HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/07/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JULY 6, 2015
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 40 min. Southwest LRT Update
2. 30 min. Xenwood Avenue Update
7:25 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes June 15, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business -- None
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes June 8, 2015
3b. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes June 15, 2015
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes June 15, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda,
or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.)
Meeting of July 6 , 2015
City Council Agenda
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
5. Boards and Commissions – None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution –
Jones Harrison Residence Project
Recommended Action: The Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, take testimony,
and then close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing issuance of
Health Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds for Jones-Harrison.
6b. Public Hearing Liquor Barrel Off-Sale Liquor License - New Ownership
Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Yayin
Gadol, LLC, dba Liquor Barrel, located at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard, for the license
term through March 1, 2016.
6c. Inchin Corporation dba Blue Fox Bar & Grill - On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale
Sunday Liquor License
Recommended Action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve application from Inchin Corporation dba Blue Fox
Bar & Grill, for an On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Sunday Liquor License to be
located at 5377 W. 16th St., with the license term through March 1, 2016.
6d. CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise
Recommended Action: The Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, take public
testimony, and then close the hearing.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Approve CenturyLink’s Legal, Technical & Financial Qualifications for a Competitive
Cable TV Franchise
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution regarding findings of fact with
respect to the proposal of Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc. for a
Cable Communications Franchise.
8b. Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to allow a Group Daycare at 2230 Edgewood Ave S, subject to conditions
recommended by Staff.
8c. 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending
City Code Sec. 36-362 related to signage, and to set the second reading for July 20,
2015.
8d. Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager,
5305 Parkdale Drive
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution reversing the Board of Zoning
Appeals denial of St. Louis Park Properties application for variance to increase the
maximum floor area ratio from 0.5 to 0.7.
9. Communications -- None
Meeting of July 6 , 2015
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of April 25, 2015 through
June 26, 2015.
4b. Adopt Resolution designating polling places and appointing Election Judges for the
August 11, 2015, Municipal Primary Election and the November 3, 2015,
Municipal/School District/State Special General Election.
4c. Adopt Resolution accepting donations to the Fire Department.
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of stop signs on Kentucky Avenue & W.
18th Street.
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing the revision of parking restrictions on 5320 W. 23rd
Street.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in
the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon
on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Southwest LRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss recommendations and potential for local funding for
the SWLRT project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to consider providing local funding
to the SWLRT project?
SUMMARY: On Wednesday, July 1st, the SWLRT Corridor Management Committee (CMC)
voted on cost reductions for the SWLRT project. The goal was to reduce the project costs by
$341 million to the previous cost of $1.653 billion. The CMC recommended the following,
which is a $1.744 billion project ($91 million difference):
• Keep the line to the Southwest Transit Station, defer the Town Center station and delete
the Mitchell Road Station;
• Keep all of the remaining stations;
• Reduce park and ride spaces throughout the corridor;
• Include the regional trail bridge over the tracks at Beltline Station;
• Add parking at Louisiana Station;
• Keep Shady Oak park and ride and various other elements.
In order to accomplish this project scenario, the gap of up to $91 million would have to be
resolved. Hennepin County has identified a variety of sources that result in a remaining $25
million gap. To help reduce this gap it has been proposed that cities along the corridor provide a
funding contribution. A $2 million contribution by St. Louis Park has been discussed. For St.
Louis Park, this contribution is offset because the recommended scenario keeps the trail
separation bridge over the rail in the project. Keeping it in means the federal grant for both the
Beltline and Wooddale trail separations would no longer be at risk, ensuring the grade
separations will move forward. A pledge is being requested from local governments in July in
order to meet an August deadline of the Federal Transit Administration; a resolution of support
for Council’s consideration would be placed on the July 20th City Council agenda. More
information about the potential contributions by the County and cities will be discussed at the
study session.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Specific sources for a local contribution
have not yet been identified. Actual payment of any of the contribution would not need to occur
until 2017, and could possibly be paid over several years.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: End of Line Station Location Map
Corridor Management Committee Resolution 7-1-15
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Southwest LRT Update
End of Line Station Locations
Corridor Management Committee Recommendation - Keep line to Southwest Station
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 1) Title: Southwest LRT UpdatePage 3
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Xenwood Avenue Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires direction on whether to continue to move forward with
design of the Xenwood Avenue underpass/roadway connection and the preferred roadway alignment.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to move forward on design for the
SWLRT Locally Requested Capital Improvements (LRCIs) discussed in this report?
SUMMARY: In 2014 the City began discussions with the Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) for
ways to improve traffic operations near the Wooddale Station and for increased access to South
Service Road of Highway 7 east of Wooddale Avenue. The City owns the former McGarvey
Coffee building and the vacant EDA parcel in the southeast corner of Highway 7 and Wooddale
Avenue and is seeking redevelopment opportunities for these parcels.
Due to the proposed roadway changes anticipated with the addition of light rail and the desire for a
whistle quiet zone along the freight rail through St. Louis Park, the access to the South Service Road
will become right in / right out sometime around 2017. This right in / right out access has the
potential to limit the scale of redevelopment on the McGarvey and EDA parcels.
Therefore the City and the SPO began looking for opportunities to find additional ways to access the
South Service Road. These parcels are bordered by Highway 7 on the north, Highway 100 on the
East, the freight and LRT to the south and Wooddale Avenue to the west. This leaves little
opportunity to increase access to these sites. The most viable option has been to consider extending
Xenwood Avenue from W. 35th Street to the South Service Road between the former McGarvey
Coffee site and the Cityscape apartments.
Staff presented this concept to Council in late 2014 and entered in to an agreement with the SPO in
early 2015 to complete the design of the three bridges necessary to build the Xenwood Avenue
Underpass. The associated roadway design is the responsibility of the City to complete. Staff has
prepared a west and east alignment for Xenwood Avenue. In order for the SPO to stay on schedule
they need a preferred alignment so they can continue to design the three bridges for inclusion in the
final construction plans.
NEXT STEPS: If directed by Council, staff will continue to refine the Xenwood Underpass into
preliminary engineering plans and begin a public process with the property owners of the area.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Screening Matrix
West and East Alignment Drawings
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Joe Shamala, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Xenwood Avenue Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City entered in to a subordinate funding agreement with the SPO and
Metropolitan Council in early 2015 for the design of the three bridges (freight, LRT and
Regional Trail) necessary to facilitate a Xenwood Avenue roadway extension. We committed
approximately $383,600 for the design and environmental clearance of these three bridges. All
three bridges are estimated to cost approximately $3.5 million. At that time the SPO provided
the City with a cost estimate of 13-15 million dollars to build the Xenwood Avenue connection
including the 3 bridges.
SPO is looking to the City to determine the preferred location of the centerline of the Xenwood
Avenue extension and ultimately the location of the three bridges so they can continue their
design and meet their bidding schedule.
The City is also currently working with PLACE for redeveloping the McGarvey Coffee and
EDA parcel. They have been made aware of the potential Xenwood Avenue Extension and are
considering the possible impacts in their preliminary design.
Preliminary Design:
Although the bridges will be designed and built by SPO using City funds, the associated roadway
design and construction is the sole responsibility of the City.
Staff and our consultant have prepared a west and east alignment for Xenwood Avenue that
helps to illustrate the impacts associated with each design. There is only about 100 feet
difference between the west and east alignments but these two alignments have a varied amount
of impacts associated with each. (see attached graphics)
The attached screening matrix quantifies the following three main categories used to evaluate the
alignments:
1. Property impacts (building, permanent and temporary)
2. Access changes (roadways and driveways)
3. Costs (right of way, construction, design and contingencies)
With the data provided in the matrix and the graphics, staff seeks direction on whether to
continue to move forward with design of the Xenwood Avenue roadway connection and advise
staff on the preferred roadway alignment.
Xenwood Avenue:
The following is the design parameters used to evaluate the two alternatives. Both the physical
roadway footprint and the elevation changes need to be examined closely for extending
Xenwood Avenue under the rail road corridor.
Road Design
Xenwood Avenue is proposed to carry one lane of traffic in each direction, on street bike lanes
and 6 foot wide boulevard style sidewalks from 35th Street to the South Service Road. It is
assumed that parking will not be allowed in this segment of road.
Bridge Clearance
Xenwood Avenue underpass would have 14’6” of clearance from the road to the underside of the
bridges. This is a typical vertical clearance necessary for semi-trucks and emergency response
vehicles.
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Xenwood Avenue Update
How to Connect to 35th Street and South Service Road
In order get under the existing and proposed railroad Xenwood Avenue has to be about 20 feet
lower than the existing elevation of the rail corridor. This substantial grade change requires that
Xenwood Avenue match in at 35th Street but quickly start to slope down as it heads north. The
current Xenwood Avenue slopes up as it approaches Camerata Way and Camerata Apartments.
This divergence in grades at this location creates access challenges for Camerata.
As Xenwood Avenue heads north under the rail corridor the roadway is about 17 feet below the
existing grade at the edge of the McGarvey Coffee plant and the parking lot for Cityscape
apartments. The road will continue to slope up towards the South Service Road. However,
grades will not allow Xenwood Avenue to meet the South Service Road at the existing grade.
Approximately 700 feet of the South Frontage Road will need to be lowered to meet the grades
of the extension of Xenwood Avenue. This new intersection will be approximately 10 feet lower
than today.
Utilities
There is a MCES dual barrel 24” force main that runs along this segment of roadway. This force
main would need to be lowered as part of the project.
In addition, a storm sewer lift station is needed to drain storm water out from the low point that is
created under the bridge and a sanitary sewer lift station is needed to continue flow from
Cityscape apartments.
Cedar Lake Trail
The design being proposed has a trail that connects from the regional trail down to the Xenwood
Avenue underpass. This trail is ADA accessible but requires a large amount of retaining wall to
make the grades work.
Both the West and East alignment alternatives utilize the same design parameters as discussed in
the above text. The alignments attempt to evaluate the degree of impacts to the newer
developments such as Camerata, Medley Row and Cityscape Apartments on the east versus the
more established uses on the west.
West Alignment Alternative:
Property impacts
The West alignment starts to curve Xenwood Avenue just north of 35th Street and is completely
on the McGarvey Coffee site north of the tracks. The impacts require a complete purchase of
Automotive Service Company and about the east 70 feet of the McGarvey site. The costs for
permanent and temporary right of way total about $3.1 million.
Access
Due to the substantial grade change of Xenwood Avenue, Camerata Way access to Xenwood
Avenue will need to be closed. The underground Camerata parking would need to use Camerata
Way and 35th Street to get to Xenwood Avenue.
Costs
The total cost for the acquisition of right of way, design and construction is estimated to be just
under 18 million dollars.
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Xenwood Avenue Update
East Alignment Alternative:
Property impacts
The East alignment keeps Xenwood Avenue on its current alignment up to the rail corridor and
then it curves on to Cityscape Apartments property. The impacts from this design allow
Automotive Service Company to remain. The westerly 80 feet of Cityscape Apartments would
need to be purchased. The displaced parking for Cityscape is not reallocated at this time. The
costs for permanent and temporary right of way total about 3 million dollars.
Access
Due to the substantial grade change of Xenwood Avenue, Camerata Way access to Xenwood
Avenue will need to be closed. The underground Camerata parking would access directly to
Xenwood Avenue. This more than likely prevents the trail that runs along the north side of the
Camerata way from being connected to Xenwood Avenue. This is used as a service/fire lane for
the apartments.
Costs
The total cost for the acquisition of right of way, design and construction is estimated to be 18.5
million dollars.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In striving to achieve the City’s goal to intensify
development at SWLRT station areas and in an effort to leverage the investment the City has
made in the former McGarvey Coffee site staff is recommending the West Alignment
Alternative should continue to be advanced to fully assess the construction challenges and to
gather property owner input on the design.
Staff is recommending that the East Alignment Alternative be dropped due to the substantial
access and visual impacts created by the significant grade change of the roadway near the
Medley Row and Camerata residential units.
NEXT STEPS: If Council wishes to pursue final design of the Xenwood Avenue Underpass
connection, staff is suggesting the following schedule:
July/Early August 2015 Hold public open house
August/September 2015 Advance design to 60 percent
October 2015 Second public open house
January 2016 Complete plans
In addition to the analysis completed to date on the Xenwood Avenue Underpass connection,
Staff has begun investigating infrastructure improvements at Wooddale Avenue and Highway 7
that would utilize a similar (or less costly) financial investment that could address a more
community wide transportation need along Wooddale Avenue. No information on possible
options is available at this time.
Property Impacts Sq. Ft.Taking Cost Sq. Ft.Taking Cost
Building / Structure (Sq. Ft.)
McGarvey Coffee 1 8,200 Partial 50,000$ 2,950 Partial 40,000$
Cityscape Apartments 0 None -$ 0 None -$
Automobile Service Company 0 None -$ 0 None -$
Medley Row 0 None -$ 0 None -$
The Camerata 0 None -$ 0 None -$
Subtotal 8,200 50,000$ 2,950 40,000$
Permanent Acquisition (Sq. Ft.)
McGarvey Coffee 11,150 Partial 189,996$ 5,000 Partial 85,200$
Cityscape Apartments 0 None -$ 12,450 Partial 1,432,014$
Automobile Service Company 2 4,100 Full 1,295,000$ 1,250 Partial 86,221$
Medley Row 0 None -$ 0 None -$
The Camerata 0 None -$ 0 None -$
Subtotal 15,250 1,484,996$ 18,700 1,603,435$
Temporary Easement (Sq. Ft.)
McGarvey Coffee 9,400 Yes 160,176$ 9,000 Yes 153,360$
Cityscape Apartments 11,000 Yes 1,265,233$ 8,950 Yes 1,029,440$
Automobile Service Company 2 0 None -$ 2,000 Yes 55,182$
Medley Row 1,600 Yes 75,000$ 1,600 Yes 75,000$
The Camerata 3 3,150 Yes 100,000$ 3,150 Yes 100,000$
Subtotal 25,150 1,600,409$ 24,700 1,412,981$
Access Impacts from Xenwood Avenue
Camerata Way
Medley Road Driveway
The Camerata Driveway
Pedestrian Facilities
Construction Costs
Xenwood Avenue 1,065,000$ 1,100,000$
Service Road 325,000$ 350,000$
Cedar Lake Trail Connection 400,000$ 435,000$
SWLRT Bridges 3,515,870$ 3,515,870$
Utilities 175,000$ 185,000$
MCES Sewer Line 2,100,000$ 2,370,000$
Sanitary Sewer Lift Station 300,000$ 300,000$
Storm Sewer Lift Station 275,000$ 275,000$
Retaining Walls 1,355,000$ 1,355,000$
20% Contingency 1,902,174$ 1,977,174$
30% Indirect Costs 3,424,000$ 3,559,000$
Subtotal 14,837,044$ 15,422,044$
Total Cost (ROW+Construction)
Parking Impacts (Net Increase (+) or Decrease (-) in Number of Parking Stalls Compared to Existing)
Public On-Street
Private
Total
Notes:
1 The McGarvey Coffee site is currently owned by the City and therefore costs associated with the needed ROW are adjusted accordingly.
2 In the westerly alternative Automotive Service Center looses all their parking. Therefore it is assumed the business is relocated.
3 Fire access along the north side of the Camerata Apartments may not be feasible in East alternative.
1 Closed Access
West East
Rerouted
No Change
No Change
July 6, 2015
XENWOOD AVENUE SCREENING MATRIX OF ALTERNATIVES
-14
-25
-39
-14
-53
-67
Alternatives
Rerouted
No Change
Rerouted/No Change
$18,478,461$17,972,449
No Change
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Xenwood Avenue Update Page 5
WOODDALE AVENUE36T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
CAM
E
R
A
T
A
W
A
Y
35T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
SERVICE ROAD
FUTURE SWLRT
CEDAR LAKE TRAIL
XENWOOD AVENUEYOSEMITE AVENUEWEBSTER AVENUETH 7
TH 100Former site ofMcGarvey Coffee
Tom
Mot
z
k
o
Plu
m
b
i
n
g
Auto
m
o
t
i
v
e
Serv
i
c
e
Com
p
a
n
y
The Camerata
Med
l
e
y
R
o
w
The
A
d
a
g
i
o
Dou
g
l
a
s
Corp
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Nash Frame
EDA Parcel
Tow
e
r
l
i
g
h
t
Cityscape Apartments
FUTURE BNSF RAIL LINE
Wooddale Station
Proposed Roadway Improvements – East XENWOOD AVENUE UNDERPASS STUDY
LEGEND
Proposed improvements
Proposed bridges
Closed Access
Rerouted Access
Proposed Construction Limits
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Xenwood Avenue Update Page 6
WOODDALE AVENUE36T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
CAM
E
R
A
T
A
W
A
Y
35T
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
SERVICE ROAD
FUTURE SWLRT
CEDAR LAKE TRAIL
XENWOOD AVENUEYOSEMITE AVENUEWEBSTER AVENUETH 7
TH 100Former site ofMcGarvey Coffee
Tom
Mot
z
k
o
Plu
m
b
i
n
g
Auto
m
o
t
i
v
e
Serv
i
c
e
Com
p
a
n
y
The Camerata
Med
l
e
y
R
o
w
The
A
d
a
g
i
o
Dou
g
l
a
s
Corp
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Nash Frame
EDA Parcel
Tow
e
r
l
i
g
h
t
Cityscape Apartments
FUTURE BNSF RAIL LINE
Wooddale Station
Proposed Roadway Improvements – West XENWOOD AVENUE UNDERPASS STUDY
LEGEND
Proposed improvements
Proposed bridges
Closed Access
Rerouted Access
Proposed Construction Limits
Special Study Session Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Xenwood Avenue Update Page 7
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 15, 2015
1. Call to Order
Vice President Hallfin called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: Vice President Steve Hallfin, Tim Brausen, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg
Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: President Anne Mavity.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr.
Hunt), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes June 1, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports - None
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of The Shoreham TIF
District. EDA Resolution No. 15-12.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and explained that Bader Development is proposing to
construct a mixed use redevelopment at CSAH 25 and France Avenue and has
determined there are significant extraordinary costs associated with redevelopment of the
site. He stated that Bader Development has applied to the EDA for tax increment
financing assistance to offset a portion of those costs to enable the project to proceed. He
advised that the developer’s TIF application was reviewed with Council on June 1, 2015,
where it was favorably received. As a result, staff was directed to call for a public
hearing on the proposed Shoreham TIF District and to draft a formal redevelopment
contract with the developer. He stated the TIF program is administered by the EDA and
in order to create a TIF District, the City Council is required to hold a public hearing and
Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
the EDA must request that the City Council set a public hearing date. He pointed out that
the public hearing was originally scheduled for August 3, 2015, however, that date is not
feasible and requested that the resolution be amended to schedule the public hearing for
August 17, 2015.
It was moved by Commissioner Sanger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-12 Requesting the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park to Call
for a Public Hearing on the Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the
Establishment of The Shoreham Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District, with
the amendment that the public hearing be called for August 17, 2015.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Mavity absent).
7b. Resolution of Support for Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Grant
Application. EDA Resolution No. 15-13.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated that a St. Louis Park company that has
requested its name remain confidential is proposing to make upgrades to its offices and
the proposed expansion is eligible for the Minnesota Job Creation Fund (JCF) program
administered by DEED and the JCF grant requires that the local government submit an
application and resolution of support on behalf of the company.
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Lindberg, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-13 in Support of a Business Applying to the Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development’s Job Creation Fund Program.
Commissioner Sanger requested confirmation that the City is not expected to contribute
any money in connection with the submission of the grant application to the State.
Mr. Hunt replied that this was correct.
The motion passed 6-0 (President Mavity absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
Vice President Hallfin adjourned the meeting at 7:24 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary Vice President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Agenda Item: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of EDA Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Disbursement Claims for the
period of March 28, 2015 through June 26, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in
accordance with Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA Bylaws?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to
review and approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check
and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the EDA’s Bylaws and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Disbursements
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:30:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400
1Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20153/28/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,500.00AMERICANS FOR THE ARTS CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU MISC EXPENSE
1,500.00
16,186.35BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION HWY 7 & LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS
16,186.35
33.00CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
33.00
295.00CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
295.00
13,800.00CODAMETRICSDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
13,800.00
45,000.00DMD PROPERTIES LLC MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE LAND HELD FOR RESALE
45,000.00
1,060.16EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,432.04WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,150.79ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,087.50ELLIPSE II G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
273.33HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,237.08VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,060.16PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,150.79CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,515.79MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,522.71PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,290.79EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,060.16ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
210.00WOODDALE POINTE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,290.79WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,360.79AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,465.75HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,663.87HARD COAT G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
20,832.50
5,000.00FRANZEN LAW & POLICY GROUP LLC HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
5,000.00
312.50GALLAGHER RISK MGMT SERVICES INC, ARTHURDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 2
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:30:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400
2Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20153/28/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
312.50
84.00GREEN HORIZONS 7015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP LAND MAINTENANCE
68.004601 HWY 7 PROP ACQUISITION LAND MAINTENANCE
63.00MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE LAND MAINTENANCE
40.00PARK COMMONS G&A LAND MAINTENANCE
255.00
8.00GROVE, JULIE DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MEETING EXPENSE
18.40DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
26.40
53,378.27HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE PROPERTY TAXES
2,151.32DEVELOPMENT - EDA BALANCE SHEE DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
3,159.59DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A RENT REVENUE
58,689.18
308.16HUNT, GREG DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
190.90DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
499.06
698.61INFOGROUPDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A POSTAGE
698.61
3,721.05KENNEDY & GRAVEN MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE LEGAL SERVICES
3,276.00WEST END TIF DIST G&A LEGAL SERVICES
68.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
145.00MILL CITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
360.00PARK COMMONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
7,570.05
69.50LHB ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS ELLIPSE II G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,507.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING
5,576.50
9,000.00LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
9,000.00
5,000.00MCCDDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,000.00
Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 3
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:30:34R55CKS2 LOGIS400
3Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20153/28/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
32,700.00MYKLEBUST + SEARS PUBLIC ART IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
32,700.00
80.40OFFICE DEPOT DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
80.40
2,187.20REDPATH & COMPANY DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
2,187.20
2,314.40SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,314.40
178,993.44ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB
178,993.44
200.00ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
200.00
903.06STEPCONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU MISC EXPENSE
903.06
2,000.00TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00
1,250.00UNIVERSAL CLEANING SERVICES INC MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,250.00
135.92XCEL ENERGY 4601 HWY 7 PROP ACQUISITION HEATING GAS
54.10MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE SEWER SERVICE
190.02
990.00XCELIGENT INC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
990.00
Report Totals 412,082.67
Economic Development Authority Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 4
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Donations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and give thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda:
From Amount For
Northland Aluminum/
Nordic Ware $350 Food & Supplies for the 2015 Fire Department
Open House
Cub Foods $200 Gift Card Food & Supplies for the 2015 Fire Department
Open House
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 8, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne
Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Chief Information
Officer (Mr. Pires), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Associate Planner (Mr.
Kelley), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Communications and Marketing
Coordinator (Ms. Larson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Ms. Leslie Oberholtzer (consultant), Mr. Paul Tucci (Oppidan), and Mr. Ryan
(Oppidan).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 15 & June 22, 2015
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for June 15th and the
proposed study session agenda for June 22nd.
Mayor Pro Tem Brausen asked if the City has considered offering organics recycling at no cost
for the first quarter as an incentive to get people to try the program.
Mr. Harmening replied that Council would have a future discussion about the organics recycling
program and the City of Minneapolis’ organics recycling program.
Councilmember Sanger requested that Council consider recognizing the 60th anniversary of
Wayside House.
It was the consensus of the City Council to recognize the 60th anniversary of Wayside House at
an upcoming City Council meeting.
Councilmember Sanger referenced recent legislation allowing tap rooms to sell growlers on
Sunday and asked if the City’s Ordinance needs to be revised accordingly.
Mr. Harmening stated the City’s current Ordinance allows Steel Toe Brewing to sell growlers on
Sundays, but the legislature left it up to each city to establish the hours of operation, adding that
this topic will be discussed at the June 15th special study session.
Councilmember Sanger requested that Council discuss whether to ask the Charter Commission to
change the Ordinance to allow ranked choice voting and/or to change the Ordinance to require
more than 15 signatures and increase the filing fee to increase the chances of getting committed
candidates. She also requested that Council discuss whether the City should consider purchasing
the Reformation Lutheran Church site and stated that part of the site is used as the Birchwood
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 8, 2015
neighborhood community garden and she would like to see the City purchase the site to preserve
the community garden and subdivide the rest for sale as single family homes. She also requested
a discussion about the former Holiday gas station site as a potential site for single family homes.
2. Discussion of Draft Form-Based Code
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report and introduced Ms. Leslie Oberholtzer, consultant to the
City, as well as Planning Commissioner Carl Robertson, Mr. Bob Cunningham (Melrose
Development), and Mr. Brent Rogers (Saturday Properties).
Ms. Oberholtzer summarized the process to develop the FBC and presented maps depicting the
existing zoning and stated that a new Division 10: Form-Based District would be added to the
City Code and would follow the existing structure of the Code. She stated that they started out
studying a ½ mile radius around the station areas but pulled out the single family neighborhoods
where that zoning remains intact. She discussed the previous station area plans that have been
completed by the City and described how those were used to inform the development of the
FBC. She also discussed the image preference results from the community workshops and the
online survey for each of the station areas that listed top five positive results and bottom three
negative. She presented the table of contents for the FBC and noted the key sections are similar
to the existing Code including an overview with regulating maps, administration, frontage types
that includes form requirements, e.g., height and setback requirements, use requirements, and
sections dealing with landscape, signs, sustainability measures, and open space. She presented
regulating maps and explained the frontage types used in the Form-Based District and presented
illustrations of six frontage types and stated that the FBC defines the key components of
walkability and pedestrian friendliness and responding to the public realm on the street.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was disappointed that the examples all appear to have flat
roofs on rectangular buildings and was concerned that the FBC would quash any creative
architecture.
Ms. Oberholtzer stated the FBC would allow a curvilinear or angled building and the illustrations
show what could happen but the idea is not to require rectilinear buildings. She also discussed
the approval process, which generally allows for more administrative approvals, with minor and
major deviations from the FBC requirements which require Planning Commission or City
Council action. She also talked about next steps which included a Planning Commission study
session scheduled for June 17th followed by a public open house on June 23rd to gather input
from the public. Staff would like to gather further input form the Council, Planning Commission
and public on this draft to make revisions and have future discussions with the Council
regarding the revisions.
Councilmember Lindberg stated he wanted more time to review the FBC and further discussion
with Council. He was concerned about the administrative controls provided in the FBC and
stated that while it provides greater flexibility, he was concerned that Council would be
relinquishing some control over the process, including neighborhood input.
Mr. Robertson stated the station areas will undergo a lot of change over the next ten years and in
the past, these changes have been addressed one project at a time and the overall process has not
been proactive. He stated the FBC is intended to acknowledge that there is going to be a lot of
change and to stay ahead of that change instead of reacting to it one parcel at a time.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 8, 2015
Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Lindberg’s concerns about the
administrative process and stated she did not like the idea that Council would not have an early
opportunity for input on a project. She was concerned the FBC does not appear to include
anything to make sure there are no incompatible uses and nothing about density requirements.
Ms. Oberholtzer indicated there are height limitations and building coverage limitations which
are much more predictable than FAR or dwelling units/acre.
Mr. Walther added that the Comprehensive Plan also provides guidance on these issues.
Councilmember Spano stated the FBC would be a success if it helps the City get ahead of and
better inform the changes that are coming to these areas. He would like to discuss how we can
have more flexibility with Architectural Materials compared to our existing standards. He also
stated that proposed developments come under scrutiny for height and how much traffic is
generated from the development and there was no discussion about traffic in the FBC and he
would like to see how that issue is addressed.
Councilmember Mavity liked that certain requirements were aimed at making buildings more
pedestrian oriented, but agreed that traffic issues would need to be addressed in the FBC and
agreed with the concerns raised about administrative approvals. She felt that Council should
move forward with the FBC process but not move too quickly to adoption of the FBC.
Councilmember Hallfin stated that Council is still in a learning curve and does not need to rush
to adopt the FBC and agreed with the concerns raised by Councilmembers Lindberg and Sanger.
He expressed appreciation to staff, the Work Group, and Ms. Oberholtzer for all their work on
the FBC.
Mayor Pro Tem Brausen stated the FBC reorganizes the information in the City Code and
assimilates the station area plans into the FBC and was supportive of the process with further
public process with the neighborhoods. He agreed additional work is required on the FBC
including further work on defining Council’s controls vis-à-vis the administrative process. He
recognized that staff capacity is a challenge and questioned the City Council’s capacity
especially with the possible ban on plastic bags.
It was the consensus of the majority of the City Council to support moving forward with the
public process related to the FBC.
3. Oppidan’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance – 4900
Excelsior
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and explained that the applicant’s revised unit count is
now 179 units and the revised plan includes a sixth story along Excelsior Boulevard with the
building stepped back on the north side. He stated the revised plan reduced the shadowing on the
Wolfe Park Condominiums and the applicant added more glass to the service door to the parking
lot that will be used by employees. He stated the applicant changed the overhead garage door to
a glass door and added screening elements to the main level parking area; in addition, the
applicant has added a public art mural location, more landscaping and more details regarding the
green wall elements at the corners of the building to soften the façade, and added some benches
along Excelsior Boulevard.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 8, 2015
Mr. Tucci stated they have listened and tried to respond to the comments and concerns. He
stated the tiering effect of the building improved the shadowing impacts and they added a lot of
landscaping around the building. He stated they heard a lot of concerns about traffic and how the
traffic at Trader Joe’s does not work and pointed out they have three different access points on
this site and have created an environment that does not exist at Trader Joe’s. He stated they paid
for a shared parking study that indicated the proposed uses would work and the parking meets
City Code standards before applying the transit reduction, adding that City staff reviewed the
traffic study and concurred with the report that there are no significant changes that need to be
made because of this development. He stated that construction costs are escalating and they
believe this is the right time for this development and they have an anchor tenant in place. He
stated they are meeting all affordability requirements and their current plan has 56 two-bedroom
units and five of the 18 affordable units will be two-bedroom units.
Councilmember Mavity felt this site was an appropriate site for TIF and was generally
supportive of the TIF request. She thanked the developer for their response to the neighborhood
concerns regarding shadowing and for stepping back the building. She was pleased with the
affordability component and proposed unit mix, she felt the developer did a better job on trees
and was not concerned about parking. She stated the existing trees on the backside of the project
are mature trees and was hopeful those trees would be retained. She was concerned that three of
the four sides of the building were almost completely inactive walls with one entrance and it felt
like an alley. She stated the project was kitty-corner from Wolfe Park and it felt like a big
opportunity was being lost with so much inactivated space on three sides.
Councilmember Hallfin acknowledged that the developer worked hard to make changes but felt
the building needed to be smaller to create more active space.
Councilmember Sanger stated she could not support TIF for this project as presented and stated
the changes made by the developer represented a step in the right direction but felt the project
was still too big and out of scale for this site. She felt there were too many small apartments
with no green space and continued to have concerns about parking because many of the on street
parking spaces are already used for existing businesses and condo guests. She acknowledged
that the traffic problems at Trader Joe’s and the surrounding area are not the developer’s fault,
but the interaction of the traffic problems needed to be considered and she felt this project would
add too much traffic and impact the parking in the area. She stated she would support TIF if the
developer came back with a proposal that was scaled down, better looking, and more accessible
from a community perspective.
Councilmember Lindberg felt progress had been made since the last Council meeting and agreed
this site is ripe for TIF, but was not sure the proposed project was the right project for this site.
He felt it was imperative to figure out how to make Excelsior Boulevard and the side streets
more active from a pedestrian experience standpoint and stated he could not support TIF for this
project as presented.
Councilmember Spano stated he liked the look of the building and felt it was different than other
buildings, which enhanced its appeal and the appeal of the surrounding buildings. He was
concerned about the volume of traffic in the entire area and felt that Council needed to do a
comprehensive analysis of all development along Excelsior Boulevard before moving forward.
Mayor Pro Tem Brausen stated he liked the look of the building and was comfortable with it but
there did not appear to be a consensus to approve the current project or the TIF request.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 8, 2015
Mr. Ryan stated that without the grocer anchor tenant, the economics of this project do not work.
He stated they are struggling and feel they have done a good job responding to the concerns and
have made significant adjustments to make a feasible project.
The 120 day deadline to act on the preliminary planned unit development application expires
July 9, so this item will be brought to the City Council for action before that date, unless the
applicant waives the deadline. The general conclusion staff took from the meeting was that,
absent any changes to the plan and a waiver of the deadline, the preliminary planned unit
development application should be placed on an upcoming agenda for denial.
4. Draft Strategies/Two Year Action Plan for 2015-2025 City Council Goals and
Priorities – Technology Connected Community
Mr. Pires presented the staff report and draft strategies for Council consideration and provided a
brief description of each of the proposed strategies.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would support any ordinance that provides mandates and
directives for requiring new development to provide the latest broadband technologies.
Councilmember Sanger requested that staff provide tutorial information about the technology
referred to in the action plan.
Councilmember Spano requested that the City make sure it is having a robust discussion with the
senior population about how they are using technology. He also requested that staff include a
representative(s) from the small business community to participate in the community input
process.
Councilmember Sanger suggested having someone from the library as well.
It was the consensus of the City Council that the draft strategies and action plan related to Goal
#3 is in keeping with Council’s expectations.
5. Southwest LRT Update
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and provided an update on the SPO’s options for
reducing the overall project costs.
Council discussed possible cost cutting measures and the timeline for Met Council action.
