HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/10/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA
OCTOBER 5, 2015
6:30 p.m. CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Item
1. 6:30 p.m. Closed Session to Discuss the Acquisition of 40th Street & France Avenue
Property
6:50 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Item
2. 6:50 p.m. Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in
Written Report
3. Renewable Energy Power Purchasing Agreement Update
7:25 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes September 8, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution requesting the City Council
to call for a public hearing relative to the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment
district).
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
Meeting of October 5, 2015
City Council Agenda
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Proclamation Honoring Mental Illness Awareness Week
2b. Health in the Park Update
2c. Recognition of Donations
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes September 8, 2015
3b. City Council Meeting Minutes September 21, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which
need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a
Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular
agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the
Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively:
Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to
regular agenda for discussion.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Consolidated Public Hearing
(1) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt
Resolution setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
(2) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt
Resolution setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
(3) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt
Resolution setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
(4) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
and Extension of Special Service District through 2025
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt
Resolution setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 4 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
Meeting of October 5, 2015
City Council Agenda
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
(5) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt
Resolution setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 5 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
(6) 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt
Resolution setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 6 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
6b. Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Recommended Action: Mayor to conduct public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st Reading
of Ordinance adopting fees for 2016 and set Second Reading for October 19, 2015.
6c. Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and
Councilmembers
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the first
reading of Ordinance modifying salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers and set
second reading for October 19, 2015.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Recommended Action: Motion to designate the below listed firms the lowest
responsible bidders and authorize execution of contracts with the firms for the Rec
Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project – Project Nos 24165014
and 24145018.
8b. SWLRT Funding Agreements
Recommended Action:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution committing funding support for the stairway portions of
the regional trail grade separations at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution supporting local funds to the proposed Southwest Light
Rail Transit Project (Metro Green Line Extension) for design, environmental review
and potential construction of the Lynn Avenue Extension in the Beltline Station area.
8c. Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update
Recommended Action: Motion to authorize entering into an agreement with the St.
Louis Park Hockey Association relating to their financial contribution and use of the
proposed Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink facility and for staff to pursue relocation of the
Skate Park.
8d. Economic Development Authority President and Commissioner Salaries
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution modifying salaries for the
Economic Development Authority President and Commissioners.
8e. 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing the 2016 employer
benefits contribution.
9. Communications -- None
Meeting of October 5, 2015
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of August 29, 2015 through
September 25, 2015.
4b. Adopt Resolution appointing additional Election Judges needed to staff the polls at the
Municipal/School District/State Special General Election to be held November 3, 2015.
4c. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance vacating alley right-of-way, connecting
Glenhurst Avenue and France Avenue, north of West 31st Street, and approve the
Summary Ordinance for publication.
4d. Adopt Resolution calling for a public hearing relative to the establishment of the 4900
Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a
redevelopment district).
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 3955 Dakota Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 21-117-21-23-0039.
4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 6811 24th Street West, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 08-117-21-13-0085.
4g. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $26,463.12 for Project
4014-2000 Connect the Park! with G.L. Contracting, Inc., City Contract No. 73-14.
4h. Order a public hearing to be held on November 16th, 2015 for the closure of the
southbound access ramp at W. 16th Street along TH169.
4i. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of monetary donations totaling $105 from: David
Kane and Joann Shaughnessy Kane in the amount of $30, Robert and Lila Aske in the
amount of $25, Rocky Massie in the amount of $25, Stephen Williams in the amount of
$25 all of which will be used for the Westwood Hills Nature Center’s raptors in memory
of Chris Bohlinger.
4j. Adopt Resolution Supporting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Meadowbrook Golf
Course Ecological Restoration Project.
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: Closed Executive Session
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Closed Session to Discuss Acquisition of 40th Street and France Avenue Property
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests direction on how Council would like to proceed
with this acquisition.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time.
SUMMARY: The City Council last discussed this matter at its meeting on May 18. At that
time the Council provided direction to staff on the submission of a proposed purchase agreement
to the City of Minneapolis.
Based on the direction from the Council, the City Attorney and staff prepared a purchase
agreement which was sent to the City of Minneapolis on June 10, 2015. At around that same
time the City of Edina sent a proposed purchase agreement to Minneapolis as well. With a
couple of exceptions the Edina purchase agreement was identical to St. Louis Park’s.
On July 30th we received a purchase agreement approved by the Minneapolis City Council. As I
informed you of not long ago, the purchase agreement they sent us contained changes/provisions
that Minneapolis had not identified before, nor were we informed of them before their Council
approved it. Some of these changes presented concerns to St. Louis Park and Edina. Much of
what they changed related to items such as the type of deed to be used, title guarantees, that sort
of thing. The substantive issue of price seems to be largely resolved between us.
Subsequently, the staffs from Minneapolis and St. Louis Park exchanged correspondence, the
most recent of which was a proposal from Minneapolis dated September 17. This proposal
identified changes they would agree to make to the purchase agreement to address at least some
of the concerns we had.
At the closed meeting Monday night staff and the City Attorney desire to update the Council on
where things stand and discuss two items in particular. One relates to a new condition proposed
by Minneapolis having to do with what would happen if they shut down their pumping station
sometime in the future. The other has to do with Minneapolis’s response to St. Louis Parks
proposed requirement relating to environmental warranties from Minneapolis. In both cases staff
feels these issues can be resolved.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The agreed upon purchase price for St.
Louis Parks portion of the property is $579,813. This entire amount would be paid at closing
and the funding source would be the Park Improvement Fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business. St Louis Park is committed to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock.
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report and related study session discussion
is to provide Council a summary of comments received from stakeholders regarding regulation
of point-of-sale plastic bags and discuss next steps.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Based upon information received in the staff reports, experts
panel discussion, and listening session feedback does Council wish to pursue an ordinance to
restrict the use of point-of-sale plastic bags?
SUMMARY: The process for considering regulation of point-of-sale plastic bags (plastic bags)
was first presented during the May 4, 2015 Study Session. One of the steps in the process
included holding a Council listening session to give stakeholders an opportunity to provide
comments. On September 2, 2015 a listening session was held where Council heard from
residents, local businesses, and other stakeholders regarding potential regulation of plastic bags.
Staff has also received comments from stakeholders unable to attend, additional comments from
those in attendance at the listening session, and a written position from the Environment and
Sustainability Commission (Commission). The Commission’s position and all stakeholder
comments are summarized below in the report. Additionally, the Commission position document
and all other written comments received are attached for the record.
NEXT STEPS:
1. Public Information Process Ongoing
2. Study Session Discussion - Proposed policy recommendations October 2015
3. Public hearing on the Councils draft policy position November 2015
4. Study Session Discussion – Finalize Policy November 2015
5. City Council Meeting – Policy Implementation TBD
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Communications Summary (Attachment 1)
Commission Position (Attachment 2)
Resident Comments (Attachment 3)
Business Comments (Attachment 4)
Other Stakeholder Comments (Attachment 5)
Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator,
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager; Mark Hanson, Public Works
Superintendent; Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the February 23, 2015 Study Session, staff presented goals and objectives
for a targeted education campaign to increase recycling and organics at businesses and multi-
family properties, increase participation in curbside organics program, and reduce use of plastic
bags and polystyrene food and beverage packaging and to-go containers (PS containers).
Council supported moving forward with the plan for increasing recycling and organics.
However, Council wanted to take a stronger approach on plastic bags and PS containers and
asked staff to determine what would be needed to regulate the use of these materials in St. Louis
Park, in addition to targeted education to reduce their use. Council requested that a public
information process be included in this approach. As part of the next steps proposed by staff, it
was decided that the plastic bags and PS containers would have similar but separate processes to
avoid confusion during discussions with stakeholders. In addition to a public information
process, both an expert’s panel and a public listening session were scheduled to learn more about
the issues surrounding plastic bags as well as listen to concerns from residents, businesses and
other stakeholders. Staff also provided a presentation to the Environment and Sustainability
Commission on June 3, 2015 about the process and to discuss future collaboration on potential
plastic bag and polystyrene policies.
Leading up to the public listening session, a number of outreach activities were conducted by
Communications staff, including: social media posts, ParkTV and Park Perspective stories,
articles run by local media outlets, and outreach to the business community. A summary of this
outreach and data on social media impressions is provided in Attachment 1.
On September 2, 2015 a public listening session (listening session) was held so that Council
could listen to the opinions and concerns that residents, businesses, and other stakeholders had in
regard to regulating plastic bags. The listening session had approximately 45 attendees, including
members from the Environment and Sustainability Commission, and lasted for approximately
one hour.
OPTIONS FOR RESTRICTING PLASTIC BAG USUAGE: Information provided to
attendees included background on why Council is interested in restricting or regulating their use,
as well as the range of options that had been discussed in prior study sessions. Those options
were:
• Business as usual: Allow retailers and consumers to carry on with business as usual.
• Incentives-based policy: Work with retailer, business trade associations and other
stakeholders to create a robust outreach/education initiative and incentives to persuade
consumers to choose to use reusable bags and increase participation in store drop-off
programs for recycling of plastic bags and film.
• Charge a fee on plastic bags: This approach uses a fee (typically 5-10 cents) to
discourage the use of plastic bags at the point-of-sale. Paper bags are still provided free of
charge and the use of reusable bags is encouraged.
• Charge a fee on plastic bags and paper bags: This approach uses a fee (typically 5 – 10
cents) to discourage the use of plastic and paper bags at the point-of-sale and encourage
the use of reusable bags.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in
• Ban plastic bags only: This approach bans the use of plastic bags at the point-of-sale.
Paper bags are still provided free of charge and the use of reusable bags encouraged.
• Ban plastic bags and require fee for paper bags: This approach bans plastic bags at the
point-of-sale and charges a fee (typically 5 to 10 cents) for paper bags, to encourage the
use of reusable bags.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: This report provides a summary of comments received from
the Environment and Sustainability Commission, residents, businesses, and other stakeholders
received prior to, during, and after the listening session.
Environment and Sustainability Commission: The Commission has had a presence at both the
experts’ panel and the listening session for plastic bags and continues to be interested in being
involved in the process for considering regulation of plastic bags in St. Louis Park. The
Commission is advocating that Council does not regulate plastic bags. The Commission has
provided a written statement outlining their position on plastic bags (see Attachment 2).
Resident input: A total of 71 resident comments were received at the time of this report. Of
those received, 35 were against regulating bags, 28 were in favor of regulating bags and, 8 were
undecided or offered other solutions (see Attachment 3).
Listening session: Of the 71 residents staff heard from, there were 18 who attended the listening
session to speak or offer written comments. Of those 18 people 15 against, 3 undecided, and no
one spoke in favor of a ban.
While not all of those in favor cited reasons for their position, those that did listed environmental
reasons like litter and problems with disposable single-use nature of plastic bags as their reason.
Those against regulating plastic bags cited reasons including current reuse for dog walks and
home garbage collection, that they recycle plastic bags at store drop-offs, concerns over bacteria
and cross-contamination issues with reusable bags, low impact to waste stream, and that the city
should focus on issues that have larger impact. Those who discussed other solutions noted fees
instead of a ban, encouraging or subsidizing reusable bags and requiring or encouraging more
store drop-offs for recycling plastic bags.
Businesses: A total of 11 business comments were received at the time of this report. Of those
received, none were in favor of regulating plastic bags and 3 were seeking information about
alternative products or information on the process to consider regulating plastic bags (see
Attachment 4).
The business community’s response has been to urge Council to allow customers the opportunity
to make their own choices regarding plastic, paper, or reusable bags. Comments received from
businesses showed why they currently use plastic bags in the restaurant business and the efforts
already underway to collect bags for recycling at local grocery stores.
Other Stakeholders: Additional comments received by stakeholders that have been involved in
the discussion on plastic bags are also included (see Attachment 5).
Comments were received from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), American
Progressive Bag Alliance, TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, and MN Restaurant Association.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in
These comments were a repetition of their positions already shared with Council, with the
exception of the MPCA comments.
MPCA staff involved in the conversation on plastic bags offered an update on policy stance
regarding point-of-sale plastic bags, noting that “the MPCA does not plan to pursue policy on
[plastic bags] at the state level and is not specifically promoting any policies at the local level.”
The update suggests that communities already discussing possible bans should strongly consider
a policy that incentivizes using reusables over disposables by placing a fee on both plastic and
paper bags. They also suggest ongoing public education on reusable bags and collaboration with
retailers, manufacturers, or haulers to improve recycling opportunities.
NEXT STEPS: The most recent timeline recommended by Staff is as follows. This timeline
could be amended to allow staff to provide Council with more information on a particular policy
direction or issue related to plastic bags, if Council wishes.
1. Public Information Process Ongoing
2. Study Session Discussion - Proposed policy recommendations October 2015
3. Public hearing on the Councils draft policy position November 2015
4. Study Session Discussion – Finalize Policy November 2015
5. City Council Meeting – Policy Implementation TBD
Plastic Bags Listening Session
September 2, 2015
Communications Summary Report
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 5
Social Media
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 6
Facebook
•August 14: 305 reached
•August 21: 406 reached
•September 1: 196 reached
•September 9: 439 reached
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 7
Twitter
•September 9: 549 impressions
•September 1: 1,091 impressions
•August 14: 892 impressions
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 8
NextDoor
•September 1
•August 14
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 9
Television
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 10
ParkTV
•Life in the Park
•September 10 (92 views)
•August 13 (110 views)
•Listening session recording
available on demand (61 views)
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 11
Print Publications
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 12
Park Perspective
•July 2015
•October 2015
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 13
Media
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 14
May 2015-August 2015
•Star Tribune
•Sun Sailor
•Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal
•KARE 11, WCCO, KSTP, MPR
•MinnPost
•Austin Daily Herald
•Bring Me the News
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 15
Miscellaneous
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 16
Outreach to business community/expert panel
•TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
•MN Retailers Association
•Restaurant Association of MN
•MN Grocers Association
•Nothing Left to Waste
•MN Pollution Control Agency
•Hennepin County Environment & Energy
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 17
Environment and Sustainability Commission
Zero Waste Work Group – Plastic Bag Position Statement
September 2015
City Council Goals in the consideration of regulation of point-of- sale bags in the city:
Increased recycling/composting and waste reduction
Minimization of litter, addressing health toxicity concerns
Reducing greenhouse gasses and increasing product reuse.
Zero Waste Position Statement for the proposed plastic bag ban for St. Louis Park.
The Zero Waste group of the Environment and Sustainability Commission would recommend that a
plastic bag ban in St. Louis Park would not be in our cities best interest. Our position is that an
ordinance banning point of sale (HDPE) shopping bags is not the way to go and would result in possible
unintended consequences that are opposite to the City Councils original goals. After learning from the
listening session with the experts and the public hearing with our own citizens, the ban of plastic retail
bags could distract us from tackling more serious issues that we face in our waste stream. A ban
specifically of the thin point- of-sale plastic bags used by stores such as Cub Foods, Target, and many
other smaller retailers in SLP could and end up causing the opposite effect on our environment to what
was intended, leading to the use of alternatives with a much greater negative impact. From our public
listening session we heard that it is also something that could be a hardship for our small business
owners in St. Louis Park.
Here are the main reasons that we feel that a plastic bag ban would be counterproductive.
The life cycle analysis of a thin, plastic bag reveals that the carbon footprint of this bag is smaller than
any of the alternatives including reusable bags of both the polyethylene variety and the cloth variety. In
a previous email to the City Council Ryan Griffin, an expert in sustainability and a member of our
Environment and Sustainability Commission stated that “The lowly plastic bag is already one of the most
resource efficient containers ever created and from a scientific standpoint, it is very likely that a ban
may actually have a negative impact on the environment. “In comparison to paper bags HDPE bags
require 70% less energy to manufacture than paper bags and the amount of water to produce plastic
bags consumes less than 4% of the water it takes to make paper bags. It makes sense that it is much
more expensive for retailers to provide paper bags. The resources to manufacture other types of
reusable bags is even more of an issue and their value only becomes valid when they are reused many
times and complicated by the need to wash them .
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 18
A common misperception in plastic bags if that they are made from oil. The truth is, HDPE plastic bags
are made in the USA from natural gas. They are not made from foreign oil sources. The alternative
plastic bags such as the thicker plastic bags (LDPE) and Polypropylene (PP) bags are made from oil and
usually in China. There is a lot of confusion on this topic and even one of our speakers at the listening
session said these bags were made from petroleum products, lumping all plastic bags into this category.
Reusable bags are not necessarily the answer especially if you forget your reusable bag at home and
have to return to get it. Just the wasted gas to get your reusable bag is costly. A quote from Ryan’s
email from the book ‘How bad are bananas’, one gallon of gasoline has the environmental impact
equivalent to 3,000 plastic bags. The actual carbon footprint of plastic bags is less than every alternative
so the effect of a ban would potentially result in promoting greenhouse gasses which is in direct
opposition to the goal stated by the city council.
Plastic bags are reusable, recyclable and are a desirable commodity in the recycled materials stream. In
St. Louis Park, while these thin plastic bags are not recycled using curbside pick-up because of the
material recovery issues (they jam up the sorting equipment), we have many locations, especially
grocery stores, in our cities that take these bags to be recycled. Many people are not aware of this.
However, the fact that we can recycle bags is not as important and reusing them.
Public behavior has been very clearly in favor of reusing thin plastic bag to capture all sorts of garbage.
This makes it even harder for the alternatives to compete with the thin plastic bags. People use them in
their homes to collect garbage and tie them up easily to put in the trash bins as liners. They are also
used to pick up animal waste from dogs and cats. Below is the data that was presented by Madalyn Cioci
from the MPCA. In this table thin plastic shopping bags (HDPE) are compared to other bags in terms of
their environmental impact. For example, a paper bag is better than a plastic bag that has not been
reused if it is reused 3 times and a cotton bag would take 131 reuses to have the same impact as the
plastic bag. The issue of not having these bags available is that people would have to purchase trash can
liners made from plastic that may have a larger environmental impact and produce even more
greenhouse gases in the end.
Number of uses after which a reusable bag is better than a plastic bag (Edwards and Fry 2011)
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 19
Most important of all is the fact that plastic bags, no matter how you look at it in terms of volume or
weight, make up only a tiny fraction of our waste stream. (All plastics are 12.9% of the waste stream
and the thin HDPE bags make up only 0.3% of the waste stream according to the U.S. EPA.) To look at a
bigger and more important issue, organics that are in our waste stream make up a much larger
percentage of our garbage. According to Kala Fisher, the research on our garbage in Hennepin County,
found that organic material made up the majority of the weight of garbage generated in the County at
42%. More specifically, in St. Louis Park, residential garbage was 41% organic materials and recyclable
materials were 17%. Focusing on and encouraging more of St. Louis Park to participate in this program
would be much more useful for our city, our state and our country. In fact, the Zero Waste working
group is holding a fundraiser on October 10th and 11th at Central Community Center selling the compost
that is created from our organic wastes. Our hope is that we will be educating our citizens on the
benefits or joining the organics recycling program while providing funds for our high school
Environmental club called Roots and Shoots. In St. Louis Park we have a goal of getting 20% organics
recycling participation, nearly double of what we have now (11.5%) over the following year. Another
possible consideration would be the waste generated from remodeling, building and even redoing roads
(construction waste) which weighs a lot and is also a huge part of our waste stream. These are much
bigger more impactful issues to tackle.
In terms of our public listening session, what we heard was that businesses rely on thin plastic bags as a
means of doing their business. The alternative such as paper bags has a large financial impact on the
smaller, women owned businesses as was presented by Gaels Gourmet, Once Upon a Child and Good
Will (this person did not speak publicly.) Target may be up for anything as they have told members of
the council but they are large enough to deal with the financial impact with much less harm to their
bottom line.
Sustainability means balancing social, economic and environmental effects. This clearly is not a “win,
win, win“ in any of these categories.
Finally, in spite of all the stories of the effects of plastic bags escaping littering our neighborhoods and
harming our wildlife, it is clear that the bags that we are referring to in the ban actually are not the only
litter issue and so banning plastic bags because of litter would be distracting to much larger litter issues.
As a person who participated in the Minnehaha Creek Clean up event, I did find plastic retail bags but
even more abundant were plastic soda and water bottles, the plastic tops and straws from fast food
soda drinking cups, and cigarette butts. Sadly, by weight, the illegal dumping of things like old couches,
mattresses, old computers with all their heavy metal contaminants were also found near the creek. This
is heavy and toxic to our environment. Illegal dumping is something that we have discussed in our work
group and we hope to look into ways that we can encourage the proper disposal or recycling of this type
of waste that would be accessible to all social groups.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 20
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 21
As a part of Hennepin County we want to support the overall county waste stream reduction goals of
reducing the waste that goes to the land fill to 9% by 2030 and increasing recycling of all waste to 75%.
Let’s focus on what will really makes a difference. Let’s follow the lead of Hennepin County and work to
educate our population first on the importance of waste reduction and try to promote a behavior
change in opposition to our “throw away” society. Education is key and a there are more positive ways
to approach this issue possibly using incentives instead of bans.
Let’s not fall into the trap of competing with our surrounding cities by racing to a ban on retail plastic
bags. In Ryan Griffins email he refers to this as “green washing”
It is less important that we appear green, let’s be green.
Thank you to our city council for requesting our position on the bag ban. We hope that you will
continue to consult this group on environmental issues such as this.
Judy Voigt
Environment and Sustainability Commission
Zero Waste Work Group Lead
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 22
RECORD OF WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESIDENTS
5/15/15
Dear Councilmembers,
You have our full support on banning plastic bags in St. Louis Park. We spent 2 months in
Germany this past winter, and everyone is used to carrying their own fabric bag with them when
they shop. It's simply something people become used to, and it's such a huge help to our
environment. The beaches of Europe are spoiled with pieces of plastic.
Please, be a leader in this issue and ban plastic bags in St. Louis Park.
Janet and Gary Hill
7800 Division Street
St. Louis Park, MN 55426
5/15/15
Hi!
My name is Patty Harayda and I'm a proud resident of St. Louis Park. I live in the Browndale
Neighborhood.
I was so, so excited to read in the Star Tribune about the possibility of a plastic bag ban. As an
avid environmentalist, I'm disgusted about how many plastic bags are used in this city - the
Target off of Highway 100 doesn't offer paper bags and the amount of plastic that comes out of
that store makes me so sad that a large corporation can't offer an alternative to plastic bags
(unless you go to SuperTarget off of Highway 7 and even then they don't have enough shelves of
organic gallons of milk, but that's a whole different story. HA!).
On WCCO this morning an anchor brought up the fact of the amount of energy to produce re-
usable bags. In my opinion, that shouldn't matter. I crochet, so I can make my own re-usable
bags. There are lots of people that sew that can make their own re-usable bags. Re-usable bags
are anywhere from 99 cents to whatever you might want to spend. They don't have to be
expensive to buy and they definitely don't always have to be purchased. I give gifts in re-usable
bags, Re-usable bags are so much better for the environment, and quite frankly, that's really all
that matters.
For those that don't support the ban, please have them watch the documentary Plastic Paradise. It
shows what happens to plastic. It doesn't degrade back into the ground like paper bags. Plastic
toys from the 50's and 60's are still around. The amount of plastic on this Earth is ridiculous.
If we can do our part to help the environment by banning plastic bags, then our city will set a
precedent across the country. We will help this Earth to save it for generations to come. That's
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 23
what matters. We only have one Earth to live on, one Earth to share with our future ancestors.
What we do today matters for tomorrow.
This is why I'm part of the organic waste program. This is why I grow our own food in our yard.
This is why I don't use pesticides. This is why I leave a few dandelions to save the bees.
What we do today matters for tomorrow.
Thank you for reading this - and thank you for banning plastic bags in the future.
Sincerely,
Patricia Harayda
P.S. I may contact you in the future to ban glyphosates and neonicontinoids on public spaces.
Saving the bees and butterflies is just as important as banning plastic!
5/12/15
Hi Anne;
The article in the Tribune this morning was the first I had heard that the council was considering
a ban on plastic bags. Just wanted to let you know that we fully support it, and hope the council
will vote YES!
Thanks
--
Tom Sheldon
5/13/15
RE: “Plastic Bags Might Get The Boot,” Star Tribune, 5/12/15, page 1
Dear Council member Tim Brausen and St. Louis Park City Council;
BRAVO!!
If one more push is needed to put you over the verge of banning single-use plastic bags
and polystyrene food containers, let it be mine! These actions are long overdue in Minnesota.
I applaud you in advance for acting to lead the state, if not the nation, in raising the bar for urban
environmental consciousness and responsibility.
One doesn't have to look far to find these unhealthy*, unessential, and lingering products in our
parks, streams, and roadways.
Next up, Bloomington???
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 24
Sincerely,
Cheryl Wilke
Bloomington, MN
* The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently added styrene to a list of possible
carcinogens. Styrene is a chemical found in polystyrene plastics, better known as Styrofoam
materials. Among other additions to the list are formaldehyde, aristolochic acids, and certain
glass and wool fibers found in insulation.
Photos (top six) courtesy of C. Wilke's one hour walk within one mile of home today, 5/13/15
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 25
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 26
6/23/15
City Council members:
I enjoyed attending the plastic bag meeting yesterday evening. It was great to see such passion
from the Council on an environmentally-focused topic. We obviously all share a common
interest in seeing St. Louis Park become a leader in Sustainability. It was also wonderful to have
a diverse group of speakers offering a wide range of viewpoints on the topic. One voice,
however, that I don’t feel was represented was that of the Environmental and Sustainability
Commission. While I cannot speak for the entire Commission, I would like to personally share
my thoughts on the topic as a citizen and someone who has dedicated my career and free time to
sustainability. I will start by saying I have several concerns about the direction City Council
appears to be leaning on this issue:
• My first concern is that we have taken this issue public with little input from the
Sustainability Commission. I understand that this may not have been the intent of Council, but
this is the outward appearance. We have many talented people on the ESC who do this sort of
work for a living, who would love to be part of the discussion.
• My second concern is that I don’t believe we have fully considered the life cycle science
or data behind this issue or whether we could ever prove that reducing plastic bags has a positive
(and not negative) environmental impact. Let’s be clear on what we’re trying to solve here.
• My final and largest concern is that there are so many bigger challenges in need of our
attention that we should not be putting this kind of emphasis on something with as miniscule an
impact as plastic bags. In order to become thought leaders in our city, state and country we must
leverage science over fashion and emotion when it comes to prioritizing the actions we take.
As a business and sustainability consultant, I am a strong advocate for establishing a vision and
set of goals before trying to take on individual issues. This big-picture approach allows us to
determine how to best prioritize our actions against the challenges we face. It allows us to put
resources where they’ll have the most positive social and environmental impact. The fact of the
matter is that the material of our grocery bags is not even on the map when compared with other
challenges we face. At best, a bag ban might get our name in print as a city interested in making
change. At worst, this divisive policy could be viewed by many as greenwashing – giving the
appearance of caring while actually diverting our attention from the many larger issues that we
must focus on. It may also turn-off key stakeholders who we might have otherwise engaged to
solve much larger problems. There are so many factors at play that it would be very difficult to
prove that eliminating plastic bags would have a positive impact. The lowly plastic bag is
already one of the most resource efficient containers ever created, and from a scientific
standpoint, it is very likely that a ban may actually have a negative environmental impact. For
example, an increase in paper, plant based, cotton, or heavier plastic bags, and more frequent or
farther car trips could all quickly overshadow any benefits of fewer plastic bags. As was brought
up in the meeting, there can be many unintended consequences to policy action such as this.
Worst of all, spreading misinformation on this topic may give people the idea they’re making a
difference and distract them from making changes with a proven positive impact.
Throughout my career and while achieving my masters in Sustainable Systems Engineering, I
have performed paper, plastic and packaging Lifecycle Assessments (LCAs) both academically
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 27
and for industry clients. LCAs are not perfect, but are currently the best tool we have for
quantifying environmental impacts across many categories such as human health, bio-diversity,
toxicity, global warming and resource depletion. The LCA data shared yesterday by Madalyn
Cioci represents the scientific consensus on this issue, and should not be downplayed. To add
additional context here, here are some figures from Mike Berners-Lee’s book ‘How Bad are
Bananas – The Carbon Footprint of Everything’:
• One gallon of gasoline has the environmental impact equivalent of 3,000 plastic bags. So
if the average SLP resident really does use 330 plastic bags per year, a single gallon of gasoline
saved would be the equivalent of more than nine years of plastic bags. I hope nobody ever has to
drive home because they forgot their reusable bags!
• Likewise, one bunch of asparagus flown in from Peru has about 600 times the impact of
the plastic bag we put it in. Said another way, that same bunch of asparagus contains nearly two
years’ worth of the average resident’s plastic bag impact.
Sustainability is of utmost importance to me and to our city. I would like to conclude by giving a
few examples of areas where we would be far better off investing our time and resources:
1) Educating and empowering community stakeholders to develop a long-term sustainability
vision with specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound goals.
2) Adopting a framework by which to evaluate environmental ideas in a data-driven fashion.
3) Developing a long-term energy and emissions goals and master plan – How will we as a
city get to net zero carbon emissions and will it be soon enough to be a leader in the fight against
climate change?
4) Leverage the fact that we are now the forth city in Minnesota to be selected to participate
in Xcel’s ‘Partner’s in Energy’ program. Help identify a strong planning team who can
implement plans for energy and emissions reduction across commercial, industrial and
residential sectors.
5) Establish policies such as living streets to protect the mature trees, water and wildlife we
have.
6) Ensure our sustainability vision is a core part of our city redevelopment master plan.
7) Match the funding we provide for automobile-centric infrastructure with funding for non-
automobile-centric infrastructure and high-density, mixed-use redevelopment.
8) Ensure the city government purchases only clean, renewable energy, offsets its non-
renewable energy purchases, makes no new investments in fossil fuels, and divests any assets
held that would cause it to profit from fossil fuel consumption.
9) Dedicate staff time from each department to collaborate on centrally agreed upon
sustainability initiatives in-line with vision and goals.
10) Establish regional sustainability partnerships with neighboring cities.
Just to name a few off the top of my head…
Thank you again for your strong commitment to making the city a better place. St. Louis Park is
uniquely positioned to be a progressive leader in sustainability not just in Minnesota, but in the
country and the world. We have so many passionate, thoughtful and committed individuals
within City Council, City Staff, the ESC, and our community, that we really are something
special. We now have the additional leadership of Shannon Pinc, and are poised to make great
strides. Let’s collaborate and focus our efforts around a common vision. Let’s establish
aggressive goals. Let’s set our sights much, much higher than a plastic bag ban.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 28
Respectfully yours,
Ryan Griffin
Commissioner, Sustainable SLP
Managing Consultant, See the Forest LLC
W. 40th St.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
8/12/15
We support the effort of St. Louis Park to ban or reduce the [IMO wasteful, environmentally
unfriendly] use of plastic bags in our community.
Our family lived abroad for 10 years, where everyone used their own reusable cloth bags. If
stuck without a bag at checkout, plastic bags were available for purchase at a nominal fee of
something like $0.20.
They have banned them altogether in some European countries (and while we don't want to
become Europeans necessarily, everyone has survived this particular move! :)
We wouldn't mind at all losing our dependence on plastic. It might take an adjustment to
remember to tuck cloth bags in the car, but it's a habit that can be developed.
One suggestion? If the ban goes through, for a time produce and give away some free reusable
bags with an SLP logo -- maybe even add a slogan that promotes the plastic bag-free campaign.
And get local businesses in on a bag giveaway as a way of promoting their own stores, whether
they support the ban or just want their logo on the side. Who doesn't like walking advertising?
Free bags (and there are so many styles and sizes ... a fashion statement!) might help encourage
people to step away from the plastic forever.
Sincerely,
June Bethke Petrie
Neil Petrie
Glenhurst Avenue
SLP, 55416
9/15/15
Hello again Ms. Fisher,
I've been following the articles about the proposed plastic bag ban in the Sun Sailor and on the
SLP website.
It sounds like I am in the minority in caring about and endorsing this proposal, hence one final
comment from me.
The newspaper article from a few weeks ago made much of "how many times" something must
be used in comparison with something else for it to be more economical. I had to laugh: the point
for both resource use and the environment is that sometime, we must start to stop!!!
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 29
As I wrote in my previous note to you I lived in Europe for 10 years, where plastic bags were
charged for, and consumers made reusable bags a part of their lives. It's a non-issue there, and I
am pleased to have used almost no plastic while living there. However they managed it -- which
I'll admit I do not know -- businesses were completely on board.
The comment I read that reusables spread germs reactionary; never have I heard of dangerous
bacteria being shared in this way.
The impact of plastic bags lives on and on, in microbeads, landfills, 'bag trees' (which I have
actually seen)... Maybe not today, but at some point our world will need to address this part of
our waste and where it goes. I continue to endorse the ban.
Attached is the photo of a sign I took in Scotland this summer, reminding people as they leave
their cars to grab their bags as they go. --Just to show that reeducation is possible and the results
are fine. It's time for us to do this, too.
Although the issue in SLP sounds like it is now as good as dead, I nevertheless thank you for
noting my comments.
June Petrie
8/13/15
We agree with the idea to ban single use plastic bags and styrofoam.
Freida and Bonnie Shapiro
8/14/15
plastic bags should be banned from St. Louis park businesses and facilities. if needed, people
should pay for their purchase.
Annonymous
West 16th Street, Saint Louis Park, MN 55416
8/14/15
No excuse for having something that will contaminate our environment for years to come. When
I see those bags in the ocean I cringe.
Barbara Aslakson
8/14/15
I'm all in favor of it with some exceptions. I take my own reusable bags to the grocery store all
of the time, and also to other stores when I remember. Some items in the grocery store, such as
meat need to be kept away from other grocery items. Also, bulk purchases need to be bagged,
e.g. nuts, grains, etc. If paper could be closed tight enough, that would work, but I'm skeptical. I
also know that many people like the plastic bags because they use them for garbage, and avoid
the cost of purchasing garbage bags. We are do owners, so I also feel strongly that poop bags
need to be plastic.
Carol Becker
Utica Ave S
8/14/15
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 30
Speaking as a SLP resident, I recommend not banning plastic bags. I recycle, participate in the
municipal compost program, and power my house and all-electric Nissan Leaf with Windsource
energy. I do these because it makes a difference for the environment. I also bicycle commute
whenever possible and water my garden using a rain barrel. Those I do for fun, even though the
environmental impact is small.
Banning plastic bags is neither environmentally meaningful nor fun.
As Madalyn Cioci pointed out at the Experts Panel, plastic bags are a tiny part of the waste
stream and requires fewer resources than paper bags. (See 36:20 in the YouTube recording.)
Meanwhile, they provide a significant convenience when I shop. I reuse the plastic bags, mostly
as trash bags.
When I look at my own shopping, the insignificance of paper bags is obvious. The bags weigh
far less than the packaging materials in my grocery cart. If I were to place my haul onto a scale,
the weight of the bags wouldn't even show up! But it gets worse: just compare the mass of a
plastic bag to a gallon of gasoline. We need to ban gas before we ban bags!
Finally, banning plastic bags is likely to result in questionable workarounds that end up being
worse for the environment.
When I've tried to replace "disposable" plastic bags with "reusable" plastic bags Whole Foods
sells, it hasn't necessarily been a good deal for the environment. (I use quotes because both kinds
are both reusable and disposable.) If the reusable bag uses 5-10 times as much plastic as the
disposable one, it needs to be used 5-10 times just to break even. It's possible, but it requires
some dedication.
Similarly, Subway Kids Meals replaced single-use bags and plastic cups with collectable bags
and cups. We've got a whole drawer full of these reusable lunch bags. And we get them faster
than we can reuse them!
Banning plastic bags doesn't make sense for the environment, and it puts a burden on shoppers.
It's a bad idea.
David Leppik
8/14/15
Hi Kala,
I just wanted to give you my input on a possible ban of single use plastic bags in the city of St.
Louis Park. I grew up in St. Louis Park and moved back here in 2008 and really like how
progressive the city can be. I am very concerned about the environment and the amount of litter
that I find everywhere, near my work, near my home and when I'm out and about running
errands or having fun.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 31
I care so much so that I stop more often than not to pick up litter. I have to say that I find plastic
bags blowing into the street and my yard and many other places. I always stop to pick up plastic
and am concerned about it ending up in the wetlands, lakes and other bodies of water.
I personally shop with reusable bags but will also use my plastic bags over and over again until
they are tattered and need to be recycled. I wish more people would do that. Therefore I support
the City of St. Louis Park banning single use plastic bags in our city and think we need to
continue setting a good example on how we want to keep our city, our state, our country and this
world for future generations.
I would like to somehow continue to be updated on this issue and hear what other people think
but I am very definitely and strongly in favor of banning plastic bags.
Thank you so much for listening to my views.
Beth Javinsky
Flag Avenue South
St. Louis Park
8/14/15
I am definitely in favor of a ban on plastic bags in St. Louis Park! In the big picture plastic has
not been around that many years. But already it's caused many many problems.
I have tried to use less plastic. But it's really difficult to find things that aren't made with some
plastic or packaged in plastic.
I've been using reusable fabric shopping bags for years. It's a pretty simple change to make.
As far as protecting newspapers and other items, there must be non-plastic ways to do that.
Maybe we pay a little bit more for the newspaper and it's delivered to a box, like it is in rural
areas.
Ellen Werr
SLP resident
8/14/15
i would be all of a partial ban on plastic bags. i hate seeing them into streets, trees and lakes.
MOST STORES OVER USE THEM, MANY BAGS FOR FEW ITEMS. ALSO I AM VWERY
GRATEFUL TO THE STORES THAT PROVIDE RECYCLING.
JENELLA SLADE
8/14/15
Plastic bags are recyclable. Banning plastic bags and cutting down trees for paper bags does not
make any sense.
Janice Jepsen
Gettysburg Ave. So.
St. Louis Park
8/14/15
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 32
Hi Kala,
I want to register my support of a plastic bag ban. I'm writing this fully aware that there will be
times when I forget to bring my reusable bags to the store and I will be personally
inconvenienced. That's okay. Reducing the use of throw-away plastic items is still the right thing
to do.
My husband and I moved to St. Louis Park from Edina in 2012, and we plan to stay in our house
forever. I've been so impressed with the city's progressiveness and commitment to its
communities. Please tell the Council they should continue their leadership and move forward
with a bag ban! It will take some adjustment from everyone, but we'll get used to it.
Thanks,
Kate Tichy
Flag Ave S.
8/14/15
My wife and I are generally in favor of the proposed ban of plastic bags at points-of-sale in Saint
Louis Park. We try to avoid being given our purchases in plastic bags and recycle those we
can’t avoid. The ban would simplify our life in a positive way.
Thanks for taking my input,
Kelton Barr
Virginia Circle North
Saint Louis Park, MN
8/14/15
Hi Kala,
We reuse plastic bags for dog poop. Plastic bags are really the only option for that.
Also, I return the ones we don’t use, along with my dry-cleaning bags to Byerlys.
Plastic bags are just not a problem here.
Thanks for working on this.
Mary Matthews
8/14/15
Dear Kala,
I just want to register strong approval for the proposed plastic bag ban. One of the reasons I like
living in St. Louis Park is that the city is in the forefront of helping its residents live
sustainably. Unfortunately, I do most of my shopping at Calhoun Commons and Miracle Mile,
since they are near where I live, but I faithfully bring my reusable bags.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 33
Thanks for pushing this issue.
Medora Woods
8/14/15
I abhor plastic bags. When I am in grocery stores that offer them, I either have my own bags or
ask for paper ones. I recycle them on a regular basis, which is a nuisance because I have to find a
place to save/collect them and then spend time and money to deliver them to recyclers. I worry
when infants/small children are around because plastic bags are so dangerous. This concern
applies to animals and birds as well. Please work to prohibit them in St. Louis Park. Less danger,
nuisance, landfill, plastic, petroleum and mining, and less waste. Incent consumers to use their
own reusable bags. Let's have St. Louis Park be on the forefront of sustaining and saving the
earth.
Nancy S. Brown
Salem Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55416
8/14/15
Hi Kala,
Just wanted to drop you a note to say our family is STRONGLY in favor of any policy that
would limit (and ideally completely eliminate) single use plastic bags. As you know this is a
worldwide problem that does and will continue to affect all of us as non-degradable plastics and
micro plastics work their way through the ecosystems and food chains of our planet. We should
do whatever we can on a local level to decrease this impact on the environment.
Thank you,
The Weinmanns
Cedarwood Rd.
SLP, MN. 55416
8/14/15
Hi Kala
Thanks for making yourself available to collect feed back on the potential plastic bag ban. I
appreciate it.
I'm probably in the minority, but I'm very opposed to the ban of plastic bags. I feel that this
ban would be used as a means of having "bragging rights" for how progressive we are and that
kind of thing. But, in my life, it would so unpractical that I would end up shopping outside SLP
just to stay stocked on the bags!
We have a dog that gets walked daily. I'm sure I don't need to elaborate to explain why plastic
bags are daily used both on the walks and to clean up our yard. A regular plastic bag from
Target, Cub, Trader Joes, etc is just the right size to tie around the leash. I'm well aware that I
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 34
could purchase special doggie "pick up" bags, but we don't need one more expense in our
household!
Also, we have a baby granddaughter that I watch for several hours per week. Again, I don't need
to elaborate about the handiness of plastic bags with a diaper wearing toddler in the house!
As well, I use them as trash liners in our bathrooms and use them for many other things. Plastic
bags never got thrown away unused in our house; rather they get "repurposed". In the rare event
we have too many, then I recycle them. However, since I do use reusuable shopping bags part of
the time, we about never have extras to recycle.
I would ask the City Council to really decide if the reasons have to do with bragging rights for
SLP and if it will cause some people to intentionally shop away from SLP at least part of the
time to stock up on bags. And needless to say - I am concerned for our local retailers. It took a
lot of years to finally have a variety of grocery stores in SLP. Lets not make it difficult for
them! I also think we should leave it up to our fine SLP residents to make the choice to use
reusable bags that are easily available to anyone. Lets trust people to make their own decisions
and not make it for them.
Thanks
Shelly Houghton
W. 28th Street
SLP 55416
8/14/15
Kayla, thanks for taking community comments on this issue. My husband and I are in support of
removing plastic bags within Saint Louis Park to continue to further the City’s environmental
leadership. We have signed up for municipal compost collection, usually use reusable bags
when we shop, and so also feel that removing plastic bag distribution within the city makes sense
as well. The city’s steps and commitment to the environment is one of the reason’s we make the
city our home. Thanks! Thia Bryan and Tobit Simmons
8/15/15
Hi there,
From what I've read the alternatives to plastic bags can be more environmentally expensive.
"Compared to paper grocery bags, plastic grocery bags consume 40 percent less energy, generate
80 percent less solid waste, produce 70 percent fewer atmospheric emissions, and release up to
94 percent fewer waterborne wastes, according to the federation."
Rather than banning plastic, we should encourage reuse of bags by putting a 10 cent tax on all
types of single use bags.
Thanks,
Andy
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 35
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/09/0902_030902_plasticbags.html
8/15/15
Ban on plastic bags is horrible. People reuse them as liners in thier trash (small) for bathrooms
major industries use them to line their trash. What about business: Walgreens, Cub, Ace
Hardware. There also job losses due to people locally who make these bags. We use them for
waste, what next ban trash bags for your garbage as well. First we could not use them for leaves
now you are saying I can not go to cub or my local merchants and receive them what cost is it to
those merchants. The city of St. Louis Park has to STOP telling us how to live. We reuse quart
size zip locks by washing them to cut cost. What's next!!
Suzanne Metzger
8/16/15
I am against the bag ban--it is way too "big brotherly" and makes me feel like I live in Berkeley
CA.
I would rather see the city council work on real livability issues like maintaining the quaint
current low density corner of Monterey and Excelsior by not giving in to the Bridgewater Bank
expansion plans. The corner by Trader Joes is not suited to increased traffic!
Bethaviva Cohen
Kipling Ave S
resident of St. Louis Park for over 25 years
8/16/15
Dear Kala,
I will be unable to attend the September 2nd meeting but wanted to forward my comments to be
included into the record.
I am in strong support of the City of SLP regulating plastic bags at retail stores. I would like to
see them totally banned. I have seen an increase in the number of people using reusable bags
when shopping. I am in favor of banning plastic bags or including a substantial fee for their use.
I recently heard where the retail stores in a community that had passed a ban or fee for use of
plastic bags found a loophole around the regulation. From what I heard, they actually started
making the bags thicker and were able to get around the regulation. Please ensure that the city
reaches out to other communities who have passed bans in the past and ask for information on
problems they encountered after they passed their regulations. We can learn from past mistakes.
Regards,
Shawn Bryant
Willow Ln S
St Louis Park, MN 55416
8/17/15
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 36
Hi Kala,
We wanted to express our opinion on the plastic bag issue. We have listened to the expert panel
presentation.
We are not opposed to educating folks in SLP but we are opposed to banning plastic bags.
Thanks, Ann and Steve
8/17/15
Hi Kala,
I'm not sure I can attend the comment session on Sept 2, so I want to pass my comments to you
by email. I am a St Louis Park resident (3985 Colorado Ave S), and am very interested in
protecting the environment. I was pleased to hear that St Louis Park is considering banning
plastic bags and polystyrene containers. I don't know if that is the right path forward, but I am
glad the city council is talking about the issue.
A couple of years ago, I made a decision to try not to take any plastic bags when shopping. I
have been pretty good with this by carrying a reusable shopping bag in my purse. However, there
have been times when I have taken a plastic bag for a specific reason. My plastic bag
consumption has not been eliminated, but reduced by perhaps 85 or 90%. This is a pretty good
result, and was done without creating a situation where I could not get a plastic bag, if needed.
I was recently traveling in Europe, and in many places, if I wanted a plastic bag, it would cost
and extra 10 or 20 cents per bag. Has the city council considered this course, as a way to change
habits?
Whatever course the city council takes, I appreciate any activity that would lead to a reduction in
plastic garbage. I wonder if the city council is aware of the non-profit called Five Gyres, which
has a good video talking about the impact of plastic on our environment: http://www.5gyres.org/.
Here in Minnesota we well know how our water is connected to the Mississippi, which is
directly connected to the ocean. So, anything that keeps plastic out of our sewers, etc, could be
good on a very large scale.
Thanks,
Lisa Pannell
8/18/15
Three things;
1. It would seem to me that there are more important issues to spend time and money on, or save
the money and cut my taxes.
2. I have read results from around the country about the unintended consequences of the single
use bag ban. Health issues from sloppy use of reuseable bags and also negative business impacts,
especially when no cities next to the city were banning them.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 37
3. We recycle our single use bags right now at Byerly's, I think you should make the general
public more aware of the ability to do that or even support more places to take them, such as City
Hall or Fire Stations.
Let me know if you have questions or comments.
--
Thanks for listening,
Pete
8/29/15
I am unable to attend the 9/2/2015 listening session. Please accept this as my public comment.
St. Louis Park has encouraged recycling. A particular success has been the single-sort recycling
pick up initiative. In addition, residents are able to return thin plastic bags to Cub for recycling.
I have no objection if SLP restricts plastic grocery delivery bags. I dislike the plastic grocery
delivery bags. However, I like receiving a dry StarTribune in a plastic bag.
I have no objection if SLP restricts foam packaging for take-out food. I prefer rigid plastic
containers for take-out food. I'm sure you know that except for pizza, paper works poorly for
most take-out. Still, I sure like foam coffee cups.
We will continue to use paper bags for our grocery delivery. If SLP requires a charge(tax) for
paper bags, we will buy our groceries in a different suburb. A charge for paper bags will be
harmful to local merchants. Please remember that SLP has required us to use paper bags for yard
waste, and yet you want to hassle us about using paper bags for groceries. This makes no sense.
Cloth bags are yet more expensive, and are not green because water and soap and energy are
wasted for cleaning.
Finally, please incorporate in the public comments Adam Minter's excellent article from the 8-
20-2015 Strib, 'Plastic bag bans just might end up backfiring'. He writes that the city bans on
plastic bags usually have unintended consequences. Adam is author of the book 'Junkyard
Planet', which you and the entire city council should read before passing any bans. Adam grew
up in the North Minneapolis junk business, and currently writes in China for the Bloomberg
View.
Most sincerely,
Dale Stenseth
Edgewood Ave S
St. Louis Park, MN
9/1/15
I am good with doing away with the plastic bags.
People got along with out them for years before and we certainly can do it again.
Annonymous
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 38
9/1/15
Hi Kala,
We are out of town and can’t make it to the public listening session, but we highly support the
plastic bag ban and take pride in seeing St Louis Park lead on environmental issues.
Thank you,
Charlie and Marissa Adair
Coolidge Ave
St Louis Park, MN 55424
9/1/15
I would like to know what are the reason why you would like to do this? Are you going to give
exemptions to different companies that use these bags today. Examples would be Methodist
Hospital, most of the Chinese restaurants in St. Louis Park, not to mention Byerly’s and Cub and
Target.
Will you be giving these companies that use these products money or compensation to provide a
different product? This is something I would not support as we should not be forced to pay more
to the city for this change.
What has changed in the last 5, 10, 15 or more years that suggest that this change would need to
be put in place?
Any info you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You,
DuWayne "DuWey" Dixon
9/1/15
Ms.Fisher,
I don't think it's the time or the place for a SLP council person along with another from Mpls to
ban plastic bags. It's high time for a better substitute to be found/invented first--I reuse mine for
trash & other things & also use paper bags from the stores.
Worse than plastic bags are plastic water bottles--few of which are either recycled or used again.
So, to single out plastic bags in our city is unfair--much more needs to be done to save the
environment. I don't buy bottled water it's consumption has become almost criminal in our
society.
Furthermore, it's my council person who wants to spearhead this & how I ended up in his ward
was
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 39
never clear to me in the first place--the changing ward boundaries also anger me & I never voted
for him--don't even remember his name since he's never bothered to contact his constituents. (I
did a search a while back, but short on time to look again & get this to you by the deadline.)
I AM TOTALLY AGAINST THIS PROPOSED BAN!!
Thanks,
Harold Nast
Zarthan Ave. S.
9/1/15
I understand the complaint of plastic bags but I'm not sure how not letting stores use them will
solve the problem. For one, I will just be buying plastic bags to use because I need them for cat
litter. So I have reused all my bags for that.
Janice Roers
9/1/15
Hi Kala, I can't make it to the listening session, but please share my input. I question if this is
what city government should be doing, regulating something like this. To extend this logic
couldn't I argue that if we really want to save the environment the city should regulate what
temperature we keep out houses at in the winter, or how long we're allowed to shower. To me the
bag idea is as silly as my ideas. We already have the option to choose not to take a plastic bag at
checkout, why force the decision. I am against moving forward with this proposal.
Thanks- Jeff Schulman, SLP resident.
9/1/15
Let's catch up with the Californians and be the front runners in Minnesota!
Let's show The rest of the state how modern green and forward thinking St. Louis Park is!
We we have plastic in our food- plastic in our water .
We are killing ourselves with plastic!
we can do a better
Many other bag options out there now!!
Joan Solomon
9/1/15
Hi. I am writing because I am unable to attend the meeting, and would like to share my opinion.
From what I have read, plastic bags will be eliminated, and there will be a fee for paper bags, as
they are more costly than plastic. Personally, I reuse my plastic bags as trash liners, and clean up
bags for my pet. I also have a family of seven, and would find the additional fee for paper bags
daunting, and quite unnecessary. The impact on my large family would be noticeable over time. I
honestly often forget my reusable bags in my car or home - however, if there were a fee for
paper, I would have no qualms about running out of the checkout line to go get them. That said, I
believe that a fee for plastic bags is a sensible resolution. It would discourage patrons from using
them, unless they had a reason to do so. This would limit the use of plastic bags, and be a good
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 40
solution for those who would like to continue to have the option of plastic bags at the checkout in
our stores. I hope that this suggestion can be taken under consideration. Why charge for what
you want people to use - charge for what you don’t want people to use.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jordana Brown
9/1/15
Dear Ms Fisher,
I support the proposal to ban plastic bags at grocery and drug stores. When I moved from Canada
to the USA in 1993 I have been constantly disappointed by how much LESS environmentally
friendly the Americans are vs in Canadians, especially in big cities. An example: For least 25
years shoppers in Toronto have had to bring their own bags or purchase heavy duty plastic at
the check out counter. Free flimsy plastic were not an option. I would like to see that here.
Sincerely,
Karen Bebchuk
Pennsylvania Ave S, St Louis Park 55426
9/1/15
Hi Karla,
I have been a resident in St. Louis Park for more than 15 years. I am unable to attend the event
on Wednesday evening regarding the plastic bag session and would like to voice my opinion.
First, I do not believe it is the government's role to tell private businesses they can no longer
provide plastic bags to their customers. I find it very silly that our government is even spending
the time this matter. I think there are more pressing issues in our community. Second, I like
having the plastic bags. I reuse them for many things; 1) picking up pet waste; 2) lining
bathroom garbage cans; 3) disposing of fish guts, chicken bones, meat scraps, etc...without using
an expensive bag. If this law goes into effect many people will need to buy these bags, which is
an extra expense and dare I say "tax". Third, It will force people to buy bags when they forget to
bring one into the store. Especially people from outside the community. This will frustrate
customers and could reduce consumerism in St. Louis Park.
Please voice my concerns at the meeting or at least take my opinion into consideration when
making a decision.
Thank you,
Karen Chenvert
9/1/15
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 41
I just purchased and closed on my first house in St.Louis Park on Friday. So I would like to say
as a new resident that I fully support the ban of plastic bags for environmental and human health
reasons. I hope that the city makes sure to reach out to many residents as this listening session is
sponsored by industry and thus I have a concern that not all perspectives will be represented.
Thanks!
Kate Davenport
Kala,
I mistyped and meant tomorrow night for the listening session.
I did want to correct my personal statement, some of the industry groups sent out a flyer and at
first glance it looks like they are sponsoring the listening session. I know that the session itself is
not sponsored by industry.
Kate Davenport
9/1/15
I use a ton of plastic bags when I take my dogs for walks. What else would we use?
Linda Richardson-Beaird
9/1/15
Kala – I think this is a crazy idea – like it’s someone’s pet peeve.
My (hopefully thought-provoking) questions:
• I shop outside of St Louis Park. So, does that mean I can’t bring the plastic bags back to
St Louis Park?
• Would I be able to reuse them, if I have them?
• Does this include my kitchen garbage? If so, that’s just plain silly.
• What about donations to food shelves by charitable organizations such as “Scouting for
Food” or “Stamp out Hunger”? They leave a plastic bag today (many times left in the
rain). Would they have to drop off paper bags in the future?
While I prefer paper bags and opt for them when appropriate, plastic bags do serve a purpose for
wet items.
I religiously recycle my plastic bags, but only know of one drop off area (Lunds and Byerlys). I
think it would be a better solution to have more recycling options available instead.
Respectfully,
Mary
9/1/15
Please put the ban in place! Wonderful initiative.
Meredith Homans
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 42
9/1/15
Hi, I am a st Louis Park planning commissioner and I have 34 years in the plastic industry
although not plastic bags.
I am hear to advocate to not prohibit plastic bags as we use them at home for our garbage. We
have a special holder that perfectly holds the bags for this.
After all, if we did not use plastic point of sale bags we'd have to buy plastic bags which is still
using a bag and adding more waste.
There are all sorts of things that pos bags can be made into instead of eliminating them.
Thanks,
Robert Kramer
9/1/15
I'd like to see them banned. People have many options (reuse paper bags, boxes, cloth bags,
etc). I sometimes forget my reusable bags in the car and go without in the store. Then bag once
I get to the car.
This is the price I pay for my short memory, but I'm learning.
On a sidenote, often store purchase the cheapest bags and they have holes in the seams by the
time you get home so they cannot even be reused.
My vote, do away with them please.
Sally Dahlstrom
Hi Kala
Thank you for your response.
One more quick thought. I cleanup 2 parks and 1 section of frontage road. Of all things l pick
up, it's plastic in all it's various forms. I have almost as much recycling that I take home as I do
actual trash that the city picks up.
Food for thought.
Sally Dahlstrom
9/1/15
After listening to the panel experts, it seems that a conscientious consumer will use a
polypropylene "reusable" bag whenever possible even if the carbon footprint takes 26 uses to
make it worthwhile. Or, the wise consumer will reuse the disposable bag as a trash can
liner. Or, the responsible consumer will say "no thank you" to the bag when carrying a single
item from the retailer.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 43
I do all three depending upon the occasion.
It seems to me a "re-use" attitude toward disposable bags is smarter than a ban as backed up by
information provided at that panel discussion by the state expert.
Thanks for encouraging feedback :)
Sue Grey
9/1/15
Hi,
I just want to let you know that we (household of 4) are against the plastic bag ban!
We use (reuse) the bags that we get with our store purchases to line our garbage waste baskets.
Because we reuse these bags WE DO NOT HAVE TO BUY TRASH BAGS!
If you ban them we will have to BUY TRASH BAGS !!!
We are poor and we do not want this additional expense on our very limited financial resources!
Do some research on the internet and you will discover that these Bag Bans are actually quite
STUPID! They do not actually help the environment very much. And in our case we will be
forced to buy trash bags to replace the ones we used to get free. I'm sure that many other poor
people do reuse them for trash like we do.
I am okay with banning Styrofoam food containers as they can easily be replaced with
other substances.
William Nusbaum
9/2/15
Hi Karla,
I write as a continuous resident of Saint Louis Park since 1975.
I am concerned that the city is considering limiting our choices of grocery bags.
It is not the role of municipal government to tell us what sort of bags we are allowed to bring our
groceries home in.
I consider this serious government over-reach and unwarranted government control of our
choices.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 44
The same goes for coffee cups. We have enough government control of our lives without adding
more.
Thank you for considering my opinion.
Sincerely,
Robert DeWaay
Xenwood Ave. S.
Saint Louis Park, MN 55416
9/2/15
Hello,
In case SLP staff weren’t aware of it already, I recently discovered the law in Delaware requiring
plastic bag collection at stores that use plastic bags.
http://delcode.delaware.gov/title7/c060/sc09/index.shtml
I personally find this to be one of the best options, given that it allows store owners to maintain
their choice of bags, but also acknowledges that they have to take responsibility for the materials
they use. To a certain degree it is similar to Extended Producer Responsibility, except its
Extended Retailer Responsibility.
Looking forward to tonight’s discussion.
Emily
Kentucky Ave S
9/16/15
Dear Kala,
I'm writing to express my support for a ban of single-use plastic bags and Styrofoam in St Louis
Park. I live near 36th St and as I walk my dog, I notice that the sides of the road are littered with
plastic bags. Plastic bag trash is also a problem in and around Minnehaha Creek.
I feel that our community could serve as a leader by banning single use plastic bags and
Styrofoam. Change isn't always easy but we need to make adjustments to our lives if we are
hoping to keep the earth healthy for the next generations. Not using plastic bags and Styrofoam
are a small price to pay in the big picture. I understand it would have an impact on businesses but
where it's already been implemented it's been a success. I would love for St Louis Park to set an
example for other cities our size.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 45
Thanks for your time on this. Please let me know if there are other ways to get involved.
Warm regards,
Kate Rime
W 334th St
RECORD OF VERBAL COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESIDENTS
5/13/15 – Deanna Gordon – Plastic bags are used by elderly population to dispose of sanitary
products.
5/21/15 – Dolores Cordes – If vegetable bags in grocery stores were banned that it would be a
disaster, she would not be in favor. Requested notes from the Listening Session, sent 9/10/15.
8/14/15 – Peggy Hilgers – plastic bags, doesn’t put plastic bags in recycling, uses them in her
garbage. Concerned about people who use plastic bags for garbage containers or diapers.
8/14/15 – Ken Nelson – Upset that Council member won’t return call. Not in favor of banning.
Only thinks it’s a feel good, doesn’t make a change in the waste stream. Doesn’t feel it takes
valuable resources, it takes a by-product. There’s more plastic leaving the store inside the
shopping bag than the shopping bags themselves.
8/14/15 – Yosef Heifler – Not the city’s place to create this type of ban. It is not very common.
It is people’s personal choice to choose, for the things that are legal to not put restrictions or bans
on them.
8/17/15 – Carol Cleary – Uses plastic bags, especially at grocery store (or other retail counter)
likes using plastic to separate her meat, dairy, and frozen foods. Educating the public with facts
on what plastic does to the environment and wildlife instead. Recycles and reuses plastic bags, a
person would have to buy plastic to replace plastic, does it make sense economically to replace,
defeats the purpose. Stresses educating the public through newspapers or neighborhood
newsletters. Actively recycles plastic bags at Cub. Worked with Arnie Carlson prior to his
appointment to governor position and worked on recycling at legislature. Polystyrene ban she
understands and supports.
8/19/15 Sonja Christopherson W. Lake St. – Concerned because of all of the burdens on
residents with all of the other things going on in the park with road construction and that they
should just wait and let other cities try first. Not in favor of the ban and wants Council to just
leave it alone.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 46
8/19/15 Stacy Rud – Wants more places for recycling plastic bags, prefers using plastic bags,
concerns that many people will not keep reusable bags clean.
8/20/15 Ruth Nelson – Concern over elderly, seniors, who use adult incontinence products and
reuse plastic shopping bags to for disposal and to avoid odors.
9/1/15 Sharon Schaefer – Concern that a ban will be costly for consumers to have to buy
different bags. Feels that bags are such a small percentage of the waste stream and is currently
incinerated for energy at the HERC.
RECORD OF RESIDENT COMMENTS PROVIDED AT LISTENING SESSION
Written comments from 9/2/15 Listening Session
E. Reierson –SLP Resident, I believe I represent many of your constituents. As an
environmentalist and the manager of a household, I recycle all plastic bags not re-used for
another purpose. I often re-use plastic bags as garbage bags – for diaper pails and bathroom
garbage. After switching from a large garbage bin to a small one and adding organics recycling
to my home, my main garbage (kitchen) has reduced greatly, to be contained in a single reusable
bag, such as the ones I receive from ordering Chinese or shopping at Target. If you ban them, I
will purchase them. Don’t ban, improve recycling opportunities! [Re: Polystrene] I will say, I
support take out containers going to recyclable or compostable. Polystyrene is not recyclable and
I am willing to pay more to know I am not contributing to landfills.
Amy Altman – SLP Resident, Outstanding event in terms of format, organization, and brevity.
Thank you! I learned a lot.
Summary of verbal comments from 9/2/15 Listening Session
Marilyn Tursich – Discussed past fads to use plastic instead of paper. Buying garbage bags
doesn’t help plastic bag reduction, if they are banned she can’t reuse the plastic shopping bags,
concerns over cleanliness of reusable bags, will take business elsewhere to avoid the bans.
Emily Barker – Plastic bags are not a clear environmental winner, paper bags have problems too.
Community should encourage reusable options and reuse of plastic bags, ban is band aid for
behavioral issue, small percent of waste stream in Minnesota. Plastic bags and wrap is 6% of
waste stream but most is boat wraps. Recyclable compostable paper is much larger part of waste
stream, and city has an organics recycling program for this material. Food waste 18% of waste
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 47
stream, grocery stores and restaurants have recovery programs and both these things should be
promoted more. Litter issues cited as she found beverage containers and straws when
participating in local cleanup, these more than plastic bags. Fees are more advantageous in
changing behavior, state of Delaware requires takeback/recycling. Local stores already have
great programs. Goal of policy choice doesn’t seem clear. Define goals, if you can’t define them
and make it clear, it’s not worth doing it.
Patti Carlson – More education about reusable bags, about reusing plastic bags for different uses
in the home and outside. It won’t reduce use, she will just have to buy more. Uses paper bags for
many options recycling, bringing donations to the food shelf. They are useful. Used for putting
shredded paper in recycle. Need to do education. Stated concerns over disease transmission
issue. Reusable bags are dirty if not washed regularly and cause cross contamination on
conveyor belts. Education on washing of bags is essential.
Articles referenced by Ms. Carlson, provided for the record:
1. http://www.foodsafety.gov/blog/reusable_bags.html
2. http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0313/gaz04.html
3. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-02-04/the-disgusting-consequences-of-liberal-
plastic-bag-bans
4. http://sustainableliving.uconn.edu/articles/reusablebags.php
5. https://fighttheplasticbagban.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/bacterial-and-viral-health-hazards-
of-reusable-shopping-bags.pdf
Paula Evensen – Not every good idea needs to be a law, any ordinance that has a long list of
exceptions shouldn’t be a law. Reuses bags for many reasons.
Hillary Feder – St Louis park is forerunner on many issues including recycling and has grown,
by the education provided by the city. Wants city to educate consumers on reusing plastic, paper,
reusable bags including keeping reusable bags clean. Incentives and recycling information for
businesses and consumers. People like options and don’t want to be told what to do.
Daryl Eastburg – Solution looking for a problem, don’t see the point. Need to provide education.
Doesn’t think the argument of traveling outside SLP to shop due to policy holds weight. Will it
save money, will it make any difference?
Margaret Rog – Typically would be in support for symbolic reasons to help people care more
and think about their choices. Not sure of what the solution is, in favor of a positive solution. Is
the city interested in investing in reusable bags and promoting reusable bags at low or no cost to
encourage positive change rather than choosing a ban?
Steve Parson – Appreciates that Council is pushing the issues. Was in favor of banning plastic
bags, and have learned a lot from the process, is now undecided. Wants St. Louis Park to
continue to be a leader in the area of the environment.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 48
RECORD OF WRITTEN COMMENTS BY BUSINESSES
8/24/15
Dear Kala Fischer,
In response to the Twin West Chamber’s request for editorial comments on St. Louis Park’s
proposed ban on plastic bags, I offer the following comments:
Finding the time and money to effectively prioritize and implement even the most meritorious of
community initiatives is difficult enough without considering those that can’t and won’t deliver a
robust ROI and could justly be regarded as onerous and obtuse. As a consumer, I have many
repurpose uses for a retailer’s plastic bags and would frankly miss having this ancillary
household item available to my family. As a business owner, we use plastic bags because they
are preferred over their paper counterparts for the often heavy, breakable, liquid products we sell.
While not likely in this age of disposable convenience, a meaningful effort to minimize landfill
waste would be to ban disposable diapers. Their toxicity footprint is HUGE
http://www.smallfootprintfamily.com/dangers-of-disposable-diapers
Thank you for the opportunity to share another perspective.
Best,
K Y L E S I M O N S O N C E O
Corporate Office | 13950 Grove Drive | Suite #300 | Maple Grove, MN 55311
w w w . s i m o n s o n s . c o m
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 49
St. Louis Park • 3777 Park Center Blvd. • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • 952.929.2100 • LUNDSandBYERLYS.com
August 31, 2015
Dear St. Louis Park City Council Members,
Lunds & Byerlys is a local, family-owned company that has been in business since 1939.
We have 26 retail stores throughout the Twin Cities and surrounding area and employ nearly
4,000 employees. In St. Louis Park, we have one store location serving the community and
employ more than 200 full and part-time employees.
On behalf of Lunds & Byerlys, we respectfully appreciate the City of St. Louis Park giving us the
opportunity to provide our comments on the regulation of point-of-sale plastic bags in the city.
As active members of our community, Lunds & Byerlys is progressive in our dedication to
promoting a sustainable environment in St. Louis Park. We are committed to voluntary recycling
and waste reduction programs within our store. Some of those efforts include:
Reuse & Reward: For every reusable bag a customer brings in for us to bag their groceries,
we donate five cents to Second Harvest Heartland to help fight hunger. We launched our
Reuse & Reward program in 2008 and, to date, we’ve donated more than $365,000.
Plastic Bag Recycling: We encourage the recycling of all plastic bags through a program
called “It’s in the Bag.” We have recycling bins near the front entrance of every store. The bags
are recycled into composite lumber used to make decks and railings.
Food Donations: Another way we help fight hunger in the communities we serve is by
donating nearly two million pounds of food each year to Second Harvest Heartland. For those
food products we don’t consider consumable, we donate much of it to local farmers to feed
their pigs.
St. Louis Park’s sustainability efforts should be centered around proven voluntary initiatives that
work within the existing structures. It makes sense to expand on current successes while
promoting efficient systems that demonstrate tangible results. Comprehensive recycling programs
that leverage investment in current programs are convenient, cost-effective, and sustainable, while
incentivizing city residents to make environmentally friendly choices.
Providing our customers with choices is our top priority. Consumer’s wants, needs, and demands
drive our business model. We have strong concerns that dictating behavior through public policy
will create a multitude of unintended consequences. City-by-city policy approaches create a direct
market disadvantage to local businesses that elected officials strive to promote. As an incredibly
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 50
St. Louis Park • 3777 Park Center Blvd. • St. Louis Park, MN 55416 • 952.929.2100 • LUNDSandBYERLYS.com
mobile society, consumers will make the choice that best fit their needs. Neighboring communities
such as Golden Valley, Edina, Hopkins, Minneapolis and Minnetonka could potentially see a
windfall of increased business due to the restrictions placed on businesses within this community.
Lunds & Byerlys is incredibly proud to be a part of the St. Louis Park community and serve its
residents and businesses with our brand of extraordinary food, exceptional service and
passionate expertise. We’re also honored to give back to the community through donations to
local organizations who share our commitment to making St. Louis Park a great place to live
and work.
Thank you for the opportunity to be a part of the discussion. We look forward to more dialogue on
this issue as the process develops. We will be contacting you shortly for a tour of our store in
St. Louis Park to provide greater insight into how your decisions affect our industry. Please feel
free to use us as a resource.
Sincerely,
Ross Huseby
General Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 51
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 52
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 53
RECORD OF VERBAL COMMENTS BY BUSINESSES
5/14/2015 Manager –Walgreens. Wondered if it was already in effect. Wondered if the City
would be sending out notification to businesses once a decision was made.
5/22/15 Owners – Nutrishop at the West End. Would like the city to make recommendations on
alternative bags, and is concerned that Minnesotans don’t want to bring reusable bags into the
store.
6/19/15 Minneapolis Golf Club-Clubhouse. Curious about both potential bans, timelines,
opportunities to provide input, what they need to do.
RECORD OF BUSINESS COMMENTS PROVIDED AT LISTENING SESSION
Written comments from 9/2/15 Listening Session
Rod Shilkrot – AAA Minneapolis, We use plastic for TripTiks, store merchandise, purchases and
travel documents – not in large volumes considering we have annual walk-ins of more than
2000,000. While this ban would be costly to us, I believe we would be interested in learning
more about reusable bags and take-back programs.
Gayle Gaumer – (Also provided verbal comment of same) Gael’s Gourmet, Small takeout and
delivery businesses like ours have no choice. Food has to be delivered in bags – sandwiches,
salads, cheesecake slices, pop. Pizza is delivered in a cardboard box, but that’s only 30% of our
business. Ultimate cost of fees for bags is $15 – 25,000 (depending on fee amount) one full time
employee. We’re a small start-up. The impact on the City from the ban will be minimal. The
impact from the ban might be to put us out of business. We’re not the only business whose costs
would increase while losing business. Requiring recycling of all recyclable material, at all
commercial premises would be a far more effective step. Reusable bags are irrelevant when
delivering to hotel guests from out of town, individuals and groups, tourists, sports teams,
conventioneers, wedding and funeral groups, etc.
Summary of verbal comments from 9/2/15 Listening Session
Phil Weber – Park Tavern owner. Said just ordered 12000 plastic bags for his business instead of
paper and according to company website this saved 12 trees, 1300 gallons of water, 100 cars off
the road, etc. Supports environmental initiatives but not this ban. Believes it is not hugely
impactful to the city, things have to be done that make sense, look at the facts, not too late to
change mind. Change for the sake of change is not always the best change.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 54
Mike Medeck – Holiday Stores – wants consumers to have a choice on bags, concern over the
impacts of convenience to customers.
Brad Spencer – Once Upon a Child – Representing the St. Louis Park store. This store has been
at the forefront of recycling, been here since 1993, resale of many products which saved from
going to landfill. Julie, store owner, thinks a ban could have a $6-10,000 economic impact.
Already provides incentives for reusable bags, does reusable bag promotions. Concern that
consumers want choice to be able to take a bag . Notes that their competitors are under 10 miles
away. Concerns over shoplifting if people are using reusables. Want to encourage recycling.
Bags are 100% recyclable. Support small biz.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 55
RECORD OF WRITTEN COMMENTS BY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
8/31/15
Hello Kala, Scott, and members of the SLP City Council,
My colleague Madalyn Cioci and I wanted to provide an update on MPCA policy stance
regarding single-use bags.
The MPCA has no plans to pursue policy on single-use shopping bags at the state level and is not
specifically promoting any policies at the local level.
However, if a community is already discussing possible action on shopping bags, as is the case in
St. Louis Park, the MPCA suggests policy that incentivizes reusables over disposables (fee
on both plastic and paper) while leaving citizens the option to still choose paper or plastic based
on which one they are most likely to reuse and/or recycle in their community. At the same time,
MPCA encourages continued promotion of reusable bags and working with retailers,
manufacturers, or haulers for more convenient and effective opportunities for recycling plastic
bags.
This type of policy supports the overall goal of moving material up the waste hierarchy and
incentivizing more reuse, while recognizing that there are environmental impacts with all kinds
of single-use bags. The goal is to reduce use of all single-use bags, but to recognize that for many
people certain single-use bags are frequently reused, which is source reduction and an
environmental benefit. Some people frequently reuse plastic bags (instead of new bags) as trash
or pet waste bags, and may easily return them to retailers for recycling. For others, paper bags
may be reused for shopping, package wrapping, or as trash bags, and are more easily recycled in
their community.
The MPCA is not providing guidance about what the bag fees should be or how revenue is used.
There are many options. For example, communities might want to consider using revenue to
subsidize reusable bags for low-income citizens, to support the retailers who collect the fees, or
to fund other environmental projects.
We hope this information is useful for the upcoming listening session and in future discussions
regarding potential policy related to single-use bags.
Thank you,
Emily Barker
Organics and Recycling Specialist
Sustainable Materials Management Unit, RMAD
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road N
St. Paul, MN 55155
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 56
1
Revised and Extended Remarks of Jonathan Perman,
American Progressive Bag Alliance at the St. Louis Park, MN
City Council “Listening Session”, Sept. 2, 2015
Good evening, members of the St. Louis Park City Council and the Environment and
Sustainability Commission. My name is Jonathan Perman, and I represent the
American Progressive Bag Alliance. We are the trade association for the industry that
both manufactures and recycles plastic bags and plastic film. Thank you for the
opportunity to speak tonight.
It’s wonderful to be here during the State Fair, where there is a marvelous exhibit at the
Eco Experience building called the bagnado, a swirling display of plastic bags and
plastic film packaging, all of which is recyclable.
The message of the exhibit: reuse your plastic bags, and recycle the bags and other
film, which you can bring back to the store where you got them.
But there’s another message at the Eco Experience and that is: plastic bags along with
other types of plastic like milk jugs and detergent bottles can be remade into all sorts of
other products. In Paynesville, MN, near St. Cloud, Master Mark Plastics Co, uses
these recycled materials, including plastic bags, and makes them into composite
decking and all sorts of garden materials. In other areas of the country, Trex makes
plastic lumber from recycled plastic bags.
Unlike a can or glass bottle, which are truly single-use items, our industry really is part
of what we call Minnesota’s Reuse economy, which according to the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, employs 46,000 people and generates $4 billion in gross
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 57
2
sales each year. Plastic bags are reused for a variety of household uses including trash
can liners, lunch bags, pet waste, diapers, and carrying shoes in Minnesota winters – or
during any season for that matter.
Yes, there is a growing after-market for plastic bags. That’s why companies like
Novolex has built the world’s largest closed-loop recycling facility. In North Vernon, IN,
plastic bags, as well as film and wraps, which have been collected all over the Midwest
and beyond, are brought to this facility and turned into new plastic bags. The recycled
resin not only maintains its strength but is competitive with the cost of making a bag with
new plastic. Plastic bags today can have up to 40% post-consumer content, which
approaches what some paper bags are. So, the fact is, our industry has a great
incentive to see recycling rates improve here in St. Louis Park and to help educate
consumers.
If you were to go into the back of the St. Louis Park Home Depot, Target, or Cub Foods,
you would see trucks unloading pallets of product wrapped in plastic film. But instead of
going back empty, some of those trucks are filled with the same plastic wrap and plastic
bags that have been returned, and they are transported to recycling facilities.
But as the Minnesota Pollution Control Board told you earlier this summer: when
considering St. Louis Park’s environmental policy, it’s important to not just focus on the
end of life of a product but to also look at its beginning.
So what is the beginning of a plastic bag? First of all, let me dispel one of the great
myths about plastic bags. They are not made from oil, not one drop. Rather, they are
made from a by-product of natural gas. When natural gas is refined, ethane is removed
to lower the BTU level so the gas can be safely delivered. But for the plastics industry
that ethane would be flared off. Instead, natural gas refiners capture the ethane, turn it
into polyethylene, and that is what is used to make a plastic bag.
The supply, demand, and price of fossil fuels have absolutely nothing to do with plastic
bags because all our industry uses is a by-product of what is refined. If all plastic bags
in the world were banished or if the number of plastic bags tripled in use, it would have
no bearing on fossil fuels.
Where are plastic bags made? Nearly all are made in the U.S. In fact, 30,000 people
are employed in this industry providing good jobs and good wages. The tote bags,
which you see here, are made of a thicker oil-based polypropylene, and are all made
overseas. One thing St. Louis Park might ask itself is: why would the community
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 58
3
encourage the substitution of a product made in the U.S., that is a by-product of natural
gas, for a product made overseas that is oil-based?
Now, admittedly, some plastic bags do end up in the waste stream and in landfills; or in
the case of Hennepin County, energy recovery facility. So what is the impact of plastic
bags in the waste stream? A lot less than you would think.
Across the nation, plastic bags make up about one-half of one percent of the waste
stream. According to the 2013 MN Waste Characterization Study, published by the
MPCA, all plastic bags and film plastic make up 5% of the waste stream at the St. Paul
transfer station. But plastic bags are such a small percentage of that 5%, the study
didn’t even break them out statistically. The nearest state that does is Iowa, where
plastic bags make up 0.3% of the waste stream, a number typical of what you see in
other states.
According to the U.S. EPA, in 2010, 660,000 tons of HDPE bags were discarded
(mostly in landfills), about 0.28% of all waste generated in the U.S. By comparison, the
nation discarded slightly more “reusable” polypropylene bags (680,000 tons), of which
none were recycled.
But we all need something to carry our stuff around in, right? So how does a
community which is carefully considering environmental impact, choose between
plastic, paper, tote bags, cloth, cotton?
The best way to compare the environmental impact of bags is to look at Life-Cycle
Analyses, which examine the raw material, manufacturing process, transportation and
distribution, use, reuse, and finally, end-of-life. In numerous studies, using greenhouse
gas emissions as the standard, plastic bags actually have the least environmental
impact.
While a small fraction of cities in the U.S. have regulated bags, no city that we know of
has ever proven that their ordinance has reduced bag consumption, reduced litter, or
achieved any meaningful environmental goal.
For example, in Washington, D.C., where a 5-cent fee was to be mainly used for clean-
up of the Anacostia River, it was found that most of money was spent on overhead
administrative costs. In Austin, TX , their bag ban has resulted in people buying bags
for purposes that they once used a plastic bag for. Further, reusable bags now make
up the same proportion of their waste stream as did all the plastic bags before the ban.
In Corvallis, OR, there are no metrics at all that show a reduction in bag use, the waste
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 59
4
stream, or other environmental improvements. Officials there even suggest that some
residents are no longer shopping in Covallis.
Other cities which passed bag regulations have now repealed them including: Dallas,
Ft. Collins, CO, and Huntington Beach, CA.
Those cities that have continued to regulate bags may feel good about themselves but if
that is the only basis for their public policy, without any metrics, than one might ask,
why?
This is indeed a complex issue and I hope we have brought some clarity and facts for
you tonight.
If there really is in St. Louis Park a great calling to do something about plastic bags,
then we would be privileged to help be a resource for efforts that would focus on
reduction, reuse, and robust recycling education.
But you may also come to the conclusion, as have other cities, that there are other
environmental issues, some of which you are already engaged in, that can have a much
more powerful impact on St. Louis Park and the world.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 60
RECORD OF STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS FROM LISTENING SESSION
Summary of verbal comments from 9/2/15 Listening Session
Brad Meier – TwinWest Chamber Recognizes SLP as a leader in environment, continue to carefully
consider proposals. Biggest concern is punitive effects of ban, not negatively affect biz development,
competitors in neighboring communities, pass on of costs to consumers, consider goals continuously,
they already encourage recycling efforts, incentives based approach.
Dan McElroy – MN Restaurant Assoc. Restaurants have a growing portion of business as take out
delivery. Plastic bags are helpful due to greasy food and spills during transport. Most of the cities that
have banned plastic bags have given exemptions to restaurants. Some pilots by restaurants are using
PLA bags [which are compostable], but they are more expensive. Others use paper bags with a plastic
liner. Technology is changing but need time to allow environmental, economic costs.
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Plastic Bag Listening Session Check-in Page 61
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Written Report: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Renewable Energy Power Purchasing Agreement Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action needed. This report is to provide an update on
pursuing a contract for renewable energy purchasing based on responses to the Request for
Proposal (RFP) developed and a recommendation from Staff and two members of Environment
and Sustainability Commission.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council agree to continue to support the use of renewable
solar electrical energy through a power purchasing agreement to offset a portion of the electrical
consumption of city operations? Please advise staff of any questions or concerns you might have.
SUMMARY: The city uses nearly 8 million kWh per year for buildings, lighting, water
production, and general operation at a cost of over $600,000. All or a portion of this usage could
be offset by solar through subscribing to a CSG (Community Solar Garden) for up to 25 years.
• Community Solar Garden (CSG) developers are actively seeking subscribers to
participate in solar projects they hope to have constructed in 2016.
• This timing allows locking in the current energy credit rate provided by Xcel Energy and
advantage of Federal Tax Credits, allowing a favorable rebate structure for consumers
who have entered into agreements.
• The recently adopted Environmental Preferred Purchasing Policy supports the use of
renewal energy for City operations.
• In addition, on April 7, 2015 the Environment and Sustainability Commission
recommended pursuing a subscription to a CSG. Xcel Energy has limited the size of
CSG’s and the Public Utilities Commission approved the proposed limit. Approximately
half of the City’s electricity could be offset through this program, despite the small size
of CSG’s allowed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: A slight reduction in annual energy costs is
anticipated in the form of rebates on monthly Xcel billings and could range between 5-10% of
the amount of solar energy contracted for. The amount will vary depending on the developer,
contract details, and actual output of the CSG panels and is estimated at $30-60,000 annual
savings.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Shannon Pinc, Environment and Sustainability Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: Renewable Energy Power Purchasing Agreement Update
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: On July 24, 2015 the following companies were invited to respond to the
City’s Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Community Solar Garden subscription: SoCore,
Geronimo Energy, SolarStone, Solar City, SunEdison, and SunShare. SoCore and Geronimo
Energy did not respond to our RFP but the remaining four companies did. The previous City
Attorney recommended only entering into a no risk contract for services so the City isn’t
vulnerable to energy rate fluctuations. This approach is really only available through index
pricing models, which is what we asked for in the RFP. Of the four responses received, only one
company, SunEdison, responded with the pricing model proposed. All other respondents offered
fixed rate pricing and would not take on the risk of indexed pricing.
SunEdison is a full service provider of solar development with strong financial support and the
longest history of completed projects. SunEdison’s proposal provided additional benefits we
were looking for in proposals. These include:
• SunEdison signed the Pollinator Pledge for creating new habitat healthy for honey
bees and monarch butterflies by planting pollinator friendly native grasses rather
than layer gravel or dirt at their sites.
• SunEdison offered the most in marketing and educational opportunities to engage
residents and other interested parties in community solar garden benefits and
performance data through the following methods:
o An informational kiosk providing real-time data monitoring.
o An online monitoring portal for customers to view performance, including
solar production and facility energy usage.
o Provide tours to students, residents, and visitors and more educational
opportunities for local schools.
o Ribbon-cutting, marketing, and press-releases and award applications.
• SunEdison responded that residents could participate in CSG at the same rate as
the City while other respondents answered that residents could potentially
participate but at a higher rate.
Entering a contractual agreement for a community solar garden subscription ties into the
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy (EP3) approved in June 2015 to implement
renewable electricity whenever economically feasible to eventually reach net zero (carbon-
neutral). Additionally, the GreenStepCities program, which the City of St. Louis Park
participates in, has a best practice (Best Practice #26) for community solar garden participation,
providing an additional opportunity to earn more points in that program.
NEXT STEPS: Staff recommends that we continue to review the details in the proposed
contract. Once review is complete, staff will prepare documents to enter into the contractual
agreement with SunEdison. Unless staff hears objections from the Council, staff will prepare a
Council report with the contract for approval at the October 19, 2015 City Council Meeting.
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
1. Call to Order
President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg
Lindberg, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: Susan Sanger.
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Controller
(Mr. Swanson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to accept for
filing EDA Disbursements for the period July 25, 2015, through August 28, 2015.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Sanger absent).
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. 2016 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption. EDA
Resolution No. 15-18.
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and stated the City has previously used the HRA
levy for infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas and the HRA levy proceeds
are currently paying for the City’s share of the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue project
Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2015
until 2021. He stated that given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the
future, it is recommended that the HRA levy continue at the maximum allowed by law
for 2016, or $1,011,208 based on valuation data from Hennepin County, an increase of
$57,970 or 6.08% from 2015.
It was moved by Commissioner Hallfin, seconded by Commissioner Spano, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 15-18 Authorizing the Proposed Levy of a Special Benefit Levy Pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and Approval of a Preliminary
Budget for Fiscal Year 2016.
President Mavity requested information about the impact of the HRA levy on the
individual homeowner.
Mr. Swanson explained that the City’s ad valorem tax levy is approximately $29 million
and the impact on a median value home is approximately $1,000 with 1/25th attributable
to the HRA levy.
The motion passed 6-0 (Commissioner Sanger absent).
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
President Mavity adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
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 August 29, 2015 through September 25, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in
accordance with Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA Bylaws?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to
review and approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check
and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the EDA’s Bylaws and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Disbursements
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:41:42R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
797.50BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION HWY 7 & LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENT ANALYSIS
797.50
132.00CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
132.00
2,950.00CENTRAL MINNESOTA DEVELOPMENT CO DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,950.00
7,821.28DMD PROPERTIES LLC MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE NOTES PAYABLE-CURRENT PORTION
7,178.72MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
15,000.00
1,250.00GALLAGHER RISK MGMT SERVICES INC, ARTHURDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00
168.00GREEN HORIZONS 7015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP LAND MAINTENANCE
204.004601 HWY 7 PROP ACQUISITION LAND MAINTENANCE
189.00MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE LAND MAINTENANCE
120.00PARK COMMONS G&A LAND MAINTENANCE
681.00
46.25KENNEDY & GRAVEN MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE LEGAL SERVICES
58.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
104.25
312.75LHB ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
312.75
3,000.00LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES
3,000.00
200.00LOUISIANA COURT APARTMENTS HARD COAT G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
200.00
437.50MPCAHWY 7 & LOUISIANA OTHER TECHNICAL SERVICES
437.50
279.00SEHHWY 7 & LOUISIANA SURVEYING
279.00
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 2
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:41:42R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
80,192.61ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB
80,192.61
200.00ST LOUIS PARK SUNRISE ROTARY DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
200.00
Report Totals 105,536.61
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 5a)
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 3
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution requesting the City Council
to call for a public hearing relative to the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA wish to request that the City Council hold a
public hearing on November 16, 2015 to consider the establishment of a Redevelopment Tax
Increment Financing District in connection with Oppidan’s proposed 4900 Excelsior project?
SUMMARY: Oppidan Investment Company (“Developer”) proposes to acquire the former Bally
Total Fitness property located at 4900 Excelsior Blvd, raze the building and parking structure
and replace them with a mixed-use (residential and retail) development called 4900 Excelsior.
There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the proposed site.
Consequently Oppidan applied to the EDA for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to
offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the 4900 Excelsior project to proceed. The
Developer’s application was reviewed at the June 8th Study Session as well as the August 17th
Special Study Session where it received favorable support.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to construct the proposed 4900
Excelsior project is approximately $47.7 million. The project is not financially feasible due to
more than $7.1 million of extraordinary site preparation costs. These include: environmental
investigation & reporting, asbestos abatement, building demolition, site preparation, shoring and
structured underground parking. It is proposed that the EDA consider entering into a
redevelopment contract with Oppidan under which the Developer would be reimbursed for
qualified site preparation costs up to $2.6 million in pay-as-you -go tax increment generated by
the project for a term of approximately 6.5 years. That level of assistance would overcome
enough of the extraordinary site costs described above such that it allows the project to achieve a
rate of return sufficient to attract the necessary equity capital to enable the project to proceed.
Setting a hearing date for the proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District does not, in itself, authorize
or commit the EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it
simply enables the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district.
The EDA will have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along
with other business terms in the near future. Those terms will be incorporated into a
redevelopment contract with Oppidan which will be brought to the EDA for formal consideration
the same evening as the proposed TIF district public hearing.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
TIF Schedule
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MODIFICATION OF
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Commissioners (the “Board”) of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority (the “EDA”) as follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the
“City”) established Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, inclusive, as amended (the “EDA Act”), in an effort to encourage
the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City, and transferred
the administration of the Project to the EDA; and
WHEREAS, the EDA is proposing a modification of the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project and the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District within the
Project, pursuant to and in accordance with the EDA Act and Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.174 to 469.1794, as amended.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board as follows:
1. The EDA hereby requests that the Council call for a public hearing on November 16, 2015
to consider the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for the
Project and the proposed adoption of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900
Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District (collectively, the “Plans”) and cause notice of
said public hearing to be given as required by law.
2. The EDA directs the Executive Director to transmit copies of the Plans to the Planning
Commission of the City and requests the Planning Commission's written opinion indicating
whether the proposed Plans are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City,
prior to the date of the public hearing.
3. The Executive Director of the EDA is hereby directed to submit a copy of the Plans to the
Council for its approval.
4. The EDA directs the Executive Director to transmit the Plans to the county and the school
district in which the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District is located not later
than October 16, 2015.
5. Staff and consultants are authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to prepare the
Plan and related documents and to undertake other actions necessary to bring the Plan before
the Council.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority on October 5, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
ASAP Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources
and uses of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
October 5, 2015 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
October 5, 2015 City Council calls for a public hearing.
October 5, 2015 Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued
on the property to be included in the TIF District.
N/A County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45 days
prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to
review the TIF Plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by
the development. Because the City staff believes that the proposed tax
increment financing district may require county road improvements, the
TIF Plan will be forwarded to the County Board 45 days prior to the
public hearing.
October 6, 2015 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of a potential redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or before October 6, 2015]
October 16, 2015 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and
mail on or before October 16, 2015.]
October 21, 2015 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in
compliance with City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution
approving the Plans.
October 26, 2015 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
Nov 5, 2015 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not
more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to
the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor on or before October 29, 2015 at
sunlegals@ecm-inc.com]
Nov 16, 2015 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
Nov 16, 2015 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment
of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District and passes
resolution approving the Plans. [Ehlers will email Council packet
information to the City on or before November 9, 2015]
Nov 17, 2015 City can issue building permits.
___________ Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an
authority under section 469.175, subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under
section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Proclamation Honoring Mental Illness Awareness Week
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Mayor is asked to read and present a proclamation to
Jeanne Wolfe and Don Andersen, citizens involved in Health in the Park’s Mental Health
Initiative.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
BACKGROUND: The Health in the Park Well-Being Citizen Action Team is focusing its
efforts on the community’s desire to address growing mental health needs. This mental health
initiative’s goal is to reduce the stigma surrounding mental illness and make it OK to talk about
and seek help for mental illness.
The mental health initiative is kicking off a fall campaign during Mental Illness Awareness
Week, October 5-11 with both a City and School District proclamation and efforts to deepen and
broaden the conversation. Mental Health classes are currently being offered, free of charge or for
a nominal fee, through Community Education. The St. Louis Park library is highlighting mental
health topics, literature, DVDS, and resources during the month of October and is hosting a
Make It OK class on Thursday October 22 from 7-8 pm.
Jeanne Wolfe, citizen of St. Louis Park, and LPCC (Licensed Professional Clinical Counselor)
brings her wide range of experience’s working with young children and their families as well as
adolescents and adults to the mental health initiative.
Don Andersen was raised in St. Louis Park. While living just over the border, Don works,
worships, and cheers on his grandchildren in St. Louis Park. Don’s experience with mental
illness brings insight, wisdom and energy to the mental health initiative.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proclamation
Prepared by: Laura Smith, Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Proclamation Honoring Mental Illness Awareness Week
PROCLAMATION
Mental Illness Awareness Week
October 5 – 11, 2015
WHEREAS, Mental well-being is important for people of all ages,
races, social classes and walks of life; and
WHEREAS, Mental health emerged as a high priority in community
conversations sponsored by the Health in the Park initiative; and
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park recognizes the importance of
supporting our friends, families, neighbors and colleagues in maintaining
optimal well-being; and
WHEREAS, The stigma surrounding mental illness prevents many
people from seeking the help they need to achieve mental well-being; and
WHEREAS, The Make it OK campaign promotes open communication
about, and reduced stigma surrounding, mental illness;
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council
of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, do hereby proclaim its commitment
to helping improve the mental well-being of all citizens of the City and
challenges everyone to 1) learn how to reduce the stigma surrounding mental
illness through the Make it OK campaign and 2) take the Make it OK pledge
during 2015 Mental Illness Awareness Week, October 5 – 11.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause
the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park
to be affixed this 5th day of October, 2015.
_________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Presentation: 2b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Health in the Park Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Volunteer Health in the Park action team members will provide
an update on current Health in the Park Action Team initiatives, and year three goals and
priorities.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: Health in the Park is in the third year of funding from the Blue Cross Blue
Shield’s Center of Prevention. Citizen led Action Teams have been partnering with St. Louis
Park partners to advocate for policy, system and environment changes related to physical
activity, nutrition and well-being for St. Louis Park residents.
On Monday night HIP Volunteers Lynda Enright and Jeanne Wolfe will make a brief
presentation on the following:
• Update of current Health in the Park initiatives.
• Goals and priorities for year three of Health in the Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Laura Smith, Wellness and Volunteer Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Presentation: 2c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Recognition of Donations
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and give thanks and appreciation for the
following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda:
From Amount For
David Kane & Joann Shaughnessy Kane,
Robert & Lila Aske, Rocky Massie, and
Stephen Williams
Donations
totaling
$105
Care and Management of Westwood
Hills Nature Center’s raptors in
memory of Chris Bohlinger
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 8, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human
Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Fire Chief (Mr. Koering), Director of
Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Planning & Zoning
Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Natural Resources Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Assistant Zoning
Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Rec Center Manager (Mr. Eisold), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Presentation Accepting a Donation from the American Legion to the Fire
Department
Mr. Koering stated he was pleased to share another chapter in the 100-year history of the
Fire Department with the creation of the Fire Department Honor Guard. He thanked the
American Legion for its generous donation, which will be used for the purchase of
equipment to support the new Honor Guard. He introduced Firefighter Adam Lockram.
Mr. Lockram stated he was honored to take the lead of the Fire Department Honor Guard
and thanked the American Legion for its generous gift.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s appreciation to the American Legion for its
generous donation.
2b. 2015 Evergreen Awards
Mr. Vaughan announced the 2015 Evergreen Award winners are Kara and James Leither,
1645 Idaho Avenue; Shirley Brandt, 4251 Ottawa Avenue; and Jenny Schramm, 5020
Minnetonka Boulevard.
Mayor Jacobs congratulated the 2015 Evergreen Award winners and presented an award
certificate to each of the Evergreen Award recipients.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2015
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes August 10, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Special City Council Meeting Minutes August 13, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. Special City Council Meeting Minutes August 24, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3e. Study Session Meeting Minutes August 24, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of July 25, 2015 through
August 28, 2015.
4b. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2474-15 Amending Chapter 3, Section 57,
to Permit Holders of Brewpub and Brewer Off-Sale Malt Liquor Licenses to Sell
Growlers on Sundays; Eliminate Certain Restrictions on Hours of Operation for On-
Sale of Malt Liquor at Brewer Taprooms; and Amending Chapter 3 Section 59 to
Subject Liquor License Renewal Applications to Investigation Fee; and to approve the
summary ordinance for publication.
4c. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Job’s Daughters
Foundation of Minnesota for an event to be held on October 17, 2015, at the Paul
Revere Masonic Center, 6509 Walker Street in St. Louis Park.
4d. Approve First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Section 36-268-PUD 1 Relating to
Zoning by Correcting a Text Error in The Shoreham Planned Unit Development, and
to set Second Reading for September 21, 2015.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-118 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the
water service line at 2929 Texa Tonka Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN, P.I.D. 07-
117-21-44-0038.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 15-119 electing not to waive the statutory tort limits for
liability insurance.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2015
4g. Reject bids for the 2015 Random Concrete Repair Project – Project No. 4015-0003 and
authorize re-advertisement for bids.
4h. Approve increasing the revolving line of credit that the City previously approved for
Homes Within Reach (HWR), also known as West Hennepin Affordable Housing
Land Trust (WHAHLT), from the current amount of $250,000 to $500,000.
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 15-120 authorizing the submission of a Mighty Ducks Grant
application to the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission in the amount of $400,000
for The Rec Center Refrigeration Replacement Project.
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 15-121 supporting the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s
Japs-Olson Stormwater Management project, and to authorize the City Manager to
sign the Stormwater Management Agreement and the Agreement to jointly administer
the Financial Guarantee with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
4k. Adopt Resolution No. 15-122 accepting a $1,500 Donation from the American Legion
Post 282 for the purchase of equipment to support the Fire Department Honor Guard.
4l. Approve for filing Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes May 28, 2015
4m. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes July 15, 2015
4n. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes August 5, 2015
4o. Approve for filing Telecommunications Minutes May 13, 215
It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
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. 2016 Preliminary HRA Levy Certification. Resolution No. 15-123.
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and stated the City has historically used the HRA
levy to fund infrastructure improvements and the HRA levy is currently dedicated
through 2021 to pay the City’s share of the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue project. He
stated that given the City’s significant infrastructure needs, it is recommended that the
2016 HRA levy continue at the maximum allowed by law, calculated at $1,011,208 based
on valuation data from Hennepin County, an increase of $57,970 or 6.08% from 2015.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-123 Authorizing the Preliminary HRA Levy for 2016.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2015
8b. Conditional Use Permit for Excavation at 3700 Monterey Drive. Resolution
No. 15-124.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and stated the City is requesting removal of
approximately 7,000 cubic yards of material for the purpose of constructing the outdoor
recreation complex. He stated the haul route is 36th Street to Highway 100 and it is
anticipated that five days of hauling will be needed with 100 truckloads per day. He
stated that a neighborhood meeting was held on August 12 and there were some concerns
about lighting and noise impacts to the adjacent properties. He explained that the trees
will help with screening and will be enhanced by ten additional conifers and six
deciduous trees. He further advised that a regulator will be installed on the PA system to
make sure it does not exceed City Code noise regulations.
Councilmember Mavity expressed concern about trucks trying to get through the
intersection at 36th and Wooddale during rush hour particularly after the Highway 7
bridge is torn down and asked that the City provide direction to the contractor to keep the
trucks out of this area during rush hour especially when school buses are in the area.
Councilmember Spano did not believe the trucks would create a significant imposition
because there would only be about one truck every 12 minutes going through the
intersection and suggested that staff observe the intersection and address the matter if it
becomes problematic.
Councilmember Mavity requested that staff inform the contractor about avoiding this
intersection to the extent possible during rush hour.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-124 Granting Conditional Use Permit Under Section 36-79 of the St.
Louis Park Ordinance Code Relating to Zoning to Permit Excavation of Approximately
7,000 Cubic Yards of Material from Property Zoned POS Park and Open Space (POS)
District Located at 3700 Monterey Drive.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
8c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Future SWLRT Joint Development.
Resolution No. 15-125.
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and explained that staff has considered a
number of land uses for these properties to better reflect future planning for the site.
Staff has been working with the SWLRT Project Office on a Joint Development for the
Vision Bank site with additional right-of-way owned by the City and would like to
develop these properties together and tuck the parking in a ramp, versus a surface parking
lot. She stated that a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on August
5, and no speakers were present.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-125 Approving an Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for
the City of St. Louis Park Under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2015
8d. First Reading of Ordinance Extending CenterPoint Energy (CPE) Franchise
Ordinance
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and stated the Franchise Agreement with
CenterPoint Energy expires on December 31, 2015, and there is mutual interest to extend
the franchise and the City has expressed a desire to negotiate a long-term agreement,
adding that because of these negotiations and the lengthy approval process, staff
recommends approving a one year extension. He pointed out that the City’s pavement
management program is funded through the franchise fee revenues and the City does not
special assess for projects in the community.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Ordinance No. 2236-
03 Extending the Term of the CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco Franchise, and to set
Second Reading for September 21, 2015.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
8e. First Reading of Ordinance Extending Xcel Energy Franchise Ordinance
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and stated the Franchise Agreement with Xcel
Energy expires on December 31, 2015, and there is mutual interest to extend the
franchise and the City has expressed a desire to negotiate a long-term agreement, adding
that because of these negotiations and the lengthy approval process, staff recommends
approving a one year extension.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Ordinance No. 2086-
97 Extending the Term of the Northern States Power Company Franchise, and to set
Second Reading for September 21, 2015.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
8f. 4900 Excelsior – Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD). Resolution
No. 15-126
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and explained that the developer is proposing to
construct a six story mixed use building that includes a grocery store and 176 apartment
units with 18 affordable housing units. He presented several renderings of the project
and discussed the landscaping and green wall elements proposed for the project. He
stated that the shadow studies determined the project is in compliance with the City
Ordinance and reviewed the changes made by the developer to step back the building on
Park Commons Drive, which reduces the shadowing on the condos across the street. He
advised that the project provides approximately 17% of the lot area for DORA and 21
trees are planned throughout the project as well as numerous shrubs and perennials with
alternative landscaping provided. He stated there are 340 parking spaces provided and
the parking meets the City’s requirements as demonstrated through the shared parking
study. He advised that a traffic study was done by the applicant and SRF Consulting
Group performed subsequent updates to the study to incorporate the proposed
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 8, 2015
development on the Bridgewater site and the study found that Excelsior Boulevard has
sufficient capacity to handle the proposed traffic generated from the site and the overall
level of service at each of the intersections is acceptable with the only projected change
to level of service being the left turns from westbound Excelsior Boulevard to
southbound Quentin Avenue because the queuing lengths are too short, however, the
study did not recommend any changes to the infrastructure in this area. He also reviewed
the public process that has occurred to date.
