HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/01/19 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2010
6:10 p.m. Newly Elected Council Portraits, Council Chambers
6:20 p.m. Full Council Portrait, Council Chambers
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MEETING – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Overview of Labor Relations (with Consultant)
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Human Rights Award Presentation -- Kathy McKay
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of January 4, 2010
3b. City Council Study Session Minutes of January 11, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the
Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda.
Recommended Action:
Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent
calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions
None
6. Public Hearings
None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
None
9. Communication
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 of January 19, 2010
Special Study Session and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Designate Magney Construction, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution
of a contract with the firm in the amount of $857,400.00 for Water Project – Water
Treatment Plant No. 1 – Project No. 2008-1400
4b. Adopt Resolution relating to Hennepin County’s decision of a Locally Preferred Alternative
for the Southwest Transitway
4c. Approve Change Order #3 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at
2930 Salem Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – P.I.D. 31-029-24-33-0090
4e. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of fire sprinkler system at
6111 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416
4f. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of donation from the Raymond H. and Florence L.
Sponberg Foundation in the amount of $500 for city park improvements.
4g. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4h. Approve for Filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes November 4, 2009
4i. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes December 9, 2009
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable
channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the
internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official
city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full
packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website.
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
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: SPECIAL
TITLE:
Overview of Labor Relations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. The City Council will be provided with an overview of staffing and collective
bargaining as it relates to our City. Staff would like to know if Council needs any additional
information.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council need any additional information regarding staffing and collective bargaining?
BACKGROUND:
Scott Lepak, attorney with Barna, Guzy and Steffen. Ltd., provides information and assistance to
staff on various collective bargaining related areas. Per a request made previously by the City
Council, staff and Scott Lepak will provide an overview of labor relations as it relates to our city and
answer questions.
Areas that we will cover include:
• The role of the City Council where the City has a City Manager
• Types of employees
• Terms and conditions of employment
• Inherent management rights
• Subjects of bargaining
• Meet and confer
• Policies
• Exclusive representation
• Grievance and arbitration – what does it mean?
• Unfair labor practice – what is it?
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None at this time.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachment: Labor Relations Overview by Scott Lepak
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
LABOR RELATIONS OVERVIEW
For St. Louis Park
By Scott M. Lepak
Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd.
slepak@bgslaw.com
(763) 783-5129
INTRODUCTION. Labor law in the public sector is governed by the Minnesota Public
Employment Labor Relations Act. It is commonly called MPELRA. This law is located at
Minnesota Statutes Section 179A. This law provides the rules that apply to cities and other
governmental entities in Minnesota in dealing with employees and unions on labor issues.
I. THE ROLE OF THE CITY COUNCIL WHERE CITY HAS A CITY MANAGER
A. The City of St. Louis Park administration operates under what is commonly called Plan B.
In Plan B cities, direct responsibility for personnel administration (including hiring and
firing employees) rests with the city manager. The council establishes basic policies and
exercises general oversight for administrative activities. In St. Louis Park, the City Council
has also authorized the City Manager to handle compensation by passing a resolution with
a policy on how it is handled.
B The City also operates under a Fire Civil Service.
C. City council involvement in labor negotiation strategy can occur in a closed meeting. The
statue restricts when and how meetings on negotiation strategy can be held. The council
may hold one or more closed meetings to consider its labor negotiations strategy,
discussions on negotiation developments and reviewing labor negotiation proposals.
1. In order to hold a closed meeting, the city council must pass a motion by majority vote
in an open meeting to have such a closed meeting. The time of commencement and
place of the closed meeting must be announced at the public meeting.
2. In addition, a written roll of the members attending the meeting must be kept and
made available to the public after the closed meeting.
3. City councils should be aware that these closed meetings must be tape recorded and
the tape must be preserved for two years after the union contract is signed.
Significantly, the tapes must be made available to the public after all labor contracts are
signed by the city for the current budget period.
D. The delegated labor negotiation function, if successful, results in what is commonly called
a tentative agreement. It is a tentative agreement because the council must, make the final
decisions and approve any union contracts before they are legally binding upon the city.
For example, a city that reconsiders a tentative agreement on the basis of new information
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
does not commit an unfair labor practice in certain instances. Likewise, the union
negotiating representatives will present the tentative agreement to the members of the
bargaining unit for formal approval. This formal approval is called ratification.
E. In negotiating union contracts, it is important for the city’s representative to understand
which subjects must be negotiated. A city has an obligation to meet and negotiate with a
union on grievance procedures and the terms and conditions of employment. It is also
important for the negotiator to be familiar with the city’s charters, ordinances and
resolutions. Union contracts may not be in conflict with state law or rules promulgated
under law, or city charters, ordinances or resolutions provided that the rules, charters,
ordinances and resolutions are consistent with the Public Employment Labor Relations
Act.
II. TYPES OF EMPLOYEES
A. DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE.
Unions represent employees who are included in an appropriate bargaining unit. In order
to be included in an appropriate bargaining unit, the employee must be a “public
employee” under the law.
The term “public employee” is defined to mean any person appointed or employed by a
public employer except:
1. Elected public officials;
2. Part-time employees whose service does not exceed the lesser of 14 hours per week or
35 percent of the normal work week in the employee's appropriate unit;
3. Employees whose positions are basically temporary or seasonal in character and: (1) are
not for more than 67 working days in any calendar year; or (2) are not for more than 100
working days in any calendar year and the employees are under the age of 22, are full-
time students enrolled in a nonprofit or public educational institution prior to being
hired by the employer, and have indicated, either in an application for employment or by
being enrolled at an educational institution for the next academic year or term, an
intention to continue as students during or after their temporary employment;
An employee hired for a position under the 67 working day exception is a public
employee if that same position has already been filled under this exception in the same
calendar year and the cumulative number of days worked in that same position by all
employees exceeds 67 calendar days in that year. For the purpose of this paragraph,
"same position" includes a substantially equivalent position if it is not the same position
solely due to a change in the classification or title of the position.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4
There are also a number of other individuals who are excluded, such as election officers
and emergency employees who are employed for emergency work caused by natural
disaster.
Individuals who fall within the three exceptions may not be included in a union.
B. CONFIDENTIAL.
A confidential employee is defined as an employee who, as part of the employee’s job
duties:
1. has access to labor relations information; or
2. actively participates in the meeting and negotiating on behalf of the public employer.
An employee has to fall within either 1 or 2. The phrase “labor relations information” is
defined as “management positions on economic and noneconomic items that have not
been presented during the collective bargaining process or interest arbitration, including
information specifically collected or created to prepare the management position.”
The definition of confidential employee is important because a confidential employee may
not be included in a bargaining unit with nonessential employees. A confidential
employee is considered to be an essential employee. This means that confidential
employees may not strike. Confidential and supervisory employees may form their own
organizations. In the event that confidential employees are in a bargaining unit and a city
is not able to agree on the wages, terms and conditions of employment during
negotiations, the unresolved issues must be submitted to interest arbitration.
In order to be considered a confidential employee under the first test, the individual must
have access to labor relations information as part of their job duties. It is not necessary that
the individual regularly use this information.
As this definition suggests, the term confidential employee extends to not only the
traditional “confidential” secretary, but also applies to management information systems
employees who have access to this type of information as part of their job duties. An
individual who simply has the skill and knowledge to access this information would not be
considered a confidential employee if the access is not part of their job duties.
C. SUPERVISORY.
The phrase supervisory employee is defined to mean a person who has the current
authority (whether previously undertaken or not) to undertake at least six of the following
supervisory functions in the interests of the employer:
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 5
1. Hiring;
2. Transfer;
3. Suspension;
4. Promotion;
5. Discharge;
6. Assignment;
7. Reward;
8. Discipline of other employees’
9. Direction of the work of other employees; and
10. Adjustment of other employees' grievances on behalf of the employer.
To be included as a supervisory function, the individual must use independent judgment
in exercising his or her authority. In other words, the individual may not exercise authority
that is merely routine or clerical in nature.
The statute also provides that an employee, other than an essential employee, who has
authority to effectively recommend a supervisory function, is deemed to have authority to
undertake that supervisory function for the purposes of this subdivision.
The administrative head of a city, city utility, or police or fire department, and the
administrative head's assistant, are always considered supervisory employees.
As this definition suggests, there are two methods to use when determining whether an
individual is a supervisor. In the event the individual meets either test, he or she is
considered a supervisor for purposes of the statute.
1) The first test is to determine whether the individual has the authority to exercise six of
the ten listed factors. If one of the factors does not apply it does not reduce the number
of factors that are needed to qualify the individual as a supervisor. These are the only
factors that may be used in determining whether an individual is supervisory.
In the event that the employee is not otherwise an essential employee, “authority” is
more broadly defined to include instances where the employee has the authority to
effectively recommend the supervisory function. In contrast, essential employees must
have the actual authority – it is not sufficient if they merely have the authority to
effectively recommend.
2) The second method to determine whether an individual is a supervisor does not rely on
the ten factors. Rather the individual will be deemed a supervisor if he or she is the
administrative head of a city, city utility, or police or fire department. In addition, the
administrative head’s assistant is also always included in the definition of a supervisor.
Supervisory employees are essential employees and may not strike.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 6
The definition of supervisory employee also provides that a city may not designate an
individual as supervisor and remove him or her from a non supervisory appropriate unit
unless the city obtains the prior written agreement of the exclusive representative and the
written approval of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Mediation Services or a separate
determination by the Commissioner.
E. ESSENTIAL.
Who is included as an essential employee is very important. For city purposes, essential
employees include firefighters, peace officers subject to licensure under the peace officer
training statutes, 911 system and police and fire department public safety dispatchers,
guards at correctional facilities, confidential employees, supervisory employees and assistant
city attorneys. Firefighters are defined as salaried employees of a fire department whose
duties include, directly or indirectly, controlling, extinguishing, preventing, detecting, or
investigating fires.
Essential employees are subject to special rules under MPELRA. Essential individuals
cannot be included in bargaining units with nonessential employees. Essential employees
may not strike. Because essential employees may not strike, they may utilize binding
interest arbitration to resolve disputes over terms and conditions of employment that have
not been resolved by substantial, good - faith bargaining efforts.
III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
The phrase “terms and conditions of employment” is defined to mean the hours of
employment and the compensation therefore including fringe benefits. Terms and conditions
of employment also include the employer's personnel policies affecting the working conditions
of the employees.
This definition is extremely important because the portion of PELRA detailing the rights and
obligations of employers provides that cities have an obligation to meet and negotiate in good
faith with the exclusive representative of public employees regarding grievance procedures and
terms and conditions of employment. These are called mandatory subjects of bargaining.
This definition is also important because an employee has a right to independent review of any
grievance arising out of the interpretation or adherence to terms and conditions of
employment.
IV. INHERENT MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
A. From a city’s perspective, the subject of inherent management rights is probably the most
important part of the labor law. Inherent management rights are subjects that a city is
not required to meet and negotiate over with unions. Matters of inherent managerial
policy include, but are not limited to, such areas of discretion or policy as the city’s
functions and programs, its overall budget, utilization of technology, the organizational
structure, selection of personnel, and direction and the number of personnel. Most
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 7
union contracts contain a comprehensive list of items that are considered inherent
management rights.
B. The following areas fall within inherent managerial policy:
1. A city’s functions and programs (although once a function or program is established,
a city may be limited on whether it can subcontract work to a third party).
2. A city’s overall budget.
3. A city’s utilization of technology.
4. The organizational structure in a city.
5. Selecting personnel. This applies to the initial selection of employees. Terminations
are subject to a grievance procedure. Supervisor selection is not a permissible subject
of bargaining – it is a prohibited subject of bargaining (unless, according to a famous
arbitrator/mayor, the union at issue is a union of supervisory personnel). Transfers
are also limited.
6. Directing personnel.
7. The number of personnel.
8. Tenure and promotion (in a school setting).
9. Evaluations (in a school setting).
10. The quality of work an employer expects.
11. Academic calendar (in a school setting).
12. When it is necessary to report to work.
13. Assignment of work that is not bargaining unit work.
14. Creating a policy against sexual harassment that simply states that harassment and
violence in the workplace are not allowed because they violate state and federal laws
and regulations. (The union could not bargain around the laws).
15. The decision to transfer employees. (But adopting criteria by which individuals are
identified for transfer is a proper subject of negotiation).
16. A procedure for determining which supervisory positions are to be stripped of
administrative functions.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 8
17. A decision to establish a police ride-along program and implementation of a ride-
along program for trainees (as opposed to community group members or others).
18. Implementation of a response time policy.
V. SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING
A. MANDATORY SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING.
Mandatory subjects of bargaining are those areas in which cities must meet and negotiate
with unions upon request of the union. Mandatory subjects of bargaining basically
include:
creating a grievance procedure;
compensation; and
terms and conditions of employment.
The phrase term and condition of employment is an expanding definition because the
legislature intended that the scope of the mandatory bargaining area be broadly
interpreted. Cities should also operate under the assumption that, if it is questionable
whether an item is a “term and condition of employment,” courts will be more likely to
include the item as a term and condition of employment than exclude the item. The
Minnesota Supreme Court has stated that “if an issue in a labor dispute affects employees’
welfare, and is not part of management function; it is a term or condition of employment.”
City of Richfield v. Local No. 1215, International Assoc. of Fire Fighters, 276 N.W.2d 42
(Minn. 1979).
Terms and conditions of employment may overlap with areas of inherent managerial
policy. These are called “mixed subjects of bargaining.”
The definition of terms and conditions of employment, and therefore a mandatory subject
of bargaining, includes the “hours of employment.” This has been interpreted to mean
how many hours an employee should work. It does not mean when an employer deems it
necessary to report to work.
The phrase “terms and conditions” has been interpreted to include or affect the
following:
1. Whether an employee may be suspended or receive a written reprimand.
2. A dispute about the fairness of a competitive examination used to fill a position.
3. Adopting criteria by which individuals may be identified for transfer.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 9
4. Adopting physical appearance or grooming standards.
5. Implementing a mandatory physical examination policy.
6. Requiring an individual to undergo a psychological examination.
7. Establishing a clothing allowance.
8. Determining whether or not an employee's job will be terminated so that the same
function can be performed by an employee who is not in the bargaining unit
(subcontracting).
9. Jurisdictional questions dealing with the assignment of work to bargaining unit
members.
10. Lengthening hours of employment and increasing work loads.
11. Whether an individual is entitled to premium pay during participation in a training
program and the manner in which the participation requirement must be fulfilled--
i.e. whether the participation requirement is to be fulfilled during a single assignment
to the training program or by alternate assignments to line duty and training units.
12. The employer payment of or contributions to premiums for group insurance
coverage of retired employees.
13. Those parts of implementing a ride along program involving explorer scouts or
community volunteer groups rather than newly hired officers.
14. Assignment of an individual to chaperone a dance
B. PERMISSIBLE SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING.
In contrast to mandatory subjects of bargaining, permissible subjects of bargaining are
those areas where a city may, but is not required to meet and negotiate. A city may choose
to bargain over permissible subjects of bargaining. Therefore a city must be cautious in
this area because once it negotiates on a matter of inherent managerial policy, it may be
limited in its ability to later claim a management right on the same matter. A city may
only give up its right to determine matters of inherent managerial policy in clear and
unmistakable language. The areas listed under inherent managerial rights are also
permissible subjects of bargaining.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 10
C. PROHIBITED SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING.
Prohibited subjects of bargaining are areas where unions and cities cannot negotiate even if
the parties wish to negotiate these topics. Cities may not sign an agreement which limits
its right to select persons to serve as supervisory employees or requires the use of seniority
in the supervisor’s selection (except if the union at issue is a supervisory union). Courts
have also recognized a second prohibited subject of bargaining. Certain pension
contributions are also a prohibited subject of bargaining. AFSCME Councils 6, 14, 65
AND 96, v. Sundquist, 338 N.W.2d 560 (Minn. 1983). There is one exception to this
prohibition on bargaining over pension contributions. A city may, but does not have an
obligation to, meet and negotiate in good faith with the exclusive representative of public
employees in an appropriate unit regarding an employer contribution to the state of
Minnesota deferred compensation plan.
VI. MEET AND CONFER
A. THE CITY CAN LOSE MANAGEMENT RIGHTS IF IT NEGOTIATES THEM.
A city may lose its right to claim a management right if it negotiates with a union on a
permissive subject of bargaining. There are instances in which it is beneficial for a city to
meet with a union on an issue that may be within its management rights. The best way to
meet on such an issue is called “meet and confer.” This is a term used to distinguish
“meet and negotiate.” A “meet and confer” process is simply a mechanism by which a city
may allow union input prior to management making a decision within its management
rights without later losing the right to claim it as an exclusive management right.
There is one statutory qualifier on management’s discretion to meet and confer on a
subject. The state labor law provides that a city must meet and confer with its professional
employees over matters of inherent managerial rights.
B. MEET AND CONFER CAN BE USED FOR ALMOST ANYTHING.
The meet and confer process may be used for almost any subject. The items that are
included as mandatory subjects of bargaining and permissive subjects of bargaining are
often quite blurred. These blurred lines are often called mixed subjects of bargaining.
This means that part of a decision is a management right and part must be negotiated with
a union.
The most common example of a mixed subject of bargaining is where an employer creates
a policy as a matter of management rights but is required to negotiate over implementation
of the policy. For example, an employer may have a right (in some instances a duty) to
create a drug testing policy. Implementation of the drug testing policy will involve
potential disciplinary action. Imposing discipline is an area where the city must negotiate
with the union. In order to create and implement the policy most efficiently, a city may
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 11
choose to meet and confer with a union regarding creation of the policy so that the
subsequent discussion regarding implementation goes more smoothly.
VII. POLICIES
THE CITY HAS THE RIGHT TO CREATE POLICIES UNLESS THAT RIGHT HAS
BEEN NEGOTIATED AWAY.
A city has the broad management right to decide that it needs a policy as part of its inherent
management right. Nevertheless, implementing the policy may require meeting and
negotiating with the union. In the event that the city meets and negotiates with the union on
the policy itself, it may have waived its right to later claim this as a management right. This is
the reason why “meet and confer” sessions are useful. It is also a reason why a city will limit
dealings with union officials to certain city officials – to make sure that individuals from the
city are not dealing away or negotiating management rights.
Another area where a city needs to be careful in the policy area involves a concept called past
practice. A past practice is a prior course of conduct which is consistently made in response to
a recurring situation and regarded as a correct and required response under the circumstances.
It is a binding practice that a city may not unilaterally change during the term of a union
contract. Certain qualities distinguish a binding past practice from a course of conduct that
has no particular evidentiary significance:
(1) clarity and consistency
(2) longevity and repetition
(3) acceptability
(4) a consideration of the underlying circumstances
(5) mutuality
This concept is important because when a city or a department creates a policy, it may also be
creating a binding past practice that may be difficult to later abandon or revise.
VIII. EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATION
A CITY IS OBLIGATED TO ONLY DEAL WITH THE UNION.
The primary result of employees becoming organized into a collective bargaining unit and
selecting a union to represent them is that dealings over compensation and terms and
conditions of employment must occur between a city and the union. A city may not bypass
the union and negotiate directly with employees. Negotiating directly with employees is an
unfair labor practice that carries significant civil penalties.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 12
THE LABOR RELATIONS DEPARTMENT REPRESENTS THE CITY.
A city is particularly concerned with this issue because supervisors are deemed to be
representatives of the city. Supervisors who deal directly with employees subject the city to the
unfair labor practice penalties. This exclusivity is also commonly drafted into union contracts
because unions want to make sure that they retain the control over this situation. In addition,
in the event that there are unwritten or not widely known dealings with employees, the city
may enter into an agreement with the union that would be facially acceptable on its own but
detrimental to a city when considered along with a binding departmental practice. Creating a
binding past practice in one department may also present problems in another department.
This is the reason why a city’s labor department is the entity that exclusively deals with unions
– to avoid unfair labor practices and to ensure uniformity or that a practice in one area does
not adversely affect another area.
IX. GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION
A. Grievances. The union contracts at the City are legally required to and do have a grievance
procedure that includes a provision for compulsory binding arbitration. By law, this
grievance procedure must also be available for all written disciplinary actions.
Grievance procedures, depending upon how they are drafted, most often deal with two
primary areas: 1) disputes or disagreements about whether the city violated the union
contract that involve contract interpretation; or 2) whether the city violated the union
contract when it disciplined an employee that involves both the application of fact and the
discipline standard.
The first type of grievance is commonly referred to as a union contract language or
“language” type of grievance. Again, depending upon the language in the union
contract, this type of grievance can involve the interpretation of actual contract terms
and may be broad enough to include grievances over “past practice” claims.
The second type of grievance is commonly referred to as a discipline grievance. This
type of grievance will be over whether the city violated the disciplinary language of the
union contract or any procedural rights associated with the discipline. After the
probationary period, any disciplinary action is subject to the grievance procedure and
compulsory binding arbitration. Employees covered by civil service may use the union
grievance procedure but may not also appeal through the civil service appeal procedure.
In the event that the civil service employee appeals through the civil service appeal
procedure, the employee may not use the grievance procedure.
As a practical matter, grievances are addressed in steps in which the dispute is presented to
a first line supervisor for discussion and potential resolution. In the event that the matter
is not resolved at that point, the city grievance procedures provide for moving up the chain
of authority to present, discuss and obtain the city’s response on a grievance.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 13
B. Arbitration. As noted above, the final decision maker on a grievance that is not resolved in
the prior steps or dropped by the union is an arbitrator. The State Bureau of Mediation
Services is a state agency that is responsible for maintaining a roster of qualified arbitrators
that the parties may use.
An arbitrator’s authority over a dispute is commonly defined by the provisions of the
union contracts. Absent restrictions in the union contract, arbitrators may rule on issues of
fact and law. An arbitrator is not required to make findings of fact to support an award.
Arbitrators also generally determine whether the parties have complied with the proper
procedure to arbitration.
X. UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Cities (and their representatives) that violate an employee’s rights or a union’s rights under
the labor laws commit what are referred to as unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices
may be committed by cities, employees and employee organizations. Unfair labor practices
may also be committed by agents and representatives of cities and employee organizations.
B. These are actions for injunctive relief and/or damages that are tried in district court. A
union may file a grievance and sue a city for an unfair labor practice based on the same
conduct. A union does not have to choose whether to file a grievance or sue – it can
pursue both options.
C. This section focuses on the unfair labor practices that apply to cities.
1. The first prohibition is that cities may not interfere with, restrain or coerce employees
in exercising their PELRA rights. This language mirrors language in the federal law.
Federal law suggests that:
a. A city may violate the law even when it acts in good faith.
b. This language prohibits favorable, as well as unfavorable conduct.
c. Motive or an anti-union bias is not necessary to prove a violation of this section.
All that is required in order to prove a violation of this section is that the effect of
the city’s conduct interfered, restrained or coerced employees. Therefore cities
should review the likely effects of any action, as well as their motivation, when
taking action.
An example is that discharging an employee because the employee filed a grievance is
prohibited as an unfair labor practice.
2. The second prohibition is that a city may not dominate or interfere with the
formation, existence, or administration of any employee organization or contribute
other support to it. The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent a city from setting up
its own union that is friendly to the city in order to prevent another union from
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 14
representing its employees. This prohibition is also a primary reason why cities need to
cautiously approach any joint petition with a union to have the union represent its
employees or permit the union to represent its employees without a vote.
This language is similar to prohibited practices under the federal National Labor
Relations Act. Therefore cities are well advised to be aware of the interpretation of this
similar language by the federal courts. The most controversial portion of the federal
law in this area relates to employee labor management committees that include
participation by nonunion employees. The National Labor Relations Board has held
that an employer who creates and controls an “action committee” that discusses and
recommends changes in compensation and terms and conditions of employment and
handles grievances is guilty of an unfair labor practice for controlling or dominating a
union. Therefore cities should be wary of creating labor management committees
involving nonunion employees unless the committee is limited to discussing issues and
items that are not wages or terms and conditions of employment.
3. The third prohibition is that a city may not discriminate in regard to hire or tenure to
encourage or discourage membership in an employee organization. This is a relatively
straightforward provision that prohibits a city from hiring or terminating an employee
merely because he or she is a known union supporter.
4. The fourth prohibition is that a city may not discharge or otherwise discriminate
against an employee because the employee signed or filed an affidavit, petition, or
complaint or provided information or testimony under PELRA. This prohibition
prevents a city from retaliating against an employee for signing or filing an affidavit,
petition or complaint. Given the requirement that the employee sign or file, it is open
to dispute whether an employee would be protected for submitting a verbal complaint.
5. The fifth prohibition is that a city may not refuse to meet and negotiate in good faith
with the exclusive representative of its employees in an appropriate unit. Unions and
employees have a similar obligation. As noted above, the scope of a city’s duty to meet
and negotiate in good faith often turns on whether the matter is an appropriate subject
of negotiation.
An example is that an employer who conducts one negotiation session before
unilaterally freezing wages and benefits under the existing contract violates this section.
6. The sixth prohibition is that a city may not refuse to comply with the grievance
procedures contained in an agreement. An employer will not be guilty of an unfair
labor practice for refusing to arbitrate a grievance unless the parties expressed a clear
intent to arbitrate a controversy arising out of specific provisions of the contract. In
instances where the potential for a matter to be arbitrated is reasonably in doubt, the
employer will not be guilty of an unfair labor practice for refusing to arbitrate the
matter.
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 15
7. The seventh prohibition is that a city may not distribute or circulate a blacklist of
individuals exercising a legal right or of members of a labor organization for the
purpose of preventing blacklisted individuals from obtaining or retaining employment.
Blacklisting is a term used to describe individuals who are to be avoided or removed
based on some characteristic. This is a broad prohibition that prevents a city from
blacklisting an individual for exercising any legal right. It is not limited to the
individual’s rights under PELRA. Given the likely tort liability for such action and
potential constitutional violations, it is extremely unwise for a city to participate in any
blacklisting.
8. The eighth prohibition prevents cities from violating the rules established by the
Commissioner regulating the conduct of representation elections. Unions and
employees have a similar obligation.
9. The ninth prohibition prevents a city from refusing to comply with a valid decision of
a binding arbitration panel or arbitrator. Unions and employees have a similar
obligation.
10. The tenth prohibition prevents a city from violating or refusing to comply with any
lawful order or decision issued by the Commissioner. Unions and employees have a
similar obligation.
11. The eleventh prohibition prevents a city from refusing to provide, upon the request of
the exclusive representative, all information pertaining to the city’s budget both present
and proposed, revenues, and other financing information. The union must request
this information. Unions are also entitled to a variety of other information pursuant to
the Government Data Practices Act.
12. The twelfth prohibition prevents a city from granting or offering to grant the status of
permanent replacement employee to a person for performing bargaining unit work for
the city during a lockout of employees in an employee organization or during a strike
authorized by an employee organization that is an exclusive representative. This
prohibition does not exist in the private sector. When a city locks out employees or
employees go out on strike, a city that wants to continue to provide services will likely
seek to hire new employees to perform these services. Typically a city will hire
employees with the understanding that their employment will terminate at the end of
the strike when the regular employees return to work. Given the limited nature of the
employment and the stigma of being a strike replacement, cities may find it difficult to
recruit these replacement workers. One past alternative to hiring temporary
replacement workers was for a city to hire permanent replacement workers, who would
then replace the striking employees on a permanent basis. The striking or locked out
employees would then be placed on a waiting list after the end of the strike or lockout
and would not get their job back until an opening occurred. The twelfth prohibition
now forbids a city from hiring permanent replacement employees to a person for
performing bargaining unit work for the city. This prohibition only applies to
Special Study Session Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 16
lockouts and to strikes authorized by a union that is an exclusive representative. A city
is not prohibited from hiring permanent replacement workers where the strike is not
authorized by the exclusive representative or there is no exclusive representative. Cities
should act cautiously in this area and should always consult with their city attorney or
labor relations professional prior to replacing strikers or locking out employees.
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2a
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:
Human Rights Award Presentation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action is requested. The City Council is asked to join the Human Rights Commission in
recognizing Kathy McKay for her contributions to the community in the area of human rights.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
Each year, the St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission coordinates an award to honor individuals
that contribute to increasing understanding and cooperation between people of different
backgrounds. Award recipients are recognized as leaders who support our vision of creating a
community in which diversity is a natural part of everyday life. Nominations are made by
community members and the winners are selected by the Human Rights Commission. One
individual was chosen for 2009.
2009 Award Recipient: Kathy McKay
Kathy McKay was nominated for her work with the Iraqi & American Reconciliation Project
(IARP). Kathy became involved in the IARP as a volunteer Executive Director in 2007. The
mission of the IARP is to promote reconciliation between the people of the United States and Iraq.
Kathy has been involved in a variety of ways to promote this mission. She has worked on letter
writing projects between children of both countries; multiple exhibits of original art by current
Iraqis, including a two month art exhibit at Sabes Jewish Community Center, and two nights of
multi-faith programming at the JCC; initiation and successful establishment of the sister city
relationship between Najaf and Minneapolis; and most recently planning and implementation of a
delegation of 13 Iraqi professionals for a two-week visit to the Twin Cities including St. Louis Park.
The overarching goal of the project and of Kathy’s involvement is to increase the awareness,
sensitivity and appreciation of people from a centuries-old culture that has come to the attention of
Americans.
Kathy has lived in St Louis Park since 1982. Her son attended school in St. Louis Park and now her
grandchildren are attending school here. Kathy has been an election judge in St. Louis Park and is a
psychologist who works in the disability field.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Listing of Recent Award Recipients
Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison
Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 3
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Award Recipients
Presented by the St Louis Park Human Rights Commission and the City Council each year.
Stephen Glasper – 2008
Stephen Glasper has owned and operated Brookside Barbers on Excelsior Blvd. since 1999. Mr.
Glasper was nominated for the Human Rights Award by one of his customers who has observed the
way he relates to his employees, customers, and others who visit the barber shop as a community
hub. Additional customers have supported this nomination.
Stephen and his co-workers come from a wide range of racial, cultural and socio-economic
backgrounds and the same can be said for his customers. Stephen welcomes everyone and at his
shop; everyone truly is equal. Stephen demonstrates a sincere interest in each person who enters his
shop and is always a positive role model, primarily for the minority youth and young adults who are
always present at the shop.
Stephen has created an environment at Brookside Barbers that furthers the cause of racial harmony
which extends far beyond the walls of his barber shop.
Raleigh Kent – 2007
Raleigh Kent is a member of the Women’s Dialogue Group which has been meeting monthly for the
past six years. The group provides Muslim and Jewish women with an opportunity to meet at each
other’s homes and share meals with respect to the dietary laws of both groups. The conversation
topics vary each month, but include comparing perspectives in areas of life cycle events and holidays.
They learn of the similarities and differences in customs, traditions, etc. by sharing personal stories
and views.
Ms. Kent has been involved in the Women’s Dialogue Group since its inception. Members of the
group as well as their respective communities have benefited from Ms. Kent’s involvement, weather
at study groups in the synagogue or in group meetings at Ms. Kent’s sukkah.
In addition to her involvement in the Women’s Dialogue Group, Ms. Kent is involved in the Jewish
Mental Health Education project; is on the board at STEP; is a hospice visitor through the Jewish
Healing Program; and she does ritual preparation of the deceased. Ms. Kent previously volunteered
for Crisis Nursery, the Jeremiah Project, and was a foster parent.
Asian Media Access – 2006
Asian Media Access is a St. Louis Park based media advocacy agency dedicated to using media arts as
tools for social betterment. AMA’s continuing mission is to Connect the Disconnected. They want
to challenge the traditional isolation of Asian American communities by helping Asian Americans
realize that the media can be an effective and important tool for communication and education.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 4
Asian Media Access is being honored for doing work that empowers youth of color and gives young
people a voice to express their concerns. AMA offers workshops and media camps that teach media
production, leadership skills, and critical thinking for youth of color. The youth have utilized the
skills learned in the workshops and media camps to develop media products such as educational
videos and TV Public Service Announcements. They also use the media as a tool for promoting
social harmony.
Asian Media Access was also the recipient of a St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grant. With the help
of this grant AMA brought A Dragon Odyssey, an original Chinese opera, to the St. Louis Park
High School for a free performance on January 7th.
Tom and Maureen Marolt – 2005
Tom and Maureen Marolt are active community members. Their contributions have included
lobbying at the state capital for human services, serving as Block Captains for their condominium
complex and advocating for the preservation of bus routes in our city. By living, working and
volunteering in our community, they help others gain a better understanding of people with
developmental disabilities. This helps make St. Louis Park a place that is accepting and respectful of
its diverse population.
John Anderson - 2005
John Anderson is an active community member committed to increasing civic involvement in our
city. During the summer and fall of 2005, John volunteered for a candidate campaigning for city
council. His efforts required an extra level of advocacy as he promoted a candidate with physical
disabilities. Welcoming participation by a diversity of city residents is a valued part of our city
vision. John Anderson helps others see ability rather than disability. He improved attitudes about
the acceptability of a disabled person serving as a civic leader and we honor him tonight for this
community contribution.
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 4, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Susan Sanger, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross,
and Susan Santa.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Councilmember Phil Finkelstein.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), and Recording Secretary
(Ms. Hughes).
1a. Elected Officials Oath of Office
Judge Allen Oleisky performed the swearing in of the following elected officials of the City
of St. Louis Park for the four-year terms commencing January 4, 2010:
Sue Sanger – Councilmember Ward 1
Anne Mavity – Councilmember Ward 2
Sue Santa – Councilmember Ward 3
Julia Ross – Councilmember Ward 4
1b. Pledge of Allegiance
1c. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of December 21, 2009
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 10-001 declaring 2010 City Council Meeting Dates.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-002 designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the
official newspaper for the calendar year 2010.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 10-003 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 2940 Flag Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – P.I.D.
18-117-21-22-0008.
4d. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the
Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 5-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings – None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. 2010 Mayor Pro Tem
Resolution No. 10-004
It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-004 appointing Councilmember Sue Sanger to the office of Mayor Pro
Tem for the year 2010.
The motion passed 5-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Pro Tem Sanger wished all residents a Happy New Year and expressed hope that
2010 is a more positive and productive year for everyone.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Sue Sanger, Mayor Pro Tem
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
JANUARY 11, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan
Sanger, and Susan Santa (arrived at 7:08 p.m.).
Councilmembers absent: Paul Omodt.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Human
Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), Utilities Superintendent
(Mr. Anderson), Finance Manager (Mr. Swanson), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Senator Ron Latz, Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman, Representative Steve
Simon, Representative Ryan Winkler, Vic Moore (Franzen & Associates), and Emily Gehrman
(Lockridge, Grindal Nauen, PLLP), Mark Ruff and Elizabeth Diaz (Ehlers & Associates).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – January 19 and January 25, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for January 19 and the
proposed study session agenda for January 25, 2010. He noted the intent of the special study session
on January 19 is to provide Council with an overview of the bargaining units in the City and an
overview of the entire collective bargaining process.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested having Ms. Gohman provide this overview rather than Scott
Lepak as a way to save money for the City.
2. 2010 Annual Legislative Update
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and introduced the City’s guests present at the meeting.
He stated that transportation will continue to be a significant area of focus in 2010, particularly with
respect to Highway 100 and Mn/DOT’s rescoping of the project and Highway 7 and Louisiana.
Councilmember Mavity asked if there is anything the City should be pursuing at the state level
regarding light rail.
Commissioner Dorfman stated that the County currently has enough funding to carry the County
through the planning stage in 2010; the County continues to seek funding for future years. She
reported that the County has created a Community Works Project as a means of developing a
framework that can guide some individual planning around the stations. She indicated the County
will be sending a letter to the City requesting further input on the project.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page
2
Commissioner Dorfman stated the County has prepared a draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the
freight rail study and Mn/DOT has agreed to pay for half of this study. She noted the draft will be
provided to the City in the next couple of weeks, with an issue date scheduled for late January or
early February. She stated that Met Council Chair Peter Bell has asked for a resolution from all of
the cities endorsing the Southwest Transitway Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and this
resolution is requested prior to January 27, 2010.
Representative Simon stated he recently spoke with the Chair of the Capital Investment Committee
who indicated that the Southwest Transit funding request will be approved this year. He noted that
the bill has several transit corridors seeking similar requests, which will be bundled together, totaling
$7 million.
Councilmember Sanger asked if funds have been identified for mitigation for the impacts of
rerouting freight rail traffic.
Commissioner Dorfman replied that 30% has been set aside in a total pool of $1.2 billion for
mitigation for light rail, freight rail relocation and mitigation. She added the County would look to
the Federal Rail Authority and Mn/DOT for additional monies.
Mr. Moore requested an update with respect to the Glencoe switching yard and noted that the
bonding allocation expires next year. He stated if the City feels this will not come to fruition, the
City might want to consider requesting that money for other projects.
Mr. Harmening stated there is still a major funding gap of several million dollars for that project and
it appears Glencoe and other cities are losing interest. He concurred that it would be a good idea to
think about other ways to use the $700,000 that was approved in the previous bonding bill.
It was the consensus of the City Council to consider other uses for the previously approved
$700,000 bonding allocation.
Mr. Moore requested input regarding the proposed sales tax exemption for the fire stations. He
stated he did not feel it was likely the proposed sales tax exemption would pass.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the argument could be made that a sales tax exemption is proper
given the fact that the City does not receive LGA or market homestead credit, that the City missed
out on qualifying for stimulus funds, that the City’s projects are shovel ready, create jobs, and that
without the exemption the projects would not otherwise be able to be built.
It was determined that staff and legislators should continue to discuss the merits of introducing such
a bill.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page
3
Ms. Gehrman provided a written update on the federal transportation bill (SAFTEA-LU) and the
Transportation Investment to Generate Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant relating to Highway 7
and Louisiana. She stated they have submitted projects for consideration for funding in the six-year
bill, but the outcome of this bill is still uncertain.
Councilmember Sanger suggested requesting support from the legislators in neighboring cities for
the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue project.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated if the City does not obtain other funding from the County
and/or State for Highway 7 and Louisiana, the City may have to delay the project because the
project is too large and too expensive for the City to do on its own.
Mr. Harmening stated the other major transportation project is Highway 100 and Mn/DOT’s plan
to rescope the project. He asked if the legislators could provide any assistance to the City in
changing Mn/DOT’s approach to the project.
Senator Latz suggested that Mr. Moore follow-up with Senator Michel from Edina.
Representative Simon stated it would also be helpful to approach the Chamber of Commerce to ask
the Chamber to become re-engaged in the project.
Mr. Harmening stated it might also be helpful to meet with Transportation Commissioner Sorel.
It was the consensus of the City Council to contact the Chamber of Commerce to invite them to
participate in a coalition with respect to Highway 100, and to also schedule a meeting with
Transportation Commissioner Sorel.
Representative Simon stated he would report back to the Council following contact with the
Chamber of Commerce.
Commissioner Dorfman also suggested it would be helpful to educate the gubernatorial candidates
regarding Highway 100.
Councilmember Sanger asked if Senator Franken is aware of the City’s needs and issues.
Ms. Gehrman stated they have met with his staff as well as Senator Klobuchar’s staff.
Mr. Harmening indicated he would contact Senator Franken to arrange a meeting.
Mr. Harmening stated that Commissioner Dorfman has been supportive of the City’s grant
application for 2011 athletic facility funding for improvements at Northside Park, funded via the
stadium tax. He stated the City did not get funding this year, but the project was viewed quite
favorably and the City will resubmit its grant application in the spring. He stated another project
that Commissioner Dorfman has assisted with is the environmental response fund, which provides
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page
4
assistance to the City in disposing of soils at the MSC project; a recommendation for $535,000 will
go to the County soon.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s appreciation to everyone for their hard work on behalf of
the City.
3. 2010 Utility Rate Study
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Mr. Ruff presented the Water, Sanitary, Storm Sewer and Solid Waste Utility Rate Study and noted
that utility rates are becoming a larger issue for several cities. He stated the Department of Natural
Resources has indicated that while water usage in Minnesota has not reached a critical stage, the
DNR is concerned about future generations and is encouraging tiered rates. He reviewed the factors
impacting the amount of water usage and the historic trend of cash balances in the water fund,
noting that the City’s cash balance has dropped dramatically because of capital spending. He also
reviewed the current water rate structure and the proposed tiered rate structure with a recommended
7% increase in single-family rates. He explained the usage charges for commercial users and
proposed tiered rates, noting that current irrigation connections are charged at the lowest tier and it
is proposed that they be charged at the highest tier.
Mr. Ruff stated that the tiering approach tends to provide some incentive to change the way in
which water is used and to impact consumption.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there is some way the City can ban the practice of having irrigation
systems running while it is raining or after a significant rainfall.
Mr. Anderson stated that new commercial systems must have mechanisms in place to prevent the
system from running during a rain event; however, it is currently not required of all users but
something that could be mandated by ordinance.
Councilmember Sanger raised a concern about whether the City can and/or should be assuming that
residents will water trees planted by the City.
The City Council discussed high volume commercial users and the impact of the proposed tier
structure. The Council also discussed the goal of the capital portion of cash reserves in the water
fund.
Councilmember Santa requested that the City Council further discuss fixed capital expenses,
particularly with respect to Reilly Tar.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there is any realistic possibility of reopening the consent decree
agreement as a way of reducing the amount of capital costs spent on Reilly. She also requested
information regarding potential capital projects contemplated in the next 5-6 years that require
funding.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page
5
Mr. Rardin stated that in 2015, if all criteria are met, staff will be able to start the process to
terminate some of the provisions contained in the agreement. He added the City is obligated to
continue testing due to the provisions in the decree. He stated that future capital projects include
water treatment plant #1 and the recoating of the water towers at Park Glen Road and behind
Knollwood Mall.
Mr. Ruff then reviewed the current and proposed sewer rate structure. He stated the
recommendation is to increase the fixed fee to $11.40 per quarter in order to provide for operations,
capital and projected debt.
Mr. Ruff presented the proposed storm sewer utility rates, noting that the proposed fee would
increase by $1.00 to $14.50 per quarter. He noted that this is one area where mandates are
increasing significantly so there may be additional costs as a result of Watershed or State action.
Mr. Ruff presented the proposed solid waste rates, noting a modest 4% increase in quarterly rates.
He then provided a comparison of rates in comparable cities for residential and commercial users.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed concern about the proposed increases, particularly with
respect to commercial users. He stated it is important to remain cognizant of the City’s competitive
position versus other cities and about being a place where business is being done and how to keep
those businesses in the City. He added that in the past the City has had a tendency to draw down its
accounts to pay for capital needs, and the City may need to revisit that in view of the historically low
interest rates and consider issuing debt.
Mr. Harmening stated the City Council will continue its discussion regarding the utility rate study
and will be provided with further analysis of a more aggressive borrowing approach.
Councilmember Ross requested that the Council be given further information regarding what other
cities are doing in terms of paying for capital needs.
4. Proposed Agenda – 2010 City Council Workshop
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and proposed agenda for the workshop.
Councilmember Mavity requested that the Council have information available at the workshop
regarding trends as well as information regarding neighboring suburbs.
Councilmember Sanger stated she does not want to review specific projects at the workshop, and
would like to review demographic information and trends from the perspective of community
development.
Mayor Jacobs requested that staff provide background information on the results of the vision work
conducted earlier.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page
6
Ms. Gothberg summarized the Saturday session by stating that staff will review with Council the
vision work previously conducted in order to make sure the City is heading in the right direction.
She agreed that the Council will look at big picture items and not specific projects. She stated that
staff will provide trends in the community and in the state, including some hard data. She indicated
that staff will make sure Council has an opportunity for interaction with department heads and
added she will provide a revised draft agenda to the Council for its review.
5. 2009 Telecommunications Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated she felt the Council should meet with the TAC regarding the
agreement with LocaLoop. She also requested that the Council discuss the proposed federal
stimulus relative to federal broadband.
Mr. Harmening agreed to schedule a meeting with the TAC at its next study session.
6. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening stated he will be offering a primer on the City’s tax increment financing system and
all councilmembers are welcome to attend. He is also considering offering a primer on bonding and
how cities borrow money.
It was the consensus of the City Council to schedule these educational sessions at a study session in
late February or early March.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that staff also discuss how this affects other taxing
jurisdictions, e.g., the schools and the county.
Mr. Harmening stated he has been reviewing possible options regarding the Finance Director
position and explained to the Council the approach that he would like to pursue regarding the
position with an overall goal of achieving a better performing accounting division.
The meeting adjourned at 10:08 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7. Fire Stations Project Update
8. Southwest Transitway Resolution
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
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:
Bid Tabulation: Water Project – Water Treatment Plant No. 1 Rehabilitation – Project No. 2008-
1400.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to designate Magney Construction, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $857,400.00 for Water Project – Water
Treatment Plant No. 1 – Project No. 2008-1400.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue implementation of its CIP relative to our water delivery
system?
BACKGROUND:
Project Information:
Water Treatment Plant No. 1 (WTP #1) is located adjacent to Bronx Park at 2936 Idaho Avenue
South. Similar to what was done successfully at WTP #4, #8, #10, and # 16, the City plans to
replace the old granular filter media at WTP #1 with Calgon GSR Plus media. Sample results for
SLP well 11 indicate that the combined Radium 226/228 is at a level that now requires radium
removal. The installation of chemical injection equipment for radium removal requires redesign of
the chemical room to meet Minnesota Department of Health standards. The project also includes
several process improvements; including sandblasting and repainting the existing filter tanks and
process piping, replacing the High Service Pump and discharge valves, replacing the air compressor,
and adding a digital scale for the fluoride tank.
Bid Information:
Bids were received on January 7, 2010 for the rehabilitation of WTP #1. A total of nine (9) bids
were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-
Sailor on December 17, 2009 and in the Construction Bulletin on December 14 and 21, 2009.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
A summary of the bid results are as follows:
Evaluation of Bids:
Staff and its consultant, Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc., has reviewed all of the bids
submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff recommends Magney Construction,
Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder (see attached bid recommendation letter). Magney
Construction is a reputable contractor that has not worked on a water project for St. Louis Park but
has worked in a number of other local cities where they have successfully completed similar projects.
Construction Timeline:
Construction is planned to begin late January 2010 and should be completed by May 2010.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program
(C.I.P.). The Water Utility Fund will be utilized to pay for this work.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Consultant Bid Recommendation Letter
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Mike, Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
Magney Construction, Inc. $857,400.00
Encomm Midwest, Inc. $888,888.88
Municipal Builders, Inc. $916,472.00
Gridor Construction, Inc. $916,600.00
Rice Lake Construction Group $946,600.00
Eagle Construction Co., Inc. $954,000.00
American Liberty Construction, Inc. $978,600.00
Madsen-Johnson Corporation. $983,000.00
Albers Mechanical Contractors, Inc. $1,117,600.00
Engineer’s Estimate $830,183.00
Progressive Consulting Engineers, Inc.
6120 Earle Brown Drive, Suite 629, Minneapolis, MN 55430-2581 (763) 560-9133 FAX (763) 560-0333
Civil · Structural · Water Supply · Municipal
January 11, 2010
Jim Olson
Engineering Project Manager
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2290
RE: Water Treatment Plant No. 1 Rehabilitation Project
City Project No. 2008-1400
Recommendation to Award Bid
Dear Mr. Olson:
The bids submitted at the January 7, 2010 bid opening for the project referenced above are summarized
on the attached Bid Opening Results table. Nine bids were opened. The apparent low bidder is Magney
Construction, Inc. with a lump sum bid price of $857,400.
PCE believes that Magney’s bid price is reasonable. Our attached Engineer’s Estimate of Probable
Construction Costs was $830,183, including contingencies. Magney’s bid price is within 3.3% of our
estimate. The average bid price of the seven remaining bids (after disregarding the high and low bids) is
$940,594.41. Magney’s bid price is $83,194.41 lower than this average.
We have reviewed the bids and recommend that the bid be awarded to Magney Construction, Inc. based
on the following:
1. Magney’s bid is complete and meets all requirements.
2. Magney submitted a bid price $31,488.88 lower than the next lowest bidder.
3. PCE has successfully worked with Magney on previous similar water works projects.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns you would like to discuss.
Sincerely,
Brian Zinnel, P.E.
Attachments
City Council Meeting of January 11, 2010 (Item No. 4a)Page 3
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4b
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:
Southwest Transitway Resolution.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution relating to Hennepin County’s decision of a Locally Preferred
Alternative for the Southwest Transitway.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to adopt a resolution in support of Hennepin County’s Locally Preferred
Alternative as requested by the County and the Metropolitan Council?
BACKGROUND:
Alternative 3A was selected by Hennepin County as the “Locally Preferred Alternative” route to
forward to the Metropolitan Council based on the findings of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). This route begins in Eden Prairie and goes through the Golden Triangle and
Opus office parks, continuing through Hopkins, St. Louis Park and on the Kenilworth alignment to
downtown Minneapolis (shown in yellow on the map below).
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
The anticipated timeline for the Southwest Transit is shown in the chart below. In 2010 the DEIS
will be finalized, and the study will become a Metropolitan Council project. Preliminary
engineering is expected to begin in 2010, with the line operational in the 2015-17 timeframe.
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) unanimously recommended the selection of Route 3A as
the locally preferred alternative with conditions including that agencies work cooperatively to
identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to address the potential
of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the Southwest LRT DEIS and to identify the
freight rail issue and impacts as a part of the “secondary and cumulative impacts.” The Policy
Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended the selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred
alternative with the conditions as recommended by the TAC.
In order to solidify support for the line, the Metropolitan Council has asked communities to provide
a resolution of support of the Hennepin County Locally Preferred Alternative; a resolution is
attached for Council consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The City Council adopted the following Strategic Direction – “St. Louis Park is committed to being
a connected and engaged community”. Under this strategic direction was the following focus area –
“Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources effecting St. Louis
Park including but not limited to Hwy 100 and SW LRT”.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION RELATING TO HENNEPIN COUNTY’S DECISION OF A LOCALLY
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE SOUTHWEST TRANSITWAY
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been an active participant and supporter of
transit in the Southwest corridor, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Technical, Policy and
Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway, and
WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) unanimously recommended the
selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred alternative with conditions including that agencies
work cooperatively to identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to
address the potential of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the Southwest LRT DEIS and
to identify the freight rail issue and impacts as a part of the “secondary and cumulative impacts.”
WHEREAS, the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended the selection of Route 3A
as the locally preferred alternative with the conditions as recommended by the TAC.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that it
supports Hennepin County’s decision of LRT alignment 3A as the locally preferred alternative for
the Southwest Transitway.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4c
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:
Change Order #3 to City Contract 79-09, St. Louis Park Municipal Service Center (MSC)
Renovation Project No. 2008-1900.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Change Order #3 to Contract 79-09 MSC Renovation Project No. 2008-1900.
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 2009 the City Council awarded the contract for the MSC Renovation Project to
Jorgenson Construction Inc. in the amount of $8,164,000.
This report covers 10 minor change orders, items which typically occur during renovation to an
existing building, with the exception of GCPR #36 which relates to additional fill material needed as
a result of the poor soils on the site.
Four of the change orders in parentheses are cost reductions as a result of the City and contractor
working together to continue to value engineer the project.
Proposal Requests by City or Architect
PR #10 Delete demolition of overhead door ( 528)
PR #17 Removal of overhead door floor sills in
the maintenance bay
2,769
PR #22 Delete air compressor relocation ( 351)
PR #23 Infill window not specified in plan 651
PR #27 Revise fire suppression system in wash bay ( 6,300)
PR #28 Add remote activation for wash bay
vacuum system
578
PR #29 Add loop detector in wash bay exit door 671
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Proposal Requests by General Contractor
GCPR#29 Revisions to power feed to salt building 996
GCPR#30 Relocation of water line for irrigation 432
GCPR#31 Revisions to piping for radiant heating ( 1,885)
GCPR#33 Install temporary exterior light and pole 605
GCPR#34 Relocate existing light fixtures 385
GCPR#35 Revise steel beam in office addition 590
GCPR#36 Additional fill material for west bay
addition
23,753
GCPR#37 Modify flammable waste trap, repair bay
(code issues)
1,631
GCPR#38 Repair to underground cable 1,535
GCPR#39 Revise infrared heaters in Bay #1 2,787
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Original Contract $8,164,000
Change Order #1-approved 10/5/2009 (107,073)
Change Order #2 –approved 12/7/2009 98,541
Change Order #3 28,319
Revised Contract Amount $8,183,787
The total MSC Renovation Project budget is $9.5 million for all design and construction costs.
Note: A report is being prepared for the January 25, 2010 Study Session, which will include project
background information and a progress report including an overall project budget update.
CONTRACT TERMS:
All remain the same.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Given the environmental considerations built into this project, this project is consistent with the
City Council’s Strategic Direction related to environmental stewardship.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4d
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:
Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 2930 Salem Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 2930 Salem Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – P.I.D. 31-029-24-33-0090.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
Rand and Jill Adams, owners of the single family residence at 2930 Salem Avenue South, have requested
the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their home and assess the cost against the
property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
Analysis:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within
the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of sewer service lines for
existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because
sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly
required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff.
The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current
codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and
special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be
$1,800.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Brian Swanson, Finance Manager
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
2930 SALEM AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 31-029-24-33-0090
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 2930 Salem Avenue South have petitioned the City of
St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single
family residence located at 2930 Salem Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the
sewer service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $1,800.00.
4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from
the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other
statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%.
6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs
associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4e
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:
Special Assessment for Fire Suppression Sprinkler System.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of fire sprinkler system
at 6111 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This action is consistent with a policy the Council established in 1995.
BACKGROUND:
Full Circle Equities LLC, owner(s) of the commercial building 6111 Excelsior Blvd., have requested
the City to authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the
commercial building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy.
ANALYSIS:
The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing buildings
was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire suppression
sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public health, safety and
welfare within the community.
The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system due to major remodeling
project on the building. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to install the sprinkler
system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the current code. Based on the
proposed work, the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner
has petitioned the City to authorize the installation of the fire sprinkler system and special assess the
cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been submitted and approved by City staff. The total
eligible cost of the installation has been determined to be $35,600.00. An administrative fee of
$178.00 will be received prior to the release of the special assessment funds.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff has determined that adequate funds are available through the Permanent Improvement
Revolving Fund to assist with this project.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Contract
Prepared by: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT
6111 EXCELSIOR BOULEARD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
WHEREAS, Full Circle LLC , the Property Owner at 6111 Excelsior Blvd. have petitioned
the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of a fire sprinkler
system in the building on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right of
notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special
assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted.
2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is
hereby authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire sprinkler
system is accepted at $35,600.00.
4. An administrative fee of $178.00 (.5% of $35,600.00) for processing shall be
received prior to the release of special assessment funds.
5. The total special assessment against the property will be $35,600.00.
6. The Property Owners have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing, notice
and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or
common law.
7. The Property Owners agree to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five point eight-five
percent (5.85%) interest.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
8. The Property Owners agree to execute an agreement with the City and any other
documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and
the special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 5
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
PETITION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND ASSESSMENT AGREEMENT
FIRE PROTECTION (SPRINKLER) IMPROVEMENT,
FOR FULL CIRCLE EQUITIES LLC, PROPERTY LOCATED AT
6111 EXCELSIOR BLVD, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416
AGREEMENT made as of January 19, 2010 between the City of St. Louis Park, a
Minnesota corporation (“City”) and Full Circle Equities LLC, (Owner). “Property Owner”,
concerning special assessment on fire sprinkler improvement on property located at 6111 Excelsior
Blvd., “Benefited Property” described as “That part of Lot 1, Block 9, BROOKSIDE lying north of
the south 80 feet thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.”
The City and the Property Owner agree as follows:
1) Property Owner(s). The Property Owner is Full Circle Equities, LLC, (Paula
Bernini Feigal will sign on their behalf).
2) Subject Property. The Property Owner is the fee owner of the property legally
described in attached “Exhibit A” incorporated by reference herein.
3) Purpose of Agreement. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 sub. 3 and
St. Louis Park Resolution 10-_________ the Property Owner petitioned the City on December 16,
2009 to specially assess the cost of the installation of an automatic fire sprinkler system in his
building at the Benefited Property. The petition attached as “Exhibit B” is incorporated into this
agreement by reference. The City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the public
for the City to facilitate the installation of a fire sprinkler system in the Benefited Property to
promote the public health, safety and welfare.
4) Administrative Fee. An administrative fee of $178.00 for the processing of the
sprinkler special assessment shall be received prior to the release of special assessment funds.
5) The Improvement Project. The construction of an automatic fire sprinkler system
throughout the commercial building at the Benefited Property in conformance with plans and
specifications as described in Exhibit B and as approved by the St. Louis Park Fire and Inspections
Departments.
6) Responsibility. The Property Owner shall assume all responsibility for the
installation, operation and maintenance of the fire sprinkler system, including all construction
contracts and monitoring agreements.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 6
7) Amount to be assessed. The total estimated cost of the project, based on the lowest
responsible bid, is $35,600.00, all of which is proposed to be assessed against the Benefited Property
as described in Paragraph 2 above. It is hereby agreed that the full cost of the project and minus the
administrative fee of $178.00 will be assessed against the property. The total Special Assessment
against the property will be $35,600.00.
8) Waiver of Notice and Hearing. In connection with this improvement, the
Property Owner agrees to waive and does waive any and all rights to public hearing and right to any
notice, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or any other statute or by ordinance,
City Charter, constitution, or common law.
9) Waiver of Right of Appeal. In connection with this improvement, the Property
Owner agrees to waive and does waive any and all rights to appeal from the special assessment set
forth above, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or any other statute or by
ordinance, City Charter, constitution, or common law.
10) Implementation. Each party to this agreement agrees to execute any other
documents upon request of the City, necessary to implement the waivers of notice, hearing and right
of appeal for the special assessment for the improvement project.
11) Payment. The Property Owner agrees to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements in accordance with the following terms:
a) The assessment shall be paid in equal installments over ten (10) years at five point eight-
five percent (5.85%) interest on the unpaid balance and in accordance with all provisions
of the City policy for special assessments for fire sprinkler improvements.
12) Indemnification. The Property Owner shall indemnify and hold harmless the City
and its officers, agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, or expenses,
including attorneys fees, which may be suffered or from which they may be held liable, rising out of
or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the
performance of this agreement by the City, its employees, agents or subcontractors.
13) Certification of Encumbrances or Contract for Deed. Each party to this
agreement certifies that the property described in Paragraph 1 above, is owned by that party in
simple fee and is free and clear of all encumbrances or Contracts for Deed except as follows:
14) Right to Record. It is agreed that the City may record this document in the chain
of title of the Benefited Property legally described above.
15) Payment. The Property Owner agrees that, after the City has completed the
required inspections and has determined that the installation of the fire sprinkler system is in
conformance with the applicable City ordinances and State laws, the Property Owner will provide
the following documents to the City to allow the City to process payment of the amount to be
assessed for the installation of the fire sprinkler system on the Benefited Property:
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 7
a) A sworn construction statement stipulating the contractors and suppliers involved in the fire
sprinkler installation on the Benefited Property and the agreed payment amounts, and
b) A written notice from the Property Owner that they have determined the installation of the
fire sprinkler system has been substantially completed as stipulated in their contract with
their contractor, and
c) Evidence of receipt of a lien waiver from the contractors and suppliers for the improvement
project on the Benefited Property.
It is further agreed by the City and the Property Owners, in making payment to the Property
Owner, the City is not assuming responsibility for payment to any contractor or supplier for the
installation of the improvement project on the Benefited Property.
This agreement has been entered into as of the 19th day of January, 2010.
FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK:
__________________________________
____________
Attest: Mayor
____________________________________
______________
City Clerk City Manager
___________________________
Fire Marshal
(seal)
Accounting Records Posted:
___________________________
Finance Manager
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 8
* FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER:
ADDITIONAL ENCUMBRANCE(S) PROPERTY OWNER
____________________________________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
* All signatures of owners or encumbrances must be acknowledged by a Notary Public.
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of
________________, 2010,
by _______________________________________, property located at 6111 Excelsior Blvd.
Property Owner(s)
____________________________________
Notary Public
THIS AGREEMENT WAS DRAFTED BY:
St. Louis Park Fire Department
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
952-924-2500
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4f
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:
Acceptance of Donation for City Park Improvements.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of donation from the Raymond H. and Florence
L. Sponberg Foundation in the amount of $500 for city park improvements.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order
to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation
prior to it being expended.
The Raymond H. and Florence L. Sponberg Foundation is graciously donating an amount of $500.
The donation is given with the restriction that it be used to help pay for city park improvements.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation will be used for park improvements. Since the family lives near Browndale Park,
there may be an opportunity to use this money to improve the playground equipment which is
budgeted as a 2010 capital improvement.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The donation will assist us in preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM THE RAYMOND H. AND FLORENCE L. SPONBERG FOUNDATION
IN THE AMOUNT OF $500
FOR CITY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any
donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor;
and
WHEREAS, the Raymond H. and Florence L. Sponberg Foundation desires to assist in city park
improvements with a donation of $500; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that
the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Raymond H. and Florence L. Sponberg Foundation with
the understanding that it must be used for city park improvements.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council January 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4g
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:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period December 30, 2009 through January 15,
2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,837.95SAMPLINGGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAECOM INC
11,306.75STUDIESGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
13,144.70
7,090.302008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESAECOM USA INC
7,090.30
26.61-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSAIM ELECTRONICS
413.61SOFTBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
387.00
2,355.06OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEALEX AIR APPARATUS INC
2,355.06
4.91-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSALL STAR SPORTS
76.31HOCKEYGENERAL SUPPLIES
2,590.38HOCKEYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
2,661.78
41.68PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYALLEGIS CORPORATION
41.68
536.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
536.00
29.03GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
142.24PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
89.84PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
96.26ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
88.86VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
40.07WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
40.07SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
526.37
100.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSANOKA COUNTY VITALS
100.00
193.102008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGSAPPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS
193.10
310.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPPRAISAL INSTITUTE
310.00
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 2
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
295.58GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
385.68ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
681.26
474.19OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
474.19
560.00POLICE G & A TRAININGATOM
560.00
131.58GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMOBILE SERVICE
131.58
317.85CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTAVI SYSTEMS INC
317.85
148.45SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSB&B PRODUCTS
148.45
3,718.66PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESB&H FLOORING
3,718.66
52.40POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESBARKER, BOB COMPANY
52.40
2,296.44EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBARRETT, TIM
2,296.44
194.49PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBATTERIES PLUS
194.49
250.00POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBENSON CONSTRUCTION CORP, J
250.00
6.88-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBERGERSON CASWELL INC
106.88REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT PARTS
100.00
247.50HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTBG CONSULTING
247.50
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 3
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
91.30ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
91.30
6,239.96PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIBITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC
6,239.96
415.64OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
415.64
129.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
129.47
1,751.90EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBRETZA, KIMBERLY
1,751.90
6,284.50ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
1,560.00CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES
75.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
570.25RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
180.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
645.00SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES
9,314.75
299.02GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
299.02
5,486.22FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
5,486.22
15,564.53EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
15,564.53
4.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCHRYSLER JEEP
313.90GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
318.52
70.32FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
63.43WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
133.75
8.46-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
35.03ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 4
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
131.53COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONE
54.10INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
13.56INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
40.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
79.08PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
14.02-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
138.93VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
309.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
9.52SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
788.27
16,306.88ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
16,306.88
8,825.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCONCRETE ETC INC
8,825.00
100.00ENGINEERING G & A PUBLIC WORKSCOPPIN PLUMBING
100.00
33.74-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
524.48DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
490.74
280.27PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYCRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC
280.27
148.14POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
13.66POLICE G & A TRAINING
161.80
956.62ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECUMMINS NPOWER LLC
176.29PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
1,132.91
8,722.98GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYDALCO ENTERPRISES INC
692.34BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
9,415.32
4,090.89INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
4,090.89
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 5
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
510.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEDEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
510.00
221.50ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
221.50
18,175.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDMJ CORPORATION
18,175.00
40.15TV PRODUCTION MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARDUNLAP, REG
40.15
3,462.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
3,462.00
1,196.33PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
1,196.33
239.25PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYEMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG
239.25
270.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESEMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC
270.00
34,046.37SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
34,046.37
534.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
534.80
24.17POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
18.01COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL POSTAGE
42.18
33.86FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESFEINBERG, GREG
33.86
275.54ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELSFERRELLGAS
275.54
1,586.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
1,586.00
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 6
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,840.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE SAFETY USA INC
1,840.00
9.62PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
9.62
185.97PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFORCE AMERICA INC
185.97
201.37GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEFORKLIFTS OF MN INC.
201.37
30.80COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARFULTON, ADAM
30.80
579.13ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
579.13
1,301.90EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONGARLAND, MIKAEL
1,301.90
3,132.73GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
3,132.73
1,862.29RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO
1,862.29
250.00BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
250.00
18,122.42PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYHARTLAND FUEL PRODUCTS LLC
18,122.42
293.60ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHEDBERG AGGREGATES
927.98WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,221.58
6,001.00ADMINISTRATION G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTIONS
6,001.00
4,014.88POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 7
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
200.00POLICE G & A LICENSES
115.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
7,200.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11,530.60
4,160.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
4,160.00
106.53WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC
106.53SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
106.54STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING
319.60
20.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
374.57GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
158.08ROUTINE MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
147.56SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
65.95INSTALLATIONSMALL TOOLS
42.64BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
808.80
49.98GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
2.55POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
2.55ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
50.87PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.78SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
118.73
51.70ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARHOPPE, MARK
51.70
890.55WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
890.55
11,300.00CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHUNT ELECTRIC CORP
11,300.00
247.92PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
1,248.11GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,011.91ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
3,507.94
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 8
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
120.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSIACP
120.00
45.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATIATN
45.00
381.93PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS INC
381.93
127.02PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
127.02
178.09ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
125.25POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
303.34
240.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSISA
240.00
2,404.69OPERATIONSFIRE EQUIPMENTJEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
2,404.69
8.51PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYJERRY'S HARDWARE
8.51
5.75FABRICATIONGENERAL SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
5.75
171.91WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESJRK SEED & SURG SUPPLY
171.91
102.12PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYKAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECH
102.12
10,000.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKRAEMER & SONS INC, EDWARD
10,000.00
1,968.71SPECIAL PROJECTS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS
1,968.71
3,343.05POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTKUSTOM SIGNALS INC
3,343.05
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 9
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
700.38PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLANO EQUIPMENT INC
700.38
1,316.33ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
1,316.33
231.00HUMAN RIGHTS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISS
231.00
9,846.65EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES
9,846.65
78.65ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLEE, KATHLEEN
86.80SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
165.45
33.60POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
33.60
267.94PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
267.94
234.36POSTAL SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
40,250.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICES
3,368.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES
1,011.20TECHNOLOGY REPLACE G&A OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
190,133.52NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
234,997.08
1,638.48PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
1,638.48
582.47SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLYNDE CO LLC
582.47
100.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSM A H C O
100.00
1,065.41ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAACO AUTO PAINTING
1,065.41
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 10
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
450.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMAAO
450.00
5,284.47PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
5,284.47
1,750.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMACTA
1,750.00
229.69FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESMARS CO, W P & R S
229.69
506.68ENTERPRISE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAXIMUM SOLUTIONS INC.
506.68
118.96WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMCNARY, KYLE
118.96
30.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMEHA
40.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
70.00
17.45BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMENARDS
35.36WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS
18.13FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES
70.94
95.15PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT
95.15
981.02SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMETHODIST HOSPITAL
981.02
575.38POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMETRO SALES INC
575.38
134,640.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
303,683.28OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
438,323.28
77.11WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMEYERS, RANDY
77.11
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 11
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
35,198.21PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
35,198.21
292.62HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESMIDWEST VENDING INC
292.62
80.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS AREA ASSOC REALTOR
80.00
1,207.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
1,207.00
60.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CHAPTER OF NIGP
60.00
197.50GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEMINNESOTA CONWAY
197.50
45.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CRIME PREVENTION ASS
45.00
450.00REILLY BUDGET LICENSESMINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
450.00
90.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMINNESOTA GREEN COMMUNITIES
90.00
435.00SCHOOL LIASON TRAININGMINNESOTA JUVENILE OFFICERS
435.00
64.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAININGMINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AG
1,800.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
1,864.00
22,391.78PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNETONKA, CITY OF
22,391.78
105.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMPSA
35.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
140.00
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 12
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
70.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMSSA
70.00
6.38GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
1,808.84PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
549.42VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,364.64
420.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICENATL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO
420.00
4,747.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICENEUMANNS ENTERPRISE
4,747.50
160.00ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNORTH STAR CHAPTER APPRAISAL I
160.00
283.90OPERATIONSTRAININGNOVAK INVESTIGATIONS INC
283.90
500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
41.57HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
7.02GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
76.93INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
86.55PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
197.05WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
409.12
1,990.55INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,990.55
5.98HUMAN RESOURCES CITEPETTY CASH
11.00ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
84.82ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
1.10ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
9.75VOLLEYBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
32.90PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.98ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TRAINING
33.50VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
217.03
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 13
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
28,860.18PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON INC
28,860.18
510.86PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
510.86
522.10WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSPOPE, JULIANNE
522.10
359.90PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
359.90
287.29WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
287.28SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
287.28SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
287.28STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,149.13
16.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEPOWELL, RACHEL
16.00
489.49TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
489.49
144.00ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRINTERS SERVICE INC
144.00
1,171.86GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYPWF SOLUTIONS INC
1,171.86
2,004.28FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
910.71REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
88.78WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
675.06SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,678.83
205.20SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGRAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
205.20
221.40ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESREED CONSTRUCTION DATA
442.80WATER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 14
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
664.20
51.60WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSREICHERT, PETER
51.60
4.95-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSREMINGTON ARMS CO INC
76.95ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
72.00
186.26GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICERESTORATION AUTO GLASS NEW BRI
186.26
2,000.00INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRIDGE CREEK CUSTOM HOMES
2,000.00
1,800.00GENERAL FUND G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRIGHT MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS I
1,800.00
281.96GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSRIGID HITCH INC
281.96
515.00GARAGE MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEROTO-ROOTER
515.00
465.23EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONRUD, JOSEPH
465.23
251.13PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYRUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO
251.13
17,506.20STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESA-AG INC
17,506.20
854.98OPERATIONSTRAININGSAM'S CLUB
29.87WINTER RINKS GENERAL SUPPLIES
85.26CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
103.97WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
32.45WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES
1,106.53
2,049.01H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSCAN AIR FILTER INC
2,049.01
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 15
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
142.45ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
142.45
10,000.00EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expSEDGWICK CMS
10,000.00
564.54SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSEH
564.54
850.58WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSHAW/STEWART LUMBER CO
850.58
518.34GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESSIGN PRODUCERS INC
518.34
45.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESPEEDY KEYS & SECURITY INC
45.00
24.44PLUMBING MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
24.44
10,668.46PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
10,668.46
2,343.22PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
2,343.22
105.27WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICESTRAND MFG CO
105.27
2,132.16POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
73.73PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
2,205.89
88.17PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
88.17
400.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALTAHER REST ACQUISITION
400.00
9.36GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 16
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8.00POLICE G & A TRAINING
17.36
55.00DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEE'S PLUS
55.00
48.27WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESTERMINIX INT
48.27
45.26ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYTHE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN
53.29HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.84COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
41.70IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
19.98ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
49.79FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
112.56COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.56FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
121.05POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
76.83OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY
57.81INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
43.61PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
56.83ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.48PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
68.74ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.08ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.08WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
18.05REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY
17.56VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
16.59HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
20.48WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
1,806.30EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
2,734.95
60.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAININGTHOMPSON, JIM
60.00
702.85BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETHYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
702.85
1,794.71OPERATIONSTRAININGTIERNEY BROTHERS INC
1,794.71
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 17
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
146.38ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
146.38
122.10PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTRI STATE BOBCAT
122.10
3,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWTUCHMAN, PAUL
3,000.00
6.41PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
6.41
250.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
250.00
21.45VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEUPS STORE
21.45
167.90POLICE G & A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
31.06WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
198.96
28.96OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
28.96
7,236.52WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
7,236.52
335.00SUPERVISORYTRAININGVAN METER & ASSOCIATES, INC
335.00
132.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
132.00
1,295.35VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
72.86COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,368.21
400.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALVIANDS, A
400.00
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 18
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
356.57GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEVILLAGE CHEVROLET
356.57
57.53ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVOELKER, STACY M
57.53
55,512.62SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT
23,185.70SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
26,612.40SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
49.72SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
105,360.44
103.91GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTWATSON, JAMES
103.91
126.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWEBER ELECTRIC
126.00
69.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALWENZEL PLYMOUTH PLUMBING
69.00
321.69BOILER MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEWET TECHNOLOGY INC
321.69
349.712008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGSWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
349.71
15,788.75FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
216.60PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
402.85WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
13,956.95ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
694.51WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
31,059.66
10,773.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESXTERIOR XPERTS
10,773.00
60.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS PROGRAM REVENUEYAKES, DAVID & JULIE
60.00
143.94VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLSZACKS INC
143.94
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 19
1/13/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:58:57R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
1/15/2010 -12/31/2009
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
73.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEP MFG
73.81
125.49PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
125.49
Report Totals 1,297,881.92
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4g)Page 20
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
City of St. Louis Park
Police Advisory Commission
Minutes – November 4, 2009
Aquila Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Widmer called the meeting to order at 7:00.
Commissioners Present: Joan Barnes, Ken Huiras, Cindy Hoffman, Jim Smith, Pat Swiderski and
Hans Widmer
Staff Present: Lieutenant Harcey and Ms. Stegora-Peterson.
Guest: Mohammed Abdi, HRC
II. Approval of September 2, 2009 Minutes
Chair Widmer noted on the second page, it should be Civic Channel 17.
Motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner
Huiras. The minutes were approved as amended.
III. 2009 Golf Tournament – Final Results
Lt. Harcey reported that the net income from the tournament was $3,246.23. This was down
$1,000 from the previous year. Hole sponsorships were down and there were fewer golfers with a
lower entry fee.
Commissioners appreciated the help getting the prizes, but thought they should know ahead of time
what sponsors had donated the previous year. It was also suggested to get the information out
sooner. Goals were to raise funds and also build partnership with business owners.
IV. HRC Update
Mr. Abdi indicated the Human Rights Commission is working on drafting a possible ordinance
regarding divestment of funds. They are also working on the distribution of the Vision Lens and in
beginning stages of planning a film series for the summer.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
V. Annual Report – Recap of highlights
Commissioners indicated highlights for the annual report include the PSA’s, golf tournament and
citizens academy.
VI. Annual Report – 2010 Planning
Suggestions for 2010 projects included: Working with immigrant communities, more PSA’s, bike
safety, holding a community forum and building relationships.
VII. Citizen’s Academy - Ken
Commissioner Huiras indicated he was attending the academy and enjoying it and would highly
recommend it to others. He discussed the class topics.
VIII. PSA – Video Project – Update and Select/plan next topics
Commissioner Hoffman was continuing to work on the community policing outline.
Lt. Harcey would contact Reg Dunlap about planning to work on a “Day in the Life.”
Other ideas included an ad in the Park Perspective, Sun Sailor and on the web site. Commissioners
felt it would be appropriate to have partnerships with the HRC and Park Department.
IX. New Business
Lt. Harcey noted Commissioners with expiring terms. There will be new commissioners in the new
year. He also reported on recent community issues and events.
X. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 PM.
Meeting Date: January 19, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4i
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Renee
Fitzgerald Commissioner Trinicia Hill arrived at 5:04 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker,
Brian Swanson
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:02 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for November, 2009
The Board minutes of November 18, 2009 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Auditing Services Discussion
Ms. Schnitker explained that staff obtained a price from Kern, DeWenter, Viere,
Ltd. (KDV) for a one-year extension of auditing services for fiscal year end 2010, in
the amount of $11,600, along with pricing for a three-year extension. The one-year
price is the same whether the HA chooses to extend the contract for one or three
years. Ms. Schnitker stated that the HA was recently notified by HUD that approval
was granted to change the HA’s fiscal year from April through March, to a calendar
year, January through December. KDV’s proposal takes into consideration the HA’s
transition to a new fiscal year end in 2012. Mr. Swanson suggested the Board accept
the three-year proposal because of the 21-month fiscal year transition, and go out for
proposals after that. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to authorize the three-year
contract with KDV and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The
motion passed 4-0.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
b. Amendment to Development Contract with Shawn Smith for Development of 2005
Louisiana Avenue South Vacant Land Parcel
Ms. Larsen stated that Shawn Smith has requested the construction completion date
for the 2005 Louisiana Avenue South parcel be extended from June 30th to
December 31, 2010. Due to changing housing and finance conditions, staff also
recommends that the sale of the parcel be deferred from November 1, 2009 to no
later than March 31, 2010. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to amend the
Development Contract with Shawn Smith for Development of 2005 Louisiana
Avenue South to reflect a closing deadline of March, 31, 2010, and a construction
completion deadline of December 31, 2010. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the
motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
c. Amendment to Development Contract with Martin and Amy Susman-Stillman for
Development of 2715 Monterey Avenue South Vacant Land Parcel
Ms. Larsen explained that the Stillmans are requesting an extension of the
construction deadline on the parcel located at 2715 Monterey Avenue South, due to
the fact that their current home is not sold. Their goal is to complete construction
by the end of 2010. The Stillmans closed on the parcel and have met all previous
contract requirements. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to amend the Development
Contract with Martin and Amy-Susman-Stillman for Development of 2715
Monterey Avenue South, to reflect a construction completion deadline of December
31, 2010. Commissioner Fitzgerald seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-
0.
d. Discount Loan Program Contract Extension
Ms. Larsen reviewed the annual discount loan program contract with Center for
Energy and Environment (CEE). A termination date of December 31, 2010 is the
only amendment. CEE’s compensation remains at $125 per loan. Commissioner
Fitzgerald moved to approve execution of the Sixth Amendment to the Loan
Origination Agreement between Center for Energy and Environment and Housing
Authority In and For the City of St. Louis Park. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded
the motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
e. Live Where You Work Contract Extension
Ms. Larsen reviewed the Live Where You Work contract with Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE). A termination date of December 31, 2010 is the only
amendment. CEE’s compensation remains at $400 per loan. Commissioner
Fitzgerald moved to approve the First Amendment to the Loan Origination
Agreement between Center for Energy and Environment and Housing Authority In
and For the City of St. Louis Park, and Commissioner Fillbrandt Seconded the
motion. The motion passed 4-0.
City Council Meeting of January 19, 2010 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
f. Move Up in the Park Contract Extension
Ms. Larsen reviewed the Move Up in the Park contract with Center for Energy and
Environment (CEE). A termination of December 31, 2010 is the only amendment.
Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the First Amendment to the Loan
Origination Agreement between Center for Energy and Environment and Housing
Authority of the City of St. Louis Park for services to deliver the Move-Up in the
Park Program. Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion, and the motion
passed 4-0.
g. Training and Resources for Individual Long-Term Success (TRAILS) Contract
Approval
Ms. Schnitker explained the TRAILS contract amendment will continue the family
self-sufficiency (FSS) service coordinator position at .6 FTE, at an annual cost of
$37,875, a 1% increase over last year, for the term January 1, 2010 through
December 31, 2010. The HA anticipates receiving renewal funds for two grants
currently funding the FSS program, and will notify the Board when such grant
awards are received. Commissioner Fitzgerald moved to approve the Sixth
Amendment to the Agreement between The Housing Authority of St. Louis Park
and Resource, Inc., (Employment Action Center). Commissioner Fillbrandt
seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List for December, 2009
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for December, 2009
2. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
3. Draft Financial Statements
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Hill moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded
the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 5:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary