HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024/08/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
AUGUST 19, 2024
6:00 p.m. Economic Development Authority meeting – Council Chambers
1. Call to order
a.Roll call.
2. Approve agenda.
3. Minutes
a.Minutes of August 8, 2024 EDA meeting
4. Consent items
a.EDA resolution to approve 9th amendment to contract for private development -
Zelia on Seven - Ward 2
5. Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business – none.
7. Communications and announcements – none.
8. Adjournment.
6:15 p.m. City council meeting – Council Chambers
1.Call to order
a.Roll call.
b.Pledge of Allegiance.
2.Approve agenda.
3.Presentations
a.Westwood Hills Nature Center junior naturalist recognition
b.St. Louis Park Parktacular Ambassador program recognition
c.Retirement recognition for Officer Luke Ellanson
d.Proclamation observing August 25, 2024 as the Centennial Celebration of the Star of
Bethlehem Home, residence of Monterey Cohousing Community - Ward 1
e.Recognition of donations
4.Minutes
a.Minutes of August 8, 2024 city council meeting
5.Consent items
a.Resolution recognizing retirement of Officer Luke Ellanson
b.Resolution authorizing acceptance of bench donations
c.Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series
2024B
d.Resolution authorizing city depositories
e.Approve annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 2023
f.Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees
g.Second reading and adoption of ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the city code
regarding bulk material storage
Agenda EDA, city council and special study session meetings of August 19, 2024
h.Resolutions approving grant agreements with MnDOT for Cedar Lake Road/
Louisiana Avenue Improvements projects - Ward 4
i.Resolution removing parking restrictions at 3601 Lynn Avenue (Traffic Study No. 792)
-Ward 2
j.Resolution authorizing final payment for 2023 Pavement Management project (4023-
1000) - Wards 3 and 4
k.Approve replacement of asphalt paver and tandem dump truck
l.Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3350
Brunswick Avenue South - Ward 3
m.Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer line repair at 3309 Zarthan
Avenue South - Ward 1
n.Resolution accepting a donation from Discover St. Louis Park for Jason West to
attend the US Sports Congress
6.Public hearing
a.Approve on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales for Marcus West End,
LLC - Ward 4
7.Regular business
a.First reading of ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 2576-19 Efficient Building
Benchmarking
b.First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree
preservation
8.Communications and announcements – none.
9.Adjournment.
Following city council meeting – Special study session – Community room
Discussion item
1. Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4
Members of the public can attend St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and city council meetings in
person. At regular city council meetings, members of the public may comment on any item on the agenda by
attending the meeting in-person or by submitting written comments to info@stlouisparkmn.gov by noon the
day of the meeting. Official minutes of meetings are available on the city website once approved.
Watch St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority or regular city council meetings live at
bit.ly/watchslpcouncil or at www.parktv.org, or on local cable (Comcast SD channel 14/HD channel 798).
Recordings of the meetings are available to watch on the city's YouTube channel at
www.youtube.com/@slpcable, usually within 24 hours of the meeting’s end.
City council study sessions are not broadcast.
Generally, it is not council practice to receive public comment during study sessions.
The council chambers are equipped with Hearing Loop equipment and headsets are available to borrow.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2505.
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
EDA meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Aug. 5, 2024
1.Call to order.
President Dumalag called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
a.Roll call
Commissioners present: President Dumalag, Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue
Budd, Margaret Rog
Commissioners absent: Yolanda Farris
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Brooksbank), redevelopment
administrator (Ms. Monson), community development director (Ms. Barton)
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Rog, to approve the EDA
agenda as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Farris absent).
3.Minutes.
a.EDA meeting minutes of July 8, 2024
It was moved by Commissioner Rog, seconded by Commissioner Baudhuin, to approve the EDA
meeting minutes of July 8, 2024, as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Farris absent).
4. Consent items.
a.Approve EDA disbursement and financial report
b.EDA Resolution No. 24-12 in support of county Environmental Response Funds
Brownfield gap financing program on behalf of Greater Metropolitan Housing
Corporation – Ward 1
It was moved by Commissioner Mohamed, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve the
consent items as listed and to waive reading of all resolutions.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Farris absent).
Economic development authority meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: EDA meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
5. Public hearings – none.
6. Regular business.
a. Resolution No. 24-13 in support of a Hennepin County Environmental Response Funds
Brownfield gap financing grant for Trellis Co. – Ward 3
Ms. Monson presented the staff report.
Commissioner Rog asked if the sources of contamination were unknown to residents and
property owners. Ms. Monson stated the grant application describes how a dry cleaner who
was formerly located in the area may have contributed to vapor contamination. Ms. Monson
said it is unlikely that this condition was previously known.
It was moved by Commissioner Baudhuin, seconded by Commissioner Budd, to adopt Resolution
No. 24-13 in support of a Hennepin County Environmental Response Funds Brownfield gap
financing grant for Trellis Co. – Ward 3.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Farris absent).
7. Communications and announcements - none.
8. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 6:11 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, EDA secretary Lynette Dumalag, EDA president
Meeting: Economic development authority
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 4a
Executive summary
Title: EDA resolution to approve ninth amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract -
Zelia on Seven – Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt EDA resolution approving the ninth amendment to the
purchase and redevelopment contract with Bigos-Zelia on Seven, LLC, related to Zelia on Seven.
Policy consideration: Does the EDA support extending the required completion dates for the
building’s amenity spaces and surface parking lot for Zelia on Seven to Feb. 1, 2025?
Summary: On Dec. 18, 2023, the EDA amended the purchase and redevelopment agreement
(the “contract”) related to the Via Sol apartment building with Bigos-Via Sol, LLC
(“redeveloper”) to update definitions of the minimum improvements and amend the
affordability levels of the development. The contract also required the redeveloper to amend
the PUD and complete the additional improvements by Sept. 1, 2024.
Bigos-Via Sol, LLC purchased the property on Dec. 28, 2023, and soon after renamed the
building Zelia on Seven. During the last eight months, the redeveloper has amended
affordability levels, increased occupancy of the building, received a PUD amendment, and
executed documents including a public art easement. It took several months to receive permits
from the watershed district related to the additional improvements, as the stormwater system
installed by the previous owner needed to be verified and tested.
As of Aug. 14, 2024, city and watershed permits were issued and construction has commenced
on the surface parking lot and interior amenity space. Building permit applications have been
submitted for the exterior amenity space and are currently being reviewed by city staff. The
redeveloper is also pursuing installation of a rooftop solar array. All construction on the
minimum improvements required under the PUD is anticipated to be complete by December
2024 with the solar installation to be completed in early 2025.
The redeveloper requests an extension related to the completion date of the minimum
improvements to Feb. 1, 2025. Staff supports this extension considering the progress made to
date on all project components.
Financial or budget considerations: All costs associated with the preparation of the proposed
ninth amendment are to be paid by Bigos-Zelia on Seven, LLC and Bigos-Via Sol, LLC.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Sean Walther, planning manager, community development deputy director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Economic development authority meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: EDA resolution to approve ninth amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract - Zelia on Seven –
Ward 2
EDA Resolution No. 24-
Approving a ninth amendment to a certain purchase
and redevelopment contract and related documents
Whereas, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “authority") and the
City of St. Louis Park (the “city”) have heretofore approved the establishment of the
Wooddale Station Tax Increment Financing District (the “TIF district") within Redevelopment
Project No. 1 (the “project"), and have adopted a tax increment financing plan for the purpose
of financing certain improvements within the project; and
Whereas, to facilitate the redevelopment of certain property within the project and TIF
district, the authority and PLACE E-Generation One LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(the “original redeveloper"), previously negotiated a purchase and redevelopment contract
(as subsequently amended 7 times, the “original agreement"), which provides for the
conveyance of certain property (the “property") to the original redeveloper, the construction by
the original redeveloper of a mixed- use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development, including
rental housing, and associated parking on the property (the “minimum improvements"), and the
issuance of a tax increment revenue note (the "note") to the original redeveloper; and
Whereas, the original redeveloper’s obligations under the original agreement were
assigned to Bigos-Zelia on Seven, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company formerly known as
Bigos-Via Sol (the “redeveloper"), as the purchaser of the minimum improvements, and
pursuant to an assignment and assumption of purchase and redevelopment contract and the
redeveloper assumed all rights, title, interest, duties and obligations in, to, and under the
original agreement, the note and that certain declaration or restrictive covenants associated
therewith; and
Whereas, the redeveloper and the authority entered into an eighth amendment to
purchase and redevelopment agreement on Dec. 28, 2023 (together with the original
agreement, the “agreement”), reflecting the new ownership of the minimum improvements
and revising certain details of the development and updating the timeline for completion of
the minimum improvements; and
Whereas, the redeveloper has faced certain delays in completing the certain
components minimum improvements. The authority and the redeveloper have negotiated a
ninth amendment to the agreement (the "ninth amendment" and together the original
agreement, the "amended agreement"), revising, among other things, the required date of the
completion of the minimum improvements and other dates in the agreement; and
Whereas, the board has reviewed the ninth amendment and finds that the execution
thereof and performance of the authority's obligations thereunder are in the best interest of
the city and its residents. Further, the board has reviewed the assignment and finds that their
consent thereto is in the best interest of the city and its residents.
Economic development authority meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: EDA resolution to approve ninth amendment to purchase and redevelopment contract - Zelia on Seven –
Ward 2
Now therefore be it resolved by the board of commissioners of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority as follows:
(a) The board approves the ninth amendment, together with any related
documents necessary in connection therewith, including all other documents, exhibits,
certifications, or consents referenced in or attached to the ninth amendment including but
not limited to the updated TIF note (the "documents").
(b) The board hereby authorizes the president and executive director, in their
discretion and at such time, if any, as they may deem appropriate, to execute the documents on
behalf of the authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the authority, the authority's obligations
thereunder when all conditions precedent thereto have been satisfied. The documents shall
be in substantially the form on file with the authority and the approval hereby given to the
documents includes approval of such additional details therein as may be necessary and
appropriate and such modifications thereof, deletions therefrom and additions thereto as
may be necessary and appropriate and approved by legal counsel to the authority and by the
officers authorized herein to execute said documents prior to their execution; and said officers
are hereby authorized to approve said changes on behalf of the authority. The execution of any
instrument by the appropriate officers of the authority herein authorized shall be conclusive
evidence of the approval of such document in accordance with the terms hereof. This
resolution shall not constitute an offer and the documents shall not be effective until the date
of execution thereof as provided herein.
(c) In the event of absence or disability of the officers, any of the documents
authorized by this resolution to be executed may be executed without further act or
authorization of the board by any duly designated acting official, or by such other officer or
officers of the board as, in the opinion of the city attorney, may act in their behalf. Upon
execution and delivery of the documents, the officers and employees of the board are hereby
authorized and directed to take or cause to be taken such actions as may be necessary on
behalf of the board to implement the documents.
(d) This resolution shall be effective upon approval.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority August 19, 2024:
Karen Barton, executive director Lynette Dumalag , president
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, secretary
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Presentation: 3a
Executive summary
Title: Westwood Hills Nature Center junior naturalist recognition
Recommended action: The mayor is asked to recognize the junior naturalists for their service
this summer. Summer junior naturalist coordinator Aaron Casey-Fix and naturalist Becky
McConnell will be in attendance to assist with the presentation.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: There were 40 youth volunteers that served in the junior naturalist program this
summer. Collectively, they volunteered over 1,400 hours.
The junior naturalist program has been part of Westwood Hills Nature Center for 33 years. The
goal of the program is to foster responsibility, community service, initiative, teamwork and
leadership skills in 7th – 12th grade youth. By volunteering in a cooperative, goal -oriented and
engaging work environment, the junior naturalists gain important job skills, knowledge and
experience.
The junior naturalist program is one of two teen volunteer programs in the Parks and
Recreation Department. The junior naturalists assist the naturalists with camps providing
valuable support with nature hikes, games, activities, crafts, set-up and clean-up. This year,
they helped serve 470 summer camp participants. Because of the junior naturalists’ dedication
and willingness to serve, summer camp participants’ experience is safer and more engaging.
Additionally, junior naturalists maintain the beautiful upper water garden and waterfall area
and take care of the nature center’s education animals.
The junior naturalists are rewarded with this special recognition, a letter of recommendation
and a celebration in appreciation of their service.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, senior office assistant
Becky McConnell, interpretive naturalist
Reviewed by: Mark Oestreich, nature center manager
Jason T. West, parks and recreation director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Presentation: 3b
Executive summary
Title: St. Louis Park Parktacular Ambassador program recognition
Recommended action: Mayor and council members to recognize the 2023-2024 St. Louis Park
Parktacular Ambassadors for their contributions to the community.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: The St. Louis Park Parktacular Ambassadors represent and promote the St. Louis
Park community and the Parktacular festival through participation in community festivals
throughout MN and WI. In addition, as goodwill ambassadors for the St. Louis Park community ,
they volunteer with numerous service projects and community outreach efforts .
Ambassadors are residents or students within the city and include elementary, middle school,
young adults, and senior members of our community. As an inclusive program, St. Louis Park is
one of three communities who have representation from children, young adults, and seniors
and the program directors are especially proud of the racial and ethnic diversity amongst
program members. Ambassadors are public servants and demonstrate that St. Louis Park is a
place where all ages, religions, and ethnicities can live, learn, and participate in a strong
community.
St. Louis Park Parktacular Senior Ambassador s:
• Mare Saffe
• Joanne Hed
St. Louis Park Parktacular Ambassadors:
• Abigail Oppegaard
• Catherine "Catie" Miller
• Estella Hughes
• Sidney Bradley
St. Louis Park Parktacular Junior Ambassadors:
• Lily Berggren
• Ebba Berggren
• Fiona Penna
Financial or budget considerations: None.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: None.
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Presentation: 3c
Executive summary
Title: Retirement recognition for Officer Luke Ellanson
Recommended action: Read resolution and present plaque to Luke for his years of service to
the City of St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over 20
years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city
council.
Luke will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The mayor is
asked to read the resolution for Luke in recognition of his years of service to the city.
Financial or budget considerations: None applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution attached to Consent item 5a
Prepared by: Barb Lamfers, HR technician
Greg Weigel, patrol lieutenant
Reviewed by: Rita Vorpahl, HR director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Presentation: 3d
Executive summary
Title: Proclamation observing August 25, 2024 as the Centennial Celebration of the Star of
Bethlehem Home
Recommended action: Mayor to read proclamation observing the centenary celebration of the
historic Monterey Cohousing Community residence.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: This year marks the 100th anniversary of the historical Star of Bethlehem home,
Monterey Cohousing Community’s location. Built in 1924 and originally known as the “Star of
Bethlehem Home,” this four-story brick mansion has a rich history.
It was designed by Frederick Mann, founder of the U niversity of Minnesota’s School of
Architecture, in the American Colonial style. It would have been easily visible to any drivers
heading east or west as well as to any streetcar riders traveling the route. The Manhattan Park
streetcar stop was at the intersection with Monterey Ave., with a small brick waiting pavilion on
the north side of the street. The building was commissioned by the Christian Science community
as a temporary place of abode for Christian Scientists seeking rest and comfort according to
their beliefs. From 1964 to 1991 it was operated as a boarding house by Daystar Ministries, until
it was purchased by Monterey Cohousing Community in 1992 and converted to Cooperative
Housing – the first of its kind in Minnesota.
In the early 1980s, the Dutch idea of cohousing was being promoted in the United States by
architects Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett . The concept of a “living community” quickly
became an international concept. Goals of cohousing communities include creating community
by thriving in healthy proximity to their neighbors, building sustainability into the shared
resources of the community, and enhancing life by sharing challenges and joy with their
neighbors.
Residents are invited to consider the context of this historic location and its importance to St.
Louis Park throughout the years.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resource page
Proclamation
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 3d)
Title: Proclamation observing August 25, 2024 as the Centennial Celebration of the Star of Bethlehem Home
Resource page
In recognition of the Centennial Celebration of the Monterey Cohousing Community’s residence
at the historic Star of Bethlehem home, the City of St. Louis Park invites you to:
•Learn about the historical context of the community’s location
o 4500 MINNETONKA BLVD. Star of Bethlehem – St Louis Park Historical Society
(slphistory.org)
•Explore the Monterey Cohousing Community
o Cohousing | Monterey Cohousing Community
Page 3 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 3d)
Title: Proclamation observing August 25, 2024 as the Centennial Celebration of the Star of Bethlehem Home
Proclamation
Observing the Centennial Celebration of the Star of Bethlehem Home, residence
of the Monterey Cohousing Community on August 25, 2024, in St. Louis Park
Whereas, 2024 marks 100 years since the location of the Monterey Cohousing
Community, known as the Star of Bethlehem Home, was originally constructed; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park is home to a diversity of residents, including our intentional
communities and their goals for living healthy, fulfilling lives together ; and
Whereas, the centenary of this historic location provides a moment of reflection on the
history of both architecture and inclusion in St. Louis Park; and
Whereas, acknowledging the complex and rich history of this centenary celebration
contributes to St. Louis Park’s strategic priority of commitment to creating opportunities to
build social capital through community engagement; and
Whereas, the residents of the Monterey Cohousing Community have invited the
community at-large to celebrate this remarkable history,
Now therefore, let it be known that the mayor and city council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, hereby observe the Centennial Celebration of the Star of Bethlehem Home,
residence of the Monterey Cohousing Community, on August 25, 2024 in our community.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 19th day of August, 2024.
_________________________________
Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Presentation: 3e
Executive summary
Title: Recognition of donations
Recommended action: Mayor to announce and express appreciation for the following
donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda.
From Donation For
Pamela Gruber $2,800
Memorial park benches, including concrete pads,
honoring Josh Gruber and to be placed in Bass Lake
Park
Kimberly Wick $2,800 Memorial park benches, including concrete pads, to
be placed in Bass Lake Park
Jack Stack $2,200
Memorial park benches, including concrete pads,
honoring Jack Stack and to be placed in Twin Lakes
Park
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: None.
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Minutes: 4a
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Aug. 5, 2024
1.Call to order.
Mayor Mohamed called the meeting to order at 6:16 p.m.
a.Pledge of allegiance
b.Roll call
Council members present: Mayor Nadia Mohamed, Paul Baudhuin, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd,
Lynette Dumalag, Margaret Rog
Council members absent: Yolanda Farris
Staff present: City manager (Ms. Keller), city attorney (Mr. Brooksbank), community
development director (Ms. Barton), housing supervisor (Ms. Olson), engineering services
manager (Mr. Elkin), engineering director (Ms. Heiser), recreation supervisor (Ms. Abernathy),
deputy city clerk (Ms. Scott-Lerdal)
Guests: Pledge of Allegiance guest Zhandi Chidothe, League of Minnesota Cities representative
Luke Fischer
2. Approve agenda.
It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to approve
the agenda as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Farris absent).
3. Presentations.
a.Recognition of Playground Junior Leaders
Ms. Abernathy introduced each playground junior leader and Mayor Mohamed presented them
with a certificate of recognition.
Mayor Mohamed thanked the junior leaders for their work. Ms. Abernathy described how the
program provides 7-9th grade students with a leader-in-training experience through summer
volunteer work.
Council Member Brausen pointed out that 48 total students volunteered this summer to
provide over 1,000 hours of community service. He thanked everyone for all their efforts.
Page 2 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
b.Recognition of Mayor Mohamed, recipient of the League of Minnesota Cities 2024
Emerging Leader Award
Mr. Fischer, executive director of the League of Minnesota Cities, recognized Mayor Mohamed
as the 2024 Emerging Leader award winner. He described her accomplishments and her history
of public service. A video was presented about the mayor with comments from staff, city
council members and state representatives.
Mayor Mohamed thanked the city council and all who joined her at the presentation in
Rochester, MN. She dedicated the award to the city, residents and those who helped her along
the way, as well as her mentors. She shared how she grew up in St. Louis Park, indicating the
qualities people see in her come from this city and growing up here. She is proud of the work
being done in St. Louis Park and looks forward to the work to be done over the next three
years. She sees this award as the city and staff’s award, as well as everyone who contributes to
the amazing work of the city. Mayor Mohamed thanked her mother, remarking on the strong
relationship they have and how much that factored into how she was raised.
Council Member Budd shared she attended the event in Rochester and noted the enthusiasm
at the award presentation, adding that it had been wonderful to be part of that event.
Council Member Brausen pointed out that Mayor Mohamed received this award as an
emerging leader and the best is yet to come.
Council Member Dumalag stated this award is well deserved, and she has always appreciated
the Mayor’s enthusiasm, curiosity and dedication to this community.
Council Member Baudhuin stated it has been an honor to work with Mayor Mohamed and
shared how he had been involved in the Mayor’s 2019 city council campaign. He saw her as a
leader then and now, and is proud to be led by Mayor Mohamed. During a time when there has
been fear around East African and Somalian immigrants, Mayor Mohamed has brought beauty
to the city as a person from a long lineage of Somalian immigrants - adding the city is grateful
for her.
Council Member Rog added her congratulations to the Mayor as well and encouraged her to
keep up the good work.
Mayor Mohamed offered her thanks to all and to the League of Minnesota Cities as it advocates
for cities throughout Minnesota.
4. Minutes.
a.Minutes of July 8, 2024 city council meeting
b.Minutes of July 8, 2024 study session
c.Minutes of July 15, 2024 city council meeting
d.Minutes of July 15, 2024 special study session
Page 3 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
It was moved by Council Member Brausen, seconded by Council Member Rog, to approve the
July 8, 2024 city council meeting and study session minutes as presented, and the July 15, 2024
city council meeting and special study session minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Farris absent).
5.Consent items.
a.Approve city disbursements and financial report
b.First reading of ordinance relating to 2025 fees
c.Resolution No. 24-087 authorizing final payment for Rotary Northside Park Water
Quality Improvement Project (4022-4001) - Ward 4
d.Resolution No. 24-088 approving Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act discretionary
match grant agreement with MnDOT
e.Resolution No. 24-089 approving lawful gambling premises permit - Maple Grove Lions
Club - Ward 4
f.Approve replacement of two fire engines (Units No. 1308 and 1604)
Council Member Brausen referenced item 5d approving infrastructure investment and jobs act
discretionary match grant agreement with MnDOT. This item is to put the city’s safety action
plan in place and the matching cost the city had to make was $200,000. He thanked staff for
being proactive in this matter to obtain matching funds from the federal government and
MnDOT.
Council Member Brausen also noted the replacement of two fire engines, adding that is over $2
million in cost. He indicated the advance planning on this item because construction of fire
engines takes years to complete. The two fire engines are estimated to be delivered to the city
in 2027. He pointed out an anticipated trade-in credit of $400,000 and thanked staff for their
work.
It was moved by Council Member Budd, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to approve the
consent items as listed; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Farris absent).
6.Public hearings – none.
7.Regular business.
a.First reading of ordinance amending Ch. 22 of the city code regarding bulk materials
storage
Mr. Elkin presented the staff report.
Council Member Rog stated she heard from some residents that bulk materials in the right of
way was a challenge, so she appreciates this change. She asked about practical and reasonable
locations for bulk materials. She asked for clarification of criteria on areas where a dumpster
would be prohibited, allowing the dumpster to be placed in the street instead. Mr. Elkin stated
Page 4 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
residents can reach out to staff to schedule a site visit. Areas of concern include steep
driveways, a lot with many trees, or a pie-shaped lot. Mr. Elkin noted that staff is trying to be
more flexible related to this issue.
Council Member Rog asked who will determine whether a public safety issue exists.
Mr. Elkin stated there is a list of conditions that are required for putting anything in the street.
These include markings, space around fire hydrants, not blocking sidewalks or bike lanes or
parking zones; all of which will be considered as part of the permit process.
Council Member Rog asked if a decision is made that a tree be removed, will residents reach
out to their council members for exceptions. Mr. Elkin stated staff will try to avoid this
outcome, working and communicating with residents to avoid issues.
Council Member Dumalag thanked staff for their work and shared that some residents had
reached out to her about dumpsters being present in yards for up to a year. She likes that this
ordinance shortens that time to two weeks and appreciates the thoughtfulness of this
requirement.
Council Member Rog asked if a Bagster dumpster has a longer timeframe than two weeks. Mr.
Elkin stated that would be permissible as long as it remains in the residents' yard.
It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Budd, to approve the
first reading of an ordinance amending Ch. 22 of the city code regarding bulk materials storage
The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Farris absent).
b.First reading of pre-eviction notice ordinance
Ms. Olson presented the staff report.
Council Member Budd asked whether the proposed ordinance requirements would be
considered a post-eviction filing versus a pre-eviction filing. Ms. Olson stated the proposed 30
day timeframe is the notice period before an eviction is filed.
Council Member Baudhuin asked whether the timeframe starts when the notice has been given
or when it has been received. Ms. Olson stated it is 30 days from the date of the notice.