Councilmember Spano welcomed input from Council for the upcoming CMC meetings.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening advised that Star Tribune reporter John Reinan is doing a story on the City’s
inclusionary housing policy that will be published on Tuesday. He stated that the Purchase
Agreement for 40th and France has been prepared and contains the same terms discussed with
Council. He stated he has contacted Blois Olson about moderating the June 22nd
expert/stakeholder panel. He stated that Councilmember Mavity has suggested that the City
present Mr. Elliot Royce with an Outstanding Citizen Award and will add this item to an
upcoming City Council agenda.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 8, 2015
Councilmember Sanger stated there appears to be quite a bit of misunderstanding in the
community about the possible ban on plastic bags and requested that staff prepare some public
education communications about the scope of what is being proposed.
Mayor Pro Tem Brausen adjourned the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
Written reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan
7. Business Retention Partnership with TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Tim Brausen, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 15, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:20 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs (present only for the reconvened portion of the
Special Study Session), Mayor Pro Tem Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), Director of Engineering (Ms. Heiser), Senior Engineering Project
Manager (Mr. Shamla), Controller (Mr. Swanson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guest: David Mol (Redpath and Company).
1. 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion & Review
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced David Mol, CPA.
Mr. Mol presented the 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and stated that five reports
were issued as part of the annual audit and they have issued a clean or “unmodified” opinion
regarding the City’s 2014 financial statements. He advised that the City received the
Government Finance Officers Association’s Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting for 31 consecutive years and the award demonstrated the City’s dedication
to providing financial statements that meet all accounting standards. He stated there was one
item noted in the Report on Internal Controls related to the City’s year-end closing process and
explained that some adjustments on prepaid expenses, e.g., the City’s primary sewer utility
vendor’s January 2014 invoice was paid in December 2013, and, as a prepaid expense, it had not
been reversed out. He advised that staff had a plan in place to address this issue in future years.
Mr. Swanson referenced management’s response to this item and stated that staff put a plan in
place for 2015 to make sure this issue would not reoccur to the best of staff’s ability.
Mr. Mol discussed the Report on Minnesota Legal Compliance and advised that there were no
items of non-compliance noted. He also discussed the Report on Compliance with Federal
Program Requirements and advised there were no items of non-compliance noted. He stated that
auditors were required to inform of accounting policies used and/or changed during the year and
no changes were noted in 2014. He stated the auditors were required to inform whether
estimates were contained in the financial statements and advised that two items were noted
related to the City’s estimated net OPEB obligation ($2.2 million) and estimated net value of
land held for resale ($2.2 million). He advised that no difficulties were encountered in
performing the 2014 audit and there were no disagreements with management. He explained
that a new pension accounting standard was required for 2015 related to the City’s PERA
participation and the City will be required to report its share of the PERA net pension liability,
estimated at $19 million at June 30, 2014. He presented the 2014 financial summary and stated
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of June 15, 2015
the City’s 2014 revenues were approximately $85 million and 2014 expenditures were
approximately $84 million, resulting in a net increase of approximately $1.4 million. He stated
the City’s fund balance/net assets at December 31, 2014, was approximately $103 million and
ending cash balance was approximately $67 million. He reviewed 2014 revenue sources and
2014 expenditures as a percentage of budget, as well as constraints on the City’s fund balances.
He explained that the General Fund’s unassigned fund balance of $14,577,000 is intended to
meet the City’s cash flow requirements and goal to have 35-50% of the following year’s
budgeted expenditures in the General Fund. He presented a history of the General Fund balance
and reviewed the City’s Debt Service Funds, indicating debt payable at December 31, 2014, of
approximately $28 million. He also presented information regarding the City’s Enterprise
Funds, including water, sewer, and solid waste and discussed the City’s historical tax levy and
tax rates. He stated that the City is a net contributor to the fiscal disparities pool and the City’s
net 2014 contribution was approximately $3.8 million or 5.8% of the City’s tax capacity. He
stated that the City’s 2014 audit produced good results with no items of non-compliance noted in
State or Federal compliance and only one item noted with respect to year-end closing
adjustments.
Mayor Pro Tem Brausen stated it is great to know the City is on solid financial footing and
commended staff and the auditors on doing a great job.
Mr. Harmening thanked Mr. Swanson and his staff for all their work on the City’s audit and for
their outstanding efforts in managing the City’s finances.
Mayor Pro Tem Brausen recessed the Special Study Session at 7:14 p.m. in order to convene the
Economic Development Authority and City Council meetings.
Mayor Jacobs reconvened the Special Study Session at 9:44 p.m.
2. Update on Highway 100 Traffic Issues (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening introduced the topic.
Mr. Shamla advised that staff has been working with the Communications staff on keeping
residents updated about the Highway 100 project. Communication has been working with Park
TV, Discover SLP, and posting on social media that St. Louis Park is open for business during
construction of Highway 100.
Ms. Heiser stated that the project is on schedule and Minnetonka Boulevard is scheduled to open
the end of October. She distributed a memo from Mn/DOT summarizing its traffic counts and
traffic modeling on Wooddale and Highway 7 that was completed in response to concerns about
safety and congestion. She also distributed a memo from Mn/DOT containing six scenarios for
Wooddale and Highway 7 intended to address congestion in this area. She noted that Mn/DOT’s
focus is on capacity and the majority of problems occur during the p.m. peak with almost 1,000
trips on the mainline of Wooddale. She stated that the City’s focus has always been on safety
and staff does not agree with Mn/DOT’s order of ranking as contained in their memo, adding
staff also does not agree with Mn/DOT’s status quo recommendation.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that reducing congestion is important but the City’s first priority is
safety.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of June 15, 2015
Council agreed that the City’s first priority is and should continue to be safety.
Ms. Heiser advised that staff is willing to try all-way stops at the top of the ramps on Wooddale
and acknowledged there is going to be backups. She stated staff is also recommending that the
regional trail be detoured to the stop sign at the south ramp.
Mayor Jacobs suggested that the City wait to see what happens with traffic in the area pending
the completion of construction on 36th and Wooddale this weekend and then decide if the all-way
stop signs should be installed.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was willing to try the all-way stop signs.
Councilmember Hallfin felt that the ramps from westbound Highway 7 onto Wooddale should be
closed if Police and Fire are in agreement with that closure.
It was the consensus of the City Council to delay the installation of all-way stop signs until the
36th and Wooddale project is completed and to direct staff to move toward installation of all-way
stop signs on a pilot basis.
Ms. Heiser agreed to discuss possible closure of the westbound Highway 7 ramp to Wooddale
with Police and Fire.
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 15, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Fire Chief (Mr.
Koering), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Controller (Mr. Swanson), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Senior Engineering
Project Manager (Mr. Elkin), Water Resource Manager (Mr. Francis), Firefighter (Mr.
Nordstrom), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
Guest: David Mol, CPA (Redpath and Company).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Acceptance of CenterPoint Energy Grant
Mayor Jacobs thanked CenterPoint Energy for its $2,500 grant for the purchase of
MultiRAE Lite Detection Monitors designed to detect VOCs and other toxic compounds.
Ms. Sue Spannaus, CenterPoint Energy, stated the program offered an opportunity for
CenterPoint to partner with the communities they serve and, since 2003, CenterPoint
Energy had provided over $1.3 million in grants. She presented CenterPoint Energy’s
$2,500 check to Chief Koering.
Chief Koering thanked CenterPoint Energy for the $2,500 grant and also thanked
Firefighter Nordstrom for writing the grant application for the equipment, adding that the
monitors would be in service in the next 30 days.
2b. Recognition of Bridget Gothberg’s Years of Service
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to Ms. Gothberg for
her years of service and presented her with a Certificate of Appreciation in recognition of
her excellent and dedicated service to the City.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
Ms. Gothberg thanked the City Council for recognizing her service and stated that this
City Council is what made St. Louis Park such a good place to live because the Council
was always looking out for the best interests of the community. She thanked the City
Council for their kindness and support, for believing in the staff, and for constantly
striving to make the community better.
Ms. Linda Trummer, Meadowbrook Collaborative, stated that Ms. Gothberg did amazing
things for a lot of people and empowered people to be the best they could be. She stated
that Ms. Gothberg was one of the founding members of the Meadowbrook Collaborative,
and she was proud of her affiliation and friendship with Ms. Gothberg.
Ms. Deno stated the City was lucky to have Ms. Gothberg on staff because she had done
great things with learning styles, development of the organization, facilitation, and
coaching the staff. She expressed the City’s gratitude for Ms. Gothberg’s service.
Mr. Harmening stated it had been a pleasure working with Ms. Gothberg the last 14
years, and she would be greatly missed.
Councilmember Spano thanked Ms. Gothberg for her service. He also requested that
Council acknowledge Public Service Worker Dallas Bahe for his nearly 34 years of
service, adding that Mr. Bahe was not able to attend the meeting to receive public
recognition from Council.
2c. 2014 Financial Statements – Auditors Discussion & Review
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and introduced David Mol, CPA, from Redpath
and Company. He stated the City is required to have an independent audit each year and
the auditors work for the City Council, not for staff or the management team. He advised
that the City received a clean or “unmodified” opinion on the 2014 financial statements.
Mr. Mol explained that five reports were issued as part of the audit and the audit resulted
in the issuance of a clean opinion on the 2014 financial statements. He stated the City
has received the Government Finance Officers Association’s Certificate of Achievement
for Excellence in Financial Reporting for 31 consecutive years, which demonstrates the
City’s commitment to providing financial information that meets and exceeds accounting
standards. He stated that the Report on Internal Controls noted one item regarding the
year-end closing process related to adjustments on prepaid expenses. He advised that the
State Auditor’s Office has issued a compliance guide consisting of seven categories and
there were no items of non-compliance noted for 2014. He stated the Report on
Compliance with Federal Program requirements is required whenever a city expends
more than $500,000 in Federal monies and in 2014 the City expended approximately $5.6
million, primarily related to the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue project, and there were no
items of non-compliance noted for 2014. He stated the Report on Communications
indicates there were no changes in accounting policies in 2014. Estimates contained in
the financial statements include the City’s net OPEB obligation of $2.2 million and
estimated value of land held for resale of $2.2 million, and there were no difficulties
encountered in performing the audit and no disagreements with management. He
explained that a new pension accounting standard for 2015 will require the City to report
its share of PERA’s net pension liability at the end of the year and the City’s estimated
net pension liability at December 31, 2014, is $19 million. He stated the audit produced
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
good results, there were no compliance issues noted in State or Federal compliance with
only one item noted on internal controls, and the 2014 audit resulted in a clean or
unmodified opinion.
Councilmember Brausen thanked the auditors for their work on the 2014 financial
statements. He pointed out that Council had a sixty-minute discussion prior to the City
Council meeting to thoroughly review the 2014 financial statements and audit. He
thanked Mr. Swanson and his staff for their efforts and stated the financial statements are
available on the City’s website and the documents are easy to understand. He stated he is
impressed by how well managed the City is and this is part of the reason the City has a
AAA bond rating, adding that staff and Council are cognizant of their responsibility to
manage taxpayer’s money and he believes the City does a good job.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes May 18, 2015
Councilmember Spano requested that the third sentence of the sixth paragraph on page 9
be revised to state “He stated that no not one project that had come before the Council
had everything, and if the worst thing this project created was more affordable housing,
he could live with that.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes May 26, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes June 1, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. City Council Meeting Minutes June 1, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 15-080 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
water and sewer service lines at 1810 Flag Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
P.I.D. 06-117-21-33-0044.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 15-081 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
sewer service line at 3912 Joppa Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
P.I.D. 07-028-24-12-0149.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 15-082 to recognize Public Service Worker Dallas Bahe for his
nearly 34 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-083 calling for a public hearing relative to the proposed
establishment of The Shoreham Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
4e. Moved to 8b.
4f. Moved to 8c.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 15-084 to approve Boy Scout Troop 3282’s request for placing
temporary signs in the public right-of-way.
4h. Moved to 8d.
4i. Approve for filing Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes July 24, 2014.
4j. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes May 20, 2015.
4k. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Minutes May 6, 2015.
Councilmember Brausen requested that Consent Calendar item #4e, #4f, and #4h be
removed and placed on the Regular Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move
Consent Calendar item #4e, #4f, and #4h to the Regular Agenda as item #8b, #8c, and
#8d; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze Pizza – On-Sale Wine and 3.2% Malt Liquor
License
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report and explained that Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze
Pizza, plans to open a new restaurant on the east end of Knollwood Mall consisting of
approximately 2,430 square feet with indoor seating for 54 and outdoor patio seating for
eight. She advised that the Police Department conducted a full background investigation
and nothing was found that would warrant denial of the license.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve application from Team DHW, LLC, dba Blaze Pizza, for an On-Sale Wine and
3.2% Malt Liquor License to be located at 8126 Highway 7, with the license term
through March 1, 2016.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
6b. Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones,
Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive. Resolution No. 15-085.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and stated that St. Louis Park Properties has
proposed to add a second floor inside its existing building and this request requires an
increase in the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.5 to 0.7. He explained that
BOZA conducted a public hearing and a motion to deny the variance failed on 2-2 vote.
He stated that another motion to approve the variance also failed on a 2-2 vote, therefore,
the application was denied since BOZA failed to pass a motion to approve the variance.
He presented an aerial photo of the site as well as the site plan showing the build-out as a
self-storage facility and explained that portions of the building have ceiling heights to
accommodate the second floor as indicated on the drawing and a second building permit
application was received to install a second floor and increase the FAR. He recited the
applicable Zoning Code regulations and reviewed the criteria for granting a variance,
including whether the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. He stated that indoor storage is permitted in the Industrial Park
District, however, the request to increase FAR to 0.7 is not consistent with the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance. He stated all properties in the Industrial Park District are required
to maintain a FAR less than 0.5 and this variance would result in a potential competitive
advantage with other properties that comply with the Code. He stated that a practical
difficulty does not exist in complying with the Ordinance and the applicant has
demonstrated he has reasonable use of the property and the variance would allow the
applicant to fill “dead space” resulting from the high ceilings. He indicated the applicant
is renovating the building and the variance would result in additional rentable floor area
that exceeds the maximum allowed and it appears that economic considerations are the
only result of the variance and there are no unique circumstances applying to this
property that would require it to have more floor area than allowed by Code or allowed
for other properties in this zoning district. He stated the property owner has had
reasonable use of the property and the applicant is in the process of renovating it into a
self-storage facility that meets the City’s 0.5 FAR and a practical difficulty does not exist
that would require a FAR greater than allowed by Code. He then introduced Mr. Todd
Jones, Chief Manager, St. Louis Park Properties.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Mr. Todd Jones, St. Louis Park Properties, stated the variance request would allow them
to construct the additional floor area and complete the second level all within the existing
building with no expansion of the exterior or footprint. He stated they are a local
company and their business is a neighborhood business, their customers are primarily
from a one to two mile radius, and 20-25% of their customers are small businesses from
the area. He stated that all activities of their business are internal to the building and the
use is low intensity and they do not make noise or cause pollution, they are a low
consumer of city services and are low generators of traffic, adding their use generates
lower traffic than any other industrial use. He stated the existing buildings have different
floor elevations, roof elevations, varying ceiling heights, and exterior materials that have
not been updated and indicated that in conjunction with the variance, a number of
exterior improvements are planned to coincide with the interior floor area expansion,
including removal of 12,000 square feet of existing hardcover from the southeast corner
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
of the site and replacing it with a rain garden designed to control the rate of stormwater
discharged from the site. He stated they also propose to add a drive-through loading and
unloading area that would bring most activity internal to the building. He stated they
plan to install new curb and gutter on both street fronts, they are proposing to plant 36
trees and 231 shrubs, and they are proposing to enhance the north and south building
elevations to an updated contemporary design compatible with the neighborhood. He
stated this is not all about economic gain and the rental rate on a 10’x10’ storage space
would be the same whether the variance is supported or not and this is about attempting
to provide the best development possible for the City, for the property owner, for the
neighbors and the community, adding the variance request is supported by the neighbors.
Mr. Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman, representing St. Louis Park Properties, stated the
rationale for FAR is to limit the bulk, height, and intensity of a use and the second floor
expansion is located entirely within the building and will not result in a taller building
and no other improvements are visible other than those proposed. He stated there would
be no increase in height or bulk, and because of the low trip generating use, there is not
an increased intensity of use in terms of infrastructure and there will be a reduction in
hardscape, an increase in landscaping, and exterior improvements. He indicated there are
a number of findings that are positive, i.e., no negative impacts to health, safety or
welfare, additional traffic would be negligible, and if the variance were granted, it would
not impair light and air to surrounding properties. He stated the current configuration is
in three separate buildings with varying heights and they are not able to use the entire
space without the proposed second floor addition, adding you cannot make the best reuse
of this building without a variance to FAR and when you balance that against the impact
to surrounding properties, it is negligible or zero, or an improvement based on the
proposed improvements. He stated they believe the rationale for a variance is met
because the use is reasonable and there is a benefit not just to the property owner but also
to the City and surrounding properties. He requested that the variance be approved.
Councilmember Brausen asked if removal of the 12,000 square feet of asphalt for the rain
garden would happen whether or not the variance is approved. He asked about recycling
and trash on site. He asked if there would be only one driveway access on Cedar Lake
Road after reconfiguring the lot. He asked if outdoor storage would be allowed.
Mr. Jones stated the rain garden coincides with the variance request and they would
stipulate the rain garden as part of the variance approval. He stated the use does not
generate a lot of trash and customers are asked to remove anything brought on site. He
added they do have trash and recycling for their use. He stated they are removing one
curb cut and there will be only one driveway entrance off Cedar Lake Road. He stated
that a small amount of outdoor storage is located on the west side of the building.
Councilmember Spano noted that the staff report indicated that if the applicant desires
additional floor area he could have requested a rezoning to General Industrial which
allows a FAR of 1.0 and asked if the applicant considered pursuing a rezoning.
Mr. Griffith replied that City staff indicated they would not support a rezoning. He stated
this application for 0.7 FAR is perhaps a middle ground between the allowable 0.5 FAR
and the 1.0 FAR allowed in the General Industrial District and represents a full use of the
building without rezoning.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
Mr. Morrison stated that the General Industrial zoning allows more outside storage that
was not deemed a good use for the area.
Mr. Mattick discussed the Minnesota lawsuit and action taken by the legislature to give
cities better standing and that adopted the standards used by the counties. He stated the
statute lays out practical difficulties and the applicant must demonstrate the practical
difficulty and must show that what they are proposing to use the property for is a
reasonable use.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to Adopt
the variance request subject to the conditions that 12,000 square feet of asphalt be
removed for construction of a rain garden, that façade improvements be made as
presented to the Council, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare Resolution No.
15-085 Approving the variance request.
Councilmember Brausen stated he agrees with the applicant that the impact of the
variance is minimal in that the space already exists at this location, that traffic would not
be increased, and that the usage is not going to intensify significantly, adding he likes that
they are repurposing the building. He stated if Council had considered a rezoning that
would allow expansion of FAR, the City would open itself up to all sorts of future uses at
this location and felt this was a good opportunity for the applicant to maximize the utility
and value of the space and he did not like that government created an impediment to
doing that and the proposal seems reasonable and he supported the variance.
Councilmember Sanger stated the applicant is already making good use of the property
and did not think there were any obstacles preventing him from making good use of the
property and that aspect of the legal requirement for granting a variance had not been
met. She stated there has not been any claim that there is anything about the shape of the
property, the gradient, wetlands, or anything about the property itself that prevents the
applicant from making reasonable use of the property. She stated that other similarly
situated businesses have to live with the 0.5 FAR and the applicant is asking for the
ability to make a greater profit on the same amount of square footage, representing an
unfair competitive advantage and this puts the City in an awkward place. She stated the
rain garden and other exterior improvements can be done without a variance and have
nothing to do with the variance request and this request is whether to allow more FAR to
have a larger self-storage capacity and to make a greater profit. She opined economics
are not a valid basis for the granting of a variance and she would not support the variance
request.
The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Sanger and Spano opposed).
6c. 2014 Annual MS4 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Meeting
Mr. Francis presented the staff report and advised that each year the City of St. Louis
Park is responsible to prepare an annual report, which discusses the status of compliance
with NPDES MS4 Stormwater Permit Conditions. This annual report has taken the form
of a worksheet submitted online to the MPCA. The information requested from the
MPCA is meant to provide the basis for an assessment of the appropriateness of the
BMPs and the progress that has been made toward achieving the identified goals for each
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
of the minimum control measures. This assessment is based on results collected and
analyzed, inspection findings, and public input received during the reporting period.
In August of 2013, the MPCA approved a new permit for the MS4 SWPPP program.
With these changes, the City was required to revise some operating procedures and
requirements in its stormwater requirements in order to be in compliance with the new
stormwater permit requirements. These revisions were accomplished by updating of the
City’s stormwater management treatment to meet these new requirements.
• Update Erosion Control Requirements
• Update Construction Site Inspection Requirements
• Update Enforcement Response Procedures
• Revised Post Construction site requirements
o Dewatering
o Infiltration
o Limits and Expectations
o Mitigation
The revised Rule M, of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, is posted on the City
of St. Louis Park Website
The work plan and the annual report will contain a list of storm water management
activities that are planning to be undertaken in the next reporting cycle. The City
continues to move forward with the Stormwater Capital Improvement Plan that was
approved in 2012 by the City Council. The most visible of these projects is the Bass Lake
Preserve Restoration Project. In 2015 we completed the first area of vegetation
restoration, along with the Annual Arbor Day Celebration, where 80 new trees were
planted, and look to continue this effort in the fall with area 2. In addition, we are
working in partnership with Great River Greening on an overall upland vegetation
management plan as well as the permitting required for excavation within the wetland
this winter.
While we continue working to refine our record keeping and bookkeeping procedures, we
do not anticipate any significant changes or modifications to the SWPPP in 2015.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Ms. Nancy Rose, 3402 Huntington Avenue, distributed a copy of her comments to
Council and asked if the City was in compliance with the requirements of the 2013
permit and also asked what changes were made to the SWPPP to achieve compliance.
Mr. Elkin stated the City updated its SWPPP and has complied with everything asked of
it by the PCA. He noted the PCA will not give an indication whether a city is compliant
or non-compliant, rather, the PCA will perform an audit and at that time, a city will be
deemed either compliant or non-compliant. He added the City has not been audited by
the PCA but staff believes the City is compliant with the permit requirements.
Ms. Rose asked if the new permit application, including new requirements, was available
to the public on the City’s website or in any other form.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
Mr. Elkin replied the SWPPP and permit application are available on the City’s website
and the worksheet completed last year was not on the website but could be added.
Ms. Rose stated the EPA originally emphasized rapid downstream drainage to prevent
local flooding, but now advocates upstream retention to alleviate pond and stream
pollution. She stated another major change in 2006 was minimal funding for stormwater
pollution reduction. She asked if those changes were reflected in the SWPPP.
Mr. Elkin replied in the affirmative and stated the design guideline to retain 1” of rainfall
on site reflects the City’s response to that change. He stated the measures outlined in the
SWPPP are preventing pollutants from leaving the City and all capital improvements are
made on a priority basis and will increase the performance of the stormwater BMPs in the
City and reduce pollutants to meet the goals of the SWPPP.
Ms. Rose asked about the implementation components and measurable goals of the
public education program.
Mr. Elkin stated the PCA requires a summary of activities in the annual report and staff
maintains a list of all activities that could be posted on the City’s website. He stated the
goals are measured by how many people attend a workshop or receive educational
materials and the City’s goal is to educate all citizens in the City to the extent that is
possible.
Ms. Rose asked if modifications were made to the SWPPP education program in 2015.
She also asked how the SWPPP hearing was made known to citizens.
Mr. Elkin replied no modifications were made to the 2015 SWPPP education program.
He stated the hearing was noticed on the City’s website calendar and in the official City
newspaper; in addition, email notice was sent to Friends of Bass Lake, the meeting was
announced to the Environment & Sustainability Commission, and staff reached out to
anyone who might be interested in the SWPPP public meeting.
Ms. Rose asked how the availability of the SWPPP, assessment information, annual
report, and other documents were made known to citizens.
Mr. Elkin replied this information is available on the City’s website. He stated at the end
of the 2014 public meeting, there were no changes planned and there was no assessment.
Ms. Rose felt it would be useful to provide greater access to these materials and to have
some indication of what is contained in the documents and how people can learn more
about it. She stated the minimum control measures are indeed minimum measures and if
St. Louis Park wants to be a leader in environmental stewardship, it needs to go beyond
those minimum requirements and she hoped to have further conversation about
developing more visibility about the program.
Mr. Scott Carpenter, 3924 Randall Avenue, stated he is a Board member of Friends of
Bass Lake and the Board advocates restoring a large portion of Bass Lake to open water.
He stated the SWPPP does not include Bass Lake or upstream retention or treatment that
reduces pollutants entering Bass Lake and they believe this represents an opportunity to
address restoration of Bass Lake. He presented several questions on behalf of Friends of
Bass Lake about the cleanup and restoration of Bass Lake.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
Mr. Elkin advised that staff has a copy of the questions submitted by Friends of Bass
Lake and staff will work on providing answers to them by Friday with a copy to Council.
He advised that staff is working with Barr Engineering on an Environmental Assessment
Worksheet that includes evaluating the conditions of the lake and answering the questions
posed by Friends of Bass Lake. He stated the goal is to have the EAW out for comment
in late June or early July.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. CUP Allowing Off-site Parking, Reducing Required Parking Amount, and
Excavation at 7400 Excelsior Boulevard. Resolution No. 15-086.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and explained that Japs-Olson planned a 192,000
square foot expansion. The proposed expansion will displace all existing parking and
Japs-Olson has purchased the former Appliance Smart building with the intent to remove
the building and replace it with a parking lot. He presented the site plan depicting 514
parking spaces, with 237 proof-of-parking spaces, and a total of 825 parking spaces. He
stated the total required by zoning is 1,120 with a requested reduction of 295 spaces or a
26% reduction. He stated that a variance was granted in 1989 and reaffirmed in 1996 that
allowed 815 parking spaces. He explained that Japs-Olson operates 24 hours per day
with three shifts and starting times are staggered so there is never more than 229 cars in
the lot at one time, adding that since 1996 there have not been any parking problems at
this location. He advised that Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is reviewing the
stormwater plan and the City Engineer has reviewed the plan and found it meets City
Code requirements. He stated the Conditional Use Permit covers three items with respect
to off-site parking, a reduction in the amount of required parking, and excavation of more
than 400 cubic yards of material and pointed out this is not a variance request.
Mr. George Petros, 5637 Wood Lane, on behalf of the St. Louis Park Historical Society,
stated the site is the probable site of the former Globe Mill, one of the first mills built in
St. Louis Park in 1874, and they would like to have the City require that when the site is
opened up that someone with professional training be allowed to see if any remainders of
the mill exist on the site, adding they believe this represents a rare opportunity to unearth
some of the history of St. Louis Park and to document any findings.
Mr. Mattick stated this site has never received any historical designation and the City
Council is allowed to attach reasonable conditions to a Conditional Use Permit but they
should be related to the project itself. He indicated it is difficult to require the expense of
an archeologist, adding that the applicant could have someone from the Historical Society
on site when excavation is occurring. He stated further consideration will need to be
given as to what happens if a footing or other material is found, but given the age of the
site and the apparent destruction of the mill, it is difficult to require an archeologist.
Councilmember Sanger asked if Japs-Olson would be amenable to briefly stopping
excavation if they come across any old footings or other material associated with the mill
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 11
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
and to contact the Historical Society and State Archeologist Office in order to give them
time to document and inventory the finding.
Mr. Robert Murphy, Japs-Olson, stated they are under a tight time schedule but would
not object to anyone who wants to be on site during excavation if they comply with all
insurance and safety requirements. He added they do not want to have to stop excavation
for any length of time.
Mr. Petros stated they do not want to stop construction for any length of time. He stated
if footings or other materials are found, they would like to take photographs and obtain
GPS locations so they have some data to work with.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-086 Rescinding Resolution No. 8-96 and Granting Conditional Use
Permit Under Section 36-361(h) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to
Zoning to Permit Off-Site Parking, Section 36-361(c)(1) to Allow a Reduction in the
Amount of Required Parking Spaces, and Section 36-79(b) to Allow the Excavation of
More than 400 Cubic Yards of Materials all at Property Zoned General Industrial (IG)
located at 7400 Excelsior Boulevard.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
8b. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the
Minnesota Grape Growers Association for an event on West End Boulevard
at the Shops at West End for July 11, 2015
Councilmember Brausen requested this item be removed from the Consent Calendar in
order to acknowledge this local organization and to advise Council that he is a member of
the Association and would recuse himself from voting.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to
approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for the Minnesota Grape
Growers Association for an event on West End Boulevard at the Shops at West End for
July 11, 2015.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Councilmember Brausen abstain; Councilmember Mavity
absent).
8c. Approve a Temporary Extension of the Licensed Premises located at 5605
36th St. W. to include the West Parking Lot for American Legion’s Celebrate
the Park Event to be held June 20, 2015, in conjunction with Parktacular
Councilmember Brausen wished to acknowledge the American Legion’s “Celebrate the
Park” event being held during Parktacular on June 20th.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to
approve a temporary extension of the licensed premises located at 5605 36th St. W. to
include the west parking lot for the American Legion’s Celebrate the Park event to be
held June 20, 2015, in conjunction with Parktacular.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 12
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2015
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
8d. Approve the Amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan
Mr. Koering stated the Fire Department proposes to accelerate replacement of certain
large vehicles in order to reduce the footprint of the Fire Department’s fleet and make the
fleet more versatile and useful, adding the proposed amendment makes good sense and
also provides considerable savings.
Councilmember Brausen stated this is another example of the ways in which City staff
are always striving to save the taxpayers money, reduce the City’s vehicle footprint, and
respond to the needs of the community.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve the amendment to the Equipment Replacement Capital Plan.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents about Parktacular on June 19-21.
Councilmember Lindberg thanked the Fire Department for hosting a great Open House.
Councilmember Spano referenced Consent Calendar item #4g and thanked Boy Scout
Troop #282 for requesting permission to place signs in the public right-of-way and stated
that very few people request permission to place signs in the public right-of-way.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:41 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of City Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the
period of April 25, 2015 through June 26, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to approve City disbursements in
accordance with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the City
Council to review and approve. The attached reports show both City disbursements paid by
physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the City’s Charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: City Disbursements
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
1Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
500.003RD LAIR SKATEPARK SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
305.00A TOUCH OF MAGIC INC PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
305.00
715.90A-1 HYDRAULIC SALES AND SERVICES GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
715.90
75.47A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
134.50SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
677.14PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.94TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
943.05
36.00AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
36.00
158.13ABERNATHY, LISA ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
158.13
35.10ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
2,207.06WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,242.16
675.00ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
675.00
23.03ACE SUPPLY CO PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
23.03
5.00ACI PLUMBING INSPECTIONS G & A STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE
50.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
55.00
2,299.00ACME TOOLS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
670.96ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
2,969.96
1,964.00ACOUSTICS ASSOCIATES INC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,964.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 2
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
2Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
40,309.50ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
20,581.08SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
60,890.58
89.95ADVANTAGE AUTO GLASS INC GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
89.95
100.00AHMEDNUR, BARLIN GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
177.13AIM ELECTRONICS ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
177.13
70.00AIRIC'S HEATING INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
70.00
1,056.00ALADTEC INC OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,056.00
43.86ALEXANDER, PATRICK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
43.86
3,000.00ALL TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS MUNICIPAL BLDG OFFICE EQUIPMENT
3,000.00
1,768.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,463.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,231.00
1,189.35ALLIED BLACKTOP PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,189.35
6,036.00AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC INSPECTIONS G & A ENGINEERING SERVICES
9,011.65PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,047.65
79.52AMERICAN MESSAGING CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
79.52
129.90AMERICAN PRESSURE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 3
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
3Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
129.90
1,376.18AMERICAN STATE EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,376.18
163.30AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
163.30
183.60ANCHOR BLOCK CO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
493.70DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
677.30
2,340.87ANCHOR PAPER CO COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
2,340.87
64.80ANCHOR SIGN INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING
64.80
12,039.12ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
12,039.12
797.43ANDERSEN INC, EARL INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
797.43
1,785.06ANDERSEN, JENS EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
1,785.06
363.24ANDERSON, JEFFREY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
363.24
102.00ANDREWS, TERRY SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
102.00
631.01ANOVASOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
631.01
1,923.60APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,923.60
2,673.00APPLE INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
2,673.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 4
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
4Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
40.00APPLIANCE CONNECTIONS INC INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
40.00
937.50APWAENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,312.50PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
187.50WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,437.50
74.60AQUA CITY IRRIGATION CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
74.60
68,600.00AQUATIC RECREATION CO PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
68,600.00
337.22ARCPRINTING/REPRO SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
91.90ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
429.12
355.12ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
355.12
3,032.00ASPEN LAWN SERVICE/SIPE'S ENTERPRISES IN ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,788.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7,073.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
11,893.00
466.75ASPEN MILLS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
358.20OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
3,296.14OPERATIONSUNIFORMS
4,121.09
158.44ASTLEFORD INTERNATIONAL GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
158.44
546.24AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
546.24
1,788.49ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
12,730.60MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
14,412.44MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 5
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
5Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
28,931.53
46.18ATOMIC RECYCLING FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
200.91PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
154.33SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
364.08VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
765.50
1,712.80AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,712.80
6,017.75BACHMANSBEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,500.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
7,517.75
15,995.01BADGER METER INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
15,995.01
245.00BALDINGER, WENDY PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
245.00
65.55BARKER, BOB COMPANY POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
65.55
1,140.00BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,140.00
1,104.44BARNES, PAUL POLICE G & A TRAINING
1,104.44
5,034.78BARR ENGINEERING CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,034.78
3,000.00BARRY RENOVATIONS ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
3,000.00
1,425.00BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,425.00
43.99BATTERIES + BULBS POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
249.94WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 6
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
6Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
116.91PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
410.84
120.00BCA CJTE POLICE G & A TRAINING
120.00
223.88BEACON ATHLETICS MOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
184.44PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
408.32
746.00BEBERGS LANDSCAPE SUPPLY WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
746.00
251.99BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
251.99
242.36BERGEN, SARA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
242.36
8,465.00BERGERSON CASWELL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
8,465.00
225.00BERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
410.99BERSCHEID, GARY HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
410.99
175.00BERTHIAUME, BRUCE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
175.00
46.00BETHKE, DAVID INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES
46.00
250.00BIGALKE, SCOTT A.GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
1,045.75BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
1,045.75
204.99BIRRELL, ANDREW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 7
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
7Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
204.99
6,700.00BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,700.00
1,500.00BJERKE, TREVOR & ANGELA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,500.00
2,175.00BLAKE, BARRINGTON STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,175.00
412.50BLANSKI, NANCY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
412.50
4,589.15BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,589.15
2,500.00BLUE RIBBON HOME IMPROVEMENT ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
2,500.00
2,500.00BODEN CAPITAL ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,500.00
5,100.00BOLTON & MENK INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
97,801.50STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
121,729.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
224,630.50
81.42BORGES, CHIRS CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
81.42
44,413.00BORMANN CONSTRUCTION INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
850.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
45,263.00
2,500.00BOSTIC, JENNIFER PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,500.00
10.25BOTNEN, AMY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
10.25
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 8
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
8Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,343.94BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,343.94
61.27BOYER TRUCK PARTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
61.27
56,059.00BRAD'S LANDSCAPING LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
56,059.00
35.00BREKKE, JESSE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
35.00
1,761.00BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,559.40REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,320.40
35.00BRINKMAN, MICHAEL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
35.00
155.76BROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
155.76
240.97BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
240.97
70.51BRUMMER, CRYSTAL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
70.51
100.16BURKEY, SHAWNA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
100.16
436.54BUSCH SYSTEMS INT'L INC SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHER
436.54
65.00BUZZ TOOL & DIE CO GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
65.00
380.00C&E AUTO UPHOLSTERY GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
380.00
741.00CALHOUN TOWERS APTS OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 9
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
9Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
741.00
498.00CALIBRE PRESS POLICE G & A TRAINING
498.00
24,437.52CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
62.71ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
66.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
825.00CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES
115.50EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
5,698.53STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
1,171.50WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
66.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
1,064.25SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
33,507.01
546.64CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
546.64
225.00CARLSEN & FRANK ARCHITECTS INC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
8,514.27CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
8,514.27SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
8,514.26TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
25,542.80
454.20CASTANEDA-PEDERSON, DAN IT G & A TRAINING
454.20
20,000.00CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
20,000.00
10.00CDW GOVERNMENT INC IT G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
318.54GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
4,289.71TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
4,618.25
3,450.00CENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,450.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 10
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
10Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
349.00CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT IT G & A TRAINING
349.00
4,433.33CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
40.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
6,101.94WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
535.58REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
145.96SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
163.23SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
1,118.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
105.32WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
143.78NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
12,787.94
16,337.04CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
9,266.37REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS
6,691.46ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
32,294.87
1,000.00CENTRAL PARK WEST ESCROWS GENERAL
1,000.00
24,650.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT
24,650.00
523.20CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
523.20
120.00CERTIFIED PLUMBING INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
120.00
44.00CHAMPION PLUMBING INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
44.00
818.00CHEM SYSTEMS LTD REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
818.00
275.00CHRISTENSEN, JUDITH GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
275.00
255.00CHUX SCREEN PRINTING WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 11
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
11Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
21.50PLAYGROUNDSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
193.75PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
693.50REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
166.00AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,329.75
610.80CIMA COMPANIES INC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
610.80
513.18CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
440.97FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
4,199.51WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
212.19AQUATIC PARK BUDGET CONCESSION SUPPLIES
871.22VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
6,237.07
1,497.65CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
26.82GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
127.32ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
20.49ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,852.55ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
419.54ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
304.90HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
36.41HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
530.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
41.50HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
554.95HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
844.00HUMAN RESOURCES SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
712.53HUMAN RESOURCES TRAVEL/MEETINGS
148.44HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
805.44HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE TRAINING
64.31COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
13.51COMM & MARKETING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
115.60COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
1,792.00COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
541.69COMM & MARKETING G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
205.48IT G & A TRAINING
234.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,153.00ASSESSING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 12
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
12Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
11.74ASSESSING G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
104.78FINANCE G & A TRAINING
1,894.44FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
2,266.68FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
695.13FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER
45.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A LICENSES
1,165.20POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3.50POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
278.90POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
6.43POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
129.46POLICE G & A POSTAGE
73.01POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
50.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
57.18POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
557.84POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
112.23POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
21.95NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
147.34NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING EXPENSE
16.86JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
178.38OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
234.36OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
617.02OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
112.61OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
791.33OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
58.73OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING
82.07OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
787.50OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
419.58OPERATIONSTRAINING
4,478.88OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
266.60OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
2,232.26INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
46.06PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
509.52TRAININGTRAINING
2,307.00ENGINEERING G & A OTHER
39.95ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
63.31PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
689.11CABLE TV G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
479.55CABLE TV G & A NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
130.00CABLE TV G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
389.80TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
12.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 13
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
13Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
2,518.18GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
400.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,200.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
215.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
96.48WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,861.71SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
295.01SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
28.53SEWER UTILITY G&A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
50.00SOLID WASTE G&A TRAINING
1,408.46TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
89.50TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT TELEPHONE
789.91MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
853.05ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
866.12HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
60.00SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
428.27YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
372.47PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.01PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
107.24PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
45.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
49.81PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
50.00-PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
72.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
422.70PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
159.82PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.20ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
500.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
209.12WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.68REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
225.00ARENA MAINTENANCE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
212.40INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
446.14AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,244.42CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
949.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
56.91VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING
28.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
149.00PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
54,126.56
585.10CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATIONS REPAIRS
585.10
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 14
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
14Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
675.00CLEAN RESPONSE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
675.00
2,015.91COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
2,015.91
36,644.22COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
36,644.22
126.50COMCASTOPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
33.96OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
542.10WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
34.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
737.41
4,179.80COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
4,629.10WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
8,808.90
2,212.60COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP SUB HENN EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,212.60
4,500.00COMMUNITY MEDIATION SERVICES INC COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,500.00
1,015.00COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,015.00
180.11CONTROLS & METERS INC REILLY BUDGET OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
180.11
52.70COOKE JP CO FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
52.70
8,750.00CORNERSTONE ADVOCACY SERVICE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,750.00
2,657.25CORPORATE MECHANICAL UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
1,619.21REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
4,276.46
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 15
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
15Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,160.00COURT SURFACES & REPAIR PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,160.00
27,012.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
27,012.00
1,300.75CREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC - DARE DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,300.75
340.95CREATIVE SERVICES OF NEW ENGLAND NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
340.95
2,322.00CREATIVE WATER SOLUTIONS LLC AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,322.00
514.19CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
514.19
434.66CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
434.66
250.00CROUSE, ELIZABETH GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
125.60CROWN MARKING INC IT G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
125.60
4,345.00CTCCABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,345.00
419.56CUB FOODS POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
419.56
1,922.97CUMMINS NPOWER LLC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,922.97
30.62CURRAN-MOORE, KIM OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
586.50SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
617.12
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 16
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
16Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
225.00CUSICK, MIKE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
225.00
13,286.89CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,901.10SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,736.03SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,403.60SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,404.10SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,778.24SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
49,509.96
1,225.52CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,225.52
423.32DALCO ENTERPRISES INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
423.32
3,000.00DAY GROUP LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,000.00
767.25DEGROOT, ROBERT PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
767.25
5,274.89DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
5,274.89
18,709.19DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
18,709.19
52.12DERKSEN, HARRY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
52.12
1,750.00DEVRIES PROPERTIES & DESIGN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,750.00
586.50DEX MEDIA EAST LLC ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISING
586.50
866.35DH ATHLETICS LLC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
866.35
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 17
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
17Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
350.00DITTMER, DEREK SOFTBALL PROGRAM REVENUE
350.00
990.25DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,145.18ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,819.23AQUATIC PARK BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
8,954.66
1,145.90DLT SOLUTIONS INC ENGINEERING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,145.90
16,031.73DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
16,031.73
443.93DOHMAN, JOE EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
443.93
292.08DRYWALL SUPPLY INC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
292.08
1,396.00DUNDEE NURSERY BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,396.00
75.00DUNSWORTH, TIM GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
1,123.80ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES
688.25HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
688.25HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE PRINTING & PUBLISHING
145.22CABLE TV G & A LEGAL NOTICES
50.27WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL NOTICES
55.85STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL NOTICES
2,751.64
225.79EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
225.79
225.00EDINA REALTY TITLE INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
1,028.52WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
1,253.52
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 18
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
18Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
605.85EGAN COMPANIES INC RELAMPING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,027.50WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,425.68SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,413.61WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
643.50SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,951.58SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
5,725.53UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
22,793.25
281.25EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ESCROWS
450.00ESCROWS
620.002010B GO REF (03) DEBT SER G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
580.002010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
80.002010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
190.002010B UTIL REV BONDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
530.00REV BONDS 2001B / 2010B REF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,731.25
4,350.80ELECTRIC PUMP INC SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
7,617.24SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
200.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,168.04
353.90ELIOT VIEW NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
353.90
1,581.48EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
1,581.48
82.28EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,572.19GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,654.47
409.66EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
409.66
1,732.50EMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
900.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
2,632.50
21.84ENDRUD, KIRSTEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 19
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
19Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
21.84
340.70ENTITLEWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
340.70
203.00ENVIRONMENTAL EQUIPMENT & SERVICES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
165.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
368.00
737.00EPIC SECURITY PROFESSIONALS INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
737.00
144.99EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
144.99
180.00ERICKSON, EARL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
180.00
1,450.00ESCAPE FIRE PROTECTION LLC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,450.00
1,473.00ESRIIT G & A TRAINING
35,000.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
36,473.00
8,750.00ETHICAL LEADERS IN ACTION LLC OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,750.00
905.00ETTEL & FRANZ ROOFING CO GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
905.00
15,000.00EVERBRIDGE INC E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
15,000.00
803.10FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
937.97WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,741.07
8,500.00FAFINSKI MARK & JOHNSON PA HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,500.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 20
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
20Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
10.00FALCK, RONI SPECIAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE
10.00
649.56FASTENAL COMPANY OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
323.48PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
240.55PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
137.00SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
89.14SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
41.68PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.65REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
225.93GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,711.99
84.35FEDEXHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
60.70POLICE G & A POSTAGE
145.05
675.00FEED THE DOG HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
675.00
120.23FEINBERG, GREG WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
120.23
4,235.79FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,235.79
680.99FERRELLGASICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELS
680.99
590.00FIELD TRAINING SOLUTIONS POLICE G & A TRAINING
590.00
212.68FIFTH AVENUE PARTNERS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
212.68
170.00FINN, PATRICK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
170.00
232.00FIRE SAFETY USA INC OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
232.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 21
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
21Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
619.79FISCHER MINING LLC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
619.79
2,100.00FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
525.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,625.00
441.00FLEX COMPENSATION INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
441.00
1,276.00FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,276.00
193.41FORCE AMERICA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
193.41
249.80FORMS & SYSTEMS OF MINNESOTA POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
249.80
2,650.00FOURTH DIMENSION SIGNS MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,650.00
376.73FRANK, STEVE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
376.73
64.00FRANKLIN PLUMBING, BEN INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
64.00
44.95FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
48.99PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.29GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
98.23
7,000.00FREEMAN, BRUCE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
7,000.00
8,300.00FRIEDGES LANDSCAPING INC BEAUTIFICATION/LANDSCAPE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,300.00
450.00FRIENDS OF THE ARTS PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
450.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 22
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
22Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
262.50FRISCH, MICHAEL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
262.50
65.00FROSMAN, SONI BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
65.00
299.00FUN2RAISE MARKETING AND EVENTS AQUATIC PARK G & A ADVERTISING
299.00
937.50GALLAGHER RISK MGMT SERVICES INC, ARTHURFINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
312.50CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
312.50HOUSING REHAB G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
312.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
312.50SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
312.50SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
312.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,812.50
772.30GAME TIME PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
772.30
115.67GARSKE, BETTE HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
115.67
760.00GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC ARENA MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
760.00
606.40GAS TANK RENU/RADIATOR WEST GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
606.40
8,709.84GEAR WASH LLC OPERATIONS
8,709.84
1,326.00GHIZONI, DAVE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,326.00
84.49GLOBAL CLOSING & TITLE SERVICE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
84.49
5,000.00-GLOBAL SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 23
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
23Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
420,350.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
415,350.00
8,124.42GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSUR
8,124.42
410.20GOLDEN VALLEY SUPPLY COMPANY MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
410.20
22,758.00GOODPOINTE TECHNOLOGY INC PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
22,758.00
2,809.45GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,809.45
1,119.63GOTHBERG, BRIDGET HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE TRAINING
1,119.63
5,950.00GRAFIX SHOPPE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
5,950.00
867.53GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
202.78WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
318.12PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
281.54GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,669.97
2,468.00GRANT'S PRECISION PAINTING LLC AQUATIC PARK BUDGET BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,468.00
5,000.00GRAVCOR CONSTRUCTION CO ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
5,000.00
500.28GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
4,204.10SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
4,704.38
922.32GROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE
922.32
225.00GUNSTAD, MARK MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 24
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
24Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
225.00
665.34HACH CO WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
665.34
5.00HAFERMAN WATER CONDITIONING INSPECTIONS G & A STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE
50.00INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
55.00
325.00HALL, MARY PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
325.00
1,500.00HALLQUIST, WILLIAM PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,500.00
1,708.50HAMILTON, MIKE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,708.50
200.00HANSER, LAURA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
200.00
43.00HANSON ASSOC, R.D.OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
43.00
75.00HAUGEN, LAUREN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
7,870.21HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
4,626.68AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
12,496.89
2,907.00HCI CHEMTEC INC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,907.00
4,540.00HEALTHPARTNERSHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
260.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
130.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,930.00
2,500.00HECHT, LISA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,500.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 25
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
25Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
203.40HEDBERG SUPPLY DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
17.16WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
152.70BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
291.21WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
664.47
44.39HEDDLE, ALLEN DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
44.39
1,208.47HEINTZ, STEVEN FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,208.47
400.00HEL-FIRE OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
400.00
700.00HELGESON, GLEN PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
2,473.50HENDERSON, TRACY SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,473.50
395.00HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER POLICE G & A TRAINING
2,568.00OPERATIONSTRAINING
2,963.00
124.50HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENT & REAL ESTATE ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
124.50
3,300.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,935.04POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
8,996.39POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
129.60OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
2,734.20OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
822.83PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
19,918.06
115,188.35HENRICKSEN PSG MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
134,713.90MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
249,902.25
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 26
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
26Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,226.32HICKS, MAGGIE EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
1,226.32
734.00HIGHLAND AUTOSTAR COLLISION CENTER UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
734.00
9.71HILL, MERCER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
9.71
37.68HIRSHFIELDSMUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
37.68
15,469.30HOFFMAN & MCNAMARA TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT
15,469.30
450.19HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
31.97PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
213.66PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SMALL TOOLS
28.68PATCHING-PERMANENT SMALL TOOLS
222.22CRACK SEALING PROJECTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
33.36ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
63.97ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
87.34ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
37.00GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
96.38DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
72.07RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
84.78SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
226.70PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.88WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
408.89WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
23.68SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
7,036.04MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
262.33MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
396.02PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
246.21PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
10.30PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
5.47ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
261.74BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES
266.58BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS SMALL TOOLS
1,389.28BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 27
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
27Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
374.58REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
12,433.32
37.92HOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.92
225.00HOME SWEET HOMES LLC INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
225.00
74.68HOME TITLE INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
74.68
98.84HOPPE, MARK ASSESSING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
349.60ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
448.44
612.00HORDYK, EVAN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
612.00
17,749.00HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
71.03AQUATIC PARK BUDGET EQUIPMENT PARTS
17,820.03
373.06HOTSY OF MN BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
373.06
300.00HOWES, JESSICA VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
450.00
100.00HOWES, KRISTINE VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
816.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
966.00
1,800.00HRGREENTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
1,800.00
2,899.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
2,899.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 28
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
28Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,440.00I/O SOLUTIONS INC HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
1,440.00
102.00IAEIINSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
102.00
38.00IATNVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
38.00
3,988.60ICCINSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,988.60
665.00IDEAL SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
665.00
1,731.44IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,731.44SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,731.44SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
275.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,731.43STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
7,200.75
330.44IND SCHOOL DIST #283 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
330.44
173.10INDELCOWATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
14.76IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
187.86
590.00INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
590.00
450.00INFORMATION POLICY ANALYSIS CLERICAL TRAINING
450.00
4,582.05INTEGRA TELECOM IT G & A TELEPHONE
4,582.05
6.80INTL SECURITY PRODUCTS PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.80
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 29
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
29Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
97.75INTOXIMETERS INC POLICE G & A REPAIRS
97.75
661.21INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,998.08PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,751.93GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,411.22
200.00IPMA-HR HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
200.00
100.00ISAENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
100.00
187,400.00ISD 283 COMMUNITY ED SCHOOL DISTRICT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
187,400.00
100.00ISMAIL, ZAKARIA GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
500.00ISRAEL, DANIEL PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
684.94I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
684.94
54.00J & F REDDY RENTS OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
54.00
1,723.96JASMER, JERRY EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
1,723.96
4,372.82JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
247.55OPERATIONSUNIFORMS
53.75OPERATIONSREPAIRS
4,789.01EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FIRE EQUIPMENT
9,463.13
487.50JENNINGS, SHAUN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 30
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
30Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
122.46JERRY'S HARDWARE POSTAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
54.76GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
30.15SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
9.71INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
426.49WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
170.08PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
143.88PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
4.83IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
231.96ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.56ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
11.82GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,212.70
300.00JM CONSULTING LTD WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
300.00
7,500.00JOE'S SEWER SERVICE INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7,500.00
631.90JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
631.90
475.00JOHNSON, JAMES GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
475.00
150.00JOHNSON, SUSAN VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
200.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
350.00
2,617.00JRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,617.00
1,125.00JUST-RITE CONSTRUCTION INC UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
300.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,425.00
1,257.70KELLER, JASMINE Z EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
1,257.70
KELLEY, RYAN ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
750.23COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 31
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
31Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
10.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
31.92COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
792.15
119.53KENDRICK ELECTRIC INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
119.53
1,245.09KENNEDY & GRAVEN HOUSING REHAB G & A LEGAL SERVICES
1,245.09
153.79KENTON, JEANNE HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
153.79
316.50KEYSTONEUNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
316.50
920.00KIDCREATE STUDIO PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
312.50LITTLE TOT PLAYTIME OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,232.50
1,392.80KIDS TEAM TENNIS LLC TENNIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,392.80
380.00KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
380.00
487.50KIMBER, ELIZABETH GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
339.61KOTTKE, MARY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
339.61
86.80KRIETE, DANIEL HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
86.80
1,166.50KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC ARENA MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,166.50
2,982.72KRUELLE, BRYAN EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
2,982.72
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 32
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
32Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
386.76KRUGE-AIR INC BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
386.76
510.00KUBES, JON SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
510.00
100.00KYAMBADDE, TABITHA GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
73.50LAKES GAS CO PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
73.50
212.50LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
212.50
325.00LARSON, DAIN & RACHEL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
325.00
746.89LARSON, JH CO SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
746.89
193.00LASER TECHNOLOGY INC POLICE G & A REPAIRS
193.00
5,179.10LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
5,179.10
239.36LAWSON PRODUCTS INC GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
239.36
17,365.41LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
17,365.41
52.70LEAGUE OF MN CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
175.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
56.67PATROLTRAINING
284.37
98,765.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TRUST UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSES
98,765.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 33
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
33Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
113,134.25LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
8,188.35UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
121,322.60
360.00LEAST SERVICES POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
360.00
100.00LEMDYASOVA, VIKTORIA GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
1,848.16LEOTEK ELECTRONICS USA LLC ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,848.16
225.00LEVIN ARCHITECTS, CHARLES MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
275.00LEVIN, BRUCE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
275.00
288.00LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING LLC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
288.00
7,020.36LINAEMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
7,020.36
200.00LISEC, TOM POLICE G & A TRAINING
200.00
285.00LITIN PAPER, PACKAGING & CONVERTING GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
431.10SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
99.98CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
816.08
701.66LOCKGUARD INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
701.66
10,188.61LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
10,188.61
797.90LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,495.00POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 34
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
34Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
6,854.23TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
12,147.13
70,012.16LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
69,515.85TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
139,528.01
245.00LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
245.00
1,500.00MACK MUSIC LLC, ANNIE PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,500.00
1,101.01MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
707.93SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
5,200.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7,008.94
58.00MAHAN, KARI INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
58.00
8.20MAIER, JOHN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
8.20
1,066.48MANAGED SERVICES INC WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,066.48
42,267.01MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
42,267.01
3,680.00MAPLE PLAIN, CITY OF SHOWMOBILE RENT REVENUE
3,680.00
150.00MARK'S TAXIDERMY WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
150.00
261.60MARTENS, AFTON JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP MEETING EXPENSE
261.60
12,000.00MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,000.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 35
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
35Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
13,875.49MAVO SYSTEMS MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,875.49
15,783.38-MCCROSSAN INC, C S STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
526,112.66CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
510,329.28
70.00MCFOAADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
70.00
23.42MCMANAMON, KEVIN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
23.42
262.50MCQUEEN, HEATHER GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
262.50
799.95MEADOWBROOK COLLABORATIVE HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL SUPPLIES
799.95
161.12MECKLE, JODIE HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
161.12
578.00MEDTOX LABORATORIES INC HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
578.00
387.50MEIER, DAVID GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
387.50
211.26MENARDSPUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SMALL TOOLS
98.91RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
128.37WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
65.92WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
132.54PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
49.97PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
134.16PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
31.77BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
470.31WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,323.21
293.25MERKLEY, SCOTT PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 36
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
36Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
293.25
62.97METRO STONEWORKS UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
62.97
154.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
154.00
93,485.70METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
2,625.00WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
14,527.50REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
615,308.50SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
725,946.70
89.99MICRO CENTER PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
164.98PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
209.96WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
464.93
3,313.78MIDSTATES EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CRACK SEALING PROJECTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,313.78
79,239.00MIDWAY FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
79,239.00
480.00MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
480.00
36,250.00MIDWEST GROUNDCOVER PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
9,640.00PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
45,890.00
134,234.00MILLERBERND MFG CO CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
134,234.00
1,420.86MILLERBERND, DENNIS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING
1,420.86
409.84MINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
409.84
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 37
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
37Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,152.90MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,152.90
35.11MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.11
290.24MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS
290.24
2,150.00MINNESOTA BUREAU CRIMINAL APPREHENSION POLICE G & A TRAINING
2,150.00
369.15MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
369.15
21,558.00MINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
21,581.00
486,340.80MINNESOTA DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET LAND HELD FOR RESALE
486,340.80
50.00MINNESOTA FIRE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
50.00
200.00MINNESOTA FIRE SVC CERT BD OPERATIONS TRAINING
200.00
69.90MINNESOTA GLOVE & SAFETY INC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
69.90
60.00MINNESOTA ICE ARENA MGRS ASSOC ARENA MAINTENANCE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
60.00
96,811.25MINNESOTA NATIVE LANDSCAPES CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
96,811.25
16.00MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS
16.00
90.00MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY SEWER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 38
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
38Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
90.00
916.00MINNESOTA PREMIER PUBLICATIONS AQUATIC PARK G & A ADVERTISING
916.00
15.00MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC ORGANIZED REC G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
15.00
210.00MINNESOTA SOCIETY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERSENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
210.00
430.00MINNESOTA STATE BOARD OF ASSESSORS ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
430.00
114.00MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES
114.00
42.50MINVALCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
42.50
132.00MN BOARD OF AELSLAGID ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
132.00
98.58MN MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
98.58
7,500.00MOBIUS INC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,500.00
53.32MODERN HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
53.32
100.00MOHAMED, HAMZA GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
370.00MONTEIRO, WILLIE VARIANCES ZONING/SUBDIVISION
370.00
106.63MORGAN OLSON UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
106.63
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 39
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
39Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
275.00MOROCHO, MARCOS P.GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
275.00
212.50MORRIS, LINDA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
212.50
85.00MOSHER, MARCELEEN INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING
85.00
3,287.63MOSS & BARNETT FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,287.63
94.00MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
75.00IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
274.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
443.00
1,635.12MOTOROLACOMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,635.12
250.00MPCAPARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT SOIL TESTING SERVICES
250.00
135.00MPSTMAPARK MAINTENANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
135.00
3,010.00MRA-THE MANAGEMENT ASSOC SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
3,010.00
2,856.00MRPASOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,856.00
150.00MSANIPOLICE G & A TRAINING
150.00
290.02MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
290.02
15.00MSSAPUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
15.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 40
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
40Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
2,463.27MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
2,463.27
700.00MU PERFORMING ARTS PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
60.00MUNICI-PALS HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
120.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
180.00
4,099.00MUSICANT, MAX HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,099.00
846.00MVTL LABORATORIES REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
452.50REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,298.50
685.51MYHRE, JOHN EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
685.51
3,499.41NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
125.53WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
47.45PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
165.45VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
880.54GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.72GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
4,728.10
4,198.62NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE CABLE TV G & A NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
4,198.62
3,813.00NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
3,813.00
157,399.75NELSON AUTO CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
157,399.75
246.23NELSON, MARK OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
246.23
1,000.00NELSON, NELS ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 41
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
41Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,000.00
35.12NEP CORP CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL SMALL TOOLS
99.50PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
134.62
8,034.40NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
8,034.40
185.00NIGPVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
185.00
192.33NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
99.95SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
292.28
295.22NORDSTROM, TIM EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
295.22
225.00NORNBERG, KATE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
225.00
114.33NORTH CENTRAL REFORESTATION INC ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
114.33REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALS
228.66
36,800.00NORTH METRO COMPANIES TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT
2,825.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
39,625.00
258.40NORTHERN AIRE SWIMMING POOLS POSTAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
24.00AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
193.98AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
476.38
11,849.73NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
11,849.73
334.00NORTHERN STATES SUPPLY INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
334.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 42
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
42Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
2,694.71NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,819.12SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,819.13SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
606.37SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
606.37SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
606.37SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,152.07
25.00NORTHSTAR CHAPTER HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
25.00
368.00NORTHWEST LASERS & INSTRUMENTS ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
368.00
250.00NOVAK, WALLACE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
165.00NRPAORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
165.00
100.00NYAMWEYA, HENRY GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
4,174.32NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
5,327.09COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
9,501.41
1,000.00OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,000.00
6,200.00OAKWOODS PARTNERS ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
6,200.00
463.00OCAMPO COMPANY LLC PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
463.00
202.38OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
61.09HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
264.15COMM & MARKETING G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
349.19FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
180.86GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 43
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
43Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
380.37POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.96POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
151.00POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES
141.59NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
556.61INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
109.73PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.70HOUSING REHAB G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
78.52ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY OFFICE SUPPLIES
385.92ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.89VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,945.07
5,792.92OFFICE TEAM PUBLIC WORKS G & A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
5,792.92
1,572.78OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,572.78
262.50OLSON, JAMES GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
262.50
205.75OLSON, JEAN HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL SUPPLIES
777.25HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE MEETING EXPENSE
983.00
450.00OLSON, MARNEY MOVE-UP PROGRAM GENERAL SUPPLIES
450.00
774.19OMAHA PAPER COMPANY INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
774.19
534.00ON SITE SANITATION HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
280.00OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
160.92NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,975.14PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
199.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
51.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
254.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,454.06
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 44
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
44Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
158.21ORENSTEIN, VICKI WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
158.21
4,418.13OVERHEAD DOOR CO PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,418.13
330.06OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
330.06
5,012.00PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,012.00
582.70PAINTERS GEAR INC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
582.70
9,264.73-PARK CONSTRUCTION CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
185,294.55CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
176,029.82
2,044.80PARKER, JON EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
2,044.80
177.00PEDERSON, ANGELA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
177.00
197.61PERAPOLICE G & A PERA - POLICE & FIRE RELIEF
197.61
2,052.00PERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE PRINTING & PUBLISHING
350.00COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,402.00
3,489.56PETTERSEN, ADAM & EMILY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
3,489.56
2,650.00PETTY CASH GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PETTY
14.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
30.36ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
22.98HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
15.00HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
10.00ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 45
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
45Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
12.72GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
20.16FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.44POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.99NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
83.00DWI ENFORCEMENT LICENSES
24.63INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.41INSPECTIONS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
20.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
6.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
21.97PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
23.22ASSET MANAGEMENT MEETING EXPENSE
26.66HOUSING REHAB G & A MEETING EXPENSE
3.04WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8.99WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
19.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
3.25SOLID WASTE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
10.00SOLID WASTE G&A MEETING EXPENSE
56.54VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
36.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
18.23PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.37GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
3,193.96
105.05PETTY CASH - WWNC WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.50WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
33.35FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.47FAMILY PROGRAMS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
160.37
8,548.53PHILIP'S TREE CARE INC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,068.52PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
357.14BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,974.19
8.47PHIMISTER, MEGHAN HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
8.47
22,707.67PLACEGENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
22,707.67
820.60PLAISTED COMPANIES INC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 46
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
46Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
820.60
4,329.50PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,329.50
791.76PLANTRA INC REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
791.76
3,877.34POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
3,877.34
515.91POPP.COM INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
515.91
90.00POST BOARD POLICE G & A LICENSES
90.00
910.00POSTMASTERCOMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
910.00
180.47POWERPLAN OIB GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
180.47
112.59POWERS, BRIAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
112.59
183.87PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
183.87
2,012.87PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
2,012.87
139.51PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
139.51WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
139.51SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
139.51STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
558.04
9,024.00PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
9,024.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 47
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
47Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,092.00PREMIER GLOW NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,092.00
92.48PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
92.48
125.00PRICE, BRENT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
125.00
266.00PRINTERS SERVICE INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
266.00
300.00PRO AUTO DETAILING GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
300.00
250.00PROS OF THE ROPE LLC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
250.00
1,500.00PROVEN SOLUTIONS ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,500.00
67.76PUMP & METER SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
154.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
221.76
352.58PUSH PROPERTIES LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
352.58
8,429.15Q3 CONTRACTING WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
508.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
8,937.15
18.49QUEST ENGINEERING INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
18.49
123.75QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
123.75
8,600.00R & R SPECIALTIES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
500.55ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
224.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 48
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
48Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
9,324.55
700.00RACKNER, JASON ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
700.00
250.00RAINALDO, SCOTT GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
260.00RAINBOW TREECARE TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
260.00
2,053.44RAMIREZ, LAURIE & PAUL GENERAL FUND G&A MISC EXPENSE
2,053.44
5,564.65RANDY'S SANITATION INC FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
2,845.98REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
8,410.63
546.27RAPPAPORT, JULIE HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL SUPPLIES
188.61HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE PRINTING & PUBLISHING
734.88
242.42RAUSCH, KRISTIN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
242.42
3,210.00READY WATT ELECTRIC OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,210.00
32,808.00REDPATH & COMPANY FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
546.80CABLE TV G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
1,640.40HOUSING REHAB G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
5,468.00WATER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
6,561.60SEWER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
3,280.80SOLID WASTE G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
2,187.20STORM WATER UTILITY G&A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVIC
52,492.80
84.66REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
85.92POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
25.14NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
195.72
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 49
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
49Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
103.50REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
103.50
8.95REGIS TITLE LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
8.95
225.00REHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
183.72REILLY, MATTHEW PATROL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
183.72
487.50RENNER, DONALD GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
1,578.40REUVERS, TERRY EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
1,578.40
11,006.10RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
11,006.10
43.50RIGHTMARK LLC INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
43.50
664.12RIGID HITCH INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
197.91PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
862.03
3,840.30RIVERDALE MILLS CORP PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,840.30
541.65ROSA, NATE ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
541.65
296.00ROTARY CLUB OF SLP ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
296.00
10,656.39RSP ARCHITECTS LTD PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,656.39
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 50
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
50Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
100.00RUDIN, MARIA DEL CARMEN GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
100.00SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
260.98GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
360.98
59.90SAM'S CLUB OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
115.92SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
153.92ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
163.76CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
493.50
212.50SANCHEZ, MARIO ROSARIO GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
212.50
4,175.00SARUMI, ANTHONY & HEIDI ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
4,175.00
6,536.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
6,536.00
144.70SCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
135.40HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
280.10
4,145.40SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,145.40
28,440.00SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC, J P WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
28,440.00
13,714.33SEHSTREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
627.75SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
14,342.08
1,570.34SENSUS USA IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,570.34
1,047.65SHAMLA, JOSEPH ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,047.65
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 51
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
51Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
309.90SHERWIN WILLIAMS PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
93.45-PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,735.89SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,952.34
3,424.80SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO PAINTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,424.80
2,314.40SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,314.40SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,314.40SOLID WASTE G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,314.40STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
60,406.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
69,663.60
1,000.00SHOFF, MICHAEL & ELLEN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,000.00
70.17SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
756.58FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
113.42POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11.29INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11.29WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11.40PARK AND REC G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
974.15
225.00SIDAL CROSSROADS CO LTD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
225.00
172.00SIGN PRODUCERS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,080.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,252.00
6,230.00SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,349.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
9,220.00
988.00SILVERMERE AMERICA LLC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
988.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 52
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
52Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
200.00SIMONS, KEN PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
200.00
641.00SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
641.00
17,290.62SIR LINES-A-LOT PAINTING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
17,290.62
3,388.00SITEIMPROVE INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,388.00
52.99SIWEK LUMBER & MILLWORK INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
52.99
239.53SKALLET, DAVID INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
239.53
90.47SKELLY, ANGELA HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
90.47
145.94SKELLY, GABRIEL HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
145.94
3,049.80SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
3,049.80
761.65SNYDER ELECTRIC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
761.65
1,000.00SOIL OF THE SOUL SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,000.00
3,200.00SPACK CONSULTING ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,200.00
14,307.60SPECTRA LOGIC CORP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
14,307.60
3,766.59SPRINTIT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 53
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
53Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
3,766.59
741.02SPS COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
17.96PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
758.98
10,076.67SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC ESCROWS GENERAL
42,479.49STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
2,974.40STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
55,530.56
600.00ST ANTHONY MAIN QUARTET PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
600.00
300.00ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
300.00
14,073.00ST LOUIS PARK INVESTMENT CO ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
14,073.00
932.70ST LOUIS PARK TRANSP INC HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
932.70
70.00STANDARD HEATING & A/C INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
70.00
183.30STAR TRIBUNE ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
10.00SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
193.30
714.00STEARNS, DAVID SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
714.00
488.40STEPP MANUFACTURING CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
488.40
3,003.70STEVE LUCAS PHOTOGRAPHY OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,003.70
47,349.35STEVENS ENGINEERS INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
47,349.35
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 54
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
54Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
300.00STICKS AND TONES BAND PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
300.00
796.67STOCKTON, WILL HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
796.67
1,670.99STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
31.85ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,702.84
354.77STRINGER, BETSY HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OFFICE SUPPLIES
503.96HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL SUPPLIES
41.89HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE PRINTING & PUBLISHING
111.86HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE MEETING EXPENSE
20.58HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
1,033.06
740.76SUBURBAN CHEVROLET GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
740.76
385.80SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
385.80
614.34SULANDER, PAT FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
614.34
49,588.78SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
49,588.78
1,925.00SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
113.00WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
510.40VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,548.40
1,614.00SUN CONTROL OF MINNESOTA INC MUNICIPAL BLDG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,614.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,228.00
19.12SUNDBERG AMERICA GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.48PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 55
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
55Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
36.60
1,570.31SUNSOURCEGENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,570.31
225.00SWANSON FLO-SYSTEMS CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
225.00
162.23SWANSON, BRIAN FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
66.13FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
228.36
2,620.65SWANSON, MITCH EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
2,620.65
2,316.34SWEEN COMPANY, EA CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
2,316.34
850.00SWEET COLLEENS LLP PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
850.00
3,600.00SWENSON, STEVEN PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,600.00
20.49TARGET BANK POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
29.57POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
10.80ERUMEETING EXPENSE
15.58WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
24.62WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
101.06
150.00TASCEMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
150.00
835.61TASER INTERNATIONAL POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
835.61
5,000.00TEENS ALONE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,000.00
154.80TELELANGUAGE INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 56
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
56Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
154.80
127.40TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
127.40
134.47TERMINAL SUPPLY CO GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
134.47
206.00TERMINIX INT REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
206.00
7,355.01-THOMAS & SONS CONST INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
147,100.20CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
139,745.19
510.00THOMPSON, JAMES SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
510.00
266.92THOMPSON, LINDSEY HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
266.92
100.00THOMPSON, MARTHA GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
150.00THOMPSON, NOREEN HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
150.00
116.40THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
291.74POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
408.14
2,342.13TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,342.13
461.88TITAN MACHINERY TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
461.88
5,237.98TKDAWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,237.98
600.00TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 57
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
57Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
600.00
5,962.00TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
5,962.00
1,400.00TRAFFIC DATA INC ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,400.00
612.00TRAUTMANN, JOHN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
612.00
146.74TREE TRUST CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL GENERAL SUPPLIES
146.74
3,013.00TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
3,013.00
650.64TRI-DIM FILTER CORP GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
650.64
2,498.44TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,498.44
46.70TWIN CITY HARDWARE PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
46.70
597.00TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
597.00
692.20UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,781.12GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
11,260.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
10,394.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
22,481.50MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
265.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
46,873.82
246.70ULINEPARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
246.70
1,557.96UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 58
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
58Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,423.10SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
8,775.00PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
276.50RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
51.00EXPLORERSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
12,083.56
790.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY
790.00
235.00UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGISTRAR PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
235.00
140.00UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
140.00
17.62UPS STORE SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
17.62
765.00US ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
765.00
234.73USA ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
234.73
927.65VAIL, LORI HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
927.65
113,815.52VALLEY PAVING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
64,517.31CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
178,332.83
38,361.34VALLEY-RICH CO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
38,361.34
5,700.00VAN IWAARDEN ASSOCIATES EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,700.00
255.30VAUGHAN, JIM ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
255.30
60.00VERIFIED CREDENTIALS HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 59
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
59Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
60.00
100.20VERIZON WIRELESS SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
21,466.70CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
149.10CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
21,716.00
432.00VERMONT SYSTEMS INC ORGANIZED REC G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
432.00
262.50VEZINA, TORY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
262.50
208.00VICTOR STANLEY INC SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
208.00
126.14VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
31.04ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
920.88WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
52.50SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
151.94TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,282.50
789.19VOICE AND DATA NETWORKS TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
789.19
130.95VOSU, JASON ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
130.95
4,950.00WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS ESCROWS GENERAL
4,950.00
1,112.45WARNER'S OUTDOOR SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,112.45
210.00WARNING LITES OF MN INC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
210.00
11,424.50-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
255,911.25SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
127,224.45SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 60
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
60Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
109,287.15SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
480,998.35
1,564.01WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,564.01
5,975.31WATSON CO INC CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
5,975.31
1,383.00WAVS INC AQUATIC PARK BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,383.00
153.16WAYTEKGENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
153.16
2,045.00WEBBER RECREATIONAL DESIGN PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,045.00
19.74WEICHERT REALTORS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
19.74
70.00WENCL PLUMBING INC INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
70.00
700.00WENDINGER BAND & TRAVEL INC PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
105.00WEST METRO IRRIGATION INC CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
105.00
235.00WHEELER HARDWARE MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
235.00
1,575.76WHEELER LUMBER LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,575.76
100.00WHEELER, MAJA GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
153.00WHITE, BRIAN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
153.00
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 61
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
61Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
5,000.00WICKENHAUSER EXCAVATING INC ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
5,000.00
30.00WILLIAMS, DALLAS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
30.00
413.20WILLIAMS, TIM PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
413.20
295.55WODTKE, RON HOME SCHOOL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
295.55
98.84WOLF, DAVID ASSESSING G & A TRAINING
98.84
386.21WRAP CITY GRAPHICS HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
925.00RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
330.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
180.00SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIES
175.00AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,996.21
1,858.75WSB ASSOC INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,858.75
1,004.02WYATT, LISA HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
1,004.02
27,831.19XCEL ENERGY GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
45.42OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
45,611.18PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
57,272.87WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,552.38REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,074.86SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
6,135.04STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
7,927.74PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
20.90BRICK HOUSE (1324)GENERAL SUPPLIES
18.46BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
39.49WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)GENERAL SUPPLIES
45.21WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 62
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
62Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
1,039.78WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
31,896.37REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE
184,510.89
6,985.00XPERTSPARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,985.00
1,500.00YANA ROYTBURG & SLAVA SLOBODYANYUK ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,500.00
342.67ZACKS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
342.67
493.41ZANDER, LOIS HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE
493.41
202.30ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
4,552.00SWEEPINGEQUIPMENT PARTS
4,754.30
58.68ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.69WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
401.60REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
301.65AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.68VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
879.30
531.78ZEP MFG GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
531.78
300.00ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
150.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
450.00
487.50ZIEN, SHELLY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
430.05ZIP PRINTING ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
134.37AQUATIC PARK G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
564.42
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 63
6/26/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400
63Page -Council Check Summary
- 6/26/20154/25/2015
Amount
Vendor ObjectBU Description
17,940.00ZUERCHER TECHNOLOGIES LLC POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
17,940.00
Report Totals 7,261,017.92
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 64
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Designate Polling Places and Appoint Election Judges for 2015 Elections
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution designating polling places and
appointing Election Judges for the August 11, 2015, Municipal Primary Election and the
November 3, 2015, Municipal/School District/State Special General Election.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None
SUMMARY: The City has been notified by Hennepin County that the City will need to run a
Special Election for the seat of District 46A State Representative, due to the resignation of
Representative Ryan Winkler. The St. Louis Park Precincts that are in District 46A are 1, 2, 12,
13, 14, 15, and 16. This State Special Election will be run in conjunction with the City’s
Municipal/School Board General Election.
