HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016/08/01 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
AUGUST 1, 2016
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Westwood Room
Discussion Items
1. 6:15 p.m. Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan
Written Reports
2. SWLRT Update
7:25 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Approval of City Disbursements
6. Old Business
7. New Business
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes June 27, 2016
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes July 11, 2016
Meeting of August 1, 2016
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.
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.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care
Dwellings
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending
the zoning ordinance to opt-out of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3593 which defines
and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings, and to set the second reading
for August 15, 2016.
8b. Assessment Policy
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution 00-078 and
approving updated City Assessment Policy.
9. Communications – None
Meeting of August 1, 2016
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of July 9 through July 22,
2016.
4b. Approve entering in to a two year lease agreement between the City and Meadowbrook
Manor apartment complex relating to allowing public park equipment and activities
within the Meadowbrook Manor apartment complex. The current lease expires on
August 31, 2016.
4c. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance amending Division 10. Floodplain
Districts Section 36-292(f) of the City Code to allow compensatory flood storage be
provided using accepted engineering practices to achieve the goal of eliminating any
increase in flood stage as a result of a project, and authorize publication of summary
ordinance.
4d. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Church of the Holy
Family at 5900 West Lake Street for their event to be held September 10, 2016.
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs on 29th Street at Blackstone
Avenue.
4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of stop signs on Alabama Avenue at 34th
Street.
4g. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$30,022.06 for Project 2013-1000 Pavement Management Project (Area 2) with Valley
Paving, Inc., Contract No. 48-14.
4h. Adopt Resolution accepting donations to the Fire Department.
4i. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes of
March 2, 2016
4j. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes of
April 6, 2016
4k. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes of
May 4, 2016
4l. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes of
June 1, 2016
4m. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2016
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: August 1, 2016
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss ideas with consulting firm Next Generation Consulting
related to the next Vision and Comprehensive Plan process.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Staff desires feedback on the potential consultants and approach
to conducting our Vision process.
SUMMARY: In June the Council and Staff discussed the process for updating St. Louis Park’s
Vision and Comprehensive Plan. The first step was to investigate and identify a consultant or
consultants to help us with the Visioning process and preparing the Comprehensive Plan. The goal
is to have a consultant on board by the end of the summer and to begin the Visioning update
process this fall.
Two potential Visioning consultants have been identified. Last week the first consultant from
Future iQ presented for the Council. On Monday night at a special study session, the second
consultant, Rebecca Ryan of Next Generation Consulting will present ideas and a proposed
approach. The Next Generation Consulting proposal is attached.
The intent is to bring forward a recommended consultant for Council approval at the August 15th
Council meeting. A refined and much more detailed visioning process/scope of work will be
prepared once the consultant is chosen. The detailed process will build on the approach presented
to the Council and the feedback received. Discussion with the consultant at the study sessions may
surround such subjects as experience, methods, outcomes, community engagement techniques,
availability, and other Council expectations.
NEXT STEPS: Following the presentation at the August 1st Council Study Session, the Council
will have a chance for further discussion of the relative merits of the consultants for St. Louis Park.
A refined scope of work and contract will be written and brought back to the City Council for
approval. It is expected the consultant could begin in September.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Vision and Comprehensive Plan process
will require financial resources from the city. The amount of resources is yet to be determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Next Generation Consulting Proposal
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan
DISCUSSION
VISION BACKGROUND: The City conducted major community visioning processes in 1995
and 2005. The outcomes of these processes provide a very strong basis for the community’s
direction – and these directions have provided a solid foundation of goals and policies that have
served the community (and the city government) very well for the past 20+ years.
Updating our Vision will build on the foundation created through the earlier Visioning efforts. The
directions chosen in past processes continue to be important and relevant. New initiatives and
directions will be identified in the update process. They will be incorporated into the Vision and
the City’s Plan for 2040.
NEXT STEPS:
The next steps for the Vision process will be:
Summer/Fall
Select consultant for Visioning
Develop detailed community engagement process
Develop branding and communications plan for the effort
Organize internal/interdepartmental teams
Begin informing the community about the influence the previous Vision processes have
had on the community and the progress toward the goals and priorities previously
identified.
Begin promoting Vision engagement process
Begin Vision engagement
Future Forward
>> St. Louis Park
Community Engagement and
Forecasting Proposal | Draft
July 15, 2016
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 3
CONTENTS
Project Overview 3 ...................................................................................................................................
Work Plan 4 ................................................................................................................................................
Stage 0: Prepare for Success 4 .....................................................................................................
Stage 1: Community Engagement 4 .................................................................................................
Stage 2: Forecast 6 ...........................................................................................................................
Stage 3: Synthesize 7 ........................................................................................................................
Stage 4: Review Results with Steering Committee, Council, & Staff 7 .....................................
Stage 5: From Vision to Plan 8 ........................................................................................................
Stage 6: Launch and Execute 9 ........................................................................................................
Meet the Team 10 .....................................................................................................................................
Timing …….. 12 ............................................................................................................................................
Joint Accountabilities 12 .........................................................................................................................
Investment, Terms & Conditions 13 .......................................................................................................
References 14 ...........................................................................................................................................
2
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 4
PROJECT OVERVIEW
Future Forward >> St. Louis Park includes these goals: 1
1. Engage the broadest possible cross-section of St. Louis Park residents — especially
those who are traditionally underrepresented — in a dialogue about the future of
their community;
2. Develop a dynamic and ambitious plan (including vision and focus areas) that will
make St. Louis Park an even better place to live, work, and play now and in the
future;
3. Align the results of Future Forward with the City of St. Louis Park’s next
comprehensive plan
Future Forward >> St. Louis Park is the name we’re giving this project. The Steering Committee, City Council or 1
City of St. Louis Park staff can suggest other options.
3
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 5
WORK PLAN
To meet these goals, we recommend the following seven-stage work plan.
Stage 0: Prepare for Success
Before the Future Forward >> St. Louis Park is publicly launched, we recommend:
1. The City and Council choose a group of community representatives to serve on the
Future Forward steering committee. Ideally, this committee would be generationally
diverse, ethnically diverse, and diverse according to sector, i.e. nonprofit, business,
civic, etc.
2. City Council and staff have an opportunity to review and discuss the Future Forward
work plan (this document) with the consultants and project staff;
3. The City appoints a liaison to work day to day with the project manager from the NEXT
Generation Consulting, Inc. staff;
4. The Future Forward Steering Committee meets in person with the consultants and
project staff to agree on founding principles, e.g. Transparency, Inclusion, and Future-
mindedness, and begin planning for a successful project. Special emphasis is made on
identifying and engaging traditionally underrepresented groups.
5. Consultants and project staff determine the project’s communication plan. This includes
deadlines for the Park Perspective; an engagement plan for Facebook, Twitter, Park Alert
and other online outlets, and media plans for the Sun-Sailor, Star Tribune, and Pioneer
Press as appropriate.
Stage 1: Community Engagement
This stage generally includes a lot of community “buzz”, staff time, and logistics planning.
We recommend two methods to reach the goals of including all residents, especially those
who are traditionally under-represented:
Strategy 1: They Come to Us
1. A series of short online surveys and open-ended questions delivered through the
City of St. Louis Park’s email and text subscription service;
2. Using the City’s Facebook page to publish questions and meeting details for
followers who may be interested in participating in Future Forward.
4
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 6
3. Town Hall Meetings. These meetings are open to the public and are terrific for those
who are tuned into the City and have the interest and time to show up for a public
meeting.
Strategy 2: Targeted Outreach - We Go To Them
To reach residents who aren’t fans of the City’s Facebook page and who don’t normally
show up to public forums, we recommend a series of special listening sessions targeted
based on demographic trends in St. Louis Park. Based on past clients, these groups are
often under-represented:
Children, e.g. middle and/or high school students
Members of specific faith communities, e.g. Jewish, Muslim, etc.
Members of the specific ethnic communities, e.g. Russian, Latino, etc.
Residents who live in affordable housing
Young professionals who live or work in St. Louis Park but are unlikely to attend
meetings
Parents of school-aged children who are too busy to attend meetings, e.g.
hockey moms
Senior citizens who no longer drive or do limited driving
Beyond listening sessions, a passive way to elicit input is the “One Wish” chalkboards (see
photo on the next page). These may be loaned and shipped from Willmar, or new
5
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 7
chalkboards can be built on-site in St. Louis Park. The great benefit of these chalkboards is
that they are mobile and can be taken around to different locations, e.g. the Aquatic Park in
summer, National Night Out, to food truck fairs, and to other community festivals and
events.
Stage 2: Forecast
In this stage, the NEXT Generation Consulting team scans for trends that are most likely to
impact St. Louis Park in the next 20 years. We look at demographics, government, housing,
technology, the economy, and more. We use data from MetCouncil, the US Census plus
private or obscure databases to generate projections and scenarios for the future of St.
Louis Park.
6
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 8
Stage 3: Synthesize
Here, we take all the
community input generated
from Stage 1 and the
forecasts from Stage 2 —
plus pre-existing data, e.g.
community surveys, the
2007 Vision St. Louis Park
plan, etc. — and turn it into
charts, tables, infographics,
visualizations and pull-
quotes to bring the data and
recommendations to life.
(See example at right from
Eagan, MN plan.)
Stage 4: Review
Results with Steering
Committee, Council,
and Staff
In this stage, NEXT
Generation Consulting
presents the key findings
from Stages 1 through 3 to
two groups: The Steering
Committee, followed by a
second, separate presentation to City Council and Staff.
The Steering Committee will be asked:
How do these insights align with what you heard during the community engagement
process?
Where is further clarification needed?
What’s missing?
Which ideas or recommendations have the most potential to transform St. Louis
Park?
Which ideas or recommendations do you want to prioritize for presentation to the
City Council and Staff?
7
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 9
City Council and Staff will discuss the previous questions plus:
Which ideas have unanimous support from Council and Staff?
Which ideas or recommendations require Council support? Staff support?
Community support?
What is the natural timeline for implementing ideas and recommendations, e.g. next
12 months, next 36 months, etc.?
In light of these results, is our current Vision and Mission still valid, or do they need
tweaking?
Stage 5: From Vision to Plan
In this stage, we use the Strategic Doing process to move the vision and recommendations
into the comprehensive plan and department plans for the City of St. Louis Park.
1. Janyce Fadden and NEXT Generation Consulting staff will facilitate a day-long workshop
with the City of St. Louis Park staff to process the outcomes from Stage 4 into
departmental plans.
2. Shai Roos and Brian Guenzel from SJR Planning Consultants will make a series of
detailed recommendations for the City’s comprehensive plan.
3. (Optional) After the plans are developed, they will be shared with the City Council for
review and discussion.
8
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 10
Stage 6: (Optional) Launch & Execute
As of the date of this proposal, this stage is undefined. We strongly recommend that the City
reports back to the community about the results of their input and plans the city is taking.
This can be accomplished through the City’s website, the St. Louis Park Memo, or other
outlets. If our assistance is needed, we will execute a separate agreement.
9
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 11
MEET THE TEAM
The following people will play a role Future Forward >> St. Louis Park:
Rebecca Ryan - Futurist
Rebecca will serve as St. Louis Park’s futurist and will co-facilitate
most steering committee and community meetings with Stephanie
Ricketts (see below). Rebecca’s strengths are engaging and
mobilizing stakeholders towards the project's vision. Rebecca is
the author of The Next Big Things: The Next 20 Years in Local
Government (2015); ReGENERATION: A Manifesto for America’s
Future Leaders (2013); and Live First, Work Second: Getting Inside
the Head of the NEXT Generation Consulting (2007). Described as a "human spark plug," she
is the founder and owner of NEXT Generation Consulting, the Resident Futurist at the
Alliance for Innovation, the Resident Futurist at AGRiP, and a Senior Advisor at the
Governing Institute. Rebecca has degrees in Economics and International Relations from
Drake University and a certificate in Strategic Foresight from the University of Houston.
LinkedIn. Website.
Stephanie Ricketts - Project Management
Stephanie will serve as the Project Manager for Future Forward. She
will handle all the day to day communication (including social media)
and will keep the project on track. When she’s not helping St. Louis
Park, Stephanie is our Camp Director and Community Builder. How
does she get it all done? She’s organized! She has a graduate
certificate in Sustainability from Edgewood College, a project
management certificate from the University of Wisconsin and a
Bachelor of Arts from the University of Wisconsin. LinkedIn. Website.
Lisa Loniello - Support
Lisa will be the backstop for Rebecca and Stephanie, helping as
needed. Lisa is Rebecca’s right hand, coordinating her speaking
and travel schedule. Before NEXT Generation Consulting, Lisa had
2,300 bosses - the members of the Greater Madison Chamber of
Commerce! Lisa has a Bachelors degrees in Spanish from the
University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh. Website.
10
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 12
Shai Roos - Planner
Shai and Brian (below) will ensure that St. Louis Park’s vision and
plans can be parlayed into its next comprehensive plan. Shai has
over 17 years of public and private sector planning experience.
She was a Chief Planner for the City of Dallas in both the
Development Services and Economic Development departments.
She also served as the Director of Community & Economic
Development for the City of Burleson, TX. Before founding SJR
Planning Consultants, Shai worked “on the other side” as a land
developer for Walton Development and Management where she worked on land acquisition,
entitlements and development strategy on 15,000 acres in the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex.
Shai never rests; she teaches graduate level courses related to City planning, land
development and redevelopment at the School of Urban and Public Affairs at UT Arlington.
LinkedIn. Website.
Brian Guenzel - Public Health & Built
Environment Specialist
Brian will work with Shai to ensure that St. Louis Park’s vision
and plans can be parlayed into its next comprehensive plan. Brian
has 13 years of experience in planning and public health,
focused on empowering communities to actively participate in
determining their own future. He believes that the hallmark of
good planning and good governance is that the public doesn’t
notice it! He compares this to his previous life in Hollywood,
where good movie editing is invisible. LinkedIn. Website.
Janyce Fadden - Strategic Doing
Janyce will lead the Strategic Doing stage. Janyce is the Executive
in Residence at the University of North Alabama’s College of
Business and a Strategic Doing consultant, working with founder
Ed Morrison at Purdue University’s Center for Regional
Development. She previously served as President of the
Rockford Area Economic Development Council in Rockford,
Illinois and has experiences as President, Vice President, and
General Manager for major multinational corporations including
Honeywell, General Signal, Applied Power, Pacific Scientific, and Danaher. Janyce earned
her Bachelors of Science in Engineering and Management from Clarkson University in
Potsdam, New York, and her Masters of Business Administration from Northern Illinois
University. LinkedIn. Website.
11
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 13
TIMING
This project is estimated to begin in September or October 2016 and take six to nine months
to complete, dependent on timelines and schedules.
JOINT ACCOUNTABILITIES
NEXT Generation Consulting Inc.’s accountabilities will include: signing and conforming
with all nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements; professionally facilitating all
interviews, town hall meetings, listening sessions, and Steering Committee meetings;
designing and analyzing surveys; completing all forecasting processes; adhering to agreed
upon deadlines; responding to requests and questions within one business day; and
providing progress reports at agreed upon milestones.
The City of St. Louis Park’s accountabilities will include: identifying and organizing the
Future Forward >> St. Louis Park Steering Committee; identifying a liaison from the City staff
for this project; providing NEXT Generation Consulting with access and introductions to all
key staff, Council, and partners involved in this project; providing all information material to
this project; taking photos and tabulating the “One Wish” chalkboard results; providing
administrative support as needed to schedule on-site meetings; providing meeting space
when needed; responding to inquiries and requests; and paying in conformance with the
terms below.
We will both alert each other immediately of anything we learn that may materially affect
the success of this project. We will respect each other’s confidentiality and proprietary
materials and approaches. We will achieve reasonable accommodation for conflicts,
unforeseen events, and other priorities. We will work with a spirit of respect and
collaboration.
12
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 14
REFERENCES
This is a partial list of clients for whom we have completed similar Visioning and
Forecasting projects. We would be happy to introduce you to anyone on this list:
The Association of Government Risk Pools
Charleston, South Carolina
Cottage Grove, Minnesota (starting in September 2016)
Eagan, Minnesota
Local Government Institute of Wisconsin (in process)
Minnetonka, Minnesota (in process)
Northlake, Texas
Southwest Louisiana
The University of North Carolina School of Government
Willmar, Minnesota
14
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 1)
Title: Consulting Services for Vision/Comprehensive Plan Page 15
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Written Report: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: SWLRT Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None – this report is provided to update the Council on SWLRT
related matters.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of questions or concerns
you might have regarding the information provided in this report.
SUMMARY:
Environmental Record of Decision (ROD)
On July 15, 2016, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) signed the Record of Decision (ROD)
for the Southwest LRT Project. The ROD provides the FTA's determination that the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) have been satisfied for the Southwest
Light Rail Transit) Project.
The ROD summarizes the alternatives considered, the impacts identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Statement, and measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts.
On August 10, 2016 the Metropolitan Council will take final action on the Environmental work.
Link to ROD document:
http://www.metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Projects/Current-Projects/Southwest-
LRT/Environmental/Record-of-Decision.aspx
Scope, Budget and Schedule
Scope - The scope of the project has been slightly revised to improve trail crossings, pedestrian
tunnels and road extensions to provide better local access and connections for local communities.
Budget -The revised budget recognized in-kind land value and places the budget at $1.839 billion.
This amount finalizes the scope, cost estimate, and project budget for Engineering Application to
FTA, and “freezes” the federal share for the project.
Schedule -The schedule previously anticipated a late 2020 opening date; the revised schedule
anticipates 2021 date, with construction completed in 2020 and system-wide integration testing,
pre-revenue testing and training operation activities in 2021.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: SWLRT CMC Resolution on Scope and Budget
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
July 21, 2016
Southwest LRT Corridor Management Committee Resolution
WHEREAS:
1. The Governor designated the Metropolitan Council (Council) as the responsible authority for the
Southwest LRT (SWLRT) Project;
2. The Council established the Corridor Management Committee (CMC) to advise the Council in the
design and construction of the SWLRT Project;
3. The Council established the Southwest LRT Project Office (SPO) to advance the design, manage
construction and overall delivery of the SWLRT Project;
4. The CMC recommended a revised Project Scope and Cost Estimate on July 1, 2015 to reflect
project cost reductions;
5. The Council adopted a revised Project Scope and Cost Estimate on July 8, 2015 to reflect project
scope and cost reductions;
6. The CMC reviewed on December 9, 2015, but did not act on, the addition of station access
improvements at Blake, Louisiana, Wooddale and Beltline Stations;
7. The Executive Change Control Board on January 15, 2016, approved the addition of station access
improvements at Blake, Louisiana, Wooddale and Beltline Stations;
8. The CMC recommended on February 3, 2016 and the Council approved on February 24, 2016
revised station names;
9. The SPO identified in-kind land value to incorporate into the project cost estimate and off-set
outstanding (non-state) local funding commitment; and
10. The SPO presented an adjusted Project Scope, Cost Estimate and Schedule on July 21, 2016 for
CMC consideration and recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE:
BE IT RESOLVED, the CMC recommends that the Metropolitan Council adopt the revised Southwest LRT
Project’s Cost Estimate of $1.839 billion to reflect in-kind land value;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CMC recommends that the Metropolitan Council adopt the revised
Southwest LRT Project Scope (Attachment A) with the following additions related to station access
improvements:
• Blake Road Station: Trail underpass;
• Louisiana Avenue Station: Pedestrian underpass;
• Wooddale Avenue Station: Trail underpass; and
• Beltline Boulevard Station: Trail bridge and access road.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the CMC acknowledges that the revised project schedule anticipates a
revenue service year of 2021; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the SPO continue to work with project stakeholders to provide updates on
project milestones of the SWLRT Project and to seek their input.
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: SWLRT Update Page 2
July 21, 2016
ATTACHMENT A
CMC Recommendation 1
Southwest LRT Project Scope
Eden Prairie Alignment
Line ends at SouthWest Station with an additional 450 stall park-and-ride structure. SouthWest Transit
express and local bus operations remain. Defer Eden Prairie Town Center Station.
9 Mile Creek Crossing
Alignment includes an LRT bridge over Flying Cloud Drive, avoiding impacts to traffic operations and
minimizing property and wetland impacts.
Golden Triangle Station
Golden Triangle Station platform located north of 70th Street and includes a 200 stall park-and-ride
surface lot east of the station platform.
Shady Oak Road and TH 212 Crossings
LRT crosses Shady Oak Road and TH212 on a single bridge from the Golden Triangle Station to the west
side of TH 212, accommodating City of Eden Prairie’s interchange improvements at
Shady Oak Road/TH 212.
City West Station and TH 62 Crossing
City West Station platform located at grade adjacent to United Health Group development and TH 62
and includes a 160 stall surface park-and-ride. Includes a cut and cover tunnel under TH 62 from City
West into the Opus development.
Opus Station
Opus Station platform located south of Bren Road West on the east side of Bren Road East with a 80
stall surface park-and-ride (on property to be leased). Includes trail connections to the platform from
both adjacent roadways.
Opus Hill/Minnetonka-Hopkins Bridge
Alignment runs along “Opus Hill” (between Bren Road West and Smetana Road) minimizing wetland
impacts and travels under Smetana and Feltl Roads. Includes 3000’-long, 125’- span pre-stressed beam
bridge over the wetlands south of the Canadian Pacific Bass Lake Spur Rail alignment and over the CP
line towards K-Tel Road.
Shady Oak Station
Shady Oak Station platform located south of the Minnesota River Bluffs LRT Regional Trail with a 800
stall surface park-and-ride and minimizing property impacts. Extends 17th Avenue from Excelsior
Boulevard south into the park-and-ride and to the station.
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: SWLRT Update Page 3
July 21, 2016
ATTACHMENT A
CMC Recommendation 2
Downtown Hopkins Station
Downtown Hopkins Station platform located east of 8th Avenue includes a 190 stall park-and-ride ramp.
Bus stop and layover on Excelsior Boulevard.
Excelsior Boulevard Crossing
LRT bridge over Excelsior Boulevard and extended to allow for LRT alignment to be placed on the
southerly portion of the corridor with CP Bass Lake Spur freight tracks located north of the LRT tracks
and the Cedar Lake LRT Regional Trail located north of the CP tracks.
Blake Road Station
Blake Road Station platform located west of Blake Road on the southern portion of the corridor.
Includes a 89 stall surface park-and-ride, an access road south of the platform and a trail underpass
Louisiana Avenue Station
Louisiana Avenue Station platform located east of Louisiana Avenue and north of Oxford Street. LRT
crossing of Louisiana Avenue is grade separated on a new LRT bridge structure. Includes a 350 stall
surface park-and-ride utilizing the properties acquired for the station platform and tracks and a
pedestrian underpass.
Wooddale Avenue Station
Wooddale Avenue Station platform located just east of Wooddale Avenue on the southern portion of
the corridor and a trail underpass. No park-and-ride at station.
TH 100 Crossing
Freight bridge relocated from the southern portion of the corridor to the north of the LRT tracks. New
double track LRT bridge constructed on the southern portion of the corridor utilizing existing freight
bridge abutments. Trail bridge remains on the northern portion of the corridor.
Beltline Boulevard Station
Beltline Boulevard Station platform located east of Beltline Boulevard on the southern portion of the
corridor. Includes a 268 stall surface park-and-ride east of Beltline Boulevard north of the platform. Bus
stop and layover located within surface park-and-ride area. Includes grade separated trail bridge over
freight and LRT east of the station and access road.