Council Member Rog why the notification method was deleted related to email or mail
requirements. Ms. Olson clarified the city’s method of delivery was deleted from the proposed
language because state statute already requires a specific method of delivery. In the city’s
seven-day ordinance, email was listed as an option, but state statute does not allow for email.
Ms. Olson added that the city ordinance is supplemental to the state statute, so the city does
not reiterate any state information.
Barbara Tchom-Schopf, 9416 Fredrick Ave., stated she grew up in St. Louis Park and has owned
a home in the city for 42 years. She thanked the city council for the 30-day notice ordinance,
Page 5 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
and shared a conversation she had with a resident who received an eviction notice. Many
tenants are working to get information together, including legal support, to allow them to stay
in their homes. The 30-day notice allows for more time for tenants and passing this ordinance
will benefit tenants. She hopes this will not cause unintended consequences of increased rent
and shorter leases or higher deposits. She thanked the council again and shared her
appreciation for their commitment to this issue.
Claudia Oxley, 2931 Vernon Ave. S., thanked the council for their work as well as for listening to
residents. She is part of the community housing group and is invested in the overall health and
quality of the city. She stated the city has not invested enough money in this issue and the 30-
day eviction notice does not solve the problem. She recognized that this is a struggle, and
shared that what this eviction notice does is provide tenants a bit more time to prevent
eviction. Stable housing helps improve education, economics, health and safety outcomes for
all, adding that providing 16 more days’ notice is a big win. She concluded that consistency is
simplicity.
Kirsten Brekke Albright, 8607 Westmoreland Lane, stated she has lived with her husband in St.
Louis Park for 30 years. She stated we all do better when we all do better and she supports the
30-day notice. Keeping people housed has positive impacts and is the right thing to do. In a city
with many diverse faiths, community leaders rally around issues based in common humanity
and this is a continuation of that work. Housing is an essential human right and she is proud the
community leads impactful tenant protection initiatives.
Jessica Szuminski, policy attorney for Housing Justice Center, stated she supports the ordinance
and noted it is necessary for the 41% of St. Louis Park residents who are renters. The 30-day
ordinance is common sense and allows renters to avoid eviction. She noted confusion among
tenants when eviction notices are submitted, and pointed out several deletions in the proposed
ordinance that she has concerns about, including the dates.
Regan Reeck, 8011 34th Ave. S., Bloomington, stated she represents HOME Line and is happy to
support this ordinance. She thanked the commission, council and staff for their work. She noted
the additional 16 days will continue to decrease eviction filings, and while it may have some
costs to landlords, it will also allow for more assistance to tenants and assure more breathing
room for renters. She added kids will stay in school and local businesses will continue to be
supported.
Barb Patterson, 4356 Wooddale Ave., thanked the council for the creation of this ordinance as
well as partners within and outside the city. She thanked tenants for helping everyone learn
and want to stay in St. Louis Park. She also thanked those who opposed this policy as it helps in
learning and growing. She stated the ordinance will reduce homelessness in the community and
thanked the community for their work.
Elizabeth Stroder, 2240 Nevada Ave. S., stated she is speaking from personal experience related
to homelessness. She shared her personal story including moving to Minnesota in 2009, and
now having recently lost her job and living with friends. When she received an eviction notice,
her landlord did not work with her to assist. She stated she was a number and her humanity did
not matter. She asked the council to please continue to care about St. Louis Park residents.
Page 6 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
Matt Kinney, 9115 W. 34th St., stated he supports the 30-day eviction notice and the required
letter. He had been working with a friend to acquire affordable housing and during that time,
he learned how slow the process is. He stated the arguments against the proposed ordinance
are hypothetical and noted Council Member Farris’ comments at the study session were
accurate. He stated the proposed ordinance will not help everyone, but will help many and the
required letter of notice will get the correct information into the hands of the tenants. He urged
the council to vote in favor of the ordinance.
Marilyn Klug, 2729 Xenwood Ave., stated she is a member of the community housing team and
thanked the council for their support of the proposed ordinance. The letter of notice and
ordinance are clear and serve both tenants and landlords. She stated the pre-eviction notice is
clear and understandable and noted some recommendations the housing group made. She
thanked the council for their support on this tenant-centered ordinance and stated it takes
everyone to address the housing crisis.
Nils Snyder is a small business owner, a housing provider and manages rental property. He is
not in support of the proposed ordinance, noting that managing rental property has been the
most difficult job he has had. He stated the process of eviction is time-consuming and
expensive. He shared the eviction process is not typically 16 days; it is more like six to nine
weeks for the whole process. There will be unintended consequences, including rent increases
and higher deposits. He has tried to work with tenants in the past and found it does not work.
His business needs the rent for taxes, mortgage, utilities and other expenses. He stated this will
have an impact on renters.
Mayor Mohamed stated Alexander Bisanz of Mortgage Equities submitted a written statement
to the city council.
Mayor Mohamed thanked everyone for their comments, adding this is the most thoughtful and
intentional group she has heard before council.
Council Member Budd asked why the second reading date was changed. Ms. Olson shared it
was originally scheduled for August 19 and recommended by staff to move the second reading
to September 9, 2024. Ms. Keller clarified the date change was recommended after reviewing
the agenda calendar.
It was moved by Council Member Dumalag, seconded by Council Member Brausen, to amend
ordinance to include a sunset date of 24 months, at which point the city would rely on state
statute.
Council Member Dumalag suggested this based on the City of Brooklyn Center, which has a
similar ordinance. After collecting data for two years, the council can review how well the
ordinance is working.
Council Member Rog noted the recommendation to sunset and effectively end the ordinance is
different than the recommendation to look at the data and evaluate whether to continue.
Page 7 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
Council Member Dumalag clarified that by providing the timeline for sunsetting the ordinance,
the city council will be required to look at the data in advance of the 24-month timeframe. The
council can then evaluate if they want to continue with the 30-day pre-eviction notice or not.
The data from staff shows that of 13,000 rental units, less than 2% receive the filing and less
than 1% are actually evicted. She would like to review this data again in two years and her
motion ensures this review process is not forgotten.
Council Member Rog asked what kind of data should be reviewed. Council Member Dumalag
expressed concern about housing stability throughout the city. There are a number of renters
living in apartments, houses, condominiums, townhomes and duplexes – both regular and
owner-occupied. She acknowledged the council is trying to assist those renters. Council
Member Dumalag shared her family’s experience with homelessness and her motivation to
serve on two boards working towards solutions. She does not want to create a policy where the
majority of license holders will be greatly affected when there are only a few bad actors. At a
future study session, she would like to explore funds to create a program to assist small
business owners who are landlords.
Council Member Baudhuin asked if the two-year sunset would happen automatically or
whether a vote would be required for the ordinance to sunset. Council Member Dumalag
clarified that it would be automatic.
Council Member Baudhuin asked what might happen if the council then, after two years, wants
to keep the ordinance in place. Mr. Brooksbank stated it would require another ordinance
amendment at that time to remove the sunset language.
Council Member Rog stated when body cameras for police were brought on, there was concern
from some members of council. At the time, the council required a detailed yearly report from
police on the body camera program, including data. She is more comfortable with adding a
requirement that council receive a yearly report with specific data to examine if the ordinance
should remain in effect. She is in favor of a report of this type rather than a sunset which ends
the ordinance, especially after all the work and effort that went into this ordinance.
Council Member Brausen stated he supports the proposed amendment to sunset in two years.
He is worried this ordinance will radically impact the rental markets in St. Louis Park. He
acknowledged he also understands that a housing crisis exists. He is not sure this ordinance will
house more people and has substantial concerns the requirements will deter landlords. Council
Member Brausen added that he could support the ordinance for two years and examine the
data before extending the ordinance permanently.
Council Member Baudhuin stated he appreciates a motion that holds the council accountable
and looks at the data. He is not in support, however, of an automatic sunset and if the
ordinance is working, he prefers a mechanism that makes it easier to keep it rather than going
through a process to keep it. He is in favor of accountability structures and monitoring data.
Council Member Budd agreed and stated she is not in favor of the amendment motion. There
has been a great deal of due diligence all along the ordinance’s drafting process. The data from
HOME Line was impressive in the decrease of filings and she feels there is enough data to
Page 8 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
support the proposed ordinance. She likes accountability and requiring annual reports but she
is not in support of sunsetting by default.
Mayor Mohamed stated she likes the spirit of the amendment and looking at the data. She
does not want all of the work that went into the ordinance to automatically sunset after two
years. She is in favor of accountability measures, such as yearly reports with goals reached and
data supporting outcomes. She is open to more discussion on accountability and requiring
specific data.
The motion failed 2-4 (Council Member Baudhuin, Budd, Mohamed and Rog opposed; Council
Member Farris absent).
Council Member Rog stated she has concerns around the date of the notice and no recognition
that the mail method does not guarantee successful delivery. She asked staff to speak to those
concerns.
Ms. Olson clarified that state statute dictates how the notice must be delivered, but landlords
may use additional methods such as email, hand delivery and online tenant portals to ensure
the notice is received. Mailing is a legal method of delivering a notice and the city cannot
predict when the notice will arrive. To provide clearer communication to renters, the ordinance
requires the landlord to include a statement outlining 30 days from the date of the notice, and
not the date it is received.
Ms. Barton added the letter could be dated a certain date but not mailed until later, noting the
city does not have control of that. She added it may be mailed but not postmarked on the date
it was mailed, and some people do not have email. Under state statute, notices must go
through the regular US mail, however, landlords generally want the notice to get into the hands
of tenants as soon as possible. Notices are usually mailed, hand-delivered, emailed or delivered
via tenant portals.
Council Member Rog stated that she is interested in the data point of the time it takes between
a notice being mailed and when it is received, to see if this is in fact an issue.
Council Member Budd thanked everyone in the room and all those who wrote in to explain
their situation. She shared that she heard from small business owners as well, and those
comments were valuable. She observed that St. Louis Park does not have an eviction crisis like
some cities, and that is wonderful. However, the impact of an eviction on a single person is
more significant than the cumulative effect of the 16 additional days of delay on receiving the
rent. She will vote in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Council Member Brausen thanked everyone for their efforts. He cares about housing in St. Louis
Park and thanked the landlords who spoke and sent written comments. Council Member
Brausen shared that he is a real estate attorney with a great deal of experience with evictions.
He stated he is not pro-landlord and is in favor of tenants working out their situations because
no one wants to see homelessness. The crisis is about affordable housing and the city has
committed resources to this over the years and will continue to do so. He will vote against this
proposed ordinance because he is worried about the rental market. The city’s work with 200
Page 9 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
eviction notices per year will have an impact on the 18,000 renters in St. Louis Park. This is a
concern as it will be more difficult to find rental units that do not ask for a substantial deposit
or a shorter lease, and that do not get more vigorous in their screening processes.
Council Member Baudhuin thanked everyone for their feedback and apologized for not being
able to respond to all residents who sent emails, but noted that he had read every message he
received. He stated this decision has been difficult, and he knows there are many very
compassionate landlords in St. Louis Park. There are good relationships between renters and
landlords, but after hearing from both sides, it is clear to him that there is a housing problem in
St. Louis Park. He stated that is where we have to step back and say there is a systemic problem
in our city, and in our world which is multi-faceted and evidenced by the unintended
consequences that have been discussed. He stated these are not unintended consequences,
they are intended, and landlords will act upon them if this ordinance passes. Hearing this
concern reiterated can feel like a threat, and yet he understands the mechanisms of running a
small business. Broadly, the rental system is weighted in favor of landlords and renters are, for
the most part, at the mercy of landlords; renters need more protections through regulations.
Council Member Baudhuin stated this issue is not simple and there are many elements at play.
He stated one of the reasons the 30-day pre-eviction notice could be problematic is that the
remaining elements in the rental market are not being addressed; it really does not solve the
housing problem. He stated the problem will not be solved all at once, so the city has to start by
taking incremental steps to make it a little harder to put someone into homelessness. Because
of that, he will vote in favor of the proposed ordinance and is in favor of the required notice
portion.
Council Member Rog stated thanked the housing team and everyone else involved with the
work, specifically Barb Patterson, Marilyn Kluge, Claudia Oxley and Liz Schroeder. She also
thanked JCA, HOME Line and all the other advocacy groups. She thanked the council and staff
for their discussion and work, as well as landlords and renters who shared their input. She
stated housing is complicated and the ordinance will provide individuals and families more
breathing room, a notice that better aligns with realities of low-income renters, and the steps
they have to take to resolve their housing issues.
Council Member Rog stated she had a conversation with staff at STEP and the loss of a job is the
primary reason why tenants fall behind in paying rent. Landlords have stressed they are
concerned about losing 60 days of rent given the time it takes for processes to be worked
through. She pointed out the timeframe is intended to allow people to take care of their issues
and avoid eviction. Regarding landlord concerns, she sees an opportunity by setting aside a
portion of the anticipated $330,000 in state funds – from a new sales tax - which can be used
for housing assistance. With those funds, more resources can be provided to housing partners
so they can provide two to three month's rent assistance versus the current one month. This
will create conditions where renters are more likely to resolve their issues. She stated this will
reduce risks to landlords and give everyone more time.
Council Member Rog stated on the required notice, the forms were misleading and difficult to
follow, so she is grateful for the support of a standard form and grateful to the community
Page 10 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
housing team for their work to make it understandable, as well as meeting all the legal
requirements. She stated she will vote in favor of the proposed ordinance.
Council Member Dumalag thanked everyone as well for their work on this issue but she still has
concerns about the broad impact upon all renters in the city. She agrees some emails can feel
like a threat but noted that is the reality if someone has to do business and provide housing.
She is not worried about those in market-rate housing but has more concerns about those living
in NOAH, affordable housing, and those that work to provide it. She is not in favor of this
proposed ordinance because she does not want the higher security deposits, higher rents and
shorter-term leases – all of which are mechanisms landlords may use. She added even non-
profits still have to have cash flow, otherwise they could lose their property.
Council Member Dumalag added she would like more discussion on unintended consequences
of the proposed ordinance at a study session.
Mayor Mohamed stated this has been a long time coming, and many conversations on this
issue have happened over the years. She has been vocal on this issue and shared that she is a
renter herself. When it comes to this ordinance, for folks of color, it is a double-edged sword
with access to housing for diverse persons being so difficult. The reality is the unintended
consequences. She stated she will vote in favor of this issue and the standard notice form, and
the city will do the best it can on this ordinance. She added that if it does not work as intended,
she invites folks back for more discussion.
It was moved by Mayor Mohamed, seconded by Council Member Budd, to approve first reading
of the ordinance of pre-eviction notice.
The motion passed 4-2 (Council Members Dumalag and Brausen opposed; Council Member
Farris absent).
It was moved by Mayor Mohamed, seconded by Council Member Dumalag, to set the second
reading of the ordinance of pre-eviction notice for September 9, 2024.
Council Member Dumalag stated she would like to allocate time for a future study session
discussion so folks can stay in their homes, and landlords do not have to lose or sell their
properties in light of unintended consequences.
Council Member Rog agreed and asked for staff’s direction on collecting data to be brought
back for council to study.
Ms. Barton stated staff currently does not collect the type of data discussed this evening, so
staff will work with the city attorney on options and bring those recommendations to council.
Council Member Baudhuin stated that data should come back to council before two years have
elapsed, and data should be from renters as well as landlords, so it is balanced and well-
rounded.
The motion passed 6-0 (Council Member Farris absent).
Page 11 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 4a)
Title: City council meeting minutes of August 5, 2024
Council Member Rog thanked Mayor Mohamed for her handling of the meeting this evening,
and stated she dedicated her status as an emerging leader through her actions.
8.Communications and announcements.
a.Quarterly development update – 3rd quarter of 2024
b. Results of the banking services RFP evaluation and recommendation
Ms. Keller stated construction on Minnetonka Boulevard will begin next week, noting there is a
link on the city web page to Hennepin County for more information.
9. Adjournment.
The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5a
Executive summary
Title: Resolution recognizing retirement of Officer Luke Ellanson
Recommended action: Read resolution and present plaque to Luke for his years of service to
the City of St. Louis Park.
Policy consideration: None at this time.
Summary: City policy states that employees who retire or resign in good standing with over
20 years of service will be presented with a resolution from the mayor, city manager and city
council.
Luke will be in attendance for the presentation at the beginning of the meeting. The mayor is
asked to read the resolution for Luke in recognition of his years of service to the city.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Greg Weigel, patrol lieutenant
Barb Lamfers, HR technician
Reviewed by: Rita Vorpahl, HR director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Resolution recognizing retirement of Officer Luke Ellanson
Resolution No. 24 - 090
Recognizing the contributions of and expressing appreciation to
Luke Ellanson
Whereas, Luke Ellanson began his employment with the City of St. Louis Park as a community
service officer cadet and was promoted to police officer on October 4, 1999; and
Whereas, Luke has worked as a patrol officer most of his career. During that time, Luke has
served as a Reserve Coordinator, SWAT Team Member, School Resource Officer, Firearms
Instructor and Traffic Officer. Luke also served as union treasurer and president; and
Whereas, Luke has been awarded numerous commendations and teamwork citations; and
Whereas, Luke will be spending more time with his family, pursuing his personal interests, and
starting a new career at Groves Academy,
Now therefore be it resolved that the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, by
this resolution and public record, would like to thank Luke Ellanson for his great contributions
and over 24 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish him the best in his
retirement.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5b
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing acceptance of bench donations
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution accepting donations for memorial park
benches, including concrete pads.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept these gifts with restrictions on their
use?
Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
•Donations for memorial park benches, including concrete pads:
o Pamela Gruber, $2,800 honoring Josh Gruber, to be placed in Bass Lake Park
o Kimberly Wick, $2,800, to be placed in Lamplighter Park
o Jack Stack, $2,200 (2023 price), honoring Jack Stack, to be placed in Twin Lakes Park
Financial or budget considerations: These donations will be used for the purchase and
installation of benches, including concrete pads, in various parks.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Reviewed by: Larry Umphrey, parks superintendent
Jason T. West, director of parks and recreation
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5b) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing acceptance of bench donations
Resolution No. 24 - ___
Accepting donations totaling $7,800
for memorial benches, including concrete pads, to be planted in various parks
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of
any donations; and
Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the
donor; and
Whereas, Pamela Gruber donated $2,800 to purchase a memorial bench honoring Josh
Gruber to be placed in Bass Lake Park, Kimberly Wick donated $2,800 to purchase a memorial
bench to be placed in Lamplighter Park and Jack Stack donated $2,200 to purchase a memorial
bench honoring Jack Stack to be placed in Twin Lakes Park,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that these
gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to Pamela Gruber, Kimberly Wick and Jack Stack with the
understanding that the gifts must be used for benches, including concrete pads, in Bass Lake,
Lamplighter and Twin Lakes Parks.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5c
Executive summary
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation
(G.O.) Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the lowest bid for the sale of the
Charter G.O. Bonds, Series 2024B?
Summary: At the July 15, 2024 council meeting, council authorized the sale of 2024B Utility
Revenue G.O. Bonds in the amount of $6,165,000 and received the pre-sale report for the
series. The proposed issue includes financing for various improvements to the city’s water
system, including but not limited to watermain replacements in connection with the 2024
street rehabilitation and Connect the Park projects:
•Water main work under Minnetonka Boulevard, road construction also supported by
the county. Borrowing will fund $1,718,750 for the watermain portions of this project.
(project no. 4023-7000)
•Watermain work under Local Street Rehabilitation, area 2, road construction is also
supported by franchise fees. Borrowing will fund $3,072,000 for the watermain portions
of this project. (project no. 4024-1000)
•Watermain work under Cedar Lake TH169 to Nevada. Borrowing will fund $1,218,735
for the watermain portions of this project.
On Aug. 9, 2024, Standard and Poor’s (S&P) affirmed the city’s AAA credit rating.
The competitive bids for the bonds will be received and tabulated by the city’s municipal
advisor, Ehlers and Associates, Inc. on Monday, Aug. 19, 2024. The bond resolution will be filled
out with the final bond sale information received on that day.
Financial or budget considerations: The debt service for these issuances will be paid out of
water utility revenues. This cost has been included in the multi-year rate studies for utility
services in the city and is already factored into the proposed 4.5% rate increase in the water
fund in 2025. The attached report from Ehlers Public Finance Advisors lays out financial details
for the bond sale.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 2
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Resolution No. 24-_________
Awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds,
Series 2024B, in the original aggregate principal amount of
$6,165,000; fixing their form and specifications; directing their
execution and delivery; and providing for their payment
Be it resolved by the city council (the “city council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “city”) as follows:
Section 1. Sale of bonds.
1.01. Authorization. Pursuant to a resolution adopted by the city council on
July 15, 2024, the city authorized the sale of its General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds,
Series 2024B (the “bonds”), pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapters 444 and 475, as
amended (the “act”), to finance various improvements to the City’s water system, including but
not limited to watermain replacements in connection with various city infrastructure
improvements (collectively, the “utility improvements”).
1.02. Award to the purchaser and interest rates. A tabulation of proposals received is
attached hereto as Exhibit A. The proposal of ________________________ (the “purchaser”) to
purchase the bonds is hereby found and determined to be a reasonable offer and is hereby
accepted, the proposal being to purchase the bonds at a price of $____________ (par amount of
$6,165,000, [plus original issue premium of $_________,] [less original issue discount of
$_________,] less underwriter’s discount of $__________), plus accrued interest, if any, to the
date of delivery for bonds bearing interest as follows:
Year of
maturity Interest rate
Year of
maturity Interest rate
2026 % 2034 %
2027 2035
2028 2036
2029 2037
2030 2038
2031 2039
2032 2040
2033
True interest cost: ______________%
1.03. Purchase contract. The amount proposed by the purchaser in excess of the
minimum bid shall be credited to the debt service fund hereinafter created or deposited in the
construction fund hereinafter created, as determined by the finance director of the city in
consultation with the city’s municipal advisor. The good faith deposit of the purchaser shall be
retained and deposited until the bonds have been delivered and shall be deducted from the
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 3
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
purchase price paid at settlement. The mayor and city manager are directed to execute a contract
with the purchaser on behalf of the city if requested by the purchaser.
1.04. Terms and principal amounts of the bonds. The city will forthwith issue and sell the
bonds pursuant to the charter and the act, in the total principal amount of $6,165,000, originally
dated September 12, 2024, in fully registered form, in the denomination of $5,000 each or any
integral multiple thereof, numbered no. R-1, upward, bearing interest as above set forth, and
maturing serially on February 1 in the years and amounts as follows:
Year of
maturity Amount
Year of
maturity Amount
2026 $ 2034 $
2027 2035
2028 2036
2029 2037
2030 2038
2031 2039
2032 2040
2033
1.05. Optional redemption. The city may elect on February 1, 2034, and on any day
thereafter to prepay bonds due on or after February 1, 2035. Redemption may be in whole or in
part and if in part, at the option of the city and in such manner as the city will determine. If less
than all bonds of a maturity are called for redemption, the city will notify DTC (as defined in
section 7 hereof) of the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by
lot the amount of each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant
will then select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed.
Prepayments will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
[TO BE COMPLETED IF TERM BONDS ARE REQUESTED 1.06. Mandatory redemption; term
bonds. The bonds maturing on February 1, 20____ and February 1, 20____ shall hereinafter be
referred to collectively as the “term bonds.” The principal amount of the term bonds subject to
mandatory sinking fund redemption on any date may be reduced through earlier optional
redemptions, with any partial redemptions of the term bonds credited against future mandatory
sinking fund redemptions of such term bond in such order as the city shall determine. The term
bonds are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and shall be redeemed in part at par plus
accrued interest on February 1 of the following years and in the principal amounts as follows:]
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 4
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Sinking fund installment date
February 1, 20___ term bond Principal amount
____________________
* Maturity
February 1, 20___ term bond Principal amount
____________________
* Maturity
Section 2. Registration and payment.
2.01. Registered form. The bonds will be issued only in fully registered form. The interest
thereon and, upon surrender of each bond, the principal amount thereof, is payable by check or
draft issued by the registrar described herein.
2.02. Dates; interest payment dates. Each bond will be dated as of the last interest
payment date preceding the date of authentication to which interest on the bond has been paid or
made available for payment, unless (i) the date of authentication is an interest payment date to
which interest has been paid or made available for payment, in which case the bond will be dated
as of the date of authentication, or (ii) the date of authentication is prior to the first interest
payment date, in which case the bond will be dated as of the date of original issue. The interest on
the bonds is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing August 1, 2025, to the
registered owners of record thereof as of the close of business on the fifteenth day of the
immediately preceding month, whether or not such day is a business day.