MN Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2 and City Charter Section 4.05 provides that Election Judges for
precincts shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality and that the appointments
be made at least 25 days before the election at which the Election Judges will serve. Election
Judges are assigned to precincts based on availability, party balance, and the number required for
each location. Election Judges without affiliation to a major political party are also allowed to
serve, but are not allowed to perform certain statutorily regulated tasks at the precinct. The
resolution contains the names of those who have indicated a willingness and ability to serve as an
Election Judge. Appointment by the Council will allow these judges to serve at the 2015
Elections.
In Hennepin County, each city is responsible for training their Election Judges. Two 2-hour paid
training sessions are scheduled to accommodate Election Judges who will work at the 2015
Elections. Election Judge training will also be scheduled in the fall. Chair and Co-Chair Judges
will be meeting for an additional 1 hour of training.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Election expenses for judges for the
Municipal Primary and the Municipal/School District/State Special General Elections are
included in the adopted 2015 budget. Election Judge hourly pay is as follows: $9.00 Regular
Judges; $10.00 Co-Chair Judges and Absentee Judges; and $11.00 Chair Judges.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community through recruitment and training of community members to serve as Election Judges.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Assistant - City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Designate Polling Places and Appoint Election Judges for 2015 Elections
RESOLUTION NO. 15 -____
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES AND
APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE
2015 MUNICIPAL PRIMARY AND
MUNICIPAL/SCHOOL DISTRICT/STATE SPECIAL GENERAL ELECTIONS
WHEREAS, the Municipal Primary Election will be held on August 11, 2015, and the
Municipal/School District/State Special General Election will be held on November 3, 2015, at the
following precinct polling locations:
Ward 1 Precinct 1 – Beth El Synagogue, 5225 Barry St W
Ward 1 Precinct 2 – Peter Hobart Elementary School, 6500 26th St W
Ward 1 Precinct 3 – St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd
Ward 1 Precinct 4 – Central Community Center, 6300 Walker St
Ward 2 Precinct 5 – Union Congregational Church, 3700 Alabama Ave S
Ward 2 Precinct 6 – St. Louis Park Recreation Center, 3700 Monterey Dr
Ward 2 Precinct 7 – Susan Lindgren Elementary School, 4801 41st St W
Ward 2 Precinct 8 – Aldersgate United Methodist Church, 3801 Wooddale Ave S
Ward 3 Precinct 9 – Prince of Peace Lutheran Church, 8115 State Hwy No 7
Ward 3 Precinct 10 – Lenox Community Center, 6715 Minnetonka Blvd
Ward 3 Precinct 11 – St. Louis Park Senior High School, 6425 33rd St W
Ward 3 Precinct 12 – Aquila Elementary School, 8500 31st St W
Ward 4 Precinct 13 – Westwood Lutheran Church, 9001 Cedar Lake Road
Ward 4 Precinct 14 – Park Assembly Church, 1615 Texas Ave S
Ward 4 Precinct 15 – Peace Presbyterian Church, 7624 Cedar Lake Road
Ward 4 Precinct 16 – Sabes Jewish Community Center, 4330 Cedar Lake Rd
WHEREAS, as authorized by MN Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2, Election Judges for precincts shall
be appointed by the governing body of the municipality no later than 25 days before each election; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council that the
following individuals named on Exhibit A and on file in the Office of the City Clerk are hereby appointed
to serve as Election Judges, Absentee Ballot Judges, or Alternate Judges for the 2015 Municipal Primary
and Municipal/School District/State Special General Elections; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the St. Louis Park City Council also appoints other individuals
and all members appointed to the Hennepin County Absentee Ballot Board as authorized under Minn.
Stat. 204B.21, subd. 2 under direction of the Election Manager to serve as members of the St. Louis Park
Absentee Ballot Board; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any
substitutions or additions as deemed necessary.
Reviewed for Administration
Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Designate Polling Places and Appoint Election Judges for 2015 Elections
Resolution No. 15 - ___ Exhibit A
Appointed 2015 Election Judges
The following individuals are appointed to serve in the 2015 Municipal/State Special Primary
and the Municipal/School Board/State Special General Elections:
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Designate Polling Places and Appoint Election Judges for 2015 Elections
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of Donations to Fire Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting donations to the Fire
Department.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept these donations?
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.
The following donations were provided by these businesses for the 2015 Fire Department Open
House:
• Northland Aluminum/Nordic Ware $350.00
• Cub Foods $200.00 Gift Card
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These donations were used to assist the
Fire Department in providing food and supplies needed for the annual Fire Department Open
House.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Cary Smith, Assistant Chief
Reviewed by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of Donations to Fire Department
RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF
FIRE DEPARTMENT OPEN HOUSE DONATIONS
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 donations
by the donors; and
WHEREAS, the donations from Northland Aluminum and Cub Foods were directed
toward the Fire Department Open House;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that these donations are hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 655: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Kentucky Avenue &
W. 18th Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of stop
signs on Kentucky Avenue & W. 18th Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority.
SUMMARY: The City has received a request to evaluate the existing uncontrolled intersection
of Kentucky Ave and W. 18th Street. The City’s Traffic Control Policy and the MN Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices guide the installation of stop signs. Past experience has
demonstrated that placing stop signs in unwarranted locations can potentially cause an
intersection to be even less safe. The policy sets out warrants which an intersection must meet in
order to have stop signs installed.
The stop sign warrants for traffic volume were not met for this intersection. However, the
intersection’s crash history and sightlines does warrant a stop sign at this location.
The Traffic Committee is recommending that the City install stop signs on the north and south
approaches of Kentucky Avenue at this intersection. The limited visibility at this intersection
creates a safety concern that is improved by installing traffic control to better define vehicle
right-of-way for all approaches of the intersection.
A letter has been sent to the residents of within 600 feet of the recommended intersection control
asking for final comments prior to the July 6th Council Meeting. The comments received have
been positive.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is
minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Traffic Study #655
Map
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 655: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Kentucky Avenue & W. 18th Street
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF
STOP SIGNS ON KENTUCKY AVENUE
AT W. 18TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 655
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to install 2 way stop signs on Kentucky
Avenue at W. 18th Street.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to install stop signs on Kentucky
Avenue at W. 18th Street (north and south-bound approaches).
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Traffic Study No. 655: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Kentucky Avenue & W. 18th Street
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 655
Installation of Stop Signs on Kentucky Avenue at W. 18th Street
The intersection of Kentucky Avenue and W. 18th Street was evaluated to determine whether
additional traffic control is necessary to improve driver safety. The intersection is currently
uncontrolled. The focus of this evaluation is to determine whether stop signs are warranted at
the intersection. Crash history indicates that there has been a pattern of accidents at this
intersection due to poor visibility and sight lines while approaching the intersection.
The MN Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MN MUTCD) guides the installation of
yield and stop signs. Yield or stop signs should be considered at the intersection of two minor
streets or local roads where the intersection has more than three approaches and where one of the
following conditions exist:
• Combined vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian volumes entering the intersection from
all approaches averages more than 2,000 units a day.
o The traffic volume at this intersection were calculated using traffic counters
and was at 818 vehicles a day approaching the intersection. The traffic
volumes did not meet the warrants required for a stop sign or yield sign.
• Crash records indicate 5 or more accidents within a 3 year period or 3 or more
accidents within a 2 year period.
o Crash History showed there were 4 reported and correctable accidents in a
two year period. The crash history meets the warrants for stop sign or yield
sign.
• The ability to see conflicting traffic on an approach is not sufficient to allow a road
user to stop or yield in compliance with the normal right of way rule if stopping or
yielding is necessary.
o The sightlines at this intersection were found to be difficult to see cross traffic
when approaching the intersection. The sight lines meet the warrants for a
yield sign.
Recommendation
Due to the crash history at this intersection and sight lines, the Traffic Committee recommends
that stop signs be installed. The traffic on 18th Street was found to be higher than Kentucky
Avenue, therefore the stop signs are recommended to be installed on Kentucky Avenue.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Title: Traffic Study No. 655: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Kentucky Avenue & W. 18th Street
Kentucky Avenue and W. 18th Street
(Stop Sign Installation)
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 W. 23rd
Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the revision of parking
restrictions on 5320 W. 23rd Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority.
SUMMARY: The City has received a request to evaluate the existing parking restrictions on the north
side of W. 23rd Street in front of the new development at 5320 W. 23rd Street (reuse of former Novartis
site). The current parking restrictions were installed from a resolution signed in 1969 which installed
“Two Hour Parking” on the north side of W. 23rd Street from west service drive of TH 100 to 570 feet
west. Along the 330 feet of curb in front of the property, current signs allow for 130 feet of two hour
parking and the rest is no parking. The south side of 23rd Street is currently signed as no parking.
Hillcrest Development has purchased the building at 5320 W. 23rd St. The Minneapolis developer is
renovating the 256,000 square foot facility into flexible, multi-tenant industrial spaces. The building is
nearly fully leased and tenants are currently building out their spaces. Announced tenants include:
Zerorez, and The Fish Guys. Hillcrest Development along with the Zerorez, Luther Westside
Volkswagen, and ABRA have asked the city to evaluate the current parking restrictions and have asked to
allow parking for all 330 feet in front of 5320 W. 23rd Street (North side of 23rd Street). The requested
parking allows for more parking for customers and visitors. The businesses have asked the City to sign
the north side of the street as no parking between 10 pm and 6 am to prevent vehicles from parking on the
street overnight and long term.
The Traffic Committee discussed the issue and recommends the two hour parking and no parking signs be
removed to better accommodate on-street parking. The committee concluded that current conditions on
the street are different due to the new development. The committee recommends replacing the current
signs and installing new signs that allow parking during the day but restricts parking from 10 p.m. to 6
a.m. The attached traffic study figure depicts the location of the parking changes.
The city has received letters and emails of support from the local business on 23rd Street in support of this
change (see attached).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and
will come out of the general operating budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Traffic Study #656
Letters/Emails of Support from Businesses
Resolution No. 3728 & No. 92-174
Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 West 23rd Street
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING REVISION OF
PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON 5320 W. 23RD STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 656
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that the parking restrictions (Two Hour Parking) on the north side of 23rd Street
along 5320 W. 23rd Street need to be revised.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized to amend Resolution No. 3728 and
Resolution No. 92-174.
2. The Engineering Director is hereby authorized install “No Parking 10 p.m. to 6 a.m.”
restrictions on the north side of 23rd Street in front of 5320 W. 23rd Street.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6 , 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Title: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 West 23rd Street
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 656
5320 West 23rd Street
(Revision of Parking Restrictions)
Proposed Parking Restrictions
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 West 23rd Street Page 4
1
Aaron Wiesen
From:Steve Hendricks <steve.hendricks@westsidevw.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2015 3:52 PM
To:Aaron Wiesen
Cc:Linda McGinty; Kathy Dickson
Subject:Parking
Hi Aaron,
We would like the additional street parking located on the Westside Drive frontage road, and if possible set up an
unloading area on the west section of Westside Drive. Thanks for your help in this matter and if you need any more
information, please let me know. Take Care,
Sincerely,
Steve Hendricks
Steve Hendricks
General Manager
Luther Westside Volkswagen
612‐802‐1230
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 West 23rd Street Page 5
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Title: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 West 23rd StreetPage 6
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 West 23rd Street Page 7
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 4e)
Title: Traffic Study No. 656: Authorize Revision of Parking Restrictions on 5320 West 23rd Street Page 8
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing - Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution
– Jones Harrison Residence Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, take testimony,
and then close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing issuance of Health
Care Facilities Revenue Refunding Bonds for Jones-Harrison.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council willing to issue Health Care Facilities
Revenue Refunding Bonds, 2015 for Jones Harrison in an aggregate principal amount not to
exceed $13,000,000?
SUMMARY: Jones Harrison Residence owns and operates a 163-bed skilled care facility and
57-unit assisted living facility on a 5.3 acre site adjacent to Cedar Lake in Minneapolis. Jones
Harrison issued private activity revenue bonds in 2005 through the City of Minneapolis for its
health care facility. The City of Minneapolis has restrictions on unrated debt in its private
activity revenue policy, so Jones Harrison is requesting host approval from the City of
Minneapolis to allow the bonds to be issued by the City of St. Louis Park. This host approval is
on the City of Minneapolis City Council agenda for July 10, 2015.
The Series 2015 Bonds, with an amount not to exceed $13,000,000 will be directly purchased by
Northland Securities Inc. in a negotiated sale, which is allowable under the City’s policy.
NEXT STEPS: Pending Council approval, the bonds will close within several weeks of Council
approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Per the City’s private activity revenue bond
policy, Jones Harrison will pay an annual administration fee in the amount of 1/8th of 1%
(.125%) of the outstanding principal of the bonds. This amounts to approximately $240,000 over
the 25 year life of the bonds. The City uses this administration fee in the Housing Rehabilitation
Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution - Jones Harrison Residence Project
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE, SALE, AND DELIVERY OF THE CITY’S
REVENUE BONDS FOR THE BENEFIT OF JONES-HARRISON RESIDENCE,
WHICH SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM REVENUES PLEDGED
PURSUANT TO THE INDENTURE AND THE LOAN AGREEMENT;
APPROVING THE FORM OF AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF THE REVENUE BONDS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) is a home rule charter
city and political subdivision duly organized and existing under its Charter and the Constitution
and laws of the State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Housing Act”),
authorizes a municipality to carry out the public purposes described in the Housing Act by
providing for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance or refinance multifamily
housing developments (including nursing and assisted living facilities); and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.656, as amended, authorizes a
municipality to issue obligations to finance or refinance the acquisition or improvement of
property located outside of the corporate boundaries of such municipality if the obligations are
issued under a joint powers agreement between the municipality issuing the obligations and the
municipality in which the property to be acquired or improved is located; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, as amended, by the terms
of a joint powers agreement entered into through action of their governing bodies, two
municipalities may jointly or cooperatively exercise any power common to the contracting
parties or any similar powers, including those which are the same except for the territorial limits
within which they may be exercised and the joint powers agreement may provide for the exercise
of such powers by one or more of the participating governmental units on behalf of the other
participating units; and
WHEREAS, on September 28, 2005, the City of Minneapolis (the “City of
Minneapolis”) issued its Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Jones-Harrison Residence
Project), Series 2005 (the “Series 2005 Bonds”), in the original aggregate principal amount of
$14,030,000, and loaned the proceeds thereof to Jones-Harrison Residence, a Minnesota
nonprofit corporation (the “Corporation”), to (i) refinance the Corporation’s 163-bed skilled
nursing facility and 57-unit assisted living facility located at 3700 Cedar Lake Avenue in the
City of Minneapolis (the “Facilities”) by refunding the Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds
(Jones-Harrison Residence Project), Series 1998, issued by the City of Minneapolis in the
original aggregate principal amount of $10,000,000; (ii) finance various capital improvements to
the assisted living facility; (iii) fund a reserve fund for the Series 2005 Bonds; and (iv) pay the
costs of issuance of the Series 2005 Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation has requested that the City issue its health care facilities
revenue refunding bonds, in one or more series, as taxable or tax-exempt obligations (the
“Bonds”), in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $13,000,000, for the purposes of (i)
refinancing the Facilities through the redemption and prepayment of the outstanding Series 2005
Bonds; (ii) funding a debt service reserve fund for the Bonds; and (iii) paying costs of issuance
of the Bonds; and
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution - Jones Harrison Residence Project
WHEREAS, the City and the City of Minneapolis are proposing to enter into a
Cooperative Agreement, to be dated on or after August 1, 2015 (the “Cooperative Agreement”),
pursuant to which the City of Minneapolis will consent to the issuance of the Bonds by the City
to refinance the Facilities, and the City will agree to issue the Bonds to refinance the Facilities;
and
WHEREAS, the Community Development and Regulatory Services Committee of the
Minneapolis City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 23, 2015, on the
issuance of the Bonds by the City to refinance the Facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Minneapolis City Council will meet on July 10, 2015, to approve the
issuance of the Bonds by the City to refinance the Facilities and to authorize the execution and
delivery of the Cooperative Agreement; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Housing Act, the City has prepared a housing
program (the “Housing Program”), which authorizes the issuance of the Bonds by the City to
refinance the Facilities, and the Housing Program was submitted to the Metropolitan Council for
its review and comment; and
WHEREAS, the Corporation has represented to the City that it is exempt from federal
income taxation under Section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), as a result of the application of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code; and
WHEREAS, Section 147(f) of the Code, and regulations promulgated thereunder, and
Section 462C.04 of the Housing Act require that prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the City
Council approve the issuance of the Bonds after conducting a public hearing thereon preceded by
publication of a notice of public hearing (in the form required by Section 147(f) of the Code and
applicable regulations) in a newspaper of general circulation within the City at least fifteen (15)
days prior to the public hearing date; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing (the “Public Notice”) was published at least
fifteen (15) days before the regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council of the City in the
Sun-Sailor, the official newspaper and a newspaper of general circulation in the City, with
respect to the required public hearing under Section 147(f) of the Code and the Housing Act; and
WHEREAS, on the date hereof, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing at which a reasonable opportunity was provided for interested individuals to express
their views, both orally and in writing, on the following issues: (i) approval of the issuance of the
Bonds pursuant to the requirements of Section 147(f) of the Code and the regulations
promulgated thereunder; and (ii) approval of the Housing Program pursuant to the requirements
of the Housing Act; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds are to be issued by the City pursuant to the Housing Act,
Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59, and an Indenture of Trust, to be dated on or after August 1,
2015 (the “Indenture”), between the City and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the
“Trustee”), and the City will loan the proceeds of the Bonds to the Corporation pursuant to a
Loan Agreement, to be dated on or after August 1, 2015 (the “Loan Agreement”), between the
City and the Corporation; and
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution - Jones Harrison Residence Project
WHEREAS, the principal, premium (if any), and interest on the Bonds (i) shall be
payable solely from the revenue pledged therefor; (ii) shall not constitute a debt of the City
within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory limitation; (iii) shall not constitute nor give
rise to a pecuniary liability of the City or a charge against its general credit or taxing powers; and
(iv) shall not constitute a charge, lien, or encumbrance, legal or equitable, upon any property of
the City other than the City’s interest in the Loan Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Loan Agreement requires the Corporation to make payments thereunder
in amounts and at times sufficient to pay the principal of, premium (if any), and interest on the
Bonds when due, and the loan repayments required to be made by the Corporation to the City
under the terms of the Loan Agreement will be assigned by the City to the Trustee to secure the
payment of the principal of, premium (if any), and interest on the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, to secure its obligations under the Loan Agreement, the Corporation will
provide a mortgage lien on and a secured interest in certain of its property to the Trustee
pursuant to an Amended and Restated Mortgage Agreement, to be dated on or after August 1,
2015 (the “Mortgage”); and
WHEREAS, Jones-Harrison Foundation, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (the
“Guarantor”), is expected to deliver a Guaranty Agreement, to be dated on or after August 1,
2015 (the “Guaranty”), as additional security for the Corporation’s obligations under the Loan
Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, AS FOLLOWS:
1. The Housing Program, in the form substantially on file with the City, is hereby
approved.
2. For the purposes set forth above, there is hereby authorized the issuance, sale, and
delivery of the Bonds in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $13,000,000. The Bonds
shall bear interest, shall be numbered, shall be dated, shall mature, shall be subject to redemption
prior to maturity, shall be in such form, and shall have such other terms, details, and provisions
as are prescribed in the Indenture, in substantially the form now on file with the City.
3. All of the provisions of the Bonds, when executed as authorized herein, shall be
deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim
herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The
Bonds shall be substantially in the form on file with the City, which is hereby approved, with
such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions (including changes to the
principal amount of the Bonds, the determination of the interest rates on the Bonds, and changes
to the terms of redemption of the Bonds) as the Mayor and the City Manager of the City (the
“Mayor” and “City Manager,” respectively), in their discretion, shall determine. The execution
of the Bonds with the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and the City Manager and the
delivery of the Bonds by the City shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
4. The Bonds shall be special, limited obligations of the City payable solely from the
revenues provided by the Corporation pursuant to the Loan Agreement and other funds pledged
pursuant to the Indenture and shall be issued in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$13,000,000. The City Council of the City hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution - Jones Harrison Residence Project
Manager to execute and deliver the Indenture to the Trustee, hereby authorizes and directs the
execution of the Bonds in accordance with the terms of the Indenture, and hereby provides that
the Indenture shall provide the terms and conditions, covenants, rights, obligations, duties, and
agreements of the owners of the Bonds, the City and the Trustee as set forth therein.
5. All of the provisions of the Indenture, when executed as authorized herein, shall
be deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated
verbatim herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery
thereof. The Indenture shall be substantially in the form on file with the City, which is hereby
approved, with such necessary and appropriate variations, omissions, and insertions as do not
materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City Manager, in their
discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall
be conclusive evidence of such determination.
6. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to execute
and deliver the Loan Agreement, the Cooperative Agreement, and the Bond Purchase
Agreement, to be dated after the date hereof (the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), between the
City, the Corporation, and Northland Securities, Inc., as the original purchaser of the Bonds (the
“Underwriter”). All of the provisions of the Loan Agreement, the Cooperative Agreement, and
the Bond Purchase Agreement, when executed and delivered as authorized herein, shall be
deemed to be a part of this resolution as fully and to the same extent as if incorporated verbatim
herein and shall be in full force and effect from the date of execution and delivery thereof. The
Loan Agreement, the Cooperative Agreement, and the Bond Purchase Agreement shall be
substantially in the forms on file with the City which are hereby approved, with such omissions
and insertions as do not materially change the substance thereof, or as the Mayor and the City
Manager, in their discretion, shall determine, and the execution thereof by the Mayor and the
City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of such determination.
7. The Bonds shall be revenue obligations of the City the proceeds of which shall be
disbursed pursuant to the Indenture and the Loan Agreement, and the principal, premium, if any,
and interest on the Bonds shall be payable solely from the proceeds of the Bonds, the revenues
derived from the Loan Agreement, the revenues and assets pledged and assigned under the terms
of the Mortgage and the other sources set forth in the Indenture. The Trustee is hereby
authorized and directed to accept from the Corporation any additional instruments, documents, or
other security provided by the Corporation, at its direction, to secure the obligations of the
Corporation under the Loan Agreement and Mortgage or to secure the Bonds, including but not
limited to the Guaranty.
8. The Trustee is hereby appointed as Paying Agent and Bond Registrar for the
Bonds.
9. The Mayor and the City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and deliver, on
behalf of the City, such other documents as are necessary or appropriate in connection with the
issuance, sale, and delivery of the Bonds, including one or more certificates of the City, an
endorsement to the Corporation’s Tax Certificate, an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Private
Activity Bond Issues, IRS Form 8038 (Rev. April 2011), and all other documents and certificates
as shall be necessary and appropriate in connection with the issuance, sale, and delivery of the
Bonds. The City hereby approves the execution and delivery by the Trustee of the Indenture and
all other instruments, certificates, and documents prepared in conjunction with the issuance of
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution - Jones Harrison Residence Project
the Bonds that require execution by the Trustee. The City hereby authorizes Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, as bond counsel of the City, to prepare, execute, and deliver its approving legal
opinion with respect to the Bonds.
10. The City has not participated in the preparation of the Preliminary Official
Statement (the “Preliminary Official Statement”) or the Official Statement (the “Official
Statement”) relating to the Bonds and has made no independent investigation with respect to the
information contained therein, including the appendices thereto, and the City assumes no
responsibility for the sufficiency, accuracy, or completeness of such information. Subject to the
foregoing, the City hereby consents to the distribution and the use by the Underwriter in
connection with the sale of the Bonds of the Preliminary Official Statement and the Official
Statement. The Preliminary Official Statement and the Official Statement are the sole materials
consented to by the City for use in connection with the offer and sale of the Bonds. The City
hereby approves the Continuing Disclosure Agreement, to be dated on or after August 1, 2015
(the “Disclosure Agreement”), between the Corporation and U.S. Bank National Association, as
the dissemination agent (the “Dissemination Agent”), in the form now on file with the City, and
hereby authorizes the Dissemination Agent to execute and deliver the Disclosure Agreement.
11. All covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements of the City contained
herein and in the aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be the covenants, stipulations,
obligations, and agreements of the City to the full extent authorized or permitted by law, and all
such covenants, stipulations, obligations, and agreements shall be binding upon the City. Except
as otherwise provided herein, all rights, powers, and privileges conferred and duties and
liabilities imposed upon the City or the City Council by the provisions of this resolution or of the
aforementioned documents shall be exercised or performed by the City or by such members of
the City Council, or such officers, board, body or agency thereof as may be required or
authorized by law to exercise such powers and to perform such duties.
