HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/01/09 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JANUARY 9, 2012
6:00 p.m. CITY COUNCIL PHOTOS – Council Chambers
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17 and January 23, 2012
2. 6:35 p.m. Update from Discover St. Louis Park (new official name for St. Louis Park
Convention and Visitors Bureau)
3. 7:05 p.m. Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update
4. 7:35 p.m. Adagio Unit Mix within Hoigaard Village
5. 8:20 p.m. Fiber Optic Study
6. 8:50 p.m. Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop
7. 9:20 p.m. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
9:25 p.m. Adjourn
Written Reports
8. Charter Amendment for Administrative Penalties
9.
Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson-KM
Builders) Related to the Oak Hill II Office Building Project (located at NE corner of
Louisiana Ave and Walker St.)
10. Solid Waste Program Survey
11. Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network
12. Toby Keith Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report
13. November 2011 Monthly Financial Report
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.
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 1
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17 and January 23, 2012.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for a Special Study Session scheduled
for January 17 (Tuesday) and the regularly scheduled Study Session on January 23, 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion
items for a Special Study Session scheduled for January 17 and the regularly scheduled Study
Session on January 23, 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17 and January 23, 2012
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 17 and January 23, 2012
Special Study Session, January 17, 2012 (Tuesday) – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Review Applicants for Civic Recreation Facility Task Force – Parks & Rec (45 minutes)
Staff has reviewed applicants for the Civic Recreation Facility Task Force and will bring a
list of recommendations to Council for their consideration. It is proposed that the
appointments then be acted upon during the regular Council meeting later in the evening
Study Session, January 23, 2012 – 6:00 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. 2012 Legislative Discussion – Administrative Services (60 minutes)
Senator Ron Latz, Representative Ryan Winker, Representative Steve Simon, Commissioner
Gail Dorfman, and Met Council representative Jim Brimeyer have been invited to discuss the
outlook for the 2012 legislative session, which starts on January 24, 2012.
3. Community Recreation Facilities Study w/ Consultant – Parks & Rec (120 minutes)
Ellen O’Sullivan, a national expert on trends in the Parks and Recreation industry, will share
with Council information on how things are changing in our world relative to parks and
recreation. She will further facilitate the process of beginning to think about how our future
community recreation facilities should be designed to fit into the community now and into
the future.
4. Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports
5. NLC Service Line Warranty Program
6. Prism/Dial-A-Ride Update
7. December 2011 Monthly Financial Report
8. 4th Quarter Investment Report (October – December)
End of Meeting: 9:10 p.m.
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution
Ordinance Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update from Discover St. Louis Park (new official name for St. Louis Park Convention and
Visitors Bureau).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action requested at this time. Bruce Nustad, chairman of Discover St. Louis Park and
John Basill, president of Discover St. Louis Park will be in attendance to provide an update on
the newly-formed organization’s accomplishments to date as well as its plans for 2012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the CVB’s initial direction consistent with the Council’s original vision for the organization?
BACKGROUND:
On December 20, 2010 the City Council approved an ordinance establishing a 3% lodging tax
that would serve as the primary revenue source for a new St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors
Bureau. On February 22, 2011, an Operating Agreement was approved between the City of St.
Louis Park and the St. Louis Park Convention and Visitors Bureau. The Operating Agreement
delineated the short and long term working relationship between the new CVB and the City of
St. Louis Park. In the spring of 2011 an executive search firm was retained to lead the process for
selecting a president for the new organization. After a regional search, John Basill was selected
in late June to lead the CVB. He began his duties on July 25, 2011. Since that time the
corporation has been fully established and organized, an office has been opened at Parkdale
Plaza, two additional staff members have been hired, a new operating name has been approved,
branding and marketing plans have been developed and an operating budget has been adopted.
John and the CVB board of directors have accomplished much over the course of the last 5
months and John is eager to share those achievements with the Council as well as the
organization’s plans for 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The Operating Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the St. Louis Park Convention
and Visitors Bureau requires that on or near the 15th day of each month, the City shall remit to
the Bureau 95% of the lodging tax payments received by the City for funding of the Bureau. The
room tax went into effect March 1, 2011. Through November 2011, the City collected a total of
$534,862 in room tax revenue. When the room tax was being considered in 2010, it was
estimated that it would generate approximately $565,000 annually. Based upon the revenue
collected over the first 9 months, it would appear the City’s original revenue projection was
accurate if not slightly conservative.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
One of the City Council’s Strategic Directions states that St. Louis Park is committed to being a
connected and engaged community. The intent behind the formation of a CVB is that it would
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park
strengthen awareness of St. Louis Park as a visitor destination and stimulate additional economic
activity within the community.
Attachments: Discover St. Louis Park Brand Style Guidelines
2012 Operating Budget
Tactical Marketing Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator and
Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 3
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 4
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 5
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 6
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 7
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 8
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 9
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 10
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 11
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 12
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 13
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 14
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 15
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 16
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 17
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Update from Discover St. Louis Park Page 18
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns regarding the activities of Friends of the Arts?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park has been working with Friends of the Arts in a partnership since 2006 to
further the arts in the community. Beginning in 2006, the city has contributed $20,000 to Friends of
the Arts annually.
One of the most visible things that Friends of the Arts sponsors is the “Our Town” project. The first
project was Faces and Places. Many residents took pictures throughout the community and were
then compiled into a series of photographs. These photos are displayed in City Hall and have
appeared in the City/School calendar and at other locations throughout the city. The second “Our
Town” project was Verses and Voices. A Community Poet was named and assisted in compiling
poems from a variety of sources throughout the city. These poems were on display in a variety places
and eventually used in the City/School calendar. The attached annual report from Friends of the Arts
provides information about their upcoming “Our Town” initiative called Beats and Streets.
Representatives of Friends of the Arts will be in attendance at the study session to provide their
annual update.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Payments to Friends of the Arts in the amount of $20,000 annually were approved February 6, 2006
to promote art events and related activities that create an awareness and appreciation for arts. Staff
recommends continuing supporting FOTA by contributing $20,000 for 2012. This allocation is
included in the proposed 2012 Development Fund budget.
Friends of the Arts use the funding from the city to leverage funds for grants and donations. Their
annual budget is projected to be $55,000 for 2012 and has been fairly consistent the past few years.
All funds for scholarships are provided by contributions from individuals and foundations.
Approximately $20,000 in grants is used for “Our Town” programs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Continuing our partnership with Friends of the Arts is consistent with one of the City Council’s
adopted Strategic Directions - St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture,
and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.
Attachments: Friends of the Arts Annual Report
Prepared by: Cindy W. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update
Announcing Our Town: Beats and Streets
Friends of the Arts are excited to announce 2012 Our Town: Beats and Streets. Next summer,
expect to hear rhythms throughout St. Louis Park as we bring the sounds of drums and
percussion to our city. There will be workshops, performances, community drum circles and
drum installation sculptures. Our Town: Beats and Streets will kick off in May and run
throughout the summer ending with a community performance piece the last week of August
2012.
Our Town: Beats and Streets will bring diverse community members together to participate in a
series of drumming and percussion- focused activities. Through Our Town: Beats and Streets
Friends of the Arts will be able to expand our outreach on a creative form that is more accessible
and inclusive of all community members.
The following drumming activities comprise the community arts components for Beats and
Streets:
Beat and Streets Workshops: Throughout the summer six one-hour Beats and Streets
workshops will be offered at key gathering places around St Louis Park. The workshops will be
taught by professional percussionist Stan Kipper and Chico Perez. Kipper and Perez have over
20 years of experience in teaching and inspiring students in the art of drumming. The workshops
will take place in diverse community partner locations (such as Meadowbrook, Sholom Home,
Partnership Resources, etc.). Using five-gallon buckets as drums, participants will have the
opportunity to explore the common language of drumming with an everyday household item
turned instrument. Expanding on the concept that music can be created anywhere and does not
need to include expensive and unattainable instruments. Each workshop site will build off of the
previous sites final beat and rhythm. Participants from each site will have the opportunity to
follow the instructor to the next scheduled site workshop to continue the beat they created in
their workshops. The workshops will culminate in a large community performance piece with the
New Primitives. The workshops and performance will also be videotaped for cable TV.
Drum Circles: Working with established drum circles in the Twin Cities, Our Town: Beats and
Streets will bring this community builder to various locations in St. Louis Park and audiences
throughout the summer. Drum circles will include people of all ages and abilities. The main
objective is to share the rhythm and get in tune with each other and themselves. The end goal
will be to establish a St. Louis Park monthly drum circle meeting.
Culture Drum Series: Exposing the St. Louis Park community to the wide variety of
instruments and music. Working with a variety of different cultural groups to offer a series of
drum or percussion performances highlighting the drums and music of each culture.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update
Drum Sculpture Installations: Visual artists, musicians and community members will be
encouraged to submit designs for a drum sculpture. Each sculpture potentially will be a fully
functioning percussion instrument as well as an art piece. Peer selected designs could be created
and installed throughout the St. Louis Park community. Once installed, the drum installations
may offer opportunities for pedestrians passing by to take a moment to incorporate drumming
into their day. The drums could be sought out by neighbors for a drum circle, or used as a
gathering spot for programs. The drum installs could be permanent art installations. Drum
sculpture sites will support programs throughout the summer such as performances or workshops
that will further encourage the community to come together and use the instruments.
ONGOING PROGRAMS
Our Town 2010: Voices & Verses: Continuation through poetry jams, all well attended and
aired on Park TV.
2/10/11 The theme was Love and we had 12 people sign up ahead of time to read ages 7-85.
4/21/11 The theme was spring. The local Arts and Culture grant recipient group, Reader's
Theater, performed a few of their pieces.
6/16/11 We had 15 readers, including a spoken word artist.
10/6/11 Local poet Susan Budig hosted the event.
Community poets highlighted monthly in our online newsletter.
Arts for Life: scholarship program remains well funded and distributing awards quarterly. This
year 8 awards have been granted so far totaling $1,430. Recipients have been young children,
high school students and adults.
Upcoming review: Dec 5, 2011
Arts & Culture Grants: two groups received funding for the 2012 grants (below).
The Park Theater Company - $3,755
MN Public Theater - $7,500
OPERATIONS
Fiscal Agencies: standard agreement approved and in use for:
• Park Theater Company, Maggie's Farm Theater, Community Band, Jr High Theater
Board Development
• We are currently recruiting new board members (see articles in Sun Sailor, SLP Patch, Star
Tribune, etc.) We continue to have excellent executive committee leadership.
• Board members as liaisons working well to community organizations and partners.
• Membership Committee growing and organizing well with new leadership.
Marketing/ Communications
• New Website launched this fall: www.SLPFriendsoftheArts.org.
• Updated community calendar and schedule of events.
• Current blog with interesting art related topics.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update
• Interactive for community artists and businesses.
• Newsletter - monthly electronic Arts Update
• Stats for the last couple of months are as follows:
Sent Opened Clicks
Sept. 741 27% 10%
Oct. 749 25% 6%
Nov. 744 26% 4%
• Regular press from local media especially, Sun Sailor, and SLP Patch.
• Established screens / ads / programming with Park TV - routinely publicize our events.
Telephone communication:
• In the last ten months we have had 73 phone messages. This tally doesn't count when we are
in the office and people call directly. Its messages left on the phone. Of those messages:
- 10 Our Town: Voices & Verses
- 4 Our Town: Beats & Streets
- 12 Arts for Life scholarships
- 13 Partner organizations (fiscal agencies, etc.)
- 17 Board members or other general office misc. (insurance, MRAC, membership, logo
etc.)
- 9 Arts and Culture grant
- 8 Misc. questions (volunteering, places to display art, ideas for future projects etc.)
Finance
New Board treasurer: Sandy Hicks has been very helpful organizing finances and reporting
financially
• Tax return is completed for 2010.
• New financial reports detailed and comprehensive.
• Development plan for membership, sponsors and planned giving in progress.
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Adagio Unit Mix within Hoigaard Village.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests direction from the City Council regarding the acceptability of changes made by the
developer to the proposed unit mix.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this item is to decide what is an acceptable unit mix within the proposed Adagio
apartments so as to allow Union Land II to proceed with the construction the Adagio building
and Medley Row townhomes and complete the Hoigaard Village project. Redeveloper is looking
for approval of an amendment to the redevelopment contract at the February 6th EDA meeting.
The expectation is that construction of the proposed $25 million Adagio project would proceed
this spring.
BACKGROUND:
At the December 19, 2011 EDA meeting, approval of the 6th Amendment to the Redevelopment
Contract with Union Land II was postponed. The developer of the Hoigaard Village project was
asked to reconsider the mix of units in the proposed 100-unit Adagio apartment building. The
Adagio will be the third of four residential buildings in the 416-unit Hoigaard Village project.
The two largest components of the Hoigaard Village project, Harmony Vista (74 units and
25,000 SF of commercial space); and the 220-unit Camerata, as well as the project’s common
elements (contamination clean up, streets, utilities, regional pond, and site preparation) are all
complete and fully leased. The yet to be completed elements, are the Adagio, originally planned
to be a 58-unit condo building; and the 22 row homes called Medley Row. Changing economic
conditions since the inception of the Hoigaard Village project have led to the need for a series of
modifications to the original plan, most notably the shift from owner-occupied to rental units. A
site plan for the Hoigaard Village project is attached
The Hoigaard Village project was originally approved by the EDA in the spring of 2006. It was
conceived as a mixed-use development with a variety of housing types and unit configurations
including condos, apartments and townhomes. The Hoigaard Village project unfortunately hit
the market at the height of the recession and the decline in the housing market. Union Land II
has met the challenge of holding the project together during tough economic times. They have
reconfigured the development in a way that is consistent with the original goals of the project
and workable in today’s market; and, they have successfully found the needed investors and
financing to keep the project moving forward.
Current Revised Proposal
In response to the EDA direction on December 19th, the developer has reviewed the unit mix and
met with the projects investors and financiers. The developer is proposing to adjust the unit mix
by eliminating the studio units and increasing the number of one bedroom units with dens and
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Adagio Unit Mix within Hoigaard Village
one-bedroom units. The number of two bedroom units would stay the same. The new mix of
units would be 42 one-bedroom, 42 one-bedroom with dens, and 16 two bedroom units. The ten
previously proposed studio units would be eliminated. Thus, the percentage of larger units
(defined as 1 bedroom + den and 2 bedroom) within the building would increase to 58%.
This mix of units is consistent with market trends and, when taken in the context of the full
Hoigaard Village development, increases the diversity of Hoigaard Village. Today, 226 of the
294 units (or 77%) are larger than one-bedroom. With the addition of the Adagio and Medley
Row buildings, the unit mix will be 306 units (or 74%) larger than one-bedroom out of the total
416 units at Hoigaard Village. The variety of unit types, configurations and sizes should be
suitable for singles, couples and families.
Staff recommends approving the 6th Amendment to the redevelopment contract incorporating the
latest unit mix for the proposed Adagio apartment building. The proposed mix of units is market
supportable and, while increasing the number of one-bedroom apartments at Hoigaard Village, it
still continues the dominance of larger units in the overall development.
Frank Dunbar, the developer will be in attendance at the study session to answer any questions
regarding the proposed development.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is obligated to reimburse the Redeveloper for eligible expenses related to the Adagio
and Medley Row components of Hoigaard Village once they are completed; and, the amount of
reimbursement is limited to the available tax increment generated by these developments. Until
the Adagio and Medley Row project components are constructed they will not be contributing to
the tax increment available for reimbursement of the Redeveloper’s TIF-eligible expenses. It
should be noted that the Redeveloper already has incurred the expenses for which it is eligible
for reimbursement. The Redeveloper will have to continue to carry these costs until the
development is completed. Thus, the Redeveloper has every incentive to fully complete the
project sooner rather than later. It should be noted that tax increment generated from new
development in the Elmwood TIF district, including the Hoigaard Village project, is used to pay
for public improvements in the TIF district/Elmwood area.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Hoigaard Village is consistent with the City’s vision to be a community of diverse, high quality
housing permeated with arts and cultural activities with many gathering places.
Attachments: Hoigaard Village Site Plan
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Adagio Unit Mix within Hoigaard Village Page 3
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Adagio Unit Mix within Hoigaard Village Page 4
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiber Optic Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council is not asked to take any formal action. Rather, the purpose of this discussion is to (1)
familiarize or re-familiarize Council with the current study that was authorized by Council at its
September 19, 2010 meeting; and (2) ensure staff and CTC, the study consultant, are still on the
same page with Council regarding the study process, data gathering, and deliverables.
CTC study consultant and President Joanne Hovis will be present to elicit input from Council as
an initial phase of the study process.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to refine the study’s policy questions? The existing policy questions
noted below reflect the work done over the past year since these questions were reviewed and
endorsed by Council. Should there be significant changes or additions to the policy questions, it
should be understood that the consultant may need to reconsider the Statement of Work, and
related study costs.
There have been two umbrella policy questions since the study concept began:
(1) What else, if anything, might be done with the existing City-School-LOGIS owned fiber
optic network, beyond existing institutional uses?
(2) Should the City provide any requirements or incentives to include fiber optic facilities in
new construction or significantly remodeled buildings or other assets?
The deliverables from this study include responses to these two larger questions and sub-
questions along with analysis, opportunity and risk identification, and recommended follow-up
steps.
BACKGROUND:
First, familiarization with this topic is in order. This item is presented to Council as a follow-up
to Council’s approval of the consultant agreement at its September 19, 2011 m eeting. In
addition, Council considered this item at its study sessions of September 12, 2011, and June 14
and December 6, 2010. All related reports are attached, especially for newer Councilmembers,
but also as a refresher for all on Council.
Second, in support of addressing the policy questions noted above, the consultant and City have
developed a Statement of Work for this study. It is attached and describes the various study
tasks. Two of the major tasks – meeting with public sector stakeholders and meeting with private
sector stakeholders will be starting January 9. The Council study session is part of this, and there
several other meetings scheduled on both January 9 and 10. In addition, the Statement of Work
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 2
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
describes other study tasks and deliverables. CTC and City staff will be available to clarify the
Statement of Work and, more importantly, ensure that Council feels comfortable that its related
policy questions will be addressed.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2011 and 2012 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope, statement of work, and how
much can be accomplished within the combined $50,000 budget limit.
Other potential future financial impacts relate to any requirements or incentives to incorporate
fiber optic infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber
infrastructure that Council may direct. That said, it is important to note that any such actions
would be the result of further deliberations by the TAC and Council only after reviewing and
analyzing study results. It is not anticipated that any actions would be taken immediately
following or as a result of the study. Indeed, there are no funding sources currently identified for
any such actions.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: Council Reports Sept 19, 2011, Sept 12, 2011, Dec 6, 2010 & June 14, 2010
CTC – City Statement of Work
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 3
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
Meeting Date: September 19, 2011
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiber Network and Policy Study Agreement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize staff to enter into an agreement with CTC to complete a fiber optic study at a
cost not to exceed $50,000. The final cost would be determined by the agreed upon Statement of
Work between CTC and the City of St. Louis Park.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to engage a consultant to complete a study to address (1) what else
might be done with the existing fiber optic network, beyond existing institutional uses; and (2)
should the City provide any requirements or incentives to include fiber optic facilities in new
construction or significantly remodeled buildings or other assets? The deliverables from this
study include responses to these two questions along with analysis, opportunity and risk
identification, and recommended follow-up steps.
BACKGROUND:
This item is presented to Council as a follow-up to a written report provided at its September 12,
2011 study session. The September 12 report is attached, which also includes a related December
6, 2010 report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2011 and 2012 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope, statement of work, and
how much can be accomplished within the combined $50,000 budget limit.
Other potential future financial impacts relate to any requirements to incorporate fiber optic
infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure
that Council may direct. That said, it is important to note that any such actions would be the
result of further deliberations by the TAC and Council only after reviewing and analyzing study
results. It is not anticipated that any actions would be taken immediately following or as a result
of the study. Indeed, there are no funding sources currently identified for any such actions.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: September 19, 2011 Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Report
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 4
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
Meeting Date: September 12, 2011
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiber Network and Policy Study Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this meeting. This report is being provided as background information in
preparation for the City Councils consideration of entering into an agreement with a consultant to
continue on w ith the Fiber Optic Study at its September 19 m eeting. The study process is
proceeding in accordance with the written report provided to the City Council at its June 14 and
December 6, 2010 study sessions (12/6/10 report is attached).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions, comments or concerns that you might
have with this matter.
BACKGROUND:
This report is being provided as an update to the planned study that was budgeted in 2011 and
2012. At its June 14 and December 6, 2010 study sessions, Council received written staff updates
on the proposed study of possible opportunities associated with the publicly-owned fiber optic
network in the City.
The existing fiber network now includes about 30 miles of infrastructure, installed primarily
between 1997 and 2004. Different network segments have different capacities (number of fiber
strands), and some network segments have conduit only without fiber strands. These conduit
only segments were generally installed during road construction projects (by practice, not
policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with appropriate capacities to match future
service needs, but only when those service needs are known. Installation of fiber conduit when a
road is open for construction is relatively inexpensive.
The City and Schools are meeting many of their high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice,
data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8
years for an asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School applications are in
the queue (e.g., use of fiber for video conferencing) while other future uses remain unexplored.
However, fiber is anticipated to have a real future, in concert with wireless services, based on its
demonstrated performance. We need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as
spare strands.
As a reminder, the study is intended to revolve around two major areas: One is - what, if
anything, should the City do w ith the remaining fiber capacity from a public or private
perspective. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the existing fiber
infrastructure should be expanded. The second area revolves around whether the City should
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 5
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of
fiber optic capabilities in buildings or other assets during new construction or major remodeling.
PROGRESS SINCE DECEMBER 6 STUDY SESSION:
To address the questions above, the City Council directed formation of a Fiber Optic Study Task
Force. The Task Force was to be composed of Telecommunications Advisory Commission
(TAC) members, City staff, School staff, LOGIS staff, and representatives of the community. In
fact, this is the composition of the Task Force, and it also includes representatives from Park
Nicollet Health Systems, the business community, and the League of Women Voters.
Since January 2011, the Task Force has taken time to learn more about fiber optic technology,
and develop a plan to detail and explore the Council questions. As planned and anticipated, it is
now time to engage a consultant to complete the study activities and develop policy alternatives
around the study questions.
How did the Task Force get to this point in the process? A subcommittee of the Task Force was
charged with developing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) statement, issuing same, and then
interviewing selected firms to potentially complete the study based on submitted Statements of
Qualifications (SOQ). This summer, the subcommittee completed that task. After extensive
publication of the study RFQ, including to minority and women owned businesses, four SOQ’s
were received. Two firms were interviewed. Those two firms were Tellus Ventures and CTC.
The subcommittee brought results of the SOQ review and interview process to the Task Force on
August 10. At that meeting, the Task Force recommended that CTC be deemed the preferred
firm based on an analysis of the various strengths and weaknesses of the two finalists, and
reference checks. While CTC is the preferred firm, it should also be noted that both firms appear
able to complete the study within the budgeted amount of $50,000 from the Cable TV Fund.
The Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC) considered the recommendation of the
Fiber Optic Study Task Force at it August 25 meeting. Its advice to the City Council is in support
of the Fiber Optic Study Task Force in recommending CTC to complete this study.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on analysis completed by the Fiber Optic Study Task Force and the recommendation from
the TAC, staff is recommending that the City Council enter into an agreement with CTC at its
September 19 meeting. More specifically, staff recommends that the City Council designate CTC
as the preferred firm to complete the fiber optic study, and that staff be authorized to enter into
an agreement with CTC at a cost not to exceed $50,000 to complete the fiber optic study, based
upon a mutually agreeable Statement of Work. It should be noted that the City has worked
successfully with CTC in the past, particularly in support of the wireless project and through
successful litigation with the contractor. Consistent with the City’s commitment to diversity, it
should also be noted that CTC is a woman owned business enterprise. Indeed, CTC President
Joanne Hovis would be the lead on this study.
Should the Council approve this action at its September 19 meeting, it is anticipated that the
study would be completed within the first half of 2012. Detailed study work would be conducted
with the TAC and Fiber Optic Study Task Force. TAC would review study findings, then plan to
report to Council with those finding and any additional recommendations.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 6
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2011 and 2012 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be
accomplished within the combined $50,000 limit.
Other potential future financial impacts relate to any requirements to incorporate fiber optic
infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure
that Council may direct. That said, it is important to note that any such actions would be the
result of further deliberations by the TAC and Council only after reviewing and analyzing study
results. It is not anticipated that any actions would be taken immediately following or as a result
of the study. Indeed, there are no funding sources currently identified for any such actions.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: December 6, 2010 Fiber Network and Policy Study Update Report
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 7
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
Meeting Date: December 6, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiber Network and Policy Study Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. T he study process is proceeding in accordance with the written report
provided to the City Council at its June 14, 2010 study session.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is being provided as an update to the planned study that was budgeted in 2010 and is
also proposed for additional funding in 2011. At its June 14, 2010 s tudy session, Council
received a written staff update on the proposed study of the possible opportunities associated
with the publicly-owned fiber optic network in the City.
The existing fiber network includes about 28 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments
have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit
only without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road
construction projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with
appropriate capacities to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are
known. Installation of fiber conduit when a road is open for construction is relatively
inexpensive.
The City and Schools are meeting many of their high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice,
data, and radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8
years for an asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School needs remain (use
of fiber for video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, fiber is anticipated to
have a real future, in concert with wireless services, based on its demonstrated performance. We
need to and will reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands.
The study is intended to revolve around two major areas: One is what to do with the remaining
fiber capacity. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the existing fiber
infrastructure should be expanded. The second area is around whether the City should consider
playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property owners to install some portion of fiber
optic capabilities during new construction or major remodeling.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 8
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
NEXT STEPS:
Staff has now identified members of a task force to further define and propose the scope,
implementation, and outcomes of this study. Results of that effort would then be returned to
Council for review prior to the next step of issuing an RFQ for a consultant to conduct the study.
The attached project plan identifies current task force members and other aspects of the study.
We are hopeful that the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce will be able to appoint a member to
the task force, as they have been invited to do.
The Telecommunications Advisory Commission will be updated on the status of this project at
its December 9 meeting.
It is expected that the task force will commence its meetings in January 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 and 2011 Cable TV budgets each include $25,000 for this study. Those budgeted
amounts will need to be kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be
accomplished within the combined $50,000 limit.
Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic
infrastructure in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support
St. Louis Park’s desire to be a well-connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: Fiber Optic Study Task Force Project Plan
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 9
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
City of St. Louis Park
Fiber Optic Study Task Force
Project Plan
Task Force Members:
• Bruce Browning, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission (Co-Chair)
• Toby Keeler, SLP Telecommunications Advisory Commission (Co-Chair)
• Deb Brinkman, League of Women Voters
• Judith Cook, League of Women Voters
• Amy Hoerner-Balser, Clientek Consulting and SLP Property Owner
• Scott Jensen, Park Nicollet Health Clinics
• Tom Marble, SLP Schools
• Kevin Pikkaraine, LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems)
• Clint Pires, CIO, City of St. Louis Park
• John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator, City of St. Louis Park
• Lori Dreier, Police Lieutenant, City of St. Louis Park
• Laura Adler, Engineering Program Manager, City of St. Louis Park
• Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, City of St. Louis Park
• John Tilton, Chief Building Official, City of St. Louis Park
• Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, City of St. Louis Park
Task Force Goals:
1. Mutual Understanding of the Background (Business Need / Opportunity)
2. Mutual Understanding of the Reasons for the Task Force
3. Mutual Understanding of Economic Development Questions We Are Asking and Why
(Project Benefits)
• Possible Uses / Expansion of Existing Fiber Infrastructure
• Possible Enabling Ordinances (requirements or incentives)
4. Identify Additional Background, Reasons, and Questions
5. Frame the Study Scope, Implementation, and Expected Outcomes (Project Approach)
6. Formulate the RFQ
7. Review Study Proposals / Interview Consultants
8. Recommend Consultant to City Manager / City Council
9. Monitor and Participate in the Study
10. Receive the Study and Recommendations
11. Present Study Results to Telecommunications Advisory Commission and City Council
Schedule:
January – September 2011
Budget:
$50,000 (from Cable TV Fund – subscriber franchise fees; not tax supported)
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 10
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
Task Force Structure:
1. Members
2. Chair and Vice Chair
3. Roles of Members to Achieve Goals
4. Meeting Schedule
Risks:
While there are numerous potential economic development benefits associated with this project,
it is important to identify some of the possible risks associated with it as well.
1. Not being able to adhere to the timeline or anticipated budget
2. Not asking the right questions in the study to properly determine economic development
or other opportunities
3. Impact of diversion from other major initiatives
4. Inability of a critical mass of task force members to actively participate
5. Inability to find the optimal consultant to address study questions
6. The study results miss key findings or provide unjustified recommendations
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 11
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiber Network and Policy Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. However, the study process will commence as outlined below absent Council
direction to the contrary.
This report is being provided as background information in preparation for a planned study that was
budgeted in 2010. Staff also solicited participation in this project from the Telecommunications
Advisory Commission at its May 13 meeting. TAC members Bruce Browning and Toby Keeler
volunteered to assist with the study process. That said, prior to beginning the study process, staff
requests that Council express any major thoughts, concerns, interests, or questions on the issues and
opportunities identified in this report. That is critical to ensure that the scope, implementation, and
expected outcomes of the study are consistent with Council purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable with staff continuing with the study process?
BACKGROUND:
As the wi-fi project was coming to a conclusion, Council requested that staff prepare some policy
points around both the potential use of existing City-owned fiber optic capacity and related
ordinances requiring installation of fiber capabilities in construction. The wi-fi project clean-up has
ended, LocaLoop decided to not lease city facilities (though they have apparently commenced
service), and Clearwire has leased space on three water towers in anticipation of offering Wi-MAX
service by the end of 2010 (according to last report). Thus, it seems like the right time to start
addressing the fiber-related policy questions.
The jointly owned fiber network was installed beginning in 1997 following collaborative planning
by the City, Schools, and LOGIS. Major segments of the network were completed in 1998 by the
Schools and in 2005 by the City and LOGIS. Incremental additions were made to connect certain
sites, plus an additional 8 miles received as part of the wi-fi project legal settlement.
The existing fiber network includes about 28 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments
have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit only
without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road construction
projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with appropriate capacities
to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are known. Installation of fiber
conduit when a road is open for construction is relatively inexpensive.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 12
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
The City and Schools are meeting many high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice, data, and
radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8 years for an
asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School needs remain (use of fiber for
video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, fiber is anticipated to have a real
future, in concert with wireless services, based on its demonstrated performance. We need to and will
reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands. One question that arises is what to do
with the remaining fiber capacity. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the
existing fiber infrastructure should be expanded.
LONG-TERM STUDY TOPICS:
Over time, the City Council and Telecommunications Advisory Commission have asked about the
future use of the existing and growing fiber optic network. In addition, questions have been raised
about whether the City should consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property
owners to install some portion of fiber optic capabilities during new construction or major
remodeling. There are several potential longer-term study questions surrounding the fiber optic
network whose owners include the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park ISD #283, and Local
Government Information Systems (LOGIS). What follows are some possible major questions to be
considered in a study, and just a few potential alternative answers (not mutually exclusive):
• What goal(s) is the City of St. Louis Park trying to achieve? For example:
o increased competition for high-speed Internet service and related competitive pricing
from the private sector
o increased mobile computing alternatives from the private sector
o increased citywide Internet service alternatives from the private sector
o increased use of the City’s right-of-way for private economic development
o increased opportunities to groups currently underserved by technology / Internet
services
o increased City revenues from private sector use of public assets
o enhanced public services from use of citywide Internet service alternatives from the
private sector
o incorporating and integrating goals of the Schools and LOGIS with the City
o fair treatment to all private sector providers who are interested in private sector use of
public assets
• What does the City Council wish to do with the existing network and remaining fiber
capacity? For example:
o expand the network based on a long-term plan
o expand the network only as needed per an identifiable business purpose
o expand the network only with other construction by policy (e.g., road
reconstruction)
o sell ownership of segments of the network
o lease parts of remaining capacity on the network while retaining ownership
o change nothing - maintain and retain solely for current City, School, and LOGIS use
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 13
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
• How do we maximize both City operational and public benefits of our fiber assets? For
example:
o identify other City business uses
o identify potential productivity improvement opportunities
o position fiber assets with private sector services that could benefit the public (e.g., the
defunct LocaLoop proposal)
• What tasks are related to any expanded (public) use of our fiber assets?
o leasing agreements
o State and Federal regulatory requirements
o Internet Service Provider
o revenue generation through leasing or sale
o network maintenance – repair, locates, etc.
o other business models
• What broader regulatory role (if any) should the City play? For example:
o requirement to include fiber in new construction or major remodeling
o incentive to include fiber in new construction or major remodeling
o legal requirements in leasing fiber or fiber capacity
• What should be included in a fiber network policy to govern the above?
Staff will organize a study group with members from the TAC, staff, and elsewhere to better define
the scope, implementation, and expected outcomes of the study. It will be important for this group
to check in with Council to ensure the study process remains aligned with Council goals and
addresses its larger policy questions.
Staff also suggests that the study questions above (and others) are important to address only if
Council believes the answer to the questions below is affirmative.
• Does availability of high speed Internet service still matter as an important policy question
for City Council?
o 3 years since Council considered this question in depth.
o U.S. currently ranks approximately 15th worldwide in broadband penetration.
o if this matters, does the City Council feel there is any role for the City to play?
• Do we wish to learn about what Comcast, Qwest, Clearwire, and others are doing to provide
and grow high speed Internet services in St. Louis Park?
o Comcast has provided information to customers about increased speeds
o Qwest has added fiber segments in St. Louis Park (per permits) and other
communities. This is fiber to the node / neighborhood (FTTN), not to the home.
Qwest advertises higher speeds available in some St. Louis Park locations.
o Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and others providing 3G (third generation) wireless.
o pricing appears to remain at levels similar to 3 years ago, but needs verification.
o will Comcast, Qwest, others share any information on current coverage / speeds and
plans for the future?
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 14
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
o How do the services available in St. Louis Park compare with other metropolitan area
cities? Do our residents and businesses have ample access to state of the art services,
or are they lacking in choice of providers, levels of service, or pricing options?
o Clearwire claims it will start offering Wi-MAX service throughout the metro by the
end of 2010
o no known other major provider effort is underway.
• Do we wish to learn what other cities are doing with respect to their fiber network
infrastructure?
o many have talked, few have acted.
o locally, Monticello and Windom building municipal fiber specifically for triple-play
(video-voice-Internet services).
o other Minnesota communities (primarily smaller) have FTTH (fiber-to-the-home)
provided by CLEC or ILEC (i.e., phone company)
o are other cities interested in collaborating on a study?
• Do we wish to learn what other cities are doing with respect to broader regulatory roles for
requiring fiber facilities as part of private development?
o locally, very little activity
o nationally, Loma Linda CA is the poster city (see information from its website)
o otherwise, little regulatory roles have been discovered, but this would be a topic for
the study
Program Information
FIBER TO THE HOME
Fiber To The Home (FTTH)
Loma Linda Expands FTTH past the home, reaching out to businesses, wireless, anywhere...
we call it FTTX.
Why is FTTX important to Loma Linda?
• This city believes in infrastructure
• Provide a better infrastructure for economic growth and development (e.g. higher home
values, better business environment, etc.)
• Promote competition (Open Ethernet System)
• Strengthens the image of the City as innovative and progressive
• Supports the commercial and residential interests of the citizens
• Enables the City to play a very central role with our larger business in the City
• Create a globally competitive community
• Establish a new revenue source
• Empowered more community involvement
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 15
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
Loma Linda’s FTTX Ordinance
New Construction Requirements:
• Data Cabinet in Master Bedroom
• Cable Bundle Set – 2 Cat 6, 1 Coax in each Living space. 2 sets in Master Bed Room and
Family Room
• Fiber into Data Cabinet and Community MDF
• Fiber throughout the development
• Build a community MDF
• Deed the infrastructure over to the City once completed
• City provides builders with design, SOW and BOM
• City provides list of certified and approved contractors
• Cost to the Builder ~ $3,500 per unit
NEXT STEPS:
Staff plans to formulate and convene a study group to further define and propose the scope,
implementation, and outcomes of this study. That would then be returned to Council for
modification prior to the next step of issuing an RFQ for a consultant to conduct the study. It is
currently anticipated this study could be completed by the first quarter of 2011.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 Cable TV budget includes $25,000 for this study. That budgeted amount will need to be
kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be accomplished.
Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic infrastructure
in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support St.
Louis Park’s desire to be a well connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 16
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
Fiber Optic Study Statement of Work
CTC understands the City of St. Louis Park seeks to advance community connectedness and
productive use of technology, and to ensure that the jointly-owned City– School District -
LOGIS broadband infrastructure is adequate to meet future educational and governmental needs,
and explore options for additional community benefits.
The City of St. Louis Park approaches many strategic opportunities with the idea that it needs to
constantly anticipate, innovate, and adapt. This study will focus on this use of the collective
imagination to identify how St. Louis Park will or may change over time, and how it can
anticipate, innovate, and adapt with respect to fiber optics and related technologies. One goal is
to continue to be competitive and attract residents, businesses, and non-profits to locate, stay, and
thrive in St. Louis Park. Part of this effort will also include models used in other communities.
CTC proposes to evaluate with the City a range of strategic approaches and then prepare a report
that analyzes the feasibility (and provides recommendations) with respect to various options to
leverage the City’s existing fiber optic infrastructure, including:
1. Options for maximizing the benefits of existing City infrastructure through a range of
technology and business models
2. Options for expanding existing City infrastructure through a range of models
3. Options for City actions that could facilitate private construction of infrastructure
Specifically, we propose the following tasks and deliverables:
Task 1: Lead On-Site Meetings and Workshops
CTC proposes to explore, at a high-level, a number of options for leveraging or expanding the
City’s existing infrastructure. Through a series of exploratory workshops, public meetings, and
interviews, we will engage with representatives of the City, the private sector, and community
nonprofits to determine those groups’ interests, and by extension to explore a range of options
for expanding the availability of broadband in the City for businesses, residents, and institutions.
We propose to conduct a series of intensive meetings and workshops for data gathering purposes,
as well as to inform the attendees of the possibilities and enable them to envision how
communications can enhance St. Louis Park in the future. To this end, we propose a series of
meetings with a range of stakeholders, as follows:
Subtask 2A: Lead On-Site Meetings with Public Sector Stakeholders
CTC will prepare an agenda and facilitate an on-site planning meeting to launch the project. At
the meeting, we will have a highly interactive discussion with invited stakeholders to gather key
input to frame the project.
As we initially engage the City’s key internal stakeholders, we will ask a range of questions to
help inform the determination of the City’s key goals, including:
• What level of support would stakeholders provide?
• What are stakeholders’ needs for services that can be offered over a broadband network?
• What are stakeholders’ opinions on policy, potential business models, and technology?
• What feedback do stakeholders want to provide on any other aspects of the project?
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 17
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
• What types of connectivity and broadband services do the stakeholders currently use?
• What limitations do the stakeholders see in their current situation?
• What are their expectations for current and future high-speed needs?
• What applications do the stakeholders currently use and plan to use in the future?
• What resources or assets are available through their department?
Some of the key topics we will investigate with respect to the scope of this study are:
• How does the City define success?
• What is the City’s appetite for risk versus reward?
• What resources does the City have—including financial, motivational, inspirational, and
infrastructure—that could be leveraged for the project?
We anticipate engaging the following sets of public sector stakeholders:
• Relevant City departments and other public entities, including public works,
transportation, utilities, schools, and libraries
• The Community Development department, in order to fully benefit from the data and
analysis that department has already prepared and to engage in a joint brainstorming and
visioning process regarding how broadband connectivity can fit into the range of future
projects the City already plans or may plan
Subtask 2B: Lead On-Site Meetings with Private Sector Stakeholders
We also recommend a meeting or meetings with key private sector stakeholders, with a
particular focus on:
• The Chamber of Commerce and other business groups
• Carriers and ISPs already engaged in the St. Louis Park market, particularly those on the
competitive side of the industry who, in our experience, are most amenable to creative
partnerships with the public sector to meet community needs
• Key employers, such as Park Nicollet Health Services, whose communications needs can
be strong drivers for City efforts (and whose participation will likely encourage
participation by business groups)
• Key community non-profits including those that use broadband to further their missions
as well as those whose work is particularly targeted to enhancing broadband availability
and adoption
Task 3: Assess the Existing Competitive Communications Market
CTC will analyze the current and emerging state of broadband technology and services
deployment in the City, particularly in the business areas that, in our previous experience in the
City, were dramatically underserved with adequate broadband. This assessment is intended to
determine where the greatest gaps exist that can be addressed through City action.
This analysis will include:
• Develop a list of current broadband providers of data services to consumers, business,
education, and government, including:
o The services currently offered
o The costs for current services
o The services expected to be provided in one to three years
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 18
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
• Identify providers of high capacity transport services (T1 and above) offering services to
consumers, business, education, and government
o Distinguish between facilities based and non-facilities based providers
o Identify current offerings
o Identify commercial broadband wireless services including 3G and 4G service
• Perform a comparative evaluation of the incumbent systems, with available data, to
determine capability to meet the broadband needs of the area
o Service characteristics
o Monthly recurring costs
o One-time costs
o Limitations and issues
Our analysis of the current state of broadband deployment in the City will also include:
• Analyzing and describing existing broadband services and communications infrastructure
owned and operated by the private sector
• Analyzing and describing current access to both wireline and wireless broadband
networks. This analysis will include a summary of existing coverage maps and available
speed data, targeted to the FCC’s current standard for broadband of 4 mbps downstream
and 1 mbps upstream actual (not advertised) speeds.1 We will also provide a critical
analysis of existing coverage maps—for example, we have found that the National
Broadband Map (www.broadbandmap.gov) consistently overstates both the level of
competition and the availability of broadband.
• Reviewing the current inhibitors nationally and locally for high-speed broadband use
(such as cost, quality, and market knowledge)
Task 4: Assess the Demand and Need for Enhanced Broadband Services,
Particularly in Business Areas
CTC will evaluate the potential market for services (e.g., dark fiber, point-to-point), particularly
with respect to small businesses and the City’s business districts (which, as the wireless project
confirmed, are traditionally underserved with respect to broadband services), to gauge the risk
the City might incur on the revenue side if it were to expand its services to businesses.
We propose two data collection mechanisms for this important task, both of which are designed
to be particularly cost-effective:
First, we will undertake a series of interviews and conversations with potential customers. One
goal of the discussions will be to understand the potential customers’ needs. We will interview
1 “access to affordable broadband service offering actual download (i.e., to the customer) speeds of
at least 4 Mbps and actual upload (i.e., from the customer) speeds of at least 1 Mbps. This target was
derived from analysis of user behavior, demands this usage places on the network, and recent
experience in network evolution. It is the minimum speed required to stream a high-quality —even if
not high-definition—video while leaving sufficient bandwidth for basic web browsing and e-mail, a
common mode of broadband usage today that comports directly with section 706’s definition of
advanced telecommunications capability. As the target for the broadband capability that the National
Broadband Plan recommends should be available to all Americans, this speed threshold provides an
appropriate benchmark. FCC SIXTH BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT REPORT "706" Adopted: July
16, 2010 Released: July 20, 2010 pg.4, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-
129A1.pdf.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 19
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
key business owners or groups identified and invited by City staff. We request that the City
schedule the potential participants and provide sufficient meeting facilities. The interviews will
provide qualitative data that can assist in projecting future requirements and reactions to various
“what if” scenarios.
Second, we will prepare an on-line survey to which we would like St. Louis Park businesses to
respond. As the City has suggested, we will mail a postcard to the City’s comprehensive address
list of St. Louis Park businesses. With that address list, we will work with the City to inform the
businesses by mail of the online survey and to encourage them to complete it. While we do not
recommend online surveys with respect to the residential and anchor institution markets, we do
believe this methodology is sound when applied to a closed, moderate-sized group for which
contact information is available—such as a group of businesses in one community.
The data collected through both of these methods will enable us to assess:
• What types of connectivity and broadband services do St. Louis Park customers currently
use?
• What limitations do they see in their current situation?
• What are their expectations for current and future high-speed needs, and how well does
their current provider meet these needs?
• What applications do they currently use and plan to use in the future?
• What higher-speed services might they buy if the services were available, and at what
prices?
• How do they feel about a City role in providing or facilitating high-speed services?
Task 5: Explore Options for Enhanced Use or Expansion of City Infrastructure
Based on the data collected in the Tasks above, we will examine what it would take for the City
to potentially provide services to businesses and homes in St. Louis Park, as well as other
incremental and more conservative approaches. These approaches will include evaluating how
the City could make its existing fiber available to the private sector under certain parameters for
providing service; whether the City should expand its fiber footprint with the idea of being a
service provider or fiber provider; and whether the City should consider a targeted incremental
build in the concentrated business areas of St. Louis Park.
Task 6: Explore Options for City-Directed Private Expansion of Fiber
Infrastructure
To support models under which the City would expand its fiber infrastructure, we will explore
options for the City to require or incentivize private businesses to install fiber optic facilities
during their construction projects. For example, the City might consider requiring fiber-to-the-
premises installation for any greenfield construction, reconstruction, and building rehabilitation.
We will identify potential barriers to private cooperation, and potential benefits of such an
initiative.
Task 7: Explore Options for City Facilitation of Private Broadband Initiatives
through Enhanced Access to Public Property
To support models under which the City would facilitate the expansion of private sector
broadband infrastructure, we will briefly explore options for the City to lease its property,
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 5) Page 20
Subject: Fiber Optic Study
expand access to rights-of-way, tweak regulations related to tower siting, and other operational
changes that may incentivize private sector investment in broadband expansion. We offer the
caveat that (despite industry claims) changing City practices and regulations is unlikely to serve
as a silver bullet to enhance private investment. It is worth evaluating, however, whether there
may be the chance of some impact on industry investment as a result of modest changes in City
practices or ordinances regarding rights-of-way, tower siting, leasing of public property, and
related issues.
Task 8: Explore Alternative Programs to Support City Broadband Initiatives
CTC will provide information and recommendations on programs such as E-rate and US Ignite
that may be of benefit to the City in future initiatives.
Task 9. Prepare and Present Report and Documentation
CTC will provide the City with a draft report in electronic form documenting all of our findings
and recommendations, including an executive summary. We will provide a final, edited version
within 14 days of receipt of your comments.
The report recommendations will include analysis of how the strategies meet the City's goals and
at what cost—as well as how the recommendations relate to and complement (or replace) each
other.
Our report will illustrate experiences, best practices, and trends, both national and international;
will summarize our efforts and the outcomes; will identify what we think are the promising areas
worthy of further exploration and more detailed analysis; and will provide recommendations
regarding potential initiatives that have been explored sufficiently to be ready for implementation
(i.e., the incremental steps, rather than the most ambitious ones).
CTC will present the findings of the study in summary form to the City and any other parties
invited by the City.
Proposed Time-Frame and Communications Structure
We propose a project schedule of approximately four to six months from initiation, depending on
how swiftly the key data-gathering meetings can be scheduled. We anticipate starting the survey
work immediately (October and early November are good months for collecting survey data but
as Thanksgiving approaches, we caution against using resources for surveys that are unlikely to
go unanswered until after the New Year).
Ideally, all data collection can be completed before Thanksgiving, such that CTC and the City
can then use the data for brainstorming, strategic idea generation, and discussion. Based on
those discussions, CTC would then conduct its analysis and prepare its report in the months that
follow, for delivery early in 2012.
CTC will provide the City with a monthly progress report. In addition, we hope you are
amenable to a weekly status update call that will enable us to remain aligned on all Tasks and
goals.
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff requests Council feedback and direction as to the attached draft agenda which has been
prepared based on responses received from the survey completed by Councilmembers. It is
important that consensus is reached by Council on the agenda and related topics.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is Council in agreement with the direction staff has outlined on the draft agenda?
BACKGROUND:
For a number of years the City Council has met in a day or day and one half workshop to
enhance relationships and discuss policy related matters. Last year the focus of the workshop
was on the Carver Governance model, City Council communication standards, and a discussion
on two specific initiatives – the Louisiana Ave and Hwy 7 interchange project and
Civic/Recreational Facilities.
This year’s workshop is scheduled for the late afternoon and evening of Friday, January 20 and
during the day on Saturday, January 21. To assist with developing the agenda for the workshop
all Council members completed a simple survey to help flesh out ideas. Attached is a copy of
the survey results.
As a part of using the survey results to develop an agenda staff looked for themes that emerged.
While admittedly staff took some liberties in interpreting the survey results, themes that seemed
to rise to the surface upon which staff developed the agenda are listed below. These themes are
ordered in priority based on staff’s interpretation of the survey results:
o Relational Learning – There was a very strong interest in this area. Understanding that
looking inward in terms of the Councils future working relationship has an impact on
everything else and is a great starting point. There are two new City Council members.
This means Council needs to understand each other, dialogue about how council works,
and have quality conversations with each other.
o Planning for Significant Projects– There seemed to be a strong interest in discussing
some of the large projects being contemplated for the future and how they all fit together
from a big picture perspective, particularly from a financial point of view.
o Housing Policy – There was interest expressed in discussing the City’s housing policy,
particularly related to move up housing and affordable housing.
o The Environment –There was interest expressed in discussing this topic, particularly
related to recycling and new initiatives.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The practice of the City Council has been to use an off-site facility for the workshop and keep
costs to a minimum. This same approach is proposed for this coming workshop and is budgeted
for accordingly.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The agenda topics proposed have a direct relationship to the City Councils adopted Strategic
Directions.
Attachment: Council Workshop Survey Results
Draft Agenda
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop
Introduction
To ensure the annual workshop is as productive as possible it is important that the
City Council participate in the setting of the agenda and related topics for the
workshop. This survey is intended to collect ideas from you that can then used by
the entire Council to develop the workshop agenda.
Premise
Staff would suggest there are several underlying themes for this council workshop
that are important to incorporate somehow into the agenda. We have new City
Council members. When new members arrive in a group, it is critical to spend time
together so that you continue to be a highly functional team. It is important to
understand the dynamics of being on the Council and spend some reflective
learning time on developing relationships, understanding roles, written and
unwritten rules, and learning (or reinforcing learning) about the City’s approach to
governance. It is proposed that these topics be discussed on Friday evening,
January 20th.
On Saturday, January 21st, it is proposed that the day be spent discussing bigger
picture policy related topics. To assist staff in preparing for these policy
discussions the Council is being asked to provide its input on what these topics
should be.
Instructions
In order to prepare for the Council Workshop discussion on January 21st , we ask
that you fill out the following survey and return it to Bridget Gothberg. The
survey is being provided in both WORD and PDF typeable formats. The results of
the survey will be presented to the Council at a study session in aggregate and not
attributed to any specific Council member. Please return completed surveys to
Bridget Gothberg via Email bgothberg@stlouispark.org, fax (952) 924-2170 or
mail (5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416).
Please note that survey question #2 is centered on the four Strategic Directions the
City Council has adopted.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop
SURVEY
1. What do you need/want to make this a successful workshop?
Relationship building. New council. Etc. Also, this has been a very tough year
for us and we need to get back in sync with each other. Not high functioning
this year; much dissension, small bowl discussions have gotten us off target.
We need to fix that.
Building a foundation for a good working relationship with other CC members.
Less confrontation, more laughter.
I would like to avoid discussing existing projects/issues that can be covered in
study sessions.
I think it is important that we learn about each other's personality styles and
how that translates in how we communicate especially with each other on
difficult issues.
Ward council and at large-council: should be strong communications and know
expectations for each other.
Better understanding of professional/personal boundaries. We’re here to work
together – actually liking each other would be a bonus but is not necessary to
an effective working relationship. We don’t have to leave the retreat as best
friends, but rather as effective colleagues.
Leveling the playing field and making sure we are all aware of and committed
to tasks, responsibilities, and expectations. All be present.
Reviewing financial projections and trends and staff’s assessment of future
staffing needs, so we get a good grounding when reviewing proposed projects.
On policy, I need to understand the budget and how that is put together and
managed.
I need to spend some time getting to know the other members at a personal
level. Would like to know what they want to get out of the job, what they
want for their wards/city, where do they see themselves in 2-4-8 years? Why
are they on the council?
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop
2. Using the following examples listed below, please identify the top three things
you would like covered in the workshop. Remember, these are examples. Please
suggest those topics that you feel would be most useful for the Council to discuss.
Please T check (double click box & select “checked”) or fill in below under “Other”.
a. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community
4 Civic and Recreational Facilities
3 Sidewalks and Trails
2 SWLRT/Freight Rail
2 Other major transportation projects i.e. Hwy. 100, Louisiana & 7, etc.
(please note below)
b. St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship
2 Expanding recycling programs
2 Other (please note below)
c. St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse
housing stock.
1 Housing Initiatives
2 Other (please note below)
d. St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and
community aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation when
appropriate.
2 Sustainable funding for the arts
1 Other (please note below)
e. Other
o Highway 100 and bridges at Hwy. 7 and Minnetonka
o Transportation – HWY 100 plan and what state delegation thinks
they can pull together.
o Polypropylene and plastic bag ban
o I am interested in discussing new environmental initiatives, beyond
what we do today, such as greater protection for green spaces and
trees.
o Hennepin County will push their recycling agenda forward and we
will follow. I personally lean toward reduce and reuse message.
o Move up housing
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop
o Especially like the idea of scattered site affordable housing – what
has to happen to make that idea a real policy with real teeth so we
don’t keep passing by development opportunities? We need to put
developers on notice that this is just how we do business here (if
indeed, we agree that this is a good policy). We might also want to
frame the Meadowbrook discussion – potentially 525 units of
market/privately owned affordable housing that could be at serious
risk of being lost – what does that mean to our community? What
do we need to do to plan ahead so these units don’t get lost in the
LRT excitement?
o Helping residents maintain housing in these financial times. Rental
properties, unintended landlords and empty properties are becoming
more apparent.
o Housing-move up program. Also, can we expand this program to
include possible businesses “move up” much like home program?
o There is a study that is being done on gathering places and that is
moving forward as are other transportation matters. I would like to
spend time on trails and sidewalks as that is something residents
identified as very important and we need to address this need.
o In terms of civic facilities, I’m not entirely sure what our
conversation would be versus the advisory group that is being
formed right now. I want to be sure we don’t step on their toes. The
main piece that might be helpful would be the financial pieces – not
just the one-time but the ongoing – long-term view. Maybe a little
discussion about the politics of it and how we might navigate that.
o This discussion might also just get wrapped into a broader
conversation about the long-term financial issues the city is facing.
The number of funds that appear to be unsustainable is a serious
issue, and our ability to both understand it, understand the choices
about it, and what our options are, are important to our work this
entire year.
o I also think it plays back into the civic facilities discussion since
much of it will be around the money. It’s not clear what we can
really afford if we’re faced with an enormous bill to fix crumbling
sewer and sanitary systems, etc.
o I think that the finances is technically challenging – always. More
tutorials are always needed to understand all the layers of
complexities and interactions.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Subject: Proposed Agenda – 2012 City Council Workshop
o Sustainable funding.
o City wide wi-fi – would like to consider another try at that.
o How to make arts more than something we do and instead something
we “are”. Are we a creative community?
o Integrating our work and the schools work more completely.
o Would like to discuss LRT/Freight but know we have/will talk on
that a lot in the near future so that’s the bottom of my list.
o We as a council should have somewhat of a unified voice—we can
still think different ways, it is the how we communicate our
difference. How do we see ourselves functioning as a body? We are
different people and we all represent St. Louis Park, even if we don’t
agree.
o How do we bring new businesses in to St. Louis Park? Look at job
growth and economic growth.
o Economics and the financial piece.
City Council Workshop
January 20-21, 2012
Place: To Be Determined
Outcomes of Council Workshop
• To build a foundation for a high functioning/high performing City Council
• To understand and recommit to the four Vision St. Louis Park Strategic
Directions
• To develop an understanding and direction (as necessary) on specific policy
issues to be discussed.
Friday 4:30 – 9:00
1. Connecting: Answer these three questions:
a. What do you get out of being on the council or want to get out of it?
b. What motivates you to be on the council?
c. Where do you see yourself in the next 5 years?
2. Gregorc
New Council Members will meet with Bridget Gothberg ahead of time to take the
Gregorc instrument—20 minutes needed per person. If others want to re-take the
instrument, they are welcome to do so.
We will use the Gregorc to talk about each person’s style, including the City
Manager. Personal preferences will also be discussed.
We will tie these two steps into how to develop high performing groups.
3. Carver Governance Model
a. A quick overview of what it is/how it works.
b. Experienced Council members share examples with new members
Nancy Deno and Bridget Gothberg will give a short overview of the underlying
Carver premises. Then we will open the discussion by asking experienced council
members to share their view on how it works and what council roles and
approaches are in governance.
4. Discuss “Unwritten” City Council Rules and Protocols
5. Closure
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Proposed Agenda - 2012 City Council Workshop Page 8
Saturday 9:00 – 3:30
COFFEE/JUICE AND PASTRIES/FRUIT at 8:30 a.m.
1. Check in/Connecting/Recap Previous Evening
We will have some fun with this and it won’t be too touchy-feely.
2. Overview of Vision SLP and four City Council adopted Strategic Directions
Tom Harmening will review Vision and the four Strategic Directions
3. Topic discussions (in priority from a timing perspective)
a. Financial planning and prioritization for anticipated major public
improvement projects
i. Hwy. 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange
ii. Hwy. 100 project
iii. Civic/Recreation Facilities Improvements
iv. Sidewalks and trails
This discussion will be done from a high level/big picture perspective. This is not
intended to be a conversation on the specific/small details of the four items listed
above. Rather, the intent is to look at these major initiatives collectively from an
overall timing and financial planning perspective. Discussion will also revolve
around the priority they should be given, and if we say “yes” to each of these,
what will need to say “no” to. We would like to come out with clear direction
and priorities.
4. Review and discuss SLP housing policies with focus on:
a. Affordable housing
b. Move up housing
c. Housing market
This will be done with a big picture conversation and end with an understanding
of what should come back to council over the next year regarding housing.
5. Review and discuss environmental programs and initiatives
a. Recycling
b. New initiatives
We will discuss what is happening now and what needs to happen to ensure we
are good environmental stewards.
6. Closure
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Proposed Agenda - 2012 City Council Workshop Page 9
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution
Ordinance Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Charter Amendment for Administrative Penalties.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action at this time. The purpose of this report is to update the Council on the proposed
Charter Amendment process for Administrative Penalties.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to make this change to the City Charter to allow for a simpler and more
direct code enforcement procedure?
BACKGROUND:
Staff is proposing an ordinance change to implement an administrative penalties system to allow
for a simpler and more direct code enforcement procedure. This procedure would impose
penalties at the City level, providing a quicker and more efficient process than working through
the County Court system. The proposed changes will streamline the process and reduce the cost
of code enforcement. The City Attorney suggested the City amend the City Charter as well, to
make it clear the City has the authority to levy unpaid civil penalties.
CIVIL PENALTIES:
An administrative penalty is an administrative citation process issued to the owner of a property
where a code violation exists. It imposes a fee to a property owner or citizen charged with a
code violation. While the City has an administrative penalty procedure in place now, the
proposed change is to use the process for many more items, including zoning violations. It
would also include a city process to appeal such fees, and a process for assessing unpaid fines in
a manner similar to a special assessment.
CHARTER AMENDMENT PROCESS:
Amending the City Charter begins with the Charter Commission and requires a public hearing.
On December 6, 2011, the Charter Commission voted unanimously to recommend the City
Council adopt the attached amendment to the City Charter. The amendment would specifically
address civil penalties, and give the City the authority to assess the penalties against property
when they are unpaid. The City Council is scheduled to conduct the public hearing on February
21, 2012, and will be asked to consider approval of the proposed charter amendment at that time.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT:
The proposed Ordinance Amendment would modify the current Administrative Penalties
Ordinance (Section 1-14) and sections of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 36). It would allow the
administrative penalty procedure to be used more widely, establish a formal appeal process, and
allow the city to place a lien against a property to collect the fines. This procedure would not
replace the Hennepin County court procedure, but be another method of code enforcement the
City could utilize instead of the county system .
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Charter Amendment for Administrative Penalties
Staff is continuing to work on details pertaining to the implementation of the ordinance,
including the procedures and forms to be utilized when issuing citations, processing an appeal,
and assessing unpaid penalties. A summary of the process will be presented to the Council at a
study session in May, prior to Council consideration of the ordinance which would occur in June.
As noted below, the adoption of the Administrative Penalties ordinance cannot take place until
June in order to allow the Charter Amendment process to be completed.
NEXT STEPS:
1. The Charter Amendment is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council on
February 21, 2012. A unanimous vote is required by the City Council to approve the
amendment.
If the Charter Amendment is approved by the City Council, then the amendment will be
advertised, and residents will have 60 days to petition for a referendum on the amendment.
If a petition for a referendum is not submitted, then the amendment is published once again
stating that it will take effect 30 days from the publication date.
2. At a May City Council Study Session, staff will present a summary of the procedures to be
utilized by staff regarding citations, appeals, and assessing unpaid penalties.
3. On June 4, 2012, the City Council considers the first reading of amendments to the City Code
to adopt the Administrative Penalties ordinance.
4. On June 18, 2012, the City Council considers the second reading of amendments to the City
Code to adopt the Administrative Penalties ordinance.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
It is the intent of the civil penalty process to respectfully resolve code violations in a manner that
reduces staff time and ensures all fines are paid.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Charter Amendment Recommended by the Charter Commission
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Charter Amendment for Administrative Penalties
HOME RULE CHARTER
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Section 11.05. Civil Penalties.
(a) The City Council may establish by ordinance a procedure for imposing a civil penalty for
any violation of a city ordinance. The procedure must provide an opportunity for any
person or entity charged with a civil penalty to be notified of the penalty and to have an
opportunity to respond to the charge. The procedure must provide an opportunity for the
accused to be heard by a neutral party.
(b) The City Council may provide by ordinance that unpaid civil penalties be collected
through a process similar to a special assessment against real property if the penalty
relates to the maintenance of the property or to an activity, use, or delivery of City service
associated with the property. The ordinance must provide that the City should first
attempt to obtain voluntary payment of the penalty. The ordinance must also provide that
notice and an opportunity to be heard be given to the property owner listed on the official
tax records before the penalty is assessed.
(c) With respect to unpaid civil penalties assessed against real property pursuant to
Paragraph (b) of this Section, the assessment may include late payment penalties to cover
the administrative and legal costs incurred by the City in connection with collecting the
unpaid penalties.
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson-KM Builders)
Related to the Oak Hill II Office Building Project (located at NE corner of Louisiana Ave and
Walker St.).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required at this time. This report presents the proposed business terms that will
serve as the basis for a Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson-KM
Builders) related to its proposed Oak Hill II office building project. This now vacant site is
located just east of Louisiana Ave. and north of Walker St. The terms are consistent with the
discussion held at the October 24, 2011 Study Session at which time the Council expressed its
preliminary support. Please inform staff of any questions or concerns that you might have. The
current schedule provides for the Redevelopment Contract to be brought to the EDA for formal
approval at its January 17th meeting.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA/City Council support the business terms proposed for inclusion within a
Redevelopment Contract with Anderson-KM Builders to facilitate the construction of the Oak
Hill II office building project? Please inform staff of questions or concerns that you might have.
BACKGROUND:
Newly-formed Anderson-KM Builders is currently operating from the former Anderson
Builders’ location on Park Glen Rd in St. Louis Park as well as former KM Building's offices in
Minneapolis. The full-service real estate development, design management, and construction
company plans to build a new office facility and consolidate its operations there. The proposed
office site is the property owned by former Anderson Builders at 3340 Republic Avenue. The
proposed Oak Hill II office building will be approximately 21,450 SF and two stories. Oak Hill
II will be an attractive brick structure designed to complement the original Oak Hill office
building next door.
Anderson-KM Builders will occupy approximately half the new building (6,000 SF of office and
4,715 SF of storage). The remaining 10,716 SF will be built out as office space and leased to one
or more tenants. Oak Hill II will be marketed to general office users and specialty medical users
given its proximity to Methodist Hospital.
Current/Estimated Market Value
The subject property’s current assessed value is $700,000. Upon completion of the new building
the property would be assessed for $3.5 million by 2013.
Job Creation
As noted earlier, Anderson-KM Builders plans to consolidate its operations within the proposed
Oak Hill II building. Anderson Builders with its 15 employees is expected to relocate from its
Park Glen location and KM Builders with its 15 employees will relocate from Minneapolis. In
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project
addition, 25 jobs are anticipated to result from tenants filling the 2nd floor office space. Thus, a
total of 15 jobs are expected to be retained and up to 40 jobs are expected to be created in St.
Louis Park if the proposed project proceeds.
Project Schedule
Anderson-KM Builders plans to commence construction on the office building in March 2012
and have it completed in the fall.
Level and Type of Financial Assistance
Total construction costs of the proposed building are $2.7 million or $127/SF comprised of
$100/SF for the shell and blended rate of $27/SF for tenant improvements. The Redeveloper’s
expected return on investment of less than ten (10) percent is below industry standards of ten
(10) percent to twelve (12) percent (depending on the size and risk associated with the project).
Based on its review of the proposed project, Ehlers & Associates found that Anderson-KM
Builder’s cost and revenue assumptions were reasonable and appropriate. Furthermore it
concluded that Anderson-KM Builders is unable to undertake the proposed project without
the EDA’s financial assistance.
In order for the Redeveloper to achieve a modest return on investment, the proposed project
warrants $300,000 in assistance. Oak Hill II meets the requirements of an Economic
Development TIF District (9 year TIF District) under the 2010 Minnesota Jobs Bill. This law
temporarily allows local governments to create an Economic Development District for any type
of new construction provided construction commences by July 1, 2012. If this type of TIF
district were created, the proposed project would generate a present value (principle amount) of
approximately $300,000 over the life of the district. These funds would then be used to
reimburse Anderson-KM Builders for a portion of the project’s construction costs on a "pay-as-
you-go" basis, which is the preferred financing method under the City's TIF Policy.
Request for TIF Assistance
At the October 24th Study Session the EDA reviewed the preliminary TIF Application from
Anderson-KM Builders. The proposed project and assistance amount were discussed and found
generally acceptable. Thus staff was directed to work further with the Redeveloper and negotiate
business terms that would enable the proposed project to proceed.
Redevelopment Contract Terms
The following are key terms for a proposed redevelopment contract between Anderson-KM
Builders and the EDA.
• Redeveloper agrees to obtain all necessary planning approvals from the City.
• Redeveloper agrees to construct a two-story office building of approximately 21,450 SF
on the subject property. Construction must commence by July 1, 2012 and be completed
by December 31, 2012.
• The project will be constructed in compliance with the City’s Green Building Policy and
Redeveloper agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain “green” certification
for the Minimum Improvements.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project
• In order to offset a portion of the Redeveloper’s costs related to site preparation and
building construction the EDA agrees to provide the Redeveloper with up to $300,000 in
pay-as-you -go tax increment assistance from the newly-formed Oak Hill II TIF District at
a 5.6% interest rate.
• The parties agree that the financial assistance provided to the Redeveloper is subject to a
“Lookback” review upon 95% of the building’s leaseup, sale of the property, or three
years of project completion. The amount by which the Cash On Cash (COC) return
exceeds ten percent (10%) is considered the “Excess Percentage.” The Excess
Percentage, multiplied by Redeveloper’s equity in the Minimum Improvements is the
“Participation Amount.” If the EDA determines that there is a Participation Amount, the
EDA will apply fifty percent (50%) of that amount toward prepayment of the outstanding
principal amount of the TIF Note.
• Redeveloper agrees it will execute an Assessment Agreement with the EDA specifying the
Assessor's minimum market value for the property and minimum improvements. The
amount of the minimum Market Value will be $3,536,280 as of January 2, 2013
A more detailed summary list of the specific business terms related to the proposed Oak Hill II
office building project with Anderson-KM Builders is attached for review and comment. If
favorably received, these terms will serve as the basis for a Redevelopment Contract with Oak
Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson-KM Builders). Such a contract would be brought to the EDA for
formal consideration on January 17th.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
To stimulate private construction activity within the city it is proposed that the EDA consider
providing Anderson-KM Builders up to $300,000 in tax increment financing assistance so as to
enable the construction of a $4.3 million office building. It is proposed that the assistance be
provided through a single pay-as-you-go TIF Note funded by tax increment generated from the
newly formed Oak Hill II TIF District.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed project is consistent with elements of Vision St. Louis Park as it facilitates and
promotes environmental stewardship and green development.
Attachment: Business Terms of the Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC
Oak Hill II Building and Site Plans
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 4
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project
DRAFT
December 12, 2011
Proposed Business Terms
Redevelopment Contract between
St. Louis Park EDA &
Oak Hill 7100 LLC
Oak Hill II office building
3340 Republic Avenue
St. Louis Park, MN
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 5
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project
Business Terms of Redevelopment Contract
Between the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park EDA and Oak Hill 7100 LLC
The following are proposed Business Terms between the St. Louis Park Economic Development
Authority (“EDA”) and Oak Hill 7100 LLC (“Redeveloper”), which, upon mutual agreement, will be
incorporated into a Redevelopment Contract (“Redevelopment Contract”) for the Oak Hill II office
building to be constructed at the 3340 Republic Avenue., St. Louis Park.
1. The Redeveloper will obtain, in a timely manner, all required permits, licenses and
approvals, and will meet, in a timely manner, all requirements of all applicable local, state
and federal laws and regulations which must be obtained or met before the Minimum
Improvements may be lawfully constructed.
2. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the Redevelopment Property is located in the vicinity
of a “superfund” site commonly known as the Reilly Tar property. The Redeveloper
acknowledges that the EDA makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of
the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the Redevelopment Property for
construction of the Minimum Improvements and that the assistance provided to the
Redeveloper under the Agreement neither implies any responsibility by the EDA for any
contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such party to
participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property.
3. The Redeveloper further agrees that it will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the EDA,
the City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or
actions arising out of the presence of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on the
Redevelopment Property.
4. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the EDA makes no representations or warranties as to
the condition of the soils on the Redevelopment Property or the fitness of the
Redevelopment Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements or any other
purpose for which the Redeveloper may make use of such property, and that the assistance
provided to the Redeveloper neither implies any responsibility by the EDA or the City for
any contamination of the Redevelopment Property nor imposes any obligation on such
parties to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property.
5. The EDA has determined that, in order to make development of the Minimum
Improvements financially feasible, it is necessary to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion
of the hard costs related to site preparation and building construction (the “Public
Redevelopment Costs”). To reimburse these Public Redevelopment Costs the EDA shall
issue a TIF Note to the Redeveloper in the maximum principal amount of $300,000. The
EDA shall issue the Note after issuance of the Certificate of Completion and upon
Redeveloper having:
(i) delivered to the EDA written evidence satisfactory to the EDA that
Redeveloper has incurred Public Redevelopment Costs in an amount least
equal to the principal amount of the Note, which evidence must include
copies of the paid invoices or other comparable evidence for costs of
allowable Public Redevelopment Costs and lien waivers from all
applicable third-party contractors;
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 6
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project
(ii) submitted and obtained EDA approval of financing
(iii) delivered to the EDA an investment letter
(iv) submitted evidence demonstrating the number of construction jobs
retained or created including reasonable evidence supplied by the
contractor that the jobs were created or retained because of the subject
construction contract.
(v) The terms of the Note will be structured on the following basis:
Ø Issue total: Up to $300,000
Ø Type: Pay-as-you-go
Ø Term: Approximately 9 years
Ø Interest Rate: 5.6%
Ø Admin Fee: 5%
Ø Fiscal Disparities: Paid from within the district
9. The EDA will perform a “lookback” calculation on the earliest of (i) the date when 95% of
the office building is leased; (ii) the date of any Transfer of the building; or (iii) three
years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the project. The
Redeveloper must submit evidence of its actual annualized cumulative internal rate of
return (the “IRR”) from the building, calculated as of the applicable Lookback Date,
along with the estimated annualized cumulative IRR from the building assuming a sale in
the tenth year after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the building.
The amount by which the annualized Cash on Cash return exceeds ten percent (10%) is
considered the “Excess Percentage.” The Excess Percentage, multiplied by Redeveloper’s
equity in the Minimum Improvements is the “Participation Amount.” If the EDA
determines that there is a Participation Amount, the EDA will apply fifty percent (50%)
of that amount toward prepayment of the outstanding principal amount of the Note.
10. Both parties agree that any assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Contract is not
a “business subsidy” under Minnesota Statutes because the assistance is for redevelopment.
11. The parties agree and understand that the Contract is subject to the job creation and
retention objectives of the Job Creation Act. Accordingly, the Redeveloper shall create
and/or retain jobs attributable to construction of the Minimum Improvements and shall
provide evidence of such job creation and/or retention prior to the issuance of the Note.
The Redeveloper further agrees that upon completion of construction of the Minimum
Improvements, Redeveloper shall retain at least 15 full-time equivalent jobs in the City
and shall create, or cause to be created, at least 40 new full-time equivalent jobs on the
Redevelopment Property within __ years after issuance of the Certificate of Completion
by the City, provided that such retention and creation of full-time equivalent jobs is a
separate contractual covenant of the Redeveloper and is not required pursuant to the Job
Creation Act.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 7
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project
12. The Redeveloper must submit to the EDA a written report regarding the creation and
retention of full-time equivalent jobs by no later than February 1 of each year,
commencing February 1, 2013 and continuing until the date the above goals are met.
13. Redeveloper agrees that it will pay the reasonable costs of consultants and attorneys retained
by the EDA in connection with the creation of the TIF District, the negotiation and
preparation of the Redevelopment Contract and other incidental agreements and documents,
related to the redevelopment. Upon termination of the Contract the Redeveloper remains
obligated for costs incurred through the effective date of termination.
14. The Redeveloper agrees that it will construct the Minimum Improvements on the
Redevelopment Property in accordance with the approved Construction Plans and at all
times prior to the Termination Date will operate and maintain the Minimum Improvements
in good repair and condition.
15. If the Redeveloper desires to make any material change in the Construction Plans after their
approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its
approval. The term “material” means changes that adversely affect generation of tax
increment.
16. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, Redeveloper agrees to commence construction of the
Minimum Improvements by July 1, 2012 and substantially complete them by December
31, 2012 with the understanding that final landscaping will be completed the following
spring.
17. Redeveloper agrees to comply with the City's Green Building Policy and shall use
commercially reasonable efforts to obtain “green” certification for the Minimum
Improvements. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for the Minimum
Improvements, Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA either (a) evidence of certification
from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) or similar certification or
(b) in absence of actual certification, evidence of Redeveloper’s best efforts to obtain such
certification and an explanation of why certification was not feasible. Such evidence shall
include a detail of the specific energy-efficient/sustainable features or components
implemented in the construction of the Minimum Improvements.
18. Promptly after completion of the Minimum Improvements, the EDA Representative will
deliver to the Redeveloper a Certificate of Completion. The construction of the Minimum
Improvements will be deemed to be substantially complete upon issuance of a certificate of
occupancy for the Minimum Improvements, and upon determination by the EDA
Representative that all related site improvements on the Redevelopment Property have been
substantially completed in accordance with approved Construction Plans, subject to
landscaping that cannot be completed until seasonal conditions permit.
19. Redeveloper shall undertake all work related to the Minimum Improvements in compliance
with all applicable federal and state laws, including without limitation all applicable state
and federal Occupational Safety and Health Act regulations. Any subcontractors retained by
Redeveloper shall be subject to the same requirements.
20. Upon execution of the Contract, the Redeveloper and EDA will execute an Assessment
Agreement pursuant specifying an assessor’s minimum market value for the Minimum
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9) Page 8
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project
Improvements together with the Parcel on which they are constructed. The amount of the
minimum Market Value shall be $3,536,280 as of January 2, 2013 and each January 2
thereafter.
21. If Redeveloper requires mortgage financing for the development of the Project, the EDA
agrees to subordinate its rights under the Contract to the Holder of any Mortgage securing
construction or permanent financing, provided that any such subordination shall be subject
to such reasonable terms and conditions as the EDA and Holder mutually agree in writing.
22. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer the agreement or the redevelopment property (except
to an affiliate) prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy for the building without the
prior written consent of the EDA.
23. Redeveloper agrees that the EDA and the City will not be held liable for any loss or damage
to property or any injury to or death of any person occurring at or about or resulting from
any defect in the Redevelopment Property or the Minimum Improvements.
24. Redeveloper agrees not to transfer the Redevelopment Contract or the Redevelopment
Property (except to an affiliate) prior to receiving a Certificate of Completion without the
prior written consent of the EDA, except for construction mortgage financing and/or
permanent financing. The EDA's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld,
conditioned or delayed. The EDA agrees to provide its consent or refusal to consent to
Redeveloper in writing within 10 days after a request for such consent from Redeveloper.
25. The Redeveloper agrees not to discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or
national origin in the construction and maintenance of the Minimum Improvements as
well as lease, rental, use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property or any
improvements erected thereon.
26. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property will be used for a
sexually-oriented business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business, a tattoo business, or a
gun business.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project Page 9
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 9)
Subject: Business Terms Redevelopment Contract w/ Oak Hill Related to Oak Hill II Office Bldg Project Page 10
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Solid Waste Program Survey.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with the results of the 2011 Solid Waste
Program Survey as well as provide a tentative schedule for the review of our Solid Waste
program and planned 2013 renewal of our residential refuse/yard waste and recycling collection
contracts.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions or concerns about the results of the survey?
BACKGROUND:
History
The City conducts a solid waste survey every year, alternating between a program survey and a
customer service survey. In September 2011 a program survey was conducted. The purpose of
the program survey was to gauge resident satisfaction and understanding of the solid waste
program, and to solicit suggestions for program improvement.
2011 Program Survey Report
A program survey report (attached) was prepared to provide details and results of the survey.
The report includes an introduction, survey methodology, survey results for each of the 3 solid
waste program areas (recycling, garbage, and yard waste), general program information,
conclusions, and recommendations.
2011 Program Survey Conclusions
Overall, a large majority of respondents are very satisfied with the recycling, garbage, and yard
waste programs, rating them from good to excellent. The ratings for the variety of recycling
materials, educational materials, and program costs were rated slightly lower, rating them from
average to good. The most commonly cited recycling improvement suggestion was to add more
plastics recycling. Residents indicated they would not be willing to pay more to participate in an
organics collection program. A complete list of the conclusions is included in the attached
program survey report.
2011 Program Survey Recommendations
Listed below is a summary of the survey recommendations. A complete list of the
recommendations is included in the attached report.
• Increase resident education. Continue to focus education using the Park Perspective,
Eureka’s Guide to Recycling, and the Sun Sailor for a bulk of the education and program
information. Supplement educational efforts with City’s Website and other electronic
methods.
• Continue to use the current educational tags. Most respondents felt they communicate
the intended message.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey
• More education is needed on plastics recycling, textile recycling, milk and juice carton
recycling, why compact fluorescent light bulbs can’t be thrown in the garbage, and the
benefits to organics being separated from the garbage.
2011 On-line Survey
An on-line Solid Waste Program Survey was also made available to all residents in the city that
participate in the solid waste program. The survey was made available on the city’s website from
October 20, 2011 through November 30, 2011. Eighty respondents completed the on-line survey.
On-line responses were similar to those received on the hardcopy survey. Some of the observations
include the following:
• Most respondents rated the solid waste program as good to excellent.
• Many respondents indicated they would like to see more plastics collected for recycling.
• Many respondents indicated they would like to see single sort recycling and curbside
cleanup days.
• Most respondents get their solid waste information from the Park Perspective and the
website (responses from the hardcopy survey indicated that most respondents get their
information from the Park Perspective and the annual Recycling Guide).
Renewal of Solid Waste Collection Contracts
The current residential refuse/yard waste and recycling collection contracts expire September 30,
2013. New contracts should be awarded before the end of March 2013 to allow contractors time
to adequately prepare for the work. If adequate time is not allowed for this, extensions of the
current contracts will need to be negotiated.
Listed below is a draft schedule showing major steps felt necessary to develop and award new
collection contracts.
Item Completion Date
Staff / Council review of current & proposed collection program and services Feb - May 2012
Solicitation of public input (if desired by Council) Mar – May 2012
Staff / Council determine future collection program and services Jun - Jul 2012
Staff / Council determine contract and proposal requirements July – Sep 2012
Draft contract and RFP completed Sep 2012
Ordinance changes, if any needed, are identified Sep 2012
Ordinance revisions made (if needed) Sep 2012 – Jun 2013
Council authorizes solicitation of proposals Sep – Oct 2012
Proposals received by Staff Nov 2013
Proposals and staff recommendations reviewed with Council Jan 2013
Staff negotiates collection contracts with vendors Jan – Feb 2013
Council approves new collection contracts Mar 2013
Staff conducts public education outreach with residents Apr – Aug 2013
New collection contracts begin Oct 1, 2013
Note: A separate schedule for considering and implementing a Multi-family Recycling collection service
will be developed in conjunction with the Council review of the current residential collection program
and services during the spring of 2012. This effort, if undertaken, may have an impact on the schedule
listed above.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of the 2011 survey was minimal, with costs for printing and postage. The survey,
evaluation, and report were done by Public Works administrative staff.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the
City Council:
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.
Focus areas:
• Educating staff / public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices.
• Working in areas such as…environmental innovations.
Attachments: 2011 Solid Waste Program Survey Report
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Department of Public Works
Solid Waste Program Survey Results
2011
November 28, 2011
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................1
RESPONSE RATE ..............................................................................................................2
RESULTS ............................................................................................................................2
Recycling ....................................................................................................................3
Garbage .......................................................................................................................3
Yard Waste..................................................................................................................4
General Program Information .....................................................................................4
CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................................................6
RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................6
APPENDIX A: Survey Mailed to Residents / Business Reply Envelope
APPENDIX B: Annotated Survey
APPENDIX C: Summary of Comments
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A Solid Waste Program Survey was conducted in September 2011 and sent to 933 randomly
selected solid waste customers (respondents) throughout the City. Analysis of the survey data
identifies key points about the solid waste program that can be used to strengthen and identify
where program improvements are needed.
Some of the observations include the following:
• Most respondents rated the solid waste program as good to excellent.
• Many respondents indicated they would like to see more plastics collected for
recycling.
• Many respondents who recycle were not aware the city offered curbside textile
recycling.
• Most respondents get their solid waste information from the Park Perspective,
annual Recycling Guide and the Sun Sailor.
INTRODUCTION
A Solid Waste Program Survey was conducted in September 2011. The Solid Waste Program
Survey is conducted every 2 years. The purpose of the survey is to gauge resident satisfaction
and understanding of the solid waste program. The solid waste program includes garbage, yard
waste and recycling collection.
Surveys were mailed to 933 solid waste customers during the second week in September.
Surveys were addressed to 'Current Resident'. Of the surveys sent, 412 were completed and
returned and 521 were not returned for various reasons. The survey packet included a cover
letter, a 4-page survey, and a postage paid return envelope (Appendix A). Participants were
asked 20 solid waste program-related questions. The questions were broken down into
sections for Recycling, Garbage, Yard Waste, and General Program Information. Participants
were asked to fill out the survey and mail it back by September 26.
Results of the survey will be used to identify areas of strength and identify where
improvements to the solid waste program are needed.
METHODOLOGY
The target audience for this survey was all solid waste customers in the City’s residential
collection program. Utility Billing records and GIS mapping was used to determine the total
number of solid waste customers.
Data shows there were 12,349 customers as of August 2011. 1
Distribution of solid waste customers between Wards is fairly consistent, with the largest
percentage living in Ward 1.
1 Utility Billing records showed 12,289 customers and GIS mapping showed 12,349. The difference of 60 customers
is due to multi-unit dwellings (e.g. a 4-plex has 1 billing customer and GIS shows 4 customers); therefore, the GIS
number was used.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 6
Solid Waste Customers by Ward
Housing Type Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Total
Apartments (4- to 8-plex) 16 50 8 0 74
Commercial 6 4 2 1 13
Church/Institution 5 1 2 0 8
Condos 49 5 0 13 67
Duplexes 63 205 107 14 389
Townhome 34 0 0 149 183
Single Family 3,409 2,474 3,162 2,570 11,615
Total Units 3,582 2,739 3,281 2,747 12,349
Percent of City 29% 22% 27% 22% 100%
Note: Housing types are provided in number of units (customers), not number of buildings.
Addresses were randomly chosen, proportionate to the number of residential customers in
each ward, using ArcGIS parcels and exporting data into Microsoft Excel. Parcels that did not
have residential garbage service were excluded from the selection.
The sample size was determined by choosing a 95% confidence level with an error of 5% (e.g.
you can be 95% sure that the survey results fall within 5% of the true value if you had surveyed
all solid waste customers). Based on the desired confidence and error level, 933 solid waste
customers were randomly selected and mailed surveys. A 40% response rate was desired (373
surveys) to ensure the 95% confidence level. The percentage of customers in each Ward was
used to determine how many surveys to mail by Ward.
RESPONSE RATE
412 solid waste customers (respondents) returned surveys, resulting in a 44% response rate
and a nearly 95% confidence level. Ward 4 had the highest response rate and Ward 2 had the
lowest response rate. Detailed results are available upon request.
Response Rate by Ward
Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Ward 4 Total
# of Surveys Mailed 271 205 252 205 933
# of Surveys Received 114 88 112 98 412
Response Rate 42% 43% 44% 48% 44%
RESULTS
The results of this survey are projectable to all solid waste customers within ± %5 in 95 out of
100 cases. The annotated survey provides a snapshot of the results (Appendix B).
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 7
Recycling
Part A of the survey asked four recycling-related questions:
• The first question asked if respondents recycled at home. A majority (98%) said they
did.
• The second question asked if they did not recycle, then why. Of those that don’t
recycle, most indicated they don’t produce enough recyclables, and think recycling is
too much work and too complicated.
• The third question asked respondents to choose what materials they set out for
collection. There was a high recycling rate for all materials. The paper and cardboard
rate ranged from 87% to 94% depending on the material type, with the exception of pop
& beer boxes at 79%. The bottle and cans rate ranged from 92% to 95%, with the
exception of aseptic milk and juice cartons at 68%. Less than 45 respondents indicated
they set out clothes and linens for collection.
• The last question asked respondents to indicate why they did not set out clothes and
linens for collection. Of those that had answered, most said they donated the items or
threw them in the garbage.
Garbage
Part B of the survey asked five garbage-related questions:
• The first question asked if respondents had ever used Extra Refuse Stickers. The
number of responses was nearly the same between those that had used (43%) and
those that had never used (47%) the stickers.
• The second question asked if the annual cleanup day events met their needs. Of those
who have previously attended, 87% said it met their needs.
• The third question asked respondents how they disposed of household hazardous
wastes. A majority (96%) either bring hazardous wastes to the Hennepin County
Drop-off Facility or the County’s annual event in St. Louis Park.
• The fourth question asked how respondents managed a list of materials including
batteries, used oil, florescent light bulbs, butter/yogurt tubs, plastic bags, empty paint
cans, thermostats, and needles/sharps. Four choices were given including putting
materials in the garbage, recycling bin, bringing to a hazardous waste site, or bringing to
a retail store for recycling. Most respondents indicated they bring batteries and plastic
bags to retail stores for recycling; bring florescent light bulbs, used oil, empty paint cans,
and thermostats to a hazardous waste site; and put butter/yogurt tubs, and
needles/sharps in the garbage.
• The last question asked respondents how they disposed of old appliances, electronics
and bulk items. Most respondents indicated they donated or sold the item or the
retailer took the old item when delivering the new item.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 8
Yard Waste
Part C of the survey asked seven yard waste-related questions:
• The first question asked how respondents managed their yard waste materials. Most
respondents indicated they leave grass clippings on the lawn or set them out for
collection instead of composting materials in their backyard or using a lawn service.
• The second question asked if respondents would purchase a 90-gallon yard waste cart
for a one-time cost of $50. A majority (73%) said no.
• The third question asked how frequently respondents would use a community yard
waste site, if available. Of those responding 58% said never or rarely, 29% said
sometimes, and 12% said often or always.
• The fourth question asked if respondents would participate in an organics collection
program. Of those responding, a majority (53%) said maybe and wanted more
information, followed by 25% who said yes, and 21% said no.
• The fifth question asked for the respondents’ motivation for participating in an organics
collection program if they were interested or uncertain. The most common answer was
that it’s good for the environment and they want to reduce the amount of trash going to
the landfill/burner.
• The sixth question asked those who were not interested or uncertain why they would
not participate in an organics collection program. The top two reasons were because
they were concerned about odors and do not produce enough organic waste.
• The last question asked if respondents would pay a little bit more on their quarterly bill
to participate in an organics collection program. A majority (70%) said they would not
pay more.
General Program Information
Part D of the survey asked three general program questions and one open-ended question:
• The first question asked how respondents get information about the solid waste
program. Most respondents get their information from the Park Perspective followed
by Eureka’s recycling guide.
• The second question asked if the educational tags effectively communicate the intended
message. Of those with an opinion, 91% of respondents said the tags effectively
communicate the intended message.
• The third question asked respondents to rate the recycling, garbage and yard waste
programs, the variety of recycling materials collected, educational materials, and the
cost of the solid waste program. Most respondents indicated the following:
o Recycling program rated good to excellent
o Garbage program rated good to excellent
o Yard waste program rated good to excellent
o Variety of recycling materials rated average to good
o Educational materials rated average to good
o Cost of the program rated average to good
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 9
• The final question in the survey asked respondents to provide suggestions on how to
improve the solid waste program. 286 comments were received and categorized into
themes (subjects) so they were more manageable. A list of all the comments made can
be found in Appendix C.
o Recycling received 103 comments:
− 14 general comments
− 10 more education/information
− 42 accept more plastics
− 17 textiles
− 20 bins/single sort/single cart
o Garbage received 67 comments:
− 9 general comments
− 7 manage garbage/disposal
− 7 reduced fee options
− 5 overfilled carts
− 7 cart location
− 22 cleanup events
− 10 hazardous wastes
o Yard waste received 75 comments:
− 7 general comments
− 9 yard waste cart
− 20 organics collection
− 5 organics collection/odors/rodent concerns
− 27 organics/pay more/pay less
− 7 yard waste site
o General Program Information received 41 comments:
− 27 general comments
− 8 program costs
− 6 house numbers on garages
The survey also included two reminders. The first was a note about the fall cleanup event date
being changed from October 8 to October 1. The second was a safety/service reminder that
residents need to have house numbers on their garages so service providers can easily access
their residence.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 10
CONCLUSIONS
• Most respondents (98%) indicate they recycle.
• Of the 2% that don’t recycle, respondents indicated they don’t produce enough
recyclable materials, it’s too much work and it’s too complicated.
• Of the recyclables set out for collection, most respondents recycle plastic and glass
bottles, followed by magazines/mail/phonebooks/office paper, newspapers, and
beverage cans.
• The most commonly cited suggestion to improve the recycling program was to add
more plastics for recycling.
• Most respondents commented favorably about the city’s cleanup events. Many
respondents indicated they would like to have free curbside collection of bulk items.
• A majority of respondents would not purchase a yard waste cart if offered by the city.
• Most respondents would not be willing to pay a little more to participate in an organics
program.
• Many respondents indicated they did not know about textile recycling or that the city
required house numbers on garages.
• Most respondents get their solid waste program information from the Park Perspective
followed by the Eureka recycling guide.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The 2013 survey should have fewer multiple choice answers. This will result in more
accurate data analysis. A recommendation would be to reword questions so only one
answer is appropriate. An example would be to “choose the method most often used to
dispose of materials” instead of “choose all that apply”.
2. Continue to education residents on the safety/service need to have house numbers on
alley side of detached garages.
3. Provide more education and information to residents, especially textile recycling.
4. Keep using the current educational tags, as most respondents felt they communicate
the intended message.
5. Continue to focus education using the Park Perspective, Eureka’s Guide to Recycling,
and the Sun Sailor for a bulk of the education and program information. Encourage
residents to continue calling the haulers and the city. Supplement educational efforts
with City’s Website and other electronic methods (i.e. Twitter, Facebook, etc.).
6. Continue educating residents on why only certain plastics can be recycled at this time.
7. Continue educating residents that milk/juice cartons can be recycled.
8. Continue educating residents on Eureka's textile recycling program. Tell them what
happens to the textiles after collection.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 11
9. Provide more education and information to residents about the hazards associated with
compact fluorescent light bulbs. While a majority indicated they recycled them
properly, 11% throw them in the garbage.
10. When organics collection is offered, differentiate between backyard composting and
organics collection.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 12
APPENDIX A
(Appendix A has been removed in its entirety)
This was the blank survey sent to Residents
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 13
APPENDIX B
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 14
PART A: RECYCLING
A1. Do you recycle at home?
98% Yes (go to A3) (404)
2% No (go to A2 then B1) (7)
0% Blank (1)
A2. If no, why not? (Check all that apply)
1% Don’t produce enough recycling materials (3)
1% Too much work (3)
1% Too complicated (3)
0% No space in my house (2)
0% Don’t understand how to sort (2)
0% Don’t understand the benefits (2)
A3. The City has a 2-sort recycling system where Paper & Cardboard are sorted out
separately from Bottles & Cans. Torn and worn clothes and linens are also collected
for recycling. Which of the following items do you recycle at home? (Check all that
apply)
Paper & Cardboard
94% Magazines, mail, phonebooks & office paper (387)
91% Corrugated cardboard (cardboard boxes) (375)
87% Boxboard (cracker box, cereal box, pasta box, toothpaste box, etc.) (358)
92% Newspapers (378)
79% Pop & beer boxes (327)
Bottles & Cans
92% Steel & aluminum cans, clean foil & aluminum trays (378)
95% Plastic bottles (392)
94% Glass bottles & jars (389)
68% Milk cartons & juice boxes (281)
Clothes & Linens & Shoes
11% Clothes, belts, mittens, jackets, etc. (45)
11% Bed linens, clean rags, towels, curtains, etc. (44)
6% Shoes (25)
A4. If you don’t set out torn and worn clothes, linens and shoes for recycling, how do you
get rid of them? (Check all that apply)
88% Donate or giveaway items (364)
12% Sell or consign items (50)
5% Recycle items through a retailer (e.g. shoe recycling programs) (20)
40% Throw items in the garbage (164)
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 15
PART B: GARBAGE
B1. $2 Extra Refuse Stickers are available for residents who have too much garbage to fit
inside their cart with the lid closed. Have you ever used Extra Refuse stickers?
43% Yes (179)
47% No (194)
8% I did not know stickers were available (32)
2% Blank (7)
B2. St. Louis Park holds annual Cleanup Day events in June and October. These events
are provided as a lower-cost alternative to having items picked up at your home. Do
these annual Cleanup Day events meet your needs?
48% Yes (197)
7% No (28)
29% I have never brought anything to the Cleanup Day event (119)
14% I did not know the City offered cleanup events (56)
3% Blank (12)
B3. How do you dispose of household hazardous wastes? (Check all that apply)
8% I’m not sure what household items are considered hazardous (34)
60% Bring to a Hennepin County Drop-off Facility (247)
45% Bring to the County’s annual hazardous waste event in St. Louis Park (184)
10% I don’t have household hazardous wastes (43)
4% Throw in the garbage (15)
B4. How do you manage the following materials? (Check all that apply)
Put in my
garbage cart
Put in my
recycling
bin
Bring to a
hazardous
waste site
Bring to a retail
store for recycling
(e.g. Cub, Target)
Batteries 20% (81) 2% (9) 26% (107) 37% (151)
Used oil 3% (12) 0% (0) 37% (153) 12% (51)
Florescent light bulbs (CFL’s) 11% (46) 1% (4) 39% (160) 12% (49)
Butter/Yogurt Tubs 67% (276) 11% (47) 0% (2) 4% (17)
Plastic bags 37% (153) 6% (25) 1% (4) 38% (158)
Empty paint cans 32% (132) 2% (10) 42% (174) 1% (4)
Thermostats 4% (16) 1% (4) 23% (96) 3% (11)
Needles/Sharps 19% (80) 1% (4) 9% (36) 3% (12)
B5. Which of the following disposal options have you used for your old appliances,
electronics or bulk items (furniture, carpet, large toys)? (Check all that apply)
58% Donated or sold the item if it's in good condition (237)
41% Dropped off the item at a Hennepin County Drop-off Facility (168)
35% Called garbage hauler for a Special Pick-up (143)
25% Brought the item to the City's annual Cleanup Day event (102)
64% Retailer took the old item when delivering the new item (264)
17% Throw in the garbage (70)
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 16
PART C: YARD WASTE
C1. When you have leaves, grass, plant or tree trimmings, how do you manage these yard
waste materials? (Check all that apply)
54% Leave grass clippings on the lawn (221)
22% Compost them in my backyard (92)
82% Set them out for collection (336)
12% Have a lawn service (51)
C2. If the City offered you a 90-gallon cart for yard waste, would you purchase one for a
one-time cost of about $50? (A 90-gallon cart is the largest sized garbage cart and is
45” high, 29” wide and 33” deep)
24% Yes (99)
73% No (300)
3% Blank (11)
C3. How frequently would you use a community yard waste site to drop off tree
trimmings (brush and branches) if one was available in the City?
0 –Blank 1-Never 2-Rarely 3-Sometimes 4-Often 5-Always
1% (4) 26% (107) 32% (132) 29% (119) 7% (28) 5% (22)
C4. The City is investigating the option of expanding curbside collection to include food
and other organic household wastes. Would you participate in an organics collection
program?
25% Yes (101)
21% No (86)
53% Maybe, I would like to learn more about it (220)
2% Blank (7)
C5. If you are interested or uncertain about participating in an organics collection
program, what would be your motivation for participating? (Check all that apply)
63% It’s good for the environment (261)
14% I want to down-size my garbage cart (59)
57% I want to reduce the amount of trash going to the landfill/burner (235)
48% Recycling organic food waste creates beneficial compost (197)
C6. If you are not interested or uncertain about participating in an organics collection
program, why wouldn’t you participate? (Check all that apply)
24% Do not produce enough organic waste (97)
11% Too much work (44)
11% Too complicated (44)
21% No space inside to collect organics (87)
3% Do not see any benefits to collecting organic waste (12)
31% Concerned about odors (126)
19% I use my garbage disposal for food waste (78)
C7. Would you be willing to pay a little bit more on your quarterly utility bill to
participate in an organics collection program?
24% Yes (98)
70% No (290)
4% Blank (16)
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 17
PART D: GENERAL PROGRAM INFORMATION
D1. How do you get information about St. Louis Park's Solid Waste Program?
(Check all that apply)
74% City Newsletter (Park Perspective) (305)
32% City Website (132)
2% Community TV (7)
44% Sun Sailor (183)
16% Neighbors (65)
4% Social Media (Facebook, Twitter) (15)
56% Recycling Guide from Eureka Recycling (229)
5% City Events (Community Open House, Parktacular, Earth Day) (21)
25% Call City, Garbage and Yard Waste Hauler, or Recycling Hauler (102)
5% Other websites such as stlouispark.patch.com (22)
D2. The City requires garbage, yard waste, and recycling haulers to inform residents
when items for collection do not conform to City requirements. In these instances,
the hauler issues an educational tag explaining why materials were not collected.
Do the tags effectively communicate what was wrong and how to correct it?
70% Yes (290)
7% No (28)
22% I have never received an educational tag (89)
1% Blank (5)
D3. Overall, how would you rate the following aspects of the solid waste program?
(Leave blank if not applicable or unsure)
Very Poor Poor Average Good Excellent
Recycling Program 1% (3) 3% (11) 16% (65) 51% (210) 27% (110)
Garbage Program 0% (2) 2% (7) 13% (53) 48% (199) 34% (142)
Yard Waste Program 0% (1) 1% (5) 16% (64) 42% (173) 32% (130)
Variety of Recycling
Materials Collected 2% (9) 8% (31) 28% (114) 42% (171) 12% (48)
Educational
Materials 1% (4) 3% (13) 26% (108) 42% (175) 10% (42)
Cost Solid Waste
Program 2% (7) 7% (27) 34% (141) 31% (126) 5% (20)
D4. Do you have any suggestions on how we can improve the solid waste program?
286 comments were made and categorized into themes (subjects) so they were more manageable.
• Recycling received 103 comments,
• Garbage received 67 comments,
• Yard waste received 75 comments, and
• General Program Information received 41 comments.
Thank you for completing this survey!
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 18
APPENDIX C
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 19
This section includes all the comments made on the survey, including comments made in the sidebar.
286 comments were received and categorized into themes (subjects) so they were more manageable.
Themes allow a more structured way to analyze the data and find significant patterns within the
comments.
Part A: Recycling = 103
General = 14
1. Thank you for making us wrap up our cardboard with twine. That sucked – especially winter!
2. A2 – No, lazy husband.
3. Recyclables too picky – I throw lot of plastic in the garbage that they won’t take.
4. I’m disabled but still recycle with recyclers’ (Eureka) help with cardboard.
5. Definitely would like more recycling and option to put out larger items at curbside (lit city of Mpls)
ex: fans, etc.
6. Get the phone book delivery guys banned from leaving books on my front steps! They go straight to
my recycling bin and are a huge waste. Who actually uses them anymore??
7. I really enjoy the thank you notes from Recycling Company. It’s kinda silly, but after a hard day, it’s
really cool. HAPPY FACE
8. This is SLP – we should be on the forefront and first for being the most progressive recyclers – but
we are not yet.
9. I truly want to, and do, recycle; however, I don’t think it will be priority if it continues to cost more
and more….some things gotta give! HAPPY FACE
10. Satellite dish recycle.
11. Put recycling bin upside down especially in rain.
12. People keep stealing my recycle bins!
13. Recycling bins could be put back the way they were before they picked them up!
14. Go to every-other-week for recycling of paper, cans, bottles, etc. Size of lots and one-car garages in
SLP – no room for more containers & people will leave them sit out all over the yard. Messy
looking!!
More Education/Information = 10
1. Be clearer about what we can recycle there.
2. Also, tell us what the clothes, linens and shoes are used for. I’d like to know before I decide whether
to recycle with the City or not. I don’t think this has been explained.
3. I would recycle more if I had a handy item that I could reference – like a magnet I could keep right in
the kitchen by our recycling.
4. Also, please inform about recycling pick up changes as soon as possible. Was very puzzled about
why paper towel rolls were not picked up until several months later info came in Park Perspective.
(Really appreciated the info when it came though.)
5. I need more information on what is recyclable.
6. Also, information on types of plastic containers are recyclable.
7. The rules on plastics are very unclear.
8. I didn’t know clean foil & aluminum trays could be recycled.
9. Your RULES are both too complex and unclear – but then I only practiced law for 30 years.
10. Provide more information regarding recycling – what is recyclable, what are hazardous materials
and where to dispose of them.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 20
Accept More Plastics = 42
1. Include other plastics.
2. Take all plastics.
3. I’d like to be able to recycle plastic tubs.
4. If more items were taken, eg #5 plastic, I would sort.
5. Start collecting plastic tubs (yogurt, cottage cheese, etc.) or as many plastics as possible.
6. Accept a greater variety of plastic waste.
7. Collect other “recyclable” plastics – i.e. yogurt tubs, strawberry cartons, etc.
8. I currently cannot recycle the major of my plastic and I would like to.
9. Would like to be able to recycle additional plastics – eg. Yogurt cartons.
10. Collect yogurt tubs for recycling.
11. Why does St. Louis Park not collect and recycle plastics? We are missing this important area
completely.
12. All #1 & #2 plastics should be taken by recyclers. We moved from Edina Morningside and now are
able to recycle less plastics. Actually think all plastics #5 bags, etc. should be taken. If Whole Foods
can recycle these, Eureka should. I am willing to sort more. Focus on better solid waste recycling –
not organics. Rather pay more for better solid recycling.
13. SLP should accept all #1 & #2 plastics – and even #5’s. If Whole Foods can recycle these for me, my
City’s recycling should. I take as much to Whole Foods to recycle as I put out at curb. I shouldn’t
have to take care of so much myself.
14. I would like to be able to recycle yogurt containers and plastic bags. I would like the City to make
rain barrels available for a reasonable cost.
15. I would like to recycle way more – especially plastic tubs, etc.
16. I would like to be able to recycle more plastic products.
17. Recycle more plastics.
18. More variety of recycling materials.
19. You only take plastic bottles – all my plastic containers marked with a recycle code, by you, must go
in the landfill. Why frozen food boxes are cardboard – I want to recycle them.
20. How about more plastic containers>?
21. Am waiting to include plastic tubs and lids.
22. I’d love it if Eureka would take plastic bags & butter/yogurt tubs so I wouldn’t have to manage so
many drop offs!
23. Would like to recycle all plastics. #1 - #3.
24. Allow recycling of yogurt tubs.
25. Collect more kinds of plastic such as all cans, butter tubs, deli containers.
26. Can the City collect all plastics that have a recycle label on them?
27. I would like for more plastics to be eligible for recycling.
28. Accept yogurt, other things. The guy who collected the recycling put many things back. He said to
think of it needing a long neck. Frustrating because has a recycling symbol, but can’t put it in my
bin.
29. I would really like to have recycling expanded to include 32 oz. size yogurt tubs/plastic sour cream
containers, etc. We can only save/reuse so many.
30. Recycle ALL plastics, like yogurt, etc. containers, caps, lids.
31. Last count, recyclable plastics like margarine tubs, or clean food containers can’ be recycled because
they don’t have a neck. I’d like more recycled.
32. We should be able to recycle all plastics! You can in Duluth!
33. Yes, recycle more plastics.
34. Allow recycling of yogurt and butter tubs.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 21
35. Recycle plastic bags.
36. Would like to recycle more types plastics.
37. Expand plastic recycling. As far as I know, only plastics with a neck are recyclable.
38. Accept more plastics.
39. Please collect plastic bags for recycling.
40. Recycle more types of plastic – several companies are starting to collect all types of plastics.
41. You need to collect more plastics for recycling.
42. Accept yogurt containers in recycling.
Textiles = 17
1. A4 – Make quilts, bed covers
2. A4 – Rags to garage worker
3. A4 - Use as rags.
4. Did not know about shoes & clothes.
5. A3 – Did not know this is possible (Clothes & Linens & Shoes)
6. Did not know about clothes & linens
7. A3 – Clothes & Linen & Shoes – Did not know that the City picked up clothes.
8. A3 – Forgot about the option - Clothes & Linens & Shoes
9. A4 – Now that I know you recycle clothing, etc., I will try that.
10. I was not aware of torn and worn clothes & linens.
11. Throw away items that are not in “good” enough shape to donate. I was unaware that those items
are recyclable.
12. A3 – (Clothes & Linens & Shoes) - To STEP, Goodwill, bedding to Humane Society
13. Regarding clothes – I’m unsure of what happens to clothes recycled via our standard pick-up. If
shredded, I would put out more clothes for this purpose instead of tossing in the garbage.
14. A4 – Convert to rags.
15. A3 – Did not realize I could put clothing out for recycle.
16. Didn’t know about the shoes until now….now we will recycle shoes, too.
17. I did not know you could recycle clothing/linens/dispose of them.
Bins/Single Cart/Single Sort = 20
1. Recycle bins such as the garbage cans.
2. Larger recycling containers, less restrictions on types of plastics, covered recycling containers to
reduce blowing around neighborhood.
3. Recycling: We would like to use a single can system, all recycling material in one container. My wife
hates having 2 or 3 paper bags sitting in the kitchen for recycling, then having 6, 7, 8, bags in garage,
then having to carry them out to the curb to watch them blow over get knocked over, etc. My wife
throws most things in the garbage to avoid all the hassles. I’m not happy with the process either,
but I do it. Did not know about the torn and work clothes and linens recycling.
4. Larger recycling bins!
5. Having a garbage style bin for the recycles instead of the little bins that are open. Have it be the
same as the garbage cans. Would be great especially when it rains and snows.
6. Would love one-bin collection like Richfield does.
7. C2 – Would rather have one for recycling.
8. Previous city I lived in (South St. Paul) had one large bin, similar to normal garbage bin, for single
(no-sort) recycling. Required no paper bags – convenient.
9. How about 1 big bin for all recyclables? I know other cities use this method & more people are
willing to do this if they didn’t have to separate it.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 22
10. We suggest following the City of Maple Grove – have 1 large can for all recycling.
11. Recycling – Thought out one point last year – I saw something about providing us with one big
recycling cart for all recycling products so we didn’t have to separate etc. Print vs bottles, etc?
12. Single-sort recycling.
13. Larger recycling containers.
14. One-sort recycling (single-sort).
15. Easier if we had no-sort recycling.
16. Put all recycling in bin similar to garbage can with yellow top – like other cities.
17. Provide larger recycle bins.
18. Being able to combine paper/cans/glass in a large garbage bin with wheels would be great. Picking
up and hauling the recycle box is challenging – especially for elderly/disabled.
19. Being able to combine all recycle items in the same bucket.
20. I wish we didn’t have to sort our recycling.
Part B: Garbage = 67
General = 9
1. The garbage men are too picky about the garbage we practically have to hand it over to them to
see if it is acceptable garbage for them to take – garbage is garbage – Com on!
2. Our garbage was not picked up on a Friday when all others were picked up in the neighborhood –
no tag.
3. Open up availability to more than one collector. Why do we as tax payers HAVE to use the hauler
you designated??? Do NOT require residents to use Waste Management.
4. Keep our system of contracting with one garbage company. We are directly affected by Edina’s
numerous garbage trucks (noise, safety & wear & tear on roads) – 34 ½ St.
5. Go back to the old garbage haulers
6. On 3 occasions, garbage can overlooked, despite the fact the can was moved for pickup. Hauler
nearly always on cell phone which is not a problem unless pickup is missed.
7. Offer mail-in for “extra” stickers.
8. Need new mattress but can’t afford that plus $ for pick-up.
9. No charge for bags that don’t fit in bins.
Manage Garbage/Disposal = 7
1. B4 – Butter/Yogurt Tubs – School recycles in Minnetonka.
2. B4 – Plastic Bags – use a packing for shipping packages.
3. B4 – Not sure what my husband does with the rest.
4. B5 - I’m piling them up, waiting to find out what I can do with them.
5. B5 – Rent Dumpster
6. B5 – Store in basement.
7. B5 – Put on curb and someone walked off with.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 23
Reduced Fee Options = 7
1. I average 1 paper bag a week, but pay for the whole can “I have the smallest can”. Can I pay by
weight?
2. In the city where my family lives in Wisconsin, residents do not have to pay for the smallest
garbage can she if they can make do with it by effectively recycling/composting. (?) If they have to
have a large can, they pay. It is interesting plan for incenting those committed to reducing waste.
3. As a single person in my house, I wonder about the possibility of an every-other-week option for
garbage pickup. I think I have heard that there are some communities that offer this for a reduced
fee.
4. More options for those that have less garbage. Have incentives for less garbage.
5. Reduce charges for people (like me), who only put their garbage out twice/month – not every
week.
6. Can the City consider charging by the pound for garbage removal? It would be a good way to
reduce solid waste.
7. We recycle a lot. It would be nice to receive lower trash hauling rates as a result (more than
current credit). We still need our large trash bin and aren’t ready to move to a smaller bin quite
yet.
Overfilled Carts = 5
1. Once our garbage can would close (too full). Instead of leaving us a note or charging us more,
they just didn’t take our garbage that week. Exactly how did that help? Now I have two weeks’
worth of garbage – STUPID.
2. I have the smallest can and it is 90% empty – give the others on my block a little leeway on their
open lids. Make it a neighborhood average.
3. Be consistent in enforcement of rules. I have often seen neighbor’s carts with lids open because
they were too full to close, yet they were picked up (I did it once & my garbage was left).
4. If I remember correctly, SLP decreed a few years ago that garbage would not be picked up from
carts filled to where the lid wouldn’t fully close – because some A’hole complained that in such
case, some citizens received an extra benefit. I can imagine usch pettiness from a citizen - - but
not SLP paying heed to it. EDGAR H. REX – 4371 Dart Ave. - 952-929-1108
5. I appreciate that Mpls. allows collection of larger items. Also, our collectors are nit-picky. If ¼” of
the lid to the cart is open on one end or corner, they will not collect. Considering we are never
over the usage on our cart, it is annoying. Then they leave hints for a holiday tip.
Cart Location = 7
1. Garbage collectors can empty cans fully and return them to the side of the driveway – not in the
driveway area.
2. Struggle in the winter to keep garbage and recycling on sidewalk. Towing makes it diffing near our
house. Garbage doesn’t always get picked up due to location.
3. Let people know how better to conceal their garbage cans if can’t put in garage.
4. Start fining people that leave their garbage bins on the curb after garbage day. Also, putting bins
away so that they can’t be seen. We need to keep our neighborhoods clean.
5. You can improve solid waste by asking garbage haulers to put containers where they found them –
no in the middle of the driveway!
6. Make it easier to dispose of move-out trash and enforce the 24-hour on the curb law. One of my
neighbors has had a trash container on the curb for 2-1/2 months even though I have complained
to staff. We have no alleys and trash is piled on the curb for days before and after the 1st of the
month until I call for an inspector. I shouldn’t have to do that!
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 24
7. You do a great job; however, the collection guys get a little nit-picky on position of our garbage
can in the winter.
Cleanup Events = 22
1. I am jealous that our friends who live in Bloomington have annual trash forgiveness days. I would
prefer that to SLP Clean-up Days.
2. Have clean up events twice a year – drug give-backs are also very helpful.
3. Have a program like Bloomington were [sic] once a year you can put out almost anything to be
picked up for free.
4. Offer drop-off 2 times per year on weekday (including appliances)
5. Saturday is the most religious Jewish Holiday after Yom Kippur & thus, a bad choice.
6. I still do not want to “haul” stuff & wait in line.
7. Could send out reminder flyers re: Spring & fall clean-up events.
8. The annual clean-up days (June & October) are great. Also love the annual hazardous waste
event! The more you can make it easy for residents to recycle & dispose of garbage well – the
better!
9. Annual Clean-Up Event: Thanks for letting us know of reschedule – we always use these.
10. Also, we don’t use the clean-up event because lines & waits are too long.
11. Have annual cleanup day for pickup of things too big for plastic bins – or one free pick up per
house.
12. B2 – Yes, but they (clean-up day events) fall on my daughter’s bday in June and our wedding
anniv. In Oct – usually. SAD FACE
13. Clean-Up Event – I don’t have a vehicle large enough to accommodate several items that can be
scrap metal or cannabalized for parts.
14. Free Spring & Fall Clean-up
15. I would like a clean-up day like New Hope and other brbs have. They let you put out old furniture,
appliances, etc. and have trucks come and haul away instead of charging for any extras we have.
This clean-up day is once a year.
16. I am still not sure what the clean-up events are for.
17. Need better communication about cleanup days. By the time I read about them in the Sun Sailor
(I’m usually behind a bit), they are over.
18. Have a place to drop off trees the City did not pick up! I work on Saturday til 1 p.m. – too short of
time or use a weekend til 3p.m. – I work from 5 a.m. - 1 p.m. on weekends.
19. Have a site in SLP to drop off appliances, treated lumber, remodeling supplies, or furniture at a
cost lower than Waste Management in Maple Grove.
20. Pick-ups at homes.
21. I would prefer a stand-alone notice on events rather than have it buried in a newsletter. Maybe
put on my garbage can?
22. B2 – No – I would, but they are on Saturday – Sabbath.
Hazardous Wastes = 10
1. Consider collection for mercury light bulbs. I’m concerned that people will put these in the
garbage if a convenient pick-up isn’t possible. Would need to educate public (or provide) a safe
container for bulbs to prevent mercury contamination.
2. I would like to be able to recycle/dispose of medications as needed – not store them for a year
and have one location for the whole county. I threw them in the garbage after searching for
information on disposal.
3. I would like to see a City site for drop off of items – paint, solvents, carpet battings, etc.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 25
4. Make it easier to dispose of CFL’s and large items.
5. Closer place to dispose of hazardous waste (especially paint cans).
6. Monthly collection of some hazardous waste items like batteries, small appliances, small
electronics would be awesome.
7. B4 – Needles/Sharps – In garbage in containers as instructed.
8. B4 – Needles/Sharps – in garbage “WELL WRAPPED”.
9. B4 – Needles/Sharps – Medical Waste in marked red container.
10. B4 – Needles/Sharps – in a plastic bottle taped tightly is what we were instructed to do.
Part C: Yard Waste = 75
General = 7
1. The yard people are EXCELLENT!
2. A program where stuff is biodegradable so stuff can be recycled and not just pop cans and plastic
bottles. It makes the earth and landfills a whole lot cleaner and less harmful for the environment.
3. Also, not to blow their leaves in the street.
4. Threw the leaves in the street like 30 years ago and the City plowed them up.
5. Make manufacturing of compostable bags sell for decent price!
6. Collect branches.
7. Offer a program to compost individually (supply compost bins). We are doing this but ours was
open & attracted animals. Offer education on how to do it & a way containers to process the
organics.
Yard Waste Cart = 9
1. C2 – Already have one – already bought 2 at Home Depot.
2. C2 – I need at least 4 large cans each week – sometimes more.
3. C2 - Rose Company does our complex.
4. C2 – Maybe
5. C2 – Maybe
6. C2 Need more info.
7. C2 – I have a very, very large 90-gallon cart.
8. Can we buy our own container for yard waste?
9. Thank you for letting me use my own container for yard waste. I will not buy yard waste bags!
How dumb.
Organics Collection = 20
1. Do the ORGANIC WASTE! Great idea!
2. Organics collection, please! Offer a smaller sized trash can for lower fee than current smallest
size. Or every-other week pick-up.
3. Our recycling garbage collections bill are very high – will recycling organic products bring down
other costs?
4. I compost my kitchen waste – I just need organic pickup for dairy/meat and things I can’t put in
composter – plus during winter when I can’t compost kitchen waste.
5. Make a program where organics like food and paper waste like paper towels & paper napkins can
be collected to recycle
6. C4 – No – I compost
7. C4 – Expand curbside collection to include organic waste!
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 26
8. C4 – Yes, can we buy composters, too?
9. Please do not go the route of organic collection! Think of the rat/mouse/squirrel/raccoon
population! Where to keep this mess in between! Set up a place people can bring it if they want
to do this. Basically sounds like a huge waste of money as well as asking for rodent problems.
10. C4 – ABSOLUTELY!! Please, please, please do this! I’m so jealous of Linden Hills!
11. C4 – We already have a compost bin.
12. C4 – As long as we are not charged – you make a profit on it.
13. C4 – Yes – PLEASE!!
14. C4 – I already compost.
15. C6 - I use my own Compost Bin.
16. C6 – I compost.
17. C6 – I compost my own.
18. C5 – Reducing chances of problems with my sewer main line.
19. C5 – If another bin isn’t needed – where to put them all?
20. C6 – Have compost bin.
Organics Collection/Odors/Rodent Concerns = 5
1. C6 – Rodents
2. C6 – Ants, roaches, etc.
3. C4 – Smell and Squirrels – this per week?
4. C6 – Problems with mice, ants.
5. (Organic) Placing food at the curb is a terrible idea. We already have raccoons & coyotes
scavenging nightly. Not to mention odors – you know people will not all follow directions!
Organics/Pay More/Pay Less = 27
1. And I absolutely would be thrilled to be invoiced in the organics recycling program. Thanks for
considering it in SLP!
2. If recycling anything – should reduce my utility bill not increase it.
3. C7 – Yes – ONLY if I can put it out each week & I don’t have to do “special things” to or with it.
4. C7 – Yes – Depends on what
5. C7 – This would be a real mess!
6. C7 – NO – I can’t afford to pay my bill now. Stop increasing my costs!
7. C7 – Maybe if the bill didn’t go up constantly anyway.
8. C7 – Yes, if enough benefit.
9. C7 – Don’t know.
10. C7 – No, until I find out more about it.
11. C7 – Yes – PLEASE!!
12. C7 – How much!
13. C7 – Depends
14. C7 – Maybe.
15. C7 – It’s free now.
16. C7 – GOD NO! I do organics now! I’m disabled and on a fixed income.
17. C7 – I compost in backyard.
18. C7 – Maybe if it was offset by a smaller garbage can fee.
19. C7 – Specially if we got to pick up some “gold dirt” as a result!
20. C7 – What would “a little more” be?
21. C7 – Maybe – depends on how much.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 27
22. C7 – Not sure – rather have an inexpensive way to do it myself & use the black dirt it provides for
our lawn.
23. C7 – Maybe.
24. C7 – Undecided.
25. C7 – Maybe
26. C7 – you already charge too much! And make $ on recyclables.
27. C7 – Maybe – need more info.
Yard Waste Site = 7
1. A community yard waste site would be wonderful!
2. C3 – Unable to drop off physically.
3. Yard waste site – Always – Great idea!
4. I really like the idea of Yard Waste drop site in the City. This would save me the hassle of disposing
of tree branches and brush during the year.
5. I would like a brush top off site, like the City of Minnetonka.
6. Open yard waste site.
7. C3 – Per year?
Part D: General Program = 41
General = 27
1. We need more recycling bins available at City parks and especially during city-wide events. There
were only 4 recycling bins to the 20+ garbage cans on the 4th of July celebration at Aquila.
2. More info – maybe on utility bills (updates, reminders, changes, safety)
3. You all do a very good job! Thank you!
4. We have been pleased with the service we receive.
5. SLP is a little “picky” about garbage, recycling and yard waste pickups. Lived in 2 other cities that
will haul away pretty much anything. I feel SLP makes it difficult to participate. Please get made
receiving tags if they threw away garbage wrong. It works effectively, but still annoying.
6. Earlier pick, perhaps,
7. May need pick-up closer to back door in bad weather due to slippery, steep driveway.
8. Do this on-line – Zoomerang?
9. D2 – I had kitty litter and put an “Extra Refuse” sticker on the plastic container. The tag said “no
bulk or hazardous waste.” I thought it was pretty funny.
10. We have received educational tags a few times when we didn’t really see an alternative to how
we had done it (we put “extra refuse” stickers on) and bags still weren’t taken at our former home
in SLP. Our curb was sloped and we received tags about not leaving things on slope but received
tags about the alternative – the driveway also).
11. No, Happy the way it is now.
12. Service and quality has declined greatly since current company took over.
13. Thank you for your wonderful efforts, all you do, and continuing to tune in and help us all help the
earth!
14. Education
15. D2 – Although different drivers enforce different rules.
16. “Educational Materials” are condescending, overused.
17. It’s good and drivers are friendly.
18. Thank you for the great work – I appreciate you!
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 28
19. The City has always done a great job with these issues – we’ve lived here for over 30 years and are
very happy with the overall “cleanliness” of SLP!!
20. I compost and recycle.
21. I don’t always understand why things aren’t collected, but the educational information does a
good job of explaining what items are and are not collected.
22. D2 – No – tag with no explanation.
23. When & where are we to receive results of this survey??
24. I’ve been satisfied with the recycling program and the garbage collection program.
25. I would imagine, for most residents, this is our most frequent “contact” with the City – I find the
website can be cumbersome to use, and when I have a question, I tend to waste time finding
website answers and have to call and “sometimes” have to wait for a return call. Maybe devote a
separate, VERY USER-FRIENDLY page/site to the Solid Waste Program.
26. I have received a tag once and I was confused. It was not listed now I know – they were very kind.
27. D2 – No, got one and it wasn’t clear.
Program Costs = 8
1. Why do I pay so much?
2. Price is too high for the quality.
3. Lower cost
4. Costs have increased significantly over the past 10 years. I don’t think now is a good time to ask
residents to absorb more expense.
5. Seems costly compared to independently contracted services due to competition.
6. Keep the costs down – not up.
7. Drop the price.
8. Mayor Dorfman negotiate to use the local service – it was local & less expensive.
House Numbers on Garages = 6
1. SAFETY/SERVICE REMINDER: Ridiculous – some neighbors interpret this to mean that their
address is supposed to be on their garage door facing the street. When the door stands open, no
address is visable. This should be made more clear and enforced.
2. I was not aware that house numbers were required on garages.
3. Safety/Service Reminder: Thank you – did not know this.
4. Safety/Service Reminder: (?) Attached or unattached garages (?)
5. My house numbers are on my house. If they were on my garage, they wouldn’t be visible from
the street (we don’t have an alley!).
6. What if your garage door is open (assuming the #;s are on the garage; not sure where else I’d put
my #’s. Our garage is very small.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 10)
Subject: Solid Waste Program Survey Page 29
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. The purpose of this report is to provide Council with background information
on the MnWARN program prior to considering joining this utility mutual aid network.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or questions you might have.
BACKGROUND:
History
On April 15, 1985 the City Council adopted resolution #85-51 which authorizes the City
Manager (or designee) to dispatch City equipment and personnel, as deemed necessary, to other
communities to combat fire, hazard, casualty or other similar occurrence (disaster) considering in
each case the internal needs of the City of St. Louis Park and its inhabitants. This general
authorization remains in place today. In addition to this authorization, the City has also entered
into mutual aid agreements relating to fire and police services.
During 1989, an effort was undertaken in the metro area to establish a Regional Mutual Aid
Association for use of personnel and equipment during emergencies (mainly public works
oriented). An agency could join by approving the association’s “Joint and Cooperative
Agreement for Use of Personnel and Equipment During Emergencies”. For whatever reason, the
City of St. Louis Park did not join that association but did provide emergency contact
information and has provided limited mutual aid in the metro area since then. This association
never really coalesced, did not function as anticipated, and does not exist at this time.
During 1998, the state passed the local emergency assistance statute, MSA 12.331, as part of the
tornado relief bill of 1998. Section 12.331 provides that in an emergency, cities may provide
mutual aid assistance. If there is not a written agreement between the parties, then the provisions
of Section 12.331 apply which treat liability, employee injuries and property damage in the same
manner recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT). Thus, even
without a mutual agreement, local agencies are authorized under Section 12.331 to provide
assistance. The City of St. Louis Park has provided limited aid since 1998 under this statute and
has also entered into fire and police mutual aid agreements.
Minnesota Water Agency Response Network (MNWARN)
During the last decade federal agencies have encouraged local agencies to create plans to
facilitate emergency response in the water sector. As a result, many national water related
associations began to promote the creation of mutual aid assistance networks at both the national
and local levels (see attachment – Utilities Helping Utilities).
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network
This prompted a number of Minnesota cities and water-related industry groups to create
MnWARN (see attachment - LMCIT Article - May 2008).
MnWARN is a statewide Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN) of “utilities
helping utilities” which assists members with:
• Emergency assessment, emergency response, and recovery
• Mutual Aid Agreement for sharing emergency resources with members
• Resources to help recover from a disaster
• Emergency contact network
• Voluntary participation
MnWARN was developed as a "utilities helping utilities" concept. MnWARN is a formal
emergency response network relating to the water sector. The centerpiece of MnWARN is a
mutual aid agreement, whereby city water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities agree that, in an
emergency, they will assist one another with personnel, equipment, and materials. The
MnWARN mutual aid agreement, developed with assistance from the League of Minnesota
Cities (LMC), defines "emergency" as "any occurrence that is, or is likely to be, beyond the
control of the services, personnel, equipment, or facilities" of a city's water utility. The objective
is to provide for the rapid, short-term deployment of resources to restore critical operations of
affected water utilities. The mutual aid agreement addresses how damage to property, workers'
compensation, and liability will be handled between the city providing assistance and the city
receiving assistance. The "utilities helping utilities" concept is about creating an opportunity to
enhance water utility resiliency in response to disasters during both the response and recovery
phases.
The MnWARN mutual aid agreement does not obligate a city/utility to provide or receive aid but
provides a useful tool in an emergency situation. Some of the benefits of having an agreement in
place prior to an emergency include:
1. Increased planning and coordination. Agreements facilitate planning for incident
response, and help identify the people involved.
2. Enhanced access to specialized resources. Agreements help ensure the timely arrival
of vital equipment and personnel.
3. Expedited arrival of aid. Mutual aid agreements streamline procedural steps so that
resources can be easily requested and arrive in a timely manner.
4. Reduced administrative conflict. Mutual aid agreements clarify liability,
reimbursement, and other administrative matters that could impede response in the
absence of an agreement.
Nearly 100 Minnesota cities have now signed on as parties to the MnWARN mutual aid
agreement. About 30 of these cities are in the metro area. Cities become parties to the mutual aid
agreement by passing a resolution agreeing to all of the terms of the agreement.
The following attachments, which were obtained from the MNWARN website, provide more
information on the network:
1. MnWARN Website Info
2. About MnWARN
3. MnWARN Members
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network
Summary and Next Steps
Staff believes it would be beneficial for the City of St. Louis Park to join the MnWARN
network. It does not cost anything for the city to join and being a member does not obligate a
utility to provide or receive aid, but provides a useful tool in an emergency situation.
To become a member, the City needs to pass a resolution agreeing to all of the terms of the
agreement. Staff intends to bring the MnWARN mutual aid agreement back to the Council for
approval as a consent item at the February 6, 2012 Council meeting.
Finally, staff will work with the City Attorney and LMC staff to prepare the MnWARN mutual
aid agreement for Council approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Utilities Helping Utilities
LMCIT Article - May 2008
MnWARN Website Info
About MnWARN
MnWARN Members
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network Page 4
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network Page 5
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network Page 6
MnWARN is a statewide Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (WARN) of
“utilities helping utilities” assists members with:
• Emergency assessment, emergency response, and recovery
• Mutual Aid Agreement for sharing emergency resources with members
• Resources to help recover from a disaster
• Emergency contact network
• Voluntary participation
MnWARN Mission
To promote and support a statewide response to utility emergencies and disasters
through mutual assistance for water, wastewater, and stormwater utilities in
Minnesota.
What is a WARN?
Leaders in the water/wastewater community and state agencies have joined
together to create the Minnesota Water/Wastewater Utilities Agency Response
Network. MnWARN is a formal emergency response program in Minnesota.
MnWARN is a mutual aid agreement to provide a program whereby water,
wastewater, and storm water utilities sustaining physical damage from natural or
man-made disasters in the state of Minnesota can obtain emergency assistance, in
the form of personnel, equipment, and materials and other associated services
necessary to protect the health and welfare of the utilities' customers.
Law enforcement and fire departments have been organized for many years.
MnWARN is an initiative to organize the water and wastewater professionals to be
prepared to respond to water, wastewater, and storm water entities in a
professional and timely manner.
A pre-established agreement among a network of utilities can complement and
enhance local capabilities to prepare to respond to a broad range of threats, both
natural and man-made.
This initiative is not meant to compete with any existing mutual agreements that
your utility may already have in place with neighboring communities or counties.
This initiative is meant to enhance the abilities of utilities to help utilities.
It is essential that all partners in the water, wastewater, and storm water
community work together to support this concept.
What is a MnWARN Event?
MnWARN can be activated only when there has been a formal declaration of an
emergency issued by a community's authorized official or alternate, whose name is
listed as such on the MnWARN Web site (Mutual Aid Agreement, Article II, Subpart
D and Article IV, Subpart A). Once activated, both parties would be acting under
the provisions of the Mutual Aid Agreement.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network Page 7
While services may be exchanged among parties who are both MnWARN members,
without the formal declaration of an emergency, such activity would not qualify as a
MnWARN event and would occur outside of the MnWARN response network.
What is an Emergency?
Any occurrence that is, or is likely to be, beyond the control of the services,
personnel, equipment, or facilities of a Party's utility (Article II, Subpart D).
Emergencies are generally unforeseen events. Participation in MnWARN does not
create any duty to respond to a request for assistance. When a Member receives a
request for assistance, the Authorized Official shall have absolute discretion as to
the availability of resources. An Authorized Member’s decisions on the availability of
resources shall be final.
Requests for Assistance
Any water or wastewater utility in Minnesota can request assistance from MnWARN
by calling the Minnesota Duty Officer at 1-800-422-0798. The Duty Officer will
call the appropriate Regional Director. The Duty Officer is for MnWARN events
only - all questions regarding MnWARN should be directed to the MnWARN
directors. Assistance can be in the form of equipment, supplies, or trained
personnel. During an emergency, MnWARN will match equipment, resources, and
personnel with those best available within the MnWARN network. MnWARN will
coordinate relief efforts for the donating and receiving utility through the incident
command center. MnWARN will work with the corresponding local, state, and
federal agencies as necessary.
How Does My Utility Participate?
Participation in MnWARN is voluntary and membership is free. To participate in
MnWARN, simply fill out the Membership Information Form and Membership
Application Questionnaire and submit to MnWARN along with the Mutual Aid
Agreement and Resolution. The governing entity must adopt the Mutual Aid
Agreement and Resolution. MnWARN also recommends that a sample equipment
schedule of fees be adopted by your governing entity. In the event of a MnWARN
response, if a schedule of charges is not agreed upon, the default will be FEMA rate
of reimbursement.
Members must identify Authorized Officials and alternates, provide contact
information including 24-hour access, and maintain resource information made
available by the utility for mutual aid and assistance response. This is done in the
application process and should be updated annually.
MnWARN Region Directors
Minnesota Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (MnWARN) consists of nine
voting members. Voting members consist of a director from each of the following
Regions and Organizations:
Voting Members
Region 1 Steve Bushman City of St. Peter
Region 2 Dave Isaacson City of Kettle River
Region 3 Gerry Kluck City of Hawley
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network Page 8
Region 4 Lisa Vollbrecht City of St. Cloud
Region 5 Brent Powers City of Dawson
Region 6 Marty Glynn City of Shakopee
Pete Moulton American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Ruth Hubbard Minnesota Rural Water Association (MRWA)
Bob Cockriel Minnesota Wastewater Operator’s Association (MWOA)
Minnesota Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (MnWARN) consists of the
following supporting advisory members:
Advisory Members
Minnesota Department of Health
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
League of Minnesota Cities
Minnesota Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers
Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network Page 9
MnWARN Regions
The state of Minnesota is divided into 6 distinct geographical regions. Click on the regions above for
membership by region or click here to see the entire MnWARN membership.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 11)
Subject: Participation in the MnWARN Mutual Aid Network Page 10
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 12
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Toby Keith Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales ,nterim Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
None at this time. A three month interim report of food/liquor sales for the period of September
1, 2011 through November 31, 2011 is being provided for Council review as required by
Resolution No. 11-109 adopted November 7, 2011. In accordance with the Resolution, final
probationary results will be provided in February 2012 for council consideration of renewal of
the liquor license.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information on this item at this time?
BACKGROUND:
Each year liquor establishments must meet certain requirements in order to allow for Council
approval of the renewal of their liquor licenses. The renewal application received in January
2011 from Toby Keith’s I Love this Bar & Grill located at 1623 Park Place Boulevard did not
meet the requirement of at least 50% of the gross receipts attributable to the sale of food. On
February 22, 2011, Council approved the liquor license with conditions that the licensee would
be placed on a 6 month probationary status.
City Ordinance Section 3-70 (g) allows the city to place the license of any on-sale intoxicating
liquor licensee on probationary status for up to one year, when the sale of food is reported, or
found to be, less than 50 percent of gross receipts for any business year. During the probationary
period, the licensee shall prepare any plans and reports, participate in any required meetings and
take other action that the city may require to increase the sale of food.
At the October 10 Study Session, Council discussed the 6 month probationary status results of
Toby Keith’s. With the exception of one month, food sales reported from the licensee were
increasing each month, but did not meet the ordinance requirement of at least 50% of gross
receipts attributable to the sale of food. It was the consensus of the Council to extend the
probationary period, and on November 7, 2011 adopted Resolution No. 11-109 extending the
probationary status through March 1, 2012. Toby Keith’s was also required to provide interim
reports of food/liquor sales in December and again at the time of liquor license renewal in
February 2012.
This report is to inform Council of the food/liquor sales reported from Toby Keith’s during the
period of September 1 through November 31, 2011 as required by Resolution No. 11-109. In
addition, sales percentages were also reported for November 1 through December 20, 2011.
Months Food % Liquor %
Sept. 1 – Nov. 31, 2011 47% 53%
Nov. 1 – Dec. 20, 2011 48.8% 51.2%
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 12) Page 2
Subject: Toby Keith Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales ,nterim Report
2011 Reported Monthly Sales Percentages January – August
Month Food % Liquor %
January 2011 29.09% 70.91%
February 2011 28.35% 71.65%
March 2011 *
(probation begins)
31.32% 68.68%
April 2011 31.76% 68.24%
May 2011 38.46% 61.54%
June 2011 33.86% 66.14%
July 2011 43.88% 56.12%
August 2011 48.63% 51.37%
History of Licensee
• April 5, 2010 Council approved liquor license for term through March 1, 2011.
• June 4, 2010 Toby Keith began operation.
• January 2011 Renewal application received with report of food/liquor sales not meeting city
ordinance requirement of at least 50% of gross receipts attributable to the sale of food.
• February 14, 2011 Council reviewed written report with conditions proposed by staff for
renewal of license.
• February 22, 2011 Council approved renewal of liquor license with conditions including 6
month probation (Resolution No. 11-30).
• June 27, 2011 Council reviewed written interim probation report of food/liquor sales
percentages covering Jan-May 31, 2011.
• October 10, 2011 Council discussed final 6 month probation report of food/liquor sales
percentages covering Jan-August 31, 2011.
• November 7, 2011 Council approved extending probationary period for remainder of term
through March 1, 2012 with conditions including an interim report of food and liquor sales
by December 15, 2011. (Resolution No. 11-109)
NEXT STEPS:
City Clerk’s office will receive the final report of food liquor sales required during the renewal
process for council consideration of the liquor license in February 2012.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Resolutions 11-030 and 11-109
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 12)
Subject: Toby Keith Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report Page 3
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 12)
Subject: Toby Keith Liquor License - Food/Liquor Sales Interim Report Page 4
Meeting Date: January 9, 2012
Agenda Item #: 13
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
November 2011 Monthly Financial Report.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. This report is being provided for information sharing purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
BACKGROUND:
This report is designed to provide summary information regarding the overall level of revenues
and expenditures in both the General Fund and the Park and Recreation Fund. These funds are
important in analyzing the City’s financial health because they represent the discretionary use of
tax levy dollars.
The Monthly Financial Report is normally prepared for the second Study Session each month.
Because there wasn’t a second Study Session in December, the November report is being
provided at this time. The December report will be prepared as scheduled for the January 23rd
meeting.
A few changes have been made to this report and the attachments in 2011 to provide a more
concise summary of General Fund and Park & Recreation revenues and expenditures compared
to budget.
It is important to note the following items when reviewing this report:
• Due to a change in accounting practice, payroll and accounts payable expenses are no
longer accrued during the year. What this means is that wages or invoices paid in a
particular month will be expensed in that month, even though the expenses may have
pertained to the prior month. Because this could at times cause as much as a 3% to 4%
expenditure variance throughout the year, Accounting has reflected the applicable
amount of November payroll expense in the attached department summary. This practice
will continue in order to provide consistency to all reports. At year end, all 2011 accruals
will be recorded prior to the audit.
• Property tax revenues are received three times per year. Settlements in July and
December make up the majority of the revenue. A small subsequent settlement for the
final tax collections is received in January and accrued back to December, as it pertains to
the prior fiscal year.
• A large portion of the budgeted intergovernmental revenues are received at specific times
during the year. Because these are significant sources of General Fund revenue, it
usually causes a budget to actual revenue variance until received. These include Police &
Fire Aid typically received in September or October, DOT Aid/Highway User Tax
received in February and July, and PERA Aid received in July and December.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 13) Page 2
Subject: November 2011 Monthly Financial Report
Actual expenditures should generally run at about 92% of the annual budget through November.
Currently, the General Fund has expenditures totaling 86.6% of the adopted budget and the Park
and Recreation Fund expenditures are at 95.7% of budget. As was noted in the December 19,
2011 Council Report regarding fund balance levels and transfers, the Park & Recreation Fund is
expected to slightly exceed budget on expenditures in 2011. This is discussed in more detail
later in this report. For the General Fund and Park & Recreation Fund combined, it is anticipated
that total expenditures for the year will be under budget by approximately 3% or $900,000.
Significant variances for both revenues and expenditures are highlighted below accompanied
with a general discussion of reasons for the variance.
General Fund
Revenues:
• Through November, license and permit revenues are at 114% of budget in the General
Fund. The liquor and business license revenues have exceeded budget by just over 5% or
$40,000, and total permit revenues for the year have surpassed budget by $289,000 or
18%.
• Intergovernmental revenue has exceeded budget by 4.2% or $48,000 because we have
received more DOT Municipal State Aid than was anticipated this year. The State
typically withholds 10% of the maintenance allotment until the following year, however,
the full 2011 allotment was sent in advance of the State shutdown in June. In addition,
we also received the 10% hold back of our 2010 allotment.
Expenditures:
• The Facilities Maintenance Department is well below budget overall at 70.5%. This is
due to the retirement of the Facilities Superintendent and the subsequent staffing
reorganization which resulted in cost savings. This has been taken into consideration for
the 2012 budget.
Parks and Recreation
Expenditures:
• Expenditures in the Organized Recreation, Rec Center, Park Maintenance, and
Environment Divisions are slightly exceeding budget at between 94% and 96%. Many of
the expenditures incurred in these divisions are seasonal, which can cause variances
throughout the year. Only a small budget variance of 1% to 2% at end of year is
anticipated in any of these divisions.
• Total expenses in the Vehicle Maintenance Division are at 102.3% through November.
Motor fuel expense is at 107% of budget, due mainly to snow removal costs incurred in
the first quarter of the year. Repair and maintenance services have also been higher than
budget this year, as there have been many unanticipated equipment repairs requiring
external service and labor work. Repair expenses related to accidents will be analyzed
and reimbursed through a transfer from the Uninsured Loss Fund at the end of the year if
applicable. Staff anticipates an 8% to 10% expenditure overage at end of year in this
division.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 13) Page 3
Subject: November 2011 Monthly Financial Report
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Regular and timely reporting of financial information is part of the City’s mission of being
stewards of financial resources.
Attachments: Summary of Revenues – General Fund and Park & Recreation
Summary of Expenditures – General Fund and Park & Recreation
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: Brian Swanson, Controller
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
!"#$
%&%’
()*"#$
+,)’-*
. /0*/#$
’(
(*"1)2
3,( "#$
!
!"
()*"#$
+,)’-*
. /0*/
3,( "
!
"#$% !
$&’(
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 13)
Subject: November 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 4
4!"
4 /)
4)
5/"0/
+""/6*"
% .
(’"0/
+""/ &.7)
+""/3/ ,
&"$#
%
( -*
&"$#
&)
/8 974!"
/8 971))
/8 973
&)
%*
#$
’3/ 2 2 2
+/2 2
%*
+,*
!
3):!0
0 +
7.
9;!
1*"
<, . #$
!+,*
"#$+,*% !
$&’(
Study Session Meeting of January 9, 2012 (Item No. 13)
Subject: November 2011 Monthly Financial Report Page 5