West Lake Street Station
West Lake Street Station platform located south of the West Lake Street Bridge. Bus stop located on the
West Lake Street bridge and additional bus stop and layover located on Abbott Avenue/Chowen Avenue
east of station platform. No park-and-ride at station. Vertical circulation is included on both sides of the
bridge to the station platform level.
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: SWLRT Update Page 4
July 21, 2016
ATTACHMENT A
CMC Recommendation 3
Kenilworth Corridor
LRT alignment within one shallow LRT tunnel from West Lake Street bridge to a point south of the
Kenilworth Channel with separate LRT, freight and trail bridge structures over the Kenilworth Channel.
Cedar Lake Parkway and 21st Street have freight tracks and trail at-grade as exists today.
21st Street Station at grade; no park-and-ride.
Bassett Creek Valley Corridor
Bryn Mawr Station platform located south of I-394 with vertical circulation and a pedestrian walkway
from Penn Avenue. No park-and-ride at station. North Cedar Lake Regional Trail crossing the
Kenilworth freight tracks and the LRT tracks at-grade at the west end of the platform.
Bassett Creek Valley Station located under the Van White Boulevard Bridge with vertical circulation to
connect to the east side of the bridge. Bus stop and layover provided south of platform with access to
Linden Avenue and Van White Boulevard at I-394. No park-and-ride at station.
Royalston Avenue/Farmers Market Station
Royalston Avenue/Farmers Market Station platform located south of 5th Avenue North on the east side
of Royalston Avenue. LRT alignment includes at-grade crossings at Glenwood Avenue and at the N 12th
Street/Holden Street/Royalston Avenue intersection with a bridge over 7th Street North to connect with
the Interchange Project. No park-and-ride at station.
Freight Rail Co-location
Freight rail is on the CP Bass Lake Spur with a horizontal alignment shift that places the freight rail track
north of the LRT tracks from a point east of the crossing at Excelsior Boulevard to West Lake Station.
Removal of the north half of the Skunk Hollow switching wye and a new freight rail southerly connection
from eastbound CP Bass Lake Spur to the southbound CP MN&S Spur are included. The freight rail
alignment matches existing conditions through the Kenilworth Corridor except for a horizontal
alignment shift between Cedar Lake Parkway and the Burnham Road bridge. Freight track is on a new
bridge structure over the Channel and is shifted up to approximately 40 feet to the west of the existing
freight track. LRT alignment is within one shallow LRT tunnel in the Kenilworth Corridor and on a bridge
structure over the Kenilworth Channel.
Operation & Maintenance Facility
Facility located in Hopkins south of 5th Street and east of the LRT alignment. The facility is also bounded
by the CP Bass Lake Spur to the south and 15th Avenue to the east. The site design limits property
impacts and offers redevelopment opportunities.
Special Study Session Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 2)
Title: SWLRT Update Page 5
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of EDA Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Disbursement Claims for the
period of July 9 through July 22, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in
accordance with Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA Bylaws?
SUMMARY: The Finance 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: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:05:28R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
168.75EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
112.50ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
281.25
126.00GREEN HORIZONS 7015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP LAND MAINTENANCE
244.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LAND MAINTENANCE
370.00
244.33INFOGROUPDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
244.33
333.00LHB ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS LOUISIANA LRT STATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
333.00
72,649.34ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB
72,649.34
Report Totals 73,877.92
Economic Development Authority Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 2
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 27, 2016
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom
Miller, and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Spano.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Senior
Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Shamla), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman) Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Planning and Zoning
Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), CIO (Mr. Pires), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Pappas)
Guest: Brady Mueller and Cindy Douthett Nagel - Krech, O’Brien, Mueller and Associates.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning –July 11, 2016
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for July 11, 2016. There will be no
meeting on July 4, due to the holiday, and no meeting on July 5. The next City Council meeting
will be held July 11, 2016. At the July 11th meeting, there will be an update on the SWLRT, the
American Legion’s proposed liquor ordinance amendment, and the Teen Center.
Councilmember Sanger asked to add a discussion on a possible change in city auditor as
recommended by best practice. Councilmember Hallfin agreed that it is time for this discussion.
He also added he would like a discussion on the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance before each
council meeting, and if it is necessary or not. He added he does not see a purpose for it, and would
like to discuss this at a future meeting.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity asked staff to balance the future agendas, so as not to have too many items
on one and only a few on another.
2. Remodeling of City Council Chambers
Mr. Hoffman stated the Council Chambers was last remodeled in 1999 and prior to that in the
1970’s. He added that $300,000 is in the CIP for replacement of wall and floor coverings, chairs,
lighting fixtures and ceiling tiles in the Council Chambers in 2017. Additionally, $100,000 is set
aside for technology replacement and updates. Remodeling of the Chambers is the final portion of
a three-phase remodeling plan being completed for City Hall.
Staff is asking council for direction to determine if the current orientation of the space is desirable
for the next 15-20 year life cycle of the materials. The existing public entry into the Council
Chambers from the front/side of the room is atypical and generally not welcoming and also
presents some security concerns.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
Chief Luse stated a safety audit of City Hall was conducted recently and the layout of the Council
Chambers was reviewed. He noted the proposed south orientation in the architects concept drawing
was created in order to provide a place for council to go in case of a safety threat. Additionally, it
was noted there is a panic button under the desk that the new City Council needs to be trained on.
He noted additional options for Council Chambers might include more cameras and also bullet
resistant materials that can be used in the design of the furniture. Currently there is one camera in
Council Chambers. Chief Luse also explained that FEMA training provides for the run, hide, and
fight method.
Councilmember Miller noted that it seems odd to have the current hidden entry door into the
Council Chambers, and added that it gets noisy at the entrance as some people enter not realizing
there is a meeting in progress. He added council may want to discuss the possibility of having a
police officer in chambers during City Council meetings.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is not interested in more safety measures, adding he would not
want to project fear about what could happen in the future. He added that we cannot protect against
everything and noted he is not sure that spending money on safety is the answer. He would like to
see more money spent on updating the technical aspects of the chambers.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity agreed and stated if someone wants to do harm, they will do it. She added
she agrees that what has been done for safety in Council Chambers is fine.
Councilmember Lindberg added he wants to have a smart discussion about Council Chambers,
and feels upgrades to make the room look more like the rest of City Hall are definitely needed.
Councilmember Sanger stated there has been feedback from residents asking why the city
continues to remodel City Hall. She added people want the council to justify the remodels, and if
council moves forward on this remodel, they will need to give reasons for spending more money.
Having said this, Councilmember Sanger agreed the Council Chambers is not aesthetically
pleasing.
The council was shown a potential design plan for reorienting the Council Chambers during a
remodel. Moving the dais to the south side of the room would add about 500 square feet of
additional space that could be used for seating. The design plan also included moving the entrance
to the rear and allowing windows to be added into the common wall with the lobby.
The council members agreed that the screen to show presentations should be eliminated, monitors
added to the room, and also individual monitors for each council member to view presentations.
Councilmember Lindberg stated that while the City Hall building remains viable, the Council
Chambers is dysfunctional, especially with councilmember’s backs to the public entrance into the
room. He agreed the use of glass and moving the entrance to the back of the room made sense. He
added he does not want to be an alarmist but acknowledged that safety is an issue, and the council
should understand the cost implications and how the room will function.
Councilmember Miller stated he strongly agrees with Councilmember Lindberg and added he liked
the preliminary design that was shown. He agreed coming into the chambers from the back of the
room is much better. He added the chambers is the place where the most interaction with the public
takes place, so it is worthwhile discussing and understanding the project fully.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
Councilmember Sanger stated she understands the comments from the other council members but
doesn’t feel a strong need to spend a lot of money on the project. She added she likes the idea of
making this a friendlier room and having built in monitors.
Councilmember Hallfin agreed with the other council members and stated the design rendering
made sense to him. He liked the glass entryway and also entering the room from the back, noting
it is more welcoming. He stated it is time to do something with Council Chambers, and it will be
money well spent for the future.
Councilmember Brausen added he is in favor of cameras in the hall, and agreed that chambers is
not perfectly efficient. He would prefer to invest in a better video system, as it is difficult for
residents to see the meetings clearly from their homes, and he would also like to see the consent
agendas and documents displayed on the cameras in order for residents to be able to follow along
at home. He added, while he believes the current space serves the council well, better signage in
the hallways of the building would also be helpful.
Councilmember Sanger asked why the floors in the room are not flat and if the step up could be
removed. Mr. Hoffman stated the east step can be removed; however, the south side is poured
concrete into the floor and would need to be made ADA compliant.
City Manager Harmening stated staff will bring back more cost estimates on a reorientation of the
room and the addition of glass, along with more technology. This will include price breakdowns
and a menu of items that the council can pick and choose from.
The council members also agreed to add panic button training to the July 11 meeting agenda.
3. Construction Noise Regulations
Mr. Hoffman stated staff was asked by council to research the issue of construction noise in the
city’s residential neighborhoods and to return to council for discussion. He noted that the current
noise ordinance regulates construction activities involving the use of power equipment, manual
tools, movement of equipment, or other activities. The city’s ordinance limits hours of operation
between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekdays and between 9 a.m. and 10 p.m. on weekends and
holidays. This information is communicated to contractors for both commercial and residential
projects.
Councilmember Hallfin asked what the enforcement action is for those who do not comply. Mr.
Hoffman stated that a citation could be issued, and a fine included.
Commissioner Sanger asked if an administrative procedure could be created in order to make it
easier to enforce infractions. She added an example would be with an idling truck. Can a ban be
put on the truck when it is not doing any work?
Councilmember Miller stated his concern is the end time of 10 p.m. and stated that 6 p.m. would
be a more reasonable time.
Councilmember Brausen stated he prefers a 7 a.m.–7 p.m. or 6 p.m. timeframe and also possibly
not having trucks on site until 7 a.m. He added that Eden Prairie has an ordinance with no Sunday
construction and asked if St Louis Park could do this also.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
Councilmember Lindberg asked what time city trash collection begins. He added he has no
problem with the 7 a.m. start time, but asked how other noises are regulated by the city. He also
stated it is not reasonable to say no noise after 6 p.m., as some people work all day and have to do
lawn mowing or construction in the evenings when they are home.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated that she recalls only one time when this has been an issue during
her 7 years on the council. She added the earlier end time makes sense, but typically it has not been
an issue.
Councilmember Hallfin noted there should be more concern with larger construction projects vs.
homeowner projects. He pointed out a Facebook post where construction began at 5 a.m. and
residents were complaining about it. He added that with this type of issue, the city needs to do
more than present a citation. He added the construction company should receive a cease and desist
order or have a larger monetary penalty presented to them.
City Manager Harmening stated when a CUP or PUD is issued, the city has a provision about
collecting a fine if the construction company is in violation. Principal Planner Ms. McMonigal
added that the city would contact the developer right away to have them stop the early noise.
Councilmember Sanger asked what it would take to actually impose fines and how contractors are
informed upfront about these issues. Planning and Zoning Supervisor Mr. Walther noted that the
city holds pre-construction meetings to review rules and regulations and that on-site supervisors
are contacted by inspectors if reports are received that construction activity is occurring outside
permitted hours. Residents should contact the police if construction is starting before 7 a.m.
Councilmember Sanger added that a construction letter should be sent to residents telling them
who to call if they have questions or issues with a project, and the contractor contact information
should also be included.
Staff will return to a future meeting with further details and possible ordinance changes on this
issue.
4. Public Process and Participation
Mr. Harmening stated in his 21 years with the city, staff has prided themselves with understanding
the public process. He noted this past year, there have been some comments made to staff that the
public process is flawed, and the process is overdone. He added that when staff hears this, it hurts
morale. Staff feels they are doing a good job and do not feel their system is broken. Mr. Harmening
added he hopes the council and staff can get on the same page with regard to this issue. The purpose
of this discussion is to determine what outcomes the City Council would like to see as a result of
a uniform public participation/community engagement model for city projects, action and planning
– across the life cycle of these activities.
Ms. Larson noted that last year an audit was conducted on the public process and participation.
She asked the council what community engagement means to them; what it looks and sounds like;
and what the council needs to see and hear. Additionally, she asked once a decision is made, what
does council need to see and hear to know that the city has conducted a thorough public process.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
Mr. Harmening pointed out the matrix, which was included in materials given to council, related
to communicating with and conveying messages to the public.
Councilmember Lindberg stated staff has done a great job on the public process, and he is very
appreciative of what staff does related to this. He noted that staff allows anyone to be involved in
the process if they want to. He added the public process has been accessible and encourages
citizens to think outside of box and to frame conversations. He added when the council makes
decisions, they need to be clear, and council needs to listen and continue the spirit of engagement.
Councilmember Brausen stated he likes the matrix and is very comfortable with the public process
currently in place. He noted staff spends ample time talking to the public; however, sometimes
the public has expectations, and if something doesn’t go their way, it’s not always good to continue
having public meetings where residents keep saying the same things. He noted the city needs public
input on the visioning process, where there can be goal setting and public empowerment. He added
the city is not short on public process on any city projects.
Councilmember Miller stated he appreciates staff bringing this up to council again, and added he
was critical of the public process. He noted he appreciated the matrix and how it fits into the
processes. He added we need to use the city’s boards and commissions more, while also soliciting
public input and asking residents to be on various boards and commissions in order to get more
well-rounded participation. Additionally, it would be helpful to have a half hour open forum at
every other study session, during which anyone from the public can present whatever they want.
He stated this helps build trusting relationships, while people feel they will be heard.
Commissioner Sanger stated that the more expensive projects may need to be handled differently
with respect to the public process. Likewise, projects that only affect smaller groups vs. the larger
community may need a public process that invites the larger community in. She asked if staff and
the council can show they have informed the community and received the input that is needed.
She also asked if there are other ways to notify the public about upcoming projects, in case they
don’t read e-mail or the Sun Sailor. She also pointed out that sending out the agenda on a Friday
is too late, when a meeting is on Monday, and added the city should not put the burden on the
public to check the agenda.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he likes the matrix, and the way it flows. He added that through his
time on the council, he has realized if a certain constituent doesn’t win the day, they feel the process
is flawed. He added staff does a great job on the public process and pointed out staff could present
the perfect public process and still not please everyone. He does not believe the process is flawed.
He liked the idea of using the boards and commissions more and agreed there are multiple ways
to get information to the public, including mail, e-mail, social media, text, website, Park
Perspectives, Next Door, adding he does not know if there is any other way to disseminate
information. He stated the city is an open book, with a great website and meetings open to the
public. He does not feel there needs to be any change in this area.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated the city generally does a good job, adding she liked the matrix. She
noted the lack of clarity on expectations is where the process gets tripped up, and the website is
frustrating. She added it would be helpful to have each project on the website, while noting the
council needs to be careful what is delegated to the commissions. There must be clarity also when
items come from the commissions back to the council. Related to technology, she noted there is
much more that can be done with millennials and community engagement on the website. Also,
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
she noted there needed to be different ways of engaging the public. It is not just about how much
we communicate but how communication is done and the need for more engaging and dynamic
ways of communicating.
Mr. Harmening read Mayor Spano’s comments that the focus needs to be on the first two questions
and not the third.
Councilmember Sanger added another way to communicate is thorough the city’s e-mail
distribution lists, and the public should be reminded to sign up for this. She added she does not
agree with the suggestion that the public be invited to comment at all study sessions, as this can
become a time of complaints when the council has no background and cannot comment. She noted
the current system is preferable where the public goes to Mr. Harmening first to have their issue
addressed or mediated. Then, if warranted, it comes to council.
Councilmember Sanger continued that with Connect the Park they need to be careful about the
message sent to the public and that it is not a mixed message. She noted staff needs to clarify and
tell the public if there is a final decision being made; when it is time for public input; and if there
will be more meetings or not.
Councilmember Lindberg stated there needs to be clarification now as it relates to the planning
process and a process for checking in with our constituents.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated this is what the election process is for.
Councilmember Miller added the neighborhood network and organized neighborhoods are helpful,
and he would like to see it used as another possible channel.
Councilmember Brausen added that staff needs to be clear about when the public meeting is and
also to add neighborhood information meetings at the front end of a project.
Mr. Pires noted these meetings are happening, with feedback from the public before resources are
committed.
Mr. Harmening stated staff understands that the council likes the matrix and that it is helpful. He
also noted the council wants to be more intentional at the start of a project and also to confirm that
the majority of the council is in agreement and there is clarity of expectations. He appreciated the
positive feedback from council and thanked the council for their input. He stated the results of the
public engagement audit will also be brought back to the council, as well as discussions about
social media.
5. Vision and Comprehensive Plan Update
Mr. Harmening explained that previous visioning processes laid a strong foundation for the
direction of the city. Every 10 years the city is required to update its Comprehensive Plan, and it
is due at the end of 2018. The first step was to investigate vision process ideas and identify a
consultant to help with the process and prepare the overall Comprehensive Plan. The goal now is
to have a consultant hired by the end of the summer so that a visioning update process can begin
this fall. Additionally, the process must include robust outreach to all elements of the community.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
The goal would be to schedule the prospective visioning consultants to meet the City Council in
mid to late July.
Mr. Harmening noted the first consultant group is skilled in talking to the community about the
present and future and at pulling input from the community. They deal with the big picture. The
second consultant group will put together the actual Comprehensive Plan and will take everything
from the visioning process to write the policies and the plan. He noted that $200,000 or more will
be spent on this process, but it will be well worth it, as the plan is to go deeper into visioning for
St. Louis Park during this process.
Councilmember Hallfin asked Councilmember Sanger for her thoughts on how the last two
Comprehensive Plan processes went since she was on the City Council during both.
Councilmember Sanger said the $200,000 or more will be extremely well spent, and the process
will provide a basis for decision-making. She added her concern is the process which will be
conducted this time around. She explained that in 1995, eight community task forces were set up,
which met for six months. Community members were solicited for each task force, and each one
was chaired and co-chaired. Additionally, there was an overall steering committee, which merged
all the results into one document, and then asked for public input again. She noted this approach
was much better than what was conducted in 2005, adding that there was no deep dive at that time,
and a more superficial approach was used. She added that even though the process was not as
robust, the results were still decent. She stated she hopes the process this time around will be more
like the process in 1995.
Councilmember Sanger also added she is concerned about a focus on the trendy topic of the day.
She stated St Louis Park residents are most concerned about the basics, including housing,
transportation, and what impacts people’s lives. She pointed out that environmental sustainability
is rather trendy, as is redevelopment.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she disliked the 2005 process because the consultants only
wanted to hear what was done right, not what was wrong. She noted it is important to also hear
what people don’t like during this process.
Mr. Harmening pointed out the council approved this process in 2005, and there were 725
individual interviews conducted, plus committees and a steering committee.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated there will need to be a deeper dive this time around.
Councilmember Brausen stated he appreciates the fact that public outreach is conducted and also
that experts are involved. He added the city also has staff experts to guide the process, and he
would like to see the use of the four council goals, which are reflective of the vision. Additionally,
he would like to ask the community where they want the city to go with these guiding goals and
to work to get more citizens engaged in this process.
Councilmember Lindberg stated the depth and breadth of who is involved in the process is very
important. He noted the robust visioning process along with the Comprehensive Plan will be
money well spent and is a priority. He noted this process will be absolutely informative to him
and is what needs to be done.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity added she is very comfortable spending the money on this process in order
to dig deep and get to a place of agreement on the community vision. She added the consultants
will need to look outside the box and go beyond engaging the usual people in the usual way. She
likes the idea of looking at the values of our community and what St. Louis Park values.
Additionally, she wants to know who lives here; who we want to live here; and how our housing
determines this. She stated the vision needs to start at a higher level and include what we want the
city to look like in the future.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity noted she will be working on a similar task force for Hennepin County,
and she will send all of this background information to the council for review.
Councilmember Hallfin stated Councilmember Sanger’s comments were helpful, when thinking
of the visioning process. He noted the city is where it is today because of these past processes,
and this will be money well spent. He added the consultants will need to pursue more than just the
usual “suspects,” and talk to those involved and those who care, along with many others. He added
he is looking forward to this process.
City Manager Harmening noted Mayor Spano’s comments. Mayor Spano stated the focus should
be on the future, and not the past. City Manager Harmening added staff made it very clear to the
consultants that they will need to contact residents from every end of the community and that this
deep dive is more important than the timing.
Councilmember Lindberg added we need to think about ways to empower our neighbors to get
neighborhoods organized. He noted that some neighborhoods are not organized, and there are
holes. He added we will need to figure out the right processes and ways to get the right people at
the table.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity added however, that neighborhood organizations tend to be older, richer,
and whiter, so they don’t always provide the input that is needed.
It was the consensus of the City Council to meet the consultants at July 25th meeting.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Brausen stated he needs to follow up on the Hwy. 169 study, as he is the St Louis
Park representative. He stated he would like to discuss what type of vision the city has on this
project.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated the council tends to agree on most things, and views are not polar
opposites, so Councilmember Brausen will not be too far off on presenting his own opinions.
Councilmember Lindberg agreed and added there are benefits for councilmembers to be members
of other metro groups.
City Manager Harmening provided an update on the City Council/School Board sub groups that
are meeting to discuss school district facilities.
Councilmember Sanger asked if any discussions were happening on the future of Lenox.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3a) Page 9
Title: Study Session Minutes of June 27, 2016
City Manager Harmening noted the school task force has looked at moving the district offices out
of the high school and to Lenox. He stated they would need 15,000 square feet, and this would be
part of the whole high school remodeling effort.
Councilmember Sanger stated that not a lot of seniors go to the senior center at Lenox, and
especially active younger seniors do not go there, but this might be an opportunity to find a way
to incorporate a senior wing into the community center. She added she would like to discuss this
idea further as it relates to senior programming that is more accommodating.
Councilmember Hallfin also mentioned there have been discussions about building a brand new
high school, and then the community center would move to where the high school currently is.
Also, another idea that is circulating is to build the new community center on the old central
building grounds and do this as a partnership between the city and school district.
The meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
6. May 2016 Monthly Financial Report
7. SWLRT Updates – Historic Properties Review and Station Design Committee
8. Temporary Health Care Dwellings
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Anne Mavity, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 11, 2016
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Tim Brausen, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, Susan
Sanger
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Spano, Steve Hallfin
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Controller (Mr. Simon), City Clerk
(Ms. Kennedy), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Police Lieutenant
(Ms. Dreier), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
Guest: Kristine Strout, American Legion Post #282 Club Manager; Mark Ludeman, Commercial
Real Estate Representative for Post #282 and American Legion Members.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 18 & 25, 2016
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for July 18 and 25, 2016. He
stated there will be a briefing on Xcel Energy and the franchise ordinance at the July 18 meeting.
At the July 25 meeting, there will be a consultant present to discuss the Vision/Comprehensive
Plan process. Also there will be an update on race and equity training, along with updates on the
Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance and Water Treatment Plant #4.
Councilmember Sanger requested discussion on the finances related to snow shoveling of
sidewalks, before the 2017 budget is finalized.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity asked staff for a running list of budget topics. Staff noted this will be
provided with the 2017 budget materials.
2. City Auditing Firm
Mr. Simon reviewed the City’s auditing firm, Redpath and Company. In 2010, the city did an
RFP for auditing services, which resulted in the hiring of Redpath and Company under a 4-year
contract. Given the high quality of services provided by the firm, in October 2013, council
authorized a 1-year extension and up to 3 additional extensions through the 2017 audit.
Ms. Deno noted that with Mr. Simon being the new Chief Financial Officer, it would be helpful
to retain the current audit firm for one more year in order to complete this auditing cycle and
then to look at new firms after that time.
Councilmember Sanger noted she raised this topic, as did Councilmember Hallfin last year;
however, she has no issue with the current auditing firm. She added it is her understanding that
best practices recommend changing auditors periodically in order to provide a fresh perspective
on the city’s finances. She agreed to having Redpath and Company serve as the city’s auditors
for one more year and then to pursue another firm through another RFP process.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of July 11, 2016
Councilmember Lindberg added he understands the need to review the auditing firm periodically
and for transparency in doing so. However, he feels a change can wait until next year, especially
given that Mr. Simon is also new to the city.
Councilmember Brausen agreed with Councilmember Lindberg’s comments.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity concurred, as well, agreeing it is healthy to change auditors every 5
years. She also noted that there is fresh insight given by Mr. Simon as the new Chief Financial
Officer.
Councilmember Miller agreed with the opinions shared by the other councilmembers.
It was the consensus of the council to bring this back for discussion next year after the 2016 audit
is complete and to do an RFP in the fall of 2017. At that time, it will be decided if the council
would prefer a 3- or 5-year contract.
3. Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 Liquor Ordinance Amendment Request
Ms. Kennedy stated council asked staff to bring this item back for a formal discussion with
American Legion members. She explained the American Legion Post #282 has asked for an
ordinance amendment that would exempt the holders of Club On-Sale Intoxicating liquor
licenses from the requirement that at least 50% of the gross receipts of the establishment be
attributable to the sale of food. The American Legion currently holds a Club On-Sale liquor
license and is considering relocating to a new facility on Walker Street. She noted for reasons
that are not clear, the Legion had not been required to meet the food to liquor ratio requirement
for a number of years. However, staff has made it clear that if the Legion moves to a new
location, it is expected they would meet the food to liquor ratio standard.
Councilmember Brausen asked if the city grants an exemption, would there be an ordinance or a
resolution. Ms. Kennedy stated the City Attorney has recommended an amendment to the
ordinance. Ms. Kennedy noted that the city currently has two establishments that hold a Club
On-Sale liquor license, the American Legion and the Minneapolis Gold Club.
Councilmember Miller asked if other entities might call themselves a “club” in order to be
included in this license classification. Ms. Kennedy said no, this would not be allowable, as they
would have to meet the statutory definition of a club.
Councilmember Sanger stated she did not understand how the Legion was allowed to function
without meeting the licensing requirements, adding she would like an assurance there are no
other entities within the city that are allowed to do this.
Ms. Kennedy stated she could not speak to what happened in the past prior to her tenure with the
city, however she noted that all other licensees that are subject to the food-liquor ratio
requirement did meet the 50-50 standard during the last licensing period.
Mr. Harmening stated past staff may have mistakenly misinterpreted the ordinance. He
explained staff is seeking clarification on how to handle this issue moving forward.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of July 11, 2016
Councilmember Sanger stated 50-50 requirement was implemented as a public safety measure so
guests will eat when they drink. She added the policy should be applied to the American Legion
regardless of whether or not they move to a new location. She noted it is a slippery slope to not
enforce the requirement for this group, and enforce it for others.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated she interpreted the 50-50 ratio requirement differently, noting it is
a business or zoning model, to ensure the city does not have a bar district.
Councilmember Brausen said he hopes the Legion management will not allow patrons to be over
served and will provide food or alternative transportation for people who visit their
establishment. He added he would like to grant an exemption for the Legion.
Councilmember Lindberg asked if this is a zoning question, and noted if the council grants this
exception, there will be feedback from residents, along with concerns about proximity of the new
club location within neighborhoods. He added his concern is granting the exception and then
having concern from residents come up afterwards.
Councilmember Brausen asked where the new property is located. Mr. Ludeman stated it is at
6509 Walker Ave., and noted there is no residential close by. He added they have also conferred
with the city’s zoning administrator on this location and no issues were found.
Councilmember Miller stated he is inclined to grant the exception, especially as it relates to a
veterans’ organization. He added he did not think there had been any incidents at the Legion.
Ms. Kennedy responded there have been no public safety issues at the American Legion.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated she leaned towards granting the exception as well. She added she
does not see the 50-50 requirement as a social behavior tool, but as a zoning and district usage
tool, to help control where the city wants to locate bars and restaurants.
Councilmember Lindberg also agreed with providing the exception to the ordinance for the
American Legion, stating there is no better group to provide this exception for. However, he
noted his broader concern is a policy that guides the granting of a liquor license depending on
where the location of the club will ultimately be.
Mr. Harmening stated there may be a way to word the ordinance amendment so it only applies
specifically to veteran’s organizations holding a Club liquor license. Ms. Kennedy stated she
would discuss the issue with the City Attorney to draft an ordinance amendment.
4. Council Chambers Security
Police Lt. Dreier presented the safety and security plan to the council. She noted a panic button
was added in 2014 to the council dais, using the best technology at that time. If the chambers is
remodeled, she added that newer technology would be used. Lt. Dreier explained that when the
panic button is pressed, the camera in Council Chambers immediately takes a photograph, which
is then sent to dispatch and also to the Lieutenant’s cell phone. She stressed that in an emergency
situation, such as an active shooter, the most important thing would be for all councilmembers
and staff to get out of the room as soon as possible and call 911. This call would go immediately
to the St. Louis Park dispatch office. Likewise, if a 911 call was made from any landline phone
in city hall, dispatch would know immediately where the call was coming from within 1500 feet
of the phone.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of July 11, 2016
Lt. Dreier added that the panic buttons are silent but also noted they should not be used for a
medical emergency. She added that if the panic button is pressed, councilmembers should try to
run and hide, but if they have to confront, they should do what they can. She added there are two
buttons at the reception desk in City Hall, as well.
Additionally, Council Chambers and the Westwood Room have portable panic buttons that can
be brought into the rooms by staff. These buttons can also be used in the Community Room and
brought to each meeting. Lt. Dreier added that staff periodically tests all buttons to be sure they
are in working order. She added it is best to be prepared, not paranoid.
Mr. Harmening added that some cities offer to have a police officer, in uniform or plain clothes,
at their council meetings. He said this could be done in certain circumstances.
Councilmember Miller stated before he joined the council, he expected to see an officer at
meetings; however, he realizes there is a cost involved. He added also that if a police officer was
present at meetings, it might nip issues in the bud before they get out of control and would also
provide safety for the public, as well as for the councilmembers and staff.
Lt. Dreier stated going forward, staff will train the councilmembers each year in January,
especially if new members are on the council. She added this is a good time to refresh each year
on safety and security.
Councilmember Lindberg added he likes the idea of being prepared and having this
conversation; however, he was not sure if an officer is needed to be in attendance at meetings.
Councilmember Brausen added he is not interested in having a police officer attend meetings, as
he likes the idea of welcoming residents to the meeting. A police presence is in close proximity
with the police station close by.
Councilmember Sanger asked staff if the city bans people who have guns from coming into city
hall. Lt. Dreier said the city would have to add signage, banning firearms from the building.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated this should be looked into.
Mr. Harmening noted the remodeling plan for the Council Chambers with details and cost will
come back to the council at a study session in September. He also commended Lt. Dreier and the
dispatch staff on the wonderful job they do for the city. The councilmembers also thanked Lt.
Dreier for her work and that of the dispatch center. They also agreed St. Louis Park having its
own dispatch center works best for the city and noted the good working relationship the city has
with the Minnetonka dispatch center, as well.
Mr. Harmening added the council should take a tour of the city’s dispatch center at some point,
as well as of the second floor improvements.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity mentioned Natural Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH), and noted a
group of organizations in St. Louis Park is doing a proposal to request funding from the
McKnight Foundation for advocacy for affordable housing. She stated it would be helpful if the
city supported this as it is about preserving affordable housing, especially in the Meadowbrook
area.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of July 11, 2016
Councilmember Lindberg stated the council should sign on with this. Councilmember Sanger
agreed this makes sense; however, she would like to know more specifics before doing so.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity indicated she would forward the email to the council so they can review
it and stated it is about how to bring in funding and work other strategies so owners have reasons
to keep housing affordable. She added it is a policy and a financial statement. Mayor Pro Tem
Mavity stated when the council discusses NOAH, this group will be present so they can discuss
the issue further.
It was the consensus of the council to support this request for funding.
Councilmember Sanger recommended topics for future study session planning:
Transportation and general policies
Group home issue related to the release of sex offenders and their distance from schools
and daycares. She asked if this should be looked into further, prior to it being legislated.
Mayor Pro Tem Mavity stated that her experience with this issue and community meetings is that
most residents were positive about having offenders live in their area.
Councilmember Sanger stated she was at a neighborhood meeting several years ago on this issue,
and there was a lot of anger and hostility. She suggested the council discuss this issue in the near
future.
Mr. Harmening stated he will look into the Brooklyn Park licensing of these group homes and
report back to the council.
Councilmember Brausen asked about the written report: Update on Park 25 and if it could be
discussed further as it relates to TIF.
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
5. St. Louis Park Floodplain Ordinance
6. Update on Parkway 25 Planned Unit Development
7. Health in the Park Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
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 July 9 through July 22, 2016.
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 Finance 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: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
762.78A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
762.78
18.00AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
18.00
9,916.67ACCELA INC #774375 CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S PREPAID EXPENSES
7,083.33TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
17,000.00
7,768.87ACTION FLEET INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
7,768.87
9,900.00ADVANCED ELECTRONIC DESIGN INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
9,900.00
225.00ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE LTD GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
481.00ALL CITY ELEVATOR INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
481.00
1,594.80ALL STAR SPORTS INACTIVE - YOUTH PRGMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,594.80
1,053.50ALLIED BLACKTOP PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,053.50
19,819.00AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT SOIL TESTING SERVICES
19,819.00
237.50ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
237.50
1,475.00ANDERBERG INNOVATIVE PRINT SOLUTIONS COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
1,475.00
152.09ANDERSEN, JENS OPERATIONS TRAINING
152.09
273.95ANDERSEN, NORMAN PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 2
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
273.95
853.48ANIXER INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
853.48
1,316.86AQUA LOGIC INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT SOIL TESTING SERVICES
1,316.86
190.54ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
190.54
263.50ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS UNIFORMS
285.19OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING
548.69
25.00ASPHALT SPECIALTIES CO ZONING ZONING
25.00
400.00ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA BUILDING OFFICI INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
400.00
170.92AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
170.92
1,689.44ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
356.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
2,045.44
46.00ATOMIC RECYCLING FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
46.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
46.00WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
464.20VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
602.20
294.00AUTO AIR & ACCESSORIES UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
294.00
1,247.25AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,247.25
1,922.19BACHMANSBEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 3
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,922.19
140.64BACHMAN'S PLYMOUTH BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
140.64
80.87BAKALARS, MICHAEL REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
80.87
802.82BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
802.82
6,701.50BARR ENGINEERING CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
6,701.50
150.00BEALKE INDUSTRIES, ROBERT FABULOUS FRIDAYS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00
69,385.62BECKER ARENA PRODUCTS PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
69,385.62
325.00BEN & JERRY'S HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
325.00
99.41BERSCHEID, GARY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
99.41
350.00BIRNO, GRANT PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
350.00
1,064.00BOLTON & MENK INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,064.00
294.15BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
294.15
838.50BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
838.50
201.00BROOKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
201.00
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 4
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
510.00BUREAU OF CRIM APPREHENSION CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
510.00
11,500.00CALGON CARBON CORP REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
11,500.00
11,823.67CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
412.50ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
14,303.10STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
627.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
115.50REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
27,281.77
69.99CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
70.96WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
112.90WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
15.99JUNIOR NATURALISTS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
269.84
2,102.06CASTANEDA-PEDERSON, DAN IT G & A TRAINING
2,102.06
472.59CBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
472.59
381.20CDW GOVERNMENT INC IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
67.11TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
448.31
6,823.76CENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,165.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
51,100.00TRANSFORMATION LOAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
66,088.76
356.33CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
1,466.83WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
43.01REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
45.12SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
92.44SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
319.02PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
21.91WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 5
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
40.45NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
2,385.11
5,250.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT
5,250.00
6,597.65-CENTURY FENCE COMPANY STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
131,953.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
125,355.35
21.50CHUX SCREEN PRINTING PLAYGROUNDS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
279.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.00REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
934.50AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,257.00
98,640.00CI UTILITIES PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
98,640.00
192.72CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
136.86AQUATIC PARK G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
320.10VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
649.68
8.57CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.60INACTIVE - YOUTH PRGMS POSTAGE
224.00AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,248.75LIFEGUARDINGGENERAL SUPPLIES
195.00POOL MONITORS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,713.92
884.50CLEAN HARBORS ENV SERVICES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
884.50
68.26COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
68.26
21,166.81COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
21,166.81
20.48COMCASTOTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 6
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
189.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
210.18
5,920.21COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,525.69UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
7,445.90
21,211.15-COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
424,223.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
403,011.85
20,833.50CONCRETE ETC INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
20,833.50
2,500.00COOGAN, STEPHANIE ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
2,500.00
428.00CORPORATE MECHANICAL REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
428.00
10,530.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,530.00
217.35CROWN MARKING INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
217.35
3,434.50CRYSTAL, CITY OF INACTIVE - YOUTH PRGMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,434.50
765.00CURRAN-MOORE, KIM SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
765.00
924.99CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 1 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
7,140.50SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,435.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,359.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,475.00SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
19.32SSD #5 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,918.00SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
499.58SSD #6 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
1,853.50SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 7
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
19,624.89
692.60DALCO ENTERPRISES INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
692.60
2,000.00DAYTON, JEFF PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00
7,015.11DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
7,015.11
4,380.28DEPT EMPLOYMENT & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTEMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENT
4,380.28
9,408.30DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
9,408.30
150.00DEX MEDIA EAST LLC ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISING
150.00
235.66DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,318.98REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,554.64
930.99DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
1,122.05COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
2,053.04
680.00EARTH RATED PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
680.00
327.75ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES
720.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,047.75
120.50EDINA REALTY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
120.50
7,418.76EGAN COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
7,418.76
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 8
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
59.94EISOLD, JASON REC CENTER SALARIES MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
59.94
95.08ELLINGSON, LISA REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
95.08
1,020.00EMERGESOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,020.00
5,833.76EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
5,833.76
10,682.93ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT
10,682.93
129.25ERICKSON, DEBBIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
129.25
601.08FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
601.08
3,000.00FAIRCHILD, JAMES ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
3,000.00
53.30FASTENAL COMPANY FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
36.40SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
2.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
92.26
46.48FEINBERG, GREG PRESCHOOL CONCESSION SUPPLIES
46.48
60.67FERRELLGASREC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS
60.67
945.00FIRE SAFETY USA INC OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
248.30OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING
1,193.30
215.60FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
215.60
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 9
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
150.00FISCHER BROS LLC AQUATIC PARK G & A MAINTENANCE
150.00
87.76FLEETPRIDEGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
87.76
130.86FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
130.86
410.80FORCE AMERICA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
410.80
3,100.00FORECAST PUBLIC ART ESCROWS GENERAL
3,100.00
30.64FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
15.70GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
46.34
42.88FREEDMAN, BREANNA HUMAN RIGHTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
42.88
1,290.00FRONTIER AG & TURF GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,290.00
260.00FRONTIER PRECISION INC IMS INFORMATION MANAGEMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
4,960.15SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
5,220.15
2,230.32GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,230.32
243.75GINSBERG, SARAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
243.75
542.61GOLDEN VALLEY, CITY OF INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING
542.61
223.17GOLDENBERG, LOUIS REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
223.17
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 10
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,440.45GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,440.45
226.56GRAFIX SHOPPE POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
226.56
786.72GRAINGER INC, WW FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
786.72
693.83GRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
693.83
987.93GREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
987.93
876.46GREEN HORIZONS WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
876.46
325.34GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING INC SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
325.34
80.00HABIA, TONY PICNIC SHELTERS RENT REVENUE
80.00
255.00HAMILTON, MIKE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
255.00
75.00HARRINGTON, KATELYN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
2,000.00HARRIS, MAYA PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00
2,245.86HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,679.58AQUATIC PARK G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
4,925.44
131.00HEALTHPARTNERSHUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,912.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
5,043.00
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 11
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
540.00HECKLER & KOCH DEFENSE INC POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
540.00
61.35HELBERG, KRIS OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS
61.35
331.50HENDERSON, TRACY SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
331.50
550.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
2,322.50POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,000.41POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
3,140.02OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
1,039.00HIA ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
683.10SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,903.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
113.00SEWER UTILITY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
567.75PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
12,318.78
6,000.00HILLCREST DEVELOPMENT LLLP ESCROWS GENERAL
6,000.00
16,000.00HOLLYWOOD PYROTECHNICS INC HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
16,000.00
866.31HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
39.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
14.52PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
156.88PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
317.11BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
411.18AQUATIC PARK G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,805.80
918.00HORDYK, EVAN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
918.00
1,114.87HORIZON COMMERCIAL POOL SUPPLY AQUATIC PARK G & A EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,114.87
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 12
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
500.00HOWES, JENNIFER VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
650.00HOWES, JESSICA VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
375.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,025.00
50.00HOWES, KRISTINE VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
459.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
509.00
1,496.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,496.00
19.00IATNVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
19.00
161.89IDZOREK, EDWARD & JULIE REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
161.89
244.33INFOGROUPSOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
244.33
1,155.00INGINA LLC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,155.00
1,742.99INGRAM, LUKE ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,742.99
590.40INTERNATIONAL TAE KWON DO ACADEMY SAFETY CAMPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
590.40
408.83INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
129.99GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
538.82
600.00ISRAEL, DANIEL PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
600.00
22.46JERRY'S HARDWARE PAINTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
63.49WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 13
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
19.22PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.53PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
163.70
138.80JOHNSON, LAUREN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
138.80
200.00KATZ, OLGA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
200.00
251.54KELLER, JASMINE Z EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
251.54
736.00KIDCREATE STUDIO ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
736.00
715.20KIDS TEAM TENNIS LLC TENNIS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
715.20
189.80KIEFER SWIM PRODUCTS AQUATIC PARK G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
189.80
45.83KIVEL, PHILIP OPERATIONS TRAINING
152.82OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
198.65
204.00KUBES, JON SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.00
365.00LADEN'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
365.00
319.00LARSON, JH CO SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
3,875.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
4,194.00
2,779.15LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
2,779.15
4,053.53LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
4,053.53
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 14
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
210.06LEE, KATIE PLAYGROUNDS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
210.06
3,669.38LINAEMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
3,669.38
116.75LOCKGUARD INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
116.75
4,657.85LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
4,657.85
35,534.50LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
7,113.99TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
42,648.49
141.48LOMBARDI, JIM ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
141.48
180.12MACQUEEN EQUIP CO SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
180.12
120.00MANN THEATRES INC FABULOUS FRIDAYS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
120.00
16,915.34MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
16,915.34
150.00MARKELL, MARC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
150.00
163.59MARTENS, AFTON JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP MEETING EXPENSE
163.59
645.00MB MUSIC INC PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
645.00
35.31MCCLARD & ASSOCIATES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
35.31
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 15
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
38.82MENARDSGRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
8.99DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLS
13.16INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
23.38PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
131.02WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
215.37
4,920.30METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
348,097.01OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
353,017.31
624.00MILLERBERND MFG CO SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
624.00
10,460.46MINGER CONSTRUCTION INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
10,460.46
73.83MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
73.83
3,307.25MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,307.25
100.00MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
100.00
2,411.00MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
2,411.00
432.00MNFIAM BOOK SALES OPERATIONS TRAINING
432.00
235.00MOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
235.00
4,023.00MPCAREILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,023.00
154.84MPX GROUP COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
154.84
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 16
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
150.00MYKLEBUST, CHARLENE HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
150.00
287.17NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
440.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
318.47PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
91.74VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,137.38
189.70ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
189.70
113.88NEITZEL, ESTATE OF HOWARD WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
113.88
30,571.95NELSON AUTO CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
30,571.95
87.49NEP CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
69.38GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
156.87
4,205.80NEW BOUNDARY TECHNOLOGIES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,205.80
827.10NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
827.10
2,310.72NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,310.72
275.00NUTTLEMAN, KRISTINA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
275.00
4,228.17NYSTROM PUBLISHING COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
7,000.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
3,198.88SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
14,427.05
1,760.00OACHS, KENT RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,760.00
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 17
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
500.00OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
475.00ODEN, ROSS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
475.00
43.18OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
114.04HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
260.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
101.40COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
161.48POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
59.68POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
92.76INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
34.98PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
28.80SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
87,270.89TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
50.48ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
88,217.69
328.00ON SITE SANITATION OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
204.42NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
14,618.86FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
159.00RENTALOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
207.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.50ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,620.78
75.16OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
75.16
3,000.00PELLEGRIN, VINCENT OPERATIONS TRAINING
3,000.00
78.12PERFETTI, JOHN REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
78.12
275.00PERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
275.00COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
550.00
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 18
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,374.00PETERSON, MATT & KIRSTEN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,374.00
61.00PETTIT, ALISSA INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
88.40INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
126.80INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
276.20
21.07PETTY CASH REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.43REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
22.56REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS
21.87ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
23.94AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
77.25CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
188.12
437.53POLLARD WATER SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
437.53
2,896.90POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
2,896.90
354.56POPP.COM INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
354.56
140.09PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
140.09WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
140.08SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
140.09STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
560.35
13.00PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
13.00
80.00PRINTERS SERVICE INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
80.00
440.00PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEERS INC WATER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES
440.00
390.00Q3 CONTRACTING WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 19
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
3,779.10STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,169.10
9,898.19QUARVE-PETERSON INC, JULEE UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
9,898.19
835.00R & R SPECIALTIES ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
835.00
2,923.05RANDY'S SANITATION INC FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
829.97NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,695.09REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
5,448.11
5,500.75REACH FOR RESOURCES INC COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,500.75
79.24REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
79.24
91.41REYNOLDS, DEBORAH REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
91.41
1,694.95RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,694.95
46.24RIGID HITCH INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
46.24
9,473.09RMR SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,473.09
895.00ROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
895.00
71.94S & S WORLDWIDE INC PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
71.94
225.00SALA ARCHITECTS INC GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 20
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
196.32SAM'S CLUB JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP TRAVEL/MEETINGS
25.82ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
227.87PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES
3,017.19CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
3,467.20
80.00SCHMELZLE, NANCY ADULT PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE
80.00
1,604.10SCHRAMM, HOLLY FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,604.10
8,990.88SEHSTREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
8,990.88
70.18SHERWIN-WILLIAMS CO PAINTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
70.18
60.46SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
47.93IT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11.77FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
62.67POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12.53INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
12.53WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
55.94ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
263.83
729.44SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
729.44
1,287.16SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,287.16
204.00SMITH, PERRY SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.00
100.74SPINK, PETER REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.74
63.70SPS COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
5.38IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 21
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
69.08
335.00ST CROIX REC CO REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
335.00
300.00ST LOUIS PARK COMMUNITY BAND PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
300.00
324.48STAR TRIBUNE OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
324.48
357.00STEARNS, DAVID SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
357.00
2,500.00STEINHAGEN ENTERPRISES ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
2,500.00
300.00STICKS AND TONES BAND PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
300.00
77.50STRAND MFG CO SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
77.50
48.80STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
114.99SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
163.79
49.00SUMMIT COMPANIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
49.00
4,431.33SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
34,582.83REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
39,014.16
665.27SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
665.27
303.22SWANSON FLO-SYSTEMS CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
303.22
2,321.60SWEEN COMPANY, EA CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 22
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,321.60
8,008.06SYSCO-MINNESOTA INC CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
8,008.06
793.50TAHO SPORTSWEAR YOUTH PROGRAMS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,145.70INACTIVE - YOUTH PRGMS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,939.20
70.62TARNOWSKI, ELIZABETH REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
70.62
17.07TERRY, MATT PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
17.07
6,425.00THE LOCKER GUY FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
6,425.00
1,350.30-THELEN HEATING & ROOFING INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
27,005.98PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
25,655.68
25,324.77THOMAS & SONS CONST INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
7,585.18CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
32,909.95
969.00THOMPSON, JAMES SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
969.00
170.00THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
170.00
337.06THOR GUARD INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
337.06
839.24THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
839.24
500.00TIGER OAK PUBLICATIONS COMM & MARKETING G & A ADVERTISING
500.00
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 23
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,143.50TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,143.50
3,457.00TKDAWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,457.00
8,900.00TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
8,900.00
49.00TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
49.00
204.00TRAUTMANN, JOHN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.00
3,430.00TREE TRUST TREE DISEASE PRIVATE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,430.00
25,688.25UHL CO INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
494.48PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
26,182.73
74.00UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
588.69SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,428.00SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,269.00PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
44.00RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
613.35EXPLORERSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
4,017.04
581.56UNITED STATES TREASURY EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE
581.56
158.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY
158.00
350.00UPENS, IVARS GUNARS VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
350.00
938.63USA BLUE BOOK SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
938.63
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 24
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
253.95VAIL, LORI HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
253.95
11,958.90VALLEY-RICH CO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
11,958.90
82.62VAUGHAN, JIM NATURAL RESOURCES G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
82.62
3,120.43VERIZON WIRELESS CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
3,120.43
2,592.06VERMONT SYSTEMS INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,592.06
315.00VESSCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
315.00
544.82VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
544.82
55.00VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS' BENEFIT ASSN MN OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
55.00
2,625.00WARNING LITES OF MN INC UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
331.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,956.00
321.46WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,267.29-SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
66,556.99SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
33,057.41SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
37,762.45SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
134,431.02
60.00WELSH, NICKIE & LONNIE INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL
60.00
2,070.81WHITE, PERRY PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
2,070.81
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 25
7/22/2016CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:03:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
7/22/20167/9/2016 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
160.00WHITNEY, FADRECID PICNIC SHELTERS RENT REVENUE
160.00
54,329.00WILSONS NURSERY INC TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT
9,775.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
64,104.00
175.00WRAP CITY GRAPHICS ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
175.00
15,924.00WSB ASSOC INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
15,924.00
24.18XCEL ENERGY OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
22,762.18PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
32,447.99WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,801.04REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,931.91STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
26.71BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
100.97WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
721.70WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
17,868.13REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE
77,684.81
46.10YAEGER, JOE PRE & POST SEASON PREPARATION GENERAL SUPPLIES
46.10
470.00YTS COMPANIES LLC TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,037.00TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
1,507.00
9,000.00ZAN ASSOCIATES HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,000.00
805.78ZIEGLER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
805.78
Report Totals 2,315,780.08
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 26
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of Parkland Lease Between the City and Meadowbrook Manor Apartment
Complex
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve entering in to a two year lease agreement
between the City and Meadowbrook Manor apartment complex relating to allowing public park
equipment and activities within the Meadowbrook Manor apartment complex. The current lease
expires on August 31, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue the public/private
partnership between the City and Meadowbrook Manor that has been in place for the past 20 years?
SUMMARY: Twenty years ago, the City entered into a public/private partnership to develop a
public park and playground area within the Meadowbrook Manor apartment complex.
Representatives from the Meadowbrook Collaborative approached the City with an identified need
for a place for children at Meadowbrook to play that was both safe and near their home. City staff,
representatives from the Collaborative and the property owner met and identified the park site and
determined the following proposed improvements.
New playground equipment and additional landscaping
A small sun/picnic shelter
A basketball court
A drinking fountain
The City entered into a 10-year lease with Meadowbrook Manor to lease a one-acre site within the
complex to use for park purposes. The lease was renewed for an additional 10 years in 2006. Rent
for the term of each of the leases was $1.00 and $10.00 respectfully.
The site has been utilized for Park and Recreation summer programming and other Collaborative
activities serving the children at Meadowbrook for the past 20 years.
The current lease expires on August 31, 2016. The City and Meadowbrook Manor have agreed to
enter into a lease for an additional 2 years. The area for the basketball court will not be included
in the lease since this area is located in area where the owner is proposing to construct a new
Clubhouse/Community building.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Rent for the term of the lease is $10.00.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Lease and Parkland Map
Prepared by: Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Michele Schnitker, Deputy CD Director/Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Approval of Parkland Lease Between the City and Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Complex
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Twenty years ago, the City entered into a public/private partnership to develop
a public park and playground area within the Meadowbrook Manor Apartment complex.
Representatives from the Meadowbrook Collaborative, including the Park Nicollet Foundation,
had approached the City with an identified need for a place for children at Meadowbrook to play
that was both safe and near their home.
City staff, representatives from the Collaborative and the property owner met and identified the
park site and determined following proposed improvements.
New playground equipment
A small sun/picnic shelter
A basketball court
A drinking fountain
Additional landscaping
The City entered into a 10-year lease with Meadowbrook Manor to lease a one-acre site within the
complex to use for park purposes. The lease was renewed in 2006 for an additional 10 years. Rent
for the term of the 1st lease was $1.00 and $10.00 for the subsequent lease.
The original installation of new playground equipment and landscaping improvements were
completed in 1997 and funded primarily with private sector donations. The sun/picnic shelter was
constructed in 2003 and funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The
original playground equipment was replaced in 2009.
The site has been utilized for Park and Recreation summer programming and other Collaborative
activities serving the children at Meadowbrook for the past 20 years.
The City is responsible for inspecting and maintaining the equipment and facilities. Meadowbrook
is responsible for mowing the property, removing litter and debris from the Park and for providing
maintenance services associated with the removal of snow and ice from the site.
The current lease expires on August 31, 2016 and the City is proposing to enter into a lease for an
additional 2 years.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: In early 2016, ownership of Meadowbrook Manor
transitioned from longtime owner Helen Bigos, to her son Ted Bigos, owner of Bigos
Management. Bigos Management has agreed to allow the continued on-site operation of the
Meadowbrook Collaborative along with the continued use of the two townhome units at no charge
to the Collaborative. The playground area and park shelter is utilized for many of the
Collaborative’ s ongoing activities as well as the summer park programming. Renewal of the lease
will ensure that the children residing at Meadowbrook will continue to have a safe place to play
near their home.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Approval of Parkland Lease Between the City and Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Complex
LEASE OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PARK
USE AT MEADOWBROOK MANOR
1. This lease, made and entered into this ____ day of ______________, 2016 is between
Bigos Management, d/b/a Meadowbrook Manor Apartments, 6860 Excelsior Boulevard,
St. Louis Park, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as “Meadowbrook”), and the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, a body politic and corporate (hereinafter referred to as “City”).
2. This lease is a renewal and restatement, with modifications of a ten year lease between
the parties which terminates on August 31, 2016.
3. Meadowbrook hereby leases to the City for public park purposes the property outlined in
the attached Exhibit “A” and labeled “Public Park” (hereinafter referred to as “the Park”),
which Exhibit is hereby incorporated as part of this lease.
4. Meadowbrook grants the City permission, to install new or replace existing park and
playground equipment and similar facilities consistent with park usage.
5. The term of this lease shall be from September 1, 2016 to August 31, 2018, unless
terminated early by either party giving ninety (90) days written notice to the other party.
In the event that Meadowbrook desires to terminate said lease prior to August 31, 2018
the cost for the removal and reinstallation onto public property of all improvements made
to the Park shall be borne solely and exclusively by Meadowbrook.
6. In consideration of the use of the park property for public park purposes, the City agrees
to pay to Meadowbrook as rental for the term of this lease the sum of $10.00 payable in
one installment to be made prior to September 1, 2016.
7. The City has the right to remove all equipment, structures and facilities at the termination
of this lease. The City also agrees to maintain the property by inspecting and repairing
the Park equipment and facilities during the term of this lease. Meadowbrook agrees to
mow the grass and control weeds at proper intervals, remove litter and debris from the
Park and to provide all maintenance services associated with the removal of snow and ice
from the site.
8. The City will defend, indemnify and hold Meadowbrook harmless for any claims,
demands, liability, and costs and expense arising from injury to and death of any person
or loss or damage to property attributable to any acts or omissions of the City or as the
result of its occupancy of the Park.
9. Meadowbrook will defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless for any claims,
demands, liability, and costs and expense arising from injury to and death of any person
or loss or damage to property attributable to any acts or omissions of Meadowbrook or as
the result of its lease of the Park to the City.
10. This lease supersedes all prior proposals, oral or written, and all negotiations,
conversations or discussions heretofore had between the parties related to the use by the
City of any Meadowbrook property for park purposes.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Approval of Parkland Lease Between the City and Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Complex
11. In the event either party fails to perform any of the agreements contained herein, the other
party may, at its option, immediately terminate this lease by written notice.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals on the date as
first above written.
Ted Bigos, d/b/a Meadowbrook
Manor Apartments
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:_________________________________
Jake Spano, Mayor
By:_________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Approval of Parkland Lease Between the City and Meadowbrook Manor Apartment Complex
Exhibit A:
Public Park and Basketball Court at Meadowbrook Manor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Second Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance amending
Division 10. Floodplain Districts Section 36-292(f) of the City Code to allow compensatory flood
storage be provided using accepted engineering practices to achieve the goal of eliminating any
increase in flood stage as a result of a project, and authorize publication of summary ordinance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to amend the City Code to allow
compensatory flood storage be located within the floodplain.
SUMMARY: St. Louis Park requires compensatory flood storage for all projects within the
Floodplain District overlay where development occurs in the floodplain in order to avoid any
increase in flood stage. Historically, the City of St. Louis Park has required compensatory flood
storage be constructed outside the existing floodway, which is unique. Federal, State, and
Watershed Districts do not require this provision in managing the floodplain. As per
Councilmember Hallfin’s request, staff completed further research into why the original
compensatory storage language was included the ordinance, and found no specific information
that provide guidance.
Requiring compensatory flood storage be located outside the floodplain essentially forces a land
exchange of upland (land out of the floodplain) for filling within the floodplain. While this rule
may have discouraged projects in the floodplain, it does not add flood protection to the city and
may expand the existing footprint of the flooded areas. The proposed amendment would allow
required compensatory storage to be constructed within the existing floodplain, following the
natural water patterns in the area.
The City of St. Louis Park recently approved a variance request allowing compensatory storage be
located within the existing floodplain at Methodist Hospital. There are additional projects which
this rule would impact including Meadowbrook Golf Course Restoration and city bridge
replacement projects such as the West 37th Street Bridge and the Louisiana Avenue Bridge
replacements. The rule would also likely impact all future bridge replacements across Minnehaha
Creek. To avoid future variance requests of a similar nature, city staff advise updating the city’s
Zoning Ordinance to allow compensatory storage both within and outside the existing floodplain.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Planning Commission Minutes
Ordinance
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner
Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manger
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Second Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The applicant for this amendment is the City of St. Louis Park in order to
update the city’s Floodplain District within the Zoning Ordinance. If Council adopts this
amendment it will apply to all properties located within Floodplain Districts within St. Louis Park,
and will provide more flexibility regarding where compensating flood storage is provided.
Floodplains are, in general, land areas which are subjected to flooding or standing water during
extreme precipitation events. These areas are defined by topographical conditions and are typically
situated adjacent to areas of water collection such as wetlands, lakes and streams. Floodplains are
therefore “flood-prone” and are hazardous to development activities if the vulnerability of those
activities exceeds an acceptable level.
Flooding events are defined in terms of their statistical frequency. A “100-year flood” or “100-
year floodplain” describes an event or an areas subject to a 1% probability in any given year. This
concept does not mean such a flood will occur only once in one hundred years, rather each year
there is a 1% chance of a flood event occurring. The frequency of inundation can also depend on
where substantial rainfall occurs in a particular season each year, or where the annual flood is
derived principally from snowmelt, certain areas of a floodplain may be inundated nearly every
year.
Federal and State regulations require cities to regulate floodplains. Floodplains are defined as flood
hazard areas along water bodies or low areas that are subject to periodic inundation during storm
events that produce heavy or sustained rainfall events. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) are the responsible
regulatory bodies involved. In addition, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also requires
permits relative to stormwater storage.
Required regulation includes the establishment of floodplain districts, permitted uses, conditional
uses, flood protection for structures, and maintenance of floodplain areas. The DNR has created
model ordinances that cities can adopt, and many cities adopt these verbatim. In 1976, the City of
St. Louis Park adopted and has periodically amended a Floodplain ordinance which regulates
development and management of floodplain areas within the City. This ordinance includes a
provision which requires filling within the floodplain be off-set with compensatory storage located
outside the floodplain. City staff researched meeting minutes to determine why this additional
language was included in the original ordinance, and was unable to find any conversations or
reasons why compensatory storage was required to be constructed within the floodplain to being
with.
Compensatory storage is a provision that ensures that development within the floodplain will not
increase the elevation of the floodwaters. Each watershed holds a specific volume below the flood
elevation. When fill material or buildings are placed in the floodplain, the flood storage areas are
diminished and flood elevations will go up because there is less room for the floodwaters. The
compensatory storage requirement maintains flood storage by ensuring any fill materials will be
replaced by an equal volume of storage space.
St. Louis Park’s requirement that compensatory storage be located outside of the floodplain is
unique. Federal, State and Watersheds do not require this provision in managing the floodplain,
and it is not included in the model ordinance. This additional requirement has created the need for
variances within the city. City staff has reviewed the impact of this requirement on projects with
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Second Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
public benefit and has determined that it has unnecessarily increased cost and is impractical as a
floodplain management tool.
While it is unclear why the city adopted such a restrictive rule for compensatory storage, it is safe
to assume that the intent was to discourage development from altering floodplain areas. The
existing rule requires that if an applicant wishes to fill in the floodplain, they must have land
available outside the floodplain to create compensatory storage. This essentially forces a land
exchange of upland (land out of the floodplain) for filling within the floodplain. While this rule
may have discouraged projects in the floodplain, it does not add flood protection to the city and
may add to the existing footprint of the flooded areas.
The rule has also had negative impact on infrastructure and flood protection projects. In areas of
limited space and available upland, the rule forces flood protection projects to find upland far from
the project to meet the storage requirements. The proposed amendment would allow any required
compensatory storage to be constructed within the existing floodplain, following the natural water
patterns in the area.
The City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission recently recommended and the City Council
approved a variance request allowing compensatory storage be located within the existing
floodplain at Methodist Hospital. There are currently an additional two projects which this rule
would impact including city bridge replacement projects such as the West 37th Street Bridge and
the Louisiana Avenue Bridge replacements. The rule would also likely impact all future bridge
replacements across Minnehaha Creek. To avoid future variance requests of a similar nature, city
staff advise updating the city’s Zoning Ordinance to allow compensatory storage both within and
outside the existing floodplain.
Zoning Amendment:
(f) Compensating storage. The city may approve such structure, fill, deposit,
obstruction or storage of materials or equipment if it otherwise complies with the
provisions of this chapter and provision is made for compensating storage of
floodwaters displaced by the activity listed in this subsection (f). Such
compensating storage shall be located where it will achieve the goal of eliminating
a stage increase. The area where the compensating storage is proposed shall be an
area which was outside the 100-year flood zone before development as
compensating storage.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Title: Second Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 15, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne,
Richard Person, Joe Tatalovich,
Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Gary Morrison, Jennifer Monson,
Nicole Mardell, Phil Elkin
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 16-23-ZA
Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. She explained the amendment’s
purpose is to allow compensatory storage to be provided using accepted engineering
practices to achieve the goal of eliminating any increase in flood stage as a result of a
project. If amended it will apply to all properties located within Floodplain Districts and
will provide more flexibility regarding where compensating flood storage is provided.
Ms. Monson discussed floodplains and flooding events. She discussed the responsible
regulatory bodies involved in regulating floodplains. She discussed compensating storage
and the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Person asked if the reason to amend the ordinance was to provide additional
developable land in the city.
Ms. Monson replied that the reason is this rule has presented an undue burden on properties
when it is not required by federal or state regulations. It will also keep the floodplain
district in the existing footprint of the floodplain. She said it does allow more developable
land as well.
Commissioner Person asked how often floodplain boundary districts change and how that
occurs.
Phil Elkin, Senior Engineer, said changes occur about every 20 years due to mapping and
rain fall data. He said the map is built on a predictable model.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the amendment is not altering the
modeled floodplain district. FEMA is the agency that carries out map changes through its
modeling. The proposed amendment is handling the issue of a project’s compensating
flood storage volume. The amendment would provide more flexibility where storage could
occur.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 5
Title: Second Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
Commissioner Kanne asked why the original language was in the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Monson said perhaps it was added to be more conservative and go above and beyond
the DNR’s model ordinance and watershed ordinance.
Mr. Walther said staff researched the topic and there was no mention specifically why the
language was included so staff can only speculate.
Commissioner Tatalovich asked if staff explored the language that gave a preference to
having storage outside of the floodplain.
Mr. Elkin said for a number of future municipal projects, including future bridge
replacement projects over Minnehaha Creek, the language would cause the city to buy
private land for flood storage. Other projects include Methodist Hospital and
Meadowbrook Golf Course where there is potential for increased disruption by going
outside the floodplain for storage.
Mr. Walther said it also seemed counter intuitive to convert upland that doesn’t flood into
floodplain. He said this and several pending projects drove the decision to amend the
ordinance.
The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak she closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion recommending approval of the proposed
amendment. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 5-0.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 6
Title: Second Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
ORDINANCE NO. ____-16
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
CODE OF ORDINANCES DIVISION 10. FLOODPLAIN DISTRICTS SECTION
36-292(F) RELATING TO COMPENSATING STORAGE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. That Section 36-292(f) of the Code of Ordinances, City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 36-292. Application of division provisions
(f) Compensating storage. The city may approve such structure, fill, deposit,
obstruction or storage of materials or equipment if it otherwise complies with the
provisions of this chapter and provision is made for compensating storage of
floodwaters displaced by the activity listed in this subsection (f). Such
compensating storage shall be located where it will achieve the goal of eliminating
a stage increase. The area where the compensating storage is proposed shall be an
area which was outside the 100-year flood zone before development as
compensating storage.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney
Public Hearing June 15, 2016
First Reading July 18, 2016
Second Reading August 1, 2016
Date of Publication August 11, 2016
Date Ordinance takes effect August 26, 2016
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4c) Page 7
Title: Second Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO.____-16
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO COMPENSATORY FLOOD STORAGE
This ordinance amends the City Code to allow compensatory flood storage to be located within
the floodplain.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council August 1, 2016
Jake Spano /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: August 11, 2016
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – Church of the Holy Family
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor
License for Church of the Holy Family at 5900 West Lake Street for their event to be held
September 10, 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the application from the Church of the Holy Family meet
city code requirements?
BACKGROUND: The Church of the Holy Family has made application for a Temporary On-
Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for their annual Parish Festival scheduled for September 10,
2016. The event will take place in the Holy Family Academy parking lot, 5925 West Lake Street,
from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. The Knights of Columbus will be managing the sale and service of liquor.
The Church of the Holy Family staff is working with the Police and Fire Departments on public
safety related arrangements for the event.
The Police Department has completed the background investigation on the principals and has
found no reason to deny the temporary license. The applicant has met all requirements for issuance
of the license, and staff is recommending approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The fee for a temporary liquor license is
$100 per day of the event.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant – City Clerk’s Office
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 666: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on 29th Street at
Blackstone Avenue
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of stop
signs on 29th Street at Blackstone Avenue.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority.
SUMMARY: The City has received a request to add stop signs at the intersection of 29th Street
at Blackstone Avenue. The intersection is currently uncontrolled. The Traffic Committee
discussed this request at the July meeting. Due to the accident history at this location and restricted
sight lines, the committee recommends stop signs be installed. Blackstone Avenue is the major
street carrying a higher traffic volume. Stop signs are recommended for the minor street, 29th
Street, to control east-west traffic. Letters were sent to properties in the vicinity of the intersection
and city staff received one email in support of the proposed traffic control change.
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 #666
Map
Prepared by: Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 666: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on 29th Street at Blackstone Avenue
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS
ON 29TH STREET AT BLACKSTONE AVENUE
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 666
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that stop signs be installed on 29th Street at Blackstone Avenue.
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 29th Street at
Blackstone Avenue.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 1, 2016
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Title: Traffic Study No. 666: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on 29th Street at Blackstone Avenue
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 666
Installation of Stop Sign on 29th Street at Blackstone Avenue
The intersection of 29th Street and Blackstone Avenue 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.
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 three or more 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 with traffic tubes. It was
discovered that there were 493 vehicles approaching the intersection per day.
The traffic volumes did not meet warrants for a stop 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 3 reported crashes since November 2014. It
is also notable that 2 of these 3 crashes resulted in personal injury. The crash
history meets the warrants for a stop 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 Several large trees near the intersection and a nearby railroad crossing were
found to restrict sight lines when approaching the intersection. The sight lines
meet the warrants for a yield sign.
Recommendation
The stop sign warrants for traffic volume were not met for this intersection. However, the crash
history and the sight line restrictions at the intersection justify adding a stop sign at this location.
The committee recommends the installation of a stop sign to assign the right-of-way at this
intersection. Blackstone Avenue is the major street carrying a higher traffic volume. Stop signs
are recommended for the minor street, 29th Street, to control east-west traffic.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Title: Traffic Study No. 666: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on 29th Street at Blackstone Avenue
29th Street at Blackstone Avenue
(Stop Sign Installation)
29th Street:
Existing: Uncontrolled
Proposed: Stop Signs
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Traffic Study No. 667: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Alabama Avenue at
34th Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the installation of stop
signs on Alabama Avenue at 34th Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory
authority.
SUMMARY: The City has received a request to add stop signs at the intersection of Alabama
Avenue at 34th Street. The Traffic Committee discussed this request at the May meeting. The
Highway 100 construction project has brought cut-through traffic into the Sorensen neighborhood.
Due to the increase of accidents at this intersection since 2015, the committee recommended stop
signs be installed. Temporary stop signs associated with the Highway 100 project were installed
in May to control north-south movement on Alabama Avenue. This action essentially makes the
temporary situation permanent. Letters were sent to properties in the vicinity of the intersection
and city staff have several emails in support of the proposed sign change.
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 #667
Map
Prepared by: Chris Iverson, Transportation Engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Traffic Study No. 667: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Alabama Avenue at 34th Street
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
AUTHORIZING THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS
ON ALABAMA AVENUE AT 34TH STREET
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 667
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that stop signs be installed on Alabama Avenue at 34th 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 Alabama Avenue
at 34th Street.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 1, 2016
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Title: Traffic Study No. 667: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Alabama Avenue at 34th Street
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 667
Installation of Stop Sign on Alabama Avenue at 34th Street
The intersection of Alabama Avenue and 34th Street was evaluated to determine whether
additional traffic control is necessary to improve driver safety. The intersection is currently
controlled by a temporary stop sign, which was placed on April 30, 2016. The focus of this
evaluation is to determine whether stop signs are warranted at 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 three or more 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 with traffic tubes. It was
discovered that there were 593 vehicles approaching the intersection per day.
The traffic volumes did not meet warrants for a stop 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 3 reported crashes within a 1 year period.
The most recent reported crash occurred on April 27, 2016. The crash history
meets the warrants for a stop 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
The stop sign warrants for traffic volume were not met for this intersection. However, the crash
history and the sight line restrictions at the intersection justify adding a stop sign at this location.
The Traffic Committee recommends to install permanent stop signs to assign right-of-way at this
intersection. 34th Street is the major street carrying a higher traffic volume. Stop signs are
recommended for the minor street, Alabama Avenue, to control north-south traffic.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Title: Traffic Study No. 667: Authorize Installation of Stop Signs on Alabama Avenue at 34th Street
Alabama Avenue at 34th Street
(Stop Sign Installation)
Alabama Ave:
Existing: Temporary
stop signs
Proposed: Permanent
stop signs
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Final Payment Resolution - Pavement Management Project (Area 2) - Project No.
2013-1000
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $30,022.06 for Project 2013-1000 Pavement Management Project (Area
2) with Valley Paving, Inc., Contract No. 48-14.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time
SUMMARY: On May 19, 2014, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of
$3,115,051.04 to Valley Paving, Inc. for the Pavement Management Project (Area 2) Project 2013-
1000. The project included work roadway, utility, sidewalk and fiber optic work in the Browndale,
Minikahda Vista, and Triangle Neighborhoods. In addition, we entered in to an agreement with
Edina to repave Mackey, Brook and Coolidge Avenues from the City limits to 44th Street in Edina.
The Contractor completed the work at a final contract cost of $3,133,826.88. This includes a
change to the contract to repave the police parking lot and other minor changes to the project
during construction.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The final contract cost of the work performed by the Contractor under Contract No. 48-14 has been
calculated as follows:
Construction Costs $ 3,133,826.88
Original Contract $ 3,115,051.04
Construction Overrun $ 18,775.84
This project was planned for and included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and paid for with funds from the Pavement Management Fund, Sanitary Sewer Fund,
Stormwater Utility Fund, Water Utility Fund, Capital Replacement Fund, General Obligation
Bonds (for Connect the Park!), and the City of Edina.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Senior Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Final Payment Resolution - Pavement Management Project (Area 2) - Project No. 2013-1000
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Annually the city rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets as part
of the pavement management program. Pavement Management Area 2 included street
rehabilitation work which consisted of removing and replacing the existing bituminous pavement
and replacing portions of concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work included sewer repairs
and select watermain replacement within the neighborhood.
In addition to the street reconstruction activates, staff integrated the 2014 Connect the Park
sideway construction for Morningside Road, 41st and 42nd Street as part of the project for cost
saving measures and for coordination efforts of the contractor. Another coordination effort was
that Valley Paving was asked to repave the police parking lot along Raleigh Avenue at the same
time that Raleigh Avenue was rehabilitated.
During the project minor unexpected construction items came up that needed to be addressed in
order to complete the necessary work. This resulted in the cost of the project being $18,775.84
over the awarded amount. These changes to the contract amount were necessary to complete the
watermain installation and various storm sewer modifications to facilitate better drainage.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4g) Page 3
Title: Final Payment Resolution - Pavement Management Project (Area 2) - Project No. 2013-1000
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
STREET PROJECT
LOCAL STREET REHAB (AREA 2)
CITY PROJECT NO. 2013-1000
CONTRACT NO. 48-14
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated May 19, 2014, Valley Paving, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the Street Project – Local Street Rehab (Area 2) – Project 2013-
1000.
2. The Engineering Director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work.
3. The City has received full payment from the City of Edina for work concurrent with our
Joint Powers Agreement.
4. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on this contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Final Contract Amount $ 3,133,826.88
Previous Payments $ 3,103,804.82
Balance Due $ 30,022.06
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 1, 2016
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Acceptance of Donations to Fire Department
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting donations to the Fire
Department.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None
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 2016 Fire Department Open
House:
Northland Aluminum/Nordic Ware $400.00
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 August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Acceptance of Donations to Fire Department
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
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 August 1, 2016
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
March 2, 2016
Community Room, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Anderson, Terry Gips, Ryan Griffin; Chairperson Rachel Harris,
Cindy Larson O’Neil, Renee McGarvey, Nancy Rose, Judy Voigt.
EXCUSED ABSENCE: Karen Laumb, Jayne Stevenson
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Pinc, Sustainability Liaison/City Staff; and, Recording Secretary
(Ms. Pappas).
GUESTS: Julie Rappaport, Education and Action Work Group; Rob Bouta – from the City of
Bloomington, who is working on creating an Environment & Sustainability Commission for
Bloomington.; Sherie Bartsh – from the City of Bloomington, visiting the meeting to find
original task force members and work to convince the Bloomington City Council that they need
a sustainability commission. Shannon will connect the Commissioners with these two guests by
email so they can exchange ideas.
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. The minutes of the February 3, 2016 meeting were with two additions noted:
3. Chairperson Harris opened the meeting and started with roll call and check in. Attendees
shared highlights from the past month.
Chairperson Harris acknowledged Terry for his leadership over the past year as Chair.
She stated his knowledge base is vast, and the Commission has benefitted by his being a
part of this group. Cindy thanked Terry on behalf of the Commission and said they
appreciate his inspiration, passion and “full steam ahead” attitude and work. She added
he has been inspiring to all, and that he touches people in an intimate way. She said the
commission appreciates your work and thanked him for all that he has done.
Shannon also thanked Terry for all the time he has spent training her and getting me up to
speed on the duties of her position.
4. Business
a. Recap of Annual Meeting & State of the City – Chairperson Harris noted in the last
two weeks there have been two wonderful City events: the Annual Meeting and the State
of the City.
She noted that during the annual meeting, various goals for 2015 were reviewed and key
goals for 2016 were presented. The seven St. Louis Park Commissions presented
including the Environment and Sustainability Commission and everyone stayed for the
presentations.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2016
She added one goal is to integrate diverse participants into all of the commissions, and
the Human Rights Commission wants to work with all of the commissions to help in this
area. Chairperson Harris noted they needed more than 10 minutes to present, and that
each of the work groups completes more work than the other full commissions. She
stated we are volunteers, and if any Commissioners feel they are getting burnt out, to let
her know.
Questions that came up in response to the report focused on energy, and Chairperson
Harris noted it was helpful to have both Cindy and Ryan there to present. In general, she
stated, the City Council was satisfied with the Sustainability Commissions goals, and also
said they can do less.
Ryan said he spoke with Council Member Mavity after the meeting and she said that the
Commission is doing too much and that the Council needs to know their priorities. She
added comments about communications deficiencies also. Additionally, Ryan noted that
Council Member Mavity said rather than focus on day-to-day items, to focus on strategic
items instead.
Terry asked if the Council heard the 3 priorities that Ryan shared at the meeting. Ryan
was uncertain if the Council noted these 3 priorities or not. Cindy added this same
conversation with Council happens each year, and noted a liaison to the Commission
from the Council will not happen. Chairperson Harris noted this is good feedback, and
there will be opportunities to deal with this at another time.
Terry stated Chairperson Harris may want to schedule a conversation with City Manager
Tom Harmening, to get his feedback also.
Nancy agreed and said she had heard the same feedback from Council Members also.
Chairperson Harris thanked the Commissioners for their comments and stated she will
reach out to the City Manager for more feedback.
The State of the City 2016 report to the community was distributed to the
Commissioners. There is an emphasis on inclusion in the new Mayor’s report and it was
noted that during the presentation, each presenter was paired with a City Council
member, as a person with expertise in that particular area.
Chairperson Harris noted that Kayla gave environmental report, which included organics,
and did a good job of representing what the Commission is doing. The resiliency
brochure created by a team of people was well received and the Commissioners asked
Shannon to bring copies to next meeting.
Terry added that it should have been noted St. Louis Park is a Green Step City and also
some comments on the work groups in order to encourage those in the room to become
engaged with the Commission.
b. Discussion of 2016 work scope – Chairperson Harris noted there were many items to
work on when it was discussed at the last meeting. She pointed out the Commissioners
are volunteers, who only meet once per month. Each work group has 3 goals, and
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2016
collectively the Commission has 21 goals. There is much to be done, and she presented a
diagram that can be edited, with each month of the year, and the Commission’s goals.
She asked the Commission to comment on the usefulness of the diagram. Overall, the
Commissioners stated it was a useful tool and could be utilized as a chart to track
priorities and progress over the year.
c. Discussion on meeting time/use of time – During the retreat, Commissioner noted
various suggestions and ideas on meeting time and use of time. These suggestions were
posted in the room and the Commissioners invited to rank their top two. Shannon will
compile the results and bring them back to the April meeting for review. the suggestions
included the following: Longer monthly meetings, more frequent meetings, less time
spent on work groups updates, focus every other month, engagement – how to include
persons less inclined to speak in front of larger group, use of written reports to go out
with the agenda in order to save on presentation time at the meetings, changing the date
and time of meetings especially for those who have conflict, create a discussion board on
line to have ongoing discussion, have 2 hour meetings, include more I-technology.
d. Approval of Polystyrene To-Go position – This was brought back for discussion and
edits were shared. Ryan asked about the language related to 100% support. Terry said this
referred to 100% from the Council for the work of the Commission.
Ryan added he doesn’t think the Commission should focus on zero waste, as the City
does a great job with this already. He stressed the Commission has other things that are a
priority and this is not a good use of Commissioners time.
Terry pointed out the Eureka recycling study, and noted if everyone did as much
recycling as possible, major waste reduction would occur.
Terry made a motion to approve the position statement as the statement of the Commission.
Renee seconded the motion. The motion passed with one abstention (Chris abstained).
Terry made another motion to recommend this position statement be presented to the City
Council with minor changes. Renee seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion
failed. (Ayes- Terry, Cindy) (Nays-Chris, Ryan, Judy) (Abstentions-Renee, Chairperson
Harris)
Terry made an alternative motion to revisit this topic after Chairperson Harris has a
discussion with City Manager Harmening. Ryan seconded the motion. The motion passed.
e. Education & Action – Julie Rappaport explained the upcoming events the City will
host along with the Commission and SEEDS group. Sunday April 24 will be the 2nd
annual St. Louis Park Earth Day, featuring speakers, facilitators, exhibitors, breakout
sessions, workshops, and a community dinner.
Shannon presented the online monthly calendar of events. It was also noted that Mayor
Spano will emcee the community dinner. Julie asked the Commissioner if any would be
available to work at a table, and speak about each of their work groups, handout items,
and encourage attendance. Commissioners are to email Julie if they are interested in
helping with the event, or if they have questions.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2016
f. Energy Work Group Update – Ryan presented a power point update of a climate action
plan. The plan reviewed what can be done to mitigate climate change and agreements on
how to work on and solve climate change, which he noted is a very significant problem
today. Ryan explained personal carbon footprints in the United States and annual per
capita emission for St Louis Park, which equals 21.9 tons/person of co2 going into the
atmosphere. He noted ways that are being worked on to bring this number down, through
reduction of electricity, gas and vehicle miles as a means to reduce emissions.
He noted the Partners in Energy group has a great partner with Xcel Energy, and they do
want to help. He added that electricity and transportation are trending down, but not fast
enough. He added that natural gas also needs to trend down faster, especially to reach a
goal of net 0 by 2040.
He noted the Energy Work Group would like to propose to the City Council to get to net
zero electricity in the next 10 years.
Ryan presented the following motions that the work group will present to the City
Council along with the iMatter group, and with their petition that is 0 emissions by 2040.
The presentation to Council is scheduled for March 21, but Shannon will confirm that.
The motions to the City Council include:
Recognize our responsibility as a City to address climate change in order
to mitigate risk to local and global populations.
Provide resources to enact a detailed climate action plan to net zero
greenhouse gas emissions by 2040.
Have staff collect data as they have since 2008.
Honoring commitment to switch to 100% renewable electricity purchases
in 2016 (Windsource).
Get a commitment to switch to Green Balance natural gas purchases in
2016 in order to offset pollution from City natural gas consumption.
He added the work group is partnering with businesses to help them reduce, save money,
and reinvest into wind or solar alternatives. Cindy added there is a subgroup working on
efficiencies in businesses.
Chairperson Harris asked for clarification as to the sole purpose of the presentation to the
City Council. Ryan stated it will be to update and Council to act on the five motions
noted above. Also, the presentation would help emphasize this is one of the
Commission’s key goals for 2016, helping to create context for one of their top priorities.
Nancy stated she would like this to be presented at a City Council study session first.
Judy made a motion to bring this forward and present this information to the City
Council. Nancy seconded. The motion passed.
Ryan will send the presentation to Shannon to disperse to the Commissioners.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4i) Page 5
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of March 2, 2016
g. Other Work Group Updates – Judy noted the zero waste workgroup is interested in
Ryan’s thoughts on organics and will have further discussion. She added those
Commissioners that would like to be involved with Organic Living or Earth Day can also
email her.
h. Upcoming Events
March 8 – MPCA – clean power listening session – 6:30 meeting - Shannon will
email details to Commissioners.
Alliance for Sustainability – Terry noted they are sponsoring an event in the west
metro about integrating climate information into City Comprehensive Plan
updates. The event is for City staff, or for local elected officials, work group
people, etc. and will be a great overview. It’s being held at the Minnetonka
Community Center and Shannon will email further details to the Commissioners.
5. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4j
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
April 6, 2016
Westwood Room, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Terry Gips, Ryan Griffin; Chairperson Harris; Renee McGarvey, Cindy
Larson O’Neil, Nancy Rose, Jayne Stevenson, Judy Voigt.
EXCUSED ABSENCE: Chris Anderson
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Pinc, Sustainability Liaison/City Staff; and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Pappas).
GUESTS: Julie Rappaport, Education and Action Work Group; Larry Kraft, iMatter.
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m.
2. The minutes of the March 2, 2016 meeting were approved with changes: Karen Laumb
no longer a member.
- Date of Alliance event – is March 24th should be added. With changes from Nancy Rose.
3. Business
Recap of Youth presentation to Council on March 21 – Larry/Jayne
Larry from iMatter gave an update. He noted the youth group Roots and Shoots did a fantastic
job at the City Council meeting and received many positive comments. He noted the Council
was very receptive to the group and seemed supportive to the resolution presented. He added
this is a great beginning and the St Louis Park is setting an example for the whole country on
climate change. This makes it more real and emotional, especially now that the youth are
involved. Jayne added it was a very good meeting and the Council was very supportive of their
efforts. Additionally, there was a Star Tribune article written and a summary of the article is
available online. Larry added that Ryan did a wonderful job and the youth set the tone for this
project. He said the ball is in our court now, to make this happen. The Commission asked for
copies of Jayne’s speech, and also noted the meeting was recorded on St Louis Park government
television. Chair Harris commented that Jayne was a rock star, very poised and it is an honor to
have her as a member of the Commission.
a. Recap of meeting with Tom Harmening, City Manager – Chair Harris and
Shannon met with the City Manager on Monday and covered few items:
- Old business related to zero waste and what the Council wants from the
Commission.
- More frequent tension between Council wanting us to do things one way, and
how to reach mutual agreement on this.
- Zero waste ordinance – there was a motion to do present a report to the
Council and this was also conveyed verbally. When asked if the Council
wanted the written statement on the ordinance, and a verbal report, their
answer was no, and they have moved on.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2016
Additional items discussed:
- Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB) ordinance – and it was noted this will be
coming back to the Council at some point to be determined.
- Working synergistically with Council and staff – Shannon stated she reminded
Council of the 3 goals/priorities in February, however the Council receives so
much information, that they did not remember this. She stated they reminded
them of the 3 goals: Green Step, Climate Action Plan, and incorporating
sustainability into the Comprehensive Plan.
Shannon added they also discussed the visioning process, and Tom said they
are still in the planning stages. She added if the Commission has further ideas
on this to please contact Chair Harris, Shannon or Tom Harmening. Additionally,
Shannon noted the Council is happy with the work the Commission is doing.
Julie Rappaport added the Council should be encouraged to join in at the
Earth Day dinner. She added that Terry and Ryan with both be speaking,
Roots and Shoots and iMatters also will be in attendance. She encouraged the
City Council Members and Tom to attend, noting there will be listening
sessions related to visioning from the community.
- Results of discussion/voting on meeting time/use of time – Chair Harris
presented the number of votes for each topic discussed at the March meeting.
She stated the winning result was to have 3 key priorities discussed at each
meeting and then work group topics alternately. She added the Commission
and staff are learning the meetings and topics need to be flexible for when
work group reports need priority also. Ongoing meeting and agenda
management will be a priority.
b. Overarching Goals – Chair Harris
i. Comprehensive Plan – Chair Harris noted at the City of Minneapolis, people
gather to discuss their “big audacious” goal which she found to be a great
idea. She noted if Commissioners have ideas for the City’s visioning plan,
to please send to them to her or Shannon. She added this could be done
through surveys also.
Ryan said last year the transportation group had ideas about a survey. Terry
added it is part of the work plan to do a survey. He added it would be
helpful to find out if there is a comprehensive planning budget and if a
survey could be part of that. He added the survey could also come out of
Shannon’s budget as well. The question is when the City will do their
survey, and if there is a budget available to have help with it.
Chair Harris added she had connected with Beth Mercer Taylor on this issue
also. Julie added the survey was discussed at Earth Day planning also, and
could there by paper surveys handed out to participants in order to start
collecting information. Chair Harris thanked everyone for their input and
said they will revisit the Top 10 survey with the Comprehensive Plan.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2016
ii. Green Step Cities – Shannon and Nancy noted the City will be recognized
at Step 2 level in June. They added the work group is ahead of schedule on
this and also have added Step 4 and 5 to be worked on. They noted there is
more work to do, but that a good framework is in place now. They also
thanked Renee for her previous insight. Chair Harris asked if the 3 goals
could fit into the criteria going forward. Nancy said yes. Chair Harris
added there is reason to celebrate.
iii. Climate Action Planning – Ryan stated he gave a draft presentation last
month to the Commission last month and received feedback, which he
now has incorporated into a new presentation. This presentation will be
delivered to the City Council on April 18 in a Special Study Session. He
stated he will have 45 minutes to present and will be inviting Roots and
Shoots and iMatter to be in attendance also. He added that Chair Harris
will present the top 3 priorities, and then present the sustainable city goals.
Ryan’s portion will be all about the Climate Action Plan -- why it is
needed, what it is, what it’s not, and then he will explain the
Commission’s support for iMatter climate standards. He stated if all agree
on a common message, it will be very effective.
He noted the main Asks will be to have the City recognize their
responsibility to mitigate this issue, and to recognize we all contribute
every day to the problem. This is the first step to solving the problem.
He added it will take an effort to get this done and community
stakeholders will be needed also, along with outside support.
He said the main goal will be to get the City to net zero emissions by 2024
and electricity by 2025, and this will be for all City sectors, not just
businesses. It will be for residents, vehicles, and anything within St. Louis
Park. He said he will recommend continuing collection of regional
indicators data, and added he will recommend the City switch the City
Hall building to 100% renewable this year to lead by example. He added
it is doable. Shannon stated she needs this data on costs for WindSource
for all city accounts so she can put into the budget proposal. And finally,
Ryan stated he wants to incorporate this climate resolution with full
support.
The Commissioners agreed Ryan’s presentation looks very good, and
Terry thanked all those involved. Chair Harris added that everyone in the
room has been supportive of this proposal, along with the members of the
Partners in Energy workgroup and those St. Louis Park business
representatives involved also.
Motion made (Judy) and seconded (Nancy) that the Climate Inheritance
Resolution be endorsed before the City Council on April 18th at the Study
Session. Ryan – added the friendly amendment to include the Climate be
submitted along with the Climate Action Plan CC on April 18th. Motion
passed.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4j) Page 4
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2016
c. Other Work Group Updates
i. Partners in Energy update – Ryan/Cindy are working on a draft that
supports the Climate Action Plan, with specific actions in each area.
They added they hope to have this completed by the next Commission
meeting and will send a draft out prior to the Commission for review,
before the May meeting. Ryan stated this is an 18-month action plan,
which will be part of how to start doing this for the 25-year climate action
plan. Strategy will be discussed on this plan. Ryan pointed out that Cindy
has recruited many people from the community and businesses to be
involved in this plan and he thanked her for all her work on pulling this
team together. Chair Harris congratulated the work group and said if they
need help to digest information, please let the Commissioners know.
ii. Living Streets Policy – Ryan/Rachel/Shannon
The meeting was held yesterday and Ryan and Nancy (storm water work
group), Deb Heiser, City Director of Engineering made an excellent start
to a high-level draft. They discussed what the policy is, and why do it,
along with outcomes and objectives, measures, and goals. For the next 6
months, they will conduct monthly meeting and each one will take on a
specific part of the draft. They hope to have a complete policy approved
by the Council ultimately. They will meet the first Tuesday of each month
to work on this.
Terry said this is a positive development and asked if there is alignment
with the rest of the City staff. Ryan said there seems to be and they keep
working on partnership and collaboration. He thanked Shannon for doing
the pre-work on this and noted that benchmarks and performance will be
clear.
Julie asked if these meetings are open to community members, noting it
would be a good way to conduct some visioning, and people would like to
have a voice. Nancy noted if the majority of Commissioner are in
attendance, then it is a public meeting, however this work will begin with
the small group first.
Renee noted there are many landscape architects that live in St. Louis Park
and stated the Commission could tap into them. She will do some work on
this. She added she will look for more information and existing policies
already in use in Edina and Maplewood. She said the City Council and
Staff seem pretty open, and the Commission should keep working on
items and giving reasons behind, sharing the why.
iii. Communications – Shannon showed the updated Facebook page for the
Commission and said some additional training was held for
Commissioners recently on how to add updates to the page. There was
also training on Twitter, and Terry, Clark, Nancy and Judy were in
attendance. She stated that content can be sent to her and Nicole by email,
and they will be responsible for positing it on the pages. Staff will be
monitoring and following City guidelines.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4j) Page 5
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of April 6, 2016
The concern is staff does not want to see discussions on these sites, as it
may violate the open meeting laws and City rules, so it is important to
remember these sites are strictly to be used for updates, tidbits, etc. and are
just to be informational. Events will be posted also.
Chair Harris stated this is an exciting milestone in our Commission and
thanked the Communications workgroup.
iv. Water and wildlife work group –Nancy provided a brief update. She
stated City Engineer Phillip Elkin presented background on the Bass Lake
Project work during 2014, 2015 and early 2016.
Several projects relating to Bass Lake were proposed. The most appealing
project is stormwater capture and reuse to irrigate ball fields in Carpenter
Park. Runoff from the two blocks west of City Hall would be drained to
tanks placed in a low spot at the western edge of Carpenter Park, treated and
used to irrigate the ball fields there. Cost is estimated at about $1.25 million.
Another project would be drainage improvements around Glen Road.
Removing trees from the wooded area at the northeast corner of Bass Lake
was discussed. Keeping the trees may be preferable. The discussion will
be continued at another study session. Nancy added she will keep the
commission apprised of future meetings.
d. Upcoming Events
i. April 12th – Solar Power Hour at the Rec Center – Cindy said this
organization through Midwest Renewable Association does focus groups
all over MN and WI. It is free and open to the public and they will have
rooftop and wind source information available. She noted her thanks to
Shannon, Nicole and staff with help on this and added that Julie will bring
some items to distribute at the event also.
ii. April 16th – Organic Living Workshop – Judy noted they are in need of
table staffing and other needs at this upcoming workshop. She asked
Commissioners to please email her or Shannon if they are available to
help. A sign-up sheet was passed around to Commissioners.
iii. April 24th – 2nd Annual Earth Day Event – Terry is the keynote speaker,
and Julie and Judy are on the planning committee for this event. Judy
passed around a sign-up sheet to commissioners to sign up for work times.
They will have exhibitors, and Julie noted this could be a chance to start
the visioning process. They added a whole room is available for
Sustainable St. Louis Park along with iMatter and Roots and Shoots.
Speakers start at 3:30 with dinner following. The event runs until 8 p.m.
and there will be prize giveaways also. Julie passed out flyers and cards
that can be handed out to the community.
Shannon noted she will be out of the office from April 18 – 27 and back in on April 28th.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:36 p.m.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4k
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
May 4, 2016
Community Room, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Anderson, Terry Gips, Ryan Griffin; Renee McGarvey, Cindy
Larson O’Neil, Nancy Rose, Jayne Stevenson, Judy Voigt.
EXCUSED ABSENCE: Rachel Harris
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Pinc, Sustainability Liaison/City Staff; and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Pappas).
GUESTS: Julie Rappaport, Education and Action Work Group
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m. by Vice Chair Anderson.
The minutes of the April 6, 2016 meeting were approved with minor changes that were given to
Shannon to correct.
2. Business
A. Overarching Goals
i. Comprehensive Plan – Meg McMonigal, principal planner with the City of St.
Louis Park, updated the Commission on the Comprehensive Plan. Meg has been
with the City for 12 years, and has participated in the development of many
Comprehensive Plans over the years.
She explained the starting point for the Comprehensive Plan is the 2010 Census,
and from there long-range plans are developed. The plan is to be completed by
Dec 31, 2018, and then implementation takes place.
She explained the vision for St Louis Park is to have a connected and engaged
community, which promotes and integrates the arts, culture and community
aesthetics, and leads in environmental stewardship, and provides well maintained
and diverse housing.
Additional items include the possibility of including projects the Sustainability
Commission is working on including: biking, walking, efficient use of the
Connect the Park program, livable community and transportation goals, trails, and
alternative transportation systems including SW Light Rail.
The visioning process will begin this fall with extensive community involvement.
She noted that in 2017, they will complete the visioning process, and identify any
new areas to be addressed.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2016
In 2018, the plan will be finalized by mid-year, rolled out, reviewed and adopted
by the City Council. Then it is reviewed by the Metropolitan Council and
becomes official after that.
The Commission discussed the plan and asked questions.
Cindy asked about the City’s goals around transportation and managing traffic.
The City is working on all aspects of traffic, including bikes, walking, and Light
Rail and is keeping environmental concerns at the forefront. The goal is to reduce
emissions, and provide alternative transportation, so that citizens are able to live
in the City without the need for a car. Meg added that this is not yet in the City’s
written goals, but it should be.
Ryan asked how the Commission and other citizen groups in the City fit into the
visioning process. Meg noted these groups will definitely provide valuable
information and feedback and the City will reach out to all of the Commissions.
Ryan also asked how goals are measured year over year. Meg stated data in the
stewardship section of the environmental goals, can be measured by inspections.
Ryan asked about the goals around a climate plan and if this would have a place
in the plan. Meg said yes, and the more measureable the plan is, with action
steps, the better.
Julie asked what campaigns came out of last plan. Meg noted the organics and
Connect the Park program came out of a study done during the Comprehensive
Plan process.
Nancy asked if there are any goals around density or housing type. Meg stated
there are 16 goals on land use, and added the City will need to be clearer on these
goals, going forward.
Renee asked about storm surface water issues being included in the plan. Meg
agreed, and added that different agencies require different studies about water, so
consultants are usually hired to do these studies, adding that the City anticipates
these studies will be conducted during the process of developing the next
Comprehensive Plan.
Chris asked how the visioning process on sustainability was conducted on the last
plan. Meg explained the visioning process for the Comprehensive Plan began in
1995 related to the Excelsior and Grand development. In 2005, a process called
appreciative inquiry was used, and visioning areas developed from there.
Visioning is conducted a little differently each year, depending on the consultant
that is involved in the process. She noted that sustainability could definitely be
included and that consultants will develop the process based on the City’s
interests and needs.
Judy asked about collaborating with other cities, and working on the planning
process together so City’s can coordinate ideas, and learn from each other.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 3
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2016
Meg noted that all communities update their Comprehensive Plans at the same
time, and the Metropolitan Council supports the Alliance on this, and also
supports getting Commissions and citizen leaders involved.
Nancy asked about the communication plan. Meg noted within the next few
months, work will begin and this will be communicated back to the Commission.
She added that organized neighborhood groups, and citizen/business groups
including Children First, Twin West, Rotary, the SLP Schools, the Chamber of
Commerce, all be invited to City Meetings. There will also be a great amount of
information on social media about ways citizens can be involved in the process.
Meg added she will communicate with Shannon and come back to the
Commission with more information on the visioning process as it progresses. She
noted the Light Rail presentation is also available for viewing online.
ii. Green Step Cities – Shannon stated the City is now at 2 stars. It was asked if the
work group has plans to work on 3 star status. Shannon stated this goal is set be
achieved by 2018. Step 2 recognition will occur in June of 2016, and there are
specific requirements the workgroup will need to accomplish in order to achieve a
3 star recognition.
iii. Climate Action Plan – Ryan presented to the City Council, and the City was very
receptive. Likewise presentations at Earth Day, Vision Sustainability and the
student group presentation with Roots and Shoots were also very successful. He
added the iMatter Inheritance Resolution will be presented at an upcoming City
Council Study Session, before the end of the school year.
It was also noted that Jayne and the Roots and Shoots group received an
international award, which will be presented in Boston. Their campaign and
presentation to the City Council was recognized by the Green School Coalition
for creating change in their community, and their group was one of only 16 in the
world, which was awarded this honor. The Commissioner congratulated Jayne on
her hard work.
This meeting is Renee’s last official meeting as a Commissioner. However, she
wishes to remain active in the Living Streets and Green Steps work groups. The
Commissioners thanked her for her service and knowledge.
B. Policy Conversation
Bring your own bag ordinance summary was discussed. The Commissioners
should have received a summary by Kala Fisher, with updates on the ordinance.
Shannon highlighted the updates, and noted Rachel and Judy drafted a position
statement of neutrality on the ordinance. This will be provided to City Council
after it is reviewed again at the June 1st Sustainability Commission meeting.
Judy explained she reviewed the study by Clemson University titled “Life Cycle
Assessment of Grocery Bags Commonly Used in the United States, 2014”, which
was peer reviewed. She said the study reviewed paper bags, HDPE bags, LDPE
reusable bags, and non-woven poly bags, over 12 different parameters and
determined that paper bags are far worse in terms of environmental impact.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 4
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2016
Terry said he had reviewed a number of Life Cycle Analyses and they all showed
that plastic bags had a much lower impact than paper and were even superior to
reusables unless the reusables had a huge number of reuses. Terry also noted the
Scottish government spent two years looking at this issue in 2005 and came to
same conclusion, as did the British government. The scientific data is available
for review.
Terry stressed the scientific data and studies information need to be included in
the position statement. He added he is not neutral on this issue and the public and
the Council needs to be educated on this issue. He added the Commission needs
to say we oppose this ordinance, and think about reusing the bags and educating
people on this issue, and then also pushing for a zero waste policy.
Chris noted he is not comfortable saying we oppose this ordinance. Nancy stated
she supports the addition of more science, data, charts, and more resources in this
statement, notating the aforementioned study, and a conclusion.
Terry noted that the perception is that plastic bags are the worst and that is not
true. The Commission’s purpose should be zero waste and organics, and then
education about plastic bags. He added that plastic bags can be recycled – and
that people need to be educated on this.
Cindy made a motion to oppose the ordinance as it stands today. Judy
seconded the motion, which passed with one abstention (Chris).
The Commission also recommended that the bag position statement be combined
with statements written earlier by Terry, in his position statement regarding
polystyrene (presented to Council on December 7th). Terry said he will modify
the approved Commission statement on zero waste packaging to address plastic
bags and share it.
C. Energy Work Group Updates
Partners in Energy Plan – Cindy presented the third version of the Energy Action
Plan. She noted it is not completed yet; however it has four action areas, and
thanked Ryan for his amazing work on this project. She noted his presentation
should be added to the Commission’s website, and the link has been emailed to
Shannon.
Cindy added no goals have been set related to the business energy efficiency area
and the group is working on next steps. She noted these businesses make up 70%
of the electric users in the City. She added they do have some ideas on how to
work on this, however, it is a big undertaking, and they are not sure how to get
there.
D. Recap of events- due to time constraints this section will be addressed at the June
meeting.
i. April 12th – Solar Power Hour Rec Center – Shannon/Cindy
ii. April 16th – Organic Living Workshop – Shannon/Judy
iii. April 24th – 2nd Annual Earth Day Event –Judy/Julie
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4k) Page 5
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of May 4, 2016
Terry gave a special thank you to Julie Rappaport for all her work on the earth
Day event, along with the cable television coverage. He also thanks Judy and the
entire SEEDs team for all of their excellent work.
E. Acknowledgment of Outgoing Commissioners
Tonight is Cindy’s last meeting as a Commissioner, however she will stay
involved as a member on the energy work group.
Terry thanked Cindy for her invaluable work as a Commissioner and added it has
been unbelievable, and amazing how much work their group has taken on related
to the Energy Plan. He acknowledged all of her work with getting new people
involved and forming new partnerships with businesses across the City. He also
noted that when future Commissioners look back at Cindy’s work, they will be
incredibly thankful to her.
Ryan echoed Terry’s statements, and said Cindy’s leadership has been an
inspiration, especially for him and work on his Master’s degree/project. He added
it will be good to have an alumni network of Commissioner to call upon and
utilize for the future work of the Commission.
Julie added that the inspiration of Cindy’s dedication, and the fact that she was
always present for everything, is truly appreciated. She thanked Cindy for her
commitment to the work of the Commission.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4l
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
June 1, 2016
Community Room, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Rachel Harris, Francie Abramson, Chris Anderson, Joe Barten,
Terry Gips, Julie Rappaport, Nancy Rose, Judy Voigt
EXCUSED ABSENCE: Jayne Stevenson, Ryan Griffin
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Pinc, Environment and Sustainability Coordinator; Jane Adade,
Staff Intern; and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas).
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m.
2. Chair Harris opened the meeting and welcomed the new commissioners.
Commissioners and staff introduced themselves.
3. The minutes of the May 4, 2016 meeting were approved with several additions which
staff will incorporate.
4. Business
a. Welcome new commissioners
i. Chair opening remarks – Chair Harris noted the commission’s key goals and
primary focus. Information booklets were distributed to the new
commissioners which included the annual report, the norms, and additional
information.
Chair Harris explained the key goals as follows:
Comprehensive Plan – Long range planning document the City
produces and the commission wants involvement in the process to
ensure sustainability is considered throughout the plan.
Climate Action Plan – Partners in Energy are the champions of this
initiative and are currently working to incorporate it into the
comprehensive plan, which is the City’s 10 year visioning statement.
Green Step Cities – this growing program is endorsed by the City, and
the Commission has worked on the qualifying steps with the help of
Shannon, in an effort to build sustainability and become more
environmentally friendly.
Chair Harris added the Commission’s primary objective is to review topics
that the City Council forwards to them and provide feedback and statements.
She added the commission has a Facebook page which provides an
opportunity to post information and drive the public to that site, which
discusses issues about sustainability and the environment.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 2
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2016
ii. City Attorney Soren Mattick – The City Attorney presented information on
the City’s Open Meeting Laws, Conflict of Interest rules and Gift Law. He
noted this presentation as recently done for the new City Council as well.
He noted the basic premise of the Open Meeting Law states that all decisions
made by the City Council or any of the Commissions must be done in a
public forum, where the public can attend the meeting and observe. He
continued that emails are a concern, and the rule here is to not involve more
than one person in the email exchange, so as not to form a quorum, where
commission or city business is discussed. This is a violation of the open
meeting law, and can expose both commissioners and the city to liability.
The rule to remember is that commissioners can communicate by email, but
not create a consensus. Do not reply all in an email from staff, so as not to
allow a discussion to ensue. This also applies to the forwarding of emails, if a
discussion begins related to official business, and consensus is formed.
The commissioners asked about the work groups and if these rules also apply
to email communication here. Mr. Mattick noted the same rules apply to
work groups, and are subject to the open meeting laws. He added that both
text messages and social media are subject to the open meeting laws as well.
Further, Mr. Mattick pointed out the it does not matter if a commissioner is
using a personal computer, or work computer, or personal or work email
accounts, everything is still subject to open meeting laws.
Conflicts of Interest – Mr. Mattick explained the conflict of interest rule says
commissioners may not use their position with the city for financial gain, and
they are prohibited from entering into business with the City. Additionally,
the city is prohibited from entering into any contract with a business, if the
owner is on the City Council or works for City. Mr. Mattick noted these
bylaws were approved by the City Council and apply to all city commissions.
He detailed the rules here by noting that to avoid the appearance of any
impropriety, commissioners cannot enter into any contract between board
members and any business venture they may have; they cannot use their
position as a commissioner to advance others within the city; and they cannot
use their office or act in any manner which gives the appearance of
impropriety or conflict of interest.
He added the appearance of an impropriety is a concern even though the
action may not be an actual impropriety.
He added these bylaws apply to city boards and commissions, however they
do not impact the city council. The rules are self –imposed by the city
council, and issues area on a case by case review basis.
There was some confusion by commissioners related to interpretation of the
bylaws as it relates to co-sponsorship. Terry noted that typically a
commissioner might excuse themselves from a discussion and vote if there is
a conflict of interest. However, Mr. Mattick stated if there is a conflict, that is
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 3
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2016
the norm, but there are certain instances where a whole group can be
disqualified due to the conflict of interest with one member of that group.
Chair Harris noted that the commission has followed the language of the
bylaws in the past and has avoided the appearance of conflict of interest.
Gift Laws – Mr. Mattick explained as a board member or commissioner, one
cannot receive gifts from outsiders, or receive gifts which may influence a
commissioner in any way. No gifts, dinners, tickets, trips, etc. may be
accepted at any time.
iii. Shannon’s role in the City –
Shannon noted her title is Environment and Sustainability Coordinator, and
explained her role and her job description to the commission.
She stated she plans and implements environmental and sustainability
resilience programs across departments; serves as staff liaison for this
commission; plans and helps with meetings, action items, and works with
other staff; as a technical resource to all citizens and commissioners related
to environment sustainability. Additionally, she develops reports which are
delivered to the city council, that come out of commission meetings, and she
also applies for grants. Shannon noted that over the past year, she has spent
50-80% of her time working with the Environment & Sustainability commission.
Chair Harris said the commission is very glad Shannon is here to support the
group, and thanked her for her explanation of her role.
Currently Shannon is working on Green Steps, grant applications, various
events, and presentations for other city and outside meetings.
She is also working on the final Energy Plan from the Partners in Energy
program. There will be an 18-month implementation phase and the goals will
be laid for the 4 focus areas: Energy Efficiency, Renewables, Climate Action
Planning, and Youth Involvement.
Joe asked what the commissions role is related to the Energy Plan. Shannon
stated the commission’s role will be to sanction the plan, however, currently
more data is needed, along with more discussion, before the final report will
be moved to the city council. She noted this has not been passed on to the
city council as yet. However, the Climate Action Plan (as part of the larger
Energy Plan) was presented and approved by Council and she is working on
an outline to procure consulting services to help develop the plan.
iv. Discussion/Vote to change July 6 meeting to July 13 – The commission
discussed this and decided to keep the meeting scheduled for July 6th on the
calendar at this time.
b. Overarching Goals
i. Comprehensive Plan – Chair Harris noted this is a multi-year planning
document, and currently the city is in the early stages of planning.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 4
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2016
She added that city staff is leading this process and there will be a series of
community visioning and input sessions scheduled. The plan itself will have
8-10 chapters, and public meetings will be held in order to engage citizens
and city staff in sharing. She added the city council is aware that the
Environment and Sustainability Commission is interested in this process and
in participating in it. The Comprehensive Plan takes about 1.5 years to write
and is strategic and long-range. Chair Harris added it must be completed by
December of 2018.
ii. Green Step Cities – Chair Harris noted that this is both a work group and a
key goal of the commission. She added it is a framework for the
environment, water, and other areas. The current work group is Nancy,
Renee, and Shannon and others are encouraged to join, especially the new
commissioners. Shannon showed the commission the Green Step Cities
website, noting there are 29 best practice categories, and specific items
within the sustainability process. She added the website shows what other
cities have done with this program, and noted it is a resource also for
networking and sharing resources and best practices; and not only about the
award process.
She added the city council supports it and city staff understands it, and the
Green Steps goals are aligned within all of the work groups.
Joe commented this is an opportune time to be working on the Green Steps
program, as the city also begins its work on the Comprehensive Plan.
iii. Climate Action Plan – Chair Harris noted that Commissioner Ryan Griffin is
key on this initiative and has worked diligently on this plan. Shannon
recapped that it is still a concept at this time, however a resolution has
recently been passed by the city council to begin the process 30 days after it’s
passing. The scope of the work is not fully formed yet, however youth will be
involved. She added the city staff hopes to have the plan completed by the
end of 2016, and this will also involve a focus on greenhouse gas data and
meeting the goals of the larger energy plan. City staff is also interviewing
others who have been involved in similar efforts in the past, as they work on
the plan. Shannon noted she will be working with Larry Kraft to learn how
the youth would like to stay involved.
c. Policy Conversation
i. Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance Statement – Chair Harris noted the
commission has been working on a statement to send to the city council
about this ordinance. Comments were sent to Shannon by commissioners, for
integration into the final statement, which is presented to the commission for
review this evening. Chair Harris stated she incorporated all comments into
the statement, keeping in mind that the city council has asked for brevity
from the commission. She added that three different voices were integrated
into this statement.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 5
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2016
Motion was made by Nancy Rose to accept the proposed statement related to
the ordinance and seconded by Terry Gips.
Terry expressed appreciation for all the work Rachel had done combining the
three different sets of comments. He also acknowledged the work Rachel and
Judy had done in in preparing their original one page draft which he
incorporated in his draft. And he thanks Judy for the research she did on
LCAs. He had two overall comments. First there were a number of
important, specific policy recommendations that were made in Rachel and
Judy’s original one page document that he incorporated along with several
others in his full draft proposal. He feels these are important to share with
city staff and council in order to guide their implementations. Second, he
emphasized that the overall zero waste and sustainability framing language
he included in his draft was important to share with the staff so it could be
included at the beginning of the ordinance so it would contextualize the
ordinance as only one step of a much larger zero waste and sustainability
effort by the city.
Terry made a friendly amendment to the original motion to include framing
language as part of closing statement.
Chris developed the following statement to be included in the last paragraph
of the report to be sent to the city council:
If approved by council, the commission plans to make additional
recommendations regarding implementation.
The friendly amendment motion was accepted by Nancy, and passed
unanimously by the commission.
d. Work Groups –
i. Existing Work Groups- Shannon will send out a grid to all commissioners
related to work groups. Chair Harris encouraged all new and returning
commissioners to reach out to Shannon for contact information of those in
charge of the work groups. She asked each commissioner to decide which
work group they would like to be on by the July meeting.
ii. Education & Action – this work group now only consists of Julie and Terry,
and they welcomed the new and returning commissioners to join this work
group. Julie commented on the upcoming Parktacular event scheduled for
June 18. She and Terry encourage commissioners to be involved in the
Saturday parade. Last year Terry and Ryan and their families rode their bikes
in the parade and handed out ESC informational flyers. Please contact
Shannon, Terry or Julie to participate.
Additionally, Julie promoted an upcoming tour of the St Louis Park organics
collection waste area and suggested August 11th from 11-1:30 p.m.
Hennepin County will provide a donated bus, and she encouraged all to
attend.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4l) Page 6
Title: Environment & Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2016
Other upcoming events information should be sent to Shannon for
distribution to the commission. Please provide as much lead time as possible
for Shannon.
iii. Green Step Cities – Shannon shared information on this work group earlier in
the meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:38 p.m.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Consent Agenda Item: 4m
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JUNE 15, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne,
Richard Person, Joe Tatalovich,
Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lisa Peilen, Carl Robertson
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Gary Morrison, Jennifer Monson,
Nicole Mardell, Phil Elkin
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of May 18, 2016
Commissioner Carper made a motion approving the minutes of May 18, 2016. Richard
Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Perspectives – Conditional Use Permit
Location: 3381 Gorham Ave. and 7008 Walker St.
Applicant: Perspectives, Inc.
Case No.: 16-21-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
that the applicant is requesting the conditional use permit to locate 39 required parking
spaces to a parking lot located at 7008 Walker Street. He reviewed conditions required
for off-site parking and noted that all conditions can be met.
Commissioner Carper commented that there is no continuation of sidewalk up to Walker
St. Mr. Morrison said Perspectives will construct a public sidewalk from the NE corner
up to the sidewalk that leads to their front door. The city is also asking the applicant to
construct a sidewalk on the west side of Gorham Ave. This is separate from the
conditional use permit but tied to the redevelopment of the parking lot.
Commissioner Carper asked about the crosswalk across Gorham. He asked why a private
party would establish a crosswalk when it is implicit there is a crosswalk between any
corners of a street. He asked why, if necessary, this wouldn’t be a city responsibility.
Mr. Morrison responded that this was reviewed with the Engineering Dept. He said it is
correct that it is implied that there is a crosswalk even though it isn’t striped. There have
been a few circumstances where a route of travel is unique and specific to a business and
the city has asked the business to install and maintain the crosswalk.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4m) Page 2
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016
Commissioner Carper asked what maintenance of crosswalk entails.
Mr. Morrison stated that it has to be installed and maintained to city standards. It will
need to be repainted every 2-3 years depending on the wear and tear on the street.
Commissioner Tatalovich asked if there is anything between the parking lot and the
building to prevent jay walking.
Mr. Morrison said the sidewalk is extended to the parking lot to direct people from the lot
to the path. He spoke about a natural grade change at the north end of Gorham which will
discourage cutting across. There is also some vegetation at the north end of Gorham to
discourage cutting across.
Cheryl Cochrane, CFO of Perspectives, said they are very excited to have additional
parking adjacent to their building. They have evening programming and cars are parked
pretty far down Gorham Ave. The parking lot will provide a safe spot for participants,
especially in the winter.
The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak she closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of the conditional use
permit. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 5-0.
B. Zoning Ordinance Amendment – Floodplain Districts
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 16-23-ZA
Jennifer Monson, Planner, presented the staff report. She explained the amendment’s
purpose is to allow compensatory storage to be provided using accepted engineering
practices to achieve the goal of eliminating any increase in flood stage as a result of a
project. If amended it will apply to all properties located within Floodplain Districts and
will provide more flexibility regarding where compensating flood storage is provided.
Ms. Monson discussed floodplains and flooding events. She discussed the responsible
regulatory bodies involved in regulating floodplains. She discussed compensating storage
and the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Person asked if the reason to amend the ordinance was to provide
additional developable land in the city.
Ms. Monson replied that the reason is this rule has presented an undue burden on
properties when it is not required by federal or state regulations. It will also keep the
floodplain district in the existing footprint of the floodplain. She said it does allow more
developable land as well.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4m) Page 3
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016
Commissioner Person asked how often floodplain boundary districts change and how that
occurs.
Phil Elkin, Senior Engineer, said changes occur about every 20 years due to mapping and
rain fall data. He said the map is built on a predictable model.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the amendment is not altering the
modeled floodplain district. FEMA is the agency that carries out map changes through its
modeling. The proposed amendment is handling the issue of a project’s compensating
flood storage volume. The amendment would provide more flexibility where storage
could occur.
Commissioner Kanne asked why the original language was in the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Monson said perhaps it was added to be more conservative and go above and beyond
the DNR’s model ordinance and watershed ordinance.
Mr. Walther said staff researched the topic and there was no mention specifically why the
language was included so staff can only speculate.
Commissioner Tatalovich asked if staff explored the language that gave a preference to
having storage outside of the floodplain.
Mr. Elkin said for a number of future municipal projects, including future bridge
replacement projects over Minnehaha Creek, the language would cause the city to buy
private land for flood storage. Other projects include Methodist Hospital and
Meadowbrook Golf Course where there is potential for increased disruption by going
outside the floodplain for storage.
Mr. Walther said it also seemed counter intuitive to convert upland that doesn’t flood into
floodplain. He said this and several pending projects drove the decision to amend the
ordinance.
The Chair opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak she closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion recommending approval of the proposed
amendment. Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 5-0.
4. Other Business
Commissioner Carper mentioned conversation on the NextDoor internet forum regarding
the absence of dedicated bike lanes in the West End project.
Mr. Walther spoke about the city’s Active Living Sidewalk and Trails Plan which was
rolled into the Comprehensive Plan and the Connect the Park! plan to build out citywide
network over the next 10 years. The city is currently in year three of the plan.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4m) Page 4
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016
5. Communications
Mr. Walther said the July 6 Planning Commission meeting will be cancelled. A meeting
will be held on July 20 and several applications are expected for that meeting.
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:35 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
The study session began at 6:40 p.m.
1. 10 West End Planned Unit Development
Nicole Mardell, Associate Planner, introduced the item. Staff and representatives from
Ryan Companies provided an overview of the office concept plan for Phase IV of the
overall Central Park West Planned Unit Development. They will be submitting formal
application to the city on June 20.
Tony Barranco, VP Development, Ryan Companies, spoke about the building identity,
image and design. The site plan has been advanced from concept to reality. He spoke
about the partnership with Excelsior Group. Feedback on the plans from the market has
been good. They have been meeting with DLC, Golden Valley and St. Louis Park staff.
A joint neighborhood meeting was held as well as a City Council study session. The
office component will be developed in a two phase project. First phase to be built on the
south side of Central Park West with the parking structure primarily in Golden Valley.
The office building will be located exclusively in St. Louis Park. He showed access
points. He discussed a shift in the parking ramp plan which took a hard edge off of the
park. He described how the loading dock will be less intrusive than what was originally
planned.
Mr. Barranco said the 11 story office building will be LEED certified with focus on water
usage, project irrigation and native plantings.
Karl Drecktrah, architect, spoke about architectural details and materials.
Commissioner Kanne asked how many people might occupy the building.
About 1500 – 1700 people in the first phase and 3000 in both buildings. Typically a
multi-tenant building has an anchor tenant and a wide range of smaller tenant sizes.
Commissioner Carper asked about reflective glass.
Mr. Krecktrah responded the glass will balance exterior energy performance with high
visible light transmittance with a small amount of reflective. The material has a very low
U factor with a lot of visible light.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 4m) Page 5
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes June 15, 2016
There was a discussion about lighting, bike improvements, trail connections, the park,
and special events.
Commissioners said they were appreciative of the opportunity to meet with the
developers and view concept plans prior to the public hearing.
2. Updates
Ms. Monson discussed the proposed Meadowbrook Manor Apts. club house and
maintenance shed. The application has been submitted but is incomplete. There was a
discussion about how the renovation will affect affordability for existing tenants, and the
reason why the applicant is required to obtain a conditional use permit.
Ms. Monson discussed the DNR’s new model flood plain ordinance to be considered by
the city in the next few months. Mr. Walther stated that the city needs to adopt an update
to the floodplain ordinance by early November, otherwise the city will not be able to
participate in the flood insurance program.
Ms. Mardell spoke about the application for Parkway 25 development for 111 rental units
and 8000 sq. ft. of commercial space at the Vescio’s and Valu Inn site.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care
Dwellings
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the first reading of an Ordinance amending
the zoning ordinance to opt-out of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3593 which defines and
regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings, and to set the second reading for August 15,
2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is opting out of the provisions in Minnesota Statutes Section
462.3593, which defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings, in the best
interests of the city?
SUMMARY: On May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and regulation of
temporary family health care dwellings. The law defines Temporary Health Care Dwellings,
establishes regulations for them, and requires municipalities to permit them in accordance to the
regulations established by the statute.
The same statutes also gives cities the option to opt-out of the regulations. The city does not need
to provide a reason for opting out, nor does it have to provide an alternative or similar option. It
simply has to pass an ordinance stating that the city is opting out of the regulations.
Staff provided the Council a written report on this matter for the June 27 study session. At that
time no concerns were expressed by the Council on staff’s recommendation to opt out of the law.
Planning Commission Review: On July 20, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing
for the requested zoning amendment. No one was present to speak, and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the ordinance to opt-out of the statute on a 5-0 vote.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Proposed Ordinance
Minnesota Statute 462.3593
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
Action Agenda Item: 8a
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care Dwellings
DISCUSSION
ANALYSIS:
The following is a brief summary of the law:
1. The dwelling is permitted for six months, with an option to extend the permit for another
six months.
2. Requires written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires
assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living.
3. Allows only one person to reside in the temporary dwelling at a time.
4. Requires that the permit be for a property where the “caregiver” or relative resides.
5. Allows modular or manufactured housing, and recreational vehicles to use this permit.
6. Lists criteria for the structure, including, construction, utility connections, and site location.
7. The municipality has 15 days to either approve or deny a permit.
8. The statute becomes effective September 1, 2016.
9. A municipality may, by ordinance, opt-out of the requirements of the statute.
The statute allows a city to opt-out of the statute regulations if it adopts an ordinance declaring its
decision to opt-out. After consulting with the city attorney, staff is recommending the city opt-out
of the regulations for various reason including:
1. The use should not be permitted without discussion as to whether or not the use is
appropriate for this community.
2. The city currently does not allow temporary dwellings. It should prevent any temporary
dwellings from being installed without further review and study of the issue in St. Louis
Park. Care needs to be taken that a temporary dwelling doesn’t conflict with current zoning
code provisions, or create unforeseen issues.
3. The statute does not require that the person living in the temporary dwelling be a relative
of the person living in the principal dwelling. Therefore, a resident can essentially run a
caregiver business by providing a temporary dwelling unit to anyone needing temporary,
supervised living. This is in conflict with current home occupation requirements.
4. The statute allows an RV to be used as the temporary dwelling. No anchoring is required
for the RV type dwellings to prevent tipping in high winds.
5. Safety Concerns - power would be provided by an extension cord connected to the principal
dwelling. Water would be provided by a garden hose connected to the house. Sewer would
be handled by tanks requiring occasional pumping by sewage truck. This approach is
problematic for various reasons, not the least of which is winter weather.
6. How does the city handle medical and health related documents that are submitted as an
application for the dwelling? Applications are considered public information.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care Dwellings
ORDINANCE NO. ____-16
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE OPTING OUT OF TEMPORARY
FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLING REQUIREMENTS
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2016, Governor Dayton signed into law the creation and
regulation of temporary family health care dwellings, codified at Minn. Stat. § 462.3593, which
permit and regulate temporary family health care dwellings; and,
WHEREAS, subdivision 9 of Minn. Stat. §462.3593 allows cities to “opt out” of those
regulations;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 36 is amended to add the following section:
Sec. 36-370. Opt-out of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3593.
Pursuant to authority granted by Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.3593, subdivision 9, the
City opts-out of the requirements of Minn. Stat. §462.3593, which defines and regulates
Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2016, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
Public Hearing July 20, 2016
First Reading August 1, 2016
Second Reading August 15, 2016
Date of Publication August 18, 2016
Date Ordinance takes effect September 2, 2016
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council August 15, 2016
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care Dwellings
[462.3593] TEMPORARY FAMILY HEALTH CARE DWELLINGS.
Subdivision 1.
Definitions.
(a) For purposes of this section, the following terms have the meanings given.
(b) "Caregiver" means an individual 18 years of age or older who:
(1) provides care for a mentally or physically impaired person; and
(2) is a relative, legal guardian, or health care agent of the mentally or physically impaired
person for whom the individual is caring.
(c) "Instrumental activities of daily living" has the meaning given in section 256B.0659,
subdivision 1, paragraph (i).
(d) "Mentally or physically impaired person" means a person who is a resident of this state and
who requires assistance with two or more instrumental activities of daily living as certified in
writing by a physician, a physician assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse
licensed to practice in this state.
(e) "Relative" means a spouse, parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, sibling, uncle, aunt,
nephew, or niece of the mentally or physically impaired person. Relative includes half, step,
and in-law relationships.
(f) "Temporary family health care dwelling" means a mobile residential dwelling providing an
environment facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a mentally or physically impaired
person that meets the requirements of subdivision 2.
Subd. 2.
Temporary family health care dwelling. A temporary family health care dwelling must:
(1) be primarily assembled at a location other than its site of installation;
(2) be no more than 300 gross square feet;
(3) not be attached to a permanent foundation;
(4) be universally designed and meet state-recognized accessibility standards;
(5) provide access to water and electric utilities either by connecting to the utilities that are
serving the principal dwelling on the lot or by other comparable means;
(6) have exterior materials that are compatible in composition, appearance, and durability to
the exterior materials used in standard residential construction;
(7) have a minimum insulation rating of R-15;
(8) be able to be installed, removed, and transported by a one-ton pickup truck as defined in
section 168.002, subdivision 21b, a truck as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 37,
or a truck tractor as defined in section 168.002, subdivision 38;
(9) be built to either Minnesota Rules, chapter 1360 or 1361, and contain an Industrialized
Buildings Commission seal and data plate or to American National Standards Institute
Code 119.2; and
(10) be equipped with a backflow check valve.
Subd. 3.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care Dwellings
Temporary dwelling permit; application.
(a) Unless the municipality has designated temporary family health care dwellings as permitted
uses, a temporary family health care dwelling is subject to the provisions in this section. A
temporary family health care dwelling that meets the requirements of this section cannot be
prohibited by a local ordinance that regulates accessory uses or recreational vehicle parking
or storage.
(b) The caregiver or relative must apply for a temporary dwelling permit from the municipality.
The permit application must be signed by the primary caregiver, the owner of the property on
which the temporary family health care dwelling will be located, and the resident of the
property if the property owner does not reside on the property, and include:
(1) the name, address, and telephone number of the property owner, the resident of the
property if different from the owner, and the primary caregiver responsible for the care of
the mentally or physically impaired person; and the name of the mentally or physically
impaired person who will live in the temporary family health care dwelling;
(2) proof of the provider network from which the mentally or physically impaired person
may receive respite care, primary care, or remote patient monitoring services;
(3) a written certification that the mentally or physically impaired person requires assistance
with two or more instrumental activities of daily living signed by a physician, a physician
assistant, or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed to practice in this state;
(4) an executed contract for septic service management or other proof of adequate septic
service management;
(5) an affidavit that the applicant has provided notice to adjacent property owners and
residents of the application for the temporary dwelling permit; and
(6) a general site map to show the location of the temporary family health care dwelling and
other structures on the lot.
(c) The temporary family health care dwelling must be located on property where the caregiver
or relative resides. A temporary family health care dwelling must comply with all setback
requirements that apply to the primary structure and with any maximum floor area ratio
limitations that may apply to the primary structure. The temporary family health care
dwelling must be located on the lot so that septic services and emergency vehicles can gain
access to the temporary family health care dwelling in a safe and timely manner.
(d) A temporary family health care dwelling is limited to one occupant who is a mentally or
physically impaired person. The person must be identified in the application. Only one
temporary family health care dwelling is allowed on a lot.
(e) Unless otherwise provided, a temporary family health care dwelling installed under this
section must comply with all applicable state law, local ordinances, and charter provisions.
Subd. 4.
Initial permit term; renewal. The initial temporary dwelling permit is valid for six months. The
applicant may renew the permit once for an additional six months.
Subd. 5.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care Dwellings
Inspection. The municipality may require that the permit holder provide evidence of compliance
with this section as long as the temporary family health care dwelling remains on the property.
The municipality may inspect the temporary family health care dwelling at reasonable times
convenient to the caregiver to determine if the temporary family health care dwelling is occupied
and meets the requirements of this section.
Subd. 6.
Revocation of permit. The municipality may revoke the temporary dwelling permit if the permit
holder violates any requirement of this section. If the municipality revokes a permit, the permit
holder has 60 days from the date of revocation to remove the temporary family health care
dwelling.
Subd. 7.
Fee. Unless otherwise provided by ordinance, the municipality may charge a fee of up to $100
for the initial permit and up to $50 for a renewal of the permit.
Subd. 8.
No public hearing required; application of section 15.99.
(a) Due to the time-sensitive nature of issuing a temporary dwelling permit for a temporary
family health care dwelling, the municipality does not have to hold a public hearing on the
application.
(b) The procedures governing the time limit for deciding an application for the temporary
dwelling permit under this section are governed by section 15.99, except as provided in this
section. The municipality has 15 days to issue a permit requested under this section or to
deny it, except that if the statutory or home rule charter city holds regular meetings only once
per calendar month the statutory or home rule charter city has 30 days to issue a permit
requested under this section or to deny it. If the municipality receives a written request that
does not contain all required information, the applicable 15-day or 30-day limit starts over
only if the municipality sends written notice within five business days of receipt of the
request telling the requester what information is missing. The municipality cannot extend the
period of time to decide.
Subd. 9.
Opt-out. A municipality may by ordinance opt-out of the requirements of this section.
Sec. 4.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This act is effective September 1, 2016, and applies to temporary
dwelling permit applications made under this act on or after that date.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment Related to Temporary Health Care Dwellings
D R A F T
EXCERPT OF UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JULY 20, 2016 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person,
Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich,
Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne
STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Nicole Mardell, Jennifer Monson,
Gary Morrison
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
Vice-Chair Peilen called the meeting to order.
2. Approval of Minutes of June 15, 2016
Commissioner Carper made a motion approving the minutes of June 15, 2016.
Commissioner Person seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 3-0-2
(Peilen and Robertson abstained).
3. Public Hearings
E. Temporary Health Care Dwellings – Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 16-27-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He explained
the amendment and background which would declare the city’s decision to opt-out of
Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3593 Temporary Health Care Dwellings.
Commissioner Robertson commented that the intent of the law is excellent but the
execution falls short and he agrees whole-heartedly to opt out.
Vice Chair Peilen opened the hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak she closed
the public hearing. Commissioner Carper made a motion recommending approval of the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to opt-out of Minnesota Statutes Section 462.3593 which
defines and regulates Temporary Family Health Care Dwellings. The motion passed on a
vote of 5-0.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: August 1, 2016
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Assessment Policy
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution 00-078 and
approving updated City Assessment Policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed assessment policy consistent with the intent of
the Council?
SUMMARY: The city’s assessment policy was last updated in 2000; prior to that the policy was
updated more frequently. The following improvement areas are ones that have historically been
assessed in the City of St. Louis Park:
1. Paving, Curb and Gutter- Discussed on 11/9/15
2. Alley Paving- Discussed on 11/23/15
3. Sidewalks- Discussed on 1/19/16
4. Street lighting- Discussed on 1/19/16
5. Unimproved Street Maintenance- Discussed on 1/19/16
6. Administrative items: Discussed on 3/28/16
Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer Mains and Services
Watermain and Services
Fire Sprinkler Systems
Delinquent Charges (nuisances, tree removal, weed removal, curb / gutter repair and
responding to fire alarms)
7. Municipal Parking Lots- Discussed on 5/9/16
8. Financial Considerations- Discussed on 6/13/16
9. Review draft Assessment policy 7/18/16
Since the last update in 2000, Council direction, improvement costs and infrastructure needs have
changed in a number of the areas covered by this policy. Staff from Assessing, Finance, Fire,
Inspections, Operations, and Engineering have put together a draft policy for council review that
is intended to reflect the Council’s direction on the above list of improvement areas.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Public improvements not included in this
policy will paid for using following funds: Franchise fees, municipal state aid, general obligation
bonds, and utility funds.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Assessment Policy
Resolution 00-078
Prepared by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Reviewed by: Cory Bultema, City Assessor; Phillip Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager;
Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent; Tim Simon, Chief Financial
Officer; Jeff Stevens, Operations Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Assessment Policy
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Since November 2015, the City Council has provided direction on the use of
special assessments to fund a number of public improvements. In general, the City Council’s
direction for the public improvements discussed as a part of this policy was “If there is a public
purpose for the infrastructure, the City should fund construction.” In discussing the proposed
policy with the City Attorney, it was determined that the policy should only include those areas
where the City will assess for public improvements that are not covered by city code. Many of the
improvements in the 2000 policy are incorporated into the city code. What follows is a summary
of how each area that was originally in the 2000 Assessment Policy have been addressed.
1. Streets:
A 10-year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) has been developed to meet the street rehabilitation
needs. It is recommended that franchise fees and Municipal State Aid funds be used to pay for
street rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. As a result, the updated policy does not
include street assessments.
2. Alleys:
It is recommended that franchise fees be used to pay for alley reconstruction projects. The
updated policy does not include alley assessments. Staff has developed a plan that will
reconstruct the unimproved (gravel and asphalt) alleys over 10 years, between 2017 and 2026
utilizing no assessments. This has been incorporated into the CIP.
3. Sidewalks:
City Council supports active transportation, including bikeways, sidewalks and trails. In the
interest of constructing a continuous network of active transportation facilities throughout the
City as robust as our street system, City Council has approved the Connect the Park capital
improvement plan. The projects currently identified in Connect the Park have been factored
into a longer term financial plan. It is recommended that general obligation bonds/ property
tax levy be used to pay for bikeways, sidewalks and trails. The updated policy does not include
sidewalk assessments.
4. Street lighting:
As requests for streetlights are received, consideration for installation will be given based on
public purpose. The main public purpose would be safety; aesthetics alone would not be
considered a public purpose. It is recommended that streetlights installed for a public purpose
be paid for using general obligation bonds/ property tax levy.
5. Administrative Items:
Administrative items include:
Storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and services- covered in code, no changes
Watermain and services - covered in code, no changes
Delinquent charges - covered in code, no changes
Fire sprinkler systems – included in policy, no changes
Many of these areas are initiated through a petition from the property owner to assist with financing
of private improvements or the extension of a public utility line to serve a new development.
Others are set up in our ordinances as ways to recoup costs for unpaid bills or nuisance
abatement. There were no proposed changes to these items. However, most of the items are
included in the City Code, so they are not included in the attached policy. Below is a cross
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: Assessment Policy
reference to indicate the areas that were removed from the Assessment Policy and where in the
City Code they are covered.
Area City Code Reference
Delinquent Charges Sec. 12-35 Nuisance abatement and assessment
Delinquent Water Accounts Sec. 32-34. Delinquent water accounts
Water service repair Sec. 32-41. Cost of installation borne by consumer
Sanitary sewer charges Sec. 32-97. Service charges for use of sewers
Repair of Leaks Sec. 32-202. Repair of leaks
Private storm water facilities ARTICLE V. STORMWATER, SOIL EROSION, AND
SEDIMENTATION.
Sec. 12-160. Enforcement
Sec. 12-163. Cost of Abatement of the Violation
Upon review, staff has determined that these code sections should be updated to ensure that
they are consistent with each other and with our current city policies. Code updates will be
brought to the City Council at future meetings.
6. Fire Sprinkler Systems:
Our current assessment policy provides an opportunity for property owners to finance the cost
to install a fire sprinkler system in existing buildings. The Fire Department strongly supports
this program. This opportunity is available to all land uses. This process is initiated by the
property owner through a petition, and the conditions of the reimbursement are laid out in a
contract that is approved by City Council. All the costs incurred by the City are reimbursed
by the petitioner.
This area is included in the attached assessment policy.
7. Municipal Parking Lots:
The city owns and operates 10 municipal parking lots. These lots are located throughout the
city and are not adjacent to city buildings. The primary uses for these lots is for transit park
and ride or private property parking. Annual and seasonal maintenance are performed by
Operations. Staff has developed a plan that will reconstruct these parking lots over 6 years,
between 2017 and 2023. The draft assessment policy includes municipal lots.
In order to move forward with each project, the following process will be followed:
The City Council will order a feasibility report for each lot. This would happen the
year before proposed reconstruction.
Complete a parking study to determine which properties have customers or employees
that are using the lot.
Complete a land use review to determine parking ratios required by city code.
Determine if the property has adequate private parking.
Using this information, determine the number of stalls to assign to each property to
meet the city code parking requirements.
Work with all property owners surrounding the lots to discuss the projects and proposed
assessments.
Provide a recommendation to the City Council on the project. Recommendations may
include moving ahead with reconstruction or elimination of the parking lot.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: Assessment Policy
Once a lot is reconstructed, staff would work through a process to assess property owners
for annual maintenance. The City Attorney is assisting staff on the best way to move this
forward.
COMMUNICATION: In the coming months, staff will be reaching out to property owners to
inform them of the updated CIP. Including information on the schedule and what to expect for
public process.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: Assessment Policy
RESOLUTION NO. 16-____
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION 00-078
AND APPROVING CITY ASSESSMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to express its policy on assessments for
improvements for the guidance of its staff and its citizens;
WHEREAS, this policy shall replace the prior resolutions for the assessment of
improvement projects;
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Resolution 00-078 is rescinded in its entirety.
2. Approve the Assessment Policy dated August 1, 2016.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council August 1, 2016
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Assessment Policy
Engineering Department
I. Introduction
A special assessment is a levy on a property for a particular improvement that benefits
the owner(s) of the property. The authority is provided to cities through MN Statutes §,
Chapter 429. Special assessments assign cost of the improvement to those receiving a
direct benefit from the improvement.
Assessment amounts are based upon the total cost of the particular improvement and are
allocated by the Council as guided by this policy. The amount assessed against any
particular parcel shall not be greater than the increase in the market value of the property
due to the improvement.
The City Council has the authority to deviate from this policy as deemed appropriate by
the Council or when the law requires such a deviation. When the City deviates from the
policies identified in this document, it will identify the reasons for the deviation in the
feasibility report or at the public hearings associated with the public improvement.
This policy does not supersede or replace assessment references in the City Code.
II. Improvements to be Assessed
A. Municipal Parking Lots
The city owns and operates municipal parking lots that are not adjacent to City buildings.
The primary uses for these lots is for Transit park and ride or private property parking.
1. Costs to be Assessed
a. Reconstruction or Rehabilitation
When the condition of the parking lot requires reconstruction or rehabilitation, the total
project cost may be levied as a special assessment to benefitting properties in accordance
with this policy. The assessment will be levied on a project specific basis.
b. Maintenance Costs
Annual, seasonal, and preventative maintenance are performed by the City. The total
cost may be assessed to benefitting properties on an annual basis.
2. Benefitting Properties
The following information will be used to determine the benefitting properties and the
number of stalls to assign to each benefitting property for the assessment rate:
A parking study will be completed to determine the parking lot users. Benefitting properties
are ones that have customers or employees that are using the lot.
A land use review of surrounding properties will be done to determine parking ratios required
by City Code and prior approvals. This is done to determine if the properties have adequate
private parking. If a property does not have adequate private parking or if parking spaces in
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 6
August 1, 2016
Resolution 16-XXX Page 2 of 4
the lot were counted to meet their parking ratios, they will be considered a benefitting
property.
3. Assessment Rate
The assessment rate shall be per parking stall. To calculate this rate, the total cost will be
divided by the number of stalls in the parking lot. Each benefitting property will be assigned
a number of stalls within the parking lot.
This rate will be applicable to all reconstruction or rehabilitation projects and annual
maintenance costs.
The stall assignment is for assessment purposes only. The parking stalls are not for exclusive
use of the properties assessed.
B. Fire Sprinkler Systems
Property owners may petition the city to assess the costs install a fire sprinkler system in an
existing building. To be considered under this policy, the proposed work shall result in the
sprinkling of the entire building in compliance with the applicable City ordinance and state
laws. Petitions will be responded to by the Fire Department.
1. Petition
The petition must meet the requirements of MS Chapter 429, as they apply to fire
sprinkler systems. The petition, can be in the form of a letter or email, and shall include
the following items:
a) Fire sprinkler plans and specifications,
b) a cost estimate from three (3) qualified companies (licensed by the State of Minnesota
as a fire sprinkler contractor) and
c) a written statement that the owner(s) shall be responsible for contracting for the actual
installation and proper operation of the fire sprinkler system.
d) The petitioner(s) must waive all rights to the public hearing and any appeal of the
special assessment adopted by the City Council and
e) Signatures of all property owners.
All petitions for the special assessment of the project must be received and acted upon by
the City Council prior to the start of any fire sprinkler installation. The City shall not
approve the petition until it has reviewed and approved the plans, specifications, and cost
estimates contained in the petition.
Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by the
City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project.
City staff will periodically advise the Council with regard to the availability of
appropriate funds.
2. Costs to be Assessed
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 7
August 1, 2016
Resolution 16-XXX Page 3 of 4
a) The amount to be specially assessed shall not exceed the amount of the construction
estimate, plus any City administrative or interest charges. The petitioner shall be
responsible for any construction costs exceeding the amount of the construction
estimate.
b) The administrative fee for processing the sprinkler assessment application shall be
set in the City’s fee schedule.
c) If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project, all City
costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
3. Payment of Assessments
a) No payment shall be made by the City for any installation until the work is
completed and finally approved by the City and the assessment has been adopted.
b) If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project, all City
costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
III. Assessment Considerations
All properties benefiting from improvements are subject to the special assessment.
The project types to be assessed are not limited to those explicitly described in this
policy. The City Council reserves the right to consider additional infrastructure
improvements on a case by case basis for assessment, including but not limited to storm
drainage improvements, streets, sanitary sewer, water, street lights, walls, noise walls,
boulevard trees, and sidewalks (both new and replaced).
IV. Payment of Assessments
A. Duration
The length of time that assessments are to be paid varies according to the total cost
assessed according to the following table:
$1.00 to $99.99 1 year
$100 to $499.99 5 years
$500 and over 10 years
B. Interest Rate
Interest rates vary based on project financing, but are set no more than 2% above the
City’s rate on the sale of bonds or U. S. Treasury rate if the project is financed with
existing City funds.
C. Repayment Schedule
a. All unpaid balances will be certified to Hennepin County for payment with property
taxes after November 1 of the year in which the assessment hearing was conducted.
i. Property owners can pay the entire assessment following the adoption of the
assessment roll with no interest charged.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 8
August 1, 2016
Resolution 16-XXX Page 4 of 4
ii. Property owners may also make an interest free partial payment. For ease of
administration, a minimum of 25% of the assessable cost must be applied for a
partial payment
b. Interest will start accruing on all unpaid balances on December 1 of the year in which
the assessment hearing was conducted.
V. Definitions:
For the purposes of this policy, the following definitions will apply:
RECONSTRUCTION - will be defined as a project whereby all meaningful elements of a
facility are analyzed for removal and replacement. These include curb and gutter, bituminous or
concrete pavement, gravel base, subgrade replacement as necessary and items appurtenant to
these elements.
REHABILITATION – will be defined as a project whereby the pavement, gravel base and other
roadway items are reclaimed or replaced. These elements included bituminous or concrete
pavement, gravel base and subgrade replacement as necessary, spot replacement of concrete curb
and gutter and driveways.
TOTAL COST-
A. Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Cost
The total project cost for reconstruction and rehabilitation projects includes the
following:
Construction cost plus engineering, administration, legal fees, assessment rolls, plus
right-of-way costs (fee acquisition and/or easement costs including staff time) and
temporary funding charges, plus other charges for services and contingencies, plus any
assessable charges from other governmental agencies (i.e. Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota), plus any assessable
costs previously incurred by the City.
A portion of other contributing funds from the City (i.e. MSA), Trunk Utility, Water
Resources, etc.) or outside governmental agencies may be deducted from the total
improvement cost to determine the assessable cost.
B. Maintenance Cost
The total cost for annual, seasonal, and preventative maintenance includes, but is not
limited to, the following:
Sealcoating, crack sealing, patching, striping, signage, snow removal, sweeping, power
for lighting, replacement or maintenance of bike racks and other fixtures within the lots,
landscape maintenance, storm sewer maintenance and any other work deemed necessary
to ensure a facility is in good condition.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. 00-078
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 96-85
ESTABLISHING ASSESSMENT POLICIES FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, project designs for the installation of City improvements may differ with
respect to zoning districts and special characteristics of certain streets and thoroughfares; and
WHEREAS, distinctions can be made with respect to benefits realized by properties
adjoining these improvements in accordance with zoning designations and street characteristics; and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to express its policy on assessments for
improvements for the guidance of its staff and its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby amends Resolution 96-85. This Resolution shall
replace the prior resolution as a guide for the assessment of improvement projects;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that;
1. DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE
A. Special assessments are intended to reflect the influence of a specific local
improvement upon the value of property and no matter what particular formula or method is used to
establish the amount of the assessment the real measure of benefits is the increase in the market
value of the land as a result of the improvement.
B. Project costs shall include all costs related to the survey, design, and construction of
the project. All the City’s engineering and administrative costs shall be included in the project cost
as a 9 percent and 3 per cent fee based on the final construction costs.
2. PAVING, CURB AND GUTTER
A. Projects to be assessed will be specially assessed a direct benefit of $13.00 per front
foot for paving and $7.00 per front foot for curbing and gutter for residential properties and 100%
of the cost for commercial and multi-family properties.
B. STANDARD BLOCKS. All paving, curb and gutter projects, for which no assessment
has been approved prior to May 1, 1972, the corner lot shall be charged 25% of the side street
improvement cost. The remaining 75% of the side street improvement cost shall be charged equally
on a front foot basis to all frontage, from the corner midway to the next intersection. The 75%
balance is described to be the indirect benefit.
C. NON-STANDARD BLOCKS. The assessor, in spreading the assessment in the
following situations may deviate from the Council's formula in spreading the cost to the extent that
benefits assessed are in proportion to benefits received for each type of improvement and equitably
compare with assessed properties in the improvement
project:
1. Where platting is irregular, including metes and bounds described properties,
2. In circumstances where subdividing has caused a rearrangement at the end of the
block,
3. Where lots or building sites front on a side street contrary to the regular grid platting,
4. In circumstances where the distance between two corner lots is 300 feet or less,
5. Where "T" alleys involve lots having the depth of lot adjacent to the bottom side of the
cross "T".
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 10
Resolution No. 00-078 -2-
6. Where a lot has frontage on two streets, the assessment will be on the street where the
property is addressed.
D. Driveway aprons shall be assessed to the benefiting property owner 100% of the cost
of the improvement.
E. All lands occupied by churches not in excess of their reasonable needs and used
actively and exclusively for religious purposes shall be assessed at the prevailing rate applying to
single or double family houses.
F. For purposes of preparation of engineering data, improvement proceedings, and other
administrative and engineering details, the administrative staff and the Department of Public Works
may delete from any street improvement area any street or curb and gutter which in reasonable
judgment of staff should be free from major maintenance and repair (barring unforeseen problems)
for at least five (5) years from the date of the proposed improvement and does not adversely affect
the general need, including drainage, and other essential determinations involved in the project area.
G. Any street, curb and gutter, or other appurtenance involved in such street improvement
project area so deleted may be reinstated or included by petition of not less than 51% of the owners
of abutting and benefiting real properties of a street previously deleted.
H. The City Assessor in making his assessments on new curb and gutters shall give credit
to the property owner to insure that no assessment will be made for the removed lineal footage of
curb and gutter when such curb and gutter would be, in reasonable judgment of the Department of
Public Works, free from major maintenance and repair (barring unforeseen problems) for at least 5
years from the date of the improvement and meets grade level requirements for gravity flow or
surface storm water and that the storm sewer contractor will be responsible for the replacement
costs of any curb and gutter removed or damaged due to his negligence.
I. Improvements for paving, curb, and gutter shall be assessed for a period of 20 years to
benefiting property owners.
3. SIDEWALKS
A. On collector roadways and thoroughfares, the cost of new sidewalk installation shall
be assessed at 50 percent of the actual construction costs and the remaining 50 percent of actual
construction costs shall be financed by general obligation bonds or other appropriate funds of the
City.
B. On streets which are not collector roadways or thoroughfares, the cost of sidewalks
shall be assessed 100 percent of the construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
C. Commercial, industrial, and multiple family properties shall be assessed 100 percent of
the construction costs of sidewalks abutting them.
D. The assessment policy for corner lots relative to sidewalk installation shall be as
follows:
1. On collector roadways and thoroughfares under City jurisdiction, 25 percent of the
actual construction costs of sidewalks shall be assessed against the property's sideyard
(long side of the lot); 25 percent of the construction costs shall be assessed on an equal
front-foot basis against properties on one-half of the block on the side of the street
where the walk is constructed; and 50 percent of sidewalk construction costs shall be
financed by general obligation bonds or other appropriate funds of the City.
2. On streets which are not collector roadways or thoroughfares, 50 percent of actual
sidewalk construction costs shall be assessed against the property owner's sideyard and
50 percent of actual construction costs shall be assessed on an equal front foot basis
against properties on one-half of the block on the side of the street where the sidewalk
is constructed.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 11
Resolution No. 00-078 -3-
E. Random sidewalk repair will not be assessed but will be paid out of the Street
Department budget.
4. STREET LIGHTING
A. The cost of street lighting improvements on residential streets as identified in the
Comprehensive Plan shall be undertaken only by petition of 75% or more of benefiting property
owners and shall be assessed 100 percent against the benefiting properties on a unit basis. After
the signed petition is received by the City, but before the improvement is ordered to be made, a
written notification shall be sent to benefiting property owners and contain individual assessment
amounts, which properties will be assessed, and which property owners signed the petition. A
unit being defined as the equivalent of a zoning lot. If a standard zoning classification does not
exist throughout the project area, special assessments may be computed on a unit, area, or lineal
basis or any combination thereof. Non-petitioned projects on residential streets will be financed
with general revenues.
B. The cost of street lighting improvements for residential properties on collector
streets with existing street lighting in place will be financed with general revenues.
C. The cost of street lighting improvements along any collector or thoroughfare, as
identified in the Comprehensive Plan, where street lighting is not currently in place, shall be
assessed 50 percent of the cost of the standard residential portion of the design, that is intersectional
and mid-block lighting. If a standard zoning classification does not exist throughout the project
area, special assessments may be computed on a unit, area, or lineal basis or any combination
thereof. General revenues shall be used to finance the remainder of the project cost.
D. The cost of street lighting improvements in high density areas (six or more units per
acre in R-3 Zoning Districts or a zoning district having a greater intensity than the R-3 Zone),
business, or industrial areas with existing street lighting in place shall be taken out of the General
Fund.
E. The cost of street lighting improvements in high density residential areas (six or more
units per acre in R-3 Zoning districts or a zoning district having a greater intensity than the R-3
Zone), business, or industrial areas without street lighting currently in place shall be assessed 100
percent against the benefiting properties. Costs shall be assessed on the basis of direct and indirect
benefits.
Direct benefits shall be equal to 30 percent of the project costs. The direct benefit shall be
calculated by dividing 30 percent of the total project cost by the number of street lights in the
project. The unit cost resulting from this formula shall be assessed against properties receiving a
direct benefit from an adjoining street light. Direct costs shall be shared equally by adjoining
properties when the street light is located on the property line.
Indirect benefits shall be equal to 70 percent of the project cost. The indirect costs shall be
assessed against all properties in the project area on a front-foot basis.
F. The useful life of a street lighting project shall be established as 15 years. Replacement
of any portion of the street lighting system shall not be assessable for a period of 15 years from the
date of the last street lighting installation.
Special assessments shall be financed consistent with the life of the improvement. Individual special
assessments of $100 or less shall be paid in one year; and individual special assessments between
$100 and $200 shall be paid in two years, unless the person paying the special assessment is a
senior citizen in which case the special assessments may be deferred.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 12
Resolution No. 00-078 -4-
5. ALLEY PAVING
A. The cost of alley improvements for residential properties shall be assessed as follows
when at least 51 percent (alley front feet) of the property owners petition for the improvement:
1. Thirty (30) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against all
properties abutting the alley. (INDIRECT BENEFIT)
2. Seventy (70) percent of the cost of the improvement shall be assessed against directly
benefited properties as defined in paragraph 5(B). (DIRECT BENEFIT)
B. A property is directly benefited if it has an existing garage with direct access to the
alley, if an access to the alley could be constructed from an existing garage, or if, no garage exists,
there is sufficient area on the lot to build a garage with access to the alley.
C. Commercial and multi-family property owners shall be assessed 100 percent of the
cost of the improvement.
D. Alleys shall be constructed of concrete and shall be assessed for a period of 20 years.
6. MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR UNIMPROVED STREETS AND ALLEYS
A. The total cost of maintenance of unimproved streets and alleys, including material,
labor, equipment, financing, supervision, and administrative overhead required for special
assessment procedure and performance of work, shall be assessed against those property owners
abutting the unimproved street or alley on which maintenance is performed. For purposes of this
policy, maintenance is defined as grading, leveling, patching, surfacing, overlaying or sealing any
or all portions of any street or alley roadway. Activities not related to restoration or improvement
of the roadway surface, such as street sweeping or snow plowing, will not be considered as
assessable maintenance costs.
B. The assessment for street maintenance shall be determined by totaling the cost for each
street maintained during the year and dividing the number of assessable feet of abutting properties
to determine a cost per front foot. Said cost will be assessed against the number of feet on the front
of any given lot, with side street assessments being assessed using the current City policy for street
paving assessments. For purposes of this policy, a street or alley is improved when it is constructed
with proper drainage, has concrete curbs (streets only) gutters, and meets the State of Minnesota
Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Highway Construction" which includes,
but is not limited to, a minimum six-inch granular base and two-inch asphalt overlay or strength
equivalent, or a minimum seven-inch thickness of concrete paving material.
C. The assessment for street and alley maintenance shall be determined by totaling the
cost during the 12-month period beginning January 1 of each year and assessing the cost per front
foot to benefiting properties.
D. Single properties normally will not be assessed more than every three years for
improvement of the same street or alley; however, it is anticipated that in the cost of streets and
alleys which require "annual maintenance" there will be an accumulative assessment covering the
three-year period. Assessments shall be payable in the year levied if the amount is less than
$100.00; in two years if the amount is between $100.00 and $200.00; and in three years if the
amount is greater than $200.00. The interest rate charged to those property owners electing to pay
after the 30-day period following the adoption of the assessment roll shall be the same as the
interest rate charged in Section 14 (A) of this resolution.
E. The cost of street improvements which result from disturbing streets for storm sewers
or other major utility installations and repairs shall be included as part of the utility installation or
repair agreement and will not be assessed against abutting property owners.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 13
Resolution No. 00-078 -5-
However, if the street in question has not been improved for a period of three years prior to
the installation or repair work, the normal maintenance assessment procedures outlined above shall
apply.
F. Assessment shall be made against any government property or other tax-exempt
property abutting unimproved alleys or streets.
7. STORM SEWERS
Storm sewers for properties located in R-1 and R-2 zonings shall be assessed $200.00 per 50
foot lot plus $1.00 for each additional foot and no assessment shall be greater than $300.00.
Properties located in a R-1 or R-2 district shall not be assessed more than once or more than $300.
These assessments shall be for a period of one year and other assessments for commercially zoned
properties shall be assessable for a period of 20 years.
8. SANITARY SEWERS AND WATERMAINS
A. Sanitary sewers and watermains shall be assessed to the benefiting property owners
for 100 percent of the improvement cost. These assessments shall be for a period of 20 years.
9. WATERMAIN LOOPING
A. Watermain looping shall not be assessed unless there is a benefit to the land. These
assessments shall be for a period of 20 years.
10. DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR PERSONS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND
OLDER
A. Assessments against any homestead property owned by a person 65 years of age or
older and for whom it would be a hardship to make the payments shall be deferred subject to
income conditions upon submission of the appropriate application signed by the qualified person.
B. The interest rate from Section 14 (A) of this resolution shall be added to the deferred
assessment and shall be payable in accordance with the terms and provisions of M.S.A. Section
444.24.
C. The right of deferment is automatically terminated under Section 444.24 if:
1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise qualified;
2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided;
3. The property should lose its homestead status; or
4. If for any reason the City determines that there would be no hardship to require
immediate or partial payment.
D. The total household income requirement to be eligible for special assessment
deferments be established at $10,500 or less.
E. In the event the deferment is terminated, the principal and interest deferred to that date
shall be due and payable, and the remaining principal and interest shall be due over the period of
time remaining on the original assessment period.
11. FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
A. All petitions for the special assessment of the project must be received and acted upon
by the City Council prior to the start of any fire sprinkler installation.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 14
Resolution No. 00-078 -6-
B. The petition must meet the requirements of MS Chapter 429, as they apply to fire
sprinkler systems, and include the submission of plans and specifications, a cost estimate from
three (3) qualified companies (licensed by the State of Minnesota as a fire sprinkler contractor) and
a written statement that the owner shall be responsible for contracting for the actual installation and
proper operation of the fire sprinkler system.
C. The amount to be specially assessed shall not exceed the amount of the construction
estimate, plus any City administrative or interest charges. The petitioner shall be responsible for any
construction costs exceeding the amount of the construction estimate.
D. The City shall not approve the petition until it has reviewed and approved the plans,
specifications, and cost estimates contained in the petition.
E. No payment shall be made by the City for any installation until the work is completed
and finally approved by the City and the assessment has been adopted.
F. The fire sprinkler system is being installed in existing buildings and the installation of
the sprinkler system will result in the sprinkling of the entire building in compliance with the
applicable City ordinances and State laws.
G. The petitioner must waive all rights to the public hearing and any appeal of the special
assessment adopted by the City Council and the petition must be signed by all owners of the
property.
H. No special assessment shall be made for a period of more than ten (10) years, except as
otherwise determined by the Council.
I. If the petitioner requests the abandonment of the special assessment project, all City
costs incurred shall be reimbursed by the petitioner.
J. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by
the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project. City
staff will periodically advise the Council with regard to the availability of appropriate funds.
K. The administrative fee for processing the sprinkler assessment application shall be
one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the petitioned amount, with a minimum fee of $150.00 and a
maximum fee of $750.00.
L. The City Manager is authorized to develop the procedures for implementation of this
policy.
12. SEWER AND WATER SERVICES
A. This special assessment policy for the installation or repair of a private sewer or water
service only applies to existing one and two family homes.
B. The property owner(s) are responsible to contract with a licensed contractor. The
contractor and property owner shall be responsible for all licenses, permits, fees and inspections.
The installation must be in compliance with the applicable City Ordinances and State laws.
C. The property owner may petition the City for payment of the work, not to exceed the
amount of the lowest acceptable bid.
D. The petition must include a waiver of public hearing and a waiver of appeal signed by
all property owners. A lien waiver or sworn construction statement must be provided prior to
payment by the City.
E. No special assessment shall be made for a period of more than ten years, except as
otherwise determined by the City Council.
F. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by
the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project.
G. The petition must meet the requirements of MSA Chapter 429, include a cost estimate
from two licensed contractors and a statement that the property owner will be responsible for the
installation of the service.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 15
Resolution No. 00-078 -7-
H. Payment shall be made by the City when the work is completed and approved by the
City. The City shall certify the cost to special assessment rolls at the usual Fall special assessment
hearings.
I. The City Manager is authorized to develop the procedures for the implementation of
this policy.
12.5 RELOCATION, BRIDGING OR ENCASEMENT OF CITY UTILITY LINES
A. This special assessment policy applies to the relocation, bridging or encasement of
City utility lines.
B. The property owner(s) are responsible to contract with a licensed City approved
contractor experienced in the work to be performed. The contractor and property owner shall be
responsible for all licenses, permits, fees and inspections. The installation must be in compliance
with the applicable City Ordinances, specifications and State laws. Plans and specifications must be
approved by the City Engineer or his designee.
C. The property owner may petition the City for payment of the work, not to exceed the
amount of the lowest acceptable bid.
D. The petition must include a waiver of public hearing and a waiver of appeal signed by
all property owners. A lien waiver or sworn construction statement must be provided prior to
payment by the City.
E. No special assessment shall be made for a period of more than ten years, except as
otherwise determined by the City Council.
F. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by
the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available for the project.
G. The petition must meet the requirements of MSA Chapter 429, include a cost estimate
from two licensed contractors and a statement that the property owner will be responsible for the
work.
H. Payment shall be by the City when the work is completed and approved by the City.
The City shall certify the cost to special assessment rolls at the usual Fall special assessment
hearings.
I. The City Manager is authorized to develop the procedures for the implementation of
this policy.
J. The administrative fee for processing the City utility line relocation assessment
application shall be one-half of one person (0.5%) of the petitioned amount, with a minimum fee of
$150.00 and a maximum fee of $750.00.
13. DELINQUENT CHARGES
A. Delinquent charges for abatement of nuisances, tree removal, weed removal,
curb/gutter repair and responding to fire alarms shall be assessed against those properties benefiting
from these services.
B. At any time before the City Council adopts the assessment roll containing delinquent
charges against a particular property, the property owner may petition the City to extend an
opportunity to pay the delinquent charges in lieu of a special assessment.
C. The petition must be signed by the property owner and must specifiy payment terms
acceptable to the City, including a provision that any default in the property owner’s payment
obligation will result in any unpaid portion of the delinquent charges being levied against the
affected property as a special assessment.
D. The petition must also include an express waiver of public hearing and a waiver of
appeal signed by the property owner.
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 16
Resolution No. 00-078 -8-
E. No special assessment may be made for a period of more than one year, except as
otherwise determined by the City Council.
F. Consideration of any petition made under this policy is subject to a determination by
the City Council, in its sole discretion, that sufficient City funds are available.
G. The City Manager is authorized to develop procedures for the implementation of this
policy.
13A. CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID BILLS
A. Each charge levied pursuant to this Resolution shall be a lien upon the corresponding
lot, land or premises served by a connection to the water or sanitary sewer system of the City as
provided by City Code.
B. All such charges which are more than 60 days past due and having been properly
billed to the owner or occupant of the premises served may be certified annually to the County
Auditor by the Administrator designee.
C. The City Manager or designee in certifying such charges to the County Auditor shall
specify the amount, the description of the property served and the name of the owner.
D. A certification processing fee of $25 shall be added to those billings that are certified
to the County Auditor.
E. The amount so certified shall be extended by the County Auditor on the tax rolls
against such property in the same manner as other City assessments, and collected by the County
Treasurer and paid to the City Treasurer along with tax settlements.
14. INTEREST RATES
A. In the absence of other instructions by the City Council on specific projects, for the
purpose of preparation of reports, assessment proceedings, and other administrative and financial
matters, the interest rate for special assessment improvement projects will reflect the current twenty
(20) year U.S. Treasury bill rate plus one percent at the time of the assessment hearings.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council July 5, 2000
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of August 1, 2016 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment Policy Page 17