2.03. Registration. The city will appoint a bond registrar, transfer agent, authenticating
agent and paying agent (the “registrar” and “paying agent”). The effect of registration and the
rights and duties of the city and the registrar with respect thereto are as follows:
(a)Register. The registrar must keep at its principal corporate trust office a
bond register in which the registrar provides for the registration of ownership of bonds and
the registration of transfers and exchanges of bonds entitled to be registered, transferred
or exchanged.
(b)Transfer of bonds. Upon surrender for transfer of a bond duly endorsed by
the registered owner thereof or accompanied by a written instrument of transfer, in form
satisfactory to the registrar, duly executed by the registered owner thereof or by an
attorney duly authorized by the registered owner in writing, the registrar will authenticate
and deliver, in the name of the designated transferee or transferees, one or more new
bonds of a like aggregate principal amount and maturity, as requested by the transferor.
The registrar may, however, close the books for registration of any transfer after the
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 5
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
fifteenth day of the month preceding each interest payment date and until that interest
payment date.
(c) Exchange of bonds. When bonds are surrendered by the registered owner
for exchange the registrar will authenticate and deliver one or more new bonds of a like
aggregate principal amount and maturity as requested by the registered owner or the
owner’s attorney in writing.
(d)Cancellation. Bonds surrendered upon transfer or exchange will be
promptly cancelled by the registrar and thereafter disposed of as directed by the city.
(e)Improper or unauthorized transfer. When a bond is presented to the
registrar for transfer, the registrar may refuse to transfer the bond until the registrar is
satisfied that the endorsement on the bond or separate instrument of transfer is valid and
genuine and that the requested transfer is legally authorized. The registrar will incur no
liability for the refusal, in good faith, to make transfers which it, in its judgment, deems
improper or unauthorized.
(f)Persons deemed owners. The city and the registrar may treat the person in
whose name a bond is registered in the bond register as the absolute owner of the bond,
whether the bond is overdue or not, for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on
account of, the principal of and interest on the bond and for all other purposes, and
payments so made to a registered owner or upon the owner’s order will be valid and
effectual to satisfy and discharge the liability upon the bond to the extent of the sum or
sums so paid.
(g)Taxes, fees and charges. The registrar may impose a charge upon the owner
thereof for a transfer or exchange of bonds sufficient to reimburse the registrar for any tax,
fee or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to the transfer or
exchange.
(h) Mutilated, lost, stolen or destroyed bonds. If a bond becomes mutilated or
is destroyed, stolen or lost, the registrar will deliver a new bond of like amount, number,
maturity date and tenor in exchange and substitution for and upon cancellation of the
mutilated bond or in lieu of and in substitution for any bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon
the payment of the reasonable expenses and charges of the registrar in connection
therewith; and, in the case of a bond destroyed, stolen or lost, upon filing with the registrar
of evidence satisfactory to it that the bond was destroyed, stolen or lost, and of the
ownership thereof, and upon furnishing to the registrar an appropriate bond or indemnity
in form, substance and amount satisfactory to it and as provided by law, in which both the
city and the registrar must be named as obligees. Bonds so surrendered to the registrar will
be cancelled by the registrar and evidence of such cancellation must be given to the city. If
the mutilated, destroyed, stolen or lost bond has already matured or been called for
redemption in accordance with its terms it is not necessary to issue a new bond prior to
payment.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 6
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
(i)Redemption. In the event any of the bonds are called for redemption,
notice thereof identifying the bonds to be redeemed will be given by the registrar by
mailing a copy of the redemption notice by first-class mail (postage prepaid) at least 30 and
not more than 60 days prior to the redemption date to the registered owner of each bond
to be redeemed at the address shown on the registration books kept by the registrar and
by publishing the notice if required by law. Failure to give notice by publication or by mail
to any registered owner, or any defect therein, will not affect the validity of the
proceedings for the redemption of bonds. Bonds so called for redemption will cease to
bear interest after the specified redemption date, provided that the funds for the
redemption are on deposit with the place of payment at that time.
2.04. Appointment of initial registrar. The city appoints Bond Trust Services Corporation,
Roseville, Minnesota, as the initial registrar. The mayor and the city manager are authorized to
execute and deliver, on behalf of the city, a contract with the registrar. Upon merger or
consolidation of the registrar with another corporation, if the resulting corporation is a bank or
trust company authorized by law to conduct such business, the resulting corporation is authorized
to act as successor registrar. The city agrees to pay the reasonable and customary charges of the
registrar for the services performed. The city reserves the right to remove the registrar upon thirty
(30) days’ notice and upon the appointment of a successor registrar, in which event the
predecessor registrar must deliver all cash and bonds in its possession to the successor registrar
and must deliver the bond register to the successor registrar. On or before each principal or
interest due date, without further order of the city council, the finance director of the city must
transmit to the registrar moneys sufficient for the payment of all principal and interest then due.
2.05. Execution, authentication and delivery. The bonds will be prepared under the
direction of the city manager and executed on behalf of the city by the signatures of the mayor
and the city manager, provided that those signatures may be printed, engraved or lithographed
facsimiles of the originals. If an officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears
on the bonds ceases to be such officer before the delivery of a bond, that signature or facsimile
will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if the officer had remained in
office until delivery. Notwithstanding such execution, a bond will not be valid or obligatory for any
purpose or entitled to any security or benefit under this resolution unless and until a certificate of
authentication on the bond has been duly executed by the manual signature of an authorized
representative of the registrar. Certificates of authentication on different bonds need not be
signed by the same representative. The executed certificate of authentication on a bond is
conclusive evidence that it has been authenticated and delivered under this resolution. When the
bonds have been so prepared, executed and authenticated, the city manager will deliver the same
to the purchaser upon payment of the purchase price in accordance with the contract of sale
heretofore made and executed, and the purchaser is not obligated to see to the application of the
purchase price.
Section 3. Form of bond.
3.01. Execution of the bonds. The bonds will be printed or typewritten in substantially
the form set forth in Exhibit B.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 7
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
3.02. Approving legal opinion. The city manager is authorized and directed to obtain a
copy of the proposed approving legal opinion of Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, Minneapolis,
Minnesota, and cause the opinion to be printed on or accompany each bond.
Section 4. Payment; security; pledges and covenants.
4.01. Debt service fund. The bonds will be payable from the General Obligation Utility
Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B Debt Service Fund (the “debt service fund”) hereby created. The
debt service fund shall be administered and maintained by the finance director as a bookkeeping
account separate and apart from all other funds maintained in the official financial records of the
city. The city will continue to maintain and operate its Water Fund (the “water fund”), to which will
be credited all gross revenues of the water system (the “water system”), and out of which will be
paid all normal and reasonable expenses of current operations of such system. Any balances
therein are deemed net revenues (the “net revenues”) and will be transferred, from time to time,
to the debt service fund, which debt service fund will be used only to pay principal of and interest
on the bonds, and any other bonds similarly authorized. There will always be retained in the debt
service fund a sufficient amount to pay principal of and interest on the bonds, and the finance
director must report any current or anticipated deficiency in the debt service fund to the city
council. There is also appropriated to the debt service fund (i) capitalized interest financed from
bond proceeds, if any; (ii) amounts over the minimum purchase price of the bonds paid by the
purchaser, to the extent designated for deposit in the debt service fund in accordance with
section 1.03 hereof; (iii) all investment earnings on amounts in the debt service fund; and (iv) any
other funds appropriated for the payment of principal or interest on the bonds.
4.02. Construction fund. The city hereby creates the General Obligation Utility Revenue
Bonds, Series 2024B Construction Fund (the “construction fund”). Proceeds of the bonds, less the
appropriations made in section 4.01 hereof, together with any other funds appropriated for the
utility improvements collected during the construction of the utility improvements, will be
deposited in the construction fund to be used solely to defray expenses of the utility
improvements and the payment of principal and interest on the bonds prior to the completion and
payment of all costs of the utility improvements. When the utility improvements are completed
and the cost thereof paid, the construction fund is to be closed and any funds remaining may be
deposited in the debt service fund.
4.03. City covenants with respect to the bonds. The city covenants and agrees with the
holders of the bonds that so long as any of the bonds remain outstanding and unpaid, it will keep
and enforce the following covenants and agreements:
(a)The city will continue to maintain and efficiently operate the water system
as a public utility and convenience free from competition of other like municipal utilities
and will cause all revenues therefrom to be deposited in bank accounts and credited to the
water fund, as hereinabove provided, and will make no expenditures from the water fund
except for a duly authorized purpose and in accordance with this resolution.
(b)The city will also maintain the debt service fund as a separate account and
will cause money to be credited thereto from time to time, out of net revenues from the
water system in sums sufficient to pay principal of and interest on the bonds when due.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 8
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
(c)The city will keep and maintain proper and adequate books of records and
accounts separate from all other records of the city in which will be complete and correct
entries as to all transactions relating to the water system and which will be open to
inspection and copying by any bondholder, or the bondholder’s agent or attorney, at any
reasonable time, and it will furnish certified transcripts therefrom upon request and upon
payment of a reasonable fee therefor, and said account will be audited at least annually by
a qualified public accountant and statements of such audit and report will be furnished to
all bondholders upon request.
(d)The city council will cause persons handling revenues of the water system
to be bonded in reasonable amounts for the protection of the city and the bondholders
and will cause the funds collected on account of the operations of such system to be
deposited in a bank whose deposits are guaranteed under the federal deposit insurance
law.
(e)The city council will keep the water system insured at all times against loss
by fire, tornado and other risks customarily insured against, with an insurer or insurers in
good standing, in such amounts as are customary for like plants, to protect the holders,
from time to time, of the bonds and the City from any loss due to any such casualty and
will apply the proceeds of such insurance to make good any such loss.
(f)The city and each and all of its officers will punctually perform all duties
with reference to the water system as required by law.
(g)The city will impose and collect charges of the nature authorized by
section 444.075 of the act at the times and in the amounts required to produce net
revenues adequate to pay all principal and interest when due on the bonds and to create
and maintain such reserves securing said payments as may be provided herein.
(h)The city council will levy general ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in
the city when required to meet any deficiency in pledged net revenues.
(i)The city hereby determines that the estimated collection of net revenues
herein pledged for the payment of principal and interest on the bonds will produce at least
5% in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest
payments on the bonds.
4.04. General obligation pledge. For the prompt and full payment of the principal of and
interest on the bonds, as the same respectively become due, the full faith, credit and taxing
powers of the city will be and are hereby irrevocably pledged. If the balance in the debt service
fund is ever insufficient to pay all principal and interest then due on the bonds and any other
bonds payable therefrom, the deficiency will be promptly paid out of monies in the general fund of
the city which are available for such purpose, and such general fund may be reimbursed with or
without interest from the debt service fund when a sufficient balance is available therein.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 9
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
4.05. Debt service coverage. It is hereby determined that the estimated collections of
net revenues will produce at least 5% in excess of the amount needed to meet when due the
principal and interest payments on the bonds and that no tax levy is needed at this time.
4.06. Registration of resolution. The city manager is authorized and directed to file a
certified copy of this resolution with the auditor/treasurer of Hennepin County, Minnesota and to
obtain the certificate required by section 475.63 of the act.
Section 5. Authentication of transcript.
5.01. City proceedings and records. The officers of the city are authorized and directed to
prepare and furnish to the purchaser and to the attorneys approving the bonds certified copies of
proceedings and records of the city relating to the bonds and to the financial condition and affairs
of the city, and such other certificates, affidavits and transcripts as may be required to show the
facts within their knowledge or as shown by the books and records in their custody and under
their control, relating to the validity and marketability of the bonds, and such instruments,
including any heretofore furnished, will be deemed representations of the city as to the facts
stated therein.
5.02. Certification as to official statement. The mayor, the city manager, and/or the
finance director are authorized and directed to certify that they have examined the official
statement prepared and circulated in connection with the issuance and sale of the bonds and that
to the best of their knowledge and belief the official statement is a complete and accurate
representation of the facts and representations made therein as of the date of the official
statement.
5.03. Other certificates. The mayor, the city manager, and/or the finance director are
hereby authorized and directed to furnish to the purchaser at the closing such certificates as
are required as a condition of sale. Unless litigation shall have been commenced and be
pending questioning the bonds or the organization of the city or incumbency of its officers, at
the closing the mayor, the city manager, and the finance director shall also execute and deliver to
the purchaser a suitable certificate as to absence of material litigation, and the finance director
shall also execute and deliver a certificate as to payment for and delivery of the bonds. If an
officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature appears on any aforementioned
certificate or other similar document ceases to be such officer before the delivery of such
document, that signature or facsimile will nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes,
the same as if the officer had remained in office until delivery.
5.04. Electronic signatures. The electronic signature of the mayor, the city manager,
the finance director, and/or the city clerk to this resolution and any certificate authorized to be
executed hereunder shall be as valid as an original signature of such party and shall be effective
to bind the city thereto. For purposes hereof, (i) “electronic signature” means a manually
signed original signature that is then transmitted by electronic means; and (ii) “transmitted by
electronic means” means sent in the form of a facsimile or sent via the internet as a portable
document format (“pdf”) or other replicating image attached to an electronic mail or internet
message.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 10
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
5.05. Payment of costs of issuance. The city authorizes the purchaser to forward the
amount of bond proceeds allocable to the payment of issuance expenses in accordance with
the closing memorandum to be prepared and distributed by Ehlers and Associates, Inc., the
municipal advisor to the city, on the date of closing.
Section 6. Tax covenants.
6.01. Tax-exempt bonds. The city covenants and agrees with the holders from time to
time of the bonds that it will not take or permit to be taken by any of its officers, employees or
agents any action which would cause the interest on the bonds to become subject to taxation
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “code”), and the treasury regulations
promulgated thereunder, in effect at the time of such actions, and that it will take or cause its
officers, employees or agents to take, all affirmative action within its power that may be necessary
to ensure that such interest will not become subject to taxation under the code and applicable
treasury regulations, as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the
bonds. as presently existing or as hereafter amended and made applicable to the bonds.
6.02. Rebate. The city will comply with requirements necessary under the code to
establish and maintain the exclusion from gross income of the interest on the bonds under
section 103 of the code, including without limitation requirements relating to temporary periods
for investments, limitations on amounts invested at a yield greater than the yield on the bonds,
and the rebate of excess investment earnings to the United States.
6.03. Not private activity bonds. The city further covenants not to use the proceeds of
the bonds or the facilities thereby or to cause or permit them or any of them to be used, in such a
manner as to cause the bonds to be “private activity bonds” within the meaning of sections 103
and 141 through 150 of the code.
6.04. Qualified tax-exempt obligations. In order to qualify the bonds as “qualified tax-
exempt obligations” within the meaning of section 265(b)(3) of the code, the city makes the
following factual statements and representations:
(a)the bonds are not “private activity bonds” as defined in Section 141 of the
code;
(b) the city designates the bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” for
purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the code;
(c)the reasonably anticipated amount of tax-exempt obligations (other than
private activity bonds that are not qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) which will be issued by the city
(and all subordinate entities of the city) during calendar year 2024 will not exceed
$10,000,000; and
(d)not more than $10,000,000 of obligations issued by the city during calendar
year 2024 have been designated for purposes of Section 265(b)(3) of the code.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 11
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
6.05. Procedural requirements. The city will use its best efforts to comply with any
federal procedural requirements which may apply in order to effectuate the designations made by
this section.
Section 7. Book-entry system; limited obligation of city.
7.01. DTC. The bonds will be initially issued in the form of a separate single typewritten
or printed fully registered bond for each of the maturities set forth in section 1.04 hereof. Upon
initial issuance, the ownership of each bond will be registered in the registration books kept by the
registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company, New York,
New York, and its successors and assigns (“DTC”). Except as provided in this section, all of the
outstanding bonds will be registered in the registration books kept by the registrar in the name of
Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC.
7.02. Participants. With respect to bonds registered in the registration books kept by the
registrar in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC, the city, the registrar and the paying agent
will have no responsibility or obligation to any broker dealers, banks and other financial
institutions from time to time for which DTC holds bonds as securities depository (the
“participants”) or to any other person on behalf of which a participant holds an interest in the
bonds, including but not limited to any responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy
of the records of DTC, Cede & Co. or any participant with respect to any ownership interest in the
bonds, (ii) the delivery to any participant or any other person (other than a registered owner of
bonds, as shown by the registration books kept by the registrar), of any notice with respect to the
bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any participant or any other
person, other than a registered owner of bonds, of any amount with respect to principal of,
premium, if any, or interest on the bonds. The city, the registrar and the paying agent may treat
and consider the person in whose name each bond is registered in the registration books kept by
the registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such bond for the purpose of payment of
principal, premium and interest with respect to such bond, for the purpose of registering transfers
with respect to such bonds, and for all other purposes. The paying agent will pay all principal of,
premium, if any, and interest on the bonds only to or on the order of the respective registered
owners, as shown in the registration books kept by the registrar, and all such payments will be
valid and effectual to fully satisfy and discharge the city’s obligations with respect to payment of
principal of, premium, if any, or interest on the bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No
person other than a registered owner of bonds, as shown in the registration books kept by the
registrar, will receive a certificated bond evidencing the obligation of this resolution. Upon delivery
by DTC to the city manager of a written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute
a new nominee in place of Cede & Co., the words “Cede & Co.” will refer to such new nominee of
DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice, the city manager will promptly deliver a copy of the same
to the registrar and paying agent.
7.03. Representation letter. The city has heretofore executed and delivered to DTC a
blanket issuer letter of representations (the “representation letter”) which will govern payment of
principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the bonds and notices with respect to the bonds. Any
paying agent or registrar subsequently appointed by the city with respect to the bonds will agree
to take all action necessary for all representations of the city in the representation letter with
respect to the registrar and paying agent, respectively, to be complied with at all times.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 12
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
7.04. Transfers outside book-entry system. In the event the city, by resolution of the city
council, determines that it is in the best interests of the persons having beneficial interests in the
bonds that they be able to obtain bond certificates, the city will notify DTC, whereupon DTC will
notify the participants, of the availability through DTC of bond certificates. In such event the city
will issue, transfer and exchange bond certificates as requested by DTC and any other registered
owners in accordance with the provisions of this resolution. DTC may determine to discontinue
providing its services with respect to the bonds at any time by giving notice to the city and
discharging its responsibilities with respect thereto under applicable law. In such event, if no
successor securities depository is appointed, the city will issue and the registrar will authenticate
bond certificates in accordance with this resolution and the provisions hereof will apply to the
transfer, exchange and method of payment thereof.
7.05. Payments to Cede & Co. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution to
the contrary, so long as a bond is registered in the name of Cede & Co., as nominee of DTC,
payments with respect to principal of, premium, if any, and interest on the bond and all notices
with respect to the bond will be made and given, respectively in the manner provided in DTC’s
operational arrangements, as set forth in the representation letter.
Section 8. Continuing disclosure.
8.01. Execution of continuing disclosure certificate. “Continuing disclosure certificate”
means that certain continuing disclosure certificate executed by the mayor and city manager and
dated the date of issuance and delivery of the bonds, as originally executed and as it may be
amended from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof.
8.02. City compliance with provisions of continuing disclosure certificate. The city hereby
covenants and agrees that it will comply with and carry out all of the provisions of the continuing
disclosure certificate. Notwithstanding any other provision of this resolution, failure of the city to
comply with the continuing disclosure certificate is not to be considered an event of default with
respect to the bonds; however, any bondholder may take such actions as may be necessary and
appropriate, including seeking mandate or specific performance by court order, to cause the city
to comply with its obligations under this section.
Section 9. Defeasance. When all bonds and all interest thereon have been discharged
as provided in this section, all pledges, covenants and other rights granted by this resolution to the
holders of the bonds will cease, except that the pledge of the full faith and credit of the city for the
prompt and full payment of the principal of and interest on the bonds will remain in full force and
effect. The city may discharge all bonds which are due on any date by depositing with the registrar
on or before that date a sum sufficient for the payment thereof in full. If any bond should not be
paid when due, it may nevertheless be discharged by depositing with the registrar a sum sufficient
for the payment thereof in full with interest accrued to the date of such deposit.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 13
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 14
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Exhibit A
Proposals
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 15
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Exhibit B
Form of bond
No. R-__ $___________
United States of America
State of Minnesota
County of Hennepin
City of St. Louis Park
General Obligation Utility Revenue Bond
Series 2024B
Rate Maturity
Date of
Original Issue CUSIP
February 1, 20__ September 12, 2024
Registered owner: Cede & Co.
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, a duly organized and existing municipal
corporation in Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “city”), acknowledges itself to be indebted
and for value received hereby promises to pay to the registered owner specified above or
registered assigns, the principal sum of $__________ on the maturity date specified above,
with interest thereon from the date hereof at the annual rate specified above (calculated on the
basis of a 360 day year of twelve 30 day months), payable February 1 and August 1 in each year,
commencing August 1, 2025, to the person in whose name this bond is registered at the close
of business on the fifteenth day (whether or not a business day) of the immediately preceding
month. The interest hereon and, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal hereof
are payable in lawful money of the United States of America by check or draft by Bond Trust
Services Corporation, Roseville, Minnesota, as bond registrar, paying agent, transfer agent and
authenticating agent, or its designated successor under the resolution described herein. For the
prompt and full payment of such principal and interest as the same respectively become due,
the full faith and credit and taxing powers of the city have been and are hereby irrevocably
pledged.
The city may elect on February 1, 2034, and on any day thereafter to prepay bonds due
on or after February 1, 2035. Redemption may be in whole or in part and if in part, at the
option of the city and in such manner as the city will determine. If less than all bonds of a
maturity are called for redemption, the city will notify The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) of
the particular amount of such maturity to be prepaid. DTC will determine by lot the amount of
each participant’s interest in such maturity to be redeemed and each participant will then
select by lot the beneficial ownership interests in such maturity to be redeemed. Prepayments
will be at a price of par plus accrued interest.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 16
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
This bond is one of an issue in the aggregate principal amount of $6,165,000 all of like
original issue date and tenor, except as to number, maturity date, redemption privilege, and
interest rate, all issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the city council on June 3, 2024 (the
“resolution”), for the purpose of providing money to aid in financing certain improvements to
the municipal water system, pursuant to and in full conformity with the home rule charter of
the city and the constitution and laws of the State of Minnesota, including Minnesota Statutes,
chapters 444 and 475, as amended, and the principal hereof and interest hereon are payable
from net revenues of the municipal water system, as set forth in the resolution to which
reference is made for a full statement of rights and powers thereby conferred. The full faith and
credit of the city are irrevocably pledged for payment of this bond and the city council has
obligated itself to levy ad valorem taxes on all taxable property in the city in the event of any
deficiency in net revenues pledged, which taxes may be levied without limitation as to rate or
amount. The bonds of this series are issued only as fully registered bonds in denominations of
$5,000 or any integral multiple thereof of single maturities.
The city council has designated this issue of bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations”
within the meaning of section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“code”), relating to disallowance of interest expense for financial institutions and within the
$10 million limit allowed by the code for the calendar year of issue.
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED AND RECITED that in and by the resolution, the city has
covenanted and agreed that the city will continue to own and operate the water system free
from competition by other like municipal utilities; that adequate insurance on said system and
suitable fidelity bonds on employees will be carried; that proper and adequate books of
account will be kept showing all receipts and disbursements relating to the water fund, into
which the city will pay all of the gross revenues from the water system; that it will also create
and maintain the General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B Debt Service Fund,
into which the city will pay, out of the net revenues from the water system a sum sufficient to
pay principal of the bonds and interest on the bonds when due; and that the city will provide,
by ad valorem tax levies, for any deficiency in required net revenues of the water system.
As provided in the resolution and subject to certain limitations set forth therein, this
bond is transferable upon the books of the city at the principal office of the bond registrar, by
the registered owner hereof in person or by the owner’s attorney duly authorized in writing
upon surrender hereof together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the bond
registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or the owner’s attorney; and may also be
surrendered in exchange for bonds of other authorized denominations. Upon such transfer or
exchange the city will cause a new bond or bonds to be issued in the name of the transferee or
registered owner, of the same aggregate principal amount, bearing interest at the same rate
and maturing on the same date, subject to reimbursement for any tax, fee or governmental
charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange.
The city and the bond registrar may deem and treat the person in whose name this
bond is registered as the absolute owner hereof, whether this bond is overdue or not, for the
purpose of receiving payment and for all other purposes, and neither the city nor the bond
registrar will be affected by any notice to the contrary.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 17
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED, RECITED, COVENANTED AND AGREED that all acts, conditions
and things required by the home rule charter of the city and the constitution and laws of the
State of Minnesota to be done, to exist, to happen and to be performed preliminary to and in
the issuance of this bond in order to make it a valid and binding general obligation of the city in
accordance with its terms, have been done, do exist, have happened and have been performed
as so required, and that the issuance of this bond does not cause the indebtedness of the city
to exceed any constitutional, charter, or statutory limitation of indebtedness.
This bond is not valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to any security or benefit
under the resolution until the certificate of authentication hereon has been executed by the
bond registrar by manual signature of one of its authorized representatives.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, by its
city council, has caused this bond to be executed on its behalf by the facsimile or manual
signatures of the mayor and city manager and has caused this bond to be dated as of the date
set forth below.
Dated: September 12, 2024
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(Facsimile) (Facsimile)
Mayor City Manager
_________________________________
Certificate of authentication
This is one of the bonds delivered pursuant to the resolution mentioned within.
Bond Trust Services Corporation
By
Authorized representative
_________________________________
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 18
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Abbreviations
The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this bond, will be
construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations:
TEN COM -- as tenants in common UNIF GIFT MIN ACT
_________ Custodian _________
(Cust) (Minor)
TEN ENT -- as tenants by entireties under uniform gifts or transfers to minors
act, State of _______________
JT TEN -- as joint tenants with right of
survivorship and not as tenants in
common
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
________________________________________
Assignment
For value received, the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto
________________________________________ the within bond and all rights thereunder, and
does hereby irrevocably constitute and appoint _________________________ attorney to
transfer the said bond on the books kept for registration of the within bond, with full power of
substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Notice: The assignor’s signature to this assignment must correspond with the name
as it appears upon the face of the within bond in every particular, without
alteration or any change whatever.
Signature guaranteed:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by a financial institution that is a member of the
Securities Transfer Agent Medallion Program (“STAMP”), the Stock Exchange Medallion Program
(“SEMP”), the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. Medallion Signatures Program (“MSP”) or other such
“signature guarantee program” as may be determined by the registrar in addition to, or in
substitution for, STAMP, SEMP or MSP, all in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.
The registrar will not effect transfer of this bond unless the information concerning the
assignee requested below is provided.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 19
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
Name and address:
(Include information for all joint owners if this bond
is held by joint account.)
Please insert social security or other
identifying number of assignee
_________________________________
Provisions as to registration
The ownership of the principal of and interest on the within bond has been registered on
the books of the registrar in the name of the person last noted below.
Date of registration Registered owner
Signature of
Officer of registrar
Cede & Co.
Federal ID #13-2555119
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5c) Page 20
Title: Resolution awarding the sale of General Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B
State of Minnesota )
)
County of Hennepin ) SS.
)
City of St. Louis Park )
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and acting city clerk of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “city”), do hereby certify that I have carefully compared the
attached and foregoing extract of minutes of a regular meeting of the city council of the city held
on August 19, 2024, with the original minutes on file in my office and the extract is a full, true and
correct copy of the minutes insofar as they relate to the issuance and sale of the city’s General
Obligation Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2024B, in the original aggregate principal amount of
$6,165,000.
WITNESS my hand officially as such city clerk and the corporate seal of the city this ______
day of _______________, 2024.
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(SEAL)
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5d
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing city depositories
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution authorizing bank signatories
Policy consideration: Does the council wish to approve the bank signatories for each bank
account?
Summary: The city went through a request for proposals (RFP) process and US Bank has been
selected as the city’s new depository. A report detailing the criteria, process and results of this
RFP were submitted to council on Aug. 5, 2024. The city will continue to utilize Citizens
Independent Bank as the depository transitions throughout the calendar year 2024. The table
below states the check signers and those who have authority over the city’s depository
accounts.
Banking procedures require council approval by resolution when adding or removing signers
from a bank account. The following signatories are recommended for each bank account:
Depository Accounts: US Bank & Citizens Independent Bank (does not include EDA accounts)
Kimberly Keller, city manager Check signer
Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director Check signer
Amelia Cruver, finance director Primary authority
Joe Olson, deputy finance director Secondary authority
PMA 4M: Premier money market account
Amelia Cruver, finance director Primary authority
Joe Olson, deputy finance director Secondary authority
Depository Accounts: US Bank & Citizens Independent Bank (EDA)
Nadia Mohamed, mayor Check signer
Karen Barton, community development director Check signer
Amelia Cruver, finance director Primary authority
Joe Olson, deputy finance director Secondary authority
Financial or budget considerations: The actions recommended will ensure that the city is
compliant with banking and audit requirements.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5d) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing city depositories
Resolution No. 24-___
Designating US Bank as an official depository and custodial for city funds in 2024
Whereas, US Bank has been selected as the city’s official depository and the official
custodial of the city’s investments. PMA 4M will remain custodial of the city’s investment
account as US Bank provides custodial services to the 4M fund and continues as an official
depository for the city. Citizens Independent Bank will remain an official depository to the city
for calendar year 2024 as the city transitions to US Bank for depository services. UBS will
remain as an official custodial of the city’s investments for calendar year 2024 as the city
transitions to US Bank for custodial services; and
Whereas, State of Minnesota Statutes 118A sets forth the requirements for the
designation of depositories, make investments of funds under sections 118A.01 to 118A.06 or
other applicable law, and both designate depositories and make investments as provided in this
subdivision; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
1.US Bank be named as an official depository of the city, with sufficient collateral
pledged equal to 110% of the uninsured amount on deposit;
2.US Bank be named as an official custodial of the city’s investment accounts;
Be it further resolved that the Finance Director or the Finance Director's designee of the
City of St Louis Park is hereby designated as the approval authority for the acceptance and
release of all collateral to be held in conjunction with city funds on deposit.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5e
Executive summary
Title: Approve annual financial report for the year ended December 31, 2023
Recommended action: Motion to approve the annual financial report.
Policy consideration: What additional information may the council want finance to provide
related to the 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report?
Summary: The city is required to have an independent (external) audit each year, through
which the audit firm issues an opinion on the city’s financial statements. The city’s ACFR
received an unmodified audit opinion for the Dec. 31, 2023 report. For 2023, the auditor has
deemed St. Louis Park’s audit as “unmodified” which means that they are of the opinion that
the city’s financial statements present fairly, in all material respects and are in accordance with
the applicable financial reporting framework for the Dec. 31, 2023 ACFR. In keeping with the
previous 39 years, the city has submitted the ACFR to the Government Finance Officers
Association for consideration of the Certificate of Achievement award for financial reporting.
We anticipate the submission will be accepted and the city will be, for the 40th consecutive
year, granted the award.
Rebecca Petersen from Redpath and Company presented the financial details along with city
finance staff on Aug. 12, 2024. Because the audit is public at the time it is finalized, it has been
proactively added to the city’s website on the finance department’s financial reports page:
2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.
Financial or budget considerations: This report shows the City of St. Louis Park continues to
remain in strong financial condition.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5f
Executive summary
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees
Recommended action: Motion to adopt second reading of ordinance relating to 2025 fees.
Policy consideration: Is the council supportive of the proposed fees?
Summary: Each year, our fees are reviewed by departments as part of the budget process. Fees
are reviewed based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and
to make sure our business costs are covered for corresponding services. When possible, staff
tries to stay in line with inflation which, for 2024, is currently around 3.4%. Most of our fee
increases are at or below inflation. The council is asked to approve Appendix A items because
those are within our city code. Other city fees are set administratively.
This is the second reading of the 2025 fees and there have been no changes since they were
discussed with council on July 8, 2024.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed fee changes have been incorporated into the
preliminary 2025 budget.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance
Ordinance Summary for publication
Appendix A
Prepared by: Amelia Cruver, finance director
Reviewed by: Cheyenne Brodeen, administrative services director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f) Page 2
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees
Discussion
Background: City code Sec. 1-19 references how fees are set. Fees included in the attached
ordinance are listed as Appendix A of the city code. Other fees are set administratively and
reviewed annually by city departments. Department directors have authority to set fees for
programs and services. Each department director has reviewed fees listed in Appendix A of the
city code. Recommendations are included in the attached ordinance.
On July 8, 2024, the council received a report and presentation on the proposed fee increases,
particularly the more meaningful adjustments to license fees in 2025 to cover the full cost of
providing the service.
The first reading of this ordinance took place at the Aug. 5, 2024 city council meeting. This item
received the required public hearing with due notice on July 15, 2024 and the council did not
take a vote at that time.
Present considerations: The administrative services, information resources, community
development, engineering, fire, building and energy, public works, parks and recreation, and
police departments have each reviewed and analyzed the proposed fee adjustments, additions,
and/or removals that are the shown in Appendix A (attached). The 2025 proposed fee
adjustments reflect administrative costs of providing services and remain comparable with
neighboring cities.
Next steps: If approved, the fee changes will be effective as of Jan. 1, 2025.
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f) Page 3
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees
Ordinance No. ____ - 24
Adopting fees for calendar year 2025
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the city code are hereby set by
this ordinance for calendar year 2025.
Section 2. The attached Fee Schedule shall be included as Appendix A of the City Code
and shall replace those fees adopted Dec. 4, 2023, by Ordinance No. 2674-23 for the
calendar year 2024 which is hereby rescinded.
*See attached PDF for Appendix A of the fee schedule*
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect Jan. 1, 2025.
Public Hearing July 15, 2024
First Reading August 5, 2024
Second Reading August 19, 2024
Date of Publication August 29, 2024
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2025
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
By: __________________________________ By: __________________________________
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
____________________________________ _____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren M. Mattick, city attorney
Summary for publication
Ordinance No. ____-24
An ordinance adopting fees called for
by ordinance for calendar year 2025
This ordinance sets 2025 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The fee
ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to
determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2025.
Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024
Nadia Mohamed /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: August 29, 2024
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 4
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
ACCOUNTING
Bassett Creek Watershed Management District
(property pass-through charge)
Residential monthly $0.82 per residential equivalent unit
Ordinance Appendix A
Residential quarterly $2.46 per residential equivalent unit
Ordinance Appendix A
Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 2.46 * 5) = quarterly
rate Ordinance Appendix A
MN Dept of Health state testing fee
Quarterly (Residential and multi-family)$2.43 per quarter
Monthly (Commercial)$0.81 per month
Returned Check Fee $31
Sanitary Sewer Base Charge
Quarterly Rate (Residential and multi-family)24.19 Ordinance Appendix A
Monthly Rate (Commercial)8.07 Ordinance Appendix A
Sewer and Service Charges
Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate - per unit 4.72 Ordinance Appendix A
Solid Waste Service - Collection Cost per Quarter Ordinance Appendix A
30 gallon EOW service (Every Other Week)$71.85 Ordinance Appendix A
30 gallon service $102.52 Ordinance Appendix A
60 gallon service $145.95 Ordinance Appendix A
90 gallon service $223.69 Ordinance Appendix A
120 gallon service $355.36 Ordinance Appendix A
150 gallon service $444.17 Ordinance Appendix A
180 gallon service $533.00 Ordinance Appendix A
270 gallon service $799.50 Ordinance Appendix A
360 gallon service $1,066.05 Ordinance Appendix A
Solid Waste Service (Residential)
Additional 30 gallon cart $70.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Additional 60 gallon cart $70.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Additional 90 gallon cart $70.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Cart Changes - over 1 per cart type per 12 month period $30.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Solid Waste Service (Commercial) - Collection Cost
30 gallon service
Garbage (monthly)$26.76 Ordinance Appendix A
Garbage (quarterly)$80.26 Ordinance Appendix A
60 gallon service
Garbage (monthly)$46.05 Ordinance Appendix A
Garbage (quarterly)$138.14 Ordinance Appendix A
Organics (monthly)$20.72 Ordinance Appendix A
Organics (quarterly)$62.16 Ordinance Appendix A
90 gallon service Ordinance Appendix A
Garbage (monthly)$69.08 Ordinance Appendix A
Garbage (quarterly)$207.24 Ordinance Appendix A
Recycling (monthly)$24.12 Ordinance Appendix A
Recycling (quarterly)$72.36 Ordinance Appendix A
120 gallon service
Organics (monthly)$39.78 Ordinance Appendix A
Organics (quarterly)$119.34 Ordinance Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 5
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
180 gallon service
Garbage (monthly)$142.62 Ordinance Appendix A
Garbage (quarterly)$427.84 Ordinance Appendix A
Recycling (monthly)$43.21 Ordinance Appendix A
Recycling (quarterly)$129.63 Ordinance Appendix A
Organics (monthly)$59.68 Ordinance Appendix A
Organics (quarterly)$179.02 Ordinance Appendix A
270 gallon service
Recycling (monthly)$59.68 Ordinance Appendix A
Recycling (quarterly)$179.02 Ordinance Appendix A
Storm Water Rate
Single family quarterly 31.93 Ordinance Appendix A
Basic system rate monthly 53.24 Ordinance Appendix A
Basic system rate quarterly 159.66 Ordinance Appendix A
Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 30.56 * 5) = quarterly rate Ordinance Appendix A
Water Meter Charges Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial Monthly Fee Ordinance Appendix A
5/8" meter $14.917 Ordinance Appendix A
3/4"$14.917 Ordinance Appendix A
1"$20.869 Ordinance Appendix A
1.5"$26.820 Ordinance Appendix A
2"$43.211 Ordinance Appendix A
3"$163.935 Ordinance Appendix A
4"$208.642 Ordinance Appendix A
6"$312.953 Ordinance Appendix A
Residential/Multi-family Quarterly Fee Ordinance Appendix A
5/8" meter $44.751 Ordinance Appendix A
3/4"$44.751 Ordinance Appendix A
1"$62.606 Ordinance Appendix A
1.5"$80.460 Ordinance Appendix A
2"$129.634 Ordinance Appendix A
3"$491.804 Ordinance Appendix A
4"$625.927 Ordinance Appendix A
6"$938.858 Ordinance Appendix A
2" compound $129.612 Ordinance Appendix A
3" compound $491.815 Ordinance Appendix A
Water Rates per unit (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 750 gallons)
Residential
Tier 1 0 - 13.333 units (0 - 10,000 gallons)$2.44 Ordinance Appendix A
Tier 2 13.333 - 20 units (10,000 - 15,000 gallons)$2.95 Ordinance Appendix A
Tier 3 > 20 units (>15,000 gallons)$3.54 Ordinance Appendix A
Multi Family All units $2.95 Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial
Tier 1 0 - 100 units (0 - 75,000 galllons)$2.69 Ordinance Appendix A
Tier 2 100 - 300 units (75,000 - 225,000 galllons)$2.96 Ordinance Appendix A
Tier 3 > 300 units (>225,000 galllons)$3.28 Ordinance Appendix A
Industrial
Tier 1 0 - 1,000 units (0 - 750,000 galllons)$2.69 Ordinance Appendix A
Tier 2 1,000 - 3,000 units (750,000 - 2,225,000 galllons)$2.96 Ordinance Appendix A
Tier 3 > 3,000 units (>2,225,000 galllons)$3.28 Ordinance Appendix A
Irrigation All units $4.83 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 6
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Water Shut Off/Turn On
Normal business hours (7:00 a.m. - 2:30 p.m.)$62.70 Ordinance Appendix A
After hours (After 3:00 p.m., Weekends)$188.10 Ordinance Appendix A
Broken Water Meter Fee $100 per month
Certification Admin Fees
Accounts with minimum unpaid balance $15.00
Accounts certified with Hennepin County $50.00
Chapter 22, Section 21 - Extra Garbage Stickers $3/sticker Ordinance Appendix A
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 6, Section 5 – Energy Benchmarking $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $150 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 6, Section X – Backflow Prevention $100 service fee added monthly to utility bill Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $150 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 8, Subdivision IV – Grease Producer License $200 Sewer Cleaning Fee added monthly to utility bill
Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 12 – Environment $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 12, Section 2 – Environment & Public Health Regulations
Adopted by Reference
$100
Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 12, Article VI. Zero Waste Packaging $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management - Residential $50 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 22 - Solid Waste Management - Multifamily & Commercial $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 22, Section 22-5b Hazardous and Infectious materials $200 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers
blocking public way
$50
Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 24, Section 47 – Visual obstructions at intersections $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping/blowing leaves/grass clippings or
pushing snow into/across any street or alley is prohibited $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 24, Section 274 – Work done without a permit $130 Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 24, Section 24-342 - Snow, ice and rubbish a public nuisance
on sidewalks; removal by owner.$25 first time. Fee shall double for
each subsequent violation, with a
maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400
for all others. Does not reset annually.
Does reset for new owners.Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 26 – Subdivision Ordinance Appendix A
Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval.$750 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 7
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Chapter 32 – Utilities $50 Ordinance Appendix A
Violation of sprinkling ban $50 first time. Fee shall double for
each subsequent violation, with a
maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400
for all others. Doesn't reset annually.
Does reset for new owners.
Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 32, Section 37 Access to buildings.$100 per month.Ordinance Appendix A
Chapter 36 – Zoning
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the
zoning district
$100
Ordinance Appendix A
Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit,
Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval
$750
Ordinance Appendix A
Public tree removal per diameter inch $235 Ordinance Appendix A
Repeat Violations within 24 Months Previous fine doubled up to a
maximum of $2,000 Ordinance Appendix A
Fines imposed are double the amount from the previous fine assessed, up to a
maximum of $2,000. The escalated fine amount is based on the number of
identical violations within the previous 24 months from the date of the current
violation. For example, if there were four occurrences of an identical violation
within the previous 24 months of the current violation date that carried a $50
fine, the fine for the fourth violation would be $400. (First violation: $50;
second; $100; third:$200; fourth: $400). Fines reset to the minimum amount if
there are no identical violations within the previous 24 months of the current
violation.
*Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with
abatement and licensing inspections.
BUILDING AND ENERGY Ordinance Appendix A
Building Demolition Deposit Ordinance Appendix A
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 Ordinance Appendix A
All Other Buildings $5,000 Ordinance Appendix A
Building Demolition Permit Ordinance Appendix A
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $205 Ordinance Appendix A
All Other Buildings $350 Ordinance Appendix A
Building Moving Permit $500 Ordinance Appendix A
Business Licenses Ordinance Appendix A
Billboards $200 per billboard Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial Entertainment $325 Ordinance Appendix A
Courtesy Bench $85 per bench Ordinance Appendix A
Designated Outdoor Dog Area $75 Ordinance Appendix A
Dog Kennel $200 Ordinance Appendix A
Environmental Emissions $375 Ordinance Appendix A
Fats, Oils & Grease Producer License $400
Fats, Oils & Grease Producer Provisional License $1,100
Massage Therapy Ordinance Appendix A
Massage Therapy Establishment $450 Ordinance Appendix A
Massage Therapy License $145 Ordinance Appendix A
Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $55 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 8
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Pawnbroker Ordinance Appendix A
License Fee $2,100 Ordinance Appendix A
Per Transaction Fee $3 Ordinance Appendix A
Investigation Fee $1,050 Ordinance Appendix A
Penalty $50 per day Ordinance Appendix A
Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance Appendix A
Investigation Fee (High Impact)$525 Ordinance Appendix A
High Impact $4,700 Ordinance Appendix A
Limited Impact $135 Ordinance Appendix A
THC edible license $0
THC retest fee $0
Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $750 Ordinance Appendix A
Vehicle Parking Facilities Ordinance Appendix A
Enclosed Parking $400 Ordinance Appendix A
Parking Ramp $315 Ordinance Appendix A
Tanning Bed Facility $325 Ordinance Appendix A
Certificate of Occupancy Ordinance Appendix A
For each condominium unit completed after building occupancy $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)Ordinance Appendix A
Up to 5,000 sq ft $600 Ordinance Appendix A
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $950 Ordinance Appendix A
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,450 Ordinance Appendix A
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,900 Ordinance Appendix A
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $2,350 Ordinance Appendix A
above 200,000 sq ft $2,950 Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy - Single Family $250 Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy - All other occupancies $475 Ordinance Appendix A
Certificate of Property Maintenance
Change in Ownership
Condominium Unit $245 Ordinance Appendix A
Duplex (2 Family dwellings)$450 Ordinance Appendix A
Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $400 per building + 30 per unit Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family Dwellings $350 Ordinance Appendix A
All Other Buildings: Ordinance Appendix A
Up to 5,000 sq ft $575 Ordinance Appendix A
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $910 Ordinance Appendix A
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,375 Ordinance Appendix A
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,825 Ordinance Appendix A
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $2,275 Ordinance Appendix A
above 200,000 sq. ft $2,850 Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance - SF Residential $150 Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance - All others $340 Ordinance Appendix A
Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical,
plumbing, pools, utilities)Ordinance Appendix A
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation Ordinance Appendix A
Up to $500 Base Fee $75 plus $2 for each
additional (or fraction thereof) $100
over $500.01 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 9
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $75 plus $100 for each
additional (or fraction thereof) $100
over $500.01 Ordinance Appendix A
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 $105 base fee plus $15 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
above $2,000 Ordinance Appendix A
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 $450 base fee plus $10 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
above $25,000 Ordinance Appendix A
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $700 base fee plus $7 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
above $50,000 Ordinance Appendix A
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $1,050 base fee plus $6.00 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
above $100,000 Ordinance Appendix A
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 $3,450 base fee plus $5.50 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
above $500,000 Ordinance Appendix A
$1,000,000.01 and up $6,200 base fee plus $5.00 for each
additional $1,000 or fraction thereof
above $1,000,000 Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family Building Permit Exceptions:Ordinance Appendix A
Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only Ordinance Appendix A
House or House and Garage $165 Ordinance Appendix A
Garage Only $90 Ordinance Appendix A
Residing Ordinance Appendix A
House or House and Garage $165 Ordinance Appendix A
Garage Only $90 Ordinance Appendix A
Solar Ordinance Appendix A
Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels $200 Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial Building Permit Exceptions:Ordinance Appendix A
Solar Ordinance Appendix A
Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels $400 Ordinance Appendix A
Electrical Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 Ordinance Appendix A
Installation of traffic signals per location $165 Ordinance Appendix A
Installation, Single Family Photovoltaic Panels $160 Ordinance Appendix A
Single family, one appliance $80 + 1.75% of valuation Ordinance Appendix A
ISTS Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Sewage treatment system install or repair $135 Ordinance Appendix A
Mechanical Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 + 1.75% of job valuation Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family Exceptions:Ordinance Appendix A
Replace furnance, boiler or furnance/AC $90 Ordinance Appendix A
Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $90 Ordinance Appendix A
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $90 Ordinance Appendix A
Plumbing Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Backflow Prevention Assembly Registration $40
Monthly non-compliance registration service fee $100
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 +1.75 of job valuation Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family Exceptions:Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 10
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $80 Ordinance Appendix A
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Ordinance Appendix A
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Ordinance Appendix A
Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)Ordinance Appendix A
Installation, Replacement, Repair $80 +1.75% of valuation Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family Exceptions:Ordinance Appendix A
Replace/repair sewer or water service $120 Ordinance Appendix A
Water Access Charge - per SAC unit charged on new or enlarged water
services.
$800 per SAC unit Charged on new or
enlarged water services. Ordinance Appendix A
SAC/WAC Assessment Fee
one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the
petitioned amount, with a minimum
fee of $150 and a maximum fee of
$750
Energy Improvement Assessment Fee
one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the
petitioned amount, with a minimum
fee of $150 and a maximum fee of
$750
Certificate of Competency Ordinance Appendix A
Mechanical /Gas Piping $35 Ordinance Appendix A
Annual Renewal $20 Ordinance Appendix A
Contractor Licenses Ordinance Appendix A
Mechanical $135 Ordinance Appendix A
Solid Waste $250 Ordinance Appendix A
Tree Maintenance $135 Ordinance Appendix A
Dog Licenses Ordinance Appendix A
1 year $25 Ordinance Appendix A
2 year $40 Ordinance Appendix A
3 year $50 Ordinance Appendix A
Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 Ordinance Appendix A
Interim License $15 Ordinance Appendix A
Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident)$55 Ordinance Appendix A
Penalty for no license $40 Ordinance Appendix A
Inspections Ordinance Appendix A
After Hours Inspections $250 plus $100 per hour after the first
hour Ordinance Appendix A
Installation of permenant sign w/footing inspection
Based on valuation using building permit fee table Ordinance Appendix A
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued has not been
corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)
$130
Ordinance Appendix A
Insurance Requirements Ordinance Appendix A
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability Ordinance Appendix A
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability Ordinance Appendix A
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability Ordinance Appendix A
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability Ordinance Appendix A
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability Ordinance Appendix A
License Fees - Other Ordinance Appendix A
Investigation Fee $330 Ordinance Appendix A
Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)Ordinance Appendix A
License Reinstatement Fee $260 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 11
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Transfer of License (new ownership)$90 Ordinance Appendix A
Plan Review - 50% of amount due at time of application. Exception:
Single Family Residential additions, accessory structures and remodels.
Ordinance Appendix A
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee
Ordinance Appendix A
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate
Structure Ordinance Appendix A
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Ordinance Appendix A
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Ordinance Appendix A
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee Ordinance Appendix A
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee Ordinance Appendix A
Non-owner Occupied License (Rental)Ordinance Appendix A
Condominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative per unit $175 Ordinance Appendix A
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $305 Ordinance Appendix A
Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 Ordinance Appendix A
Multiple Family Ordinance Appendix A
Per Building $400 Ordinance Appendix A
Per Unit $30 Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family Unit/Duplex one-side only $275 Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Noise Permit $95 Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Use Permits Ordinance Appendix A
Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $290 Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial Film Production Application $135 Ordinance Appendix A
Petting Zoos $75 Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $135 Ordinance Appendix A
Vehicle Decals Ordinance Appendix A
Solid Waste $35 Ordinance Appendix A
Tree Maintenance & Removal $20 Ordinance Appendix A
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Ordinance Appendix A
Copies
No Charge 0-9 pages; 10 pages $2.50;
$0.25/page thereafter up to 100 pages
Domestic Partnership Ordinance Appendix A
Registration Application Fee $50 Ordinance Appendix A
Amendment to Application Fee $25 Ordinance Appendix A
Termination of Registration Fee $25 Ordinance Appendix A
Liquor Licenses Ordinance Appendix A
Brewpub Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 Ordinance Appendix A
Brewer's Off-sale Malt Liquor $200 Ordinance Appendix A
Microdistillery Cocktail Room $600 Ordinance Appendix A
Microdistillery Off-Sale $200 Ordinance Appendix A
Brewer's On-sale Taproom $600 Ordinance Appendix A
Club (per # members)Ordinance Appendix A
1 - 200 $300 Ordinance Appendix A
201 - 500 $500 Ordinance Appendix A
501 - 1000 $650 Ordinance Appendix A
1001 - 2000 $800 Ordinance Appendix A
2001 - 4000 $1,000 Ordinance Appendix A
4001 - 6000 $2,000 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 12
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
6000+$3,000 Ordinance Appendix A
Off-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 Ordinance Appendix A
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 Ordinance Appendix A
Off-sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S. 340A.480-3(c )$280 Ordinance Appendix A
On-sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 Ordinance Appendix A
On-sale Culinary Class Limited $100 Ordinance Appendix A
On-sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750 Ordinance Appendix A
On-sale Sunday Liquor $200 Ordinance Appendix A
On-sale Wine $2,000 Ordinance Appendix A
New License Background Investigation (non-refundable)
$500 in-state applicant; actual costs
for out-of-state applicant may be billed
up to a maximum of $10,000
New Store Manager Background Investigation $500
On-sale license renewal per 340A.412, Subd. 2 $500
Temporary On-sale License Fee $100/day
Proclamations
Framed Proclamation $15
Communications & Technology
Cable TV
Duplicate DVD, 1 to 4 copies $20/each
Duplicate DVD, 5+ copies $15/each
Duplicate Video USB (16GB)$20/each
GIS Services
Custom Mapping Fee - per hour minimum $50
Custom GIS Analysis Fee - per hour minimum $50
Printing
8.5 x 11 (per copy)$0.25 black and white/$0.75 color
17 x 22 $5
24 x 36 $10
36 x 36 $15
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Ordinance Appendix A
Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,300 Ordinance Appendix A
Conditional Use Permit $2,300 Ordinance Appendix A
Administrative $500
Major Amendment $2,300 Ordinance Appendix A
Minor Amendment $1,200 Ordinance Appendix A
Fill or excavation only $1,200
Fence Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Installation $50 Ordinance Appendix A
Grant Technical Assistance (DEED, Met Council, Hennepin County, etc.) $3,000 ($2,000 non-refundable)Ordinance Appendix A
Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses)$50 Ordinance Appendix A
Official Map Amendment
$2,250
Ordinance Appendix A
Parking Lot Permit Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 13
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Installation/Reconstruction
$200
Ordinance Appendix A
Driveway Permit $30 Ordinance Appendix A
Planned Unit Development Ordinance Appendix A
Preliminary PUD
$4,000
Ordinance Appendix A
Final PUD $2,500 Ordinance Appendix A
Prelim/Final PUD Combined
$6,000
Ordinance Appendix A
PUD - Administrative amendment $500
PUD - Major Amendment $3,000 Ordinance Appendix A
PUD - Minor Amendment $1,200 Ordinance Appendix A
Recording Filing Fee Ordinance Appendix A
Single Family $75 Ordinance Appendix A
Other Uses $150 Ordinance Appendix A
Registration of Land Use
$100
Ordinance Appendix A
Sign Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Erection of Temporary Sign $40 Ordinance Appendix A
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $100 Ordinance Appendix A
Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $110 Ordinance Appendix A
Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $165 Ordinance Appendix A
Super graphic (mural)$40 Ordinance Appendix A
Special Permits Ordinance Appendix A
Administrative amendment $500
Major Amendment
$3,000
Ordinance Appendix A
Minor Amendment $1,200 Ordinance Appendix A
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $1,000 Ordinance Appendix A
Subdivision Dedication Fee Ordinance Appendix A
Park Dedication Fee (in lieu of land)Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market value of
unimproved land as determined by
City Assessor Ordinance Appendix A
Multi-family Dwelling Units (per dwelling unit)$1,500 Ordinance Appendix A
Single-family Dwelling Units (per dwelling unit)$1,500 Ordinance Appendix A
Trails (per dwelling unit)$225 Ordinance Appendix A
Subdivisions/Replats Ordinance Appendix A
Preliminary Plat
$2,000 plus 150 per lot
Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 14
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Final Plat $750 Ordinance Appendix A
Combined Process and Replats
$2,500 plus $150 per lot
Ordinance Appendix A
Exempt & Administrative Subdivisions
$500
Ordinance Appendix A
Registered Land Survey $2,500 plus $150 per parcel Ordinance Appendix A
Subdivision sidewalk cash-in-lieu fee (per square foot)
$13 per square foot
Tax Increment Financing Application Fee $5,000
Temporary Use Ordinance Appendix A
Carnival & Festival over 14 days
$2,300
Ordinance Appendix A
Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical)$50 Ordinance Appendix A
Time Extension $250 Ordinance Appendix A
Traffic Management Plan Ordinance Appendix A
Administrative Fee (per square foot gross floor area exclusing parking
garages)0.10 Ordinance Appendix A
Tree Replacement Ordinance Appendix A
Cash in lieu of replacement trees (per inch at diameter standard
height)
$235
Ordinance Appendix A
Variances Ordinance Appendix A
Commercial
$1,000
Ordinance Appendix A
Residential $1,000 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 15
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Zoning Appeal $325 Ordinance Appendix A
Zoning Letter
$100
Ordinance Appendix A
Zoning Map Amendments (except PUDs)$2,250 Ordinance Appendix A
Zoning Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Accessory Structures, 200 square feet or less $30 Ordinance Appendix A
Zoning Text Amendments $3,200 Ordinance Appendix A
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Ordinance Appendix A
Permit Parking- High School & Medical need No Charge Ordinance Appendix A
Mobility Sharing
Device Impoundment
Impoundment fee $60 per mobility sharing device
Storage fee $20 per day if not retrieved on the
same day of impoundment.
License fee $100 per mobility sharing device
Right-of-Way Permits Ordinance Appendix A
Base Fee $75.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $135.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Excavation Ordinance Appendix A
Hole in Boulevard (larger than 10" diameter)$75.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Hole in Road (larger than 10" diameter)$135.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Trenching in Boulevard
0-100 ft = $200
Over 100 ft = $200 + $1 per ft over 100
ft Ordinance Appendix A
Trenching in Roadway 0-100 ft = $400
Over 100 ft = $400 + $1 per ft over 100
ft Ordinance Appendix A
Delay penalty 3 times total permit fee Ordinance Appendix A
Trenchless installation
Underground placement (boring) (0-100 ft)$1.50/ LF
Underground placement (boring) (over 100 ft)$1.00/ LF
Obstruction (road, lane, sidewalk, or bikeway closure)$100 per week Ordinance Appendix A
Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Permit fee $1,500 per antenna Ordinance Appendix A
Rent to occupy space on a city-owned wireless support structure $150 per year per antenna Ordinance Appendix A
Maintenance associated with space on a city-owned wireless support
structure
$25 per year per antenna
Ordinance Appendix A
Electricity to operate small wireless facility, if not purchased directly
from utility
(i)$73 per radio node less than or
equal to 100 max watts; (ii) $182 per
radio node over 100 max watts; actual
costs of electricity, if the actual costs
exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii).
Ordinance Appendix A
Delay penalty 3 times total permit fee Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary No Parking signs (for right-of-way permit work)Deposit of $25/ sign ($100 minimum
per permit)Ordinance Appendix A
Temporary Private Use of Public Property $800 Ordinance Appendix A
Dewatering Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Administrative Fee (all permits)$375.00 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 16
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Discharge to Sanitary Sewer Charge based on duration/volume of
discharge Ordinance Appendix A
Erosion Control Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Application and Review - single family $375.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Application and Review - other applicants $800.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Deposit - single family $1,500.00 Ordinance Appendix A
Deposit - other applicants $3,000 per acre (min. $1,500)Ordinance Appendix A
FIRE DEPARTMENT Ordinance Appendix A
Car Seat Inspections
Resident $0
Non-Resident $0
Knox Box Key Vault Intallation Fee (one-time)$50
Fire Alarms (False) $325 is the current standby rate for a
staffed engine Ordinance Appendix A
1st offense w/in year $0 Ordinance Appendix A
2nd offense w/in year $325 Ordinance Appendix A
3rd offense w/in year $325 Ordinance Appendix A
4th offense w/in year $325 Ordinance Appendix A
5th offense w/in year $325 Ordinance Appendix A
Each subsequent in same year $325 Ordinance Appendix A
Fire Protection Permits (sprinkler systems, etc.)
Ordinance Appendix A
Operational permits - including commercial kitchen hoods $75 per hour (minimum 1 hour)Ordinance Appendix A
Fireworks Display Permit $75 - display set up only Ordinance Appendix A
Fire works standby See service fees-fully equipped/staffed
vehicle
Recreational Fire Lifetime Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Service Fees Hourly rate with 2 hours minimum Ordinance Appendix A
Service Fee for fully-equipped and staffed vehicles Ordinance Appendix A
Ordinance Appendix A
Ordinance Appendix A
Service Fee of a Chief Officer Hourly rate with 2 hours minimum Ordinance Appendix A
Inspections After Hours $90 per hour (2 hour minimum)
Ordinance Appendix A
Tents and Membrane Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Tents/Membrane Structures over 400 sq. ft.$100 Ordinance Appendix A
Tent over 200 sq. ft.Ordinance Appendix A
Canopy over 400 sq. ft.Ordinance Appendix A
Fire Sprinkler System Assessment Application fee one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the
petitioned amount, with a minimum
fee of $150 and a maximum fee of
$751
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
RECREATION
Amphitheater, Wolfe Park Rental (per hour, 2 hour minimum)
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 17
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Resident $80/hour
Non-Resident $90/hour
Amphitheater & Park Building, Wolfe Park Rental (per hour, 2 hour
minimum)
Resident $110/hr
Non-Resident $130/hr
Court Rental (Tennis, Basketball, Sand Volleyball & Pickle Ball)
Resident $30/hr
Non-resident $35/hr
Field Maintenance (OT rate)
Resident $100/hr, two PSW workers
Non-resident $120/hr, two PSW workers
Field Rental (Baseball & Softball)
Resident $90/hr
Non-resident $100/hr
Field Rental (Soccer)
Resident $90/hr
Non-resident $100/hr
Mobile Stage Rental (per hour)
Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Entrance Fee, 3201 Rhode Island Ave
Resident Free
Non-Resident $1 per person
Groups of 10-30 must pre-register $2 per person
Park Building Rental (per hour, 2 hour minimum)
Damage Deposit $100
Birchwood
Resident $70/hr
Non-Resident $80/hr
Browndale
Resident $70/hr
Non-Resident $80/hr
Louisiana Oaks
Resident $70/hr
Non-Resident $80/hr
Nelson Park
Resident $70/hr
Non-Resident $80/hr
Oak Hill Park
Resident $70/hr
Non-Resident $80/hr
Wolfe Park
Resident $70/hr
Non-Resident $80/hr
Park Rental - Large Event
Half Day fee $950
Full Day fee $1,800
Picnic Shelter Rental (per time block: 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. or 4 - 8 p.m.)
Damage Deposit $100
Additional Hours (before 11 a.m.)
Resident $20/hr
Non-resident $25/hr
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 18
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Fern Hill Park
Resident $90/time block
Non-resident $110/time block
Oak Hill Park
Central (resident)$95/time block
Central (non-resident)$115/time block
Main (resident)$120/time block
Main (non-resident)$150/time block
Wolfe Park
East (resident)$95/time block
East (non-resident)$115/time block
West (resident)$95/time block
West (non-resident $115/time block
Rec Center
Banquet Room Rental (per hour; 2 hour minimum)
Damage Deposit $700
Maintenance Fee $75/time
Resident Sunday - Friday $75/hr
Resident Saturday (8 a.m. to midnight)$750/Saturday
Non-resident Sunday - Friday $85/hr
Non-resident Saturday (8 a.m. to midnight)$850/Saturday
Police Officer (after 9 p.m. events where alcohol is served)$310/event
Gallery Room Rental (per hour; 2 hour minimum)
Damage Deposit $100
Maintenance Fee $30/time
Residents & Non Profit Groups $55/hr
Non-resident $65/hr
Ice Rink Rental $240/hr plus tax
Ice Skating Party (2 hr use of Gallery, 15 pp adm open skate)
Resident $115
Non-resident $140
Ice Skating Party (2 hr use of Banquet Room, 15 pp adm open skate)
Resident $130
Non-resident $165
Skate rental $3
Skate sharpening $5
Skating Admission - adult $5
Skating Admission - youth & senior $4
Ten Punch Pass - adult $40
Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior $35
Open Hockey Admission $5
Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass $45
Aquatic Park
Daily Entrance Rates (resident):
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 54 years old $10
55+ years old $6
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$6
Daily Entrance Rates (non-resident):
Under 1 year old Free
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 19
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
1 to 54 years old $15
55+ years old $9
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$9
Season Pass (Resident* & purchased on or before May 31)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 54 years old $60
Caretaker/Nanny $65
55+ years old $50
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$45
Season Pass (Resident* & purchased on or after June 1)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 54 years old $70
Caretaker/Nanny $75
55+ years old $60
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$55
Season Pass (Non-Resident & purchased on or before first day of
Aquatic Park)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 54 years old $70
Caretaker/Nanny $75
55+ years old $60
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$55
Season Pass (Non-Resident & purchased after first day of Aquatic Park)
Under 1 year old Free
1 to 54 years old $80
Caretaker/Nanny $85
55+ years old $70
Twilight (after 4:30 p.m.)$65
Gazebo Rental (Daily admission/season pass required)
Resident $55 per use
Non-resident $65 per use
Private Aquatic Park Rental $500/hour
Lap Lane Rental $75/hr
August Season Pass $30
Recreation Outdoor Center (ROC)
Dry Floor Rental
Damage Deposit $300
Food and Beverage Fee $75
Two Hour Maximum (resident) - space only Resident, space only $55/hr
Two Hour Maximum (resident) - space plus additional services
Resident, space plus services
$100/hr
Two Hour Maximum (resident) - space only Non-resident, space only $70/hr
Two Hour Maximum (resident) - space plus additional services Non-
resident, space plus services
$115/hr
Ice Rink Rental * (residents)$175/hr plus tax
Ice Rink Rental * (non-residents)$180/hr plus tax
Skate Rental $3
Skate Sharpening $5
Skating Admission - adult $5
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 20
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Skating Admission - youth & senior $4
Ten Punch Pass - adult $40
Ten Punch Pass - youth & senior $35
Open Hockey Admission $5
Open Hockey Ten Punch Pass $45
Turf Field Rental (full field - 200' x 85')
Resident $60/hr
Non-resident $75/hr
Skate Park Rental (outdoor)Free admission
Resident (private rental)$200/hr
Non-Resident (private rental)$400/hr
Westwood Hills Nature Center (indoor)
Conference Room
Damage Deposit $100
Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$55/hr
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$65/hr
Multi-Purpose Rooms (A, B or C)
Damage Deposit $100
Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$60/hr
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$70/hr
Entire Facility Rental
Damage Deposit $800
Resident (12 hour rental)$1,600
Non-Resident (12 hour rental)$1,900
Westwood Hills Nature Center (outdoor)
Park Building (lower) Rental
Damage Deposit $300
Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$75/hr
Non-Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$85/hr
Picnic Shelter (upper) Rental
Damage Deposit $100
Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$135/time block
Non-Resident - per hour (2 hr min.)$165/time block
Oak Patio Rental
Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$37/hr
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$47/hr
Observation Deck Rental
Damage Deposit $100
Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$40/hr
Non-Resident per hour (2 hr min.)$50/hr
Winter Outdoor Hockey Rink Rental
Resident (during warming house hours)$30/hr
Non-Resident (during warming house hours)$40/hr
Warming House Rental
Resident (after hours)$50/hr
Non-resident (after hours)$60/hr
Non-resident & Resident (during hours)$20/hr
Mobile Food Truck Vendor Permit $50/day per truck
Professional Photo & Park Video Shoot (does not include facility rental)
Resident Individual $25/hr
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 21
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Non-resident Commercial $125/hr
Special Equipment Rental (delivery within City limits only)
Damage Deposit Rent to Neighborhood Org. Only
16 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (resident)$110
16 Folding Tables and 40 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)-
8 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (resident)-
8 Folding Tables and 20 Chairs (St. Louis Park Organization)-
Natural Resources & Park Maintenance
Community Garden Plot $45/yr
Trees - nuisance abatement Fees
Private 10% with maximum of $500
Weed Elimination
Non-compliance of Weed Nuisance Notice $200
Wood Chip Delivery (within City limits only)
3 cubic yards $80
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animals Ordinance Appendix A
Animal Impound Ordinance Appendix A
Initial impoundment $40 Ordinance Appendix A
2nd offense w/in year $60 Ordinance Appendix A
3rd offense w/in year $85 Ordinance Appendix A
4th offense w/in year $110 Ordinance Appendix A
Boarding Per Day $30 Ordinance Appendix A
Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 Ordinance Appendix A
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 Ordinance Appendix A
Copies & Reports
Clearance Letters $5
Accident Photo $10/disk
Audio Recording $10
Police Report Certification $1
Body Camera Video Requests $30
Defense Attorney Case Requests $20
Case file request for matters transferred to outside agencies $50
911 Audio Transcription $10
Obtaining audio (if not part of case file) and transcribing $20
Crime Free Multi-Housing Training $40/class
Criminal Background Investigation Ordinance Appendix A
Volunteers & Employees $5 Ordinance Appendix A
False Alarm (Police)Residential/Commercial Ordinance Appendix A
1st offense w/in year $0/$0 Ordinance Appendix A
2nd offense w/in year $100/$100 Ordinance Appendix A
3rd offense w/in year $100/$125 Ordinance Appendix A
4th offense w/in year $100/$150 Ordinance Appendix A
5th offense w/in year $100/$175 Ordinance Appendix A
Each subsequent in same year $100/$25 increase Ordinance Appendix A
Late Payment Fee 10%
Fingerprinting
St. Louis Park residents & business needs $25 per card
Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 Peddlers only Ordinance Appendix A
Vehicle Forfeiture Ordinance Appendix A
Administrative fee in certain cases $250 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 22
SERVICE 2025 PROPOSED FEE Action Appendix A
2025 Proposed City of St. Louis Park - FEES
Public Works
Block Party Application (MSC at 7305 Oxford St)No Charge
Cone Deposit $10/cone
Event Recycling Bin Deposit $100/bin
Bulk Water Filling Station ( Pre-purchase at MSC)$7/1,000 gallons
Fire Hydrant Use Permit (MSC - approval only by PW/Utilities)$200 connection fee per hydrant
$1,500 deposit, $7/1,000 gallons
Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC)$50 each Ordinance Appendix A
Service Fees (Stop Box Repairs) - MSC Shop
Public Service Worker
Regular Business Hours $60
After Hours $180
Non-Accessible Meter Charge $100 per month
Winter Parking Permit Ordinance Appendix A
Caregiver parking $25 Ordinance Appendix A
No off-street parking available No Charge Ordinance Appendix A
Off-street parking available $125 Ordinance Appendix A
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5f)
Title: Second reading and adoption of ordinance relating to 2025 fees Page 23
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5g
Executive summary
Title: Second reading of ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the city code regarding bulk material
containers
Recommended action: Motion to approve second reading of the ordinance amending Chapter
22 of the city code and approve the Ordinance Summary for publication.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support allowing bulk material containers in the
right of way under certain circumstances?
Summary: At the Aug. 5, 2024 council meeting, the city council approved the first reading of
the ordinance to amend Chapter 22 of the city code regarding bulk material containers. Chapter
22 of the city code governs the use of bulk material containers and currently prohibits their
placement in the right of way in all situations. However, in response to community feedback
suggesting that this rule does not fully address local needs and following the council's direction,
staff are recommending an amendment to the ordinance. This proposed change would
introduce an exemption, allowing bulk material containers to be placed in the right of way
under certain conditions.
Approval of an exemption to the city code would be determined at the staff level upon finding
that the following conditions are satisfied:
1.There is no practical and/or reasonable location for the container to be placed on an
individual's lot or driveway, and
2.An exemption will not unreasonably subject the public to harm.
All exemption requests that meet the conditions will be issued a right of way permit.
Financial or budget considerations: A permit fee will be collected to ensure that city staff costs
to monitor the program are covered.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Ordinance
Ordinance Summary for publication
Aug. 5 city council report
Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, engineering services manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Second reading of ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the city code regarding bulk material
containers
Ordinance No. ____ - 24
Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 22
by adding Section 22.63, exemptions to bulk material containers
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 22, Article VI, Division 3 is amended by adding the
following:
Sec. 22-63. Exemptions.
The city engineer or designee may grant an exemption to the container location requirements
in section 22-62 b of this code upon finding that the following conditions are satisfied: (1) there
is no practical and or reasonable location for the container to be placed on an individual's lot or
driveway and (2) an exemption will not unreasonably subject the public to harm.
In the event an exemption is granted, the work shall be administered and permitted as outlined in
Chapter 24, Article VII, Division 2, Work in Public Right-of-way. In addition to the requirements
identified in Section 22-62 of this code, any bulk material containers that are granted a
location exemption under this section must also comply with the following regulations:
(a)Containers permitted in city right-of-way may only be placed in a location that will
ensure the least possible obstruction to pedestrian and vehicle traffic as well as provide
for the safety of the general public.
(b)Containers shall be clearly marked with reflective tape, markings and cones to increase
visibility by vehicle and pedestrian traffic.
(c)If placed on the street, the location shall conform with all applicable parking statutes,
city codes and standards.
(d)The container will be hard sided and structurally stable.
(e)Containers may only be stored in the street right-of-way front of the applicant's
property.
(f)Exempt containers shall not be located on an individual lot or parcel for more than 2
consecutive weeks and not more than 2 times during any 12 -month period.
(g)Containers are not permitted on city streets from November 1 through April 1 with no
exemptions.
Page 3 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Second reading of ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the city code regarding bulk material
containers
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading August 5, 2024
Second Reading August 19, 2024
Date of Publication August 29, 2024
Date Ordinance takes effect September 13, 2024
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
By: __________________________________ By: __________________________________
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
____________________________________ _____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren M. Mattick, city attorney
Page 4 City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5g)
Title: Second reading of ordinance amending Chapter 22 of the city code regarding bulk material
containers
Summary for publication
Ordinance no. ____ - 24
Ordinance amending
St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 22
by adding Section 22.63, exemptions to bulk material containers
This ordinance amends Chapter 22, Article VI, Division 3 of the St. Louis Park City Code . The
ordinance adds Sec. 22-63, which regulates exemptions to the container location requirements
in section 22-62 b of the city code.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 19, 2024
Nadia Mohamed /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: Aug. 29, 2024
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5h
Executive summary
Title: Resolutions approving grant agreements with MnDOT for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana
Avenue Improvements projects - Ward 4
Recommended action: Adopt resolutions approving grant agreements with MnDOT for Cedar
Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue Improvements projects (4023-1100 and 4024-1100).
Policy consideration: None
Summary: As a part of the 2023 state legislative session, the State of Minnesota appropriated
$5,000,000 to the City of St. Louis Park for a grant to complete the Cedar Lake Road and
Louisiana Avenue Improvements projects. To receive the funds, separate grant agree ments
with the state need to be approved for each type of work being reimbursed by this funding.
There are three grant agreements ready for approval, covering costs for the 2024 project
currently under construction. Once these agreements are approved, the city can start applying
for reimbursement for these costs. A summary of the costs that each agreement covers:
Agreement Purpose Amount
163-296-008 Tree removal $19,455.00
163-296-009 Right of way acquisition $541,802.00
163-296-010 Engineering and Administration $3,886,060.00
Total $4,447,317.00
The remaining $552,683.00 in funding will be used for construction engineering and
administration for the 2025-2026 project. An agreement will be brought to council for approval
once we have an updated contract with Kimley Horn for that work. This will be in early 2025.
Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city's capital improvement
plan (CIP). The total project cost for the 2024-2026 construction of Cedar Lake Road and
Louisiana Avenue is estimated at $28,252,970. What follows is a summary of the funding
sources for this project:
Funding source
Municipal state aid $3,030,930.68
City general funds $6,635,864.32
City stormwater funds $1,141,470.00
City sanitary sewer funds $84,800.00
City water funds $3,359,905.00
State appropriation $5,000,000.00
Congressionally directed spending (federal) $2,000,000.00
Federal aid $7,000,000.00
Total $28,252,970.00
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Resolutions
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5h) Page 2
Title: Resolutions approving grant agreements with MnDOT for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue
Improvements projects - Ward 4
Resolution No. 24 -__
Local Road Improvement Grant Agreement
Grant Terms and Conditions
SAP 163-296-008
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation
for a grant from the Local Road Improvement Fund; and
Whereas, the Commissioner of Transportation has given notice that funding for this
project is available; and
Whereas, the amount of the grant has been determined to be $19,455.00 by reason of
the lowest responsible bid,
Now therefore be it resolved the city of St. Louis Park does hereby agree to the terms
and conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 174.52, and will pay any
additional amount by which the cost exceeds the estimate, and will return to the Local Road
Improvement Fund any amount appropriated for the project but not required. The mayor, the
city manager and the engineering director are authorized to execute a grant agreement and any
amendments thereto with the Commissioner of Transportation concerning the above-referenced
grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5h) Page 3
Title: Resolutions approving grant agreements with MnDOT for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue
Improvements projects - Ward 4
Resolution No. 24 -__
Local Road Improvement Grant Agreement
Grant Terms and Conditions
SAP 163-296-009
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation
for a grant from the Local Road Improvement Fund; and
Whereas, the Commissioner of Transportation has given notice that funding for this
project is available; and
Whereas, the amount of the grant has been determined to be $541,802.00 by reason of
the lowest responsible bid,
Now therefore be it resolved the city of St. Louis Park does hereby agree to the terms
and conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 174.52, and will pay any
additional amount by which the cost exceeds the estimate, and will return to the Local Road
Improvement Fund any amount appropriated for the project but not required. The mayor, the
city manager and the engineering director are authorized to execute a grant agreement and any
amendments thereto with the Commissioner of Transportation concerning the above-referenced
grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5h) Page 4
Title: Resolutions approving grant agreements with MnDOT for Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana Avenue
Improvements projects - Ward 4
Resolution No. 24 -__
Local Road Improvement Grant Agreement
Grant Terms and Conditions
SAP 163-296-010
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has applied to the Commissioner of Transportation
for a grant from the Local Road Improvement Fund; and
Whereas, the Commissioner of Transportation has given notice that funding for this
project is available; and
Whereas, the amount of the grant has been determined to be $3,886,060.00 by reason
of the lowest responsible bid,
Now therefore be it resolved the city of St. Louis Park does hereby agree to the terms
and conditions of the grant consistent with Minnesota Statutes, section 174.52, and will pay any
additional amount by which the cost exceeds the estimate, and will return to the Local Road
Improvement Fund any amount appropriated for the project but not required. The mayor, the
city manager and the engineering director are authorized to execute a grant agreement and any
amendments thereto with the Commissioner of Transportation concerning the above-referenced
grant.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5i
Executive summary
Title: Resolution removing parking restrictions at 3601 Lynn Avenue (Traffic Study No. 792) -
Ward 2
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution rescinding Resolution No. 23-030, removing
permit parking restrictions at 3601 Lynn Avenue.
Policy consideration: None.
Summary: In July 2024, staff received a request from the original applicant at 3601 Lynn
Avenue to remove the permit parking adjacent to their property, stating that they sold the
property and no longer require permit parking at this address.
The parking was installed in 2023 following the city’s permit parking for persons with medical
needs practice through Traffic Study No. 774.
Engineering staff reviewed this request and recommends the removal of the permit parking.
This item is being brought to council since the permit parking was installed by resolution.
Future medical needs parking permits will be approved and removed administratively and not
brought to council for action.
Financial or budget considerations: The cost to remove these controls is minimal and will come
out of the general operating budget.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Resolution 23-030 to be rescinded
Location map
Prepared by: Kerrwin Dempsey, engineering technician III
Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager
Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5i) Page 2
Title: Resolution removing parking restrictions at 3601 Lynn Avenue (Traffic Study No. 792) - Ward 2
Resolution No. 24-____
Removal of permit parking restrictions at 3601 Lynn Avenue
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park received confirmation that the permit parking
restrictions at 3601 Lynn Avenue were no longer needed; and
Whereas, the permit parking was installed under the city’s permit parking for persons
with disabilities or medical needs practice through traffic study no. 774; and
Whereas, engineering staff has reviewed this and recommended the removal of said
permit parking at 3601 Lynn Avenue,
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that Resolution no. 23-030 is rescinded.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
36TH ST W36TH ST W
LYNN AVE SLYNN AVE S4410
3602
3600
4502 45004504
440844144412
3601
3605
4406 4404
3609
44204422
0 50 10025
Feet
Proposed permit parking
removal
3601 Lynn Ave S
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5i) Title: Resolution removing parking restrictions at 3601 Lynn Avenue (Traffic Study No. 792) - Ward 2 Page 3
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5j
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing final payment for 2023 Pavement Management project (4023 -
1000) - Wards 3 and 4
Recommended action: Motion to adopt resolution accepting work and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $140,028.95 for the 2023 Pavement Management project with
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. – city contract no. 27-23.
Policy consideration: Not applicable
Summary: On March 6, 2023, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of
$6,833,384.89 to Bituminous Roadways, Inc. for the 2023 Pavement Management project
(4023-1000). The project included roadway, utility, and sidewalk construction in the Lenox, Oak
Hill, Texa-Tonka and Eliot View neighborhoods, Wards 3 and 4.
The final contract amount, $6,772,715.43, is $60,669.46 (0.89%) less than the contract amount
awarded.
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor
under contract no. 27-23 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 6,833,384.89
Change orders/ extra work +$ 67,369.17
Quantity underruns -$ 128,038.63
Final contract cost $ 6,772,715.43
Previous payments -$ 6,632,686.48
Balance due $ 140,028.95
This project was included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Funding was provided by the
following sources: franchise fees, utility funds and general obligation bonds (sidewalk).
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, interim engineering project manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5j)Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing final payment for 2023 Pavement Management project (4023-1000) - Wards 3 and 4
Discussion
Background: Annually, the city rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets as part of
the pavement management program. The work included street rehabilitation, which consisted
of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement and replacing portio ns of concrete
curb and gutter where needed. Other work included sidewalk repairs, sewer repairs and select
watermain replacement. In addition to the street rehabilitation activities, the construction of
new sidewalk segments was integrated into the project for cost savings, reduction in customer
inconvenience, and contractor coordination.
On March 6, 2023, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of $6,833,384.89 to
Bituminous Roadways, Inc. for the 2023 Pavement Management project. The final contract
amount ($6,772,715.43) was 0.89% less than the contract amount.
During construction, some unexpected items came up. This additional work added $67,369.17
to the contract. The contract changes were attributed to:
•During construction of watermain services on Louisiana Court, it was determined that
some services were a larger size (2-inch) than the typical 1-inch water service. The
material for the larger water service size costs more than the typical water service.
•To ensure the safety of pedestrians using the new sidewalk on Oak Park Village Drive,
staff determined that a fence was necessary along the sidewalk and on top of the new
retaining wall. Since the contract did not include a fence at this location, the cost to
install the new fence was a change order to the project.
This additional work was necessary to ensure quality street, sidewalk and utility infrastructure
for years to come.
These change orders would have increased the overall cost of the project; however, the overall
project was less due to quantity underruns during construction. These quantity underruns
resulted in a cost decrease of $128,038.63. They can be attributed to not encountering as much
contaminated soil during construction as expected, which would require excavation, hauling and
disposal.
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor
under contract no. 27-23 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 6,833,384.89
Change orders/ extra work +$ 67,369.17
Quantity underruns -$ 128,038.63
Final contract cost $ 6,772,715.43
Previous payments -$ 6,632,686.48
Balance due $ 140,028.95
This project was included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Funding was provided by the
following sources: franchise fees, utility funds and general obligation bonds (sidewalk).
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5j)Page 3
Title: Resolution authorizing final payment for 2023 Pavement Management project (4023-1000) - Wards 3 and 4
Resolution No. 24-____
Authorizing final payment
and accepting work for the
2023 Pavement Management Project
City Project No. 4023-1000
Contract No. 27-23
Be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
1.Pursuant to a written contract with the city dated March 6, 2023, Bituminous Roadways,
Inc. has satisfactorily completed the 2023 Pavement Management project, as per
Contract No. 27-23.
2.The engineering director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3.The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract
cost is $6,772,715.43.
4.The city manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $140,028.95 on
this contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5k
Executive summary
Title: Approve replacement of asphalt paver and tandem dump truck
Recommended action: Motion to approve replacement of unit 0827, P285 asphalt paver and
unit 1116, tandem dump truck.
Policy consideration: Does the city council approve replacing the asphalt paver (unit 0827) and
the tandem dump truck (unit 1116)?
Summary:
Council approval is required because the purchase of both vehicles is over the statutory limit of
$175,000. Both vehicles will be purchased from Sourcewill Cooperative procurement which is
the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing venture.
Asphalt paver: Staff evaluate the equipment based on age, condition and salvage value. The
2008 asphalt paver was scheduled to be replaced in the 2020 capital improvement plan but was
used for 4 more years based on the condition of the vehicle. It is now recommended to be
replaced. This type of vehicle performs road repair and maintenance. The purchase price of
this vehicle is $235,920.40
Tandem dump truck: The 2011 Tandem Dump Truck is scheduled to be replaced in the 2024
capital improvement plan. This type of vehicle performs maintenance duties such as hauling
and plowing, which is important to provide safe and clean streets, parks and city properties.
Staff evaluated the equipment based on age, condition and salvage value. It is recommended to
be replaced as planned. The replacement will be similar in type and use. This purchase price for
this piece of equipment is $344,272.
Financial or budget considerations: The replaced units will be auctioned, and proceeds will go
to the capital replacement fund.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Tom O’Donnell, fleet manager
Reviewed by: Jason T. West, parks and recreation director
Amelia Cruver, finance director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5l
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3350 Brunswick
Avenue South - Ward 3
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 3350 Brunswick Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 16-117-21-23-0055.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: Kaitlin Strand, owner of the single-family residence at 3350 Brunswick Avenue South,
has requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the
cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or
sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put
into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like
this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer
service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this
repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the city
to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible
cost of the repair has been determined to be $9,380.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Beth Holida, office assistant
Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Reviewed by: Emily Carr, assessing technician
Austin Holm, utilities superintendent
Jay Hall, public works director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5l) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3350 Brunswick Avenue South -
Ward 3
Resolution No. 24-____
Authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 3350 Brunswick Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 16-117-21-23-0055
Whereas, the property owner at 3350 Brunswick Avenue South, has petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 3350 Brunswick Avenue South; and
Whereas, the property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1.The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2.The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the public works department and department of inspections is
hereby accepted.
3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $9,380.
4.The property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution or common law.
5.The property owner has agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.5%.
6.The property owner has executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5m
Executive summary
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3309 Zarthan
Avenue South - Ward 1
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing the special assessment for the
repair of the sewer service line at 3309 Zarthan Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0149.
Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by
the city council.
Summary: Lee Elliott, owner of the single-family residence at 3309 Zarthan Avenue South, has
requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the
cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy.
The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or
sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put
into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like
this is unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer
service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this
repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the city
to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible
cost of the repair has been determined to be $10,580.
Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special
assessment.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Beth Holida, office assistant
Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Reviewed by: Emily Carr, assessing technician
Austin Holm, utilities superintendent
Jay Hall, public works director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5m) Page 2
Title: Resolution authorizing special assessment for sewer service line repair at 3309 Zarthan Avenue South -
Ward 1
Resolution No. 24-____
Authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 3309 Zarthan Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0149
Whereas, the property owner at 3309 Zarthan Avenue South, has petitioned the City of
St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the
single family residence located at 3309 Zarthan Avenue South; and
Whereas, the property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
1.The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2.The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the public works department and department of inspections is
hereby accepted.
3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $10,580.
4.The property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution or common law.
5.The property owner has agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.5%.
6.The property owner has executed an agreement with the city and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of
all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Consent agenda item: 5n
Executive summary
Title: Resolution accepting a donation from Discover St. Louis Park for Jason West to attend the
US Sports Congress
Recommended action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving acceptance of a monetary
donation from Discover St. Louis Park in an amount not to exceed $2,500 for airfare, hotel,
transportation and per diem related expenses for Jason West, parks and recreation director, to
attend the US Sports Congress in Charlotte Harbor, FL on Dec. 8 – 12, 2024.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
Discover St. Louis Park is graciously donating up to $2,500 for airfare, hotel, transportation
and per diem related expenses for Jason West, parks and recreation director, to attend the
upcoming 2024 US Sports Congress held Dec. 8 – 12, 2024 in Charlotte Harbor, FL. Discover St.
Louis Park will pay for the congress registration directly. Jason would attend this event to
solicit larger sporting events to St. Louis Park. Jason has attended symposiums such as this for
the past several years and made many connections with large event organizers. National
hockey, flag football and lacrosse tournaments have made an economic impact on St. Louis
Park of over $500,000 per year. The partnership between the city and Discover St. Louis Park
has proven to be extremely successful.
The city attorney has reviewed this matter. His opinion is that state law permits the payment
of such expenses by this organization, regardless of whether the funds come from primary or
secondary sources. It is treated as a gift to the city and needs to be a resolut ion adopted by
the city council determining that attendance at this event serves a public purpose and
accepting the gift. The resolution needs to be adopted before attendance at the conference.
Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used toward the expenses incurred by
Jason West’s attendance at the 2024 US Sports Congress held Dec. 8 – 12, 2024 in Charlotte
Harbor, FL.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, administrative coordinator
Reviewed by: Jason T. West, parks and recreation director
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 5n) Page 2
Title: Resolution accepting a donation from Discover St. Louis Park for Jason West to attend the US Sports Congress
Resolution No. 24 - ____
Accepting a donation from Discover St. Louis Park for expenses for
Jason West to attend the 2024 US Sports Congress
in Charlotte Harbor, FL on Dec. 8 – 12, 2024
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by State Statute to authorize acceptance
of any donations; and
Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the
donor; and
Whereas, Discover St. Louis Park will compensate up to $2,500 in costs for the city's
parks and recreation director, Jason West, to attend the 2024 US Sports Congress held
December 8 – 12, 2024 in Charlotte Harbor, FL; and
Now therefore be it resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift
is hereby accepted with thanks to Discover St. Louis Park with the understanding that it will be
used for airfare, hotel, transportation and per diem incurred by Jason West to attend the 2024
US Sports Congress held Dec. 8 – 12, 2024 in Charlotte Harbor, FL.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the city council August 19, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Public hearing: 6a
Executive summary
Title: Approve on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales for Marcus West End , LLC -
Ward 4
Recommended action:
•Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony and close public hearing.
•Motion to approve application from Marcus West End, LLC dba Marcus West End Cinema for
an on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales for the premises at 1625 West End
Boulevard.
Policy consideration: Does the applicant meet the requirements for issuance of an on-sale
intoxicating liquor license?
Summary: The city received an application from Marcus West End, LLC dba Marcus West End
Cinema for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales for the premises located at
1625 West End Boulevard. The premises, formerly occupied by Kerasotes Showplace Theaters,
will consist of approximately 95,460 square feet with an indoor-only seating capacity of 2,707,
88 of which are the bar/restaurant location on the third floor with the remaining seating
available within fourteen (14) auditoriums. The owner of Marcus West End Cinema is Marcus
Cinemas of Minnesota and Illinois, Inc. Gina Schoenholz will serve as on-site manager. The
application meets the requirements of the zoning and building divisions.
The police department has run a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered that
would warrant denial of the license. The application and police report are on file in the city
clerks’ office. The required notice of the public hearing was published August 1, 2024. If
approved, the license will not be issued until all requirements have been met with the city,
Hennepin County and the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division.
Financial or budget considerations: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the police
background investigation and $5,220.84 for the prorated on-sale liquor license and Sunday
sales license fees.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: None.
Prepared by: Amanda Scott-Lerdal, deputy city clerk
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Action agenda item: 7a
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 2576-19 Efficient Building
Benchmarking
Recommended action: Motion to approve first reading of the ordinance and set second reading
for Sept. 9, 2024.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to rescind Ordinance No. 2576-19, Efficient
Building Benchmarking, and turn administration of commercial energy benchmarking over to
the State of Minnesota effective Jan. 1, 2026?
Summary: In 2019, city council adopted the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance, which
requires owners of commercial, multifamily and public buildings 25,000 square feet or larger to
report annual whole building energy and water use in order to benchmark energ y consumption
and motivate performance improvement. This spring marked the fifth year that the city has
required energy and water data collection from approximately 220 buildings.
During the 2023 legislative session, lawmakers passed a Statewide Building Energy Use
Benchmarking statute. Council has the option to uphold the benchmarking ordinance or rescind
the ordinance in favor of the state program. At a May 28, 2024 study session, the city council
indicated support for rescinding the Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance after one more
year of administration at the city level; doing so will prevent gaps in annual energy
benchmarking reporting for buildings between 50,000 and 99,999 square feet. This timeline
aligns with timeline decisions made by other nearby cities with energy benchmarking policies,
including Edina and Bloomington.
This ordinance is scheduled for its second reading at the Sept. 9, 2024 city council meeting.
Although this action is being taken now, the city benchmarking program will continue through
2025, with Jan. 1, 2026 set as the effective date of ordinance rescission.
Financial or budget considerations: The Efficient Building Benchmarking ordinance requires
additional resources to administer. Contracting for the services provided by the help desk for
another year of benchmarking will result in a projected $30,000 budget expenditure, included
in the proposed 2025 operating budget.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Minutes of May 28, 2024 study session
Draft Ordinance
Ordinance 2576-19 to be rescinded
Prepared by: Emily Ziring, sustainability manager
Reviewed by: Bian Hoffman, building and energy director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: First reading of ordinance rescinding Ordinance No. 2576-19 Efficient Building Benchmarking
Ordinance No. -24
Rescinding Ordinance No. 2576-19
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park had established a building energy benchmarking
program in Ordinance No. 2576-19 (Chapter 6, Article VIII in the city code); and,
Whereas, in 2023 the legislature of the State of Minnesota passed a statute requiring
energy benchmarking in buildings statewide effective January 1, 2025 for buildings 100,000
square feet and larger and January 1, 2026 for buildings 50,000 square feet and larger; and,
Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park has the option to rescind Ordinance No. 2576-19 and
allow the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce to take over administration of energy
benchmarking for St. Louis Park buildings; and,
Whereas, the city council of the City of St. Louis Park has indicated support for allowing
the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce to take over administration of energy
benchmarking for St. Louis Park buildings effective January 1, 2026.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the St. Louis Park City Council that,
Section 1. Ordinance No. 2576-19 is hereby rescinded and Chapter 6, Article VIII is
removed from the city code.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading Aug. 19, 2024
Second Reading Sept. 9, 2024
Publication date Sept. 19, 2024
Effective date Jan. 1, 2026
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council Sept. 9, 2024
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren M. Mattick, city attorney
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Action agenda item: 7b
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of the ordinance and set the second
reading for Sept. 9, 2024.
Policy consideration: Does the city council support the proposed code amendments to the tree
protection regulations in city code?
Summary: The tree canopy is diminishing in St. Louis Park as tree removals continue in
response to emerald ash borer (EAB) in ash trees, decline in mature oak trees and Dutch Elm
disease in elm trees. Tree removal from urban development projects also contributes to canopy
loss, although not to the same extent. The city supports tree planting on existing commercial
and residential properties through multiple cost-share programs including annual Tree Sale,
Shade SLP, Shade SLP+ and Depave SLP.
In 2023, city council directed staff to explore strategies to promote tree preservation in St.
Louis Park with a focus on heritage trees. Heritage trees are mature trees that contribute
greatly to the city’s tree canopy and provide magnified public and env ironmental health
benefits compared to smaller trees. This report provides an overview of the proposed
amendments to the existing tree protection policy in the city's zoning and vegetation codes.
The recommendations include adding a heritage tree definition, implementing heritage tree
replacement requirements, offering heritage tree preservation credits and adding tree
protection permit requirements.
The tree preservation ordinance also includes various updates to the vegetation code to clarify
circumstances that require a permit versus written permission and to reflect regulatory changes
related to native landscaping as outlined in Minnesota State Statute 412.925.
Financial or budget considerations: Additional resources will be required to effectively inspect
and enforce existing tree protection codes and the additional code improvements outlined in
this report. Staff requested one additional natural resources full-time equivalent (FTE)
employee as part of their 2025 operating budget request.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Aug. 28, 2023 study session minutes, May 1, 2024 planning
commission study session minutes, May 1, 2024 environment and sustainability commission
minutes, June 10, 2024 city council study session minutes, Aug. 7, 2024 planning commission
unofficial minutes
Prepared by: Katelyn Champoux, associate planner
Michael Bahe, natural resources manager
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager/deputy community development director
Larry Umphrey, park superintendent
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Discussion
Background
Existing condition of the tree canopy
The tree canopy, which is the percentage of ground that is covered by tree leaves during the
growing season, is diminishing in St. Louis Park. This has been caused primarily by tree removals
resulting from emerald ash borer (EAB) in ash trees, decline in mature oak trees and Dutch Elm
disease in elm trees. Tree removal from urban development projects is also a contributing
factor, although not to the same extent. Tree canopy coverage in the city was estimated at
33.6% in September of 2022, a decline from 38.1% estimated in 2015, although this decrease is
not consistent across the community.
The history of industrialization and redlining in certain neighborhoods has led to an inequitable
distribution of tree cover in St. Louis Park. According to the Growing Shade tool, St. Louis Park
had an existing tree canopy coverage of 34.6% in 2021 with c ensus block groups ranging from
12% to 54.1% canopy. Despite the city’s existing programs and policies to address tree loss,
canopy decline is expected to continue for the next two to five years as EAB populations peak in
the city.
Long-term tree canopy goals
St. Louis Park recognizes the importance of addressing canopy loss and enhancing the local tree
canopy. In past conversations, city council directed staff to establish a long -term tree canopy
percentage goal, with the understanding that in the short-to-mid-term the city should expect to
see a reduction as EAB-infested trees die. This goal will guide proposed refinements to existing
tree preservation strategies and ideas for future policies and programs.
On May 28, 2024, staff provided city council with a report establishing long -term tree canopy
goals of 30% tree canopy coverage in the city by the end of 2035 and 35% tree canopy coverage
by the end of 2045. These goals were developed using multiple indica tors including the current
tree canopy percentage, the maximum potential canopy percentage and findings from research
of similar goals in adjacent communities. Staff also considered other dynamic and more
unpredictable factors such as the number of remaini ng private property ash trees that will
succumb to emerald ash borer, future developments and road projects, weather, tree removals
from natural decline in mature trees and pressure from invasive pests.
Existing tree planting and preservation strategies
Tree planting and preservation programs
St. Louis Park has several programs to support tree planting and preservation. The city supports
tree planting on existing commercial and residential properties through multiple cost-share
programs including the annual Tree Sale, full-service planting program, Shade SLP, Shade SLP+
and Depave SLP. The natural resources division manages public trees funded by the Park
Improvement Fund and the tree replacement fees collecte d by the city. The city also supports
tree health by providing free consultations to property owners to assess tree health, subsidies
for fungicide injections to preserve elm and oak trees, and bulk rate discounts for emerald ash
borer treatments. A new tree injection cost share program for treatment of Dutch elm disease
and two-lined chestnut borer is also launching this spring.
Page 3City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Tree planting and preservation policies
Additionally, the zoning and vegetation codes provide specific protections for existing trees on
public property (including boulevard trees), commercial properties (including office, industrial,
and apartment uses), and new subdivisions. Within the zoning code, the landscaping section
sets restrictions for tree removal, standards for replacement, and general minimum
landscaping planting requirements and standards that are based on either the dimensions of
the parcel or scale of development. It does not apply to trees on lots with existing single-family
or two-family dwellings.
The zoning code provisions for tree removal and replacement apply to significant trees, which
the city defines as: “Any tree, with the exception of salix (willow), boxelder, Siberian elm and
black locust, is considered to be significant under the landscaping section of the zoning
ordinance if it is at least five caliper inches for deciduous trees and six caliper inches for
conifers. Aspen, cottonwood, or silver maple are considered significant if they are at least 12
inches in diameter at 4.5 feet from the ground.”
Property owners may remove up to 20% of the total diameter inches of significant trees on the
site without being required to replace them. Any removal over 20% requires replacement at a
rate of 1.5 caliper inches replaced for every one diameter inch removed. Property owners have
several options for replacement. They can replace on site, replace off-site in public spaces with
city consent, or pay a fee-in-lieu of planting.
Previous direction and discussion
In 2023, city council directed staff to explore strategies to promote tree preservation in St.
Louis Park with a focus on heritage trees. Heritage trees are mature trees that contribute
greatly to the city’s tree canopy and provide magnified public and env ironmental health
benefits compared to smaller trees.
Following this direction, staff researched best practices, reviewed policies with similar goals
from neighboring communities and identified potential improvements to the existing tree
preservation policy. In May 2024, staff presented the proposed policy amendments to the
planning commission (PC) and environment and sustainability commission (ESC). Both the PC
and ESC indicated support for the proposed amendments. Staff later brought this proposal to a
city council study session on June 10, 2024, during which all council members in attendance
indicated support for the proposed changes.
Present considerations
The following section outlines proposed amendments to the existing tree preservation policy in
the zoning code and related language in the vegetation code. Staff believes these amendments
will demonstrate the value of heritage trees to the city through a balance of fees for removing
and incentives for preserving trees.
Heritage tree definition
Staff recommend adding a heritage tree definition to recognize the importance of mature trees
and promote preservation of these community assets. We reviewed heritage tree definitions
from other cities and find the following definition appropriate for St. Louis Park.
Page 4City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
A heritage tree is a healthy deciduous tree measuring 30 inches or greater in diameter at
standard height (dsh) or a healthy coniferous tree measuring 25 inches or greater in dsh.
(Diameter at standard height, or dsh, is a common method used for measuring trees. It refers
to a tree’s diameter measured at 4.5 feet (54 inches) above the ground.)
Heritage tree replacement requirements
As mentioned above, the zoning code allows property owners to remove 20% of the diameter
inches of significant trees on a site without requiring replacement. It also requires replacement
of significant trees at a rate of 1.5 caliper inches replaced for every one diameter inch removed.
Staff recommends keeping this formula for significant trees.
For heritage trees, staff recommends requiring replacement of every diameter inch of heritage
trees removed from commercial properties and any new subdivisions. Requiring replacement
for any heritage tree removal would further emphasize the importance of heritage trees to the
community. Staff research found that removal restrictions vary from city-to-city, but cities
generally set a heritage tree removal allowance that is equal to or lower than that of significant
trees, or other similarly defined trees.
Table 1. Proposed tree replacement requirements.
Staff recommends requiring a standard heritage tree replacement rate of two caliper inches
replaced for every one diameter inch removed to disincentivize heritage tree removal.
Heritage tree preservation credits
Although existing trees factor into the tree replacement calculations, there is not an explicit
credit for preserving trees on site. Adding an explicit credit may better communicate public
interests and incentivize property owners to preserve heritage trees on a site. The property
owner would benefit from reduced tree removal costs and replacement requirements, while
the public would benefit from preserving mature trees that greatly contribute to the local tree
canopy.
Staff recommends a heritage tree preservation credit that reduces the total inches of trees a
property owner must replace. As proposed, property owners would receive a credit of one
caliper inch for every one diameter inch of heritage trees preserved on the site . The credit
would be limited to 50% of the required replacement total. The intent of providing a 1:1 credit
is to further recognize the outstanding benefit of heritage trees and incentivize preservation by
reducing tree replacement costs.
% tree removal allowed
without replacement Replacement rate
Significant tree 20% 1.5
Heritage tree 0% 2.0
Page 5City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Tree protection permit
Staff recommends requiring commercial properties and new subdivisions to receive approval
for a tree protection permit prior to receiving other permit approvals or initiating any site work.
The purpose of the tree protection permit is to support tree preservation during d evelopment
by ensuring proper installation of tree protection measures. Approval for the tree protection
permit will be evaluated as part of the tree protection plan review process. Applicants will need
to identify the trees on site planned for preservation and describe the protective measures that
will be used. After installation of the tree protection measures, city staff will inspect the site for
proper installation and approve the permit.
Additional vegetation code updates
The tree preservation ordinance includes various updates to the vegetation code to clarify
circumstances that require a permit versus written permission and to reflect regulatory changes
related to native landscaping as outlined in Minnesota State Statutes 412.925.
Resources for implementation
Additional resources will be required to effectively inspect and enforce existing tree protection
codes and the additional code improvements outlined in this report. Staff requested one
additional natural resources full-time equivalent (FTE) as part of their 2025 operating budget
request. This FTE would be responsible for the fieldwork required for tree protection code
enforcement and dedicate approximately 15 hours per week to these activities. If city council
requests additional policy changes outside the scope of this report, staff will need to return
later to discuss the resources required for those changes.
Summary of public input
On Aug. 7, 2024, the planning commission held a public hearing for the proposed tree
preservation ordinance. No comments were shared at the public hearing. Vice chair Eckholm
indicated his support for the proposed ordinance during the discussion. The motion was moved
by Commissioner Merten and seconded by Commissioner Youngquist. The motion passed
unanimously with a 5-0 vote.
Next steps
Conduct the second reading of the ordinance on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024. Staff recommends the
ordinance go into effect on Jan. 1, 2025.
Page 6City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Ordinance No. ___-24
Ordinance amending Chapter 34. Vegetation, Chapter 36, Article I, Section 36 -4.
Definitions, Chapter 36, Article V, Section 36 -364(j). Restrictions for tree
removal; standards for replacement and Chapter 36, Article V, Section 36-364(k).
Tree protection.
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the city has experienced a decline in tree canopy due to tree removals
resulting from emerald ash borer in ash trees, decline in mature oak trees and Dutch Elm
disease in elm trees; and
Whereas, the city has goals and policies to increase tree canopy to 30% by the end of
2035 and 35% by the end of 2045; and
Whereas, due to changes to the Minnesota State Statutes 412.925 regarding native
landscaping updates to the vegetation chapter of city code are needed; and
Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on August 7, 2024 on the
ordinance; and
Whereas, the city council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
planning commission (case no. 24-15-ZA),
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to Chapter
34 of the city code pertaining to vegetation and Chapter 36 of the city code pertaining to
zoning:
Section 1. Transporting certain types of wood. Section 34-58 of the St. Louis Park City
Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined
text.
It is unlawful for any person to transport within the city any bark-bearing elm, wood, or
wood infested by disease or inspects insects without having obtained a permit written
permission from the city, which shall grant such permits permission when the purposes of this
division will be satisfied.
Section 2. Permission required. Section 34-81 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
Application for permission to plant such trees shall be made to the director of parks and
recreation, stating the variety and precise location proposed for each tree. After the receipt of
such an application, the director shall investigate the locality where the trees are to be placed
and shall grant a permit written permission only if, in his the director’s judgment, the location is
such as to permit the normal growth and development of each tree. The permission shall
specify the location, variety and grade of each tree and method of planting, including, among
other things, the supplying of suitable soil. The permission shall be good only for the season
stated on it in the year issued, and no charge shall be made for such permission. No tree shall
Page 7City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
be planted except in accordance with its terms. The specifications of the permission shall be
such as will secure the suitable location, planting and growth of each tree.
Section 3. Planting requirements. Section 34-83 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
No permit permission for planting of such trees shall be given where the clear space
between the curb and sidewalk is less than three feet. Neither shall a permit permission be
given where the soil is too poor to ensure the growth of the trees unless the applicant or the
owner agrees to excavate a suitable hole of not less than 54 cubic feet and to replace the
material removed with suitable good loam.
Section 4. Protection of trees. Section 34-85 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
(a)Public trees. No building material, machines or equipment of any description shall be
piled near any street tree unless such tree is first sufficiently protected by a proper guard
and/or tree protection fencing as described in Section 36-364 to prevent possible injury,
and all instructions issued for that purpose by the Director must be promptly complied
with by the owner or contractor.
(b) Private trees. Trees on private properties (with the exception of existing lots
developed with single-family or two-family dwellings) are protected from removal and
damage as described in Sec. 36-364. Any person proposing a land disturbing activity on a
commercial property or new subdivision shall apply to the city for, and receive approval
of, a tree protection permit as described in Sec. 36-364.
Section 5. Removal or injury to trees. Section 34-86 of the St. Louis Park City Code is
hereby amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
No person shall remove, destroy, cut, deface or in any way injure or interfere with any
tree or shrub on any of the avenues, streets or public grounds, including parks and parkways of
the city, without a permit written permission from the director.
Section 6. Paving around trees. Section 34-88 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby
amended to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
No paving of any description shall be laid or maintained by anyone between sidewalk
and curb which will cut off the air and water from any tree. A space of not less than 50 square
feet must be left open for each tree which space may be covered with suitabl e satisfactory iron
grate upon a permit of written permission from the director, to whom the plan for such grate
must be first submitted.
Section 7. Purpose. Section 34-114 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to
delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
The purpose of this Article is to establish minimum standards for lawn maintenance
while recognizing that a variety of landscapes within a community adds diversity and richness to
the quality of life for all residents. Turf grass lawns continue to be recog nized as the dominant
feature in the landscape; however, alternatives to this traditional type of lawn, such as
Minnesota native plants, are recognized as important parts of a diverse and successful
landscape and contribute to a healthy urban ecological system. A parcel with proposed Native
Page 8City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Vegetation that exceeds 800 square feet or exceeds 25% of parcel surface area will require a
Native Vegetation Permit.
Section 8. Definitions. Section 34-115 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended
to delete the struck-out language and renumber this section accordingly.
(a) “Maintenance Plan” – a document submitted with an application for a Native
Vegetation Permit demonstrating a precise course of maintenance for numerous
individual plants in a landscape over months and seasons.
(c) “Native Vegetation Permit” – a permit issued by the City pursuant to this article
allowing an owner or occupant to cultivate Native Vegetation upon his/her property. A
Native Vegetation Permit exempts an owner or occupant from Section 34-116(c).
Section 9. Exemptions. Section 34-117 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended
to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
(d) Native Landscapes Vegetation, with a Native Vegetation Permit in accordance with
Section 34-118 as defined by Minnesota state statute 412.925.
Section 10. Native vegetation permit. Section 34-118 of the St. Louis Park City Code is
hereby removed. This struck-out ordinance is now regulated pursuant to Minnesota state
statute 412.925.
(a) Permit. Upon satisfaction and completion of all the requirements of this section, the
City Manager or designee shall issue a Native Vegetation Permit. A Native Vegetation
Permit permits the permitee to cultivate Native Vegetation and exempts the property
from Section 34-116(c). A Native Vegetation Permit shall be valid for five (5) years from
the date of approval. The City Manager or designee shall not approve a Native
Vegetation Permit for property with unresolved Code of Ordinance violations or
administrative citations.
(b) Application. The Application for a Native Vegetation Permit which shall be provided
by the City Manager or designee shall contain the following:
(1) Statement of intent and purpose in cultivating Native Vegetation.
(2) Site plan showing lot lines, buildings, location of proposed Native Vegetation,
the property’s legal description, and corner visibility requirements as defined by
Section 24-47 of the City Code.
(3) Latin and common names of the species the property owner or occupant
plans to cultivate.
(4) Maintenance requirements for said species.
(5) Name and address of a professional landscaping company which has been
hired to perform maintenance on the Native Vegetation; or the name, address,
and qualifications of the person(s) who will be responsible for maintenance of
the Native Vegetation.
(6) A Maintenance Plan, which shall contain the following:
Page 9City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
a) Planting diagram showing the location and mature height of all
specimens of Native Vegetation;
b) Detailed information on the upkeep of the plantings; and
c) Details of any long-term maintenance required for the Native
Vegetation.
(c) Revocation. The City Manager or designee may regularly inspect any property holding
a Native Vegetation Permit for compliance with the Maintenance Plan on file with the
City for the property. If any property is not in compliance with the Maintenance Pl an,
the permitee may be notified and ordered to bring the property into compliance with
the approved permit within thirty (30) days. If the permitee falls to comply with the
order, the City Manager or designee may:
(1) Revoke the Native Vegetation Permit;
(2) Remove all improperly maintained Native Vegetation;
(3) Declare the property ineligible for a Native Vegetation Permit, unless sold, for
a period of two (2) years; and
(4)Assess the property for all costs associated with inspection of the property
and any removal of improperly maintained Native Vegetation in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes § 429.101.
Section 11. Definitions. Section 36-4 of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended
to delete the struck-out language and to add the following underlined text.
Diameter at breast standard height (DBH) (dsh) means the diameter of a tree measured
at a height of 4 1/2 feet from the ground level.
Heritage tree means a healthy deciduous tree measuring 30 inches or greater in
diameter at standard height (dsh) or a healthy coniferous tree measuring 25 inches or greater in
dsh.
Significant tree means any healthy tree, with the exception of salix (willow), Boxelder,
Siberian elm and black locust, is considered to be significant under the landscaping section of
the zoning ordinance if it is at least five caliper diameter inches for deciduous trees and six
caliper diameter inches for conifers. Aspen, boxelder, cottonwood, or silver maple are
considered significant if they are at least 12 inches in diameter at 4.5 feet from the ground.
Section 12. Restrictions for tree removal; standards for replacement. Section 36-
364(j)(2) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended to delete the struck-out language
and to add the following underlined text.
(2) Private land. This subsection shall not apply to trees removed from existing lots developed
with single-family or two-family dwellings. If any existing lot of record is subsequently
subdivided, tree replacement shall be required for all of the new resulting lots or parcels.
a.No significant tree shall be cut down, destroyed, or removed from any property unless it
is authorized by a permit issued by the city in a manner provided by this section.
Page 10City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
a.Any person proposing a land disturbing activity shall apply to the city for, and receive
approval of, a tree protection permit. No land shall be disturbed until the plan is approved
by the City and conforms to the standards set forth herein.
b.No land shall be altered which will result in the removal or destruction of any significant
tree unless the destruction is authorized by a permit issued by the city. The application for a
tree protection such permit shall include the following:
1.The name, address, and phone number of the person applying for the permit.
2.The name and address of the property owner.
3.A tree inventory of the site certified by a registered land surveyor, landscape
architect, or forester which identifies the size, species, condition, and locations
on the land of all existing significant and heritage trees on the property. In
addition, this inventory shall identify all significant and heritage trees which will
be cut down, removed, or lost due to grading or other damage. The tree
inventory shall be verified by the city forester.
4.Where the tree removal involves the proposed changes include land alteration, a
grading plan which identifies the following:
i.A minimum scale of one inch equals 50 feet.
ii.All existing and proposed contours at two (2) foot intervals.
iii.Location of all existing and proposed structures.
iv.Any grade change or land alteration, whether temporary or permanent,
of greater than one foot measured vertically, affecting 30 percent (as
measured on a horizontal plane) or more of a tree's root zone.
v.Utility construction which may result in the cutting of 30 percent or more
of a tree's roots within the root zone.
vi.Any areas where soil compaction is planned to a depth of six inches or
more, or of 30 percent or more of the surface of the soil within a root
zone.
5.A plan for the protection of trees intended to be saved shall adhere to tree
protection methods and locations as outlined in section (k) Tree Protection of
this chapter.
6.A statement of the proposed use of the land including a description of the type
of building or structure existing or proposed to be constructed on the site.
7.The number, type and size of trees required to be replaced by this section.
8.The proposed locations of the replacement trees.
c.Allowable tree removal.
Page 11City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
1.Up to twenty (20) percent of the diameter inches of significant trees on any
parcel may be removed without replacement requirements. Replacement
according to the tree replacement schedule is required when removal exceeds
more than twenty (20) percent of the total significant tree diameter inches.
2.Replacement according to the tree replacement schedule is required for removal
of all heritage tree diameter inches.
3.Diseased, dead, or structurally unsound trees are exempt from the provision of
this section. The City Forester will make the final determination of whether a
tree is diseased, dead or structurally unsound.
d.Tree replacement schedule. Tree removals over the allowable tree removal limit on
the parcel shall be replaced according to the following schedule:
1.Significant trees shall be replaced with new trees at a rate of one and one half
(1.5) caliper inch replaced for every one (1) diameter inch removed.
2.Heritage trees shall be replaced with new trees at a rate of two (2) caliper inches
replaced for every one (1) diameter inch removed.
e.Heritage tree preservation credits. A credit may be applied to the required tree
replacement if a healthy, heritage tree is preserved on a site. The tree must be
approved by the city as a quality tree worth saving. The credit will be applied at a rate of
one (1) caliper inch for every one (1) heritage tree diameter inch preserved, up to fifty
percent (50%) of the required replacement. If a heritage tree for which credit is
provided does not survive one year after construction, the developer will be requi red to
pay the fee-in-lieu.
f.c. Approval of a permit for the rRemoval of any significant or heritage tree or approval
of a permit for land alteration which results in tree destruction shall be subject to and
conditioned upon the owner or developer replacing the loss or reasonably anticipated
loss of all live significant and heritage trees. The amount of trees to be provided in
replacement shall be determined by the following formula:
1.Significant trees
((A/B)-0.20) x C 1.5 x A = D C
A = Total diameter inches of significant trees lost as a result of land alteration or
removal.
B = Total diameter inches of significant trees situated on the land.
C = Tree replacement constant (1.5).
D C = Replacement trees (number of caliper inches).
2.Heritage trees
A x 2 - (B - A) = C
Page 12City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
A = Total diameter inches of heritage trees lost as a result of land alteration or
removal.
B = Total diameter inches of heritage trees situated on the land.
C = Replacement trees (number of caliper inches)
g.Protected tree replacement fee. If a significant or heritage tree that was identified for
preservation and received replacement credit or zoning ordinance consideration is
removed or damaged during construction, the developer will be required to pay to the
city a cash mitigation. The fee is based on the diameter inches of the tree(s) damaged or
removed. The fee per diameter inch is set forth in the city’s fee schedule as the cash in
lieu of replacement trees fee.
h.d. Location of replacement trees.
1.Priority shall be given to locate replacement trees on any part of the parcel
where screening is required.
2.If there is insufficient area within the project to plant the required replacement
trees, they may be planted within any park, open space, or boulevard within the
city as determined by the city provided the city consents in writing. The city may
also elect to receive cash in lieu of trees based on a fee per cal iper inch
determined by the city council.
i.e. Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or
removed but shall be limited to one of those species shown on the City of St. Louis
Park’s Landscape Tree List, as provided by the City. No more than 50 percent of the
caliper inches of the replacement trees shall be understory trees.
Section 13. Tree protection. Section 36-364(k) of the St. Louis Park City Code is hereby amended
to add the following underlined text.
(7)Other proposed methods of tree protection may be acceptable if approved by City
Forester.
Section 14. This ordinance shall take effect on January 1, 2025.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the city council ___________:
Kim Keller, city manager Nadia Mohamed, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading August 19, 2024
Second reading September 9, 2024
Date of publication September 18, 2024
Date ordinance takes effect January 1, 2025
Page 13City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Planning commission
Study Session Minutes – May 1, 2024
Members present: Jim Beneke, Mia Divecha, Matt Eckholm, Katie Merten, Tom Weber, Jan
Youngquist
Members absent: none
Staff present: Sean Walther, Laura Chamberlain, Katelyn Champoux and Michael Bahe
Ms. Champoux and Mr. Bahe introduced themselves and their roles on city staff and planning.
Mr. Walther stated the application process for planning commissioner has now ended and 9
applications were received. He noted that the decision should be made in around one month.
He added that several commissioners are serving beyond the original term and under the
bylaws, they can continue to do so until they are reappointed, or another person is appointed.
He noted that city staff and the city council greatly appreciate the continued service of all the
planning commissioners and the commission’s patience while the city studies the boards and
commissions program, recruitment and selection processes. The city values its volunteer board
members and commissioners and the thoughtful consideration and recommendations they
provide to the city.
1.Tree preservation ordinance
Ms. Champoux and Mr. Bahe presented the staff report and spoke about the proposed
amendments to the city’s tree preservation ordinance.
Chair Divecha asked when someone pays the tree replacement fee, where does that money
go. Mr. Walther stated it goes into a fund for the city’s tree planting programs for public
trees on public land.
Commissioner Weber noted he has a large tree in his backyard and asked if it were to be
struck by lightning, would the city replace it. Mr. Bahe stated no because it is on private
property. Mr. Walther stated if it is a significant or heritage tree, the or dinance requires the
tree be healthy to be subject to the code. He added an exception would be for commercial
or multi-family residential properties with approved landscape plans. They would just need
to replant one tree in place of the tree removed in that situation.
Chair Divecha asked if this ordinance covers only commercial properties. Mr. Bahe stated
commercial and multifamily and new subdivisions are covered.
Commissioner Merten asked about what other cities do for tree ordinances. Ms. Champoux
stated it is mixed as to what other cities do.
Page 14City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Mr. Walther stated after this discussion, the findings will be brought to city council for
further discussion before the city starts the formal public hearing process.
Commissioner Youngquist asked how the proposed ordinance will define commercial
properties. Mr. Walther stated we are using the term broadly in this conversation, meaning
commercial of all types, retail, office, industrial, and multifamily residential.
Commissioner Youngquist asked if there has been any consideration on how this might
affect city goals such as affordable housing and noted the costs of developing affordable
housing and tree requirements. Mr. Walther stated staff is aware a balance will ne ed to be
struck but added they have not quantified these implications. He added in part the impact
on a neighborhood is similar whether it is market rate or affordable development, and we
would want to see trees preserved and/or replaced.
Mr. Bahe added many tree programming projects and increased city incentives are
happening in traditionally lower income areas of the city and restoring the tree canopy in
those areas.
Commissioner Weber asked where credits go for heritage tree preservation. Ms. Champoux
said it would happen when you have a development contract with the city. Mr. Walther
stated some trees may be removed for a particular development, but when heritage tre es
are preserved, the credit would reduce the replacement requirements for the trees
removed and potentially lowering the fees that need to be paid to the city when there is a
shortfall of new plantings to cover the replacement requirement.
Commissioner Youngquist asked how many heritage trees there are and where they are in
St. Louis Park. Mr. Bahe stated on public property staff knows where they are, but not on
private property.
Mr. Walther commented that staff has really emphasized preserving trees in new
development applications near environmentally sensitive areas, such as next to a creek or
wetland area, at the edges of lots where they provide screening and are generally out o f the
way of new buildings, and when very large and more remarkable mature trees exist. He
added the heritage tree definition and canopy goals are new tools to advocate for tree
preservation.
Commissioner Weber asked how much of an effect there is on the tree canopy with ash tree
removals and replacements. Mr. Bahe stated eventually that gap will be filled again but it
might take some years for the canopy to be replaced.
Commissioner Weber asked if there may be an incentive program for residents to remove a
tree where they might receive assistance from the city for replacement of the removed tree
if they promise to replace it within a certain amount of time.
Commissioner Merten added an education program for residents related to tree removal
and replacement may be helpful.
Page 15City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Mr. Bahe stated the city would not have the funding for a program like that, and it might be
counter to our goals to assist residents unless it were an epidemic. He added city efforts are
for tree preservation.
Commissioner Merten asked if there is an education program for residents on removal of
diseased ash trees. Mr. Bahe stated yes and noted the city received a grant from the DNR
for removal and replanting and subsidies for residents for this.
Commissioner Beneke asked about replanting. Mr. Bahe stated if someone removes a 30 -
inch diameter tree, they need to replant 30 inches of new trees, or approximately 10 -15
new 2-inch to 2.5-inch trees for each large tree removed.
Commissioner Weber noted the Three Rivers trail plan and preferred route on Dakota
Avenue. He added the city council should add language to the Three Rivers plan that says
you must replace the no tree loss option as a parameter of municipal consent, to sav e trees
over parking. Mr. Walther stated this may come down to a legal question and there may be
a limit on conditions, but noted there are negotiations that can happen. He added the city’s
strategic priorities cover trees and environment, as well as the Living Streets Policy, so
things are in place already along with the tree preservation ordinance.
Chair Divecha asked about the 20% penalty and the credits and asked why there was not
just a set penalty for removing a heritage tree. Ms. Champoux stated they worked to find a
balance hoping by offering incentives it will be more appealing to folks to pre serve heritage
trees. Mr. Walther added the 20% is likely a practical allowance to give some flexibility
without penalty.
Chair Divecha asked how developers typically react to the tree preservation ordinance and
has it ever been a barrier or a non-issue. Mr. Walther stated he is not aware of the penalty
causing a developer to walk away from a project.
Commissioner Weber asked what happens if a replacement tree dies, and if the owner is
responsible for replacement again. Mr. Walther stated there is a 1-year warranty period and
inspection and a replacement tree would need to be planted while under warrant y. He also
noted that while it is not monitored regularly but staff does review approved landscaping
plans when new requests are submitted and if the landscaping has not been maintained,
the city can require it to be back brought back into compliance.
Mr. Walther stated this will go to city council now for discussion and decisions along with
budget considerations.
2.Arrive & Thrive update
Ms. Chamberlain presented the report.
Commissioner Beneke asked if there are any issues with ground contamination. Ms.
Chamberlain stated there is not as much ground contamination in this area, but because it
is historically an industrial area with the railroad there, it is an area of concern, especially
near Bass Lake and flooding potential.
Page 16City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Chair Divecha asked how the smaller building size is enforced. Mr. Chamberlain stated that
will be the next step they look at with maximum building widths and guidelines with a
zoning district or overlay.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about the commercial space that is butted against a trail
and also going through a residential area, noting it does not seem it would be successful
with only access coming from the west. Ms. Chamberlain stated she will ask the consultant
on that, and added the connection would be only for the neighborhood and residential
uses.
Chair Divecha asked about the pedestrian connections along Beltline Boulevard and asked if
the apartments there are occupied now. She noted there is a crosswalk, but not a stop and
asked if that is being looked at. Ms. Chamberlain stated that is not being looked at right
now, but stated Beltline Boulevard width with the redesign and construction has gone from
4 to 3 lane, and the crossing location is intentional, while there were limits on where to put
traffic lights. She stated there may be mitigations to look at now that the apartments are
now occupied there.
Commissioner Eckholm stated he prefers the higher story building in the Burlington
location.
Commissioner Weber asked what the future use planned in this location. Ms. Weber stated
the future use there is mostly office commercial space but noted in the Phase 2 there was a
lot of feedback from residents on how they love the Micro Center store. She noted the city
would like to help them find an alternate location as they are a great draw.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about a bike ped connection over Hwy. 100. Ms.
Chamberlain stated that is not in the plan as this time, but staff is hoping this plan can act as
a catalyst for more conversations on this.
Commissioner Eckholm asked if there is any way to get a bridge to better connect
Wooddale and the Walker Lake area better, such as a bridge extended and turfed to help it
feel more like a street to pedestrians with trees. Ms. Chamberlain stated this is being looked
at in the long term.
Commissioner Youngquist asked if the maroon buildings south of the station are approved
but have not been constructed. Ms. Chamberlain stated no, they are similar, but this is
more of a general development being shown. She noted EDA still controls the Nash Finch
site and a new developer is being researched.
Commissioner Youngquist asked since this development will be starting over, why the
highest density is not next to the station. Commissioner Eckholm agreed. Ms. Chamberlain
stated that is great feedback.
Page 17City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Commissioner Eckholm added the Johnny Pops site could also be used. Ms. Chamberlain
stated staff is looking at that as well, for higher density and mixed -use development which
works well in this area.
Commissioner Eckholm asked about Methodist Hospital expansion in the future. Ms.
Chamberlain stated Methodist has realized they will not be able to expand in this area due
to the railroad spur there.
Commissioner Youngquist asked if the large white box north of Methodist is the former
Sam’s club. Ms. Chamberlain stated yes.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about redevelopment of the parking lot there and if the
building was involved in that as well. Ms. Chamberlain stated the city did a study in 2018,
and there was a moratorium on development there. She stated the direction for that site
was general commercial and then it was reassessed, and the current parking could be used
for mixed use and structured parking. She noted that Loffler Corporation moved into the
space, invested a lot, and brought 500 employees to the area, right next to the light rail
station. She stated as of now, the entire site will not be shown for redevelopment with only
the southern portion shown for redevelopment.
Commissioner Eckholm added this area — because of soil issues — has a cap of no more
than 6 stories that can be built on that site, as well as how much parking can be there. Ms.
Chamberlain stated this area is also very hard to redevelop because of soil conditions.
Commissioner Weber stated he is hopeful about the proposals for Excelsior Boulevard and if
half of this can be completed, that is a win for the community. Ms. Chamberlain agreed and
added it is just a question of when this can happen within the 20-year plan.
Ms. Chamberlain stated there will be an open house related to Arrive & Thrive on May 14
that commissioners are invited to attend and an online survey to launch this round of the
community engagement process.
3.Adjournment – 8:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Mia Divecha, chair member
Page 18City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Planning commission
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES – August 7, 2024
Members present: Jim Beneke, Matt Eckholm, Sylvie Hyman, Katie Merten, Jan Youngquist
(arrived 6:05 p.m.)
Members absent: Mia Divecha, Tom Weber
Staff present: Sean Walther and Katelyn Champoux
Guests: None
4.Call to order – roll call.
5.Approval of minutes – May 1, 2024 and May 22, 2024
Vice Chair Eckholm noted on page 6, it should not include the words specifically “…15-18 story
building…”
It was moved by Commissioner Merten, seconded by Commissioner Beneke, to approve the May
1 and May 22, 2024 minutes with corrections as noted. The motion passed unanimously.
6.Hearings.
3a. Tree preservation ordinance
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No: 24-15-ZA
Ms. Champoux presented the report. She noted the first reading will go to council on Monday,
Aug. 19 and second reading on Monday, Sept. 9, 2024.
Commissioner Merten asked about tree preservation credits and if the tree needs to be in good
shape and if they would also look at the lifespan of the tree as well.
Ms. Champoux stated the city forester does look at trees to make sure they are healthy, but she
is not sure about the lifespan question.
Commissioner Merten asked about the tree preservation, and if that is for existing
homeowners. Ms. Champoux stated the policy applies to commercial and residential
properties, which is a broad definition. She noted if a single-family parcel subdivides, it would
apply.
Commissioner Beneke asked about trees fitting on properties. Ms. Champoux stated if
someone could not meet the tree replacement requirements, then the fee would be applied or
the option to plant off-site in a public space with city permission.
Page 19City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
Commissioner Beneke asked about replacing trees. Ms. Champoux stated it would depend on
how many must be preserved, and depending on how many were removed. Mr. Walther added
tools will be provided to clarify the formulas within the code on tree replacement.
Commissioner Merten asked when the replacement of heritage trees is required, does it need
to be a similar tree. Ms. Champoux stated there is direction within the code on type and size
required. She stated there is a minimum size requirement of 2.5 caliper inches for new trees
and requirements to diversify the types of trees on the site. Mr. Walther added it would need
to be a tree “in-kind” and not a dissimilar tree.
Commissioner Youngquist asked about the difference between caliper inches and diameter
inches noted in the report. Ms. Champoux stated diameter inches are used for mature trees
while caliper inches are used for nursery stock trees. Diameter inches are meas ured at 4.5 feet
in height and caliper inches are measured closer to the ground.
Commissioner Hyman asked how this policy is enforced. Ms. Champoux stated the tree
preservation plans are part of landscape plans and are reviewed as part of the planning
application process. Landscape inspections are then completed.
Mr. Walther stated this relates to new construction or a land disturbance program, importing or
exporting soils.
Commissioner Hyman asked if there is monetary value or incentives to the preservation credits.
Ms. Champoux stated property owners do not receive money for preserving more than they
remove. The preservation credit reduces the total replacement requirement up to 50%. If no
trees are removed, there is no replacement required and no incentive.
Commissioner Hyman asked if there are incentives to locate trees in areas where they are more
likely to live rather than in areas that may limit their lifespan such as near sidewalks or close to
buildings. Ms. Champoux stated the city’s natural resources department reviews the landscape
plans for the proposed location of trees and will recommend the applicant plant a tree in a
different location if the originally proposed location is not suitable for healthy tree growth.
Commissioner Hyman asked about trees under power lines and how can the city prevent trees
being planted there. Ms. Champoux stated if it is on a development and there are comments on
a proposal the city would recommend that trees are not planted that would grow into utility
lines. Mr. Walther added the city provides advisory on this and educational handouts related to
this as well.
Vice Chair Eckholm opened the public hearing.
There were no comments from the public.
Vice Chair Eckholm closed the public hearing.
Vice Chair Eckholm thanked staff for this report and stated preserving the tree canopy in St.
Louis Park is very important, adding he will support this.
Page 20City council meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 7b)
Title: First reading of ordinance amending city code Chapters 34 and 36 regarding tree preservation
It was moved by Commissioner Merten, seconded by Commissioner Youngquist, to approve the
tree preservation policy amendments as presented. The motion passed unanimously.
7.Other Business – none.
8.Communications.
Mr. Walther noted the next two meetings are Aug 21 with a BOZA meeting as well as a study
session. There will also be a planning commission meeting on Sept. 9.
9.Adjournment – 6:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Sean Walther, liaison Matt Eckholm, Vice Chair member
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: August 19, 2024
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive – Ward 4
Recommended action: Please provide staff with feedback on the proposed redevelopment.
Policy consideration:
•Is the city council generally supportive of the proposed redevelopment concept?
•Is the city council willing to consider a rezoning to a planned unit development?
•Is the city council willing to consider a drive-thru in this location if it is well designed
and screened?
•Is the EDA willing to consider providing tax increment financing for this project?
Summary: Hempel has a purchase agreement for 5401 Gamble Drive. The redeveloper
proposes to redevelop one of the West End Office Towers and construct a six story, 223-unit
mixed-use building with 21,000 square feet of commercial space and may include a grocer.
Parking would be provided underground and in a surface lot.
The housing would be mixed income with 45 affordable units (20%) available to households
earning up to 50% of area median income (AMI), exceeding the city’s inclusionary housing
policy requirements. Seven three-bedroom units are included in the proposal to assist in
meeting the city council’s goals for family-sized housing. Staff are also working with the
redeveloper to include some 30% AMI units in the development. The development would be
subject to the city’s green building policy, and in so doing Hempel will likely pursue LEED silver
certification. The building will include at least 40 kw photovoltaic panels on the building’s roof.
The redeveloper intends to submit applications for a plat and planned unit development.
Hempel has also indicated its desire to pursue additional phases if the other West End Office
Park sites become available. Therefore, it is recommended that the redeveloper complete an
environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the area to determine any impacts to the
surrounding traffic and utility infrastructure that may occur with a larger redevelopment.
City council requested a discussion of this development proposal.
Financial or budget considerations: The redeveloper indicates there are extraordinary costs
associated with the proposed redevelopment which preclude the project from achieving a
market rate of return. Consequently, the redeveloper intends to apply for tax increment
financing assistance through the establishment of a housing TIF district.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Discussion; development concept plans; letter from developer.
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, redevelopment administrator
Laura Chamberlain, senior planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive – Ward 4
Discussion
Site information: The proposed redevelopment site is located at 5401 Gamble Drive, on the
southeast corner of Park Place Boulevard and Gamble Drive, immediately south of the Shops at
West End. The site is in the Blackstone neighborhood.
Site map:
Site area (acres): 3.31 acres
Study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive – Ward 4
Current use: Surrounding land uses:
Office tower North: Shops at West End
East: West End Office Park
South: West End Office Park
West: Costco gas station
Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning
OFC- office O office
Proposed 2040 land use guidance Proposed zoning
OFC - office PUD planned unit development
Background: In 2023, Eden Prairie-based Hempel Real Estate purchased the Shops at West End.
Since its purchase, Hempel has further invested in the property invigorating the shopping area
by attracting new commercial, service, and office tenants including Kiddiwampus, Marcus
Theaters, Polestar, Boketto, the Artisan Store and Makerspace, and more. However, Hempel
has yet to activate the south end of the shopping area.
Hempel would like to pursue additional development to bring activity to the south end of the
shopping area by creating a large commercial draw and additional residential units, bringing
more people to the area throughout the day, not just during typical working hours.
Present considerations: Hempel has a purchase agreement for 5401 Gamble Drive. The
redeveloper proposes to redevelop the northwest office tower located within the West End
Office Towers complex, and construct a six story, 223-unit mixed-use building with 21,000
square feet of commercial space, potentially including a grocer, restaurant, and coffee shop.
Parking for residential units would be provided underground and commercial and guest parking
would be located in a surface lot.
The redeveloper proposes the coffee shop on the south end of the building facing Park Place
Boulevard include a drive-thru. As designed, the drive-thru would be parallel to Park Place
Boulevard but would be screened adjacent to the sidewalk. For aesthetic, sustainability, and
urban design reasons, staff have encouraged the redeveloper to remove the drive-thru from
the project plans. The present office zoning district allows drive-thrus (in-vehicle sales and
service) with a conditional use permit. Hempel indicates that income generated from the
revenue of the drive-thru helps increase the net operating income for the development.
Without the drive-thru, the project’s financial gap would further increase, necessitating a
greater request for financial assistance. Hempel has requested city council consider the
attached letter outlining Hempel’s development proposal and its desire to include a drive-thru
as part of the project.
The redeveloper intends to request the city rezone the site from O-Office to PUD planned unit
development. A rezoning to a PUD would allow the site to utilize the residential density allowed
in the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan office land use category, which allows up to 125 units per
acre.
Study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive – Ward 4
Proposed concept rendering
Proposed development concept site plan
Study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive – Ward 4
Inclusionary housing policy: As proposed the development would double the city’s inclusionary
housing policy requirements by providing 45 units (20%) available to households earning up to
50% of area median income (AMI) for 26 years. The redeveloper intends to apply for tax
increment financing to help offset a portion of the site’s extraordinary costs in order to fill the
financial gap in the project’s proforma. The site only qualifies for a Housing TIF district, which
requires 20% of the units to be affordable to households earning up to 50% AMI or 40% of the
units be affordable to households earning up to 60% AMI. The plans also include seven three-
bedroom units to assist in meeting the city council’s goals for family-sized housing. Staff are
also working with the redeveloper to include some 30% AMI units in the development.
Green building policy: The development will be required to meet the city’s green building
policy. This will be the first building required to follow the updated policy adopted in early
2023. To meet policy requirements the redeveloper plans to pursue LEED Silver certification
which may include the following: LED lighting, low VOC materials, construction waste recycling,
higher efficiency HVAC systems, low flow fixtures, and recycled content materials. The building
will also include at least a 40kw rooftop solar array.
Request for financial assistance: The redeveloper has determined that there are extraordinary
costs associated with the proposed redevelopment which preclude the project from achieving a
market rate of return. Consequently, the redeveloper intends to apply for tax increment
financing assistance through the establishment of a housing TIF district. Should the council/EDA
wish to pursue the proposed development, staff will work with the EDA’s financial consultant,
Ehlers, to verify whether in fact a financial gap exists in the project’s financial proforma and
determine the appropriate level of assistance, if any.
Diversity, equity and inclusion policy: If financial assistance is provided the development is
required to adhere to the city’s diversity equity and inclusion policy related to the hiring of
BIPOC/AAPI and women-owned business enterprises and workforce goals.
The development would seek to comply with the following diversity, equity, and inclusion
participation business and workforce participation goals:
Participation Goals Women BIPOC/AAPI
Business Organization 10% 13%
Business Enterprises 6% 13%
Workforce 20% 32%
Peripheral Enterprises 6% 13%
Next steps: If city council supports the proposed redevelopment concept, staff will work with
the redeveloper to begin the process of completing an Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) for the four lots in the West End Office Park to determine what impacts to the
surrounding traffic and utility infrastructure may occur with a larger redevelopment.
Completing the EAW is a several-month process.
Study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive – Ward 4
While the EAW is being completed, the redeveloper will start working on more detailed concept
plans and engineered drawings. Hempel also intends to submit an application for TIF assistance
for the EDA’s consideration. A summary of future actions is outlined below. The redeveloper
would like to begin construction on the building in April 2025.
Previous/future actions Governing body Date
Consider distribution of the EAW in the Environmental
Quality Board Monitor
City Council TBD
Consider EAW Finding of Fact and Record of Decision City Council TBD
EDA receives report outlining the request for financial
assistance
EDA TBD
Public hearing and recommendation on preliminary and
final plat and preliminary and final PUD
Planning Commission TBD
EDA receives report summarizing business terms related
to the contract for private development
EDA TBD
Consider approval of preliminary and final plat and 1st
reading of the PUD ordinance
City Council TBD
Consider 2nd reading of the PUD ordinance City Council TBD
Consider establishing a housing TIF District EDA/City Council TBD
Consider approval of the contract for private
development
EDA TBD
ATM
TUSHIE MONTGOMERY
terasă | 08.01.2024 Cover Sheet | P0
5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A
terasă
Sheet Index
P0 | Cover Sheet
P1 | Site Plan
P2 | Floor Plan- Levels -1 & 1
P3 | Floor Plan- Levels 2 & 3
P4 | Floor Plan- Levels 4 & 5
P5 | Floor Plan- Level 6
P6 | Elevations
P7 | Perspectives
P8 | Schematic Rendering
P9 | Schematic Rendering
P10 | Schematic Rendering
P11 | Shadow Study
P12 | Shadow Study
P13 | City Exhibit
P14 | City Exhibit
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 7
6-Story Mixed Used
Level 1: Retail & Apartment Lobby
Levels 2-6: Apartment Units
1-Story Apt.1-Story RetailSurface Parking
134 Stalls
1-Story
4-Story4-Story
5-Story
5353 Gamble Dr.5354 Parkdale Dr.1
S10
6-Story Mixed Used
Level 1: Retail & Apartment Lobby
Levels 2-6: Apartment Units
1-Story Apt.1-Story RetailSurface Parking
134 Stalls
1-Story
4-Story
4-Story
5-Story
ATM
TUSHIE MONTGOMERY
terasă | 08.01.2024 Site Plan | P1
5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A
SCALE:1" = 160'-0"
2 Key Plan- Site
SCALE:1" = 60'-0"
1 Site Plan
Proposed 6-StoryMixed Use Building
6-Story Mixed UseLevel 1: Retail & Apartment LobbyLevels 2-6: Apartment Units
Surface Parking134 StallsPark Place Blvd.Gamble Dr.
Site Triangle- 50'
Site Triangle- 50'
GarageEntry
ServiceEntry +PedestrianCorridor
Bus Lane5-Story
4-Story
2-Story
4-Story
2-Story
5-Story
ProposedGreenspace
Extension of West End Blvd.Apt. EntryDrop-Off Lane5353 Gamble Dr.5354 Gamble Dr.Current TransitShelter Location
ProposedLocation of NewTransit Shelter
Free-StandingScreen Wall
Traffic BarrierArms Drive Thru Entry
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 8
Primary Material
Accent Material #1
Aluminum + Glass Railing
Accent Fin Element
Accent Material #2
Free-Standing
Screen Wall
Transit Shelter
Accent Fin Element
Aluminum Balcony
Primary Material
Accent Material #2
Accent Material #1
Metal Awning
Masonry #1
Storefront Glazing
Primary Material
Retail Signage
Storefront Glazing
Masonry #1
Aluminum Balcony
Primary Material
Accent Material #2
Aluminum+Glass Railing
Accent Material #1
Perforated Metal
Screen
Metal Awning
Retail Signage
Storefront Glazing
Masonry #1
Accent Material #1
Primary Material
Accent Material #2
Storefront Glazing
Masonry #1
Accent Fin Element
Accent Material #1
Aluminum + Glass Railing
Primary Material
Aluminum Balcony
Perforated Metal
Screen
Metal Awning
Primary Material
Accent Material #2
Accent Material #1
Material Key
Primary Material
Alt. 1: Stucco
Alt. 2: Metal Panel
Off-White/ Light Beige
Varied Reveals
Type:
Color:
Other:
Accent Material #1
Metal Panel
Alt. 1: Anodized Copper
Alt. 2: Wood-Look
Vertically Oriented
Type:
Color:
Other:
Accent Material #2
Alt. 1: Metal Panel
Alt. 2: Fiber Cement Siding
Dark Bronze / Black
Type:
Color:
Other:
Masonry #1
Alt. 1 Cast Stone
Alt. 2 Utility Brick
Light Beige
Type:
Color:
Other:
Accent Fin
Wood-Look Metal Fin
To Match Accent
Material #1
Type:
Color:
Other:
All Materials Are Preliminary and Subject to Change Upon Final Material
Selection Process.
ATM
TUSHIE MONTGOMERY
terasă | 08.01.2024 Elevations | P6
5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
1 West Elevation- Park Place Blvd.
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
2 North Elevation- Gamble Dr.
SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"
3 East Elevation
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 9
SCALE:
2 Corner of Gamble Dr. & Park Place Blvd.
SCALE:
1 Corner of Gamble Dr. & West End Blvd.
ATM
TUSHIE MONTGOMERY
terasă | 08.01.2024 Perspectives | P7
5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A
SCALE:
3 Retail Tenant Corner
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 10
ATM
TUSHIE MONTGOMERY
terasă | 08.01.2024 Schematic Rendering | P10
5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A
P8
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 11
ATM
TUSHIE MONTGOMERY
terasă | 08.01.2024 Schematic Rendering | P9
5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 12
ATM
TUSHIE MONTGOMERY
terasă | 08.01.2024 Schematic Rendering | P10
5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park, MN 55416 | 224125A
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 13
July 29, 2024
Jennifer Monson, AICP
Redevelopment Administrator I
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd, St. Louis
Park, MN 55416
Ill
HEMPEL
REAL ESTATE
10050 Crosstown Circle
Suite 600
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
T 612 355 2600
F 612 355 2801
www.hempelcompanies.com
RE: Proposed Redevelopment of 5401 Gamble Drive, St. Louis Park,MN
Dear Jennifer:
Thank you for our continued conversations regarding the possibility of
Hempel acquiring and redeveloping the existing West End I office building
immediately south of our Shoppes at West End investment.
We are writing this letter as a supplemental addition to our concept plan
submittal for the proposed development and request that this letter be shared with
the City Council during your upcoming workshop on this topic.
As you know, Hempel has worked with the existing property owner, Bridge
Investment Group, for the past 12 months in an effort to make a redevelopment of
this 3-acre parcel happen. During this relatively challenging time for financing real
estate projects, we have been able to remain engaged with the seller in order to
bring forward an exciting vision for the redevelopment of this parcel, which we also
expect may be a catalyst for the redevelopment of other parcels in this area someday.
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 14
To make the proposed project feasible to redevelop, there are many things that
have had to come together, including the following:
•TIF - the City's willingness to consider a TIF housing redevelopment district,
which helps pay for affordable housing units and drive density on this parcel
•Construction costs - construction cost inflation appears to be at a plateau
given the slow down and challenges with new construction, but we do not
expect this to remain beyond next summer
•Existing office tenancies - the seller has maintained short term office
tenancies in the existing office building which will not be possible indefinitely;
at some point soon, the owner will need to recommit to these tenancies with
new investment and the redevelopment window will close on this parcel for
the foreseeable future
•Anchor tenancy - we are working towards a final commitment by a leading
national retail tenant to our redevelopment plan, which will require we break
ground no later than spring 2025 to meet their timing. Any delay in the
project starting beyond that date will not allow us to deliver the project in
time for this anchor tenant delivery
•Drive Through - we have proposed one, and only one, drive through retail
store incorporated into our proposed development plan for a leading coffee
brand. This drive-through will be part of a larger vehicle movement pattern
on the west side of the development that includes deliveries for the other
retailers. The project's economics are materially and adversely affected
without us being able to provide a drive-through for this coffee user, but
following is a more complete list of the compelling reasons to approve a
Drive Through:
o First, the rent that the coffee user will pay for a drive through is
worth approximately $2 mm in value to the project and subsidizes the
40+ affordable housing units of the project. A drive through
prohibition threatens overall development feasibility unless we can
identify an alternative $2 million subsidy, which seems unlikely
o Second, we have screened the drive through substantially, and in so
doing, have set a new precedent for how drive throughs, if allowed,
should be incorporated into any future development and only in a
PUD setting
o Third, our drive-through is facing property to the west that includes a
gas station and substantial surface parked retail properties that will
not be affected by the drive-through. We believe our plan meets most
all City requirements and, in a PUD, we should be afforded some
flexibility to make adjustments to the plan that help financial
feasibility, and inclusion of a drive through is our key ask
o Fourth, we feel it is important to land this coffee user in the West End
and this user is a key amenity for the overall development -
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 15
their internet cafe will be a meeting place for our residents and
nearby office tenants
o Drive-throughs are a significant benefit to the disabled and others
with mobility challenges, versus requiring them to park and traverse
into and out of the store and in various weather conditions
o Because of the economics that a drive through represents to the
project, the project itself is at risk without it and this will be a
substantial loss for the area, not just over one project - it would affect
any redevelopment possibility for years to come in this location.
We ask that the City consider all of these things in either supporting or
rejecting our proposed plan as currently presented.
Sincerely,
Rick McKelvey Senior
Vice President
Special study session meeting of August 19, 2024 (Item No. 1)
Title: Development proposal for 5401 Gamble Drive - Ward 4 Page 16