Councilmember Mavity stated the result of the traffic study is that as a traffic system,
there is sufficient capacity on Excelsior Boulevard even though some intersections have
capacity issues. She stated that Quentin continues to be a problem and requested that
staff consider whether the left turn lanes are adequate and to look at this intersection as
the project moves forward. She requested that staff ensure that the site can accommodate
trash, recycling and organics recycling and requested the developer to invite the Wolfe
Park Condominium Association to provide input on the art planned for the corner of
Quentin and Park Commons Drive.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 15-126 Approving a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Located at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard.
Councilmember Brausen thanked the developer for continuing to work with the
neighborhood and felt the project supports Council’s goals of having higher density
developments along transit corridors; provides stabilization of the businesses along
Excelsior Boulevard, including the addition of a grocery store; incorporates green
building design features; and includes affordable housing units, adding he felt this was
the right development for this area and strongly supported it.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to grant
an extension until November 18, 2015, to submit the Park Commons West Final Plat.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Sanger absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents to remain watchful of kids and school buses now that
school is in session.
Councilmember Mavity invited residents to attend “Coffee and Cultural Chat” sponsored
by the Human Rights Commission on September 17 at 6:30 p.m. at the High School.
10. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 21, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Senior Planning Project Manager (Mr. Sullivan), Associate
Planner (Mr. Kelly), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Communications Manager (Ms. Larson), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple).
Guests: Jim Alexander, Metropolitan Council and Julie Edington, Kennedy and Graven
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes August 17, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Special Study Session Minutes September 8, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 15-2475 amending Section 36-
268-PUD 1 of the City Code relating to The Shoreham Planned Unit Development.
4b. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 15-2476 amending St. Louis
Park City Ordinance No. 2236-03 extending the term of the Centerpoint Energy
Minnegasco Franchise.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
4c. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 15-2477 amending St. Louis
Park City Ordinance No. 2086-97 extending the term of the Xcel Energy Franchise.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-127 authorizing installation of restricted parking - loading
zone on Oxford Street, in front of the Municipal Service Center (MSC) at 7305 Oxford
Street.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-128 authorizing installation of stop sign on Glenhurst
Avenue at Minnesota 7 Service Road.
4f. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Minutes July 8, 2015
4g. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Minutes August 5, 2015
4h. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes August 19, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
Councilmember Brausen commended those on the list for their skills and willingness to
volunteer their services, skills and time with the City. He believed that the City would
benefit from some turnover on the Boards and Commissions in order to bring in fresh
ideas and skills. He stated that he would support a term limit in order to engage and
allow more residents to participate in the process.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
reappoint the following Commissioners as City representatives to their respective
commissions with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term Expiration
Anthony Marrie Community Education Advisory Commission 6/30/2017
Julia Ross Community Education Advisory Commission 6/30/2018
Shirley Zimmerman Community Education Advisory Commission 6/30/2017
Jayne Stevenson (Youth) Environment and Sustainability Commission 8/31/2016
Suzanne Metzger Housing Authority 6/30/2020
Edward Halvorson (Youth) Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission 8/31/2016
Ethan Rickert (Youth) Planning Commission 8/31/2016
Further discussion: Councilmember Sanger disagreed with the comments made by
Councilmember Brausen and believed that the City benefits from the experience of those
willing to volunteer their services for longer periods of time on the City Boards and
Commissions.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
Councilmember Mavity stated that she agrees with the comments made by
Councilmember Brausen. She noted that although she does not agree with term limits,
she would support a more open process where new residents can also apply and current
members can reapply when terms expire or positions become vacant. She noted that the
topic will be further discussed by the Council in a Study Session and welcomed public
input at that time.
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Southwest LRT Municipal Consent. Resolution No. 15-129
Planning/Zoning Supervisor McMonigal presented the staff report regarding the
Southwest LRT and noted that Jim Alexander was in attendance to give additional
information before public comment is opened.
Jim Alexander, Metropolitan Council, provided the revised project scope noting that
changes had been made in order to reduce costs including changes to the park and ride
stations, noting a new total of 2,500 stalls along the alignment. He noted that they were
able to reduce the overall cost by $250 million, while still retaining 15 of 17 stations, and
he reviewed the alignment of the Southwest LRT through St. Louis Park. He stated that
through the Municipal Consent process, they need review and approval of the local
jurisdictions, highlighting the cities they have already presented to and those they would
be visiting after tonight. He stated that there is a lot more work to do and they will
continue to reach out to City staff and continue to work cooperatively to create 60 percent
and 90 percent plans prior to construction.
Councilmember Mavity stated a number of items were removed from the base budget and
asked for additional information on the locally requested capital investments that were
discussed. She also asked whether this is the final design or if there were opportunities
for the City to add additional design elements in the future.
Ms. McMonigal stated there are a number of items that will be considered in the future
and the locally requested capital investments will continue to move forward as well but
on their own and noted that the two are separate.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Avenue S, commended the City staff and Council for their
efforts in this process. He noted that there is quite a lot of money and time that will be
saved through the reroute of the Southwest LRT. He stated that he is still concerned with
the southern arm of the plan and the impact that could have on certain residents. He
stated that he was also concerned that the reroute still appears to be an option but was
encouraged that the project appears to be moving ahead in the right direction.
Conrad Segal, 2621 Georgia Avenue S, voiced his desire for the Council to not approve
the Southwest LRT plan. He stated that he would like to see the plan not happen at all as
he believes the train is in the wrong place and is the wrong idea. He stated that he does
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
not have anything against mass transit but feels that this train is not the right solution for
this community. He believed that there are additional alternatives that could be pursued
in this area. He referenced the light rail that connects Minneapolis and St. Paul and
believed that is successful as it connects urban developed areas rather than traveling
through lower density areas.
Jami LaPray, 3256 Blackstone, provided background information on the process that she
and her neighbors have conducted in order to determine the impact of this project. She
stated that although she disagrees with some of the findings, she does believe the swap
for the southerly connection has been done well. She expressed concern with the public
hearings and potential impacts that this connection will cause to the rail company
carrying freight. She stated that it is imperative that the impacts to the southerly
connection be considered including noise and believed that a study of the crossings is
needed. She requested that the Council commission an enhanced study of the long-term
impacts of the corridor that will be created from the southern connection, and once the
study is completed there should be public hearings to explain to the residents of St. Louis
Park the mitigation that will be needed and the impacts to the southerly connection.
Irene Elkins, 4175 Zarthan Avenue S, stated that as a resident of the Brookside
neighborhood she wished to speak about the southern arm or connection that is included
as part of the plan. She urged the Council to consider a less expensive rail bridge, which
would still allow the plan to proceed. She stated that the homes on her block and near
Brookside are extremely close to the tracks and property values could be impacted. She
also spoke of traffic backups that could occur in the area. She stated that the tax payers
would be paying for something of no benefit and that would cause problems if they agree
to fund the expensive freight bridge. She did not believe that the southern arm should be
considered as part of the Southwest LRT and should instead be funded by the rail
company. She hoped the Council insisted that funds be set aside for mitigating the
additional rail traffic that will occur in her neighborhood.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she has worked on Southwest LRT issues for the past
20 years and is looking forward to this being completed and being able to ride on the
light rail. She appreciated the concerns that were brought forward tonight and was
pleased that the City is at this point.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-129 approving the physical design component
of the revised preliminary design plans for the Southwest Light Rail Transit project
within the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota.
Further discussion: Councilmember Spano stated that he is the City representative on the
Met Council’s Corridor Management Committee, and noted that there will be grade
separations of the regional trail at both intersections in St. Louis Park which will provide
added safety upgrades at a fraction of what the City would have had to pay if they had
conducted those improvements apart from this project. He stated that cities are required
to give their consent in order for this project to move forward. He referenced University
Avenue in St. Paul and noted that area was not always developed. The developers want
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
to see that there is opportunity such as light rail. There were many building permits
pulled after the light rail project was approved in that area.
Councilmember Mavity stated that she also participates in the Community Works
Steering Committee and explained that they are bringing federal funds to assist in
making improvements towards safety and in the area of park and rides.
Councilmember Brausen stated that he continues to support the project as designed and
believes that the impact to the community will be positive. He stated that this will
provide inclusive and environmentally friendly transportation to all.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Connect the Park! – 2015 Bikeways. Resolution Nos. 15-130, 15-131, 15-132,
15-133, 15-134, 15-135
Senior Engineering Project Manager Sullivan presented the staff report regarding
Connect the Park!, noting that he would be focusing on the bikeways and bike lanes
portion of the program. He displayed a map that featured the one-half mile bikeways
within the City and the proposed 10-year bikeway Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). He
provided the definition of bikeway, which is a generic term used for various types and
levels of bike facilities, ranging from share the road facilities to designated bike lanes.
He reviewed the considerations staff faces in the bikeway design process including width
of the road, on-street parking, speed of vehicles, number of traffic lanes and number of
vehicles that typically travel on the roadway. He displayed a symbol that staff proposes
to use for share the road areas, which would be etched into the roadway to identify the
areas where vehicles and bicycles could share the road. He identified the proposed
“share the road” segments, which would have an estimated cost of $28,000, noting that
the etched markings would be the majority of the cost. He explained that the etched
markings would have a higher cost compared to painting the symbols but would have a
much longer lifespan and would not require annual maintenance. He provided additional
explanation on the designated bike lanes, noting that this type of designation is used on
higher speed roadways with higher levels of traffic. He identified the designated bike
lane segments that were proposed at an estimated cost of $92,000. He stated public
meetings were held for the segments of the project, along with numerous on-site meetings
with property owners. He stated that the estimated project cost would be $120,000 and
the costs would not be assessed to residents. He stated that there is a limitation on
available contractors and therefore the City is not able to obtain good bids and is instead
proposing to approve the plans tonight with the authorization to bid for construction to
begin in spring 2016.
Councilmember Brausen asked and received confirmation that the City would be placing
“share the road” signage within the City right-of-way.
Councilmember Lindberg asked for additional information on the estimate that was used
to calculate on-street parking.
Mr. Sullivan explained the different factors that were considered, including the segments
near the golf course and school, and noted that they also considered lengths and widths of
driveways and which side of the street the sidewalk is on.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
Councilmember Sanger asked and received confirmation that the bike lanes would be
plowed during the winter months.
Mr. Sullivan noted that there would be times during the big snow years where the
roadway is narrowed because of snow, but noted that the bike traffic would most likely
be reduced during that time.
Councilmember Hallfin stated that he met with residents from the Texas Avenue area and
wanted to ensure that there would be on-street parking allowed for the homeowners. He
stated that perhaps another portion of that roadway could also be made into a “share the
road” segment so that the residents are allowed on-street parking.
Mr. Sullivan recognized that there is a homeowner on that segment that has a home
business and stated that staff would be willing to further investigate that possibility.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Michael Miller, 9416 West 14th Street, stated that 14th Street was not one of the segments
discussed. He stated that there is higher speed traffic that uses the roadway and was
unsure that 14th Street would be the best route for bike traffic.
Mr. Sullivan confirmed that the 14th Street area would be marked as a “share the road”
segment.
Mr. Miller stated he did not see the reason for enhancement because of the additional cost
and believed that alternative routes may be safer for bicycle traffic. He added that the
parking restrictions in some areas are taking away the parking capabilities that residents
have had for years, which could cause problems.
Dianne Lefty, 9011 Westmoreland Lane, stated she is in favor of biking as her family
used to bike when her children were younger. She stated that she does like to walk
around the neighborhood. She did not believe that the proposed bike lane through
Westmoreland served a purpose and believed that the plan should integrate the bikes with
transit lines and should also provide bike parking areas. She stated that the integration
works well in Europe and in an area of Boulder Colorado that she recently visited, as
bikers can take the route to link with transit to reach their destination for work. She
stated that Westmoreland curves and winds and would be dangerous for bikers and cars
to travel together, noting the narrow roadway length of Flag Street. She stated that there
are older homes in that area with one car garages and small driveways which cannot
accommodate all the vehicles for their home, let alone visitors. She stated that the
petition gathered signatures for residents that were worried about the loss of on-street
parking. She stated that she believes that the roadway is not safe and would not provide
safety for bikers. She stated that the residents in that area chose that area for the quiet
and peacefulness and the additional signs and etchings would take away from those
aspects. She asked that the bikeway be placed in another location.
Paul Zeigle, 3932 Lynn Avenue, stated that he was one of the original Task Force
members that helped to design this plan. He stated that safety on the road is one of the
main factors that keeps bikers off the road, noting that if additional safety measures are
taken ridership will increase. He stated that currently there are east/west corridors in the
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
City and not a lot of north/south corridors and believed that the additional connections
would be important. He referenced the safe routes to school program, noting that his
children have had to bike to their school and have encountered many obstacles.
Ruth Weisbury, 9020 Westmoreland Lane, stated that was concerned with safety as she
had lived in her property for many years. She stated that the road is very curvy and the
high school kids like to travel fast around the curves. She believed that the bike lane
would create a false sense of security, noting that there have been accidents. She noted
that there are a number of people that walk their dogs on the side of the road and believed
that it would be dangerous to add the bike lane as there are no sidewalks. She stated that
Westmoreland is a very narrow roadway and would be dangerous to add a bike lane on
that roadway. She believed that the roadway should have a lower speed as well. She
stated that the sun causes problems with vision for drivers and noted that there are only
two streetlights along the roadway.
Paula Maisel, 8721 Westmoreland Lane, stated that she and her husband have lived on
the roadway for the past 40 years. She stated that for those 40 years they have watched
too many drivers travel too fast down the roadway. She noted that while there is not a lot
of traffic on the roadway, it lends itself to drivers wanting to drive more quickly down the
road. She referenced the curve of the roadway, which is a double S blind curve, and
stated that she had told her children not to ride their bikes in that area because is it not
safe. She stated that the homes in that area need the on-street parking because of the
small garages and short driveways. She stated that while she supports the added
connections this program will provide, she did not see a benefit or need to continue the
bike trail beyond the nature center. She did not want to see accidents occur because of
the added bike traffic.
Ron Butwin, 8700 Westmoreland Lane, stated that he has owned an advertising
marketing firm in the City for many years. He referenced the presentation that was made
tonight and did not believe the project will come in at the price range estimated. He did
not believe the design fits the area proposed after the nature center, which comes down
Westmoreland. He stated that while the program has potential, he did not believe that the
plans fit with the areas identified after the nature center, nor did he believe the road
widths support the addition of a bike lane. He stated that there is just enough room on the
roadway for one car to pass if there is a vehicle parked on the roadway. He recalled a
recent time when there were 20 bikers riding in a group that caused a lot of danger
because of the vehicle traffic. He stated that while the plans look good, you cannot fit
those plans into the Westmoreland area as designed. He believed that there would be
unhappy people and wasted dollars if this moves forward as proposed for that area. He
stated that the residents in that area have learned how to deal with the dynamics of the
roadway while new bicycle traffic would not be aware and would cause safety problems.
Sara Maaske, 5911 Oxford Street apartment 9, stated that she is on the Steering
Committee for health in the park and is in favor of the program. She stated that the roads
are a shared amenity of the City for all modes of transportation. She stated that more and
more people are abandoning their vehicles and riding bicycles, noting that traffic is
calmed when bike lanes are added. She stated that the middle school and nature center
are in that area and the bike facilities would be a good addition to the City that would
increase connectivity.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
Mrs. Maisel stated that a really good biker was knocking on her door three years ago
because he attempted to miss a vehicle on the curve in the roadway and had been injured.
She noted that the biker has stated that is the worst corner that he has ridden.
Beth Johnson, 1457 Texas Avenue, stated that she has lived in her home for 25 years and
rides her bicycle. She expressed concern that parking would be removed in front of her
house. She stated that if her visitors are forced to park across the street it would be
difficult for them to cross the roadway because of the width. She stated that she supports
the program but does not see the challenges on Texas Avenue that would justify removal
of the on-street parking in front of her home. She asked if there was hard data to justify
the removal of on-street parking abilities.
Mr. Sullivan stated that Texas Avenue is a State aid route and therefore State aid
standards need to be followed. He stated that in order to accommodate the aspects
desired, parking would need to be removed.
Ms. Johnson asked if there were accidents or issues that would require parking to be
removed.
Mr. Sullivan replied that he is not aware of any issues of that nature.
Ms. Johnson stated that she thinks that this would be solving a problem that does not
exist.
Jennifer Weixel, 2249 Texas Avenue, commented that the “share the road” concept is a
great idea as there are more bikers and everyone needs to get to their destination safely.
She stated that she and her husband live on the northeast corner of Cedar Lake and Texas
and would be losing on-street parking. She referenced the criteria that was used to
determine if parking would be removed and noted that she would like to speak with staff
to determine why they cannot keep their on-street parking. She noted that her driveway
is wide but is filled with their vehicles and visitors must park on the street. She stated
that her neighbors always have parking on the street as well. She asked for a compromise
where the road could be shared for that stretch of homes with a designated bike lane
starting further down the roadway.
Steve Weixel, 2249 Texas Avenue, stated that he did not see the need for him and his
neighbors to lose their on-street parking in order to accommodate a bike lane. He noted
that there is on-street parking near the school that occurs as well.
Allan Schuster, 8521 Westmoreland Lane, stated that he feels that the added bicycle
traffic would add to the unsafe conditions of the winding and curving road.
Ryan Griffin thanked City staff and the Council for having the progressiveness to have
this program. He stated that this is one of the most unsafe places that he has ridden his
bicycle and believed that the additional safety measures would be beneficial. He stated
that this is a way to make the streets safer. He noted that along Westmoreland they
would simply be stamping the roadway and would not be creating a bike lane. He stated
that he would be riding his bike regardless of the markings.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
Dennis Mulligan, 9420 West 14th Street, stated that the route described along
Westmoreland is not just filled with young drivers but is the route for test drives at the
nearby auto dealer. He asked why the neighboring communities were unwilling to
cooperate with the route along Wayzata Boulevard. He felt like the City is trying too
hard.
Steve Casey, 2345 Texas Avenue S, stated that the biggest item for him is the parking
restrictions. He stated that he has lived in his home for over 20 years and noted that if the
plan moves forward he will not be able to park in front of his home, their neighbors
home, or even across the street and would instead have to park on Virginia Circle.
Jane Gross, 2341 Texas Avenue S, stated that she runs a childcare center at her home and
if on-street parking is removed that would make it very difficult for people bringing their
children to her home. She noted that there is increased traffic on the roadway because of
the Highway 100 construction. She stated that she would prefer to have a “share the
road” segment on that roadway.
Rachel Harris, 2821 Texas Avenue S, stated that while her segment of the roadway is not
included in the plans at this time she is hopeful that her segment of the roadway would be
included in a “share the road” or bike lane. She stated that she bikes around the City and
has noticed that there is a lack of support or acknowledgement for that type of
transportation. She stated that she is looking forward to more north/south corridors in the
future to add to the connectivity.
Ron Wilson, Texas Avenue S, stated that he has lived in his home for 35 years. He stated
that he has ridden bicycles for 58 years and motorcycles for about 54 years and feels that
there is no real need for the bicycle lanes. He noted that he does not see much bicycle
traffic and did not believe that there has been an analysis of bicycle traffic on the
roadway. He did not believe that there is a need for this type of improvement and was
not aware of an incident where bicycles have been injured by a car.
George Hagemann, 8242 Westwood Hills Curve, spoke in support of the program and the
bicycle lanes on Texas Avenue. He stated that Texas Avenue stands as the most
important north/south connection within the City. He stated that the Texas Avenue
corridor was the highest priority during the active living workshop ten years ago. He
commended staff for their efforts in bringing the Connect the Park! program this far and
urged the Council to support the items tonight.
Dave Carlson, 7006 West 23rd Street, stated that there was large support for multi-
modalism during the Comprehensive Plan process, not only for sidewalks but also for on-
street facilities such as bike lanes. He stated Texas Avenue is a high priority and is one
of the only viable north/south routes in the City. He noted that when bike lanes were
installed on Summit Avenue in St. Paul the traffic speeds decreased by 12 miles per hour.
He stated that he fully supports the bike lane on Texas Avenue. He noted that he bikes
along Westmoreland and has found it to be relatively safe as he knows of the curves and
it is a through street that provides connectivity. He stated that if there is simply a “share
the road” segment proposed for Westmoreland he did not believe that would increase
traffic but would simply raise the alertness of drivers and lower the speed of traffic. He
supported the plans and appreciated the City in their effort to connect the City.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
Tim Goodman, 2337 Texas Avenue, stated that he would not be impacted by the
restricted parking but did recognize that the restriction would impact his neighbors and
supported their concerns. He stated that his daughter has just started college and in the
future he and his wife may consider selling their home. He asked if the bike lane would
impact the property value of his home and the ability for him to sell his home.
Mayor Jacobs stated that typically the property values increase when the home is near a
bike path or trail. He stated that generally people like the access to bike trails and paths.
Greg Anderson, 15307 60th Avenue N. in Plymouth, stated that he wishes that Plymouth
was doing what St. Louis Park is doing. He noted that there is a lot of effort that has been
put into this plan to connect the City not only internally but to other cities as well. He
stated that he has never seen this used before but the State law specifies that the speed
limit can be changed to 25 if there is a designated bike lane.
Mr. Butwin asked if this program would be promoted to bike groups outside of the City,
as that would bring in additional traffic that would not be desired.
Mr. Sullivan stated that there is not marketing planned but noted that there are other
activities that tie into the program, such as health in the parks, and advised that the
program could be found on Google for bicycle users.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Brausen thanked the people in attendance tonight for their input. He
stated that most of the proposed improvements are within Ward 4, which he represents.
He stated that he has heard from dozens of people, along with a petition of 57 signatures,
noting that is support from people on both sides of the issue. He noted that no matter his
decision there will be people unhappy with his decision and apologized for that. He
stated that the public right-of-way is the area for the people of the community to get
around in the community in a safe and efficient manner. He noted that at times that
requires restricting parking and changing the status quo. He stated that safety is the
measure that guides him in these decisions. He recognized that there are people on Texas
Avenue that will lose on-street parking, noting that his wife and children spoke to him
against the Texas Avenue segment, but advised that is a major north/south route that
needs to be provided. He noted that there are roadways that have no access to on-street
parking, such as Louisiana and Cedar, and safe thoroughfares need to be provided. He
appreciated that the residents of Westmoreland are concerned with safety, but noted that
cars seem to be the problem in that equation. He did not see how signage and stencils on
the road would hurt safety in that area and would instead make everyone more aware of
the shared roadway.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-130 accepting the project report for Project
No. 4015-2000 Bikeways and approving plans and specifications.
Further discussion: Councilmember Sanger stated that she would be supporting the
actions as well. She noted that the comments from the residents along Westmoreland
support the need for the additional measures that alert drivers to the shared roadway.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 11
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
She noted there has been no comment regarding the segment along France Avenue,
stating that she has heard comments that residents would like this to move forward
quickly in that area.
Councilmember Lindberg appreciated the comments made tonight and agreed with
Councilmember Brausen in regard to the benefits that this will provide. He stated that
north/south connections are needed in the community. He recognized that on-street
parking is valuable and should be considered further. He stated that they will continue to
redevelop and define how they deal with parking issues and continue to be creative and
cooperative with residents and business owners.
Councilmember Mavity echoed the comments from the Council regarding this issue and
noted that she would support this item as well. She stated that she was able to hear from
a Twin Cities resident that spoke about blue zones, a healthy community that supports
healthy living choices and contributes to the health of the residents. She stated that the
bikers, walkers and vehicles are already using these routes and the additional measures
will alert drivers to be more aware.
Councilmember Hallfin stated that he is also in favor of the plan. He referenced the
parking on the south side of Texas and asked that staff work with residents to see if they
can improve the parking in that area. He noted that there are other areas in the City
with no parking, his street being one of them. He stated that in the past they had
discussed a sidewalk on Westmoreland and the residents spoke against that, but now the
neighborhood is coming forward saying that it is unsafe.
Councilmember Spano stated that people are accustomed to the conditions of their
environment. He used the example of Westmoreland with the curves in the road and
noted that his roadway is straight and he has also encountered problems with speeding
vehicles. He stated that the responsibility is that of the drivers.
Mayor Jacobs stated that he had a concern with the reduced parking and asked that staff
work with the residents to determine if they can allow on-street parking for those
residents if possible. He stated that he drives through work in the curvy part of Edina
and they have the stencils on the street. He stated that the result is the same, you still
watch out for bicycle traffic when you are driving.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution Nos. 15-131, 15-132, 15-133, 15-134, and 15-135
approving “no-parking” signs to be installed on the identified roadways to allow for bike
lanes.
The motion passed 7-0.
Councilmember Brausen left the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
6c. Private Activity Revenue Bonds – The Shoreham. Resolution No. 15-136
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 12
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
Controller Swanson presented the staff report regarding private activity revenue bonds
for The Shoreham project and described the process necessary.
Julie Edington, Kennedy and Graven, provided additional information on the tax exempt
revenue bonds, noting that the City would not be liable to the debt and the bonding rating
of the City would not be impacted.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive
the reading and adopt Final Bond Resolution No. 15-136 Authorizing the Issuance of
Private Activity Revenue Bond, Series 2015A, 2015B and 2015C for The Shoreham.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Brausen absent).
6d. The Shoreham Alley Vacation
Associate Planner Kelly presented the staff report regarding the alley vacation for The
Shoreham.
Councilmember Brausen returned at 9:56 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs
closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve First Reading of Ordinance vacating right-of-way and set the Second Reading of
Ordinance for October 5, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General
Fund Budget Adoption. Resolution No. 15-137
Controller Swanson presented the staff report regarding the 2016 preliminary property
tax levy certification and preliminary general fund budget adoption as well as the
establishment of a public hearing date. He provided background information noting that
staff has met with the City Council three times prior to tonight’s meeting to discuss the
preliminary budget and tax levy. He noted that a preliminary property tax levy must be
certified to Hennepin County by September 30th, noting that parcel specific notices will
be sent to property owners in November, and a public hearing will be held in December.
He noted that once certified the levy can be lowered but cannot be raised.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 13
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-137 Approving 2016 Preliminary General
Fund Budget, 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Public Hearing Date for
the 2016 Budget and Final Property Tax Levy.
Councilmember Lindberg stated that the 6.5 percent levy increase can sound scary to
some folks, but things have happened that may lessen that impact to property owners. He
stated there is a need to balance the long-term needs of the City with the budget impacts.
Councilmember Mavity asked for additional input in regard to the impact that residents
and/or businesses will have.
Mr. Swanson provided additional information on the fiscal disparities program, which
encourages uniform growth throughout the counties and metro area. He noted that when
property values declined, St. Louis Park held commercial values better than other
communities. He explained that even though the property tax levy increase is proposed
at 6.5 percent that does not equate to a true increase of that value. He noted that the City
share of the property taxes, with an increase rate of 6.5 percent, would equal about $16
for the median home value.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reported on the upcoming Fall Clean-up Event that will take place on
September 26 from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
Councilmember Spano stated he attended the SEEDS event the previous day at which
there was great discussion and input from the community. He encouraged residents to
find out more information about the curbside organics pickup.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of City Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the
period of August 29, 2015 through September 25, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to approve City disbursements in
accordance with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the City
Council to review and approve. The attached reports show both City disbursements paid by
physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the City’s Charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: City Disbursements
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
5,000.005353 WAYZATA LLC ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
5,000.00
18.00AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
18.00
130.53ABERNATHY, LISA ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
130.53
576.00ABRAKADOODLEPRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
576.00
225.00ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
52.29ACME TOOLS PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
52.29
13,496.00ACOUSTICS ASSOCIATES INC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
13,496.00
40,517.40ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
14,976.00SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
55,493.40
160.00ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
160.00
13,871.50ADVANTAGE HEALTH CORPORATION EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
13,871.50
180.69AFFILIATED EMERGENCY VET SERVICE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
180.69
487.50AKIN, JOHN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
5,938.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
5,938.00
1,003.30ALLIED BLACKTOP PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 2
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,003.30
13,630.00ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC TV PRODUCTION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
13,630.00
38,596.28AMERICAN ENGINEERING TESTING INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT SOIL TESTING SERVICES
38,596.28
79.29AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
79.29
1,740.81ANCHOR PAPER CO COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,740.81
184.00ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
184.00
140.28ANDERSON, TRACY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
140.28
688.00APPLE INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
688.00
495.00APWA-MN CHAPTER ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
495.00
630.00AQUAVENTURE DIVE & PHOTO AQUATIC PARK PROGRAMMING PROGRAM REVENUE
630.00
6,357.61ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6,357.61
567.30ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
567.30
514.01ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS UNIFORMS
514.01
403.12AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
403.12
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 3
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
125.00ATOMPOLICE G & A TRAINING
125.00
46.38ATOMIC RECYCLING FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
46.37PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
46.38SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
46.37VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
185.50
2,505.50AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,505.50
2,000.00BABU, NADINE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
2,000.00
107.88BACHMAN'S PLYMOUTH BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
107.88
400.00BADGER METER INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
184.16WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
584.16
3,725.50BARR ENGINEERING CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,725.50
600.00BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
375.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
975.00
6,500.00BASICH INC, MICHAEL PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
6,500.00
39.98BATTERIES + BULBS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
39.98
5,000.00BENILDE-ST MARGARET'S SCHOOL ESCROWS GENERAL
5,000.00
48,030.00BERGERSON CASWELL INC WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
48,030.00
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 4
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
225.00BERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
59.20BERKLEY GROUP WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
59.20
35.00BIELOUS, TAHRA YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE
35.00
127.93BISEK, KATHRYN REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
127.93
1,493.11BLOOMINGTON, CITY OF REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,493.11
23,072.50BOLTON & MENK INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
37,056.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
60,128.50
725.00BORCHERS, JACOB GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
725.00
516.53BOTTGE, LYNN TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCE
516.53
338.40BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
338.40
332.70BOYER TRUCK PARTS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
332.70
2,100.00BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
3,414.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
5,514.00
3,206.92BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,206.92
717.35BRODSKY, STUART TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCE
717.35
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 5
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
713.48BROWNDALE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
713.48
487.50BURIA, CHRIS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
13.05BURNET TITLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
13.05
741.00CALHOUN TOWERS APTS OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
741.00
9,712.81CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
1,105.50HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
129.71ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES
402.26CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES
3,790.55STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES
66.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
148.50SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
15,355.33
203.82CANTOR, SUSAN CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
203.82
38.97CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL FACILITY ROOM RENTAL GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.97
926.57CDW GOVERNMENT INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
926.57
894.74CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
1,093.27WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
35.90REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
38.64SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
70.69SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
278.38PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
21.10WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
38.36NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
2,471.08
583.51CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 6
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
8,631.37REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS
9,214.88
3,729.00CENTRAL FLORIDA RESTAURANTS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LIQUOR
3,729.00
10,400.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT
10,400.00
261.60CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
261.60
145.00CINGI, CEVDET INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
145.00
291.70CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
111.28FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
780.62WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
136.86AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
68.43AQUATIC PARK BUDGET CONCESSION SUPPLIES
554.90VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,943.79
32.82CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
103.70ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,733.30ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
51.62HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
340.00COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
499.00IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
420.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,685.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING
1,195.20FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,689.99FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER
85.81OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
9.62OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
284.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
1,863.20OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
175.07INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
1,125.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,185.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
175.00-WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 7
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
360.88SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,381.75TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.85TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
1,000.00ADULT PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
221.97VOLLEYBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
120.00SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
176.96PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES
203.39SUMMER FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES
267.66YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
152.41TENNISGENERAL SUPPLIES
104.90PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
185.07PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.76PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
299.98PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
15.89ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
182.09BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.62REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.58REC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS
47.83AQUATIC PARK BUDGET CONCESSION SUPPLIES
228.70LIFEGUARDINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
92.18VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
244.31VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
17,677.11
212.45CLAREY'S SAFETY EQUIPMENT INC OPERATIONS
212.45
1,060.62COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
1,060.62
16,807.85COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
16,807.85
36.13COMCASTOPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
380.90WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
18.10BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
435.13
7,573.56COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,295.66WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
9,869.22
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 8
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
1,191.08COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,191.08
143.00COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
143.00
241.48CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
241.48
628.69CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
628.69
99.36COPELAND, PATRICK REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
99.36
400.00COUGHLIN, JUDY ACTIVE COMMUNITY PLANNING GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
96.00FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
496.00
21,645.00COURT SURFACES & REPAIR PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
21,645.00
13,506.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,506.00
2,000.00CRARY, AMY & JERRY WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00
15.20CROWN MARKING INC MEETINGS OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.20
313.97CUB FOODS POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
313.97
606.82CUMMINS NPOWER LLC SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
606.82
97.99CURRIER, ROBERT REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
97.99
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 9
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,290.50CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
47.95SSD 2 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
2,867.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,260.50SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,128.50SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
40.37SSD #5 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
2,298.00SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
715.50SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
10,648.32
502.20DALCO ENTERPRISES INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
502.20
487.50DAVIS, MARINA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
3,450.00DAYCO GENERAL INC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,450.00
125.00DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
125.00
262.50DEENEY, MICHAEL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
262.50
475.00DEISING, PATRICE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
475.00
176.32DELEGARD TOOL CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
128.46VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.44VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS
335.22
1,809.32DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,809.32
5,396.95DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
5,396.95
293.25DEX MEDIA EAST LLC ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISING
293.25
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 10
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
496.00DEZURIK INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
496.00
7,143.92DIGITAL PICTURES INC TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
7,143.92
7,577.18DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE
158.69NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH POSTAGE
453.65NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,154.00SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE
17,343.52
487.50DUBPERNELL, ALICE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
487.50
647.87ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES
643.78PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT LEGAL NOTICES
324.38PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
106.12STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL NOTICES
1,722.15
617.25EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
617.25
34.43EDINA REALTY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
34.43
799.44EGAN COMPANIES INC CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
799.44
1,452.80ELECTRIC PUMP INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,452.80
53.67ELLANSON, LUKE ERU OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
53.67
10.76EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
406.62GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
417.38
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 11
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
8,493.64EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
8,493.64
3,340.00EMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
3,340.00
84.84ENGEBRETSON, BETTY REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
84.84
150.30ENTITLEWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
150.30
105.48ERMINI, LAURA REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
105.48
699.00ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
699.00
892.11FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
892.11
94.00FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC REC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES
94.00
27.02FASTENAL COMPANY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
7.76SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
188.01GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
222.79
60.70FEDEXHUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
60.70
178.68FELLER, MEG & BILL REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
178.68
3,488.09-FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
7,308.97WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
98,963.81WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
102,784.69
442.02FERRELLGASREC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 12
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
442.02
2,000.00FIFIELD, ROBERT ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,000.00
135.33FLEETPRIDEGENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
135.33
187.50FLEX COMPENSATION INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
187.50
990.19FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
990.19
4.58FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.58
390.91FREEDMAN, BREANNA HUMAN RIGHTS MEETING EXPENSE
390.91
3,750.00GALLAGHER RISK MGMT SERVICES INC, ARTHURFINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00CABLE TV G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00HOUSING REHAB G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,250.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
11,250.00
151.00GLAESER, HOLLY REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
151.00
3,936.26GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSUR
3,936.26
5,567.50GOLIATH HYDRO-VAC INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
5,567.50
1,344.35GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,344.35
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 13
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
127.12GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
210.25WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
303.19MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
640.56
611.00GREEN HORIZONS WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
611.00
11.57GRIMM, RYAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
11.57
514.55GROSSMAN, BARBARA ANN TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCE
514.55
470.40GROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE
470.40
769.87GUTKNECHT, MARY ELLEN WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
769.87
75.00GUTZKOW, JEAN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
2,500.00HAGG, DAN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,500.00
816.00HAMILTON, MIKE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
816.00
92.71HAMM, DAVID HUMAN RIGHTS MEETING EXPENSE
92.71
10,163.08HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
415.50AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10,578.58
1.00HEATING AND COOLING DESIGN INSPECTIONS G & A STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE
50.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
51.00
50.00HEITHECKER, ERIC GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 14
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
50.00
586.50HENDERSON, TRACY SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
586.50
50.50HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENT & REAL ESTATE ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
50.50
550.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
1,968.47POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,701.21POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
64.80OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
1,367.10OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
414.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
58.00REC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES
8,124.55
1,937.10HENRICKSEN PSG MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,937.10
86.52HERRMANN, MARK REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
86.52
1,052.50HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,052.50
12,500.00HILLSHIRE BRANDS COMPANY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
12,500.00
112.71HIRSHFIELDSMUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
112.71
595.00HIT RESULTS FITNESS LLC OPERATIONS TRAINING
595.00
222.00HOAGLAND PLUMBING, DANA INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
222.00
1.00HOLL-TEC INSPECTIONS G & A STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE
50.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
62.50INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 15
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
113.50
904.30HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
11.28ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS
6.45ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
29.82RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
691.02WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
325.22MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
35.64BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES
249.96REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
15.89AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,269.58
549.00HOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
549.00
100.00HOME TITLE INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
100.00
70.00HOPKINS-MINNETONKA RECREATION SRVCS YOUTH PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
70.00
147.20HOPPE, MARK ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
147.20
255.00HORDYK, EVAN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
255.00
100.00HOWES, JEFFREY VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
300.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
153.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
553.00
1,150.00HOWES, JESSICA VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
400.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,550.00
100.00HOWES, KRISTINE VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
425.00KICKBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.00SOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 16
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
729.00
1,500.00HRGREENTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
1,500.00
1,557.48HUNT ELECTRIC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,557.48
1,474.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,474.00
3,315.00I/O SOLUTIONS INC HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
3,315.00
19.00IATNVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
19.00
182.00ICCINSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
182.00
523.46IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
523.46SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
523.46SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
523.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
2,093.83
1,592.14INDELCOWATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,592.14
590.00INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
590.00
120.25INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #283 SUMMER FIELDTRIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
120.25
2,292.40INTEGRA TELECOM IT G & A TELEPHONE
2,292.40
168.41INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
168.41
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 17
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
390.00IPMA-HR HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
390.00
272.79I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
272.79
262.20J & F REDDY RENTS ADMINISTRATION G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
110.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
372.20
312.45JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
312.45
15.82JERRY'S HARDWARE DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
645.61WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
22.49PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.21ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
35.98GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
741.11
300.00JM CONSULTING LTD WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
300.00
326.50JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
326.50
175.00JOHNSON, MATTHEW GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
175.00
100.00JOHNSON, SUSAN KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
39.95JOURNAL OF LIGHT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
39.95
75.00KEITH, GLORIA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
503.08KELLER, JASMINE Z EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
503.08
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 18
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
2,627.00KENNEDY & GRAVEN ESCROWS
2,627.00
87.50KIDCREATE STUDIO SPECIAL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
87.50
12,126.17KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC ESCROWS GENERAL
1,139.50STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
13,265.67
270.00KING, VERNA FACILITY ROOM RENTAL RENT REVENUE
270.00
404.20KOERING, STEVE OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
404.20
175.00KRILL, JOHN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
175.00
290.50KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
290.50
20.00KUMAGAI, AMANDA INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS PROGRAM REVENUE
20.00
411.30KUSTOM SIGNALS INC POLICE G & A REPAIRS
411.30
35.00LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCTS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
35.00
475.26LARSON, JH CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
475.26
2,519.05LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
2,519.05
309.04LAWSON PRODUCTS INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES
61.00REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
263.51GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
633.55
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 19
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
18,931.32LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
9,465.68ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
28,397.00
353.63LEE, KATIE ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
353.63
12.07LEHRMAN, SHARON HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE TRAVEL/MEETINGS
12.07
6,490.00LEOTEK ELECTRONICS USA LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
6,490.00
2,500.00LEPESKA, PAM ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,500.00
29.14LEWIS, MISTY CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
29.14
86.00LIGHTING PLASTICS OF MN INC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
86.00
3,566.35LINAEMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
3,566.35
52.64LISOVSKIS, GEORGE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
52.64
981.00LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
594.22IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,575.22
31,658.00LOGISIT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES
24,551.51TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
56,209.51
3,162.90LOOKOUT BAR & GRILL HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
3,162.90
355.05LOWELL'S REFINISH MASTERS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 20
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
355.05
225.00LUNA ARCHITECTURE LLC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
486.40LUSE, JOHN POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
486.40
63.82LYNCH, DEBRA ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
63.82
1,886.88M G INCENTIVES HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
1,886.88
85.00MACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
85.00
1,532.60MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,532.60
12,500.00MAIN STREET COMPANIES ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
12,500.00
110.56MANNING, NANCY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
110.56
20,119.98MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
403.63FACILITIES MCTE G & A MOTOR FUELS
20,523.61
390.91MARTENS, AFTON JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP TRAINING
390.91
112.00MARTIN, JAMES INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING
112.00
77.06MATHESON TRI-GAS INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
77.06
75.00MAY, PETER GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 21
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
500.00MCCHESNEY, CHARLIE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
310.00MEGA MOON NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
310.00
10.89-MENARDS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
22.37ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
20.93SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
32.18WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
76.91WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.18HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
181.68
160.43MERKLEY, SCOTT PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
160.43
2,385.60METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
206.46REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
307,654.25SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES
310,246.31
27,198.00MIDWAY FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
27,198.00
857.19MIDWEST OVERHEAD CRANE CORP BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
857.19
151.24MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS
151.24
147.66MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
147.66
198.00MINNESOTA CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
198.00
2,925.53MINNESOTA DEPT COMMERCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
2,925.53
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 22
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
21,558.00MINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
21,558.00
4,303.43MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
4,303.43
250.00MINNESOTA POLICE & PEACE OFFICERS ASSN POLICE G & A TRAINING
250.00
625.00MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
625.00
390.00MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
390.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
780.00
444.84MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
444.84
48.84MISTER SPARKY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT
48.84
190.00MN FALL MAINTENANCE EXPO PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
190.00
2,500.00MOBIUS INC HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,500.00
94.17MOORE, JUDITH REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
94.17
1,635.12MOTOROLACOMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,635.12
115.39MOUNT, NANCY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
115.39
180.00MPSTMAPARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
180.00
324.12MPX GROUP WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 23
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
324.12
170.00MRPASOFTBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
170.00
59.90MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
59.90
1,319.23MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,319.23
633.25MVTL LABORATORIES REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
633.25
200.00NANNE, MATTHEW ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
200.00
1,021.43NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
56.97DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
19.86WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
410.10VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.90GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,564.26
35.51NASH, BARRY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
35.51
223.39NATIONS TITLE AGENCY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
223.39
379.40ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS
379.40
10,347.54NEENAH FOUNDREY STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
10,347.54
63,581.90NELSON AUTO CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
63,581.90
19.16NEP CORP GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.16
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 24
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
51.20NGUYEN, MINH QUANG INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
51.20
179.95NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
179.95
12.50NORTHERN AIRE SWIMMING POOLS AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.50
1,134.48NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
1,134.48
2,888.40NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,888.40
1,000.00NORTHSTAR LACROSSE CO OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,000.00
571.20OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
571.20
54.46OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
140.65FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
203.94POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
154.87POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES
66.05OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
298.53INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
159.31PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
487.41ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
70.98WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.09VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,651.29
809.50OFFICE TEAM COMM & MARKETING G & A SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
809.50
1,500.00OLS RESTORATION INC SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,500.00
853.31OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 25
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
741.67WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
183.49PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS
642.09VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,420.56
32.91OLSON, JEAN HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE TRAVEL/MEETINGS
32.91
150.00OLSON, JERRY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
150.00
513.46OMAHA PAPER COMPANY INC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
513.46
32,422.42OMNI CONTRACTING INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT
32,422.42
280.00ON SITE SANITATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
408.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,381.13PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
199.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
254.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,522.13
4,500.00OPITZ & ASSOCIATES, LYNDLY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
4,500.00
156.30OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
156.30
571.66PANNELL, LISA TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCE
571.66
24,232.93-PARK CONSTRUCTION CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
484,658.52CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
460,425.59
2,355.00PARK NICOLLET HEALTH SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
2,355.00
766.15PARK TAVERN SUMMER FIELDTRIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 26
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
766.15
1,341.34PARK THEATER COMPANY NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,341.34
1,455.20PARKER, JON EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION
1,455.20
8,000.00PARKTACULARCOMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,000.00
726.59-PARROTT CONTRACTING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
14,531.85CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,805.26
5,000.00PARSONS ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
19,404.42TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
24,404.42
350.00PATRIOT DIAMOND INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
350.00
39.69PAYNE, DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
39.69
20,552.71-PEARSON BROTHERS INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
411,054.20CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
390,501.49
15.53PETTY CASH ADMINISTRATION G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
20.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAVEL/MEETINGS
76.47FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
7.47COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
17.13FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.82FACILITIES MCTE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
28.32INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
3.50INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
31.98SOLID WASTE G&A ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
9.00SOLID WASTE G&A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
240.22
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 27
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
463.79PHILIP'S TREE CARE INC ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,288.36PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
86.52PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS
2,838.67
784.55PHYSIO-CONTROL INC OPERATIONS REPAIRS
784.55
17.06PIERSON, DEBORAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
17.06
25,141.66PLACEGENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
25,141.66
965.95PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
965.95
443.54POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
443.54
258.00POPP.COM INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
258.00
66.00PRACTICAL SYSTEMS INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
66.00
1,634.50PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
1,634.50
149.70PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
149.70WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
149.71SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
149.70STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
598.81
24,407.00PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
24,407.00
68.99PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
68.99
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 28
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
160.00PRINTERS SERVICE INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
160.00
420.00PRO AUTO DETAILING PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
420.00
595.00PROGRESSIVE BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
595.00
6,200.00PSC ALLIANCE INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
6,200.00
5,235.20Q3 CONTRACTING WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
830.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
6,065.20
180.00QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
180.00
2,469.22RANDY'S SANITATION INC FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
1,407.20REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,876.42
5,000.00RAO, LEELA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
55.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL
5,055.00
2,500.00RASMUSSEN, JORDAN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,500.00
40.74REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
40.74
4,652.14RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
4,652.14
1,000.00RIETZ, MINDY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,000.00
895.00ROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
895.00
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 29
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
225.00RUHL, ZACH INSPECTIONS G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
225.00
2,030.31S & S WORLDWIDE INC SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,030.31
288.75SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
288.75
178.26SAM'S CLUB OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
44.48WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
280.08PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES
96.53PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,259.23CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIES
1,858.58
8,757.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
8,757.00
586.00SCHWAB VOLLHABER LUBRATT SERVICE CORP GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
586.00
2,977.03SEHSTREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
13,727.18STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
16,704.21
70.00SEMRIN, NIHAYA PICNIC SHELTERS RENT REVENUE
70.00
500.00SHORT DESIGN COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
11.29SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
10.70FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
56.44POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11.29INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
125.95PARK AND REC G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
215.67
89.43SIEGEL, MELVIN & DELORES REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 30
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
89.43
275.00SILVERMERE AMERICA LLC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
275.00
182.41SINCLAIR, IAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
182.41
56.32SLAIS, DIANE REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
56.32
1,524.90SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES
1,524.90
291.02SNYDER ELECTRIC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
291.02
99.36SOLOMON, JOAN REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
99.36
151.75SOUTHDALE YMCA GROUP ADMISSION PROGRAM REVENUE
151.75
1,699.48SPRINTIT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS
6,567.40CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
8,266.88
754.90SPS COMPANIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
133.31PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
888.21
3,534.25SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC ESCROWS GENERAL
8,041.23ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICES
11,575.48
43,000.00ST CROIX REC CO PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,232.28PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIES
44,232.28
89.00STAFFORD HOME SERVICE INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL
89.00
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 31
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
306.00STEARNS, DAVID SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
306.00
40,000.00STEPCOMM DEV PLANNING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
40,000.00
9,460.25STEVENS ENGINEERS INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,460.25
239.97STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
59.97ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
179.98OPERATIONSUNIFORMS
479.92
206.55STRINGER, BETSY HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE TRAVEL/MEETINGS
206.55
92.09STROHL, JUDITH REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
92.09
150.00SULLIVAN, JACK ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
150.00
8,386.37SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
39,161.57REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
47,547.94
12,458.36-SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE
249,167.25CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
236,708.89
411.50SWEEN COMPANY, EA CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
411.50
138.03TELELANGUAGE INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
138.03
40.00TENNIS, MARC YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE
40.00
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 32
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
105.00TERMINIX INT REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
105.00
189.00TESSMAN, ERIC INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES
189.00
341.00THOMAS, MEGAN SOFTBALL PROGRAM REVENUE
341.00
125.00THOMPSON, HOLLY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
125.00
535.50THOMPSON, JAMES SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
535.50
1,000.00THOMPSON, MATTHEW ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,000.00
145.87THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
145.87
656.00TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
656.00
44.52TITLE SMART WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
44.52
4,566.91TKDAWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,566.91
6,188.30TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
6,188.30
227.16TR-DIM FILTER CORP GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
227.16
1,137.50TREE TRUST TREE DISEASE PRIVATE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,500.00WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,637.50
91.25TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 33
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
595.00PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS
686.25
475.00TRUEX, TIMOTHY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
475.00
1,350.00TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
1,800.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
3,150.00
171.19ULINEPOLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
44.12VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
215.31
511.94UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
370.00SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
524.68PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,406.62
316.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY
316.00
43.69UPS STORE SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
65.44WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
28.09VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
137.22
84.97VAIL, LORI HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
815.80HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
900.77
610.92VALLEY-RICH CO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
610.92
49.45VAUGHAN, JIM ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
49.45
40.00VERIFIED CREDENTIALS HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT
40.00
100.08VERIZON WIRELESS SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 34
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
11,043.15CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT
74.64CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE
11,217.87
110.22WAHYU, RIKY REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
110.22
250.00WALLACE, COLLEEN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
250.00
5,000.00WARD, DAVID ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
5,000.00
138.08WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
662.33-SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS
128,892.75SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
64,396.11SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
65,614.92SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
258,379.53
9,109.08WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
9,109.08
2,861.04WATSON CO INC CONCESSIONS CONCESSION SUPPLIES
2,861.04
2,500.00WEDIG, RACHEL ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
2,500.00
150.65WEST, JASON ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
150.65
1,500.00WESTERN, SANDY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW
1,500.00
215.45WESTWOOD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
215.45
1,723.68WESTWOOD SPORTS SOFTBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,723.68
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 35
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
97.27WHEELER HARDWARE FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
97.27
6,423.26WHEELER LUMBER LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
6,423.26
204.00WHITE, BRIAN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
204.00
277.98WILLHITE, SUZANN CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
277.98
30.00WRAP CITY GRAPHICS HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES
30.00
10,359.00WSB ASSOC INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
900.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
11,259.00
16,325.72XCEL ENERGY GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
22.77OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
22,697.12PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
35,379.73WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,704.37REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
7,506.89SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
2,471.73STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
5,174.20PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
44.84BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
111.41WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
694.71WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
24,680.34REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE
116,813.83
439.05YAROSH, DAVID & BETSY TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCE
439.05
28.40ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.40WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
28.40VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
85.20
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 36
9/28/2015CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 6:39:24R55CKS2 LOGIS400V
36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
9/25/20158/29/2015 -
Amount
ObjectVendorBU Description
Report Totals 3,259,767.35
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4a)
Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 37
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Appoint Additional Election Judges for the 2015 Municipal/School District/State
Special General Election
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution appointing additional Election
Judges needed to staff the polls at the Municipal/School District/State Special General Election
to be held November 3, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable
BACKGROUND: On July 6, 2015, Council adopted Resolution No. 15-087 appointing 99
judges for the Municipal Primary and the Municipal/School District/State Special General
Election. Since that time, several more judges have been recruited to serve at the polls for the
Municipal/School District/State Special General Election on November 3, 2015. The names of
these additional individuals are being presented for approval with this resolution.
This brings the total number of Election Judges to over 150. In an effort to accommodate judges
unable to work the entire 15-18 hour day, some of our judges will be working in half-day shifts.
The City Clerk staff is required to administer a minimum of 2 hours of training to each person
serving as an Election Judge and an additional 1 hour of training for those serving as Chair and
Co-Chair Judges.
We are expecting a good voter turnout, and every effort is being made to provide for an adequate
number of judges to serve the public and facilitate the voting process. The current number of
registered voters in St. Louis Park is 29,572.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Election expenses for judges are included
in the adopted 2015 budget. Election Judge hourly pay is as follows: $9.00 Regular Judges;
$10.00 Co-Chair Judges; $10.00 Absentee Ballot Board; $10.00 Co-Chair Judges; and $11.00
Chair Judges.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community through recruitment
and training of community members to serve as Election Judges.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Kay Midura, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Appoint Additional Election Judges - 2015 Municipal/School District/State Special General Election
RESOLUTION NO. 15-______
RESOLUTION APPOINTING
ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES TO SERVE AT THE
MUNICIPAL/SCHOOL DISTRICT/STATE SPECIAL GENERAL
ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 2015
WHEREAS, The 2015 Municipal/School District/ State Special General Election is to be
held on November 3, 2015, and the City must act to appoint Judges of the Election by resolution
of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, as authorized by MN Statute 204B.21, Subd. 2, Election Judges for
precincts shall be appointed by the governing body of the municipality no later than 25 days
before each election; and
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 15-087 was adopted on July 6, 2015; and
WHEREAS, additional Election Judges have been recruited to staff the polls on Election
Day; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council that in
addition to the persons appointed by Resolution 15-087, the following individuals named on
Exhibit A and on file in the Office of the City Clerk are hereby appointed to serve as Election
Judges or Alternate Election Judges for the 2015 Municipal/School District/ State Special
General Election; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Clerk is with this, authorized to make any
substitutions or additions as deemed necessary.
Reviewed for Administration
Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Appoint Additional Election Judges - 2015 Municipal/School District/State Special General Election
Resolution No. 15 - ___ Exhibit A
Appointed 2015 Election Judges
The following individuals are appointed to serve in the 2015 Municipal/School District/State
Special General Election:
First Name Last Name
Ronald Adams
Judith Adams
Bernadette Berger
James Brimeyer
Priscilla Bue
John Cahill
JoAnn Cox
Helen Desens
Jill Doescher
Sally Anne Dunn
Gay Ann Ellingsberg
Claudia Engeland
Richard Erickson
Phillip Erwin
Pam Feldman
Elizabeth Fluegel
Jean Flynn
Jeffrey Gershone
Tim Gormley
Marie Grimes
Steven Hansen
Michael Held
Mary Hendrix
Marsia Herman
Cecile Javinsky
Mary Johnson
Sarah Johnson
Sandra Johnson
Todd Kalk
Anne Kertes
Katherine Kloehn
Patricia Kremer
Cookie Kulas
Leah Lamon
Brendalee Litman
Paul Martin
Gail Miller
Gloria Murman
Mary Obert
Ross Oden
Barb Osfar
Kay Peltier
Barb Person
Josie Petermeier
Clara Quinn
Angela Ramsperger
Karen Roehl
Margaret Rog
David Rotert
Barbara Ruhl
Elaine Savick
Mark Schwartz
Judy Shapiro
Judy Simmons
Deanna Spiden
Sherm Stanchfield
Kris Stapleton
Richard Steege
Alice Tangney
Rich Thorne
Frank Wells
John White
Sheila Woodbeck
Roz Wyles
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Alley Right-of-Way – The Shoreham
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance
vacating alley right-of-way, connecting Glenhurst Avenue and France Avenue, north of West
31st Street, and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to vacate the right-of-way to facilitate
the Shoreham redevelopment.
SUMMARY: Bader Development requested a preliminary and final plat and preliminary and
final planned unit development (PUD) to redevelop property at the southwest corner of France
Avenue and the CSAH 25 Frontage Road for “The Shoreham Development”. Bader also
requested that the City vacate an alley that runs through this property connecting France Avenue
to Glenhurst Avenue. The City determined that the alley was not needed for public purposes and
approved the vacation request along with the plat and PUD for the Shoreham on June 1, 2015.
When Bader provided the approved plat to Hennepin County it was discovered that the legal
description Bader originally provided to the City for the alley vacation was incomplete; the
action before the Council is to correct this error. The intent of the developer, and of the City at
the time of the original Shoreham applications, was to vacate the entire alley. Bader
Development is now requesting the vacation of the northern half of the alley.
The City Council held a public hearing on September 21, 2015 and approved the First Reading
of the Ordinance.
Five councilmembers must support the ordinance in order to vacate right-of-way.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Prepared by: Ryan Kelley, Planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Michele Schnitker, Deputy Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Alley Right-of-Way – The Shoreham
ORDINANCE NO.____-15
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALLEY
LYING BETWEEN CSAH 25 FRONTAGE ROAD
AND 31ST STREET WEST WHICH CONNECTS
FRANCE AVENUE AND GLENHURST AVENUE
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the alley proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The
notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on September 10, 2015 and
the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the
alley is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said
alley be vacated.
Section 2. The following described alley, as now dedicated and laid out within the
corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated:
That part of the alley lying southerly of Block 2, as dedicated in the recorded plat of
“CALHOUN LAKE SIDE PARK, MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.”, lying westerly of the
southerly extension of the east line of Lot 15, Block 2, said plat, and lying easterly of the
southerly extension of the west line of Lot 16, Block 2, said plat.
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Section_4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing September 21, 2015
First Reading September 21, 2015
Second Reading October 5, 2015
Date of Publication October 8, 2015
Date Ordinance takes effect October 23, 2015
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance Vacating Alley Right-of-Way – The Shoreham
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO.____-15
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN ALLEY
This ordinance states that the alley lying between CSAH 25 Frontage Road and 31st Street West
which connects France Avenue and Glenhurst Avenue will be vacated.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 8, 2015
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution calling for a public hearing relative
to the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to hold a public hearing on
November 16, 2015 to consider the establishment of a Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing
District in connection with Oppidan’s proposed 4900 Excelsior project?
SUMMARY: Oppidan Investment Company (“Developer”) proposes to acquire the former Bally
Total Fitness property located at 4900 Excelsior Blvd, raze the building and parking structure
and replace them with a mixed-use (residential and retail) development called 4900 Excelsior.
There are significant extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the proposed site.
Consequently Oppidan applied to the EDA for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) assistance to
offset a portion of these costs so as to enable the 4900 Excelsior project to proceed. The
Developer’s application was reviewed at the June 8th Study Session as well as the August 17th
Special Study Session where it received favorable support.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost to construct the proposed 4900
Excelsior project is approximately $47.7 million. The project is not financially feasible due to
more than $7.1 million of extraordinary site preparation costs. These include: environmental
investigation & reporting, asbestos abatement, building demolition, site preparation, shoring and
structured underground parking. It is proposed that the EDA consider entering into a
redevelopment contract with Oppidan under which the Developer would be reimbursed for
qualified site preparation costs up to $2.6 million in pay-as-you-go tax increment generated by
the project for a term of approximately 6.5 years. That level of assistance would overcome
enough of the extraordinary site costs described above such that it allows the project to achieve a
rate of return sufficient to attract the necessary equity capital to enable the project to proceed.
Setting a hearing date for the proposed 4900 Excelsior TIF District does not, in itself, authorize
or commit the EDA/City to any level of TIF assistance for the proposed project. Procedurally it
simply enables the City to hold a public hearing to consider the creation of the new TIF district.
The EDA will have the opportunity to consider the precise amount of financial assistance along
with other business terms in the near future. Those terms will be incorporated into a
redevelopment contract with Oppidan which will be brought to the EDA for formal consideration
the same evening as the proposed TIF district public hearing.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
TIF Schedule
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY
COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 4900
EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT THEREIN
AND THE ADOPTION OF THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN
THEREFOR
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on November 16, 2015, at
approximately 7:30 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a Modification to
the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the proposed establishment of the
4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District, and the proposed adoption of a Tax Increment
Financing Plan therefor, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.090 to 469.1082, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1794, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to
encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and
Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of Plans. City staff is authorized and directed
to work with Ehlers to prepare a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment
Project No. 1 and a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including
Hennepin County and Independent School District No. 283. The Economic Development
Coordinator is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an
appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the
City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to November 16, 2015, and to place a copy of
the Plans on file in the Economic Development Coordinator's office at City Hall and to make
such copy available for inspection by the public.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council on October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
ASAP Project information (property identification numbers and legal descriptions,
detailed project description, maps, but/for statement, and list of sources and uses
of funds) for drafting necessary documentation sent to Ehlers.
October 5, 2015 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing.
October 5, 2015 City Council calls for a public hearing.
October 5, 2015 Ehlers confirms with the City whether building permits have been issued on the
property to be included in the TIF District.
N/A County receives TIF Plan for review for County Road impacts (at least 45 days
prior to public hearing). *The County Board, by law, has 45 days to review the TIF
Plan to determine if any county roads will be impacted by the development. Because the
City staff believes that the proposed tax increment financing district may require county
road improvements, the TIF Plan will be forwarded to the County Board 45 days prior to
the public hearing.
October 6, 2015 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of a potential
redevelopment tax increment financing district (at least 30 days prior to
publication of public hearing notice). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or before October 6, 2015]
October 16, 2015 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County
Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers will fax and mail on or
before October 16, 2015.]
October 21, 2015 Planning Commission reviews Plans to determine if they are in compliance with
City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
October 26, 2015 Ehlers conducts internal review of the Plans.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Title: Call for Public Hearing to Consider Establishment of the 4900 Excelsior TIF District
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS – PAGE 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1
AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
4900 EXCELSIOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT
(a redevelopment district)
Nov 5, 2015 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than
30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers will submit notice & map to the St. Louis Park
Sun Sailor on or before October 29, 2015 at sunlegals@ecm-inc.com]
Nov 16, 2015 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Plans.
Nov 16, 2015 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the
Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1, the establishment of the
4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving
the Plans. [Ehlers will email Council packet information to the City on or before
November 9, 2015]
Nov 17, 2015 City can issue building permits.
___________ Ehlers requests certification of the TIF District from the state and county.
An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175,
subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of:
(1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or
(2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3955 Dakota Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the sewer service line at 3955 Dakota Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 21-117-21-23-0039.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: Charles and Sarah Clutter, owners of the single family residence at 3955 Dakota
Avenue South, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their
home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment
policy.
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special
assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line
repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined
to be $2,395.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the
cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall , Utility Superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Brian Swanson, Controller
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3955 Dakota Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
3955 DAKOTA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 21-117-21-23-0039
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3955 Dakota Avenue South, have petitioned the
City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line
for the single family residence located at 3955 Dakota Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing,
right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $2,395.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above
improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of
4.00%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 6811 24th Street West
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the water service line at 6811 24th Street West, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 08-117-21-13-0085.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: Mary Robinson, owner of the single family residence at 6811 24th Street West, has
requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for her home and assess the
cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
This is a 2015 repair that was made between the home and the curb box and is not impacted by the
City’s new waterline ownership policy. Homeowners are still responsible for water lines repairs that
occur between their home and the curb box located in the right of way.
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare
within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer
service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into
place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance with
current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special
assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the water service line
repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined
to be $2,625.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the
cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jay Hall, Utility Superintendent
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Brian Swanson, Controller
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Title: Special Assessment – Water Service Line Repair at 6811 24th Street West
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
6811 24TH STREET WEST, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 08-117-21-13-0085
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 6811 24th Street West, has petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single
family residence located at 6811 24th Street West; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the
water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $2,625.00.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 4.00%.
6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approve Final Payment for Contract No. 73-14 for the Connect the Park! Project –
Project No. 4014-2000
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the
amount of $26,463.12 for Project 4014-2000 Connect the Park! with G.L. Contracting, Inc., City
Contract No. 73-14.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
SUMMARY: On July 7, 2014, the City Council awarded the bid for this contract to G.L. Contracting,
Inc. The work for this contract was finished this summer, and the contractor has requested final payment.
The project consisted of sidewalk construction on Joppa Avenue, Louisiana Avenue, Oxford Street and
39th Street. Along with these larger segments of sidewalk Council directed staff to include some gaps
segments of sidewalk on Huntington Avenue and Inglewood Avenue north of 39th Street. A total of
1.6 miles of sidewalk were constructed as a part of this project.
The Contractor completed this work according to approved plans and specifications. The final
contract cost, $1,041,754.07, is 4.3% more than the final contract amount of $998,537.42. The
contract increase was for the addition of the sidewalk segment along 42nd Street from Quentin
east to the City border.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The final contract cost for the work performed under Contract No. 49-14 has been calculated as
follows:
Original Contract Price (based on estimated quantities) $975,630.97
Change Orders 1 & 2 +$22,906.45
Final Contract Amount $998,537.42
Actual Amount Due (based on actual quantities) $1,041,754.07
Previous Payments -$1,015,290.95
Balance Due $26,463.12
This project was included in the City’s adopted 2014 capital budget. The work was funded by
General Obligation bonds.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Approve Final Payment for Contract No. 73-14 for the Connect the Park! Project – Project No. 4014-2000
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT
AND ACCEPTING THE WORK ON
Connect the Park!
CITY PROJECT NO. 4014-2000
CONTRACT NO. 73-14
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 July 7, 2014, G.L. Contracting, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed Project 4014-2000 Connect the Park!, as per Contract No. 73-14.
2. The Engineering Director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract
cost is $1,041,754.07.
4. The City Manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $26,463.12 on the
contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169
at W. 16th Street
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to order a public hearing to be held on November 16th,
2015 for the closure of the southbound access ramp at W. 16th Street along TH169.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should this access point be closed due to public safety issues?
SUMMARY: MnDOT is proposing to close the 16th Street access on the west side of Trunk
Highway 169 in St. Louis Park. Since this access is located in the City of St. Louis Park they are
requesting municipal consent. A public hearing is required as part of the municipal consent
process. The public hearing is proposed to be held on November 16th.
Public meetings in Hopkins, St. Louis Park, and Minnetonka were conducted regarding the work
on TH169. The meetings in St. Louis Park and in Minnetonka were about the closure of the 16th
Street access. The comments from our residents are provided as an attachment. Also included as
attachments are letters from the City of Minnetonka indicating their interest in keeping the access
open.
This proposed closure of 16th Street includes the installation of a 10 ft. high visual barrier wall
along the west side of TH169 from the I-394 Ramp to the south side of the current 16th Street
Access. If this closure does not move forward, no visual barrier will be constructed during the
currently proposed TH169 project.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The closure of the Highway 169 ramp
access at 16th Street is a MnDOT led project with no estimated cost at this time. Both the ramp
closure and the visual barrier wall would be fully paid by MnDOT.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Figure 1 - 16th Street Graphic Response Graphic
Collision Diagram
Resident Feedback-Comments and Emails
Letters from City of Minnetonka
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th Street
DISCUSSION
In March 2011, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) presented the City
Council with various options for future noise walls and access closures along Highway 169. The
locations were based on noise abatement studies and traffic safety initiatives. The plan included
the closure of the existing access from 16th Street onto TH169.
This traffic configuration is a remnant from when TH169 was a lower volume county road. It
has a short merge distance for getting into southbound lanes on TH169. In addition, there is a
very short deceleration lane for cars exiting TH169 onto 16th Street and cars often swerve into
the east bound lane of 16th Street upon leaving the highway.
It is generally understood that MnDOT will close this access the next time there is a major
project along this section of TH169. At this time, MnDOT has funding to construct a visual
barrier in association with the closure. If the City does not support the closure at this time, the
funding for the visual barrier will be used to fund a different project. It is unlikely that MnDOT
will have funding to construct a visual barrier in the future.
Accidents
MnDOT has provided a collision diagram for TH169 from I-394 to 16th Street. This is five year
crash data from 2010 to 2014. Due to the data which was available to create the collision
diagram, they are unable to determine if the rear-end collisions near the 16th Street exit are
related to vehicles exiting and entering from 16th Street or if they are congestion related. They
were able to determine that at least two accidents have occurred from cars exiting at 16th Street
and two crashes have occurred at the ramp from eastbound I-394 to southbound TH169 due to
the short acceleration lane. This acceleration lane could be improved if 16th Street was closed.
Also, there is a sign near the exit which has been hit 19 times between 2010 and 2014 indicating
that more people are going off the road than the collision report indicates.
MnDOT has indicated that this project is part of their Toward Zero Death initiative. The Toward
Zero Deaths approach is based on the belief that even one traffic-related death on our roads is
unacceptable. This “zero deaths” idea was first adopted in Sweden in 1997 as "Vision Zero" and
since then has evolved to several state DOTs, including Minnesota, that have identified zero
deaths as a core objective in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans
Public Safety
Engineering staff discussed the proposed closure with representatives of the Fire and Police
department. They feel it is unlikely to have any significant impact to response times. They both
indicated that the closure request is acceptable.
Neighborhood Response
MnDOT staff hosted a public meeting in September where all St. Louis Park residents west of
TH169 and south of I-394 were invited via direct mail. The communications staff also reached
out to the neighborhoods via email and Nextdoor. Facebook and Twitter were also used to get
the word out about this meeting. Approximately 40 to 50 people attended this meeting.
Attached is a compilation of the responses from the TH169 Open House in Hopkins and the 16th
Street Access Closure Open House in St. Louis Park.
Also attached to this document is a map which outlines the project notification area, the number
of residences that responded either by email or in person and an indicator on whether they are for
or against the closure. In addition, we have included the responses that were submitted both at
the public meeting and by email.
!?
£¤169
WAYZATA BLVD
1 6 T H S T W
14TH ST W
FORD CIR
16TH ST W
18TH ST W
1 8 T H S T W
RUNNYMEADE LN
F R A N K L I N A V E WFLAGAVESE
B
I
394TOSBHWY169LANCASTERAVENBHWY169TOEBI394FORD RDFORD RDINDEPENDENCEAVESHILLSBOROAVESFLAGAVESPARKERR
D FAIRWAY LNINDEPENDENCEAVESFRONTAGERDMELROSEAVESKI
LMERAVEKILMERAV EJORDANAVESKILMER AVEK I L M E R AVE
16211624
1615
1618
1414 1415141014101423
1415
1415
1414 1410
14001401 134414011400141314011344
1620
1429
1411
1400
1614
1611
1610
180016121607
1605
16051600
9701
981196119506
14409520
1606 9601
98219721 95129830
1441
9610 1440
14351430 1430
9720
98201435 97109700
1430 1435 1430
143114241425
1425 14211420 1421 14141414
1431
1424 1425
1421
1431
1604
9831 97119621
140514041405
1411 1404
1400140414191404
9800
1434
98101434
14311433 1424
1424 142014201420
14101411
1405
930193111801
13411330941694261340
1800
133194069400943694201326
932194309410
93219331
1446
9311 9301
1440 1441
14411435143014311436
14761436
1451
1446
1431
1450
1436 14451470 1440
1430
2026
9411
1841
9401
9310
1820
1831
1830
1820
18201821
1811
1811 1810 18051800
1640
1631
20011640 16311641
93221630
16301631
202094219431
1840
9400
1830 18301831
1821
1810 1810 181191091608
91011621
1610
16111600
1621
1621
1620 91171601
14601455
1426
1425
1607
1601 1600 912516051604
1415
1415
1411
1416
1456 1450
94069416
1440
1425 1431
14351421
14211426 1420
1321
13151320 1324
1332
1321
9400 145694101460
1451
14261435 1311
1304
1311
1304
13151316
1316
1300
83001301
1290
1430 1420 1425
1415
1416
1416 14211420141014111410
140514061410
1401
1437
1345
1406 94051405
9435 94011400
1335
14111406
1405
9425
1401
1325
1308
13051312
13001308
1835
1866186018701832
1838 1856184618761833
1831 1871186118451865
1815
1825
1841 18401830185518511824
1835182518211816
18411820
1840 18611826181518201810
1810
1800 1845
182118051801 1851
1806981198051800
18059814
1835
1811 1664
18011647 16801660
1653 167498049800981016551650
9794 1644
9812
1837 185018361654
16511654
16359818
1631
1341 1340
1634
1640
164116429828
13361325
1325
1629
1624
13311336
1625
13301335
1337 13341328
13301333
1329
1880
1828 1826 1856
1821
18311850
1836
1830
1811 1855
1805 1811 1816
1806 18311841
1825
1815
1324
13081300
1330
1310
1325
1313
130913051301
13001321
1306
167098201660
9806
16451648
1630
98241636
1630
1320
1319 1322
13241316
1318
1317
1312
0 125 250 375 500Feet
²
Resident Response to Proposed 16th StreetAccess Closure on Southbound Highway 169
Legend
Resident Response
In favor of closing access
Against closing access
!?Proposed Access Closure
Proposed Visual Barrier
Mailing Area
Parcels
City LimitsMinnetonkaCity Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th Street Page 3
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 4
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 5
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 6
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 7
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 8
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 9
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 10
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 11
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 12
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th StreetPage 13
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th Street
Page 14
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th Street
Page 15
£¤169
Ford Rd1 6 t h S t W
Lake
Windsor
Crane
Lake
!"#$394
C i m a rronC irRidgewaterDrFairfield
W a yCedarGrnGreen
b
ri
e
r
R
d WildwoodTrlCountryLnEnclave D
rCoveDrHopkinsXrdLindberghDrCrestridgeDrKingmanLn
C e darB n d
Yor
k
s
hi
r
eAv
e
S
WindsorLakeLn
Hillside Ln W
Oak Knoll
Ter S
Oak Knoll
Ter N
Vernon Dr SCape Cod PlCed
a
r
wo
odRd
g
Ced
a
rPas
s
P a r k R i d ge
Dr W
CedarLakeR d
Wa
y
z
at
aBlv
dThis map is for illustrative purposes only.
62
7
45674
456715
456773
456760
4567101 45673
456716
456761
45675
!"#$394
!"#$494
£¤169
Hwy. 169/16th St. W. Access
City of Minnetonka User Area
City of St. Louis Park User Area
Municipal Boundary ±City of MinnetonkaCity of St. Louis Park^_
16th St. W Access
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th Street
Page 16
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th Street
Page 17
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4h)
Title: Schedule Public Hearing – Proposed Closure of Southbound Access Ramp on TH 169 at W. 16th Street
Page 18
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Accept Monetary Donations to Westwood Hills Nature Center
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of monetary
donations totaling $105 from: David Kane and Joann Shaughnessy Kane in the amount of $30,
Robert and Lila Aske in the amount of $25, Rocky Massie in the amount of $25, Stephen
Williams in the amount of $25 all of which will be used for the Westwood Hills Nature Center’s
raptors in memory of Chris Bohlinger.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept these gifts with
restrictions on their use?
SUMMARY: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is
necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the
use of each donation prior to it being expended.
David Kane and Joann Shaughnessy Kane graciously donated $30; Robert and Lila Aske
graciously donated $25; Rocky Massie graciously donated $25; and Stephen Williams graciously
donated $25 to Westwood Hills Nature Center.
These donations are all given with restrictions to be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for
the care and management of Westwood’s raptors in memory of Chris Bohlinger.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These donations will be used at Westwood
Hills Nature Center for the care and management of Westwood’s raptors in memory of Chris
Bohlinger.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy M. Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Accept Monetary Donations to Westwood Hills Nature Center
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $105 TO BE USED AT WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER
FOR CARE AND MANAGEMENT OF WESTWOOD’S RAPTORS IN MEMORY OF
CHRIS BOHLINGER
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize
acceptance of any donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by
the donor; and
WHEREAS, David Kane and Joann Shaughnessy Kane donated $30; and
Robert and Lila Aske donated $25; and
Rocky Massie donated $25; and
Stephen Williams donated $25.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the gifts are hereby accepted with thanks to David Kane and Joann Shaughnessy Kane,
Robert and Lila Aske, Rocky Massie and Stephen Williams with the understanding that they
must be used at Westwood Hills Nature Center for care and management of Westwood’s raptors
in memory of Chris Bohlinger.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4j
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Resolution Supporting Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Meadowbrook Golf Course
Ecological Restoration Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Supporting Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: This action shows City Council support for the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MCWD) proposal to undertake design, construction oversight and
construction activities for approximately 3,000 linear feet of new stream channel (mimicking
design of upstream restoration work) and approximately 7-acres of wetland restoration at
Meadowbrook Golf Course which is owned by the Minneapolis Park Board.
SUMMARY: MCWD and Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) are cooperating on
proposed improvements to Meadowbrook Golf Course and Minnehaha Creek. MPRB selected a
preferred master plan to maintain an 18-hole golf course. MCWD proposes to undertake
complementary work in order to advance its goals to reduce pollutant load and restore the stream
channel of Minnehaha Creek between West 34th Street to Meadowbrook Lake. The MPRB
concept plan includes a trail connection between Excelsior Blvd and Todd Park in Edina. It is
not clear if this trail will remain in the plan, and MPRB or MCWD may look to the cities of
Edina and St. Louis Park to participate in this element. The trail is not included in this request.
The City’s consent is needed to allow MCWD to proceed with design of its restoration project
and prepare construction documents. The project will require permits from the City and other
agencies. It is expected the project will require a conditional use permit, stormwater permits, and
erosion control permits.
A more detailed project background provided by MCWD is attached to this report, as well as the
MPRB preferred concept plan for the golf course.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: There are no direct costs to the City. The
total estimated cost for MCWD’s ecological restoration project (stream and wetland restoration)
is $1,554,217. This estimate does not include MPRB golf course improvements that are under
consideration by MPRB.
The preliminary budget estimate for the MPRB improvements to the Golf Course is $9.3 million,
excluding the trail and improvements to the club house. It is expected that MPRB will receive
$1.7 – $2 million dollars from FEMA from the 2014 flood damage.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city
business.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Project Background
Existing and Proposed Golf Course Concept Plans
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Phil Elkin, Sr. Engineering Project Manager
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Resolution Supporting MCWD Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project
RESOLUTION NO. 15-___
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
MEADOWBROOK GOLF COURSE ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is proposing an
ecological restoration project within Meadowbrook Golf Course in the cities of Hopkins and St.
Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project will restore the currently ditched segment of
Minnehaha Creek to a meandering stream channel; address flood resiliency within the golf
course; provide flood mitigation for properties adjacent to the site; restore and enhance wetland
function within the golf course; and expand the Minnehaha Creek Greenway through access and
connections; and
WHEREAS, MCWD needs the consent of the City of St. Louis Park to move forward
with the project; and
WHEREAS, the project enhances the community and environment in St. Louis Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota that the City supports the Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration
Project.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Title: Resolution Supporting MCWD Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project
Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project
Project Background:
The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has identified the area between West 34th
Street and Meadowbrook Lake as a priority geography for partnership, focused planning and
capital project implementation. This subwatershed produces the highest pollutant loading per
unit area along the 22 mile stream system.
Since 2009, the District’s work to manage regional stormwater and to expand and connect the
riparian greenway in a manner mutually beneficial to the built environment has yielded
significant results, often through innovative public and private partnerships.
The District’s success in this corridor has also produced an evolution in philosophy
memorialized in the Balanced Urban Ecology policy, which emphasizes the interdependent
relationship of the built and natural environments and promotes the significance of focused
innovative partnerships as a strategy for successful watershed improvements. Accordingly, on
December 12, 2013, the MCWD Board of Managers directed staff to explore partnership with
the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) to improve watershed processes, ecological
integrity and connections along Minnehaha Creek within the Meadowbrook Golf Course.
Also in 2013, in an effort to combat local and national trends, the MPRB sought consulting
services to evaluate the current financial and operational practices at its golf facilities as they
compare to industry best management practices in golf course operations. The MPRB contracted
with Golf Convergence to provide this analysis. In February 2014 the MPRB received the Golf
Convergence study which identified operational strategies designed to improve golf operations
and services, and improve the financial performance of the MPRB golf operations. The MPRB
also released their 10-year Golf Master Plan, including a capital investment plan, based on the
report provided by Golf Convergence. Through this long term strategic review of the parks
system’s golf courses, MPRB committed to the continuation of golf as a primary use at
Meadowbrook.
During the first half of 2014 the Minnehaha Creek watershed experienced record setting
precipitation, which led to unprecedented flooding across the entire watershed. During the high
water event, record flows were recorded in many reaches of Minnehaha Creek, including the
crossing at Hiawatha Avenue, which exceeded the 100-year event by over 30% to become a new
high flow record for the gauge. Flows throughout the stream system remained high for the
duration of the summer due to the continual release of water from Lake Minnetonka and
drainage of wetlands along the creek.
MPRB properties, including Meadowbrook Golf Course and Hiawatha Golf Course, experienced
significant damage due to the record flood flows and prolonged inundation. At Meadowbrook
Golf Course alone, the impact from flooding to the course included 64 acres of dead turf,
extensive damage to four greens, 75 drowned trees, submerged irrigation electrical satellites and
washout of cart paths. Total estimated damage submitted to FEMA for Meadowbrook Golf
Course is $2.02-million.
Past analyses of golf operations coupled with the 2014 flood damages catalyzed the need to
rapidly conduct conceptual master planning for Meadowbrook Golf Course, to explore a
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 4
Title: Resolution Supporting MCWD Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project
potential range of golf and non-golf uses, their respective revenue generation models and flood
resilience. On March 12, 2015 the MCWD Board authorized the execution of a cooperative
agreement with the MPRB and a contract with Wenck Associates to collaboratively develop
conceptual master plans for capital investment in the Meadowbrook Golf Course.
The Cooperative Agreement between MCWD and MPRB identified the following water resource
goals:
• Improve ecological integrity of the stream corridor through this reach;
• Improve ecological integrity of upland within the golf course;
• Improve wetland function and value on site, and water quality leaving the site;
• Maintain or increase flood storage capacity, reducing flood severity for surrounding
communities; and
• Connect Minnehaha Creek Greenway trails through MPRB land to City of Edina parks
and trails system in a manner that respects adjoining landowners’ interests.
Following public comment, the preferred conceptual master plan has been identified to maintain
18-hole golf use on the property while meeting many of the objectives outlined above.
MCWD Goals/Objectives:
Improve ecological integrity of the stream corridor through this reach; improve ecological
integrity of upland within the golf course; improve wetland function and value on site; improve
water quality for Minnehaha Creek and downstream Lake Hiawatha; maintain or increase flood
storage capacity to improve golf course resilience and reduce flood severity of adjacent
neighborhoods; connect Minnehaha Creek Greenway trails through MPRB land to City of Edina
parks and trails system in a manner that respects adjoining landowners’ interests.
Tentative Schedule:
• September 2015-March 2016
o Finalize total obligation from FEMA for course restoration
o Amend Cooperative Agreement for design, construction, and funding
o MPRB/MCWD execute design contracts
o Conduct final design and permitting process
• February 2016
o Construction documents complete
• March 2016
o Project bidding and contract documents
• May 2016
o Construction starts on 15-16 holes and driving range
• November 2016
o Construction complete for 15-16 holes and driving range
o Construction begins on stream and remaining 2-3 holes
• May 2017
o 15-16 holes and driving range open
• July 2017
o Construction on stream and remaining 2-3 holes complete
o Course opens for full play
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
MEADOWBROOK GOLF COURSE - EXISTING
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Meadowbrook Lake
Excelsior
Bl
v
d
Minnehaha CreekExisting
Clubhouse
Location
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Resolution Supporting MCWD Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project Page 5
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Preferred Concept B
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
Meadowbrook Lake
Trail
Driving
Range
Excelsior
Bl
v
d
Minnehaha CreekClubhouse,
Maintenance, and
Parking Lot
Redevelopment
Description of golf
modifications
• Course reconfigured to
accommodate stream
improvements and flood
protection.
• Design features and
signatures of the original
course enhanced or re-
introduced.
• Play quality improved.
• Course length and
par reduced to par 71
to accommodate site
constraints.
• Driving range installed.
• Clubhouse, maintenance,
and parking areas
redeveloped.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Resolution Supporting MCWD Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project Page 6
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Preferred Concept B
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
Meadowbrook Lake
Trail
Driving
Range
Excelsior
Bl
v
d
Minnehaha CreekClubhouse,
Maintenance, and
Parking Lot
Redevelopment
Description of non-golf
modifications
• Stream improved and
remeandered.
• Non-golf uses/activities
introduced in portions of
the site where they pose no
conflict with golf play or pose
a hazard for non-golf users.
• Clubhouse renovated and
expanded to serve golf and
non-golf users.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Resolution Supporting MCWD Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project Page 7
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
How the Course Will Flood
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
1617
18
Meadowbrook Lake
Excelsior
Bl
v
d
Minnehaha CreekClubhouse,
Maintenance, and
Parking Lot
Redevelopment
Simply put, the course
will flood again.
• The creek is realigned, and
meanders introduced.
• The site is regraded to lift
high value facilities out of the
flood’s reach.
• Strategic grading reduces
neighborhood flooding.
• High and dry 9-holes to play
ASAP after flood event. Holes
include 1, 2, 3, 17, 18, 10, 11,
12, and 13.
• Fairways, roughs, and out-
of-bounds areas may flood,
Fairways shed water fast.
• Driving range able to flood
and recover.Driving
Range
No flood data shown south of MPRB property
Trail
100-YEAR
FLOOD ZONE
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 4j)
Title: Resolution Supporting MCWD Meadowbrook Golf Course Ecological Restoration Project Page 8
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a(1)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to utilize the special
service district tool in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: The 2016 proposed budgets and service charges are similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the six districts and
received their support for approving the 2016 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Parks Maintenance budget will incur a
service charge for the City-owned property located within this district at 3700 Monterey Drive
(Recreation Center/Wolfe Park). The proposed service charge for 2016 is $22,775.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2016 Budget
Proposed 2016 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(1)) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On November 6, 2006, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year service
charge for Special Service District No. 1 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard from
Quentin Avenue to Highway 100 and along Park Center Boulevard and Monterey Drive).
Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public hearing
on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners Board approved the
proposed 2016 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 10 and September 24, 2015. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 1 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 1 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$35,179.
Proposed 2016 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2016 budget amount of $116,672; a $10,000 decrease from 2015 after a detailed review
past expenditures history and expected future expenditures.
• 2016 service charge amount of $86,672; no change from 2015.
• Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Soren Mattick.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(1)) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 15 - ___
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2016 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2067-96, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 1 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 06-167, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2016 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 06-167, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 06-167, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2016 Budget for Special Service District No. 1 of $116,672 is hereby
approved as recommended by the Special Service District No. 1 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2016 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 is $86,672
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account 2015 Final Budget 2016 Proposed
Budget Entry
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,297.00 1,064.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 10,000.00 10,000.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 11,297.00 11,064.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 3,600.00 2,500.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 300.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 3,600.00 2,800.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 4,500.00 4,500.00
6630 - SSD - snow removal 53,000.00 49,000.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 3,000.00 0.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 2,400.00 1,500.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 8,000.00 5,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 9,000.00 10,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 26,500.00 26,000.00
POSTAGE
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 153.00 150.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 222.00 158.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 3,000.00 4,500.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 2,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 126,672.00 116,672.00
SSD #1 Budget
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(1))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2016 Service Charge
OWNER PROPOSED ACTUAL ACTUAL
2016 2015 2014
PAR.PID SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE
NO.NO.CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE
1 5400 Auto Club Way AAA Minneapolis 07-028-24-22-0004 $4,759 $4,755 $4,755
2 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0004 $603 $602 $602
3 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0005 $407 $407 $407
4 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Zip Printing 07-028-24-21-0006 $493 $492 $492
5 4951 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-21-0512 $2,772 $3,904 $3,904
6 4959 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Companies 07-028-24-21-0513 $1,139 $1,139 $1,139
7 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0023 $556 $556 $556
8 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0024 $747 $748 $748
9 5000 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0032 $675 $675 $675
10 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0025 $517 $517 $517
11 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0033 $3,005 $3,004 $3,004
12 5100 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0034 $1,688 $1,690 $1,690
13 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place Ltd Liability Co.07-028-24-22-0037 $1,213 $1,210 $1,210
14 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.07-028-24-22-0026 $6,712 $6,710 $6,710
15 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Companies 07-028-24-22-0036 $5,320 $5,314 $5,314
16 3700 Monterey Drive City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-34-0022 $22,775 $22,802 $22,802
17 3601 Park Center Boulevard 36 Park LLC 06-028-24-33-0019 $4,322 $4,317 $4,317
18 3777 Park Center Boulevard Lund Food Holdings 06-028-24-33-0014 $9,822 $9,820 $9,820
19 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 $4,990 $5,003 $5,003
20 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0031 $1,108 $1,111 $1,111
21 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services 07-028-24-22-0035 $3,694 $3,687 $3,687
22 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Target Corporation t-0260 06-028-24-33-0015 $9,355 $9,348 $9,348
TOTALS:$86,672 $86,672 $86,672
Notes:
1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
2)For 2016, the proposed budget was reduced by $10,000 and the service charge remains the same as in 2015.
3)The proposed 2016 budget is $116,672, but the service charge is only $86,672 because $30,000 was transferred from reserves
to lower the fund balance.
4)Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are on a front footage basis.
5)All other services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
ADDRESS
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(1))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a(2)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to utilize the special
service district tool in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: The 2016 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the six districts and received
their support for approving the 2016 budget and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Public Works Operations Division budget
will incur a service charge for the City-owned property located within this district at 3929
Excelsior Boulevard (bus shelter). The proposed service charge for 2016 is $49.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2016 Budget
Proposed 2016 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(2)) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On October 20, 2008, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year service
charge for Special Service District No. 2 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard from
Monterey Drive/38th Street to France Avenue). Annually, the City Council must set a service
charge for the District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service
District Property Owners approved the proposed 2016 budget and service charges. The notice of
public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on September 10 and September 24, 2015. The
public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 2 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 2 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$29,050.
Proposed 2014 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2016 budget amount of $47,464; no change from 2015.
• 2016 service charge amount of $36,464; an $11,000 decrease from 2015 to keep the fund
reserve at the desired amount.
• Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Soren Mattick.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(2)) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 15 - __
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2016 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2093-97, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 2 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 08-133, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2018 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 08-133, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 08-133, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2016 Budget for Special Service District No. 2 of $47,464 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 2 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2013 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 is $36,464
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account
2015 Final
Budget
2016 Proposed
Budget Entry
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.00 252.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 6,500.00 5,500.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 6,700.00 5,752.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 1,000.00 1,500.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,500.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,000.00 2,000.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 500.00 0.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 2,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 9,000.00 8,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 15,000.00 17,500.00
POSTAGE
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 252.00 154.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 82.00 58.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 7,930.00 6,500.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 2,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 47,464.00 47,464.00
SSD #2 Budget
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(2))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2016 Service Charge
PROPOSED ACTUAL ACTUAL
2016 2015 2014
PID SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE
OWNER NO.CHARGE CHARGE CHARGE
3900 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0072 $3,756 $4,890 $4,484
3901 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP 06-028-24-41-0077 $1,901 $2,474 $2,269
3924 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC 06-028-24-41-0003 $2,107 $2,742 $2,515
3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.06-028-24-41-0068 $773 $1,006 $923
3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-41-0067 $49 $63 $58
3939 Excelsior Blvd Sara Son LLC 06-028-24-41-0014 $1,048 $1,364 $1,251
3947 Excelsior Blvd KMS Management 06-028-24-41-0070 $1,735 $2,258 $2,071
4011 Excelsior Blvd Richard Hogan
4015 Excelsior Blvd Jeffery Miller
4025 Excelsior Blvd Terrance Williams
4031 Excelsior Blvd Joann Armstrong
4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling 06-028-24-41-0008 $1,223 $1,592 $1,460
4115 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
4120 Excelsior Blvd James & Anne Mattson 06-028-24-41-0009 $1,252 $1,630 $1,495
4121 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
4131 Excelsior Blvd Roxanna, Kooros & Grace Rejali
4140 Excelsior Blvd Larson Enterprises 06-028-24-44-0001 $2,165 $2,819 $2,585
4143 Excelsior Blvd Sam & Pearl Bix
4170 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership 06-028-24-44-0176 $1,739 $2,264 $2,077
4200 Excelsior Blvd Stranik Six LLC 06-028-24-44-0175 $1,428 $1,859 $1,705
4201 Excelsior Blvd AMF Properties LLC 06-028-24-44-0173 $2,107 $2,742 $2,515
4221 Excelsior Blvd Prima Investments LLC 06-028-24-44-0088 $359 $467 $429
4300 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0017 $561 $730 $670
4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments 06-028-24-43-0020 $1,254 $1,632 $1,497
4306 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0018 $480 $625 $573
4308 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0019 $662 $861 $790
4320 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc 06-028-24-43-0186 $1,856 $2,415 $2,215
4321 Excelsior Blvd Koval Furniture & Appliance 06-028-24-43-0021 $744 $968 $888
4331 Excelsior Blvd Furniture Liquidators 06-028-24-43-0091 $1,085 $1,412 $1,295
4400 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank 06-028-24-43-0187 $4,474 $5,824 $5,342
4409 Excelsior Blvd Samfar Real Estate Inc 06-028-24-43-0040 $656 $854 $783
4415 Excelsior Blvd Auto Accessories LLC 06-028-24-43-0041 $583 $758 $696
4419 Excelsior Blvd Celine Properties LLC 06-028-24-43-0042 $1,349 $1,757 $1,611
4424 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank 06-028-24-43-0064 $1,120 $1,458 $1,337
3500 Glenhurst Ave Gary James
3551 Huntington Ave.Frank Murray
3600 Huntington Ave.Elmer Nordstrom
3601 Huntington Ave.Martin & Alice Fowler
3757 Kipling Ave S Bruce Remmington
3542 Minikadha Ct.Sage Company
TOTALS:$36,464 $47,464 $43,534
Notes:
1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the initial
service charge collection.
2)The proposed 2016 budget remains the same and the service charge was reduced by $11,000 from 2015.
3)The proposed 2016 budget is $47,464, but the service charge is only $36,464 because $11,000 was transferred from reserves
to lower the fund balance.
4)All services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
ADDRESS
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(2))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a(3)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to utilize the special
service district tool in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: The 2016 proposed budgets and service charges are similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the six districts and
received their support for approving the 2016 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The TIF / Admin budget will incur a service
charge for the City-owned property located within this district at 4790 Excelsior Boulevard
(undeveloped property next to the old Bally’s Fitness). The proposed service charge for 2016 is
$623.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2016 Budget
Proposed 2016 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(3)) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
History
On October 15, 2012, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for
Special Service District No. 3 (located along Excelsior Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to
Monterey Drive/W. 38th Street). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the
District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property
Owners approved the proposed 2016 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing
was published in the Sun Sailor on September 10 and September 24, 2015. The public hearing
notice was sent to all property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 3 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 3 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$36,197.
Proposed 2016 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2016 budget amount of $53,600; reflects a decrease of $10,000 from 2015 after a detailed
review past expenditures history and expected future expenditures.
• 2016 service charge amount of $28,600; reflects a decrease or $15,000 from 2015 to keep
the fund reserve at the desired amount.
• Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Soren Mattick.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(3)) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 15 - __
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2016 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 3
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2224-02, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 3 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 12-149, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2022 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 12-149, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 12-149, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2016 Budget for Special Service District No. 3 of $53,600 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 3 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2016 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 is $28,600
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account
2015 Final
Budget
2016 Proposed
Budget Entry
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 6,000.00 5,500.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 6,500.00 6,000.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 2,000.00 2,000.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 300.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00 2,300.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD - snow removal 24,000.00 18,000.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 0.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 4,500.00 2,200.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,400.00 4,500.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 13,000.00 12,400.00
POSTAGE
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 88.00 121.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 112.00 79.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7205 - BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 0.00 0.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 3,500.00 3,000.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,000.00 1,500.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 63,600.00 53,600.00
SSD #3 Budget
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(3))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #3
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2016 Service Charge
Proposed Actual Actual
2016 2015 2014
Address Business PID No.Service Charge Service Charge Service Charge
4911 Exc Blvd Old World Antiques 07-028-24-21-0033 $411 $624 $618
4907 Exc Blvd Vogue Furniture 07-028-24-21-0032 $406 $609 $592
4901 Exc Blvd Checks II 07-028-24-21-0031 $419 $631 $619
4825 Exc Blvd German Autoworks 07-028-24-21-0017 $446 $679 $675
4821 Exc Blvd German Autoworks 07-028-24-21-0016 $434 $661 $660
4811 Exc Blvd Latitudes/Laundromat 07-028-24-21-0015 $834 $1,256 $1,230
4801 Exc Blvd Loffhagen Insurance 07-028-24-21-0252 $897 $1,367 $1,367
4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Office Bldg 07-028-24-21-0012 $1,962 $2,965 $2,919
4701 Exc Blvd Mason Properties LLC 07-028-24-21-0011 $1,272 $1,887 $1,796
4637 Exc Blvd Jennings Liquor 07-028-24-21-0009 $931 $1,423 $1,428
4617 Exc Blvd Flower Fair 07-028-24-12-0052 $907 $1,382 $1,379
4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann & Friends 07-028-24-12-0051 $677 $1,032 $1,032
4611 Exc Blvd Dilly Lilly 07-028-24-12-0050 $846 $1,290 $1,292
4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd Office Bldg 07-028-24-12-0049 $1,701 $2,592 $2,589
4509 Exc Blvd Lang Nelson Office 07-028-24-12-0048 $1,243 $1,871 $1,829
4501 Exc Blvd S & D Cleaners 07-028-24-12-0047 $603 $910 $896
4900 Exc Blvd Bally Total Fitness 07-028-24-21-0002 $2,174 $3,390 $3,522
4760 Exc Blvd Outlot H - Vacant 07-028-24-21-0258 $623 $949 $950
4730 Exc Blvd Retail/housing 07-028-24-21-0256 $4,787 $7,265 $7,210
4630 Exc Blvd Retail/housing 07-028-24-12-0175 $4,131 $6,262 $6,202
4500 Exc Blvd Retail/housing 06-028-24-43-0191 $2,896 $4,555 $4,795
Total $28,600 $43,600 $43,600
Notes:
1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the initial
service charge collection.
a) Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are based on the square foot of sidewalk in front of the property.
b) All other services charges are based on the property's front footage.
2)For 2016, the proposed budget was reduced by $10,000 and the service charge was reduced by $15,000 from the 2015 amounts.
3)The proposed 2016 budget is $53,600, but the service charge is only $28,600 because $25,000 was transferred from
reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(3))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a(4)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
and Extension of Special Service District through 2025
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to utilize the special
service district tool in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: The 2016 proposed budgets and service charges are similar to that of past years.
Staff has received the required number of signed petitions from property owners supporting
extension of the District through 2025. Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners
from each of the six districts and received their support for approving the 2016 budgets and
service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Public Works Operations budget will
incur a service charge for the City-owned municipal parking lot located within this district. The
proposed service charge for 2016 is $282.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2016 Budget
Proposed 2016 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(4)) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges and Reallocation - Special Service District No. 4
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On July 18, 2005, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 4. (Located along Excelsior Boulevard west of Highway 100 to Louisiana
Avenue). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public
hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners approved the
proposed 2016 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 10 and September 24, 2015. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 3 Extension
The District’s 2005 multi-year service charge was for ten years expiring in 2015. Service District
members have shown interest in extending the District beyond 2015. Staff sent a petition to each
property owner to approve service charges commencing 2016 through and including 2025. As
required by law, the City has received signed petitions from the owners of at least twenty-five
percent (25%) or more of the land area of property and at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the
individuals or business organizations subject to the proposed service charge.
Special Service District No. 4 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 4 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$32,159.
Proposed 2016 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2016 budget amount of $24,644; a $5,000 decrease from 2015 after a detailed review past
expenditures history and expected future expenditures.
• 2016 service charge amount of $9,664; a $5,000 decrease from 2015 to keep the fund
reserve at the desired amount.
• Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Soren Mattick.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(4)) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges and Reallocation - Special Service District No. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 15 - __
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2016 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 4
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: Findings.
1.01 Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2298-05, (the “Ordinance”) the City created a special
service district for certain property located adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard within an area
approximately bounded by Highway 100 westerly to Louisiana Avenue. The specific properties
included within this area are identified on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and generally depicted on
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto (the "District").
1.02 The City has received a petition requesting a public hearing to impose a service
charge from the owners of property within the District (the "Petition").
1.03 The City Council has determined each of the following:
(a) at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business
organizations subject to the proposed service charge have signed the
Petition;
(b) only owners of property located within the District have signed the Petition;
(c) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13
as commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is vacant land
zoned or designated on a land use plan for commercial, industrial, or public
utility purposes, have signed the Petition; and
(d) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been
held.
Section 2. Imposition of Service Charge.
2.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge against the
properties specified on Exhibit "A", the amount is a calculation using each property’s front foot
percentage applied against the annual budget expenditures (the "Service Charge").
The City imposes a service charge, payable in 2016, for special services provided during the period
of January 2016 - December 2016 in a maximum amount of $9,664. The maximum service charge
in all subsequent years will be calculated pursuant to the provisions of Section 2.04.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(4)) Page 4
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges and Reallocation - Special Service District No. 4
2.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The Service Charge imposed by this resolution is a
charge for more than one year. The Service Charge will remain in effect through and including the
year 2025 for taxes payable in said year.
2.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The Service Charge for all costs related to the
District shall be distributed based upon the front feet adjacent to Excelsior Boulevard for each
parcel within the District and subject to the Service Charge.
2.04 Inflation Adjuster. Commencing with the service charge payable in 2016, the
maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the "Current Year") will increase from the
maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year immediately preceding the Current Year (the
"Prior Year") based upon the following:
The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan
Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement of
the Current Year (the "Current Year Index"), shall be compared with the Index
published for the date nearest the commencement of the Prior Year (the "Prior Year
Index"). If the Current Year Index has increased over the Prior Year Index, the
Maximum Service Charge shall be increased by multiplying the Maximum Service
Charge by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Current Year Index and the
denominator of which is the Prior Year Index. If the Index is discontinued or
revised, such other government index or computation with which it is replaced shall
be used in order to obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the
Index had not been discontinued or revised. Notwithstanding increases in the Index
of greater than five percent (5%), the Maximum Service Charge shall not increase
from any Prior Year to any Current Year by an amount greater than five percent
(5%) of the Prior Year's Service Charge.
2.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total Service Charge
among properties within the District and subject to the Service Charge may vary and shall be
recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 2.03 if and to the extent that: (i) the front
footage of sidewalks constructed on such properties increases or decreases; or (ii) a parcel
increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale.
2.06 Use of Revenues. Revenues collected through the imposition of service charges may
be used by the City for any purposes authorized in the Ordinance. Exhibit D contains the services
proposed for funding in 2016. The services and the revenues allocated to each service are subject
to change at the discretion of the City.
Section 3. Collection of Service Charges.
3.01 Collection. The Services Charges shall be payable and collected at the same time
and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes; except that
the City may directly bill owners of parcels located within the District and subject to the Service
Charge for the Service Charge due and payable in calendar year 2016. For purposes of
determining the appropriate tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined
without regard to captured or original net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177
or to the distribution or contribution value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08. Any
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(4)) Page 5
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges and Reallocation - Special Service District No. 4
service charge due and payable in calendar year 2016 that remains unpaid as of October 31, 2016,
shall be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment
and collection of ad valorem taxes in the year 2017.
3.02 Penalty and Interest. Service Charges made payable in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable
due date, shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts
not paid by the respective date.
3.03 Due Date. The due date for the Service Charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service Charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to
become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments.
Section 4. Revenue Surplus.
To the extent that the total of Service Charges collected exceed the cost of services rendered within
the District, at the election of the City, all or a portion of such excess amount shall either be held as
a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this resolution or applied to reduce the
next year’s service charge levy.
Section 5. Recording.
The City may record this Resolution against parcels located within the District and subject to the
Service Charge for the purpose of providing notice of the Service Charge to prospective purchasers
of such parcels.
Section 6. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th) day following adoption, which effective
date shall be November 20, 2015.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK October 5, 2015.
Attest:
_______________________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for administration: Approved as to form and execution:
_______________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager City Attorney
Object
Account
2015 Final
Budget
2016 Proposed
Budget Entry
EXPENDITURES
PERSONAL SERVICES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,500.00 2,500.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 5,000.00 3,000.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 1,000.00 700.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 300.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,000.00 1,000.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 0.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,500.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 4,000.00 2,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 4,000.00 2,500.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 10,000.00 9,500.00
POSTAGE
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 96.00 116.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 68.00 48.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 500.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 0.00 2,000.00
UTILITIES
7301 - SSD pedestrian 0.00 1,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 29,664.00 24,664.00
SSD #4 Budget
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(4))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Page 6
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #4
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2016 Service Charge
Proposed Actual Actual
2016 2015 2014
PAR Service Service Service
NO.PID #Owner Charge Charge Charge
1 21-117-21-32-0022 6127 Excelsior Blvd Gregory White $184 $279 $279
2 21-117-21-32-0021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Hung LLC $227 $345 $345
3 21-117-21-32-0006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Full Circle Equities LLC $370 $562 $562
4 21-117-21-23-0100 6011 Excelsior Blvd Ward Properties $365 $554 $554
5 21-117-21-23-0097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation $177 $268 $268
6 21-117-21-24-0195 5925 Excelsior Blvd Suntide Commercial Realty $484 $734 $734
7 21-117-21-24-0185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC $464 $704 $704
8 21-117-21-24-0209 5813 Excelsior Blvd Universal Outdoor, Inc.$23 $35 $35
9 21-117-21-24-0208 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Prtnr II LLP $157 $239 $239
10 21-117-21-24-0161 5801 Excelsior Blvd MGV Holdings LLC $182 $276 $276
11 21-117-21-24-0193 5717 Excelsior Blvd LMC, Inc $411 $624 $624
12 21-117-21-24-0141 5707 Excelsior Blvd New Concepts Mgt Group $313 $475 $475
13 20-117-21-41-0009 6600 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $1,337 $2,028 $2,028
14 20-117-21-14-0026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $708 $1,074 $1,074
15*6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd $1,016 $1,541 $1,541
16 21-117-21-23-0130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co.$202 $306 $306
17 21-117-21-23-0155 6100 Excelsior Blvd Laurence I Meger $141 $213 $213
18 21-117-21-23-0128 6006 Excelsior Blvd RRK LLC $101 $154 $154
19 21-117-21-23-0127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Fitrz, Inc $195 $296 $296
20 City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park $282 $428 $428
21 21-117-21-23-0011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard C Riley $139 $210 $210
22 21-117-21-23-0010 5922 Excelsior Blvd Muriel B. Frederick $65 $99 $99
23 21-117-21-23-0156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner $341 $518 $518
24 21-117-21-24-0083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Realty Income Props 3 LLC $309 $469 $469
25 21-117-21-24-0067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd. Co $261 $396 $396
26 21-117-21-24-0066 5804 Excelsior Blvd 5804 Excelsior Blvd., LLC $222 $338 $338
27 21-117-21-24-0040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Holiday Stationstores Inc.$393 $597 $597
28 21-117-21-24-0202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer $242 $367 $367
29 21-117-21-24-0019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Finished Basement Company $353 $535 $535
$9,664 $14,664 $14,664
**6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges 2015 2015 2014
21-117-21-32-0133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 Mark S Bloomberg $59 $90 $90
21-117-21-32-0134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson $62 $94 $94
21-117-21-32-0135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 Laurie G Holasek $60 $91 $91
21-117-21-32-0136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 Laurie G Holasek $67 $102 $102
21-117-21-32-0137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $57 $87 $87
21-117-21-32-0138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $60 $91 $91
21-117-21-32-0139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 Unite Rope Holland Dist $79 $119 $119
21-117-21-32-0140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $69 $105 $105
21-117-21-32-0141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $63 $96 $96
21-117-21-32-0142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 Lgh Properties LLC $59 $89 $89
21-117-21-32-0143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Donald J & Joyce E Borgen $64 $98 $98
21-117-21-32-0144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $58 $88 $88
21-117-21-32-0145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James V and June M Fieger $62 $94 $94
21-117-21-32-0146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Skads Travel Service Inc $56 $85 $85
21-117-21-32-0147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 James V and June M Fieger $82 $124 $124
21-117-21-32-0148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Joseph Urista $58 $88 $88
$1,015 $1,541 $1,541
Notes:
*Denotes properties with a single street address but have sub-units that are independently owned.
1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used in the initial
service charge collection.
2)The proposed 2016 budget is $24,664, reduced by $5,000 from 2015. The service charge was reduced by $5,000 from 2015
and is only $9,664 because $15,000 was transferred from reserves to lower the fund balance.
Address
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(4))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Page 7
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a(5)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 5
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to utilize the special
service district tool in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: The 2016 proposed budgets and service charges are very similar to that of past
years. Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the six districts
and received their support for approving the 2016 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. There are no City owned properties
within this district.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2016 Budget
Proposed 2016 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(5)) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On February 2, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for
Special Service District No. 5 (located along Park Place Boulevard between I-394 and Cedar
Lake Road). Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a
public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners approved
the proposed 2016 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on September 10 and September 24, 2015. The public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 5 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 5 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately $8,197.
Proposed 2016 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2016 budget amount of $27,198; no change from 2015; and
• 2016 service charge amount of $18,698; no change from 2015.
• Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Soren Mattick.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(5)) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5
RESOLUTION NO. 15 - __
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2016 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 5
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2371-09, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 5 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 09-021, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2019 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 09-021, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 09-021, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2016 Budget for Special Service District No. 5 of $27,198 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 5 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2016 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 5 is $18,698
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account
2015 Final
Budget
2016 Proposed
Budget Entry
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 500.00 500.00
6223 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
6223 - banner replacement
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 5,000.00 4,000.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 5,500.00 4,500.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 1,000.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 100.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,100.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 3,250.00 3,250.00
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 600.00 0.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,000.00 1,500.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,000.00 3,200.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 9,000.00 11,000.00
POSTAGE
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 100.00 114.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 48.00 34.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 300.00 300.00
UTILITIES
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,400.00 1,200.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 27,198.00 27,198.00
SSD #5 Budget
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(5))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #5
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2016 Service Charge
Proposed Proposed Actual
2016 2015 2014
PID Address Owner Service Charge Service Charge Service Charge
04-117-21-31-0018 5611 Wayzata Blvd KK Corporation $721 $721 $721
04-117-21-31-0019 1500 Park Place Blvd Doubletree Hotel $4,234 $4,234 $4,234
04-117-21-34-0043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd Inland Real Estate Corp $1,515 $1,515 $1,515
04-117-21-34-0044 1690 Park Place Blvd James & Patricia Oslund $667 $667 $667
04-117-21-34-0045 1650 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $820 $820 $820
04-117-21-34-0046 1620 Park Place Blvd Inland Real Estate Corp $743 $743 $743
04-117-21-34-0047 5699 16th St W Inland Real Estate Corp $746 $746 $746
04-117-21-34-0049 1700 Park Place Blvd Costco Wholesale $584 $584 $584
04-117-21-34-0050 5601 16th St W Inland Ryan LLC $572 $572 $572
30-029-24-32-0026 5353 Wayzata Blvd 5353 Wayzata LLC $1,477 $1,477 $1,477
30-029-24-33-0011 5401 Gamble Dr The Excelsior Group $1,305 $1,305 $1,305
30-029-24-33-0015 5402 Parkdale Dr The Excelsior Group $2,360 $2,360 $2,360
30-029-24-32-0022 5370 16th St W Shops at West End $667 $667 $667
30-029-24-33-0031 1600 West End Blvd Shops at West End $2,287 $2,287 $2,287
$18,698 $18,698 $18,698
Notes:
1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2)The 2016 budget is $27,198 but the service charge is only $18,698 because $8,500 was transferred
from reserves to lower the fund balance. Both are unchanged from 2015.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(5))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a(6)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution
setting the 2016 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 6
and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to utilize the special
service district tool in St. Louis Park?
SUMMARY: The 2016 proposed budgets and service charges are similar to that of past years.
Staff has recently held meetings with the property owners from each of the six districts and
received their support for approving the 2016 budgets and service charges.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The TIF / Admin budget will incur a service
charge for the three city-owned undeveloped properties located within this district. The proposed
service charge for 2016 is $1,572.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution Approving 2016 Budget and Service Charges
Proposed 2016 Budget
Proposed 2016 Service Charges
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(6)) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND:
History
On June 15, 2009, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 6 (located along 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to Highway 100).
Annually, the City Council must set a service charge for the District following a public hearing
on the proposed charge. The Special Service District Property Owners approved the proposed
2016 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor
on September 10 and September 24, 2015. The public hearing notice was sent to all property
owners within the District.
Special Service District No. 6 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 6 has an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately
$15,827.
Proposed 2016 Budget and Service Charges
The Property Owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2016 budget amount of $25,155; no change from 2015.
• 2016 service charge amount of $17,155; an increase of $4,000 from 2015 to address
landscape replacement and irrigation costs.
• Generally, expenses typically do not reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 50% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
The proposed resolution was reviewed by City Attorney, Soren Mattick.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(6)) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6
RESOLUTION NO. 15 - __
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2016 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 6
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2374-09, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 6 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Attachment “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 09-078, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2019 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 09-078, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 09-078, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 1, 2015.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2016 Budget for Special Service District No. 6 of $25,155 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 6 Property Owners.
2. The authorized 2015 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 6 is $17,155
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Attachment “A” attached to this
Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Object
Account
2015 Final
Budget
2016 Proposed
Budget Entry
EXPENDITURES
SUPPLIES
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 150.00 150.00
6214 - OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,700.00 5,500.00
6210 - SUPPLIES 3,850.00 5,650.00
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6303 - OTHER 2,000.00
6300 - NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,000.00
SERVICES & OTHER CHARGES
6410 - GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 0.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 1,000.00 1,000.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,000.00 0.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,000.00 2,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 4,000.00 0.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 8,500.00 9,700.00
POSTAGE
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 61.00 74.00
BUSINESS INSURANCE
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 44.00 31.00
REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE
7207 - OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 200.00 200.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 1,000.00 2,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25,155.00 25,155.00
SSD #6 Budget
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(6))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6 Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #6
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2016 Service Charge
Proposed Actual Actual
2016 2015 2014
PID Address Owner Service Charge Service Charge Service Charge
16-117-21-34-0607 3601 Wooddale Ave TowerLight Senior Living $2,969 $2,277 $2,277
16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W Tammy Medina c/o KAMI Inc $2,778 $2,130 $2,130
16-117-21-34-0073 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC $2,644 $2,027 $2,027
16-117-21-34-0068 5800 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,572 $1,205 $1,205
16-117-21-34-0040 5700 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,572 $1,205 $1,205
16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W Evan Johnson c/o Thermetic Products $1,103 $846 $846
16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $992 $761 $761
16-117-21-34-0024 3575 Wooddale Ave City of St. Louis Park $524 $402 $402
16-117-21-34-0042 5814 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $524 $402 $402
16-117-21-34-0041 5816 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $524 $402 $402
16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W LRJ of Minnesota Ltd Partnership $524 $402 $402
16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $524 $402 $402
16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC $524 $402 $402
16-117-21-34-0015 3536 State Hwy No 100 S SLMB LLC $381 $292 $292
Total $17,155 $13,155 $13,155
Notes:
1)The proposed 2016 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas
used for the initial service charge collection.
2)The proposed 2016 budget is $25,155 but the service charge is only $17,155
because $8,000 was paid from reserves to lower the fund balance.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6a(6))
Title: 2016 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6 Page 5
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to conduct public hearing. Motion to Approve 1st
Reading of Ordinance adopting fees for 2016 and set Second Reading for October 19, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee
schedule to reflect fee adjustments for programs and services called for by ordinance?
SUMMARY: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of
our budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other
fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison
to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and to make sure our business costs are
covered for such service. At the September 21, 2015 Study Session, Council received a written
report which included all proposed citywide fees for 2016. No objections were raised by the
Council.
Fees called for within individual provisions of the St. Louis Park City Code are to be set by
ordinance and listed as Appendix A. A public hearing notice was published September 17, 2015
informing interested persons of the city’s intent to consider fees in accordance with our city code
ordinance Appendix A.
Next steps:
The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for October 19, 2015. If approved, the fee
increases will be effective January 1, 2016.
Proposed utility fees will be presented to Council for final consideration at the October 19, 2015
City Council Meeting.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fee increases have been
incorporated into the proposed 2016 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Proposed Ordinance and Summary
Prepared by: Patricia A. Sulander, Accountant
Reviewed by: Steven Heintz, Finance Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 2
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Each Department Director has reviewed fees listed in Appendix A of the City
Code. The Administrative Services Department has worked with individual departments and
their recommendations are included in the attached ordinance.
The Operations & Recreation, and Police Departments are recommending no increases in
Appendix A fees for 2015. The Administrative Services, Community Development, Engineering,
and Inspections Departments have each proposed fee increases, and/or additions, or removals
that are the shown in Appendix A (attached). Unless otherwise noted, proposed fee increases
reflect the increased administrative costs of providing services and were comparable to other
cities.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE FEE CHANGES:
Administrative Services: An additional fee has been added for sweeping snow into the street.
Community Development: Fees were reviewed and adjusted to cover increased costs to
conduct business.
Engineering: Fees were reviewed and adjusted based on the cost to conduct business.
Inspections: Fees were reviewed and adjusted based on the cost to conduct business. An
additional Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance fee has been added to process Other
Occupancies related to Commercial properties.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 3
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. ____-15
ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby
set by this ordinance for calendar year 2016.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the
City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 20, 2014 by Ordinance No. 2455-14 for
the calendar year 2015 which is hereby rescinded.
ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES
Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50
Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations
Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100
Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100
Chapter 12 – Environment $50
Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health
Regulations Adopted by Reference
$100
Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100
Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100
Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50
Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100
Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50
Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50
Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200
Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50
Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling
Containers blocking public way
$25
Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or
injuring
$150
Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves into street
prohibited (need to add snow into street) $100
$100
Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way
without a permit
$100
Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100
Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision
approval.
$750
Chapter 32 – Utilities $50
Chapter 36 – Zoning $50
Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not
permitted in the zoning district
$100
Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use
Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit
approval
$750
Repeat Violations within 24 Months up to a maximum of $2,000
Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous
violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if
there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a
$50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400
(first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400).
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 4
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections
Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated
with abatement and licensing inspections.
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE
Domestic Partnership
Registration Application Fee $50
Amendment to Application Fee $25
Termination of Registration Fee $25
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,050
Conditional Use Permit $2,050
Major Amendment $2,050
Minor Amendment $1,050
Fence Permit
Installation $15
Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50
Official Map Amendment $525
Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
Driveway Permit $25
Planned Unit Development
Preliminary PUD $2,050
Final PUD $2,050
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,400
PUD - Major Amendment $2,050
PUD - Minor Amendment $1,050
Recording Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
Registration of Land Use $50
Sign Permit
Erection of Temporary Sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $75
Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75
Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100
Special Permits
Major Amendment $2,050
Minor Amendment $1,050
Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $800
Subdivision Dedication
Park Dedication (in lieu of land)
Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market value of the unimproved
land as determined by city assessor
Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit
Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $850 plus $90 per lot
Final Plat $525
Combined Process and Replats $950 plus $90 per lot
Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $300
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 5
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Temporary Use
Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,500
Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50
Time Extension $150
Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $130 $135 per caliper inch
Variances
Commercial $500
Residential $300
Zoning Appeal $300
Zoning Letter $50
Zoning Map Amendments $2,050
Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
Zoning Text Amendments $2,050
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and
Gutter Permit
$12 per 10 linear feet
Administrative Fee (all permits) $60
Work in Public Right-of-Way Permit
Administrative Fee (all permits) $60
Hole in Roadway/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $60 per hole
Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400)
Temporary No Parking Signs (for ROW permit work) $60 per hour per project (minimum $60)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
False Fire Alarm Residential Commercial
1st offense $0 $0
2nd offense in same year $100 $100
3rd offense in same year $150 $200
4th offense in same year $200 $300
5th offense in same year $200 $400
Each subsequent in same year $200 $100 increase
Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
Service Fees
Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck
$325 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$255 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)
Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75
INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT
Building Demolition Deposit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500
All Other Buildings $5,000
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 6
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Building Demolition Permit
1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $160
All Other Buildings $250
Building Moving Permit $500
Business Licenses
Billboards $150 $155 per billboard
Commercial Entertainment $280 $285
Courtesy Bench $50 $55
Dog Kennel $150 $155
Environmental Emissions $310 $320
Massage Therapy Establishment $340 $350
Massage Therapy License $110 $115
Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment
License
$30 $35
Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $1.50 $2.00
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $550 $565
Vehicle Parking Facilities
Enclosed Parking $225 $230
Parking Ramp $175 $180
Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed after building
occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $400 $450
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $600 $750
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $800 $950
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,000 $1,250
100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,400 $1,550
above 200,000 sq ft $1,800 $1,950
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $60 $80
Certificate of Property Maintenance
Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $60
Change in Ownership
Condominium Unit $145 $150
Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $310 $320
Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $250 $255 per building + $12 $13 per unit
Single Family Dwellings $225 $230
All Other Buildings:
Up to 5,000 sq ft $400 $450
5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $600 $750
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $800 $950
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,000 $1,250
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,400 $1,550
above 200,000 sq. ft $1,800 $1,950
Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance
Other Occupancies
$75 $80
$0 $200
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 7
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire
protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)
Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation
Up to $500 Base Fee $55
$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $55 + $2 for each additional
(or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $85 + $15 for each additional
(or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $430 + $10 for each additional
(or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $25,000.01
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $680 + $7 for each additional
(or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,030 + $6 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $100.000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,430 + $5 for each
Additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,930 + $4.50 for each
additional (or fraction thereof)
$1,000 over $1,000,000.01
Construction Permits (cont.)
Single Family Residential Exceptions:
Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only
House or House and Garage $140
Garage Only $70
Residing
House or House and Garage $140
Garage Only $70
Electrical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
Single family, one appliance $50
Erosion Control Permit
Application and Review $200
ISTS Permit
(sewage treatment system install or repair) $125
Mechanical Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $65
Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $65
Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $50
Plumbing Permit
Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $50
Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 8
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply
Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, Replacement, Repair $45 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace/repair sewer or water service $80
Water Access Charge $750
Competency Exams Fees
Mechanical per test $30
Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30
Contractor Licenses
Mechanical $100
Solid Waste $200
Tree Maintenance $95
Dog Licenses
1 year $25
2 year $40
3 year $50
Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100
Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250
Interim License $15
Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55
Penalty for no license $40
Inspections
After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) $75 per hour
Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building
permit table
Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has
not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)
$130
Insurance Requirements A minimum of:
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
ISTS Permit
Sewage treatment system install or repair $125
License Fees - Other
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business licen
Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50)
License Reinstatement Fee $250
Transfer of License (new ownership) $75
Plan Review
Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee
Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Rental Housing License
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 9
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Condominium/Townhouse/Cooperative $85 $90 per unit
Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $160 $170 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit
Multiple Family
Per Building $200 $220
Per Unit $14 $15
Single Family Unit $110 $120 per dwelling unit
Temporary Noise Permit $60 $65
Temporary Use Permits
Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260
Commercial Film Production Application $100
Petting Zoos $60
Vehicle Decals
Solid Waste $25
Tree Maintenance & Removal $10
OPERATIONS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $30 each
Winter Parking Permit
Caregiver parking $25
No off-street parking available No Charge
Off-street parking available $125
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Animals
Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $35
2nd offense w/in year $60
3rd offense w/in year $85
4th offense w/in year $110
Boarding Per Day $25
Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250
Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100
Criminal Background Investigation
Volunteers & Employees $5
False Alarm (Police) Residential Commercial
1st offense $0 $0
2nd offense in same year $100 $100
3rd offense in same year $100 $125
4th offense in same year $100 $150
5th offense in same year $100 $175
Each subsequent in same year $100 $25 increase
Late payment fee 10%
Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150
Lost ID Replacement Fee $25
Vehicle Forfeiture
Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 10
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2016.
Public Hearing October 5, 2015
Second Reading October 19, 2015
Date of Publication October 29, 2015
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2016
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6b) Page 11
Title: Public Hearing to Consider First Reading of 2016 Fee Ordinance
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____-15
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR
BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2016
This ordinance sets 2016 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The
fee ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to
determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2016.
Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: October 29, 2015
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and
Councilmembers
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve the first
reading of Ordinance modifying salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers and set second
reading for October 19, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to increase Mayor and Council salaries
by 2.5%, for officials elected to serve for the 2016 calendar year, and adopt a policy that creates
bi-annual automatic salary increases?
SUMMARY: As discussed at the August 24, 2015 Study Session, Council directed an increase
to salaries for Mayor and Councilmembers by 2.5% effective in 2016, and adopt a policy that
future annual increases would occur automatically bi-annually commensurate with the general
increase for non-union staff.
City Charter requires changes to Mayor and Council salaries to be set by ordinance following a
public hearing and 1st and 2nd readings. MN Statute 415.11 states increases must take effect after
next municipal election but decreases can take effect anytime.
Current (Ordinance 2376-09) Proposed (2.5% increase)
Mayor $11,796 $12,091
Councilmembers $6,807 $6,977
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds will be included in the 2016 budget.
Mayor/Council salaries are in the general fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 6c) Page 2
Title: Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers
ORDINANCE NO. ____-15
ORDINANCE SETTING SALARIES
FOR THE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Effective for officials elected to serve for the 2016 calendar year, the
annual salary of the Mayor shall be $12,091 and the annual salary of each Councilmember shall
be $6,977. Effective in 2018 and thereafter for calendar years after each succeeding municipal
election, the salaries of the Mayor and Councilmembers shall be adjusted in an amount equal to
the cumulative adjustments for non-organized City employees since the last adjustment in the
Mayor and Councilmembers salaries. For Mayor and Councilmembers who serve less than a full
year, the annual salary shall be pro-rated.
SECTION 2. Effective Date: This ordinance shall be effective as follows:
First Reading October 5, 2015
Second Reading October 19, 2015
Date of Publication October 29, 2015
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2016
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate the below listed firms the lowest
responsible bidders and authorize execution of contracts with the firms for the Rec Center Ice
Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project – Project Nos 24165014 and 24145018.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the low bidders and allow
this project to move forward?
SUMMARY:
Bid Package 1: Ice System Replacement: A total of two (2) bids were received for this bid
package and Commercial Refrigeration Systems, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Staff
recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $3,074,455.
Bid Package 2: Mechanical and Electrical Improvements: A total of three (3) bids were
received for this bid package and Thelen Heating & Roofing, Inc. submitted the lowest bid. Staff
recommends that a contract be awarded to the firm in the amount of $676,000.
Bid Package 4: Bleacher System Improvements: A total of two (2) bids were received for this
bid package and Egan Company submitted the lowest bid. Staff recommends that a contract be
awarded to the firm in the amount of $79,500.
Total base bids for this project have come in at $3,829,955. Other costs associated with the
project include $234,500 for design fees, $250,000 for new dasher boards (directly purchased by
the City) and $400,000 for the construction of a new refrigeration room (done under another
contract); bringing the latest total cost estimate for the project to $4,714,455.
Bid Package 3: Bid Alternate for a Low Emissivity Ceiling: A total of one (1) bid was
received for this bid package from R & R Specialties, Inc. We are not awarding this alternate at
this time. This is an energy savings initiative which is explained in further detail on page 2. If the
city receives the Mighty Ducks Grant, staff will recommend that a contract be awarded to the
firm in the amount of $119,775.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and included
in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program with an original estimated budget of $4.8M.
The total bids and projects costs for this are $4,714,455. This leaves us with $85,545 for
contingency.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Recommendation Letters/Bid Tabulations from
Stevens Engineering (1 – 4)
Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
includes the replacement of both existing ice arena refrigeration systems, both rink floors, both
sets of dasher board and a new west arena dehumidification system. There were four bid
alternates which include pre-heating equipment for domestic hot water, low-e ceiling, RO water
treatment system and duct work painting. There were two deduct bid alternates, both related to
the outdoor rink project, the outdoor rink floor and additional refrigeration equipment, and the
necessary mechanical equipment to operate the outdoor rink.
This project is necessary due to the age of our current systems and the refrigeration systems
dependency on R-22. The EPA is phasing out the production of R-22 and no longer will allow
production of R-22 starting in 2020.
Bids were received for the four bid packages on September 22, 2015 for the Rec Center Ice
Arena Refrigeration System Project. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis
Park Sun-Sailor on September 3, 10 & 17, 2015. In addition, plans and specifications were made
available electronically via the internet by our vendor QuestCDN.com. Final printed plans were
available for viewing at Stevens Engineers, Inc., and at The Rec Center.
DEDUCT ALTERNATES: There are two deduct alternates identified as a part of this project,
both associated with the outdoor rink project. Staff is not recommending the first deduct at this
time. If a definitive decision is made to not move forward with the outdoor rink project, the work
associated with the $495,428 deduct alternate from Bid Package #1 would not be performed. An
additional deduct alternate from Bid Package #2 of $15,000 would also not be performed if a
definitive decision is made to not move forward with the outdoor rink project. Staff has had
discussions with both low-bid contractors requesting to delay the awarding of the deduct
alternates; these contractors are comfortable with awarding the base bid at this time with a
decision made on the deduct alternates by the first week of November 2015.
BID ALTERNATES AND BID PACKAGE #3, LOW EMISSIVITY CEILING: Staff has
identified four bid alternates associated with this project. They are: pre-heating of domestic hot
water ($77,200), RO water treatment system ($133,000), Low Emissivity Ceiling* as identified
with Bid Package #3 ($119,775) and painting of new duct work ($10,000); all four items totaling
$339,975.
Pre-heating of domestic hot water is an energy savings initiative that utilizes waste heat from the
arena refrigeration system to pre-heat hot water for the facility.
RO water treatment system is a water quality improvement. It would improve ice quality
conditions.
Painting of the new duct work is an aesthetic enhancement. There is no functional benefit.
* A low emissivity ceiling is an energy savings initiative that involves material being installed on
the ceiling of the ice arena to reduce the transfer of radiant heat from the metal roof to the ice
surface. Radiant energy will always flow from objects at a higher temperature to objects at lower
temperature. The arena ceiling is always warmer than the ice surface, thus a constant transfer of
radiant energy to the ice. When a low-e ceiling is installed over the ice sheet, it interrupts the
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
flow of radiant energy to the ice. This reduces the heat load on the ice sheet by as much as 20
percent. The payback time on this improvement is 5-7 years.
At this time, staff is awaiting notification of potential grant funding from the Mighty Ducks
Grant in the amount of $400,000 which could be used to implement these bid alternate items.
Staff has spoken with the contractors associated with these bid alternates requesting a delay in
awarding these bids alternates until early November. Contractors have agreed to honor their
submitted bid pricing associated with the bid alternates until early November at which time the
City should know if they are successful in receiving any Mighty Ducks funding.
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE: Construction is tentatively planned to begin in mid to late
October and should be completed by October, 2016.
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
September 29, 2015
Mr. Jason Eisold
Rec Center Manager
City of St. Louis Park
3700 Monterey Drive
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena Improvements
Bid Package 1 – Ice System Replacement
Our File No. 900-15-233
Dear Mr. Eisold,
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 bids were opened for the St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena
Improvements Bid Package 1 – Ice System Replacement project. We have reviewed the bids and
have provided a summary in the table below along with the engineer’s estimate prepared at final
design. The bids are also summarized on the attached bid tabulation.
Engineer’s
Estimate
Commercial Refrigeration
Systems, Inc.
Total Mechanical
Services, Inc.
Total Base Bid $3,404,945 * $3,074,455 $3,425,929
Alternate Bid No.1 - $31,200 $38,440
Alternate Bid No.2 - -$495,428 -$415,000
* Estimate includes $549,945 carried in RJM’s estimate for the Outdoor Ice Rink project.
Alternate Bid Description
No. 1 – Add domestic water pre-heating.
No. 2 – Delete outdoor rink components.
We have reviewed the lowest bid submitted by Commercial Refrigeration Systems, Inc. and find
no irregularities that would cause us to be concerned with the bid. We performed a phone
interview with Commercial Refrigeration to discuss their bid. They have indicated they
understand the project as presented in the bidding documents, are comfortable with their bid, and
have provided for prevailing wage rates. Commercial Refrigeration has a significant amount of
ice rink experience and a good reputation for this type of work.
We recommend awarding the contract Base Bid to Commercial Refrigeration Systems, Inc. in
the amount of $3,074,455. The award should be contingent on the Contractor executing the
agreement and providing the required bonds and insurance certificates in conformance with the
contract documents.
The City may also consider awarding the Alternate Bids if funding is available.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Page 4
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
As a reminder, and as with all construction renovation projects, we recommend the City allow
for an 8% contingency in addition to the construction cost for any changes or unforeseen project
conditions that may arise during construction.
I would be more than happy to discuss the bid results in more detail with you. If you have any
questions after reviewing this letter please feel free to call us at 715-386-5819.
Sincerely,
STEVENS
Jason R. Raverty, PE
Project Manager
C: Project file
Enclosures: Bid Tabulation
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Page 5
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879 www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
September 29, 2015
Mr. Jason Eisold
Rec Center Manager
City of St. Louis Park
3700 Monterey Drive
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena Improvements
Bid Package 2 – Mechanical and Electrical Improvements
Our File No. 900-15-233
Dear Mr. Eisold,
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 bids were opened for the St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena
Improvements Bid Package 2 – Mechanical and Electrical Improvements project. We have
reviewed the bids and have provided a summary in the table below along with the engineer’s
estimate prepared at final design. The bids are also summarized on the attached bid tabulation.
Engineer’s
Estimate
Thelen Heating &
Roofing, Inc
NAC Mechanical &
Electrical Services
Pioneer
Power, Inc.
Total Base Bid $599,000 $676,000 $696,000 $748,240
Alternate Bid No.1 - $46,000 $65,000 $38,500
Alternate Bid No.2 - $133,000 $159,000 $129,500
Alternate Bid No.3 - -$15,000 -$38,500 -$22,500
Alternate Bid No.4 - $10,000 $3,500 $4,000
Alternate Bid Description
No. 1 – Add Domestic Water Pre-Heating
No. 2 – Add Reverse Osmosis System
No. 3 – Delete Outdoor Rink Components
No. 4 – Add Dehumidification Duct Painting
We have reviewed the lowest bid submitted by Thelen Heating & Roofing, Inc. and find no
irregularities that would cause us to be concerned with the bid. We performed a phone interview
with Thelen Heating & Roofing to discuss their bid. They have indicated they understand the
project as presented in the bidding documents, are comfortable with their bid, and have provided
for prevailing wage rates.
We recommend awarding the contract Base Bid to Thelen Heating & Roofing, Inc. in the amount
of $676,000. The award should be contingent on the Contractor executing the agreement and
providing the required bonds and insurance certificates in conformance with the contract
documents.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Page 6
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879 www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
The City may also consider awarding the Alternate Bids if funding is available.
As a reminder, and as with all construction renovation projects, we recommend the City allow
for an 8% contingency in addition to the construction cost for any changes or unforeseen project
conditions that may arise during construction.
I would be more than happy to discuss the bid results in more detail with you. If you have any
questions after reviewing this letter please feel free to call us at 715-386-5819.
Sincerely,
STEVENS
Jason R. Raverty, PE
Project Manager
C: Project file
Enclosures: Bid Tabulation
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project Page 7
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879 www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
September 29, 2015
Mr. Jason Eisold
Rec Center Manager
City of St. Louis Park
3700 Monterey Drive
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena Improvements
Bid Package 3 – Low Emissivity Ceiling
Our File No. 900-15-233
Dear Mr. Eisold,
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 bids were opened for the St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena
Improvements Bid Package 3 – Low Emissivity Ceiling project. We have reviewed the bids and
have provided a summary in the table below along with the engineer’s estimate prepared at final
design. The bids are also summarized on the attached bid tabulation.
Engineer’s Estimate R&R Specialties, Inc.
Total Base Bid $170,000 $119,775
We have reviewed the lowest bid submitted by R & R Specialties, Inc. and find no irregularities
that would cause us to be concerned with the bid. We performed a phone interview with R & R
Specialties to discuss their bid. They have indicated they understand the project as presented in
the bidding documents, are comfortable with their bid, and have provided for prevailing wage
rates.
We recommend awarding the contract Base Bid to R & R Specialties, Inc. in the amount of
$119,775. The award should be contingent on the Contractor executing the agreement and
providing the required bonds and insurance certificates in conformance with the contract
documents.
As a reminder, and as with all construction renovation projects, we recommend the City allow
for an 8% contingency in addition to the construction cost for any changes or unforeseen project
conditions that may arise during construction.
I would be more than happy to discuss the bid results in more detail with you. If you have any
questions after reviewing this letter please feel free to call us at 715-386-5819.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Page 8
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879 www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
Sincerely,
STEVENS
Jason R. Raverty, PE
Project Manager
C: Project file
Enclosures: Bid Tabulation
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Page 9
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
September 29, 2015
Mr. Jason Eisold
Rec Center Manager
City of St. Louis Park
3700 Monterey Drive
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena Improvements
Bid Package 4 – Bleacher System Improvements
Our File No. 900-15-233
Dear Mr. Eisold,
On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 bids were opened for the St. Louis Park Rec Center Ice Arena
Improvements Bid Package 4 – Bleacher System Improvements project. We have reviewed the
bids and have provided a summary in the table below along with the engineer’s estimate
prepared at final design. The bids are also summarized on the attached bid tabulation.
Engineer’s Estimate Egan Company
Seating and Athletic
Facility Enterprises,
LLC.
