HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015/12/21 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DECEMBER 21, 2015
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 15 min.
Discuss 2016 State of the City (Verbal)
2. 30 min. Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize
Impact of Aircraft Noise in St Louis Park
7:15 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes December 7, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports -- None
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. Submission of a DEED Minnesota Investment Fund Application on Behalf of
MoneyGram
Recommended Action: The EDA President is asked to open the public hearing, solicit
comments and close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt a Resolution of Support for
submission of a Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) application to the Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) on behalf of MoneyGram, a St.
Louis Park company.
7b. Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Application on Behalf of Novu
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt a Resolution of Support for submission of a
Job Creation Fund application to the Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED) on behalf of Novu.
7c. 2016 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the proposed
levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033,
Subdivision 6, and approval of the 2016 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year
2016.
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
Meeting of December 21, 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 -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Meeting Minutes November 16, 2015
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes November 23, 2015
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes December 7, 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 -- None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2016 Budget, Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, and 2016 – 2025 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP)
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2016 Budgets and 2016 Final Property
Tax Levy.
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2016 Final HRA Levy.
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2016 - 2025 Capital Improvement
Program.
8b. Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)
Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of the Zero Waste
Packaging Ordinance and authorize publication.
8c. 2016 Employee Compensation
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution confirming a 2.5% general
increase for non-union employees effective 1/1/16; approving the City Manager’s salary
for 2016, continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and
increasing performance program pay by 2.5% for Paid-On-Call Firefighters for 2016.
Meeting of December 21, 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.
8d. 2016 International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local #993 Labor Agreement
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and the IAFF Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of
employment for one year, from 1/1/16 – 12/31/16.
8e. 2016 - 2017 International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local #49
(Maintenance) Labor Agreement
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and Local 49 Union, establishing terms and conditions of employment
for two years, from 1/1/16 – 12/31/17.
9. Communications -- None
Meeting of December 21, 2015
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve Amendment No. 1 to the 2015 Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar and Chemical
Corporation Remedial Action Plan.
4b. Approve Amendment No. 2 to the 2015 contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
(Summit) for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar &
Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP).
4c. Approve authorization for the City Manager to enter into fiber strand and/or conduit
lease agreements with other organizations for purposes of promoting economic
development in the City of St. Louis Park.
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity and operating transfers.
4e. Approve the second reading and Adopt Ordinance amending St. Louis Park City Code
Chapter 3, Section 57 to provide for microdistillery cocktail room licenses and
microdistillery off-sale licenses and to approve the summary ordinance for
publication.
4f. Approve entering into a service agreement with the Hennepin County Department of
Corrections for continuing to use their crews from the Sentencing to Service Program
(STS Program).
4g. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 4140 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0010.
4h. Approve for filing Telecommunication Commission Minutes August 12, 2015.
4i. Approve for filing Telecommunication Commission Minutes September 23, 2015.
4j. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Minutes November 4, 2015.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel
17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in
the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon
on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Discussion Item
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of
Aircraft Noise in St Louis Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff desires to discuss with Council taking
action regarding aircraft noise concerns in St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council support a resolution requesting the FAA to
develop alternate noise metrics as a step in recognizing and possibly reducing long term noise
impacts.
SUMMARY: The high frequency of overhead aircraft and resulting noise continue to impact city
residents. An increasing number of noise complaints are being filed with the Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) and received by city staff.
Establishing that a noise problem exists in St. Louis Park is a logical and important first step in
pursuing long term reductions in aircraft noise. Contour maps of noise impacts from MSP airport
operations currently do not extend into our city. With the FAA announcing a nationwide study on
aircraft noise in communities surrounding metropolitan airports, an opportunity exists to take
positive action.
A draft resolution has been prepared by staff for Council consideration which would request the
FAA to: 1) develop an alternate matrix for determining impact of aircraft noise; and 2) extending
the contours beyond the current limit to accurately reflect the area of environmental impact. The
resulting information must then be considered when developing policies on reducing noise impact
through operational changes and quieter aircraft technologies.
MAC Commissioner Lisa Peilen has assisted staff in considering options and will be in attendance
for the Council discussion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Resolution
Contour Map
Number of Complaints
Pattern of Complaints
FAA Press Release
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircraft Noise in SLP
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) consists of Governor
appointed members to serve as the policy board for all Twin Cities area airports, including
Minneapolis Saint Paul International (MSP). All areas of airport functions including buildings,
runways, planning, concessions, and taxi services, are within the scope of the Commission and
managed by the MAC Executive Director.
The Noise Oversight Committee (NOC) consists of six representatives from the airline industry,
five representatives from cities bordering the airport, and one representative selected from the at-
large cities. St. Louis Park is part of the seven city at-large group and has been involved since the
NOC was formed in 2002. The committee works closely with MAC staff in cooperative efforts to
reduce aircraft noise impacts associated with MSP and offers recommendations to the MAC
Commissioners.
MSP is a public use airport and the FAA regulates the type of local restrictions which can be placed
on passenger and cargo operations, including the number of flights, time of flights, type of aircraft,
and flight paths. These parameters limit what MAC and other airports can implement to reduce
the noise impact on surrounding communities. The primary focus of the FAA relates to managing
air traffic and safety.
Current aircraft noise monitoring metrics established by the FAA have been in use since the
1980’s. The resulting Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) metric contours maps for MSP
airport identify only a relatively small area of the Twin Cities as being significantly affected by
aircraft noise. Utilized for eligibility in sound mitigation programs of homes, the DNL contours
are also referenced in planning future policies on aircraft and operations. The FAA states that in
2012, only 300,000 people nationwide were exposed to significant airport noise. This calculation
does not include large populations of communities outside of the current contour maps.
During 2013, FAA discussion of possible future changes in runway management with
implementation of Area Navigation (RNAV) began raising questions of how aircraft noise would
impact certain areas, primarily in cities located northwest of the airport. A draft piece of legislation
during the 2014 session for added noise monitoring resulted in MAC developing a Noise
Monitoring Study. Temporary noise monitoring equipment was placed in Edina and St. Louis
Park during August/September of 2014 to establish a baseline for aircraft noise. Results from the
temporary monitoring site near the St. Louis Park Recreation Center clarified a significant number
of aircraft noise events exceeded 65 decibels and the two week average aircraft DNL was nearly
55.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The 2014 Noise Contours map (attached) for MSP with the
60 DNL line extends out only to the southeast corner of Lake Harriet. Areas within St. Louis Park
experiencing significant aircraft traffic are not identified with the current DNL contours. However,
residents being negatively impacted is a concern as aircraft noise complaints reported to MAC and
the city continue to rise, including from the northwest corner of the city. Also attached is a report
listing the number of complaints reported by city during July 2015 and a map identifying the
pattern of complaints per household during the same month.
Special Study Session Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircraft Noise in SLP
Council and staff have repeatedly raised the question on what can be done to reduce aircraft noise
and the high frequency of flights that city residents must tolerate. The reality of having a major
airport nearby with runways aligned over the city means aircraft will be in the sky.
An important first step in pursuing solutions is to create increased awareness of the problem. Noise
contours are references by agencies and industry during discussion about aircraft noise.
Developing a more relevant and encompassing measurement of noise, recognizing the effect on
communities surrounding airports, can help set the stage. This is a long term effort to help reduce
the environmental impacts.
The FAA press release from May 2015 is attached. Very few details, timing, or locations are being
shared by FAA to the MAC or NOC, only that most of the study work will be in 2016. This study
provides an opportunity time for the city to offer comment for FAA consideration.
Staff has prepared a draft resolution (attached) requesting the FAA to develop a method of noise
measurement and reporting to accurately reflect the environmental impact of aircraft noise. MAC
staff assisted with the many questions on how to accurately convey our intent in language the FAA
would relate with.
The actions being requested in the resolution are consistent with the general direction of the Quiet
Skies Caucus, a group of Congress members intended to raise awareness on the issue of aircraft
noise and work to find meaningful solutions to the problem. Representative Keith Ellison is a
member of this group.
NEXT STEPS: If Council wishes to take action, staff will complete the draft resolution with city
attorney review. The resolution will be placed on a Council agenda during January. A series of
actions may then be pursued to ensure the gravity of the message is received. These are envisioned
to include:
The Resolution would be delivered to FAA administration in Washington DC with a
cover letter from the Mayor. Copies to local and Regional FAA offices may be
appropriate.
Staff would present the resolution at the next 2016 NOC meeting to inform them of our
action. Also asking if the Committee would offer a recommendation to support the city
resolution, or possibly draft a similar document for MAC members to consider.
Discuss at the 2016 City Legislative Priorities Council session and direct Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P to actively pursue discussion with Congressional Representatives
and FAA Officials.
Mayor and Council members attending the NLC conference in Washington DC may have
an opportunity to follow up with Congress and FAA staff.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION REGARDING FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
RECOGNITION OF AIRCRAFT NOISE IMPACTS OUTSIDE THE DAY-NIGHT
AVERAGE SOUND LEVEL (DNL) 65 DECIBEL THRESHOLD
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to protecting and enhancing the
quality of life of its residents; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, while outside of the Federal Aviation
Administration’s (FAA) Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) 65 decibel threshold, frequently
experiences noise from flights arriving to the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport (MSP);
and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park seeks to reduce the impacts of aircraft noise on the
community; and,
WHEREAS, a 2014 noise study by the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC) to
monitor aircraft noise levels in the City of St. Louis Park for a period of two weeks made the
following findings:
1. That 1,413 arriving flights and 188 departing flights registered noise events over 65
decibels; and,
2. The 65 decibel threshold was exceeded for a cumulative total time of 4 hours, 36 minutes
and 52 seconds; and,
3. The measured 2-week average aircraft DNL was 54.7 A-weighted decibels; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park participates in the At-Large Community
membership of the MSP Noise Oversight Committee (NOC), which is a balanced forum for the
discussion and evaluation of noise impacts around MSP including the identification, study, and
analysis of noise issues; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park recognizes that the FAA noise metric for
determining noise exposure – the DNL metric – does not convey the magnitude of high single-
event noise levels due to the averaging over a 24-hour period and that alternative noise metrics aid
in making quantitative assessments for aircraft noise impacts and communicating those impacts to
surrounding communities; and,
WHEREAS, the NOC’s March 2011 letter to the FAA Performance Based Navigation
(PBN) Integration Group for developing a set of noise criteria for PBN flight procedure design at
MSP includes a criterion to provide a noise analysis using “other noise metrics that evaluate the
time above impact and single event noise impacts along a given [Area Navigation] track at MSP”;
and,
Special Study Sesssion Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircraft Noise in SLP
Page 4
WHEREAS, the monthly NOC Technical Advisor’s Report incorporates noise metrics to
evaluate single event and threshold noise impacts, such as number of events above decibel
thresholds, time above decibel thresholds and top ten maximum sound levels (Lmax); and,
WHEREAS, the FAA is currently in the process of surveying residents around many of
the largest U.S. airports regarding aircraft noise annoyance levels to take an updated look at its
established noise measurement methods; and,
WHEREAS, the successful implementation of PBN flight procedures, as part of the FAA’s
Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) initiative to modernize the national
airspace system, requires engagement with airport operators, communities and other stakeholders
to ensure the noise impact from new flight paths are conveyed and minimized.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council that the City of St. Louis
Park hereby:
1. Urges the FAA to recognize the impacts of aircraft noise beyond the current federally-
established DNL 65 decibel threshold when making policy decisions on the impacts of
aircraft noise in communities around U.S. airports and supports the use of alternative
noise metrics by the FAA to help quantify aircraft noise impacts; and,
2. Urges the FAA to utilize alternative noise metrics when evaluating noise impacts from
new PBN flight procedures and to communicate with stakeholders, including airport
operators and communities, to ensure noise impacts are conveyed and minimized.
Special Study Sesssion Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircraft Noise in SLP
Page 5
Special Study Sesssion Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2)Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircoise in SLP Page 6
Special Study Sesssion Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2)Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircoise in SLP Page 7
Special Study Sesssion Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2)Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircoise in SLP Page 8
The following press release was published by the FAA May 2015:
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
will soon begin work on the next step in a multi-year effort to update the scientific evidence on the
relationship between aircraft noise exposure and its effects on communities around airports.
“The FAA is sensitive to public concerns about aircraft noise. We understand the interest in
expediting this research, and we will complete this work as quickly as possible,” said FAA
Administrator Michael Huerta. “This Administration takes its responsibility to be responsive to
communities’ concerns over air noise seriously. Our work is intended to give the public an
opportunity to provide perspective and viewpoints on a very important issue.”
Beginning in the next two to three months, the FAA will contact residents around selected U.S.
airports through mail and telephone to survey public perceptions of aviation noise throughout the
course of a year. This will be the most comprehensive study using a single noise survey ever
undertaken in the United States, polling communities surrounding 20 airports nationwide. To
preserve the scientific integrity of the study, the FAA cannot disclose which communities will be
polled.
The FAA obtained approval from the Office of Management and Budget last week to conduct the
survey and hopes to finish gathering data by the end of 2016. The agency will then analyze the
results to determine whether to update its methods for determining exposure to noise.
The framework for this study was developed through the Airports Cooperative Research Program
(ACRP), which is operated by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of
Sciences. This methodology will be used to determine whether to change the FAA’s current
approach, as well as consideration of compatible land uses and justification for federal expenditures
for areas that are not compatible with airport noise.
Aircraft noise is currently measured on a scale that averages all community noise during a 24-hour
period, with a ten-fold penalty on noise that occurs during night and early morning hours. The
scientific underpinnings for this measurement, known as the Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL),
were the result of social surveys of transportation noise in the 1970s.
In 1981, the FAA established DNL 65 decibels as the guideline at which federal funding is available
for soundproofing or other noise mitigation. This method was reaffirmed in studies conducted during
the late 1980s and early 1990s.
During the ensuing years, aircraft manufacturers incorporated technologies that resulted in
dramatically quieter aircraft. However, residents around many of the largest U.S. airports have
expressed concerns about aircraft noise associated with the continuing growth of the aviation
industry. The FAA is taking an updated look at its approach for measuring noise as part of an
ongoing dialogue with stakeholders, including communities and leaders of a number of cities across
the nation.
If changes are warranted, the FAA will propose revised policy and related guidance and regulations,
subject to interagency coordination, as well as public review and comment.
Special Study Sesssion Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 2)
Title: Draft Resolution – Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to Recognize Impact of Aircraft Noise in SLP
Page 9
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 7, 2015
1. Call to Order
President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin (arrived at
7:22 p.m.), Jeff Jacobs, Gregg Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: None
Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr.
Hunt), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Engineer Director (Ms. Heiser),
City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Fire Chief (Mr. Koering), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Controller
(Mr. Swanson), Operations and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther),
Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Batra).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes November 16, 2015
The EDA minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve
the EDA minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0. (Commissioner Hallfin absent.)
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brausen, to approve
the EDA Disbursements.
The motion passed 6-0. (Commissioner Hallfin absent.)
6. Old Business - None
7. New Business
7a. Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with 4900 Excelsior Apartments, LLC.
Resolution No. 15-32.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. As discussed at the November 23, 2015, study session,
Oppidan Investment Company (Oppidan) would like to transfer its ownership interests in
the proposed project, 4900 Excelsior Apartments, LLC, to Weidner Apartment Homes
(Weidner). Weidner would assume the project’s redeveloper role.
Commissioner Hallfin arrived at 7:22 p.m.
Mr. Hunt explained, given that Weidner is considering reducing the number of apartments
from 176 to 164 and the prior Purchase and Redevelopment Contract signed on November
16, 2015, has not been executed, legal counsel is suggesting the EDA and Weidner enter
into a new Purchase and Redevelopment Contract under the name 4900 Excelsior
Apartments, LLC.
Mr. Hunt stated the new proposed contract is essentially the same as the contract with
Oppidan. The minor proposed revisions to the contract include the change in the name of
the redeveloper, the change in the total number of apartments in the project, and a
clarification within the lookback section.
Mr. Hunt explained, in order for the project to achieve financial feasibility, the EDA agrees
to reimburse Weidner for certain qualified site preparation costs up to $2.8 million in pay-
as-you-go tax increment generated by the project for a term of approximately 7 years. If
the apartments in the project are reduced to 164, the Note would be increased to
approximately 7.5 years.
Mr. Hunt stated staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution for the Purchase
and Redevelopment Contract between the EDA and 4900 Excelsior Apartments, LLC
related to the proposed 4900 Excelsior project.
It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 15-32, approving the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with 4900
Excelsior Apartments, LLC. – Please double-check the Commissioners that made the
motion and second.
Commissioner Brausen stated he supports the proposed resolution.
Commissioner Sanger stated she does not object to the transfer to Weidner; however, she
will vote no on the proposed resolution because she does not agree with the proposed
project.
The motion passed 6-1. (Commissioner Sanger opposed.)
8. Communications - None
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:24 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Submission of a DEED Minnesota Investment Fund Application on Behalf of
MoneyGram
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The EDA President is asked to open the public hearing, solicit
comments and close the public hearing. Motion to Adopt a Resolution of Support for submission
of a Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) application to the Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) on behalf of MoneyGram, a St. Louis Park company.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the submittal of an application to the
Department of Employment and Economic Development’s (DEED) Minnesota Investment Fund
on behalf of MoneyGram to facilitate its expansion in the city?
SUMMARY: During 2015, MoneyGram invested $7.7 million on an expansion of its local
operations at The West End that included equipment upgrades and office improvements. The
company increased its office operations in another state and had the opportunity to move its St.
Louis Park office there. However, it was MoneyGram’s preference to make upgrades at its St.
Louis Park office. The expansion will result the creation of 86 new jobs in St. Louis Park over
the next two years (48 full time). The wages of over two thirds of the new full time positions are
projected to be between $60-$77 hourly including benefits and the remaining are projected
between $33-$36 hourly. The average hourly wage is estimated at $53 per hour plus benefits.
MoneyGram’s expansion is eligible for the Minnesota Investment Fund (MIF) program
administered by DEED. MIF was created to provide financing to help add new workers and
retain high-quality jobs on a statewide basis.
To receive MIF funds, businesses must coordinate with the local government to complete an
application. If approved, DEED awards the business a forgivable loan that requires the business
to maintain their proposed job levels for three years. The EDA would work with MoneyGram to
monitor the number of jobs created and would be responsible for submitting annual reports to
DEED for two-five years.
A Public Hearing and Resolution of Support from the EDA are required as part of the MIF
application.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None, there is no local matching fund
requirement for the Minnesota Investment Funds application. The company is applying for a
MIF forgivable loan award of $500,000. If awarded, loan funds would be directed to the EDA
which would then disburse the funds to MoneyGram.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, Executive Director
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Title: Submission of a DEED Minnesota Investment Fund Application on Behalf of MoneyGram
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The MIF loan program provides financing to create and retain high-quality
jobs in Minnesota, with an emphasis on manufacturing, technology and professional service
employment. Through this program, administered by DEED, funds are awarded to local units of
government and then provided as a loan to the business. Typically loans are used to finan ce
construction or renovation improvements and equipment necessary to support the expanding
business. Funds are intended to be used in situations in which alternative sources of public and
private financing are not adequate.
Between July 2013 to June 20115, DEED has awarded $19 million to 42 companies in
Minnesota. Those companies plan to invest more than $577 million to expand their facilities and
have committed to creating more than 2,766 new full-time jobs. Some of the businesses that
have benefited from MIF include: Arctic Cat, Toro, Renewal by Anderson, Shutterfly and
Polaris.
PROPOSED APPLICATION: MoneyGram is one of St. Louis Park’s largest employers. In
early 2015, the company’s board approved capital expenditures to expand its St. Louis Park
operations. While MoneyGram has office operations nationwide and in Europe, the company’s
preference was to make upgrades at its St. Louis Park office. The goal is to have the upgrades
finished in early 2016. Upon completion, the company expects to expend over $7.7 million in
equipment upgrades and office improvements. The expansion is proposed to result in the creation
of 86 higher wage professional jobs in St. Louis Park over the next two years. The average salary
level is $100,000.
To assist with some of these expenses, MoneyGram has applied for a forgivable MIF loan, a
portion of which will pay for working capital. If awarded St. Louis Park will enter into a loan
agreement with MoneyGram and DEED will provide the EDA with MIF grant funds. The EDA
will then distribute these funds as a loan to MoneyGram. As a requirement of the loan
MoneyGram must create and retain its proposed number of jobs (86) within two years and
maintain the job level for three additional years. This timeframe is negotiated between DEED
and MoneyGram. The EDA will submit annual progress reports to DEED for at least two years,
and potentially up to five. If MoneyGram does not meet its job goals, DEED will work with the
company and as a last resort the loan will have to be repaid on a prorated basis.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
Title: Submission of a DEED Minnesota Investment Fund Application on Behalf of MoneyGram
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A BUSINESS APPLYING TO
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT’S MINNESOTA INVESTMENT FUND PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, Minnesota, desires to
assist MoneyGram which is proposing to expand its facilities in the city of St. Louis Park; and;
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, Minnesota, will act
as the legal sponsor for the project contained in the Minnesota Investment Fund Application to
be submitted on or about December 31, 2015 and;
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has the legal authority
to apply for financial assistance, and the institutional, managerial, and financial capability to
administer the proposed project, and;
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority has not violated any
Federal, State, or local laws pertaining to fraud, bribery, kickbacks, collusion, conflict of interest
or other unlawful or corrupt practice, and;
WHEREAS, that upon approval of its application by the State, the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority may enter into a Grant Contract with the State of Minnesota
for the approved project, and that the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority certifies
that it will comply with all applicable laws, statutes, regulations and rules as stated in the Grant
Contract and described in the Project Compliance Certification of the Application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, EDA President and Executive Director
Minnesota, are hereby authorized to execute the Grant Contract and amendments, thereto, as are
necessary to implement the project on behalf of the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority, December 21, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Application on Behalf of Novu
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt a Resolution of Support for submission of a
Job Creation Fund application to the Department of Employment and Economic Development
(DEED) on behalf of Novu.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support the submittal of an application to the
Department of Employment and Economic Development’s (DEED) Job Creation Fund by Novu,
a St. Louis Park company to facilitate its expansion in the city?
SUMMARY: St. Louis Park based-Novu was formed in 2011. The fast growing consumer
engagement company works with health insurers to encourage patients to use online-and-offline
measures to pursue healthy lifestyles. Novu has grown significantly over the last year,
increasing its employment by more than 64% between January and November 2015. As such,
the company is outgrowing its current office space and is proposing to expand its operations at
the Parkdales office park in St. Louis Park. The expansion is proposed to add 60-90 new jobs
over the next three-five years. The wages of approximately a third of the new positions are
projected to be between $28-$50 hourly including benefits and two thirds are projected between
$53-$100 hourly. The average wage at the company is $53.80. The company’s proposed job
expansion is eligible for the Minnesota Job Creation Fund (JCF) program administered by
DEED. If awarded, funds will be used to help pay for a portion of the newly created jobs. The
JCF was created to encourage job growth and capital investments by companies choosing to
expand their operations in Minnesota.
Companies deemed eligible to participate may receive a financial award for creating or retaining
high-paying jobs and for constructing or renovating facilities. The JCF application requires the
local government to provide a resolution in support of the business expansion. If approved,
DEED drafts a business subsidy agreement with the company specifying the required job
creation and capital investment goals. St. Louis Park would assist the company with the
submittal of required annual progress reports.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None, there is no local matching fund
requirement for the Jobs Creation Fund application. The company is applying for a Job Creation
award of approximately $450,000. If awarded, the funds will be disbursed directly to Novu upon
verification of the jobs created.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, Executive Director
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 2
Title: Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Application on Behalf of Novu
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: Launched in January 2014, the Minnesota Job Creation Fund is a pay-for-
performance program that provides as much as $1 million to businesses for creating or retaining
high-paying jobs and for constructing or renovating facilities or making other property
improvements. Businesses must create at least 10 full-time jobs and invest at least $500,000 to
receive any state money.
Administered by DEED, this program is anticipated to create an estimated 5,000 new jobs
statewide and attract another $450 million of private investment into Minnesota’s growing
economy. To date, DEED has awarded $21 million to 42 companies in Minnesota since the Job
Creation Fund was launched in January 2014. Those companies plan to invest more than $459
million to expand their facilities and have committed to creating more than 2,465 new full-time
jobs. Some of the metro area cities to have companies awarded JCF funds include Minneapolis,
Chaska, Brooklyn Park, Lakeville, Shakopee, and New Brighton.
The program is available to businesses engaged in manufacturing, warehousing, distribution,
technology and other eligible activities. Companies must work with the local government (city,
county or township) where a project is located to apply to DEED to receive designation as a Job
Creation Fund business.
Companies that meet eligibility requirements must sign a business subsidy agreement with
DEED to meet job retention, creation, wage, and capital investment requirements. The following
benefits may be available once a business meets the conditions of its agreement and provides
proof of performance:
$1000 per year per job created for jobs paying at least $26,335 in cash wages
$2000 per year per job created for jobs paying at least $35,450 in cash wages
$3000 per year per job created for jobs paying at least $45,579 in cash wages
Up to a 5 percent rebate for real property improvements for businesses located in the
Twin Cities Metro
PROPOSED APPLICATION: Novu is a fast-growing company that is retained by health
insurers and providers to help patients take control of their health. The firm empowers
consumers to use online and offline prevention and wellness activities. After forming in 2011,
Novu has grown significantly. Over the last year, its staff has increased by 64% and has
outgrown its current office space. The company requires space to grow and plans to position
itself for anticipated exponential growth.
Currently located in the West End Office tower, Novu is finalizing the details of leasing a larger
space in the Parkdale offices. Novu has a strong preference to start construction on new space by
January 15. This allows them to be in the new space in May. The expansion is projected to result
in the creation of 60 higher wage professional jobs in St. Louis Park over the next three years,
and up to 90 total over the next five years. To assist with the creation of these jobs, Novu has
applied for approximately $450,000 in funding from the JCF program.
For the past several weeks, the company has been in consultation with DEED, as a result, it has
been determined that its expansion plans meet the minimum JCF program requirements. Per JCF
program requirements a resolution in support of the JCF application from the local government
must also be submitted.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 3
Title: Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Application on Behalf of Novu
If the application is approved, DEED will formally designate the business as a JCF business and
determine a job creation award. DEED also enters into a business subsidy agreement with the
JCF business. Funds would be distributed to Novu one year after the creation of the agreed to
number of jobs. St. Louis Park staff would be asked to assist the company with the submission
of required annual progress reports to DEED.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7b) Page 4
Title: Submission of a DEED Job Creation Fund Application on Behalf of Novu
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF NOVU APPLYING TO
THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT’S JOB CREATION FUND PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, Minnesota, desires to
assist Novu which is proposing to expand its facilities in the city of St. Louis Park; and,
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority understands that
Novu, through and with the support of the City of St. Louis Park, intends to submit to the
Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) an application for
an award and/or rebate from the Job Creation Fund (JCF) program; and,
WHEREAS, the JCF funds will be used for equipment and office upgrades resulting in
the creation of additional jobs in the city of St. Louis Park; and,
WHEREAS, DEED’s JCF Program Guidelines require support by the governing body of
the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority for submission of the JCF application; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, EDA President and Executive Director
Minnesota, hereby express their approval of the project proposed by Novu and its application for
an award and/or rebate from the Job Creation Fund Program.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority, December 21, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 7c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution authorizing the proposed
levy of a special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, and
approval of the 2016 Final HRA Levy and Budget for fiscal year 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to levy the full 2016 HRA Levy
allowed of $1,011,208 which is an increase of $57,970 or approximately 6.08% over the 2015
Final HRA Levy?
SUMMARY: This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes
in 2001 which significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at
that time to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas.
Thus far, some of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies,
analyses for future improvement projects and to pay for the City’s share of Highway 7 and
Louisiana. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment
purposes, but they are committed to funding Highway 7 and Louisiana until 2021 based on the
current Long Range Financial Management Plan. Given the significant infrastructure needs
facing the City in the future, staff recommends the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed
by law for the 2016 budget year. The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated
market value of the City. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2016 to be
$1,011,208 based on valuation data from Hennepin County. This is an increase of $57,970 or
6.08% from 2015. The EDA is allowed to authorize the HRA levy and then forward this
recommendation to the City Council. Council action is required before certification, which i s
also scheduled to occur on December 21, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed levy will help support
infrastructure in redevelopment areas and possible affordable housing initiatives.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Resolution
2016 HRA Levy Final Budget
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, EDA Deputy Executive Director/Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 2
Title: 2016 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
AUTHORIZING THE FINAL LEVY OF
A SPECIAL BENEFIT LEVY PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES,
SECTION 469.033, SUBDIVISION 6 AND APPROVAL
OF A FINAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of
the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6, of the HRA Act permits the Authority to
levy and collect a special benefit levy of up to .0185 percent of estimated market value in the
City upon all taxable real property within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority desires to levy a special benefit levy in the amount of up to
.0185 percent of estimated market value in the City for taxes payable in 2016; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.065, the Authority is required
to adopt a proposed budget and a proposed tax levy and submit the same to the County Auditor
by December 29; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has before it for its consideration a copy of a proposed budget
for its operations for the fiscal year 2016 and the amount of the proposed levy for collection in
2016 shall be based on this budget and the long range financial management plan, subject to any
adjustments in the budget as finally approved prior to certification of the final special benefit
levy.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board of Commissioners of the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority:
1. The proposed budget for the operations of the Authority in fiscal year 2016, as
presented for consideration by the City Council, is hereby in all respects approved, subject to
final approval by the Authority before certification of the tax levy under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 275.07.
2. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to file the proposed
budget with the City in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.033, Subdivision 6.
3. The proposed special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.033, Subdivision 6, is hereby approved in a maximum amount equal to .0185 percent of
estimated market value in City of St. Louis Park, currently estimated to be $5,465,988,900 with
respect to taxes payable in calendar year 2016, subject to final approval by the Authority before
certification of the special benefit levy pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 275.07.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 3
Title: 2016 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption
4. Staff of the Authority are hereby authorized and directed to seek the approval by
resolution of the City Council of the levy of special benefit taxes payable in 2016 and to take
such other actions as are necessary to bring before the Board the final budget and levy to be sent
to the county auditor on or before five working days after December 20, 2015.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority December 21, 2015
Executive Director President
Attest:
Secretary
Economic Development Authority Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 7c) Page 4
Title: 2016 Final HRA Levy Certification and Budget Adoption
HRA Levy
2016 Adopted Budget
December 21, 2015
2014 2015 2016
Actual Revised Budget Proposed Budget
Revenues:
Property Tax Levy 927,094$ 953,238$ 1,011,208$
Market Value Homestead Credit - - -
Interest Income 10,464 401 219
Transfer In from Development Fund 4,472,545 - -
Total Revenue 5,410,103$ 953,639$ 1,011,427$
Expenditures:
Infrastructure Projects 7,505,435$ -$ -$
Services and Other Charges 15,832 15,574 16,041
Transfer Out to Development Fund 950,000 950,000
Total Expenditures 7,521,267$ 965,574$ 966,041$
Beginning Fund Balance 2,134,066$ 22,902$ 10,967$
Net Change in Fund Balance (2,111,164)$ (11,935)$ 45,386$
Ending Fund Balance 22,902$ 10,967$ 56,353$
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 16, 2015
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Anne Mavity, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Steve Hallfin.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), City
Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Rec Center Manager (Mr. Eisold), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Engineering
Director (Ms. Heiser), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Staple).
Guests: None.
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of Donations
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg recognized the estate of Alice Trainer for two donations, each
in the amount of $43,920, the first for improvements to Lamplighter Park and the second
for the Fire Department to be used at their discretion.
Mr. Harmening stated that it is not often that the City receives a donation in the amount
of $88,000. Mr. and Mrs. Trainer lived in St. Louis Park for many years, near the area of
16th and Pennsylvania, and spent a lot of time in Lamplighter Park and therefore donated
those funds to improve that park. He stated that staff is unsure of the improvements that
will be made but will find a way to recognize the Trainers. He stated that Mrs. Trainer
had a few interactions with the Fire Department for emergency medical services and was
very appreciative of the services she received from the Department. For that reason, she
chose to donate funds to the Fire Department.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg thanked the Trainer estate for the generous donations. He
recognized Jane and Michael Wipf in the amount of $200 for natural resources and
forestry supplies; Leslie Marcus in the amount of $100 for Westwood Nature Center
programming costs; and St. Louis Park Kiwanis in the amount of $50 for the Westwood
Nature Center Halloween party.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes October 26, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Special Study Session Minutes November 2, 2015
Councilmember Sanger requested a correction on page 5, to delete the last sentence in the
7th paragraph: Councilmember Sanger supported additional study and public outreach on
a fee-based bag program.
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. City Council Meeting Minutes November 2, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. Special Study Session Minutes November 2, 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. Approve second reading Adopt Ordinance No. 2482-15 granting a non-exclusive
Cable TV franchise to CenturyLink.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 15-173 authorizing the award of the 2016 Arts and Culture
Grants.
. 4c. Approve implementing an option to the Water Meter Program.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-174 authorizing submittal of state bonding requests.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-175 Authorizing Execution of a Renewed Lease with the
State of Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) for Webster Park.
4f. Approve a one-year extension for the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for NLD 394
LLC (Resolution 14-168) to construct a new Kia Automotive Dealership.
4g. Adopt Resolution No. 15-176 amending the Rules and Procedures for Boards and
Commissions updating Section I: Annual Meeting with Council Program.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 15-177 approving the First Amendment to the Contract for
Private Redevelopment with Cedar Lake Road Apartments, LLC.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-178 approving Partial Assignment and Assumption of
Redevelopment Contract between the Redeveloper and Lake West Development.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
4i. Adopt Resolution No. 15-179 authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions at
3145 Idaho Avenue South.
4j. Adopt Resolution No. 15-180 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the
Estate of Alice Trainer in the amount of $43,920.00 for improvements to Lamplighter
Park and $43,920.00 to the Fire Department for use at their discretion.
4k. Adopt Resolution No. 15-181 supporting and approving a Hennepin County
Environmental Response Fund Grant Application submitted by Perspectives Inc. for
activities pertaining to clean-up of contaminated soil located at 7008 Walker Street.
4l. Adopt Resolution No. 15-182 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Jane
and Michael Wipf in the amount of $200 for Natural Resources/Forestry supplies.
4m. Adopt Resolution No. 15-183 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from:
Leslie Marcus in the amount of $100 and St. Louis Park Golden Kiwanis in the amount
of $50 for Westwood Hills Nature Center.
Mr. Harmening referenced Agenda Item 8a, 4900 Excelsior - Final Plat and Final
Planned Unit Development (PUD) (First Reading) and advised that the developer has
asked that action not be taken tonight and instead be considered at the December 7th
meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to remove
Item 8A, 4900 Excelsior - Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) (First
Reading) from the agenda.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve the Agenda as amended and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License – M.D. Liquors
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report and request of M.D. Liquors2, Inc., dba M.D.
Liquors, located at 8942 Highway 7, for an Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License. If
approved, the license term would be through March 1, 2016. She stated that the current
license holder is selling the business to the new applicant and noted that a full
background investigation was conducted on the applicant and nothing was discovered
that would warrant denial of the license.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor
Pro Tem Lindberg closed the public hearing.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for M.D. Liquors2, Inc. dba M.D. Liquors,
located at 8942 Highway 7, for the license term through March 1, 2016.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
6b. Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License Name Change – Top Ten Liquors
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report and request for a name change for the Off-Sale
Intoxicating Liquor License held by Yayin Gadol, LLC, from Liquor Barrel to Top Ten
Liquors for the premises at 5111 Excelsior Boulevard. If approved, the license term
would be through March 1, 2016. She explained that the existing license holder would
simply like to change the name of the business and therefore no additional investigation
was needed.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor
Pro Tem Lindberg closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve a name change for the off-sale intoxicating liquor license held by Yayin Gadol,
LLC. from Liquor Barrel to Top Ten Liquors for the premises located at 5111 Excelsior
Boulevard, for the license term through March 1, 2016.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
Councilmember Mavity stated the Council just completed a year-long discussion
regarding the moratorium on new off-sale liquor licenses. She noted she was
disappointed at where the discussion ended, which was to make no changes. She stated
she did not think that additional licenses were needed in some areas of the City, such as
along Excelsior, and wanted to make sure the public understood that the resolution of the
moratorium was that no changes would be made to the current liquor license policy. She
believed that guided constraints could have been added.
6c. Public Hearing - Establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment Financing
District. Resolution No. 15-184 and Resolution No. 15-185.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report regarding the establishment of the 4900 Excelsior Tax
Increment Financing District (TIF). He stated that staff had nothing further to add to the
comments made at the EDA meeting earlier.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg opened the public hearing.
Denise Davis, 4820 Park Commons Drive, stated that her building will be directly
impacted by this project. She stated that she would like to find another creative use for
the property, but understood that the City needs to make some money from the property.
She expressed concern over the traffic issues, as the traffic is currently intolerable and
this will add 176 apartments to the area. She stated that while it would be great if people
used mass transit, most people do not and additional vehicles will add traffic to the
roadways. She also expressed concern with pedestrian safety. She wished that more
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
consideration was given to the height and size of the building and the number of
apartments as well to those that live in that area.
Rita Wagner, 4820 Park Commons Drive, stated that she is beginning to see some good
from developing in that area such as more support for the businesses in that area. She
was not sure how truck traffic would access the site. She asked that more consideration
be given to the traffic problem on Quinton.
Marge Sur, 4820 Park Commons Drive, stated that she is mainly concerned with the
street. She stated that she does not drive and rides the bus and is concerned with the
activities that will have to be handled by Quinton. She stated that there are a number of
people in her building that use the bus for transit.
Eleanor Martin, 4820 Park Commons Drive, objected to the number of parking spaces for
the proposed building. She opined there is already a pedestrian safety issue when
crossing Excelsior, and this will add more traffic to the neighborhood.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciated the comments expressed tonight and noted
that a more robust discussion will occur in terms of the design and PUD at the December
meeting. She stated that she has brought forward the traffic issues, specifically along
Quinton, through study sessions as well.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to Adopt
Resolution No. 15-184 approving the elimination of parcels from the Park Commons
Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing District (Hennepin County TIF District No.
1308), within Redevelopment Project No. 1, in the City of St. Louis Park).
The motion passed 4-1(Councilmember Sanger opposed) (Mayor Jacobs and
Councilmember Hallfin absent).
Councilmember Sanger stated she expressed her objections to this project during the
EDA meeting, specifically in regard to parking, lack of green space and building size.
She noted she does support redevelopment of the parcel, but would like to see a more
neighborhood friendly scale development.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to Adopt
Resolution No. 15-185 approving the establishment of 4900 Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district).
The motion passed 4-1(Councilmember Sanger opposed) (Mayor Jacobs and
Councilmember Hallfin absent).
Councilmember Mavity again noted that there will be a more robust discussion at the
December 7th meeting when the design and PUD are considered.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
8a. 4900 Excelsior - Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) (First
Reading).
This agenda item was removed from the agenda and postponed to December 7, 2015.
8b. Westside Center (Former Novartis Site) - Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and
Conditional Use Permit. Resolution No. 15-186 and Resolution No. 15-187.
Mr. Walther presented the staff report regarding a request for Westside Center for a
Preliminary Plat, Final Plat and Conditional Use Permit. He identified the project area
and explained that the applicant began multi-tenant improvements to the building in 2014
and in 2015 FEMA established the floodplain elevation for this site. He stated that this
site previously did not have an elevation and a model was created using the Atlas 14 data,
which was reviewed by multiple agencies. He stated that there were two wetlands on the
property that were impacted by the development. He noted that on June 1, 2015 phase II
of the project was approved by the Council for an expansion of impervious surface for
parking, outdoor storage, and a building addition. He noted that as part of that plan a
storm water pond was created. He provided background information on Phase II of the
project, noting that phone calls from residents had been received once construction began
and the City held neighborhood meetings in response.
Mr. Walther noted that proper notification was mailed to properties within 350 feet of the
property prior to the public hearings for that project. He stated that Minnehaha Creek
Watershed also sent notifications to neighbors within 600 feet of the site as part of their
public hearing notification permitting process. He stated that the City has made some
changes to the templates used for mailed notices regarding public hearings, including the
addition of maps, to provide additional clarification to residents. He advised that
notification is also posted on the website and in a local paper, as well as a sign posting on
the property. He stated that the developer also hosted the neighbors to hold an
informational meeting to share their development plans. He advised of additional
meetings between the City and residents to provide additional information throughout
this process, which he believed have responded to all the questions that the residents had.
Mr. Walther stated that the current request for Phase III would include a lot split and
proposed fill that would be hauled to the site to further expand the parking lot. He stated
that in reference to the lot split, there is a variance request to allow no drainage and utility
easement on the common lot line. He noted that a park dedication fee would be collected
on Lot 2 following the lot split. He advised that Lot 2 would benefit from a shared
parking easement with Lot 1 and stated that there would be common access points
between the sites for emergency services. He stated that these agreements were reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney. He referenced the Conditional Use Permit, which
would be used to import fill to the property to construct the parking area, and provided
additional details on the amount of fill that would be used. The fill included fill within
the floodplain, and compensating flood storage was provided elsewhere on the site. He
provided additional details on the landscaping and tree replacement plan. He provided
details on the hauling that would occur for the site including hours of operation and
routes.
Mr. Walther highlighted the comments that were received during the October 13th
neighborhood meeting. He stated that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
October 21st and summarized the comments received at that meeting. He reviewed the
major findings from the staff report and Planning Commission noting that the proposed
fill does not cause a flood stage increase and does not endanger life or property;
compensating flood storage meets City Code requirements; and the proposed fill and
parking lot expansion is consistent with zoning code requirements. He highlighted
benefits of the constructed storm water pond on the site. He stated that the Planning
Commission and staff recommend approval of the proposed actions, subject to the
conditions listed in the staff report.
Councilmember Brausen referenced the floodplain designation and received clarification
that would be in regard to a 100-year flood event, noting the storm water pond would
increase the space for flood water storage.
Alison Riley, 2837 Ottawa, asked about the proposed businesses that would go into the
site and if they would need that much parking. Mr. Walther stated that some of the
largest existing tenants include LRS, Zerorez, and Fish Guys. He noted that there are a
number of other tenants as well. He stated that the applicant believes that amount of
parking would be needed based on the employment of the businesses at the site and noted
that the City parking formulas also support that amount of parking.
Councilmember Spano stated that there was discussion of Metro Transit and bus service
to this site, but accessing the site from a bus standpoint would be difficult and therefore
there is not a bus running to the site and an alternative is not available.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to Adopt
Resolution No. 15-186 Approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of “Westside Center
Izzie Addition”, subject to conditions.
Councilmember Sanger stated that she will be supporting this motion but not without
trepidation. She stated that the various experts have stated that what is proposed here will
not make the current flooding situation worse, which might be as much as the City can
expect here. She stated that the City is aware of the flooding problem in that area. She
was pleased and relieved that neighbors met with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District the previous week at which time they were able to gain additional information.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to Adopt
Resolution No. 15-187 Approving a Conditional Use Permit to import fill material and
for fill within the floodplain, subject to conditions.
Councilmember Mavity referenced the challenges for access to this site and asked if there
is a proposed connection across the rails for pedestrians and bikes to go north. Mr.
Walther stated that the short answer is yes, the City’s pedestrian and bicycle system plan
identified this area as a search corridor for future connections to the regional trail and an
overpass of the railroad tracks, but the location and timing of those improvements are
uncertain.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
8c. CenturyLink Cable Franchise Findings of Fact. Resolution No. 15-188.
Mr. Dunlap presented the staff report and stated that he was present to answer any
questions, noting that this item provided the background information for the Ordinance
that was adopted as part of the Consent Agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to the
Findings of Fact and Resolution regarding an ordinance granting a competitive cable
franchise for Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. D/B/A CenturyLink.
Councilmember Sanger stated that this will set the stage for another provider for cable
television and internet service to come to the City.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
8d. Bid Tabulation: Reject Bids for the Outdoor Ice Rink Site Work and Grading
Project
Mr. Eisold presented the staff report and recommendation to reject the bids for the
outdoor ice rink site work and grading project, noting that these were the only bids
received and they were higher than staff anticipated due to the soil corrections needed
onsite. He stated that this would also allow the City to apply for grant funds to assist in
the soil corrections needed. He stated that staff would bring back a new bid project in
February, which would include any grant funds received.
Councilmember Mavity asked what would happen if the City is not successful in
obtaining grant funds. Ms. Walsh stated that the City has looked at value engineering
options, grants have been applied for, and the entire project will be rebid in December
and January.
Councilmember Spano referenced the schedule and asked what that will do to the project
schedule, whether that will simply be a two month delay or a season delay. Mr. Eisold
stated that this would still remain within the project schedule to be completed for next
season.
Ms. Walsh stated that earlier there had been some grading proposed for fall with some
months of little to no activity and advised that extra time will allow for this adjustment in
the schedule.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to reject
bids for the Outdoor Ice Rink Site Work and Grading Project and authorize re-
advertisement for bids.
The motion passed 5-0 (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
8e. Traffic Study No. 659: All Way Stop Signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th Street.
Resolution No. 15-189.
Ms. Heiser presented the staff report regarding a petition received for the installation of
stop signs on Ottawa at 29th Street. She stated that routinely the Traffic Control
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
Committee reviews requests on a monthly basis against guidelines, policies and
standards. She stated that the criteria were not met and the Committee therefore
recommended that the additional stop signs not be installed. She noted that in those
instances the residents have the option to present the request to the City Council if a
petition is received by 70 percent of the residents within 600 feet, and advised that the
City did receive such a petition.
Anita Kolman, 2855 Ottawa Avenue, stated she had circulated the petition in the
neighborhood and the reception of the neighborhood was overwhelmingly supportive, not
only from Ottawa and 29th but other intersections. She stated that no one that answered
their door refused to sign the petition and she stopped door knocking once she received
the necessary amount of signatures. She stated that people not only agreed to sign the
petition but also made comments about the excessive speed of those traveling on Ottawa.
She stated that the neighborhood wants and needs the stop signs and urged the Council to
support the request.
Allison Riley, 2837 Ottawa, stated she has two small children who have friends across
the street and there is a lot of traffic that uses the roadway, especially with the
construction. She worries about the safety of her children when crossing the roadway
and believed that the stop signs would help increase awareness of the drivers.
Jill Barber, 2840 Ottawa, stated there are no sidewalks so it is dangerous.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the neighborhood also supports sidewalks. Ms. Kolman
stated that would be a separate issue. She clarified that on Ottawa there are sidewalks on
both sides of the street and noted that sidewalks do not deter the speed of drivers.
Ms. Riley stated the bus stop for her children is on 29th and it makes her nervous for her
children to cross the street especially without sidewalks.
Dean Halverson, 2815 Ottawa, asked what other traffic calming items had been looked at
as there was a petition 10 to 15 years ago, that was not approved. He stated the speed of
traffic is quite fast. Ms. Heiser stated she would speak with Mr. Halverson after the
meeting to provide additional options.
Michael Schoff, 2809 Ottawa, agreed that the stop signs would assist in slowing the
speed of traffic. He noted there is a great amount of traffic because of the two schools in
the area and the added vehicles that take the road because of the construction.
Marvin Marshak, 2855 Ottawa, stated although the engineering study states the traffic
volumes do not meet the criteria, he believed the engineering department would agree
that the roadway handles a lot of traffic. He stated the traffic is not going to a destination
in the neighborhood but cutting through to get to another location. He noted a significant
number of vehicles are exceeding the speed limit. Mr. Marshak provided a list to staff
that identified 15 other comparable intersections that have all-way stops. He noted a
process has been identified for residents to request the stop sign and encouraged the
Council to support the stop sign.
Councilmember Sanger stated she lives in this area and was very supportive of the
request. She stated the work that City staff has done to talk about the volume of cars tend
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3a) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of November 16, 2015
to understate the problem. She noted as the school year goes on, more students turn 16
and traffic increases through the neighborhood. There is a significant amount of
pedestrians in the neighborhood, as well, and for the reasons identified, she would
support the request.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to Adopt
Resolution No. 15-189 authorizing installation of stop signs on Ottawa Avenue at 29th
Street.
Councilmember Mavity cautioned that just because there is a stop sign, it does not mean
everyone will stop or that the area will be entirely safe for pedestrians. She asked
residents to stay vigilant.
The motion passed 5-0. (Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Hallfin absent).
9. Communications – None
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 23, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and
Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: Steve Hallfin and Jake Spano.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation
(Ms. Walsh), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Economic Development Specialist (Ms. Grove),
Planner (Mr. Kelley), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), City Assessor (Mr.
Bultema), Operations Manager (Mr. Stevens), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Batra).
Guest: Susan Schneck, Founding Member of FOTA, and George Hagemann, FOTA Board Member.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – December 14, 2015
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for December 14, 2015. He stated
there is no meeting next week because it is the fifth Monday of the month.
Regarding the City’s participation in a 2016 initiative on race and equity, (agenda number 5),
Councilmember Mavity stated the City can sign up online, and pointed out there are two options.
Also, the schedule for the initiative starts in January.
Councilmember Sanger suggested a new potential zoning code change. Mayor Jacobs stated he
would prefer to discuss this when the Council arrives at the agenda item.
2. Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Annual Update
Ms. Schneck presented the staff report. She used a visual aid to summarize the Arts’ Foundation
in the City, which was also presented at the Town Hall meeting. Ms. Schneck stated the economic
impact study was a great opportunity for FOTA to connect and put together data and share
information between themselves. She stated the study also set the stage to open communications
with the community and was a great learning experience. She stated that significant growth has
been seen in FOTA for 2015.
Ms. Schneck stated she has noticed the strength of the community-based arts groups in the
community. These small administrations use the FOTA’s tax ID number because they have the
same mission, which permits them to share a tax return with FOTA. This enables FOTA to work
on partnering and growth within the community.
Councilmember Mavity expressed appreciation for the FOTA, and stated, in her opinion, that the
organization elevates the whole community. She asked about budgeting. Mr. Harmening clarified
that the City reduced the amount given to the FOTA from $20,000 to $16,000 six years ago due to
the recession. Councilmember Mavity suggested the City increase the contribution to FOTA back
to $20,000.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
Councilmember Sanger commented that she appreciates the work that has been done with FOTA.
She asked about whether any thought had been given to include the two major art forms not
addressed by the FOTA, which are dance and public architecture. Ms. Schneck stated that adding
those is on the radar.
Ms. Schneck explained the business plan needs to be evaluated, because holding an event every
other year is a difficult model to use, as organizations that fund projects on an annual basis do not
consider it annual so every year funding must be reevaluated. When considering staffing and
funding, more staff would be needed to make the event yearly. She opined that businesses and
organizations will be more likely to fund the event if it is held yearly.
Councilmember Brausen commented that he appreciates everything the FOTA does for the
community. He asked if any public officials serve on the organization’s Board, as he would be
interested. Ms. Schneck stated the organization speaks with public officials in more of an advisory
role. Councilmember Brausen volunteered for the FOTA’s Board, and asked for clarification on
budgeting. Ms. Schneck stated that the organization brings in approximately $45-55,000/year
since the City’s funding was established and in 2013, revenue went up to $66,000. She explained
that last year Our Town was successful, but staffing and income was not sufficient. This year,
however, FOTA has brought in $51,000, with the hope to raise it to $60,000 by year’s end.
Councilmember Brausen expressed a desire to increase the City’s contribution by at least $10,000
or consider a funding match scenario. He explained that he wants the arts to grow because it
benefits the entire community. Mayor Jacobs agreed to the proposal for the City to raise the
amount of the funding contribution to FOTA.
It was the consensus of the City Council to consider an increase in funding to FOTA.
3. Potential Zoning Code Amendments / Enhancements
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and referenced the information related to Zoning Code
topics including small business support tools, parking lot lighting, bee-friendly landscaping, and
tree preservation on single-family lots. Mr. Walther explained that Council has brought these
issues up in the last few months and now staff is looking for more specific direction from the
Council on the topics presented.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciates the background and comparison with other
communities regarding the small business support tools. She inquired about sexually explicit
businesses and asked why they are permitted to open in neighborhoods, specifically C-1, when the
City is attempting to focus on a neighborhood approach. Mr. Walther explained there are two
kinds of sexually explicit businesses, low impact and high impact. Mr. Walther explained that the
definition gets very detailed.
Mr. Harmening explained that in the mid ‘90’s, the City drafted an ordinance relating to sexually
oriented businesses because challenges had been made in other cities and the City did not have
sufficient regulation. An ordinance was then created to meet the legal and constitutional test and
direct the businesses that could be located in the City. He explained the businesses cannot be
banned, but could be regulated; however, the ordinance had to stand up in the court of law. He
stated there was a lot of time and thought put into the ordinance.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
Councilmember Sanger stated the City received a lot of legal guidance on the issues, and she does
not believe that the sexually explicit businesses are necessarily causing a problem.
Councilmember Mavity stated the City needs to ensure that sufficient support and incentives are
provided to the local businesses. Councilmember Mavity stressed the City does not want
businesses that are out of character from these neighborhood nodes.
Councilmember Sanger stated she is willing to reconsider changes in parking. She explained she
interviewed a small business owner to see if there is something else that needs to be mentioned.
During that interview, three ideas were mentioned. First, placing an ad for a local business to find
local help costs about $450; therefore, it would be beneficial if the City would have a page on the
website for small businesses to advertise for employment. Second, parking is an issue, as one
cannot assume people can walk when they are local because the item could be heavy. It was
suggested to limit the parking to 30 minutes so more people can shop at the business. The third
idea is the difficulty raising capital to purchase a warehouse in the City and the possibility of
looking for assistance or a program.
Councilmember Brausen stated he would like to repurpose old buildings in the City. Ms. Grove
stated that the City has applied for a grant in the Walker Street area, and the City is working with
property owners and businesses.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the City has the tools to reduce parking beyond what is listed.
Mr. Walther mentioned that if the development requires a conditional use permit or planned unit
development (PUD), the code allows parking requirements to be adjusted through that public
hearing process. Otherwise, it would require a variance. Councilmember Mavity asked for
clarification on what can be done beyond a PUD. She expressed her desire to continue to think
about and support parking reductions, as she believes that the use of cars is going to change in the
future. Councilmember Sanger mentioned that parking depends on the business and she does not
think it should be generalized, but should be considered individually instead. Councilmember
Mavity stated she does not think it would be a blanket approach, and would consider a parking
reduction where it’s appropriate. Councilmember Sanger asked, if parking is reduced, what then
happens when a property is turned over to another business. Councilmember Mavity stated she
believes that the City will not need as much parking in the future.
Councilmember Brausen asked if the City has a business ombudsman. Ms. Grove stated that she
helps fill that role and points out resources.
Mayor Jacobs introduced the next topic, parking lot lighting. Councilmember Brausen proposed
all lights and 75% of the parking lot be turned off within 1-2 hours closing. Councilmember
Sanger agreed with Councilmember Brausen; however, for safety and security, if the parking lot
is being used, she believes the lights should remain on.
Councilmember Lindberg expressed balancing the need to conserve energy with the safety,
security, and the needs of the business’ operations are important. He also stated that regulation
may not be the best or only approach. Mr. Harmening stated the Police Department would be
interested in this topic and should weigh in on this issue. He asked how interested the Council is,
because the City would need to work with the business community and discuss it with them, and
then there’s always enforcement to consider. Mr. Harmening stated, from an emergency
perspective, some lights are necessary. Councilmembers Lindberg, Jacobs and Mavity expressed
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
their caution about this proposal. The Council further discussed the topic and decided it was not
a pressing issue at this time.
Mayor Jacobs introduced the next topic, bee-friendly landscaping. Councilmember Mavity
commented that State law prohibited the City from being more aggressive on this issue and until
it is a priority at the State level, it should not be a priority for the City.
Mayor Jacobs introduced the next topic, tree preservation on single-family lots. Councilmember
Sanger stated she appreciates the suggestion to address areas in new developments, because then
the City would have some oversight in the process. Councilmember Mavity stated she does not
agree because she believes it’s a private homeowner issue and the City does not have any say on
the issue. Councilmember Sanger disagreed as she felt trees impact the entire City and explained
if the City had regulations, developers would think before they clear-cut. She felt regulating tree
preservation was similar to building codes.
Councilmember Lindberg stated that he thinks it would be prohibiting single-family homes from
‘building up’ their houses, and does not think that it’s viable. He explained he is also nervous
about a negative impact. Councilmember Sanger clarified she wasn’t talking about the
replacement of the trees, but preserving the existing trees.
Councilmember Brausen expressed that a homeowner should be able do whatever they desire to
their property, but would agree to a tree replacement policy. Councilmember Lindberg stated he
doesn’t believe that it will work, will be too expensive, and will deviate from what the City is
asking homeowners to do.
Councilmember Mavity stated that a tree preservation policy would be too hard to implement.
Mayor Jacobs clarified that staff shouldn’t spend more time on this topic.
Councilmember Sanger presented a potential zoning issue. She stated that, as she understands it,
part of the redevelopment to accommodate Lyman Lumber was for outdoor storage. She explained
this particular outdoor storage is a much more active use of the land with trucks going back and
forth, forklifts making noise, and an active outdoor factory. However, the City still classifies the
area as outdoor storage. Councilmember Sanger proposed the City split outdoor storage into two
classifications, passive use and active use. Mr. Harmening explained making that distinction
would be difficult to define.
Councilmember Sanger suggested the proximity to residential areas could be part of the criteria
for evaluation. Mr. Walther mentioned that Lyman Lumber is 350 feet from residences and agreed
it is a higher activity level.
Councilmember Mavity asked if Lyman Lumber is following the noise ordinance. Mr. Walther
confirmed that Lyman Lumber is complying with code. Lyman Lumber is allowed to operate from
6am-10pm and normal business activity would not fall outside of the noise ordinance.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would be more inclined to deal with that particular issue than
consider a citywide regulation. She asked that as these uses come forward for approval in the
future, staff address that concern and make the Council aware.
Mayor Jacobs stated he did not hear a consensus to direct staff to look into this regulation.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
4. Assessment Policy Discussion – Continued
Ms. Heiser noted this is a continued discussion from the November 9, 2015, Study Session. She
presented the staff report relating to the assessment policy and reviewed the basics of assessments
as also stated in the November 9 Study Session.
Ms. Heiser presented a slide regarding paving, curb, and gutter. The City has 146 miles of streets
and Ms. Heiser presented a pie chart to show how the City’s roadway network is broken down and
their associated funding sources. She explained the existing franchise fee CIP and the level of
funding spent on different types of maintenance to extend the life of the residential streets. Ms.
Heiser explained that the overall condition of the streets are inventoried on an annual basis and
rated on a scale of 1 to 100. These ratings are reviewed by the Pavement Management Team to
determine the annual CIP. Ms. Heiser stated the pavement condition of the unimproved streets
and the streets where the land use is predominantly commercial/ industrial is deteriorating. She
further explained that the current policy for commercial/ industrial streets is petition driven and
the rehabilitation costs are assessed 100% to adjacent property owners; the City has not completed
a rehabilitation project on this category of streets in over 10 years.
Ms. Heiser provided the staff’s recommendation to take a proactive approach to maintenance on
both commercial/ industrial streets and unimproved streets in order to maintain the overall
condition of the City’s street infrastructure. She presented information regarding the additional
infrastructure replacement costs for the one mile of Unimproved Streets, estimated cost
$1,422,494, and Commercial/ Industrial Street Rehabilitation, about $500,000 annually. She went
on to explain potential funding mechanisms to proceed with the work, including assessments.
Mr. Harmening explained that benefit needs to be shown in order to assess. With
commercial/industrial, it may be difficult to show the benefit for assessing 100% of the cost.
Councilmember Sanger stated that her understanding is that commercial use results in more wear
and tear to the roads. She does not agree with assessments on streets because streets are for
everyone’s benefit and the traveling public.
Mr. Harmening clarified that when these streets were initially constructed, someone paid for it.
Basically, the property owners paid for those streets, which is true for most properties in the City.
Councilmember Lindberg stated that he thinks the City should improve the unimproved streets as
it is best practice and makes sense. He stated his concern in looking at the proposed assessment
policy is that although the averages look better, the costs are shifting from larger frontage lots to
shorter frontage lots; therefore, the smaller lots pay a higher share. Councilmember Lindberg
stated that the model is good from a policy perspective and asked how the funding structure can
be finessed.
Councilmember Brausen stated that he doesn’t think the unimproved streets need to be improved
due to the high cost of $1.4 million. Councilmember Mavity clarified that it is actually more cost
effective because it would reduce operating costs. Ms. Heiser clarified there are some drainage
issues and potholes on the unimproved streets, and a ‘band aid’ approach is used to mitigate the
issues to prevent damage to vehicles, but no more. These potholes form because the road is not
built with adequate structure to support the traffic loads.
Mr. Harmening clarified that the Council needs to decide whether to use the special assessment
tool. If not, the Council will have to work the cost into the budget. Councilmember Mavity stated
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
she agreed with the assessment tool for streets, but not necessarily for sidewalks. Councilmember
Mavity expressed she is comfortable with staff’s recommendation and thinks the City should
proceed with the proposed plan. Councilmember Sanger stated she does not agree with
assessments for roads or sidewalks, but can see the argument on alleys. She opined roads and
sidewalks are for the public benefit. Mayor Jacobs stated his agreement with Councilmember
Sanger and believes that the City will receive push back if the assessment tool is used. Mr.
Harmening clarified that it’s only the one mile of unimproved streets in the City that would be
assessed. Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger and Mayor Jacobs stated they agree that alleys are
the exception when discussing assessments.
Ms. Heiser explained, using a slide, what the overall additional infrastructure costs would be
without using the assessment tool. She mentioned that assessments, as proposed in the new policy,
could fund approximately half of the estimated cost. The Council and staff discussed the
differences in the cost if unimproved streets were assessed, funded by franchise fees, or funded
through a levy increase.
Mr. Harmening introduced the topic of unimproved alleys. Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers
Mavity and Sanger stated they could support assessing 50% on alleyways. Councilmember Sanger
stated the current formula is a deterrent because if the residence doesn’t have a garage, no benefit
is received. Councilmember Lindberg stated that formula is not agreeable to him, as alleyways
are part of the infrastructure the City is providing and maintaining. Councilmember Mavity stated
there is no perfect answer on this issue. Mr. Harmening asked, excluding the formula, can the
Council agree on an assessment for alleys. Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger and Mayor Jacobs
indicated their support.
Ms. Heiser clarified the Council has decided to not use the assessment tool for residential streets,
and to use the assessment tool for alleys. In response to Councilmember Lindberg’s request, Ms.
Heiser displayed a slide detailing the location of unimproved alleys. The Council discussed the
pricing and how to build in the cost over time regarding alleys. Using the ‘Existing CIP’ slide,
Ms. Heiser discussed the existing and forecasted funding.
It was the consensus of the City Council to explore funding options for streets, use the assessment
tool for alleys and discuss sidewalks at a later date.
5. Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)
Mr. Harmening stated Mn/DOT is requesting municipal consent to close the W. 16th Street access
and there will be a hearing on December 7, 2015. She noted staff wanted to provide the Council
with an update because it was possible that a number of people may attend the hearing to express
their opinions on the proposed closure. Mayor Jacobs stated there is mixed feedback from
residents on the issue. Councilmember Mavity stated there is also a cost issue. Councilmember
Brausen stated that both sides are equally supported and it’s a safety issue. Mn/Dot wants to close
the access, but needs municipal consent because the closure is associated with a larger construction
project. Mr. Harmening explained that visual barriers will be built and Mn/DOT will pay for them.
Ms. Heiser explained why Mn/DOT is seeking municipal consent as Mn/DOT has a project to
complete; however, Mn/DOT stated it could close the access at any time if there were a serious
accident resulting in a fatality. Mayor Jacobs, and Councilmembers Brausen, Mavity, and Sanger
stated their support of the closure. Mr. Harmening raised the option of asking for a noise wall
instead of a visual barrier.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
It was the consensus of the City Council to support the closure of the W. 16 th Street access to
Highway 169 and to ask Mn/DOT whether the visual barrier could be upgraded to a noise wall.
6. 4900 Excelsior Project Update
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and indicated Oppidan Investment Company (Oppidan) plans
to sell the 4900 Excelsior project to Weidner Apartment Homes (Weidner) and has requested that
the EDA consider providing consent to the assignment of the just-approved Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract. Weidner is not making any programmatic changes and staff is
comfortable with the transfer. Mr. Hunt explained that Weidner is constantly on the lookout for
purchase opportunities and approached Oppidan regarding this project. He added the City has had
a good relationship with Weidner via the Sienna Apartment project. Staff anticipated the project
would ultimately be sold once it was constructed and reached stabilization.
Councilmember Mavity clarified that the only change would be the owner; therefore, the City
would not incur any additional financial burden. Mr. Hunt responded that staff requested an
updated proforma reflecting the change in ownership and what ramifications it may have on
financing the project. He noted no additional TIF had been requested. If there is no significant
reduction in the project’s financial gap, the EDA could simply consent to an assignment of the
project from Oppidan to Weidner.
Councilmember Sanger questioned if Weidner would remain the owner for the long-term
operation. Mr. Hunt responded in the affirmative, noting that Weidner would be the long-term
owner and operator, looking at this from a 40-year perspective. In response to Councilmember
Mavity’s question, Mr. Hunt suggested the City meet with Weidner to discuss expectations with
inspections, project management, and working with the neighbors, to ensure construction goes
smoothly.
Mr. Hunt clarified that Weidner wants to close on the property themselves. He stated that if the
proforma comes back and it’s not agreeable, the City can revisit the TIF number and enter into a
new agreement with Weidner.
Mr. Hunt indicated staff is working with legal counsel and Ehlers to determine the financial
implications of the proposed assignment, if any, and if the financial terms within the Purchase and
Redevelopment Contract need to be revisited.
It was the consensus of the City Council to consent to the assignment if that is the direction
recommended by staff.
7. 2016 City Council Workshop
Mayor Jacobs stated that he will not attend the City Council Workshop. He stated that, in his
opinion, the relationships that allow the Council to hold discussions in a rational way is the most
important thing to discuss at the Workshop. He stated that the Council trusts each other, and, with
the upcoming membership changes, he hopes this trust can be preserved.
Councilmember Lindberg recommended that Bridget Gothberg attend and spend Thursday or
Friday with the Council. Councilmember Sanger suggested it would be useful to hear from Mayor
Elect Spano about his style, how he operates, and what his expectations are.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
Councilmember Mavity expressed concerns about recent actions that Councilmember Sanger
undertook to undermine the City’s recent grant request to the Met Council despite the fact the
Council approved making the grant application. Councilmember Mavity suggested that the issue
of Council norms should be discussed, outlining the written and unwritten. She also stated that
she agrees that it is important to do the personality test. Councilmember Elect Miller will meet
with Ms. Gothberg and complete the personality test as everyone else did when they started the
Council. Councilmember Lindberg agreed with the importance of the norms conversation, which
can also be facilitated by Ms. Gothberg.
Mr. Harmening would like to address the five goals that were set last year, and have a conversation
around that to make sure those are still on track, which would leave time for another topic, open
for suggestion, on Friday. Councilmember Brausen asked to revisit the 2025 goals and incorporate
a racial equity component into those goals.
Councilmember Sanger stated another goal is the big picture on the City’s aging physical
infrastructure and how to keep the community updated, fresh, and in good physical shape.
Councilmembers Mavity and Brausen mentioned that something similar had been discussed at last
year’s retreat.
Mr. Harmening would like to merge the visioning plan with the Comp Plan. The new Comp Plan
is due is in 2018. Councilmember Lindberg stated it helps the Council incorporate all areas. It
was noted that Councilmember Elect Miller has that experience from the last election while
knocking on doors to gather votes and meeting residents, which could be valuable when
considering the Plan.
Councilmember Brausen would like to discuss zero waste because it’s a pressing issue to review
and think about where the City should go and what the cost will be. Councilmember Mavity agreed
with the sentiment but thought the City should plan more than the retreat to discuss that topic.
Mr. Harmening stated the City’s long-term financial standing is a hot topic; as well as SWLRT
and development around the station location; aging infrastructure; and neighborhoods.
Mayor Jacobs stated to find a topic, he likes the idea of sending out a survey to ask for their top
three big picture topics so staff has a broad-based plan in place in what it should be working on.
The Councilmembers Spano, Lindberg, and Sanger will work with staff to develop the Workshop
agenda.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
Councilmember Sanger commented on zero waste packaging and asked how the Council plans to
classify a restaurant where you can do both, takeout and dine in. She stated the Council needs to
clarify this because a lot of restaurants fall under both requirements. Councilmember Mavity noted
the exemption for providing on-site disposal is only for restaurants that do not offer a dine-in
facility. Mr. Harmening stated staff will review that language. Councilmember Brausen stated he
does not understand why utensils are being exempt when compostable utensils are readily
available. It was noted that businesses will be required to provide recycling.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Title: Study Session Minutes of November 23, 2015
Councilmember Lindgren asked if the Council is willing to explore some type of assistance for
small businesses. Mr. Harmening stated staff will check with the County to see if that assistance
is available. Councilmember Sanger stated the Council has already discussed providing education
and information about alternatives as well as a long lead-time before the regulation becomes
effective.
The Study Session scheduled for December 28 will be cancelled.
The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. October 2015 Monthly Financial Report
9. Updated Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 7, 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: Solid Waste Program Coordinator (Ms. Fisher), Executive Director (Mr.
Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Community Development Director
(Mr. Locke), Engineer Director (Ms. Heiser), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Fire Chief (Mr. Koering),
City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Senior Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Shamla), Controller
(Mr. Swanson), Operations and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther),
Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Batra).
Guests: John Easter (American Chemistry Counsel), Dave Kluesner (International Paper), Andrew
Lutaya (MnDOT), Dan McElroy (Minnesota Restaurant Association and Minnesota Lodging
Association), Deb McMillian (Twin West Chamber of Commerce), Phil Olson (City of
Minnetonka), and Annmarie Treglia (DART Container Corporation).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Introduction of New Community Emergency Response Team Members
(CERT)
Mr. Koering announced that 15 new members were added to the City’s CERT team. With
the inaugural class of 9 community members, sworn in last year, the new additions brought
the team’s total to 24 community members. The City’s goal was to increase the team to
40 community members.
The CERT team is working on certifying trainers internally to enable the City to train their
own CERT members. Mr. Koering explained that the City’s firefighters are very
supportive of the CERT program. The Fire Department and the CERT community
members will work together to partner during emergency situations.
Mr. Koering explained that Ms. Kennedy swore in the CERT members prior to the Council
meeting. All CERT members were called to the front to be recognized for their role in the
community.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
2b. Recognition of Donations
Mayor Jacobs recognized Solo Dock for their $100 donation.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Special City Council Meeting Minutes November 9, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes November 9, 2015
Councilmember Lindberg requested a correction on Pages 2 and 4 of the minutes to correct
the misspelling of his name.
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 October 24, 2015 through
November 27, 2015.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 15-190 authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance renewal
effective December 1, 2015 and ongoing.
4c. Adopt the amendment to the agreement with the St. Louis Park Hockey Association for
its contribution to the construction of an outdoor refrigerated ice rink.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 15-191 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $13,595.70 for the annual Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project
with Insituform Technologies USA, LLC. - Project No. 4014-3003, City Contract No.
36-15.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 15-192 accepting work and authorizing final payment in the
amount of $20,552.71 for the annual Street Sealcoat Project with Pearson Brothers Inc.
- Project No. 4015-1200, City Contract No. 51-15.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 15-196 authorizing final payment in the amount of $9,906.18 for
the annual Concrete Replacement Project with Standard Sidewalk, Inc. - Project No.
4014-0003, City Contract No. 103-14.
4g. Moved to 8c.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 15-193 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Solo
Dock Company in Wayzata in the amount of $100 for Cobblecrest Neighborhood
Association.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
4i. Moved to 8d.
4j. Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Minutes October 7, 2015.
Councilmember Brausen requested that Consent Calendar item 4g be removed and placed
on the Regular Agenda to 8c.
Councilmember Spano requested that Consent Calendar item 4i be removed and placed on
the Regular Agenda to 8d.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent
Calendar item 4g to the Regular Agenda as item 8c and Consent Calendar item 4i to the
Regular Agenda as item 8d; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing – Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side).
Resolution No. 15-194.
Joe Shamla introduced the staff report.
Andrew Lutaya with MnDOT presented the topic to the Council. He thanked the Council
for the City’s assistance in designing the improvements to Highway 169. He reviewed the
list of proposed improvements to Highway 169, including a pavement preservation project
that will replace deteriorated concrete from Highway 62 to Highway 55; the 9-Mile Creek
bridge replacement; the extension of the acceleration and deceleration lanes by Cedar Lake
Road; and, the 16th Street access closure.
Mr. Lutaya explained MnDOT is proposing the 16th Street access closure to be in
compliance with the program, Minnesota Toward Zero Deaths’ initiative. The program
was started in southeast Minnesota in 2003 as a pilot program and has been instituted in
the metro region since 2012. Since this program has been started, there has been a 45%
decrease in fatalities. According to MnDOT, closing the 16th Street access would be
proactive because it’s a substandard interchange access that doesn’t allow enough
acceleration.
Mr. Lutaya explained that concrete curb and gutter would be added to replace the access.
A visual barrier, which does provide similar acoustical noise benefits to those of a noise
wall, is included in the proposed 16th Street access closure. He noted the guidelines for a
noise wall and a visual barrier were different, but the materials and benefits would be the
same.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
Mr. Lutaya stated to close the access point, municipal consent must be given. However, if
there was a fatality on the 16th Street access, MnDOT could close the ramp without
municipal consent.
Mr. Lutaya explained alternative routes for access to Highway 169 have been reviewed in
anticipation of the closure. The longest distance for rerouting is one mile. The traffic
impact on Cedar Lake Road and Ford Road was also reviewed. MnDOT understands
there’s a problem; however, it’s not significant to warrant traffic signals at this time, even
if the access is closed and traffic is increased.
A slide was presented with the project development schedule. Another public open house
will be held early 2016 to discuss the design of the current plan. Municipal consent was
requested on September 30, 2015, via a letter and the public hearing is today. Mr. Lutaya
stated MnDOT is listening to feedback from the community to develop the project and he
encouraged comments and suggestions to help the project run smoother.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Phil Olson, with the engineering department of the City of Minnetonka, stated he attended
the meeting to convey the concerns of their city’s residents. He noted the City of
Minnetonka sent St. Louis Park formal correspondence expressing their opposition to the
proposed closure. He explained that Minnetonka residents have a very strong presence at
the 16th Street access. There are approximately 550 homes in that area that will be deferred
to neighboring roads without any signals. Additionally, southbound access is very similar
to northbound. Possible closure of the northbound access was reviewed by the Council a
few years ago, and ultimately it was decided to leave the access open. In addition, Mr.
Olson stated that crash data does not exist to support the proposed access closure at this
time.
Victoria Thor, 9721 16th Street West, encouraged the Council to approve closure of the
access. She opined the 16th Street access is not safe. She stated she wants the neighborhood
to be safe for the families in the community and to possibly consider other projects that
would enhance the community should the access be closed.
Jason Shannon, 1330 Jordan Avenue South, encouraged closure from a safety perspective.
He explained vehicles coming off the highway are traveling much faster than the posted
speed limit. Also, he stated the noise has increased since the sound wall on the other side
of the freeway was constructed.
Deb Nachbor, 9995 Cimarron Trail, Minnetonka, stated she uses the access as an exit off
Highway 169 and comes off 16th Street to Ford Road. If the exit is closed, the traffic around
her house will be increased, because the cars with no access to Highway 169 will be routed
past her house. She opined that closing the access is merely trading one problem for
another. She explained pedestrians are presently limited on Ford Road and the additional
traffic will only make that worse. She encouraged work on Cedar Lake Road and the
Highway 169 interchange be completed before the closure of the 16th Street access.
Debbie Schumacher, 1320 Lancaster Avenue, explained she circulated a petition around
the neighborhood to the residents most impacted by the proposed closure. She noted she
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
obtained approximately 85 signatures from residents who were in favor of the closure. She
stated supported closure of the access and expressed belief that it will raise property values.
Trish Campbell, 1404 Jordan Avenue, stated she purchased her property in 2002 and has
noticed a significant increase in noise levels. She spoke in favor of closing the access,
citing safety reasons.
Adam Yurich, 1440 Jordan Avenue So., spoke in favor of the access closure. He referenced
a report from MnDOT, which stated from 2011 to 2014 the stop sign off of the exit was hit
19 times. He opined closing the access is a safety issue.
A woman who resides near the access stated she was in favor of closing the 16 th Street
access. She explained the speed of the vehicles traveling in the neighborhood has increased
significantly.
Martin Harris, 9721 West 16th Street, explained he has lived on 16th Street for 51 years. He
stated he supported the access closure. He opined that restricting access would make the
neighborhood a better place to raise a family.
Jana Mjor, 1330 Lancaster Avenue, admitted that she uses the access every day but was
still in support of closure. She explained the exit was closed a few years ago during
construction and the neighborhood was quiet and wonderful.
Diana Schug, 1607 Ford Road, stated on September 23, 2015, between 7 and 8 a.m., she
counted 456 cars traveling on Ford Road. She explained the residents along Ford Road
will be greatly impacted by closure of the access because the amount of traffic will increase
significantly.
An individual residing at 1826 Melrose Avenue stated she represents 150 people in the area
who want the 16th Street access to remain open. She noted in her area she found very little
support for closure. She circulated a petition in the neighborhood along 18th, Parker Lane,
Melrose, and towards the pond. Out of 240 residents in the area, approximately 150 signed
the petition to keep the access open.
Amy Marriott, 9710 16th Street West, stated she lives across from the utility building. She
explained her children are not allowed to play in the front yard because the traffic is so
heavy. She stated she would gladly reroute during her commute for the safety of her
children. She spoke in favor of closure of the 16th Street access. Amy’s son, Victor, stated
that instead of riding his scooter on the street he has to walk around the block in order to
stay safe, and this does not make him happy.
Tina, who lives on 16th Avenue, stated she was not in favor of closing the access She added
traffic is bad on Ford Road, and not as bad on 16th Street.
Nick Erpelding, 10025 Kingman Lane, Minnetonka, stated crossing Ford Road as a
pedestrian to get to Ford Park would be difficult if the access was closed, due to the increase
in traffic the neighborhood would see. He understood the issue on 16th Street, but wanted
to point out how the closure would impact his neighborhood.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
Angela Beier, 1420 Jordan Avenue South, explained she uses and enjoys the convenience
of the exit, but also sees that the access has become a safety hazard. She added she is in
favor of the noise wall that would be built if the access is closed because it would make
her house easier to sell.
Howard Walstein, 1651 Melrose Avenue, stated he walks his dog every day on 16th Avenue
by Kilmer Pond. He explained he circulated a petition around the neighborhood and a
majority of the residents who signed the petition were in favor of keeping the exit open.
He noted if the exit is kept open his biggest concern is that nothing has been done to
mitigate the speed of the vehicles. If access is closed, he opined there may be fatalities on
Cedar Lake Road.
Councilmember Mavity stated she has recorded sayings that Mayor Jacob has said
throughout his time on the Council. One of those sayings is that our job as the City Council
is to come together once a week, disagree, shake hands, go home and come back and do it
again. She encouraged residents to apply this same strategy in their neighborhoods. Mayor
Jacobs pointed out the City’s good working relationship with surrounding cities. He added
whether the access is closed or not, the streets need to be safe.
Dr. Graham Keith, 1612 Melrose Avenue, stated the 16th Street access has been closed
three times in the last 20 years. He inquired if MnDOT had information on whether or not
the surrounding streets have seen an increase in the number of accidents occurring during
those times. He noted he was supportive of closing the access.
Beth Davis, 9624 Robin Oak Road, Hopkins, stated there is a large volume of traffic. She
has noticed that vehicles turn onto Cimarron to get to the stoplight and travel at an increased
speed. She opined this tendency will most likely increase with closure of the access.
Scott Richter, 1636 Melrose Avenue, asked if there is crash data available for vehicles
going south on Highway 169 because acceleration at that point is not favorable. Also, he
asked if there is an option to temporarily close the access to gather statistics on how the
area is affected. Mr. Lutaya stated temporarily closing the access is not an option. He
noted there were 19 stop sign hits and 25 non-serious crashes on Highway 169 near the
access point in approximately the last 20 years.
Debbie Anderson, 1821 Melrose Avenue, stated she would like to see the access closed
due to safety concerns. She opined a stoplight is necessary at the intersection of Ford Road
and Cedar Lake Road in Minnetonka. She stated she uses a different route to avoid the
area, because other vehicles have honked or shown road rage when she goes the speed
limit.
Bill, who lives on Ford Road and Ford Circle, stated he is in favor of keeping the access
open due to the amount of traffic that would rerouted onto Ford Road if the access was
closed.
Tia Fink, 1605 Melrose Avenue, stated she has lived in the neighborhood since 2002. She
explained she has a 3-year-old who has been confined to playing solely in the backyard
due to the volume of traffic on her street. She explained she would like her kids to be able
to play out front, so she supports closure of the access.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 7
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
Stephanie Schanno, 1330 Jordan Avenue South, stated walking in the 16th Avenue
neighborhood is very dangerous due to the sightlines.
Jamie Marriott, 9710 16th Street West, stated there are funds allocated to the visual barrier
if the access is closed at this time. She clarified if the access is not closed at this time, the
funds would be reallocated and a visual barrier would not be constructed. Mr. Lutaya
explained if an overhaul is done where a lane is added on Highway 169, a noise analysis
will be done and if it comes back that a noise wall is needed one will be installed. Another
way to get a noise wall is via the priority system. The 16 th Street neighborhood falls at
position 162 out of 280 sites, so it would be a while before the noise wall would be
approved via this route. At this time, the visual barrier was added to the project to make
the closure more favorable for the City. Ms. Marriott clarified that it would be in the City’s
best interest, as a good business decision, to close the access now because if MnDOT closes
the access at some point in the future the visual barrier may not be constructed or the City
may have to fund its construction.
John Schech, 1414 Melrose Avenue, asked about the difference between a visual barrier
and a sound wall. Mr. Lutaya responded that a visual barrier and noise wall are one in the
same for MnDOT. For this project, MnDOT is proposing that the highest part of the wall
be 6 feet around 394; however, going south passed 16th Avenue, the wall will be as high as
20 feet. Mr. Schech suggested, if the access is closed, funds should be allocated to add
traffic revisions to Ford Road because, in his opinion, they will be necessary.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Brausen stated he appreciates the feedback from residents. He explained
it’s a difficult problem to balance the competing needs, because one side is going to be
unhappy. He expressed his support of closing the access, noting he realizes the challenges,
but felt it was a public safety issue. He opined a fatality is imminent, so the sensible
decision is closure.
Councilmember Sanger stated she supports closure of the access for the same reasons as
Councilmember Brausen. In addition, the visual barrier included in the project is desired.
She explained that if the Council does not grant municipal consent, and MnDOT
unilaterally closes the access, the City would not get the visual barrier.
Councilmember Mavity thanked the speakers. Regarding the idea that the traffic at the two
intersections could get more challenging, she stated those two intersections are located in
Minnetonka so they are outside of the Council’s jurisdiction. She stated she does have
safety concerns on Ford Road. She stated that a short section of sidewalk on Ford Road is
not included in the City’s 10-year sidewalk plan, but can be added if Minnetonka wants to
add a sidewalk to Ford Road.
Councilmember Spano stated he supports closing the access. In his opinion, the strongest
argument for closure is the stop sign that’s been hit 19 times in 4 years, which is once every
ten weeks. He opined the City should deliberately work with Minnetonka to improve
traffic conditions on Ford Road. He stated the 16th Street access is structurally deficient,
Ford Road is not.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 8
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-194, supporting the closure of the W. 16th Street
Access ramps on the West side of Highway 169 at W. 16th Street and construction of a
visual barrier.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Public Hearing - Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance.
Ms. Fisher presented the staff report using a slide to explain the background of the Zero
Waste Packaging ordinance. This issue was presented at study sessions in early 2015. On
November 23, 2015, the final draft of the proposed ordinance was submitted to the Council.
Ms. Fisher explained that the goal of the ordinance is to increase traditional recycling and
organics recycling while reducing waste and environmental impact. The intent of the
ordinance is to accomplish the goals through the two major requirements, which are food
establishments are required to use “Zero Waste Packaging” for food prepared and served
onsite or packaged to go, and food establishments are required to provide onsite recycling
or organics recycling for customers dining in. The ordinance applies to all food
establishments that have food prepared for immediate consumption in the City licensed by
Hennepin County. She explained that only dine-in establishments are required to have
recycling bins. Food trucks do not qualify for an exception and must have recycling bins.
Ms. Fisher stated packaging used by food establishments for food and beverage eaten on-
site or taken to go must be reusable or returnable, recyclable, or compostable. The
ordinance does not include utensils, plastic wrap, straws and stir sticks. The reusable
packaging must be reusable or refillable such as a water bottle or growler. The recycling
packaging is required to be constructed of recyclable material and accepted by local
material recovery facilities. Packaging that is compostable must be acceptable locally and
made with unlined paper or certified compostable materials.
Ms. Fisher explained Public Works may develop rules and regulations as necessary and the
rules of the ordinance will be reviewed and presented to Council for approval annually.
The exemption process will be made available for non-compliant packaging products that
have no reasonable commercially available option. Violations will be subject to
administrative penalties and corrective action must occur in 14 days.
If the ordinance is passed, the effective date would be January 1, 2017. Staff recommends
if Council is in favor of the ordinance, that Council make a motion for the first reading of
the Zero Waste Packaging ordinance. If the ordinance is passed, Public Works would use
2016 to develop lists of acceptable products and exemptions, develop education and
outreach materials, and create activities offering technical assistance to those businesses
that would be effected by the ordinance.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
John Easter, representing the American Chemistry Counsel, stated he has been
participating in the entire process. He stated he is also representing the interests of the
Plastics Packaging Group. He expressed his support of the goal of zero waste under the
ordinance. However, there exists two concerns and proposed written amendments were
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 9
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
provided to the Council to address those concerns. First item involves the definition of
recyclable packaging. The American Chemistry Council and the Plastics Packaging Group
recommend adding all plastics, including polystyrene, to the group as recyclable to
encourage recycling. The second item involves an amendment to the section on exceptions,
which would add a hardship provision stating that at any time there is more than a 10%
cost, based on wholesale to a food packaging item, the provision would grant an exception.
He also mentioned that when Minneapolis enacted their zero waste ordinance, this same
hardship provision was used.
Dave Kluesner, International Paper in Madison, Wisconsin, explained that International
Paper is one of the largest paper-based food packaging distributors in the world. He stated
he reviewed the draft proposal. International Paper’s basic cup has a poly-lining that would
not fall under the compostability or recyclability requirements. The products that have a
PLA lining (corn based) do qualify, but there’s an approximately 30% price increase. He
explained paper cups have been accepted in the mixed paper waste stream in some of the
bigger cities such as Seattle. He stated the Food Packaging Institute is compiling a list of
paper mills in the nation to help with this issue, which could be provided upon request once
it’s available.
Deb McMillian, Twin West Chamber of Commerce, stated she supports small businesses.
She stated this ordinance creates an increase cost where the neighboring cities don’t have,
so the City would not have the competitive edge. She encouraged the City to wait until the
compostable material choices and cost can catch up.
Dan McElroy, Executive Vice President of the Minnesota Restaurant Association and the
Minnesota Lodging Association, stated that he wanted the Council to create an exception
for the lid of the cup as the eco-lid is structurally inferior, is more expensive and does not
hold liquid as long. Also, since consumers are invited to recycle plastic types 1 through 7
in the City, he opined that the City should treat both residents and businesses the same.
Mr. McElroy explained that as far as paper is concerned, uncoated is assumed to be
compostable but lined is not. The cups are coated with one of three materials, wax, clay,
or polyethylene. In addition, paper used in food establishments typically is not certified
so, he opined, the City would be blazing new pathways.
Mr. McElroy explained that franchises buy standard cups under contract for a region. With
compostable requirements, the costs would increase significantly because the franchises
will not receive the quantity discount. He asked the Council to reconsider this ordinance,
because, in his opinion, the people of the City should make the decisions, not the Council.
Conrad Segal, 2621 Georgia Avenue South, stated he is against the ordinance. He opined
this decision is beyond the scope of the Council, and the ordinance represents the loss of
freedom and is a government overreach.
Emily Barker suggested the City commit to recycling all the way if the ordinance is passed.
She stated that if the ordinance is piecemealed with a bunch of exceptions, the goal will
not be achieved. As the ordinance is written, City staff are allowed to review on a yearly
basis; therefore, the ordinance can be amended with new demand, collectors and products
available. She stated she understands the price issue, but with more demand, price goes
down.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 10
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
Annmarie Treglia, Global Manager at DART Container Corporation, stated that the price
of recycling polystyrene is coming down due to more demand. She stated to encourage
more recycling, the City should try a pilot project first. She is happy to work with the City
to help draft a plan to recycle polystyrene. DART Container Corporation has been
recycling polystyrene since 1990.
Councilmember Hallfin asked Ms. Treglia when will there be a local plant to recycle the
polystyrene as the City can’t recycle if it costs more money to ship it to Iowa. Ms. Treglia
responded that the State is not currently doing polystyrene recycling so there is no market
for a plant.
Councilmember Mavity stated recycling has been ongoing since the 1980’s and
polystyrene has not been commonly accepted as recyclable; therefore, the time has come
to develop a new strategy.
Terry Gips, 9000 West 28th Street, is an economist, a sustainability consultant, and Chair
of the City’s Environment and Sustainability Commission. Since not all commissioners
granted their support of his findings, he is presenting as a concerned citizen. He explained
the commission has been working hard on many sustainability issues including zero waste
for the City. It is his hope that the policies enacted will focus on key priorities. He opined
that the City needs to look at the ordinance as a county proposal rather than just a city
proposal, because there are still many unanswered questions that need to be addressed
before moving forward with the policy.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Brausen stated that he believes this is a shared concern and needs to be a
community approach. He stated the City needs to do what’s healthy and sustainable and
this is a step in the right direction.
Councilmember Sanger stated it appears that the most consistent arguments presented to
the Council state that polystyrene is actually recyclable; however, that does not help the
residents in Minnesota. She expressed her agreement with Councilmember Mavity, who
stated the industry has had decades to try to set up recycling for these projects, yet none
exist. Councilmember Sanger also stated she is sympathetic to the cost to businesses to
comply with the ordinance. To the extent there are businesses using products that would
be illegal, the environment is taking the hit and the businesses are profiting. She stated
there is not one statewide standard and approach to zero waste so the City has to start
somewhere. She stated she supports this ordinance, as it’s the right thing to do.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he supports the ordinance. He compared the City’s current
position to curbside recycling in the 1980s. The City will pioneer the way now as back
then. He stated the City is moving in the right direction.
Councilmember Lindberg stated the Council has discussed this ordinance for almost a year.
He does support the ordinance; however, he would like to further discuss the impact on
small businesses and the grant programs available to assist in the cost to implement this
ordinance.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 11
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the first reading of the proposed Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance and set the second
reading for December 21, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
6c. Public Hearing – 2016 Proposed Budget, Tax Levies and Truth in Taxation
Public Hearing.
Brian Swanson presented the staff report, which has been shortened but is available in its
entirety on the City’s website. Mr. Swanson stated the City has experienced a decline in
revenue, because the rec center is undergoing a federally-mandated renovation so ice time
revenue is reduced.
Mr. Swanson discussed transfers into the City’s budget. He presented a slide with pie
charts detailing the city’s general fund expenditures. He explained the City is proposing
two full time positions, one in fire and one in police to be filled next year.
Mr. Swanson explained that there is a 4.64% increase, or $ 1,512,656, in the 2016 General
Fund Budget when compared to 2015. The proposed general fund budget is $34,137,094.
On September 21, 2015, a Preliminary Property Tax Levy was adopted at 6.5% and was
subsequently proposed to Council. In response, Council directed staff to proceed with a
6% ($1.6 million) tax levy increase for this meeting. On January 2, 2015, the assessor sets
the taxable market value for taxes payable in 2016 and other key dates for the City’s tax
process.
Using a chart, Mr. Swanson presented and explained the average residential property tax
percentage change in all jurisdictions. He also presented and explained the average
business property tax percentage change and where property taxes are spent. Comparing
the tax rates with other cities, the City ranks 18 out of 45 for city residential property taxes,
and the City is ranked 21 out of 45 for overall residential property taxes in Hennepin
county.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed
the public hearing.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section 57 Related
to Microdistillery Licenses.
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report regarding the first reading of an ordinance related
to microdistilleries. This issue was discussed in-depth at a City Council Study Session on
September 28, 2015. She explained at that time, the City Council directed staff to proceed
with drafting the first reading of an ordinance that would provide for two new license
classifications, a microdistillery cocktail room license and a microdistillery off-sale
license. She stated both new types of license classifications would be subject to all
applicable state and local regulations, including the days and hours of sale. She noted a
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 12
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
provision was included, based on previous Council discussion that would prohibit a
restaurant from being located at a cocktail room.
It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve
the first reading of an Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section
57 related to provide for Microdistillery Cocktail Room Licenses and Microdistillery Off-
Sale Licenses and to Schedule the Second Reading of the ordinance for December 21, 2015.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. 4900 Excelsior - Final Plat and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD - First
Reading). Resolution No. 15-195.
Mr. Walther presented the staff report regarding the final plat and final planned unit
development at 4900 Excelsior, which is located in the Wolfe Park neighborhood. The
property is currently zoned for mixed use and high-density multiple family residential. The
property will be rezoned to include two parcels: one owned by the EDA and one owned by
LA Fitness. The final plat would combine the properties into one lot and dedicate right-
of-way and drainage and utility easements. This plan is consistent with the preliminary
plat that was approved by the Council. He stated the building design has been revised and
discussed at several City Council meetings over the past 10 months.
Mr. Walther presented several illustrations of the proposed development, and highlighted
several of the improvements that have been made to the plans.
Mr. Walther further explained how the parking is provided and how the portions of the off-
site parking would be shared by the commercial employees and residential guests A shared
parking study was conducted at the site, and the peak demand was defined as 331 spaces
based on an earlier proposal for 183 units, rather than the 164-176 units currently proposed.
He explained a traffic study was also completed. The traffic study looked at the proposed
uses and evaluated the trip distribution. It was found that the development would have
little to no impact on the traffic situation on the corners of the development.
Mr. Walther stated there has been a neighborhood meeting on this issue and the Council
also has met five times to discuss this project. Staff is recommending approval of the
proposed PUD.
Councilmember Mavity expressed her support of the project. She pointed out that the
drawings and renderings contained on pages 299 through 306 in the packet are not relevant
to tonight’s discussion. She opined the project is a great value as to the return on
investment and will help bring this area alive.
Councilmember Sanger stated she will vote no, because this project is too big for the area,
lacks green space at ground level, and does not plan for enough parking. The City is
making an error counting street spaces toward this project. She opined the community
does not need more small apartments, because they do not accommodate families. She
stated this parcel is ripe for redevelopment; however, this is not the right project.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-195, approving the Final Plat for Park Commons
West for properties at 4760 and 4900 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to conditions, and
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 3c) Page 13
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of December 7, 2015
approve first reading of the Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 2 and amending the
Zoning Map from MX Mixed Use and R-C High Density Multiple Family Residence to
PUD 2 for property bound by Excelsior Boulevard, Quentin Avenue South, Park Commons
Drive, and Princeton Avenue South, and to set the Second Reading of the Ordinance for
December 14, 2015.
The motion passed 6-1. (Councilmember Sanger opposed.)
8c. Bid alternates and the addition of LED lighting upgrades in both ice arenas as
a part of The Rec Center Refrigeration Replacement Project.
Commissioner Brausen stated the City received a $400,000 Mighty Ducks Grant that
allowed the City to use these funds for additional energy efficiency upgrades as part of this
project.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve
the bid alternates and the addition of LED lighting upgrades in both ice arenas as a part
of The Rec Center Refrigeration Replacement Project.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Recognize Public Service Worker Donald Schmaus for his 30 years of service
to the City of St. Louis Park. Resolution No. 15-197.
Councilmember Spano stated that Mr. Schmaus worked for the City for 30 years. He would
like to recognize Mr. Schmaus for his excellent years of service to the City.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive the
reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-197, approving to recognize Public Service Worker
Donald Schmaus for his 30 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
This is Mayor Jacobs’ last meeting with the Council. The Council expressed their
appreciation to Mayor Jacobs. The Council discussed Mayor Jacobs’ career, noting he has
set a high bar for the Council to follow.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:33 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Gregg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amend Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. Relating to 2015 Reilly Consultant
Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to the 2015 Contract with
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly
Tar and Chemical Corporation Remedial Action Plan.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. Does the City Council have any questions regarding the
proposed contract amendment?
SUMMARY: On December 15, 2014, the City entered into a contract in the amount of
$257,500, with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. for consultant services related to the
implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (“Reilly”) Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) for 2015. That contract was based on a mutually agreed upon work plan and projected
expenses (by task) to be performed.
Summit’s 2015 year-to-date expenses total approximately $254,623 (through November 28,
2015). It does not appear the remaining contract balance is sufficient to cover anticipated costs
through the end of the year. Staff is recommending the 2015 contract amount be increased by
$10,000 for a revised total of $267,500. The increase allows for additional consulting services,
groundwater sampling, laboratory coordination, and project management expenses related to
modifying the Consent Decree/ Remedial Action Plan (CD/RAP).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Water Utility Fund pays all Reilly
expenses and will be utilized to pay for this additional work.
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
Revised Cost Estimate
Contract Amendment
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Superintendent of Public Works
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Title: Amend Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. Relating to 2015 Reilly Consultant Services
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: In 2013, under the direction of the City Manager, Staff made a concerted
effort to work with the Agencies to update the CD/RAP pollutant criteria with the end goal of
updating the water quality standards in the Consent Decree and the cessation of pumping in the
upper groundwater aquifers. The City Manager has enlisted the legal services of Lockridge,
Grindal, Nauen to assist staff in developing a stronger technical argument. The resulting
technical inquiries from the Agencies have driven up the annual monitoring costs.
A brief summary of the tasks and additional services/costs are described below:
Task 100 - Annual Report: This task is expected to be $10,000 under budget.
Task 150 - Annual Progress Report: This task is expected to be on budget.
Task 400 - Ground Water Monitoring: This task is expected to be $12,000 over budget.
Agency comments on the 2015 Sampling Plan required collecting more samples than
were originally planned.
Task 480 -Sampling Plan and QAPP: This task is expected to be $8,000 over budget.
Each year this budget item is intended to cover the cost to prepare the plans for the
subsequent calendar year. Agency comments to date on the 2015 Plan have resulted in
higher than expected costs. The 2016 plan is still in development.
Task 600 - Lab Coordination and Audit: This task is expected to be $3,500 over budget.
Additional Agency requested samples and data auditing combined with the unexpected
need to purchase new sampling equipment have resulted in significantly higher sampling
costs than originally planned for 2015.
Task 700 - RAP Renegotiation/Site Closure Activities: This task is expected to be
$9,500 under budget. Most task activities have been delayed until 2016.
Task 810 – Program Management and Miscellaneous: This task is expected to be
$6,000 over budget. The scope of this task depends on the amount of communications
with the Agencies and the number of “miscellaneous” items that arise during the course
of the year. Despite our best intentions to hold down costs and match historical budgeted
amounts, 2015 has brought additional Agency data requests resulting from our ongoing
push to modify the CD-RAP.
The attached spreadsheet provides detailed monthly charges by Task associated with the Summit
Envirosolutions, Inc. contract along with original budget amounts and projected budget amounts
needed to complete this year’s contract work.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Title: Amend Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. Relating to 2015 Reilly Consultant Services
Table 1. Revised Estimated Project Costs
Task Description
Original
Estimated
Cost
Approximate
Costs to
Date
Revised
Estimated
Cost
Task 100 - Annual Monitoring Report $30,000 $18,500 $20,000
Task 150 - Progress Report and GAC Plant Report $3,000 $1,800 $3,000
Task 400 - Groundwater Monitoring and Sample
Shipment $50,000 $60,000 $62,000
Task 480 - Sampling Plan and QAPP $10,000 $15,000 $18,000
Task 600 - Laboratory Coordination $104,500 $105,000 $108,000
Task 700 - Site Closure (Cessation Activities) $10,000 $200 $500
Task 810 - Project Management and Miscellaneous $50,000 $54,100 $56,000
Total estimated costs $257,500 $254,600 $267,500
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4a) Page 4
Title: Amend Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. Relating to 2015 Reilly Consultant Services
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AMENDMENT NO. 1 to 2015 CONTRACT
for
REILLY CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 21, 2015, by and between the CITY OF
ST. LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as
“City"), and SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS, INC., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "SUMMIT").
1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting
services dated December 15, 2014, in the amount of $257,500 for calendar year 2015.
2. CONTRACT AMOUNT. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, the Agreement is
increased an additional $10,000 to a maximum contract amount of $267,500 for calendar
year 2015.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the patties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
by their respective duly authorized officers.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
By_________________________________
City Clerk
Its__________________________________
By _________________________________
Its__________________________________
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Amend 2015 Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. to Extend Reilly Consultant
Services through 2016
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to the 2015 contract with
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) for consultant services related to the implementation of
the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to continue with Summit as the
City’s consultant for the Reilly Tar and Chemical RAP?
SUMMARY: In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City
accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly
Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Over the last 29 years the City has retained the services of consulting
engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of RAP activities. On
December 15, 2014, the City approved a one year contract (with annual renewal options) with
Summit for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly RAP. Amendment No.
1 increased the contract amount from $257,500 to $267,500. This amendment would approve the
first of two annual renewal options. Annual Reilly contract activities include, but are not limited
to:
• Groundwater sampling and analysis
• Drafting annual reports for agency review
• Aquifer studies and historical file searches
• General project administration
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As we approach the 30-year anniversary of
the CD/RAP, the Agencies are reviewing where, when and why we are sampling. This has resulted
in costs rising in recent years as the Agencies have requested additional sampling and data
collection so they can evaluate the long term sampling needs of the site. Staff is hopeful that this
short term rise in costs will result in significant long term savings and will provide Council with
an update on recent Reilly activities, costs and next steps in early 2016.
The proposal received from Summit estimates the cost for 2016 work tasks at $275,000. The 2016
Reilly Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities.
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
Contract Amendment
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, Superintendent of Public Works
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Amend 2015 Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. to Extend Reilly Consultant Services through 2016
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed,
certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing
activities which require consultant services. Summit has provided consultant services for these
ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as an approved
consultant for such activities.
Contract activities have included, but not been limited to:
Groundwater sampling and analysis
Drafting annual reports for agency review
Aquifer studies
Investigation of leaking wells
Soil investigations
Historical file searches
General project administration
2016 Environmental Services
The following work tasks describe the work and associated costs expected during 2016:
Task 100 - Annual Monitoring Report:
Summit will draft text and prepare figures and tables as necessary to assist the City in completing
the 2015 Annual Monitoring Report. The Annual Monitoring Report is expected to include various
report elements to be determined in advance, similar to last year. With the pre-approval of the
content, report revisions should be minimal. Elements of the report will include the CD-RAP
requirements for the annual GAC Plant Report.
Task 150 - Annual Progress Report and GAC Plant Report:
Summit will assist the City in completing the progress report for submittal to the Agencies on
March 15, 2016. The report will fulfill the requirements of CD-RAP Part K in conjunction with
the Annual Monitoring Report. Task 400 - Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Shipping:
Summit will collect all of the monitoring well and municipal well samples identified in accordance
with the 2015 Sampling Plan. Summit will also monitor water levels using a combination of
transducers and manual measurements in Reilly Site wells. The task budget shown in Table 1
includes Summit’s labor and expenses to collect the same number of samples in 2016 as were
collected in 2015.
Task 480 - Sampling Plan and QAPP:
This task involves responding to Agency comments on the 2016 Annual Sampling and Quality
Assurance Project Plans, and preparation of the respective 2017 plans that will be due on
October 31, 2016. In the past we have underestimated the amount of work for revisions to the
plans required by the Agencies, and this contingency is accounted for in the $12,000 estimate
shown in Table 1.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Title: Amend 2015 Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. to Extend Reilly Consultant Services through 2016
Task 500 – Five Year Review Issues:
The last Five-Year Review was completed by the Agencies in 2011. One remaining issue is
their concern PAH is migrating south. The 2016 report will contain this and other items the
Agencies would like the City to address. Summit tracks its costs for assisting the City in
response to the 2016 Five Year Review under Task 500.
Task 600 - Laboratory Coordination:
Table 1 provides cost estimates for five subtasks as summarized below:
1. Working with ALS Kelso and Pace Labs on implementing the QAPP, coordinating
sampling events, and updating and maintaining the water quality database. This task also
includes water level and water quality data exchanges with the Agencies.
2. Providing data quality review and/or data validation for all of the laboratory testing. The
data validation and data quality review will be documented in the Annual Monitoring
Report.
3. ALS Kelso laboratory subcontract for part-per-trillion PAH analyses for an estimated 120
samples and the Level 4 data packages which are needed for validation. The cost per sample
is $324.28 including Summit’s 10% handling fee.
4. Pace laboratory subcontract for priority pollutant PAH analyses for an estimated 65
samples and Level 4 data packages. The cost per sample is approximately $82 including
Summit’s 10% handling fee.
5. ALS Kelso laboratory audit. Summit and its subcontractor will visit the Kelso, Washington
laboratory and perform an audit in accordance with the Quality Assurance Project Plan.
Audits of the Test America Denver laboratory were generally conducted every other year
in the past, but no recent audits have been done and ALS has not been audited since they
began work on the project last year.
Task 700 - Site Closure:
This task involves the collection of water level and flow data and analysis using groundwater
visualization software to demonstrate the extent to which pumping controls the groundwater in
various aquifers. This task has been a minimal effort in the past year because we are waiting for
the results and conclusions of SSPA’s modeling which will presumably determine the same thing.
Task 810 - Program Management and Miscellaneous:
This task includes overall planning, directing, and controlling Summit’s resources to perform this
project. The task also includes miscellaneous project activities throughout the year, such as the
review of Agency contractor reports, the upcoming Five Year Review report, correspondence, and
meetings.
Summary
As noted above, Summit staff has been deeply involved in previous related activities and has
collaborated with the City in the development of proposals submitted to the Agencies for the
work tasks listed. As in the past, all activities are assigned through, and closely monitored by
staff. Wherever possible, staff drafts reports for submittals, makes contacts with the Agencies,
and coordinates the consultant activities, thereby reducing out of pocket expenditures.
Staff supports the use of Summit for the work tasks described in this report.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Title: Amend 2015 Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. to Extend Reilly Consultant Services through 2016
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Significant funds are expended on
responding to Agency concerns over sampling, monitoring, and reporting. The variation in costs
from year to year is associated with responding to EPA/MPCA requests. Additionally, as we
approach the 30-year anniversary of the CD/RAP, the Agencies are reviewing where, when and
why we are sampling. This has resulted in costs rising in recent years as the Agencies have
requested additional sampling and data collection so they can evaluate the long term sampling
needs of the site.
The proposal received from Summit estimates the cost for 2016 work tasks at $275,000. The 2016
Reilly Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. A summary of the
2016 Summit work tasks and their estimated costs is shown below at Table 1:
Table 1. 2016 Reilly Site Estimated Project Costs
Task Description Estimated Cost
Task 100 ‐ Annual Monitoring Report $22,000
Task 150 ‐ Progress Report and GAC Plant Report $3,000
Task 400 ‐ Groundwater Monitoring $60,000
Task 480 ‐ Sampling Plan and QAPP $12,000
Task 600 ‐ Laboratory Coordination
Subtask 1: Lab coordination $18,000
Subtask 2: Data validation and review $25,000
Subtask 3: ALS Kelso subcontract
120 PPT samples at $325/sample $45,000
Subtask 4: Pace subcontract (65 samples at $206 each) $20,000
Subtask 5: Lab Audit $15,000
Task 600 - Total $123,000
Task 700 ‐ Site Closure $5,000
Task 810 ‐ Project Management and Miscellaneous $50,000
Total estimated project cost $275,000
Contract Terms
The following significant terms have been in past contracts and are also incorporated in this
contract:
1. This extension of the 2015 contract terminates on December 31, 2016, with City rights to
extend for one additional option year.
2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of
$275,000 for 2016.
3. Summit will defend and indemnify the City for Summit’s actions related to this contract.
4. Summit has independent contractor status.
5. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 60 day written notice.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4b) Page 5
Title: Amend 2015 Contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. to Extend Reilly Consultant Services through 2016
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AMENDMENT NO. 2 to 2015 CONTRACT
for
REILLY CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 21, 2015, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City"), and
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS, INC., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"SUMMIT").
1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting
services dated December 15, 2014 ("Initial Agreement"). The Initial Agreement authorized
the CITY to extend its term for up to two (2) additional one-year periods.
2. EXTENSION. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, this Agreement is extended for
a one (1) year period terminating on December 31, 2016.
3. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2016 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.
The Council report dated December 21, 2015, from the City Manager, describing the year
2016 project tasks and estimated costs, is incorporated herein by reference.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by
their respective duly authorized officers.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
By_________________________________
City Clerk
Its__________________________________
By _________________________________
Its__________________________________
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fiber Lease Agreements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve authorization for the City Manager to enter
into fiber strand and/or conduit lease agreements with other organizations for purposes of
promoting economic development in the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council find acceptable the framework and elements of
the fiber infrastructure leasing agreements presented herein as a means to promote economic
development and additional choice of fiber providers? Is Council comfortable with similar
agreements that accommodate opportunities to lease fiber conduit as well as strand capacity?
Note that the recommended action is consistent with one of the recommendations from a late
2012 fiber optic study – the opportunity to lease excess strands of dark (currently unused City-
owned) fiber / conduit to the private sector to increase provider choice and support economic
development in the City of St. Louis Park. This action is also consistent with the Council’s goal
of making St. Louis Park a “Technology Connected Community”
SUMMARY: Council received a briefing on the fiber optic study at its October 22, 2012 study
session. Among recommendations presented by Joanne Hovis from CTC Consulting was that the
City consider fiber leasing arrangements with private providers to enable private investment /
serve community anchor institutions. Staff has been pursuing this (and other) study
recommendations. Staff has worked with the City Attorney and technical resources to craft
template agreements that should allow the City to be prepared to respond to fiber leasing
opportunities as they arise and with a streamlined approach.
NEXT STEPS: If the Council approves the recommended action staff will begin to engage with
primarily private sector providers in lease agreements. This will enable the City Manager to
approve fiber strand and/or conduit lease agreements as opportunities arise in the future. Staff
will then work with at least one private party that has expressed on-going interest in entering into
fiber lease agreements with the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Implementation of fiber lease arrangements
consistent with this structure is designed to (1) cover most associated implementation and
maintenance costs, (2) promote economic development in the City of St. Louis Park, and (3) be
in line with lease pricing offered by other comparable entities in the Twin Cities metro region.
VISION AND GOAL CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected
and engaged community. St. Louis Park is a technology connected community
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Sample Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU)
Sample Short Term License Agreement
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: As a refresher, the primary purpose of the 2012 fiber study was to identify
what other community development purposes the publically-owned fiber infrastructure could
serve beyond the institutional building needs of the City, Independent School District #283, and
LOGIS (an intergovernmental cooperative of cities sharing IT resources).
Among many recommendations from the 2012 study, CTC recommended the City explore
leasing of fiber capacity to enable private investment and support economic development. The
City, Schools, and LOGIS have installed almost 40 miles of fiber infrastructure since 1998. Most
major and minor institutional needs for fiber (data, voice, video, security, radio) have been met.
More recently, the focus has been on enhancing fiber network resiliency by building redundant
fiber paths. Construction season provides the greatest risk to severing of fiber networks. Thus,
this redundancy has become all the more critical as reliance on the fiber network increases.
During the 2012 study, CTC and City staff reviewed current utilization of the fiber
infrastructure’s capacity, anticipated what remaining capacity is likely to be needed in the
foreseeable future for spare capacity and additional uses, and identified what capacity would be
available for potential leasing. In this case, “capacity” really means strands of fiber. The number
of strands throughout the fiber infrastructure varies widely depending on location and need. It is
often the case that only two – four strands of fiber are needed to support all digital functions at
any particular City or School building. However, when fiber cable is installed, it typically
includes many more strands and for a small or no incremental cost. That leaves many unused
fiber strands that can be used by other private entities if the fiber is in locations they or their
clients need. In that case, additional fiber cable does not need to be installed, saving the private
entity construction and maintenance costs, and reducing additional disruption of public rights-of-
way.
The typical instrument for private entity use of this fiber is a lease. This is nothing new in theory.
It is very similar to the approach taken to provide use of space on elevated water towers by
wireless phone carriers. That has been implemented for decades, including in St. Louis Park, and
generally found to be much more cost-effective than the carriers building redundant tower
facilities. In practice thus far, building of fiber facilities has been a blend of private providers
(e.g., CenturyLink, Comcast, smaller companies) and other entities such as cities. The larger
private providers have generally chosen to build, own, and maintain all of their own fiber
infrastructure, while smaller companies have been the ones more likely to approach cities to
lease fiber capacity in areas where they find that more cost-effective than building its own. That
is what is happening in St. Louis Park. Over time, the City has been approached (unsolicited) by
about 5 firms expressing such interest.
Staff would work with entities especially focused on economic development. Specifically, this
would include working with providers of broadband services that are engaged with organizations
wishing to locate or expand in St. Louis Park, and where availability of broadband services is
vital.
To address typical lease arrangements between owners of fiber infrastructure and potential
lessees, City staff and the City Attorney have drafted two agreement templates. One is called an
Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU) that enables a long-term agreement between the City and
lessees. It generally includes a large up-front payment followed by annual maintenance fees. The
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
other is a short-term lease agreement (typically no more than 5 years) that includes monthly or
annual payments to cover both lease and maintenance fees. Both agreement templates are crafted
to protect the City-owned fiber assets, while making their excess capacity available to private
entities to promote economic development.
Both of these templates are attached. Final lease pricing is a moving target based on a variety of
factors. However, such pricing will be consistent with economic development goals and pricing
offered by other public sector entities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area as supported by
pricing research conducted in the last 60 days.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: Staff feels the time is right to have a structure in place to
facilitate economic development supporting agreements relative to fiber infrastructure. In
addition, staff is currently engaged in a couple complementary activities: (1) talks are underway
with US Internet regarding potential Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) – homes, businesses, etc. –
services beginning in 2016, and (2) staff is in the process of discussions with the City Attorney
around more formal broadband readiness requirements related to new developments and
significant remodeling efforts in St. Louis Park. It is expected that these will be explored in depth
at the 2016 City Council workshop.
NEXT STEPS: First, Council approval would enable the City Manager to approve fiber and/or
conduit lease agreements in an agile and responsive fashion as opportunities arise in the future.
Second, staff will then work with at least one private party that has expressed on-going interest
in entering into fiber lease agreements with the City. Third, staff plans to inform other potential
lessees of the availability of dark fiber in the City. Finally, staff plans to return to Council with
recommendations related to US Internet FTTP efforts and requiring broadband readiness in new
and significantly remodeled buildings in the first quarter of 2016, another recommendation
related to the 2012 fiber study.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
DARK FIBER AGREEMENT
INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT OF USE
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made as of the ____ day of ______________, by
and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, (“City”), whose address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, and
_______________________________, a ______________________________________, having its principal
address at __________________________________________________________(“Licensee”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City, Independent School District #283, and Local Government Information Systems
have constructed a shared fiber optic network throughout portions of the City of St. Louis Park, the City
portion of which is the subject of this agreement (“City Network”); and
WHEREAS, the City is willing, subject to the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in this
Agreement, to grant to Licensee a license for the operation and use of certain City Dark Fiber in the City
Network to Licensee, and Licensee desires to license, subject to the terms, covenants and conditions of this
Agreement, the use of certain City Dark Fiber in the City Network.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and of the promises and covenants contained
in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Dark Fiber License. The City hereby grants to Licensee on an exclusive basis the
right to use the strand or strands of the City Dark Fiber described in Exhibit A, along the Route Segments
described in Exhibit A, as the same may be amended from time to time according to the terms of this
Agreement (the “Licensed Fibers”). This license agreement authorizes Licensee to use the Licensed Fibers in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
2. Effective Date and Term. This short-term per strand/per mile/per month Agreement shall
become effective as of the date that the City executes this Agreement (“Commencement Date”) and shall
remain in effect unless and until terminated in accordance with the termination provisions of this Agreement.
The term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be for a period of ___[5 or more years]___ from and after the
Commencement Date unless terminated earlier according to the terms of this Agreement.
The Licensed Fibers, identified in Exhibit A, may be changed from time to time in writing signed by
the City and Licensee, as specified in the applicable amended Exhibit A, which shall be attached to this
Agreement. The amended Exhibit A shall have its own term, which term shall commence on the date that the
City executes the applicable amended Exhibit A and end on the Termination Date.
3. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the terms set forth below shall be defined as
follows:
Acceptance Test - The tests conducted on the Licensed Fibers by the Licensee to ensure that the Licensed
Fibers meet or exceed the City Dark Fiber Specifications outlined in Exhibit B.
City Conduit - The City-owned conduit in which the City Dark Fiber is located.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 5
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
City Dark Fiber - All Dark Fiber owned by the City whether dedicated for the City's use only or whether used
by the City, Licensee or a third party.
City Fiber Building – The building(s) located within the City of St. Louis Park, MN in which the City
Conduit is connected and the Fiber Equipment rack is located.
Dark Fiber - Unused Fiber through which no light is transmitted.
Fiber Equipment Rack – the equipment rack within the City Fiber Building on which the Licensee is allowed
to mount their equipment and connect to the Licensed Fibers (if this agreement permits).
Fiber Acceptance Date - The date of the applicable Notice of Acceptance which evidences that the Licensed
Fibers in the applicable Route Segments as defined in each Exhibit A have passed the Acceptance Test and
have met the conditions of Section 6.
License Fee - The License Fee shall mean the Fiber License Fee as set forth in Section 4(a) of this Agreement.
Licensed Fibers - shall have the definition set forth in Section 1 of this Agreement.
Licensee Equipment Location - Locations where Licensee's Equipment will be installed within the City Fiber
Building and Fiber Equipment Rack enclosures and Licensee's Equipment will be installed as outlined in
Exhibit C (if this agreement permits). Fiber meet points (indoor and outdoor) are flexible, but also include
clear demarcation and access points.
Licensee's Equipment - The Licensee's terminals and peripheral equipment or facilities used with or
connected to the Licensed Fibers which may be located on City's property pursuant to a separate agreement or
on Licensee's own land or that of a third party.
Notice of Acceptance - Licensee's written approval that the Licensed Fibers have passed the Acceptance Test.
The Notice of Acceptance shall define the effective date for the Term of the Route Segment set forth in Exhibit
A.
Route Segment - That portion of the City's Conduit containing the Licensed Fibers installed between the
identified Splice Vaults as set forth in Exhibit A.
Splice Vault - The vaults installed by the City in the City Network where the City, the Licensee and other
users of the City Network can splice into the City Conduit and/or the City Dark Fiber.
4. Price and Payment.
(a) Licensee shall pay the City a one-time License Fee in the amount of $_____________ per
route segment mile. The License Fee must be paid in full before the Licensed Fibers will be
made available to Licensee for use.
(b) Licensee shall pay the City an annual maintenance fee in the amount of $________per route
segment mile. A prorated annual maintenance fee shall be due on the Fiber Acceptance Date
for the Route Segment, and thereafter the annual maintenance fee shall be due in full on
January 1 of each calendar year in which the Agreement is active. Maintenance fees are
subject to an increase of up to 3% per year over the term of the Agreement, at the City’s
discretion and based on costs.
(c) Licensee shall pay the City for Licensee’s share of federal or state taxes, if any, which may be
imposed on the Licensed Fibers during the term of this Agreement.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 6
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
(d) All payments due from either party to the other under the terms of this Agreement which are
not paid when due shall bear interest from the due date until paid at an interest rate equal to
the lesser of 1-1/2% per month or the maximum lawful rate permitted by law.
5. Acceptance Testing and Completion of Licensed Fibers.
(a) Upon Licensee's request, prior to the Licensee's splicing into the applicable City Dark Fiber,
the City shall have the Licensed Fibers tested at the Licensee's sole cost and expense in
accordance with the procedures and standards specified in Exhibit B ("Acceptance Testing").
City shall give Licensee five (5) business days prior notice of the time and location of the
Acceptance Testing, and Licensee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to be present to
observe the Acceptance Testing. City shall provide Licensee with a copy of such test results.
City shall deliver the Licensed Fibers to Licensee in conformance with the fiber specifications
set forth in Exhibit B.
(b) Licensee shall be responsible for the timely completion of any work or installation required to
place the Licensed Fibers into operation. Licensee's failure to complete such work shall not
be grounds for rejection of a Completion Notice.
(c) Upon the successful completion of Acceptance Testing, the City shall provide written notice
to Licensee (a "Completion Notice"). City shall contemporaneously deliver a copy of the
results of the Acceptance Testing and Licensee shall, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the
Completion Notice, either accept or reject the Completion Notice. Licensee shall be
permitted to reject only if Licensee specifies the failure of the Licensed Fibers to satisfy the
requirements of this Agreement by written notice to City. Licensee's written acceptance shall
constitute the Notice of Acceptance. In the event Licensee rejects the Completion Notice,
City shall promptly, and at no cost to Licensee, remedy the defect or failure specified in
Licensee's notice. Thereafter City shall again conduct Acceptance Testing and, if
successfully completed, provide Licensee a Completion Notice. The foregoing procedure
shall apply again and successively thereafter until City has remedied all defects or failures
specified by Licensee. Any failure by Licensee to timely reject a Completion Notice, or any
use of the Licensed Fibers by Licensee for any purpose other than testing, shall be deemed to
constitute acceptance for purposes of this Agreement and Licensee shall be deemed to have
delivered a Notice of Acceptance upon the earlier of (i) such use or (ii) the fifteenth (15th) day
after delivery of the Completion Notice.
6. Use of Licensed Fibers; Access. Licensee shall not use the Licensed Fibers in violation of
this Agreement, any applicable law, rule, regulation or order of any governmental authority having
jurisdiction, or any franchise, license, agreement or certificate related to the City Network, unless the validity
thereof is being contested in good faith and by appropriate proceedings (but only so long as such proceedings
and Licensee's use of the Licensed Fibers does not, in City's reasonable opinion, involve any risk of the
forfeiture, or loss of the City Network or the City of any other license of the City Dark Fiber, or any part
thereof or any interest therein).
7. Performance and Maintenance. City shall maintain the Licensed Fibers pursuant to
Exhibit D, so that at all times the Licensed Fibers perform in accordance with the standards set forth in Exhibit
B. Inspection and maintenance of the Licensed Fibers will be conducted by City or its subcontractors upon the
request of Licensee unless prior arrangements have been made between City and Licensee. The Licensee shall
be responsible for all cost of the City relating to the inspection and maintenance of the Licensed Fibers
requested by the Licensee and the Licensee shall pay the City for said cost within thirty (30) days of the City
invoicing the Licensee.
8. Ownership and Title. All ownership, rights, title and interest in all the Licensed Fibers shall
at all times remain exclusively with the City. All right, title and interest in the Licensee's Equipment shall at all
times remain exclusively that of the Licensee.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 7
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
9. Liens and Encumbrances. Neither party, directly or indirectly, shall create or impose any
lien on the property of the other or on the rights or title relating thereto or any interest therein or in this
Agreement.
10. Representations and Covenants Regarding Authorizations.
(a) Licensee hereby represents, warrants and covenants to City as follows:
(i) Licensee is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of
the State of Minnesota and has full power and authority to execute, deliver and
perform the terms of this Agreement.
(ii) Licensee has or will use its best commercial efforts to obtain and maintain all rights,
licenses, governmental regulatory approvals, authorizations, rights-of-way, and other
agreements and permissions necessary for the use of the Licensed Fibers, or
Licensee's Equipment, as well as any other such rights, licenses, authorizations,
rights-of-way, and other agreements, easements, or permissions necessary for the
installation and use of the Licensed Fibers. Licensee shall be solely liable for all
costs related thereto.
(iii) Licensee covenants that its use of the Licensed Fibers shall at all times be in
compliance with law and that Licensee has received and is in compliance with all
regulatory authorizations.
(iv) Licensee shall be responsible for and shall pay all taxes or fees, including, but not
limited to, franchise fees imposed by any other governmental agency or authority as a
result of Licensee’s operation or use of the Licensed Fibers pursuant to this
Agreement. The City represents and warrants that with respect to any Licensed
Fibers pursuant to this Agreement the City has obtained any and all necessary rights
of way or other authorizations by whatever name, such that the City is legally
permitted to own, use and license the Licensed Fibers; the City shall grant Licensee
whatever permission is necessary such that the Licensee may benefit from such
authorizations. With respect to any additional authorization required of Licensee to
install or operate the Licensed Fibers, Licensee shall, at its own expense, obtain all
municipal street rights and/or property leases that may be required for the
construction or operation of the Licensed Fibers thereof by Licensee.
(b) City hereby represents, warrants and covenants to Licensee as follows:
(i) City is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of its State of Minnesota
and has full power and authority to execute, deliver and perform the terms of this
Agreement.
(ii) City has obtained and will maintain all rights, licenses, governmental regulatory
approvals, authorizations, rights-of-way, and other agreements and permissions
necessary for the use of the Licensed Fibers, and the City Network including such
rights, licenses, authorizations, rights-of-way, and other agreements, easements, or
permissions necessary for the installation of the City Network and use of the
Licensed Fibers. City shall be solely liable for all costs related thereto.
11. Compliance with Law. Each party shall perform its respective rights and obligations
hereunder in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations imposed by any governmental
authority.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 8
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
12. Access to the City Fiber Building and the Licensed Fibers. The City shall provide
Licensee with reasonable access (as determined solely by the City) to the City Fiber Building and the Licensed
Fibers shown on Exhibit A as described within Section 25 upon the execution of this Agreement by the City
and the Licensee.
13. Relocation of the Licensed Fiber. Licensee recognizes that, from time to time, City may
elect or be required to relocate the Licensed Fibers and/or City Conduit, whether such relocation is for the
convenience of City or is a requirement by law or existing contract or by loss of right-of-way. In these
instances, the City shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred to relocate the Licensed Fibers except for
the cost related to the Licensee splicing into the new Licensed Fiber. For any other relocation, Licensee shall
pay its proportional share of the cost, defined as the number of Licensed Fibers divided by the total number of
City Dark Fiber and Licensee Dark Fiber in any given Route Segment. City will use commercially reasonable
efforts to effect any relocation in a manner that will not cause any material interruption to Licensee's use of the
Licensed Fibers.
14. Condemnation and Casualty.
(a) Condemnation. If all or any portion of the Licensed Fibers are taken for any public or quasi-
public purpose by any lawful power or authority by the exercise of the right of condemnation
or eminent domain, the City and the Licensee shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement
with respect to the Licensed Fibers affected, or if such condemnation materially affects the
intended purpose of the Licensed Fibers, then Licensee may terminate the Agreement in its
entirety. In such event, both parties shall be entitled to participate in any condemnation
proceedings to seek to obtain compensation by separate awards for the economic value of
their respective interests in the City Dark Fiber or the Licensed Fibers.
(b) Casualty. If all or any portion of the City Dark Fiber, the City Conduit or the Licensed Fibers
are made inoperable and beyond feasible repair due to a casualty or other Force Majeure
Event (as that term is defined in Section 24 below), Licensee shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement with respect to the applicable Licensed Fibers affected by such casualty or other
event. In such event, both parties shall be entitled to seek to recover the economic value of
their respective interests in the City Dark Fiber, the City Conduit or the Licensed Fibers (i)
under any insurance policy carried by either party or any third party, or (ii) in either joint or
separate actions, from any third party that may be legally responsible for causing such
casualty.
15. Government Data Practices. The parties must comply with the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by each party under this Agreement,
and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by any party
under this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in
this clause by any party.
If Licensee receives a request to release data, Licensee must immediately notify the City. The City
will give the Licensee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is
released. Licensee must comply with City’s instructions related to data requests under this section.
16. Liability and Insurance.
(a) Indemnification by Licensee. Licensee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors and representatives,
from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of
action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses of litigation
(collectively “Damages”), that may be asserted against or incurred by the City or for which
the City may be liable in the performance of this Agreement, whether arising from the
negligence intentional acts of the City, its respective employees, agents or contractors,
Licensee, or a third party. Licensee shall further defend and indemnify all claims arising out
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 9
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
of the installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair, or removal of the Licensed Fibers as
may be required by this Agreement.
(b) Licensee shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, General Liability
Insurance with single-occurrence liability limits of One Million Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($1,500,000.00), naming the Town as an additional insured.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event will City be liable to
Licensee for punitive, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, including,
without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities.
17. Events of Default. Each of the following events shall constitute an event of default (whether
any such event shall be voluntary or involuntary or occur by operation of law or pursuant to any judgment,
decree, order, rule or regulation of any court or administrative or governmental body):
(a) The failure of Licensee to pay any License Fee when due or any other payment due hereunder
and the continuation of such failure for thirty (30) days after written notice is given by City
demanding such payment;
(b) If either party fails to observe or performs its obligations under this Agreement and does not
cure such failure within thirty (30) days from its receipt of written notice of breach without,
however, limiting any other rights available to the parties pursuant to any other provision of
this Agreement. If the default may not be reasonably cured within such thirty (30) day
period, either party may request the other party to grant an extension of the time to cure not to
exceed ninety (90) days, consent to such extension not to be unreasonably withheld.
(c) The failure of Licensee to carry and maintain insurance in compliance with all provisions of
this Agreement.
(d) The Licensee shall cease to have any of the licenses, agreement, certificates, concessions,
permits, rights or privileges required for the conduct of its business and operations which loss
is not remedied by the obtaining of a replacement license, agreement, certificate, concession,
permit, right or privilege within sixty (60) days of the loss thereof, if such loss would have a
material adverse effect upon the ability of the Licensee to perform its obligations or enjoy its
rights hereunder.
(e) Licensee shall admit in writing an inability to pay its debts as such debts become due or
Licensee shall (1) apply for or consent to the appointment of, or the taking of possession by, a
receiver, administrator, custodian, trustee or liquidator of itself or of all or a substantial part of
its property or assets, (2) make a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, (3)
commence a voluntary case under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, (4) file a petition or otherwise
commence a proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency reorganization winding-up, or
composition or readjustment of debts or similar law, (5) fail to controvert in a timely and
appropriate manner, or acquiesce in writing to, any petition filed against it in an involuntary
case under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or (6) take any action for the purpose of effecting any
of the foregoing; or a proceeding or case shall be commenced, without the application or
consent of Licensee, in any court of competent jurisdiction, seeking (1) its liquidation,
reorganization, dissolution or winding-up, or the composition or readjustment of its debts, (2)
the appointment of a trustee, receiver, administrator, custodian, liquidator or the like of
Licensee or of all or any substantial part of its assets, or (3) similar relief in respect of any law
relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, winding-up, or composition or
readjustment of debts, which proceeding is not dismissed within ninety (90) days thereafter.
18. Rights Upon Default.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 10
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
(a) Upon the occurrence of a default by Licensee, the City may forthwith terminate this
Agreement or any particular Route Segment by thirty (30) days written notice to Licensee.
The right of the City to terminate a specific Route Segment or this Agreement shall be in
addition to, and not in substitution for, any other rights that the City may have at law or equity
as a result of a default by Licensee.
(b) Upon the occurrence of a default by the City, Licensee shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement or any particular Route Segment by thirty (30) days written notice to the City.
Unless otherwise explicitly set forth in this Agreement, this shall constitute Licensee's sole
remedy for the City's default.
19. Remedies. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of any event of default, the non-
defaulting party may, at its option, declare this Agreement to be in default and may, in addition to any other
remedies provided herein, terminate this Agreement. No remedy is intended to be exclusive, but each shall be
cumulative and in addition to and may be exercised concurrently with any other remedy available to City or
Licensee at law or in equity.
20. Termination.
(a) Licensee's Liability for Early Termination. If Licensee terminates this Agreement as to all or
any Licensed Fibers for any reason, the Licensee shall pay to the City as liquidated damages
for early termination, one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the applicable annual Maintenance
Fees for the applicable Licensed Fibers for the year in which Licensee terminates
("Termination Fee"). All Maintenance Fees previously paid to the City shall be retained by
the City.
(b) Removal of Licensee's Equipment. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason,
Licensee shall remove all of Licensee's Equipment within ninety (90) days of the notice
provided pursuant to Section 20 of this Agreement or within 90 days of the end of the Term,
whichever occurs first. In the event Licensee does not remove said Equipment within the
applicable timeframe, Licensee hereby authorizes the City to immediately remove and
dispose of all Equipment, and the City shall not be liable to Licensee for any costs or
reimbursements associated with the Equipment.
21. Force Majeure Events. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any failure of
performance under this Agreement due to causes beyond its control, including but not limited to: acts of God,
fire, flood or other catastrophes; any law, order, regulation, direction, action or request of the United States
Government, or of any other government, including state and local governments having or claiming
jurisdiction over such party, or of any department, agency, commission, bureau, corporation or other
instrumentality of any one or more of these federal, state or local governments, or of any civil or military
authority; national emergencies; insurrections; riots; wars; permitting authorities, pole or right-of-way owners;
or strikes, lock outs, work stoppages or other labor difficulties (collectively, "FORCE MAJEURE
EVENTS").
22. Rights and Obligations of Licensee. In addition to the rights and obligations of Licensee set
forth elsewhere in this Agreement, Licensee shall:
(a) have full and complete control, responsibility and liability for the signals distributed over the
fiber optic components of the Licensed Fibers licensed by Licensee or for its benefit;
(b) have full and complete control, responsibility and liability for the purchase, installation,
construction and maintenance of the Licensee's Equipment;
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 11
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
(c) have full and complete control, responsibility and liability for obtaining and maintaining any
operating authority from any federal, state or local governmental body or agency that relates
to the activities of Licensee under this Agreement, including Licensee's license of channel
capacity on the Licensed Fibers.
23. Access and Security.
(a) The City agrees to allow Licensee direct ingress and egress to the City’s property at such
times as may be required for Licensee to perform any appropriate testing, maintenance and
repair on Licensee’s Equipment. The City may require that a representative of the City
accompany any representatives of Licensee on such visits to the City property. Employees
and agents of Licensee or of a Licensee designee shall, while on the property of the City,
comply with all rules and regulations including, without limitation, security/safety
requirements and, where required by government regulations, receipt of satisfactory
governmental clearances. The City shall have the right to notify Licensee that certain
Licensee or Licensee designated employees are excluded if, in the reasonable judgment of the
City, the exclusion of such employees is necessary for the proper security and maintenance of
the City's facilities.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, each party acknowledges that the operational
efficiency of the other depends on the continuous availability of its trained personnel and,
accordingly, both parties will act cooperatively to resolve any situations which may arise that
threaten the security, operations or maintenance of either party's facilities prior to excluding
any personnel.
24. Assignment. Licensee may not assign, transfer, delegate or in any other manner dispose of,
any of its rights, privileges or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of City.
25. Forum for Litigation. In the event that litigation is required in order to resolve any dispute
or disagreement connected with this Agreement, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that venue and
jurisdiction for any such litigation shall be in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Unless otherwise provided by
law, any and all litigation between the parties hereto arising out of this Agreement shall be instituted and
maintained in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Any cause of action arising
by virtue of the laws of the United States shall be instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of
Minnesota.
26. Miscellaneous.
(a) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be
deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument,
and in pleading or proving any provision of this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to
produce more than one complete set of such counterparts.
(b) Captions; Gender. Article and section headings contained in this Agreement are for reference
purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.
Whenever used herein the singular number shall include the plural, the plural shall include the
singular, and the use of any gender shall include all genders.
(c) Governing Law and Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with, and the validity and performance hereof shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Minnesota. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of each of the parties
and their successors and permitted assigns.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 12
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
(d) Waivers and Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended nor shall any waiver,
change, modification, consent or discharge be effected, except by an instrument in writing
adopted, in the case of an amendment, by each party and, in the case of a waiver, consent or
discharge, by the party against whom enforcement of such instrument is sought. Any consent
by either party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other party shall not constitute a waiver or
consent to any subsequent or different breach. If either party shall fail to enforce a breach of
this Agreement by the other party, such failure to enforce shall not be considered a consent to
or a waiver of said breach or any subsequent breach for any purpose whatsoever.
(e) Relationship Not a Partnership or an Agency. The relationship between Licensee and City
shall not be that of partners or agents for one another and nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be deemed to constitute a partnership, joint venture or agency agreement between them.
(f) Notices. All notices, requests, demands, statements, reports and other communications under
this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed to be duly delivered, if delivered in person, by
overnight courier or by certified or registered mail:
If to City: City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Attn: ,
Chief Information Officer
With a copy to: St. Louis Park City Attorney
Campbell Knutson, PA
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, MN 55121
If to Licensee:
With a copy to:
Their Attorney
Either party hereto may change its mailing address by giving notice to the other pursuant to
the provisions of this paragraph.
(g) Disclaimers. There are no agreements, warranties or representations, express or implied
either in fact or by operation of law, statutory or otherwise, including warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or use, except those expressly set forth
herein.
(h) Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the exhibits, schedules and annexes hereto,
which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if they were
fully set forth herein, constitutes the entire agreement between City and Licensee with respect
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between
them as to such subject matter, and there are no restrictions, agreements, arrangements or
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 13
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
undertaking, oral or written, between City and Licensee relating to the transactions
contemplated hereby which are not fully expressed or referred to herein.
(i) Severability. If any term or other provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or incapable
of being enforced by any rule or law or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of
this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or
legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner adverse
to either party. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or
incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this
Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in an
acceptable manner to the end that transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the
greatest extent possible.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this
Agreement on the dates indicated below.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Dated: BY:
Name: ___________________________
Title: Mayor
Dated: BY:
Name: Melissa Kennedy
Title: City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, 20____,
by _________________ and by Melissa Kennedy, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of St.
Louis Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority
granted by its City Council.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 14
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
LICENSEE:
Dated: BY:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, 20____,
by __________________________, the _______________________, of ___________________________, a
__________________________________, on behalf of __________________________________.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: (952) 924-2500
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 15
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT A
Designation of Licensed Route Segments, Splice Vaults, and Licensed Fiber Stands
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 16
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT B
City Network Fiber Acceptance Testing Procedures and Standards
The intent of this Exhibit is to identify the fiber acceptances testing procedures and standards used within the
City Network. Deviations from these specifications may occur if City acquires a portion of the City Network
from a third party pursuant to the Agreement.
1. All splices shall be fusion spliced. Mechanical splices are only allowed during temporary restoration
and will be replaced within three (3) business days, with fusion splices.
2. Fibers shall be terminated with _________ connectors (typical return loss of 0.50 dB).
3. After end-to-end connectivity on the fibers has been completed, bi-directional OTDR span and power
meter testing will be completed. City shall perform tests after the fiber cable is installed and the
splicing enclosures have been completed and are in their final resting configuration with the cable
vault or hand hole covers closed. This ensures that no micro or macro bending problems with the
cable or fiber strands will contribute to the loss/attenuation measurements.
4. Power meter tests shall be completed to verify and insure that no fibers have been crossed at any of
the splice points within the network. City shall test and record power level readings on all fiber
strands in both directions of transmission (bi-directionally) using the 1310 & 1550 nm wavelengths.
5. All OTDR and power meter tests shall be completed as follows:
a. All OTDR traces shall be taken from both ends of a section (between adjacent
Locations) and recorded using the 1310 & 1550 nm wavelength. Loss/attenuation
measurements for each splice point from both directions shall be taken and recorded.
b. The end-to-end loss value as measured with an industry-accepted laser source and power
meter should have an attenuation rating of less than or equal to the following:
(1) At 1310 nm: (0.35 dB/km x km of cable) +(number of connectors x 0.50) + (0.05 x
number of splices).
(2) At 1550 nm: (0.25 dB/km x km of cable)+ (number of connectors x 0.50) + (0.05 x
number of splices).
c. City's loss/attenuation objective for each fiber optic splice is 0.05 dB when measured in
one direction with an OTDR test set (excluding connector loss, which is typically 0.50
dB per mated connector pair). If after three attempts this parameter is not met, the splice
will be marked as Out-Of-Spec (OOS) and the splice will remain provided the average
loss/attenuation value of all splices on an individual fiber basis shall not exceed 0.10 dB
for the entire ring or subsystem.
d. For bi-directional OTDR testing, the distance from Location "A" and Location "Z" shall be
recorded for each splice point. The loss/attenuation at each splice point shall be recorded at
both wavelengths (1310 nm & 1550 nm) in each direction. City shall then average the two
readings to obtain the final average splice loss/attenuation for each splice point of each fiber
strand within the fiber optic cable.
e. Each fiber strand color must be recorded along with its buffer tube color or the ribbon
color. The laser source transmit power level using the 1310 & 1550 nm wavelengths will
always be recorded together with the receive power level reading at the receiving end of
the test.
6. OTDR traces will be taken and splice loss measurements recorded. City will store OTDR traces on
electronic media. Loss measurements will be recorded using an industry accepted laser source and a
power meter. Copies of all data sheets and tables and one set of diskettes with all traces will be
available to Licensee.
7. Following emergency restoral, City personnel shall perform span test documenting end to end
attenuation measurement of each fiber and will be completed in both directions at 1310 & 1550 nm
wavelengths. Upon permanent repair, new splice loss readings should be approximately the original
splice loss specifications.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 17
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT C
City Fiber Building and Location on the Fiber Equipment Rack (if applicable)
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 18
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT D
Maintenance Specifications
1. Notice. City shall provide Licensee with telephone, facsimile, or written notice of all non-emergency
planned network maintenance no later than seven (7) business days prior to performing maintenance
that, in its reasonable opinion, has a substantial likelihood of affecting Licensee's traffic. If City's
planned activity is canceled or delayed, City shall promptly notify Licensee and shall comply with the
provisions of the previous sentence to reschedule any delayed activity.
2. Standard of Care; Cooperation. In performing its services hereunder, City shall take workmanlike care
and make commercially reasonable efforts to prevent impairment to the signal continuity and
performance of the Licensed Fibers. In addition, City shall reasonably cooperate with Licensee in
sharing information and analyzing the disturbances regarding the cable and/or fiber facilities.
3. Licensee's Equipment. Nothing contained herein shall make City responsible for the Licensee's
Equipment.
4. Escalation List. City shall, at Licensee's request, provide Licensee an operations escalation list for use
in reporting and seeking redress of exceptions noted in City's performance of routine maintenance and
non-routine maintenance
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 19
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
5.
DARK FIBER AGREEMENT
SHORT TERM LICENSE
THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made as of the ____ day of ______________, by
and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a municipal corporation under the laws of the State of
Minnesota, (“City”), whose address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416, and
_______________________________, a ______________________________________, having its principal
address at __________________________________________________________(“Licensee”).
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the City, Independent School District #283, and Local Government Information Systems
have constructed a shared fiber optic network throughout portions of the City of St. Louis Park, the City
portion of which is the subject of this agreement (“City Network”); and
WHEREAS, the City is willing, subject to the terms, covenants and conditions set forth in this
Agreement, to grant to Licensee a license for the operation and use of certain City Dark Fiber in the City
Network to Licensee, and Licensee desires to license, subject to the terms, covenants and conditions of this
Agreement, the use of certain City Dark Fiber in the City Network.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and of the promises and covenants contained
in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:
1. Scope of Dark Fiber License. The City hereby grants to Licensee on an exclusive basis the
right to use the strand or strands of the City Dark Fiber described in Exhibit A, along the Route Segments
described in Exhibit A, as the same may be amended from time to time according to the terms of this
Agreement (the “Licensed Fibers”). This license agreement authorizes Licensee to use the Licensed Fibers in
accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
2. Effective Date and Term. This short-term per strand/per mile/per month Agreement shall
become effective as of the date that the City executes this Agreement (“Commencement Date”) and shall
remain in effect unless and until terminated in accordance with the termination provisions of this Agreement.
The term of this Agreement (“Term”) shall be for a period of _____[2-5 years]____ from and after the
Commencement Date unless terminated earlier according to the terms of this Agreement.
The Licensed Fibers, identified in Exhibit A, may be changed from time to time in writing signed by
the City and Licensee, as specified in the applicable amended Exhibit A, which shall be attached to this
Agreement. The amended Exhibit A shall have its own term, which term shall commence on the date that the
City executes the applicable amended Exhibit A and end on the Termination Date.
3. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the terms set forth below shall be defined as
follows:
Acceptance Test - The tests conducted on the Licensed Fibers by the Licensee to ensure that the Licensed
Fibers meet or exceed the City Dark Fiber Specifications outlined in Exhibit B.
City Conduit - The City-owned conduit in which the City Dark Fiber is located.
City Dark Fiber - All Dark Fiber owned by the City whether dedicated for the City's use only or whether used
by the City, Licensee or a third party.
City Fiber Building – The building(s) located within the City of St. Louis Park, MN in which the City
Conduit is connected and the Fiber Equipment rack is located.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 20
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
Dark Fiber - Unused Fiber through which no light is transmitted.
Fiber Equipment Rack – the equipment rack within the City Fiber Building on which the Licensee is allowed
to mount their equipment and connect to the Licensed Fibers (if this agreement permits).
Fiber Acceptance Date - The date of the applicable Notice of Acceptance which evidences that the Licensed
Fibers in the applicable Route Segments as defined in each Exhibit A have passed the Acceptance Test and
have met the conditions of Section 6.
License Fee - The License Fee shall mean the Fiber License Fee as set forth in Section 4(a) of this Agreement.
Licensed Fibers - shall have the definition set forth in Section 1 of this Agreement.
Licensee Equipment Location - Locations where Licensee's Equipment will be installed within the City Fiber
Building and Fiber Equipment Rack enclosures and Licensee's Equipment will be installed as outlined in
Exhibit C (if this agreement permits). Fiber meet points (indoor and outdoor) are flexible, but also include
clear demarcation and access points.
Licensee's Equipment - The Licensee's terminals and peripheral equipment or facilities used with or
connected to the Licensed Fibers which may be located on City's property pursuant to a separate agreement or
on Licensee's own land or that of a third party.
Notice of Acceptance - Licensee's written approval that the Licensed Fibers have passed the Acceptance Test.
The Notice of Acceptance shall define the effective date for the Term of the Route Segment set forth in Exhibit
A.
Route Segment - That portion of the City's Conduit containing the Licensed Fibers installed between the
identified Splice Vaults as set forth in Exhibit A.
Splice Vault - The vaults installed by the City in the City Network where the City, the Licensee and other
users of the City Network can splice into the City Conduit and/or the City Dark Fiber.
4. Price and Payment.
(a) Licensee shall pay the City a short-term license fee for the use of the Licensed Fibers
provided by the City ("License Fee") which License Fee shall commence on the Fiber
Acceptance Date. The License Fee payable to the City for the Licensed Fibers shall be
$________________________________________________________ per strand per mile
per month. The License Fee shall be payable quarterly, in advance, on the first day of each
calendar quarter commencing on the Fiber Acceptance Date for the Route Segment. Should
the Fiber Acceptance Date be any date other than the first day of any calendar quarter, then
that initial quarter’s License Fee and the final quarter’s License Fees shall be prorated based
on the actual date.
(b) Licensee shall pay the City for Licensee’s share of federal or state taxes, if any, which may be
imposed on the Licensed Fibers during the term of this Agreement.
(c) Licensee shall pay all License Fees, by check in the amount set forth on the statement sent to
the Licensee by the City. The Licensee shall pay to the City a late payment fee of five
percent (5%) of the amount of any License Fee payment that is overdue by more than ten (10)
days ("Late Payment Fee").
(d) All payments due from either party to the other under the terms of this Agreement which are
not paid when due shall bear interest from the due date until paid at an interest rate equal to
the lesser of 1-1/2% per month or the maximum lawful rate permitted by law.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 21
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
5. Acceptance Testing and Completion of Licensed Fibers.
(a) Upon Licensee's request, prior to the Licensee's splicing into the applicable City Dark Fiber,
the City shall have the Licensed Fibers tested at the Licensee's sole cost and expense in
accordance with the procedures and standards specified in Exhibit B ("Acceptance Testing").
City shall give Licensee five (5) business days prior notice of the time and location of the
Acceptance Testing, and Licensee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to be present to
observe the Acceptance Testing. City shall provide Licensee with a copy of such test results.
City shall deliver the Licensed Fibers to Licensee in conformance with the fiber specifications
set forth in Exhibit B.
(b) Licensee shall be responsible for the timely completion of any work or installation required to
place the Licensed Fibers into operation. Licensee's failure to complete such work shall not
be grounds for rejection of a Completion Notice.
(c) Upon the successful completion of Acceptance Testing, the City shall provide written notice
to Licensee (a "Completion Notice"). City shall contemporaneously deliver a copy of the
results of the Acceptance Testing and Licensee shall, within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the
Completion Notice, either accept or reject the Completion Notice. Licensee shall be
permitted to reject only if Licensee specifies the failure of the Licensed Fibers to satisfy the
requirements of this Agreement by written notice to City. Licensee's written acceptance shall
constitute the Notice of Acceptance. In the event Licensee rejects the Completion Notice,
City shall promptly, and at no cost to Licensee, remedy the defect or failure specified in
Licensee's notice. Thereafter City shall again conduct Acceptance Testing and, if
successfully completed, provide Licensee a Completion Notice. The foregoing procedure
shall apply again and successively thereafter until City has remedied all defects or failures
specified by Licensee. Any failure by Licensee to timely reject a Completion Notice, or any
use of the Licensed Fibers by Licensee for any purpose other than testing, shall be deemed to
constitute acceptance for purposes of this Agreement and Licensee shall be deemed to have
delivered a Notice of Acceptance upon the earlier of (i) such use or (ii) the fifteenth (15th) day
after delivery of the Completion Notice.
6. Use of Licensed Fibers; Access. Licensee shall not use the Licensed Fibers in violation of
this Agreement, any applicable law, rule, regulation or order of any governmental authority having
jurisdiction, or any franchise, license, agreement or certificate related to the City Network, unless the validity
thereof is being contested in good faith and by appropriate proceedings (but only so long as such proceedings
and Licensee's use of the Licensed Fibers does not, in City's reasonable opinion, involve any risk of the
forfeiture, or loss of the City Network or the City of any other license of the City Dark Fiber, or any part
thereof or any interest therein).
7. Performance and Maintenance. City shall maintain the Licensed Fibers pursuant to
Exhibit D, so that at all times the Licensed Fibers perform in accordance with the standards set forth in Exhibit
B. Inspection and maintenance of the Licensed Fibers will be conducted by City or its subcontractors upon the
request of Licensee unless prior arrangements have been made between City and Licensee. The Licensee shall
be responsible for all cost of the City relating to the inspection and maintenance of the Licensed Fibers
requested by the Licensee and the Licensee shall pay the City for said cost within thirty (30) days of the City
invoicing the Licensee.
8. Ownership and Title. All ownership, rights, title and interest in all the Licensed Fibers shall
at all times remain exclusively with the City. All right, title and interest in the Licensee's Equipment shall at all
times remain exclusively that of the Licensee.
9. Liens and Encumbrances. Neither party, directly or indirectly, shall create or impose any
lien on the property of the other or on the rights or title relating thereto or any interest therein or in this
Agreement.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 22
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
10. Representations and Covenants Regarding Authorizations.
(a) Licensee hereby represents, warrants and covenants to City as follows:
a. Licensee is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws of
the State of Minnesota and has full power and authority to execute, deliver and
perform the terms of this Agreement.
b. Licensee has or will use its best commercial efforts to obtain and maintain all rights,
licenses, governmental regulatory approvals, authorizations, rights-of-way, and other
agreements and permissions necessary for the use of the Licensed Fibers, or
Licensee's Equipment, as well as any other such rights, licenses, authorizations,
rights-of-way, and other agreements, easements, or permissions necessary for the
installation and use of the Licensed Fibers. Licensee shall be solely liable for all
costs related thereto.
c. Licensee covenants that its use of the Licensed Fibers shall at all times be in
compliance with law and that Licensee has received and is in compliance with all
regulatory authorizations.
d. Licensee shall be responsible for and shall pay all taxes or fees, including, but not
limited to, franchise fees imposed by any other governmental agency or authority as a
result of Licensee’s operation or use of the Licensed Fibers pursuant to this
Agreement. The City represents and warrants that with respect to any Licensed
Fibers pursuant to this Agreement the City has obtained any and all necessary rights
of way or other authorizations by whatever name, such that the City is legally
permitted to own, use and license the Licensed Fibers; the City shall grant Licensee
whatever permission is necessary such that the Licensee may benefit from such
authorizations. With respect to any additional authorization required of Licensee to
install or operate the Licensed Fibers, Licensee shall, at its own expense, obtain all
municipal street rights and/or property leases that may be required for the
construction or operation of the Licensed Fibers thereof by Licensee.
(b) City hereby represents, warrants and covenants to Licensee as follows:
a. City is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of its State of Minnesota
and has full power and authority to execute, deliver and perform the terms of this
Agreement.
(i) City has obtained and will maintain all rights, licenses, governmental
regulatory approvals, authorizations, rights-of-way, and other agreements and
permissions necessary for the use of the Licensed Fibers, and the City
Network including such rights, licenses, authorizations, rights-of-way, and
other agreements, easements, or permissions necessary for the installation of
the City Network and use of the Licensed Fibers. City shall be solely liable
for all costs related thereto.
11. Compliance with Law. Each party shall perform its respective rights and obligations
hereunder in accordance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations imposed by any governmental
authority.
12. Access to the City Fiber Building and the Licensed Fibers. The City shall provide
Licensee with reasonable access (as determined solely by the City) to the City Fiber Building and the Licensed
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 23
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
Fibers shown on Exhibit A as described within Section 25 upon the execution of this Agreement by the City
and the Licensee.
13. Relocation of the Licensed Fiber. Licensee recognizes that, from time to time, City may
elect or be required to relocate the Licensed Fibers and/or City Conduit, whether such relocation is for the
convenience of City or is a requirement by law or existing contract or by loss of right-of-way. In these
instances, the City shall be solely responsible for all costs incurred to relocate the Licensed Fibers except for
the cost related to the Licensee splicing into the new Licensed Fiber. For any other relocation, Licensee shall
pay its proportional share of the cost, defined as the number of Licensed Fibers divided by the total number of
City Dark Fiber and Licensee Dark Fiber in any given Route Segment. City will use commercially reasonable
efforts to effect any relocation in a manner that will not cause any material interruption to Licensee's use of the
Licensed Fibers.
14. Condemnation and Casualty.
(a) Condemnation. If all or any portion of the Licensed Fibers are taken for any public or quasi-
public purpose by any lawful power or authority by the exercise of the right of condemnation
or eminent domain, the City and the Licensee shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement
with respect to the Licensed Fibers affected, or if such condemnation materially affects the
intended purpose of the Licensed Fibers, then Licensee may terminate the Agreement in its
entirety. In such event, both parties shall be entitled to participate in any condemnation
proceedings to seek to obtain compensation by separate awards for the economic value of their
respective interests in the City Dark Fiber or the Licensed Fibers.
(b) Casualty. If all or any portion of the City Dark Fiber, the City Conduit or the Licensed Fibers
are made inoperable and beyond feasible repair due to a casualty or other Force Majeure Event
(as that term is defined in Section 24 below), Licensee shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement with respect to the applicable Licensed Fibers affected by such casualty or other
event. In such event, both parties shall be entitled to seek to recover the economic value of
their respective interests in the City Dark Fiber, the City Conduit or the Licensed Fibers (i)
under any insurance policy carried by either party or any third party, or (ii) in either joint or
separate actions, from any third party that may be legally responsible for causing such
casualty.
15. Government Data Practices. The parties must comply with the Minnesota Government
Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch. 13, as it applies to all data provided by each party under this Agreement,
and as it applies to all data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by any party
under this Agreement. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. §13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in
this clause by any party.
If Licensee receives a request to release data, Licensee must immediately notify the City. The City
will give the Licensee instructions concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is
released. Licensee must comply with City’s instructions related to data requests under this section.
16. Liability and Insurance.
(a) Indemnification by Licensee. Licensee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the
City and its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors and representatives,
from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, expenses, demands, actions, or causes of
action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and other costs and expenses of litigation
(collectively “Damages”), that may be asserted against or incurred by the City or for which
the City may be liable in the performance of this Agreement, whether arising from the
negligence intentional acts of the City, its respective employees, agents or contractors,
Licensee, or a third party. Licensee shall further defend and indemnify all claims arising out
of the installation, operation, use, maintenance, repair, or removal of the Licensed Fibers as
may be required by this Agreement.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 24
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
(b) Licensee shall obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, General Liability
Insurance with single-occurrence liability limits of One Million Five Hundred Thousand
Dollars ($1,500,000.00), naming the Town as an additional insured.
(c) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, in no event will City be liable to
Licensee for punitive, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, including,
without limitation, loss of profits, income or business opportunities.
17. Events of Default. Each of the following events shall constitute an event of default (whether
any such event shall be voluntary or involuntary or occur by operation of law or pursuant to any judgment,
decree, order, rule or regulation of any court or administrative or governmental body):
(a) The failure of Licensee to pay any License Fee when due or any other payment due hereunder
and the continuation of such failure for thirty (30) days after written notice is given by City
demanding such payment;
(b) If either party fails to observe or performs its obligations under this Agreement and does not
cure such failure within thirty (30) days from its receipt of written notice of breach without,
however, limiting any other rights available to the parties pursuant to any other provision of
this Agreement. If the default may not be reasonably cured within such thirty (30) day period,
either party may request the other party to grant an extension of the time to cure not to exceed
ninety (90) days, consent to such extension not to be unreasonably withheld.
(c) The failure of Licensee to carry and maintain insurance in compliance with all provisions of
this Agreement.
(d) The Licensee shall cease to have any of the licenses, agreement, certificates, concessions,
permits, rights or privileges required for the conduct of its business and operations which loss
is not remedied by the obtaining of a replacement license, agreement, certificate, concession,
permit, right or privilege within sixty (60) days of the loss thereof, if such loss would have a
material adverse effect upon the ability of the Licensee to perform its obligations or enjoy its
rights hereunder.
(e) Licensee shall admit in writing an inability to pay its debts as such debts become due or
Licensee shall (1) apply for or consent to the appointment of, or the taking of possession by, a
receiver, administrator, custodian, trustee or liquidator of itself or of all or a substantial part of
its property or assets, (2) make a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors, (3)
commence a voluntary case under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, (4) file a petition or otherwise
commence a proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency reorganization winding-up, or
composition or readjustment of debts or similar law, (5) fail to controvert in a timely and
appropriate manner, or acquiesce in writing to, any petition filed against it in an involuntary
case under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, or (6) take any action for the purpose of effecting any
of the foregoing; or a proceeding or case shall be commenced, without the application or
consent of Licensee, in any court of competent jurisdiction, seeking (1) its liquidation,
reorganization, dissolution or winding-up, or the composition or readjustment of its debts, (2)
the appointment of a trustee, receiver, administrator, custodian, liquidator or the like of
Licensee or of all or any substantial part of its assets, or (3) similar relief in respect of any law
relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, winding-up, or composition or
readjustment of debts, which proceeding is not dismissed within ninety (90) days thereafter.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 25
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
18. Rights Upon Default.
(a) Upon the occurrence of a default by Licensee, the City may forthwith terminate this Agreement
or any particular Route Segment by thirty (30) days written notice to Licensee. The right of the
City to terminate a specific Route Segment or this Agreement shall be in addition to, and not in
substitution for, any other rights that the City may have at law or equity as a result of a default
by Licensee.
(b) Upon the occurrence of a default by the City, Licensee shall be entitled to terminate this
Agreement or any particular Route Segment by thirty (30) days written notice to the City.
Unless otherwise explicitly set forth in this Agreement, this shall constitute Licensee's sole
remedy for the City's default.
19. Remedies. Upon the occurrence and during the continuance of any event of default, the non-
defaulting party may, at its option, declare this Agreement to be in default and may, in addition to any other
remedies provided herein, terminate this Agreement. No remedy is intended to be exclusive, but each shall be
cumulative and in addition to and may be exercised concurrently with any other remedy available to City or
Licensee at law or in equity.
20. Termination.
(a) Licensee's Liability for Early Termination. If Licensee terminates this Agreement as to all or
any Licensed Fibers for any reason, the Licensee shall pay to the City as liquidated damages
for early termination, one hundred fifty percent (150%) of the applicable annual License Fees
for the applicable Licensed Fibers for the year in which Licensee terminates ("Termination
Fee"). All License Fees previously paid to the City shall be retained by the City.
(b) Removal of Licensee's Equipment. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason,
Licensee shall remove all of Licensee's Equipment within ninety (90) days of the notice
provided pursuant to Section 20 of this Agreement or within 90 days of the end of the Term,
whichever occurs first. In the event Licensee does not remove said Equipment within the
applicable timeframe, Licensee hereby authorizes the City to immediately remove and dispose
of all Equipment, and the City shall not be liable to Licensee for any costs or reimbursements
associated with the Equipment.
21. Force Majeure Events. Neither party shall be liable to the other for any failure of
performance under this Agreement due to causes beyond its control, including but not limited to: acts of God,
fire, flood or other catastrophes; any law, order, regulation, direction, action or request of the United States
Government, or of any other government, including state and local governments having or claiming
jurisdiction over such party, or of any department, agency, commission, bureau, corporation or other
instrumentality of any one or more of these federal, state or local governments, or of any civil or military
authority; national emergencies; insurrections; riots; wars; permitting authorities, pole or right-of-way owners;
or strikes, lock outs, work stoppages or other labor difficulties (collectively, "FORCE MAJEURE
EVENTS").
22. Rights and Obligations of Licensee. In addition to the rights and obligations of Licensee set
forth elsewhere in this Agreement, Licensee shall:
(a) have full and complete control, responsibility and liability for the signals distributed over the
fiber optic components of the Licensed Fibers licensed by Licensee or for its benefit;
(b) have full and complete control, responsibility and liability for the purchase, installation,
construction and maintenance of the Licensee's Equipment;
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 26
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
(c) have full and complete control, responsibility and liability for obtaining and maintaining any
operating authority from any federal, state or local governmental body or agency that relates
to the activities of Licensee under this Agreement, including Licensee's license of channel
capacity on the Licensed Fibers.
23. Access and Security.
(a) The City agrees to allow Licensee direct ingress and egress to the City’s property at such
times as may be required for Licensee to perform any appropriate testing, maintenance and
repair on Licensee’s Equipment. The City may require that a representative of the City
accompany any representatives of Licensee on such visits to the City property. Employees
and agents of Licensee or of a Licensee designee shall, while on the property of the City,
comply with all rules and regulations including, without limitation, security/safety
requirements and, where required by government regulations, receipt of satisfactory
governmental clearances. The City shall have the right to notify Licensee that certain
Licensee or Licensee designated employees are excluded if, in the reasonable judgment of the
City, the exclusion of such employees is necessary for the proper security and maintenance of
the City's facilities.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, each party acknowledges that the operational
efficiency of the other depends on the continuous availability of its trained personnel and,
accordingly, both parties will act cooperatively to resolve any situations which may arise that
threaten the security, operations or maintenance of either party's facilities prior to excluding
any personnel.
23. Assignment. Licensee may not assign, transfer, delegate or in any other manner dispose of,
any of its rights, privileges or obligations under this Agreement without the express written consent of City.
24. Forum for Litigation. In the event that litigation is required in order to resolve any dispute
or disagreement connected with this Agreement, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto that venue and
jurisdiction for any such litigation shall be in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Unless otherwise provided by
law, any and all litigation between the parties hereto arising out of this Agreement shall be instituted and
maintained in a court of competent jurisdiction in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Any cause of action arising
by virtue of the laws of the United States shall be instituted in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of
Minnesota.
25. Miscellaneous.
(a) Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be
deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument,
and in pleading or proving any provision of this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to
produce more than one complete set of such counterparts.
(b) Captions; Gender. Article and section headings contained in this Agreement are for reference
purposes only and shall not in any way affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement.
Whenever used herein the singular number shall include the plural, the plural shall include the
singular, and the use of any gender shall include all genders.
(c) Governing Law and Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with, and the validity and performance hereof shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Minnesota. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of each of the parties
and their successors and permitted assigns.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 27
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
(d) Waivers and Amendments. This Agreement may not be amended nor shall any waiver,
change, modification, consent or discharge be effected, except by an instrument in writing
adopted, in the case of an amendment, by each party and, in the case of a waiver, consent or
discharge, by the party against whom enforcement of such instrument is sought. Any consent
by either party to, or waiver of, a breach by the other party shall not constitute a waiver or
consent to any subsequent or different breach. If either party shall fail to enforce a breach of
this Agreement by the other party, such failure to enforce shall not be considered a consent to
or a waiver of said breach or any subsequent breach for any purpose whatsoever.
(e) Relationship Not a Partnership or an Agency. The relationship between Licensee and City
shall not be that of partners or agents for one another and nothing contained in this Agreement
shall be deemed to constitute a partnership, joint venture or agency agreement between them.
(f) Notices. All notices, requests, demands, statements, reports and other communications under
this Agreement shall be in writing and deemed to be duly delivered, if delivered in person, by
overnight courier or by certified or registered mail:
If to City: City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Attn: ,
Chief Information Officer
With a copy to: St. Louis Park City Attorney
Campbell Knutson, PA
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, MN 55121
If to Licensee:
With a copy to:
Their Attorney
Either party hereto may change its mailing address by giving notice to the other pursuant to
the provisions of this paragraph.
(g) Disclaimers. There are no agreements, warranties or representations, express or implied
either in fact or by operation of law, statutory or otherwise, including warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose or use, except those expressly set forth
herein.
(h) Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including the exhibits, schedules and annexes hereto,
which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement as if they were
fully set forth herein, constitutes the entire agreement between City and Licensee with respect
to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 28
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
them as to such subject matter, and there are no restrictions, agreements, arrangements or
undertaking, oral or written, between City and Licensee relating to the transactions
contemplated hereby which are not fully expressed or referred to herein.
(i) Severability. If any term or other provision of this Agreement is invalid, illegal or incapable
of being enforced by any rule or law or public policy, all other conditions and provisions of
this Agreement shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect so long as the economic or
legal substance of the transactions contemplated hereby is not affected in any manner adverse
to either party. Upon such determination that any term or other provision is invalid, illegal or
incapable of being enforced, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith to modify this
Agreement so as to effect the original intent of the parties as closely as possible in an
acceptable manner to the end that transactions contemplated hereby are fulfilled to the
greatest extent possible.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 29
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound, the parties have executed this
Agreement on the dates indicated below.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Dated: BY:
Name: ___________________________
Title: Mayor
Dated: BY:
Name: Melissa Kennedy
Title: City Clerk
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, by
_________________ and by Melissa Kennedy, the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of St. Louis
Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by
its City Council.
Notary Public
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 30
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
LICENSEE:
Dated: BY:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF _____________ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ________________, by
__________________________, the _______________________, of ___________________________, a
__________________________________, on behalf of __________________________________.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Telephone: (952) 924-2500
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 31
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT A
Designation of Licensed Route Segments, Splice Vaults, and Licensed Fiber Stands
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 32
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT B
City Network Fiber Acceptance Testing Procedures and Standards
The intent of this Exhibit is to identify the fiber acceptances testing procedures and standards used within the
City Network. Deviations from these specifications may occur if City acquires a portion of the City Network
from a third party pursuant to the Agreement.
1. All splices shall be fusion spliced. Mechanical splices are only allowed during temporary restoration
and will be replaced within three (3) business days, with fusion splices.
2. Fibers shall be terminated with _________ connectors (typical return loss of 0.50 dB).
3. After end-to-end connectivity on the fibers has been completed, bi-directional OTDR span and power
meter testing will be completed. City shall perform tests after the fiber cable is installed and the
splicing enclosures have been completed and are in their final resting configuration with the cable
vault or hand hole covers closed. This ensures that no micro or macro bending problems with the
cable or fiber strands will contribute to the loss/attenuation measurements.
4. Power meter tests shall be completed to verify and insure that no fibers have been crossed at any of
the splice points within the network. City shall test and record power level readings on all fiber
strands in both directions of transmission (bi-directionally) using the 1310 & 1550 nm wavelengths.
5. All OTDR and power meter tests shall be completed as follows:
a. All OTDR traces shall be taken from both ends of a section (between adjacent
Locations) and recorded using the 1310 & 1550 nm wavelength. Loss/attenuation
measurements for each splice point from both directions shall be taken and recorded.
b. The end-to-end loss value as measured with an industry-accepted laser source and power
meter should have an attenuation rating of less than or equal to the following:
i. At 1310 nm: (0.35 dB/km x km of cable) +(number of connectors x 0.50) + (0.05 x
number of splices).
ii. At 1550 nm: (0.25 dB/km x km of cable)+ (number of connectors x 0.50) + (0.05 x
number of splices).
c. City's loss/attenuation objective for each fiber optic splice is 0.05 dB when measured in
one direction with an OTDR test set (excluding connector loss, which is typically 0.50
dB per mated connector pair). If after three attempts this parameter is not met, the splice
will be marked as Out-Of-Spec (OOS) and the splice will remain provided the average
loss/attenuation value of all splices on an individual fiber basis shall not exceed 0.10 dB
for the entire ring or subsystem.
d. For bi-directional OTDR testing, the distance from Location "A" and Location "Z" shall be
recorded for each splice point. The loss/attenuation at each splice point shall be recorded at
both wavelengths (1310 nm & 1550 nm) in each direction. City shall then average the two
readings to obtain the final average splice loss/attenuation for each splice point of each fiber
strand within the fiber optic cable.
e. Each fiber strand color must be recorded along with its buffer tube color or the ribbon
color. The laser source transmit power level using the 1310 & 1550 nm wavelengths will
always be recorded together with the receive power level reading at the receiving end of
the test.
6. OTDR traces will be taken and splice loss measurements recorded. City will store OTDR traces on
electronic media.· Loss measurements will be recorded using an industry accepted laser source and a
power meter. Copies of all data sheets and tables and one set of diskettes with all traces will be
available to Licensee.
7. Following emergency restoral, City personnel shall perform span test documenting end to end
attenuation measurement of each fiber and will be completed in both directions at 1310 & 1550 nm
wavelengths. Upon permanent repair, new splice loss readings should be approximately the original
splice loss specifications.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 33
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT C
City Fiber Building and Location on the Fiber Equipment Rack (if applicable)
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4c) Page 34
Title: Fiber Lease Agreements
EXHIBIT D
Maintenance Specifications
1. Notice. City shall provide Licensee with telephone, facsimile, or written notice of all non-emergency
planned network maintenance no later than seven (7) business days prior to performing maintenance
that, in its reasonable opinion, has a substantial likelihood of affecting Licensee's traffic. If City's
planned activity is canceled or delayed, City shall promptly notify Licensee and shall comply with the
provisions of the previous sentence to reschedule any delayed activity.
2. Standard of Care; Cooperation. In performing its services hereunder, City shall take workmanlike care
and make commercially reasonable efforts to prevent impairment to the signal continuity and
performance of the Licensed Fibers. In addition, City shall reasonably cooperate with Licensee in
sharing information and analyzing the disturbances regarding the cable and/or fiber facilities.
3. Licensee's Equipment. Nothing contained herein shall make City responsible for the Licensee's
Equipment.
4. Escalation List. City shall, at Licensee's request, provide Licensee an operations escalation list for use
in reporting and seeking redress of exceptions noted in City's performance of routine maintenance and
non-routine maintenance.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fund equity and
operating transfers.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council concur with the staff recommendation regarding the level of fund
balance in the General Fund and the proposed equity transfers to the Housing
Rehabilitation Fund, Pavement Management Fund and Capital Replacement Fund?
Does the City Council concur with the proposed operating transfer from the Permanent
Improvement Revolving Fund (PIR) to the Capital Replacement Fund?
SUMMARY: This report includes information on the projected level of fund balance in the
General Fund and proposed transfers between funds for the year ending December 31, 2015.
The need for equity and operating transfers between funds is analyzed each year and information
is forwarded to Council for approval. This process supports the continued work on the Long
Range Financial Management Plan as discussed with Council. In addition, the recommended
transfers help support priorities identified by the Council relating to housing, infrastructure and
capital investments.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed transfers will direct
resources to funds that will help achieve City Council priorities and attain long-term financial
sustainability.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the end of each calendar year, all funds are analyzed to determine if
transfers should be recommended to meet fund balance policy requirements or to assist with
long-term sustainability.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
Equity Transfers
As per the December 31, 2014 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), the unassigned
fund balance in the General Fund was $14,576,348, which was equal to 44.7% of the 2015
budgeted expenditures. The City’s Fund Balance Policy states that the City will strive to
maintain a fund balance in the General Fund that is within a range of 35% to 50% of the
following year’s budgeted expenditures, and that any amount greater than 40% can be transferred
to other funds. The City’s policy follows the Office of the State Auditor’s recommended fund
balance guidelines.
At the end of 2015, Staff anticipates that the unassigned fund balance in the General Fund will
increase to approximately $17.4 million. This is based on projections that were prepared by
Staff using actual year to date numbers through mid-November 2015 to project activity through
the end of the fiscal year resulting in revenues over expenditures of approximately $2.8 million.
Based on this, the projected end of year unassigned fund balance in the General Fund would
grow to approximately 51% of the 2016 budgeted expenditures, which would exceed the range
of 35% to 50% stated in the policy. Therefore, it is recommended that an equity transfer from
the General Fund of $2,000,000 be made in 2015. Utilizing the most current Long Range
Financial Management Plan, Staff is recommending a transfer of $1.0 million to the Housing
Rehabilitation Fund, $750,000 to the Pavement Management Fund, and $250,000 to the Capital
Replacement Fund.
With the recommended transfers to these funds, the unassigned fund balance within the General
Fund would be projected to be in a range of 43% - 47% of the 2016 budgeted expenditures, with
the target goal being approximately 45%, or $15.4 million depending on 2015 final year end
results.
Housing Rehabilitation Fund – Transfer in of $1.0 Million:
The Housing Rehabilitation Fund was established to provide funding for projects and programs
that focus on providing well-maintained and diverse housing along with increasing affordable
rental and ownership opportunities. The primary revenue source for this fund is the 1/8th of one
percent fee received by the City on the outstanding balance of private activity revenue bonds,
which has historically amounted to approximately $500,000 to $600,000 per year. The Housing
Rehabilitation Fund also began receiving a property tax allocation of $100,000 in 2015. This
fund continues to have long-term sustainability challenges. Private activity bond revenue, which
accounts for the majority of the fund’s revenue, is projected to decline in future years due to a
refunding this year and a more aggressive debt service payback schedule by Park Nicollet.
Therefore, to help with long term sustainability a transfer of $1.0 million is recommended from
the General Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund in 2015.
Pavement Management Fund – Transfer in of $750,000:
The Pavement Management Fund provides funding for pavement rehabilitation projects within
the City. The primary funding source for Pavement Management is gas and electric franchise
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers
fees. With anticipated expansion of the Pavement Management program based on discussions
with the City Council on the assessment policy, an equity transfer of $750,000 from the General
Fund to the Pavement Management Fund is proposed in 2015. This transfer will help to fund
some of the upfront City costs for the projects, as well as reduce future funding needed.
Capital Replacement Fund – Transfer in of $250,000:
The Capital Replacement Fund provides for all technology, vehicles, equipment, and municipal
building improvement projects. This fund began receiving a property tax allocation in 2010 and
Local Government Aid in 2014. Operating transfers from the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund (PIR) have also occurred from 2012 to 2014, and an additional transfer is
proposed in 2015. Due to capital planning revisions departments have made, anticipated Local
Government Aid through 2017, and continued increased property tax allocations, the Capital
Replacement Fund is expected to become sustainable in future years. An equity transfer in 2015
of $250,000 from the General Fund to the Capital Replacement Fund is recommended to help
meet this goal.
Operating Transfer
Permanent Imp. Revolving Fund (PIR) to Capital Replacement Fund – Transfer of $400,000:
Beginning in 2012, transfers have been recommended each year from the PIR Fund to the
Capital Replacement Fund. In 2012, $300,000 was transferred and $450,000 was transferred in
both 2013 and 2014. In 2015, a final transfer in the amount of $400,000 from the PIR Fund to
the Capital Replacement Fund is recommended. No further transfers are planned from the PIR
Fund in future years in order to maintain an appropriate fund balance for the fund’s intended
purpose of providing cash flow for special assessments and Municipal State Aid (MSA)
reimbursable construction projects.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4d) Page 4
Title: Fund Equity and Operating Transfers
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FUND EQUITY TRANSFERS AND OPERATING
TRANSFER
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has created various special purpose funds; and
WHEREAS, some of those funds rely on transfers from other funds for their continued
operation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to transfer the following sums of money
from the General Fund to the Housing Rehabilitation Fund, Pavement Management
Fund, and Capital Replacement Fund as shown.
Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount
General Fund Housing Rehabilitation Fund $ 1,000,000
General Fund Pavement Management Fund 750,000
General Fund Capital Replacement Fund 250,000
2. Approval is hereby given to the Controller to make an additional transfer between
funds in the amount as shown.
Transferring Fund Receiving Fund Amount
Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund (PIR)
Capital Replacement Fund $ 400,000
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section 57 to Provide for
Microdistillery Licenses
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the second reading and Adopt Ordinance
amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section 57 to provide for microdistillery cocktail
room licenses and microdistillery off-sale licenses and to approve the summary ordinance for
publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council support the proposed ordinance
amendment related to microdistilleries?
SUMMARY: On December 7, 2015 staff presented the Council with an ordinance amendment to
update the liquor licensing provisions contained in St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section
57. The proposed ordinance amendment incorporated new license classifications related to
microdistilleries. Following discussion by the Council, the first reading of the ordinance
amendment was approved with the following provisions:
- Add a license classification that would allow the City to issue a cocktail room license to the
holder of a microdistillery license. The license would authorize the on-sale of distilled spirits
produced by the distiller for consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one distillery
location owned by the distiller. State laws that apply to a retail liquor license, including laws
governing hours and days of sale, apply to microdistillery cocktail room licenses.
- Add a license classification that would allow the City to issue a microdistillery off-sale license
to the holder of a microdistillery license. Off-sale hours and days of sale must conform to the
hours of sale for retail off-sale licensees in the licensing municipality.
Microdistilleries are currently allowed in Industrial zoning districts, however cocktail rooms are
not allowed under current zoning code regulations. It is anticipated that the required zoning code
amendments will be sent to the Planning Commission for review in January, 2016. Following
action by the Planning Commission, the proposed zoning code amendments will be placed on a
Council agenda for consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Ordinance Amendment
Summary Ordinance for Publication
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section 57 to Provide for Microdistillery Licenses
ORDINANCE NO.____-15
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 57 TO PROVIDE
FOR MICRODISTILLERY COCKTAIL ROOM LICENSES AND
MICRODISTILLERY OFF-SALE LICENSES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 3 is amended as follows:
ARTICLE II. SALE, CONSUMPTION AND DISPLAY
***
Sec. 3-57 Classifications
***
(15) Microdistillery cocktail room license. A microdistillery cocktail room license may be
issued to the holder of a microdistillery license issued under Minn. Stat. § 340A.22. A
microdistillery cocktail room license authorizes the on-sale of distilled liquor produced
by the distiller for consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one distillery location
owned by the distiller.
a. The city shall, within ten days of the issuance of a microdistillery cocktail room
license inform the commissioner of public safety of the licensee’s name and address
and trade name, and the effective date and expiration date of the license. The city
shall also inform the commissioner of a license transfer, cancellation, suspension,
or revocation during the license period.
b. No single entity may hold both a microdistillery cocktail room and taproom license,
and a cocktail room and taproom may not be co-located.
c. A restaurant is not allowed at a microdistillery with a cocktail room license.
***
(16) Microdistillery off-sale license. A microdistillery off-sale license may be issued to the
holder of a microdistillery license issued under Minn. Stat. § 340A.22 subject to the
following conditions:
a. The license permits the sale of one 375 milliliter bottle per customer per day of
product manufactured on site;
b. Off-sale shall be limited to the legal hours for off-sale pursuant to section 3-105;
and
c. No brand may be sold at the microdistillery unless it is available for distribution to
by wholesalers.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Title: Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section 57 to Provide for Microdistillery Licenses
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and
publication.
First Reading December 7, 2015
Second Reading December 21, 2015
Date of Publication December 31, 2015
Date Ordinance takes effect January 15, 2016
ADOPTED this 21st day of December, 2015 by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park.
Reviewed for Administration:
___________________________________
City Manager
Adopted by the City Council
_____________________________________
Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
Approved as to form and execution:
_____________________________________
City Attorney
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Title: Ordinance Amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3, Section 57 to Provide for Microdistillery Licenses
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. ____-15
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3, SECTION 57 TO PROVIDE
FOR MICRODISTILLERY COCKTAIL ROOM LICENSES AND
MICRODISTILLERY OFF-SALE LICENSES
This ordinance amends Chapter 3, Section 57 of the City Code to allow licensed
microdistillers to obtain a microdistillery cocktail room license or a microdistillery
off-sale license subject to all local and state regulations.
Adopted by the City Council December 21, 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 the St. Louis Park Sailor: December 31, 2015
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Agreement with Hennepin County Sentencing to Service (STS) Program
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve entering into a service agreement with the
Hennepin County Department of Corrections for continuing to use their crews from the
Sentencing to Service Program (STS Program).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue an agreement with the
Hennepin County Department of Corrections to purchase services from the Sentencing to Service
Program (STS Program)?
SUMMARY: The Operations and Recreation Department and Facilities Maintenance division
utilized the Hennepin County Corrections Department for services including janitorial services,
litter pick-up, hand mowing, buckthorn removal and other lower level maintenance from the
Sentencing to Service Program (STS Program). The City of St. Louis Park has had contracts with
Hennepin County for the use of the STS crews for more than 15 years and the program has been
quite successful for the City. The crews are able to assist our staff with many lower level
maintenance items that we are unable to accomplish in a timely fashion.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This two year contract will be in effect
January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2017 and shall not exceed $148,428.80. A payment of
$74,214.40 will be submitted to the County in 2016 and $74,214.40 will be submitted in 2017.
This is a budget item included in the Operations and Recreation Department budgets. Because
combining the contracts into one contract for 2 years brings the dollar amount to a cost that is
over $100,000, the City Attorney indicated that the City Council should approve this contract.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Senior Office Assistant
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE:
Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 4140 Utica Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the sewer service line at 4140 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: Gary and Linda Schuette, owners of the single family residence at 4140 Utica
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 $2,300.00.
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 December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Title: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 4140 Utica Avenue South
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
4140 UTICA AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-028-24-32-0010
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 4140 Utica 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 4140 Utica 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 and Inspections Departments is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $2,300.
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 December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Minutes: 4h
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF August 12, 2015
ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Maren Anderson, Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Cindy Hoffman
and Toby Keeler
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rolf Peterson and Andrew Reinhardt
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV
Coordinator; Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer; and, Jacqueline
Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager
OTHERS PRESENT: Karly Werner, Comcast Cable
1. Call to Order
Chair Browning called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Anderson, Browning, Hartman, Hoffman and
Keeler.
3. Approval of Minutes for May 13, 2015
It was moved by Commissioner Keeler, seconded by Commissioner Anderson, to approve
the minutes of May 13, 2015, without changes. The motion passed 5-0.
4. Adoption of Agenda
It was moved by Commissioner Keeler, seconded by Commissioner Hoffman, to approve
the agenda as presented. The motion passed 5-0.
5. Public Comment - None
6. Reports and Discussion
A. CenturyLink Franchise Process
Commissioner Anderson reported they had received a marked up copy of the Century
Link franchise agreement. The City’s negotiating team includes: Moss & Barnett
Attorney Brian Grogan, Commissioners Keeler, Browning and Anderson, and staff John
McHugh, Reg Dunlap and Jacque Larson. The City Attorney will be copied on all
information about legal questions or strategy. They had a full negotiating team meeting
to discuss strategy. There was a meeting with CenturyLink on August 17th and they plan
to meet every two weeks. The next meeting is October 14th.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2015
B. Fiber Optic Study Update, i.e., fiber network linkage progress, etc.
Clint Pires reported in 2012 the City Council identified specific goals and priorities for
St. Louis Park to become an increasingly technologically connected community. In 2012
a fiber policy study lead to two policy questions: 1) What else might be done with
existing City-school owned fiber optic network beyond existing institutional uses, 2)
Should the City provide requirements or incentives to include fiber optic facilities in new
construction or significant remodels?
The project goals that came out of those questions were: 1) Options for maximizing the
benefits of existing infrastructure; 2) Options for expanding existing City infrastructure,
and 3) Options for City actions that could facilitate private construction of infrastructure.
Summary and major findings:
City has successfully met most internal communications needs
Fiber represents the emerging standard for broadband and most scalable and
capable of broadband technologies
Availability of consumer broadband products has increased since St. Louis Park
last evaluated broadband access in 2006
St. Louis Park consumers do not have access to state of the art fiber networks
Summary and update of 2012 recommended strategies:
Lease access to existing fiber and conduit to enable private investment
Incrementally expand City fiber
Build fiber between Park Nicollet facilities (hospital/clinic and Melrose
Institute). The city is partnering with Hennepin County and able to access
conduit in that area and then explore partnership with Park Nicollet.
Build to Park and Rec and Public Works facilities (park structures, automated
security systems)
Build to City’s third water tower – Purchase fiber and have access to all water
towers. The water meter replacement program is underway, and the new
meters will have antennae’s to transmit readings wirelessly and can also do
leak detection.
Build to St. Louis Park library - collaboration with Hennepin County to make
use of excess capacity in our system in exchange for building out added fiber.
Build over time to key economic development targets (i.e. West End)
Continue installing conduit during capital improvement projects
Complete fiber rings where possible during the course of routine fiber and
conduit installations (create redundancy)
Summary and update of 2012 study recommended strategies:
Proceed with caution regarding expansive strategies to enable broadband in St.
Louis Park
Evaluate a fiber model similar to the alley assessment model
Require conduit and fiber installation for new construction
Expediting local processes and waive fees to facilitate private sector infrastructure.
He displayed a list of some of the projects going on from 2014 and 2015, including
Highway Louisiana, along Highway 7 and 100, Parkland water tower (connecting
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2015
dispatch to the 800 MHz system), investment in disaster recovery, working with
Hennepin County projects (including SW LRT), park projects, etc.
Chair Browning asked if somebody cuts a fiber, who pays for the repair? Mr. Pires
replied the contractor is generally responsible and there is protocol for locating utilities
and if it is properly located, they are responsible. They are also responsible if it is not
property located. The City has a company on-call that can respond quickly.
Chair Browning how can they disrupt fiber when it is all marked, are they not paying
attention? Mr. Pires locates are standard and easy to do. It depends how cautious the
contractor is. Most right of way work goes on without problems.
Chair Browning asked if there was any fiber being moved or added when they were
doing construction on the Minnetonka Bridge? Mr. Pires responded yes, they found out
when the bridge was being constructed that a private company would be moving their
fiber and they asked to collaborate with them and got a good price on getting a crossing
and added extra conduits alongside theirs.
Commissioner Keeler stated that the City had done a good job.
C. City Council goals including St. Louis Park as a Technology Connected
Community, a role for the TAC and a possible technology survey
Mr. Pires stated each year the City Council has an annual workshop in January. The
primary intent was to reach consensus on the goals and priorities for the next ten years.
City Council came to goal agreement on five goals/priorities. On February 9th staff
reviewed with and the City Council confirmed five goals/priorities were in keeping with
City Council initial intent from the workshop. Staff indicated it would take about 90 days
to develop specific strategies and two-year action plan to begin to address the Council’s
goals/priorities.
The five priorities and goals are intended to articulate and provide direction to staff on
those things the Council feels will have the most powerful/positive impact on the St.
Louis Park community by 2024. It allows staff to orient work plans and resources
accordingly. These five priorities/goals will be reviewed annually to make sure they are
still relevant, and course corrections would be made by the Council as necessary. Staff
must continue to provide collaborative, high quality and responsive services to ensure
that St. Louis Park is the most desirable place to live, work and do business.
In 2015-2016:
Redevelopment around the three SWLRT stations is maximized to the fullest extent
possible; 2) St. Louis Park is a leader in environmental stewardship, sustainability and
resiliency; 3) St. Louis Park has top ranked schools, a well maintained and diverse
housing stock, and strong, vibrant neighborhood; 4) St. Louis Park has high quality
community amenities and facilities; and, 5) St. Louis Park is a technology connected
community.
This is important to set them apart and better promote economic group and community
development and improve overall quality of life.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2015
Some of the strategies include: researching strategic options; supporting
school/community education initiatives; encouraging more private market consumer
choices; integrating new private carrier technology infrastructure (e.g. mini cell towers)
into community; support or build broadband public related infrastructure/target private
development opportunities and support community technology applications for enhanced
livability of all age groups from youth to seniors; maximize speed of broadband
deployment; enhance private development broadband readiness (possible ordinance some
day)
There will be challenges such as resources, process, imagination and what are the
possibilities.
The next step will be the City Council adopting the priorities and then a roll out will take
place. They are looking for participation and to develop specific plans to put in place.
He suggested participants in Phase 1 include: TAC, the school district, and the chamber
of commerce. Once they get some refinement and make it strategy-specific, then they
can find the people who can build these things. It will be a ten-year plan. This reinforces
what the commission has done with the fiber study. The City Council is putting a priority
on technology.
Chair Browning liked the city’s overview and how they fit together. Defining technology
is a moving target and they are behind compared to Japan and some places in Europe.
The standards are moving quickly. Fiber is large part of this, and they need to roll it out
and make it affordable and they need to do this as a community.
Mr. Pires replied it took a combination of players, both public and private. Ultimately
everyone will deliver services over fiber and it’s not free.
D. Franchise described “State of the Art” review due on the 10 th anniversary of
granting franchise January, 2016
Chair Browning indicated State of the Art (SOA) was hard to define. It is fiber and they
weren’t there yet, but were getting there. An all-fiber network would be ideal.
Mr. Dunlap stated this was a discussion item and advance notice on this topic. It wasn’t
due until next year.
Commissioner Keeler asked if the franchise called out specifically how this should be
done? Mr. Dunlap replied the City would hold a public hearing for public comment and
presenting evidence. As a result, the City and company may enter into good faith
negotiations to amend the franchise as necessary to provide system improvements. This
was to make sure St. Louis Park system didn’t fall behind other communities. This isn’t
as much of an issue as it had been in the past year’s with small cable companies.
Commissioner Keeler asked if this was an option or requirement? Mr. Dunlap replied it
was an option. In 2011 the commission opted not to review it at that time.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2015
Chair Browning said it would be good to discuss because technology is moving quickly.
Comcast, CenturyLink and the providers have a good idea of what state of the art is. The
closest thing to state of the art is fiber to home.
Commissioner Keeler said he wasn’t sure they would get a lot of input from the public.
He thought they would get a lot of complaints regarding customer service, etc., and that
wasn’t the intent of the SOA hearing.
Chair Browning thought it might be worthwhile to invite technology leaders, such as
fiber manufacturers, to explain where they think its going and what their plans were.
Mr. McHugh noted Comcast mentioned they were adding thousands of customer service
agents in the future and he thought that might be area to examine, as in state of the art
customer service.
Commissioner Hoffman asked about voice recognition software used for customer
service? Mr. McHugh replied when you call and speak to an automated system.
Commissioner Hoffman referred to a colleagues experience with the customer service
and reaching someone who didn’t speak English and using a system to translate.
Chair Browning stated that other companies had the same problems and it was something
to revisit.
E. Complaints
Chair Browning expressed concern about the word ingress because there were a number
of outages with the cable system in the city and what fixed the problem was ingress. It
meant there was a break in the cable system that allowed outside information to leak into
the system and caused trouble. Once discovered, it was repaired. A lot of the complaints
wind up being escalated and the escalation team does great job. It would be ideal to solve
before that point.
Commissioner Hoffman referred to the complaint where an individual tried to return a
box after their brother had died in another state. They wouldn’t accept it in the other state
and it should be linked by the bar code and there should be better connection. Ms.
Werner didn’t know the specifics of the complaint, but would look into it.
Mr. McHugh stated Comcast has UPS delivery and they should have told them where to
ship it.
Commissioner Hoffman noted the brother’s name was on the account and they said he
could go to any office, but the local office said they couldn’t help. Does every state run
differently? Ms. Werner would look into it. They don’t run differently, but are broken
into divisions.
7. Communication from the Chair, Commissioners and City Staff
Ms. Larson updated the commission on the web site redesign. A team in communications
was working to roll out the new design by March 2016. They are looking at other web
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4h) Page 6
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of August 12, 2015
sites that they like and categories for the navigation. They used Survey Monkey to gather
approximately 20 responses and were getting results at the end of August.
Mr. Dunlap said he is preparing a City Council report for their August 24th Study Session
regarding franchise fees and will send it to TAC members.
Ms. Werner updated the commission on the Internet Essentials Program that was
evolving and staying relevant. The program provides free Wi-Fi routers to subscribers so
kids and parents could use the internet at the same time. They are doubling speeds
without increasing the price and expanding auto enrollment. If a child is in a school that
50% get free/reduced lunch they are all eligible for the program. Comcast has connected
500,000 families nationwide. They are starting a senior citizen pilot program for Internet
Essentials and will have digital literacy training courses. Cost is a huge barrier, but also
relevancy because some people don’t know why the internet is relevant to their lives. In
a customer survey, about Internet Essentials, 98% of families use the service for school
and felt it had a positive impact on grades. They also felt it had impacts on finding a job.
Comcast will be doing another speed increase at end of the month without an increased
cost. Speeds will go from 25 to 50 megabits per second (MBS), 50 to 105 MBS and 105
to 150 MBS. They plan to have a 1 gig speed Internet available to every subscriber that
can get service from Comcast, and will also be rolling out a 2 gig service by the end of
next year.
Chair Browning asked if they would need to reboot the cable modem to get the faster
speeds? Ms. Werner said they will send a notice to customers that there would be an
immediate increase in speeds, that a newer modem won’t need to be rebooted. However
the 1 gig service will require new modems because it is an upgraded system.
Commissioner Keeler asked for details about the senior program. Ms. Werner replied it
would be starting in Palm Beach County, but hadn’t rolled out here yet. She would get
back to the commission with the criteria.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Keeler made a motion, Commission Anderson seconded to adjourn at
8:08. The motion passed.
Respectfully submitted by:
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Minutes: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 23, 2015
ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Maren Anderson, Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Cindy Hoffman,
Toby Keeler and Rolf Peterson
MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrew Reinhardt
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; Jacque Larson, Communications
and Marketing Manager; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian Grogan, Attorney for Moss & Barnett, Patrick Haggerty,
CenturyLink Director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, and
Kirstin Sersland, CenturyLink Director of Local Government Affairs.
1. Call to Order
Chair Browning called the meeting to order at 6:10 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Anderson, Browning, Hartman, Hoffman, Keeler
and Peterson.
3. CenturyLink application for a Cable TV franchise
Mr. Dunlap thanked the Commissioners for attending the special meeting. He said the
City franchise negotiation team has met with CenturyLink five times since the last
Commission meeting August 12, and has made great progress. He thanked
Commissioners Keeler and Browning for their assistance. He said that the draft franchise
is not available tonight, and that he was asking the Commission to make a
recommendation to the City Council based on the staff report and the testimony of
Commissioners Browning and Keeler. Mr. Dunlap introduced Brian Grogan of Moss &
Barnett, the City’s attorney, to provide background on the draft franchise.
Mr. Grogan gave a PowerPoint presentation. He said the franchise is substantially
complete with a few details left which do not raise to the level of deal-breakers.
He said the Federal Cable Act specifically allows a franchising authority to grant one or
more franchises, and “may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive
franchise.” He said the goal for franchise negotiations with CenturyLink was to offer a
level playing field with the franchise currently in place with Comcast, not giving either
company a competitive advantage. The starting point was the Comcast franchise, which
CenturyLink marked up with changes and provided to the City in July, 2015.
Mr. Grogan said the goal was nearly identical franchises, and that we’ve come reasonably
close to that.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2015
A lot of issues relate to the difference in systems. Comcast is a hybrid fiber coax system,
and CenturyLink is an IP delivery system, which means only one channel is provided to
the customer’s home at a time.
One distinction is that Comcast runs the cable system and owns the facilities in the right
of way. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. (QBSI), doing business as CenturyLink, will
run the cable system, but Qwest Corporation owns the facilities in the right of way.
QBSI will be the content provider who contracts with HBO, for example. Because we
have sister companies involved, one section in the franchise clarifies the relationship
between the companies.
Mr. Grogan said that there are several reasons that the CenturyLink franchise is for a five
year term. One is that the Comcast franchise ends in about five years, so that when it’s
time to talk about franchise renewal, the talks can be synched up.
The second reason is state law’s build out requirement in five years. There’s some
dispute about whether this applies to CenturyLink, but with the five year franchise term,
the City can look at the build out progress CenturyLink makes in that term, and has the
unilateral right to renew the franchise for between five and ten years, if they’re happy
with the progress made.
Mr. Grogan said that CenturyLink franchise defines households as “living units,” which
includes single family homes, multi-dwelling units and business locations. Any living
unit that meets minimum technical qualifications, at least 25 megabits per second internet
speeds, are called “qualified living units” to receive the CenturyLink Prism TV service.
Mr. Grogan said he’s seen the maps of qualified living units for the vast portion of the
southern metro area, and St. Louis Park has one of the best maps for the service that
CenturyLink can make available. The City’s franchise negotiating team was quite
pleased with that.
Mr. Grogan said that system build out was the most controversial area of the franchise
and one that we struggled with. The franchise requires that CenturyLink will serve a
minimum of 15% of the living units in the city within two years, and quarterly meetings
to verify compliance with build obligations. That number is a low threshold, but based
on the confidential and proprietary maps provided by CenturyLink, staff is confident that
number is low compared with what CenturyLink is going to be able to initially provide.
Once CenturyLink reaches 27 ½ % of the households capable of receiving cable service,
they are required to build an additional 15% of the City. At the first quarterly compliance
meeting, the City will be able to review what CenturyLink’s effective footprint is. So
within three months of the effective date of the franchise, that 15% number will change to
reflect the real world footprint, which is substantially higher. Once that number is set,
CenturyLink will be required to build an extra 15% above that number. It’s a complicated
procedure but is consistent with CenturyLink’s approach in other markets like Seattle,
Omaha and Minneapolis.
Chair Browning asked if Mr. Grogan could give an example to clarify how it would
work. Mr. Grogan used the example of a city with 100,000 households, or living units.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 3
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2015
The franchise says that within two years, CenturyLink must build to 15,000 living units.
But if CenturyLink comes in with a map that shows that they can serve 50,000 living units
immediately, that number becomes the new baseline. Then if they serve 27 ½ % of those
households, they would have to add 15% living units on top of the 50,000 living units.
Mr. Grogan said the city is in elite company in terms of the favorable nature of the map,
and after the first quarter meeting where that number can be made public, citizens and
commissioners will be pleased.
He said that now that we’ll have two competitors, we can expect that Comcast will also
treat some of their information as confidential and we’ll have to have some procedures to
address that. The companies will both be careful about what they release publicly since
they’ll be fighting for market share.
Mr. Grogan then addressed the carriage of public, educational and government (PEG)
channels. The systems are different; Comcast customers can only watch the St. Louis
Park PEG channels, but CenturyLink customers will be able to watch the PEG channels
for the entire metro area, about 200 channels in total. As a result of so many PEG
channels, CenturyLink uses a mosaic channel, a single channel that shows the
government channel, and in a smaller window, all the other PEG channels for the City.
This is the same arrangement as with other cities. Somewhere between channels 14 and
50 will be the mosaic channel for St. Louis Park, and when a viewer picks the “P” or “E”
channel with their remote control, they’ll go straight to that channel which will actually
be on a channel assignment in the 8000’s. Another feature is that the PEG channels will
be available in both standard definition (SD) and high definition (HD), a different
scenario than Comcast.
He said St. Louis Park and Fridley are unique in having a robust video on demand
allocation with Comcast. That’s a precious commodity on the Comcast system, so they
offer up to twenty hours of SD programs or five hours of HD. CenturyLink will offer all
twenty hours in either HD or SD.
Mr. Grogan said that CenturyLink will provide the exact same amount for PEG
equipment capital, $1.12 per customer. He said free service to public buildings is another
key area in the franchise, and more than half of the public buildings will qualify as living
units, served by CenturyLink. The only qualification is that CenturyLink doesn’t want to
go where Comcast is already offering free service. There’s a provision in the franchise
where the City can take a building off the Comcast list so that CenturyLink will have to
serve it, to create parity in the burdens to each company.
Mr. Grogan said if the City awards a franchise to CenturyLink, we’ve asked that
CenturyLink step in to indemnify the City if that franchise is challenged by Comcast or
another provider, which is an obligation Comcast doesn’t have.
Mr. Grogan said, in conclusion, my recommendation is to recommend to the City Council
to award this franchise to CenturyLink.
Commissioner Peterson asked if in the example, the 50,000 represented living units? Mr.
Grogan replied that those were the qualified living units, in the example. Commission er
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4i) Page 4
Title: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2015
Peterson said that at the quarterly meeting then, we’ll find out that number and the 15%
goes on top of that number. Commissioner Peterson asked about the 27 ½ % take rate, to
require additional 15% build out. Mr. Grogan said that’s an aggressive number, and
would show market success.
Commissioner Keeler said the negotiations went well, and the City was well represented.
The issues that came up were related to equity between Comcast and CenturyLink, and
all parties worked diligently to resolve them. He said it has been a very good process and
the City is well protected as we go forward, and that residents would have another option
to Comcast.
Chair Browning said he agreed with Commissioner Keeler, that the process protected
both sides and that having a competitor is a plus. He said that Comcast has had real
issues with customer service, and asked what CenturyLink’s would be like?
Mr. Haggerty said that the two companies were fundamentally different. He said
customer service will be the differentiator in this market, that whether a customer chooses
us or them, it will be based on the service they receive.
Chair Browning asked where the CenturyLink call centers are located, and if any of them
are overseas? Mr. Haggerty said that all of their call centers are in the U.S. and several of
their operations are in Minnesota, with 3,000 employees in the state including call
centers. He said there’s a likelihood that someone calling customer service would get
someone from the Twin City area. Mr. Haggerty said he appreciated the speed of the
process in St. Louis Park.
Commissioner Peterson asked if the existing copper infrastructure would be used to
deliver the service to the first 50,000 households? He said that in the example of 50,000
living units, those have already been brought up to 25 megabits per second using existing
infrastructure. This is a very capital intensive business. He said CenturyLink is putting
together a business case around the country for what networks will look like in the future,
and that will be fiber all the way to the home. He said they have to find a way to
incrementally build that system, and offering Prism is one of the ways to do that.
Commissioner Peterson said he was looking forward to that future, and that he felt better
about the process because Commissioners Browning and Keeler were involved, rather
than just having staff there.
Commissioner Keeler said it’s a good contract and that he recommends that the
Commission approve the contract. Commissioner Peterson made the motion to direct
staff to complete franchise negotiations with CenturyLink and to recommend that the
City Council adopt the proposed franchise ordinance to allow CenturyLink to offer cable
TV services in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Anderson seconded the motion, which
passed 6-0.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by:
Reg Dunlap
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Minutes: 4j
MINUTES
ENVIRONMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMISSION: SUSTAINABLE SLP
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 4, 2015
Community Room, City Hall
MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Anderson, Mark Eilers, Terry Gips, Ryan Griffin; Rachel Harris,
Karen Laumb, Renee McGarvey, Cindy Larson-O’Neil, Nancy Rose, Jayne Stevenson, Judy
Voigt, Paul Zeigle.
EXCUSED ABSENCE: None
STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Pinc and Recording Secretary (Mary Pappas)
GUESTS: Elliot Richert, student (education and action work group); Julie Rappaport, work group
member.
1. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. Introductions were made.
It was noted that the Roots and Shoots fundraiser was a great success. A photo
from the event will be added to the Commission’s Facebook page.
2. The minutes of the October 7, 2015 meeting were approved unanimously.
3. Business/Work Groups
a. Proposed City Council Commission Annual Meeting input & report –
The Commission reviewed comments from each commissioner related to the ESC
on the Annual Meeting with the City Council Program. Shannon will follow up
with Rachel and include her comments also.
Chair Gips recommended all comments be submitted to the Council by Friday,
November 7.
Chair Gips made a motion to assemble the above comments into specific bullet
points within the document and also that Chair Gips and Rachel will review and
then submit the comments to the City Council. Commissioner Rose seconded the
motion, which passed unanimously.
b. Visioning meetings with City Manager -
Chair Gips reported on the meeting with City Manager Harmening, and explained
the main focus was completing the second half of the workshop on Sustainability
and the Natural Step Framework to assess the possibility of it being used as a city-
wide education tool as well as part of a possible visioning process. There was a
lengthy, productive discussion about how it can be used for vision and process.
Terry and Shannon will develop a proposal to be shared with the City Manager and
get his feedback before bringing it back to the Commission. This remains in the
works at present and the City Manager is positive about the work being conducted
presently by the Commission’s work groups. The City Manager feels that the City
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2015
Council should participate in the process and will discuss this further with the new
St. Louis Park mayor and new City Council members.
Chair Gips also noted all work plans will need to be submitted to the City Council
for approval. Once approved, they can be implemented.
c. Plastics & Polystyrene meetings
Chair Gips explained that City Staff presented two proposed ordinances on plastics
and polystyrene, which were discussed at both the Staff and City Council meetings
this week. It was noted that staff were not allowed to share their opinions related
to the proposed ordinances, so no additional input was collected.
He added that ultimately the city is going ahead with the polystyrene policy and a
“bring your own bag” policy has been tabled pending further discussions about a
fee.
The Commission will need to weigh in on this policy and also the idea of a fee for
bags, along with the impact it will have on businesses.
The Commission also discussed fees, incentives, and biodegradable packaging, and
the effects of imposing and using these measures related to polystyrene.
They also discussed the possibility of working with other cities on this policy and
also with Hennepin County, in order to attempt a coordinated, regional effort.
Shannon noted the business responses have been weak and disappointing, stating
the businesses want to work on this; however, no plans were brought forward.
Chair Gips asked the Zero Waste Work Group to take this project on and give
guidance, as the City Council will want guidance from the Commission. Shannon
added that she can be a resource, and if others are interested in working on the
polystyrene position statement, they were asked to let Shannon know.
d. Evening or half day planning retreat; holiday potluck –
The Commission discussed extending the December Commission meeting to two
hours and also the idea of a 2-3 hour retreat session to be held in January 2016.
The Commissioners liked the idea of visioning session and setting priorities.
Chair Gips also noted it will be helpful to talk about strategy and Shannon stated
bylaws can also be updated at the extended meeting, or at the January retreat.
Cindy expressed concern that a retreat would not be an effective use of time, since
work groups had already been focused on priorities in their written plans. She
questioned the goal of a retreat meeting.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 3
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2015
Chair Gips stated a retreat will help the Commission focus on strategy and
priorities, and leave behind regular meeting items. Cindy added more support from
City staff would also be helpful for the Commission.
Ryan noted a solid agenda and input on the agenda, for the retreat, would be helpful.
Renee agreed and added help from an outside facilitator would also be beneficial.
A January retreat date will be explored and brought back to the December meeting
for finalization.
Cindy reiterated she would like to know the goals and proposed outcomes of this
retreat session.
Additionally, the Commission agreed to do a holiday potluck on Dec 2nd, at 6 p.m.,
prior to the start of the next monthly meeting. Commissioners will be asked to bring
potluck items to the meeting.
e. Term limits; Elections, new member orientation –
Shannon presented the term limits that are up at the end of 2015. They include:
Mark, Rachel, Ryan, Terry and Karen. She explained the process if Commissioners
would like another term, is to fill out a form and include a statement of intention
also. Those who want to return are: Rachel and Ryan. Those who do not want to
return are: Mark, Karen and possibly Chair Gips. Paul Zeigle also chose to step
down from the commission.
Additionally, elections for Chair and Vice Chair will need to be conducted.
Shannon can preside over this with ballots, if needed. She asked anyone interested
in these positions to email her and voting will take place at the first or second
meeting of 2016. New commissioners are to begin their terms in January.
She also noted that new member orientation will be would be beneficial. Plans for
this can be discussed further at the January retreat.
Chair Gips also noted he would like to challenge the policy that middle school
students cannot be on the commission. Shannon will assist Chair Gips in making
this known to City Staff.
f. Water, Land, Wildlife- final plan approval-
The Commissioners discussed several changes to the final plan.
Commissioner Anderson made a motion to approve the plan with the noted
changes. Commissioner Griffin seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.
g. Education and Action – Chair Gips noted this topic will be tabled until the next
meeting due to shortage of time to discuss.
Julie did note that Seeds is applying for a grant for education and organics recycling
from Hennepin County Green Partners in amount of $8000.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 4
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2015
Seeds is now a non-profit and has filed with state of MN. This grant will help
support the group and also events related to Earth Day.
A letter of support and commitment of time from the Commission was needed.
Commissioner Griffin made a motion that the commission writes and sends a letter
to Green Partners in support of the grant application for Seeds in the amount of
$8000, for a Green Partners roots grant. Chair Gips seconded the motion, which
passed unanimously.
h. Energy –
The next Partners In Energy meeting is Thursday and the focus areas are youth,
renewable energy, and business. The group will be strategizing on these items. The
PACE financing group is helping establish at business liaison, and is also working
on reducing energy usage, while moving forward on solar ideas also. The will be
considering an energy assessment on the St. Louis Park police station, and
exploring tools and options for a package.
i. Zero Waste – a fundraiser was held, which generated $1217 net, and 325 bags of
compost were sold. The fundraiser was publicized well and was very successful.
Thanks to all who worked on it. SEEDS students benefitted from the fundraiser.
j. Transportation – A meeting was held related to the idea of protected bike lanes on
Dakota Avenue in St. Louis Park. The discussion centered on using the whole
length of Dakota Ave and road treatment. Public interest and momentum is
growing, as well as support from citizens, and how to add protected bike lanes to
Dakota Ave. Another meeting will be held next Tuesday at Park Yogurt.
k. Communications – A subset of the group met about how to launch and sustain the
Commission’s FB and Twitter accounts. One volunteer from the Commission, and
a volunteer citizen, will be need to assist with this process. Shannon can receive,
edit, help write and sustain posts about the Commission’s work and work group
information. Each Commission will also need to be trained to send information to
the designated person and/or Shannon. More information will be presented at the
December meeting by the work group.
l. GreenStepCities – a conference call with PCA GreenStep Advisor Anne Gelbmann
is scheduled for November 16 to learn about reporting procedures and rating
evaluations.
m. Other business
i. Two-year City Council goals – Chair Gips thanked and acknowledged
Nancy for reading the City Council agenda and minutes on a regular basis
so that she could alert the Commission that this was being approved. Chair
Gips submitted comments to the City Manager expressing concerns that the
Commission wasn’t engaged in the process, that many key aspects of the
Commission’s work were left out and that the goals should be open to
revision. The City Manager responded favorably to each of the concerns
and said the process in the future will include the Commission and that the
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 4j) Page 5
Title: Environment and Sustainability Commission: Sustainable SLP Meeting Minutes of November 4, 2015
goals can be amended. Chair Gips explained that the goals had to be put
together quickly and that there will be a better process going forward.
ii. Westwood Hills Nature Center – The will be getting a new building, and
the Commission will be notified during this process. Additionally, currently
there is no policy on land use or vegetation, and there is concern because
the Center is planting non-native vegetation. There will be several
upcoming public meetings regarding the plans and commissioners are
encouraged to attend.
iii. Upcoming events –
Nov 12 – EPA meeting and Partners in Energy meeting, west metro
meeting on Climate, notify Shannon if a table and representation is
needed.
Dec 1st – 2015 Metro Summit for Lake and River Groups.
Jan 28 - Climate Adaptation Conference.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Budget, Final City and HRA Property Tax Levies, and 2016 – 2025 Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2016 Budgets and 2016 Final Property Tax Levy.
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the 2016 Final HRA Levy.
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the 2016 - 2025 Capital Improvement Program.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council desire to approve the 2016 Budgets for General, Enterprise, Internal
Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital Projects Funds?
Does the City Council desire to set the 2016 Final Property Tax Levy at $28,604,474 which
is an increase of $1,619,097 or approximately 6.00% over the 2015 Final Tax Levy?
Does the City Council desire to levy the maximum 2016 HRA Levy allowed of $1,011,208
which is an increase of $57,970 or approximately 6.08% over the 2015 Final HRA Levy?
Does the City Council desire to approve the 2016 – 2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)?
SUMMARY: Information pertaining to the adoption of the 2016 Budgets, 2016 General
Property Tax Levy, 2016 HRA Levy, and 2016 – 2025 CIP is attached. Also provided is the
City tax impact to a residential property for Council to consider. In addition, there is a brief
discussion on 2016 utility rates that were approved on October 19, 2015, and the overall impact
to property owners when considering the City share of property taxes and fee adjustments.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed tax levies and approved
utility rates will help support necessary City services, capital improvements, and debt service
obligations for Fiscal Year 2016.
VISION CONSIDERATION: All Vision areas are taken into consideration and are an
important part of the City’s budgeting process.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution - 2016 Budgets and 2016 Final Property Tax Levy
Resolution - Authorizing the 2016 Final HRA Levy
Resolution – Adopting the 2016 – 2025 CIP
2016 – 2025 CIP Projects by Funding Source Summary
2016 – 2025 CIP Projects and Funding Sources by Dept.
Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2015, staff met with the City Council to discuss the 2016
Budget Process. Council agreed that staff should follow recommendations from the “2016
Budget Production Guidelines” when preparing the 2016 Budget. Assumptions for the 2016
Budget included a pattern similar to past years; 1) a levy increase, 2) modest increase in other
fees and charges where appropriate to fit with business costs, 3) maintain high quality and
responsive service delivery, 4) hold expenditures flat where possible with adjustments for some
modest growth based on essential business needs, 5) funding for a wage and benefit contribution
increase, 6) utility rate increases, and 7) continued long range financial planning.
At the August 24th and September 8th, 2015 City Council Study Sessions, the City Council
reviewed information from the staff report and subsequently directed staff to prepare a 2016
Preliminary Property Tax Levy increase of 6.50% when compared to the 2015 Final Property
Tax Levy. In addition, the City Council directed staff to proceed with preparing the 2016
Preliminary HRA Levy at the maximum allowed by state statute, due to the significant
infrastructure projects currently in progress and scheduled per the 2016 – 2025 Capital
Improvement Plan. Council also directed staff to proceed with utility rate adjustments, which
will both be brought back on October 19th for approval, in order to take effect in 2016.
On September 8th, the EDA and City Council adopted and 2016 Preliminary HRA Levy
$1,011,208, which is approximately 6.08% or $57,970 over the 2015 Final HRA Levy. On
September 21st, the City Council adopted the 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy of
$28,738,974, which is approximately 6.50% or $1,753,597 over the 2015 Final Property Tax Levy.
On October 12th, based on direction from the City Council, staff looked at both revenue
enhancements and expenditure reductions, and as such brought back a levy increase of 5.50%
instead of the 6.50% increase, which is a $269,000 reduction from the 2016 Preliminary Property
Tax Levy that was adopted on September 21st. Upon further discussion that evening, Council
asked staff to prepare tax impacts based on both a 5.50% and 6.00% tax levy increase.
Therefore, at the October 26th and November 9th meetings, Council reviewed information and
directed staff to proceed with presenting information at the budget hearing based on a 6.00%
property tax levy increase when compared to 2015 Final Property Tax Levy. Based on the
outcome of the budget presentation and the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing, council directed
staff to proceed with the budgets and tax levies as proposed. Therefore, formal adoption of the
2016 Budget, 2016 Final Levy adoption for the City and HRA levies, and the 2016 – 2025
Capital Improvement Plan are scheduled for this evening.
2015 City Final Levy, 2016 Preliminary Adopted Levies and General Fund Budget
A synopsis of prior year levy information and the 2016 Proposed Preliminary Levies and General
Fund Budget is shown below:
1. The 2015 Final Levy was $26,985,377, which was 5.50% or $1,407,469 more than 2014.
2. The 2016 Preliminary Property Tax Levy was adopted on September 21st at $28,738,974,
which is approximately 6.50% or $1,753,597 more than the 2015 Final Levy.
3. The Proposed 2016 General Fund Budget is $34,082,737, which is an increase of
approximately 4.47% or $1,458,299 compared to the 2015 Adopted Budget.
4. The 2016 Preliminary HRA Levy adopted on September 8, 2015, is $1,011,208, which is
an increase of approximately 6.08% or $57,970 compared to the 2015 Final HRA Levy.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
The proposed breakdown of the 6.00% Final Property Tax Levy by fund is shown below:
2015 2016 Dollar Change Percent Change
Final Proposed From 2015 From 2015
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund $22,364,509 $23,597,282 1,232,773$ 5.51%
Debt Service - Current 1,423,161 1,517,667 94,506 6.64%
Debt Service - Future - 477,825 477,825 N/A
Capital Replacement Fund 1,442,700 1,767,700 325,000 22.53%
Park Improvement Fund 810,000 810,000 - 0.00%
Sidewalk and Trails Fund 645,007 - (645,007) -100.00%
Employee Administration Fund 200,000 200,000 - 0.00%
Housing Rehab Fund 100,000 100,000 - 0.00%
Discretion of City Council - 134,000 134,000 N/A
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $26,985,377 $28,604,474 $1,619,097 6.00%
The 2016 Proposed Property Tax Levy increase of 6.00% is consistent with the information
presented at the Truth in Taxation Public Hearing December 7, 2015.
2016 HRA Levy
This levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which
significantly reduced future tax increment revenues. The City Council elected at that time to use
the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. Thus far, some
of the HRA Levy proceeds have been used to fund infrastructure studies, analyses for future
improvement projects and to pay for the City’s share of Highway 7 and Louisiana. By law, these
funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes, but they are committed
to funding Highway 7 and Louisiana until 2021 based on the current Long Range Financial
Management Plan. Given the significant infrastructure needs facing the City in the future, staff
recommends the HRA Levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2016 budget year.
The HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the City. Therefore,
staff has calculated the maximum HRA Levy for 2016 to be $1,011,208 based on valuation data
from Hennepin County. This is an increase of $57,970 or 6.08% from 2015. The EDA is
allowed to authorize the HRA levy and then forward this recommendation to the City Council.
2016 Budgets
Monday night the City Council will consider a resolution for adoption that includes summary
budget data for the General, Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue, and select Capital
Projects Funds. These summaries are consistent with previous years, as staff thought it was
important to continue showing a more comprehensive picture of the resources the City is
entrusted with and, subsequently, have the City Council formally adopt these budgets.
Therefore, the total expenditures that the City Council adopts for budget purposes is
approximately $63.04 million, with $34.1 million or 54.09% attributed to the General Fund with
the remaining $28.94 million or 45.91% attributed to the other funds.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
2016 – 2025 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
The City Council reviewed the 2016 – 2025 CIP at study sessions throughout the 2016 Budget
process. The CIP will continue to have aggressive infrastructure construction. This is evident
with the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue interchange project that was completed in 2015,
Highway 100 improvements that began in late 2014, and aggressive work on city owned utility
infrastructure. In addition, continued investment in the regular cycle of street reconstruction
projects and the replacement of existing vehicles and equipment is occurring. Therefore, it is
vital that careful planning continues to occur in an effort to maintain financial stability while still
investing in capital.
The 2016 – 2025 CIP shows that:
$198 million in planned investment over the next ten years
$181 million of these costs are being paid for from sources or revenue streams the City has
direct control of such as cash on hand, tax levy dollars, utility rates, future bonding, etc.
$17 million of this is planned as non-City resources such as federal, and state government,
Municipal State Aid (MSA), (not all of these dollars have been committed by these
entities). Also, $6.9 million of CIP projects do not have an identified funding source.
Only those projects included in the CIP for 2016 are authorized during the next year. Years 2017
- 2025 are for planning purposes only and do not in all cases represent a firm commitment to
construct or purchase any specific assets until authorized by the City Council. Any projects
estimated to cost more than $100,000 will be formally bid and brought back for acceptance by
the City Council.
Utility Funds
The changes in utility rates for 2016 were formally adopted by the City Council on October 19,
2015 for consumption or services provided beginning on January 1, 2016. These rates are
consistent with the goal of achieving long-term sustainability in the funds. Detailed information
is included in the attachment “2016 Proposed Rates – Impact on a Residential Property”. For
2016, the approximate cumulative effect on a typical residential property for all the utility rate
adjustments would be an increase of $61 per year, or approximately $5.08 per month. This
equates to an approximate 5.95% overall increase in utility rates for 2016 when compared to
2015. This calculation is based on a family of four using 30 units of water per quarter (22,500
gallons), and 60 gallon solid waste service which is consistent with prior scenarios presented.
Estimated City Impact for 2016 on Taxes and Utilities
Based on a 6.00% levy increase and realizing there are many variables in estimating the City
impact on a residential homestead property, a “typical” property in St. Louis Park valued at
approximately $226,600 for taxes payable in 2016 and having typical utilities as discussed earlier
in the report, would experience an overall increase of approximately $6.44 per month or
approximately $77.23 for the entire year. Of this estimated $77.23 increase, approximately
$16.47 would be attributed to the City’s share of property taxes, and $60.76 to utility rate
adjustments.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2016 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, 2016 BUDGETS
AND
AUTHORIZING THE 2016 FINAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax
levy and a budget in December of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the 2016 General Fund Budget and 2016 Budgets are adopted as presented in the 2016
budget document; and
Summary of Budgeted Revenues
2015 2016 Dollar Chng. % Change
Adopted Adopted 2015 to 2016 2015 to 2016
AVAILABLE RESOURCES
General Fund Revenues:
General Property Taxes 22,364,509$ 23,597,282$ 1,232,773 5.51%
Licenses and Permits 3,248,158 3,496,177 248,019 7.64%
Intergovernmental 1,292,277 1,419,017 126,740 9.81%
Charges for Services 1,907,292 1,956,593 49,301 2.58%
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 320,200 341,200 21,000 6.56%
Investment Earnings 140,000 140,000 - 0.00%
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,500,243 1,259,887 (240,356) -16.02%
Transfers In 1,851,759 1,872,581 20,822 1.12%
Total General Fund Revenues:32,624,438$ 34,082,737$ 1,458,299 4.47%
General Fund
Summary of Budgeted Expenditures
2015 2016 Dollar Chng. % Change
Adopted Adopted 2015 to 2016 2015 to 2016
General Government 8,271,762 8,657,073 385,311 4.66%
Public Safety 14,373,278 14,944,889 571,611 3.98%
Operations and Recreation 9,801,414 10,214,056 412,642 4.21%
Non-Departmental 177,984 266,719 88,735 49.86%
Total General Fund 32,624,438$ 34,082,737$ 1,458,299 4.47%
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
2015 2016
Final Proposed
HRA Levy Fund
Total HRA Levy Revenues 953,238$ 1,011,427$
Total HRA Levy Expenditures 3,079,980 966,041
Cable TV Fund
Total Cable TV Revenues 666,000 664,000
Total Cable TV Expenditures 811,967 788,483
Development Fund
Total Development Fund Revenues 3,221,149 6,693,125
Total Development Fund Expenditures 2,578,759 1,873,635
CDBG Fund
Total CDBG Revenues 199,308 179,000
Total CDBG Expenditures 199,308 179,000
Housing Rehabilitation Fund
Total Housing Rehab Revenues 1,412,623 1,311,952
Total Housing Rehab Expenditures 783,802 720,839
Water Utility Fund
Total Water Revenues 6,047,498 6,232,419
Total Water Expenses 6,883,012 8,099,290
Sewer Utility Fund
Total Sewer Revenues 6,264,288 6,444,588
Total Sewer Expenses 7,678,139 7,457,019
Solid Waste Utility Fund
Total Solid Waste Revenues 3,266,600 3,417,200
Total Solid Waste Expenses 3,233,902 3,453,974
Storm Water Utility Fund
Total Storm Water Revenues 2,493,275 2,741,638
Total Storm Water Expenses 6,024,656 4,197,994
Employee Administration Fund
Total Employee Benefits Revenues 597,660 512,500
Total Employee Benefits Expenses 981,400 1,023,000
Uninsured Loss Fund
Total Uninsured Loss Revenues 183,400 182,000
Total Uninsured Loss Expenses 172,499 179,794
Enterprise, Internal Service, Special Revenue
Summary of Budgeted Revenues and Expenditures
and Select Capital Project Funds
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2015, collectible in
2016 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
2016
FINAL TAX LEVY
2016 TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY
General Fund $23,597,282
Debt Service - Current 1,517,667
Debt Service - Future 477,825
Capital Replacement Fund 1,767,700
Park Improvement Fund 810,000
Employee Administration Fund 200,000
Housing Rehab Fund 100,000
Discretion of City Council 134,000
TOTAL TAX LEVIES $28,604,474
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2016 FINAL HRA LEVY
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of
the powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the
Minnesota Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable
market value of the City; and
WHEREAS, for 2016, the Final HRA Levy amount will be $1,011,208; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2016,
such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the
limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIP
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE 2016 - 2025
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a
report from the Controller related to proposed capital spending for 2016 - 2025; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the city to maintain and replace its capital stock in order to
enhance the city’s attractiveness to residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, good planning is a necessary part of the stewardship that the City Council
and staff exercise over the physical plant of the city;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, MN, that:
1. The 2016 - 2025 Capital Improvements Program is hereby adopted.
2. The City Manager is authorized to purchase or undertake the items included in the fiscal year
2016 funded portion of the plan as allowed by the City Charter and state statutes.
3. All purchases required to be competitively bid must come before the City Council for final
approval.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Capital Improvement ProgramCity of St. Louis Park, MNFUNDING SOURCE SUMMARY2016 2025thruTotal2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Source2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant714,100324,750 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400Capital Replacement Fund35,218,8343,507,981 3,261,176 2,665,928 8,111,935 3,723,769 2,581,553 3,570,302 3,093,832 2,366,483 2,335,875E-911 Funds664,31637,391 111,325 36,325 106,325 36,325 36,325 116,325 36,325 111,325 36,325EDA Development Fund235,000235,000G.O. Bonds28,890,7901,745,397 1,621,959 5,145,333 11,365,601 5,747,000 1,913,000 1,052,500 100,000 100,000 100,000Hockey Association1,041,660104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166HRA Levy1,012,5421,012,542Municipal State Aid14,328,000882,000 1,522,000 1,770,000 3,381,000 908,000 816,500 908,500 1,380,000 1,380,000 1,380,000Park Improvement Fund16,797,5005,888,500 1,690,000 1,543,000 1,051,000 1,183,500 1,097,000 877,500 1,095,000 1,412,000 960,000Pavement Management Fund26,226,4082,162,500 3,324,250 2,547,370 2,233,750 2,951,788 3,198,250 2,105,750 2,564,250 2,564,250 2,574,250Police & Fire Pension3,026,317713,385 275,000 450,432 256,500 182,000 33,000 150,000 106,500 589,500 270,000PW Engineering Budget68,00065,000 3,000PW Operations Budget3,644,901356,388 362,364 322,605 375,547 343,008 347,489 357,500 405,500 360,500 414,000Reilly Industries17,50017,500Sanitary Sewer Utility8,481,5031,930,728 721,333 777,769 791,333 796,001 808,335 779,001 809,001 829,001 239,001Solid Waste Utility120,83164,39536,436 10,00010,000Special Assessments2,944,625121,000 675,625 158,00030,000 690,0001,200,000 70,000State of Minnesota1,040,0001,040,000Stormwater Utility10,679,5013,498,062 1,441,667 781,103 718,667 543,667 1,574,667 577,667 859,667 348,667 335,667Tax Increment - Elmwood3,026,5093,026,509Tax Increment Financing75,00075,000U.S. Government800,000800,000Unfunded6,900,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 6,100,000 100,000Water Utility27,332,7411,612,976 3,501,332 1,885,768 2,091,832 2,218,999 3,906,334 2,394,000 2,456,000 4,712,500 2,553,00023,184,619 19,597,447 23,482,38630,780,25619,153,623193,286,578GRAND TOTAL17,206,619 13,093,211 13,110,241 22,205,892 11,472,284Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 10
Capital Improvement ProgramCity of St. Louis Park, MNPROJECTS & FUNDING SOURCES BY DEPARTMENT2016 2025thruTotal2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Buildings3115000130,000City Hall Garage Overhead Doors30,00031160001100,000City Hall Roof Top AC Units (two units)100,0003116000320,000City Hall Garage Unit Heaters20,00031170001300,000City Hall Council Chambers Remodel300,0003117000230,000City Hall Remodel 2nd and 3rd floor restrooms30,0003119000115,000City Hall Electric Vehicle Charger15,0003120000160,000City Hall Timber Retaining Walls60,00031210001City Hall/Police Campus Landscaping15,00015,00031230001City Hall ITE & Gould Elect Panel Replacement25,00025,00031250001CH Windows, Wall Coatings and Caulking Replacement200,000200,0003216000220,000PD Dispatch Kitchen Remodel20,0003217000160,000Police Station replace boiler system60,00032180002Police Station - Replace office furnishings210,000210,00032180004Police Station Concrete Sidewalk15,00015,00032190001Police Station Remodel Restrooms75,00075,0003219000245,000Police StationShooting Range Exhaust45,000322000017,000Police Station Water Heaters7,00032230001Police Station Replace Light Fixtures80,00080,00032230003Police- Replace Ceiling Tiles40,00040,0003314000215,00015,000MSC & Fire Stations CO Nox Sensor Replacement75,00015,00015,00015,0003316000120,000MSC Bay'sConvert HVAC to Digital Controls20,0003317000120,000MSC Convert Exterior HID to LED20,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 11
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20257,804,000175,000 537,000 65,000 5,340,000 317,000Capital Replacement Fund340,000 425,000 195,000 165,000 245,0007,804,000175,000 537,000 65,000 5,340,000 317,000Buildings Total340,000 425,000 195,000 165,000 245,0003317000275,000MSC Service Bay Sealant and Stripping75,0003317000312,000MSC Manual Wash Replacement12,00033180001MSC Service Bays-Striping0033180002MSC Fuel Station Pump Controls25,00025,0003319000115,000MSC Air Compressor Replacement15,0003319000250,000MSC 3rd Bay Sealant and Stripping50,00033190003180,000MSC Car Wash Unit Replace with Automatic180,0003320000350,000MSC 2nd Bay-Sealant50,00033210001MSC 2nd Floor Office Carpeting/Floor Covering15,00015,00033210002MSC Paint Booth Maintenance25,00025,00033220001MSC Bays 1, 2 & 3 Roofing400,000400,00033220002MSC Campus Landscaping10,00010,00033240001MSC Interior Light Fixtures Replacment100,000100,00033250001MSC Fuel Station Replacement50,00050,00034160002100,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Apparatus bay floor coating100,0003416000320,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Garage Door Loops Closing Sys20,00034180001Fire Station 1 & 2 audio/visual replacements10,00010,0003419000150,000Fire Station #1 Training Tower modifications50,0003424001FS #1 and #2 Carpet Replacement35,00035,00035240001Fire Station #1 and #2 Landscaping15,00015,0003525001Fire Station #2 Replace light fixtures45,00045,000361900025,000,000Westwood Naturce Center new building5,000,0003717000160,000Rec Center Remodel Offices60,0007,804,000175,000 537,000 65,000 5,340,000 317,000Buildings Total340,000 425,000 195,000 165,000 245,000Cable TV11151001120,000Van Cameras120,0001115100220,000Van Camera Cases20,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 12
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20251115100313,000Van Camera Cables13,0001115100415,000LCD monitors15,000111510052,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder2,500111510066,000Converter for Recorder6,0001115100736,000Tripods for On Location36,0001115100816,500Video Switcher16,500111510094,200SD/HD converter4,200111510101,500DVD recorders1,500111520028,500Server for channel 968,5001115200445,000Community Room video production equipment45,00011161001750Announcer Headsets75011161002500Shotgun mics50011161003300Hand-held mics3001116100435,000Replacement edit systems35,000111710012,000Wireless mic systems2,000111710027,000CG7,00011171003250CD Player250111720061,000Announcer intercom,1,00011181001300-foot audio snake & reel2,0002,00011181002Announcer Monitor3003001118100350-foot audio snake40040011181004Behringer Audio Equipment1,5001,50011181005Camcorders7,5007,50011181006DVD recorders1,5001,50011181007Unit pro light kit90090011191001500DVD Recorders5001119100230,000Slow-motion replay30,0001119100370012-channel audio mixer70011191004500Shotgun mics50011191005300Hand-held mics3001119100610,200NLE stations10,20011191007900Microphones900111910081,500Tripods1,5001119100935,000Replacement edit systems35,00011201001120,000Van Cameras120,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 13
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 2025714,100324,750 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400Cable TV - Time Warner Equipment Grant714,100324,750 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400Cable TV Total1120100220,000Van Camera Cases20,0001120100313,000Van Camera Cables13,0001120100415,000LCD monitors15,0001120100515,000Studio cameras15,00011201006900Microphones90011201007900Camera monitors900112010082,500Hard-Drive Video Recorder2,500112010096,000Conveter for Recorder6,0001120101036,000Tripods for On Location36,000112010114,200SD/HD converter4,2001120101216,500Video Switcher16,500112010131,500DVD recorder1,5001120101428,200Playback systems28,200112010154,500Production switcher4,500112010161,200Teleprompter1,200714,100324,750 10,250 14,100 79,600 285,400Cable TV TotalEngineering401440002,250,000 650,000Storm Water- Bass Lake Preserve Rehab2,900,00040151600121,000 110,00037,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project564,000158,0005,500 10,0002,000 120,00040154001300,000Storm Water- MCWD Cold Storage Site300,00040160003463,500Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB463,500401610002,964,250Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)2,964,25040161100782,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Flag & Quentin)782,00040161200269,388Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)269,3884016130047,50046,500Traffic Signal - Repl Control Cabinets146,50052,50040162000917,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2016917,00040163000420,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 420,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 14
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20255)40164000500,000Storm Water- Walker Pond Expansion500,00040170003279,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250401710006,144,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)6,144,00040171001431,250Street - Reconstruction (Utica Avenue)431,250401711001,119,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Louisiana Ave)1,119,50040171101402,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas S of Mtka)402,50040171200642,364Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2 & 3)642,3644017130075,000Traffic Signal- CLR at Louisiana75,000401717001,150,000Bridge - W 37th St @ Minnehaha Creek1,150,000401720001,223,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 20171,223,00040173000440,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 6)440,00040174000450,000Storm Water- Louisiana Oaks Pond Rehab450,00040175000275,000Water- Rehab WTP 16 Reservior275,00040180003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250279,25040181000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)4,223,5004,223,50040181100Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR W of Lou)1,380,0001,380,00040181200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)272,105272,10540181600Parking Lot - City Hall East110,000110,00040181601Parking Lot - MSC70,62070,62040181700Bridge - Louisiana Ave @ Minnehaha Creek1,495,0001,495,00040182000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 20184,962,0004,962,00040183000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 7)460,000460,00040184000Storm Water- Oregon Pond Basin Rehab400,000400,00040186000Street- W36th Street Reconstruction2,039,0512,039,05140186001Street- Wooddale Ave Reconstruction2,000,0002,000,00040190003279,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250401910003,269,000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)3,269,000401911001,380,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (CLR E of Lou)1,380,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 15
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 2025401911011,000,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Ottawa)1,000,500401911021,000,500Street - MSA Street Rehab (Beltline Blvd)1,000,50040191200278,047Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 5)278,047401920006,214,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 20196,214,00040193000480,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 8)480,00040194000270,000Storm Water- Browndale Pond Rehab270,0004019400190,000Storm Water- Sumter Pond Rehab90,00040195000935,000Water - Recoat Reservoir 2 @ WTP #6935,000401970003,000Street - Excelsior Blvd Resurfacing3,00040199000150,2303,978,228SWLRT- Base Design4,128,4584019900168,617SWLRT- LRCI- Trail (Louisiana to Wooddale)68,61740199002382,607SWLRT- LRCI- Xenwood Underpass382,60740199003126,943990,040SWLRT- LRCI- CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.1,116,98340200003279,250Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250402010005,158,500Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)5,158,50040201100808,000Street - MSA Street Rehab (Texas Ave N of Mtka)808,00040201200284,008Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 6)284,00840201300100,000Railroad - Whistle Quiet Zones100,0004020160038,588Parking Lot - City Hall Lower38,5884020160117,850Parking Lot - Fire Stn #117,8504020160212,600Parking Lot - Fire Stn #212,600402020005,647,000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 20205,647,00040203000510,000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 1)510,00040204000109,000Storm Water- Lamplighter Pond Rehab109,00040204001109,000Storm Water- Otten Pond Rehab109,00040210003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250279,25040211000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 1)5,519,0005,519,00040211100Street - MSA Street Rehab (W28th St)816,500816,50040211101Street - MSA Street Rehab (Edgewood/Cambridge)690,000690,00040211200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 289,989289,989Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 16
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20257)40212000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 20211,813,0001,813,00040213000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 2)520,000520,00040214000Storm Water- Twin Lakes Sed Basin Rehab1,242,0001,242,00040215000Water- Recoat Elevated Water Tower #21,540,0001,540,00040220003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250279,25040221000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 2)4,476,5004,476,50040221100Street - MSA Street Rehab (Shelard Pkwy)908,500908,50040221200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)290,000290,00040222000CTP! Sidewalk - Trail - Bikeway Installations 2022952,500952,50040223000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 3)540,000540,00040224000Storm Water- Westdale Sed Basin Rehab248,000248,00040230003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250279,25040231000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 3)4,975,0004,975,00040231100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)1,380,0001,380,00040231200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)300,000300,00040233000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 4)570,000570,00040234000Storm Water- Cedar Manor Lake Rehab528,000528,00040240003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250279,25040241000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)5,025,0005,025,00040241100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)1,380,0001,380,00040241200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)300,000300,00040243000Sanitary Sewer- Mainline Rehab (Area 5)580,000580,00040244000Storm Water- Flood Area #241,200,0001,200,00040246000Street - I394 Ramp / CD Road Improvement3,000,0003,000,00040247000Street - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)3,000,0003,000,00040250003Concrete Replacement- SW-C&G-CB279,250279,25040251000Street - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)5,025,0005,025,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 17
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 202527,640,7901,645,397 1,438,625 4,962,000 11,182,268 5,647,000G.O. Bonds1,813,000 952,5001,012,5421,012,542HRA Levy14,228,000782,000 1,522,000 1,770,000 3,381,000 908,000Municipal State Aid816,500 908,500 1,380,000 1,380,000 1,380,00026,226,4082,162,500 3,324,250 2,547,370 2,233,750 2,951,788Pavement Management Fund3,198,250 2,105,750 2,564,250 2,564,250 2,574,25068,00065,000 3,000PW Engineering Budget1,702,401186,888 187,364 142,105 189,547 151,508PW Operations Budget150,489 155,000 197,500 147,000 195,00017,500Reilly Industries17,5006,720,000640,000 660,000 680,000 700,000 730,000Sanitary Sewer Utility740,000 760,000 790,000 800,000 220,0002,944,625121,000 675,625 158,000 30,000Special Assessments690,0001,200,000 70,0001,040,0001,040,000State of Minnesota9,951,0003,380,000 1,375,000 675,000 635,000 493,000Stormwater Utility1,517,000 523,000 803,000 275,000 275,0003,026,5093,026,509Tax Increment - Elmwood75,00075,000Tax Increment Financing800,000800,000U.S. Government6,000,000Unfunded6,000,00025,487,250845,250 3,334,000 1,771,000 1,889,500 2,200,000Water Utility3,790,000 2,300,000 2,350,000 4,607,500 2,400,000126,940,0259,763,035 13,391,864 17,849,526 20,214,065 13,111,296Engineering Total12,715,239 7,704,750 8,084,750 16,991,250 7,114,25040251100Street - MSA Street Rehab (TBD)1,380,0001,380,00040251200Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)310,000310,00053245500Water Project - WTP #6 GAC Upgrade2,190,0002,190,00053245501Reilly Site - Install Monitor Well (W413)35,00035,000126,940,0259,763,035 13,391,864 17,849,526 20,214,065 13,111,296Engineering Total12,715,239 7,704,750 8,084,750 16,991,250 7,114,250Fire6516000187,000SCBA Fill Stations87,0006517000177,300SCBA Radio Integration77,30065180001UAV10,00010,000659900018,000 8,0008,000Thermal Imagers88,00016,0008,000 8,0008,000 16,0008,0006599000220,00020,000Outside Warning Sirens80,00020,00020,00065990003324,594SCBA697,877373,28365990004Hydraulic Rescue Tool30,00030,0006599000532,00032,000Auto-CPR Device64,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 18
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20251,527,427549,844 197,300 26,000 33,500 32,000Capital Replacement Fund178,000 14,000 436,283 8,000 52,5001,527,427549,844 197,300 26,000 33,500 32,000Fire Total178,000 14,000 436,283 8,000 52,50065990006125,000Turnouts275,000150,0006599000730,000Helmets/Boots65,00035,000659900085,2505,500Air Monitors23,2506,0006,5006599000930,000AED's30,0001,527,427549,844 197,300 26,000 33,500 32,000Fire Total178,000 14,000 436,283 8,000 52,500Operations & Recreation201300805,000 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)10,0002020xxxx0Parking Lot Seal Coat - Oak Hill Park020225007Rec Center Arenas Rubber Floor Replacement250,000250,0002023xxoxParking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park002023xxxxParking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park002116020117,000Aquila Park Building Locks and Security Camera17,0002116110360,000Carpenter Park Ball Field Fence Replacement60,0002116130412,000Cedar Knoll Park/Carlson Field Scoreboard12,0002116270648,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Jersey Park48,5002116290748,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Justad Park48,5002116361834,000Louisiana Oaks Park Bldg Cameras & Door Lock Add.34,0002116420558,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Nelson Park58,5002116442013,500Trail Seal Coat - Oak Hill Park13,5002116522040,000Trail Reconstruction - Shelard Park40,0002116640898,500Playground Eqpt Repl - Wolfe Park98,5002116642113,500Trail Seal Coat - Wolfe Park13,5002116642516,000Trail Lights (LED) at Wolfe Park16,00021170302450,000Aquila Park Fields 1-4 Lights and Poles Upgrade450,0002117050760,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Bass Lake Park60,0002117210617,500Parking Lot Seal Coat - Fern Hill Park17,5002117440220,000Oak Hill Park Additional Shelter near 20,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 19
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Splash Pad2117440460,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Feature Replacement60,0002117442250,000Oak Hill Park Central Shelter Replacement50,0002117490850,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Rainbow Park50,0002117580960,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Twin Lakes Park60,0002117592110,000Victoria Lake Landscaping10,0002117611060,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Webster Park60,0002117642410,000Wolfe Park Pergola Work10,0002117991930,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails30,00021180301Court Resurface (BB) Aquila Park7,5007,50021180305Parking Lot Resurface - Aquila Park35,00035,00021180321Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park7,0007,00021180611Playground Eqpt Repl - Birchwood Park62,50062,50021180622Repaint Park Building - Birchwood Park7,0007,00021181023Repaint Park Building - Browndale Park7,0007,00021181124Repaint Park Building - Carpenter Park6,0006,00021181306Parking Lot Resurface - Cedar Knoll Park8,0008,00021181325Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll Park2,0002,00021181707Parking Lot Resurface - Creekside Park8,0008,00021181826Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park4,0004,00021182127Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park5,0005,00021183628Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks Park7,0007,00021184208Parking Lot Resurface - Nelson Park8,0008,00021184229Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park7,0007,00021184309Parking Lot Resurface - Northside Park35,00035,00021184312Playground Eqpt Repl - Northside Park62,50062,50021184330Repaint Park Building - Northside Park6,0006,00021184431Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park9,0009,00021185102Court Resurface (BB) Roxbury Park2,0002,00021185113Playground Eqpt Repl - Roxbury Park62,50062,50021185203Court Resurface (BB) Shelard Park2,0002,00021185214Playground Eqpt Repl - Shelard Park62,50062,500Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 20
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 202521186210Parking Lot Resurface - Westwood Hills NC35,00035,00021186404Court Resurface (BB) Wolfe Park3,0003,0002119030420,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Aquila Park20,0002119061310,000Trail Reconstruction - Birchwood Park10,0002119071410,000Trail Reconstruction - Jordan Trail10,0002119100285,000Browndale Park Hockey Rink Lights85,0002119180520,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Dakota Park20,0002119181575,000Trail Reconstruction - Dakota Park75,0002119211645,000Trail Reconstruction - Fern Hill Park45,0002119540665,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunshine Park65,0002119560765,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Texa-Tonka Park65,0002119630865,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Willow Park65,0002119990120,000ADA Connections to Picnic Shelter/Playgrounds20,0002119991730,000Trail Sealcoat - Various Trails30,0002120041913,500Trail Seal Coat - Bass Lake13,5002120091215,000Trail Reconstruction - Bronx Park15,0002120301320,000Trail Reconstruction - Keystone Park20,0002120431420,000Trail Reconstruction - Northside Park20,0002120450265,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Oregon Park65,0002120540365,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Sunset Park65,00021206204100,000Playground Eqpt Repl - Westwood Hills NC100,0002120990115,000ADA Compliance Picnic Tables15,00021210411Trail Reconstruction - Bass Lake Park100,000100,00021211712Playground Eqpt Repl - Parkview Park60,00060,00021213614Trail Reconstruction - Louisiana Oaks Park65,00065,00021213801Playground Eqpt Repl - Meadowbrook Manor Park60,00060,00021214002Playground Eqpt Repl - Minikahda Vista Park60,00060,00021214415Trail Reconstruction - Oak Hill Park75,00075,00021214803Playground Eqpt Repl - Pennsylvania Park60,00060,00021216416Trail Reconstruction - Wolfe Park85,00085,00021219912Trail Reconstruction - Franklin45,00045,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 21
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 202521219913Trail Reconstruction - Jordan45,00045,00021220902Playground Eqpt Repl - Bronx Park65,00065,00021221403Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedar Manor Park60,00060,00021221604Playground Eqpt Repl - Center Park65,00065,00021222401ADA Trail Compliance - Cedar Manor Park Trail60,00060,00021224109Trail Reconstruction - Minnehaha Creek50,00050,00021230301Playground Eqpt Repl - Aquila Park85,00085,00021231102Playground Eqpt Repl - Carpenter Park65,00065,00021231503Playground Eqpt Repl - Cedarhurst Park65,00065,00021234611Trail Reconstruction - Otten Pond30,00030,00021235112Trail Reconstruction - Roxbury Park10,00010,00021235813Trail Reconstruction - Twin Lakes Park10,00010,00021240101Playground Eqpt Repl - Ainsworth Park65,00065,00021240130Repaint Park Building - Cedar Knoll Park2,0002,00021240306Repaint Park Building - Aquila Park7,0007,00021240317Trail Reconstruction - Aquila Park75,00075,00021240607Repaint Park Building - Birchwood Park7,0007,00021241002Playground Eqpt Repl - Browndale Park65,00065,00021241008Repaint Park Building - Browndale Park7,0007,00021241109Repaint Park Building - Carpenter Park6,0006,00021241118Trail Reconstruction - Carpenter Park50,00050,00021241811Repaint Park Building - Dakota Park4,0004,00021242112Repaint Park Building - Fern Hill Park5,0005,00021242719Trail Reconstruction - Jersey Park30,00030,00021243613Repaint Park Building - Louisiana Oaks Park7,0007,00021244214Repaint Park Building - Nelson Park7,0007,00021244315Repaint Park Building - Northside Park6,0006,00021244416Repaint Park Building - Oak Hill Park9,0009,00021253401Trail Reconstruction - Lamplighter Park40,00040,00021256202Trail Reconstruction - Westwood Hills NC30,00030,00021256403Wolfe Park Amphitheater Pavers100,000100,00021259903Trail Reconstruction100,000100,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 22
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 202521259904Playground Equipment Replacement200,000200,00021259905Park Shelter Replacement150,000150,00021259906Trail Lighting100,000100,000219944015,000 5,000Oak Hill Park Northern Lights (LED)10,0002199990220,000 20,00020,000 20,000Playground Woodchips200,00020,00020,000 20,00020,000 20,00020,00021999903100,000 100,00060,000Minnehaha Creek Trail Repayment360,000100,0002216412617,500Minnehaha Creek Revegitation17,5002217320325,000Knollwood Canoe Landing - Dredge and Rebuild25,0002219360310,000Louisiana Canoe Landing Landscape10,0002220611515,000Webster Park Community Garden15,0002299990168,000 70,00070,000 70,000Tree Replacement698,00070,00070,000 70,00070,000 70,00070,000231662036,000Westwood Hills NC Climbing Rock Phase II6,0002316622216,000Westwood Hills NC Key Fob for Pavilion16,0002316622360,000Westwood Hills NC Ravine Bridge Replacement60,0002316622455,000Westwood Hills NC Storge Garage (30'x30')55,0002316622814,000Westwood Hills NC Gate Camera Addition14,0002317622210,000Westwood Hills NC North Staircase Overlook10,0002317622320,000Westwood Hills NC-Prairie Deck Rebuild20,0002319621850,000Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 250,000231962196,000Westwood Hills NC Brick House Furniture Repl6,00023196220150,000Westwood Hills NC Interpretive Exhibit Repl150,0002320621640,000Westwood Hills NC Staircase Rebuild40,00023216217Westwood Hills NC Furniture Repl10,00010,00023226210Westwood Hills NC Water Garden, Phase 245,00045,00023236214Westwood Hills NC Trail Bench Replacement15,00015,00023246220Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 350,00050,00023256203Westwood Hills NC Boardwalk Deck Repl, Phase 1100,000100,00023256204Westwood Hills NC Waterfall50,00050,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 23
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20252399622715,000 30,500Westwood Hillls NC Master Revegetation Plan68,00022,500241450195,650,000Outdoor Refrigerated Ice Rink5,650,0002416501130,000Rec Center Banquet Room Carpet & Floor Replacement30,0002416501255,000Rec Center Fire Alarm System Upgrade55,0002416501335,000Rec Center Gallery & Hallway Flooring35,000241650144,400,000Rec Center Arena Refrigeration Replacement4,400,00024165015110,000Rec Center Parking Lot Resurface110,00024165016105,000Rec Center Rubber Floor Replacement - East & West105,0002416501710,000Rec Center West Arena Press Area10,0002417501315,000Rec Center Banquet Room/Gallery Furniture Repl15,00024175014200,000Rec Center Pneumatics200,0002417501620,000Rec Center Hot Water Heater Tank Replacement20,0002417501750,000Rec Center Programming Office AC Replacement50,0002417501817,000Rec Center Programming Office Carpet17,00024185015Rec Center Banquet & Gallery Remodel50,00050,00024185016Rec Center Door Replacement (Front & Arena)120,000120,00024185017Rec Center Landscaping15,00015,00024185018Rec Center Roof Rplc-East Arena/Front Office500,000500,00024185019Rec Center Upstairs Bthrm&Ctrng Kitchn Remodel100,000100,00024185020Rec Center West Arena Window Replacement40,00040,0002419501015,000Rec Center Banquet Room & Gallery Chair Repl.15,0002419501150,000Rec Center East Arena Locker Room Remodel50,0002419501275,000Rec Center Front Office AC Replacement75,0002419501330,000Rec Center East Arena Score Boards30,00024205005300,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Amenity Replacement300,0002420500650,000Rec Center Banquet Room PA Upgrade50,00024205008200,000Rec Center Marquee200,0002420500960,000Parking Lot Seal Coat - Rec Center60,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 24
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20252420501075,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Sun Shelter Repl75,0002420501110,000Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement (Ph 1)10,00024215006Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild15,00015,00024215007Rec Center Arena Rubber Floor250,000250,00024215008Rec Center Dasher Board Repair/Replacement12,00012,00024215009Rec Center Landscaping15,00015,000242150110Rec Center Rental Skate Replacement (Ph 2)10,00010,00024225006Rec Center East Arena Painting60,00060,00024225008Rec Center Scoreboard Replacement32,50032,50024235007Rec Center Arena Compressor Rebuild15,00015,00024235008Rec Center Arena Water Treatment Repl75,00075,00024235009Rec Center West Arena Painting75,00075,00024235010Rec Center West Arena Roof Replacement500,000500,00024245003Rec Center East Arena Dehumidification400,000400,00024245004Rec Center Generator Replacement500,000500,00024245005Rec Center Landscaping20,00020,0002516020945,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Drp Slide & Dvg Brd Repl45,0002516021020,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Umbrellas20,00025170211200,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Filter Replacement200,0002517021220,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Pump Rebuild20,000251702155,000Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement5,0002520021725,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Main Drain Replacement25,000252050075,000Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement5,00025220205Rec Center Aquatic Park Locker Room Remodel100,000100,00025230204Rec Center Concession Eqpt. Replacement5,0005,000259902125,000Rec Center Aquatic Park Deck Furniture20,0005,000 10,00040161103100,000Street - MSA Retaining Wall (Hwy 7 SFR)100,000501500011,800,000Meter Replacement1,800,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 25
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 202550164101155,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2016)155,0005016430114,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2016)14,50050174101160,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2017)160,0005017430115,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2017)15,00050184101Street Light Annual Replacement (2018)165,000165,00050184301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2018)15,50015,50050194101170,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2019)170,0005019430116,000Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2019)16,00050204101175,000Street Light Annual Replacement (2020)175,0005020430116,500Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2020)16,50050214101Street Light Annual Replacement (2021)180,000180,00050214301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2021)17,00017,00050224101Street Light Annual Replacement (2022)185,000185,00050224301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2022)17,50017,50050234101Street Light Annual Replacement (2023)190,000190,00050234301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2023)18,00018,00050244101Street Light Annual Replacement (2024)195,000195,00050244301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2024)18,50018,50050254101Street Light Annual Replacement (2025)200,000200,00050254301Traffic Signal Annual Painting (2025)19,00019,0005316500130,000Water Well Rehab (SLP4)30,0005316500267,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)67,0005316510120,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #11)20,0005316530121,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #1)21,0005316530242,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2016)42,0005317500132,000Water Well Rehab (SLP8)32,0005317500268,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)68,0005317500351,000Water Well Rehab (SLP13)51,0005317510130,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #13)30,0005317510215,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #23)15,0005317530122,000Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #7)22,0005317530244,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2017)44,00053185001Water Well Rehab (SLP11)52,00052,00053185101Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #9)45,00045,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 26
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 202515,442,5051,417,271 1,416,510 1,721,562 1,557,569 2,145,735Capital Replacement Fund1,152,685 2,156,268 1,630,215 1,163,649 1,081,0411,041,660104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166Hockey Association104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166 104,166100,000100,000Municipal State Aid16,435,5005,651,500 1,690,000 1,498,000 1,051,000 1,183,500Park Improvement Fund1,062,000 877,500 1,050,000 1,412,000 960,00053185301Storm Sewer LS Maint (LS #8)23,00023,00053185302Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2018)46,00046,0005319500134,000Water Well Rehab (SLP14)34,0005319500271,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)71,0005319500371,000Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)71,0005319510145,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #21)45,0005319510215,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #4)15,0005319530125,000Storm Sewer LS Impr (Add SCADA to Stns 1/5/7/8/9)25,0005319530248,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2019)48,0005320510147,000Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #22)47,0005320530150,000Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2020)50,00053215001Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)74,00074,00053215100Sanitary Sewer LS Maint (LS #15)26,00026,00053215301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2021)52,00052,00053225002Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP1)75,00075,00053225301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2022)54,00054,00053235001Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)77,00077,00053235301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2023)56,00056,00053245001Water Well Rehab (SLP10)38,00038,00053245002Water Well Rehab (SLP4)38,00038,00053245301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2024)58,00058,00053255001Water Well Rehab (SLP12)54,00054,00053255002Water Treatment Plant GAC Replacement (WTP4)80,00080,00053255301Annual Catch Basin Repairs (2025)60,00060,000E - XX011,644,850 1,416,5101,557,569 2,145,735Annual Equipment Replacement Program15,815,8281,867,3061,152,685 2,156,2681,163,649 1,081,0411,630,21543,499,82815,195,850 3,543,510 3,711,806 3,103,569 3,617,735Operations & Recreation Total2,563,685 3,365,268 3,021,215 2,923,149 2,454,041Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 27
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20251,942,500169,500 175,000 180,500 186,000 191,500PW Operations Budget197,000 202,500 208,000 213,500 219,0001,533,8311,274,395 45,000 81,436 60,000 47,000Sanitary Sewer Utility26,000100,83164,395 36,436Solid Waste Utility691,831117,395 66,000 105,436 73,000 50,000Stormwater Utility52,000 54,000 56,000 58,000 60,0001,602,830751,394 151,000 88,436 176,000Water Utility74,000 75,000 77,000 76,000 134,00038,891,4889,650,016 3,647,676 3,815,972 3,207,735 3,721,901Operations & Recreation Total2,667,851 3,469,434 3,125,381 3,027,315 2,558,207Police68,40010,700 10,700 26,200 5,200 5,200Capital Replacement Fund5,200 5,200145,00070,000E-911 Funds75,000213,40010,700 10,700 26,200 75,200 5,200Police Total5,200 5,20075,000PD - 110,700 10,7005,200 5,200Laser/Radar and Message Board68,40026,2005,200 5,200PD - 270,000911 Server Replacement145,00075,000213,40010,700 10,700 26,200 75,200 5,200Police Total5,200 5,20075,000Technology1312500115,00025,000IT: Security Audit, PCI Re-Assessment / Training65,00025,00013125002IT: Server Farm / UPS Enhancements35,00035,0001313500160,000 60,00060,000 60,000IT:LOGIS Hosted / Managed Services / DR / BC600,00060,00060,000 60,00060,000 60,00060,00013135003OR / Utilities: SCADA Solution20,00010,000 10,0001313500420,000OR: AVL / GPS40,00020,000131450026,000Assessing: Wireless Equipment for Field Work6,00013145010Police: New CAD/RMS/Mobile Suite550,000550,0001314501130,00030,000OR: Banquet Rm Multiple Monitor / Projector90,00030,0001314501210,000OR: Rec Center Gallery / Prog Office Monitors20,00010,0001315500150,000IT: Fiber Conduit - West End Fr. Rd, Gamble, Utica50,00013155002200,000 200,000200,000 200,000IR: Fiber - Sidewalks / Streets / Citywide2,000,000200,000200,000 200,000200,000 200,000200,000131550045,000IT: Public Kiosks (City Hall, other sites)5,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 28
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 20251315500510,000 10,00010,000 10,000Admin Serv: Agenda Management Software/Hardware90,00010,00010,000 10,00010,00010,00013155006215,000 15,00015,000 15,000Admin Serv:Agenda Doc Mgmt System/Microfilm Conver350,00015,00015,000 15,00015,000 15,00015,0001315500717,500 17,50017,500 17,500IR: MyStLouisPark CRM175,00017,50017,500 17,50017,500 17,50017,50013155008100,000IR: City Hall Fl 2/3 Cabling/Chambers AV Upgrade100,0001315500920,000IR: Portable Web Cams40,00020,0001315501010,000Insp: Scanner20,00010,000131550123,00012,000Insp / OR (2016): Field iPads15,0001315501320,000IR: GIS Public / Application Server20,000131550142,000 2,0002,000 2,000Admin Serv / Utilities: Infinity BI Service20,0002,0002,000 2,0002,000 2,0002,00013155016Eng: Survey GPS15,00015,00013155017Police: ZuercherTech FBR Tablet Add-On Module39,00013,000 13,000 13,0001315502010,000 10,00010,000 10,000Police: ZuercherTech Crime Analysis Add-On Module100,00010,00010,000 10,00010,000 10,00010,00013165001OR: RecTrac / WebTrac Replacement55,00055,0001316500285,000IR: Study - Park Nicollet Fiber85,00013165003135,000OR: Parks Facilities Fiber135,00013165004100,000IR: New City Website Platform100,0001316500615,000OR: Aquila Park Building Fiber15,0001316500716,000 4,0004,000 4,000Admin Serv: HR Time Management System52,0004,0004,000 4,0004,000 4,0004,00013165008100,000Fire: Zuercher Integration of Fatpot Upgrade100,0001316500960,000 58,00018,000 18,000Insp: Electronic Plans Review Software262,00018,00018,000 18,00018,000 18,00018,0001316501052,000O.R.Tech. (Fiber, Wi-fi, network Equipment, Etc.)52,0001317500230,000OR: Rec Banquet Rm Smartboard/Video Conferencing60,00030,00013175003125,000Fire: Station Alerting Upgrade125,00013185001200,000Admin Serv: Financial / HR/Payroll App Replacement200,00013185002Fire: Zuercher Mobile Solution150,000150,00013185003Fire: Additional Station Cameras100,00050,00050,00013195001203,000Admin Serv: Utility Billing App Replacement203,0001320500150,000Fire: VHF Paging Upgrade50,00013215001OR: MSC Smartboard15,00015,00013995001200,000 200,000200,000 200,000IT: On-going Software Licenses, Mtce, 2,000,000200,000200,000 200,000200,000 200,000200,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 29
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 2025Development1399500265,000 65,00065,000 65,000IT: On-going Network Adds & Replacement650,00065,00065,000 65,00065,000 65,00065,00013995003150,000 150,000150,000 150,000IT: On-going Hardware/Telephone Adds & Replacement1,500,000150,000150,000 150,000150,000 150,000150,00013995004250,000 100,000100,000Police: 800 MHz Mobile Police Radios550,000100,00013995006100,000125,000Police: Mobile Replacements475,000125,000125,0001399500775,000Fire / Police: Dispatch Voice Recorders155,00080,0001399500915,000 15,00015,000 15,000IR / Communications: Reverse 911 - ParkAlert150,00015,00015,000 15,00015,000 15,00015,00013995010Eng: Engineering Total Station25,00025,00013995011102,000 46,99846,998 55,001OR: Asset Mgmt Software573,00546,998110,004 55,00255,00255,00213995012Fire: Fire Department Mobiles Replacement30,00010,000 10,000 10,0001399501310,00015,000Fire: EOC Computer / Phone Equipment Replacement55,00015,00015,00013995014Admin Serv: Council Tablets55,00015,000 20,000 20,00013995015200,000 200,000200,000 200,000IT: Tablet / Smartphone Hardware and Services2,000,000200,000200,000 200,000200,000 200,000200,0001399501627,000Facilities: City Hall Cameras27,0001399501716,000 16,00016,000 16,000Admin Serv - Insight Budgeting Annual Maintenance160,00016,00016,000 16,00016,000 16,00016,0001399501955,000OR: Nature Center Surveillance Cameras55,0001399502025,000 25,00025,000 25,000IT: Network Switches225,00025,00025,000 25,00025,00025,00013995021Police: Jail Cameras46,00023,000 23,00013995022Police: Exterior Cameras24,00012,000 12,00013995023Police: Booking and Intox Room Cameras (2)13,0006,500 6,50013995024Police: Dispatch Camera Viewing Workstations110,00055,000 55,0001399502535,000OR: Rec Center / Outdoor Rink Cameras160,00045,000 35,000 45,0001399502616,000 16,00016,000 16,000IT: Surveillance Camera Maintenance160,00016,00016,000 16,00016,000 16,00016,0001399502710,000OR: Point of Sale Equipment Replacements20,00010,000139950297,5007,500IT: Plotter Replacements37,5007,5007,5007,50013995030125,000OR: Rec Center PA / Sound125,0001399503145,000OR: MSC Cameras90,00045,00013995035100,000IT: Telephone Handset / Handless Upgrades200,000100,0001399503610,000Eng: Large Scanner / Plotter / Copier20,00010,000Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 30
Total2016 2017 2018 2019 2020Department2021 2022 2023 2024 202510,376,5021,355,166 1,099,666 827,166 1,175,666 1,223,834Capital Replacement Fund905,668 969,834 832,334 1,029,834 957,334519,31637,391 111,325 36,325 36,325 36,325E-911 Funds36,325 116,325 36,325 36,325 36,325235,000235,000EDA Development Fund1,250,000100,000 183,334 183,333 183,333 100,000G.O. Bonds100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000362,000237,000 45,000Park Improvement Fund35,00045,0003,026,317713,385 275,000 450,432 256,500 182,000Police & Fire Pension33,000 150,000 106,500 589,500 270,000227,67216,333 16,333 16,333 31,333 19,001Sanitary Sewer Utility42,335 19,001 19,001 29,001 19,00120,00010,000Solid Waste Utility10,00036,670667 667 667 10,667 667Stormwater Utility5,667 667 667 15,667 667900,000100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Unfunded100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000242,66116,332 16,332 26,332 26,332 18,999Water Utility42,334 19,000 29,000 29,000 19,00017,196,1382,711,274 1,802,657 1,685,588 1,830,156 1,680,826Technology Total1,300,329 1,474,827 1,268,827 1,939,327 1,502,32713995037Fire: Stations Media Package100,000100,000139950398,000Admin Serv: UB Meter Reading Handhelds (if no AMR)8,000139950406,500Police: Interview Room Cameras13,0006,5001399504110,00010,000IT: Wireless Hotspots50,00010,00010,00010,0001399504222,391 21,32521,325 21,325Police: Zuercher CAD Module Annual Fees214,31621,32521,325 21,32521,325 21,32521,3251399504340,000100,000Police: Comm Van Upgrades / EOC Media Package260,000120,00013995050343,385Fire: 800 MHz Mobile Fire Radios414,31770,9321399505183,33483,333SWLRT: Stations Technology250,00083,3336199000122,000Police-LPR replacement22,00017,246,1382,766,276 1,802,657 1,735,588 1,830,156 1,680,826Technology Total1,300,329 1,474,827 1,268,827 1,939,327 1,447,32528,785,455 19,493,281 23,428,220 30,676,090 19,049,457Grand Total197,944,91817,102,453 12,989,045 13,006,075 22,101,726 11,313,116Monday, December 14, 2015City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8a) Title: 2016 Budget, Final Property Tax Levies (City & HRA) and 2016 – 2025 CIPPage 31
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve second reading of the Zero Waste Packaging
Ordinance and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the proposed ordinance consistent with the Councils Strategic
Priority of being a leader in environmental stewardship and consciousness?
SUMMARY: On December 7, 2015 the first reading and public hearing for the Zero Waste
Packaging were held. Testimony was received from both industry stakeholders and the public.
Since that time the attached correspondence has been received from a number of organizations
representing the business community requesting certain amendments to the proposed ordinance.
The requested amendments relate to reinstating previous language regarding economic hardship
and to reconsider adding polystyrene (foam and rigid) to the list of recyclable products.
NEXT STEPS: Assuming the second reading of the ordinance is approved the following steps
will be taken:
1. Develop List of Recyclable/Compostable Products & Exemptions ...... Jan. to April 2016
2. Develop Schedule of Education & Outreach Activities ..................................... Jan. 2016
3. Conduct Education & Outreach Activities ............................................ Feb. to Dec. 2016
4. Ordinance goes into effect .............................................................................. Jan. 1, 2017
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The implementation of the proposed
ordinance will impact the 2016 solid waste budget primarily from a staffing perspective.
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
Letter from Business Community
Ordinance
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
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: After undertaking several months of public process, a draft Zero Waste
Packaging Ordinance was presented to Council on September 8, 2015. The draft ordinance was
used as part of an education and outreach campaign to allow stakeholders the opportunity to
comment on the draft ordinance in writing and during a public listening session on October 12,
2015.
Comments from stakeholders were considered by staff and revisions to the draft ordinance were
made. The second version of the draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance was presented to
Council on November 2, 2105.
Council requested additional changes including language to further clarify the ordinance intent,
definitions, requirements, violations and enforcement, and exemptions. Staff updated the draft
ordinance to reflect these changes and presented it to Council in a written report on November
23, 2015.
Council directed staff to move forward with a Public Hearing and 1st reading on December 7,
2015. Council heard testimony from residents and industry stakeholders during the Public Hearing.
Since that time the attached correspondence has been received from a number of organizations
representing the business community requesting certain amendments to the proposed ordinance.
The requested amendments relate to reinstating previous language regarding economic hardship
and to reconsider adding polystyrene (foam and rigid) to the list of recyclable products.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Attachment
1) was presented and approved at the Public Hearing and 1st reading on December 7, 2015. This
is the 2nd reading of the proposed ordinance.
ORDINANCE GOAL: To increase traditional recycling and organics recycling while reducing
waste and environmental impact from non-returnable, non-reusable, non-recyclable, and non-
compostable food and beverage packaging.
REQUIREMENTS: The ordinance has two main requirements:
Food establishments are required to use “Zero Waste Packaging” for food prepared for
immediate consumption. Packaging used by food establishments for food and beverage
eaten on-site or taken to-go must be reusable, returnable, recyclable, or compostable.
Food establishments are required to provide onsite recycling and/or organics recycling of
zero waste packaging, for customers dining in.
AFFECTED BUSINESSES: The ordinance applies to all food establishments licensed by
Hennepin County that prepare food for immediate consumption.
IMPLEMENTATION DATE: Ordinance effective date would be January 1, 2017.
NEXT STEPS:
1. Develop List of Recyclable/Compostable Products & Exemptions ...... Jan. to April 2016
2. Develop Schedule of Education & Outreach Activities ..................................... Jan. 2016
3. Conduct Education & Outreach Activities ........................................... Feb. to Dec. 2016
4. Ordinance goes into effect .............................................................................. Jan. 1, 2017
December 16, 2015
Mayor Jeff Jacobs
Members of City Council
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council Members:
We want to express our concerns and offer amendments to the Zero Waste Packaging ordinance. St.
Louis Park’s ordinance will certainly present a challenge for many of our members to find a cost-
effective product that will perform as well as foam and rigid polystyrene, rigid polystyrene lids and PE
lined cups. You heard multiple times in testimony, the cost to businesses to comply with the ordinance
will be anywhere from 30-400% higher; dramatically affecting the competitiveness of St. Louis Park
businesses and impacting consumers. To that end, we respectfully ask that you reinstate language in
the ordinance that takes economic hardship into account. We favor the economic hardship exemption
language offered by Mike Levy and John Easter of the American Chemistry Council in their December 2,
2015 comment letter to you.
The Public Works Division will make available published wholesale price lists for foodservice
packaging items, and if the cost of an item is more than 10% higher than a foodservice packaging item
as defined by the zero waste packaging definitions, the Division will grant an exemption for that
particular item.
We also request that you reconsider adding polystyrene (foam and rigid) to the list of recyclable
products. Again, the language (see below) offered by the American Chemistry Council is favored. This
allows for the recycling of the material as soon as the local material recovery center can receive and
process it.
Recyclable packaging: Packaging that is separable from solid waste during collection for the purpose of
recycling including, but not limited to, glass bottles, aluminum cans and plastic food and beverage
packaging. Recyclable packaging must be accepted by the local material recovery facilities receiving
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)Page 3
and processing the materials. For both existing and new recycling markets, the determination will be
made by Public Works Division by rule promulgated pursuant to section 12.205.
Adopting these amendments will reinforce your commitment to St. Louis Park businesses to be
competitive and successful in the short term, while being a partner in growing recycling and assisting the
city as it builds an infrastructure to meet its longer term zero waste packaging goals.
Sincerely,
Deb McMillan, Director of Government Affairs Bruce Nustad, President
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce Minnesota Retailers Association
Jamie Pfuhl, President Kevin Thoma, Executive Director
Minnesota Grocers Association Minnesota Petroleum Marketers Association
Lance Klatt, Executive Director Dan McElroy, President/CEO
Minnesota Service Station and Minnesota Restaurant Association and
Convenience Stores Association Minnesota Lodging Association
Mike Levy, Senior Director AnnMarie Treglia, Global Manager
Packaging and Government Affairs Government Affairs & the Environment
American Chemistry Council Dart Container Corporation
Tim Wilkin, President
Minnesota Beverage Association
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)Page 4
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO. ____ - 15
ORDINANCE TO INCREASE TRADITIONAL RECYCLING
AND ORGANICS RECYCLING OF
FOOD AND BEVERAGE PACKAGING AND TO-GO CONTAINERS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
CHAPTER 12 – Environment and Public Health
Division VI. ZERO WASTE PACKAGING
12-201. - Legislative purpose.
The city council (council) adopted the strategic direction in March 2007 stating that the city is
committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship and will increase environmental
consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
As such, the council finds that discarded packaging from foods and beverages prepared for
immediate consumption constitutes a portion of the waste stream in St. Louis Park that could be
diverted for reuse, recycling, or organics recycling. Regulation of food and beverage packaging,
therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable and compostable waste
stream, thereby reducing the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs
of waste management for the citizens of St. Louis Park and others working or doing business in
St. Louis Park.
The council also finds that the two (2) main processes used to dispose of discarded nonreusable,
nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable food and beverage packaging are land filling
and incineration, both of which should be minimized for environmental reasons.
The council therefore finds that the minimization of nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable
and noncompostable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments and
at events providing food and/or beverages within the city of St. Louis Park is necessary and
desirable in order to minimize the city's waste stream and maximize recycling and organics
recycling, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled waste, to minimize toxic by-products of
incineration, and to make our city and neighboring communities more environmentally sound
places to live.
12.202. - Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings as defined in
this section:
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)Page 5
(a) “Distributor” shall mean a business that distributes food and beverages but who conduct
no retail food or beverage transactions.
(b) “Food establishment”, as used in this chapter, shall mean a "food establishment" as
defined by Chapter 3.3.1 Hennepin County Code of Ordinances.
(c) “Mobile use-food establishment”, as used in this chapter, shall mean “mobile use-food”
as defined in Chapter 36-142(g)(5) of the City Code of Ordinances, as a vehicle or cart
used to prepare and serve food and/or beverages in individual portions in a ready-to-
consume state. Mobile use-food does not include the sale of groceries or vegetables and
fruits not prepared for immediate consumption at the vehicle.
(d) “Packaging” shall mean and include food or beverage cans, bottles or containers used to
package food and beverage products for distribution including glasses, cups, plates,
serving trays, and to-go containers. The following exclusions apply: foods pre-packaged
by the manufacturer, producer or distributor; plastic knives, forks and spoons sold or
intended for use as utensils; and plastic films less than ten (10) mils in thickness.
(e) “Violation” shall mean any time a food establishment is found by the city to be non-
compliant with one or more section(s) of this chapter.
(f) “Zero waste packaging” shall mean and include any of the following:
(1) “Reusable and returnable packaging”: Food or beverage containers or packages,
such as, but not limited to, water bottles, growlers, milk containers and bulk
product packaging that are capable of being refilled at a retail location or returned
to the distributor for reuse at least once as a container for the same food or
beverage;
(2) “Recyclable packaging”: Packaging that is separable from solid waste during
collection for the purpose of recycling including, but not limited to, glass bottles,
aluminum cans and plastic food and beverage packaging. Recyclable packaging
must be accepted by the local material recovery facilities receiving and processing
the materials and have existing robust recycling markets as determined by the
Public Works Division by rule promulgated pursuant to section 12.205.
(3) “Compostable packaging”: Packaging that is separable from solid waste during
collection for the purpose of composting. Compostable packaging must be made of
unlined paper (unless lining is certified compostable), certified compostable plastic
that meet ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 or other material accepted by the
commercial compost or anaerobic digestion facility receiving and processing the
materials.
12.203. - Prohibitions and duties.
(a) No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment or any person or
organization providing free food or beverage products within the city of St. Louis Park
pursuant to a Hennepin County permit or license, or in a manner which would require a
permit or license, shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the city:
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)Page 6
(1) Sell or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food
or beverage intended for immediate consumption contained, at any time at or before
the time or point of sale, in packaging which is not zero waste packaging. The
presence on the premises of the food establishment of packaging which is not zero
waste packaging shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey
at retail, or to provide to retail customers packaging which is not zero waste
packaging; provided, however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to
manufacturers, brokers or warehouse operators, who conduct or transact no retail
food or beverage business.
(b) Packaging used to contain food or beverages intended for immediate consumption shall
be considered zero waste packaging only when the food establishment provides
consumers with an on-site opportunity to recycle and/or appropriately manage
compostable packaging and compostable plastics and utilizes a qualified recycling
and/or organics management system.
(1) A qualified recycling system shall have the following elements:
a. A clear and verifiable process for separating recyclable packaging from
discarded solid waste; and
b. Collection and delivery of recyclable packaging to a recycling facility for
processing in the same or at least similar manner as recyclable packaging
collected in a city approved recycling program.
(2) A qualified organics recycling system shall have the following elements:
a. A clear and verifiable process for separating organic materials from discarded
solid waste; and
b. Collection and delivery of organic materials to an organics composting or
anaerobic digestion facility in the same manner or at least similar manner as
organic materials collected in a municipally approved organics management
program.
(3) A food establishment that does not have dine-in seating for consumers, except a
mobile use-food establishment, is exempt from the requirement to provide
consumers with an on-site opportunity to recycle and/or manage compostable
packaging/compostable plastics as defined in Sec 12-203(b).
12.204. – Violations and Enforcement.
(a) When a violation of this chapter has occurred, the food establishment shall be subject to
the penalties set forth below.
(b) A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor.
(c) Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to
City Code Ordinance 2420-12, Section 1-14 Administrative Penalties, as follows:
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)Page 7
(1) A warning notice in writing for the first violation;
(2) A fine of $100 for the second violation;
(3) Repeat subsequent violations within 24 months, a fine 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 $100 fine: first is $0
(warning); second is $100, third is $200, forth is $400).
(d) At the time a violation occurs, the food establishment will be given 14 calendar days to
take corrective action before a subsequent fine is issued.
(e) The administrative offenses provided for in this chapter shall be in addition to any other
legal or equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
12.205. - Rules and regulations.
The Public Works Division may, upon notice and hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter and protect the health of the public,
including the development of list of recyclable and compostable packaging that meets definitions
under section 12.202 and development of exemptions under section 12.206 for packaging for
which there is no reasonable commercially available alternative. In promulgating such rules, the
division shall consider the legislative purposes provided in section 12.201 of this chapter and
shall consult with the operators of affected food establishments, local material recovery facilities
and local commercial composting facilities. The Public Works Division rules and regulations
shall be approved by council annually.
12.206. - Exemptions.
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) Any packaging which is not zero waste packaging, but for which there is no
commercially available alternative as determined by the Public Works Division by rule
promulgated pursuant to section 12.205. In determining whether there are commercially
available alternatives, the Public Works Division will consider whether there is
availability of zero waste packaging for affected products. Every rule creating an
exemption under this paragraph will be reviewed annually by the Public Works Division
to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the exemption.
12.207. - Severability.
If any part or provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, entity, or
circumstances shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent
jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application
which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered,
and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this chapter or the application
thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)Page 8
12.208. - Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2017.
Secs. 12-209--12-250. Reserved.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council _____________
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Second Reading)Page 9
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 Employee Compensation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution confirming a 2.5% general increase
for non-union employees effective 1/1/16; approving the City Manager’s salary for 2016,
continuing participation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program; and increasing performance
program pay by 2.5% for Paid-On-Call Firefighters for 2016.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to confirm the recommended 2016 employee
compensation as outlined in this report?
SUMMARY: This report details staff’s recommendation for setting non-union employee
compensation for 2016.
Recommendation for 2016 Non-Union Employee Compensation:
Approve 2.5% standard adjustment to compensation plan for non-union employees, allowing
for regular progression through pay ranges.
Adjust pay range for City Manager to allow movement through the range consistent with non-
union. Set formula in compliance with salary cap. Pay increase would become effective upon
Council approval of the City Manager’s performance evaluation and include retro-pay back to
January 1, 2016.
Approve continuation in the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program.
Approve 2.5% increase to Paid-On-Call Firefighter Performance Program.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The amount recommended has been
included in the 2016 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Caitlin Greene, HR Assistant
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: 2016 Employee Compensation
DISCUSSION
Non-Union Employee Compensation – 2.5% General Increase Effective 1/1/16
Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997, allows the City Manager to approve the
standard adjustment based on information such as market value data, the CPI, and the general
financial condition of the City. Our positions are reviewed on a regular basis and compared to the
market, which includes metro area cities (suburbs) with populations over 25,000 but less than
90,000, as required by our compensation plan approved by Council. After review of the market,
it is recommended that pay maximums for St. Louis Park would remain competitive if increased
by 2.5%.
The increase for non-union employees will be applied in accordance with our compensation plan.
In our plan, after successful completion of probation (typically six months), a position receives up
to double the standard increase to progress through the pay range until they reach the pay line
(maximum). Positions at the maximum will receive the standard adjustment of 2.5%.
Salary Cap and City Manager Salary
The contract for the City Manager states that base salary and benefits must be set when salaries
are established for other non-union employees. Compensation must comply with the state
mandated salary cap.
2015 salary range for the City Manager was set at $155,519 - $182,963.
Salary cap in 2015 was $165,003.
2015 annual salary for City Manager is $165,003 and additional paid time off (PTO) of 204.55
hours (at $79.328/hr. = $16,227) for a total of $181,230, not including car allowance.
It is recommended that the pay range for the position of City Manager move consistent with other
positions in the City and adjusted by 2.5%. Because the City Manager’s compensation is not at
the maximum of the 2016 range, the City Manager is eligible for up to double the standard increase
to the range maximum of $187,537, in accordance with the compensation plan, consistent with
other non-union employees. A 3.48% increase would be total compensation of $187,537.
2016 salary range set for the City Manager recommended at $159,406 - $187,537 (2.5%
increase in the pay range, consistent with other non-union staff).
Salary cap for 2016 is set by state statute at $165,334 (0.2% increase).
It is recommended that effective January 1, 2016, Council approves an annual salary of
$165,334 annually ($79.488 hourly) for the City Manager, not including car allowance, in
accordance with the salary cap. Car allowance of $600 per month will be subject to the PTO
program. In addition, Council approves 279.33 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2016
(279.33 X $79.488 = $22,203).
The City Manager’s salary will remain at 2015 levels until approval of the annual performance
evaluation by Council. Upon approval of the evaluation, the 2016 salary will be approved and
the City Manager will receive retro-pay to January 1, 2016.
Paid Time Off (PTO Program)
The PTO program is approved by Council and part of the City’s Personnel Manual. Section 9.13
Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states: Effective 01/01/02, exempt employees, including the City
Manager, who reach the salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17, Subd. 9, shall receive
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: 2016 Employee Compensation
equivalent hours above the limit in paid leave (PTO). Amount of paid leave (PTO) is determined
by the City Council. Paid leave (PTO) is typically accrued on a per pay period basis, although the
Council may issue paid leave (PTO) as a lump sum amount of time. Paid leave (PTO) may be
used as earned, maintained in a paid leave (PTO) bank or cashed out upon separation of
employment. Paid leave (PTO) is separate and not part of the flex leave program (Resolution 02-
127). Each July 31, all hours in the PTO balance must transfer to a Health Care Savings Plan
account established for the employee in accordance with plan requirements (Resolution 05-104).
Funds in the Health Care Savings Plan can only be used for reimbursement of eligible medical
expenses after separation of employment.
Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program
Our paid-on-call firefighters receive a life insurance benefit through the Volunteer Firefighters’
Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council approval for conditions
of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance.
This program is very affordable and covers our paid-on-call firefighters. It covers life insurance
up to $20,000 and also provides some disability coverage. This program is a typical benefit offered
to other paid-on-call firefighters in municipalities in the metro area. Since paid-on-call firefighters
are not eligible for the benefits of other employees, it is important that we provide some type of
life insurance coverage for this group. We recommend Council approves continued participation
in this program consistent with Resolution 05-150.
Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program – 2.5% Increase
Our Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program was established in 1996. The Performance
Program was designed for our paid-on-call firefighters to be competitive with our volunteer
neighbors, and alleviate the need of a Fire Department Relief Association. The Performance
Program is reviewed annually. The Fire Chief has recommended a 2.5% increase to this program,
effective January 1, 2016. (Payment is based on performance as approved by the Fire Chief and
is typically made at year end.)
General comment: Copies of the Compensation Plan are available from the City Clerk.
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: 2016 Employee Compensation
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING 2016 COMPENSATION FOR NON-UNION
EMPLOYEES; SETTING THE CITY MANAGER’S SALARY;
CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER BENEFIT
PROGRAM; AND CONTINUING PERFORMANCE PROGRAM PAY FOR
PAID-ON-CALL FIREFIGHTERS
WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section VIII-C of such
Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt policies for City employees and has
conferred upon the City Manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative
policies and rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the City; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
A. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 2.5%,
effective January 1, 2016 for non-union employees in accordance with the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan.
B. Confirms a salary of $165,334 for the City Manager, not including car allowance. Salary
application must comply with the salary limitations set by state statute, therefore PTO
applies to the City Manager’s car allowance of $600 per month. Council also approves an
additional 279.33 hours of PTO for the City Manager in 2016. The City Manager’s salary
will remain at 2015 levels until Council approves an annual performance evaluation, and
at that time the 2016 salary stated here is approved with retro-pay back to January 1, 2016.
C. Approves continuation of participation in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association
of MN Benefit Program for 2016, consistent with Resolution 05-150.
D. Approves continuation of the Paid-on-Call Firefighters Performance Program with a 2.5%
increase, effective January 1, 2016.
Performance Program: Paid-on-Call Firefighters
For 0 – 23 months of service, paid-on-call firefighters are eligible to receive a monthly
amount. After 23 months, they are eligible to receive an annual amount. This amount may
be pro-rated for actual number of months worked. All amounts after the 23 month
timeframe show annual amounts as follows:
Years of Service
2016 Annual
Up to 23 Months
of Service
$161 per month
2 $2,099
3 $2,255
4 $2,426
5 $2,580
6 $2,736
7 $2,893
8 $3,063
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: 2016 Employee Compensation
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
9 $3,221
10 $3,374
11 $3,547
12 $3,716
13 $3,871
14 $4,043
15 $4,197
16 $4,355
17 $4,510
18 $4,680
19 $4,835
20 $4,993
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local #993 Labor Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and the IAFF Local #993, establishing terms and conditions of employment for
one year, from 1/1/16 – 12/31/16.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the Labor Agreement between the
City and the Local #993 Union?
SUMMARY: Staff is pleased to bring to Council the details of this contract agreement between
the City and Union for 2016. The City and the Local 993 Union had a number of negotiation
sessions and have come to agreement on the following changes to the contract:
Duration of 1 year (1/1/16 – 12/31/16).
Wage increase of 2.5% for 2016.
Employer contribution same as other groups for 2016.
Paid Parenting Leave Program added to contract as Article XVII. This was agreed upon in a
memorandum of understanding with the Union midway through the last contract and is now
added as follows:
Employees are eligible for Paid Parenting Leave program administered on the same basis
and subject to the same requirements as the general non-union employees. The City
Manager has the final approval of administration of this program. Due to the nature of this
policy, it is not subject to grievance, or arbitration and this policy may be amended from
time to time. (For calculation purposes, conversion is used and leave is based on conversion
to day schedule with a 40 hour work week.)
Staff recommends approval. The proposed contract is on file with the City Clerk. More detail is
available upon request.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The amount recommended has been
included in the 2016 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Caitlin Greene, HR Assistant
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of December 21, 2015 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Title: 2016 International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) Local #993 Labor Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL #993
JANUARY 1, 2016 – DECEMBER 31, 2016
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its Charter;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, City Contract #______ between the City of St. Louis Park and International
Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local #993, effective January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2016.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting: City Council
Meeting Date: December 21, 2015
Action Agenda Item: 8e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2016 - 2017 International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local #49 (Maintenance)
Labor Agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Labor Agreement
between the City and Local 49 Union, establishing terms and conditions of employment for two
years, from 1/1/16 – 12/31/17.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the Labor Agreement between the
City and the IUOE Local 49 Union?
SUMMARY: After a number of lengthy negotiation sessions, staff is pleased to bring the
summary of changes to this contract for 2016-2017:
Duration of 2 years (1/1/16 – 12/31/17).
Wage increase 2.5% for 2016 (same as non-union and Firefighters), 2.75% for 2017.
Effective 1/1/16 and 1/1/17, the Employer contribution shall be set at the same rate as provided
to other employees and eligible to participate in the Wellness Program.
New: Effective January 1, 2016, Utilities Division employees are eligible for an additional
hourly rate of pay for those who obtain and maintain certification as follows:
MN Department of Health Water Supply Systems Operator Certification
CLASS D: $.15, CLASS C: $.30, CLASS B: $.50, CLASS A: $.75
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Collection System Certification
CLASS SD: $.15, CLASS SC: $.30, CLASS SB: $.50, CLASS SA: $.75
Adjust on-call pay from $50/day in 2015 to $51.25/day effective 1/1/16 and $53/day effective
1/1/17.
Adjust Traffic assignment from $.404/hour in 2015 to $.50/hour effective 1/1/16 and $.58/hour
effective 1/1/17.
Change Lead Worker assignment from $1/hour in 2015 to $1.20 for each hour completed in this
assignment effective 1/1/16.
Paid Parenting Leave Program was agreed upon midway through the last contract and is now
added as a section to the contract.
Change number of days a seasonal/temporary employee can work from 168 to 180 days and
change calendar year from January 1 – December 31 to March through November for hiring.
The proposed contract is on file with the City Clerk. More detail is available upon request.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Items are included in the 2016 budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution
Prepared by: Caitlin Greene, HR Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Title: 2016 - 2017 International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Local #49 (Maintenance) Labor Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE LABOR AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AND
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS (IUOE),
LOCAL 49
JANUARY 1, 2016 – DECEMBER 31, 2017
WHEREAS, the City and the Union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the
terms and conditions of a Labor Agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public
Employees Labor Relations Act, and
WHEREAS, the City Council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its Charter;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute a Collective Bargaining
Agreement, City Contract #______ between the City of St. Louis Park and IUOE Local 49,
effective January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2017.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 21, 2015
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk