HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010/06/14 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 14, 2010
(Mayor Jacobs out)
6:25 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – City Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
2a. Second Reading of an Ordinance Setting Fees for Multiple Re-inspection Fee and Massage
Therapist License.
Recommended Action: Motion to adopt second reading of ordinance setting fees for
Multiple Re-inspection Fee for Licensed Businesses and Massage Therapist License and
authorize publication.
2b. Second Reading of Housekeeping Ordinance amendments to Home Rule Charter/City
Code. (This item has been moved to a Special City Council Meeting on June 28, 2010
when all Councilmembers will be in attendance as required for Charter amendments)
3. Adjournment
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. 2011 Budget Discussion
2. 8:00 p.m. Update on the Financial and Operational Status of Project for Pride in Living’s
(PPL) Louisiana Court Development
3. 8:45 p.m. Freight Rail Policy
4. 9:15 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 21 and June 28
5. 9:30 p.m. Communications (Verbal)
Written Reports
6. Property Acquisition Update - 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply
property)
7. Property Maintenance Division Organization and Tools for Compliance
8. Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
9. Metropolitan Highway System Investment Study
10. Fiber Network and Policy Study
11 City Code Amendment to Chapter 3 Regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor Licensing
9:35 p.m. Adjourn
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 Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Special City Council Meeting
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Second Reading of an Ordinance Setting Fees for Multiple Re-inspection Fee and Massage Therapist
License.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt second reading of ordinance setting fees for Multiple Re-inspection Fee for
Licensed Businesses and Massage Therapist License and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None
BACKGROUND:
Council approved the first reading of the ordinance on June 7, 2010, relating to fees for the Massage
Therapist License and the Multiple Re-inspection fee for licensed business.
The attached ordinance establishes fees of $130 for the Multiple Re-inspection Fee, $95 for the
annual Massage Therapist License, and a Therapist License fee of $25 if the therapist is also the
Massage Therapy Establishment license holder.
EFFECTIVE DATES:
All proposed ordinance amendments go into effect 15 days after publication.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special City Council Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading of Ordinance Setting Business License Fees
ORDINANCE NO. _____-10
ORDINANCE RELATING TO FEES, ESTABLISHING THE
AMOUNT OF CERTAIN NEW FEES FOR THE YEAR 2010
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The following new fees shall be effective for the year 2010:
City Code Sec. 8-193 - Re-Inspection fee - $130.00
City Code Sec. 8-300 - 8-305 - Massage Therapist license - $95.00;
with a fee of $25.00 for therapists holding a Massage Therapy
Establishment license.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading June 7, 2010
Second Reading June 14, 2010
Date of Publication July 17, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect July 2, 2010
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 14, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: June 14, 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:
TITLE:
2011 Budget Discussion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action required. This report is to assist with the study session discussion to share
information and gain understanding regarding the preparation of the 2011 budget.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
• Does the upcoming budget process for 2011 meet Council expectations?
• Are the preliminary budget assumptions being used in the 2011 budget projection in
keeping with Council expectations (e.g. levy adjustment)
• Is Council in agreement with the recommendation on franchise fees for 2011?
• Are there other discussion areas Council would like to add or change?
BACKGROUND:
During the study session staff will provide an overview of budget related information and a proposed
strategy for addressing the 2011 budget. We will talk about our continued use of the Guiding
Principles, and the City’s Vision and Mission as we build the budget.
2010 budget in review. As you know, we all worked diligently on the 2010 Budget throughout the
year in 2009. This process was much longer and more difficult than usual due to a $1.8 million
budget gap related to a variety of factors including the loss of MVHC (Market Value Homestead
Credit) funds. By pulling together staff and making difficult decisions the City made it through a
very complex process. Our plans have helped make us stronger financially and allowed us to do
budget projections for 2011 as part of the 2010 process.
To balance the 2010 budget the City cut back in areas of wages by rolling back contract settlements,
no salary increase for Directors/City Manager and a pay reduction for Council. The City did not
increase the employer contribution for benefits although the premiums increased. The City
eliminated 8 FTE’s, 2 PT and a number of temporary positions. Reorganization of some
departments and divisions were done to reduce costs and making sure we were able to continue with
efficient and quality service delivery. Fees were increased from 3 – 5%, and we made a cut of
$320,000 in various line items in the budget. Finally the gap was closed with a modest levy increase
of 2.98%, or $650,000, of which $500,000 was used for the General Fund/Park and Recreation
Fund and the remainder to help the Capital Replacement Fund. Closing the $1.8M gap was a
significant undertaking accomplished with planning, cooperation and support. Staff continues to
review vacant positions, ask for staff recommendations and conduct business analysis as an ongoing
process and look for new and creative ways to do our work and balance the city’s finances.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
2010 – 2011 Budget Projection. In 2010 we compiled a General Fund/Park and Recreation Fund
budget projection for 2011 and shared it with Council (attached). This projection is used to help in
our continued planning for 2011 funding. To do a projection we create a “snapshot” of our finances
and include some preliminary estimates for 2011. Based on this snapshot and the use of certain
assumptions staff is currently projecting a budget gap of approximately $412,000 for 2011. In the
attached projection we assume a continuation of our current operations, assumed a levy similar to
2010 which generates $500,000, factored in the 2.25% salary increase on 12/31/10, a benefit
increase of $65 per month, and limited an increase in General Fund/Park and Recreation Fund
expenditures to $100,000. This projection also uses a revenue reduction of $114,000 due to a lower
amount of fire aid expected to be received and the continued $50,000 reduction in our use of the
Police and Fire Pension Fund for dispatch. As a result, this projection shows we need to change
operations, increase revenue or modify budgets to close the anticipated budget gap. We will have a
better idea of the 2011 budget estimate when we receive the budget recommendations from
Directors and get information from Council on other program or operational changes. All in all, if
there continues to be a gap, it could be covered through various means including, but not limited to,
changing some business operations and lowering costs, increasing revenue, use of other funds etc.
Working together we will have a package for Council to review and discuss early in August.
Monday night’s discussion. Below is a list of information that staff will walk through on Monday
night. The City Council is asked to provide feedback on the information provided. Staff is currently
working on budget recommendations for 2011. The feedback staff receives will be incorporated into
the work on budgets CIP, fees, etc. for Council review in August.
1. Review the 2010 & 2011 budget analysis snapshot (see attached)
• Property tax levy estimates
• Wages & benefits
• General Fund/Park and Rec Fund expenditure increases limited to $100,000
• Continue the plan to decrease transfer from Police and Fire Pension Fund per Long
Range Financial Management Plan.
• Fire Aid - budget vs actual
2. Fees
• Franchise fee increase for 2011 and discussion on this fee after 2011
• Staff process to review fees for 2011
3. General discussion on Capital Improvement Program and Long Range Financial Plan
(LRFMP information distributed at the meeting).
4. Utility rates: residential, irrigation and commercial
5. Communication plan
In building the 2011 budget, special considerations and attention will be given to a number of areas
including:
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
Wages and benefits. We have planned a 2.25% increase effective 12/31/10. As you are aware, the
City had concessions from our unions with closed contracts in 2010 to roll back to 1% 1/1/10 and
2/25% 12/31/10 for dispatch; a combination of roll back and unpaid time off for firefighters
equivalent to the dispatch pattern, and furloughs are in place for Local 49. Patrol and Sergeants
settled for the same wage pattern of 1% & 2.25% in 2010 with 0% in 2011. The only group to
need approval for the 2.25% pattern on 12/31/10 is non-union. Also, for 2010 there was no
increase in employer contribution for benefits. For 2011 the preliminary budget assumes we provide
a $65/month per employee increase.
Franchise Fees
In 2009, the City Council inquired about the City’s ability to increase franchise fees for capital
purposes related to the City’s Pavement Management Program. Based on discussions with
CenterPoint Energy and Xcel, there is support for the City to increase franchise fees to assist in
funding capital needs. Further, it was the hope of City staff to negotiate an agreement that allowed
for automatic yearly or alternating year increases. They were receptive to a one year planned increase
and not the continued automatic increases.
Franchise fees historically generate approximately $920,000 annually, which are used to fund the
Pavement Management Program. The City also allocates $415,000 of the property tax levy per year
to aid in funding the Pavement Management Program. Based on the current Long Range Financial
Management Plan, the Pavement Management fund will have a deficit balance by the end of 2015 if
the program is maintained at its current level. Therefore, as discussed previously with the City
Council, the proposed strategy is to increase the City’s franchise fees in 2011. Thereafter, a plan to
increase franchise fees on an every other year basis provides for a sustainable funding source for the
Pavement Management Fund and eliminates the need for the property tax infusion. The property
tax monies could then be redirected and utilized in the Capital Replacement Fund (also projected to
have a significant deficit in future years) as part of a multi-faceted funding approach to help achieve
long term sustainability.
Franchise fee increases that are being proposed would increase revenues in 2011 by approximately
$294,000, impacting most customer classes as outlined in the attached worksheet. The residential
class, which comprises about 90% of the customer base, would see a $0.50 per month per utility
increase, and the large commercial/industrial customer would see a $4.00 per month per utility
increase. Beginning in 2013 and every other year thereafter, if the City Council, CenterPoint and
Xcel would agree to increase franchise fees by $0.50 or $0.75 for all non-large commercial/industrial
and $4.00 to $6.00 for all large commercial/industrial, this would generate between $256,000 and
$385,000 in additional annual revenue. By implementing the proposed increase for 2011, the City
would still be very competitive with other cities as the attached information demonstrates. Even
based on the future proposed increases the franchise fees would still be competitive with many cities
current rates. Any approved additional funding will remain dedicated to the Pavement Management
Fund which covers street seal-coating, mill and overlays, curb & gutter repairs, as well as
reconstruction.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
Police and Fire Pension Fund. As part of the 2003/04 budget crisis and related solution, the City
began using these one time funds to help pay for dispatch related costs. For the last several years the
City has slowly reduced its reliance on these funds to pay ongoing dispatch costs. To make sure we
have a sustainable funding approach for the future the attached budget projection again assumes we
decrease our reliance on these funds by $50,000 1n 2011, which is comparable to what has been
done over the past few years. Also, we will eliminate use of the Fire Pension fund since these funds
are planned to be used in the construction of the two fire stations.
Municipal Service Center (MSC) remodeling. In 2010 the MSC remodeling will be completed and
our Utility operations, Garbage and Recycling along with Parks, Street operations, Traffic and
Mechanics will all be housed at the MSC. The MSC budget and divisions housed at this building
will be reviewed and updated to meet with the new business operation.
Fire Aid revenue. Fire Aid is funding the city receives from the state that is generated from the
insurance industry and sent to fund fire activities (also commonly called the 2% money). If our City
had a private pension fund for fire these funds would be required to be used to fund that type of
program. Since we use PERA, the funds can be used for fire operations. In 2010 and the past several
years, the Fire Aid revenue has been coming in lower than we expected. For 2010 we budgeted
$300,000 and are expected to receive $186,000 ($114,000 under our revenue projection). Chief
Stemmer reviewed this with his peers and his recommendation is to lower our projection for 2011.
Energy review. Over the past year staff has tracked detailed data on energy costs to be used for the
2011 budget. We will continue to track this through 2011 as we upgrade and improve our energy
efficiency in our buildings.
Across the board review of expenses: telephone, printing, refuse etc. We will conduct a city wide
review on some expenditures that hit most if not all departments to see if there are any areas that
could help us in budget costs. Since we’ve changed staffing levels, moved from paper to electronic
communication, and upgraded phones it is time to look across the board again at these types of
charges.
NEXT STEPS:
As we continue the budget process for 2010, the following schedule has been developed for Council
(detailed calendar showing staff and Council work with budget also attached):
August 9 & 23 Council study session on budget and preliminary 2010 levy.
Directors present as needed.
September 7 Council establishes preliminary property tax levy
(this amount may be reduced in the future, not increased)
Sept. to Nov. Ongoing City Council study session updates and discussion on budget and
capital plan as needed
November 8 Final budget discussion with Council if needed, prior to TNT hearing
December 6 Truth in Taxation budget public hearing
December 20 Council approves 2011 final budget and property tax levy
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Subject: 2011Budget Discussion
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Details provided in this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable at this time.
Attachments: 2010 & 2011 Budget Analysis snapshot
Franchise fee information proposed for 2011
Franchise fee comparative info for CenterPoint
Franchise fee comparative info for Xcel
2010 Budget Calendar
Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions
Mission and Values Statement – City of St. Louis Park
Guiding Principles for budget 2011
Prepared by: Nancy Deno Gohman, Deputy City Manager
Brian Swanson, Controller - Finance
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
2009 2009 2010 2011
Adopted Revised Adopted Preliminary
General Fund Revenues:
Property Taxes 14,970,275 15,285,275 15,528,521 15,528,521
MVHC Loss - (632,000) (638,916) (638,916)
All Other Revenues 8,757,024 8,807,024 8,279,748 8,279,748
Total General Revenues 23,727,299 23,460,299$ 23,169,353$ 23,169,353$
General Fund Expenditures:
General Government:
Total Admininstration 990,835 990,835$ 924,472$ 924,472$
Total Communications 289,225 289,225$ 281,905$ 281,905$
Total Community Outreach 86,055 86,055$ 86,255$ 86,255$
Total Human Resources 644,050 643,550$ 644,950$ 644,950$
Total Information Resources 1,483,270 1,471,270$ 1,400,666$ 1,400,666$
Total Finance 679,450 617,450$ 588,850$ 588,850$
Total Assessing 487,530 487,530$ 490,080$ 490,080$
Total Community Development 1,107,750 1,083,750$ 1,051,150$ 1,051,150$
Total Facilities Maintenance 1,203,442 1,153,442$ 1,081,742$ 1,081,742$
Total General Government 6,971,607 6,823,107$ 6,550,070$ 6,550,070$
Public Safety:
Total Police 7,307,022 7,281,522$ 7,306,402$ 7,306,402$
Total Fire 3,116,673 3,116,673$ 3,122,173$ 3,122,173$
Total Inspectional Services 2,053,427 2,027,427$ 1,816,227$ 1,816,227$
Total Public Safety 12,477,122$ 12,425,622$ 12,244,802$ 12,244,802$
Public Works:
Total Public Works Administration 854,950 854,950$ 854,900$ 854,900$
Total Engineering 923,800 923,800$ 829,800$ 829,800$
Total Operations 2,485,800 2,485,800$ 2,509,100$ 2,509,100$
Total Public Works 4,264,550 4,264,550$ 4,193,800$ 4,193,800$
Non-Departmental:
Total Non-Departmental 180,000 180,000$ 180,681$ 180,681$
Total General Fund Expenditures 23,893,279 23,693,279$ 23,169,353$ 23,169,353$
General Fund Gap (165,980)$ (232,980)$ -$ -$
Park & Recreation Revenues:
Property Taxes 4,073,118 4,073,118$ 4,014,872$ 4,014,872$
Subtotal: All Other Revenues 2,092,300 2,092,300 2,071,294 2,071,294
Total Park & Recreation Revenues 6,165,418 6,165,418$ 6,086,166$ 6,086,166$
Park & Recreation Expenditures:
Total Organized Recreation 1,291,210 1,291,210$ 1,245,408$ 1,245,408$
Total Recreation Center 1,454,767 1,454,767$ 1,436,858$ 1,436,858$
Total Park Maintenance 1,460,585 1,443,585$ 1,396,715$ 1,396,715$
Total Westwood Nature Center 491,786 491,786$ 493,450$ 493,450$
Total Environment 286,793 286,793$ 351,543$ 351,543$
Total Vehicle Maintenance 1,180,277 1,130,277$ 1,162,192$ 1,162,192$
Total Park & Recreation Expenditures 6,165,418 6,098,418$ 6,086,166$ 6,086,166$
Park & Recreation Gap -$ 67,000$ -$ -$
Total Gap General and P&R Before Adjustments:(165,980)$ (165,980)$ -$ -$
Proposed Property Tax Levy Adjustment:-$ -$ -$ 500,000$
Fire Aid Reduction Based on Historical and Information from State:- - - (114,000)
Proposed Benefit Contribution Increase - $65/month - General and P&R Impact:- - - 151,492
Salary adjustments:- - 496,365
Estimated Projected increase in expenditures:- - - 100,000
Decreased transfer in from Police and Fire Pension Fund per LRFMP:- - - (50,000)
Projected Total Budget Gap for Gen. and Park and Rec. Funds:-$ -$ -$ (411,857)$
2011 ASSUMPTIONS:
Salary and step increases if applicable for all employees.
No use of fund balance in 2011.
No Market Value Homestead Credit
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 6
dCity of St Louis Park, MinnesotaFranchise Fee EstimateVariable Increases Proposed for 2011Beginning in 2013 and Every Other Year After an Increase of $0.50 For All Non Large C/I, With Large C/I Increase of $4.00.Xcel - ElectricCUSTOMER CLASSAVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNTESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES2011 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEE2011 New Fee Proposal2013 and Odd Years After $.50 Increase for All Except $4.00 increase for Large C/IFuture New Revenue EstimateResidential*22,306 $334,585$468,419$1.25$1.75$2.25$133,834Small C&I – Non-Demand*1,355 $65,028$65,028$4.00$4.00$4.50$8,129Small C&I – Demand627 $75,280$99,746$10.00$13.25$13.75$3,764Large C&I 146 $113,945$127,969$65.00$73.00$77.00$7,012Public Street Lighting75 $0not exemptebut fee not applied$0Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand21 $1,012$1,012$4.00$4.00$4.50$127Municipal Pumping – Demand18 $2,160$2,160$10.00$10.00$10.50$108Total24,548 $592,010$764,334$152,973Net Increase$172,324CenterPoint - Heating GasCUSTOMER CLASSAVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNTESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES2011 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEENew Fee Proposal2013 and Odd Years After $.50 Increase for All Except $4.00 increase for Large C/IFuture New Revenue EstimateResidential15,666$234,990$328,986$1.25$1.75$2.25$93,996Commercial A584$8,760$12,264$1.25$1.75$2.25$3,504Commercial B398$19,104$19,104$4.00$4.00$4.50$2,388Commercial C550$66,000$87,450$10.00$13.25$13.75$3,300SVDF A & B79$9,480$12,561$10.00$13.25$13.75$474LVDF4 $3,120$3,504$65.00$73.00$77.00$192Total17,281 $341,454$463,869$103,854Net Increase$122,415Total$294,739$256,827Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1) Subject: 2011 Budget DiscussionPage 7
CenterPoint Franchise Fees
Flat Rates
City Res Comm A Comm B Comm C SVDF A SVDF B LVDF
Afton 2.00 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Anoka 2.75 2.75 8.00 35.00 75.00 300.00 900.00
Benson 2.00 3.33 4.00 10.00 13.33 10.00 50.00
Blue Earth 2.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Brooklyn Center 1.52 1.58 5.15 20.60 51.50 98.88 98.88
Champlin 2.50 2.50 8.00 35.00 70.00 125.00 125.00
Cottage Grove 1.25 3.25 6.25 6.25 12.50 12.50 18.75
Deephaven 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Excelsior 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Hopkins 1.00 1.00 3.00 9.00 18.00 63.00 63.00
Little Falls 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00
Long Prairie 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Mankato 0.95 2.50 5.25 12.00 15.00 20.00 25.00
Morris 2.00 5.00 9.00 27.00 35.00 35.00 750.00
Mound 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
New Hope 1.50 3.00 6.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 60.00
North Mankato 1.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 30.00 75.00
Oakdale 1.00 4.50 4.50 7.50 15.00 15.00 15.00
Prior Lake 1.50 1.50 5.00 5.00 10.00 10.00 50.00
Richfield 1.65 1.65 5.10 11.33 11.33 11.33 11.33
Waseca 1.40 1.80 5.00 16.00 100.00 150.00 300.00
Average 1.67$ 2.83$ 5.01$ 11.94$ 23.70$ 44.84$ 122.05$
St. Louis Park $1.25 $1.25 $4.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $65.00
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 8
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FRANCHISE FEE ANALYSIS
COMPARISONS TO OTHER COMMUNITIES
Xcel Franchise Fees
Flat Rates
Sm C/I Sm C/I Mun Pump Mun Pump
City Res Non-Demand Demand Lg C/I St Lights Non-Demand Demand
Afton 2.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Baker (U) 3.25 3.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Brooklyn Center 1.52 3.10 20.60 99.00 12.40 12.40 12.40
Champlin 2.50 8.00 35.00 125.00 15.00 15.00 15.00
Chisago City 1.30 5.00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15.00
Circle Pines 2.75 3.00 35.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 0.00
Cottage Grove 1.25 1.25 6.25 25.00 2.50 0.63 6.25
Deephaven 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Dilworth 1.75 4.00 14.00 91.00 0.00 4.00 14.00
Excelsior 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.50
Faribault 1.35 1.60 32.00 280.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Goodview 2.75 3.00 25.00 110.00 25.00 2.50 10.00
Grant 2.35 2.00 14.00 75.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
Hopkins 1.00 2.00 9.00 63.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lindstrom 1.30 5.00 15.00 55.00 5.00 5.00 15.00
Little Canada 1.75 4.00 24.00 0.00 15.00 1.00 7.00
Mahtomedi 1.30 1.38 14.40 110.28 12.71 0.63 14.84
Mankato 0.50 1.00 10.00 130.00 1.00 0.25 1.00
Maplewood 0.50 1.00 6.00 45.00 0.50 0.50 0.50
Minnetonka 2.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 0.00 4.50 4.50
Monticello 1.95 5.50 31.00 190.00 12.00 12.00 31.00
Mound 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
New Hope 1.50 4.50 9.00 36.00 4.50 4.50 4.50
Newport 0.50 1.00 6.00 50.00 4.00 1.00 5.00
North Mankato 0.75 1.10 9.25 125.00 13.25 1.10 9.25
Oakdale 1.00 2.00 9.00 7.50 6.00 1.50 7.50
Prior Lake 1.50 5.00 10.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Richfield 1.65 5.10 11.33 73.65 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sartell f 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75
St. Joseph 1.00 1.75 10.00 8.00 1.00 10.00
St. Michael 2.50 2.50 2.50 10.00 10.00 2.50 10.00
St. Paul Park 1.50 2.00 25.00 335.00 10.00 1.00 5.00
Stillwater 2.00 2.50 18.00 125.00 4.00 2.00 18.00
Watertown 2.00 3.50 15.00 50.00 0.00 12.50 20.00
Average 1.74$ 2.98$ 13.25$ 70.75$ 5.34$ 3.04$ 7.31$
St. Louis Park $1.25 $4.00 $10.00 $65.00 $0.00 $4.00 $10.00
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 9
City of St. Louis Park
2011 Preliminary Budget Calendar
Date Department(s) Description
May 26, 2010 @ 4:30 pm All
All 2011Budget worksheets available on O:\Budget to all departments.
This includes all General, Special Revenue and Proprietary Funds. All
revenues and expenditures are to be budgeted including review of fee sch.
May 26, 2010 @ 4:30 pm All The 2011–2015 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is available for update.
May 26 – Oct. 1, 2010
Public Works and
Finance 2011 Utility Rate Analyses – To be approved with 2011 Budget
June 14 Admin/Finance Workshop with City Council to discuss 2011 Budget process.
July 7 @ 4:30 pm All Departments 2011 Proposed Budget worksheets due and access to Read-only by IR.
July 7 @ 4:30 pm All Departments Capital Improvement Software access restricted by Finance to Read-Only
July 12 - 23 Each Department Individual budget review - City Manager, Deputy CM and Controller
August 9
Dept. Dir., City
Manager/Deputy
CM and Finance
Preliminary 2011 Budget, CIP and LRFMP review and discussion by
City Council, with City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Department
Directors and Finance in attendance.
August 23
Dept. Dir., City
Manager/Deputy
CM and Finance
Second review and discussion of 2011 Budget, CIP and LRFMP by City
Council, with City Manager, Deputy City Manager, Department
Directors and Finance in attendance.
September 7 Admin./Finance Preliminary 2011 Budget and Property Tax Levy approval by Council
By September 15 Finance
Certification of 2011 Preliminary Property Tax Levy due to Hennepin
County and levy reports due to State of Minnesota
September 8 – October 15 All Departments
Final review of all 2011 revenues and expenditures for all funds. In
addition, review of the CIP, and LRFMP.
October 1 P.W. and Finance Utility Rate Analyses completed
October 15 All Departments Final changes submitted to City Manager/Deputy C.M and Controller
November 8 C.M/Finance Final Budget Discussion with City Council prior to TNT hearing
By November 22 Finance Truth in Taxation notice sent to Sun-Sailor for publication December 2.
December 6 C.M./Finance Truth in taxation (Budget Public Hearing)
December 13 C.M./Finance Council discussion of any 2011 Budget related items (if necessary)
December 20 C.M./Finance
Final 2011 Budget and Property Tax Levy, 2011 Utility Rates, fee
schedules and 2011 – 2015 CIP approved by Council. In addition, the
LRFMP is provided as a report only.
By December 23 Finance Certification of tax levy and other required forms
January, 2011 Finance
Budget and CIP published in paper and on City’s website. Report to
OSA due 1/31/2011.
Note: Items in blue are meetings with the City Council
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 10
Our Vision
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental
stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and
responsibility in all areas of city business.
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts,
culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including
implementation where appropriate.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 11
Our Mission
Deliver responsive
municipal services
to ensure a safe, welcoming
and vital community now
and in the future.
Our Values
Respect
We are stewards
of the public trust
who treat our colleagues
and those we serve courteously,
openly and equitably.
Contribution
We are committed
to lifelong learning, personal
accountability and collaboration
to ensure our best contribution
to this community.
Stewardship
We are responsible
for our community’s human,
environmental and fi nancial resources.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 12
City of St. Louis Park
2011 Budget
Guiding Principles for 2010 - 2011 Business Analysis
• Suggestions are sustainable.
• Solutions are responsible.
• We must continue to maintain trust and credibility both internally and externally.
• Continue to focus on Mission delivery. Make sure we keep delivering those things that maintain
and grow the strength and viability of the community.
• We must adapt, be willing to change and shift to be fiscally strong while being innovative in
meeting the community needs.
• Continue to think “City First”, then Department.
• Understand and accept that changes in our business and shifts in service delivery may not appear
fair and equitable to all.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 1)
Subject: 2011 Budget Discussion Page 13
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 2
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Update on the Financial and Operational Status of Project for Pride in Living’s (PPL) Louisiana
Court Development.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. This report is intended to provide background information and a
project status report to assist with the discussion at the study session. Steps outlined later in this
report which staff is recommending the Council consider taking to improve the financial stability of
Louisiana Court include refinancing the bonds for the project, establishment of a pilot shallow rent
subsidy program for 10 units at Louisiana Court, and the contribution of a portion of the existing
debt service reserve fund (excess reserve dollars after a refinancing is completed) as an equity
contribution to assist in lowering the debt on the project and support the planned rehab activities as
outlined in the proposed refinancing plan submitted by PPL.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The purpose of this staff report is to discuss possible steps to improve the long term financial
strength of Louisiana Court. From a policy perspective, the City Council is being asked to consider
whether or not to support the refinancing of the bonds issued for the Louisiana Court project to take
advantage of reduced interest rates now available. Another step the Council could take is
establishment of a pilot shallow rent subsidy program at Louisiana Court that would put current
vacant apartment units to use and improve Louisiana Court’s cash flow.
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. For the most part, the
initial goals of the project have been reached but the transformation of Louisiana Court continues to
be a challenge financially. Current economic conditions offer an opportunity to strengthen
Louisiana Court financially by refinancing at a lower interest rate. 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.
In addition to refinancing, PPL has proposed a plan that includes funding contributions from the
County, MN Housing, the Limited Partner and the Family Housing Fund to lower the overall debt
on the project and to fund a limited amount of rehab. Both of these initiatives would further
strengthen the financial position of the development and reduce the City’s risk and exposure going
forward.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
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 and 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.
Issuance of Bonds in 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:
1. 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. Significant progress was made in meeting the goals of the project, but 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 try and 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 undertaken 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) to assist in financing capital
improvements.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
The 2006 stabilization plan consisted of four parts including:
1. Completion of additional capital improvements to increase marketability and reduce
ongoing maintenance costs.
2. Improving resident retention through:
i) More intense social programming,
ii) Increased security, and
iii) Youth Development program and activities.
3. Introduction of a limited number of new tenants with rental subsidies and committed social
support programs to facilitate their stabilized occupancy.
4. Reduction of operating expenses by:
i) Decreasing property taxes (property tax appeal and/or abatement), and
ii) Decreased maintenance costs.
Coinciding with the implementation of this Plan, 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. In addition,
Enterprise has approximately $1,000,000 set aside for further assistance with future operational costs
and/or to use as a resource as 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’s cash flow has continued to be less than anticipated. Decreased net
revenues have made it impossible for PPL to meet the required 120% debt service ratio. The primary
reason for the decreased revenue has been a greater number of vacancies than budgeted and higher
than expected operating expenses combined with too much debt on the project. Despite the
financial challenges, PPL has remained current on all debt service payments with the exception of
deferring required scheduled reserve deposits. The current outstanding balance on the General
Obligation Bonds is approximately $3.77 million.
Debt Reduction
Although it is generally agreed that the project needs a combination of debt reduction and capital
improvements, limited funding prevents both issues being addressed to the extent needed. PPL’s
current financial restructuring plan focuses on lowering the debt service on the project through
equity contributions from the funding partners and a request to the City to refinance the bonds to
take advantage of lower interest rates (see attachment). Funding contributions are being requested
from MN Housing, Hennepin County, the City (excess debt service reserve), the Family Housing
Fund and the Limited Partner, Enterprise. Lacking additional funding resources, the prioritization
of debt reduction over capital improvements appears to be the best plan at this time.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
City staff and the other funding partners have met with PPL on several occasions to discuss the
status of Louisiana Court and to review the proposed refinancing plan. It is agreed amongst the
funders that the current debt carried by the project is too high and that lowering the debt on the
project would improve the development’s financial status significantly, although, this action alone
does not appear to be enough to remedy the developments financial deficit for the long-term.
PPL’s plan focuses on providing a way forward for the next 10 years at which time we can reevaluate
what the next life should be for Louisiana Court. The combination of grants, refinancing and
assistance should make it possible for Louisiana Court to cash flow for the next 10 yrs, but at a
narrow margin and with not much funding for capital improvements.
Refinancing at a lower total debt reduces the amount of debt service reserve needed and makes it
possible for the City to contribute a portion of the existing debt service reserve as an equity
contribution. Currently, the balance in the debt service reserve, $325,000, is equal to one year of
bond payments. After refinancing, the annual debt service payment will decrease to approximately
$140,000. The City anticipates retaining a reserve equal to 6 months to one year of debt service
payments. The excess amount, $185,000 to $255,000, would be used as an equity contribution to
the project. Permission to use these excess funds as an equity contribution will require authorization
from Metropolitan Council since the debt reserve fund was originally capitalized with Livable
Community Grant funds. The City will also waive the required payoff of the $400,000 deferred
loan between PPL and the City which is triggered due to the refinancing. The balance of the loan
will remain in place and will be rolled over.
Ideally, it is generally agreed that the project would benefit from a combination of debt reduction
and capital improvements but limited funding prevents both issues being addressed to the extent
desired. The plan put forth put forth by PPL prioritizes debt reduction over capital investment, this
appears to be the best plan at this time. Additional investment in capital improvements will be
needed over the next 10 years to address ongoing maintenance/rehab needs and to implement
upgrades required to maintain and improve marketability. Improving financial stability will enhance
the property’s ability to do improvements and to secure grants for improvements in the future.
From the City’s position as the first mortgagee, reissuance of the bonds at a lower interest rate and
contribution of the excess debt service reserve funds is a low cost way for the City to assist Louisiana
Court with the current financial situation. Refinancing at a lower debt amount will further reduce
the City’s risk as the first mortgage holder, offering further protection of the City’s investment.
Although firm funding commitments have not yet been received from the other funders, Hennepin
County and the Family Housing Fund have indicated a strong commitment to the project. Funding
announcements for the County’s Affordable Housing Incentive Fund will be made in mid June.
MN Housing’s grant application deadline is mid June with funding awards scheduled to be
announced in early fall.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
Revenue Enhancement/Affordable Housing
In addition to debt reduction, several other initiatives may further stabilize the project and have the
potential to create and retain affordable housing opportunities while leveraging additional rent
revenues for the development.
The City could develop, fund and implement a shallow rent subsidy program that would provide a
$200 monthly rent subsidy for 10 units at Louisiana Court. Eligible participants would be applicants
currently on the Housing Authority’s Section 8 Voucher Program waiting list. There are currently
over 500 applicants on the waiting list and due to federal budget constraints, the Housing Authority
has not issued a new Section 8 Voucher to an applicant off the general waiting list in over a year.
Creating a shallow subsidy program could be a cost effective way to provide affordable housing to 10
families in need while taking advantage of an available housing resource in the community.
At $200 per month for ten units, $24,000 in annual rent subsidy would leverage approximately
$60,000 in rent revenue at Louisiana Court. Funding for the program would be provided by the
Park Shore TIF district funds. The use of these funds is restricted for use on affordable housing
activities. The TIF district generates approximately $120,000 in increment annually and has a
current balance of approximately $750,000. Staff is proposing that the program be operated as a
pilot and potentially expanded in the future after careful evaluation to other developments
throughout the City.
Staff is also exploring the possibility of converting the twelve Hollman Public Housing units at
Louisiana Court to Project Based Section 8 Rental Assistance. Authorization from HUD to convert
the units requires a very lengthy application process so this is not an immediate solution to the
revenue shortfall but a conversion could result in approximately an additional $55,000 in rent
revenue.
Future
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.
When the City partnered to redevelop Louisiana Court ten years ago, the City took the unusual step
of issuing General Obligation Bonds to assist in financing the acquisition and rehab of the
development. The City supported the project concept and determined that rehabbing and retaining
this development as an affordable housing resource was a worthwhile endeavor. At the same time,
the Council didn’t envision that the City would need to provide ongoing subsidy to sustain the
development.
The Plan proposed by PPL should make it possible for Louisiana Court to cash flow for the next 10
years. However, considering the on-going challenges of making Louisiana Court work financially
and the inability of this project to generate funds for PPL, it seems that at some point it might be
better for both PPL and the City (as mortgage holder) if PPL were to be out from under the burden
of responsibility for the real estate and focus instead on the mission of helping residents.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 2) Page 6
Subject: Louisiana Court Update
Housing is one of several initiatives in which PPL helps low income individuals and families to
achieve greater self sufficiency, and despite limited resources, PPL has contributed over $600,000 in
agency funds to finance operating deficits and capital improvements at Louisiana Court over the past
10 years. In addition, PPL estimates that the cost to provide Self-Sufficiency and Youth
Development programs and services at the development is approximately $105,000 annually.
Service costs are covered by PPL and not charged to the development. Despite their commitment to
the project, PPL has stated that they aren’t in a financial position to put additional direct funding
into the plan for debt reduction and capital improvements and that their financial commitment to
keeping Louisiana Court viable greatly exceeds any other affordable rental project they’ve done.
The approach that this development needs is an owner that can take full financial responsibility for
Louisiana Court, whether that means a benefactor that can afford to run Louisiana Court
continually at a loss in service of a greater mission; or, selling Louisiana Court to a non profit
housing developer whose primary mission is affordable housing; or, returning the development to
private ownership as modest priced market rate housing. These concepts have been discussed with
PPL and will be explored should the project continue to underperform financially.
Any re-issuance of G. O. Bonds should also include a requirement to adhere to certain performance
standards that insure Louisiana Court is well maintained and well managed during the life of the
bonds. City staff will work with Ehlers and Associates and Kennedy and Graven to ensure that
“performance conditions” will be included as part of the refinancing agreement to ensure that there
is an opportunity to explore an ownership transfer in the future if warranted.
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.
NEXT STEPS:
Based on the direction received from the Council, staff will continue to work with PPL and the
other funding partners on the financial restructuring plan for Louisiana Court. Staff will continue to
consult with Ehlers & Associates and Kennedy & Graven to determine steps needed to reissue the
bonds and to ensure that steps are taken to safeguard the City’s interest. Staff will keep the Council
updated as new developments occur.
Attachment: PPL Proposed Refinancing Plan
Prepared by: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 2)
Subject: Louisiana Court Update Page 7
Meeting Date: June 14, 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:
Freight Rail Policy.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required at this time. The purpose of this report is to discuss draft resolutions stating the
city’s freight rail policy.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
How does the City Council wish to express the city’s policy regarding freight rail facilities and
operations in St. Louis Park in general, and specifically the potential rerouting of rail traffic from the
Kenilworth corridor to a route entirely in St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
The current status and existing resolutions regarding SWLRT and freight rail relocation were
discussed at the City Council Study Session on May 24, 2010. It was concluded that the city should
do three things in the short term. One, a letter should be sent to the Met Council regarding the
City’s support for LRT and concerns about the potential impacts and the need for mitigation from
rerouting of freight rail traffic. This letter was prepared and sent to Peter Bell, Chair of the Met
Council prior to the Met Council’s adoption of the proposed SWLRT Locally Preferred Alternative
route into the regional Transportation Policy Plan on May 26, 2010.
The second and third actions from the 5/24/10 study session were the need for resolutions stating
the City’s position on freight rail and requesting Hennepin County to more fully analyze all the
alternative routes for rerouting freight rail traffic indentified in the County’s 2009 TCWRR Freight
Rail Relocation Study.
The purpose of this staff report is to discuss what should be included in these two resolutions.
Freight Rail Policy
Significant work has been done over many years to identify the community’s needs and establish the
existing policies regarding freight rail in St. Louis Park. The work involved countless hours of
participation by our neighborhoods and residents. It led to the May 2001 Railroad Advisory Task
Force Position Statement adopted by the City Council in October 2001 as the City’s policy
regarding freight rail. This is a robust document rich in detail and nuance crafted after many hours
of analysis and community discussion. It provides a base from which to build a current freight rail
policy statement that succinctly explains our position regarding freight rail in general, and the
potential rerouting of freight traffic from Kenilworth specifically. The intent is not to replace the
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
2001 position, but rather to supplement that document with a shorter, clear resolution focused on
the most critical freight rail issues of today.
Staff suggests the policy/resolution should reflect the City Council’s continuing commitment to
protect and enhance the quality of our neighborhoods, the community’s support for LRT, the
concerns for potential negative impacts from freight rail activity in the city; and, the need for
mitigation of both existing freight rail problems and future impacts that could result from potential
increases in rail activity including possible rerouting of TCWR or CP rail traffic. A draft resolution
is attached for discussion.
Analysis of Freight Rail Rerouting Alternatives
In 2009 Hennepin County identified and analyzed in a cursory way, six alternative routes for
TCWR freight rail traffic now using the Kenilworth corridor. At the May 24, 2010 study session
the Council asked staff to prepare a document formally requesting that the County reanalyze the
alternative routes at a much greater and more consistent level of detail. The letter making a similar
request last summer was sent to Marthand Nookala at Hennepin County and dated July 21, 2009.
Attached is a draft resolution expressing the city’s request.
NEXT STEPS:
Once draft resolution language is agreed to, final resolutions will be prepared for formal City
Council action.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Adoption of a policy regarding freight rail in St. Louis Park has little direct budget impact. Follow-
up actions may.
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: Draft Resolutions
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
DRAFTMeeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 10-______
RESOLUTION RELATING TO FREIGHT RAIL ACTIVITY IN
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park is committed to protect and enhance the quality of
its neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, several railroads operate within the City of St. Louis Park and railroad
operations can have adverse impacts on the City and its neighborhoods; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park seeks to provide a clear, concise statement of its
position regarding freight rail activity in the City today and in the future; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park adopted the Railroad Task Force Recommendations
of May 23, 2001 by Resolution No. 01-120; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has been an active participant and supporter of
transit in the Southwest corridor, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Technical, Policy and
Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway, and
WHEREAS, the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) unanimously recommended the
selection of Route 3A as the locally preferred alternative with conditions including that agencies
work cooperatively to identify impacts, mitigation requirements, and mitigation funding options to
address the potential of rerouting freight rail in a parallel process with the Southwest LRT DEIS and
to identify the freight rail issue and impacts as a part of the “secondary and cumulative impacts.”;
and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park adopted Resolution No. 10-05 in support of
Hennepin County’s decision of LRT alignment 3A (through the Kenilworth Corridor) as the locally
preferred alternative for the Southwest Transitway ; and,
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Technical, Policy and
Community Advisory Committees for the Southwest Transitway.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that the
City of St. Louis Park:
1. Supports the implementation of the Southwest Transitway LRT project; and,
DRAFTMeeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
2. Continues to support the May 23, 2001 Railroad Task Force Recommendations adopted
by the City Council October 21, 2001;and,
3. Opposes in general the introduction of any additional freight rail traffic through the City
of St. Louis Park; and,
4. Opposes the rerouting of freight rail traffic from the Kenilworth corridor to St. Louis
Park unless the following conditions are clearly met:
a. It is established through a very thorough and careful analysis that no other viable
route exists;
b. There is appropriate mitigation of any and all negative impacts associated with
rail rerouting, funded by sources other than the City of St. Louis Park. Potential
negative impacts that should be addressed include but are not limited to noise,
vibration, odors, traffic congestion, school use and safety, park use and safety;
and, circulation/access in the community by vehicle, pedestrian, transit and
bicycle;
c. Elimination of railroad switching, sorting and blocking operations within the
City of St. Louis Park; and funded by some other source than the City of St.
Louis Park;
d. Removal of the existing “Y” rail tracks in the vicinity of Oxford Street and any
other tracks not needed for through train traffic including the rail tracks east of
any new interconnections between the East-West CP-TCWR tracks and the
North-South CP-MNS tracks.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
DRAFTMeeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Subject: Update and Policy discussion of SWLRT project and MNDOT Kenilworth Freight Rail Relocation Study
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 10-____
RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY
(HCRRA) REANALYZE THE POTENTIAL ROUTES IN THE 2009 TCWR FREIGHT
RAIL REALIGNMENT STUDY IN GREATER DETAIL
WHEREAS, in 2009 Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority conducted a study titled,
“TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study” that evaluated options for moving freight rail from the
Kenilworth corridor; and
WHEREAS, this study considered six options for TCWR operations, and
WHEREAS, the six options were not adequately or equally evaluated in the report, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park needs additional information that evenly applies
criteria to each option.
NOW THEREFORE IT BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park:
1. The City Council hereby requests Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority more fully
evaluate the six options previously evaluated.
2. The additional study should evenly apply the same evaluation criteria to each route.
3. The evaluation should include such items as: an explanation of the future routes to
Minneapolis and St. Paul; impacts to crossing Highway 100; a quantification of the
number of at-grade crossings and number of homes, schools and other sensitive uses
along each route; operational impacts for TCWR; an analysis of routing both freight rail
and light rail through the Kenilworth corridor right-of way; and more detailed analysis of
the projected costs for each route, including property acquisitions.
4. The evaluation should insure that the analysis and criteria are applied consistently and
equally for each route to provide a basis and understanding for decision making.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 4
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – June 21 and June 28
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Special Study Session on June 21 and the
regularly scheduled Study Session on June 28, 2010. Also – it is suggested that further discussion
occur on the prioritization of future study session agenda items.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
BACKGROUND:
At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session
agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items
for the regularly scheduled study session on June 28, 2010. In addition, on occasion, special study
sessions are needed as is the case for the agenda item for June 21.
In addition to discussing the study session agendas for 6/21 and 6/28, it is proposed the results of
the prioritization of future agenda topics be discussed. Please see an attached spread sheet which
summarizes the rankings provided by council members.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Future Study Session Agenda Planning for June 21 and June 28, 2010
Prioritization Spread Sheet
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Subject: Future Study Session
Special Study Session, Monday, June 21, 2010 – 6:20 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Item
1. Fire Station Planning Discussion – Community Development (60 minutes)
Staff will present an overview of the initial site planning for the two fire stations and request
input from the City Council on key issues.
Report:
Hwy 7 Louisiana Interchange Project Update
End of Meeting: 7:20 p.m.
Study Session, Monday, June 28, 2010 – 6:30 p.m.
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2. Gambling Regulations –Administrative Services (45 minutes)
Staff will present additional information from feedback received from current gambling
managers for further council discussion of gambling regulations.
3. West End Residential – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will present the proposal for a residential building at the West End site.
4. Hwy 7 Louisiana Interchange Update Project– Public Works (30 minutes)
Staff will update the Council on the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project.
5. Construction Assistance Program – Community Development (30 minutes)
Staff will update the Council on a proposal to create a program to stimulate construction
within St. Louis Park as authorized by the Legislature.
6. City Council Workshop Follow-up – Administration (45 minutes)
This discussion will allow for a review of the results of the February City Council Workshop
including City Council Norms and the Saturday Brainstorming session.
7. Communications – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Reports:
Ellipse: Major Amendment to PUD for Restaurant
Municipal Service Center Project Update
May Financial Report
End of Meeting: 9:40 p.m.
City Council Items for Follow-upCouncilmember Councilmember Councilmember CouncilmemberCouncilmember Councilmember Councilmember OneTwoThreeFourFiveSixSevenAffordable Housing Update15105103HighTurfwait for specific request22a412LowCharitable Gambling215645Low/MedCivic Facility Study 52314HighReplacement of BN Bridge over Virginia Ave6Need More Info4811Need More InfoHighHuman Rights Commission Annual Report8Written Report7a107-MedParks and Recreation Advisory Commission Annual Report9Written Report799-MedWomen, Minority Owned and Small Business Policy (Completed)7Written Report676--Council Workshop Recap43325-?Convention and Visitors Bureau (Direction given)341131-Environmental Inventory/Update 10922MedDiscussion on City Attorney Services1188?lowMeeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 4)
Subject: Future Study Session Page 3
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 5
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Communications (Verbal).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Not Applicable.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the
purpose of information sharing.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 6
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Property Acquisition Update - 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply property).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. This report is intended to provide additional background information
regarding the EDA’s purchase of the property in question. Please inform staff of any comments or
questions you might have.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to proceed with the purchase of the subject property?
BACKGROUND:
At the May 10th Study Session, staff discussed the availability of 7015 Walker Street (former
Reynolds Welding Supply property) and the merits of the EDA potentially purchasing the property
(see the attached staff report from 5/10/10). An approximate purchase price of $295,000 was
identified. Upon discussion, it was the consensus of the EDA that staff should pursue a purchase
agreement for the subject property and conduct an environmental investigation of the property. To
that end, staff negotiated a purchase agreement and had an environmental investigation performed.
Environmental Conditions
Mary and Karl Johnson, owners of the subject property, agreed to allow the EDA to conduct a Phase
I & Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and asbestos survey on the subject property. AMEC
Geomatrix (an environmental consulting company previously utilized by the EDA) was retained to
perform this work. Attached is a summary of its Preliminary Findings. In sum, the property likely is
impacted by approximately 900 yards of undocumented fill material and various groundwater
contamination which likely originated off site. There are also limited restricted wastes present in the
building consistent with the building’s age. It should be noted that staff has required that the “large
number of high-pressure gas cylinders” present in the building be removed prior to closing.
Additional information is forthcoming based on full laboratory test results expected in the coming
days.
As with other impacted properties the EDA has acquired, the EDA would enter the subject property
into the MPCA’s Voluntary Investigation and Clean-up Program (VIC) in order to obtain a “no
association and off site source determination letter” separating the EDA from any responsibility for
the environmental problems present on the site.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 2
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street
Consistent with the acquisition of former American Inn property, efforts would be made upon
acquisition of the subject property to have the building removed by this fall but not address the
underlying soil conditions until the property’s future use is more definitively determined. Such a
plan would require preparation of a Voluntary Responses Action Plan (VRAP) and approval by the
MPCA. Based upon recent conversations with the MPCA the agency would be amenable to this
plan.
Building Condition and Removal
The building on the subject property is in poor condition and has an adverse visual impact from
both the neighborhood to the north and Highway 7 to the south. Upon acquisition, it is
recommended that that the building be removed. Based on the size of the building and the limited
restricted wastes found within it, the cost of building demolition, including restrictive waste removal,
and site stabilization should be less than $100,000.
Purchase Agreement Terms
The following is a brief summary of the pertinent terms of the proposed Purchase Agreement
between Mary and Karl Johnson (“Seller”) and the EDA (“Buyer”).
1. Purchase Price and Terms
a. Purchase Price: The total Purchase Price for the Property is $280,000.00.
b. Terms:
(1): Earnest Money. The sum of One Dollar ($1.00) Earnest Money shall be
paid by the Buyer to the Seller.
(2): Balance Due Seller: Buyer agrees to pay by check or wire transfer on the Closing
Date the remaining Balance Due according to the terms of the Purchase
Agreement.
(3): Deed/Marketable Title: Subject to performance by Buyer, Seller agrees to
deliver a Warranty Deed conveying marketable title to the Property to
Buyer.
2. Contingencies. Buyer’s obligation to purchase the Property is contingent upon the following:
a. Approval of the Purchase Agreement by the EDA;
b. Buyer conducting environmental investigations on the Property and receiving reports
that are satisfactory to Buyer;
c. Sellers’ procurement of a Certificate of Property Maintenance from the City of St.
Louis Park’s Inspections Department prior to closing;
d Sellers’ removal of all personal property, junk and debris from the Property; and
e. Buyer’s determination of marketable title.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 3
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street
Buyer shall have until the Closing Date to remove the above contingencies.
3. Real Estate Taxes and Special Assessments. Seller shall pay all real estate taxes, interest
and penalties relating to the Property for the years prior to the year of closing. Buyer agrees
to pay taxes for the year following the year of closing and all taxes for years thereafter. Seller
and buyer shall prorate all taxes for the year of closing based on the Closing Date. Seller
shall pay all special assessments regarding the Property which are levied or pending as of the
Closing Date.
4. Closing Date. The date of closing will be on or before June 30, 2010. [Note: The cut-off
date for governmental entities to acquire property and have the property qualify for tax
exempt status for tax year 2011 is June 30th. If the EDA wishes to avoid having to pay
approximately $16,000 in property taxes on the subject property for 2011 it must purchase
the property by June 30th.]
5. Possession/Utilities
a. Possession. Sellers agree to deliver possession of the Property free of all personal
property, junk and debris to Buyer not later than the Closing Date.
b. Utilities. Sellers shall pay all utility charges, if any, prior to the Closing Date.
6. CLOSING COSTS/RECORDING FEES/DEED TAX. Sellers shall pay: (a) the cost of
title evidence, consisting of an abstract or title commitment evidencing marketable title; (b)
any transfer or deed taxes and any deferred taxes due as a result of this transaction; (c) one-
half of closing fees customarily charged by the title company; and (d) any other operating
costs of the Property up to the date of closing. Buyer shall pay: (a) any environmental
investigation costs; (b) costs of title insurance and endorsements; (3) one-half of closing fees
customarily charged by the title company. Each party shall pay its respective real estate
broker and attorneys’ fees.
Proposed Property Plan
Due to the building’s condition and obsolescence staff believes that unless the site is cleared the
likely future uses of the property will not be an asset to the community. The primary reason for
acquisition would be blight removal along the highly visible Highway 7 corridor. In conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan, the EDA has been actively redeveloping this corridor between
Wooddale and Louisiana Avenues. Acquiring the subject property would be consistent with those
efforts. A secondary reason for acquisition is that it may aid in the property assemblage for the future
Highway 7/Louisiana interchange. Currently, it does not appear that the property is needed but it is
in very close proximity to the northeast quadrant of the proposed interchange and at the very least
could be used for project staging. The subject property could also potentially be used for stormwater
retention to aid redevelopment efforts in the neighborhood to the north. If the property is not
needed for either of these purposes, it could be resold to a future redeveloper who had commercial
plans for the property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 4
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street
How would the property acquisition and ancillary costs be funded?
Purchase of the subject property would be paid for through the Development Fund. The
Development Fund could potentially be reimbursed in whole or in part by MnDOT should it need
any portion of the property for right of way related to the future Hwy 7/ LA interchange. In the
event it is not needed for roadway or stormwater improvements it could be resold to a future
redeveloper. Costs related to the environmental investigation, building demolition, restrictive waste
removal, as well as site stabilization would also be paid for through the Development Fund.
Summary
The subject property is situated near the northeast quadrant of the proposed Hwy 7/ LA
interchange. Purchasing the subject property now precludes an undesirable interim use of the
property and affords the EDA the opportunity to have it cleared and available should it be needed
for future road or stormwater improvements.
Based upon comparable land sales information, the acquisition price of the subject property is very
reasonable and within market.
Next Steps
If the EDA remains interested in acquiring the subject property staff will schedule formal approval of
the proposed purchase agreement for June 21st. More information related to the environmental
condition of the subject property should be available by that meeting. Staff will certainly include that
information in its report for June 21st and, if need be, will arrange to have the environmental
consultant present as well.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is requested to consider the acquisition of 7015 Walker St. for $280,000. The EDA would
incur additional costs related to building demolition as well as site stabilization.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained [neighborhoods], being
a connected and engaged community, as well as promoting community aesthetics.
Attachments: Staff report of May 10, 2010
Memo from AMEC Geomatrix
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 5
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street
Meeting Date: May 10, 2010
Agenda Item #:
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:
Potential EDA acquisition of 7015 Walker Street (former Reynolds Welding Supply building).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
City staff requests feedback on the EDA’s potential purchase of 7015 Walker Street.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the EDA wish to consider purchasing the subject property?
BACKGROUND:
The former Reynolds Welding Supply property is located in the Lenox Neighborhood at 7015
Walker Street. (between Highway 7 on the south and Walker Street on the north). It was recently
vacated and the owner is motivated to sell it. The property is approximately ½ acre and is occupied
by a building of less than 3,000 square feet. The structure was originally constructed in 1949 and
expanded in 1979. Staff recently toured the building and confirmed that it is in as rough a shape on
the inside as it is on the outside. A 2002 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment indicates that the
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 6
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street
plume of groundwater contamination associated with the Reilly Tar and Chemical Corporation
which formerly operated in the area extends below the subject property.
Current Land Use
The subject property is currently zoned and guided General Commercial (C2).
Property Value
The current assessed value of the subject property is $495,500. Most of the property’s value is in the
land which is assessed at $404,000 or $20 per square foot due to the property’s highway visibility.
Why Purchase the Subject Property?
Due to the building’s condition and obsolescence staff believes that unless the site is cleared the
likely future uses of the property will not be an asset to the community. The primary reason for
acquisition would be blight removal along the highly visible Highway 7 corridor. In conformance
with the Comprehensive Plan, the EDA has been actively redeveloping this corridor between
Wooddale and Louisiana Avenues. Acquiring the subject property would be consistent with those
efforts. A secondary reason for acquisition is that it may aid in the property assemblage for the future
Highway 7/Louisiana interchange. The subject property could potentially be used for stormwater
retention associated with the interchange and possibly the neighborhood to the north.
If the EDA were to acquire the subject property, given its impacted condition, staff would seek
MPCA approval to remove the building in such a manner as not to necessitate the cleanup of any
contaminated soils beneath. A similar approach was recently taken with the former American Inn
property. The EDA would then hold the property until the future use of the property became clear.
Purchasing and clearing the property prevents the building from falling into further disrepair and
becoming a blighting influence on the adjacent neighborhoods. It would also improve the property’s
aesthetic appearance from the adjacent highway.
Based upon review of comparable land sales information with the City Assessor the acquisition price
of the subject property is very reasonable and below market.
Terms of Acquisition
Terms for a potential purchase agreement include the following:
• Purchase price is approximately $295,000 or $14.53 a square foot.
• Buyer’s purchase of the Property would be conditioned upon:
1. Seller’s ability to provide marketable title to the Property
2. Seller’s payment of any outstanding property taxes, assessments and penalties at
Closing
• Preparation of a Purchase Agreement acceptable to both parties.
• Formal approval of the Purchase Agreement by the EDA.
• Closing would occur no later than June 30th.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6) Page 7
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street
The cost to demolish and remove the former building would be less than $100,000. This estimate
includes utility disconnects but excludes any hazardous waste removal.
How would the property acquisition and ancillary costs be funded?
Purchase of the subject property would be paid for through the Development Fund. Costs related to
the building demolition would also be paid for through the Development Fund.
Next Steps
If the EDA is interested in acquiring the subject property staff will have an updated Phase I
environmental assessment completed and a formal purchase agreement prepared. Such an agreement
would subsequently be presented to the EDA for review and approval. Upon purchase, the EDA
would enter the property in the MPCA’s VIC program so as to obtain a No Association
Determination related to the groundwater contamination and other possible contaminants
impacting the property. The EDA would also submit a Voluntary Remediation Action Plan (VRAP)
for the removal of the building. Once the EDA received all the necessary approvals from the MPCA
it would have the building removed.
Current economic conditions may provide more opportunities for strategic property acquisitions in
the near future. As these opportunities present themselves staff will bring them to the EDA’s
attention for consideration.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The EDA is requested to consider the acquisition of 7015 Walker Street for $295,000. The EDA
could incur addition costs related to building demolition and some environmental costs.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project supports the Strategic Directions of providing well-maintained [neighborhoods], being
a connected and engaged community, as well as promoting community aesthetics.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director & City Manager
AMEC Geomatrix, Inc.
14525 Highway 7, Suite 104
Minnetonka, Minnesota
USA 55345-3736
Tel (952) 935-1010
Fax (952) 935-1254
www.amecgeomatrixinc.com
Memo
To: Mr. Greg Hunt, City of St. Louis Park Project: MN10160050
From: AMEC Geomatrix, Inc. cc:
Tel:
Fax:
Date: June 10, 2010
Subject: Preliminary Summary for 7015 Walker Street, Saint Louis Park, MN
This memo summarizes preliminary findings for the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA) and Phase II ESA we performed on your behalf for 7015 Walker Street, St. Louis Park,
MN (Site).
Phase I ESA
The preliminary results of the Phase I ESA indicate four likely recognized environmental
conditions (RECs) for the Site as defined by ASTM Standard E1527-05. These RECs are as
follows:
¥ Undocumented Fill – When the Site was developed in approximately 1947, portions
of the Site were apparently filled in. The fill contains debris and preliminary analytical
shows petroleum impacts. The undocumented and impacted fill constitutes a REC.
¥ Reilly Tar Superfund Site – The Site is located due east of the Reilly Tar Superfund
Site, which has an extensive history of soil and groundwater contamination related to
creosote wood treatment. Multiple properties around the Site have detected
groundwater impacts by the Reilly Tar site and have received No Association Letters
from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). These known groundwater
impacts constitute a REC.
¥ Multiple Upgradient Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) – Preliminary
research of several properties upgradient of the Site show the presence of LUSTs.
These leaking tanks contained such petroleum products as gasoline, diesel fuel and
fuel oils. Location, remediation data, and closure results for these tanks are still
being evaluated, but may constitute a REC.
¥ Saint Louis Park Soil Vapor Investigaton – The Site is located in the vicinity of the
ongoing soil vapor and groundwater impacts investigation in the City of St. Louis
Park due to industrial chlorinated solvents. Various chlorinated groundwater “hot
spots” occur in close proximity to the Site and may be impacting the Site due to local
groundwater flow conditions from the Reilly Tar remediation. Further research is
needed to determine the proximity and degree to which these impacts may affect the
Site. The possibility of these impacts affecting groundwater at the Site may constitute
a REC.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street Page 8
Preliminary Summary for 7015 Walker Street, Saint Louis Park, MN
June 9, 2010
Page 2 of 2
Phase II ESA
AMEC Geomatrix, Inc (AMEC) performed a Phase II ESA on May 26, 2010. This investigation
included collection of soil samples used to characterize various locations of interest at the Site.
Soils at the Site consist of 2 to 4-feet of sandy organic fill soil with gravel underlain by sands
with gravel to 30-feet below ground surface (bgs). Initial field screening of the soils revealed low
to background levels volatile organic compound (VOC).
Chemical analysis of soil samples is still in progress at the laboratory. Some preliminary results
are available:
Soil Groundwater
VOCs In Progress Preliminary
PAHs In Progress In Progress
DRO Preliminary Preliminary
Metals In Progress Preliminary
These results show the presence of diesel range organics (DRO) in soil samples in the
southeast corner of the Site as well as in the fill under the western end of the building. VOC and
PAH results are not yet available for the soil samples.
Preliminary estimates of the volume of fill located at the Site are approximately 900 cubic yards.
The composition or contamination of fill throughout the Site is not known due to the preliminary
status of the soil analytical.
AMEC collected groundwater samples from temporary wells installed in the northwest and
southeast corners of the Site. Depth to groundwater ranges from 16 to 23-feet bgs dependent
on sloping ground surface elevation at the Site.
Chemical analysis of groundwater samples is still in progress. Some preliminary results are
available and show the presence of tetrachloroethene (PCE), trichloroethene (TCE), and DRO
in the southeast well but not the northwest well. PCE and TCE are commonly used chlorinated
solvents and have been detected in the ongoing soil vapor intrusion and groundwater study at
multiple locations near, but not at, the Site. It is also possible these impacts could be from the
machine shop that was operating in the lower level of the building at the Site in approximately
1962.
Restricted Waste Survey
AMEC contracted Legend Technical Service Inc. (Legend) to perform a restricted waste survey
of the existing building. Preliminary results of the survey indicate some asbestos containing floor
tiles, adhesives, window caulking/glazing, and pipe coating. There is asbestos containing
material in the lower roof flashing sealant but not in the upper roofing material. Analysis is still
being performed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) within caulking. The building has 4-5
mercury containing thermostats. The building still contains a large number of high-pressure gas
cylinders.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 6)
Subject: Property Acquisition Update on 7015 Walker Street Page 9
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 7
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Inspections Department – Property Maintenance Division Organization and Tools for Compliance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No formal action at this time. This report is being provided to the City Council for information
purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council have questions regarding the Inspections Department practices and approach
for the City’s property maintenance program?
BACKGROUND:
Inspections Department changes implemented during 2009 reduced the number of inspectors, a
supervisor position, and shifted duties to focus on improving property maintenance programs.
Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager, is now supervising the Property Maintenance
Inspectors in addition to the Permit Technicians. This has improved the facilitation of permitting
and licensing of Property Maintenance programs. The most significant changes include:
• Rental Licensing and inspections
• Point of Sale inspections for all properties sold or transferred
• Exterior property evaluations (systematic coverage of entire City)
• Complaint response
In addition to the Director, Ann Boettcher is the primary contact and coordinator of these
programs. Many of the public concerns are received from the Report-A-Problem (RAP) line voice
mail at 952-924-2126. The voice mail allows the caller to leave information regarding any concerns
they have with properties or businesses located within the City.
One benefit is the Permit Technicians are now assisting in scheduling rental housing inspections
which has allowed the inspectors to spend more time in the field. The increased time in the field has
allowed the same workload to be accomplished consistently as in previous year with reduced staff. In
addition, the Construction Codes inspectors have provided assistance with service requests.
The Environmental Health Inspectors, Manny Camilon and Jamie Dion, both Registered
Sanitarians, are now reporting to the Director and focus on delivering the Environmental Health
programs which include:
• Minnesota Department of Health Delegation for inspection of food establishments,
swimming pools, and lodging establishments
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 2
Subject: Property Maintenance Division Organization and Tools for Enforcement
• Noise and Air Quality Programs
• Radon Awareness and other environmental education programs
• Assistance with trash house resolution and interaction with County adult/child protection
agencies
DISCUSSION: The philosophy of property maintenance programs, which the City has continued
for several years, is to be effective, service oriented, and educational. The most important focus is
educating property and business owners on deficiencies and working with them to make the
corrections in a reasonable time. Nearly all of our interactions with property and business owners
are successful, resulting in a resolution of the problem.
Unfortunately the few owners who do not understand the importance of property maintenance, have
limitations, or choose not to cooperate with the City create the most significant effect on the
community. Property deficiencies frustrate residents who expect the City to obtain compliance of a
property they have brought to our attention. Additionally, it takes only a few visibly deteriorated
properties to impact a large number of people in the community.
Non-compliance issues consume significant staffing resources. To be more effective and utilize our
resources to the fullest extent possible, staff has refined the process for communicating and pursuing
compliance from the property and business owners.
Property Maintenance Inspection Process
Initial inspection – This could occur from either a scheduled inspection or complaint response. The
inspector will attempt to contact the owner in person or by phone to discuss any discovered
violations. A written inspection report identifying the deficiencies and specifying a date certain for
compliance will be mailed. The length allowed for corrections is dependent on the scope of the work
to be completed and time of year. This could range from as short as a few days for health or safety
items, and up to several months if it involves major exterior repairs. In some cases the owner may
inform us that they do not have the physical or financial means to make the repairs. In those cases,
the inspector provides information on the City’s housing programs which may be of assistance to
them.
If the inspection is in response to a submitted complaint and contact information was provided, the
inspector will call the complainant to inform them of any identified violations and action taken.
Second inspection – This is completed at the request of the owner or on the date compliance was to
be achieved. If continued non-compliance exists, a violation notice is issued with a revised date of
compliance. For a licensed business, they would also be notified of the $130 re-inspection fee that
will now apply if they are not in full compliance at the next re-inspection.
Third inspection – If violations continue to be unresolved, the inspector will photo-document the
violations and work with their Supervisor and Director to discuss the code enforcement tools best
suited to gain compliance depending on the situation and the owner’s cooperativeness. In most
cases this will involve requesting the City Attorney to send a final notice to the owner indicating the
possibility of prosecution if the property is not brought into compliance by a specified date.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 7) Page 3
Subject: Property Maintenance Division Organization and Tools for Enforcement
The use of our attorney drafting a final notice as a last step in achieving compliance is proving to be
effective. The cost to the City is relatively low and a high percentage of owners are responding to
the Campbell Knutson letterhead. Attached is a sample of the correspondence being sent by
Campbell Knutson.
Compliance Tools
For the owner not complying after several written notices and attempts to communicate, the next
step is to initiate the use of compliance tools. Violation of the City Code is a misdemeanor which
may be charged through an inspector issued Citation or a Formal Complaint drafted by the City
Attorney. Additionally, for licensed businesses, violations may be grounds for suspension, revocation
or non-issuance of their annual license.
Citations are sometimes used for items that may be easily corrected or reoccurring. Some examples
might be poor refrigeration of food in a restaurant or illegally parked recreation vehicles on a lot.
The problem with citations is that they are a one time fine that may not be paid or, if it is paid, may
still result in the violation remaining. If the fine is paid, the court retains most of the fine with a
small percentage given to the City.
A Formal Complaint process is more commonly utilized. A formal complaint begins with the
inspector forwarding the property file to the City Attorney with a request to draft a Formal
complaint. After the complaint is filed with the court, the person charged will be required to appear
in court for an arraignment. This affords an opportunity for our attorney to meet with the person
charged and negotiate an agreement to 1) correct the violation by a specific date, 2) a guilty plea, 3)
pursue recovery of court costs (which are fully reimbursed to the city) rather than fines, and 4) one-
year probationary period with no same or similar violations occurring. The formal complaint process
has been successful. During 2009 we issued 14 formal complaints and in every case the property
owner ultimately agreed to the conditions we sought rather than pursue going to trial and
compliance was achieved.
CONCLUSION: The property maintenance programs that have been created by ordinance are
effective in responding to the needs of residents and provides for a healthy and safe environment.
Applying a systematic inspection process, skillful application of compliance tools, and developing
open and respectful communication with residents and business owners is the basis of a successful
program.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to quality housing and being engaged with providing a safe and
healthful community.
Attachments: Sample Attorney Letter
Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 7)
Subject: Property Maintenance Division Organization and Tools for Enforcement Page 4
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 8
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to update Council on the status of this Mn/DOT proposed project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None at this time. Please let staff know of any questions or comments you may have.
BACKGROUND:
History - City and Mn/DOT staff last discussed this proposed project with Council at the
November 23, 2009 Study Session (report attached). At that time Mn/DOT staff stated this project
was to be “rescoped” which raised a variety of questions and concerns. Staff was asked to participate
in the forthcoming Mn/DOT project development process and keep Council informed as
appropriate. Council also requested staff to make interim surface improvements (pavement
smoothing) to Utica Ave from W27th Street south in 2010 (currently underway).
On March 19 a host of elected and appointed officials representing St. Louis Park, along with
TwinWest Chamber representatives, met with MnDOT Commissioner Tom Sorel to express our
feelings about the Hwy 100 project and our concerns for the rescoping process. During that
meeting we shared with MnDOT criteria and design considerations that we felt needed to be
addressed as part of a rescoping process.
Current – Mn/DOT began their project rescoping process with a convening meeting on April 28th.
In simple terms, their plan is to completely start over the development of this project; and, most
Mn/DOT project members are new to the project. A follow up meeting was held on May 25th to
discuss area problems, project goals, and possible concepts (sketch planning). A follow up meeting
to review and discuss those efforts is scheduled for June 21st. There are no current Mn/DOT
documents or concepts to share with Council at this time as the process has only started. Mn/DOT
staff has expressed the desire to develop a preferred concept within 6 to 9 months. Mn/DOT has
also begun preparation of a public involvement process which will be very similar to those utilized by
the city for the Highway 7 interchange projects. When project documents become available (project
goals, schedule, and process), staff will provide to and discuss with Council - probably later in July or
August.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 2
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
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: November 23, 2009 Study Session report (without attachments)
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 3
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
From Study Session of November 23, 2009 - Item No. 2
TITLE:
Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
This staff report has been prepared to provide background on this Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) proposed project. Mn/DOT staff will attend the study session to
provide Council with a project update – possible design changes, estimated costs, and
process/schedule. The community’s state legislators and Met Council rep. have also been invited and
are expected to attend.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish staff to undertake any specific follow-up actions given the Mn/DOT
project update?
Does the City Council wish staff to undertake interim surface improvements to Utica Avenue
between Minnetonka Boulevard and W. 27th Street?
BACKGROUND:
During the Capital Budget discussion at the October 12 Study Session Council requested an update
on the Hwy. 100 project. Concerns were also raised over the continued deterioration of Utica
Avenue between Minnetonka Boulevard and W. 27th Street. The question which was raised was
whether anything could or should be done to address this concern pending the Highway 100 (Full
Build) project?
History
During 2007 and 2008 staff met and discussed with Council various times Mn/DOT’s proposal to
reconstruct Highway 100 from W. 36th Street to Cedar Lake Road. As a part of that, the City
retained a consultant (SEH, Inc.) to model and evaluate the Mn/DOT proposed Highway 100
improvements and options as well as key north – south transportation routes in the City. Final
modeling results presented in September 2008 (report attached) indicate that the proposed Highway
100 improvements and options, even though related, could be considered separately from the Vision
Strategic Direction “Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options for
the community”.
Recent Events
Oral communications with Mn/DOT staff during 2008 and 2009 indicates the proposed Highway
100 (Full Build) project is undergoing an internal agency review with the explicit intent of
minimizing the project and its cost. Even though state transportation funding was increased by the
legislature in 2008, Mn/DOT staff indicates they do not have adequate funding available to meet all
statewide transportation needs and are being directed to minimize projects to the maximum extent
possible. In particular, it has been suggested the following major changes are being considered for
this project:
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 4
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
1. revise this from an “improvement” project to an “infrastructure replacement” project
2. shorten the north project limits to about W. 26th Street
3. eliminate the underpass relocation option (W. 25 ½ Street area) from the project
4. the exit ramp at W. 25 ½ Street will remain open
5. reduce project costs by approximately 50%
If these changes are implemented, it appears the City will have very little, if any, opportunity to
improve local transportation connections in conjunction with this project. Mn/DOT staff still
appears committed to reconstruction occurring in 2015 and 2016. The most recent Mn/DOT
project summary and project schedule both from June 2006, as well as the last preliminary geometric
layout dated February 15, 2007, are attached for Council convenience.
Next Steps
Staff has halted all work on this project as well as the north – south transportation routes study
pending official communications from Mn/DOT regarding possible changes to their proposed
project. Once Mn/DOT project changes are known, next steps may be determined.
Staff would be interested in knowing if the City Council desires staff to undertake any specific action
as a result of this new information from Mn/DOT?
It appears that work on the Vision Strategic Direction “Evaluating and investigating additional
north/south transportation options for the community” could continue, but should probably be
closely coordinated with the proposed Highway 100 and Light Rail Transit projects.
Staff is also interested in knowing if the City Council desires staff to address concerns with Utica
Ave. To assist the Council staff has prepared the following options:
1. Full reconstruction (includes utility improvements) – approximate cost of $250,000
2. Pavement reconstruction (with curbs and drainage improvements) – approximate cost of
$100,000
3. Minimal surface smoothing (no drainage improvements) – approximate cost of $25,000
Staff does not recommend options 1 or 2 above as the final street location and use (width and
strength concerns) are unknown at this time. It is highly likely Utica Avenue and utilities will need
to be reconstructed as a part of the eventual full build project.
There are no designated funds available for any of these options at this time. Should Council desire
to pursue any of these options, other funding sources or options will need to be identified.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 8) Page 5
Subject: Highway 100 Reconstruction (Full Build) Project Update
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This proposed highway project complements the following areas of the City’s Vision process:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community.
Focus areas:
• Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails.
• Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding
sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100
and SWLRT.
• Evaluating and investigating additional north/south transportation options
for the community.
• Increasing use of new and existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility
throughout the community.
Attachments: Study Session Report - September 8, 2008
Mn/DOT Project Summary - June 2006
Project Schedule - June 2006
Utica Ave Meeting Summary – September 2007
Preliminary Geometric Layout – February 2007
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 9
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Metropolitan Highway System Investment Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information regarding Mn/DOT’s
Metropolitan Highway System Investment Study (MHSIS). If Council has concerns regarding the
proposed regional highway system plan, a study session discussion should be scheduled to discuss
this and possible future city actions.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Mn/DOT states the bulk of the region’s projected transportation funding will be needed simply to
maintain the existing system; very little revenue will be available for other projects. The MHSIS is
the context in which the design for Hwy 100 is currently being “reassessed”. And, the specific plan
and timing for metro highways improvements in SLP will have significant impacts on our local
traffic, street operations, and capital improvement costs.
Is this highway vision of the future acceptable to the City of St. Louis Park?
BACKGROUND:
Staff attended the Mn/DOT Metropolitan Highway System Investment Study (MHSIS)
Informational Open House held April 13, 2010 in Brooklyn Park. It appeared the message heard at
the meeting was the same or similar to what we have been hearing from Mn/DOT for the past year
or so. They expect future resources to be limited and not fully meet stakeholder expectations. As a
result the regional highway plan is being significantly constrained for the long term.
The MHSIS process began in 2009 and is to be completed later this year (2010). The MHSIS will
be the basis for amendments to the regional Transportation Policy Plan (TPP) which will go before
the Met Council TAB this year. In conjunction with the MHSIS, the following additional efforts
are underway:
o Congestion Management Safety Plan (CMSP) - problem area identification
o Major corridor reassessments ( the 12 big projects of which Hwy 100 is one)
o MnPass/managed lane solutions study
o Needs assessment of bridges
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 2
Subject: Metro Highway System Investment Study
The MHSIS is an attempt to take a different approach to meeting the regions transportation needs.
The MHSIS will consider system-wide transportation management, technology, multi-modal
improvements, and strategic capacity expansions. Its focus is on creating a long range vision for the
metro highway system (a 50 yr vision) by:
a. improving system performance and mobility
b. getting the most we can out of the facilities and resources we already have
c. recognizing the limited resources available and focusing on maximizing the benefit of
each transportation dollar spent
d. being ready to do projects when opportunities present themselves
Mn/DOT is currently in the process of “stakeholder outreach”. There were seven informational
meetings held to explain Mn/DOT’s MHSIS; one in each of the seven metro counties. They
expected to complete their work on this with a draft amendment to the Met Council TPP to review
in May and to receive public comments beginning in August with Met Council - Mn/DOT
adoption of the plan in November of this year (2010).
Following is a brief summary of information staff obtained at the meeting:
1. Lower Cost / High Benefit alternatives are necessary - the Mn/DOT congestion
management safety plan (CMSP) identifies problem areas; the Hwy 100 improvements were
1 of 19 phase 1 projects from this plan in 2007 and the past traffic signal timing changes on
Hwy 7 was another CMSP project. Only one project in SLP, managed lane expansion on
TH 169 from 62 to 394, was identified for the future.
2. Major Corridors are being reassessed - new ideas for 12 major metro hwy projects, including
Hwy 100 in SLP, are being reassessed.
3. Significant assumptions made in the MHSIS:
a. the region already has an extensive highway system in place
b. the bulk of the region’s transportation funding will be needed simply to maintain the
system we have; very little revenue will be available for other projects
c. Mn/DOT and the Met Council estimate $30-40 billion is needed over the next 20
yrs to address all the issues on the regions highways
d. there is a huge shortfall between projected revenue and the cost of projects proposed
to alleviate congestion over the next 20 yrs
e. only about $1 billion will be available for congestion mitigation projects through
2030 after necessary bridge, maintenance, and preservation projects are programmed
f. there is funding sufficient for only about 4 of the 12 major corridor projects
currently in the long range plan; Hwy 100 is one of the 12 projects
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Significant financial shortfalls are projected for the states transportation system which will impact St.
Louis Park. Highway 7 was not mentioned in the study at all (much less our proposed interchange
project at Louisiana Ave.). Implicit in that is the lack of Mn/DOT (state) funding for much of
anything beyond highway maintenance and preservation projects in the future. Our feeling is that
state funding for projects like the Hwy 7 / LA interchange project generally will not be readily
available and alternate funding sources will need to be found or used to make these projects happen
unless overall transportation funding is increased.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 9) Page 3
Subject: Metro Highway System Investment Study
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: None
Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 10
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Fiber Network and Policy Study.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action required. However, the study process will commence as outlined below absent Council
direction to the contrary.
This report is being provided as background information in preparation for a planned study that was
budgeted in 2010. Staff also solicited participation in this project from the Telecommunications
Advisory Commission at its May 13 meeting. TAC members Bruce Browning and Toby Keeler
volunteered to assist with the study process. That said, prior to beginning the study process, staff
requests that Council express any major thoughts, concerns, interests, or questions on the issues and
opportunities identified in this report. That is critical to ensure that the scope, implementation, and
expected outcomes of the study are consistent with Council purposes.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable with staff continuing with the study process?
BACKGROUND:
As the wi-fi project was coming to a conclusion, Council requested that staff prepare some policy
points around both the potential use of existing City-owned fiber optic capacity and related
ordinances requiring installation of fiber capabilities in construction. The wi-fi project clean-up has
ended, LocaLoop decided to not lease city facilities (though they have apparently commenced
service), and Clearwire has leased space on three water towers in anticipation of offering Wi-MAX
service by the end of 2010 (according to last report). Thus, it seems like the right time to start
addressing the fiber-related policy questions.
The jointly owned fiber network was installed beginning in 1997 following collaborative planning
by the City, Schools, and LOGIS. Major segments of the network were completed in 1998 by the
Schools and in 2005 by the City and LOGIS. Incremental additions were made to connect certain
sites, plus an additional 8 miles received as part of the wi-fi project legal settlement.
The existing fiber network includes about 28 miles of infrastructure. Different network segments
have different capacities (number of fiber strands), and some network segments have conduit only
without fiber strands. These conduit only segments were generally installed during road construction
projects (by practice, not policy). The idea would be to add fiber strands with appropriate capacities
to match future service needs, but only when those service needs are known. Installation of fiber
conduit when a road is open for construction is relatively inexpensive.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 2
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study
The City and Schools are meeting many high speed Internet bandwidth needs (voice, data, and
radio) now and the City’s payback for its original fiber investment is approximately 8 years for an
asset that should last 20 – 30 years, or more. Other City / School needs remain (use of fiber for
video) while some future uses cannot be anticipated. However, fiber is anticipated to have a real
future, in concert with wireless services, based on its demonstrated performance. We need to and will
reserve fiber capacity for these needs as well as spare strands. One question that arises is what to do
with the remaining fiber capacity. Related to that is the question of whether, why, and how the
existing fiber infrastructure should be expanded.
LONG-TERM STUDY TOPICS:
Over time, the City Council and Telecommunications Advisory Commission have asked about the
future use of the existing and growing fiber optic network. In addition, questions have been raised
about whether the City should consider playing any role in requiring or incentivizing property
owners to install some portion of fiber optic capabilities during new construction or major
remodeling. There are several potential longer-term study questions surrounding the fiber optic
network whose owners include the City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park ISD #283, and Local
Government Information Systems (LOGIS). What follows are some possible major questions to be
considered in a study, and just a few potential alternative answers (not mutually exclusive):
• What goal(s) is the City of St. Louis Park trying to achieve? For example:
o increased competition for high-speed Internet service and related competitive pricing
from the private sector
o increased mobile computing alternatives from the private sector
o increased citywide Internet service alternatives from the private sector
o increased use of the City’s right-of-way for private economic development
o increased opportunities to groups currently underserved by technology / Internet
services
o increased City revenues from private sector use of public assets
o enhanced public services from use of citywide Internet service alternatives from the
private sector
o incorporating and integrating goals of the Schools and LOGIS with the City
o fair treatment to all private sector providers who are interested in private sector use of
public assets
• What does the City Council wish to do with the existing network and remaining fiber
capacity? For example:
o expand the network based on a long-term plan
o expand the network only as needed per an identifiable business purpose
o expand the network only with other construction by policy (e.g., road
reconstruction)
o sell ownership of segments of the network
o lease parts of remaining capacity on the network while retaining ownership
o change nothing - maintain and retain solely for current City, School, and LOGIS use
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 3
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study
• How do we maximize both City operational and public benefits of our fiber assets? For
example:
o identify other City business uses
o identify potential productivity improvement opportunities
o position fiber assets with private sector services that could benefit the public (e.g., the
defunct LocaLoop proposal)
• What tasks are related to any expanded (public) use of our fiber assets?
o leasing agreements
o State and Federal regulatory requirements
o Internet Service Provider
o revenue generation through leasing or sale
o network maintenance – repair, locates, etc.
o other business models
• What broader regulatory role (if any) should the City play? For example:
o requirement to include fiber in new construction or major remodeling
o incentive to include fiber in new construction or major remodeling
o legal requirements in leasing fiber or fiber capacity
• What should be included in a fiber network policy to govern the above?
Staff will organize a study group with members from the TAC, staff, and elsewhere to better define
the scope, implementation, and expected outcomes of the study. It will be important for this group
to check in with Council to ensure the study process remains aligned with Council goals and
addresses its larger policy questions.
Staff also suggests that the study questions above (and others) are important to address only if
Council believes the answer to the questions below is affirmative.
• Does availability of high speed Internet service still matter as an important policy question
for City Council?
o 3 years since Council considered this question in depth.
o U.S. currently ranks approximately 15th worldwide in broadband penetration.
o if this matters, does the City Council feel there is any role for the City to play?
• Do we wish to learn about what Comcast, Qwest, Clearwire, and others are doing to provide
and grow high speed Internet services in St. Louis Park?
o Comcast has provided information to customers about increased speeds
o Qwest has added fiber segments in St. Louis Park (per permits) and other
communities. This is fiber to the node / neighborhood (FTTN), not to the home.
Qwest advertises higher speeds available in some St. Louis Park locations.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 4
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study
o Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and others providing 3G (third generation) wireless.
o pricing appears to remain at levels similar to 3 years ago, but needs verification.
o will Comcast, Qwest, others share any information on current coverage / speeds and
plans for the future?
o How do the services available in St. Louis Park compare with other metropolitan area
cities? Do our residents and businesses have ample access to state of the art services,
or are they lacking in choice of providers, levels of service, or pricing options?
o Clearwire claims it will start offering Wi-MAX service throughout the metro by the
end of 2010
o no known other major provider effort is underway.
• Do we wish to learn what other cities are doing with respect to their fiber network
infrastructure?
o many have talked, few have acted.
o locally, Monticello and Windom building municipal fiber specifically for triple-play
(video-voice-Internet services).
o other Minnesota communities (primarily smaller) have FTTH (fiber-to-the-home)
provided by CLEC or ILEC (i.e., phone company)
o are other cities interested in collaborating on a study?
• Do we wish to learn what other cities are doing with respect to broader regulatory roles for
requiring fiber facilities as part of private development?
o locally, very little activity
o nationally, Loma Linda CA is the poster city (see information from its website)
o otherwise, little regulatory roles have been discovered, but this would be a topic for
the study
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 5
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study
Program Information
FIBER TO THE HOME
Fiber To The Home (FTTH)
Loma Linda Expands FTTH past the home, reaching out to businesses, wireless, anywhere...
we call it FTTX.
Why is FTTX important to Loma Linda?
• This city believes in infrastructure
• Provide a better infrastructure for economic growth and development (e.g. higher home
values, better business environment, etc.)
• Promote competition (Open Ethernet System)
• Strengthens the image of the City as innovative and progressive
• Supports the commercial and residential interests of the citizens
• Enables the City to play a very central role with our larger business in the City
• Create a globally competitive community
• Establish a new revenue source
• Empowered more community involvement
Loma Linda’s FTTX Ordinance
New Construction Requirements:
• Data Cabinet in Master Bedroom
• Cable Bundle Set – 2 Cat 6, 1 Coax in each Living space. 2 sets in Master Bed Room and
Family Room
• Fiber into Data Cabinet and Community MDF
• Fiber throughout the development
• Build a community MDF
• Deed the infrastructure over to the City once completed
• City provides builders with design, SOW and BOM
• City provides list of certified and approved contractors
• Cost to the Builder ~ $3,500 per unit
NEXT STEPS:
Staff plans to formulate and convene a study group to further define and propose the scope,
implementation, and outcomes of this study. That would then be returned to Council for
modification prior to the next step of issuing an RFQ for a consultant to conduct the study. It is
currently anticipated this study could be completed by the first quarter of 2011.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 10) Page 6
Subject: Fiber Network and Policy Study
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The 2010 Cable TV budget includes $25,000 for this study. That budgeted amount will need to be
kept in mind as we consider the study’s scope and how much can be accomplished.
Other financial impacts relate to any potential requirements to incorporate fiber optic infrastructure
in private construction and / or a decision to expand the public fiber infrastructure.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Depending on what is actually done with existing or additional fiber resources, this could support St.
Louis Park’s desire to be a well connected community in the 21st century.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: June 14, 2010
Agenda Item #: 11
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
City Code Amendment to Chapter 3 Regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor Licensing.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
No action is required at this time. The report is intended as information for Council regarding
suggested amendments to Chapter 3 of City Code concerning brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licensing.
The Public Hearing and First Reading are scheduled for the July 6, 2010 City Council meeting with
the Second Reading scheduled for July 19, 2010.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council have concerns regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 3 of the City Code
concerning brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licenses as proposed by staff and city attorney? Staff requests
Council inform staff of concerns or questions it may have.
BACKGROUND:
Jason Schoneman, resident of St. Louis Park and owner of Steel Toe Brewing, recently met with staff
to discuss code requirements needed to start a very small craft brewery in St. Louis Park. Brewery
manufacturers and wholesalers licensing is handled and issued by the State of Minnesota
Commissioner of Public Safety. Breweries are allowed to locate in the City’s industrial zoning
districts. Mr. Schoneman is interested in selling malt liquor at the brewery for off-site consumption
similar to Granite City Brewpub. Current ordinance allows “brewpub” off-sale malt liquor licenses
to restaurants, but does not include language allowing issuance to “brewers” at a brewery.
MN Statutes § 340A.301 allows the off-sale of malt beverages brewed on the premises of a licensed
brewery. Municipalities may issue, with approval of the State Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement
Division, an off-sale malt liquor license to a licensed brewery within its jurisdiction. The brewer’s
off-sale malt liquor license allows the off-sale of containers of malt beverages commonly referred to
as “growlers”. Sales made under this license must meet certain specific packaging requirements
detailed in state statute. Off-sale of brewer’s malt beverages may only be sold during the hours
permitted by law for off-sale liquor stores.
Staff has been working with Attorney Roger Knutson of Campbell Knutson in amending the liquor
ordinance to include language to allow brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licenses. Staff recommends
amending Section 3-57 of our ordinance code to allow this type of activity and to assure the city is in
compliance with state statute.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 2
Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License
Staff is also recommending a license fee of $150 for a “brewer’s” off-sale malt liquor license which is
consistent with the “brewpub” off-sale malt liquor license fee. Attached is the proposed resolution
required for approval of license fees.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Letter to Council from Steel Toe Brewing
Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 3
Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License
Letter from Steel Toe Brewing:
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 4
Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License
Draft Ordinance
ORDINANCE NO. ___-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING
BREWER’S OFF-SALE MALT LIQUOR LICENSES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 3-57 of the City Code is hereby amended by adding the following
provision:
(13) Brewer off sale malt liquor license. A brewer who has a license from the
Commissioner of Public Safety to brew 3,500 barrels of malt liquor per year may
with the approval of the Commissioner of Public Safety be issued a license by the
City for off-sale of malt liquor subject to the following conditions:
a. The malt liquor sold off-sale must be produced and packaged on the licensed
premises.
b. Off-sale of malt liquor shall be limited to the legal hours for off-sale pursuant
to section 3-105.
c. The malt liquor sold off-sale shall be packaged in 64-ounce containers
commonly known as “growlers” or in 750 milliliter bottles and shall have the
following requirements for packaging:
1) The containers or bottles shall bear a twist type closure, cork, stopper
or plug.
2) At the time of sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip or sleeve
shall be applied to the container or bottle and extend over the top of
the twist type closure, cork, stopper or plug forming a seal that must
be broken upon opening of the container or bottle.
3) The adhesive band, strip or sleeve shall bear the name and address of
the brewer/licensee selling the malt liquor.
4) The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain
the name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the
brewer/licensee selling the malt liquor, and the contents in the
container packaged as required herein shall be considered intoxicating
liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in
accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1100.
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 5
Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License
SECTION 2. Section 3-57 (12) (d) of the City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
d. The malt liquor sold off-sale shall be packaged in 64-ounce containers
commonly known as “growlers,” or in 750 milliliter bottles and shall have the
following requirements for packaging:
1) The containers shall bear a twist type closure, cork, stopper or plug.
2) At the time of sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip or sleeve
shall be applied to the container and extend over the top of the twist
type closure, cork, stopper or plug forming a seal that must be broken
upon opening of the container or bottle.
3) The adhesive band, strip or sleeve shall bear the name and address of
the brewer/licensee selling the malt liquor.
4) The containers shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name of
the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer/licensee
selling the malt liquor, and the contents in the container packaged as
required herein shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the
alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the
provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1100.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be deemed adopted and take effect fifteen days after its
publication.
ENACTED this 19th day of July, 2010, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park.
Public Hearing/First Reading July 6, 2010
Second Reading July 19, 2010
Date of Publication July 29, 2010
Date Ordinance takes effect August 13, 2010
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 6
Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ___-10
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES CONCERNING
BREWER’S OFF-SALE MALT LIQUOR LICENSES
This ordinance amends the liquor licensing provisions for the City of St. Louis Park to comply with
state statute liquor license laws and regulations regarding brewer’s off-sale malt liquor licensing.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council July 19, 2010
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: July 29, 2010
Meeting of June 14, 2010 (Item No. 11) Page 7
Subject: Code Amendments Chapter 3 regarding Brewer’s Off-Sale Malt Liquor License
Proposed RESOLUTION NO. 10-___
RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 09-157 ADOPTING
ANNUAL FEES FOR LIQUOR LICENSES BY RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows:
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park City Code Section 3-59 authorizes the City Council to establish
annual fees for liquor licenses by resolution in amounts no greater that those set forth in M.S.A.
Chapter 340A; and
WHEREAS, the City has adopted an ordinance authorizing brewer’s to sale off-sale malt
beverages; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that Resolution 09-157 is amended by adding the following fee:
Liquor License Type: 2010 Fee
Brewer off-sale Malt Liquor
$150
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council , 2010
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk