A is a landlocked parcel and providing access to Parcel A. At that time the Planning Commission would have the opportunity to continue to ensure that the public purpose is met on both of those lots and to ensure that an expansion is not in conflict with that. Mr. Gothberg noted that there is a trail through that parcel into the woods and it is obviously a well used trail. When you have a dirt trail through the woods as beaten down as well as this one, you know it is getting a lot of use. My viewpoint is that there will definitely need to be a trail and relative to the resolution I personally believe the sale is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. However, we could solve the problem by changing the language in the resolution and instead of saying “and is no longer needed for a public purpose provided the necessary easements are retained by the City”, delete “is no longer needed for a public purpose”. Maybe stipulating the easements that need to be retained by the City. 115 Chair Morris indicated that if we take that language out we are not fulfilling the purpose of the resolution. We have to say that it is no longer needed for a public purpose, otherwise we are stating it is and that is contrary to the sale. I will ask staff for an interpretation on that. Ms. Peterson indicated that Chair Morris is correct on the interpretation. Ms. Jeremiah stated that the idea is that ownership of the property is no longer necessary for a public purpose and you already have the contingency in there provided that the necessary easements are retained by the City. We don’t see a need to actually own the property outright and that would be the finding. Chair Morris noted that he was on the Commission when the previous plan came through and the Cedar Lake Trail had not been put in yet. There were questions as to which side of the track it was going to be on, so there were reasons why the Planning Commission didn’t consider a sale of the property at that time because there were undeveloped park trail issues. Another issue that was raised was that residents on the other side of the railroad tracks were concerned about the loss of trees related to visibility. These issues have been thought about and talked about in the past and we’ll see what comes through at the community level. Mr. Carver stated that we should not get too caught up in retaining the easements since there are easements all over the City. The distinction to make is that the ownership of the land by the City is what is no longer needed and I am convinced that is the case from what we have been told. It seems that the City gets a good deal if they can sell the property and retain a trail easement on it. Mr. Carver moved to approve a resolution finding that the sale of a portion of City owned property located south of the Jewish Community Center is not in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park and that the property in questions is no longer needed for public use. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Morris, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. iii. Review of Park Commons EAW Ms. Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor, introduced Greg Ingraham, Consultant from Ingraham and Associates, who prepared the working draft of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Park Commons East redevelopment project. Mr. Ingraham presented a broad summary of the draft of the Park Commons EAW and reviewed the Park Commons East drawing for discussion. Mr. Garelick asked that when the developers initially presented the property usage of the site plan, they indicated that in order for their profit stream to be the 116 greatest, the property would all be rental. Is this the same course that is coming in here? Mr. Ingraham indicated that from an environmental review it does not matter whether it is rental or owner-occupied housing, but stated that the EAW has been prepared with a “worst case scenario” assumption of the potential density of the project. He indicated that there are no significant environmental issues, but explained that the following items were focused on: the presence of underground fuel tanks, increased traffic (level of service will actually remain the same with the exception of Ottawa/Excelsior where a signal is being proposed which will improve the level of service), and air quality (project meets all of the MN air quality standards). Mr. Gothberg asked if there is anything with respect to the development that once the review period is completed that Mr. Ingraham might envision might change with development that could trigger a re-review of the proposal. Mr. Ingraham stated that only if there is a major change in development or the development went away and you had to start over. Mr. Gothberg asked why the item related to architectural/historical resources on or in proximity to the site hasn’t been checked off yet. Mr. Ingraham indicated that this has now been checked off and really there is a formal process where we have submitted photos of the existing structures to the State Historic Preservation Office. They have about a one month lag time for turn around. We got a letter back about two days ago that we are fine on this issue. Mr. Garelick asked why EAWs are not done more and should this be standard policy for cities who are actually looking at big growth facilities. Mr. Ingraham stated that he believes they are a good tool, but the thresholds are relatively low and are not the most cost effective way for smaller projects to look at environmental assessment. Ms. Jeremiah stated that it is possible for the City to undertake a discretionary EAW even if the thresholds are not met. Rather than do a full scale EAW, staff recommends a traffic study, storm water issues, and review of other aspects of EAW, but rarely require a full blown EAW unless it meets the thresholds. Chair Morris asked for clarification of unacceptable contaminants listed in Appendix B. He asked which way did the ground water flow and about the discovery of a debris field during the Wolfe Park improvements. Mr. Ingraham stated that the ground water flows diagonal across the site and the levels would not be disturbed or utilized for this. He indicated that the debris 117 field did not show up on this site so the boundary of that must have been below the hill. Ms. Jeremiah stated that a lot of the homes in the Wolfe Park area were built subsequent to the dumping activity in the 1950’s which was basically filling historical wetlands. 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action - November 15, 1999 B. Planning Seminar • Feedback • Legal Basis for Planning in Minnesota C. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes for October 28, 1999 D. Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda for November 30, 1999 E. Other 7. Miscellaneous - None 8. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 118 Item # 9c* December 10, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 256.30 ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 787.33 ALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 237.50 ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 79.20 ANCHOR PAPER CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 815.39 ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY EQUIPMENT PARTS 31.56 APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 310.77 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 563.35 ASPHALT SURFACE TECH CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 54,980.88 BAHE, DALLAS UNREALIZED REVENUE 100.00 BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 66.25 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 130.97 BLOMBERG, JIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 110.20 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 294.51 BOWKER, JACQUELINE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 39.02 BRIEFINGS PUBLISHING GROUP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 89.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BUNKER PARK STABLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 187.73 CITY OF PLYMOUTH TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 1,540.00 COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,392.96 CONSTRUCTION BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 386.14 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,269.44 DAHLING, KEITH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 145.76 DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 360.00 DB DIRECT INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.00 DELEGARD TOOL CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 84.89 DIVERSIFIED INSPECTIONS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 656.00 EGAN FIELD & NOWAK INC LICENSES/TAXES 720.00 ELAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 43.71 119 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 95.85 ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 EMED COMPANY INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 211.92 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 6,021.61 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 5,722.21 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.75 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FASTENAL COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.38 FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,490.99 FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.42 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 2,191.83 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,010.34 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GOODYEAR BRAD RAGAN TIRE & SER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 205.23 GRAINGER INC, W W EQUIPMENT PARTS 38.12 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,872.74 HANSEN, MARTIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 208.42 HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 115.47 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,091.92 HEIM, JAMES K SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 200.00 HENN CO ACCOUNTING SERVICES SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 7,501.62 HENN CTY CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSN SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 773.75 HENNESSY, CHARLES GENERAL SUPPLIES 134.98 HOME HARDWARE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 354.95 ICE SKATING INSTITUTE OF AMERI GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.50 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00 IMC SALT INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 6,397.06 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 826.44 J & F REDDY RENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,074.40 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,137.46 120 JOHNSTON-MADISON, CLAUDIA M OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 122.81 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 9.32 KENNEDY & GRAVEN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 790.18 KEVITT EXCAVATING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 103,256.34 KILBY, PAT GENERAL SUPPLIES 202.95 KILLMER ELECTRIC CO OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 13,021.17 KOVAL APPLIANCE CO NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 307.79 LARSON, TOM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 LAWRENCE, RANDY GENERAL SUPPLIES 41.63 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 47,108.25 LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES LICENSES/TAXES 580.10 LENOX NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 595.84 LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 24,046.18 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,121.75 MC KOWN, SCOTT GENERAL SUPPLIES 155.00 METRO SYSTEMS NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,879.87 METROCALL TELEPHONE 7.24 MINN ASSOC OF ASSESSING OFFICE OTHER ADVERTISING 250.00 MINNEAPOLIS PARK AND RECREATIO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 25.00 MINNEAPOLIS WINDOW SHADE CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 89.32 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 222.84 MURPHY, KATHY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 213.28 MUSKA ELECTRIC CO ELECTRICAL 39.00 NADEAU UTILITY INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 48,350.33 NAHRO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 220.00 NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 242.58 NATIONAL EMERGENCY NUMBER ASSO SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 75.00 NELSON, RICK Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 220.00 NORTH STAR INTERNATIONAL TRUCK EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 40.02 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,380.24 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 25,766.68 NYSCA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 OESTREICH, MARK MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 213.28 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 41.26 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 713.31 ON SITE SANITATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 220.65 121 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46 PALM BROTHERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.00 PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 57.84 PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00 PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,263.09 PERFORMANCE OFFICE PAPERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 80.83 PERSONNEL DECISIONS INTERNATIO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 963.71 PLATZER, DWAYNE GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.26 PRECISION BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,068.84 PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 816.00 QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 168.68 RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.25 RIGID HITCH INCORPORATED EQUIPMENT PARTS 166.01 RILEY DETTMANN & KELSEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,209.92 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 326.29 SANFORD, WALLACE Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 300.00 SAVOIE SUPPLY CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 213.18 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10 SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT SERVICES PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 280.00 SEMPLE EXCAVATING DEPOSITS PAYABLE 500.00 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 669.89 SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.97 ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 13,209.31 STANDARD SIDEWALK INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 7,351.72 STENDEL, HARLAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 83.94 STEVENS, JEFF Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 104.03 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.00 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 81.81 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 881.75 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,006.45) TARGET/DAYTONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 34.46 TENNANT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 537.47 THE BOX COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 316.45 THOMAS & SONS CONST OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 22,582.24 TKDA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 399.00 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 5,567.66 TREADWAY GRAPHICS GENERAL SUPPLIES 137.80 TRU VALUE EQUIPMENT PARTS 17.82 TURKINGTON, ARLENE OTHER CONTRACTUAL 98.93 122 SERVICES U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 41.40 UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 221.31 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 180.00 VOSS LIGHTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 334.61 WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 57.34 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 2,943.10 WAYTEK EQUIPMENT PARTS 38.07 WESTWOOD SPORTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,455.00 WISCONSIN MAGNETO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 97.84 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS MOTOR FUELS 14.38 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 69.18 WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 945.00 ZIP SORT POSTAGE 51.97 462,382.84 December 17, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AIRTOUCH CELLULAR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 467.54 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 160.00 ANIMALS OF WALTONS HOLLOW UNREALIZED REVENUE 825.00 APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 528.25 ARMSTRONG, PAT YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 35.00 AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 87.00 BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 107.57 BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,927.36 BERTHIAUME, BRUCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 130.04 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 53.98 BRIMEYER, JAMES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 890.18 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BUNKER PARK STABLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 379.25 CAROUSEL BALLOONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 CERES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES I CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 9,225.00 123 CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.47 CHUBB, PETE CLOTHING - tax exempt 100.00 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 740.97 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 186.64 CONSECO FINANCE VENDOR SERV CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) COPYMED INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17.43 CORPORATE EXPRESS DELIVERY SYS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18.20 CUB FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 474.15 DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 305.10 DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00 DTN CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 884.28 DUPONT, MICHAEL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 32,119.00 DVORAK, BRAD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 170.00 EDWARD KRAEMER & SONS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,284.05 EES-U OF M TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 555.00 ELAN FINANCIAL SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 861.24 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 11,552.06 EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,062.00 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,000.05 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,548.11 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 612.00 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GASMAN, TOM GENERAL SUPPLIES 176.22 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GIRARD'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,813.18 GUEST SERVICES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 90.00 HENN CO PUBLIC RECORDS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 600.00 HENN CO TREASURER CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 7,710.82 HOME DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 296.46 124 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.27 HONDA ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL 24.60 HUIRAS, SHIRLEY EQUIPMENT PARTS 172.47 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,450.65 I C B O GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.50 ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 58.84 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 5,323.27 IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 58.00 J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 288.16 JERRY'S ENTERPRISES INC DEPOSITS PAYABLE 23,000.00 JOSEPH CATERING MEETING EXPENSE 289.13 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES 148.19 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN NOTES PAYABLE 1,994.31 LAUMANN, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 260.01 LAVELLE, PAMELA JO INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 51,055.16 LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.73 M I A M A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 150.00 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 164.05 MARQUARDT, DAVID TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 175.31 MARS CO, W P & R S OFFICE SUPPLIES 115.67 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 612.00 MAY, JANETTE GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00 MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 660.00 MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL CORP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 222.00 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.04 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 15,157.72 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 374.94 METROCALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.10 MFEA UNREALIZED REVENUE 35.00 MILLERBERND, DENNIS GENERAL SUPPLIES 86.65 MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 1,371.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 198.89 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CJIS LICENSES/TAXES 37.50 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 222.84 MN STATE BOARD OF SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.00 125 ACCOUNTANCY MYRON MANUFACTURING CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 124.89 NELSON, RICK Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 79.99 NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 244.63 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 54,123.67 PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 35.95 PANNING, CRAIG GENERAL SUPPLIES 210.63 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 128.00 PRO STAFF TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 489.60 PROBST, JOE Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 143.95 PRUDENTIAL CHEMICAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.71 R & R SPECIALTIES EQUIPMENT PARTS 385.41 RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,075.03 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.59 RUEFF, MARCIA M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SCHMAUS, DON Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 157.14 SEARS SMALL TOOLS 44.70 SLOAN, WILLIAM K INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 SPS COMPANIES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5.50 STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 188.51 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.00 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 61.63 SUSA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,006.45) TAUTGES REDPATH & CO LTD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,754.75 THE ORGANIZATION COACH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 375.00 THOMPSON, JIM GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 TWIN CITY OPTICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 378.73 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.80 TWIN CITY WATER CLINIC INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 535.00 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,085.68 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,263.51 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHO OLS 225.00 VARDA COMPANY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 29.46 VEIT & COMPANY BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,250.00 VIKING BUSINESS INTERIORS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 392.08 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 456.63 WAVETECH INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,683.44 WHEELER HARDWARE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,782.09 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 177.64 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 64.19 WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.53 126 264,538.60 December 17, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT NORWEST INVESTMENT SERVICES INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 236,272.89 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 106,028.56 342,301.45 December 17, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 812.33 812.33 December 17, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT CENTER FOR DIAGNOSTIC IMAG WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 827.06 HOPKINS FAMILY PHYSICIANS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 146.20 ORTHOPAEDIC CONSULTANTS WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 64.85 PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 105.86 1,143.97 127 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11a* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *11a. Approval of lease agreement for a free standing communications antenna with Sprint Spectrum L.P. (SSLP). Authorization to enter into a lease agreement between the City and SSLP for space west of the groundwater treatment facility at 7120 W. Lake Street for a free standing communications antenna for an initial lease term of five (5) years with option for four (4) additional five (5) year renewal terms. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the attached resolution authorizing execution of lease agreement. Background: The City has negotiated six (6) leases with four (4) vendors regarding use of the City’s property for placement of antenna for the transmission and reception of radio communication signals. Similar types of agreements have been negotiated throughout the metro area as these companies are setting up a network of new communication systems. These past agreements have been with for profit companies providing cellular and PCS communication services. This is the second antenna site agreement with SSLP. Their current net has a weak spot in its coverage and the installation of a freestanding antenna on this site will rectify that situation. This agreement is based on our standard antenna lease developed by the City Attorney. Our City Attorney has assisted in the preparation and review of this particular agreement. The agreement, which is on file in the Clerk’s office, provides for the following: • Five (5) year initial lease term with four (4) additional five (5) year renewals. • Rent of $12,200.00 per year for the initial lease term. • Annual rent for each renewal term shall increase by fifteen percent (15%). • A 70’ high freestanding antenna and ground level equipment to be installed west of the groundwater treatment plant at 7120 W. Lake Street. • Right of pre-emption by the City if necessary for some public safety communication needs. • Non-exclusive use allowing the City to lease to other users. • Appropriate termination provisions, insurance’s and protections. Staff recommends that Council authorize this agreement with SSLP. Attachments: Resolution Summary of current and proposed leases Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Through: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 128 RESOLUTION NO. 99-159 RESOLUTION APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT FOR FREE STANDING COMMUNICATION ANTENNA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, wishes to enter into a non- exclusive lease agreement with Sprint Spectrum L.P. (SSLP) for the use of space at the City groundwater treatment facility at 7120 W. Lake Street; and WHEREAS, Public Works has negotiated a lease agreement with terms acceptable to the City Council; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Manager be and hereby are authorized to enter into a lease agreement with SSLP for the leasing of space at the groundwater treatment facility located at 7120 W. Lake Street for the purposes of a free standing communication antenna and related base equipment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such lease term shall be for a period of five (5) years commencing immediately with the right of Sprint Spectrum L.P. to extend the initial term for four (4) additional five (5) year terms with an annual rent amount of $12,200.00. Attest: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 129 SUMMARY OF PCS ANTENNA LEASES Contract Current No. Location/Date Term Payment Lessee Contact Existing 4069 5100 Park Glen Road/ 5 Year Renewable; $10,200/Year; APT S. Katkov Approved 6/3/96 3 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at 833-4078 Amended 9/4/96 Terms Each Renewal (Steve) Fax: 833-4110 Expires: Midnight - December 31, 2001 Insurance Expires – January 1, 2000 4077 34th St. & Wyoming Ave./ 5 Year Renewable; $9,500/Year; APT S. Katkov Approved 7/15/96 3 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at 833-4078 Amended 11/96 Terms Each Renewal (Steve) Fax: 833-4110 Address: 8301 W. 34th Street Expires: Midnight - December 31, 2001 Insurance Expires – January 1, 2000 4120 5100 Park Glen Road/ 5 Year Renewable; $10,200/Year; SSLP R. Boyd Approved 11/4/96 3 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at (Sprint) 745-4725 Terms Each Renewal Cell 386-9601 (Rick) Expires: Midnight - December 31, 2001 Insurance Expires – April 1, 2002 4143 5100 Park Glen Road 5 Year Renewable $10,200/Year; US West P. Conlin Approved 3/17/97 4 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at 642-6060 Terms Each Renewal (Pat) Fax: 642-6942 Expires: Midnight - December 31, 2002 Insurance Expires – April 1, 2000 130 Page 2 Contract Current No. Location/Date Term Payment Lessee Contact Existing 4208 5100 Park Glen Road 5 Year Renewable $11,700/Year; Nextel J. Groen Approved 11/03/97 3 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at 937-8314 Terms Each Renewal (Jennifer) Fax: 225-0795 Expires: Midnight - December 31, 2002 4219 2500 Nevada Avenue 5 Year Renewable $10,500/Year; US West P. Conlin Approved 11/03/97 4 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at 642-6060 Terms Each Renewal Fax: 642-6942 (Pat) Expires: Midnight - December 31, 2002 Insurance Expires – December 31, 2002 131 Revised 11/30/99 SUMMARY OF CELLULAR LEASES Contract Current No. Location/Date Term Payment Lessee Contact Existing 1897 2500 Nevada Avenue 5 Year Renewable; $690.00/Month, AT&T D. Burrows Approved 12/13/88 4 Additional 5 Year CPI% Escalator 844-6771 Terms at Each Renewal (Dawn) Fax: 721-4770 Expires: Midnight - December 31, 1996 December 31, 2001 Insurance Expires - October 15, 2002 $748.87/Month Starting 4/1/97 - Adjust annually by CPI prior to 12/13 but no more than 20% 132 Revised 11/30/99 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC SAFETY (RADIO) Contract Current No. Location/Date Term Payment Lessee Contact Existing 82-98 5100 Park Glen Road 3 Year Renewable $300/Year Bellsouth Mila Ward Approved 12/21/98 3 Additional 3 Year Wireless Data 732/602-5589 Terms Fax: 732/636-0750 Expires: Midnight – December 31, 2002 Insurance Expires – October 15, 2000 133 Revised 11/30/99 SUMMARY OF GROUND LEASE Contract Current No. Location/Date Term Payment Lessee Contact Existing Parking Lot: 52-98 3901 Edgewood Avenue 5 Year Renewable $9,000 Year Methodist Hosp D. Spiegle Approved 11/01/98 3 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at 993-3897 Terms Each Renewal (Duane) $750.00/Month Starting 11/1/98 Rent Amounts November 1, 2003 to October 31, 2008 - $10,344/year $862/month November 1, 2008 to October 31, 2013 - $11,892/year $991/month November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2018 - $13,680/year $1,140/month Expires: Midnight – October 31, 2003 Proposed Ground Space: xxx 7120 W. Lake Street 5 Year Renewable $12,200 Year SSLP Contact Approved 12/__/99 4 Additional 5 Year 15% Escalator at (Sprint) Phone # Terms Each Renewal 134 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11b* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *11b. Traffic Study No. 548: Three way stop signs at Alabama Avenue So. and W. 32nd Street This report considers a request by area residents for a three way stop condition at the intersection of Alabama Avenue So. and W. 32nd Street. Recommended Action: Motion to accept this report for filing and adopt the attached resolution authorizing the installation of three way stop signs at the intersection of Alabama Avenue So. and W. 32nd Street. Background: The City received a petition from area residents requesting the installation of stop signs at the intersection of Alabama Avenue So. and W. 32nd Street. In response to the request, staff followed the City’s Traffic Policy by reviewing the intersection area in the field, reviewed accident records and traffic volumes. The field investigation revealed no safety issues that would warrant stop sign installation. In reviewing the accident records (none in the last five (5) years) and traffic volumes, there were no indications that warranted the installation of stop signs. Staff informed the individual who made this request that it did not meet the requirements for a warranted installation and that a petition would be their next alternative. In accordance with the City’s Traffic Control Policy, unwarranted stop sign installations may be considered by the City Council if a petition is submitted requesting the stop signs and is signed by more that 70% of the residents living within 600 feet of the intersection. The resident’s petition was submitted and is signed by 91% of the residents. It appears there is overwhelming support by area residents for the installation of stop signs. There are no stop signs currently at this location. Approval of this request will add three (3) signs at this T intersection. Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council: * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of the parking regulations may be utilized. 2. Deny the request. 3. Defer pending additional study. * Staff recommendation Attachments: Map Resolution Prepared By: Carlton Moore/Mike Rardin, Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 135 RESOLUTION NO. 99-160 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARKING CONTROLS AT ALABAMA AVENUE SOUTH AND W. 32ND STREET TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 548 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. Provide for three way stop signs at the intersection of Alabama Avenue and W. 32nd Street. Attest: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 136 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11c* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *11c. Traffic Study No. 549: HealthSystem Minnesota request for parking restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle. This report considers a request from HealthSystem Minnesota to place “One Hour” parking restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the change in parking restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle to “One Hour” parking from Louisiana Avenue west to the westerly driveway for 3900 Louisiana Circle. Background: The City received a request from HealthSystem Minnesota asking that the City consider “One Hour” parking restrictions on the north side of Louisiana Circle. The request is to provide improved short term parking for their building at 3900 Louisiana Circle. HealthSystem Minnesota also owns the building on the south side of Louisiana Circle at 3930 Louisiana Avenue. Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time: * 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the installation of the parking restrictions may be utilized. 2. Deny the request. 3. Defer pending additional study. * Staff recommendation Attachments: Map Resolution Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 137 RESOLUTION NO. 99-161 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING “ONE HOUR” PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOUISIANA CIRCLE FROM LOUISIANA AVENUE TO THE WESTERLY ENTRANCE DRIVEWAY TO 3900 LOUISIANA CIRCLE TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 549 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, 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. “One Hour “ parking on the north side of Louisiana Circle from Louisiana Avenue to the westerly entrance driveway to 3900 Louisiana Circle. Attest: Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 138 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11d* Meeting of December 20, 1999 *11d. Authorize publication of notice of availability of Park Commons East EAW for public comment. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize the publication of the notice of availability of the Park Commons East EAW. Background: On September 7, 1999, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority approved a contract with Ingraham and Associates to complete an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the proposed Park Commons East development. Mr. Ingraham met with the developer (AvalonBay Communities) to determine the maximum potential development scenario for the area, so that a worst-case scenario with regard to potential impacts could be reviewed. That analysis is now complete. On December 13, 1999, the developer met with the City Council during a Study Session and explained some potential changes to the proposal that may result in a reduction in overall project density. Staff will review the changes in relation to the prepared EAW. Prior to any Council action on the adequacy of the EAW, staff hopes to update the Council with regard to potential impacts, which should decrease. However, staff believes it is worthwhile to continue to review the worst case scenario at this time, since the project is not yet final in its design and the EAW is an important first step in the project review process. If the Council authorizes publication of the notice of availability, the notice will be published in the EQB Monitor and a 30 day public comment period will begin. Copies of the EAW will be distributed to agencies as well as individuals requesting copies. Once the public comment has been received and addressed, the City Council will be asked to make a determination regarding the adequacy of the EAW. Attachments: • Draft EAW dated December 15, 1999 Prepared by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Approved by:Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 139 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET Park Commons East Mixed Use Redevelopment St.Louis Park, Minnesota 1. Project title Park Commons East Mixed-Use Redevelopment – St. Louis Park, MN 2. Proposer Avalon Bay Communities 3. RGU City of St. Louis Park Contact person Greg Esterman Contact person Janet Jeremiah Title Senior Development Director Title Planning & Zoning Supervisor Address 1420 Kensington Rd., Ste. 108 Address 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. City, state, ZIP Oak Brook, IL 60523 City, state, ZIP St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Phone 630-218-7210 Phone 612-924-2573 Fax 630-574-0150 Fax 612-924-2663 E-mail gesterma@avalonbay.com E-mail jjeremiah@stlouispark.org 4. Reason for EAW preparation (check one) __ EIS scoping _X_ Mandatory EAW __ Citizen petition __ RGU discretion __ Proposer volunteered If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number and subpart name 4410.4300 subpart 19 D. Residential Development 5. Project location County: Hennepin City: St. Louis Park Project is located north of Excelsior Boulevard and west of Monterey Drive (1/3rd mile east of Highway 100). The 15 acre site is located in portions of the: SE ¼ of the SW ¼ Section 6 Township 28N, Range 24W SW ¼ of the SE ¼ Section 6 Township 28N, Range 24W NE ¼ of the NW ¼ Section 7 Township 28N, Range 24W NW ¼ of the NE ¼ Section 7 Township 28N, Range 24W Attach each of the following to the EAW: • County map showing the general location of the project; • U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute, 1:24,000 scale map indicating project 140 boundaries (photocopy acceptable); • Site plan showing all significant project and natural features. 0 6. Description a. Provide a project summary of 50 words or less to be published in the EQB Monitor. Park Commons East is a 15 acre mixed-use redevelopment project which includes up to 275,000 square feet of retail/office space and up to 660 residential dwellings. The project will focus on a central town green park. A mix of structured and surface parking spaces will be provided. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction. Attach additional sheets as necessary. Emphasize construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes. Include modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes and significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures. Indicate the timing and duration of construction activities. Park Commons East involves the redevelopment of 15.1 acres of land located north of Excelsior Boulevard and West of Monterey Drive in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Ten (10) existing commercial buildings (approx. 90,000 square feet) and 17 single family homes are being removed or demolished to prepare the site for the new construction. Park Commons East will include a mix of retail, office, apartment and townhomes centered on a new town green park. The project is designed to be an efficient, compact living and working environment, where a variety of transportation modes are available and dependence on automobile use can be minimized. The project will include up to 275,000 square feet of retail/office space, 570 residential apartment units and 90 townhomes. Approximately 2,114 parking spaces will be provided in a mix of parking structures and surface parking spaces. The new buildings will be from two to four stories. Construction will be phased to start in 2000 with the first openings in late 2001. Construction is planned to be complete in late 2003. Five of the existing single family homes were moved and re-used at other locations. Demolition and construction waste handling will comply with all applicable rules and regulations. Since the site was previously developed in an urban manner, there are no significant environmental features. The town green space will provide a focal point for the development and will include pedestrian links to the neighborhood to the south and to Wolfe Park to the north. Nearby storm water ponds in Wolfe Park were previously sized and built to accommodate the project development. c. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The project is a partnership between the City of St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and Avalon Bay Communities. The purpose of the project is to revitalize the subject area and to create a compact mixed-use development with living, working and shopping within walking distance, where alternative modes of transit are available and the dependence on automobile is lessened. This is part of the City of St. Louis Park’s vision of creating a lively and efficient town center area with a mix of land uses in a compact walkable environment. The vision for Park Commons was initiated in 1994 as part of “Vision St. Louis 141 Park”, which recommended the area as a future town center. The vision was later refined during a community design process (charrette) conducted in 1996. It also reflects the City’s desire to implement Livable Communities principles. d. Are future stages of this development including development on any outlots planned or likely to happen? __Yes _X_No The project is planned as continuous phases, which will be completed over a period of approximately four years. All lands within the subject area are included in this analysis and there are no outlots or unplanned, undesignated lands. If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. e. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? __Yes _X_No The project is near the existing Tower Place redevelopment to the west, but is not a stage or phase of that project. An environmental assessment worksheet was prepared in 1992 for Tower Place and an Indirect Source Permit (93-9) was prepared for the Park Nicollet Medical Center development in 1993. If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. 7. Project magnitude data The following data portrays project maximums. The project may be somewhat reduced based upon final market feedback. Total project acreage 15.1 Number of residential units: unattached 0 attached 660 units maximum units per building: approx. 70 Commercial, industrial or institutional building area (gross floor space): 275,000 square feet Indicate areas of specific uses (in square feet): Office 70,000 sq. ft. Manufacturing 0 Retail/restaurant 205,000 sq. ft. Other industrial 0 Warehouse 0 Institutional 0 Light industrial 0 Agricultural 0 Other commercial (specify) 0 Building height: two to four stories If over 2 stories, compare to heights of nearby buildings: The building heights are consistent and compatible with the adjacent land uses. The six-story Park Nicollet building and four-story Citizen’s Bank building are located west of the site, a six- 142 story office building is located across Excelsior Boulevard to the south, the rest of the surrounding buildings are one to three-stories. 8. Permits and approvals required. List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals and financial assistance for the project. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. Unit of government Type of application Status City of St. Louis Park Rezoning, planned unit development, plat, development agreement, building and utility permits Pending St. Louis Park EDA Financing plan, tax increment financing, land sale Pending Watershed District Grading and drainage plan review for conformance with existing permit Pending Hennepin County Access and curb cuts; reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard (streetscape) Pending Hennepin County & MnDOT Traffic signal – Excelsior & Ottawa Pending Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Indirect Source Permit, NPDES General Permit for Construction Activities Draft ISP application complete. Submission pending. Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; Minnesota Public Housing Agency; St. Louis Park Housing Authority; HUD Hollman Agreement review Pending Minnesota Dept. of Health Watermain connection Pending Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Sanitary sewer connection Pending 9. Land use. Describe current and recent past land use and development on the site and on adjacent lands. Discuss project compatibility with adjacent and nearby land uses. Indicate whether any potential conflicts involve environmental matters. Identify any potential environmental hazards due to past site uses, such as soil contamination or abandoned storage tanks, or proximity to nearby hazardous liquid or gas pipelines. The site was largely undeveloped prior to 1945. Beginning in the late 1940’s and through the 1950’s the area was developed with commercial uses along Excelsior Boulevard and single family homes north of 38th Street. For the last 45 years the land use has remained the same with restaurants and commercial uses occupying the south portion of the site and single family residential uses occupying the north section. The site is bordered by: North: Wolfe Park – Public/Residential South: Excelsior Boulevard and Commercial Uses East: Multifamily Residential and Commercial Uses 143 West: Retail Commercial and Office Uses The adjacent lands to the west and north have recently been redeveloped and renovated. To the west the Tower Place and Park Nicollet Medical Center developments include, retail, restaurant, entertainment and medical uses. Renovation of Wolfe Park was completed in 1999 and includes a defined pedestrian and non-motorized trail corridor to the Park Commons East site. The project is compatible with all of the adjacent uses and is designed to act as a transition between Wolfe Park and the neighborhood to the south. Phase I and Phase II environmental assessment reports were prepared for the site. The Phase I report, prepared by STS Consultants, focused on the historic use of the project site and surrounding area. The report found no visible evidence of hazardous waste on the site. Within the project site the assessment found a single monitoring well, vent/fill pipes for potential underground storage tanks (likely to be fuel oil) at four buildings, and a small generator of hazardous waste – Type Masters at 4524 Excelsior Boulevard. A former service station site was located at 4714 Excelsior Boulevard. Two underground storage tanks were removed from that site in 1981. The report searched databases and various records and found the presence of other historic potential environmental land uses within the surrounding one mile area. These findings were typical of an urban commercial environment with a mix of service station, printing, car wash, paint stores and other auto related uses. A nearby leak site, AMOCO service station at 4701 Excelsior Boulevard (south of the project site) appears to have the potential to impact groundwater below the project site. Since there will be no appropriation of groundwater as part of the project this has little environmental significance. The summary conclusions of the Phase I report are attached as Appendix A. The complete Phase I report is available for review at St.Louis Park City Hall. The Phase II report, prepared by ENSR Consultants, focused on subsoil and groundwater conditions at soil boring locations and found no environmental contamination in the soils. Sand is the dominant soil type. Nine geotechnical and 10 geoprobe soil borings were studied and none of the borings discovered any odors, discolored soils, or any other signs of environmental contamination. The groundwater testing did indicate low levels of DRO and GRO, which is typical for an urban site. The study also revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene. These concentrations exceed the EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels. The concentrations were found “adjacent to the downgradient portion of the Park Commons Redevelopment Area”. Tetrachloroethene is a chemical typically used in dry cleaning, and both chemicals are common in industrial applications. There will be no appropriation of groundwater as part of the project and the project will not disturb the subsoil geology, so the presence of these substances has little environmental significance. The summary conclusions of the Phase II report are attached as Appendix B, and the complete report is available at for review at St.Louis Park City Hall. 144 10. Cover types. Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development: Before After Before After Types 1-8 wetlands 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 3.1 1.5 Wooded/forest 0 0 Impervious surfaces 12 13.6 Brush/Grassland 0 0 Other (describe) 0 0 Cropland 0 0 TOTAL 15.1 15.1 If Before and After totals are not equal, explain why: 11. Fish, wildlife and ecologically sensitive resources a. Identify fish and wildlife resources and habitats on or near the site and describe how they would be affected by the project. Describe any measures to be taken to minimize or avoid impacts. Since the site has been previously developed in an urban manner, there are no known fish or wildlife habitats on or near the site. The Biological Survey of Hennepin County and site investigations showed no unique or sensitive features on the project site. The closest natural area is Bass Lake Preserve, located ¼ mile to the northeast. The project will have no effect upon that area. b. Are any state-listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, rare plant communities or other sensitive ecological resources such as native prairie habitat, colonial waterbird nesting colonies or regionally rare plant communities on or near the site? __Yes _X_No The site is already urbanized and there are no sensitive areas in or near the site. No evidence of any threatened, rare or endangered plant or wildlife species was observed during field reviews of the site. The MnDNR Natural Heritage Program conducted a data base search to determine if any records exist for the occurrence of rare or endanger plants, animals or communities on or within a one mile radius of the site. The results are contained in Appendix C. The search indicated that there are two known occurrences of rare species or natural communities in the search area. The data base search found that special concern species – Pugnose Shiner was present in Cedar Lake, which is approximately 1.4 miles from the project site and a threatened plant species – Valerian at an unknown site within one mile of the project location. The project is likely to have no effect on either of these species. If yes, describe the resource and how it would be affected by the project. Indicate if a site survey of the resources has been conducted and describe the results. If the DNR Natural Heritage and Nongame Research program has been contacted give the correspondence reference number: ERDB 20000281. Describe measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. 145 12. Physical impacts on water resources. Will the project involve the physical or hydrologic alteration — dredging, filling, stream diversion, outfall structure, diking, and impoundment of any surface waters such as a lake, pond, wetland, stream or drainage ditch? __Yes _X_No There are no water features or wetlands on-site and there will be no modification of hydrology or waters on or off-site. If yes, identify water resource affected and give the DNR Protected Waters Inventory number(s) if the water resources affected are on the PWI: . Describe alternatives considered and proposed mitigation measures to minimize impacts. 13. Water use. Will the project involve installation or abandonment of any water wells, connection to or changes in any public water supply or appropriation of any ground or surface water (including dewatering)? _X_Yes __No If yes, as applicable, give location and purpose of any new wells; public supply affected, changes to be made, and water quantities to be used; the source, duration, quantity and purpose of any appropriations; and unique well numbers and DNR appropriation permit numbers, if known. Identify any existing and new wells on the site map. If there are no wells known on site, explain methodology used to determine. The project will include the standard connection of the new development to the existing City of St. Louis Park municipal water supply system. There is adequate capacity in the system to meet the needs of the new construction. No appropriation of ground or surface water or use of wells is proposed. Phase I (by STS Consultants) and Phase II (by ENSR Consulting) environmental studies analyzed the existing conditions and environmental history of the area. The studies found that no environmental sites with releases of contaminants were found within the project area. Environmental sites were found within the 1-1/4 mile study radius of the site. The study noted that these adjacent sites have “slight potential to impact the project site”. Phase II study demonstrated that the dominance of sandy soils throughout the site indicated that any contaminants within the soil structure would move through the soil to the water table. The Phase II report found no evidence of contaminated soils. The report did find low levels of DRO and GRO in the groundwater, which is typical for an urban site. The study also revealed concentrations of tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene, chlorinated solvents used in dry cleaning operations and industrial uses. These concentrations do exceed the EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels. However, due to the site dominance of sandy soils and the nature and level of the solvents, no mitigation measures are deemed necessary for the project. 14. Water-related land use management district. Does any part of the project involve a shoreland zoning district, a delineated 100-year flood plain, or a state or federally designated wild or scenic river land use district? __Yes _X_No If yes, identify the district and discuss project compatibility with district land use restrictions. 15. Water surface use. Will the project change the number or type of watercraft on any 146 water body? __Yes _X_No If yes, indicate the current and projected watercraft usage and discuss any potential overcrowding or conflicts with other uses. 16. Erosion and sedimentation. Give the acreage to be graded or excavated and the cubic yards of soil to be moved: 15.1 acres; estimated 65,000 cubic yards Describe any steep slopes or highly erodible soils and identify them on the site map. Describe any erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after project construction. Approximately 65,000 cubic yards of soil will be graded and/or excavated as part of the project. Most of that soil will be kept on-site. The site is level and there are no steep slopes or highly erodible soils. Erosion control fencing will be installed prior to grading and storm water catch basins will be protected with silt fence and/or hay bales. Permanent vegetation will be established as soon as possible after completion of final grading. 17. Water quality: surface water runoff a. Compare the quantity and quality of site runoff before and after the project. Describe permanent controls to manage or treat runoff. Describe any stormwater pollution prevention plans. Stormwater runoff from the development area will continue to be collected and transferred to storm sewers that eventually discharge to Bass Lake, north of the development. The quality of the stormwater is not expected to change because the land use will remain primarily commercial and secondarily lawn/landscaping. As indicated in Item 10, the impervious surfaces will increase from 12 acres to 13.6 acres in the total area of 15.1 acres. b. Identify routes and receiving water bodies for runoff from the site; include major downstream water bodies as well as the immediate receiving waters. Estimate impact runoff on the quality of receiving waters. Approximately one-third (5.2 acres) of the Park Commons East development, both before and after development, drains to the stormwater pond in Wolfe Park, which then drains to Bass Lake via a storm sewer. The 1.57 acre pond was designed to meet NURP specifications for water quality, as well as water quantity control. The P8 Urban Catchment Model and TR20 Model were used to design the pond. The total watershed drainage to the Wolfe Park pond is 28.1 acres. It is expected that 0.8 acres of the drainage area to the ponds would change from lawn/landscaping to impervious surface. The change in land use, therefore, accounts for 2.8 percent of the total watershed. This is not considered a significant difference in land use; therefore, water quantity and water quality following development will not alter the treatment capacity of the ponds. 147 Stormwater from the other two-thirds of the development (15.1 ac – 5.2 ac = 9.9 ac) will continue to drain to the existing storm sewers, which discharge directly to Bass Lake. The 0.8 acre change in land use from lawn/landscaping to impervious surfaces following development at this site is expected to have a negligible affect on water quality or quantity, given that the storm sewers connect to a drainage area of approximately 50 acres that extends west on Excelsior Boulevard to Highway 100. Therefore, the 0.8 acres represents less than a 2 percent change in land use prior to the development. 18. Water quality: wastewaters a. Describe sources, composition and quantities of all sanitary, municipal and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. Sanitary wastewater production has been estimated based on the methods outlined in the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services - Service Availability Charge (SAC) Manual. The retail, office and residential land uses will produce an approximate daily wastewater flow of 128,000 gallons per day (GPD), (275,000 sq. ft. office/retail/restaurant at 140 GPD/1,000 square feet and 660 multifamily residential units at 135 GPD). The site previously had an estimated wastewater flow generation of approximately 23,000 GPD. The project will produce a net increase of 105,000 GPD. There is adequate capacity within the existing municipal collection and regional treatment system to handle this increased flow. There is no industrial or unusual generation of wastewater from the project. b. Describe waste treatment methods or pollution prevention efforts and give estimates of composition after treatment. Identify receiving waters, including major downstream water bodies, and estimate the discharge impact on the quality of receiving waters. If the project involves on-site sewage systems, discuss the suitability of site conditions for such systems. There are no unusual sources or composition of waste anticipated with the residential, retail and office uses. All wastes will be discharged into the City of St. Louis Park sanitary sewer system, which flows into the Metropolitan system. c. If wastes will be discharged into a publicly owned treatment facility, identify the facility, describe any pretreatment provisions and discuss the facility's ability to handle the volume and composition of wastes, identifying any improvements necessary. Wastewater will be conveyed through the City of St. Louis Park sanitary sewer system to the SLP420 metropolitan interceptor to the Pig’s Eye treatment facility in St. Paul. There is adequate capacity to handle the minor increase wastewater flow from this development. d. If the project requires disposal of liquid animal manure, describe disposal technique and location and discuss capacity to handle the volume and composition of manure. Identify any improvements necessary. Describe any required setbacks for land disposal systems. Not applicable. 148 19. Geologic hazards and soil conditions a. Approximate depth (in feet) to ground water: minimum 26 feet with an average 30 feet to bedrock: Minimum 50 feet with an average 75 feet Describe any of the following geologic site hazards to ground water and also identify them on the site map: sinkholes, shallow limestone formations or karst conditions. Describe measures to avoid or minimize environmental problems due to any of these hazards. Based on soil investigations of the site there are no known geologic hazards or unusual soil conditions. b. Describe the soils on the site, giving NRCS (SCS) classifications, if known. Discuss soil granularity and potential for groundwater contamination from wastes or chemicals spread or spilled onto the soils. Discuss any mitigation measures to prevent such contamination. Based on information from the Hennepin County Soil Survey and subsurface testing, the site soils are predominantly loess, sand, loamy sand and gravel glacial outwash and are suitable for the proposed development. During the Phase II Environmental Analysis (Sept., 1998 report by ENSR) nine geotechnical and ten Geoprobe soils borings were installed to investigate subsurface environmental conditions. None of the borings revealed environmental contamination in the soil. Groundwater analysis results indicate the presence of two chlorinated solvents, tetrachloroethene and trichloroethene. The study could not rule out the site as a potential source, but other nearby operations are thought to be a more likely source of the solvents. Due to the presence of sandy soils and the nature and level of the solvents no mitigation measures are deemed necessary for the project. A copy of the Phase II executive summary is attached as Appendix B. 20. Solid wastes, hazardous wastes, storage tanks a. Describe types, amounts and compositions of solid or hazardous wastes, including solid animal manure, sludge and ash, produced during construction and operation. Identify method and location of disposal. For projects generating municipal solid waste, indicate if there is a source separation plan; describe how the project will be modified for recycling. If hazardous waste is generated, indicate if there is a hazardous waste minimization plan and routine hazardous waste reduction assessments. The project will generate approximately 1400 tons of solid waste and recyclables per year. All residential units and businesses are anticipated to participate in the St. Louis Park and Hennepin County recycling programs. It is estimated that approximately 20% of the waste (300 tons) will be recyclables, resulting in a generation of 1100 tons of solid waste per year. No unusual hazardous waste is anticipated. The project will include provisions for recycling and source separation. 149 b. Identify any toxic or hazardous materials to be used or present at the site and identify measures to be used to prevent them from contaminating groundwater. If the use of toxic or hazardous materials will lead to a regulated waste, discharge or emission, discuss any alternatives considered to minimize or eliminate the waste, discharge or emission. No toxic or hazardous materials are expected to be used or produced by the project other than the typical household hazardous waste occasionally used by residents. c. Indicate the number, location, size and use of any above or below ground tanks to store petroleum products or other materials, except water. Describe any emergency response containment plans. The Phase I Environmental Analysis (April, 1996 by STS) found two underground storage tanks on the site (4714 Excelsior Boulevard) that were removed in 1981. These tanks were used to store home heating oil and gasoline from a former service station. No additional information concerning the tanks is provided. Within the project site the assessment found vent/fill pipes for potential underground storage tanks (likely to be fuel oil) at four buildings. These buildings are to be demolished to facilitate construction of the project. During further inspection and acquisition of these properties, further analysis of the tanks will be performed. During the demolition process the tanks will be removed and any petroleum products or other materials will be disposed of in accordance with Minnesota PCA rules, and procedures. 21. Traffic. Parking – There will be a net addition of up to 1,413 parking spaces. The existing area contains 701 parking spaces and the project will contain up to 2,114 parking spaces (including internal on-street parking). Traffic - Estimated total average daily traffic generated. Estimated maximum peak hour traffic generated (if known) and time of occurrence. Provide an estimate of the impact on traffic congestion on affected roads and describe any traffic improvements necessary. If the project is within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, discuss its impact on the regional transportation system. The total daily and maximum peak hour traffic generated for the proposed maximum development scenario is estimated at 19,500 and 1,750 vehicles, respectively. The totals do not address the reduction in existing traffic (6,108 daily vehicles) from removing existing uses. The totals also do not address whether the vehicles are already on the existing roadway network or will remain internal to the project. Many of the vehicle trips are expected to be internal trips (trips between the land uses within the development) and pass by trips, which are already on the existing roadway network. Those internal mixed use and pass by trips significantly reduce the external traffic generation (approximately 40%). Net additional daily trips added to the external roadway network are forecast to be 6,039 vehicles. Net additional peak hour trips added to the external roadway network are forecast to be 551 vehicles. Use of transit can reduce traffic impacts even further. See the attached Traffic Impact Analysis (by Parsons Transportation Group) for more information. 150 The impact on traffic congestion at the intersections on Excelsior Boulevard should be minimal; the increase in peak hour traffic will only cause small increases in delay at the signalized intersections at Quentin Avenue and Monterey Drive without affecting the overall levels of service. The unsignalized intersection at Ottawa Avenue, under existing traffic conditions, has an unacceptable level of delay on the side street approaches, which would increase slightly with the proposed development if the intersection remains unsignalized. A proposed new traffic control signal system at the intersection will reduce side street delay and improve pedestrian circulation to the proposed development. Overall, the traffic impact upon the neighborhood south of Excelsior Boulevard is slight. Approximately 15 southbound and 30 northbound PM peak hour vehicle trips would be added to Quentin, south of Excelsior (less than one additional vehicle per minute during peak times). No increase is forecast for Natchez, south of Excelsior. Up to 55 southbound and 50 northbound new peak PM hour trips are forecast to be added to 38th Street, south of Excelsior. All streets south of Excelsior Boulevard would remain within acceptable levels of service for their classifications. The project will not have a significant impact on the regional transportation system. 22. Vehicle-related air emissions. Estimate the effect of the project's traffic generation on air quality, including carbon monoxide levels. Discuss the effect of traffic improvements or other mitigation measures on air quality impacts. Note: If the project involves 500 or more parking spaces, consult EAW Guidelines about whether a detailed air quality analysis is needed. An Indirect Source Permit application will be filed with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in compliance with Minnesota State Rules. Detailed modeling for carbon monoxide (CO) levels was performed for the intersection of Excelsior Boulevard and Ottawa Avenue. The resultant levels of CO were estimated to be 5.6 parts per million (ppm) for the mean one-hour concentration and 3.8 ppm for the mean hour of the peak consecutive eight hours, both of which are below the State of Minnesota standards of 30 ppm for one hour and 9.0 ppm for eight hours. 23. Stationary source air emissions. Describe the type, sources, quantities and compositions of any emissions from stationary sources of air emissions such as boilers, exhaust stacks or fugitive dust sources. Include any hazardous air pollutants (consult EAW Guidelines for a listing) and any greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide) and ozone-depleting chemicals (chloro- fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons or sulfur hexafluoride). Also describe any proposed pollution prevention techniques and proposed air pollution control devices. Describe the impacts on air quality. No stationary sources of air emissions are anticipated as a result of this project. The project will not include any unusual source of air emissions. The residential dwellings and commercial buildings will be heated by individual furnaces. The most likely fuel source will be natural gas. Due to the use of high efficiency, low emission furnaces, the effect upon air quality will be minimal. 24. Odors, noise and dust. Will the project generate odors, noise or dust during construction or during operation? _X_Yes __No If yes, describe sources, characteristics, duration, quantities or intensity and any proposed measures to mitigate adverse impacts. Also identify locations of nearby 151 sensitive receptors and estimate impacts on them. Discuss potential impacts on human health or quality of life. (Note: fugitive dust generated by operations may be discussed at item 23 instead of here.) Construction – It is anticipated that during demolition and construction the project will generate some temporary and localized increases in noise. The actual noise levels on and adjacent to the site will vary depending upon the number and type of equipment in operation. City Code restricts construction activity to the hours of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM, which will help minimize the objectionable effects of construction noise. The construction process is also expected to generate some dust. However, it is not anticipated that fugitive dust will be generated in objectionable quantities. Consideration will be given to suppression of airborne dust by application of water if significant fugitive dust generation occurs during site grading. It is not expected that demolition, construction or the mixed use of the site will generate significant odors. Operation – Noise generated as a result of increased activity and vehicle use is not expected to be significant and there are no sensitive sites near the project. The traffic from the proposed project will not add significantly to noise levels from existing traffic on Excelsior Boulevard. It would require a doubling of traffic to increase noise by 3 decibels, which is the lowest change that is detectable to the human ear. The proposed project will increase peak hour traffic on Excelsior Boulevard by about 17 percent, which will not cause a perceptible change and will result in noise level increases substantially less than 3 decibels. 25. Nearby resources. Are any of the following resources on or in proximity to the site? Archaeological, historical or architectural resources? __Yes _X_ No The existing structures were built since 1940 and do not have architectural or historical significance. There is no evidence of archaeological resources. See attached letter from the Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office. Prime or unique farmlands or land within an agricultural preserve? __Yes _X_No Designated parks, recreation areas or trails? _X_Yes __No Scenic views and vistas? __Yes X No Other unique resources? __Yes X No If yes, describe the resource and identify any project-related impacts on the resource. Describe any measures to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. Wolfe Park is located at the north boundary of the project site. The impact upon the park from the development is minimal and the project is designed with a town green, which will act as a southerly extension of the park. Pedestrian connections into the park will be provided within the project. 152 26. Visual impacts. Will the project create adverse visual impacts during construction or operation? Such as glare from intense lights, lights visible in wilderness areas and large visible plumes from cooling towers or exhaust stacks? __Yes _X_No If yes, explain. 27. Compatibility with plans and land use regulations. Is the project subject to an adopted local comprehensive plan, land use plan or regulation, or other applicable land use, water, or resource management plan of a local, regional, state or federal agency? _X_Yes __No. If yes, describe the plan, discuss its compatibility with the project and explain how any conflicts will be resolved. If no, explain. The project is generally consistent with the St. Louis Park Comprehensive Plan, which was amended to accommodate this type of development. City plans envision the Excelsior Boulevard/Park Commons area as a pedestrian oriented “town center”. This project is designed to implement that plan for this site. The Comprehensive Plan may need to be modified slightly to address minor changes in the location of certain land uses as final development plans are prepared. Certain properties within the project area will need to be rezoned to bring those properties into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The project is expected to comply with the zoning regulations. 28. Impact on infrastructure and public services. Will new or expanded utilities, roads, other infrastructure or public services be required to serve the project? X_Yes __No. If yes, describe the new or additional infrastructure or services needed. (Note: any infrastructure that is a connected action with respect to the project must be assessed in the EAW; see EAW Guidelines for details.) A new parkway road will be built along the north edge of the project and a new road will be constructed on the west side of the town green. Otherwise, no new or expanded roads or utilities are required as part of the project. A traffic signal at Excelsior Boulevard and East Park Street will be installed as part of the project (pending agency approval). A portion of existing 38th Street will be removed and internal streets within the development will be built to serve internal access and circulation. Space for a satellite police station (cop shop) will be included in the project. 29. Cumulative impacts. Minnesota Rule part 4410.1700, subpart 7, item B requires that the RGU consider the "cumulative potential effects of related or anticipated future projects" when determining the need for an environmental impact statement. Identify any past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that may interact with the project described in this EAW in such a way as to cause cumulative impacts. Describe the nature of the cumulative impacts and summarize any other available information relevant to determining whether there is potential for significant environmental effects due to cumulative impacts (or discuss each cumulative impact 153 under appropriate item(s) elsewhere on this form). This project is part of the overall redevelopment of the Town Center/Park Commons area of St. Louis Park. The area to the west was redeveloped as Tower Place, which was the subject of a previous EAW. Additional redevelopment is anticipated to occur over the next 10 to 20 years, but specific plans or timetables for these future projects have not been established. 30. Other potential environmental impacts. If the project may cause any adverse environmental impacts not addressed by items 1 to 28, identify and discuss them here, along with any proposed mitigation. There are no other known environmental impacts of the project. 30. Summary of issues. Do not complete this section if the EAW is being done for EIS scoping; instead, address relevant issues in the draft Scoping Decision document, which must accompany the EAW. List any impacts and issues identified above that may require further investigation before the project is begun. Discuss any alternatives or mitigative measures that have been or may be considered for these impacts and issues, including those that have been or may be ordered as permit conditions. No significant environmental impacts were identified. The following issues and mitigative measures were noted. 1. Traffic - The mix of commercial and residential uses lessens the concentration of vehicles trips in the AM and PM peak hours. The project will increase PM peak hour traffic through the net addition of 551 PM peak hour vehicle trips, assuming no use of transit. The increase will not have a detrimental effect upon levels of service. The existing road network has adequate capacity to handle the increased traffic. A new traffic signal will be installed at the Excelsior Boulevard/East Park Street intersection (pending agency approval), which will improve traffic flow and greatly improve pedestrian access across Excelsior Blvd. 2. Underground tanks – The Phase One environmental analysis noted the presence of underground tanks (likely for heating oil) at four buildings. Prior to demolition of these buildings the tanks will be analyzed and removed in accordance with MPCA rules and procedures. 3. Air quality - Due to the number of new parking spaces being created, an Indirect Source Permit (ISP) application will be filed with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. That ISP and the carbon monoxide modeling estimate a 5.6 parts per million (ppm) for mean one hour concentrations and 3.8 ppm for the mean hour of peak consecutive eight hours. These levels are acceptable and are below the State of Minnesota standards of 30 ppm for one hour and 9.0 ppm for eight hours. 154 RGU CERTIFICATION. The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED Environmental Assessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor. I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9b and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Date __________ Title 155 Maps and Plans 1. USGS Map of site location 2. County Highway Map of site location 3. Site Concept Plan Appendices A. Phase One Environmental Assessment - Executive Summary B. Phase Two Environmental Assessment - Executive Summary C. Traffic Impact Analysis D. MnDNR Natural Heritage Database Information E. MHS Archaeological, Cultural and Historic Resources Review Letter