No covenant, stipulation, obligation or agreement herein contained or contained in the
aforementioned documents shall be deemed to be a covenant, stipulation, obligation or
agreement of any member of the City Council of the City, or any officer, agent or employee of
the City in that person’s individual capacity, and neither the City Council of the City nor any
officer or employee executing the Bonds shall be liable personally on the Bonds or be subject to
any personal liability or accountability by reason of the issuance thereof.
No provision, covenant or agreement contained in the aforementioned documents, the
Bonds or in any other document relating to the Bonds, and no obligation therein or herein
imposed upon the City or the breach thereof, shall constitute or give rise to any pecuniary
liability of the City or any charge upon its general credit or taxing powers. In making the
agreements, provisions, covenants, and representations set forth in such documents, the City has
not obligated itself to pay or remit any funds or revenues, other than funds and revenues derived
from the Loan Agreement and the Mortgage, which are to be applied to the payment of the
Bonds, as provided therein and in the Indenture.
12. Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, nothing herein or in the
aforementioned documents expressed or implied, is intended or shall be construed to confer upon
any person or firm or corporation, other than the City or any holder of the Bonds issued under
the provisions of this resolution, any right, remedy or claim, legal or equitable, under and by
reason of this resolution or any provisions hereof, this resolution, the aforementioned documents
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Title: Private Activity Revenue Bond Refunding & Approval of Resolution - Jones Harrison Residence Project
and all of their provisions being intended to be and being for the sole and exclusive benefit of the
City and any holder from time to time of the Bonds issued under the provisions of this resolution.
13. In case any one or more of the provisions of this resolution, other than the
provisions contained in the first sentence of Section 4 hereof, or of the aforementioned
documents, or of the Bonds issued hereunder shall for any reason be held to be illegal or invalid,
such illegality or invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this resolution, or of the
aforementioned documents, or of the Bonds, but this resolution, the aforementioned documents,
and the Bonds shall be construed and endorsed as if such illegal or invalid provisions had not
been contained therein.
14. The Bonds, when executed and delivered, shall contain a recital that they are
issued pursuant to the Housing Act, and such recital shall be conclusive evidence of the validity
of the Bonds and the regularity of the issuance thereof, and that all acts, conditions, and things
required by the laws of the State of Minnesota relating to the adoption of this resolution, to the
issuance of the Bonds, and to the execution of the aforementioned documents to happen, exist
and be performed precedent to the execution of the aforementioned documents have happened,
exist and have been performed as so required by law.
15. The officers of the City, bond counsel, other attorneys, engineers, and other
agents or employees of the City are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them
by or in connection with this resolution, the aforementioned documents, and the Bonds for the
full, punctual, and complete performance of all the terms, covenants, and agreements contained
in the Bonds, the aforementioned documents and this resolution. In the event that for any reason
the Mayor is unable to carry out the execution of any of the documents or other acts provided
herein, any other member of the City Council of the City shall be authorized to act in his
capacity and undertake such execution or acts on behalf of the City with full force and effect,
which execution or acts shall be valid and binding on the City. If for any reason the City
Manager is unable to execute and deliver the documents referred to in this resolution, such
documents may be executed by a member of the City Council, with the same force and effect as
if such documents were executed and delivered by the City Manager.
16. The City understands that the Corporation will pay directly to the City any and all
costs paid or incurred by the City in connection with the transactions authorized herein, whether
or not the Bonds are issued. The City further understands that the Corporation will pay to the
City its administrative fee for the issuance of conduit debt.
17. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item:6b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing Liquor Barrel Off-Sale Liquor License - New Ownership
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Yayin Gadol, LLC,
dba Liquor Barrel, located at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard, for the license term through March 1,
2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve the off-sale intoxicating
liquor license for Yayin Gadol, LLC?
SUMMARY: The City received an application from Yayin Gadol, LLC, dba Liquor Barrel, for
an off-sale intoxicating liquor license located at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard within the Miracle
Mile Shopping Center. This existing liquor establishment location is currently owned by MM
Liquor Barrel, Inc. who began operation in July of 2005, and is in the process of selling the
business to Yayin Gadol, LLC. The premise consists of approximately 4,500 square feet.
Jonathan Halper, CEO, David Halper, and Joel Waller each hold approximately 33% interest in
the company. Hours of operation will be Monday – Saturday, 8:00 am to 10:00 pm, which is the
full range of hours allowed by Minnesota State Statute.
Should Council approve the liquor license, no actual license is issued until all final State/City
compliance requirements are met.
The Police Department has run a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered
during the course of this investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application
and Police report are on file in the Office of the City Clerk should Council members wish to
review the information prior to the public hearing. The required notice of the public hearing was
published June 25, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the
police background investigation and $380 for the annual license fee.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Inchin Corporation dba Blue Fox Bar & Grill - On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale
Sunday Liquor License
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close
public hearing. Motion to approve application from Inchin Corporation dba Blue Fox Bar &
Grill, for an On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Sunday Liquor License to be located at 5377 W.
16th St., with the license term through March 1, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the liquor license for Inchin
Corporation?
SUMMARY: The City received an application from Inchin Corporation, dba Blue Fox Bar &
Grill, for an On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Sunday Liquor license for a new restaurant to be
located at 5377 W. 16th St. The proposed premise is 3,900 square feet in size, with an indoor
seating capacity of 110 and outdoor patio seating for 20.
Venkata S. Kaza and Naresh Veeramachineni are the owners of the establishment. Mr. Kaza will
also serve as the manager of the restaurant. Inchin Corporation plans to open the restaurant in
August, 2015. The proposed location at the Shoppes at West End will be in the space formerly
occupied by Little Szechuan. The owners also are the proprietors of another restaurant in
Fridley, Paradise Biryani Pointe.
The Police Department conducted a full background investigation, and nothing was discovered
during the course of the investigation that would warrant denial of the license. The application
and police report are on file in the City Clerk’s office, should Council members wish to review
the information. The required notice of the public hearing was published June 25, 2015.
Should Council approve the liquor license, no actual license will be issued until all requirements
have been met with the City Inspections Department, Hennepin County, and the State Alcohol
and Gambling Enforcement Division.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Fees for this applicant include $500 for the
police background investigation and $8,950 for the On-Sale Intoxicating and On-Sale Sunday
annual license fee. Pursuant to City Code provisions, the license fee will be pro-rated for the
remainder of the license term based on the actual date the restaurant opens.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None.
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening , City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to open the public hearing, take public
testimony, and then close the hearing.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council interested in promoting cable television (TV)
competition and choice in St. Louis Park through consideration of this franchise application?
SUMMARY: CenturyLink submitted an application for a cable TV franchise in St. Louis Park
on June 8, 2015. CenturyLink will make a presentation to the City Council about the application
on July 6, 2015, as part of a public hearing required by Minnesota Statute 238.08.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Application of Qwest Broadband Services dba CenturyLink
Moss & Barnett Report to the City of St. Louis Park
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Jacqueline Larson, Communications & Marketing Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d) Page 2
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Background on Competitive Franchise Process
The City has hired Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett to assist with the competitive franchise
process. Mr. Grogan made a presentation to the City Council about requirements in state and
federal law that pertain to this process at a study session on April 13, 2015.
The City published the required notice of intent to franchise in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on
May 14 and 21, 2015, which set a closing date of June 8, 2015, for applicants to apply.
CenturyLink submitted an application prior to the deadline and included the required application
fee of $10,000.
Moss & Barnett has reviewed the application and the legal, technical and financial qualifications
of the applicant and issued a detailed report (attached) with this recommendation:
Based on our review of CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications, we
believe that the City cannot reasonably withhold approval of CenturyLink’s request for a
cable communications franchise. We recommend the City consider adoption of the
attached resolution which will establish findings of fact regarding CenturyLink’s
qualifications.
If the City adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit F, the City will then be in a position
to consider the grant of a franchise to CenturyLink at a future City Council meeting,
assuming mutually acceptable franchise terms can be reached with CenturyLink.
CenturyLink is actively engaged in franchise negotiations with numerous Twin Cities local
franchise authorities (LFA’s) and has signed a franchise with the City of Minneapolis.
State Law
Minnesota Statute 238 guides the cable TV franchise process in Minnesota, and CenturyLink’s
application was based on requirements in the statute. A key issue is raised in Minnesota Statute
238.08, which says:
(b) No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area
included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less
burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2)
public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees.
CenturyLink argues that this part of the Statute has been preempted by a 2007 Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) ruling that addressed level playing field and build out
requirements as “an unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise.” A full description
of CenturyLink’s position is listed on pages 9-14 of their application (attached).
It’s possible that litigation will decide the issue, and no lawsuits have been filed yet.
CenturyLink has made a practice of indemnifying cities that award a franchise, and the City of
St. Louis Park would expect the same.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d) Page 3
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise
CenturyLink Application Summary
Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., D/B/A CenturyLink, submitted a franchise application to the
City of St. Louis Park. See Exhibit E of the application for a chart showing the company
structure. The parent company is CenturyLink, Inc., which employs 3,000 people in the state of
Minnesota.
CenturyLink has offered the Prism cable TV service since 2008, and now has 240,000 customers
in 14 markets, including LaCrosse, Wis., Phoenix, Ariz., Denver, Colo. and Las Vegas, Nev.
CenturyLink proposes to improve its infrastructure to deliver an all-digital cable TV system from
a head end in Golden Valley. Prism offers a choice of four levels of service and premium
packages available as add-ons, with prices starting at $54.99 per month for a promotional rate
and $74.99 as a rack rate. The digital system offers many high definition (HD) channels,
premium channels and video on demand (VOD) programs and movies.
CenturyLink will deploy Prism over facilities owned by an affiliated company, Qwest
Corporation D/B/A CenturyLink.
CenturyLink offers two network architectural designs to bring Prism to customers: fiber to the
node (FTTN) or fiber to the premises (FTTP). The quality of the service is of the same technical
quality regardless of the delivery infrastructure. The system is Ethernet-based, switched digital
video, which allows advanced features like fast channel changes, access to Internet-based
streaming content, find-it-fast navigation, multi-view channels on one screen, and whole home
DVR. A demonstration is available at: http://www.centurylink.com/prismtv/#index.html.
A set-top box is required for each television to receive the service. CenturyLink recently
introduced a wireless set-top box which allows the user to move Prism to locations like a garage
or patio.
CenturyLink’s application addresses the carrying of Park TV local cable channels, which would
show all five channels in a picture-in-picture display called a “mosaic.” Viewers select a picture
and switch to that channel. St. Louis Park Prism customers would have access to all 103 local
access TV channels from around the metro area. This would allow customers to watch a St.
Louis Park High School sports game played in Bloomington or Chaska, or the Hopkins
Raspberry Parade, or a concert recorded in Minneapolis or St. Paul. Typically, Park TV covers
events here in St. Louis Park.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
This public hearing is one required step in the competitive franchise process. The next step is a
resolution approving CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial ability to operate a cable TV
system in St. Louis Park, which is later on this evening’s agenda. Following that, the next step is
to enter franchise negotiations with CenturyLink. The existing franchise with Comcast, which
has been provided to CenturyLink, will be the starting point.
CenturyLink has verbally identified two known problem areas in committing to a franchise in the
City of St. Louis Park. These items will become part of the franchise negotiation process and are
as follows:
• Undetermined universal residential coverage goals of CenturyLink versus Comcast. It’s
unclear whether or not CenturyLink will commit to offer cable TV service to the entire
city of St. Louis Park.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d) Page 4
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise
• Undetermined support of Public, Educational and Government (PEG) facilities and
programming by CenturyLink versus Comcast over the life of the franchise. CenturyLink
has verbally indicated they are uncertain about their intent to pay a lump sum $800,000
capital equipment grant that would be due six months after the start of the franchise. This
is the first installment of a total $1.1 million grant payment to support local cable
origination. The amount is required of CenturyLink in order to achieve a level playing
field (see the Minnesota statute cited earlier in the report), as Comcast was required to
pay this amount as part of its franchise agreement.
If a franchise agreement cannot be reached, CenturyLink would be unable to offer service in St.
Louis Park. CenturyLink is negotiating with many neighboring local franchise authorities, so it’s
possible that residents in those cities may have the option of ordering CenturyLink cable TV
services, while St. Louis Park residents would not, or not at the same time.
SCHEDULE:
• June 8, 2015: CenturyLink submits franchise application with $10,000 application fee
• June 22, 2015 Study Session: Written report with overview of the franchise process
• July 6, 2015 City Council: Public Hearing, and CenturyLink’s presentation about the
application. Attorney Brian Grogan presents report about CenturyLink’s legal, technical
and financial qualifications. Council considers resolution regarding applicant’s
qualifications.
• July/August: City staff, Telecommunications Advisory Commission subcommittee, and
Brian Grogan enter franchise negotiations with CenturyLink
• August 12, 2015: Draft franchise reviewed by Telecommunications Advisory
Commission
• August 24, 2015 Study Session: Written and/or verbal report about draft franchise
• September 8, 2015 City Council: City Council considers award of franchise. (Deadline
for Council action is within 90 days of franchise application. The term can be extended).
• September, 2015: If successful, applicant accepts franchise document and submits
required closing documentation (typically within 30 days of the grant of a franchise).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 5
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 6
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 7
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 8
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 9
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 10
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 11
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 12
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 13
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 14
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 15
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 16
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 17
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 18
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 19
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 20
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 21
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 22
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 23
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 24
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 25
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 26
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 27
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 28
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 29
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 30
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 31
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d) Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV FranchisePage 32
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d) Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV FranchisePage 33
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d) Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV FranchisePage 34
Report to the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Regarding Qwest Broadband Services, Inc.,
d/b/a/ CenturyLink - Proposal for a
Cable Communication Franchise
June 24, 2015
Prepared by:
Brian T. Grogan, Esq.
Yuri B. Berndt, Esq.
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Ɩ Minneapolis, MN 55402
(P) 612-877-5000 Ɩ (F) 612-877-5999 Ɩ (W) lawmoss.com
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 35
i
2878266v1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 2
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY CITY ...................................................................... 9
INFORMATION REVIEWED .............................................................................. 10
CENTURYLINK’S LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................... 11
CENTURYLINK’S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 12
CENTURYLINK’S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS.............................................. 16
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 22
EXHIBIT A ENTITY DETAILS FROM THE DELAWARE DIVISION OF
CORPORATIONS
EXHIBIT B MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE BUSINESS RECORD DETAILS
EXHIBIT C MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE UCC/TAX LIEN FILING
RECORD SEARCH AND JUDGMENT RECORD SEARCH
EXHIBIT D PACER CASE LOCATOR SUMMARY AND THE ACTIVE CASE
SUMMARY
EXHIBIT E CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY
EXHIBIT F PROPOSED RESOLUTION
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 36
1
2878266v1
INTRODUCTION
Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink (hereinafter referred to as
“CenturyLink”) requested the issuance of a cable communications franchise from the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) to provide cable services in the City.
The City contacted Moss & Barnett seeking input regarding the appropriate procedure
to be followed to consider the award of a cable communications franchise to
CenturyLink or any other applicant. Moss & Barnett reviewed state and federal
statutory requirements with City representatives and developed a comprehensive
franchise procedure to comply with applicable laws. This report will include a summary
of Moss & Barnett’s findings and recommendations.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, the City published a Notice of
Intent to Franchise and requested applications for a franchise from any interested
applicants. Applicants were instructed to obtain from the City a Request for Proposal
Official Application Form. Prior to the deadline for submitting applications the City
received only one (1) application - from CenturyLink.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, the City held a public hearing to
receive input from interested parties regarding CenturyLink’s application.
This report will review relevant statutory requirements that the City must follow in
processing a request for a cable communications franchise. Thereafter, the report will
review CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications to provide cable
services in the City and address whether CenturyLink’s application complies with State
statutory requirements. Finally, this report will provide recommendations for the City
Council’s consideration in taking action with regard to CenturyLink’s application.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 37
2
2878266v1
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
A. Federal Regulatory Scheme: Competition among Cable Television
Providers and the Federal Cable Act
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Cable Act”), contains many provisions
relevant to the application before the City. According to the Cable Act, one of its
primary purposes is to:
promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary
regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable
systems.1
Furthermore, 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(1) provides that a franchising authority may
award one or more franchises within its jurisdiction. To that end, the Cable Act states:
that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may
not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive
franchise.2
Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final
decision of a franchising authority is not without recourse. The applicant may appeal
an adverse decision pursuant to the provisions of Section 635 of the Cable Act.
The Cable Act also provides that a city may require certain assurances from the
prospective franchisee. Subsection 4 of 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a) provides that:
in awarding a franchise, the franchising authority –
a. shall allow the applicant’s cable system a reasonable period of time to
become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise
area;
b. may require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide
adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity,
facilities, or financial support; and
c. may require adequate assurance that the cable operator has the financial,
technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service.
1 47 U.S.C. Section 521(b).
2 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(1) (emphasis added).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 38
3
2878266v1
When Congress passed the 1992 amendments to the Cable Act, Congress suggested
that it favors competition in the delivery of cable communications services. The Senate
report that accompanied the amendments concluded that:
Based on the evidence and the record taken as a whole, it is clear that
there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus,
the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be
encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the Cable Act
as amended], prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably
refusing to grant second franchises.3
B. Federal Communications Commission Observations on Competition in
the Cable Television Industry
The Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”) annual competition reports in
video markets have found that subscribers have generally benefited from “head-to-
head” competition in the delivery of cable services. Benefits enjoyed by
consumers as a resul t of the increased competition include:
a. lower monthly charges for services and equipment;
b. additional program offerings;
c. access to alternative sources of telecommunications and Internet
services;
d. new digital services; and
e. better customer service from the in cumbent cable operator.
The FCC completed rulemaking proceedings on competition in the video marketplace
resulting in the FCC’s issuance of what is now known as the FCC 621 Order.4 The Sixth
Circuit affirmed the FCC 621 Order in 2008.5 In the 621 Order the FCC summarized the
evidentiary record in the following manner:
The record indicates that in today’s market, new entrants face “steep
economic challenges” in an “industry characterized by large fixed and
sunk costs,” without the resulting benefits incumbent cable operators
enjoyed for years as monopolists in the video services marketplace.
According to commentators, “a competitive video provider who enters the
market today is in a fundamentally different situation” from that of the
incumbent cable operator: “[w]hen incumbents installed their systems,
3 (emphasis added). S. Rep. No. 102-92, June 28, 1991, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 1133, 1141, 1146, 1151; H.Conf. Rep. No. 102-862, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 1231, 1259.
4 See In the Matter of Implementation of Section 612(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984, 22 FCC Rcd 5101 (Mar. 5, 2007).
5 See Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 39
4
2878266v1
they had a captive market,” whereas new entrants “have to ‘win’ every
customer from the incumbent” and thus do not have “anywhere near the
number of subscribers over which to spread the costs.”
C. Minnesota Statutory and Judicial Treatment of Competition in the
Cable Television Industry
Minnesota Statutes
In addition to the requirements contained in the Cable Act, Minnesota has several
statutory provisions that must be carefully followed by the City when considering the
award of a franchise. In particular, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238.08, titled
Franchise Requirement, states that a municipality must require a franchise or
extension permit of any cable communications system providing service within the
municipality. Further, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, Franchise Procedure,
provides a precise procedure to be followed by a municipality when requesting
applications for a cable communications franchise.
The text of Section 238.08 and Section 238.081 is set forth below to provide the City
with the exact requirements of state law on this matter.
Minnesota Statute Section 238.08, Franchise Requirement, provides in
pertinent part:
Subd. 1. Requirement; conditions.
(a) A municipality shall require a franchise or extension permit of any cable
communications system providing service within the municipality.
(b) No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an
area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or
less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area
served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3)
franchise fees. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply when the area in
which the additional franchise is being sought is not actually being served by any
existing cable communications system holding a franchise for the area. Nothing
in this paragraph prevents a municipality from imposing additional terms and
conditions on any additional franchises.
Subd. 2. Other requirements. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
prevent franchise requirements in excess of those prescribed unless such requirement is
inconsistent with this chapter.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 40
5
2878266v1
Subd. 3. Municipal operation. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit
any municipality from the right to construct, purchase, and operate a cable
communications system. Any municipal system shall be subject to this chapter to the
same extent as would any nonpublic cable communications system.
Subd. 4. Fee, tax or charge. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit
the power of any municipality to impose upon any cable communications company a
fee, tax or charge.
* * * *
Minnesota Statute Section 238.081, Franchise Procedure, provides in pertinent
part:
Subd. 1. Publication of Notice. The franchising authority shall have published
once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in each
municipality within the cable service territory, a notice of intent to consider application
for a franchise other than a franchise renewal pursuant to the United States Code, Title
47, Section 546.
Subd. 2. Required information. The notice must include at least the following
information:
(1) the name of the municipality making the request;
(2) the closing date for submission of applications;
(3) a statement of the application fee, if any, and the method for its
submission;
(4) a statement by the franchising authority of the desired services to be
offered;
(5) a statement by the franchising authority of criteria and priorities against
which the applicants for the franchise must be evaluated;
(6) a statement that applications for the franchise must contain at least the
information required by subdivision 4;
(7) the date, time, and place for the public hearing, to hear proposals from
franchise applicants;
(8) the name, address, and telephone number of the individuals who may be
contacted for further information.
Subd. 3. Other recipients of notice. In addition to the published notice, the
franchising authority shall mail copies of the notice of intent to franchise to any person
it has identified as being a potential candidate for the franchise.
Subd. 4. Contents of franchising proposal. The franchising authority shall
require that proposals for a cable communications franchise be notarized, and contain,
but not necessarily be limited to, the following information:
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 41
6
2878266v1
(1) Plans for channel capacity, including both the total number of channels
capable of being energized in the system and the number of channels to
be energized immediately;
(2) A statement of the television and radio broadcast signals for which
permission to carry will be requested from the Federal Communications
Commission;
(3) A description of the proposed system design and planned operation,
including at least the following items:
(i) the general area for location of antennae and the head end, if
known;
(ii) the schedule for activating two-way capacity;
(iii) the type of automated services to be provided;
(iv) the number of channels and services to be made available for
access cable broadcasting; and
(v) a schedule of charges for facilities and staff assistance for access
cable broadcasting;
(4) the terms and conditions under which particular service is to be provided
to governmental and educational entities;
(5) a schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided,
and a proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of
services;
(6) a time schedule for construction of the entire system with the time
sequence for wiring the various parts of the area requested to be served
in the request for proposals;
(7) a statement indicating the applicant’s qualifications and experience in the
cable communications field, if any;
(8) an identification of the municipalities in which the applicant either owns or
operates a cable communications system directly or indirectly, or has
outstanding franchises for which no system has been built;
(9) plans for financing the proposed system, which must indicate every
significant anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or
conditions with respect to the availability of the indicated sources of
capital;
(10) a statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the
applicant, if any, including the names and addresses of officers and
directors and the number of shares held by each officer or director, and
intracompany relationship including a parent, subsidiary or affiliated
company; and
(11) a notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to
the requirements of the proposal.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 42
7
2878266v1
Substantive amendments may not be made in a proposal after a proposal
has been submitted to the franchising authority and before award of a
franchise.
Subd. 5. Time limits to submit applications. The franchising authority shall
allow at least 20 days from the first date of published notice to the closing date for
submitting applications.
Subd. 6. Public hearing on franchise. A public hearing before the franchising
authority affording reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard with
respect to all applications for the franchise must be completed at least seven days
before the introduction of the franchise ordinance in the proceedings of the franchising
authority.
Subd. 7. Award of franchise. Franchises may be awarded only by ordinance.
Subd. 8. Costs of awarding franchise. Nothing in this section prohibits a
franchising authority from recovering from a successful applicant the reasonable and
necessary costs of the entire process of awarding the cable communications franchise.
* * * *
In addition to the above referenced state statutes, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.084
identifies the required contents of a franchise ordinance. Given that the City has an
existing cable franchise with Comcast (the “Comcast Franchise”) that complies with the
requirements of Section 238.084, the City may, if it so determines, grant substantially
the same ordinance to CenturyLink if the City finds that CenturyLink is a qualified
applicant.
In this proceeding the applicant, CenturyLink, was provided a copy of the Comcast
Franchise. The reason for using substantially the same franchise as the base document
to begin negotiations is to ensure that any and all entities providing cable
communications service within the City are generally regulated in a similar manner.
Both the Comcast Franchise and Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08 include provisions
requiring some form of level playing field obligation which the City must consider before
the award of a second, competitive cable franchise.
Specifically, the Comcast Franchise at Section 28-1-7(3)(A) contains a requirement that
permits the City to grant competitive franchises:
The Company acknowledges and agrees that the City reserves the right to
grant one (1) or more additional franchises or other similar lawful
authorization to provide Cable Services or video programming services
within the City; provided, however, that no such franchise or similar
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 43
8
2878266v1
authorization shall contain material terms or conditions which are
substantially more favorable or less burdensome to the competitive entity
than the material terms and conditions herein.
D. Judicial Treatment: The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ Decision
Regarding Minnesota’s Cable Statutes and Competing Cable Television
Franchises
In its report accompanying the 1992 amendments to the federal Cable Act, the United
States Senate observed that:
In addition to mergers between an incumbent cable system and a
potential competitor, incumbent cable systems often wage legal battles to
prevent cities from awarding second franchises or building their own
franchises.6
In 1999, the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed one of these “legal battles”
referenced by the Senate Report. In In Re Application of Dakota Telecommunications
Group, d/b/a Dakota Telecom, Inc., for a Cable Television Franchise in Marshall,
Minnesota (hereinafter “Dakota Telecom”), the incumbent franchise, Bresnan
Communications (“Bresnan”), challenged the City of Marshall’s (“Marshall”) grant of a
competing franchise to Dakota Telecommunications Group. Bresnan argued, among
other things, that Marshall acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it granted the
competing franchise and that Marshall violated Bresnan’s due process rights.
The Court of Appeals rejected Bresnan’s arguments and generally determined that an
incumbent franchisee may not challenge the general fitness of a competing franchise.
In its opinion, it noted that Minnesota’s cable statutes were “enacted to encourage such
competition.” The opinion further recognized that:
Although [Minnesota’s] Cable Act . . . intends to further the public’s
interest by only awarding franchises to responsible cable operators, it
does not support an incumbent franchisee’s attempt to secure a monopoly
by challenging the fitness of new, competing franchises.
6 S. Rep. No. 102-92, June 28, 1991, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1133, 1141,
1146, 1151; H. Conf. Rep. No. 102-862, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1231, 1259.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 44
9
2878266v1
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY CITY
CenturyLink requested that the City institute the required proceedings to consider the
award of a cable communications franchise to CenturyLink. After consultation with
Moss & Barnett, a detailed procedure was prepared to comply with applicable state and
federal laws regarding the processing of CenturyLink’s request.
The City Council authorized publication of a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable
Communications System. The notice was published once each week for two successive
weeks in the City’s local newspaper of general circulation. The Notice was first
published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on May 14, 2015, and was thereafter
published on May 21, 2015. Copies of the Notice of Intent to Franchise are available
upon request from the City Clerk’s office.
The Notice of Intent to Franchise referenced the City’s Request for Proposals - Official
Application Form that was made available on request at the office of the City Clerk.
Copies of the Notice of Intent to Franchise and Official Application Form were sent to
CenturyLink as well as the incumbent cable operator, Comcast. A copy of the Official
Application Form is available upon request from the City Clerk’s office.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081 the City established a deadline for
submitting applications on June 8,, 2015, at least twenty (20) days following the first
date of publication.
The City published a Notice of a Public Hearing to receive input on CenturyLink’s
application. The Public Hearing is scheduled to be held on July 6, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. All
interested parties will have an opportunity to comment.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 45
10
2878266v1
INFORMATION REVIEWED
Below is a listing of all information received and reviewed by Moss & Barnett. Each
document listed below was reviewed and considered in the preparation of this report,
and are hereby incorporated into this report by reference. The information contained
within these documents is part of the City’s record on which the City’s decision is based.
1. Notice by the City of its Intent to Franchise a Cable Communication
System published on May 14, 2015 and May 21, 2015.
2. The City’s Request for Proposals-Official Application form.
3. Official Application submitted to City from CenturyLink.
4. Supplement information provided by CenturyLink in response to questions
raised by Moss & Barnett (see Financial Qualifications section for complete
list of financial information review).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 46
11
2878266v1
CENTURYLINK’S LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS
The legal qualifications standard relates primarily to an analysis of whether CenturyLink
is duly organized and authorized to provide cable services within the City.
We have reviewed and received the following information with respect to Qwest
Broadband Services, Inc. as of the dates listed below and in the attached Exhibits:
• Delaware Incorporation/Good Standing. The Delaware Division of
Corporations’ Entity Details shows that Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. was
incorporated on May 10, 1999 and is in good standing as of May 13, 2015. See
attached Entity Details from the Delaware Division of Corporations attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
• Minnesota Foreign Registration. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. is
registered as a foreign corporation in the State of Minnesota and is active and in
good standing. Minnesota Business and Lien System, Office of the Minnesota
Secretary of State Business Record Details dated May 13, 2015 attached hereto
as Exhibit B.
• Minnesota UCC/Tax Lien/Judgment Search. Qwest Broadband Services,
Inc. is not subject to any UCC filing/tax lien/judgment in the State of Minnesota.
Minnesota Business and Lien System, Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State
UCC/tax lien filing record search and judgment record search attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
• Civil Actions. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. has been a party to a
number of civil cases, including all of the cases listed on the PACER Case Locator
summary for periods from formation to May 13, 2015. Qwest Broadband
Services, Inc. was also a party in a bankruptcy matter that was dismissed on
January 29, 2002. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. is party to an active patent
infringement case entitled United Access Technologies, LLC v. CenturyTel
Broadband Services, LLC, et al. in the State of Delaware. PACER Case Locator
Summary and the active Case Summary attached hereto as Exhibit D.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 47
12
2878266v1
CENTURYLINK’S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS
The technical qualification standard relates to the technical expertise and experience of
CenturyLink to provide cable services. This report offers no opinion related to the
technology used by CenturyLink to offer cable services.
CenturyLink is offering its Prism service in approximately fifty-eight (58) cities, within
ten (10) states, including: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Currently, CenturyLink provides its
Prism service to approximately 240,000 customers.
In May 2015, we interviewed seven (7) cities in four (4) states where CenturyLink
provides its Prism service in order to ascertain the following:
1. The nature and quality of the relationship between CenturyLink and the city;
2. Whether CenturyLink worked well with the city in resolving cable service
problems;
3. Whether subscribers appear to be satisfied with the services they receive from
CenturyLink; and
4. The extent that CenturyLink supports public, educational and governmental
access programming.
The city official from each community listed below was contacted and asked the
following questions. A summary of the interviews is provided below.
City, State City Official, Title
Gulf Shores, AL Mike Holly, IT Director
Glendale, AZ Mark Gibson, Construction Engineering Manager
Colorado Springs, CO Kathy Lake, Information Technology
Denver, CO Julie Martinez, Director Media Services
Eagle, CO Jon Stavney, Town Manager
Omaha, NE Buster Brown, City Clerk
Papillion, NE Eliza Butler, City Clerk and Karla Rupiper, City Attorney
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS
1. Approximately when (month/year) did your City award CenturyLink a cable
franchise?
Responses ranged from August 2012 to present.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 48
13
2878266v1
2. What percentage of the City (approximately) did CenturyLink first provide cable
service to?
All cities responded that the details are outlined in the franchise, but some
recalled 15-20% initially.
3. Has CenturyLink expanded its service area to provide cable service to more
subscribers since the grant of the franchise?
All replied they were either unsure or yes, expansion has occurred since the city
granted the franchise to CenturyLink.
4. Does the CenturyLink franchise require complete build out or a certain
percentage of build out within a set period of time?
All responses were a certain percentage with details outlined in the franchise.
5. What percentage of the City may be unable to subscribe to cable service from
CenturyLink?
Most cities were uncertain of this %; however, one city replied 100% of city was
served within 18 months.
6. Have there been any amendments to the Franchise granted to CenturyLink? If
so, what was the reason for the franchise amendment?
The majority of the responses were no. Most of these cities just recently granted
franchises to CenturyLink.
7. Is there a local office for CenturyLink in your city? If not, how far away is the
nearest CenturyLink office?
Most cities replied “Yes” and that it is required under the franchise to have a
local office in the city. One city replied “No - however, the closest office is a 10
minute drive.”
8. Does the City have public, educational and governmental access channels? If
yes, how many?
Most replied “Yes”, one replied “No” and one replied “Unsure”.
# of PEG channels responses ranged from 1-7.
9. Does CenturyLink make the City’s PEG access channels available on its cable
system?
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 49
14
2878266v1
All cities with PEG channels replied “Yes”.
10. Did the City have to spend any money on equipment or facilities to make its PEG
channels available to CenturyLink?
All cities with PEG channels replied “No”. One city reported replacing all
equipment with upfront dollars provided by CenturyLink.
11. Have there been any issues or concerns with the manner in which PEG channels
are cablecast by CenturyLink? Are there any differences in the way subscribers obtain
PEG channels on CenturyLink’s system versus the cable system operated by the
incumbent operator?
No known issues reported.
No differences reported.
12. Does CenturyLink provide PEG financial support? If yes, how much?
Responses included amounts of $.20/sub/mo to $1.05/sub/mo. One city
reported up to $1.80 upon advanced notice and another reported a % (unsure of
number).
13. Does CenturyLink provide any other type of PEG financial support – such as
upfront grants, in-kind services, particular equipment, etc.?
Responses included upfront dollars, a one-time payment, a reasonable amount of
on demand programming per state statute and one reported no financial support
for PEG.
14. Has the City received any complaints about CenturyLink’s cable service? If so,
what types of complaints are most often reported to the City?
The majority of the cities interviewed received no customer complaints regarding
CenturyLink. One city has a separate customer service ordinance applicable to
cable operators, and another city reported some complaints were received when
CenturyLink rolled out its Prism service but they seem to have had ample staff on
board to resolve the issues.
15. Does the City receive any complaints about the construction of the CenturyLink
cable plant in the right-of-way or placement of above ground cable facilities in the right-
of-way?
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 50
15
2878266v1
The majority of the cities interviewed receive no complaints regarding ROW
issues. One city reported complaints related to phone and internet services.
16. Does CenturyLink satisfactorily resolve subscriber complaints?
Responses were “Yes” and that CenturyLink has plenty of staff.
17. Does CenturyLink pay its franchise fees to the City on time? Any issues
regarding franchise fee payments by CenturyLink?
All cities reported that franchise fees were paid on time.
18. How would you describe the City’s relationship with CenturyLink? Are there any
specific problems or concerns?
Responses received were: “good working relationship”, “no problems or
concerns”, and “good relationship.”
19. Do you think the City would seek to require any different franchise obligations on
CenturyLink now that the City has experience observing CenturyLink’s cable service in
the City?
One city replied that they will add security fund language to the next franchise.
Several cities replied that they are unsure as they recently renewed or signed the
franchise.
20. Any other issues, concerns or compliments you would like to offer regarding
CenturyLink’s cable service offering in your City?
One City replied they would like the copper technology replaced with fiber to all
residents.
.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 51
16
2878266v1
CENTURYLINK’S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS
I. SCOPE OF REVIEW
Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, (“QBSI”), a Delaware corporation, is
an applicant for a competitive cable franchise agreement (hereinafter referred to as the
“Franchise Agreement”) for the City. CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”), a Louisiana
corporation, indirectly wholly owns QBSI. QBSI operates cable television systems that
provide cable services throughout the United States. QBSI has requested the City’s
approval of a competitive cable franchise agreement. At the request of the City, Moss
& Barnett has reviewed selected financial information that was provided by QBSI and
CenturyLink or publicly available to assess the financial qualifications of QBSI to obtain
and operate a competitive cable franchise.
The financial information that was provided or available through other public sources
and to which our review has been limited, consists solely of the following financial
information (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Financial Statements”):
1. Application of Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink for a
Competitive Cable Franchise dated June 8, 2015, along with such other exhibits
as provided therewith (the “Application”);
2. Form 10-K for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014;
3. Form 10-Q for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2015 for the three-month period ended March 31, 2015;
4. The audited financial statements of CenturyLink, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2014 and 2013, including Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
December 31, 2014 and 2013, Consolidated Statements of Operations,
Comprehensive (Loss) Income, Cash Flows and Stockholder Equity for the years
ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, and the Independent Auditors’
Report of KPMG LLP dated February 24, 2015; and
5. Such other information as we requested and that was provided by QBSI
and CenturyLink relating to the Application.
Our procedure is limited to providing a summary of our analysis of the Financial
Statements in order to facilitate the City’s assessment of the financial capabilities of
QBSI to operate a cable system in the City.
II. OVERVIEW OF QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC.
Since 2008, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, has been
providing cable video services and currently provides full video services under the
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 52
17
2878266v1
Prism™ platform to 14 markets in the United States,7 including in the States of Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Nebraska, Nevada, and North Carolina.8 QBSI’s affiliates provide a
broad range of other communication services including broadband, hosting and
colocation, VoIP, Ethernet, Internet services, and voice services to residential and
commercial customers in various markets in the United States.9 QBSI was formed on
May 10, 1999 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, which is wholly owned by CenturyLink, Inc.10 As
of December 31, 2014, QBSI passed approximately 2.4 million potential customers and
served approximately 240,000 cable customers.11 CenturyLink employs approximately
3,000 employees in Minnesota with about 200 of the 500 network technicians trained in
providing services to QBSI’s Prism™ cable television platform.12 QBSI’s operational
management team has practical experience in the cable industry.13
Cable providers and telecommunication companies operate in a competitive
environment and the financial performance of cable television operators, like QBSI, is
subject to many factors, including, but not limited to, the general business conditions,
programing costs, incumbent operators, digital broadcast satellite service, technology
advancements, changes in consumer behavior, regulatory requirements, advertising
costs, and customer preferences, as well as competition from multiple sources, which
provide and distribute programming, information, news, entertainment and other
telecommunication services.14 QBSI has a limited operating history and is dependent
upon CenturyLink for all of its funding and the financing of its operations.15 The cable
business is inherently capital intensive, requiring capital for the construction and
maintenance of its communications systems. Each of these factors could have a
significant financial impact on QBSI and its ability to operate a cable system in the City.
III. FINDINGS
Based upon the above information, we have analyzed the historical financial statements
of QBSI’s parent entity, CenturyLink, Inc., in evaluating the financial capabilities of
QBSI. QBSI declined to provide us with its stand-alone financial statements or
projected financial information for its future operations and the cost to integrate
Prism™ into its existing infrastructure in the City. We specifically requested that QBSI
provide information on QBSI’s capital expenditures and cash flow budget, but QBSI
7 Application at p. 14.
8 Application – Exhibit D.
9 Form 10-K for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2015 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (“Form 10-K”) at p. 6.
10 Application – Exhibit E.
11 Application at p.14.
12 Application at p. 1.
13 Application at pp. 14-17.
14 Form 10-K at pp. 17-27.
15 Application at p. 18.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 53
18
2878266v1
declined to provide that information to us.16 With respect to our request for projected
financial information, QBSI stated “…it does not provide forward looking information at
the individual market level because it could lead to incorrect or inappropriate
assumptions or conclusions…”. 17 CenturyLink’s historical audited financial statements
do not separately provide the financial information for QBSI.
As such, we are reporting our Findings hereunder based upon CenturyLink’s historical
financial information.
1. Analysis of Financial Statements.
Federal law and FCC regulations provide franchising authorities, such as the City,
with limited guidance concerning the evaluation of the financial qualifications of
an applicant for a cable franchise. In evaluating the financial capabilities of a
cable operator, we believe it is appropriate to consider the performance of an
applicant based on the applicant’s historical performance and its projected or
budgeted financial information along with its financial capabilities (for funding
and financing its entire operation). We were not provided with this information
for QBSI. As such, we believe a general review of CenturyLink’s financial
information may provide some insight into the general financial operations of
CenturyLink with respect to the Application, but we note that there are many
unanswered questions regarding QBSI’s operations going forward.18
As noted above, CenturyLink’s and its subsidiaries’ operations include both cable
television video services and non-cable television services. According to
CenturyLink’s Financial Statements, QBSI’s customers represent a small portion
of CenturyLink’s overall customers.19 The CenturyLink financial information
discussed below includes all of the CenturyLink operations, including the non-
cable television video services. We have analyzed CenturyLink’s Financial
Statements as of March 31, 2015 and as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 in
providing the information in this Section.
2. Specific Financial Statement Data and Analysis.
a. Assets. CenturyLink had (i) current assets of $3,468 million,
$3,576 million, and $3,907 million; (ii) working capital of a negative $111
million, a negative $342 million, and a negative $502 million; and (iii) total
assets of $49,520 million, $50,147 million, and $51,787 million as of
16 Correspondence to author from Patrick Haggerty, Director of State Regulatory and Legislative Affairs,
received on June 24, 2015 (“Correspondence”) at p. 2.
17 Id.
18 Correspondence at pp. 1-2.
19 Form 10-Q for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015 for
the three month period ending March 31, 2015 (“Form 10-Q”) at p. 21 and Application at p. 1.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 54
19
2878266v1
March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.20
Working capital, which is the excess of current assets over current
liabilities, is a short-term analytical tool used to assess the ability of a
particular entity to meet its current financial obligations in the ordinary
course of business. The working capital trend shows a slight decrease in
the negative working capital from December 31, 2013 to March 31, 2015,
which suggests that CenturyLink’s cash flow may be getting stronger.
CenturyLink’s current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) as
of March 31, 2015, of 0.97/1.0 is near the generally recognized standard
of 1:1 for a sustainable business operation.21 As of March 31, 2015,
CenturyLink had $155 million of cash on its balance sheet.22
Approximately one-third of its cash is held off shore and is subject to
restrictions on usage.23 As noted above, QBSI did not provide us with any
budget of cash flow or cost with respect to its expansion of the Prism™
service or any of its other potential cash capital needs. As such, it is
difficult to predict what amount of free cash on hand is needed to bring
the Prism™ system online in the City (and other cities in which QBSI is
rolling out its video service). We also note that approximately fifty-five
percent (55%) of CenturyLink’s assets are comprised of its intangible
Goodwill.24
b. Liabilities. CenturyLink’s Financial Statements report (i) current
liabilities of $3,579 million, $3,918 million and $4,409 million; (ii) long-
term debt of $20,254 million, $20,121 million and $20,181 million; and
(iii) deferred obligations of $10,922 million, $11,085 million and $10,006
million as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 and 2013,
respectively.25 According to CenturyLink, it has $1.7 billion available on its
$2 billion revolving credit facility as of March 31, 2015 (which matures on
December 31, 2019).26 CenturyLink’s credit facilities include affirmative
and negative covenants that if violated, could result in a cascade of
defaults under its debt obligations and an immediate cash and/or
financing needs.27 According to the Financial Statements, CenturyLink is
not in default of these requirements at the current time.28 CenturyLink
has in excess of $2.5 billion of debt maturing in the next 3 years which if
not paid or refinanced could have a significant impact on the financial
20 Form 10-K at p. 69 and Form 10-Q at p. 5.
21 Form 10-Q at p.5.
22 Form 10-Q at p. 30.
23 Form 10-Q at p. 30.
24 Id.
25 Form 10-K at p. 69 and Form 10-Q at p. 5.
26 Form 10-Q at pp. 30 and 32.
27 Form 10-Q at p. 32.
28 Id.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 55
20
2878266v1
viability of CenturyLink.29 Any additional debt, including by drawing on its
available revolving credit facility, will require CenturyLink to generate
additional cash flow, including through its operations, to fund its debt
service. In order to bring the video system online in the City, QBSI claims
that no additional financing is needed and the QBSI operation will be
funded with CenturyLink’s current cash flow.30
c. Income and Expense. CenturyLink’s Statements of Operations
report (i) revenue of $4,451 million, $18,031 million and $18,095 million;
(ii) operating expenses of $3,802 million, $15,621 million and $16,642
million; and (iii) net income (loss) of $192 million, $772 million and ($239)
million for the three-month period ending March 31, 2015 and the years
ending December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.31 CenturyLink is
reporting net income in 2015 and 2014.32 The ability to generate cash is
important for CenturyLink due to its leveraged operations. With the
expansion of Prism™, CenturyLink may be required to incur significant
expenditures for the assimilation of its video services into its existing
platform along with additional programing costs to obtain and maintain its
programming in the future. Over the last 3 years, CenturyLink has been
able to generate cash flow from operations to cover its investing and
financing activities.33
IV. SUMMARY
We are not aware of any state or federal standards by which to assess the financial
qualifications of a competitive cable operator seeking an initial franchise in the City.
The FCC has provided a minimal standard to consider when assessing the qualifications
of a prospective transferee when a cable system is sold or control of the franchise
changes. This FCC financial qualification standard is found in FCC Form 394. Using
the FCC Form 394 to establish an absolute minimum standard of financial qualifications
that a proposed applicant must demonstrate in order to be qualified to obtain and
operate a cable system, QBSI has the burden of demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction
that QBSI has “sufficient net liquid assets on hand or available from committed
resources” to obtain and operate the system in the City, together with its existing
operations, for three (3) months. This minimum standard is not easy to apply to a
company that is in aggressive growth mode and expanding its operations.
Based solely on CenturyLink’s (QBSI’s indirect parent entity) financial information that
we reviewed, CenturyLink appears to have sufficient funding to finance, operate and
bring its cable system online in the City. Based on the foregoing and limited strictly to
29 Form 10-K at p. 82.
30 Correspondence at p. 1.
31Form 10-K at p. 68 and Form 10-Q at p. 4.
32 Id.
33 Form 10-K at p. 70 and Form 10-Q at p. 6.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 56
21
2878266v1
the financial information analyzed in conducting this review, we do not believe that
QBSI’s request for application for a Competitive Cable Franchise in the City can
reasonably be denied based solely on a lack of financial qualifications of QBSI and
CenturyLink. Due to the many uncertainties and lack of information regarding the
proposed funding and future operations, there is not enough information that has been
made available to make any conclusions regarding the financial qualifications of QBSI to
operate a system serving the City. The determination as stated above is based solely
upon the CenturyLink Financial Statements.
In the event the City elects to proceed with approving the issuance of a competitive
cable franchise, the assessment of QBSI’s, and its parent entity CenturyLink’s, financial
qualifications should not be construed in any way to constitute an opinion as to the
financial capability or stability of QBSI or CenturyLink to (i) operate under a competitive
Franchise Agreement, and (ii) operate its other operations. The sufficiency of the
procedures used in making an assessment of QBSI’s and CenturyLink’s financial
qualifications and its capability to operate a competitive system in the City is solely the
responsibility of the City. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the
sufficiency of the procedures used either for the purpose for which this analysis of
financial capabilities and qualifications was requested or for any other purpose.
Lastly, in order to ensure compliance with its obligations to operate the cable system in
the City and since we have based all of our analysis on CenturyLink’s Financial
Statements, the parent entity, the City may seek to require a corporate parent guaranty
as part of issuing a competitive Franchise Agreement to QBSI in a form as set forth in
Exhibit E or as otherwise mutually agreeable to QBSI and the City. In the alternative to
requiring a corporate parent guaranty, the City may seek to require adequate financial
security by imposing a construction bond/performance bond and security fund obligation
to ensure that QBSI has access to financial resources necessary to meet the
requirements of any franchise granted.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 57
22
2878266v1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our review of CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications, we
believe that the City cannot reasonably withhold approval of CenturyLink’s request for a
cable communications franchise. We recommend the City consider adoption of the
attached resolution which will establish findings of fact regarding CenturyLink’s
qualifications.
If the City adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit F, the City will then be in a position
to consider the grant of a franchise to CenturyLink at a future City Council meeting,
assuming mutually acceptable franchise terms can be reached with CenturyLink.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 58
A-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT A
ENTITY DETAILS FROM THE
DELAWARE DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 59
B-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT B
MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE BUSINESS RECORD DETAILS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 60
B-2
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 61
C-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT C
MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE
UCC/TAX LIEN FILING RECORD SEARCH AND JUDGMENT RECORD
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 62
C-2
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 63
D-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT D
PACER CASE LOCATOR SUMMARY
AND THE ACTIVE CASE SUMMARY
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 64
D-2
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 65
D-3
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 66
E-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT E
CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 67
1
2878266v1
CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of __________, 201__ (this “Agreement”),
by and among CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation (the “Guarantor”), the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“Franchising Authority”), and Qwest Broadband Services,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on __________________, 20__ the Franchising Authority adopted
Ordinance No. _____________ granting a Competitive Cable Television Franchise to
the Company (the “Franchise”), pursuant to which the Franchising Authority has
granted the rights to own, operate, and maintain a competitive cable television system
in the City (“System”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. , dated ,
2015, Franchising Authority conditioned its consent to the issuance of a Competitive
Cable Franchise Agreement on the issuance by Guarantor of a corporate parent
guaranty guaranteeing certain obligations of the Company under the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, the Company is indirectly wholly owned by Guarantor, as the parent entity
of a consolidated group which includes the Company.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
in consideration of the approval of the issuance of a Competitive Cable Franchise
Agreement, Guarantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to provide all the
financial resources necessary for the observance, fulfillment and performance of the
obligations of the Company under the Franchise and also to be legally liable for
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 68
2
2878266v1
performance of said obligations in case of default by or revocation or termination for
default of the Franchise.
This Agreement, unless terminated, substituted, or canceled, as provided herein, shall
remain in full force and effect for the duration of the term of the Franchise.
Upon substitution of another Guarantor reasonably satisfactory to the Franchising
Authority, this Agreement may be terminated, substituted, or canceled upon thirty (30)
days prior written notice from Guarantor to the Franchising Authority and the Company.
Such termination shall not affect liability incurred or accrued under this Agreement prior
to the effective date of such termination or cancellation.
GUARANTOR:
CenturyLink, Inc.
By:
Its:
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
20___, by , the
of .
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 69
F-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT F
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 70
1
2878266v1
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
Regarding Findings of Fact with Respect to the Proposal of
Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc.
for a Cable Communications Franchise
RECITALS:
1. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”)
requested that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) commence
proceedings to consider the award of a cable communications franchise to
CenturyLink.
2. Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08(a) mandates that a city require a franchise
for any cable communication system providing service within the city.
3. Federal law at 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a) provides that a city “may not
unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.”
4. The City retained the law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association, to
assist the City in conducting the procedure required under Minnesota Statutes
Section 238.081 and reviewing any applications submitted to the City.
5. The City followed the franchise procedure required by Minnesota Statutes
Section 238.081 by publishing once each week (May 14, 2015 and May 21, 2015)
for two successive weeks in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor a Notice of Intent to
Franchise a Cable Communications System.
6. The Notice stated all eight (8) criteria outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section
238.081, Subd. 2.
7. In addition to the published Notice, the City provided copies of the Notice of
Intent and the Official Application Form to CenturyLink and to the City’s existing
cable operator, Comcast of Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/Mississippi/
Tennessee, Inc. (“Comcast”).
8. The City’s Official Application Form required that proposals for a cable
communications franchise contain responses to each of the items identified in
Minnesota Statute Section 238.081, Subd. 4.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 71
2
2878266v1
9. The City’s closing date for submission of applications was set for June 8, 2015
which complied with the statutory minimum of twenty (20) days from the date of
first publication.
10. Upon the deadline for submitting applications, June 8, 2015, the City received
only one (1) application, from CenturyLink.
11. The City Council determined to call a Public Hearing to consider the application
received from CenturyLink at its regularly scheduled July 6, 2015 meeting.
12. Prior to the Public Hearing the incumbent franchised cable operator serving the
City, Comcast, submitted a letter to the City setting forth Comcast’s position
regarding CenturyLink’s application.
13. All interested parties were provided an opportunity to speak to the City Council
and to present information regarding this matter.
14. The City carefully reviewed all information and documentation presented to it
regarding CenturyLink’s proposal and qualifications to operate a cable
communications system within the City.
15. Based on information and documentation made available to the City and the
report dated June 24, 2015 prepared by Moss & Barnett with respect to
CenturyLink’s application, the City Council has reached conclusions regarding
CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications.
NOW THEREFORE, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City hereby finds that CenturyLink’s application of June 8, 2015 complies
with the requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 238.081.
2. The City finds that CenturyLink possesses the requisite legal, technical and
financial qualifications to operate a cable communications system within the City.
3. City staff is authorized to negotiate with CenturyLink to attempt to reach
mutually acceptable terms for a cable television franchise to be introduced to the
City Council for consideration and action.
4. The City finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the
mandates contained in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and applicable
provisions of federal law including 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 72
3
2878266v1
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of July, 2015
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Its:
ATTEST:
Its:
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 6d)
Title: CenturyLink Application for Cable TV Franchise Page 73
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approve CenturyLink’s Legal, Technical & Financial Qualifications for a Competitive
Cable TV Franchise
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution regarding findings of fact with
respect to the proposal of Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc. for a Cable
Communications Franchise.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council interested in promoting cable TV competition and
choice in St. Louis Park through consideration of this franchise application?
SUMMARY: CenturyLink submitted an application for a cable television (TV) franchise in St.
Louis Park on June 8, 2015. The City’s contract attorney for CenturyLink’s franchise
application process, Moss & Barnett, reviewed the application and CenturyLink’s legal, technical
and financial qualifications. Moss & Barnett issued their report June 24, 2015 that recommends
approval of CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications. Approval of the
resolution authorizes staff to negotiate with CenturyLink to attempt to reach mutually acceptable
terms for a cable television franchise.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Application of Qwest Broadband Services dba CenturyLink
Moss & Barnett Report to the City of St. Louis Park
Draft Resolution
Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Jacqueline Larson, Communications & Marketing Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
Background on Competitive Franchise Process
The City hired Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett to assist with the competitive franchise process.
Mr. Grogan made a presentation to the City Council about requirements in state and federal law
that pertain to this process at a Study Session on April 13, 2015.
Moss & Barnett has reviewed the application and the legal, technical and financial qualifications
of the applicant and issued a detailed report (attached) with this recommendation:
“Based on our review of CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications, we
believe that the City cannot reasonably withhold approval of CenturyLink’s request for a
cable communications franchise. We recommend the City consider adoption of the
attached resolution which will establish findings of fact regarding CenturyLink’s
qualifications.
“If the City adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit F, the City will then be in a position
to consider the grant of a franchise to CenturyLink at a future City Council meeting,
assuming mutually acceptable franchise terms can be reached with CenturyLink.”
CenturyLink is actively engaged in franchise negotiations with numerous Twin Cities local
franchise authorities (LFAs) and has signed a franchise with the City of Minneapolis.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Passage of the proposed resolution allows CenturyLink, City staff and a subcommittee of the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission to enter franchise negotiations. Granting a franchise
to CenturyLink would allow them to provide cable TV services in St. Louis Park and would give
residents another choice for cable TV services.
NEXT STEPS:
Schedule:
• June 8, 2015: CenturyLink submits franchise application with $10,000 application fee
• June 22, 2015 Study Session: Written report with overview of the franchise process
• July 6, 2015 City Council: Public hearing and CenturyLink’s presentation about the
application. Attorney Brian Grogan presents report about CenturyLink’s legal, technical
and financial qualifications. Council considers resolution regarding applicant’s financial
qualifications.
• July/August: City staff, Telecommunications Advisory Commission subcommittee, and
Brian Grogan enter franchise negotiations with CenturyLink
• August 12, 2015: Draft franchise reviewed by Telecommunications Advisory
Commission
• August 24, 2015 Study Session: Written and/or verbal report about draft franchise
• September 8, 2015 City Council: City Council considers award of franchise. (Deadline
for Council action is within 90 days of franchise application. The term can be extended).
• September, 2015: If successful, applicant accepts franchise document and submits
required closing documentation (typically within 30 days of the grant of a franchise).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 3
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 4
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 5
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 6
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 7
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 8
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 9
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 10
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 11
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 12
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 13
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 14
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 15
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 16
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 17
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 18
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 19
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 20
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 21
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 22
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 23
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 24
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 25
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 26
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 27
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 28
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 29
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV FranchisePage 30
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV FranchisePage 31
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV FranchisePage 32
Report to the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Regarding Qwest Broadband Services, Inc.,
d/b/a/ CenturyLink - Proposal for a
Cable Communication Franchise
June 24, 2015
Prepared by:
Brian T. Grogan, Esq.
Yuri B. Berndt, Esq.
150 South Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Ɩ Minneapolis, MN 55402
(P) 612-877-5000 Ɩ (F) 612-877-5999 Ɩ (W) lawmoss.com
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 33
i
2878266v1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 2
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY CITY ...................................................................... 9
INFORMATION REVIEWED .............................................................................. 10
CENTURYLINK’S LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS ...................................................... 11
CENTURYLINK’S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS ............................................. 12
CENTURYLINK’S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS.............................................. 16
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 22
EXHIBIT A ENTITY DETAILS FROM THE DELAWARE DIVISION OF
CORPORATIONS
EXHIBIT B MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE BUSINESS RECORD DETAILS
EXHIBIT C MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE UCC/TAX LIEN FILING
RECORD SEARCH AND JUDGMENT RECORD SEARCH
EXHIBIT D PACER CASE LOCATOR SUMMARY AND THE ACTIVE CASE
SUMMARY
EXHIBIT E CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY
EXHIBIT F PROPOSED RESOLUTION
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 34
1
2878266v1
INTRODUCTION
Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink (hereinafter referred to as
“CenturyLink”) requested the issuance of a cable communications franchise from the
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) to provide cable services in the City.
The City contacted Moss & Barnett seeking input regarding the appropriate procedure
to be followed to consider the award of a cable communications franchise to
CenturyLink or any other applicant. Moss & Barnett reviewed state and federal
statutory requirements with City representatives and developed a comprehensive
franchise procedure to comply with applicable laws. This report will include a summary
of Moss & Barnett’s findings and recommendations.
In accordance with Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, the City published a Notice of
Intent to Franchise and requested applications for a franchise from any interested
applicants. Applicants were instructed to obtain from the City a Request for Proposal
Official Application Form. Prior to the deadline for submitting applications the City
received only one (1) application - from CenturyLink.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, the City held a public hearing to
receive input from interested parties regarding CenturyLink’s application.
This report will review relevant statutory requirements that the City must follow in
processing a request for a cable communications franchise. Thereafter, the report will
review CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications to provide cable
services in the City and address whether CenturyLink’s application complies with State
statutory requirements. Finally, this report will provide recommendations for the City
Council’s consideration in taking action with regard to CenturyLink’s application.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 35
2
2878266v1
STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
A. Federal Regulatory Scheme: Competition among Cable Television
Providers and the Federal Cable Act
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Cable Act”), contains many provisions
relevant to the application before the City. According to the Cable Act, one of its
primary purposes is to:
promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary
regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable
systems.1
Furthermore, 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(1) provides that a franchising authority may
award one or more franchises within its jurisdiction. To that end, the Cable Act states:
that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may
not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive
franchise.2
Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final
decision of a franchising authority is not without recourse. The applicant may appeal
an adverse decision pursuant to the provisions of Section 635 of the Cable Act.
The Cable Act also provides that a city may require certain assurances from the
prospective franchisee. Subsection 4 of 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a) provides that:
in awarding a franchise, the franchising authority –
a. shall allow the applicant’s cable system a reasonable period of time to
become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise
area;
b. may require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide
adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity,
facilities, or financial support; and
c. may require adequate assurance that the cable operator has the financial,
technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable service.
1 47 U.S.C. Section 521(b).
2 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(1) (emphasis added).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 36
3
2878266v1
When Congress passed the 1992 amendments to the Cable Act, Congress suggested
that it favors competition in the delivery of cable communications services. The Senate
report that accompanied the amendments concluded that:
Based on the evidence and the record taken as a whole, it is clear that
there are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus,
the Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be
encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the Cable Act
as amended], prohibits local franchising authorities from unreasonably
refusing to grant second franchises.3
B. Federal Communications Commission Observations on Competition in
the Cable Television Industry
The Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC’s”) annual competition reports in
video markets have found that subscribers have generally benefited from “head-to-
head” competition in the delivery of cable services. Benefits enjoyed by
consumers as a resul t of the increased competition include:
a. lower monthly charges for services and equipment;
b. additional program offerings;
c. access to alternative sources of telecommunications and Internet
services;
d. new digital services; and
e. better customer service from the in cumbent cable operator.
The FCC completed rulemaking proceedings on competition in the video marketplace
resulting in the FCC’s issuance of what is now known as the FCC 621 Order.4 The Sixth
Circuit affirmed the FCC 621 Order in 2008.5 In the 621 Order the FCC summarized the
evidentiary record in the following manner:
The record indicates that in today’s market, new entrants face “steep
economic challenges” in an “industry characterized by large fixed and
sunk costs,” without the resulting benefits incumbent cable operators
enjoyed for years as monopolists in the video services marketplace.
According to commentators, “a competitive video provider who enters the
market today is in a fundamentally different situation” from that of the
incumbent cable operator: “[w]hen incumbents installed their systems,
3 (emphasis added). S. Rep. No. 102-92, June 28, 1991, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 1133, 1141, 1146, 1151; H.Conf. Rep. No. 102-862, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin.
News 1231, 1259.
4 See In the Matter of Implementation of Section 612(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984, 22 FCC Rcd 5101 (Mar. 5, 2007).
5 See Alliance for Community Media v. FCC, 529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir. 2008).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 37
4
2878266v1
they had a captive market,” whereas new entrants “have to ‘win’ every
customer from the incumbent” and thus do not have “anywhere near the
number of subscribers over which to spread the costs.”
C. Minnesota Statutory and Judicial Treatment of Competition in the
Cable Television Industry
Minnesota Statutes
In addition to the requirements contained in the Cable Act, Minnesota has several
statutory provisions that must be carefully followed by the City when considering the
award of a franchise. In particular, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238.08, titled
Franchise Requirement, states that a municipality must require a franchise or
extension permit of any cable communications system providing service within the
municipality. Further, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081, Franchise Procedure,
provides a precise procedure to be followed by a municipality when requesting
applications for a cable communications franchise.
The text of Section 238.08 and Section 238.081 is set forth below to provide the City
with the exact requirements of state law on this matter.
Minnesota Statute Section 238.08, Franchise Requirement, provides in
pertinent part:
Subd. 1. Requirement; conditions.
(a) A municipality shall require a franchise or extension permit of any cable
communications system providing service within the municipality.
(b) No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an
area included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or
less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area
served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3)
franchise fees. The provisions of this paragraph shall not apply when the area in
which the additional franchise is being sought is not actually being served by any
existing cable communications system holding a franchise for the area. Nothing
in this paragraph prevents a municipality from imposing additional terms and
conditions on any additional franchises.
Subd. 2. Other requirements. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
prevent franchise requirements in excess of those prescribed unless such requirement is
inconsistent with this chapter.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 38
5
2878266v1
Subd. 3. Municipal operation. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit
any municipality from the right to construct, purchase, and operate a cable
communications system. Any municipal system shall be subject to this chapter to the
same extent as would any nonpublic cable communications system.
Subd. 4. Fee, tax or charge. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to limit
the power of any municipality to impose upon any cable communications company a
fee, tax or charge.
* * * *
Minnesota Statute Section 238.081, Franchise Procedure, provides in pertinent
part:
Subd. 1. Publication of Notice. The franchising authority shall have published
once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in each
municipality within the cable service territory, a notice of intent to consider application
for a franchise other than a franchise renewal pursuant to the United States Code, Title
47, Section 546.
Subd. 2. Required information. The notice must include at least the following
information:
(1) the name of the municipality making the request;
(2) the closing date for submission of applications;
(3) a statement of the application fee, if any, and the method for its
submission;
(4) a statement by the franchising authority of the desired services to be
offered;
(5) a statement by the franchising authority of criteria and priorities against
which the applicants for the franchise must be evaluated;
(6) a statement that applications for the franchise must contain at least the
information required by subdivision 4;
(7) the date, time, and place for the public hearing, to hear proposals from
franchise applicants;
(8) the name, address, and telephone number of the individuals who may be
contacted for further information.
Subd. 3. Other recipients of notice. In addition to the published notice, the
franchising authority shall mail copies of the notice of intent to franchise to any person
it has identified as being a potential candidate for the franchise.
Subd. 4. Contents of franchising proposal. The franchising authority shall
require that proposals for a cable communications franchise be notarized, and contain,
but not necessarily be limited to, the following information:
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 39
6
2878266v1
(1) Plans for channel capacity, including both the total number of channels
capable of being energized in the system and the number of channels to
be energized immediately;
(2) A statement of the television and radio broadcast signals for which
permission to carry will be requested from the Federal Communications
Commission;
(3) A description of the proposed system design and planned operation,
including at least the following items:
(i) the general area for location of antennae and the head end, if
known;
(ii) the schedule for activating two-way capacity;
(iii) the type of automated services to be provided;
(iv) the number of channels and services to be made available for
access cable broadcasting; and
(v) a schedule of charges for facilities and staff assistance for access
cable broadcasting;
(4) the terms and conditions under which particular service is to be provided
to governmental and educational entities;
(5) a schedule of proposed rates in relation to the services to be provided,
and a proposed policy regarding unusual or difficult connection of
services;
(6) a time schedule for construction of the entire system with the time
sequence for wiring the various parts of the area requested to be served
in the request for proposals;
(7) a statement indicating the applicant’s qualifications and experience in the
cable communications field, if any;
(8) an identification of the municipalities in which the applicant either owns or
operates a cable communications system directly or indirectly, or has
outstanding franchises for which no system has been built;
(9) plans for financing the proposed system, which must indicate every
significant anticipated source of capital and significant limitations or
conditions with respect to the availability of the indicated sources of
capital;
(10) a statement of ownership detailing the corporate organization of the
applicant, if any, including the names and addresses of officers and
directors and the number of shares held by each officer or director, and
intracompany relationship including a parent, subsidiary or affiliated
company; and
(11) a notation and explanation of omissions or other variations with respect to
the requirements of the proposal.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 40
7
2878266v1
Substantive amendments may not be made in a proposal after a proposal
has been submitted to the franchising authority and before award of a
franchise.
Subd. 5. Time limits to submit applications. The franchising authority shall
allow at least 20 days from the first date of published notice to the closing date for
submitting applications.
Subd. 6. Public hearing on franchise. A public hearing before the franchising
authority affording reasonable notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard with
respect to all applications for the franchise must be completed at least seven days
before the introduction of the franchise ordinance in the proceedings of the franchising
authority.
Subd. 7. Award of franchise. Franchises may be awarded only by ordinance.
Subd. 8. Costs of awarding franchise. Nothing in this section prohibits a
franchising authority from recovering from a successful applicant the reasonable and
necessary costs of the entire process of awarding the cable communications franchise.
* * * *
In addition to the above referenced state statutes, Minnesota Statutes Section 238.084
identifies the required contents of a franchise ordinance. Given that the City has an
existing cable franchise with Comcast (the “Comcast Franchise”) that complies with the
requirements of Section 238.084, the City may, if it so determines, grant substantially
the same ordinance to CenturyLink if the City finds that CenturyLink is a qualified
applicant.
In this proceeding the applicant, CenturyLink, was provided a copy of the Comcast
Franchise. The reason for using substantially the same franchise as the base document
to begin negotiations is to ensure that any and all entities providing cable
communications service within the City are generally regulated in a similar manner.
Both the Comcast Franchise and Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08 include provisions
requiring some form of level playing field obligation which the City must consider before
the award of a second, competitive cable franchise.
Specifically, the Comcast Franchise at Section 28-1-7(3)(A) contains a requirement that
permits the City to grant competitive franchises:
The Company acknowledges and agrees that the City reserves the right to
grant one (1) or more additional franchises or other similar lawful
authorization to provide Cable Services or video programming services
within the City; provided, however, that no such franchise or similar
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 41
8
2878266v1
authorization shall contain material terms or conditions which are
substantially more favorable or less burdensome to the competitive entity
than the material terms and conditions herein.
D. Judicial Treatment: The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ Decision
Regarding Minnesota’s Cable Statutes and Competing Cable Television
Franchises
In its report accompanying the 1992 amendments to the federal Cable Act, the United
States Senate observed that:
In addition to mergers between an incumbent cable system and a
potential competitor, incumbent cable systems often wage legal battles to
prevent cities from awarding second franchises or building their own
franchises.6
In 1999, the Minnesota Court of Appeals addressed one of these “legal battles”
referenced by the Senate Report. In In Re Application of Dakota Telecommunications
Group, d/b/a Dakota Telecom, Inc., for a Cable Television Franchise in Marshall,
Minnesota (hereinafter “Dakota Telecom”), the incumbent franchise, Bresnan
Communications (“Bresnan”), challenged the City of Marshall’s (“Marshall”) grant of a
competing franchise to Dakota Telecommunications Group. Bresnan argued, among
other things, that Marshall acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” when it granted the
competing franchise and that Marshall violated Bresnan’s due process rights.
The Court of Appeals rejected Bresnan’s arguments and generally determined that an
incumbent franchisee may not challenge the general fitness of a competing franchise.
In its opinion, it noted that Minnesota’s cable statutes were “enacted to encourage such
competition.” The opinion further recognized that:
Although [Minnesota’s] Cable Act . . . intends to further the public’s
interest by only awarding franchises to responsible cable operators, it
does not support an incumbent franchisee’s attempt to secure a monopoly
by challenging the fitness of new, competing franchises.
6 S. Rep. No. 102-92, June 28, 1991, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1133, 1141,
1146, 1151; H. Conf. Rep. No. 102-862, reprinted in 1992 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1231, 1259.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 42
9
2878266v1
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED BY CITY
CenturyLink requested that the City institute the required proceedings to consider the
award of a cable communications franchise to CenturyLink. After consultation with
Moss & Barnett, a detailed procedure was prepared to comply with applicable state and
federal laws regarding the processing of CenturyLink’s request.
The City Council authorized publication of a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable
Communications System. The notice was published once each week for two successive
weeks in the City’s local newspaper of general circulation. The Notice was first
published in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on May 14, 2015, and was thereafter
published on May 21, 2015. Copies of the Notice of Intent to Franchise are available
upon request from the City Clerk’s office.
The Notice of Intent to Franchise referenced the City’s Request for Proposals - Official
Application Form that was made available on request at the office of the City Clerk.
Copies of the Notice of Intent to Franchise and Official Application Form were sent to
CenturyLink as well as the incumbent cable operator, Comcast. A copy of the Official
Application Form is available upon request from the City Clerk’s office.
Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081 the City established a deadline for
submitting applications on June 8,, 2015, at least twenty (20) days following the first
date of publication.
The City published a Notice of a Public Hearing to receive input on CenturyLink’s
application. The Public Hearing is scheduled to be held on July 6, 2015 at 7:30 p.m. All
interested parties will have an opportunity to comment.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 43
10
2878266v1
INFORMATION REVIEWED
Below is a listing of all information received and reviewed by Moss & Barnett. Each
document listed below was reviewed and considered in the preparation of this report,
and are hereby incorporated into this report by reference. The information contained
within these documents is part of the City’s record on which the City’s decision is based.
1. Notice by the City of its Intent to Franchise a Cable Communication
System published on May 14, 2015 and May 21, 2015.
2. The City’s Request for Proposals-Official Application form.
3. Official Application submitted to City from CenturyLink.
4. Supplement information provided by CenturyLink in response to questions
raised by Moss & Barnett (see Financial Qualifications section for complete
list of financial information review).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 44
11
2878266v1
CENTURYLINK’S LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS
The legal qualifications standard relates primarily to an analysis of whether CenturyLink
is duly organized and authorized to provide cable services within the City.
We have reviewed and received the following information with respect to Qwest
Broadband Services, Inc. as of the dates listed below and in the attached Exhibits:
• Delaware Incorporation/Good Standing. The Delaware Division of
Corporations’ Entity Details shows that Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. was
incorporated on May 10, 1999 and is in good standing as of May 13, 2015. See
attached Entity Details from the Delaware Division of Corporations attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
• Minnesota Foreign Registration. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. is
registered as a foreign corporation in the State of Minnesota and is active and in
good standing. Minnesota Business and Lien System, Office of the Minnesota
Secretary of State Business Record Details dated May 13, 2015 attached hereto
as Exhibit B.
• Minnesota UCC/Tax Lien/Judgment Search. Qwest Broadband Services,
Inc. is not subject to any UCC filing/tax lien/judgment in the State of Minnesota.
Minnesota Business and Lien System, Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State
UCC/tax lien filing record search and judgment record search attached hereto as
Exhibit C.
• Civil Actions. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. has been a party to a
number of civil cases, including all of the cases listed on the PACER Case Locator
summary for periods from formation to May 13, 2015. Qwest Broadband
Services, Inc. was also a party in a bankruptcy matter that was dismissed on
January 29, 2002. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. is party to an active patent
infringement case entitled United Access Technologies, LLC v. CenturyTel
Broadband Services, LLC, et al. in the State of Delaware. PACER Case Locator
Summary and the active Case Summary attached hereto as Exhibit D.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 45
12
2878266v1
CENTURYLINK’S TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS
The technical qualification standard relates to the technical expertise and experience of
CenturyLink to provide cable services. This report offers no opinion related to the
technology used by CenturyLink to offer cable services.
CenturyLink is offering its Prism service in approximately fifty-eight (58) cities, within
ten (10) states, including: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin. Currently, CenturyLink provides its
Prism service to approximately 240,000 customers.
In May 2015, we interviewed seven (7) cities in four (4) states where CenturyLink
provides its Prism service in order to ascertain the following:
1. The nature and quality of the relationship between CenturyLink and the city;
2. Whether CenturyLink worked well with the city in resolving cable service
problems;
3. Whether subscribers appear to be satisfied with the services they receive from
CenturyLink; and
4. The extent that CenturyLink supports public, educational and governmental
access programming.
The city official from each community listed below was contacted and asked the
following questions. A summary of the interviews is provided below.
City, State City Official, Title
Gulf Shores, AL Mike Holly, IT Director
Glendale, AZ Mark Gibson, Construction Engineering Manager
Colorado Springs, CO Kathy Lake, Information Technology
Denver, CO Julie Martinez, Director Media Services
Eagle, CO Jon Stavney, Town Manager
Omaha, NE Buster Brown, City Clerk
Papillion, NE Eliza Butler, City Clerk and Karla Rupiper, City Attorney
SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS
1. Approximately when (month/year) did your City award CenturyLink a cable
franchise?
Responses ranged from August 2012 to present.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 46
13
2878266v1
2. What percentage of the City (approximately) did CenturyLink first provide cable
service to?
All cities responded that the details are outlined in the franchise, but some
recalled 15-20% initially.
3. Has CenturyLink expanded its service area to provide cable service to more
subscribers since the grant of the franchise?
All replied they were either unsure or yes, expansion has occurred since the city
granted the franchise to CenturyLink.
4. Does the CenturyLink franchise require complete build out or a certain
percentage of build out within a set period of time?
All responses were a certain percentage with details outlined in the franchise.
5. What percentage of the City may be unable to subscribe to cable service from
CenturyLink?
Most cities were uncertain of this %; however, one city replied 100% of city was
served within 18 months.
6. Have there been any amendments to the Franchise granted to CenturyLink? If
so, what was the reason for the franchise amendment?
The majority of the responses were no. Most of these cities just recently granted
franchises to CenturyLink.
7. Is there a local office for CenturyLink in your city? If not, how far away is the
nearest CenturyLink office?
Most cities replied “Yes” and that it is required under the franchise to have a
local office in the city. One city replied “No - however, the closest office is a 10
minute drive.”
8. Does the City have public, educational and governmental access channels? If
yes, how many?
Most replied “Yes”, one replied “No” and one replied “Unsure”.
# of PEG channels responses ranged from 1-7.
9. Does CenturyLink make the City’s PEG access channels available on its cable
system?
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 47
14
2878266v1
All cities with PEG channels replied “Yes”.
10. Did the City have to spend any money on equipment or facilities to make its PEG
channels available to CenturyLink?
All cities with PEG channels replied “No”. One city reported replacing all
equipment with upfront dollars provided by CenturyLink.
11. Have there been any issues or concerns with the manner in which PEG channels
are cablecast by CenturyLink? Are there any differences in the way subscribers obtain
PEG channels on CenturyLink’s system versus the cable system operated by the
incumbent operator?
No known issues reported.
No differences reported.
12. Does CenturyLink provide PEG financial support? If yes, how much?
Responses included amounts of $.20/sub/mo to $1.05/sub/mo. One city
reported up to $1.80 upon advanced notice and another reported a % (unsure of
number).
13. Does CenturyLink provide any other type of PEG financial support – such as
upfront grants, in-kind services, particular equipment, etc.?
Responses included upfront dollars, a one-time payment, a reasonable amount of
on demand programming per state statute and one reported no financial support
for PEG.
14. Has the City received any complaints about CenturyLink’s cable service? If so,
what types of complaints are most often reported to the City?
The majority of the cities interviewed received no customer complaints regarding
CenturyLink. One city has a separate customer service ordinance applicable to
cable operators, and another city reported some complaints were received when
CenturyLink rolled out its Prism service but they seem to have had ample staff on
board to resolve the issues.
15. Does the City receive any complaints about the construction of the CenturyLink
cable plant in the right-of-way or placement of above ground cable facilities in the right-
of-way?
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 48
15
2878266v1
The majority of the cities interviewed receive no complaints regarding ROW
issues. One city reported complaints related to phone and internet services.
16. Does CenturyLink satisfactorily resolve subscriber complaints?
Responses were “Yes” and that CenturyLink has plenty of staff.
17. Does CenturyLink pay its franchise fees to the City on time? Any issues
regarding franchise fee payments by CenturyLink?
All cities reported that franchise fees were paid on time.
18. How would you describe the City’s relationship with CenturyLink? Are there any
specific problems or concerns?
Responses received were: “good working relationship”, “no problems or
concerns”, and “good relationship.”
19. Do you think the City would seek to require any different franchise obligations on
CenturyLink now that the City has experience observing CenturyLink’s cable service in
the City?
One city replied that they will add security fund language to the next franchise.
Several cities replied that they are unsure as they recently renewed or signed the
franchise.
20. Any other issues, concerns or compliments you would like to offer regarding
CenturyLink’s cable service offering in your City?
One City replied they would like the copper technology replaced with fiber to all
residents.
.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 49
16
2878266v1
CENTURYLINK’S FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS
I. SCOPE OF REVIEW
Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, (“QBSI”), a Delaware corporation, is
an applicant for a competitive cable franchise agreement (hereinafter referred to as the
“Franchise Agreement”) for the City. CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”), a Louisiana
corporation, indirectly wholly owns QBSI. QBSI operates cable television systems that
provide cable services throughout the United States. QBSI has requested the City’s
approval of a competitive cable franchise agreement. At the request of the City, Moss
& Barnett has reviewed selected financial information that was provided by QBSI and
CenturyLink or publicly available to assess the financial qualifications of QBSI to obtain
and operate a competitive cable franchise.
The financial information that was provided or available through other public sources
and to which our review has been limited, consists solely of the following financial
information (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Financial Statements”):
1. Application of Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink for a
Competitive Cable Franchise dated June 8, 2015, along with such other exhibits
as provided therewith (the “Application”);
2. Form 10-K for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 24, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014;
3. Form 10-Q for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 6, 2015 for the three-month period ended March 31, 2015;
4. The audited financial statements of CenturyLink, Inc. and subsidiaries as
of December 31, 2014 and 2013, including Consolidated Balance Sheets as of
December 31, 2014 and 2013, Consolidated Statements of Operations,
Comprehensive (Loss) Income, Cash Flows and Stockholder Equity for the years
ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, and the Independent Auditors’
Report of KPMG LLP dated February 24, 2015; and
5. Such other information as we requested and that was provided by QBSI
and CenturyLink relating to the Application.
Our procedure is limited to providing a summary of our analysis of the Financial
Statements in order to facilitate the City’s assessment of the financial capabilities of
QBSI to operate a cable system in the City.
II. OVERVIEW OF QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC.
Since 2008, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, has been
providing cable video services and currently provides full video services under the
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 50
17
2878266v1
Prism™ platform to 14 markets in the United States,7 including in the States of Arizona,
Colorado, Florida, Nebraska, Nevada, and North Carolina.8 QBSI’s affiliates provide a
broad range of other communication services including broadband, hosting and
colocation, VoIP, Ethernet, Internet services, and voice services to residential and
commercial customers in various markets in the United States.9 QBSI was formed on
May 10, 1999 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of CenturyTel Broadband Services LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company, which is wholly owned by CenturyLink, Inc.10 As
of December 31, 2014, QBSI passed approximately 2.4 million potential customers and
served approximately 240,000 cable customers.11 CenturyLink employs approximately
3,000 employees in Minnesota with about 200 of the 500 network technicians trained in
providing services to QBSI’s Prism™ cable television platform.12 QBSI’s operational
management team has practical experience in the cable industry.13
Cable providers and telecommunication companies operate in a competitive
environment and the financial performance of cable television operators, like QBSI, is
subject to many factors, including, but not limited to, the general business conditions,
programing costs, incumbent operators, digital broadcast satellite service, technology
advancements, changes in consumer behavior, regulatory requirements, advertising
costs, and customer preferences, as well as competition from multiple sources, which
provide and distribute programming, information, news, entertainment and other
telecommunication services.14 QBSI has a limited operating history and is dependent
upon CenturyLink for all of its funding and the financing of its operations.15 The cable
business is inherently capital intensive, requiring capital for the construction and
maintenance of its communications systems. Each of these factors could have a
significant financial impact on QBSI and its ability to operate a cable system in the City.
III. FINDINGS
Based upon the above information, we have analyzed the historical financial statements
of QBSI’s parent entity, CenturyLink, Inc., in evaluating the financial capabilities of
QBSI. QBSI declined to provide us with its stand-alone financial statements or
projected financial information for its future operations and the cost to integrate
Prism™ into its existing infrastructure in the City. We specifically requested that QBSI
provide information on QBSI’s capital expenditures and cash flow budget, but QBSI
7 Application at p. 14.
8 Application – Exhibit D.
9 Form 10-K for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24,
2015 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014 (“Form 10-K”) at p. 6.
10 Application – Exhibit E.
11 Application at p.14.
12 Application at p. 1.
13 Application at pp. 14-17.
14 Form 10-K at pp. 17-27.
15 Application at p. 18.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 51
18
2878266v1
declined to provide that information to us.16 With respect to our request for projected
financial information, QBSI stated “…it does not provide forward looking information at
the individual market level because it could lead to incorrect or inappropriate
assumptions or conclusions…”. 17 CenturyLink’s historical audited financial statements
do not separately provide the financial information for QBSI.
As such, we are reporting our Findings hereunder based upon CenturyLink’s historical
financial information.
1. Analysis of Financial Statements.
Federal law and FCC regulations provide franchising authorities, such as the City,
with limited guidance concerning the evaluation of the financial qualifications of
an applicant for a cable franchise. In evaluating the financial capabilities of a
cable operator, we believe it is appropriate to consider the performance of an
applicant based on the applicant’s historical performance and its projected or
budgeted financial information along with its financial capabilities (for funding
and financing its entire operation). We were not provided with this information
for QBSI. As such, we believe a general review of CenturyLink’s financial
information may provide some insight into the general financial operations of
CenturyLink with respect to the Application, but we note that there are many
unanswered questions regarding QBSI’s operations going forward.18
As noted above, CenturyLink’s and its subsidiaries’ operations include both cable
television video services and non-cable television services. According to
CenturyLink’s Financial Statements, QBSI’s customers represent a small portion
of CenturyLink’s overall customers.19 The CenturyLink financial information
discussed below includes all of the CenturyLink operations, including the non-
cable television video services. We have analyzed CenturyLink’s Financial
Statements as of March 31, 2015 and as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 in
providing the information in this Section.
2. Specific Financial Statement Data and Analysis.
a. Assets. CenturyLink had (i) current assets of $3,468 million,
$3,576 million, and $3,907 million; (ii) working capital of a negative $111
million, a negative $342 million, and a negative $502 million; and (iii) total
assets of $49,520 million, $50,147 million, and $51,787 million as of
16 Correspondence to author from Patrick Haggerty, Director of State Regulatory and Legislative Affairs,
received on June 24, 2015 (“Correspondence”) at p. 2.
17 Id.
18 Correspondence at pp. 1-2.
19 Form 10-Q for CenturyLink, Inc. filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015 for
the three month period ending March 31, 2015 (“Form 10-Q”) at p. 21 and Application at p. 1.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 52
19
2878266v1
March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.20
Working capital, which is the excess of current assets over current
liabilities, is a short-term analytical tool used to assess the ability of a
particular entity to meet its current financial obligations in the ordinary
course of business. The working capital trend shows a slight decrease in
the negative working capital from December 31, 2013 to March 31, 2015,
which suggests that CenturyLink’s cash flow may be getting stronger.
CenturyLink’s current ratio (current assets divided by current liabilities) as
of March 31, 2015, of 0.97/1.0 is near the generally recognized standard
of 1:1 for a sustainable business operation.21 As of March 31, 2015,
CenturyLink had $155 million of cash on its balance sheet.22
Approximately one-third of its cash is held off shore and is subject to
restrictions on usage.23 As noted above, QBSI did not provide us with any
budget of cash flow or cost with respect to its expansion of the Prism™
service or any of its other potential cash capital needs. As such, it is
difficult to predict what amount of free cash on hand is needed to bring
the Prism™ system online in the City (and other cities in which QBSI is
rolling out its video service). We also note that approximately fifty-five
percent (55%) of CenturyLink’s assets are comprised of its intangible
Goodwill.24
b. Liabilities. CenturyLink’s Financial Statements report (i) current
liabilities of $3,579 million, $3,918 million and $4,409 million; (ii) long-
term debt of $20,254 million, $20,121 million and $20,181 million; and
(iii) deferred obligations of $10,922 million, $11,085 million and $10,006
million as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 and 2013,
respectively.25 According to CenturyLink, it has $1.7 billion available on its
$2 billion revolving credit facility as of March 31, 2015 (which matures on
December 31, 2019).26 CenturyLink’s credit facilities include affirmative
and negative covenants that if violated, could result in a cascade of
defaults under its debt obligations and an immediate cash and/or
financing needs.27 According to the Financial Statements, CenturyLink is
not in default of these requirements at the current time.28 CenturyLink
has in excess of $2.5 billion of debt maturing in the next 3 years which if
not paid or refinanced could have a significant impact on the financial
20 Form 10-K at p. 69 and Form 10-Q at p. 5.
21 Form 10-Q at p.5.
22 Form 10-Q at p. 30.
23 Form 10-Q at p. 30.
24 Id.
25 Form 10-K at p. 69 and Form 10-Q at p. 5.
26 Form 10-Q at pp. 30 and 32.
27 Form 10-Q at p. 32.
28 Id.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 53
20
2878266v1
viability of CenturyLink.29 Any additional debt, including by drawing on its
available revolving credit facility, will require CenturyLink to generate
additional cash flow, including through its operations, to fund its debt
service. In order to bring the video system online in the City, QBSI claims
that no additional financing is needed and the QBSI operation will be
funded with CenturyLink’s current cash flow.30
c. Income and Expense. CenturyLink’s Statements of Operations
report (i) revenue of $4,451 million, $18,031 million and $18,095 million;
(ii) operating expenses of $3,802 million, $15,621 million and $16,642
million; and (iii) net income (loss) of $192 million, $772 million and ($239)
million for the three-month period ending March 31, 2015 and the years
ending December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.31 CenturyLink is
reporting net income in 2015 and 2014.32 The ability to generate cash is
important for CenturyLink due to its leveraged operations. With the
expansion of Prism™, CenturyLink may be required to incur significant
expenditures for the assimilation of its video services into its existing
platform along with additional programing costs to obtain and maintain its
programming in the future. Over the last 3 years, CenturyLink has been
able to generate cash flow from operations to cover its investing and
financing activities.33
IV. SUMMARY
We are not aware of any state or federal standards by which to assess the financial
qualifications of a competitive cable operator seeking an initial franchise in the City.
The FCC has provided a minimal standard to consider when assessing the qualifications
of a prospective transferee when a cable system is sold or control of the franchise
changes. This FCC financial qualification standard is found in FCC Form 394. Using
the FCC Form 394 to establish an absolute minimum standard of financial qualifications
that a proposed applicant must demonstrate in order to be qualified to obtain and
operate a cable system, QBSI has the burden of demonstrating to the City’s satisfaction
that QBSI has “sufficient net liquid assets on hand or available from committed
resources” to obtain and operate the system in the City, together with its existing
operations, for three (3) months. This minimum standard is not easy to apply to a
company that is in aggressive growth mode and expanding its operations.
Based solely on CenturyLink’s (QBSI’s indirect parent entity) financial information that
we reviewed, CenturyLink appears to have sufficient funding to finance, operate and
bring its cable system online in the City. Based on the foregoing and limited strictly to
29 Form 10-K at p. 82.
30 Correspondence at p. 1.
31Form 10-K at p. 68 and Form 10-Q at p. 4.
32 Id.
33 Form 10-K at p. 70 and Form 10-Q at p. 6.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 54
21
2878266v1
the financial information analyzed in conducting this review, we do not believe that
QBSI’s request for application for a Competitive Cable Franchise in the City can
reasonably be denied based solely on a lack of financial qualifications of QBSI and
CenturyLink. Due to the many uncertainties and lack of information regarding the
proposed funding and future operations, there is not enough information that has been
made available to make any conclusions regarding the financial qualifications of QBSI to
operate a system serving the City. The determination as stated above is based solely
upon the CenturyLink Financial Statements.
In the event the City elects to proceed with approving the issuance of a competitive
cable franchise, the assessment of QBSI’s, and its parent entity CenturyLink’s, financial
qualifications should not be construed in any way to constitute an opinion as to the
financial capability or stability of QBSI or CenturyLink to (i) operate under a competitive
Franchise Agreement, and (ii) operate its other operations. The sufficiency of the
procedures used in making an assessment of QBSI’s and CenturyLink’s financial
qualifications and its capability to operate a competitive system in the City is solely the
responsibility of the City. Consequently, we make no representation regarding the
sufficiency of the procedures used either for the purpose for which this analysis of
financial capabilities and qualifications was requested or for any other purpose.
Lastly, in order to ensure compliance with its obligations to operate the cable system in
the City and since we have based all of our analysis on CenturyLink’s Financial
Statements, the parent entity, the City may seek to require a corporate parent guaranty
as part of issuing a competitive Franchise Agreement to QBSI in a form as set forth in
Exhibit E or as otherwise mutually agreeable to QBSI and the City. In the alternative to
requiring a corporate parent guaranty, the City may seek to require adequate financial
security by imposing a construction bond/performance bond and security fund obligation
to ensure that QBSI has access to financial resources necessary to meet the
requirements of any franchise granted.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 55
22
2878266v1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our review of CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications, we
believe that the City cannot reasonably withhold approval of CenturyLink’s request for a
cable communications franchise. We recommend the City consider adoption of the
attached resolution which will establish findings of fact regarding CenturyLink’s
qualifications.
If the City adopts the resolution attached as Exhibit F, the City will then be in a position
to consider the grant of a franchise to CenturyLink at a future City Council meeting,
assuming mutually acceptable franchise terms can be reached with CenturyLink.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 56
A-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT A
ENTITY DETAILS FROM THE
DELAWARE DIVISION OF CORPORATIONS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 57
B-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT B
MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE BUSINESS RECORD DETAILS
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 58
B-2
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 59
C-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT C
MINNESOTA SECRETARY OF STATE
UCC/TAX LIEN FILING RECORD SEARCH AND JUDGMENT RECORD
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 60
C-2
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 61
D-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT D
PACER CASE LOCATOR SUMMARY
AND THE ACTIVE CASE SUMMARY
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 62
D-2
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 63
D-3
2878266v1
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 64
E-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT E
CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 65
1
2878266v1
CORPORATE PARENT GUARANTY
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of __________, 201__ (this “Agreement”),
by and among CenturyLink, Inc., a Louisiana corporation (the “Guarantor”), the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“Franchising Authority”), and Qwest Broadband Services,
Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Company”).
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, on __________________, 20__ the Franchising Authority adopted
Ordinance No. _____________ granting a Competitive Cable Television Franchise to
the Company (the “Franchise”), pursuant to which the Franchising Authority has
granted the rights to own, operate, and maintain a competitive cable television system
in the City (“System”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. , dated ,
2015, Franchising Authority conditioned its consent to the issuance of a Competitive
Cable Franchise Agreement on the issuance by Guarantor of a corporate parent
guaranty guaranteeing certain obligations of the Company under the Franchise; and
WHEREAS, the Company is indirectly wholly owned by Guarantor, as the parent entity
of a consolidated group which includes the Company.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
in consideration of the approval of the issuance of a Competitive Cable Franchise
Agreement, Guarantor hereby unconditionally and irrevocably agrees to provide all the
financial resources necessary for the observance, fulfillment and performance of the
obligations of the Company under the Franchise and also to be legally liable for
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 66
2
2878266v1
performance of said obligations in case of default by or revocation or termination for
default of the Franchise.
This Agreement, unless terminated, substituted, or canceled, as provided herein, shall
remain in full force and effect for the duration of the term of the Franchise.
Upon substitution of another Guarantor reasonably satisfactory to the Franchising
Authority, this Agreement may be terminated, substituted, or canceled upon thirty (30)
days prior written notice from Guarantor to the Franchising Authority and the Company.
Such termination shall not affect liability incurred or accrued under this Agreement prior
to the effective date of such termination or cancellation.
GUARANTOR:
CenturyLink, Inc.
By:
Its:
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
20___, by , the
of .
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 67
F-1
2878266v1
EXHIBIT F
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 68
1
2878266v1
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO.
Regarding Findings of Fact with Respect to the Proposal of
Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc.
for a Cable Communications Franchise
RECITALS:
1. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”)
requested that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) commence
proceedings to consider the award of a cable communications franchise to
CenturyLink.
2. Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08(a) mandates that a city require a franchise
for any cable communication system providing service within the city.
3. Federal law at 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a) provides that a city “may not
unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.”
4. The City retained the law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association, to
assist the City in conducting the procedure required under Minnesota Statutes
Section 238.081 and reviewing any applications submitted to the City.
5. The City followed the franchise procedure required by Minnesota Statutes
Section 238.081 by publishing once each week (May 14, 2015 and May 21, 2015)
for two successive weeks in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor a Notice of Intent to
Franchise a Cable Communications System.
6. The Notice stated all eight (8) criteria outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section
238.081, Subd. 2.
7. In addition to the published Notice, the City provided copies of the Notice of
Intent and the Official Application Form to CenturyLink and to the City’s existing
cable operator, Comcast of Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/Mississippi/
Tennessee, Inc. (“Comcast”).
8. The City’s Official Application Form required that proposals for a cable
communications franchise contain responses to each of the items identified in
Minnesota Statute Section 238.081, Subd. 4.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 69
2
2878266v1
9. The City’s closing date for submission of applications was set for June 8, 2015
which complied with the statutory minimum of twenty (20) days from the date of
first publication.
10. Upon the deadline for submitting applications, June 8, 2015, the City received
only one (1) application, from CenturyLink.
11. The City Council determined to call a Public Hearing to consider the application
received from CenturyLink at its regularly scheduled July 6, 2015 meeting.
12. Prior to the Public Hearing the incumbent franchised cable operator serving the
City, Comcast, submitted a letter to the City setting forth Comcast’s position
regarding CenturyLink’s application.
13. All interested parties were provided an opportunity to speak to the City Council
and to present information regarding this matter.
14. The City carefully reviewed all information and documentation presented to it
regarding CenturyLink’s proposal and qualifications to operate a cable
communications system within the City.
15. Based on information and documentation made available to the City and the
report dated June 24, 2015 prepared by Moss & Barnett with respect to
CenturyLink’s application, the City Council has reached conclusions regarding
CenturyLink’s legal, technical and financial qualifications.
NOW THEREFORE, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City hereby finds that CenturyLink’s application of June 8, 2015 complies
with the requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 238.081.
2. The City finds that CenturyLink possesses the requisite legal, technical and
financial qualifications to operate a cable communications system within the City.
3. City staff is authorized to negotiate with CenturyLink to attempt to reach
mutually acceptable terms for a cable television franchise to be introduced to the
City Council for consideration and action.
4. The City finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the
mandates contained in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and applicable
provisions of federal law including 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a).
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 70
3
2878266v1
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of July, 2015
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
Its:
ATTEST:
Its:
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 71
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
REGARDING FINDINGS OF FACT
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSAL OF
QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC. D/B/A CENTURYLINK, INC.
FOR A CABLE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE
RECITALS:
1. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”) requested that
the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) commence proceedings to consider the
award of a cable communications franchise to CenturyLink.
2. Minnesota Statutes Section 238.08(a) mandates that a city require a franchise for any
cable communication system providing service within the city.
3. Federal law at 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a) provides that a city “may not unreasonably
refuse to award an additional competitive franchise.”
4. The City retained the law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association, to assist
the City in conducting the procedure required under Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081
and reviewing any applications submitted to the City.
5. The City followed the franchise procedure required by Minnesota Statutes Section
238.081 by publishing once each week (May 14, 2015 and May 21, 2015) for two
successive weeks in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable
Communications System.
6. The Notice stated all eight (8) criteria outlined in Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081,
Subd. 2.
7. In addition to the published Notice, the City provided copies of the Notice of Intent and
the Official Application Form to CenturyLink and to the City’s existing cable operator,
Comcast of Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/Mississippi/ Tennessee, Inc.
(“Comcast”).
8. The City’s Official Application Form required that proposals for a cable communications
franchise contain responses to each of the items identified in Minnesota Statute Section
238.081, Subd. 4.
9. The City’s closing date for submission of applications was set for June 8, 2015, which
complied with the statutory minimum of twenty (20) days from the date of first
publication.
10. Upon the deadline for submitting applications, June 8, 2015, the City received only one
(1) application, from CenturyLink.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 72
11. The City Council determined to call a Public Hearing to consider the application received
from CenturyLink at its regularly scheduled July 6, 2015, meeting.
12. Prior to the Public Hearing the incumbent franchised cable operator serving the City,
Comcast, submitted a letter to the City setting forth Comcast’s position regarding
CenturyLink’s application.
13. All interested parties were provided an opportunity to speak to the City Council and to
present information regarding this matter.
14. The City carefully reviewed all information and documentation presented to it regarding
CenturyLink’s proposal and qualifications to operate a cable communications system
within the City.
15. Based on information and documentation made available to the City and the report dated
June 24, 2015 prepared by Moss & Barnett with respect to CenturyLink’s application, the
City Council has reached conclusions regarding CenturyLink’s legal, technical and
financial qualifications.
NOW THEREFORE, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota hereby resolves as follows:
1. The City hereby finds that CenturyLink’s application of June 8, 2015, complies with the
requirements of Minnesota Statute Section 238.081.
2. The City finds that CenturyLink possesses the requisite legal, technical and financial
qualifications to operate a cable communications system within the City.
3. City staff is authorized to negotiate with CenturyLink to attempt to reach mutually
acceptable terms for a cable television franchise to be introduced to the City Council for
consideration and action.
4. The City finds that its actions are appropriate and reasonable in light of the mandates
contained in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and applicable provisions of federal law
including 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a).
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6 , 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Approve CenturyLink’s Qualifications for a Competitive Cable TV Franchise Page 73
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) to allow a Group Daycare at 2230 Edgewood Ave S, subject to conditions
recommended by Staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the proposed group daycare meet the requirements of the
zoning ordinance?
SUMMARY: The Applicant proposes to operate a group daycare at 2230 Edgewood Ave S.
The proposed group daycare has a maximum capacity of 83 children and will have up to 10
employees.
Zoning: The property is zoned Industrial Park, and group daycare is allowed in this district by
CUP.
Planning Commission Review: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 3,
2015. One person from the neighborhood asked about traffic expected to be generated by the
group daycare. The applicant responded saying that children are dropped off and picked up over
a three hour period, not all at once. They also have small buses used to shuttle children from
centrally located areas in the west metro which will reduce the number of trips. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the CUP on a 4-0 vote. A copy of the draft minutes is
attached.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Aerial Photo
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Exhibits: Site Plan, Floor Plan, Building Elevation
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
DISCUSSION
Case No.: 15-20-CUP
Location: 2230 Edgewood Ave S
Applicant: Khalid Gabeyre
Description of Request:
Requested is a Conditional Use Permit to operate a group daycare in the Industrial Park zoning
district.
Location:
Comprehensive Plan: Industrial
Zoning: Industrial Park (IP)
Neighborhood: Eliot View
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
Zoning Analysis:
The property is zoned Industrial Park, and a group daycare is allowed by Conditional Use Permit
(CUP), and with some conditions specific to this use. A summary of the conditions follows:
a. A minimum of 40 square feet of outside play space per pupil shall be provided and such
space shall be enclosed by a 42 inch minimum height fence.
This provision is met. The applicant is providing 2,691 square feet of outside play area. The
play area is divided up into two different areas on the property. The larger play area (2,086
square feet) is located behind the building. A smaller play area (605 square feet) is located in the
front yard. The combined area meets the outside play area requirements for up to 67 children.
The daycare is designed for a capacity of 83 children, however, only 67 children are of toddler,
pre-school, and school age, and it is this group that the outdoor play area is designed for. The
remaining 16 children are infants, and not included in this calculation.
b. An off-street drop-off and loading area shall be designed in order to maintain vehicular
and pedestrian safety.
This provision is met. The parking lot located behind the building will be utilized for the pick-
up/drop-off area. The reception area will be located at the main entrance behind the building to
facilitate this area as the pick-up/drop-off area instead of the on-street parking area located in
front of the building.
c. Outdoor play areas shall be located a minimum of 15 feet from any property lines.
This condition is met.
d. No outdoor play area shall be located within 200 feet of any principal arterial as defined
on the comprehensive plan.
This provision is met. The closest principal arterial is Highway 394, which is located 3,500 feet
away, as the crow flies.
e. The daycare facility, including the outdoor play area, shall be no closer than 350 feet to
any property containing a sexually oriented business.
This provision is met. The closest sexually oriented business is located approximately 11,000
feet away.
f. The neighboring industrial uses shall
not have an adverse impact on the operations
and health, safety and welfare of the proposed
group daycare/nursery school. The
characteristics of such impacts shall be
analyzed by the planning, fire and health
officials, and shall include, but not be limited
to, dust, truck traffic, odors and hazardous
materials.
The majority of the play area is located behind
the building. This play area is bound on the
north and west sides by the walls of buildings
located on adjacent properties, the parking lot
servicing the daycare is along the south side,
and the daycare building is along the east side.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
The building to the west is an indoor hockey rink, and the building to the north is used for
storage.
A smaller play area would be located in front of the building. This play area is located
approximately 28 feet from the edge of Edgewood Ave. As indicated in the aerial photo below,
Edgewood Ave is the only access to the industrial properties located within this industrial park.
Therefore, all truck traffic servicing the industrial properties pass in front of this play area. The
only exception to this is the bus yard and two other industrial properties that are located to the
north of the daycare. Trucks and buses from these properties do not pass in front of the daycare
while traveling to/from Cedar Lake Road.
Building Occupancy:
The childcare would occupy approximately one-third of the building. The space to be occupied
by the daycare was previously occupied by an office/warehouse use. The remaining space in the
building is divided between four tenants. The tenants include an office use (which is located
next to the proposed daycare), a designer/showroom, a printing company and a warehouse.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
Parking:
The proposed and existing uses require a minimum of 39 parking spaces.
Use Parking Spaces
Daycare (83 kids) 13 parking spaces
Office 11 parking spaces
Designer Showroom 4 parking spaces
Printing Company 9 parking spaces
Warehouse 2 parking spaces
TOTAL REQUIRED: 39 parking spaces
PARKING PROVIDED: 40 parking spaces
The parking lot has access to Edgewood Ave S. There is an existing loading dock on the south
side of the building that services the remaining four uses. The dock is configured in a way that a
truck parked at the dock will block the drive aisle leading to/from the parking lot (see below).
As a condition of this approval, staff is recommending that the existing dock be altered so the
truck parked at the dock will not block the drive aisle. The revised dock configuration is
reflected in the proposed site plan (see attached). Concrete curb will be added between the
parking lot and the play area.
Setbacks:
The outside play area is required to be located at least 15 feet from property lines. As shown on
the plans, this condition is met. The large play area in the back yard is 15 feet from the rear and
side property lines. The play area in the front is also 15 feet from the front and side property
lines.
Access:
The daycare has direct access to Edgewood Ave S. Customers and employees can drive to and
from the daycare by using Edgewood Ave S and Cedar Lake Rd.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
Landscaping:
Three ornamental trees are proposed to be planted in the front yard between the play area and the
front lot line. The play area in the rear yard will be improved with three more trees and shrubs.
The existing pavement will be removed for the play area and a landscaped area along the north
and west property line will be added. Trees and shrubs will be planted in these areas to bring the
property closer to compliance with the landscaping ordinance. The ordinance requires 17 over
story trees, and there is currently one.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 7
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-
243(d)(4) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO
PERMIT A GROUP DAYCARE FOR PROPERTY ZONED IP INDUSTRIAL PARK
DISTRICT LOCATED AT 2230 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Khalid Gabeyre made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit under
Section 36-243(d)(4) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of operating a group
daycare within an Industrial Park (IP) District located at 2230 Edgewood Avenue South and
legally described as follows, to-wit:
Lot 2, Block 1, Eliot View 3rd Addition
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 15-20-CUP) and the effect of the proposed group daycare on the health,
safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the
Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the group daycare will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor
hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed group
daycare is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 15-20-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to allow a group daycare at the location described is granted based
on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Official
Exhibits.
a. Exhibit A: Site Plan
b. Exhibit B: Floor Plan
c. Exhibit C: Building Elevations
2. The existing truck dock shall be altered as shown on the official exhibits so that
trucks docked do not block the drive aisle.
3. Concrete curbing shall be installed as shown on the approved exhibit.
4. Landscaping shall be installed as shown on the approved exhibit.
5. The parking lot shall be used for customer and employee parking only; it shall not be
used to store vehicles, materials, or other goods.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 8
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
6. A financial guarantee shall be submitted to ensure the completion of the landscaping,
sidewalk, dock removal, and stormwater improvements.
7. The site shall meet all fire lane requirements.
8. In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative
fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval.
9. Under the Zoning Ordinance Code, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the
building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
10. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by the applicant (or the applicant
and owner if the applicant is different from the owner) prior to issuance of a building
permit.
11. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 9
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
AERIAL PHOTO
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 10
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 3, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
A. West End Childcare Center – Conditional Use Permit
Location: 2230 Edgewood Ave. S.
Applicant: Khalid Gabeyre
Case No.: 15-20-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The applicant
proposed to operate a group daycare at 2230 Edgewood Ave. S. The group daycare has a
maximum capacity of 73 children, and will have up to 10 employees.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the conditions specific to daycare by Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Morrison said the proposal was reviewed by the MN Dept. of Human Services
(DHS) and they confirmed that the minimum size for outside play area is 1,500 sq. ft. and
the proposal does meet that requirement with the larger play area in the back of the
property.
Mr. Morrison discussed parking, setbacks, access and landscaping.
Commissioner Peilen asked if the smaller play area at the front is entirely fenced.
Mr. Morrison responded that all play areas are entirely fenced. He added that there will
be a gate at the sidewalk.
Commissioner Carper asked if any soil studies have been undertaken as the area is
industrial.
Mr. Morrison stated that to his knowledge soil studies have not been done. He said all
play areas are paved. The children will be playing on a new surface.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 11
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
Commissioner Carper asked if he can assume there are no environmental concerns about
emissions coming up to the surface of play areas.
Mr. Morrison said nothing has come to staff’s attention to that effect. He added that the
area had been used as a parking lot so there is no knowledge of any contamination on the
site.
Commissioner Carper asked about city code and hours of operation.
Mr. Morrison said there is not a limitation in the code for daycare.
Chair Person asked about adequacy of restrooms within the facility.
Mr. Morrison said that would be reviewed more thoroughly through the building permit
process. He added that the project architect who was in attendance could also speak to
that question.
Commissioner Carper said at least four of the parking stalls seemed to be butting up
adjacent to the playground area. He asked if there would be any concrete bollards being
placed there to protect the playground.
Mr. Morrison said at this time there were no plans for that. He said concrete curb will be
installed.
Michael O’Donnell, property owner, said a Phase I environmental report was provided as
part of the building purchase. That report came back clean for the property. He said as
regards adjacency of parking stalls to fenced play area he was not opposed to installing
bollards for safety. Mr. O’Donnell said parking spaces proposed will be adequate. He
said he had no concerns about hours of operation.
Chair Person opened the public hearing.
Victor Perlbachs, project architect, said they could install guard rail protection or bollards
at the play area fence. He stated that restroom facilities can easily be designed as two
restrooms.
Fartun Ahmed, applicant, stated they do plan on being open seven days a week, Monday
– Friday 6 a.m. – 9 p.m., and weekends until 7 p.m.
Commissioner Carper asked if there would be any other activities on the site other than
daycare.
Ms. Ahmed responded that is prohibited by the state license.
Mort Leder, 2206 Edgewood Ave. S., asked about traffic control for 67 cars dropping off
and picking up children in a short period of time when there is little parking available.
Ms. Ahmed, applicant, stated that one of the perks of their program is that they try their
best to do drop off and pick up of children themselves which means there won’t be 67
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 12
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South
vehicles coming in and out of the parking lot. She said they also do transport to schools
and from schools so buses won’t be coming in and out.
Jon Geffen, attorney, spoke about child play areas and licensing rules. He said it is quite
common to have one area over 1500 sq. ft. and also having another smaller play area.
The application meets the requirements for licensing laws. Mr. Geffen said only one
restroom is required for every 15 children. He said there is always a licensing obligation
to make sure that restrooms are safe and monitored.
The Chair closed the public hearing as there was no one else present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Carper stated it appears that the organization and applicant are providing a
very good service for the community.
Commissioner Peilen made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use
Permit subject to conditions recommended by staff. Commissioner Carper seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South Page 13
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South Page 14
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Conditional Use Permit: West End Childcare Center, 2230 Edgewood Avenue South Page 15
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Discussion Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending
City Code Sec. 36-362 related to signage, and to set the second reading for July 20, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council support the proposed changes to the sign
section of the Zoning Ordinance?
SUMMARY: Staff is requesting an amendment to Section 36-362 of the Zoning Ordinance.
This section regulates signs, and the purpose of the amendment is to:
1. Increase the maximum sign area allowed for properties over 100,000 square feet in the
Industrial and Business Park zoning districts.
2. Apply the same sign regulations as allowed in the C-2 General Commercial district to the
M-X district.
3. Clarify and simplify the regulations pertaining to the multi-tenant exemption.
Planning Commission Review: On June 3, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
for the requested zoning amendment. No one was present to speak, and the Planning
Commission recommended approval (4-0) of the ordinance as presented.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Ordinance Amending City Code Chapter 36, Sec. 362
Excerpt of Planning Commission Minutes
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
DISCUSSION
REQUEST:
Staff is requesting an amendment to Section 36-362 of the Zoning Ordinance. This section
regulates signs, and the purpose of the amendment is to:
1. Increase the maximum sign area allowed for properties over 100,000 square feet in the
Industrial and Business Park zoning districts.
2. Apply the same sign regulations as allowed in the C-2 General Commercial district to the M-
X district.
3. Clarify and simplify the regulations pertaining to the multi-tenant exemption.
ANALYSIS:
The following is a description and analysis of the proposed changes.
Industrial Signage:
The property formerly occupied by the Novartis and Nestle companies is in the process of being
redeveloped into a multi-tenant industrial property. The existing building currently has three
large industrial uses, and several smaller office uses. Each of the industrial uses has a private
entrance for customers and employees. The office uses share a common entrance and facilities.
Through the course of the redevelopment of this property, it has become apparent that the
signage allowed for such a large property is insufficient, especially when utilized as a multi-
tenant building. The property is 24.84 acres (1,081,891 square feet) in area.
The sign regulations determine the maximum sign area allowed on a property based upon the
zoning district and lot size. In the Industrial district, the largest property size category covers
properties over 100,000 square feet, and allows up to 350 square feet of sign area. The proposed
amendment will create another size category for properties over 200,000 square feet, and allow
up to 400 square feet of sign area. It will also allow 300 square feet of sign area for properties
between 100,000 and 200,000 square feet.
Mixed-Use (M-X) district signage:
The current code does not specify sign area regulations for properties in the M-X district. Sign
rules are determined by the Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval. To date, PUDs
approved in the M-X district have been held to the sign code standards applied to the General
Commercial (C-2) district. Therefore, staff is recommending the M-X standards be changed to
incorporate the same standards applied to the C-2 district. The intent of this amendment is to
require consistent standards for signs in the M-X District, as opposed to creating standards for
each development. It also improves the application of the sign code moving forward as tenants
and uses change over time by eliminating the potential for each development having unique sign
standards that don’t apply anywhere else in the city.
Multi-Tenant Exemption:
This exemption is meant to provide signage for tenants occupying a strip mall like Miracle Mile
or Texa-Tonka. It exempts the sign installed on the wall of the tenant space as long as it does not
exceed 7% of their wall space and does not exceed 150 square feet per sign.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
The amendment proposes to simplify the existing exemption for multi-tenant signs by:
1. Eliminating the short list of uses the exemption applies to. The exemption currently applies
to retail, private entertainment (indoors), restaurants with liquor, restaurants without liquor,
services, food services, printing process, banks, studios and showrooms. It does not include
office, medical office, or other uses that may be found in a mall. As a result of this list, uses
that are not on the list cannot take advantage of the exception and may not be able to install a
wall sign.
2. Clarifying that the exemption applies only to uses located on the ground floor with direct and
primary access to the outside of the building. This clarification prohibits a multi-tenant
building with shared entrances, such as a multi-story office building, from having a wall sign
for every tenant located in the building.
If approved, the revised multi-tenant exemption will read as follows:
(4) In the C-1, C-2, O, B-P, M-X, PUD, I-G and I-P districts, the total area of all wall signs on a
building which meets the following outlined conditions shall not be included in calculating the
aggregate sign area on a lot:
a. The building shall be a shopping center, a building containing multiple tenants, or a single-
tenant building located on a single lot with other principal buildings and is part of an approved
CUP or planned unit development.
b. The tenants are located on the ground floor of the building and have a direct and primary
access to the outside of the building.
c. The sign area of all wall, blade, canopy, or awning signs permitted by this section shall not
exceed seven percent of the exterior wall area of the space occupied by the tenant.
d. The sign is located on the exterior wall of the space occupied by the tenant from which the
seven percent sign area was derived.
e. No individual wall sign shall exceed 150 square feet in area, except in the C-1 district where
the maximum area of any individual sign shall not exceed 100 square feet.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
ORDINANCE NO. ____-15
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE PERTAINING TO SIGNAGE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 36 is amended to add the following:
ARTICLE V. SPECIAL PROVISIONS
Section 36-362
***
TABLE 36-362A
SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT
Use District
&Lot Size
(Sq. ft.)
Maximum
Sign
Height
(feet)
PERMANENT
SIGNAGE
TEMPORARY
SIGNAGE
REAL ESTATE
SIGNAGE
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximum
Size of
Sign Face
(sq ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
R-4 6 40 40 25 80
R-C
0 - 20,000 15 40 40 25 80
Over 20,000 15 80 60 25 80
C-1
0 -10,000 25 100 75 80 80
10,000 - 20,000 25 150 100 80 80
Over 20,000 25 200 150 80 80
C-2 / M-X
0 -10,000 25 100 75 80 80
10,000 - 20,000 25 200 100 80 80
20,000 - 50,000 25 250 150 80 80
50,000 - 200,000 25 300 150 80 80
Over 200,000 25 400 300 80 80
O
0 - 20,000 25 100 100 80 80
20,000 - 50,000 25 200 100 80 80
50,000 - 100,000 25 300 150 80 80
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
Use District
&Lot Size
(Sq. ft.)
Maximum
Sign
Height
(feet)
PERMANENT
SIGNAGE
TEMPORARY
SIGNAGE
REAL ESTATE
SIGNAGE
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximum
Size of
Sign Face
(sq ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Over 100,000 25 500 300 80 80
I-P / I-G / BP
0 - 20,000 25 100 75 80 80
20,000 - 50,000 25 200 100 80 80
50,000 – 100,000 25 250 150 80 80
Over 100,000-200,000 25 350 300 300 80 80
Over 200,000 25 400 300 80 80
I-G
0 - 20,000 25 100 75 80 80
20,000 - 50,000 25 200 100 80 80
Over 50,000 25 250 150 80 80
M-X 15 per
approval
150 50 80
POS
0 – 30 acres 15 80 60 80 0
Over 30 acres 25 450 150 80 0
***
(g) Adjustments to table 36-362A. Signs which qualify for any adjustment permitted under this
section shall conform to all other sections of this chapter.
***
(4) In the C-1, C-2, O, BP, M-X, PUD, I-G and I-P districts, the total area of all wall signs on a
building which meets the following outlined conditions shall not be included in calculating the
aggregate sign area on a lot:
a. The building shall be a shopping center, or a building containing multiple tenants,
including and limited to retail, private entertainment (indoors), restaurants with liquor,
restaurants without liquor, services, food services, printing process, banks, studios and
showrooms or a single-tenant building housing one of the land uses named in this
subsection (g)(4)a. if such single-tenant building is located on a single lot with other
principal buildings and is part of an approved CUP or planned unit development under
the provisions of this chapter.
b. The tenants are located on the ground floor of the building and have a direct and primary
access to the outside of the building.
c.b. The sign area of all wall, blade, canopy, or awning signs permitted by this section shall
not exceed seven percent of the exterior wall area of the space occupied by the tenant.
building. If a shopping center or multitenant building contains land uses other than those
listed in subsection (g)(4)a. of this section, the amount of wall area which may be used to
calculate allowable signage shall be determined by multiplying the total wall area of the
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
building by a percentage equal to the percentage of the gross floor area of the building
occupied by the land uses listed in subsection (g)(4)a. of this section.
d. The sign is located on the exterior wall of the space occupied by the tenant from which
the seven percent sign area was derived.
e.c. No individual wall sign shall exceed 150 square feet in area, except in the C-1 district
where the maximum area of any individual sign shall not exceed 100 square feet.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and
publication.
Public Hearing June 3, 2015
First Reading July 6, 2015
Second Reading July 20, 2015
Date of Publication July 30, 2015
Date Ordinance takes effect Aug, 14, 2015
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2015, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Signage
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 3, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison,
Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Kramer, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich
STAFF PRESENT: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Nancy Sells
3. Public Hearings
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Sign Code
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 15-22-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He noted that
items were briefly discussed in a recent study session. He stated the purpose of the
amendment is to increase the maximum sign area allowed for properties over 100,000
square feet in the Industrial and Business Park zoning districts, to apply the same sign
regulations as allowed in the C-2 General Commercial district to the M-X district, and to
clarify and simplify the regulations pertaining to the multi-tenant exemption. He
presented the proposed Sign Area and Height Table 36-362A.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about window signs. She asked about
complaints regarding window signs.
Mr. Morrison said there have been some interpretations on that provision. He said staff
does investigate complaints and in most cases a reduction in window signage is
requested.
Commissioner Carper asked about the impact to properties of 100,000 – 200,000 sq. ft.
required to reduce signage by 50 sq. ft.
Mr. Morrison responded there won’t be an impact because those properties would now
qualify for an exception.
Chair Person opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioners Carper and Peilen acknowledged staff’s work on being proactive on this
issue.
Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of the Zoning Ordinance
amendment pertaining to signs as recommended by staff. Commissioner Peilen seconded
the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: July 6, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager,
5305 Parkdale Drive
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution reversing the Board of Zoning
Appeals denial of St. Louis Park Properties application for variance to increase the maximum
floor area ratio from 0.5 to 0.7.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the Council allow an increase in the floor area ratio
(FAR) from 0.5 to 0.7 to allow a second floor to be constructed within the existing building at
5305 Parkdale Drive.
SUMMARY: St. Louis Park Properties recently purchased the industrial property at 5305
Parkdale Drive with the intent of converting it into a self-storage building. They are currently in
the process of making the conversion; however, they would like to add a second floor within the
existing building. The ceiling height of the building is high enough to facilitate a second floor
within the existing building, so it will not result in an addition that will increase its height. The
additional floor area requires the variance to allow a greater FAR.
The Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) conducted a public hearing, and was split 2-2 on the
application, therefore, the application was denied since BOZA was unable to successfully pass a
motion to approve it.
The applicant appealed BOZA’s decision to the Council. The Council conducted a hearing on
June 15, 2015. The City Council voted 4-2 to direct staff and the City Attorney to prepare a
Resolution approving the variance for Council’s consideration.
A Resolution approving the variance is attached.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Draft Resolution
Council Minutes (unofficial) – (June 15, 2015)
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND DECISION
REVERSING THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS (BOZA)
DENIAL OF ST. LOUIS PARK PROPERTIES APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that
the following Findings and Decision are adopted reversing the Board of Zoning Appeals
(BOZA) denial of St. Louis Park Properties application for variance to the maximum allowed
Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On or about April 28, 2015, St. Louis Park Properties filed a written request for a
variance related to the Floor Area Ration (“FAR”). Specifically, the applicant is requesting a 0.7
FAR where only a 0.5 FAR is allowed.
2. On May 28, 2015, BOZA conducted a public hearing regarding the application.
3. BOZA voted 2-2 to approve the variance, which means the variance request was
denied. BOZA adopted Resolution 1-15.
4. St. Louis Park Properties appealed the decision to the City Council on May 29,
2015.
5. The City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the matter on June 15,
2015.
6. The record consists of the following:
a. Council staff report – June 15, 2015
b. Draft resolution upholding the BOZA determination
c. Letter of appeal to city council, dated May 29, 2015 with enclosures
(i) Letter requesting variance, dated April 28, 2015
(ii) Development plans
d. BOZA resolution denying appeal
e. BOZA staff report with attachments – May 28, 2015
f. BOZA minutes (unofficial) – May 28, 2015
g. Exhibits submitted to BOZA at the public hearing.
7. The City Council closed the public hearing, and on a 4-2 vote directed staff to
draft a Resolution approving the variance application.
8. The Resolution approving the variance to allow a 0.7 FAR instead of the
maximum 0.5 FAR allowed by code came before the City Council on July 6, 2015.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is located at 5403 Parkdale Drive, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(“Subject Property”).
2. The Subject Property is zoned Industrial Park (IP).
3. The applicant is seeking to add a second floor inside the building that would result
in a 0.7 FAR where 0.5 FAR is allowed.
4. When reviewing a variance, the following criteria are examined:
A. The effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety, and welfare of
the community.
The construction will be contained within the existing building, and therefore, will not
add additional height to the structure. A self-storage facility generates minimal traffic.
B. Whether or not the request is in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
The project is a low intensity warehousing-typ e use, which is in harmony with the
general purposes and intent of the ordinance. The purpose and intent of the I-P District is
to provide locations for large and small scale industrial enterprises engaged in activities
including storage, warehousing, and light manufacturing, which are not typically
associated with high levels of noise, soot, odors and other potential nuisance impacts
upon adjoining properties in and industrial park setting.
C. Whether or not the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The request to allow a greater FAR than is otherwise allowed per the zoning ordinance is
not addressed by the Comprehensive Plan.
D. Whether or not the applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties
in complying with the Zoning Ordinance. Practical Difficulty means:
1. The proposed use is permitted in the zoning district in which the land
is located. A variance can be requested for dimensional items only.
The storage facility is permitted in this zoning district.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner.
The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property
and specifically the existing structure on the property. These
circumstances are existing conditions and not created by the landowner.
The building was constructed in three different phases, initially as two
separate buildings that were later connected at the center. The result is a
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
varying floor to ceiling clearance that is, in a large portion of the building,
substantially higher than a traditional building story. The result is that the
development of any usable space on the first floor leaves a substantial
portion of “dead space” where a second floor would be located.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
The additional floor area is contained entirely within the existing building,
and is not noticeable from the exterior.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.
Economic considerations are not the primary issue to be remedied by the
variance. The practical difficulties arise out of the design, construct, and
operation of a facility in which a portion of the structure remains dead
space that must be designed around and also heated, cooled and secured.
5. Practical difficulties include inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Access to direct sunlight is not a factor in the request or the project.
E. Whether or not there are circumstances unique to the shape, topography,
water conditions, or other physical conditions of the property.
The resulting physical condition is a varying floor to ceiling clearance that is in a large
portion of the building substantially higher than a traditional building story. The result is
that the development of any usable space on the first floor leaves a substantial portion of
dead space where a second floor would be located. The dead space creates operational
(heating, cooling, security, safety, etc.) concerns.
F. Whether or not the granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right.
The granting of the variance enables the property owner to utilize the space resulting from
the high ceilings, and to put the property to more efficient use.
G. Whether or not the granting of the variance will impair light and air to the
surrounding properties, unreasonably increase congestion, increase the
danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
If approved, the proposed variance would not impair light and air to the surrounding
properties, or increase the congestion, danger of fire, or endanger public safety. The storage
use generates less traffic than other uses allowed in the zoning district.
H. Whether or not the granting of the variance will merely serve as a
convenience or is it necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience. The design and
construction of the building results in wasted space that requires the expenditure of energy
and resources to heat, cool and secure.
DECISION
Based upon the above findings, the Board of Zoning Appeals’ denial of St. Louis Park
Properties variance application is reversed. The requested variance for 0.7 FAR instead of the
maximum 0.5 allowed by the zoning ordinance is approved with the condition that the pavement
in the southeast portion of the property is removed and replaced with a rain garden and the
additional façade improvements are made as illustrated in the Official Exhibits.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council July 6, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
(SEAL)
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 15, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Fire Chief (Mr.
Koering), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Controller (Mr. Swanson), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Senior Engineering
Project Manager (Mr. Elkin), Water Resource Manager (Mr. Francis), Firefighter (Mr.
Nordstrom), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
6b. Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones,
Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive. Resolution No. 15-085.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and stated that St. Louis Park Properties has
proposed to add a second floor inside its existing building and this request requires an
increase in the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) from 0.5 to 0.7. He explained that
BOZA conducted a public hearing and a motion to deny the variance failed on 2-2 vote.
He stated that another motion to approve the variance also failed on a 2-2 vote, therefore,
the application was denied since BOZA failed to pass a motion to approve the variance.
He presented an aerial photo of the site as well as the site plan showing the build-out as a
self-storage facility and explained that portions of the building have ceiling heights to
accommodate the second floor as indicated on the drawing and a second building permit
application was received to install a second floor and increase the FAR. He recited the
applicable Zoning Code regulations and reviewed the criteria for granting a variance,
including whether the request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance. He stated that indoor storage is permitted in the Industrial Park
District, however, the request to increase FAR to 0.7 is not consistent with the intent of
the Zoning Ordinance. He stated all properties in the Industrial Park District are required
to maintain a FAR less than 0.5 and this variance would result in a potential competitive
advantage with other properties that comply with the Code. He stated that a practical
difficulty does not exist in complying with the Ordinance and the applicant has
demonstrated he has reasonable use of the property and the variance would allow the
applicant to fill “dead space” resulting from the high ceilings. He indicated the applicant
is renovating the building and the variance would result in additional rentable floor area
that exceeds the maximum allowed and it appears that economic considerations are the
only result of the variance and there are no unique circumstances applying to this
property that would require it to have more floor area than allowed by Code or allowed
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
for other properties in this zoning district. He stated the property owner has had
reasonable use of the property and the applicant is in the process of renovating it into a
self-storage facility that meets the City’s 0.5 FAR and a practical difficulty does not exist
that would require a FAR greater than allowed by Code. He then introduced Mr. Todd
Jones, Chief Manager, St. Louis Park Properties.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Mr. Todd Jones, St. Louis Park Properties, stated the variance request would allow them
to construct the additional floor area and complete the second level all within the existing
building with no expansion of the exterior or footprint. He stated they are a local
company and their business is a neighborhood business, their customers are primarily
from a one to two mile radius, and 20-25% of their customers are small businesses from
the area. He stated that all activities of their business are internal to the building and the
use is low intensity and they do not make noise or cause pollution, they are a low
consumer of city services and are low generators of traffic, adding their use generates
lower traffic than any other industrial use. He stated the existing buildings have different
floor elevations, roof elevations, varying ceiling heights, and exterior materials that have
not been updated and indicated that in conjunction with the variance, a number of
exterior improvements are planned to coincide with the interior floor area expansion,
including removal of 12,000 square feet of existing hardcover from the southeast corner
of the site and replacing it with a rain garden designed to control the rate of stormwater
discharged from the site. He stated they also propose to add a drive-through loading and
unloading area that would bring most activity internal to the building. He stated they
plan to install new curb and gutter on both street fronts, they are proposing to plant 36
trees and 231 shrubs, and they are proposing to enhance the north and south building
elevations to an updated contemporary design compatible with the neighborhood. He
stated this is not all about economic gain and the rental rate on a 10’x10’ storage space
would be the same whether the variance is supported or not and this is about attempting
to provide the best development possible for the City, for the property owner, for the
neighbors and the community, adding the variance request is supported by the neighbors.
Mr. Bill Griffith, Larkin Hoffman, representing St. Louis Park Properties, stated the
rationale for FAR is to limit the bulk, height, and intensity of a use and the second floor
expansion is located entirely within the building and will not result in a taller building
and no other improvements are visible other than those proposed. He stated there would
be no increase in height or bulk, and because of the low trip generating use, there is not
an increased intensity of use in terms of infrastructure and there will be a reduction in
hardscape, an increase in landscaping, and exterior improvements. He indicated there are
a number of findings that are positive, i.e., no negative impacts to health, safety or
welfare, additional traffic would be negligible, and if the variance were granted, it would
not impair light and air to surrounding properties. He stated the current configuration is
in three separate buildings with varying heights and they are not able to use the entire
space without the proposed second floor addition, adding you cannot make the best reuse
of this building without a variance to FAR and when you balance that against the impact
to surrounding properties, it is negligible or zero, or an improvement based on the
proposed improvements. He stated they believe the rationale for a variance is met
because the use is reasonable and there is a benefit not just to the property owner but also
to the City and surrounding properties. He requested that the variance be approved.
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 8
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
Councilmember Brausen asked if removal of the 12,000 square feet of asphalt for the rain
garden would happen whether or not the variance is approved. He asked about recycling
and trash on site. He asked if there would be only one driveway access on Cedar Lake
Road after reconfiguring the lot. He asked if outdoor storage would be allowed.
Mr. Jones stated the rain garden coincides with the variance request and they would
stipulate the rain garden as part of the variance approval. He stated the use does not
generate a lot of trash and customers are asked to remove anything brought on site. He
added they do have trash and recycling for their use. He stated they are removing one
curb cut and there will be only one driveway entrance off Cedar Lake Road. He stated
that a small amount of outdoor storage is located on the west side of the building.
Councilmember Spano noted that the staff report indicated that if the applicant desires
additional floor area he could have requested a rezoning to General Industrial which
allows a FAR of 1.0 and asked if the applicant considered pursuing a rezoning.
Mr. Griffith replied that City staff indicated they would not support a rezoning. He stated
this application for 0.7 FAR is perhaps a middle ground between the allowable 0.5 FAR
and the 1.0 FAR allowed in the General Industrial District and represents a full use of the
building without rezoning.
Mr. Morrison stated that the General Industrial zoning allows more outside storage that
was not deemed a good use for the area.
Mr. Mattick discussed the Minnesota lawsuit and action taken by the legislature to give
cities better standing and that adopted the standards used by the counties. He stated the
statute lays out practical difficulties and the applicant must demonstrate the practical
difficulty and must show that what they are proposing to use the property for is a
reasonable use.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to Adopt
the variance request subject to the conditions that 12,000 square feet of asphalt be
removed for construction of a rain garden, that façade improvements be made as
presented to the Council, and to direct the City Attorney to prepare Resolution No.
15-085 Approving the variance request.
Councilmember Brausen stated he agrees with the applicant that the impact of the
variance is minimal in that the space already exists at this location, that traffic would not
be increased, and that the usage is not going to intensify significantly, adding he likes that
they are repurposing the building. He stated if Council had considered a rezoning that
would allow expansion of FAR, the City would open itself up to all sorts of future uses at
this location and felt this was a good opportunity for the applicant to maximize the utility
and value of the space and he did not like that government created an impediment to
doing that and the proposal seems reasonable and he supported the variance.
Councilmember Sanger stated the applicant is already making good use of the property
and did not think there were any obstacles preventing him from making good use of the
City Council Meeting of July 6, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 9
Title: Appeal of BOZA Decision – St. Louis Park Properties, Mr. Todd Jones Chief Manager, 5305 Parkdale Drive
property and that aspect of the legal requirement for granting a variance had not been
met. She stated there has not been any claim that there is anything about the shape of the
property, the gradient, wetlands, or anything about the property itself that prevents the
applicant from making reasonable use of the property. She stated that other similarly
situated businesses have to live with the 0.5 FAR and the applicant is asking for the
ability to make a greater profit on the same amount of square footage, representing an
unfair competitive advantage and this puts the City in an awkward place. She stated the
rain garden and other exterior improvements can be done without a variance and have
nothing to do with the variance request and this request is whether to allow more FAR to
have a larger self-storage capacity and to make a greater profit. She opined economics
are not a valid basis for the granting of a variance and she would not support the variance
request.
The motion passed 4-2 (Councilmembers Sanger and Spano opposed).