Total Base Bid $150,000 $79,500 $131,847
We have reviewed the lowest bid submitted by Egan Company. The difference between the low
bid and the second bidder is of some concern, however, we performed a phone interview with
Egan Company and they have assured us that their bid is based on one of the approved
manufacturers providing the bleacher materials as identified in the bidding documents. They
have also indicated they understand the project as presented in the bidding documents, are
comfortable with their bid, and have provided for prevailing wage rates.
We recommend awarding the contract Base Bid to Egan Company in the amount of $79,500.
The award should be contingent on the Contractor executing the agreement and providing the
required bonds and insurance certificates in conformance with the contract documents.
As a reminder, and as with all construction renovation projects, we recommend the City allow
for an 8% contingency in addition to the construction cost for any changes or unforeseen project
conditions that may arise during construction.
I would be more than happy to discuss the bid results in more detail with you. If you have any
questions after reviewing this letter please feel free to call us at 715-386-5819.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Page 10
2211 O’Neil Road, Hudson, WI 54016 t 715.386.5819 t 651.436.2075 f 715.386.5879www.stevensengineers.com
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS • SURVEYORS
Sincerely,
STEVENS
Jason R. Raverty, PE
Project Manager
C: Project file
Enclosures: Bid Tabulation
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8a)
Title: Award Bids for Rec Center Ice Arena Refrigeration System Replacement Project
Page 11
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: SWLRT Funding Agreements
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
• Motion to Adopt Resolution committing funding support for the stairway portions of the
regional trail grade separations at Wooddale Avenue and Beltline Boulevard.
• Motion to Adopt Resolution supporting local funds to the proposed Southwest Light Rail
Transit Project (Metro Green Line Extension) for design, environmental review and potential
construction of the Lynn Avenue Extension in the Beltline Station area.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to commit to funding these items
to provide additional access to the Cedar Lake Regional trail and the SWLRT station areas?
SUMMARY:
Stairways to Regional Trail
Hennepin County has received a federal grant to partially fund trail grade separations at Beltline,
Wooddale and Blake Road. The designs include ramp connections to Wooddale Avenue and
Beltline Boulevard, but not stairways. These have been difficult crossings in St. Louis Park, and
adding stairs will facilitation the usage of the grade-separated trail crossings by pedestrians and
bicyclists. Most of the cost of adding the stairs will be covered by the grants and Federal Transit
Authority (FTA) matching funds. The City’s grant match cost for the stairways is $171,500.
Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI
The City previously requested inclusion of the Lynn Avenue Extension at Beltline Station as a
Locally Requested Capital Improvement (LRCI). The smaller park and ride lot as shown in the
Municipal Consent plans for the Beltline Blvd Station changes the LRCI and means it would be
more costly to construct than previously projected. Staff has been discussing moving this LRCI
into the base LRT project, thereby benefitting from the FTA funding match of 50% of the cost.
Incorporating the Lynn Avenue Extension into the SWLRT Base project would keep St. Louis
Park’s cost essentially the same (up to $1,591,427 million) as projected for the original LRCI,
even though the costs have increased.
.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park would fund up to $171,500 for the addition of stairways to access the regional
trail, and up to $1,591,427 for the Lynn Ave extension in the 2017-20 construction timeframe.
The exact funding source is yet to be determined.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution for Stairways to the Regional Trail
Resolution for Lynn Avenue Extension
Stairways to Regional Trail
Lynn Avenue Extension Drawing
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
DISCUSSION
Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI
The City previously requested inclusion of the Extension of Lynn Ave and construction of a
backage road at Beltline Station as a LRCI. Staff has been working with the SPO on the
possibility of putting the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI into the base LRT project, thereby
benefitting from the FTA funding match of 50% of the cost.
The much smaller park and ride lot as shown in the Municipal Consent plans for the Beltline
Blvd Station changes the LRCI somewhat and means it would be more costly to construct than
previously projected. The access provided on the Municipal Consent plan does not leave
particularly good access for future development, which means the LRCI is now more important
for providing effective access to the park and ride and the EDA redevelopment property.
A solution to both of these problems would be to incorporate the Lynn Avenue Extension LRCI
into the Base SWLRT project design. If the Lynn Avenue Extension is part of the base project,
much of its cost would be covered by FTA matching funds. Incorporating the Lynn
Ave/Backage Road into the SWLRT Base project would keep SLP’s cost essentially the same
($1.59 million) as projected for the original LRCI.
Including the LRCI into the base project at this time will solidify the street plans for the area, and
set the table to move forward with development in this area. Our work has shown that creating
appropriately sized blocks within the area would be much more conducive to preparing the area
for transit-oriented development and with more certainty, development could occur sooner.
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION COMMITTING FUNDING SUPPORT FOR THE STAIRWAY
PORTIONS OF THE REGIONAL TRAIL GRADE SEPARATIONS AT
WOODDALE AVENUE AND BELTLINE BOULEVARD - A SWLRT
PROJECT LOCALLY REQUESTED CAPITAL INVESTMENT
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has applied for and received a federal STP grant
for the construction of grade-separated regional trail crossings as locally requested capital
investments within the SWLRT project (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the County is relying on the Three Rivers Park District and Cities
to meet the local match requirements of the STP grant; and
WHEREAS, final decisions regarding the Project scope will not be made until
environmental processes are completed,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby
commits to funding a portion of the cost to construct:
1. A stairway on the east side of Wooddale Avenue connecting to the Cedar Lake
Regional Trail underpass, as part of the Project, at an amount not to exceed $45,500;
and
2. A stairway on each side of Beltline Boulevard connecting to the Cedar Lake Regional
Trail bridge as part of the Project, at an amount not to exceed $126,000; and
3. The City's commitment of funds is subject to each of the following conditions:
a) Each of the governmental entities providing matching funds for the Project,
including the City, has approved the then-applicable physical design
components of the latest preliminary design plans for its jurisdiction, to the
extent required by Minnesota Statutes section 473.3994;
b) The ongoing environmental review proceeds without concluding, until
completion of that review, that any specific scope elements will be included in
the Project;
c) The completion of any necessary state and federal environmental review and
findings and publication of the Record of Decision in the Federal Register;
d) The Regional Trail Wooddale Avenue Underpass and Beltline Boulevard Bridge
are identified, following completion of environmental review, as part of the
Project;
e) The Metropolitan Council demonstrates commitments, subject to the review
and approval of the City, for the capital costs of the Project of at least $165
million, cumulatively, from the State of Minnesota and/or the Metropolitan
Council;
f) The Metropolitan Council demonstrates commitment, subject to the review
and approval of the City, of federal funds recognizing the value to the Project
of the local funding by the County and any other local entities participating in
cost sharing for the Cedar Lake Regional Trail Wooddale Avenue underpass and
Beltline Boulevard bridge;
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
g) The Federal Transit Administration has approved and executed a full funding
grant agreement for not less than 50 percent of the capital costs of the Project;
h) The funds may be used only for federally-eligible, New Starts activities;
i) The final terms and conditions of the county funding for the Regional Trail grade
separations will be addressed in subsequent Council resolutions and in one or
more cooperative funding agreements or similar agreements, which terms are
subject to the review and approval of the City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 5
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING LOCAL FUNDS TO THE PROPOSED
SOUTHWEST LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT PROJECT (METRO GREEN LINE
EXTENSION) FOR DESIGN, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, AND POTENTIAL
CONSTRUCTION OF THE LYNN AVENUE EXTENSION IN THE BELTLINE
STATION AREA
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (City) has been working with the Metropolitan
Council, host cities, public agencies, and public transit funders in planning for the proposed
Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Project (METRO Green Line Extension); and
WHEREAS, the proposed SWLRT Project, which is under environmental review, is an
approximately 14.5 mile extension of the METRO Green Line, which would operate from
downtown Minneapolis through the cities of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka, and Eden
Prairie; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Council on July 8, 2015, adopted a revised scope for the
proposed SWLRT Project with a cost estimate of $1.744 billion, and
WHEREAS, the City, our residents, businesses, and workers would benefit from the
proposed SWLRT Project as it could provide an attractive transportation option for residents and
workers along with increased redevelopment opportunities strengthening the City’s tax base; and
WHEREAS, the City, our residents, businesses, and workers would benefit from the
proposed SWLRT Project through increased access to employment districts, cultural attractions,
educational centers, and shopping and entertainment within and outside the City; and
WHEREAS, the City believes the Lynn Avenue Extension should be a part of the
proposed SWLRT Project scope as it would improve transit and roadway connections from the
Beltline Station and park and ride area, and would reinforce the City’s commitment for
redevelopment an economic growth while implementing its strategic direction of being a
connected and engaged community; and
WHEREAS, the City is committed to providing the required local match to federal funds
for the total cost of design, environmental review, and construction of the proposed Lynn
Avenue Extension in the proposed SWLRT Project; and
WHEREAS, the cost of the proposed Lynn Avenue Extension is projected to be
$3,182,855 including the cost of design, environmental review and construction; and,
WHEREAS, the City commits to paying half of the cost of the proposed Lynn Avenue
Extension through this resolution by local funds; and
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for the upfront cost of the design, environmental
review, and project administration and management for the proposed Lynn Avenue Extension,
estimated at $72,230; and,
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 6
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements
WHEREAS, the City understands that the proposed SWLRT Project is undergoing state
and federal environmental review and that this resolution does not prejudice or compromise any
of these environmental review processes or any decisions made under them.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, after appropriate examination and due
consideration, the governing body of the City of St. Louis Park hereby commits to reimburse the
Metropolitan Council for the design, environmental review and construction costs related to the
proposed Lynn Avenue Extension during the Project Development and Engineering phases
through subsequent resolutions regarding appropriation of City funds through subordinate
funding or other agreements with the Metropolitan Council. The subordinate funding or other
agreements that authorize reimbursements to the Metropolitan Council for design, environmental
and construction costs related to the proposed Lynn Avenue Extension does not guarantee that
the proposed Lynn Avenue Extension will be constructed. The City and the Metropolitan
Council acknowledge that nothing in this resolution or any subsequent agreements shall require
the Metropolitan Council to take any action or make any decision that will prejudice or
compromise any review or decision-making processes required under state and federal
environmental review laws, regulations or rules.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park hereby commits to
funding the required local match of federal funds for the design, environmental review and
construction of the Lynn Avenue Extension as part of the proposed SWLRT Project if any,
which may be incurred following the Project Development and Engineering Phases. After all
necessary state and federal environmental review has taken place and the SWLRT Project
receives a Record of Decision (ROD) and Determination of Adequacy, the City will address the
terms and conditions of this commitment through subsequent resolutions regarding appropriation
of funds for construction costs through one or more subordinate funding or other agreements
with the Metropolitan Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements Page 7
Stairways at Beltline Boulevard City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: SWLRT Funding Agreements Page 8
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Title: SWLRT Funding AgreementsPage 9
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to authorize entering into an agreement with the St.
Louis Park Hockey Association relating to their financial contribution and use of the proposed
Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink facility and for staff to pursue relocation of the Skate Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to approve the city entering into an
agreement with SPLHA and pursue relocating the Skate Park?
SUMMARY: Staff has been working with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association (SLPHA) to
finalize an agreement for their financial commitment to the outdoor rink project. SLPHA has
pledged to contribute $1.55 million towards the project, $300,000 of which has already been
received, with annual payments for the next 12 years. SLPHA will commit to purchasing a
minimum of 150 hours of ice time annually for the first ten years of the operation at a $5/hour
discount from the standard ice time rate. SLPHA will be given first priority annually on ice time
reservations until September 1. After September 1, ice is available for anyone to purchase.
SLPHA agrees the City will receive the first available money after operational expenses have
been paid to satisfy their commitment to this project. This contract has been reviewed by the city
attorney.
Staff has reviewed several options for the skate park relocation. The preferred location from an
operational and from the user’s perspective is across the street from the Rec Center on the EDA
property located at the corner of Beltline and Monterey Drive. Staff conducted a public process
interviewing skate park users throughout the summer and also at a public meeting. Through these
interactions, it was confirmed that the users would like to keep the skate park close to its current
location and prefer the EDA site. Staff met with Park Nicollet’s representatives to let them know
of our preferred relocation. Representatives from Park Nicollet thought that a skate park at that
location may not be compatible with the adjacent eating disorders clinic. Park Nicollet then
suggested the skate park be placed south of the existing tennis court at Bass Lake Park. Although
this site could work, it is smaller than the preferred site and would require relocating a utility box
and moving the existing trail. Because of these changes, it would cost approximately $33,000
more to construct a skate park in this location. Park Nicollet indicated they are not in a position
to pay any of the additional costs to move the skate park. Staff recommends proceeding with the
skate park relocation to the EDA property.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Bond proceeds will be used to fund this
project. Thus far the SLPHA has provided $300,000 of its $1.55 million pledge/commitment to
the project. While there is no reason to believe SLPHA will not be able to meet its commitment
over the next 12 years, it should be noted there are limited remedies available to the City if it
does not.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Hockey Association Outdoor Rink Financial Agreement
Prepared by: Jason Eisold, Rec Center Manager
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND THE ST. LOUIS PARK
HOCKEY ASSOCIATION RELATING TO OUTDOOR HOCKEY RINK ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is exploring the feasibility of constructing a
multi-use facility addition to the Recreational Center which includes a seasonal covered and
refrigerated outdoor hockey rink at an estimated cost of $5.83 million. (“Project”);
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Hockey Association, a/k/a St. Louis Park Hockey
Boosters Inc., d/b/a the St. Louis Park Hockey Association (“SLPHA”) has contributed
$300,000 to the City for capital improvements at the Recreational Center to be determined
jointly by the City; and
WHEREAS, SLPHA is willing to pledge an additional One Million, Two Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1.2 million) and make a commitment to pledging $50,000 towards an
item(s) in the project to be named later; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Contingency. This agreement is contingent upon the City approving the Project
by December 1, 2015.
2. $300,000 Contribution. The parties acknowledge that a portion of the $300,000
previously donated by SLPHA for Recreational Center capital improvements has been expended
on consultant expenses relating to the feasibility analysis of the Project. The balance of the
$300,000 will be used for the Project.
a. 3. Additional $1.2 Million Contribution. SLPHA will
contribute $1.2 million, in addition to the $300,000 previously
donated to the City, toward the Project costs payable to the City in
twelve (12) annual payments of at least $100,000 commencing
prior to December 31, 2015 and annually thereafter in two
installments of at least $50,000 each on or before June 30 and
December 31 of each subsequent year until a total of $1.2 million
has been paid.. SLPHA may prepay any portion or all of the $1.2
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 2
million at any time. Any such prepayment shall count towards the
next year’s unpaid obligation.The City of St. Louis Park will
invoice the SLPHA annually $100,000for up to twelve (12) years
or until the balance of the $1.2 million contribution is paid, for
payments due pursuant to paragraph 3, above.
4. SLPHA Statement Regarding Funding and priority.
a. The SLPHA raises funds through a variety of sources, including but not
limited to a pull tab charitable gambling operation. These additional
fundraising sources allow the SLPHA to offer its youth members below
market rates for participation in its programs, a key component of the health
and purpose of the SLPHA. While the SLPHA does not anticipate any
adverse changes to its fundraising ability, factors outside the control of the
SLPHA, including government actions, changes in law, changes in control of
its charitable gambling partner(s), natural disasters and other unforeseen
events could make meeting its obligations under this agreement and still
maintaining its current, relative level of cost structure and programming
difficult or impossible to achieve.
b. Notwithstanding the forgoing, the SLPHA and the City agree that any
gambling proceeds in excess of lawful expenditures by SLPHA for the
operation of its charitable gambling enterprise and payment of reasonable and
historical expenses of operation of its youth hockey programming (surplus
funds), shall first be paid to the City to satisfy the obligations of paragraph 3
of this agreement. Nothing in this agreement shall be interpreted as requiring
the SLPHA to increase any other source of income in order to create surplus
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 3
funds, however, the SLPHA shall be required to maintain its fees and dues at
the same relative level as used for the 2014-15 season.
i. Reasonable and historical expenses of operation of the youth hockey
programming of the SLPHA includes, but is not limited to such things
as: Ice time, coaching, uniforms and spirit wear, advertising,
promotions, support of St. Louis Park High School Blue Line Clubs,
expenses for leagues, tournaments, and travel, administrative costs,
equipment maintenance and replacement and such other incidental
costs as may, in the judgment of the SLPHA board be necessary for
the operation of the hockey programming.
ii. Reasonable and historic expenses of operation of the youth hockey
programming does not include, for purposes of this agreement,
donations to non-hockey youth organizations, general community
charity or similar expenditures. Such expenditures are allowed by this
agreement once the payments made pursuant to paragraph 3 are made
for any given year.
iii. The City and SLPHA agree, that in the event that the SLPHA Board,
acting through its President, gives notice prior to December 1 of any
given year of its intent not to meet its obligation under this agreement,
the City and SLPHA shall, prior to any legal action, negotiate in good
faith for resolution of the issue, and if resolution cannot be achieved
by January 30 of the following year shall engage in mediation. Failure
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 4
to resolve the dispute in mediation shall entitle either party to demand
arbitration with a three person arbitration panel (each side selecting
one arbitrator and the two arbitrators select a third) whose decision
shall be binding on both parties.
5. Ice Time Purchase and Usage Rights.
a. It is anticipated that the City will operate the hockey rink in the
Addition from approximately Mid-October through Mid-March of
each year weather permitting. During this period, except for
certain times set aside for public use for open skating and/or open
hockey and City sponsored programs and events, the SLPHA will
be given the right of first refusal for all weekday ice times between
5:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., as well as all weekend times between
7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.; weekdays which are not St. Louis Park
school days will constitute as weekends for purposes of this
provision.
b. Commencing with the 2016-2017 season for a total of ten years,
SLPHA will each year purchase a minimum of 150 hours of ice
time on the Project outdoor rink at the overall usage rate
established by the City less $5.00 per hour. The initial request for
ice time by the SLPHA shall be made annually by September 1st.
After this date all remaining Project outdoor ice time shall be made
available to the general public for purchase.
c. SLPHA and the City intend to discuss, in good faith, naming and
advertising rights for the addition, and the City shall not award
naming or advertising rights without first engaging in an
interactive process with SLPHA.
d.
ST, LOUIS PARK HOCKEY BOOSTERS, INC.
A/K/A ST. LOUIS PARK HOCKEY ASSOCIATION
Dated:_________________ By:__________________________________________
Paul Wandmacher, President
By:__________________________________________
Christian Barry, Treasurer
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Dated:___________________ By:__________________________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
By:__________________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8c)
Title: Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update Page 6
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Economic Development Authority President and Commissioner Salaries
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution modifying salaries for the
Economic Development Authority President and Commissioners.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to increase EDA salaries by 2.5%,
effective for members who serve for the 2016 calendar year, with bi-annual automatic salary
increases and the ability for EDA members to retain City-issued electronic devices?
SUMMARY: As discussed at the August 24, 2015 Study Session, Council requested to increase
salaries for EDA members by 2.5% effective for members who serve for the 2016 calendar year,
and adopt a policy that future annual increases would occur automatically on a bi-annual
schedule commensurate with the general increase for non-union staff. Additionally, Council
requested a resolution that would allow EDA members the ability to retain their City-issued
iPads or other similar electronic devices when they leave the EDA.
EDA members who choose to retain a device will be subject to tax consequences for the value of
the device in accordance with IRS regulations.
Changes to EDA President and Commissioner salaries are set by resolution.
Current (Resolution 13-135) Proposed (2.5% increase)
EDA Member $4,385 $4,495 (plus ability to retain
city-issued electronic device)
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds will be included in the 2016 budget.
EDA salaries are in EDA (non-general) fund.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Title: Economic Development Authority President and Commissioner Salaries
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPENSATION
OF THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, was
officially established on September 19, 1988 by Resolution 88-134; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Economic Development Authority by-laws, the
Economic Development Authority shall hold its regular meetings the first and third Monday of
each month; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota State Statutes Section 469.095 (4), a
Commissioner, including the President, shall be paid for attending regular or special meetings of
the Authority in an amount to be determined by the City Council;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park
to set the compensation for the President and Commissioners of the Economic Development
Authority at:
1. Effective for EDA members who serve for the 2016 calendar year, the annual salary of
the President and Commissioners of the EDA shall be $4,495.
2. Effective in 2018 and thereafter for calendar years after each succeeding municipal
election, the salaries of the President and Commissioners of the EDA shall be adjusted in
an amount equal to the cumulative adjustments for non-organized city employees since
the last adjustment in the EDA President and Commissioner salaries.
3. For EDA members who serve less than a full year, the annual salary shall be pro-rated.
4. Effective for EDA members who serve for the 2016 calendar year, EDA members who
are issued an iPad or similar electronic device have the option of retaining the device
when they leave the EDA. The device will be the same device that had been in use for
the majority of the previous calendar year. EDA members who choose to retain a device
will be subject to tax consequences for the value of the device in accordance with IRS
regulations.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: October 5, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing the 2016 employer
benefits contribution.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the proposed 2016 Employer Benefits reasonable?
SUMMARY: This report details the City’s benefits planned for 2016, and staff’s
recommendation for setting the employer contribution for 2016. The recommendation continues
the philosophy started in 2015 for a tiered contribution structure based on coverage selected:
2016 PLANS
Premium
Employer
Contribution
Employer
VEBA
Contribution
Total
Employer
Cost
Employee
Cost
Co-Pay Employee $ 817.00 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ +68.00
Emp+Child $ 1,714.50 $ 960.00 -- $ 960.00 $ (754.50)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,797.50 $1,010.00 -- $1,010.00 $ (787.50)
Family $ 2,286.50 $1,280.00 -- $1,280.00 $ (1,006.50)
$2500 Employee $ 654.00 $ 820.00 $ 208.34 $1,028.34 $ +166.00
HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,373.00 $ 960.00 $ 291.67 $1,251.67 $ (413.00)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,439.50 $1,010.00 $ 291.67 $1,301.67 $ (429.50)
Family $ 1,831.00 $1,280.00 $ 291.67 $1,571.67 $ (551.00)
$4500 Employee $ 537.00 $ 820.00 $ 208.34 $1,028.34 $ +283.00
HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,127.00 $ 960.00 $ 291.67 $1,251.67 $ (167.00)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,181.50 $1,010.00 $ 291.67 $1,301.67 $ (171.50)
Family $ 1,503.00 $1,280.00 $ 291.67 $1,571.67 $ (223.00)
Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be
eligible to receive a pro-rated (50%) employer contribution, and a full 100% of the employer
VEBA contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced
employer contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of
$216 (pro-rated for part-time employees).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for this recommendation have been
included in the 2016 budget projections.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
DISCUSSION
Benefit Overview
The City has a Benefits Committee that consists of employees represented by all departments
and all union groups. The purpose of the committee is to educate staff on benefits and to get
feedback on what staff is interested in seeing in our benefits design. As in past years, all
information below has been reviewed with the Benefits Committee and they have recommended
City participation in the 2016 plans outlined here. Benefits Committee assists with gathering
information on potential benefit designs, they do not provide input on specific funding amounts
for employer contribution.
Medical Insurance
The City has been insured through HealthPartners since 2012. We went for a formal bid for
2014 in accordance with state statute, which requires this every five years (we will need to do
another formal bid no later than 2018 for 2019 plans).
For 2016, we requested a renewal quote from HealthPartners, rather than pursuing formal bids.
Based on underwriting development, our experience called for an 18.8% increase. Our benefits
consultant worked with HealthPartners and was able to revise this and secure a 12% renewal.
After analysis and review by our benefits consultant and the employee committee, it is
recommended to accept this renewal package for 2016.
New Health Plan Option Added
After several employee task force meetings held during the summer of 2014, several requests
were made by employees to explore for 2016. One was to offer a lower premium plan with a
lower benefit coverage level (equivalent to a bronze level plan in the Affordable Care Act) to
allow employees another affordable health care option. The consultant and committee reviewed
the new plan (a $4500 deductible plan) and recommend offering this for 2016.
Medical Insurance Monthly Premiums
(12% average increase for 2016, plus new plan option added)
$30-Copay 2015 2016
Employee $744.00 $817.00
Employee + Spouse $1,637.50 $1,797.50
Employee + Child(ren) $1,562.00 $1,714.50
Family $2,083.00 $2,286.50
$2500 High Deductible (with VEBA) 2015 2016
Employee $578.50 $654.00
Employee + Spouse $1,273.00 $1,439.50
Employee + Child(ren) $1,214.00 $1,373.00
Family $1,619.00 $1,831.00
NEW $4500 High Deductible (with VEBA) 2015 2016
Employee n/a $537.00
Employee + Spouse n/a $1,181.50
Employee + Child(ren) n/a $1,127.00
Family n/a $1,503.00
Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 3
Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
VEBA Refresher
The City continues to offer a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) with a VEBA funding
mechanism in coordination with the High Deductible Health Plans. The deductibles vary
depending on plan chosen (from $2500 per person with a $5000 family maximum to $4500 per
person with a $9000 family maximum). Employer contributions to the VEBA will be placed in a
trust in an individual’s name and funds will be available for reimbursement of eligible medical
expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with the individual and roll over each year for future
expenses. VEBA funds are set aside tax-free, earn tax-free interest, and are reimbursed tax-free.
The VEBA account stays with the individual after they leave employment and can be used for
reimbursement of qualified medical expenses.
Dental Insurance
After several years of no increase in our dental premiums, Delta has provided us with a renewal
for 2016 at a 3.75% increase in rates, which also includes a 2 year rate guarantee. This is a
voluntary plan for our employees.
Dental Insurance Monthly Premiums
(3.75% increase for 2016 and 2017)
2015 2016 & 2017
Employee $ 43.65 $ 45.28
Employee + Spouse $ 87.75 $ 91.04
Employee + Child(ren) $ 82.50 $ 85.60
Family $105.80 $109.76
Life Insurance
We are pleased to continue our life insurance program through Prudential Life with no rate
increase for 2016. In our basic life insurance plan, all employees purchase a mandatory benefit
of $10,000 and the option to purchase additional supplemental insurance (up to $500,000), and
spouse and dependent life insurance as well. Exempt employees are provided with an additional
basic life insurance amount of 1.5 times their salary.
Long Term Disability (LTD)
We are pleased to continue to offer LTD to all staff at no cost to the employee. This benefit
provides income continuation at 60% of pre-disability earnings for anyone who becomes ill or
injured and unable to resume work after a six month waiting period.
Long Term Care (LTC)
LTC is a voluntary benefit that was first offered in September, 2010 to our staff. Long term care
insurance provides coverage for employees and spouses who may need nursing home, assisted
living, home health, or other care. Coverage is provided through the Municipal Pool and rates
are set for the entire group. Employees who voluntarily participate in this program are required
to pay the full premium. Because the LTC market has changed so drastically in recent years, our
current carrier is getting out of the market and will no longer accept new applicants after
12/31/15. Current enrolled participants will be able to continue their coverage and new enrollees
will be accepted through the end of the year. We have tried to find an alternative equivalent plan
but no other carriers currently have a similar plan option available. Human Resources will
continue to work with consultants and the Benefits Committee to explore ways to provide
benefits that meet employee needs in long term care insurance coverage.
Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 4
Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
Deferred Compensation
The City offers several deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is
a program that allows employees to invest today for retirement. This is a voluntary program for
employees, with an employer match of $10 per pay period to non-union staff with a minimum
employee contribution of $50 per pay period (Resolution 12-044). This has also been negotiated
into union contracts.
2016 Employer Contribution Recommendation
An extensive employee task force was convened in the summer of 2014 to review employee
input on employee benefit programs. The result of those meetings was a recommendation to
provide tiered employer contribution funding which provided more funding to those who need to
insure dependents. The following explains how the funding is developed.
How is the “Employee Only” employer contribution calculated?
In 2015, the new funding structure that was implemented based on employee input provided for
100% coverage of the $2500 high deductible premium with leftover funds available so that
employees could purchase voluntary benefits. The monthly calculation for 2016 is as follows:
100% premium for $2500 HDHP $654.00
100% premium for dental insurance $ 45.28
$60k in supplemental life insurance $ 11.69 (at staff average age/salary)
$50/pay period in deferred compensation $108.33
TOTAL EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION: $819.30
ROUNDED TO NEAREST $5: $820.00
$820 is the recommended employer contribution for all employees who choose “employee only”
coverage for health insurance, except those who choose the co-pay plan will receive $885 per
month (frozen contribution from 2014 so that employees do not receive less).
How is the “Employee Only” VEBA contribution calculated?
The VEBA contribution only applies to employees who choose to participate in a high deductible
health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 100% of the
employee only deductible in the $2500 high deductible plan. This is $2500 per year, or $208.34
per month.
Why are there leftover funds recommended for “Employee Only” coverage?
“Employee Only” coverage is the choice of a majority of our employees; over 70% of employees
choose this level of coverage. In order to encourage this group to voluntarily purchase a
comprehensive benefits package, the contribution level provides enough funds to do so.
Employees may choose to not use leftover funds to purchase dental, life, or deferred
compensation if their needs in these areas are already met. In those circumstances, employees
may choose to save these funds to pay for deductibles, co-insurance payments, flexible spending
accounts, or other needs.
Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 5
Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
How is the employer contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents?
In 2015, the new funding structure provided 65% employer funding for the $2500 high
deductible plan premium as employer contribution. The ultimate goal was to reach 70%
employer funding based on funds available in the citywide budget. The 2016 recommendation
achieves the 70% employer funding level.
Employer Employer Paid % of
Tier of Coverage Contribution $2500 Deductible Plan Premium
Employee + Child(ren) $ 960/month 70%
Employee + Spouse $1,010/month 70%
Family $1,280/month 70%
How is the VEBA contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents?
The VEBA contribution only applies to employees who choose to participate in a high deductible
health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 70% of the
“employee plus dependent” deductible in the $2500 high deductible plan, which is $5,000. 70%
of $5000 is $3500 per year, or $291.67 per month.
What is the big picture for 2016 employer contribution recommendation?
The chart below shows total employee and employer cost of the plan options offered. The
“Employee Cost” noted on the right is the difference between the “Employer Contribution” and
the “Premium”. The VEBA contribution cannot be used to offset premium costs.
2016 PLANS
Premium
Employer
Contribution
Employer
VEBA
Contribution
Total
Employer
Cost
Employee
Cost
Co-Pay Employee $ 817.00 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ +68.00
Emp+Child $ 1,714.50 $ 960.00 -- $ 960.00 $ (754.50)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,797.50 $1,010.00 -- $1,010.00 $ (787.50)
Family $ 2,286.50 $1,280.00 -- $1,280.00 $ (1,006.50)
$2500 Employee $ 654.00 $ 820.00 $ 208.34 $1,028.34 $ +166.00
HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,373.00 $ 960.00 $ 291.67 $1,251.67 $ (413.00)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,439.50 $1,010.00 $ 291.67 $1,301.67 $ (429.50)
Family $ 1,831.00 $1,280.00 $ 291.67 $1,571.67 $ (551.00)
$4500 Employee $ 537.00 $ 820.00 $ 208.34 $1,028.34 $ +283.00
HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,127.00 $ 960.00 $ 291.67 $1,251.67 $ (167.00)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,181.50 $1,010.00 $ 291.67 $1,301.67 $ (171.50)
Family $ 1,503.00 $1,280.00 $ 291.67 $1,571.67 $ (223.00)
Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be
eligible to receive a pro-rated (50%) employer contribution, and full 100% employer VEBA
contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced employer
contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of $216
(pro-rated for part-time employees). The waiving contribution is designed to provide funds for
employees who may have their health insurance needs met through another source to purchase
voluntary benefits such as dental, life, or deferred compensation.
Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 6
Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
How does the 2016 employer contribution differ from 2015?
The chart below shows 2015 premiums and employer contributions:
2015 PLANS
Premium
Employer
Contribution
Employer
VEBA
Contribution
Total
Employer
Cost
Employee
Cost
Co-Pay Employee $ 744.00 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ +141.00
Emp+Child $ 1,562.00 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ (677.00)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,637.50 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ (752.50)
Family $ 2,083.00 $1,050.00 -- $1,050.00 $ (1,033.00)
HDHP Employee $ 578.50 $ 740.00 $ 208.34 $ 948.34 $ +161.50
Emp+Child $ 1,214.00 $ 790.00 $ 270.83 $1,060.83 $ (424.00)
Emp+Spouse $ 1,273.00 $ 825.00 $ 270.83 $1,095.83 $ (448.00)
Family $ 1,619.00 $1,050.00 $ 270.83 $1,320.83 $ (569.00)
What is the latest on the Affordable Care Act and Cadillac Tax?
Human Resources, the Benefits Committee, and our benefits consultant are staying current on
legislative issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act and its impact on the City of St. Louis
Park’s benefit programs. Currently, the Cadillac Tax is scheduled to become effective in 2019
for 2018 health plans. We will continue to monitor requirements in this area and develop long
term strategies to balance employee benefits needs with governmental regulations.
Conclusion
Staff is pleased with the benefit programs we have been able to develop and offer. Feedback
received from the Benefits Committee indicates that employees feel that the plans as outlined
above will provide satisfactory and affordable options for coverage based on individual needs.
Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 7
Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
RESOLUTION NO. 15-_____
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING
2016 EMPLOYER BENEFITS CONTRIBUTION
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective means
for providing employee group benefits; and
WHEREAS, the City Council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as
approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
1. Effective January 1, 2016, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours
per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage on the HIGH DEDUCTIBLE
PLANS be set at $820 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work
20-29 hours per week.
2. Effective January 1, 2016, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours
per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage on the CO-PAY PLAN be
frozen at $885 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29
hours per week.
3. Effective January 1, 2016, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours
per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE + CHILD(REN) coverage be set at $960 per
month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
4. Effective January 1, 2016, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours
per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE + SPOUSE coverage be set at $1,010 per month,
pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
5. Effective January 1, 2016, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours
per week, and who choose FAMILY coverage be set at $1,280 per month, pro-rated for
regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week.
6. Effective January 1, 2016, employees who chose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage on the
HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of
$208.34 per month ($2500/year).
7. Effective January 1, 2016, employees who chose EMPLOYEE+CHILD(REN),
EMPLOYEE+SPOUSE, or FAMILY coverage on the HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLANS
will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of $291.67 per month ($3500/year).
8. Effective January 1, 2016, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for
non-union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours
per week, and who WAIVE COVERAGE be set at $216 per month, pro-rated for regular
part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week
Study Session Meeting of October 5, 2015 (Item No. 8e) Page 8
Title: 2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
9. The City will continue to administer other benefit programs.
10. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of
any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit to the
insurer under an approved contract the employee’s or officer’s share of any such
premium.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 5, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk