HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/03/01 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
MARCH 1, 2010
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION MEETING – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Rental Licensing Program
Written Reports
2. Update on the Financial and Operational Status of Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL)
Louisiana Court Development
3. Update on SWLRT Project, the Pending Freight Rail Study and Station Area Planning
7:20 p.m. Adjourn
7:25 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes of February 16, 2010
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Public Hearing --- Acquisition and Conveyance of Tax-Forfeited Parking Stall within
Phase NE of Excelsior & Grand (3707 Grand Way)
Recommended Action:
Conduct the public hearing. Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acquisition of
certain property and conveyance of same to Excelsior and Grand Condominium
Association.
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
Meeting of March 1, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
2. Presentations
None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of February 8, 2010
3b. City Council Minutes of February 16, 2010
3c. City Council Workshop Minutes of February 19-20, 2010
3d. Special City Council Minutes of February 22, 2010
3e. Study Session Minutes of February 22, 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
8a. Parkshore Apartments Planned Unit Development Minor Amendment --- 3663 Park
Center Blvd.
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-
189, 03-139, 04-024, and 05-167 adopted on October 7, 1996, December 2, 1996,
October 7, 2003, February 2,2004, and December 5, 2005 approving a Final
Planned United Development (PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code and consolidating conditions from an existing special permit and
PUD for property zoned R-C, Multi-Family Residential granting final PUD
approval for a senior housing condominium development at 3601 Park Center
Boulevard and combining proposed and existing development of the Parkshore
Campus as a Planned Unit Development --- 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center
Boulevard Minor Amendment to PUD for renovation and expansion at the
Parkshore Apartment Building --- 3663 Park Center Boulevard.
Meeting of March 1, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
8b. Project Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project --- Pavement Management Area 6,
Project No. 2009-1000
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement
Project No. 2009-1000 approving plans and specifications, and authorizing
advertisement for bids for improvement Project No. 2009-1000.
9. Communication
Meeting of March 1, 2010
Special Study Session, Economic Development Authority and City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit parking in front of 3026 Salem
Avenue South, Traffic Study 617
4b. Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 88-161 and authorizing installation of
permit parking on the east side of the 3300 Block of Dakota Avenue South, Traffic Study
No. 618
4c. Approve three lease agreements between the City and Clear Wireless LLC (Clearwire) for
communication antennas (broadband) on the three water towers located at 5100 Park Glen
Road, 8301 W. 34th Street, and 2541 Nevada Avenue South
4d. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $17,619.92 and accepting
work for the 2009 Random Concrete Repair with Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. Project Nos.
2009-0003, 0004, & 0006, City Contract No. 85-09
4e. Approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $45,000 for Parcel 5 (6017 35th
Street West) and authorize the City Attorney to execute stipulation of settlement
4f. Support the City of St. Louis Park’s application for MCMA Internship program funding and
participation
4g. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims
4h. Approve for Filing Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes December 10, 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.
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of
meeting.
Meeting Date: March 1, 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:
Rental Licensing Program.
RECOMMNEDED ACTION:
Staff requests feedback and direction from the City Council on proposed changes to the City’s
ordinance relating to rental licensing. City Attorney Tom Scott will be in attendance to assist with
this discussion.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council want staff to continue developing ordinance amendments which would provide
additional tools for helping to maintain rental property in the City?
BACKGROUND:
The City code establishes a licensing program for all non-owner occupied (rental) residential
property units requiring an annual license and regular inspection to verify the physical property is in
compliance with the minimum standards established by the Property Maintenance Code. Rental
licensing and inspection has been occurring in various formats for several decades in St. Louis Park.
Our current program is based on the 2001 revision to the City’s business licensing codes as part of
the overall City Code re-codification. Enhancements in recent years have included:
• 2005 - Expansion of the program from multi-family to include single family and duplex
properties.
• 2008 - Crime Free/Drug Free provisions were adopted. The program requires that the rental
property licensee takes the responsibility to ensure that the tenant’s behavior is regulated and not
creating a nuisance for their building, neighbors, or the community.
• 2009 - Addition of licensing non-owner occupied condominiums, townhomes and cooperative
housing units.
The rental licensing program now includes all non-owner occupied units as well as homes that have
been vacant over six months.
DISCUSSION:
The City annually issues approximately 900 rental licenses for a total of 7,700 units. Nearly all
licensees are maintaining and operating their rental properties at a high standard. However, when a
rental property owner is not attentive to maintaining high standards for property maintenance and
tenant behavior, problems can develop. Business practices such as month to month cash leases, lack
of background checks for new tenants, allowing non-lease holding adult tenants in units, and failing
to establish or enforce conduct rules for the property can lead to serious problems for the
Special Study Session Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
community. Physical deterioration and unmanaged behavior can also lead to unfavorable living
conditions for the tenants themselves and for the neighboring properties and the community as a
whole.
City Attorney Tom Scott will be present at the March 1st Study Session to provide further detail on
the new ordinance concepts listed below.
• Establishing Criteria that Triggers Action –This concept involves establishing trigger points that
would be identifiable and could be verified, at which point additional ordinance requirements
would be activated. These triggers may relate to property maintenance deterioration; violation
of the crime-free provisions; failure to provide background checks; failure to have signed leases
and lease addendums; or failure to cooperate with the Police Department or the Inspections
staff.
• Compliance Actions in Addition to Citation or Formal Complaint –This concept involves using
other methods to motivate compliance. These may include notifying the property insurer,
service fee, or other regulatory measures.
• Establish a Provisional License – Based on the documentation of violations, this concept would
lead to issuance of a provisional annual license with specific conditions or a management plan to
correct the deficiencies leading to the repeated violations. A provisional license may have higher
fees to cover staff costs associated with the provisional license as well as establish higher
inspection or performance standards for the licensee.
• Clarify the License Revocation Process for Rental Property – Suspension, revocation, or non-
issuance of a business licenses results in the business no longer legally being able to operate.
While this may be a justifiable approach for some businesses like a restaurant, it creates
numerous enforcement difficulties for a multi-family dwelling where the business is providing
housing to many individuals and their families. In order to provide a more effective method for
license revocation or suspension it is recommended that the City specify that a license revocation
may only affect those units that are vacant or become vacant and thereby prohibiting the licensee
from renting those units again. This is a more enforceable method of revocation than
attempting a court order for individuals or families to vacate their units.
City Attorney, Police, and Inspections staff will be attending the Study Session to discuss the details
of these concepts.
If Council wishes to proceed with development of ordinance amendments, the City Attorney and
staff will further work to refine the concepts provided above, notify and meet with rental property
owners and managers of the proposed changes to the rental licensing program, and return to Council
with a final ordinance for consideration and adoption.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Though unknown at this time, our licensing programs are intended to be a fee for service program.
Special Study Session Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to quality housing and being engaged with providing a safe and
healthful community.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: SPECIAL
TITLE:
Update on the Financial and Operational Status of Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana
Court Development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
A future policy question the City Council will likely be asked to consider involves whether or not to
support the refinancing of the bonds issued for the Louisiana Court project due to reduced interest
rates now available.
BACKGROUND:
The City issued General Obligation bonds to finance the purchase and renovation of Louisiana
Court in 2000. It was part of a concerted effort by the City, working with PPL, to transform
Louisiana Court in to a quality affordable housing asset for the community. The transformation of
Louisiana Court was and continues to be a challenge financially but is otherwise fundamentally a
success. For the most part, the initial goals of the project have been reached. The viability of
Louisiana Court as a vital community asset and attractive affordable housing option for the residents
of St. Louis Park is dependent on its long term financial strength. Current economic conditions offer
an opportunity to strengthen Louisiana Court financially. Current bond interest rates are
substantially less than in 2000.
In accordance with the terms of the General Obligation Bonds sold by the City to assist in financing
the acquisition and rehab of the development in 2000, 2010 is the first opportunity to refinance the
Bonds and lower the debt on the project. PPL is exploring financial restructuring plans, including
requesting the City to refinance to take advantage of better interest rates and possibly longer terms.
PROJECT HISTORY:
Louisiana Court Visioning Task Force. In 1998, concern about the appearance, condition, safety
and livability of the Louisiana Court apartment complex led to the formation of the Louisiana Court
Visioning Task Force. The Task Force was composed of residents of the apartments, neighboring
homeowners, apartment owners, business owners, community agencies, former Council Member
Ron Latz and a broad range of City staff. Participants also included Perspectives, Inc. staff (owner of
5 Louisiana Court buildings) and Steve Cramer, Executive Director of PPL. The Task Force
reported to the Council on September l4, l998 on recommendations developed to create a vision for
making Louisiana Court a good place to live and a good neighbor.
Special Study Session Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Issuance of Bonds 2000. PPL and Perspectives, Inc. continued discussions with the City about the
desirability of undertaking a comprehensive renovation/rehabilitation of the Louisiana Court
Apartments, including consolidating building ownership and improving the condition of the
apartments and the physical organization of the site. In June 2000, the City sold $4,505,000 in
General Obligation Bonds and provided Met Council Livable Communities Act (LCA) funding,
along with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars, to assist PPL in the acquisition
and rehabilitation of eleven of the sixteen buildings that make up the development. The bond
proceeds were provided to PPL as a loan and were secured with a first mortgage against the property.
Project goals included:
(a) Provide greater management stability by consolidating ownership of Louisiana Court
under a single owner,
2) Revitalize a physically and socially distressed housing development,
3) Connect an isolated apartment community with the larger community,
4) Maintain and stabilize affordable housing through the commitment of a nonprofit,
housing organization as the managing ownership entity,
5) Create and decentralize Hollman Units within an existing neighborhood,
6) Reconfigure 28 one-bedroom units to create 14-three bedroom units to better address the
great need for family housing, and
7) Facilitate access to transit, parks and shopping.
2006 Stabilization Plan. Although, significant progress was made in meeting the goals of the project, the
project experienced ongoing financial struggles. Revenue shortfalls were attributed to higher than
anticipated vacancies, greater than expected operating expenses, and too much debt. In 2005 and 2006, a
Plan was implemented to stabilize the project. Additional funding was provided from the original funders
of the project to address needed capital improvements, replenish financial reserves and provide a limited
number of rent subsidies for targeted tenant populations. Restructuring debt was considered at that time
but could not be restructured until 2010 due to restrictions on the Bonds. The City provided a $400,000
deferred loan and additional funding commitments were secured from Hennepin County, Minnesota
Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and Enterprise (Limited Partner).
The 2006 stabilization plan consisted of four parts including:
a) Completion of additional capital improvements to increase marketability and reduce
ongoing maintenance costs.
b) Improving resident retention through:
i) More intense social programming,
ii) Increased security, and
iii) Youth Development program and activities.
c) Introduction of a limited number of new tenants with rental subsidies and committed social
support programs to facilitate their stabilized occupancy.
d) Reduction of operating expenses by:
i) Decreasing property taxes (property tax appeal and/or abatement), and
ii) Decreased maintenance costs.
Special Study Session Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
At that same time, the Tax Credit Limited Partnership for the development was transferred from US
Bank to Enterprise and the management of the complex was transferred from PPL to an
independent property management company, Perennial. Enterprise has proven to be a much more
responsive and active Limited Partner providing the project with approximately $500,000 in gap
funding for operational costs over the past 5 years. Enterprise has an additional $1,000,000 set aside
for further assistance with future operational costs and/or to use as resource for an equity
contribution in restructuring the future debt on the development.
Although it was hoped that the 2006 stabilization initiatives would address the long term financial
viability of the development, a secondary goal was to stabilize the project until 2010 when the
project’s financing could be restructured and the overall debt on the project could be reduced.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Since 2006, the project has continued to have cash flow less than anticipated. Decreased net
revenues have made it impossible for PPL to meet the required 120% debt service ratio, although,
PPL has remained current on all debt service payments. Scheduled reserve deposits required in the
loan documents have also been deferred. The primary reasons given for the revenue shortfall has
been decreased revenues due to a greater number of vacancies than budgeted and higher than
expected operating expenses combined with too much debt. The current outstanding balance on the
General Obligation Bonds is approximately $3.77 million.
PPL has responded to the revenue shortfall by developing a plan to implement a number of strategies
to increase occupancy. Enterprise engaged an independent management consultant to assess the
development and its current marketing efforts and suggest ways to improve marketing and increase
occupancy. The resulting report detailed a significant number of strategies and recommendations to
increase the properties occupancy performance. Despite the efforts of PPL to implement the
recommendations, vacancies of 10+ percent continue to be a concern.
PPL is in the process of putting a financial restructuring plan together including meeting with other
funders to explore possible financial resources to assist in financing the restructuring of the debt.
PPL has also asked the City to consider reissuing the bonds to take advantage of a lower interest rate
and possibly a longer term. Staff has informed PPL that any consideration the City would give to
refinancing would presume that the funding and any other changes to the operations or other
actions necessary for Louisiana Court to operate successfully into the future are in place.
From the City’s position as the first mortgagee, reissuance of Bonds is a low cost way for the City to
assist Louisiana Court with the financial situation. This could also reduce the City’s risk as the
mortgage holder which would offer further protection of the City’s investment.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Continued support of the project is consistent with the City’s visioning strategy and housing goals
including the City’s commitment to providing a well maintained and diverse housing stock,
strengthening neighborhoods, promoting property maintenance to foster quality housing and
community aesthetic and to promote and facilitate a mix of housing types, prices and rents that
maintains a balance of affordable housing for low and moderate income households.
Special Study Session Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
NEXT STEPS:
As we work with PPL on refinancing options, Staff will continue to consult with Ehlers & Associates
and Kennedy & Graven to ensure that steps are taken to safeguard the City’s interest. Staff will keep
the Council updated as new developments occur. We anticipate a study session discussion with the
City Council in the upcoming weeks as a more fully formed refinancing plan is prepared for the
Council’s consideration.
Attachment: None
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: SPECIAL
TITLE:
Update on SWLRT project, the pending freight rail study and station area planning.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. The purpose of this report is to update the City Council on the
status of these three projects.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff now of any questions or comments you might have.
BACKGROUND and NEXT STEPS:
Several things are happening relative to rail in St. Louis Park. What follows is a summary/update of
where things are at.
Light Rail
The SW Light Rail Transit project is in the process of being transitioned from the Hennepin
County Regional Rail Authority to the Metropolitan Council. The Metropolitan Council is
amending its Transportation Policy Plan to incorporate the SWLRT Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA). The public comment period for this amendment is open from February 24th until April 22nd
and a public hearing is scheduled for April 12th. Over the next 6 to 8 months the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be finalized and the next step in the process,
Preliminary Engineering, will begin.
More information is available at www.southwesttransitway.org
Freight Rail
Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRRA) has authorized its staff to prepare a Request
for Proposals (RFP) to hire a consultant to complete a “Kenilworth Freight Relocation Study.” The
study will look in detail at rerouting Twin Cities & Western (TC&W) rail traffic to the MNS-
Canadian Pacific (north-south tracts) line in St. Louis Park. The study would include
environmental documentation, preliminary engineering, community impact assessment, and a
public involvement process. It is anticipated that community participation will be a major focus of
the process. The County and MnDOT will be funding the study. Currently the RFP for
consultants is being drafted. The County expects to hire a consultant and begin the study this
spring; the study is expected to take 6-8 months to complete.
Special Study Session Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Station Area Planning
The SWLRT corridor has been officially designated a Hennepin County Community Works
project. Community Works projects typically are designated for transportation corridors in order to
look more broadly at opportunities for community development in relation to major transportation
investments. Each project is crafted individually, and currently the County is formulating a
structure, work plan and budget for further planning for the corridor. Some elements of the station
area planning in St. Louis Park will be within this project and others we will need to address on our
own. Additional information will be coming from the County over the next few months.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The sources of funding for SWLRT and Freight Rail Study are not the city. Station Area Planning
will likely require city funding participation and/or responsibilities. More to come on the financial
aspects as work plans and budgets are developed. It is anticipated that the designation as a
Community Works project will provide at least some opportunities for outside funding.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
SWLRT, Freight Rail planning and station area planning are consistent with the City’s strategic
vision to be a connected and engaged community; as well as leaders in environmental stewardship.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
1. Call to Order
President Finkelstein called the meeting to order at 7:24 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Finkelstein, Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross
(arrived at 7:25 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa (arrived at 7:25 p.m.).
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt),
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes February 1, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Reports
5a. Economic Development Authority Vendor Claims
It was moved by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Omodt, to approve the
EDA Vendor Claims.
The motion passed 5-0.
6. Old Business – None
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
7. New Business
7a. Green Building Policy
EDA Resolution No. 10-02
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and stated the policy is intended to ensure that the
environment is given priority during the initial stages of any building design, and will apply
to all new building projects 15,000 square feet or greater and renovations 50,000 square feet
or greater that receive $200,000 or more in City financial assistance. He added the policy
would also apply to all new and renovation multi-family residential buildings, as well as all
detached single family renovation projects. He stated that the language regarding
applicability has been revised, pursuant to Council’s request, to state that residential projects
will include all detached single family renovation projects, deleting the term “owner
occupied.” He stated that the language regarding single family renovations has also been
revised to state that “low income residents receiving City funds must have an audit scheduled
before work proceeds, and the audit conducted as soon as possible by the Department of
Energy Low-Income Weatherization provider”. He added that the language within the
single family renovation section was clarified to state that this section applies to homes
undergoing renovation “that receive City financial assistance…” He indicated that cities are
adopting green building policies similar to the proposed policy, and staff believes this policy
strikes a pragmatic balance between encouragement and requirement of sustainable building
practices and being economically practical.
Commissioner Mavity stated the proposed policy provides an opportunity for the entire
community to take advantage of the program. She requested clarification regarding the
energy savings and water conservation targets and the requirement that non-residential
buildings must report actual water use. She questioned whether this requirement is
redundant given the City’s current ability to monitor water usage. She stated her overriding
concern is minimizing the burden on those who are participating in the program.
Mr. Hunt stated the City currently has access to water bills and this is simply a matter of
having staff flag those particular properties.
Mr. Harmening stated this language could be removed and the policy will assume that City
staff will track this information using the City’s billing information.
Commissioner Sanger expressed concern that homeowners are required under this policy to
have an audit conducted, but there does not appear to be any follow-up to make sure
homeowners are complying with the audit requirement and/or whether any of the audit
recommendations are implemented by the homeowner. She stated it is unclear how City
staff will measure the success of the project as applied to homeowners if no follow-up data is
available.
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Ms. Larsen explained that the policy states that homeowners must release energy data which
will allow the City to assess whether the program is helping people. She added that people
who go through the green remodeling program and obtain green building certification will
undergo extensive follow-up on their energy use including monitoring of the measures they
have implemented.
Commissioner Sanger requested clarification regarding the list of programs that would be
applicable and whether the program is applicable to those people who get environmental
cleanup assistance.
Mr. Hunt explained that those projects receiving environmental assistance were not included
because typically those programs require a local match via financial assistance, e.g., EDA,
TIF or redevelopment assistance. He added that whenever staff is working with developers,
they would likely include within the Redevelopment Contract that the developer would be
required to comply with the Green Building Policy. He indicated the policy recommends
that the City retain a sustainability consultant who will help developers through the process
and to make sure the language of this policy is enforced in the proposed project.
Commissioner Ross asked if there is a requirement for home inspections to reflect that a
particular home has been green certified.
Ms. Larsen stated if a homeowner obtains green building certification, it would be to their
advantage to promote that.
Commissioner Sanger asked if a potential buyer could obtain a copy of the audit results for a
home they might be purchasing.
Ms. Larsen stated that the policy indicates that the homeowner would retain the audit results
and provide the potential buyer with a copy of the audit.
Mr. Locke stated that staff could explore with the inspection department whether there is
some way to incorporate energy information into the property inspection program, but this
goes beyond the terms of the Green Building Policy.
It was moved by Commissioner Mavity, seconded by Commissioner Ross, to adopt EDA
Resolution No. 10-02 Approving Green Building Policy, as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
8. Communications – None
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
9. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:44 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary President
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 5a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Vendor Claims
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept for Filing Vendor Claims for the period February 13, 2010 through February 26,
2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:09:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
428.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
35.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TRAINING
463.00
18,175.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCREATIVE NERVE INC
18,175.00
283.70WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
51.15TRUNK HWY 7 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
51.15HSTI G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
51.15VICTORIA PONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
51.15PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,571.15CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,300.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
583.15MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,431.15PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
583.15EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,548.65ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
583.15WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
583.15AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
285.00HOIGAARD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
583.15HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,540.00
5,000.00HRA LEVY G&A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
5,000.00
27,045.00OAK PARK VILLAGE G&A MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDITHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
39,553.00EXCELSIOR BLVD G&A MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT
66,598.00
5,358.75DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC
5,358.75
1,383.00DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A ENVIRONMENT ANALYSISLHB ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS
1,383.00
183.93DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
183.93
17.71DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
17.71
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 5a)Page 2
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 11:09:01R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
Report Totals 112,719.39
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 5a)Page 3
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution
Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Resolution
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Public Hearing – Acquisition and Conveyance of Tax-Forfeited Parking Stall within Phase NE of
Excelsior & Grand (3707 Grand Way).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Conduct the public hearing.
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acquisition of certain property and conveyance of same to
Excelsior and Grand Condominium Association.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA support the acquisition of a tax-forfeited parking stall within Phase NE of the
Excelsior & Grand project and conveyance of same to the Excelsior & Grand Condominium
Association?
BACKGROUND:
TOLD Development Company has requested the EDA’s assistance in remedying a situation that has
arisen related to a tax-forfeited parking stall within Phase NE (3707 Grand Way) of its Excelsior &
Grand project. This building is located at northeast corner of Grand Way and Park Commons
Drive.
The situation arose when a condominium buyer purchased a parking stall within Phase NE which
later was discovered to be unusable. TOLD deeded the buyer another parking stall. Unfortunately
the unusable stall (G177) remained in the buyer’s name and no one made tax payments on it. As a
result, stall G177 became tax delinquent.
Stall G177 is unusable for parking because it provides access to the trash collection area within Phase
NE. The stall is part of the building’s common areas and should be owned by the building’s
Homeowners Association. TOLD wishes to rectify the situation; however it no longer has any legal
interest in the Phase NE building. Thus, TOLD cannot pay Hennepin County the outstanding
property taxes and related fees and take title to the delinquent parcel. The EDA does have an
ongoing interest in the property and may pay the back taxes and fees and then pursue a pass through
sale in order to deed the stall to the Owners’ Association. The desired outcome is that the EDA
would purchase the stall and deed it to the Association. This arrangement has the approval of the
City Assessor and Hennepin County and would solve what has become a nuisance issue for both.
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 2
Hennepin County has determined that the total cost of the parcel plus fees is approximately
$182.00. TOLD has agreed in writing that it would reimburse the EDA for these expenses and any
other out of pocket expenses the EDA incurs related to this matter. The conveyance of property by
the EDA requires both a public hearing and formal approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of acquiring the subject tax delinquent parcel and related fees will be approximately
$182.00. TOLD Development Company has agreed that it would reimburse the EDA for these
expenses and any other out of pocket expenses the EDA incurs related to this matter.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 3
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
AND CONVEYANCE OF SAME TO EXCELSIOR AND GRAND
CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners (“Board”) of the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“Authority”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 through 469.047
(the “HRA Act”), Sections 469.090 through 469.1082 (the “EDA Act”), and Sections 469.174 through
469.1799 (the “TIF Act”), the Authority has previously entered into a Contract for Private
Redevelopment (the “Contract”) between the Authority, the City, and Excelsior & Grand II LLC (the
“Redeveloper”), under which, among other things, the Redeveloper constructed and sold residential
condominium units and associated parking stalls located within the Authority’s Redevelopment Project
No. 1 (the “Project”) to third-party purchasers.
1.02. The Redeveloper conveyed one such condominium unit to a third-party owner (the
“Buyer”), along with an associated parking stall described in Exhibit A (the “Property”). The Property
was found to be unusable for parking purposes due to the placement of doors opening onto the
Property from an adjacent garbage room, and the Buyer was offered and accepted a different parking
stall.
1.03. Title to the Property remained with the Buyer, but the Buyer’s property tax payments
were credited to the Buyer’s condominium unit and replacement parking stall, rather than to the
Property, resulting in tax forfeiture of the Property to Hennepin County (the “County”).
1.04. The Excelsior and Grand Owners’ Association (the “Association”) has now requested
that the Authority purchase the tax-forfeited Property and convey said Property to the Association for
use as common area recycling storage. The Redeveloper has agreed to pay all fees incurred by the
Authority in connection with such purchase and conveyance. The County is willing to convey the
Property to the Authority for reconveyance to the Association.
1.05. The Authority finds and determines that conveyance of the Property to the Association
has no relationship to the City’s comprehensive plan.
1.06. The Authority further finds and determines that the Association’s intended use of the
Property conforms to the approved project area redevelopment plan for the Project.
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 4
1.07. Pursuant to Section 469.029 of the HRA Act, the Authority has on this date conducted
a duly noticed public hearing regarding the sale of the Property to the Association, at which all
interested persons were give an opportunity to be heard.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Further Proceedings.
2.01. Authority staff and officials are authorized to take all actions necessary to effect the
purchase and reconveyance of the Property, including without limitation payment of purchase price and
conveyance fees, execution of any deed or other documents necessary to acquire the Property from the
County and to convey such Property to the Association.
2.02. The Board hereby approves the conveyance of the Property to the Association, subject
to successful acquisition of the Property by the Authority from the County.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority
March 1, 2010
Executive Director President
Attest
Secretary
EDA Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 7a) Page 5
EXHIBIT A
Property
PID# 06 028 24 34 0327
Gar Unit G177 CIC No. 1208 The Condominiums at Excelsior & Grand, 3707 Grand Way
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 8, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger,
and Susan Santa.
Councilmember absent was Phil Finkelstein.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Inspections Director (Mr.
Hoffman), Park and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Police
Chief (Chief Luse), Fire Chief (Chief Stemmer) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guest: Bob DeGroot (AECOM).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – February 22, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for February 22, 2010. He indicated
there is staff support to discuss an amendment to strengthen enforcement of the rental license
ordinance at a March study session.
Councilmember Sanger requested a future discussion on IRV, instant-runoff voting also known as
ranked-choice voting, which had been discussed in the past.
The Council discussed whether the matter of IRV should be referred directly to the Charter
Commission. It was the consensus of the City Council that the topic will first be discussed by the
Council so direction can be formulated.
2. Boards and Commissions Policies
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and described issues raised with regard to potential
conflicts of interest and length of residency for commission and board appointments.
Ms. Stroth reviewed the results of staff’s survey of eleven other municipalities and asked for Council
input whether a policy should be set for a minimum residency requirement for board and
commission applicants.
The Council discussed that longer term residents may have more knowledge of the City, yet they did
not want to restrict the appointment of a newer resident that may have valuable expertise.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Councilmember Sanger indicated support for a residence requirement or written indication on the
application form, noting one past application contained two addresses. She stated that longer term
residents would bring a perspective on issues and how it would affect the City and their neighbors,
which a resident new to St. Louis Park may not know.
Mayor Jacobs stated he did not support a residence requirement because he did not want to exclude
residents that may be highly qualified. In addition, he wanted residents to easily become involved in
the City, even if just moving to St. Louis Park. Mayor Jacobs noted this may be a case-by-case
analysis depending on the applicant’s background.
Councilmember Ross stated she agreed with Mayor Jacobs and wanted to encourage residents to
become involved.
Councilmember Mavity noted some residents may have been raised and educated in St. Louis Park,
leave for a while, and then return. She did not want regulations to exclude these residents since they
would know the community.
Councilmember Santa stated an applicant may have just moved to St. Louis Park and want to get
involved, while other applicants may have deeper ties with the City. She stated she would like to
give the applicants a realistic expectation of their chances for appointment.
The Council directed staff to revise the application to include a question on how long the applicant
has been a St. Louis Park resident.
Ms. Stroth presented the second policy question and asked whether the Council wished to have a code
of ethics policy for board and commission members.
The Council discussed potential conflicts of interest for commission and board members and consensus
was reached to direct staff to draft language in the Rules of Procedures for Boards and Commissions. In
addition, staff was directed to also add language to the current application regarding conflicts of interest
and asking applicants to disclose potential conflicts of interest that may or will arise if they are
appointed.
3. Municipal Service Center (MSC) Soil Removal
Mr. Hoffmann presented the staff report and provided an overview of two options to dispose of the
17,000 cubic yards of excavated soils currently stockpiled at the Municipal Service Center (MSC)
site. He explained that the City applied for and received a Hennepin County grant of $534,000 to
assist with the unexpected costs associated with mitigation of this impacted soil. During the grant
application process, Hennepin County encouraged the City to consider options to reuse the soil on
other City-owned property as an alternative to landfill disposal. Staff reviewed City-owned property
and determined the most feasible location would be the southwest corner of the Louisiana Oaks Park
that has experienced some settlement. Mr. Hoffman reviewed the lengthy timeline for this option,
noting it may be October or November of 2010 to follow that process.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Mr. DeGroot explained that prior to the City owning the MSC property, it was an asphalt plant that
excavated gravel and backfilled with project soils containing concrete, asphalt, and wood debris.
The Council discussed options for reuse of the stockpiled material. It was determined not to be
financially feasible to clean the soil or stockpile the material in another location for future use.
Mr. Hoffman stated the City pursued options for reuse of the soil at the urging of Hennepin
County. However, if it cannot be reused at Louisiana Oaks Park staff would recommend the City
obtain bids to transport the soil to a landfill as early as possible, enabling the contractor to complete
the MSC site early this summer.
Mr. Hoffman advised the grant will cover the cost of the contract to haul and landfill the soil. It was
noted that the material is now covering the entire Creekside Park.
Ms. Walsh clarified that Louisiana Oaks Park is not a problem looking for a solution. The Park is
being used and neighbors are happy with it. She noted the City would have to go through a
comprehensive public hearing process with residents if it is considering the use of this material to fill
the southwest corner of that Park.
Councilmember Santa agreed residents are happy with the Park and at some point the southwest
area will have to be enhanced since there has been some settlement and it is less useable.
The Council discussed that it would prefer to have an answer from the US-EPA and MPCA about
the use of this material in the Park before opening the public process.
Councilmember Omodt noted there is a public perception about the placement of soils with
contaminants and asked how Louisiana Oaks Park was identified as an option.
Mr. Harmening stated it was identified because there was settlement that the City would like to fix,
even though it is not a liability issue. Staff was going to ask the Council if it was willing to start the
public process with the adjacent neighborhood; however, now it has been discovered that receiving
approvals from the US-EPA and MPCA would expand the timeline beyond what is feasible so there
may be no other option than to landfill the material. He indicated it was a good alternative to
consider reuse but in this case, the timeline is not feasible so staff would support moving forward to
get a bid for transportation to a landfill.
Mayor Jacobs agreed it was a good exercise to consider the reuse option since the Council may be
asked about the process used to make this decision.
Councilmember Santa stated it was also a valuable exercise because of the City’s green policy and if
the City is asking residents to make those considerations, the City needs to do the same and look at
all of the implications.
Mr. Hoffmann advised that Hennepin County had indicated to staff, through discussions, that reuse
was probably not feasible because of the extended timeline.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to obtain bids to hire a contractor to transport
and dispose of the stockpiled material at a landfill.
4. Update on Public Safety Dispatch
Mr. Harmening reviewed the staff report and briefed the Council that Golden Valley has given
notice that it will cease using the St. Louis Park dispatch system effective December 31, 2010. He
advised that the cost to run the City’s dispatch operation, not including technology, is about
$860,000 and Golden Valley’s share is $330,000. It was noted that in the mid-1990s, Hennepin
County had offered cities the ability to join their dispatch operation and that the opportunity would
not be offered again until 2012. Mr. Harmening stated at that time the Council had determined
partnering with Golden Valley was still affordable and would provide faster response times to its
constituents.
Mr. Harmening stated the Hennepin County Board considered Golden Valley’s request to join their
dispatch service but tabled the decision for 30 days so they could obtain more information. The
question was also raised that if Hennepin County allowed Golden Valley to join prior to the planned
2012 offering, other cities may make a similar request.
Mr. Harmening stated that Mr. Pires, the Fire Chief and Police Chief are conducting a
comprehensive analysis of options should Golden Valley terminate dispatch services. This analysis
will be presented to the Council at its February 22, 2010 Study Session.
Chief Luse stated the City had spent a lot of time building its dispatch model, which worked very
well because it included community oriented policing, and kept track of rental ordinance and dog
ordinance violations. He noted the Sheriff’s Department is not in the patrol business and its
dispatch service will be different than currently provided. In addition, residents appreciate the
ability to track crime statistics on the City’s website. Chief Luse stated their analysis will research
whether there is a work around for that service. It was noted the current dispatch service also
coordinates vehicle tagging, towing, and snow plows when there is a snow emergency.
Mr. Pires stated staff has talked with other cities about the option of providing their dispatch service
and will continue to pursue that option to help share the cost. He advised that Minnetonka has
approached St. Louis Park about reciprocal back up during emergency situations since the two cities
use the same LOGIS software and telephone systems, and can grant each other database access.
Mr. Pires stated their analysis will address technology and software compatibility with Hennepin
County. He advised that the County does not use the same LOGIS software but can transfer data
every ten minutes to the City’s LOGIS system so that data can be incorporated into the City’s
records system.
Chief Stemmer explained the Fire Department does not have the same patrol issues as the Police
Department but there is an issue of response time and communication between departments. He
explained there are currently 19 fire departments with Hennepin County and all are on one channel
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
for calls and paging. So, when a fire call goes out you have to go to another channel, then back to
their main transmit channel to talk with dispatch. Hennepin County does not have the ability to
monitor those other channels, only the tactical channel, which will be a concern during major
emergencies. Currently, the City’s dispatch service gets calls out in 30 seconds to one minute. With
a County dispatch, you have to identify your city, fire location, and station. Because of this, a
number of departments are discussing whether it would be feasible to have a fire-only dispatch
center. It was noted that the Fire Department’s radio equipment could be reprogrammed if dispatch
services are provided by Hennepin County.
Mr. Pires explained that since the police vehicle laptops are used for dispatch and have access to
records and State data bases for registration and licensing, they will probably be retained and the
capability added to communicate with Hennepin County.
Councilmember Ross questioned how many other cities would want County dispatch services if it is
opened to Golden Valley and whether Hennepin County will start to charge for dispatch services.
Mr. Harmening stated they have discussed how Hennepin County could justify charging some cities
for dispatch services while not charging other cities. He stated it is the posture of the Sheriff that it
is not appropriate to charge cities for dispatch services but he is not sure of the County Board’s
position. Mr. Harmening noted that whether or not Hennepin County takes on Golden Valley
before 2012, staff believed it was only a matter of time before they terminate dispatch services so it is
wise to start planning for that occurrence. Mr. Harmening noted the City has ten outstanding
dispatchers who are aware that if Golden Valley goes with the County for dispatch services, the City
will probably reduce its staff level by three. Because of that cloud of uncertainty, the dispatchers
may be looking for other employment.
Councilmember Sanger stated it seems to be in the City’s best interest to set a date certain deadline
for Golden Valley to make its decision. She requested additional information on the City’s jail
service, monitoring, how often it is used, and whether inmates can be housed in a County facility.
Councilmember Santa requested information on other cities that may be interested in partnering for
dispatch services.
Councilmember Mavity indicated reluctance with giving Golden Valley a set deadline because of the
impact to the City’s budget and dispatching staff. She suggested the Council make its decision based
on staff’s analysis.
The Council discussed the logistics of Golden Valley’s switch to County dispatch and time needed
to accomplish that transition.
Councilmember Mavity noted that cost is a concern but also how residents feel about it and the
impact to response times.
Mayor Jacobs stated there is a source of pride in St. Louis Park that if you call 911, there are lights in
your driveway when you hang up the phone.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Councilmember Santa concurred and indicated she does not want to lose the dispatcher’s
partnership with the City’s neighborhoods.
Chief Luse advised that 700 prisoners a year are booked into the jail so it is used every day. In
addition, St. Louis Park and Golden Valley jointly own a communication van that the City’s
dispatchers operate. If Golden Valley goes with County dispatch, it would have to retool a van and
find their own operators.
Councilmember Ross stated she has reservations about the City going to Hennepin County for
dispatch.
It was noted that staff’s analysis will be presented to the City Council at its February 22, 2010,
Study Session.
5. Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
Mr. Harmening asked for Council input on the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission’s annual
report and work plan.
Councilmember Mavity stated her support to have an advocate for green space. She explained that
during the election, she spoke to many residents who felt this was a need.
Councilmember Santa stated she had served on the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission in
the past and felt it was more youth oriented. She supported holding a policy discussion on this
matter.
Councilmember Sanger stated she had raised the same issue and whether a separate board was
needed to deal with open and green spaces and environmental areas.
Mayor Jacobs stated this had been discussed in the past and it was determined to have each
commission and board deal with environmental issues as they came up.
Councilmember Omodt noted the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission contains
membership that is not all youth focused and the Council requires the Commission to meet once a
year with athletic associations. He suggested the Council provide direction to the Commission if it
felt open space needed to be addressed.
The Council discussed the goals that should be accomplished and whether a new commission should
be created that focused on use of green and open spaces, i.e., natural resources.
Councilmember Santa stated since it is a new Council, it is important to meet with commissions and
boards so they understand the Council’s goals. However, she felt the Council should first hold a
discussion to refine those goals.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Mayor Jacobs commented on the importance of Council decisions with lasting significance.
It was the consensus of the City Council to hold a further discussion on the use of natural resources
and invite the Park and Recreation Association to a future Study Session to discuss the Council’s
goals.
6. 2009 Police Advisory Commission (PAC) Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan
The Council reviewed the Police Advisory Commission’s annual report and work plan.
Councilmember Sanger indicated support for more emphasis on how bicycles, vehicles, and
pedestrians coexist in the same roadway and to go public with that information.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to invite the Police Advisory
Commission to a future Study Session to hold that discussion.
7. Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA) 2009 Annual Report
The Council reviewed the Board of Zoning Appeals’ annual report.
The Council discussed the need to streamline government and assure staff efficiency. It was
considered whether the duties of BOZA it could be more efficiently handled by the Planning
Commission, which would provide better customer service through a streamlined process.
Councilmember Sanger commented on the value of BOZA members’ technical knowledge,
including expertise on variance regulations contained in the ordinance.
The Council discussed the City’s appointment process, how to maintain current members’ expertise
while still engaging the appointment of new membership. It was considered whether seats should be
posted upon expiration, allowing an application and interview process, instead of an automatic
renewal.
Councilmember Omodt expressed concern that the process might become political.
It was the consensus of the City Council to ask BOZA if they would like to meet with the Council
and to hold a discussion on the process for reappointment to assure it is open to new applicants.
8. Communications (verbal)
Mr. Harmening informed the Council of a joint meeting with the School Board on April 19, 2010,
starting at 6:00 p.m. to discuss findings of an internal feasibility study on artificial turf and the
School Board’s decision on closure of school facilities.
Mr. Harmening advised that the Council’s photos have been posted to the City website.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Mr. Harmening updated the Council on the Legislature’s indication the State will have a $1.2
billion deficit in this biennium and continuing deficits in the next biennium. He explained the City
was informed that the State’s $650,000 annual contribution towards pension aid and PERA aid may
“be on the table” because the State’s bleak financial outlook.
Mr. Harmening briefed the Council on the positive conversations held with representatives of the
fire union and patrol officers.
Councilmember Sanger requested staff schedule a Council discussion and evaluation of the City’s
civil attorney.
The meeting adjourned at 8:54 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
9. Solid Waste Program Survey
10. Municipal Service Center (MSC) Renovation Project History and Update
11. Proposed Acquisition of Tax Forfeited Parking Stall within Phase NE of Excelsior &
Grand
12. Update on Redevelopment Contract with Oak Hill 7100 LLC (Anderson Builders)
13. U.S. Census Update
14. Fire Stations Project Update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 16, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms. Stroth),
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Housing Program
Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of January 25, 2010
Councilmember Sanger requested that the tenth paragraph on page 4 be revised to add “She
requested that the City consider adoption of an ordinance that would ban sprinkling during
rain storms as a way to control residents who run their sprinklers during rain storms.”
Councilmember Ross requested that the third paragraph on page 7 be revised to add “She
also recommended that the City expand its policy to include businesses owned by women
and veterans.”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3b. Special Study Session Minutes of February 1, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
3c. City Council Minutes of February 1, 2010
The minutes were approved as presented.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Approve a temporary on-sale intoxicating liquor license for Sabes Jewish Community
Center located at 4330 South Cedar Lake Road for a wine tasting event on March
11, 2010.
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 10-013 approving the St. Louis Park Lions Club’s
application for the placement of temporary signs within the public right-of-way to
inform the community about their annual pancake breakfast.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 10-014 Approving Green Building Policy.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 10-015 Authorizing Final Payment in the Amount of
$31,715.50 for the Elevated Water Tower No. 4 Recoating Improvement Project,
City Project No. 2007-1500, Contract No. 80-08.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 10-016 requesting a variance from Minnesota Rules for State
Aid Operations Chapter 8820 for Municipal State Aid Project No. 163-284-008
(Wooddale Avenue from West 44th Street to Morningside Road.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 10-017 Accepting Donation to the City to Support Chief
Information Officer’s (CIO) Attendance at the 2010 CIO Government Summit.
4g. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims.
4h. Approve for Filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes May 15, 2009.
4i. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes December
2, 2009.
Mr. Harmening noted that consent calendar item 4c relating to the Green Building Policy
will incorporate the changes made earlier at the Economic Development Authority meeting.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all
resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
Mayor Jacobs stated the Council was interviewing candidates prior to the Council meeting
this evening and expressed the Council’s thanks to everybody who came in to interview.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to consider granting an on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor license
for JIMX Inc., doing business as Grand City Buffet, Inc.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Ms. Stroth presented the staff report and indicated that JIMX, Inc. has applied for an on-sale
wine and 3.2 malt liquor license for its restaurant at 8914 Highway 7. She explained that
due to a change in ownership, the applicants have made application for a new liquor license
with a license term of March 1, 2010 to March 1, 2011.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed
the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve an
on-sale wine and 3.2 malt liquor licenses to JIMX, Inc. dba Grand City Buffet, Inc., located
at 8914 Highway 7 for the license term through March 1, 2011.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. Public Hearing to Consider Allocation of 2010 Grant Year Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds.
Resolution No. 10-018
Ms. Larsen presented the staff report and stated the City will receive $206,455 in federal
CDBG funds in 2010. She stated the City’s proposed use of CDBG funds reflects the
priorities described in the City’s Vision Statement and the City’s housing goals in the
Comprehensive Plan. She indicated this year’s proposed funding focuses on assisting low
income single family homeowners with rehab loans, with a proposed budget of $128,955
and grants limited to $4,000. She noted that the demand for low-income deferred loans is
high and the waiting list has grown to over twelve residents. She stated that the remaining
CDBG budget includes $30,000 for emergency repair grants, $20,000 for housing land
trust, $20,000 for Housing Authority renovation of a scattered site home, and $7,500 for
park improvements at Meadowbrook and Ainsworth Parks.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed
the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-018 approving proposed use of 2010 Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant Program Funds and authorizing execution of
Subrecipient Agreement with Hennepin County and any Third Party Agreements.
Councilmember Finkelstein expressed his thanks to staff for increasing the funding
allocation for low income deferred loans.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Utility Rates
Resolution No. 10-019
Mr. Swanson presented the staff report and stated that City staff analyzed the City’s utility
operations and capital plans over the next ten years and determined that rate adjustments are
needed to maintain long term stability in each of the four utility funds; the City Council
reviewed the results of this analysis on January 11 and 25. He stated that the proposed
variable water rate reflects an 8¢ increase per unit (750 gallons) of water up to 30,000 gallons
and a fixed rate increase of approximately 50¢ per quarter for residential users. He explained
that variable sewer rates will reflect a 20 cent increase per unit per quarter and the fixed base
sewer charge will increase by 75¢, to $11.40 per quarter. He stated that storm water rates
will increase by $1.00 per quarter, and solid waste rates will increase by 4% for most users, or
between $1.65 and $2.54 per quarter. He noted that the 2010 proposed rates are
comparable to neighboring communities and the rate increases will ensure long range
stability in repairing and maintaining the City’s system.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 10-019 setting utility rates.
Councilmember Sanger expressed the City Council’s appreciation to staff for assisting
Council in implementing appropriate rate increases. She stated that residents need to
understand that these rate increases do not fully cover all capital costs for the City’s aging
infrastructure and that additional rate increases or additional bonding by the City may be
needed in the future to help cover these costs and to meet the needs of the City.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the City is considering bonding for some of these
costs so that the burden does not fall entirely on the homeowner in the near term, but rather
paid off over time. This approach will add more cost to the projects due to issuance and
interest costs though. He added that the City is also in the process of determining
appropriate rates for commercial water users.
The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Omodt opposed).
8b. Construction Manager Agreement for Fire Stations Project
Mr. Walther presented the staff report and stated that Kraus-Anderson has been selected to
serve as construction manager for this project and Kraus-Anderson will assist City staff in
managing the project through the design and construction phases, and the services will
provide opportunities for the City to realize cost savings during the design process. He
stated that in addition, Kraus-Anderson will provide on-site supervision services for the
project. He explained that Kraus-Anderson will be paid an amount not to exceed $658,335
and includes personnel and reimbursable expenses and Kraus-Anderson’s fixed fee based on
the project scope. It represents 4.7% of the estimated $14 million project budget.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Mr. Terry Hart, Director of Operations for Kraus-Anderson, stated he would serve as Project
Director and would provide corporate oversight and support to the project team throughout
the project. He stated that Kraus-Anderson has consistently ranked in the top 50 nationally
as a general contractor and provider of construction management services, and they are
excited to be working with the City.
Mr. Brian Hook, Pre-Construction Manager for Kraus-Anderson, stated he would serve as
senior project manager and would be working primarily on all pre-construction aspects of
the project.
Mr. Steve Seidl, Project Superintendent for Kraus-Anderson, stated he would serve as field
superintendent/project superintendent, including all demolition and site work.
Mr. Pat Sims, Project Manager for Kraus-Anderson, stated this project is the City’s first
project using a construction manager delivery method, and Kraus-Anderson is eager to prove
the benefits of this approach. He indicated that it is very evident the City of St. Louis Park
is very connected with the community and he assured the City Council that Kraus-Anderson
will work hard to make certain they are good neighbors to the residents during construction
and that site safety will be of paramount importance.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated that the use of a construction manager will not appear to
save the City any money versus using a general contractor. He asked if there are advantages
to using a construction manager. He also asked if Kraus-Anderson can provide any
assurances to the City that it will be in business five years from now, particularly given the
strained economic times.
Mr. Sims stated the City will realize cost savings as part of the overall process because each of
the different trades will come in to the project with direct bids; that direct bid amount is
what the City will pay and will not include any general contractor upcharges. He added that
by using a construction manager, each aspect of the project can be scrutinized to ensure the
project is coming in at budget.
Mr. Hart stated that Kraus-Anderson has been in business for 112 years and has the financial
wherewithal to maintain its strong position in the community.
Mr. Hook stated that construction reports and updates will be generated by the project team,
and these reports will include information with respect to whether something is over or
under budget through each stage of preliminary design, bidding and construction.
Councilmember Santa asked if the Green Building Policy would apply to this project.
Mr. Walther replied in the affirmative and stated the policy was included in the RFP process.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Ross, to approve an
Agreement with Kraus-Anderson Construction Company for Construction Manager Services
related to the proposed construction of Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2.
Councilmember Omodt requested that the record reflect that Kraus-Anderson has been a
client of his in the past year.
Mr. Scott stated that Councilmember Omodt’s disclosure would not disqualify him from
voting.
Mr. Walther stated that staff is in the process of hiring the rest of the design team and the
architects for the project; construction could begin as early as fall 2011. He added that the
design process will include public participation.
Councilmember Sanger expressed the City Council’s thanks to Mr. Walther and staff for all
their work on the project.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs stated the Empty Bowls event to benefit STEP will be held on March 44th at
the Rec Center from 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. and again from 4:00-7:00 p.m.
Mayor Jacobs stated the Children First annual meeting is scheduled for March 11th at 7:00
p.m. at Methodist Hospital.
Councilmember Santa reminded residents of the Home Remodeling Fair on Sunday,
February 28th, at Eisenhower Community Center.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
City Council Workshop Session – Looking In/Looking Out
Methodist Hospital Board and Conference Rooms
6500 Excelsior Boulevard
February 19-20, 2010
The meeting convened at 4:25 p.m. called to order by Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Sue Sanger, Anne
Mavity, Sue Santa and Julia Ross. Councilmember Finkelstein left at 6 p.m.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman) and
Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg).
Workshop Session – February 19, 2010
Council and staff met and discussed the following:
A. Council Skills
Gregorc Styles, Communication and Leadership. Council discussed approaches to
communication, conflict, team and decision making.
B. Carver Governance Model
Nancy Gohman and Bridget Gothberg presented the model and an overview. Council
shared comments, asked questions and provided examples of how this works with our
Council. Council conducted an exercise on Carver Governance and setting ends through the
use of bowls.
C. Mobius Model
Bridget Gothberg reviewed the Mobius Model and Council discussed how it works for both
staff and council effectiveness.
D. City Council Norms
Council started to draft City Council norms. It was agreed that this will continue when all
Council are present.
The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Workshop Session – February 20, 2010
The meeting convened at 8:40 a.m. called to order by Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Sue Sanger, Anne
Mavity, Sue Santa and Julia Ross. Councilmember Finkelstein left at 11:30 a.m. Councilmember
Omodt left at 1:30 p.m.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman,
Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires),
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Inspections Director
(Mr. Hoffman), Parks & Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Police Chief (Mr. Luse) and Public
Works Director (Mr. Rardin). Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker) and Housing Program
Coordinator (Ms. Larsen) present for demographics presentation.
Council and staff reviewed and shared insights from the previous evening’s workshop and discussed:
A. Mega-Forces and Trends
Michele Schnitker and Kathy Larsen presented materials on demographics, trends and
research related to changes that may impact our city. Council and staff conducted small
group discussions on how trends will relate, impact and align with the work we do now to
prepare for the future. Council listed areas or considerations that may be reviewed or
researched. Council and staff had a large group dialogue about the small group process. It
was the consensus of the Council that the strategic direction of Vision is in alignment and
our continued focus as we look at trends and the future.
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 22, 2010
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Temporary Liquor License Most Holy Trinity Parish
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and noted that approval of the temporary liquor
license is contingent upon successful completion of the background check by the Police
Department. He stated that the applicant had requested a temporary liquor license for
February 26th and another date in March; however, by state law, events have to be more than
30 days apart which means the applicant will be unable to serve beer at its March event.
Councilmember Mavity stated that this is the second year in a row in which Most Holy
Trinity Parish has requested a temporary liquor license on very short notice. She asked that
staff remind the church of the City’s notice requirements for a temporary liquor license and
to encourage the church to comply with the Ordinance in the future.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve a
Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Most Holy Trinity Parish, 4017 Utica
Avenue South, for a Fish Fry Event to be held on Friday, February 26, 2010 contingent on a
successful background investigation.
The motion passed 7-0.
3. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 6:39 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
FEBRUARY 22, 2010
The meeting convened at 6:40 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Phil Finkelstein, Anne Mavity, Paul Omodt, Julia
Ross, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Police Chief
(Mr. Luse), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Kraayenbrink), Police Lieutenant (Ms. Dreier), Police Lieutenant
(Mr. Harcey), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Senior
Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes).
Guests: Police Advisory Commission Members Hans Widmer and Ken Huiras.
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – March 1 and March 8, 2010
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for March 1 and the proposed
study session agenda for March 8, 2010. He stated that pursuant to Council’s request, staff and the
City Attorney will discuss possible revisions to the City’s rental licensing ordinance prior to the
regular Council meeting on March 1st. He added staff will also provide Council with an update on
8400 Minnetonka Boulevard at the March 1st special study session.
Mr. Harmening stated the March 8th study session agenda includes the primer requested by the City
Council on tax increment financing and bond issuance because the City will be issuing some bonds
in the near future.
Councilmember Mavity asked that the March 8th study session discussion regarding School District
facility plans focus on key implications of their decision on the City.
2. 2009 Police Advisory Commission (PAC) Annual Report and 2010 Work Plan (with
Commission)
Mr. Luse presented the staff report and the PAC’s 2009 annual report and 2010 work plan.
Mr. Widmer stated the PAC had a productive year and is pleased with its work on traffic-related
issues. He stated the PAC is looking for other media outlets, beyond cable TV, to expand its public
safety announcements. He discussed the PAC’s ongoing work with the Human Rights Commission,
particularly with respect to police traffic stops. He stated the PAC’s golf tournament earned $2,200
for the Crime Prevention Fund; the 2010 golf tournament will be held the Friday after Labor Day
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 2
with the goal of increasing participation and donations. He added the proceeds from the golf
tournament are used to fund education programs, bike rodeos, DARE supplies, and occasionally the
funds are used for rewards.
Councilmember Santa encouraged the PAC to further educate the public about what the funds are
used for in the Crime Prevention Fund.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the public service announcement on police traffic stops could
be done in Somalian and Russian. He also suggested that the PAC give consideration to printing
cards in several languages that could be handed out during a police traffic stop which contain
telephone numbers to call for translator services.
Mr. Widmer agreed this would be a good team project with the Human Rights Commission.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the PAC look for ways to promote outreach to immigrants
who may be wary of our public safety approach, and suggested the PAC work with the Human
Rights Commission to help bridge that gap.
Councilmember Ross asked what the PAC is doing in terms of education and prevention regarding
domestic violence.
Mr. Luse stated the police protocols on domestic violence are thorough. He agreed that general
education and prevention of domestic violence would be an important issue for discussion by the
PAC.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that the PAC also give consideration to education regarding
mental health issues, e.g., how to help people who are not taking their medication because they
cannot afford it.
Councilmember Santa stated that she has heard concerns from a number of constituents about cut-
through traffic and speeding traffic in their neighborhoods as a result of road closures and road
construction. She suggested the PAC consider some public education for residents and drivers that
addresses these issues.
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s appreciation to the Police Advisory Commission for its
dedicated efforts. He added the City Council is currently interviewing candidates for the PAC.
3. Update on Public Safety Dispatch
Mr. Luse presented the staff report.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that Councilmember Finkelstein had earlier suggested that staff provide
the Council with an analysis of the specific items the City should focus on as it reviews the four
options for public safety dispatch services outlined in Chief Luse’s report; the results of that analysis
should be completed by mid-March.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 3
Mr. Luse presented four possible options for dispatch services currently under consideration, and
noted that service level and budget are among the key variables for their analysis. He indicated
under options one and three they would remain fairly stable and unchanged, but there was further
analysis to be done. He stated that the planned software upgrades are in the cue right now, but staff
is putting a soft hold on the upgrades until it is determined how the City will handle dispatch
services after December 31, 2010.
The Council discussed 911 funding and how the fund is split between Golden Valley and the City.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if any of the funds in the budget will be depleted when Golden
Valley terminates its contact.
Mr. Luse stated that staff is currently making a determination as to whether Golden Valley’s current
funding will go to the County if the County accepts Golden Valley’s request to provide public safety
dispatch services.
Councilmember Sanger asked when the County will makes its decision on Golden Valley’s request.
Mr. Harmening stated the Hennepin County Board is scheduled to discuss this item in March, but
it is unclear when the County will make its final decision.
Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding comparable cities and how much each
city spends on dispatch services provided by Hennepin County.
Councilmember Sanger requested a side-by-side comparison of costs as it relates to each of the four
options outlined in Mr. Luse’s report. She also requested that this comparison include information
regarding potential cost savings, response times, and services that might be compromised.
Mr. Luse stated that staff will also be conducting an analysis of Dakota County’s new county-wide
shared services system.
4. Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Update
Mr. Olson presented the staff report. He stated that as the Phase 2 work is being concluded, staff
has already met with Greg Anderson of Anderson Builders to review the project particularly since
Option 4 significantly impacts his property. He added that a meeting will also be held in early
March with the owners of Louisiana Oaks; they have expressed concerns about the tight diamond
option due to the close proximity of the entrance ramp and retaining wall. He stated that the
Project Management Team is recommending that staff move into the Phase 3 work with both
Option 4 and Option 6 in order to give staff further time to analyze which option is more favorable
from the perspective of redevelopment needs and opportunities.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 4
Councilmember Sanger requested that staff identify for the Council those factors it deems most
important in deciding between Option 4 and Option 6, including cost, safety, and that lists the pros
and cons of each option.
Mayor Jacobs noted that staff was going to provide further information with respect to having the
roundabouts in Option 4, but with traffic signals on Louisiana Avenue, and whether there is a
legitimate concern that the signals would result in traffic backing up in the roundabouts.
Mr. Olson indicated that intersection controls will be studied during the next phase. He discussed
project costs between Option 4 and Option 6, and indicated that Option 6’s construction and right-
of-way costs are estimated to be $21 million, while Option 4’s construction and right-of-way costs
are estimated to be $17 million. He pointed out that engineering costs and property takings are not
included in these figures.
It was the majority opinion of the City Council that Option 4 presented the most viable alternative
and provided the best fit for the neighborhood. It was the consensus of the City Council to move
forward with Phase 3 (Preliminary Design and Environmental Assessment), and to continue to
pursue County and Federal funding for the project.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested that staff provide the Council with the matrix that listed all of
the project options and the background on each option.
Councilmember Sanger indicated that when the Council looks at the criteria for each of the options,
consideration needs to be given to the development opportunities that may be lost and whether there
is a difference in terms of developable and accessible land that could be developed under each
scenario. She stated this land use analysis could potentially bolster the City’s chances for obtaining
County and/or Federal funding for the project.
5. Sidewalk Repair Pilot Project
Mr. Rardin presented the staff report. He explained that a new sidewalk trip fault repair method has
recently been developed and staff is interested in conducting a pilot project utilizing the new repair
method, consisting of two weeks of repair work to repair approximately 400 trip faults, at a cost of
about $20,000; the project would be completed this spring. He added that the sidewalk repair
project will compliment the City’s pavement management areas so that sidewalk repairs are
completed, to the extent possible, at the same time as road improvements.
It was the consensus of the City Council to proceed with the sidewalk repair pilot project. Mr.
Rardin was asked to provide Council with a map of the areas proposed to be repaired.
6. Human Rights Commission Annual Report and Work Plan
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 5
Mayor Jacobs stated he recently attended a free event on the history of Africa that was presented by
the Mixed Blood Theater, sponsored by a student organization at the high school, in honor of Black
History Month. He stated he felt this type of production was something the Human Rights
Commission should be sponsoring.
Councilmember Sanger concurred with Mayor Jacobs and added the focus of the Council’s
discussion should be on the Human Rights Commission’s 2010 work plan. She stated that she felt
the Commission’s work should focus locally and should focus on issues with immigrant groups
within the community; another area of focus for the Commission should be events or processes that
promote community members talking to each other. She added that the crux of the work should
strive to help St. Louis Park residents to be more open to people who come here from other parts of
the world and to have more respectful dialogue. She questioned the intent of the Human Rights
Commission’s proposed resolution about foreign policy.
Councilmember Mavity agreed that the Commission should focus locally, but all within the context
that we are all citizens of the world.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated it would be helpful to invite the Human Rights Commission to a
study session meeting to discuss their proposed resolution as well as their 2010 work plan. He
requested that this meeting be scheduled when the Council has a lighter study session agenda.
The Council discussed the Human Rights Commission’s proposed 2010 work plan and the role of
the Human Rights Commission as it relates to the City Council.
Councilmember Mavity stated it would be helpful to see the Commission’s 2009 goals to determine
if the Commission accomplished all of its goals and to hold the Commission accountable. She also
requested that staff provide a comparison of the Commission’s bylaws with the proposed revisions.
It was the consensus of the City Council to hold a study session discussion to examine and discuss in
greater detail the mission and by-laws of the HRC and come to agreement on any changes. After
that discussion is completed the Council indicated it would then like to meet with the HRC.
Councilmember Sanger stated she felt that a communication was owed to the Human Rights
Commission regarding its proposed resolution in the context of the bigger picture items the City
Council will be addressing in the near future.
7. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening presented a memo regarding the Highway 7/Wooddale interchange project. He
stated that a large Met Council sanitary sewer force-main needs to be rebuilt which will result in the
south frontage road and Wooddale Avenue between 36th Street and Highway 7 being closed
beginning March 3rd. He stated that notification to the neighborhoods is being sent via email, and
that the City’s website and social media will contain information regarding the road closure, and
signs will be posted in the area tomorrow.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 6
Mr. Harmening stated he recently received a request from Ann Thomas, who is active in the
Parktacular event, requesting time with the City Council to discuss the event and specifically some
survey work recently completed. The Council expressed a willingness to meet with Parktacular
representatives.
Councilmember Sanger requested that the survey data be provided to the Council in advance.
Mr. Harmening stated this item will be placed on an upcoming study session.
Mr. Harmening discussed with the Council a process for completing an evaluation of the City
Attorneys performance.
Councilmember Sanger stated that her request is specific to the advice the City Council receives
from a particular individual, and asked that the meeting be closed.
It was the consensus of the City Council to schedule a closed meeting for this purpose.
Mr. Pires provided an update regarding the agreement with LocaLoop and reported that he recently
met with LocaLoop’s President, Tim Johnson, who indicated LocaLoop has run into some financial
challenges such that LocaLoop will not be leasing watertower space initially. He added LocaLoop is
still interested in leasing fiber, but only three miles of fiber as opposed to the seven miles of fiber
previously discussed. He stated LocaLoop indicated that it will not lease the watertower space
because of engineering requirements to weld the brackets to the watertowers and this has proven to
be price prohibitive for LocaLoop. He reported that LocaLoop is looking to lease fiber from a
privately owned tower on Gorham, leasing the fiber up Louisiana Avenue to a private location, and
mounting antennas on Parkdale. He stated this significantly scales down the amount of fiber that
LocaLoop is leasing from the City and the agreement will be amended to reflect these changes; the
City Council will take action on the agreement at its March 1st Council meeting.
The City Council discussed the agreement with LocaLoop and expressed significant concern
regarding LocaLoop’s financial wherewithal and its ability to provide city-wide coverage.
Mr. Pires asked the Council if it wished to pursue the agreement with LocaLoop with the
understanding that any agreement will protect the City from a legal, financial and credibility
standpoint.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was not comfortable taking action on the LocaLoop agreement on March 1st.
He added that the Telecommunications Advisory Commission needs to be asked for input on this
prior to Council action.
Mr. Pires reported that Clearwire has recently completed its application process and Clearwire will
be on the March 1st City Council agenda for its watertower leases.
The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 3e) Page 7
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
8. January, 2010 Monthly Financial Report
9. 2009 Annual Housing Programs Report and Housing Matrix
10. Proposed Common Driveway between Ellipse on Excelsior and former American Inn
properties
11. Composting Ordinance Revision
12. MCES Golden Valley and Hopkins Interceptor Projects Update
13. Broadband Funding Opportunities
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: March 1, 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:
Traffic Study No. 617: Authorize Permit Parking Restrictions at 3026 Salem Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of permit parking in front of 3026 Salem
Avenue South, Traffic Study 617.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority.
BACKGROUND:
In January of 2010, staff received a request by Mr. Al Jones to restrict on-street parking in front of
his mother’s house at 3026 Salem Avenue South. Mr. Jones’s mother, Ms. Verneice Jones, needs
accessible parking for transportation pickup and drop off by Metro Mobility. Due to other on-street
parking which occurs on this street, Mr. Jones has requested the City install permit parking in front
of his mother’s home.
Staff has discussed this request with Mr. Jones. Installation of handicapped parking signs is not
feasible since the parking stall design requirements cannot be met on this local street. However, the
City’s Traffic Policy and past practice do allow for permit parking in this situation. It has been the
City’s practice to use permit parking, which can then be removed when the individual needing the
access no longer resides there or no longer needs the access. In this case, Mr. Jones’s mother requires
the parking restrictions.
Staff considers the resident’s request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking for
handicap access at 3026 Salem Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the following:
1. The resident of the household has limited mobility and is eligible for a disabled person’s
parking permit.
2. Parking conflicts with neighbors will be eliminated.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting this restriction is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF PERMIT
PARKING IN FRONT OF 3026 SALEM AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 617
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it is
in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance in front
of 3026 Salem Avenue South.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless the
vehicle prominently displays a City-issued parking permit. Emergency vehicles, governmental
vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while work is conducted are exempt from these
restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain in
effect until the resident no longer needs the restriction or has moved.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Permit parking at 3026 Salem Avenue South
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2010
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
5125
3021
3031
5219 5201
3025
3035
5209 5207
3013
3016
3032
3036
3044
3033
3040
3020
3026
3045
3029
3045
3048
3021
3047
3030
5221
5224 5124
0
5112
SALEM AVE SMINNETONKA BLVD
TS 617: Authorize Permit Parking
at 3026 Salem Avenue South
Proposed Permit Parking
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4a)Page 4
Meeting Date: March 1, 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:
Traffic Study No. 618: Authorize Permit Parking Restrictions on the east side of the 3300 Block of
Dakota Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 88-161 and authorizing installation of
permit parking on the east side of the 3300 Block of Dakota Avenue South, Traffic Study No. 618.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
This restriction is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority.
BACKGROUND:
In the fall of 2009, a resident of the east side of the 3300 block of Dakota Avenue South contacted
staff to request that parking restrictions on her block be changed from “No Parking 7 a.m. to 6
p.m.” to “Permit Parking Only 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on School Days” to match the restrictions in the
surrounding area. The resident stated that she and other residents on the block have a limited
amount of off-street parking and would like to have more available on-street.
The current parking restrictions on the east side of the 3300 block of Dakota Avenue were put into
place in 1988, around the same time that permit parking around the senior high school was enacted.
The residents on the 3300 block of Dakota Avenue preferred the “No Parking” restrictions to permit
parking at that time. There is one residence with permit parking on the street in front of the house,
due to a medical need. The proposed changes will not affect that restriction.
Staff sent a letter to the residents of the east side of the 3300 block of Dakota Avenue requesting
feedback on this request. No responses were received. As there appears to be no opposition to this
request, and the proposed change does not place any additional restrictions on parking, staff is
recommending approval of the attached resolution rescinding the old restrictions and enacting
permit parking on the east side of the 3300 block of Dakota Avenue.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost of enacting this restriction is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott A. Brink, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 10-_____
RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 88-161 AND
AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF PERMIT PARKING
ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 3300 BLOCK OF DAKOTA AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 618
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that
traffic controls are necessary at these locations, and
WHEREAS, existing parking Resolution No. 88-161 currently prescribes traffic controls in
this area which are no longer relevant.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that Resolution No. 88-161 be rescinded.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following controls:
“Permit Parking Only 7 a.m. to 4 p.m. on School Days” on the east side of Dakota Avenue
South from 33rd Street West to the north side of the driveway of 3345 Dakota Avenue
South.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted in the area restricted
by permit parking unless the vehicle prominently displays a City issued parking permit. Emergency
vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while work is conducted
are exempt from the permit parking restrictions.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2010
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
DAKOTA AVE S33RD ST W
LAKE ST WEDGEWOOD AVE S34TH ST W
33RD ST W
TS 618: Authorize Permit Parking on the
East Side of the 3300 Block of Dakota Avenue
Proposed Permit Parking
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4b)Page 4
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Leases
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Antenna Lease Agreements with Clear Wireless LLC – EWT #2 at 5100 Park Glen Road, EWT #3
at 8301 W. 34th Street, and EWT #4 at 2541 Nevada Avenue South.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve three lease agreements between the City and Clear Wireless LLC (Clearwire) for
communication antennas (broadband) on the three water towers located at 5100 Park Glen Road,
8301 W. 34th Street, and 2541 Nevada Avenue South.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to enter into the lease agreements with Clearwire?
BACKGROUND:
The City currently has 10 leases with five vendors for cell phone antennas on City water towers.
Clearwire is proposing to install antennas on these three water towers as part of a metro-wide
broadband communications network. An individual lease has been negotiated for each tower. These
three leases are the first antenna leases the City has negotiated with Clearwire.
These lease agreements are based on the City’s standard water tower antenna lease agreement earlier
developed by the City. The City Attorney has assisted in the preparation and review of these three
lease agreements.
EWT #2 located at 5100 Park Glen Road
The agreement provides for the following:
• Placement of six antennas, 130’ above the ground.
• The antenna configuration proposes two round 24” dishes, one round 12” dish and three -
42” directional panels mounted approximately ¾ up the tower and painted to match the
color of the tower. While the antennas will be visible they will not be obtrusive and will not
extend above the tower in any way.
• Five year initial lease term with four additional five year renewals.
• Prorated Rent of $17,160 for Year 1 with a 5% escalator for each year of the Agreement
(rent is subject to change if additional antennas are added in the future). There is also a one-
time administrative fee of $1,000.00.
• Communications equipment will be installed on the mezzanine located inside the tower.
The equipment will be built, installed, and maintained by Clearwire.
• Right of pre-emption by the City if necessary for public safety communication needs.
• Non-exclusive use allowing the City to lease available space to other providers.
• Appropriate termination provisions, insurances and protections.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
EWT #3 located at 8301 W. 34th Street
The agreement provides for the following:
• Placement of six antennas, 130’ above the ground.
• The antenna configuration proposes three round 24” dishes and three - 42” directional
panels mounted on the handrail approximately 1/2 up the bowl portion of the tower and
painted to match the color of the tower. While the antennas will be visible they will not be
obtrusive and will not extend above the tower in any way.
• Five year initial lease term with four additional five year renewals.
• Prorated Rent of $17,160 for Year 1 with a 5% escalator for each year of the Agreement
(rent is subject to change if additional antennas are added in the future). There is also a one-
time administrative fee of $1,000.00.
• Communications equipment will be mounted on a 7’x7’ concrete pad under the tower inside
the existing cyclone fence. The equipment will be built, installed, and maintained by
Clearwire.
• Right of pre-emption by the City if necessary for public safety communication needs.
• Non-exclusive use allowing the City to lease available space to other providers.
• Appropriate termination provisions, insurances and protections.
EWT #4 located at 2541 Nevada Avenue South
The agreement provides for the following:
• Placement of five antennas, 130’ above the ground.
• The antenna configuration proposes two round 24” dishes and three - 42” directional panels
mounted on the handrail approximately 1/2 up the bowl portion of the tower and painted to
match the color of the tower. While the antennas will be visible they will not be obtrusive
and will not extend above the tower in any way.
• Five year initial lease term with four additional five year renewals.
• Rent of $14,300 for Year 1 with a 5% escalator for each year of the Agreement (rent is
subject to change if additional antennas are added in the future). There is also a one-time
administrative fee of $1,000.00.
• Communications equipment will be mounted on a 7’x7’ concrete pad under the tower inside
the existing cyclone fence. The equipment will be built, installed, and maintained by
Clearwire.
• Right of pre-emption by the City if necessary for public safety communication needs.
• Non-exclusive use allowing the City to lease available space to other providers.
• Appropriate termination provisions, insurances and protections.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Staff has negotiated the lease revenue amount using the rent formula established for previous
antenna contracts. The Year 1 lease rent amount is listed below, with a 5% escalation factor for each
following year of the contract. The proceeds from the leases are deposited in the Water Fund.
EWT #2 5100 Park Glen Road $17,160.00
EWT #3 8301 W. 34th St $17,160.00
EWT #4 2541 Nevada Ave. S $14,300.00
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 1, 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:
Final Payment Resolution - Contract 85-09 Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. – Project Nos. 2009-
0003, 0004, & 0006.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $17,619.92 and accepting
work for the 2009 Random Concrete Repair with Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. Project Nos. 2009-
0003, 0004, & 0006, City Contract No. 85-09.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
City Council approved and authorized the Random Concrete Repair Project - City Project Nos.
2009-0003, 0004, & 0006 which was advertised, bid and awarded to Ron Kassa Construction, Inc.
on July 6, 2009 in the amount of $219,653.75. This project included annual repair and
construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the
City.
The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (25 days) at a final contract
cost of $149,259.90, with an under run of $70,393.85.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for this project was accounted for in the Public Works Operations Budget, Stormwater
Utility Budget, and the Pavement Management Budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE
AMOUNT OF $17,619.92 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE
2009 RANDOM CONCRETE REPAIR PROJECT
WITH RON KASSA CONSTRUCTION, ICN.
CITY PROJECT NOS. 2009-0003, 0004, & 0006
CONTRACT NO. 85-09
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated July 6, 2009, Ron Kassa Construction,
Inc. has satisfactorily completed the 2009 Random Concrete Repair contract, as per Contract No.
85-09.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 219,653.75
Change Order .00
Underrun 70,393.85
Contract Amount $ 149,259.90
Previous Payments 131,639.98
Balance Due $ 17,619.92
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Date: March 1, 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:
Approve Right of Way Purchase – Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-
1700.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $45,000 for Parcel 5 (6017 35th
Street West) and authorize the City Attorney to execute stipulation of settlement.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
BACKGROUND:
History:
At the February 2, 2009 City Council meeting, Council approved a resolution Authorizing
Condemnation of Land for Public Purposes for the Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project.
Prior to that action, specific right of way needs were determined and appraisals for six identified
properties were conducted.
Since the action taken a year ago, the City Attorney commenced eminent domain proceedings
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire the necessary land over the six properties
identified. Pursuant to the “quick take” provisions of Minnesota Statutes, the City Attorney has
negotiated a settlement with the legal representatives of Parcel 5 (6017 35th Street West) in the total
amount of $45,000. The City’s appraisal is in the amount of $35,000. The property owner would
be entitled to appraisal reimbursement up to $5,000 if the matter is not settled. The City Attorney
recommends approval of the settlement. The Parcel 5 property is located along the east side of
Wooddale Avenue at 35th Street, and the acquisition provides additional space for widening of the
roadway and sidewalk construction.
Negotiations and condemnation settlements are still proceeding on the other five properties. These
properties include on the south side of Highway 7, McGarvey Coffee (Sara Lee) and SPS (Apex
Realty). Smaller amounts of right of way needed on the north side of the road way include the St.
Louis Park School District (Central Community Center) and from the small office building at the
northeast corner of the Highway 7/Wooddale intersection. As negotiations are finalized on these
remaining properties, similar purchase authorizations will be presented to Council.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
FINANCIAL AND BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The project budget as previously presented anticipates right of way acquisition costs, and is being
funded through the City’s share of the project costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus will be on:
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources
affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Hwy. 100 and SWLRT.
Attachments: SRF Plan Sheet – Parcel 5 Location
Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works
Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4e)Page 3
Meeting Date: March 1, 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:
Minnesota City/County Management Association (MCMA) Internship Program.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to support the City of St. Louis Park’s application for MCMA Internship program funding
and participation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to support the application of matching funding, up to $5,000, for
participation in the MCMA internship program?
BACKGROUND:
The City of St. Louis Park has the opportunity to apply for matching funds, up to $5,000, to assist
in funding an intern. In our 2010 budget, we do allow $10,000 for funding an intern to help with
citywide projects, and such funds are in the Administrative Services budget. If we are able to obtain
this funding we will be able to extend our budgeted funding to assist with project work across the
organization in 2010. We ask for Council’s support of the following program:
Overview
The MCMA internship is designed to provide a talented young person with real life experience
working in local government management. The program is envisioned to promote and ensure a
high level of effectiveness in local government administration and public service delivery. The
MCMA Board has allocated $5,000 to be awarded to a jurisdiction to fund an intern. The City of
Hugo hosted the first MCMA intern during 2009.
Goals
1. To encourage and promote interest in all areas of local government, concentrating on local
government administration and economic/community development activities by providing the
intern with learning opportunities and practical experience.
2. To promote an internship for students in various areas of government degree programs or to
provide recent graduates with practical, real world experiences to develop their capacity to obtain
employment in the local government sector, specifically the public management tract.
3. To develop the real world management skills necessary for the next generation of managers to
lead successful and effective public organizations. This will be accomplished through positive
participation in important city and county projects and responsibilities.
Funding
Up to $5,000. At minimum, a $5,000 match from the jurisdiction is required.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Participant Requirements
The program is envisioned for students in their final year at a graduate level program in public
administration/policy/urban studies or recently graduated Master’s students.
Selection Requirements
Jurisdiction
• MCMA Affiliated City or County.
• Work plan of 2-3 pages detailing intern’s duties, what experiences the jurisdiction intends to
convey, and the approach to intern’s development.
• Designate a principal mentor to be responsible for the intern’s professional development.
• Letter of intent from governing board of commitment to the program and for matching funding.
• Minimum of 30 hours/week, with flexibility to set more hours and rate of pay.
• Applicant may be one jurisdiction or collaboration of two or more jurisdictions that will
collectively share the intern’s time.
Selection Criteria
The MCMA Board and Next Generation Committee will consider the following criteria in selecting
the jurisdiction.
• Higher Ratio of employer dollars contributed to the internship position.
• Quality of the proposed work tasks and exposure to public administration and local government
management.
• Program of supervision and mentorship opportunities.
Intern Applicants will be providing: a resume, 3 page statement of goals on why they are pursuing
public management and local government administration and up to 3 letters of recommendation
Process
• February 26th - Jurisdictions submit proposals.
• March – Next Generation Committee will review and recommend to MCMA Board.
• March or early April - MCMA Board will select jurisdiction.
• April – May Successful jurisdiction recruits, interviews, and recommends intern.
NEXT STEPS:
A letter of program support will be drafted once Council has approved the program.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
We have $10,000 allocated in the Administrative Services budget for an Intern in 2010. By securing
the $5,000 funding, we will be able to extend the use of the Intern to help with a variety of projects,
analysis and duties in our organization.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: March 1, 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 February 12, 2010 through February 26,
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
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
25.00COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES3CMA
25.00
62.52FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
62.52
566.97TREE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLSA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
566.97
1,032.37EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONADLER, LAURA
1,032.37
220.30WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSADVANTAGE IQ MS 1386
220.30
3,690.00OFFICE EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESAECOM INC
3,690.00
1,658.902008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESAECOM USA INC
1,658.90
88.86WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESAFTON CEDAR WORKS
88.86
1,370.00BOILER MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
1,370.00
147.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYAMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
147.80
143.52PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
90.16PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
148.35ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
90.16VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
103.73WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
103.73SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
679.65
1,356.68PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
1,356.68
280.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL REPAIRSANCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 2
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
280.00
193.102008A UTIL REV BOND PROJECT RENTAL BUILDINGSAPPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS
193.10
257.12ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
257.12
1,000.00OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENTAL BUILDINGSARCA MINNESOTA INC
1,000.00
4,299.47OFFICE EQUIPMENT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIARTEKA COMPANIES LLC
4,299.47
130.54PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYASPEN EQUIPMENT CO
130.54
628.50WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
628.50
176.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAWWA
176.00
24.95PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSBETTER ROADS MAGAZINE
24.95
151.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
151.00
170.76PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYBOYER TRUCK PARTS
170.76
509.25PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
509.25
51.00ASSESSING G & A MEETING EXPENSEBULTEMA, CORY
140.80ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
191.80
2,075.00BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBUMGARNER, DON
2,075.00
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 3
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
7,091.40ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
885.00CABLE TV G & A LEGAL SERVICES
60.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
300.00WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES
450.00REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES
8,786.40
133.76WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSESCANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
133.76
2,037.99DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
2,037.99
1,886.90DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
1,886.90
5,693.40FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY
3,747.22PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS
370.05WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS
426.72NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS
8,734.13WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
420.67REILLY G & A HEATING GAS
1,124.18SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS
20,516.37
5,865.96FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
12,087.21ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
17,953.17
72.95-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCENTRAL ENVELOPE CORPORATION
1,133.98PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,061.03
285.88GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECHIEF'S TOWING INC
285.88
375.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHURCHILL, LEE
375.00
9.85-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
37.88ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
26.99ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 4
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
540.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
390.11ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
20.56HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES
76.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES
300.65HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
50.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
23.27HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
819.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING
33.98COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A MEETING EXPENSE
137.31DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
7.09NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
163.04DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
85.81OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
21.42OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
385.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
514.92OPERATIONSTRAINING
135.00OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
49.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING
193.06PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
47.03ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
200.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
11.55-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
35.22ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
79.09BROOMBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
35.00TENNISSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
350.92BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
43.73WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
635.00WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
90.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
112.27BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
1,238.88CABLE TV G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
25.72CABLE TV G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
124.20TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
45.00TV PRODUCTION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
10.53EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES
291.29EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT REPAIRS
5.08SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES
36.98SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MEETING EXPENSE
6.21-TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
557.34TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT
7,945.76
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 5
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
21.40CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
21.40
225.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLWELL, JOE
225.00
90.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCOSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP
90.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
180.00
256.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCURRAN-MOORE, KIM
256.00
2,925.00NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTD&B POWER ASSOCIATES INC
2,925.00
11,070.89WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
11,070.89
113.40WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESDAY-TIMERS INC
113.40
2,412.97POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
2,412.97
1,947.50PPL LOUISIANA COURT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
570.00SUNSET RIDGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,000.001999 GO IMPROVE BONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,090.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,090.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,090.00SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,090.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,877.50
16.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEINZIG, DEBORAH
16.00
1,640.53ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR
1,640.53
3,000.00TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENTELERT & ASSOCIATES
3,000.00
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 6
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
322.59OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS
322.59
280.00DAILY ADMISSION ADVERTISINGENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS
280.00
33,951.51SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
33,951.51
394.35PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
394.35
678.74SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSFORCE AMERICA INC
100.01PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
778.75
297.65PATCHING TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT PARTSGARELICK STEEL CO
787.78VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,085.43
309.60WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
309.60
32.24WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGRAINGER INC, WW
32.24
595.00DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR
467.50WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
85.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,527.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
2,437.14UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
5,111.64
307.88TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCEHAMILTON, DEAN
307.88
150.00BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE
150.00
4,800.35WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
4,800.35
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 7
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
280.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHEALEY, MICHAEL
280.00
200.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY
200.00
100.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSHENNEPIN COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS AS
100.00
449.51NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
2,240.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
800.00OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS
256.00OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3,745.51
4,240.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY SENTENCING TO
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00MAINTENANCEOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,240.00
2,853.74SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,853.74
67.27WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS
67.27
184.34GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
64.06PATCHING TEMPORARY SMALL TOOLS
67.36PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
180.48WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
38.60WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
20.00WATER UTILITY G&A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
9.62SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
87.91SEWER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
652.37
13.31WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
13.33WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
24.77SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
51.41
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 8
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
181.65PATCHING TEMPORARY EQUIPMENT PARTSHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
181.65
390.90PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
390.90
3,499.90CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
58.97CABLE TV G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
3,558.87
117.23PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYINVER GROVE FORD
117.23
82.71ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
82.71
444,410.00OFFICE EQUIPMENT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURESJORGENSON CONSTRUCTION INC
444,410.00
173.67PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYKATH FUEL OIL SERVICE
173.67
19,200.00PE SURVEYS ENGINEERING SERVICESKLM ENGINEERING INC.
9,000.00PE PLANS/SPECS ENGINEERING SERVICES
28,200.00
2,851.81GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEKREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT LLC
2,851.81
250.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKROOG, RACHAEL
275.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
525.00
134.63VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESKRUGE-AIR INC
119.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
253.63
106.15PATCHING TEMPORARY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLAKES GAS CO
106.15
476.97SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
782.13BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 9
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,259.10
594.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
594.00
3,216.63FINANCE G & A BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCELEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
1,880.89PARK MAINTENANCE G & A BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE
140.96WESTWOOD G & A BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE
94.74REC CENTER BUILDING BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE
129.40VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR VEHICLE LIAB INSURANCE
482.38SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG & CONTENTS INSURANCE
3,431.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
9,376.00
21.60POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
21.60
311.90POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICELOFFLER COMPANIES
311.90
192.01POSTAL SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS
40,250.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICES
862.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES
103.38TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT
41,407.39
811.71BOILER MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICELOUIS DEGIDIO SERVICES
811.71
1,830.05PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
1,830.05
36.50ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLUEDKE, KRIS
36.50
400.00SOFTBALLPROGRAM REVENUELUND, TRACY
400.00
29.70ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLYNCH, DEBRA
29.70
862.78ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAACO AUTO PAINTING
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 10
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
862.78
101.64PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
101.64
120.00COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMAGC
120.00
1,017.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMCBRIDE, STEPHEN
1,017.00
84.65PATCHING TEMPORARY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
84.65
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWMELGEORGE, MARK
1,000.00
57.68WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
57.68
1,666.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO BLOOMS
1,666.50
308.01OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSMETRO FIRE INC
308.01
636.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
636.00
650.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMIDWEST TESTING LLC
650.00
495.00PATROLTRAININGMINNESOTA CIT OFFICER'S ASSN
495.00
40.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ARBORICUL
40.00
84.69PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES OFFICE SUPPLIESMINUTEMAN PRESS
84.69
276.81H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESMINVALCO INC
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 11
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
276.81
25,948.49SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMORTON SALT
25,948.49
48.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMUELLER, KARI LYNN KLOSTER
48.00
265.00REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES
265.00
4.25OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
6.94OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
589.35PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY
55.96BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
79.68VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
40.33WATER UTILITY G&A LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES
776.51
1,362.50BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESNEUMANN, NEAL
1,362.50
119.69ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
207.11HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE
334.43RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE
72.70ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE
123.83FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
266.10EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
1,093.22POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
540.66OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
72.70INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE
267.76ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
405.72PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
131.64PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
317.41ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
252.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
78.04ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
307.53WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
72.70REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
87.39VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
384.68WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
117.75SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 12
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
38.96SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE
5,292.99
1,163.08WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY
2,236.10SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER
191.99STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
3,591.17
3,947.37TASK FORCE GRANTS - STATENORTHWEST DRUG TASKFORCE
3,947.37
194.80NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTOCE
194.80
31,715.50CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIODLAND PROTECTIVE COATINGS INC
31,715.50
58.90ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
114.29DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
130.26ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
9.19FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
150.29POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
16.84OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
50.57INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
530.34
1,398.24INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,398.24
85.50OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
85.50
570.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC
570.00
34.59VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESPARTS ASSOCIATES INC
34.59
1,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWPATRIOT BUSINESS GROUP
1,000.00
275.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 13
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,131.44ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
3,406.44
5.87WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESPETTY CASH
1.39WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
2.41WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
50.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
59.67
356.23SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPLYMOUTH, CITY OF
356.23
5,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
225.73WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
225.73SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
225.73SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
225.74STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
6,402.93
16.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEPOWELL, RACHEL
16.00
64.26PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYPRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
64.26
100.46TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEPRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
100.46
1,915.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE
1,915.00
121.81VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
121.81
385.39IT G & A TELEPHONEQWEST
1,424.09COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
518.66COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL DATACOMMUNICATIONS
2,328.14
100.00POLICE G & A LICENSESRAMSEY COUNTY
100.00
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 14
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,110.63FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
1,071.06REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
92.79WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
705.70SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,980.18
106.45WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGERAPID GRAPHICS & MAILING
106.44SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
395.44SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
106.44SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
106.45STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
821.22
223.86SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIREED CONSTRUCTION DATA
223.86
27.00WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESREGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF M
27.00
35.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSAM'S CLUB
175.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
155.84SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
201.64CONCESSIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
70.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
35.00WESTWOOD G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
672.48
48.90INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCHLATTER, MARTI
48.90
12,828.64PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
13,136.64
183.09PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHERWIN WILLIAMS
183.09
113.86PATCHING TEMPORARY GENERAL SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
113.86
7,007.61PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
7,007.61
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 15
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,652.83NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSST LOUIS PARK SCHOOLS
10,652.83
108.80ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSTAR TRIBUNE
108.80
650.00WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSESSTATE OF MINNESOTA DEPT OF PUB
650.00
26.71PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSTREICHER'S
26.71
22.59PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN GM PARTS
22.59
422.80PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYSUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE
422.80
78.66ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
78.65SEWER UTILITY G&A LEGAL NOTICES
157.31
5.16ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
5.16
56.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHOMPSON, MEGAN
56.00
380.50ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
380.50
1,507.56SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
1,507.56
33.28PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYTOWMASTER
33.28
50.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTRI-COUNTY ASSOCIATION
50.00
10,445.40SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 16
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10,445.40
338.76OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (FIRE)
338.76
44.78POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
3,974.09POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT
4,018.87
51.85STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEUNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC
51.85
104.00POLICE G & A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
104.00
27.01SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC
27.01
20,643.04CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVALLEY PAVING INC
20,643.04
16,226.58AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEVALLEY VIEW ASSOC
16,226.58
6,620.65WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
6,620.65
1,117.53GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEVILLAGE CHEVROLET
1,117.53
880.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEWATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
880.00
163.46CONCESSIONS/HOCKEY ASSOC CONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
163.46
126.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWEBER ELECTRIC
190.97REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
316.97
1,200.00HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTWELCHLIN COMMUNICATION STRATEG
1,200.00
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 17
2/24/2010CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 10:50:28R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
2/26/2010 -2/13/2010
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
300.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWELDON, DAN
300.00
61.99OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESWIPERS & WIPES INC
61.99
274.74HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEWYATT, LISA
274.74
22.11OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
27,532.07PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
5,458.16PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
39.54BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
70.04WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
24,213.03WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
20.43OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
2,000.31REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE
4,057.72SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,146.55STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
146.46OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE
64,706.42
16,912.86PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYYOCUM OIL CO INC
16,912.86
171.11VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEP MFG
171.11
923.73PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORYZIEGLER INC
923.73
262.31ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGZIP PRINTING
262.31
Report Totals 1,003,440.06
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4g)
Page 18
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4h
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF DECEMBER 10, 2009
ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Toby Keeler and
Mike Mulligan
MEMBERS ABSENT: David Dyer and Rolf Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community
TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: Arlen Mattern, Comcast Cable Public Affairs Administrator;
1. Call to Order
Chair Keeler called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Keeler and Mulligan.
Commissioner Hartman arrived at 7:05 PM.
3. Approval of Minutes for October 8, 2009
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Mulligan, to approve
the minutes of October 8, 2009, without changes.
The motion passed 4-0.
4. Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Public Comment - None
6. New Business
A. Comcast presentation on new cable rates and/or changes in the channel line up
Mr. Dunlap noted there were price increases for: Standard cable, all of the Digital cable
packages, additional outlet fees, High-Speed Internet modems, Digital Voice modems and
late fees. Digital starter boxes will cost less and the price for all High-Speed Internet
packages dropped. Many things stayed the same, including: Basic cable, installation fees
and service charges, equipment costs such as digital receivers, premium services like HBO,
etc. and the bundled Triple-play packages.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
There are less expensive services offered by Comcast such as Basic Cable and the Family Tier
for under $30. Digital Economy is a new video service that offers 49 channels for
$29.95/month if you subscribe to other Comcast services like digital voice or high-speed
Internet.
Commissioners discussed other differences further.
B. Federal Law updates including the CAP Act
Mr. Dunlap noted there is nothing in the Commissions work plan that includes the CAP
Act. It was discussed at the MACTA conferences and it fixes a few things that had been
trouble for community TV, mostly in other parts of the country. In areas where AT&T’s
Uverse system is offered, they put some local channels in low resolution in a sub menu
available only on digital converters. The CAP Act prohibits discriminatory treatment of
PEG channels, was introduced in the Federal House and will go to a committee. There is a
push to get Minnesota elected officials involved.
The Commission requested Mr. Dunlap provide a written report and wanted to support the
Act. It is a benefit to the residents of the City and they wanted to address it further at the
next meeting.
C. Review School District programming reports
Mr. Dunlap stated he exchanged Emails from School District personnel, but hadn’t heard
back. This would need to be brought to the next meeting.
D. Draft Annual Report for 2009
Mr. Dunlap indicated he Emailed the report to Commissioners and reviewed the report. Let
him know if anything should be added.
Commissioner Browning suggested including Commissioner members on the WiFi sub-
committee.
The Council Study session is January 11th.
E. Draft Work Plan for 2010
Commissioners present made no additions to the Work Plan. This would also go to the
January 11th Council Study Session.
Chair Keeler noted LocaLoop should potentially need to be added.
Mr. McHugh suggested local channel updates be added as an agenda item so they can also
include channel 14.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Commissioner Browning made a motion, Commissioner Mulligan seconded to approve the
2010 Work Plan. The motion passed 5-0.
F. Set meetings for 2010
2010 meeting schedule: February 11, May 13, August 19, October 21 and December 2.
G. Elect Chair & Vice Chair, effective next meeting
Chair Keeler called for nominations for Chair.
Commissioner Browning agreed to serve as Chair.
Commissioner Mulligan nominated Commissioner Browning to serve as Chair,
Commissioner Dworsky seconded the nomination.
Chair Keeler called a second and third time for nominations.
The motion to approve nomination of Commission Browning as Chair was carried 5-0.
Chair Keeler volunteered to serve as Vice Chair.
Commissioner Browning seconded the nomination.
The Commission approved nomination of Commissioner Keeler as Vice Chair.
Chair Keeler called for second and third nominations for Vice Chair.
The motion to approve nomination of Commissioner Keeler as Vice Chair was carried 5-0.
7. Unfinished Business
A. Long term fiber infrastructure planning update
Chair Keeler stated he had been working with Clint Pires on the LocaLoop proposal. They had
come to a tentative agreement on some terms. The Attorney’s for the City are drafting an
agreement, which will be submitted to LocaLoop for review and approval. The plans and
sketches and fiber location length had been submitted and appeared OK. LocaLoop is a little
behind on the water tower antennae lease in that they need to submit plans to a company called
KLM that the city uses to review the plans. They need to be approved by the FCC before the
lease could be approved. This would delay them until the end of January or early February.
Once it is approved, they can officially begin a pilot project.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Commissioner Browning asked if this was happening anywhere else? Chair Keeler replied he
was not aware of other locations. Mr. McHugh indicated St. Cloud and Duluth currently
have WiMax systems, but they didn’t have any details about them.
Commissioner Browning stated he would contact Duluth staff to get information for an
upcoming meeting.
Chair Keeler noted Clear Wire had also applied for an antennae lease on the water towers in
St. Louis Park as well.
The consultant for the City would begin a Fiber Optic policy study sometime in late
January, after the LocaLoop material is cleared. The Commission should provide a
recommendation to the City Council when that is completed.
B. Park TV production van update
Mr. Dunlap stated the target date to have the van ready was January 1st and that it is still on
schedule. They are in the process of shipping the van and it will then be outfitted with the
equipment.
C. Proposed Park TV & School District #283 agreement
Mr. Dunlap indicated Jamie Zwilling, the Communications Coordinator, said he had gotten
some feedback from the School District on the agreement and there are still some details to
work out. They hope to have that completed before the next meeting.
D. Comcast audit update
Mr. Dunlap said the auditor expected Comcast would have to pay any revenue that was
underpaid for either the Time Warner period of time from 2005 and 2006 or the Comcast
period of time from 2006 to 2007. Robin Pepper from Comcast informed him that it was
their opinion that Time Warner was responsible for the unpaid balances during their period
of time because it wasn’t a traditional transfer, it was a special arrangement as part of the
Adelphia bankruptcy. He was waiting to hear back from Time Warner who had received the
report.
Other Business:
Commissioner Browning said that Comcast analog receivers may go away and everyone
would be required to have a digital receiver to pick up analog signals, was that accurate? Mr.
Mattern replied it was coming, but he was not sure when. They are currently working on
this on the east side systems to notify their customers that it was happening.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Commissioner Mulligan indicated the FCC just passed another upgrade after the digital
conversion that allows mobile digital connections. Commissioner Browning replied he had read
an article about it and television stations wanted to transmit their information to mobile phones
and other mobile devices. He could find out if the local stations were considering this.
8. Reports
A. Complaints
Mr. Dunlap noted he had complied the annual complaint log from City staff including a
comparison from 2005 to 2009. The largest number of complaints related to billing issues.
Customer service, relations, missed/late appointments, company response and attitude received
zero complaints throughout the year, which was good news. The total cable service complaints
were down in 2009 with 76 complaints logged over the year.
Chair Keeler said the complaints were trending down, in the right direction, and thanked Mr.
Mattern for his help with these.
9. Communication from the Chair - None
10. Communications from City Staff
Mr. McHugh noted he passed out a programming summary of original programming that
community TV had done in 2009 and said programming premiers were lower because
producer Scott Smith has been producing Park Update since June, which can be seen on all
the Park TV channels and the City’s You Tube channel.
11. Adjournment
Commissioner Dworsky made a motion, Commission Browning seconded to adjourn at
7:52. The motion passed.
Respectfully submitted by:
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8a
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:
Parkshore Apartments Planned Unit Development Minor Amendment – 3663 Park Center Blvd.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, 04-
024, and 05-167 adopted on October 7, 1996, December 2, 1996, October 7, 2003, February 2,
2004, and December 5, 2005 approving a Final Planned United Development (PUD) under Section
36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code and consolidating conditions from an existing special
permit and PUD for property zoned R-C, Multi-Family Residential granting final PUD approval for
a senior housing condominium development at 3601 Park Center Boulevard and combining
proposed and existing development of the Parkshore Campus as a Planned Unit Development –
3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard Minor Amendment to PUD for renovation and
expansion at the Parkshore Apartment Building – 3663 Park Center Boulevard.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to approve the proposed Minor Amendment to the Parkshore
Apartments PUD?
(Minor Amendments are those with a limited scope of change to a PUD. They are reviewed and
approved by the City Council.)
BACKGROUND:
Requested is a Minor Amendment to a PUD for interior remodeling, a minor expansion of the first
floor dining area and other communal spaces, and adding an indoor swimming pool.
The Parkshore Apartment building, located at 3663 Park Center Boulevard, was constructed in
1986. The 14-story, 207-unit senior apartment building is part of the SilverCrest Properties campus
along Park Center Boulevard. Other buildings also covered by the PUD that are part of the campus
include a 91-unit assisted living facility immediately north of the Parkshore Apartments and a three-
story office building. The site was approved for a future 12-story, 145-unit condominium building
at 3601 Park Center Boulevard, to replace the existing office building. It has not been constructed
due to current economic conditions. Because the property is part of a PUD, when modifications are
proposed, an amendment must be approved by the City Council.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
A Planned Unit Development (PUD) is a provision of the Zoning Ordinance that allows for greater
flexibility in development in comparison to the standards of the underlying Zoning District. PUDs
undergo a great deal of scrutiny when initially approved, with review to ensure the development
meets the standards of the PUD Section of the Zoning Ordinance, meeting goals such as:
• A more creative and efficient use of land.
• The preservation and enhancement of desirable site characteristics.
• Higher standards of site and building design.
• Efficient use of streets, utilities, and public facilities.
The impacts of the proposed modifications to the building and site for Parkshore Apartments are
limited. The impacts to the PUD relate to building setbacks, modification of the east side
landscaping, and a reduction of 3 underground parking spaces. The new swimming pool area and
dining room addition will encroach into the approved building setback toward the east, moving the
building closer to Wolfe Park. The setback requirements for the Parkshore building are discussed in
more detail as part of the Zoning Review.
Zoning Review:
The Parkshore Apartment building is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for High Density
Residential and the property is zoned RC – High Density Multiple Family Residential. The two
other parcels in the SilverCrest campus have the same designation on the Comprehensive Plan Map
and the Official Zoning Map. The campus has an overall housing density of 78.5 dwelling units per
acre.
As noted, the proposed Minor Amendment has a minimal effect on surrounding properties and the
rest of the PUD. The primary areas impacted include setbacks, architectural materials, parking, and
landscaping.
Setbacks
Setback modifications are allowed through the use of a PUD; in some cases, the best design will
necessitate that no setback be provided at all. In the case of the Parkshore Apartment building, there
were setback modifications approved as part of the original PUD. On the east side of the building,
the setback would be modified from 40 feet to 10 feet at the closest point. The proposed setbacks
for the entire building are as follows:
PUD Setback
requirements
North (side yard) West (front
yard)
South (side
yard)
East (rear yard)
Current
0’ – indoor
connection to assisted
living building
10.8’ –
parking
ramp
24.6’
40’
Proposed
0’
10.8’
24.6’ 28’ (dining addition)
10’ (pool addition)
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
The proposed changes to the east side of the Parkshore building would primarily impact the amount
of turf grass on this side of the building; furthermore, the additions do not encompass the entire east
side of the building. The existing building, shaped something like the letter S, is approximately 250
feet long and 60 feet wide. Of the 250 feet in length, approximately 70 feet are impacted by the
expansion. The swimming pool and dining room additions are the only portions of the building
that will extend into the existing setback, with the south portion of the building remaining at the
original 40-foot setback. The area between the building and the property line would be more
intensely used, with the addition of a new exterior pergola and patio area adjacent to the dining
room addition.
At the present time, the Parkshore building is located approximately 56 feet from the trail in Wolfe
Park. Should the renovations be approved, the new indoor pool addition would be located 22 feet
from the trail.
Architectural Materials
The proposed addition to the Parkshore building would match the existing building. The two
exterior materials for the addition are brick and glass, both Class I materials. The existing building is
composed almost completely brick and glass.
Parking
The proposed modifications and expansion to the building do not change the required parking. The
Parkshore Apartment building substantially exceeds the required level of parking. The PUD
approval requires a total of 103 off-street parking spaces be provided for the building. However,
when the building was constructed, 253 parking spaces were provided. The basis for this decision
was related to the number of units (207) and the concept that seniors would have multiple vehicles
per household. The developer has indicated that while the parking was well utilized when tenants
first moved into the building in 1986, less than 50% of the available parking is used today. This is
attributed to an increase in the average age of tenants living in the building.
The proposed interior modifications will encroach into a portion of the underground parking area,
resulting in a loss of three (3) spaces. The modifications will substantially enhance the interior space
for group activities. As noted, there is not a need for these parking spaces; additionally, they are not
required by the PUD, which dictates that 103 off-street parking spaces be provided. The Official
Exhibits for the Minor Amendment will reflect this site modification for the PUD file.
Landscaping & Tree Replacement
The building addition will result in site changes immediately east of the building. At the current
time, the area features a small garden with a formal seating area and several shrubs. Access to Wolfe
Park and the City’s trail system is also provided in this location. There are no significant trees in the
impacted area. Following construction of the building addition, new landscaping would be
installed, including two new trees and 40 new shrubs. A new pergola would also be added to the
area, improving on available exterior amenities for residents. Access to the trail system will be
maintained throughout construction, although in some instances residents may need to take
alternate routes to reach Wolfe Park.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Stormwater Management
The proposed addition will result in a minimal impact to the site’s level of impervious coverage. For
this reason, the City Engineer has indicated that no new stormwater management will be necessary
at this time. However, the proposal will need to undergo review by the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District and obtain permits if required.
Parks and Recreation Comments
The PUD site is immediately adjacent to the Rec Center, Skateboarding Park, and Wolfe Park.
Most important is the trail that runs north-south adjacent to the Parkshore building. The Parks and
Rec Department has requested that the trail be kept open at all times during construction; a
condition has been included in the Resolution to reflect the request.
The Parks and Rec Department has indicated that there are no issues or concerns regarding the
reduced setback to the east side of the building.
Engineering Comments
The City Engineer has noted that the proposal will require an erosion control permit prior to
initiating construction.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
One of the City Council’s Strategic Directions states that “St. Louis Park is committed to providing
a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”.
The proposed renovations at Parkshore Apartments reflect the vision goal of providing diverse
housing options to citizens to remain in the City through all stages of life. The renovations also
build upon the goals for gathering places, as the improved community areas at the Parkshore
Apartments will enable the many residents of the building’s 207 units to better share in one
another’s company and participate in group events and activities.
Attachments: Resolution approving the Minor Amendment (new conditions underlined)
Location Map
Site Plan and related documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NOS. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139,
04-024, AND 05-167 ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 7, 1996, DECEMBER 2, 1996, OCTOBER 7,
2003, FEBRUARY 2, 2004, AND DECEMBER 5, 2005 APPROVING A
FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST.
LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE AND CONSOLIDATING CONDITIONS FROM AN
EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT AND PUD FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C, MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL GRANTING FINAL PUD APPROVAL FOR A SENIOR HOUSING
CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT AT 3601 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD AND
COMBINING PROPOSED AND EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARKSHORE CAMPUS
AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - 3601, 3633 AND 3663 PARK CENTER
BOULEVARD MINOR AMENDMENT TO PUD FOR RENOVATION AND EXPANSION AT
THE PARKSHORE APARTMENT BUILDING - 3663 PARK CENTER BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, SilverCrest Properties, LLC has made application to the City Council for a
Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the
St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for renovation and expansion at 3663 Park Center Boulevard within
a R-C, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District having the following legal description:
Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Silvercrest Addition
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered information related to Planning Case No. 10-
05-PUD and the effect of the proposed renovation and expansion on the health, safety and welfare
of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on
values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and
compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Minor Amendment to the Final
PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with
certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will
it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the
proposed amendment to the Final PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the
Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with
the requirements of Section 36-367.
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 86-62 on May 19, 1986 approving a
special permit to allow construction of a 207 unit senior citizen apartment building at 3663 Park
Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-153 on October 7, 1996
approving an amendment to the existing special permit for the 207-unit senior apartment building
at 3663 Park Center Boulevard to allow certain site design changes (realignment of an existing trail
and certain concrete curbs; construction of an additional sidewalk connection; and modifications to
the approved landscape plan) in association with separate PUD approval of a 45 unit assisted living
building on a portion of 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now 3633 Park Center Boulevard); and
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-152 on October 7, 1996
approving the Final PUD for the existing office building, removal of the bank with in-vehicle service
and new 45 unit assisted living building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard (now also 3633 Park Center
Boulevard); and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-189 on December 2, 1996
rescinding Resolution No. 96-152 approving the Final PUD in order to correct the legal description
and address; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 99-101 on September 7, 1999 approving
an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to adopt a Redevelopment Plan for 3601, 3633 and
3663 Park Center Boulevard allowing certain modifications to ordinance requirements and
parameters for future redevelopment of the office building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-102 on September 7, 1999
approving the preliminary and final plat for Silvercrest Addition to reconfigure internal lot lines
allowing a 46 unit addition to the assisted living building on Lot 2 for a total of 91 units and
requiring trail easements over Lots 1, 2 and 3 (3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard
respectively), a road easement over Lot 3, trail construction over Lots 1 and 2, a parking agreement
between Lots 2 and 3, certain maintenance agreements, and cooperation with the City regarding
future construction of the north-south roadway and trail on Lot 3; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2143-99 on September 7, 1999
vacating certain drainage, utility and trail easements at 3601, 1633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard
effective upon recording new easements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 99-140 on December 6, 1999
amending and restating the conditions of Resolution No. 99-102 to extend the plat filing deadline
to January 6, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-138 on October 7, 2003
approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to revise the text of the Redevelopment Plan
to allow density and floor area ratio (FAR) averaging over the 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center
Boulevard properties, to increase the allowable average floor area ratio for all three properties, to
increase allowable height for future redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard, and to allow
a curb cut on the south edge of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard property (until such time as access
consolidation could be achieved), and to adopt an overall Redevelopment Plan for the three
properties;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 03-139 on October 7, 2003
approving a Preliminary PUD for redevelopment of the 3601 Park Center Boulevard office building
for a 150 unit senior housing condominium building and consolidating conditions from the PUD
for 3601 and 3633 Park Center Boulevard and special permit for 3663 Park Center Boulevard
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 7
granting Preliminary PUD approval for proposed and existing development of the Parkshore
Campus at 3601, 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, a Final PUD was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 04-024 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated February 2, 2004 which contained
conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, a major amendment was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 05-167 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated December 5, 2005 which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and
WHEREAS, it is also the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of
Resolution Nos. 96-153, 96-189, 03-139, 04-024, and 05-167, to add the amendments now
required, to reference the required conditions of Resolution No. 99-140, and thereby to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject properties into this resolution, and
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 86-20-SP, 96-16-PUD, 96-25-CUP, 99-
14-CP, 99-15-S, 99-16-V, 03-37-CP, 03-38-PUD, 05-33-PUD, and 10-05-PUD are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 05-167 (filed as
Document No. 8762949) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and
amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for the purpose of renovation
and expansion within the R-C, Multi-Family Residential Zoning District at the location described
above based on the following conditions:
A. From special permit Res. 96-153, 3663 Park Ctr. Blvd. (now also 3633 Park Center Blvd.):
1. That the site be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A - Site
Plan; Exhibit B - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit C - Ground Floor Plan; Exhibit D - First
Floor Plan; Exhibit E - Typical Floor Plan; Exhibit F - West Elevation and North
Elevation; Exhibit G - East Elevation and South Elevation; and Exhibit H - Landscape
Site Plan, (the floor plans are for general purposes only) except as amended by
conditions C. 1-11 adopted on February 2, 2004 and as modified by the following
conditions:
2. The use of the site shall be for senior citizen housing containing 207 units.
3. That all trash be stored inside the building and there be no outdoor storage of trash or
trash containers.
4. That all lighting be directed perpendicular to the ground and no direct rays shall extend
beyond the property line.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 8
5. That the driveway and private entrance contain concrete, poured-in-place curbing
measuring six inches above and below the adjacent roadway surface.
6. That the upper portions of the ramp in the interior of the parking lot contain 5%
landscaping and pedestrian circulation and additional ornamental trees be provided
along the south and east lot lines as shown on the revised plan, and that up to 20 parking
spaces be permitted to be eliminated to provide for the additional landscaping.
7. That erosion control provisions be employed during the construction phase to protect
Wolfe Lake and to minimize erosion on the site and runoff of erosion material into other
private or public property.
8. That the entrance road be designed and constructed in a manner so as to protect the City
storm sewer system and as specified by the Director of Public Works.
9. That driveways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 6%.
10. That the link from the cul de sac to the sidewalk be constructed at a grade not to exceed
5% and that all other walkways be constructed at a grade not to exceed 4% and curb
drops be provided at all intersections with the private and public roads.
11. That the east-west walkway along the north property line be at least as wide as the
adjacent trail in Wolfe Park to which it is to link with. Said walkway to be extended by
the applicant to the walkway in Wolfe Park and be lighted using decorative lighting to
match the lighting in Wolfe Park.
12. That prior to construction, an easement be provided to the City permitting the five feet
parallel to Park Center Boulevard to be used for pedestrian purposes and that a
pedestrian easement approximately 25 feet wide be provided along the north property
line for pedestrian purposes. (The width is wider to accommodate the curvilinear nature
of the design.)
13. That all improvements including buildings, landscaping, parking, curbing and other
improvements as contained on the improved exhibits be completed by May 15, 1988;
however, if a certificate of full occupancy is received by September 1, 1987, all
landscaping and other improvements must be completed by October 15, 1987.
14. The continued special permit shall be amended pursuant to Planning Case No. 96-25-
CUP to permit realignment of an existing trail and certain concrete curbs; construction
of an additional sidewalk connection; and modifications to the approved landscape plan
to allow construction of a 45 unit Assisted Living facility on 3633 Park Center Boulevard
subject to the following conditions:
a) The northern portion of the site shall be developed, used and maintained in
accordance with Exhibit I: Demolition Plan, Exhibit J: Site Plan, Exhibit K:
Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, Exhibit L: Landscape Plan such
documents incorporated by reference herein.
b) Prior to issuance of an erosion control permit and commencement of site work, a
14 feet wide trail easement shall be dedicated to the City in a form acceptable to the
Director of Park and Recreation and the City Attorney.
c) Prior to issuance of utility permits, details of the proposed storm sewer connection
shall be approved by the City Engineer.
d) Prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the adjacent Assisted Living facility,
the trail realignment shall be completed by the applicant in accordance with City
specifications and in a manner acceptable to the Director of Park and Recreation,
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 9
unless a letter of credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of said trail
construction has been submitted in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
15. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant prior to issuance of erosion
control permit and commencement of site work.
B. From Res. 96-189 final PUD for 3601 Park Center Blvd. (now also 3633 Park Center
Blvd.):
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A:
Demolition Plan, Exhibit B: Site Plan, Exhibit C: Grading, Drainage and Erosion
Control Plan, Exhibit D: Landscape Plan, Exhibits E and F: Elevations, Exhibit G:
Fence, Enclosure Designs, except as amended by conditions C. 1-11 adopted on
February 2, 2004, and the following conditions:
a) Approval of the Final PUD does not grant any concept approval for future phases
of development involving this property.
b) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon City Council approval of an
amendment to the Continued Special Permit for the Parkshore Place apartment
property to address associated improvements involving that property; approval of
the Final PUD is further contingent upon adherence by the applicant to any
conditions of such Special Permit approval.
c) Approval of the Final PUD includes modification of the lot width requirement in
the "R-C" District from 80 feet to 40 feet and allows for administrative approval of
a subdivision to create a separate lot for the Assisted Living property (3633 Park
Center Boulevard) as shown on Exhibit B.
d) Approval of the Final PUD is contingent upon termination of the drive thru bank
lease, once the current term expires, and removal of the drive thru building.
e) Evidence of Watershed District approval shall be submitted prior to issuance of
erosion control and building permits; the project shall comply with other City,
State, and Federal agency requirements as applicable.
f) Final Utility Plans and evidence of property owner consent to sanitary sewer
connections shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of utility and building permits.
g) Samples of final building materials and colors and potential minor changes to the
exhibits, as needed, shall be submitted and approved by the Director of
Community Development prior to issuance of buildings permits. Use of vinyl
siding is expressly prohibited.
h) A development agreement between the applicant and EDA shall be executed prior
to issuance of building permits.
i) Irrigation and Site Lighting Plans (including photometric) shall be approved by the
Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of building permits.
j) Sprinkler and Fire Alarm Plans shall be approved by the Fire Marshall prior to
issuance of building permits.
k) Joint parking and access agreements between the office/bank property, Assisted
Living Property, and Parkshore Place apartment property, in a form acceptable to
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 10
the City Attorney, shall be executed prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit for
the Assisted Living facility.
l) All improvements shall be completed in a manner acceptable to the City prior to
issuance of an Occupancy Permit, except that a temporary Occupancy Permit may
be issued prior to completion of landscaping improvements provided a letter of
credit in an amount equal to 125% of the cost of said improvements is submitted in
a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
C. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on February 2, 2004 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and to grant Final PUD approval for a 150 unit senior condominium
development (“Park Summit Condominiums”) at 3601 Park Center Boulevard and consolidation of
access and related improvements at 3633 and 3663 Park Center Boulevard subject to the following
conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Final PUD
official exhibits, which shall include the revised Parking Structure plan sheet stamped as
Received by the City December 22, 2003 and the Proposed Access and Internal
Circulation Plan stamped as Received by the City December 30, 2003. The Proposed
Access and Internal Circulation Plan may be revised based upon more detailed future
roadway design work. The Official Exhibits shall also include the revised Description
Sketch survey showing existing trail and roadway easements stamped as Received by the
City January 16, 2004, and the revised Dimensional Site Plan stamped as Received by
the City on January 16, 2004. The Proposed Alternate Entrance on the Dimensional
Site Plan is not approved.
2. Prior to any site work, including demolition, the developer shall meet the following
requirements:
a) Development and maintenance agreement(s) shall be executed between the
developer and the City. The agreement(s) shall include, but not be limited to,
conditions for the developer meeting the following requirements:
i) Construction vehicles shall access the site from Hwy. 100, 36th Street, and
Park Center Blvd. utilizing the interim curb cut as a left-in, right-out only.
Construction vehicles shall not be permitted on Park Center Blvd. south of the
senior condominium property.
ii) Public sidewalk and trail construction.
iii) Repair and cleaning of public streets.
iv) Tree replacement.
v) Constructing a consolidated driveway access to all three properties as shown
conceptually on the Proposed Access and Internal Circulation Plan (dated
December 30, 2003) of the Official Exhibits.
vi) Cost sharing for the road improvements to Park Center Boulevard and the
possible traffic signal at the consolidated access driveway.
vii) On-going responsibility for maintaining the strip of park land located east of
the condominium and west of the park access drive off of 36th Street.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 11
viii) Adherence to the parking management plan and requirements to convert the
proof-of-parking spaces if directed by the City in response to on- or off-site
parking problems.
ix) Agreement to pay the equivalent of special service district fees previously paid
by the office development for the 3601 Park Center Blvd. property.
x) Adherence to required conditions in the homeowner’s association declaration
documents.
b) Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the
amount of 125% of the costs of public sidewalk and trail installation,
repair/cleaning of public streets/utilities, and tree replacement/landscaping.
c) Required tree protection, erosion control fencing, trail closed signs, and safety
fencing shall be in place and approved by the City prior to any grading and
demolition activities.
d) The homeowners association documents shall be as approved by the City Attorney
and shall prohibit the rental or sale of guest parking spaces and the sale or rental of
any parking spaces to non-residents. The homeowner’s association documents shall
also address continued payment of Special Service District fees equivalent to fees
previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center Blvd.
e) Record all cross-easement agreements for utilities and drainage for the three lots
within the PUD and record any required changes to the joint parking and access
agreements, maintenance agreement, and trail easement.
f) Reimburse the City for City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents.
g) Obtain demolition, work in the right of way and erosion control permits,
Watershed District permit and other necessary permits from the City and other
agencies.
h) Sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits.
i) Meet City and Public Works Department requirements for utility connections and
disconnects, including pavement restoration, protection of sidewalk, trail, lighting
and streetscape elements and replacement of any damaged elements,
j) Meet solar shading requirements or obtain approval of a variance.
k) Meet any other conditions of the development agreement required prior to site
work.
3. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements,
the developer shall comply with the following:
a) Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements during construction.
b) Building materials samples to be submitted to and approved by the City.
c) Lighting plans, including photometrics to be submitted to and approved by the
City for the entire development. Lighting design is to be compatible throughout
the development, and shall meet all City standards.
d) Meet any other conditions as required by the Development Agreement prior to
building permit.
4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 12
a) All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10
p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b) Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties including the City aquatic facility.
d) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e) Construction vehicles are prohibited from entering the site from park land
property.
f) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties.
g) A left-in, right-out temporary construction entrance is allowed on the 3601 Park
Center Blvd. property (Lot 1) in accordance with the approved grading plan and
Condition C.2.a) i) of this resolution.
5. A PUD modification to allow a sign setback of 15 feet is approved subject to approval of
a sign permit. Sign permits are required prior to installation of any temporary or
permanent signs and shall include designation of guest parking spaces.
6. The developer shall comply with the following conditions prior to occupancy of the
senior condominium building:
a) All permanent site and building improvements shall be complete, other than
landscaping, and a letter of credit for 125% of the cost of landscaping shall be
submitted.
b) Submit as-built plans to the City in electronic or Mylar format for all civil
infrastructure.
c) Meet any other conditions as required by the development agreement prior to
occupancy.
d) If reasonably possible, complete improvements in Condition 7. Otherwise, make
the temporary construction access "permanent" until such time as the consolidated
access is completed.
7. The developer agrees to close the driveway access on the 3601 Park Center Blvd property
(Lot 1), repair the right-of-way, and construct the consolidated PUD access, at
developer's or property owners' expense, at the time of reconstruction of Park Center
Blvd. adjacent to the PUD site.
8. The developer or property owners agree to pay a fair share of any future traffic signal at
the consolidated PUD access.
9. The developer or property owners agree to continue paying the equivalent of special
service district fees previously paid by the office development at 3601 Park Center Blvd.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 13
10. The developer or property owners agree to comply with the conditions of Resolution 99-
102, including but not limited to cooperation with the City regarding future
construction of the north-south roadway and additional trail construction on the 3663
Park Center Blvd. property (Lot 3).
11. The developer or property owner(s) shall pay an administrative fine of $750 per violation
of any condition of this approval.
D. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on December 5, 2005 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for the Park Summit building at
3601 Park Center Boulevard:
1. The Park Summit building will be revised to be a maximum of 12 stories and 126 feet in
height, having a maximum of 145 condominium units.
2. No age restrictions shall be placed on future residents at the Park Summit
Condominiums, however the condominium units will be marketed to buyers 55 years of
age and older.
3. The developer will provide a minimum of 255 parking spaces for the Park Summit
condominium building at 3601 Park Center Boulevard. A minimum of 240 of those
spaces must be provided underground. If shown to be needed, the developer shall allow
underground parking at the Park Shores apartment building (3663 Park Center
Boulevard) to be leased to residents of the Park Summit Condominium building.
4. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Park Summit Condominiums,
the developer shall:
a. Construct a consolidated driveway access to the campus, completing all driveway
and sidewalk connections as shown on the revised site plan. The direct access
point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard will be closed and the access to the campus
shall be via the consolidated campus driveway as shown on the official site plan.
This requirement shall supersede any other requirement in all previous resolutions
regarding the direct access point to 3601 Park Center Boulevard.
b. Grant the City of St. Louis Park an easement for the purpose of the installation of
wireless internet equipment and related appurtenances.
c. Donate $40,000 for the purpose of erecting public art within or near the campus
area for the benefit of the residents of the campus and the City. The developer
shall work with the Director of Parks and Recreation to facilitate the decision
process regarding the type and location of the public art installation.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 14
d. Ensure that all mechanical equipment, including that mechanical equipment
already installed on other buildings within the PUD, is completely and fully
screened from off-site view in accordance with zoning regulations.
e. Provide up to $9,000 toward the cost of transit shelters at the intersection of West
36th Street and Park Center Boulevard.
E. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on March 1, 2010 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for the Parkshore Apartment
building at 3663 Park Center Boulevard:
1. Modifications to the approved Official Exhibits for the Parkshore Apartment building
are approved as follows:
a. A first-floor addition of a swimming pool, constructed to within 10 feet of the
east property line; and
b. A first-floor addition to the dining area, constructed to within 28 feet of the east
property line.
c. Architectural materials for the building renovation shall match the existing
materials of brick and glass.
2. Prior to construction of the building addition, the developer shall submit financial
security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs
of public infrastructure, repair/cleaning of public streets/trails/utilities, and tree
replacement/landscaping.
3. At all times during and after construction, access to and trails within Wolfe Park shall
remain passable and shall be kept free and clear of any construction supplies or debris.
4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction:
a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no
construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and
10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays.
b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times.
c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties including the City aquatic facility.
d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
e. Construction vehicles are prohibited from entering the site from park land
property.
f. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding
properties.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a) Page 15
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is
different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
36TH ST W
PARK CENTER BLVDNB HWY100 S TO 36TH ST W36TH ST W
Parkshore Apartments (SilverCrest Properties)3663 Park Center Boulevard
$
February 23, 2010
3X
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
260 Feet
POS
C-2 R-C
C-2 MX
C-2
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a)Page 16
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a)Page 17
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a)Page 18
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a)Page 19
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8a)Page 20
Meeting Date: March 1, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8b
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:
Project Report: Local Street Rehabilitation Project – Pavement Management Area 6, Project No.
2009-1000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the project report, establishing Improvement Project No.
2009-1000 approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids for
improvement Project No. 2009-1000.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue implementation of the City’s Pavement Management
Program?
BACKGROUND:
Staff developed and the City Council adopted a Pavement Management Program to address the
problem of deteriorating streets within the city. Many of the roads are now approaching 40 years of
age or more. The city’s streets are still in relatively good condition due to the fact that the streets
were built well, are generally situated on good soils, utilize curb & gutter for drainage and have been
well maintained. City maintenance crews have continually worked to keep streets in decent
condition using basic maintenance strategies such as patching, crack filling and seal coating.
However, as pavements age, more aggressive maintenance strategies are needed to prolong their life.
The Pavement Management Program was developed to extend pavement life and enhance system-
wide performance in a cost-effective and efficient way by providing the right maintenance or repair
at the right time. Using the City’s pavement management software, staff obtains street condition
ratings and monitors their performance. Staff then evaluates the condition of streets and selects cost-
effective treatments to extend pavement life.
ANALYSIS:
The 2010 construction season will be the sixth year of implementing the City’s Pavement
Management Program. This year’s work will be performed in Area 6 of the City’s 8 pavement
management areas. It includes the Elmwood, Brookside, Brooklawns, Creekside and Meadowbrook
Neighborhoods. The attached map identifies which streets in Area 6 have been selected for
rehabilitation. Selection was based on previous condition surveys of the streets and field evaluations
to determine current conditions of the pavement, curb and gutter, and the city’s underground
utilities. A team of staff members was formed to select streets for inclusion in this year’s program
and to recommend appropriate rehabilitation techniques. The team included members of
Operations, Utilities, Engineering and the Public Works Asset Management Group.
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
The residential streets selected this year for rehabilitation were all originally constructed in a similar
fashion. The structure of most of the streets consists of a two (2) inch layer of asphalt pavement over
six (6) inches of quality gravel. Staff has determined that an appropriate treatment for rehabilitating
the streets consists of removing all of the old asphalt pavement and replacing it with three (3) inches
of new pavement. The thicker asphalt section is being used to provide for heavier vehicles, such as
garbage trucks, and the increased volume of traffic on the streets. This will also allow for flexibility
of future maintenance. For example, with a 2-inch thickness of asphalt, a typical mill and overlay is
not possible because the asphalt layer is too thin. With a 3-inch thickness, 1.5 inches of asphalt can
be milled off and replaced with the same thickness of new pavement.
The Engineering Staff has prepared plans and specifications for this year’s project. In addition to
the pavement replacement, utility work is performed which include drainage system (curb & gutter
and catch basin) repairs and replacement of old hydrants (18 hydrants) at various locations
throughout the project.
Utility companies have been contacted to inform them of the city’s proposed work plan and
schedule. For those companies that have buried utilities, staff has asked them to consider replacing
any aging systems prior to our paving of the streets. Centerpoint Energy has indicated they will be
replacing gas lines on four of our streets in the project area. Centerpoint Energy typical performs
their gas main work just prior to the start of the street work, usually late April to mid-May.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Staff recently invited area residents and neighborhood association leaders to an open house to review
the preliminary plans for the proposed street construction work. Approximately twelve residents
attended the open house on February 18, 2010. People asked questions about the timing of the
project and what construction impacts would be felt by the residents while the project is underway.
The project is anticipated to start in early June and last approximately 2 months. Work on any one
block will usually last about five weeks. During that time, crews will replace the curbing, if needed,
then remove the pavement, grade the street, and then pave the first layer of bituminous. During this
work, residents will always have access to their driveways and overnight parking will be allowed on
the street. Driveways will not be accessible for up to one week when concrete aprons are replaced.
The final layer of bituminous is typically placed near the end of the project and will result in another
day of disruption for any one block.
Project Timeline:
Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule
could be met:
• Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council March 1, 2010
• Advertise for bids Mid March, 2010
• Bid Opening April 8, 2010
• Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract April 19, 2010
• Begin Construction Early June, 2010
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 3
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This project will be funded by two sources, the Pavement Management Fund for the associated
street work and the Water Utility Fund for the hydrant replacement. The Engineer’s estimate for
the total cost of the project is $1,391,615 which includes 5% for contingencies and 12% for
engineering & administration. This breaks down to $1,279,260 for the street work and $112,355
for the utility work.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Map of Streets for Construction in Area 6
Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8b) Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT,
ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2009-1000
APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING
ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NO. 2009-1000
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the City
Engineer related to the 2010 Local Street Rehabilitation Program.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, that:
1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2009-1000 is hereby accepted.
2. Such improvements as proposed are necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project
Report.
3. The proposed projects, designated as Project No. 2009-1000, is hereby established and ordered.
4. The plans and specifications for the making of these improvements, as prepared under the direction
of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved.
5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and
in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvements under
said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days
prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered
unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for
five (5) percent of the amount of the bid.
6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the
letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the
City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council March 1, 2010
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
HWY 7
YOSEMITE AVE SWOODDALE
AVEALABAMA AVE SUTICA AVE S42ND ST W
CAMBRIDGE ST
EXCE
L
SI
O
R
B
L
V
D
36TH ST W
BROOKSIDE AVE39TH ST W
OXFORD ST
BRUNSWICK AVE S40TH
S
T
W
VERNON AVE SZARTHAN AVE SQUENTIN
AVE
S
41ST ST W
GOODRICH AVE
TOLEDO AVE SHIGHWAY 100WALKER ST
MORNINGSIDE RDDAKOTA AVE SBROOK AVE37TH ST W
35TH ST W
SALEM AVE SWEBSTER AVE SMACKEY AVEHospital service drive43 1/2 ST W
40TH L
A
BROWNDALE AVEPARK CENTER BLVDDART AVE
36TH ST W (S)36TH ST Ramp36TH ST W (N)COLORADO AVE SVERMONT STXENWOOD AVE SOTTAWA AVE SMEADOWBROOK BLVD
PARK
C
O
M
M
O
N
S
D
R
EDGEWOOD AVE SWOOD LA RALEIGH
AVE
SGLEN PLPRINCETON
AVE
SBROOK LACOLORADO AVE SPRINCETON AVE SWOO
D
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
39TH ST W
SALEM AVE
SXENWOOD AVE S35TH ST W
BRUNSWICK AVE SZARTHAN AVE S41ST ST WCOLORADO AVE SALABAMA AVE SVERNON AVE S35TH ST
W
10-20-2009tw
2010 Pavement Management Project
Legend
Street Rehabilitation Segments ±
City Council Meeting of March 1, 2010 (Item No. 8b)Page 5