HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/01/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 7, 2008
6:30 p.m. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEWS, WESTWOOD ROOM
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Swearing In of Elected Officials
1c. Roll Call
2. Presentations -- None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes December 17, 2007
3b. Special Study Session Minutes December 17, 2007
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent
calendar.
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move
items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those
items remaining on the consent calendar.)
5. Boards and Commissions -- None
6. Public Hearings-None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8b. Appointment of 2008 Mayor Pro Tem.
Recommended Action:. Motion to adopt Resolution appointing
_______________ as Mayor Pro Tem for 2008.
8b. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops.
Recommended Action:. Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending
the Zoning Ordinance to require conditional use permits for pawnshops and to set
the second reading for January 22, 2008.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
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.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF JANUARY 7, 2008
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Council member or a member
of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to approve Resolution Declaring 2008 City Council Meeting Dates.
4b. Motion to approve Resolution designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s Official
Newspaper for year 2008.
4c. Motion to approve Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance amending Chapter 8, Subdivision
X, Sec. 8-378 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code concerning tobacco license violation penalties,
approve summary, and authorize publication.
4d. Motion to approve a Resolution to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety – Office of Drug Policy and Violence Prevention.
4e. Motion to approve 2007 Pay Equity Report.
4f. Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 134-07 which provides additional
engineering consulting services for design of the Park Place Boulevard Reconstruction Project
– Project No. 2007-1101.
4g. Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Progressive Consulting Engineers (PCE) for
engineering services related to Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation
4h. Motion to approve for filing Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11,
2007.
4i. Motion to approve for filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes November 7, 2007.
4j. Motion to approve for filing Human Rights Commission Minutes September 18, 2007.
4k. Motion to approve for filing Human Rights Commission Minutes October 17, 2007.
4l. Motion to approve for filing Vendor Claims.
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 1b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other: Oath of Office Elected Officials
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Elected Officials Oath of Office
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Judge Allen Oleisky will administer the oath of office for the following newly elected officials of
the City of St. Louis Park for four year terms commencing January 7, 2008:
Jeff Jacobs - Mayor
Paul G. Omodt - Councilmember At Large A
Phillip Finkelstein - Councilmember At Large B
After the oaths are administered, each official will sign an oath form which is kept on file in the
City Clerk’s office.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The General Election was held on Tuesday, November 6, 2007 and election results were
canvassed and certified at the St. Louis Park City Council meeting of November 13, 2007 by
Resolution No. 07-132.
The St. Louis Park City Charter Section 2.03 states the following:
The Mayor and two Councilmembers shall be elected at large for a four year term. The At Large
seats shall be separate elective offices designated as At Large A and At Large B. The term of
Mayor and each Councilmember shall begin on the first regularly scheduled meeting of the new
year following a regularly scheduled municipal election. Every officer of the City shall, before
entering upon the duties of this office, take and subscribe an oath of office in substantially the
following form: “I do solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States and of the
State of Minnesota and to discharge faithfully the duties devolving upon me as (Mayor or
Councilmember) of this City to the best of my judgment and ability.”
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
DECEMBER 17, 2007
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), HR Director & Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Police Chief (Mr. Luse),
Senior Planner (Mr. Walther) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt).
2. Presentations
2a. Bernice Cowl Gordon Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs declared December 21, 2007 “Bernice Cowl Gordon Day” and presented
Proclamation to Bernice Cowl for her outstanding contributions, dedicated service and
support to the St. Louis Park community and its people. He further stated that she was
recently named one of ten Minnesotans to receive the Virginia McKnight Binger
Humanitarian Award for Human Service.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Joint City Council/School Board Minutes November 27, 2007
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. Study Session Minutes November 13, 2007
It was noted on page two, item #2, the second paragraph, fourth sentence should state:
“Councilmember Finkelstein agreed with Councilmember Sanger.”
It was noted on page three, item #4, the third paragraph, should state: “The majority of
Council agreed that staff should continue…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
3c. Study Session Minutes November 26, 2007
It was noted on page four, item #4, the fourth paragraph, fourth sentence should state:
“... finding housing in smaller houses and…”
The minutes were approved as amended.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes December 17, 2007
3d. City Council Minutes December 3, 2007
The minutes were approved as presented.
3e. Study Session Minutes December 10, 2007
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 07-155, authorizing award of the 2008 St. Louis
Park Arts and Culture Grants.
4b. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 07-156, accepting the equipment replacement
schedule budgeted for 2008 and authorize staff to acquire equipment as allowed
by statute, charter or ordinance.
4c. Motion to approve Resolution No. 07-157, authorizing renewal of gambling
premises permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association, Inc., operating at
Al’s Bar, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard.
4d. Motion to approve a contract in the amount of $60,000.00 with Ostvig Tree, Inc.
for 2008 tree pruning (trimming).
4e. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 07-158, authorizing final payment in the amount
of $3,557.77 for alley paving in the 2900 block Raleigh/Salem Avenues – City
Project No. 2007-2900 with Standard Sidewalk, Inc., City Contract No. 31-07.
4f. Motion to approve Amendment No. 2 to DNR Flood Mitigation Grant Agreement
A48775/A88026 as drafted by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
dated December 5, 2007.
4g. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 and No. 2 to Contract No. 51-07 – 2007
MSA Street Rehabilitation Project– City Project No. 2006-1101 and 2006-1102.
4h. Motion to approve Change Orders No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 to Contract No. 52-06 - Lake
Street Reconstruction Project– City Project No. 2006-0100 and 2005-1101.
4i. Motion to authorize staff to solicit proposals for residential recycling collection
services and residential refuse & yard waste collection services for the period of
October 1, 2008 to September 30, 2013.
4j. Motion to approve Resolution No. 07-159, awarding $2,000 to St. Louis Park
Friends of the Arts to provide on-site arts instruction and activities to residents at
Hamilton House.
4k. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 07-160, authorizing the fund equity transfers and
fund closings.
4l. Motion to approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes November 14, 2007.
4m. Motion to approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes November 7, 2007.
4n. Motion to approve for filing Vendor Claims.
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes December 17, 2007
5. Boards and Commissions
5a. Appointment of Board and Commission Members
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to appoint
the following citizen representatives to fill vacancies on Boards and Commissions:
Name Commission
Term
Expiration
David Dyer Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2008
Helen Fu Human Rights Commission 12/31/2008
Joan Barnes Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2009
Dalton Shaughnessy Human Rights Commission (youth member) 08/31/2008
5b. Reappointment of Board and Commission Members
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
reappoint the following Commissioners as city representatives to respective Boards and
Commissions:
Name Commission
Term
Expiration
Ryan Burt Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2010
Paul Roberts Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2010
David Lee Fire Civil Service 12/31/2010
Sharon Lyon Human Rights Commission 12/31/2010
Ahmed Maaraba Human Rights Commission 12/31/2010
Shelley Taylor Human Rights Commission 12/31/2010
George Hagemann Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Kirk Hawkinson Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Lauren Webb-Hazlett Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission
(youth member)
08/31/2008
Lynne Carper Planning Commission 12/31/2010
Dennis Morris Planning Commission 12/31/2010
James Smith, Jr. Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Hans Widmer Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Rick Dworsky Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
Dale Hartman Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2010
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes December 17, 2007
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
Mayor Jacobs requested Council address item 8d prior to item 8a.
8d. Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist
Hospital Campus. Resolution No. 07-165
Mr. Walther presented the staff report.
Robert Riesselman, Methodist Hospital, 6500 Excelsior Boulevard, stated stewardship
was one of their values and their proposal included working with the neighborhood in
which they were able to propose a solution that minimizes impact, protects the wetlands,
safe for pilots and works for patients.
John Hoisve, 3945 Dakota Avenue South, stated he was attending to voice support for the
proposed heliport. He also thanked the City for allowing neighborhood involvement.
Mayor Jacobs thanked Park Nicollet and the neighborhood for their partnership in
working to provide a win-win solution.
Councilmember Basill thanked the neighborhood and Park Nicollet for their collaborated
solution and saving Council hours of negotiations.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 07-165, regarding the Planned Unit Development Minor
Amendment for the Methodist Hospital Campus at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to
conditions.
The motion passed 7-0.
8a. Resolutions adopting the 2008 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levy.
Resolution No. 07-161 and 07-162
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt
Resolution No. 07-161, approving the Budget for 2008 and approving the 2007 Property
Tax Levy collectible in 2008 and adopting Resolution No. 07-162, authorizing the HRA
levy for 2008.
Councilmember Carver addressed some issues that have been brought to their attention at
the Truth-in-Taxation public hearing. He explained the process involved in order to keep
the City operating in a manner acceptable by the community. He stated Council and staff
had discussion on property taxes for fixed income residents. He also stated another
concern brought to their attention was the City’s foreclosures and if there was any impact
looming. Councilmember Carver stated that foreclosures in St. Louis Park were slightly
up compared to the region, they were nowhere close to the region as a whole.
Councilmember Carver went on to state that the foreclosures happening in St. Louis Park
were not sitting empty, reminding everyone that location, location, location is a large
benefit. He further reminded everyone that in 2003 the State discontinued City funding
and that discrepancy caused the City tax portion to increase.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 3a) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes December 17, 2007
Councilmember Sanger suggested seniors on fixed incomes contact the State Department
of Revenue regarding programs available for tax relief.
Councilmember Paprocki stated in maintaining infrastructure, the quality of staff,
keeping equipment up to date, and future planning are all ways in which the City spends
money wisely.
Councilmember Finkelstein also noted that this budget was lower that the original
proposed tax increase was 6 percent.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. Resolution Adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program.
Resolution No. 07-163
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to
adopt Resolution No. 07-163, adopting the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Program.
Councilmember Paprocki reminded everyone that items such as roads, sewers and
telephones are the types of items in the Capital Improvement Program.
Mayor Jacobs stated that they, as Councilmembers, make the decisions to take care of
things that the community relies on everyday.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Resolution Setting Utility Rates.
Resolution No. 07-164
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that some of the fees were fees that come directly from
the utility providers.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the fees are set to reflect the actual cost of providing
the services, not something the City makes money off of.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to adopt
Resolution No.07-164, setting utility rates.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development – Methodist
Hospital Campus. (Council addressed earlier in agenda.)
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 3a) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes December 17, 2007
8e. Contract for Private Redevelopment - Duke Realty Limited Partnership.
Resolution No. 07-166
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 07-166, approving the Contract for Private Redevelopment
between the EDA, City, and Duke Realty Limited Partnership.
The motion passed 7-0.
8f. Tobacco License Violation Penalties.
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
adopt first reading of ordinance amendments to Chapter 8, Subdivision X, Sec. 8-378 of
the St. Louis Park Municipal Code concerning tobacco license violation penalties and
setting second reading for January 7, 2008.
The motion passed 7-0.
8g. Resolution declaring ARINC, INC in default of its obligations under the
Contract.
Resolution No. 07-167
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated the City went into the contract with the best intentions in
promoting the vision of having a connective community.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 07-167, declaring ARINC, INC in default of city wireless
broadband network contract.
Councilmember Omodt stated he would be abstaining on the WiFi vote.
Councilmember Paprocki commended Mr. Pires and staff for their relentless efforts in
trying to make the project work.
Mayor Jacobs stated it was very disappointing.
Mr. Harmening clarified that for those in the community using the pilot program, the
service would continue. He also stated that this action did not mean the City was
stopping discussions with ARINC, stating they would still be having discussions
regarding the contract.
Councilmember Carver stated it was too early to eulogize the wireless project and stated
they would still be striving toward WiFi connectivity.
The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Omodt abstained.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 3a) Page 7
Subject: City Council Minutes December 17, 2007
8h. Resolution approving 2008 compensation.
Resolution No. 07-168
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to adopt
Resolution No.07-168, confirming a 3% general increase for non-union employees, not
including the City Manager at this time, continuing the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit
Program and also increasing Performance Program Pay for Paid-on-Call Firefighters
by 3% for 2008.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs wished the community a Happy Holiday Season.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
DECEMBER 17, 2007
The meeting convened at 6:28 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger.
Councilmembers absent: None
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Communications
Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Broadband Coordinator (Mr.
Landis) HR Director & Deputy City Manager (Ms. Gohman) and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Schmidt).
Guests: Henry Camacho, Paul Kravolec, Unplugged Cities; Tom Asp, Consultant; John Shultz,
Brian Estrem, Eureka Broadband.
1. WiFi Update (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening updated Council on WiFi, stating on Friday, December 7, 2007, at Council’s
direction, the City notified ARINC of City’s intent to declare them in default of their contract.
He further stated the contract provision allows ARINC to talk with the City about the intent of
the default notice. Mr. Harmening stated in a joint meeting held on December 12 ARINC
indicated they would continue to work on contract through December 14, at which time ARINC
would release three areas (NAP’s) of quadrant 1 for testing and then ARINC would stop
working. ARINC added that upon release, the level of performance in those areas would be the
best that they could attain for the WiFi network. He stated ARINC also indicated that if that
level was acceptable to the City, they would provide the City with a completion schedule for the
entire system and also consider liquidated damages for the penalty provision as part of a contract
with them. Mr. Harmening stated ARINC also indicated that if the level of performance was not
acceptable to the City, they would enter into discussions with the City as to the next step in the
contract resolution process. Mr. Harmening stated the City Attorney attending those
conversations indicated he would still recommend declaring ARINC in default under the
contract. Mr. Harmening went on to state that the City indicated to ARINC that if they were able
to achieve acceptable performance in the quadrant 1 areas, the City would consider suggesting to
Council to continue on with the contract with the provision that ARINC met certain
requirements. This proposed contract would need to be returned from ARINC by December 17,
addressing the six requirements: 1) the completion schedule of the project, 2) ARINC’s proposal
for liquidated damages, 3) a proposal regarding eliminating any claims that ARINC would have
for additional compensation, 4) a contract deduct for delays in delivering the system, 5) a
contract deduct due to the fact that they have previously indicated they would not be able to meet
the specifications in the contract, 6) acceptance of the City’s testing protocol that had been
discussed previously.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 3b) Page 2
Subject: Special Study Session Minutes December 17, 2007
Mr. Harmening stated the NAP’s were released for testing, with the final NAP released by
ARINC on December 15 and testing was performed. The testing revealed that in NAP 3000, 100
percent of the radios showed performance of at least 3 mbps; in NAP 6000, 90 percent of the
radios t showed performance of at least 3 mbps; and in NAP 1000, 72 percent of the radios
showed performance of at least 3 mbps. In sum almost 83 percent of the radios showed
performance of at least 3 mbps in these three NAP’s combined. This was the first of several
measurements that would need to be taken, including indoor measurements.
Mr. Harmening stated ARINC sent a letter regarding the proposed amendments and stated
ARINC’s proposal was significantly short of the City’s expectations and staff still recommended
finding them in default. He stated that even if ARINC was found in default, the City and ARINC
would still have conversations regarding the contract considerations.
Councilmember Carver reiterated that ARINC didn’t meet the contract deadline or performance
requirements. Mr. Pires agreed.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated ARINC did not meet any of the contract requirements. Mr.
Pires stated the network needed to have radio performance of 100 percent to meet the
specifications of contract, further stating 17 percent of radios were still not getting the
performance as contracted. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the original (non-ARINC) pilot
subscribers would still be supported. Mr. Harmening stated yes.
Councilmember Sanger stated it was clear they could not or chose not to meet the contract
requirements.
Councilmember Omodt asked what the next step would be if ARINC was declared in default.
Mr. Scott stated it would be addressed in the near future.
Councilmember Paprocki reminded Council that even with limited success, revenue is not being
generated, as was the intent.
There was Council consensus to proceed forward in declaring ARINC in default of their
contract.
The meeting adjourned at 6:44 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2008 City Council Meeting Dates.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Resolution Declaring 2008 City Council Meeting Dates.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the 2008 meeting dates as stated in the Resolution?
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park City Council Rules and Procedures require Council to set and approve
meeting dates each year. The Council's policy is not to meet on New Year's Day, Martin Luther
King Day, President's Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day,
Christmas Day, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Passover. For New Year's Day, Christmas
Day, and Yom Kippur, this includes the evening before the holiday. For Rosh Hashanah and
Passover, this includes the evening before the holiday and the first and second evenings of the
holiday.
Regular meetings will be held on the first and third Mondays of each month at 7:30 p.m. A
schedule of meetings and recognized holidays will be kept on file and posted at City Hall.
Regular meetings can be cancelled or rescheduled at any time, provided Council meets at least
once per month.
Current policy states that when the meeting date falls on a holiday, the meeting will be scheduled
on the next succeeding day that is not a holiday, unless another day has been designated in
advance. If the Tuesday is also a holiday, the meeting is moved to the same hour on the next
succeeding Monday that is not a holiday. Council also has the discretion to move the meeting to
the Wednesday following the first two evenings of each holiday observance if deemed necessary
at that time.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4a) Page 2
Subject: 2008 City Council Meeting Dates
RESOLUTION NO. 08-__
RESOLUTION DECLARING
2008 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATES
WHEREAS, the City Council Rules and Procedures require Council to annually declare
its public meetings for the year, and
WHEREAS, the City Council takes holidays into consideration when declaring public
meetings and has chosen to not meet on New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Day, President's
Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veteran's Day, Christmas Day, Rosh
Hashanah, Yom Kippur, and Passover of each year. For New Year’s Day, Christmas Day and
Yom Kippur, this includes the evening before the holiday. For Rosh Hashanah and Passover,
this includes the evening before the holiday and the first and second evenings of the holiday, and
WHEREAS, regular meetings will be held on the first and third Mondays of each month
at 7:30 p.m. If the meeting date falls on a holiday, the meeting will be scheduled on the next
succeeding day that is not a holiday, unless another day has been designated in advance. Regular
meetings can be cancelled or rescheduled at any time, provided Council meets at least once per
month, and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that not all religious holidays are included in
this resolution and the Council makes it known that reasonable accommodation will be made for
religious reasons when notified by an applicant or a member of the public,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of St. Louis Park has
reviewed Exhibit A and declares those dates to be the public meeting dates of the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 7, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4a) Page 3
Subject: 2008 City Council Meeting Dates
Exhibit A
2008 City Council Meeting Dates
Jan. 7 Regular Meeting July 7 Regular Meeting
Jan. 14 Study Session July 14 Study Session
July 21 Regular Meeting Jan. 22
Regular Meeting - Tuesday
(Monday-Martin Luther King Jr. Day)
Jan. 28 Study Session July 28 Study Session
Feb. 4 Regular Meeting Aug. 4 Regular Meeting
Feb. 11 Study Session Aug. 11 Study Session
Feb. 19
Regular Meeting - Tuesday
(Monday-President’s Day)
Aug. 18 Regular Meeting
Feb. 25 Study Session Aug. 25 Study Session
Mar. 3 Regular Meeting Sept. 2
Regular Meeting - Tuesday
(Monday-Labor Day)
Mar. 10 Study Session Sept. 8
Study Session
Mar. 17 Regular Meeting Sept. 15 Regular Meeting
Mar. 24 Study Session Sept. 22 Study Session
April 7 Regular Meeting Oct. 6 Regular Meeting
April 14 Study Session Oct. 13 Study Session
(Monday-April 21 Passover no meeting)
April 28 Regular Meeting/Study Session
Oct. 20
Oct. 27
Regular Meeting
Study Session
May 5 Regular Meeting Nov. 3 Regular Meeting
May 12 Study Session Nov. 10 Study Session
May 19 Regular Meeting Nov. 17 Regular Meeting
May 27
Study Session – Tuesday
(Monday-Memorial Day)
Nov. 24 Study Session
June 2 Regular Meeting Dec. 1 Regular Meeting
June 9 Study Session Dec. 8 Study Session
June 16 Regular Meeting Dec. 15 Regular Meeting
June 23 Study Session Dec. 22 Study Session
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Designation of 2008 Official Newspaper.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Resolution designating the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s Official
Newspaper for year 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
MS 331A.02 and Charter Section 3.07 require that a legal newspaper of general circulation be
designated for publication of the City’s official proceedings and notices and such other matters
and measures as are required by law and City Charter. Does Council wish to continue designation
of the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s Official Newspaper for Calendar Year 2008?
BACKGROUND:
Sun Newspapers has become the primary source of community news in the suburbs. In 2006 staff
met with Sun Newspapers regarding distribution practices and policies within our community.
Since then, Sun Newspapers has provided additional newspaper copies at City Hall, Rec Center
and library; provided information on how to subscribe and access via the web; and has provided a
discount to the City for advertisements.
BASIS OF RECOMMENDATION:
1. The paper is delivered to most of the residences in the City and easily accessible via the
Internet, thereby providing city-wide coverage of legal notices and other city government
issues to residents.
2. The paper has served well as the official newspaper for many years.
3. The paper has expressed a desire to continue to provide this service.
4. New residents receive information regarding distribution of the Sun-Sailor Newspaper in their
new resident packet.
5. All legal notices are posted on Sun Sailor’s website at no additional charge.
6. Two notarized affidavits on each publication are provided at no additional charge.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The cost for legal publications through the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor is reasonable and the city
will not incur a rate increase for 2008. This is a budgeted item for 2008 and will not impact the
Council’s approved budget.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
N/A
Attachments: Resolution
Letter from Sun Newspapers
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4b) Page 2
Subject: Designating Official Newspaper
RESOLUTION NO. 08-______
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
SUN SAILOR AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2008
WHEREAS, MS 331A.02 and Charter Section 3.07 require that a legal newspaper of
general circulation be designated for publication of the City’s official proceedings and notices and
such other matters and measures as are required by law and City Charter; and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor is a duly qualified medium of legal publication;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the St. Louis Park City Council hereby
designates the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor as the City’s Official Newspaper for Calendar Year 2008.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 7, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting January 7, 2008 (Item 4b)
Subject: Designating Official Newspaper Page 3
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4c
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Tobacco License Penalties Ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Second Reading and adoption of Ordinance amending Chapter 8, Subdivision
X, Sec. 8-378 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code concerning tobacco license violation penalties,
approve summary, and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council agree with the tobacco ordinance amendments regarding tobacco license
violation penalties and wish to adopt the proposed ordinance?
BACKGROUND:
Council has been concerned with the sale of tobacco to minors and discussed options for
amending and increasing administrative penalties. The proposed ordinance amendments were
based on direction from Council at previous Study Session meetings, direction from the city
attorney, and feedback from an open house meeting held with tobacco licensees.
The City Council approved the first reading of this ordinance on December 17, 2007. Approval
of the second reading is required to adopt the ordinance which would become effective February
1, 2008. Since the first reading of this ordinance, compliance checks were conducted by the
Police Department at the 33 tobacco license establishments in St. Louis Park. For the first time
in recent memory all 33 establishments passed.
The following shows the history and time frame of amendments to the tobacco license ordinance:
August 27, 2007 - Study Session discussion
Increase the penalties for sale of tobacco to minors
Educate license holders
Extend time frame for 2nd and 3rd violations
Revocation of repeat violations
Provide table of penalties similar to alcohol penalties ordinance
October 8, 2007 - Study Session draft ordinance
Increased violation penalties
Extended timeframe for 2nd 3rd violations
Revocation of repeat violations (4 violations within 3 years)
November 14, 2007 - Meeting with tobacco licensees to receive feedback
November 26, 2007 - Study Session written report and revisions
Revisions to ordinance penalty section - (36 months and mandatory training penalties)
November 28, 2007 - Meeting Notice of 1st Reading and draft Ordinance mailed to licensees
December 17, 2007 - First Reading of ordinance amendments
January 7, 2008 - Second Reading
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4c) Page 2
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
Staff recommends that upon adoption of the proposed ordinance, any new tobacco license
violations occurring after the effective date of proposed ordinance (February 1, 2008) will be
considered as the first violation, and any prior tobacco violations would not be included in the
three year time period computation of violations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Penalties are part of the ordinance and not a part of the fee schedule, so if approved, this would
not have an affect on the 2008 budget.
The penalties are meant to serve as a deterrent to establishments; the ordinance is being revised
with the hope that establishments will be in compliance and there will be no need to collect fees
and hold administrative hearings. However, establishments which fail compliance checks will
pay more fees in penalties to the city if this ordinance is approved.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Preventing the sale of tobacco to minors by imposing more restrictive penalties is consistent with
our designation as a 100 Best Communities for Young People and a Children First Community.
Attachments: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance for publication
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4c) Page 3
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
ORDINANCE NO. _____- 08
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 SUBDIVISION X
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
Section 1. Section 8-378 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to read as
follows:
Sec. 8-378. Violation; penalty.
(a) Generally. Any violation of this subdivision shall be grounds to revoke or suspend a
license under this subdivision.
(b) Criminal penalty. As set forth in M.S.A. ch. 609, it shall be a:
(1) Misdemeanor for anyone to sell tobacco or tobacco-related products to a person under
the age of 18 years for the first violation. Whoever violates this subdivision a
subsequent time within five years of a previous conviction under this subdivision is
guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) Misdemeanor to furnish tobacco or tobacco related devices to a person under the age
of 18 years. Whoever violates this paragraph a subsequent time is guilty of a gross
misdemeanor.
(3) Petty misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 18 years to possesses, smoke, chew, or
otherwise ingest, purchase, or attempt to purchase tobacco related products.
(4) Petty misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 18 years to sell, furnish or give away
any tobacco related products. This subsection shall not apply to an employee of the
license holder under the age of 18 years while such employee is stocking tobacco
related products.
(c) Administrative penalty. A licensee shall pay to the city a civil penalty of $250.00 for an
initial violation and $500.00 for a second violation of a provision of this subdivision or a state
law governing the sale of tobacco related products within a 12-month period. The city council
may revoke or suspend a license, impose a civil penalty of up to $2,000.00 or impose a
combination of these sanctions for a third or subsequent offense of this subdivision within a 24-
month time period.
(c). Presumed penalties for Violations: The presumed penalties for violations are as
follows (unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive business days’
suspension):
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4c) Page 4
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
Type of Violation
1st
Violation
2nd
Violation
within
36 months
3rd
Violation
within
36 months
4th
Violation
within
36 months
1. Commission of a felony related to the
licensed activity.
Revocation
N/A
N/A
N/A
2. Sale of tobacco while license is under
suspension.
Revocation
N/A
N/A
N/A
3. Sale of tobacco to underage person:
$250
$750
and 1 day
$2,000
and 3 days
Revocation
4. Refusal to allow government
inspectors or police admission to
inspect premises.
5 days
15 days
Revocation
N/A
5. Illegal gambling on premises.
3 days
6 days
18 days
Revocation
6. Failure to attend mandatory
education training
$250
$750 and
1 day
$2,000 and
3 days
Revocation
The penalty for violations without a presumptive penalty shall be determined by the City
Council. The imposition of the presumptive penalty shall be a written notice to the licensee and
may be appealed through an administrative hearing process as set by the city manager. The city
manager's decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal to the city clerk
within ten days of receiving written notice of the city manager's decision.
(d). Multiple violations: At a licensee’s first appearance before the Council, the Council must
act upon all of the violations that have been alleged in the notice sent to the licensee. The
Council in that case must consider the presumptive penalty for each violation under the first
appearance column in subsection (B) above. The occurrence of multiple violations is grounds
for deviation from the presumed penalties in the Council’s discretion.
(e). Subsequent violations: Violations occurring after the notice of hearing has been mailed,
but prior to the hearing, must be treated as a separate violation and dealt with as a second
appearance before the Council, unless the City Manager and licensee agree in writing to add the
violation to the first appearance. The same procedure applies to the second, third, or fourth
appearance before the Council.
(f). Subsequent appearances: Upon a second, third, or fourth appearance before the Council
by the same licensee, the Council must impose the presumptive penalty for the violation or
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4c) Page 5
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
violations giving rise to the subsequent appearance without regard to the particular violation or
violations that were the subject of the first or prior appearance. However, the Council may
consider the amount of time elapsed between appearances as a basis for deviating from the
presumptive penalty imposed by this Section.
(g). Computation of violations: Multiple violations are computed by checking the time period
of the three (3) years immediately prior to the date of the most current violation.
(h). Other penalties: Nothing in this Section shall restrict or limit the authority of the Council
to suspend up to sixty (60) days, revoke the license, impose a civil fee not to exceed two
thousand dollars ($2,000.00), to impose conditions, or take any other action in accordance with
law; provided, that the license holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the
manner provided in this Chapter.
(i). Additional Requirements. In addition to civil penalties, every licensee that has been found
in violation of this Chapter must enter into and complete an education training program approved
by the City’s Police Department.
(d) Notice and hearing. The imposition of the civil penalty shall be a written notice to the
licensee and may be appealed through an administrative hearing before the city manager. The
city manager's decision may be appealed to the city council by filing a written appeal to the city
clerk within ten days of receiving written notice of the city manager's decision.
(e) Revocation or suspension. Revocation or suspension of a license by the city council shall
be preceded by a public hearing. The city council may appoint a hearing examiner or may
conduct a hearing itself. The hearing notice shall be given at least 20 days prior to the hearing,
include notice of the time and place of the hearing and state the nature of the charges against the
licensee and specify the penalty that the city may impose for the violation.
(f) Criminal prosecution. Any civil penalty, suspension or revocation, or combination
thereof, under this section does not preclude criminal prosecution under this subdivision or under
any applicable state statute.
(g) (j). Exceptions and defenses. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the providing of
tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minor as part of a bona fide religious,
spiritual or cultural ceremony. It shall be an affirmative defense to a violation of this subdivision
for a person to have reasonably relied upon proof of age as set forth by state law.
Section 2 This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
First Reading December 17, 2007
Second Reading January 7, 2008
Date of Publication January 17, 2008
Date Ordinance takes effect February 1, 2008
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 7, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4c) Page 6
Subject: 2nd Reading Ordinance Tobacco License Violations
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. _____-08
ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 SUBDIVISION X
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING
TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES
This ordinance relates to amendments to Chapter 8 Subd. X, Section 8-378 of the St. Louis Park
Municipal Code concerning tobacco licensing violations and penalties.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council January 7, 2008
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: January 17, 2008
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4d
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Grant agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and the Minnesota Department of Public
Safety.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve a Resolution to enter into a grant agreement with the Minnesota Department
of Public Safety – Office of Drug Policy and Violence Prevention.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City provide administrative and financial oversight services on a three year basis for
the Northwest Metro Drug Taskforce and by doing so enter into a grant agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety?
BACKGROUND:
The St. Louis Park Police Department has been a participating member of the Northwest Metro
Drug Task Force (NWMDTF) since 1988. The other members of the NWMDTF are the Cities of
Crystal, Golden Valley, Hopkins, New Hope, Plymouth and Robbinsdale. On August 21, 2006
the St. Louis Park City Council authorized the Mayor and City Manger to execute a Joint Powers
Agreement related to the NWMDTF. The City Councils of the other six participating cities also
authorized the execution of this Joint Powers Agreement.
It is the longstanding past practice of the member cities in the NWMDTF to share the
administrative and financial oversight responsibilities on a three-year rotating basis. The City of
St. Louis Park will be assuming these administrative and financial oversight responsibilities for
2008, 2009 and 2010. In preparation for this transition, our Police and Finance Department Staff
have been having discussions internally and with the city last to undertake these duties - the City
of Golden Valley’s Police and Finance liaisons.
The NWMDTF receives grant funding from the State. As part of the financial oversight, the City
of St. Louis Park will take over grant administration duties for the NWMDTF. The State Office
of Justice Programs (OJP) requires that the grantee (St. Louis Park) have a resolution from the
governing body, which authorizes the City to enter into a contract agreement with OJP for grant
management.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d) Page 2
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Contract
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None. Affected Police and Finance Staff will integrate work load into their duties.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Grant Contract
Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d) Page 3
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Contract
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK TO ENTER INTO
A GRANT AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY - OFFICE OF DRUG POLICY AND VIOLENCE PREVENTION
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Police Department is a participating member of the
Northwest Metro Drug Task Force, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, supports the
goals of the Drug Task Force, and
WHEREAS, the member police departments share responsibilities for coordinating and
managing the Task Force, and
WHEREAS, one of the member police departments must be designated as the
coordinating agency and fiscal agent for the Task Force, and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Police Department has indicated its willingness to
assume these responsibilities,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City of St. Louis Park enter into a cooperative agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Office of Drug Policy and Prevention on behalf of the
member agencies of the Northwest Metro Drug Task Force; and that John D. Luse, Chief of
Police, is authorized to execute such agreements and addendums as are necessary to implement
the project on behalf of the Northwest Metro Drug Task Force.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 7, 2008.
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d)
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Agreement Page 4
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d)
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Agreement Page 5
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d)
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Agreement Page 6
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d)
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Agreement Page 7
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d)
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Agreement Page 8
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4d)
Subject: Northwest Metro Drug Task Force Grant Agreement Page 9
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
2007 Pay Equity Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve 2007 Pay Equity Report
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to approve the 2007 Pay Equity Report?
BACKGROUND:
The City is required to comply with the 1984 Local Government Pay Equity Act, M.S. 471.991-
471.999 and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 3920. The report must include data as of December 31,
2007 and be submitted to the Department of Employee Relations (DOER) by January 31, 2008.
Prior to submission to DOER, the governing body of the jurisdiction must approve the report.
Pay equity reporting requirements are very specific. The data shown is required to be submitted
to DOER. The attached information shows wage and benefit data for all classes of City
employees who work at least 14 hours per week and 67 days per year (100 days in the case of
students). DOER will fully review our report and notify us some time in 2008 whether we are
“in compliance” or “out of compliance.” A preliminary statistical analysis of the data using the
State of MN Pay Equity Software shows that the City of St. Louis Park is in compliance with
Pay Equity parameters.
After approval by Council, Human Resources will submit the report to DOER indicating that the
Council has reviewed and approved the report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable
Attachment: 2007 Pay Equity Report
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4e)
Subject: 2007 Pay Equity Report Page 2
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4e)
Subject: 2007 Pay Equity Report Page 3
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4e)
Subject: 2007 Pay Equity Report Page 4
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4e)
Subject: 2007 Pay Equity Report Page 5
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4e)
Subject: 2007 Pay Equity Report Page 6
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4e)
Subject: 2007 Pay Equity Report Page 7
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Amend Consultant Contract 134-07 – Street Project: Park Place Boulevard Reconstruction - Project
No. 2007-1101.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract 134-07 which provides additional engineering
consulting services for design of the Park Place Boulevard Reconstruction Project – Project No.
2007-1101.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
History and Recent Activities
On November 5, 2007, the City Council authorized approval of a contract with SRF Consulting
Group, Inc. (SRF) to provide design services for the reconstruction of Park Place Boulevard from
Cedar Lake Road to Wayzata Boulevard. As described in the report for the November 5, 2007
meeting, the reconstruction of Park Place Boulevard is necessary primarily as a result of additional
traffic predicted to be generated by the proposed Duke redevelopment project. In addition, the
present surface condition of the roadway has fallen into a deteriorating condition. Prior to the Duke
submittal, Park Place Boulevard was initially programmed for a mill and overlay in 2008.
The improvements required for Park Place Boulevard involve the addition of several turn lanes and
intersection improvements, including signal re-constructions. As a result, Park Place Boulevard will
essentially require a complete reconstruction from Wayzata Boulevard to a point between Gamble
Drive and Cedar Lake Road.
The original contract approved by SRF was based upon on an initial conceptual design for traffic
related improvements identified in the AUAR, in parallel with the redevelopment plans by Duke that
were known at the time. Over the past couple of months, the proposed Duke plans (the West End
retail portion) have been further refined. During this time, SRF has worked closely with Duke and
their design team to properly coordinate and match the roadway design with the developer’s plan for
the Duke site, particularly for the proposed retail establishments and streetscape along the east side of
Park Place Boulevard. This has required significant changes to the grades and elevations of Park
Place Boulevard and, as a result, a significant amount of additional design effort by SRF staff which
was not anticipated in the original scope of work, thus necessitating an amendment to their contract.
Additional Professional Services
The following is a general breakdown of the additional work tasks identified by SRF as necessary to
complete design of the project:
• Preparation, attendance, and follow up for regular meetings with Duke Realty and their
design team to coordinate and integrate roadway designs with streetscaping and
development plans
• Revision of construction staging and traffic control plans.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 - Item 4f Page 2
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 134-07 – Park Place Boulevard - Project No. 20071101
• Detailed analysis of cross slopes, grading, and sidewalk profiles.
• Design the reconstruction and adjustment of existing utilities, including watermain,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and traffic signals, fiber optic lines, and other utilities.
Schedule
As a result of the change in scope, the project design schedule has been pushed back 3-4 weeks.
However, SRF and staff are continuing to work aggressively to complete the final plans to allow for
a spring 2008 letting as originally planned. Construction is expected to last two years, 2008-2009;
substantial street completion is planned for late 2008 with final turf establishment and streetscaping
work to be completed by mid 2009.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Estimated Contract Cost
A Proposal from SRF dated December 21, 2007 estimates the cost for this additional work at
$34,883. All work performed under this contract is paid for on a time and materials basis. The
source of funding for this work/project, as identified in the City’s five year CIP, will come from
Developer, Tax Increment, and Municipal State Aid funds.
The professional services cost for Contract 134-07 with SRF is now estimated as follows:
Original Contract $215,038
Amendment No. 1 $34,883
Total $249,921
Contract Terms
Contract terms remain unchanged except as follows:
1. Scope is amended to include the additional engineering services outlined in the SRF proposal
dated December 21, 2007
2. This design work is scheduled for completion by June 20, 2008.
3. Compensation is based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of
$249,921.
The document utilized for this contract is the City’s standard professional services agreement
developed by the City Attorney.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Design of the Park Place Boulevard Improvement will consider and accomplish the following Vision
related goals:
Sidewalks and Trails and Transportation:
1. Will provide improved safety and facilities for pedestrians and bicycles.
2. Will provide stronger links to destinations, including gathering centers and transit facilities.
Attachment: Amendment No. 1
Prepared By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 - Item 4f Page 3
Subject: Amend Consultant Contract 134-07 – Park Place Boulevard - Project No. 20071101
AMENDMENT NO 1.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 134-07
THIS AGREEMENT is made on January 7, 2008, by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”),
and SRF Consulting Group, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as “SRF”).
1. BACKGROUND: The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting
services dated November 5, 2007 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement
authorizes SRF to provide engineering consulting services for Project 2007-1101 at a cost
not to exceed $215,038.
2. ITEM NO. 1: SCOPE OF SERVICES: This paragraph shall be amended to include
the additional engineering services outlined in the SRF proposal letter dated December
21, 2007.
3. ITEM NO. 2: TIME FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES: This paragraph is
modified to reflect that contract activities are to be completed by June 20, 2008.
4. ITEM NO. 3: COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES: Subject to the modifications set
forth herein, the not to exceed compensation amount shall increase by $34,883 to
$249,921.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written.
SRF CONSULTING GROUP, INC. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:________________________________ By:________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Title:_______________________________ and________________________________
Thomas Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Approve consulting services for Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation - Project 2006-
2000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Progressive Consulting Engineers (PCE) for
engineering services related to Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The current 5-year CIP includes Project 2006-2000 which is the rehabilitation of Water
Treatment Plant (WTP) No. 8 located at W. 16th Street and Lancaster Avenue in the Kilmer
Neighborhood.
Around 1970, the City expanded the existing Well No. 8 building and constructed a pressure
filtration plant adjacent to the well which has since been called WTP No. 8. WTP No. 8 main
purpose is to remove iron and manganese from the well water. The plant is now more than 30
years old and in need of rehabilitation. This project will be conducted in the same manner as the
WTP No. 16 project recently completed in 2007.
Similar to what was done successfully at WTP No. 4 and 16, the City plans to replace the filter
media at WTP No. 8 with Calgon GSR Plus media. Filter media can be purchased directly by
the City and be installed by the contractor as part of the plant rehabilitation project. However,
prior to media replacement, an evaluation of the existing steel filter tanks needs to be completed.
Testing of the tanks will consist of a tank shell and underdrain plate steel thickness and condition
assessment. If the underdrain plate shows considerable metal loss, it may require removal and
replacement.
Another important aspect of this project will be the evaluation of the treatment process. Existing
water quality data, the location of chemical feed points, and the condition of process and
chemical feed equipment, including the piping and nozzles inside the filter tanks, will be
evaluated to determine appropriate improvements. Past sampling data indicates that combined
Radium 226/228 levels are below current safe drinking water standards, but provisions will be
made to install radium removal equipment should future radium removal become necessary.
To increase plant efficiency, expansion of the chemical room may be necessary. This would
require evaluation of the building and building code compliance. Also, the backwash process
which currently discharges to the storm sewer system will be evaluated. Additionally, the
feasibility of retrofitting the system to allow backwash water to be recycled back through the
plant, retreated, and pumped into the distribution system will also be investigated.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 – Item 4g Page 2
Subject: Approve Contract with PCE, WTP 8 Rehabilitation, Project 2006-2000
Finally the project will involve several process improvements, including sandblasting and
repainting the existing filter tanks and process piping, replacing the well discharge piping and
flow meter, replacing the yard piping and valves between the plant and the distribution system,
replacing the air compressor, and adding a digital scale for the fluoride tank.
There are several consulting firms that could assist the city with this project. However, based on
their excellent performance on the recently completed WTP 16 rehabilitation project, staff
recommends PCE be retained to assist the city on this project. PCE submitted a proposal dated
December 28, 2007 listing the tasks and estimated costs as follows:
Preliminary Design $6,560
Final Design $22,540
Construction Engineering $15,370
Project Closeout $3,840
Subconsultants:
Electrical/Mechanical (Barr/Wentz) $19,850
Structural (SDA) $6,900
Architectural (interior wall revisions – if necessary) $1,000
Independent Testing Company Fees $9,410
Total Not to Exceed $85,470
It should be noted that PCE’s Proposal does not include the design of a backwash recycle
system. If the above described feasibility study recommends recycling the backwash water,
additional authorization will be needed to proceed with this work at an additional cost.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
In summary, it is proposed that the City hire PCE for engineering evaluation and design services,
plan & specification preparation, construction inspection, and related tasks as described above.
Based on past experience, PCE provides quality work and good project management at
competitive rates. Subcontractors (consultants) may be used by PCE as proposed or as otherwise
approved by the city. All work performed under this contract is paid for on a time and materials
basis. The source of funding for this project is the Water Utility.
The following terms will be incorporated into this contract:
1. Work is scheduled to begin in January 2008 and be completed by June 2009
2. Compensation is based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of
$85,470
3. PCE has independent contractor status.
4. City may terminate this contract with seven (7) days notice
The document utilized for this contract is the City’s standard professional services agreement
developed by the City Attorney.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachment: None
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: January 7, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4h
OFFICIAL MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2007
ST. LOUIS PARK HIGH SCHOOL, SCHOOL BOARD MEETING ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Bob
Jacobson, Kirk Morrow, Rolf Peterson
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community
TV Coordinator
OTHERS PRESENT: None
1. Call to Order
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM.
2. Roll Call
Present at roll call were Commissioners Browning, Dworsky, Hartman, Huiras, Jacobson
and Peterson. Commissioner Morrow arrived at 7:05 p.m.
3. Approval of Minutes for August 2, 2007
Mr. Dunlap noted a request by Mr. Mattern for the minutes to include his answer to Chair
Huiras question about the NFL Network, that it’s available on the Sports Entertainment
Package as channel 736, but not on Basic or Standard cable.
It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to
approve the minutes of August 2, 2007 as amended.
The motion passed 7-0.
4. Adoption of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
5. Public Comment – None
6. Unfinished Business
A. Proposed School District Franchise Fees Policy
Chair Huiras noted the policy sets forward guidelines regarding what the Commission
grants for franchise fee expenditures for operation and equipment grants.
Mr. Dunlap clarified the recommendation is to create a written policy from what the
Commission had practiced for the last 8-10 years, to make it a part of the record.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4h) Page 2
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11, 2007
Commissioner Morrow noted the third paragraph said District 273 and should be 283.
Mr. Dunlap indicated this would be a stated policy, not part of the By-laws. It can be
changed in the future.
It was moved by Commissioner Dworsky, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson, to
approve the School District Franchise Fees Policy, as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
B. Fiber Optic Ordinance Update from Staff
Mr. Dunlap reported the Verizon fiber all the way to the home (FTTH) project being built
in parts of the country is charging $40 for 5 megabit downloads and 2 megabit uploads,
which is similar to what Comcast offers in many communities. If you want something
dramatically better, it costs $178/month for 30 megabit/second downloads. Qwest
recently announced they expect to offer video services in Minnesota by the end of 2008,
and Minneapolis was one of the markets mentioned, although it is unclear if that meant
the entire metro area.
Mr. Dunlap said the purpose of the ordinance is to improve data transmission technology
and options for St. Louis Park residents and businesses. The most useful model is one
passed in Seattle with a goal of 25 megabits/second, which would be an improvement
over what cable model and many business users have now. In 2015, the goal would be
broadband for all. Park WiFi, even at 256 kilobits/second, was technically considered to
be broadband, which would meet that goal. San Francisco is also working on a
significant fiber project although he hadn’t had time to research that. Some things the
Commission had talked about in the past included running fiber optic cable on each
multiple dwelling unit. At that time there was talk about not necessarily needing fiber
inside a multi story building to get phone, video and data transmission to each of the
individual units. He needed to look into that more. The Commission also talked about
having single-family homes and new subdivisions pre-wired in some way, for example,
requiring a home that did a significant a remodel of at least 50% of the square footage to
be pre-wired with fiber Options include having the City build a fiber optic to the home
system, like Windom and Monticello, but that is not likely to happen anytime soon.
Other options include the City partnering with a private entrant to help get them involved,
or offering incentives to let new entrants know they were wanted.
Commissioner Browning asked how City Council felt about this and if it had come up for
discussion? Mr. Dunlap replied they were interested in having something go forward,
that they wanted residents to have as many technology options as possible.
Commissioner Browning indicated another option coming is broadband over power line,
which would be speeds up to 150 megabits/second. Some of the satellite providers are
partnering for that purpose. He did not know how far down the line that would be.
Mr. Dunlap stated WiMax has started to reach the point where there are products
available for sale.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4h) Page 3
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11, 2007
Commissioners felt staff should continue to pursue this.
Commissioner Jacobson commented he called Comcast trying to find out details on
package offers for cable/phone/internet. They have different providers for each service
and it varied around the country. This area gets phone services from White Fence and
Qwest is also trying to get phone services in this area. It seemed to be a mix up on who
does what. The people he talked to did not know who the real provider was going to be.
A lot of research would be needed.
Mr. Dunlap responded he would look into that and talk to Comcast.
Commissioner Jacobson was concerned when he talked to the service reps that they
would not provide information on the services until he set up an account and would like
to see that changed.
C. On Location Update
Mr. McHugh displayed the channel logos, including Channel 16 is On Location. He
distributed a handout, which included a list of programs produced this year. They varied
from plays to music to high school sports. They provide handouts to those interested in
viewing or purchasing the programs and how to get further information.
Mr. Dunlap added they are down one staff member, and are in the interview process to
replace that person.
Chair Huiras asked how many people are out televising? Mr. McHugh replied there are
two full time people (producer and manager), a half time program producer, and unfilled
position for program producer. Mr. McHugh fills in as a camera operator when there is a
need.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if that included Mr. Dunlap’s time? Mr. McHugh replied
he steps in to cover a Council meeting if there is a conflict with another event.
Chair Huiras asked what Mr. Dunlap was recording at Dakota Park recently? Mr. Dunlap
replied that was part of programming for Inside the Park, shown on channel 17. Mr.
McHugh had helped with the On Location group, and that Scott Smith has been spending
much of his time working on that crew.
D. Park WiFi Update
Mr. Dunlap stated the City had fallen behind on the project. They had a delay to make
sure they could get the pole location and aesthetics figured out, after feedback from
residents. All of the poles and cabinets installed will be brown. Phase I is not yet
completed. There are 15-17 poles yet to be installed and should be done by the end of
October. When that was complete, and the service tested, the people receiving the
service would begin to pay for it.
Commissioner Jacobson asked about the speed? Mr. Dunlap replied they were planning
on introducing it at 1 megabit, 3 megabits and 256 kilobits/second. .
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4h) Page 4
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11, 2007
Commissioner Jacobson asked what the test speed was? Mr. Dunlap replied he was
unsure, but could follow up.
Commissioner Browning asked how far they were from being done city-wide? Mr.
Dunlap replied they expect to work aggressively and get it done by November 30th. Most
of the work is done in Phase II and much of the work in Phase III. The Commission
asked for a map of the pole locations, but it is a dynamic and evolving map and there are
areas in flux where the phases are adjacent to each other. It will not be available until it
was all built out.
Commissioner Browning asked if maps were available for the radio sites. Mr. Dunlap
replied he thought that could be done when the map was available. There are three
elements involved with pole location. One was being able to have a sight line to the sun,
the other was to be within the proper distance of a nearby pole to transmit the signal. To
finish the project by November 30th, they won’t be able to be quite so careful about
repositioning poles. Wherever they can, they will put these at intersections so they are
not in front of homes. Whenever it has to go in the middle of the block, and many of
them do, they try to put them on the property line.
Commissioner Jacobson indicated one of the biggest concerns was the pole position.
Mr. Dunlap stated readjusting the pole took a lot of time to reengineer and to finish by
November 30th, they won’t be able to reposition quite so many poles. People are being
notified about poles in writing. There will be a shorter time period of when they get
notice and the poles are done.
Commissioner Browning asked if there was an idea about how the performance has been
in the first quadrant? Mr. Dunlap replied he could follow up on that.
Chair Huiras commented at the last meeting he requested information on an early sign up
for Email accounts. He was able to do it and it was relatively simple.
7. New Business
A. Report on City Web Streaming Channels
Mr. Dunlap showed a graph of the last 4-5 months since channel 14 (School District)
started web streaming in May and channel 16 (On Location) started in July, and
immediately there was quite a bit of interest. Over the last three months there had been a
different one of the local channels having the most number of unique visitors. Channel
15 is the community TV channel, channel 17 is the civic channel and channel 96 is the
second community TV channel which typically shows the traffic map in the morning and
afternoon and special event programming or community announcements.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if there was a theme to what programs were asked for
more often? Mr. Dunlap replied they cover Council meetings on channel 17, which
would continue. Channel 16 probably has the least number of replays.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4h) Page 5
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11, 2007
Chair Huiras asked how much programming do they get from outside, not produced by
the City? Mr. Dunlap replied sometimes they get programming from the State. They also
get programs from the City of Minneapolis (i.e. Public Health Journal). It was probably
less than 10% on Civic TV channel 17.
Mr. McHugh noted there was a fair amount of programming staff produced on
Community TV channel 15 and a fair amount produced by people that live in St. Louis
Park or belong to a St. Louis Park organization. There are also programs that are
requested by St. Louis Park residents.
Chair Huiras asked if someone had a DVD they requested be played, does staff review it
prior to play? Mr. McHugh replied only if they have no idea how long the program is.
They need to fill out an application form that they take responsibility for the program and
tell what the program is. When they can, they try to run the program as accurately as
possible, so he reviews the beginning and end. There were a few instances when he
hadn’t played a program. They don’t use prior restraint on programs, however.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if they had programming where people asked for things
they weren’t getting? Mr. McHugh replied an example would people who go to the
office and ask for a program. Staff requests them to bring in the program.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if they would get to the point where there would be so
much programming, they couldn’t put it all on and how they would make a decision what
to put on? Mr. McHugh replied a unique programming strategy they have for community
television is that the person requesting a program has to live or work in St. Louis Park or
belong to a St. Louis Park organization and the program about that organization. The
programming on the channel reflects the interest of the community or the initiative of
staff in producing it. They will accept up to four programs a month. People can also take
equipment classes and get advice how to produce programs.
Mr. Dunlap added that the average successful request per month for web streaming in
2006 were 360 and in 2007 to this point 456. Interest in the web site and watching video
from it, had continued to grow.
Mr. McHugh commented that the On Location channel 16 web stream is continuous play
back of channel 16 local programs when NASA TV is appearing on cable channel 16. If
there is a live space shuttle mission on NASA TV, the mission is shown on the cable
channel, and the local programming is shown on the web stream version of the channel.
8. Reports
A. Comcast Complaints
Commissioner Browning was curious about the complaint where the technician had gone
to work on a customer’s equipment and left before the problem was solved because they
were limited on their time for each problem and said the customer needed to make
another appointment. He was not aware that was a situation that would occur and it
didn’t sound right. There had also been a recurring problem with Microsoft Outlook and
its ability to work in conjunction with Comcast broadband. Had anyone successfully
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4h) Page 6
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11, 2007
fixed that for those people? Mr. Dunlap replied yes, that case had been resolved. It
required the customer to spend $50 and contact Microsoft support. A few Outlook
settings were adjusted and it had worked since.
Commissioner Browning asked if the technician should have known that or someone at
Comcast? Mr. Dunlap replied he was unsure.
Commissioner Browning asked about relative speed for broadband service and if there
was a specific speed test Comcast uses to make a determination? There are sites to
measure bandwidth and they yield different things. Mr. Dunlap replied he could ask
about this. In the case noted, it required a service call and the customer was satisfied and
performance had improved dramatically. It was in either the building or the drop wiring.
Commissioner Dworsky asked about complaint #8 and the volumes from the public
channels and there is no mixer for more than one channel. The reason given was because
they were running out of rack space. Is there a better explanation? Mr. Dunlap replied
regarding the equipment being referenced, that the person complained when they listen to
local channels, the audio could vary quite a bit. To get compressor/limiter equipment is
less expensive and smaller than it had been in the past, so they’ll have the space to add
this equipment. He had done some of the research to purchase this equipment, which
would help balance the audio levels on all the local channels. They expect to have that
done soon.
Chair Huiras indicated they were having the same problems since Comcast took over
(Emails, service, calls). Will Comcast be at the next meeting? Mr. Dunlap replied yes.
Commissioner Jacobson stated he tried to communicate with Comcast to find out
information and the numbers they provided lead to people out of state and he was not
able to get a local contact. He would like to see a way to contact local reps.
Chair Huiras stated they were also having problems with programming.
Commissioner Jacobson thought another issue that should be referred to the City
attorney, was requiring a social security number, and that you don’t have to give out your
social security number. Mr. McHugh stated at prior Commission meetings,
representatives of the cable company had said that if they could get the information they
needed without getting a social security number, they didn’t have to provide it. If they
couldn’t then it was a condition of service. It varies depending on how easily they can do
a credit check on someone.
Commissioner Jacobson said it was printed on the web site somewhere that Comcast
requires all customers to provide their social security number when submitting an order
for service.
Commissioner Jacobson added when he was trying to provide information for a service
representative asking for account information, he had to sign up for an account or they
wouldn’t talk to him about their services.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4h) Page 7
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11, 2007
Chair Huiras asked if there was anything in the franchise agreement regarding these
issues? Mr. Dunlap replied nothing about that specifically. If it was unlawful, they
would have to stop doing it. He would do some research on this issue.
Chair Huiras asked if there was anything in the agreement in regard to customer service?
Mr. Dunlap replied there was not a lot of material about customer service, mostly general
information. Time Warner had wholeheartedly resisted any specifics during the franchise
renewal talks. One of the approaches some franchises take is if “x” happens, then there
shall be a result such as a fine. They weren’t successful getting anything like that. Cable
companies counter that they compete with other providers for service and should have
flexibility to determine how their customer service works.
Chair Huiras requested Comcast answer to this at the next meeting. Had they received a
check for fees recently? When was the last franchise fee payment the City had received?
Mr. Dunlap replied at the end of June, approximately $120,000.
Chair Huiras asked what happened to prove that $120,000 was the correct amount? One
of their points had been that they had no counts or information regarding subscibership in
St. Louis Park. How do they know how accurate that $120,000 was? Mr. Dunlap replied
Comcast provides a detailed sheet of information supporting why they came up with that
figure. He can provide that upon request.
Chair Huiras requested that be included in their packets.
Mr. McHugh noted the information does not have specific subscriber numbers, it had
subscriber revenues for different categories of service.
Chair Huiras asked how they knew the revenue was correct without the counts? Mr.
McHugh responded they would have to do an audit, which can be done every two years.
Commissioner Peterson asked when the last audit was. Mr. Dunlap replied he would
have to check.
9. Communication from the Chair
10. Communications from City Staff
Commissioner Dworsky reported on the National Association of Telecommunications
Officers & Advisors (NATOA) conference in Portland. A concern was the conversion
from analog to digital over the air broadcast TV which would happening in 2009. Cable
and satellite customers would not be impacted. A web site (www.dtv.gov) will be available
in January through the National Telecommunications Information Administration at the
Department of Commerce (888-388-2009). Boxes will cost about $70/set, and the federal
government has a program where each household will get two $40 coupons to use toward
the purchase of the converter boxes. There was a lot of talk at the conference about
broadband and fiber to the home and how to best apply it to each community. Mr.
Dworsky plans to prepare a written report for Commissioners.
Mr. McHugh indicated he distributed information to the neighborhood groups and to the
faith community groups. The production plan went with the studio information sheet.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4h) Page 8
Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes October 11, 2007
They are planning to do ads in the student newspaper promoting Park TV. There was
also an information sheet mailed to the faith communities and non public schools
publicizing doing announcements on cable television. He also distributed a list of
programs produced on community television.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if there was a desire to have residents produce programs?
Mr. McHugh replied yes. They plan to use other publications (Park and Rec. brochure)
to publicize that opportunity to residents. There are also promotions running on the
channels. Promotion will be ongoing.
Commissioner Jacobson asked if more could be put into Park Perspective? Mr. McHugh
replied they inquired about the price of a single page insert and they should be able to
know what that is and what is allowable for future issues.
Commissioner Jacobson asked what the percentage was of resident produced programs
versus staff produced? Mr. McHugh replied he could provide that information at the next
meeting. Weekend programming often has local faith community programs.
11. Adjournment
It was moved by Commissioner Dworsky, seconded by Commissioner Jacobson to
adjourn the meeting at 8:16 PM.
The motion passed 7-0.
Respectfully submitted by:
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: January 7, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4i
Police Advisory Commission
Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2007
Chair Gormley called the meeting to order at 7:00.
Commissioners Present: Siyad Abdullahi (arrived at 7:50), Michael Baum, Maureen Gormley,
Cindy Hoffman, Dick Markgraf, Jim Smith, Pat Swiderski and Hans Widmer
Staff Present: Lieutenant Harcey, Marney Olson and Ms. Stegora-Peterson.
Guests: Shelley Taylor, Human Rights Commission
I. Motion to approve the minutes was made by Com. Smith. The minutes were
approved as presented.
II. Human Rights Commission Discussion
Com. Swiderski indicated that members of the Human Rights Commission had been
invited to attend the meeting to brainstorm a joint project in 2008.
The Commission discussed the Somali forum put on by the Human Rights
Commission and ways the commissions could work together. It was determined a
good starting point would be to do a follow up session with the Somali Community
and provide education with a possible focus on domestic violence, which often is not
reported, get other groups involved and provide more information about the Police
Department.
Com. Swiderski indicated she would attend the upcoming HRC meeting and report on
this meeting.
III. Golf Tournament Report
Lt. Harcey stated that $4,475 was collected from entry fees and sponsorship at the
golf tournament, with a net income of $2500.
The Commission discussed ways to improve the event in the upcoming year, such as:
contacting sponsors earlier, including police officers in golf groups, and advertising
earlier. The Commission will include this as an agenda item in January.
IV. Subcommittee Reports
Traffic – Com. Swiderski talked with Scott Smith (?) in Public Works about the
survey that had been done and they would meet to review the information.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4i) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission Minutes November 7, 2007
Com. Smith asked about graffiti. Lt. Harcey indicated they had developed suspects in a
couple of cases and one was scheduled for court. They put together a graffiti forum to
talk about the impact on the City, holding those responsible for graffiti accountable and
making people more aware of the impact. Other cities are also meeting to discuss the
issue and to form a larger database.
V. New Business
Lt. Harcey noted that some Commissioners terms would be expiring. Com. Bauman
had opted to resign. Kelly Lund hadn’t been attending and Cal Ohliger had moved on
to college. Jim Smith and Hans Widmer’s terms would also be expiring. Siyad
Abdullahi had moved out of the city and was no longer eligible to be a member.
Marsha Hanold has advertised the open positions and they would accept applications
and set up interviews with the City Council. He anticipated positions could be filled
in January.
Com. Smith stated he would remain on the commission.
Lt. Harcey stated they needed to work on the end of year report to bring to the City
Council. Two new Police officers would be starting on November 19th. A new CSO
would be starting in the upcoming week and an offer had been made to a dispatcher.
The Department would then be at full strength.
Com. Abdullahi noted he had attended the citizen’s academy and it was very good.
VI. The meeting adjourned at 7:55 PM.
Meeting Date: January 7, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4j
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – September 18, 2007
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Bulman called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Karmit Bulman, Sonja Johnson, Lisa Miller, Joe Polach and Shelley
Taylor
Absent: Ahmed Maaraba, Sharon Lyon, Dalton Shaughnessy, Mohamed Abdi
Staff: Marney Olson and Amy Stegora-Peterson
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of Minutes
Chair Bulman noted a grammatical correction.
It was moved by Commissioner Bulman, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the
minutes of August 21, 2007, as amended.
The motion passed 5-0.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Pat Swiderski, Police Advisory Commission (PAC), reported that the City Council wanted
the PAC to work with HRC. At the last meeting they discussed working together on a
project for next years work plan. Their next meeting will be November 7th at 7 PM and she
invited HRC members to attend. She stated the role of the PAC.
Commissioner Taylor volunteered to attend the PAC meeting with Ms. Olson. She made a
suggestion to consider doing a joint forum.
Ms. Olson reported on educational opportunities, conferences and a class and she would
Email committee members. Let her know if you are interested.
B. Committee reports
- International Film Series
Commissioner Taylor stated that the series was going well. The next film, Paper
Clips, will be shown in the Council chambers. The speaker is Jody Ellowitz of
Tolerance Minnesota who has written a study guide and met people in the film. The
Mayor and City Council are also invited. The film has been advertised in schools.
This film has an educational exemption and can be purchased for $25 and made
available for check out. She discussed the future films. After the series is complete,
the Commission can discuss funding a series for 2008.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4j) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes September 18, 2007
III. Unfinished Business - None
IV. New Business
A. Vision St. Louis Park - Diversity
Commissioner Miller stated she and Ms. Olson met with Sandy Johnson to compare the
Vision St. Louis Park with the School Equity Plan and they realized there are some things
that don’t belong in the Diversity Plan and some cannot be prioritized. They decided to
come up with a tool for the School District, staff and the City council with a checklist of
questions for people to ask to ensure the City encourages diverse/cultural businesses, etc.
(i.e. events should be planned to include people with disabilities, etc.) They would continue
to work on this and bring it to the next HRC meeting for discussion.
Ms. Olson noted an area for improvements was communications and being welcoming. They
can work with the Communication Coordinator who is already working on this. Chief Luse
if the Strategic Direction leader and they will also work with him. Some other issues are
related to community development, communication, gathering/events where they could note
key areas and group them.
Commissioner Miller noted that diversity should not be separated from normal business and
should be addressed in daily business. They want to remove impediment to inclusion and get
rid of barriers, which would meet the purpose of the City Council and this process.
Ms. Olson noted the Vision update is available on the web site.
A. Human Rights Award
Ms. Olson passed out the application and award guidelines. A discussion was held about
whom to send the applications to and to clarify that it is for residents or businesses directly
affecting St. Louis Park. It will be sent the beginning of October with a deadline of
November 9th. The award presentation at City Council will be done in December or January.
They can also ask the City Council to help promote the award and have it put on the web site.
B. Hispanic Outreach
Ms. Olson stated Commissioner Abdi was going to make a connection with someone about
this.
Chair Bulman suggested Commissioner Taylor bring up the idea of a forum when she
attended the PAC meeting.
Commissioner Miller clarified it should be Latino, not Hispanic.
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Latino Outreach
Vision St. Louis Park
Human Rights Award
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Meeting Date: January 7, 2007
Agenda Item #: 4k
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – October 16, 2007
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Bulman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Mohamed Abdi, Sonja Johnson, Sharon Lyon, Lisa Miller, and Shelley
Taylor
Absent: Karmit Bulman, Ahmed Maaraba, Dalton Shaughnessy and Joe Polach
Staff: Marney Olson, Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of Minutes
The September 18, 2007 minutes were approved as presented.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Commissioner Abdi stated he had been contacted by Hashi from Somali Alliance who asked for help
with a new law being discussed that would indicate immigration status on driver’s licenses. Lt.
Dreier indicated it was a State issue beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission.
Commissioner Abdi noted the contact in the Latino community he was trying to reach was on
maternity leave.
Ms. Olson discussed upcoming training opportunities.
B. Committee reports
- International Film Series
Commissioner Taylor stated that the last film night was stormy, yet they had an excellent turn
out of 20+ people.
Ms. Olson added she had received telephone calls from residents asking about the availability to
view the film. It is available at Blockbuster. Discussion following the film was good. The
speaker, Jody Elowitz from Jewish Community Relations does diversity education and had met
the people in the movie and also wrote a study guide for educators. The next film is Thursday at
Lennox.
Commissioner Lyon received an article from the June 2005 National Geographic Magazine
from Marcie Murray, Administrator at Bais Yisroel. The article will be copied and handed
out at the October film, Postville: When Cultures Collide.
Ms. Olson contacted Dr. Joseph Shagalow who is also a rabbi, St. Louis Park resident, and
member of the Jewish community. Dr. Shagalow is familiar with the book and will lead the
discussion following the film.
Commissioner Taylor noted the last film is Made in LA.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4k) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes October 16, 2007
Ms. Olson indicated she would purchase this film and was looking for ideas for speakers.
The Commission discussed doing another film series in 2008 with the possibility of less films
and also working with the Jewish Community Relations Council on their International film
series in May. The Council Chambers was a good venue to show films.
III. Unfinished Business
A. Human Rights Award
Ms. Olson indicated an article will be in the Park Perspective looking for applicants. They were also
trying to get it in the Sun Sailor. She found a mailing list to send the letter and application to with
approximately 180 people. It will also be put on the City’s web site and neighborhood newsletters.
The deadline to receive applications is November 9th.
IV. New Business
A. Vision St. Louis Park – Diversity
Ms. Olson and Commissioner Miller met to review the original Diversity document and group like
things on the list. The commissioners present received the handout. At a staff wide vision meeting
Ms. Olson shared the idea of grouping the items and coming up with a checklist. Other staff
members are also working on Vision items on the Diversity list. Commissioners should look at the
handout and diversity plan and provide feedback.
Commissioner Miller indicated the HRC received the original Vision Diversity Action Plan list to
prioritize and some of the items could not be prioritized, others were ongoing. They decided to work
on creating a tool, filter or checklist for the City to use when doing day-to-day jobs. This can be used
in all areas of the City and the goal is to develop a tool to enhance their job that is easy to understand.
Ms. Olson noted communication is an area where the timing is good because they are putting together
a new neighborhood packet. They want to make it for everyone, not separate groups.
Commissioner Miller asked at the next meeting that Commissioners make suggestions so they can put
together a concise list of questions to be used as a working tool. They wanted people to look at things
differently.
Ms. Olson stated that the values of the City include respect, contribution and stewardship and the goal
is to hire people with these values.
B. Latino Outreach
See IIA.
C. Other
Commissioner Abdi asked about communication. Ms. Olson indicated other suburbs area holding
community events and specifically inviting new comers to the event. They are exploring this, but it
takes a lot of planning.
A Police Advisory Commission meeting is scheduled on November 7th and Commissioner Taylor and
Ms. Olson will attend.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4k) Page 3
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes October 16, 2007
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Vision SLP
Latino Outreach
Film Series
Human Rights Award Nominations
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4l
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Vendor Claims
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period December 15, 2007 through January 4,
2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
BACKGROUND:
The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for council’s review.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Vendor Claims
Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
2,212.54FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES3M
2,212.54
5,000.00FINANCE G & A AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING SERVICABDO EICK & MEYERS LLP
5,000.00
50.10GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC
50.10
654.15WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACCOUNTEMPS
654.15SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
654.15SOLID WASTE BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
654.15STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,616.60
443.52POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTACCURATE RADAR SPECIALTIES
443.52
2,233.67APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE OFFICE EQUIPMENTACS FIREHOUSE SOLUTIONS
9,057.83OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
4,936.28APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT
16,227.78
171.94GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAGS/SAFELITE
171.94
2,287.50ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESAIM ELECTRONICS
132.16ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,419.66
39.00OPERATIONSTRAININGALEXANDRIA TECHNICAL COLLEGE
39.00
1,597.50PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH PREPAID EXPENSESALLDATA
1,597.50
2,390.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
2,390.00
120.44GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
244.89PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
210.88PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
46.55BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
201.73VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
153.16WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
153.15SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,130.80
1,595.00PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES PRINTING & PUBLISHINGANDERBERG-LUND PRINTING CO
1,595.00
50.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSAPA NORTHSTAR CHAPTER
50.00
4,815.24GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
900.46BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
5,715.70
619.62GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
152.58ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
772.20
94.50OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESASPEN MILLS
94.50
542.50GARAGE MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO
542.50
19,675.43WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,216.23WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
20,891.66
1,270.00IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIB&M HAZELWOOD MASONRY INC
895.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,165.00
302.13POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESBARKER, BOB COMPANY
302.13
369.00ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESBARR ENGINEERING CO
369.00
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
59.64SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
59.64
175.73PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
175.73
25.56PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESBERTELSON OFFICE PRODUCTS
25.56
198.00SOLID WASTE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESBLUE SKY GUIDE
198.00
88.39WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSBOCK, DARRIN
88.39
347.71POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESBOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC
7.53POLICE G & A POSTAGE
355.24
2,473.98GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBOYER FORD TRUCKS
2,473.98
471.39GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSBOYER TRUCK PARTS
471.39
135.79WARMING HOUSE GENERAL SUPPLIESBRENTS SIGNS AND DISPLAYS
135.79
1,500.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESBROOKSIDE MOBILE
1,500.00
2,543.18ADULT SOFTBALL GENERAL SUPPLIESBRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC
2,543.18
654.00POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEBSM WIRELESS
654.00
1,084.67NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBUHMAN, GRIFFIN
1,084.67
633.67HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBUNKER PARK STABLE
633.67
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
42.65INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCAMILON, MANNY
42.65
7,717.92ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
45.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION LEGAL SERVICES
63.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES
3,756.50WIRELESS G & A LEGAL SERVICES
11,582.42
5,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWCAMPBELL, LISA
5,000.00
158.69DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE
158.69
2,260.24DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC
2,260.24
4,610.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
12,418.00CITYWIDE SF INSPECT REHAB PRGM LOAN RECEIVABLE - LONG TERM
20,188.00CITYWIDE SF INSPECT REHAB PRGM GRANTS - STATE
6,013.01CITYWIDE SF INSPECT REHAB PRGM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
43,229.01
8,741.06FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN
10,694.38ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS
19,435.44
21.36GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
21.36
150.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
86.24ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
4.75ADMINISTRATION G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
85.69HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION
141.68HUMAN RESOURCES CITE
52.52HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE
.21HUMAN RESOURCES BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
642.24E-GOVERNMENT SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
109.00ASSESSING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
22.89FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
25.34GROUNDS MTCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
7.34POLICE G & A TRAINING
120.51POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
32.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS
41.05POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
352.00SUPERVISORYSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
179.32ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
38.34OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
17.05OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES
1,816.41OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
57.50OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
10.65OPERATIONSSMALL TOOLS
31.98OPERATIONSTRAINING
30.25OPERATIONSMEETING EXPENSE
176.44PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
117.10ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
150.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING
9.55ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
298.95ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING
44.75ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE
56.81SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.00YOUTH TENNIS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
192.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
106.91PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING
74.84INVASIVE PLANT MANAGEMENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
110.54REFORESTATIONLANDSCAPING MATERIALS
84.22WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
560.85WESTWOOD G & A TRAINING
954.52VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
60.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS
201.06VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING
19.75VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MEETING EXPENSE
183.85GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
138.61TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
352.61KEEP AMERICAN BEAUTIFUL GENERAL SUPPLIES
157.81WIRELESS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
8,431.13
6.21WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCITY CAT CLINIC
6.21
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
90.00VOICE SYSTEM MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECOLLINS COMMUNICATIONS
90.00
149.95NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST
149.95
74.56ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESCOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
74.56
1,450.44EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S
1,450.44
748.70BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
748.70
76.20TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESCROWN MARKING INC
76.20
7,940.00WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCTC
7,940.00
143.75VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSCUSTOM HOSE TECH INC
143.75
911.31EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONCZAPAR, KIMBERLY
911.31
10,730.56WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
10,730.56
717.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESDE PAUL LETTERING
717.00
49.68GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSDEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC
49.68
762.55POLICE G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTDELAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVIC
762.55
140.00TRAININGLICENSESDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
140.00
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
191.50ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISINGDEX MEDIA EAST LLC
191.50
567.04SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDISCOUNT STEEL INC
567.04
4,095.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIDMJ CORPORATION
4,095.00
820.98COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGDO-GOOD.BIZ INC
181.96PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES PRINTING & PUBLISHING
986.10POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE
1,989.04
786.69ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
786.69
1,126.92PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDYNAMIC FASTENER
1,126.92
12,996.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
12,996.00
7,560.00ESCROWSEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
135.00WESTMORELAND HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,000.001999 GO IMPROVE BONDS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
12,695.00
26.00ADMINISTRATION G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE IN
26.00
174.80INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY
174.80
1,366.20GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSESEMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC
1,366.20
91.20GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
1,215.23GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,306.43
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
125.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE INC
125.00
7,345.80GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSESESRI
7,345.80
237.81PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
138.63-GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
99.18
96.50BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEFAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS INC
96.50
23.79GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESFASTENAL COMPANY
23.79
134.79SAMPLINGPOSTAGEFEDEX
134.79
51.95OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSFIRE ENGINEERING
51.95
103.15OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE SAFETY USA INC
103.15
6,487.53COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGFIRST IMPRESSION GROUP
6,487.53
28.46VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEFIRST STATE TIRE RECYCLING
28.46
325.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESFISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA
325.00
26.63BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
26.63
106.22ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEFOR ALL OCCASIONS CATERING
106.22
878.81GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFORCE AMERICA INC
878.81
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
132.99WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFRANCIS, STUART
132.99
290.81ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESG S DIRECT
290.81
172.16WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSGARELICK STEEL CO
172.16
282.02ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESGLS SPORTS EQUIPMENT EXPERTS
282.02
920.00SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGOODMAN & ASSOCIATES, TIM
920.00
200.00ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEGRAFIX SHOPPE
200.00
794.56GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESGRAINGER INC, WW
60.19FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
491.81ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
63.88-GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,282.68
57.23WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARGRIMSRUD, TOM
57.23
25.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTHAERTZEN, MARGARET
25.00
266.25TREE DISEASE PRIVATE SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHAINES TREE SERVICE, B J
15,230.05TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
15,496.30
1,872.00DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHALF TECHNOLOGY INC, ROBERT
1,872.00
37,098.00CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIHARDRIVES INC
40,974.38CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
78,072.38
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
318.95SSD MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHARMON INC
318.95
3,858.14WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP
171.72WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
4,029.86
55.00INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICALHEARTH & HOME TECHNOLOGIES
55.00
2,866.75GENERAL REPAIR TIRESHEARTLAND DISTRIBUTION LLC
2,866.75
747.80STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHEDBERG AGGREGATES
747.80
882.18ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGEHENNEPIN COUNTY ELECTIONS
882.18
6.82NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH
1,000.00ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,245.84POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
1,646.80POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
3,899.46
835.75POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS ACCTG
835.75
425.00ADMINISTRATION G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,741.15ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,166.15
1,250.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES
1,250.00
1,235.00OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
1,235.00
97.46INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGHOFFMAN, BRIAN
97.46
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
404.19GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
40.77CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL GENERAL SUPPLIES
209.96CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
29.61ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
72.74SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
119.72PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.03SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
141.40BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,040.42
13.19POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
20.00WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
33.19
65.27GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
2.40POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
128.04PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
32.88BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
228.59
44.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEHOSFIELD, PATTI
44.00
600.00APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICESHRG TECHNOLOGY GROUP
600.00
181.03GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
289.41GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
470.44
175.24IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHYDROLOGIC WATER MGMT
175.24
47.05GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
47.05
1,495.50EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
1,495.50
375.00POLICE G & A RECRUITMENTIFP TEST SERVICES
375.00
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
321.38ORGANIZED REC G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
458.28WESTWOOD G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT
779.66
1,154.95CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
1,154.95
166.99SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESINDELCO
166.99
56,320.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESINDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #2
56,320.00
45.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTINDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONAL SOLU
45.00
56,952.50CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIINSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES USA IN
56,952.50
429.77GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
429.77
22.16GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINVER GROVE FORD
22.16
220.00TREE DISEASE PUBLIC TRAININGISA
220.00
866,578.69CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIJEDLICKI INC, G F
866,578.69
13.12INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
13.10GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
9.29GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
35.51
1,991.70ESCROWSBass Lake/EDI/UPKENNEDY & GRAVEN
5,622.79ESCROWS
255.00P.P.L. - LOUISIANIA COURT LEGAL SERVICES
120.00HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA LEGAL SERVICES
7,989.49
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
30.07HOUSING REHAB G & A MEETING EXPENSEKLESK, JANE
30.07
13,861.00WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKLM ENGINEERING INC.
13,861.00
153.75INSPECTIONS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARKRECH, BARBARA
153.75
57.14GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSKUSSMAUL ELECTRONICS CO INC
57.14
450.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLAFFIN ARCHITECTS INC, RICHARD
450.00
276.94WIRELESS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLANDIS, FRANK
276.94
27.69HOUSING REHAB G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLARSEN, KATHY
27.69
436.06ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
633.22RELAMPINGOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,069.28
100.25WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSLARSON, SARAH
100.25
2,172.50EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES
2,172.50
93,458.50EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S PREPAID EXPENSESLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
12,282.26UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
105,740.76
1,723.88GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSLITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC
1,723.88
913.00POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENTLOFFLER COMPANIES
913.00
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
621.15PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVESLUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC
621.15
600.00PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMAACO AUTO PAINTING
600.00
145.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMAAPT
145.00
973.68GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMACQUEEN EQUIP CO
230.50SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
1,204.18
100.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMBPTA
100.00
27.16WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMCCONNELL, BECKY
27.16
60.71ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
107.57VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS
38.35SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
206.63
29.43WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMCGOWN, LESTER
29.43
35.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMEHA
35.00
41.27INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMENARDS
10.79PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
24.99WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
213.78WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
290.83
680.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTMETHODIST HOSPITAL
680.00
400.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMETRO FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC
400.00
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
265.83OPERATIONSEQUIPMENT PARTSMETRO FIRE INC
1,485.00OPERATIONSFIRE EQUIPMENT
1,750.83
612.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
612.00
10,681.74OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL
10,681.74
90.64POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIESMICRO CENTER
90.64
705.11POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESMIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO
539.29OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
1,244.40
1,594.84CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESMIDWEST COCA-COLA BTLG
1,594.84
2,990.00ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE MOTOR FUELSMIDWEST FUELS INVER GROVE HEIG
2,766.73BUILDING MAINTENANCE MOTOR FUELS
17,845.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS
23,602.24
192.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINDIOLA III, JOHN
192.00
874.95WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINING AUGER & TOOL WKS INC
874.95
708.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
708.00
60.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CHAPTER OF NIGP
60.00
1,682.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,682.00
40.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA DEPT AGRICULTURE
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
50.00
125.00ENTERPRISE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA ICE ARENA MGRS ASSOC
125.00
125.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA MULTI-HOUSING ASSOC
125.00
165.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS AS
165.00
159.75SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMINNESOTA WANNER COMPANY
159.75
186.38POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMINT CONDITION DETAILING
186.38
446.24INSPECTIONS G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGMITOGRAPHERS INC
446.24
40.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
450.74EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp
490.74
210.00SUPPORT SERVICES SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATMN JUVENILE OFFICERS
210.00
47.38WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSMONCRIEFF, CATHERINE
47.38
5,444.49ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMORRIE'S BODYWORKS
5,444.49
103.79VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSMORRIE'S MINNETONKA FORD
14.81GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
60.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
178.60
102.82COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMORRISON, GARY
102.82
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
20,219.93SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMORTON SALT
20,219.93
1,855.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSMOST DEPENDABLE FOUNTAINS
1,855.00
50.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMSTMA
50.00
43.55GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMTI DISTRIBUTING CO
43.55
190.00INSPECTIONS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSN E H A
190.00
450.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSNAFA INC
450.00
36.64SANDING/SALTING GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
67.06PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.37VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
16.13PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
71.92PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
129.01GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,717.81GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
2,059.94
134.91HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
227.81DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES TELEPHONE
38.98FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE
437.40EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE
860.00POLICE G & A TELEPHONE
531.28OPERATIONSTELEPHONE
38.98PUBLIC WORKS G & A TELEPHONE
354.67ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE
564.22PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE
186.10PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE
393.17ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE
302.02PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE
114.99ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE
209.71WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
92.84REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE
141.34VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE
415.79WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
425.98SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE
5,470.19
307.38GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSNORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC
307.38
174.20ENGINEERING G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOCE
174.20
47.05WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAROESTREICH, MARK
47.05
59.31ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
156.12DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES
164.71ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
321.19FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
219.77POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
80.45POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
6.38OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
363.05INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
118.79PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
83.17TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES
344.89WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,917.83
263.72NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSOFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG
125.72VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONE
6,619.94FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONE
159.52NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TELEPHONE
1,196.38COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
8,365.28
132.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
132.00
105.85PORTABLE TOILETS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
105.85
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
121.34PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESOSSEO SPORTS
121.34
200.00SOCCEROTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPARTY UNIT
200.00
90.50POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESPEAVEY COMPANY, LYNN
12.00POLICE G & A POSTAGE
102.50
15.00HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLEPERKINS, KATHLEEN
15.00
1,050.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
1,050.00
257.20HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTPERSONNEL DECISIONS INT
257.20
623.03PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPETERSEN ALUMINUM CORP
623.03
2,970.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSON, BRENT
2,970.00
11.09GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTPETTY CASH
24.48HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING REVENUE
14.55TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES BUDGET MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
9.00RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TRAVEL/MEETINGS
17.00ASSESSING G & A MEETING EXPENSE
21.32INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.00INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE
24.51WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
14.27WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
21.73WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
163.95
2,072.04GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSPIRTEK PLYMOUTH
2,072.04
2,054.86GENERAL REPAIR TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
542.28GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
2,597.14
357.80PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
357.80
350.00POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
317.78WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
317.76SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
317.76SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
317.76STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
1,621.06
638.95GROUNDS MTCE OTHERPRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
638.95
5,253.22ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPRESTIGE COLLISION & GLASS
5,253.22
50.06BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPUMP & METER SERVICE
101.66BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
151.72
2,800.00ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESQUALITY METALCRAFTS INC
2,800.00
41,742.98ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
4,495.39WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
46,238.37
11.95GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSQUEST ENGINEERING INC
11.95
25.82ACTIVE COMMUNITY PLANNING GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
26.39VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
52.21
62.19PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP
62.19PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
62.19VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
186.57
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
644.95FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONEQWEST
55.19NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TELEPHONE
110.39COP SHOP TELEPHONE
625.55COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,414.82E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE
22.51REC CENTER BUILDING TELEPHONE
2,873.41
306.61ICE RESURFACER EQUIPMENT PARTSR & R SPECIALTIES
306.61
1,018.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESR&J INSULATION INC
1,018.00
350.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATRAM/SWANA
350.00
33.29GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESRAND MATERIALS HANDLING
33.29
1,691.77FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
736.35REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
72.44WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
558.83SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,059.39
75.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSRECYCLING ASSOC OF MN
75.00
7.36OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESREYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO
7.36
230.70GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSRIGID HITCH INC
230.70
143.85Justice Assistance Grant -2005 TRAININGRIVERWOOD CONF CTR
143.85
40.95CLEANING/DEBRIS REMOVAL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICERRT PROCESSING SOLUTIONS LLC
214.86PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
255.81
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
436.50GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSRUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO
436.50
17,285.75WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERSA-AG INC
17,285.75
171.94GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
171.94
34.70HUMAN RESOURCES CITESAM'S CLUB
34.70
50.99VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESSCHARBER & SONS INC
50.99
404.18EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONSCHLEGEL, EVA
404.18
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUESCHLEGEL, JOSEPH
35.00
187.25ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESCHMIT TOWING INC
187.25
224.55ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARSCHOMER, KELLEY
224.55
9.98WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSCHUMACHER, LYNN
9.98
2,090.46H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSCHWAB VOLLHABER LUBRATT SERVI
2,090.46
1,003.00SPECIAL PROJECTS GENERAL SUPPLIESSEELYE CRAFTSMEN CO
1,137.002005A GO CAPITAL PROJECT G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
2,140.00
1,671.37PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISEH
308.00STORM WATER UTILITY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,979.37
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
689.60UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSSHADESCAPES INC
689.60
16.88WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSILVERNAIL, ARLEENE
16.88
526.85GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICESIMPLEXGRINNELL LP
526.85
1,279.59EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993
1,279.59
92.96HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENTSONGLE, LISA
92.96
177.39PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC
36.27GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
362.05WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
575.71
123.82ENGINEERING G & A ENGINEERING SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
17,057.24PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
7,776.43PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
24,957.49
1,344.52PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESST CROIX REC CO
2,474.00UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS
3,818.52
3,557.77CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISTANDARD SIDEWALK INC
3,557.77
35.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUESTEINBACH, KRISTIN
35.00
907.76GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSSTONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
907.76
191.39SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESSTRAND MFG CO
191.39
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,295.04POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENTSTREICHER'S
545.27PATROLPOLICE EQUIPMENT
1,840.31
18.28GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSSUBURBAN CHEVROLET
18.28
889.84ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
629.20WOLFE LAKE LEGAL NOTICES
1,519.04
100.00WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSSUSA
100.00SEWER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
100.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
300.00
10,532.04WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERSWANSON PROCESS SERVICES
10,532.04
384.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSWEELEY, DAVID
384.00
312.14PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSSWEENEY BROS
312.14
398.90GROUNDS MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETALBERG LAWN & LANDSCAPE INC
14,652.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
15,050.90
259.31POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
23.66POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
9.00POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
18.31SPECIAL INTEREST OFFICE SUPPLIES
310.28
1,550.62DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEE'S PLUS
1,550.62
9.65GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSTERMINAL SUPPLY CO
9.65
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
25Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
188.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
188.00
384.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHRASHER, ANDY
384.00
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTHREE STUDIOS INC
225.00
384.75ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
384.75
10.26WOLFE LAKE COST REIMBURSEMENTTITLE ONE INC
10.26
305.74STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA
19,994.26PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
20,300.00
102.48OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTRI-ANIM HEALTH SERVICES INC
102.48
6,600.57SANDING/SALTING EQUIPMENT PARTSTRUCK BODIES & EQUIPMENT INTL
1,195.67GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
7,796.24
285.00WIRELESS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTRUGREEN LANDCARE
285.00
85.00POLICE G & A TRAININGTWIN CITY AREA LABOR MGMT COUN
85.00
1,092.59BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESTWIN CITY HARDWARE
1,092.59
14.72NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTWIN CITY OXYGEN CO
7.36BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
302.80VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
324.88
766.80POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUHL CO INC
766.80
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
26Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
462.86ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESULTIMATE OFFICE
462.86
146.03OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED
146.03
256.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
256.00
130.00TREE DISEASE PUBLIC TRAININGUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
130.00
275.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATUNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA REGIST
550.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
825.00
110.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
110.00
13,102.82WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNPLUGGED CITIES LLC
13,102.82
8.74PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A POSTAGEUPS STORE
83.10VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE
91.84
10,433.39ESCROWSAUAR-West DukeURS CORPORATION
10,433.39
18.90WATER UTILITY BUDGET TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
18.90
4,914.23WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
4,914.23
192.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESVANG, WILLIAM
192.00
60.06DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
2,835.34DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONS
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
27Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,375.09VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONE
4,270.49
220.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER
343.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
563.00
153.02PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESVIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
153.02
887.74EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONVOELKER, STACY M
887.74
42.99GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSWALSER CHRYSLER JEEP
658.24GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
701.23
151.00CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIWASTE MANAGEMENT
66,015.00SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
31,540.50SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE
14,547.75SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE
27,210.24SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
28,726.38SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE
168,190.87
535.28PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE TECHNOLOGY INC
535.28
3,157.55CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
3,157.55
277.48GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESWAYTEK
30.81GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
308.29
418.80SUPERVISORYSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATWEIGEL, GREG
418.80
264.28VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESWESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
264.28
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28
01/02/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:31:53R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
28Page -Council Check Summary
01/04/2008 -12/15/2007
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
53.01OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESWINDSCHITL, MARK
53.01
583.39EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S STATE WITHHOLDINGWISCONSIN DEPT OF REVENUE
583.39
1,296.00EXCESS PUBLIC LAND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWSB ASSOC INC
1,296.00
20.10OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
24,929.49PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,048.47PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
21.13BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE
53.75WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE
28,072.94
2,536.00NETWORK SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTXIOTECH CORP
2,536.00
476.88BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESZACKS INC
476.88
298.37ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
298.37
32.01WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARZEMBRYKI, MARK
32.01
152.85VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEP MFG
152.85
29.40VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGEZIEGLER INC
555.93GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
212.14GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
797.47
41.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESZIMMERMAN, JEAN
41.00
Report Totals 2,026,806.07
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 4l)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8a
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Appointment of 2008 Mayor Pro Tem.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt Resolution appointing _______________ as Mayor Pro Tem for 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Which councilmember does the City Council wish to appoint as Mayor Pro Tem of the City of
St. Louis Park to serve in that capacity until a duly elected successor assumes the office at the
first regular City Council meeting in 2009?
BACKGROUND:
Minnesota State Statute section 412.121 states that at the first meeting held each year the Council
shall choose an acting Mayor from the Council members. The acting Mayor shall perform the
duties of Mayor in case of the Mayor’s disability, absence from the City, or in the case of
vacancy in the office of Mayor until a successor is appointed and qualified.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8a) Page 2
Subject: Election of Mayor Pro-tem
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_____
RESOLUTION APPOINTING ______________
TO THE OFFICE OF MAYOR PRO TEM
FOR THE YEAR 2008
WHEREAS, Minnesota State Statute Section 412.121 requires cities to choose each year
an acting Mayor from the Council members; and
WHEREAS, the acting Mayor shall perform the duties of Mayor during the disability or
absence of the Mayor from the City or, in case of vacancy in the office of Mayor until a
successor has been appointed and qualifies; and
WHEREAS, the Council has carefully reviewed the qualifications of all Council
members and has considered the desires of the residents and the welfare of the City as a whole,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that
___________________ is hereby appointed Mayor Pro Tem of the City of St. Louis Park and
shall serve in that capacity until a duly elected successor assumes the office at the first regular
City Council meeting in 2009.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council January 7, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: January 7, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to require
conditional use permits for pawnshops and to set the second reading for January 22, 2008.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend the city’s zoning ordinance to make pawnshops a
conditional use and establish certain conditions for location and design of pawnshops?
BACKGROUND:
On October 26, 2007, an Interim Ordinance went into effect temporarily prohibiting pawnshops
in St. Louis Park. The purpose of the interim ordinance was to provide time to study pawnshop
issues and review the city’s zoning ordinance provisions regarding pawnshops. City Planning
Staff was directed to conduct studies for the purpose of consideration of possible amendments to the
City’s official controls to address the issues concerning pawnshops.
The Planning Staff has prepared a study report on pawnshops. It was provided to the City
Council at its study session December 10, 2007 for review and at the Planning Commission at its
regular meeting January 2, 2008. The study included a review of St. Louis Park ordinances, a
review of ordinances from other cities, a review of information on pawnshops in general
including operations, trends, and impacts on surrounding properties. The study also looked at
related land uses and proposed potential amendments to the zoning ordinance.
The study recommends that pawnshops be designated a “conditional use” within the C-2 zoning
district, and that specific conditions be established controlling the location and design of
pawnshops. Designation as a conditional use means that the use would require approval of a
conditional use permit (CUP) by the City Council following a public hearing before the Planning
Commission. It also means that specific conditions would need to be met before a CUP could be
approved. The recommended conditions include design standards, setbacks from residential
property, spacing from other restricted uses (other pawnshops, liquor stores, gun shops, etc) and
spacing from sensitive land uses (schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, etc.).
In addition to the specific conditions, a CUP process also allows the applicant’s proposal to be
reviewed in the context of the specific proposed site. It allows the City to “consider the effect of
the proposed use on the comprehensive plan and on the character and development of the
neighborhood.” It allows the City to place additional appropriate conditions and safeguards upon
the proposed use to ensure the community is protected from any potential negative impacts from
the proposed use.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
The proposed 350 foot setback from residential property will direct the location of pawnshops
away from C-2 districts that abut residential areas and into larger commercial areas. This
approach will protect residential areas from adverse impacts associated with pawnshops such as
higher police activity and other negative aspects of pawnshops. It recognizes that pawnshops
tend to be more of a regional than a neighborhood use.
The proposed ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to require a conditional use permit and
establishing conditions for pawnshops is attached. The Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the proposed ordinance amendment on January 2, 2008. One member of the public
spoke in favor of the proposed amendments. The Planning Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the amendments (4-0).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed amendments are consistent with the community vision. The amendments will
strengthen the community and help us be a safe, aesthetically pleasing community with quality
gathering places and well maintained housing.
Attachments: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Letter from Excel Pawn
Pawnshop Study Report
Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
ORDINANCE NO. _____-08
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO PAWNSHOPS,
AMENDING CHAPTER 36 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Subsection 36-194(b)(17) of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances
designating pawnshops as a permitted use in the C-2 general commercial district is deleted in its
entirety.
Section 2. Section 36-194 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by
adding the following subsection designating pawnshops as a use permitted by conditional use
permit in the C-2 general commercial district:
(d)(15) Pawnshops. The conditions are as follows:
a. The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing
another pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, gun shop, liquor
store or sexually-oriented business. In the case of a shopping center or multi-
use building, the distance shall be measured from the portion of the center or
building occupied by the pawnshop.
b. The pawnshop use shall not operate in conjunction with a sexually-oriented
business.
c. The lot shall be located a minimum of 350 feet from any parcel that is zoned
residential, or has an occupied institutional use including but not limited to a
school, religious institution, park, library or community center. In the case of
a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be measured from
the portion of the center or building occupied by the pawnshop.
d. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a
collector or arterial. Access to local residential streets is prohibited.
e. In-vehicle sales or service are prohibited.
f. Fire arm transactions are prohibited.
g. The use shall be contained within a completely enclosed building, and no
outside storage, display, or sale of merchandise is permitted.
h. Exterior loudspeakers or public address systems are prohibited.
i. Visibility into the store shall be maintained by utilizing clear, transparent glass
on all windows and doors, and by keeping all windows free of obstructions for
at least three feet into the store. Product may be displayed for sale in the
window as long as the display, including signage, does not occupy more than
30 percent of the window area.
j. Interior and exterior bars, grills, mesh or similar obstructions, whether
permanently or temporarily affixed, shall not cover any exterior door or more
than ten percent of any individual window or contiguous window area.
k. Neon accents and back-lighted awnings shall be prohibited.
l. Parking space requirements shall be determined pursuant to Section 36-361(c)
(1). If a pawnshop is combined with another use such as a currency exchange
or payday loan agency, each use shall be considered a separate use.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Section 3. Section 36-142 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by
adding the following subsections:
Currency exchange means any business or person except a bank, trust company, savings
bank, savings and loan association, credit union, or industrial loan and thrift company
that is engaged in the business of cashing checks, drafts, money orders, or traveler’s
checks for a fee.
Payday loan agency means any business that has as its primary activity the providing of
short-term loans for the borrower’s own personal, family, or household purpose which
are usually for a period from the time of the loan until the borrower’s next payday.
Payday loan agencies do not include banks.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
ADOPTED this ______ day of ____________, 2008, by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:___________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
City Attorney
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Kevin Locke
Gary Morrison
Mayor & Council Members
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: Pawn Shop Zoning Study
Dear Sirs and Madam’s,
I have read through the study that was prepared by Mr. Locke and I did find some things that I
believe need further input.
1. Who uses a pawnshop?
While I do not disagree with the fact that the majority of our customers are in low to middle
income brackets, I would not call them poor. According to studies done by the National
Pawnbrokers Association, more than 92% of borrowers are employed, about 33% of pawn
customers are homeowners and more than 25 million Americans annually use pawn services. I
consider our customers to be financially challenged, sometimes due to income and sometimes
due to personal spending habits that have caused them to experience credit problems.
As far as pawnshops being a destination use, for the most part I disagree. I believe that a
community supports the business and without a demand within a community, the store would
fail. We ran a ZIP code report on our customers and came up with the following percentages for
where our customers reside.
St. Louis Park and Hopkins 52%
Minneapolis 23%
Minnetonka 5%
Excelsior, Wayzata, Golden Valley 10%
Other areas 10%
In regards to the Minneapolis numbers, our previous location on Highway 7 was less than a mile
to Minneapolis and we still retain many of those customers.
2. Can pawnshops be linked to stolen property?
Yes they can. That having been said, we do everything in our power to avoid purchasing or
pledging stolen property. Risking the loss of a license which in turn could lead to a loss of the
business is something that no pawnbroker wants and taking in stolen property endangers the
license. I believe it is like any other business whether it is a liquor store or a stock broker, there
is always the possibility of abuse such as selling liquor to a minor or insider trading. Without
getting into the specific financials of our company, in 2007, the percentage of police
confiscations from our store has been .00359% of all the items we have purchased or pledged
(that’s $359.00 for every $100,000.00). The National Pawnbrokers Association study shows just
less than .05% as the national average.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
The logic that a pawnshop can be linked to stolen goods (“criminal activity”) somehow relates to
putting bars on the windows is an assumption I do not understand. Our store does have bars on
the inside (mostly as a visual determent as they are ½ aluminum secured with self tapping metal
screws) to keep people from breaking in and attempting to steal inventory and cash. A bank, a
jewelry store, a gun shop, a liquor store, drug store and any other store that has high value and/or
desirable inventory will protect itself.
This is a picture of our storefront.
As far as APS is concerned, I support it. I do however believe that there are major faults in the
system and it is abused by some police departments. Currently, the City of St. Paul is being sued
by Pawn America and Cash N Pawn for $623,000.00 for items confiscated by the department
based on “suspicion” of the property being linked to a crime. These are cases where no charges
are pressed, yet the police do not return the merchandise to the pawnbrokers and it either sits in
the evidence room or quite often they sell it at police auction. As the GovToGov Solutions 2007
report Mr. Locke cited, “the number of items held as evidence is up 235%”. Actual criminal
cases are another story.
Another issue with APS is that collection of information about consumers engaged in financial
transactions, such as pawn loans is protected by a 1999 federal financial privacy law and by
federal regulations adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies, the Securities & Exchange
Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. This is a point that is being tested in courts
around the country. In Ottawa, the Canadian version of APS (BWI) was found to be in violation
of provincial law for collecting personal information. In the same month a court In British
Columbia struck down an ordinance in Vancouver requiring the reporting of personal
information.
The last issue I have with APS is that second hand dealers are not required to be involved in the
program. In St. Louis Park there are two companies that actively pursue the purchase of second
hand jewelry and there are other businesses that also purchase second hand items without
reporting to APS. To think that they do not have “the potential for criminal activity” would be
naïve and they should be required to participate in the APS program.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
3. Current Licensing Regulations
The current annual fee is $2000.00. In some other municipalities, these fees are higher and in
some lower. There are currently a number of lawsuits challenging these higher fees as by law, a
fee can only be as much as it takes to administrate the license. In St Louis Park, we have a pawn
detective that does a compliance check on a monthly basis. The only compliance issue we have
ever had was when a serial number was incorrectly typed into the computer. On top of the
$2000.00 fee, we pay an APS transaction fee of $1.50 for every pledge or purchase we process in
our store. Last year, St. Louis Park billed us for $4081.50 in APS transaction fees.
4. Review of other cities code regarding pawnshops
I believe that many of the municipal zoning regulations from other cities may have been
researched and settled on based on the same sort of process as this study, by looking at what
other cities were doing.
Why do these other municipalities have the zoning set up the way they do? Was it arrived at due
to specific concerns within the community or because they looked at what another city did and
decided what’s good for the goose is good for the gander? I think the city needs to decide what’s
right for St. Louis Park based on the experiences the city has had with its pawnshops and facing
some realty that there is a diverse socioeconomic population in the city. While it is very nice,
developments like Excelsior and Grand do not represent the needs or wants of everyone in the
community.
5. Land use controls
While there was some specific data in other sections providing support for arguments, this
section is rather vague and draws some pretty bold assumptions.
“Numerous articles and studies identify concerns surrounding the effect pawnshops and similar
uses they have on residential neighborhoods and neighboring commercial entities. The primary
concerns found in the works include the connection between pawnshops and crime and the
potential decrease in personal safety, property values and neighborhood image.”
What facts are there to support that statement? Just the “concerns”?
As far as image, I can’t argue that certain factions don’t look down their noses at pawnshops.
On the flip side of that statement, other factions do not.
We have operated a store in the Crown Plaza Shopping Center in Maplewood since 1995. We
have a liquor store in the bay next to us. The mall was recently purchased by Larry Abdo. A
Walgreen’s and Caribou Coffee moved in. Other tenants include The Dollar Store, Pizza Hut,
Best Steak House, Burger King, Allstate Insurance, a chiropractor and a nightclub. Mr. Abdo is
a respected developer and recently extended our lease by five years. He does not feel that we
have a negative impact on his mall and it did not stop new tenants such as Caribou and
Walgreen’s from signing leases.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 8
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
6. Minimum Distances / Proposed Changes
I have already addressed the crime issue though it seems to be a reoccurring theme in many of
these sections. I would suggest a report from St. Louis Park police would show that pawnshops
have not been a problem in the city which could put to rest the concerns mentioned in this report.
If currency exchanges, gun shops, adult uses, and “similar” businesses are being separated, we
would have to close our doors. We operate a currency exchange licensed through the State of
Minnesota and we sell adult DVD’s with a low impact license through the city. Our store in
Shakopee has a Federal Firearms License and while they do not sell guns in the store, they do
purchase and pawn them. If they end up in saleable inventory, they are sold on Gunbroker.com.
We do not have a FFL in St. Louis Park (we let it expire when we purchased the store in 1998)
and we have no plans to get one in the near future, but I believe that more pawnshops nationwide
deal in guns, than do not. As far as liquor stores, as I mentioned, we have had a liquor store right
next to us in Maplewood for twelve years without incident and no one has expressed that there
has ever been any “there goes the neighborhood” sentiment regarding the mall.
Currently, out our back door, it’s about 75 feet to the closest house. Before we moved into the
strip mall, only one person (that I am aware of) complained to the city and she was upset because
she thought we were carrying guns. Besides her, we had two older people come in the month we
opened to say they didn’t like pawnshops. Besides that, feedback from people in the store has
been neutral or positive. I think that if you are going to change the zoning to CUP, the council
will be able to make a decision as to what is too close by getting feedback through the
community. Obviously that is the case now in the neighborhood where Pawn America wants to
open a store.
I also looked at the zoning map and I may be wrong but it doesn’t look like there are any C2
areas with buildings in which a pawnshop could operate that would not be within three football
fields of a residential area.
As far as resale values, I think you could take a look at the homes that have sold within 1000 feet
of our current location over the past two years and compare them to similar homes that have sold
beyond 1000 feet to determine if our store has caused a disparity in values.
In Section D, Street Access Requirements
“The neighbors will pay a price in noise, disruption and other negative effects from the proximity
of a pawnshop”. “Kids in the neighborhood….arguably could be harmed”
Our customers’ cars usually have mufflers and to my knowledge, no kids have been harmed. I
think that these bold statements that draw conclusions with no basis hurt the validity of this
report. Also, in the bibliography of this study, I noticed that most of the sources cited are not
exactly supporters of the industry which lends to the bias of the study.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 9
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
7. In Conclusion.
Pawnshops are financial institutions for the financially challenged. Most incorporate currency
exchanges, payday loans, firearms, adult DVD’s, money transmission and/or other goods and
services. Very few just offer pawnbroking and while their customers rely on the additional
services, so does the pawnbroker rely on the additional revenue stream. To say you can’t run a
currency exchange, pawn a firearm or sell adult videos is restricting the business and causing
economic harm. As a matter of fact, I would think that if you are concerned about image, you
may want all of them in one location.
Essentially, I think that the majority of the proposed changes do not make sense. I think that if
you are going to make the zoning subject to a CUP, the licensee or proposed licensee can be
vetted by the city council. Objections regarding multiple revenue streams or proximity to
residential areas can be addressed in a common sense manner and stipulations can be made.
I also believe that while the city has a vision for upscale businesses, the plan also provides for a
well-maintained and diverse housing stock. To me that means diverse socioeconomic residents,
some of which have different needs than the more well to do members of the community.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, the opportunity to have some input and if you have any
questions about our business, please email me and I will be happy to provide whatever
information I can.
Sincerely,
Mark Pearson
Excel Pawn, Inc.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 10
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Pawn Shop Zoning Study
12/05/07
1. City Council Request
On October 1, 2007 the City Council directed staff to conduct a study on the regulations
pertaining to pawn shops and to draft amendments to the City’s official controls for the
Council’s consideration. The study reviews ordinance provisions such as the appropriate
locations and the conditions under which pawn shops may be allowed within the City, including
compatibility with existing uses in the area. In addition to pawn shops, staff was directed to
review similar uses to determine if current regulations are sufficient, and offer recommendations.
On October 26, 2007, an interim Ordinance went into effect temporarily prohibiting pawn shops
in St. Louis Park with the intent of providing time for staff to complete the study.
2. Study Process
The study process included reviewing regulations at the City of St. Louis Park and other cities;
reviewing Minnesota State Statutes pertaining to pawn shops, visiting several pawn shops in and
near St. Louis Park, reviewing literature and other information regarding the general working of
pawnshops including operations, trends and impacts on surrounding properties; reviewing police
data; looking at related uses; and developing a set of potential regulation alternatives to consider.
Thus far, staff has reviewed the information gathered and prepared a set of options including
items that could be requirements and/or conditions for pawn shops.
3. Pawn Shop Uses
How do they work?
Pawn shops are a facility where money is loaned based on the value of goods deposited at the
facility by the borrower of the money. The goods are held by the pawn shop as collateral for the
loan. Items that are not redeemed by the borrower are put up for sale by the pawnbroker. (St.
Louis Park’s Pawnbrokers Licensing Ordinance requires items to be held at least 90 days before
they can be sold.) According to the National Pawnbrokers Association an estimated 70% of
loans are repaid.
Who typically uses a pawn shop?
Since the pawn transaction is a loan on the security of pledged goods, Minnesota Statute 325J
requires all persons pawning goods to be at least 18 years of age. There is no age minimum,
however, to purchase goods from a pawn shop. According to John Caskey, in his book entitled
Fringe Banking: Check Cashing Outlets, Pawnshops and the Poor, interviews with Pawnbrokers
show that pawn “loan customers come from a variety of socioeconomic groups,” but the vast
majority have low to moderate incomes. Most consumers using pawn shops do not have a bank
account or have poor credit and would be denied a loan by other financial institutions. When
explaining their reason for borrowing, in a 1990 survey referenced by Caskey, 53 percent of
customers stated they used pawnshops for “family or personal emergency” and 28 percent to
“pay or consolidate bills.” The average loan size nationwide in 1990 was less than $100.
(Caskey 1994).
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 11
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Pawn shops are unique uses in that they loan money and sell the goods held as collateral. Also,
unlike other retail stores or financial institutions, they cater to customers in need of cash and with
limited options for raising funds. A 1998 study by Georgetown University titled, “Pawnbroking
in the U.S.: A Profile of Customers,” found a majority of pawn shop customers come from the
“family raising stage of life, ages 25 to 34 years, when the demands upon household frequently
are greater than the income.” When pawn shop customers were asked in a questionnaire why
they borrow from a pawn shop instead of a bank or a small loan company, the main reason given
is, “they have a much better chance of getting the loan they need at a pawnshop.”
The study also found that there was a large portion of “shop only” customers who were young,
under 25 years of age. Pawn shops sell many items popular with younger consumers, such as
stereos, CDs, movies, video games, jewelry, etc.
Pawnshops are generally a destination use. A check of the Dex on-line phone directory shows
that there are only 78 pawn shops within a 50 mile radius of Minneapolis. This is a relatively
small number compared to the number of grocery stores (764) and coffee shops (341). Since
there are relatively few in the metropolitan area, pawn shop customers often travel outside their
own neighborhood or community to use them. This is typical of a use that is more regional in
character, not of neighborhood businesses. While local residents might frequent the nearby
coffee shop or grocery store weekly or even daily, pawn shop customers are more likely to visit
infrequently and come from greater distances. If they have a criminal intent, they may travel to
several pawn shops over great distances. In an article by the Pioneer Press title “Surge In
Burglaries Tied To Meth Use”, Mike Meyer, a St. Paul police narcotic agent stated, “We’ll see
people from Wisconsin come here (Twin Cities) with stolen merchandise and pawn it.”
Can pawn shops be linked to stolen property?
Since pawn shops exchange cash for goods without proof of ownership, they can become a target
for criminals seeking to cash in on stolen goods. The Automated Pawn System (APS) is
intended to discourage criminals from using pawn shops by identifying pawned goods and the
individuals that are pawning them. For example, since implementing APS in Minneapolis in
1997, there has been an increase in the recovery of stolen property. The number of items held as
evidence was up 235%, and it is estimated that $100,000 in retail value of stolen property is
recovered every month as a result of APS (GovToGovSolutions 2007).
Simon M. Fass and Janice Francis writing in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
conducted research on the role of pawnshops in disposing of stolen goods. What they found is
that while effective, systems like APS are limited by the ability of the owner of the stolen good
to prove the item is his or hers, since most home owners do not maintain records containing
serial numbers or photographs of their items. In addition to this, jewelry is difficult to clearly
differentiate one piece from another. As is true with most stolen goods, a majority of jewelry
does not have unique identifying features that can be reported to the police. Therefore, Fass and
Francis included more than statistics showing how many stolen items have been recovered in
their research. They expanded their approach to include criminal records of those found
pawning items, and individual interviews with known criminals. This data comes largely from
Texas, and shows that there is typically a small number of prolific pawners, but those regulars
pawn a largely disproportionate amount of goods. They also claim that a large percentage of
those prolific pawners have a record of arrest for thievery (Fass, 2004). See the table below for
data on this study
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 12
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Table 1: Pawn Transactions in Dallas, Texas, 1991-1996
The potential for criminal activity means pawn shops often have a heightened focus on security.
The owner will typically obstruct the windows by installing bars or placing shelving units against
the windows so would be criminals cannot see into the store and/or gain entry through the
window. The frequent use of these measures seems to indicate that pawn shops are susceptible
to criminal activity.
4. St. Louis Park Existing Regulations
A. Current Zoning Regulations.
The City has two commercial districts, the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District and the C-2
General Commercial District. A zoning map is attached as Exhibit A, and shows the proximity
of each district to residential neighborhoods, traffic corridors and other non-residential uses.
The C-1 District is intended for commercial uses that can be located in close proximity to
residential uses, especially single family homes. C-1 areas are intended to form small
commercial nodes that service the immediate neighborhood. Traits include small, quiet shops
that generate little vehicular traffic.
The C-2 District is intended to accommodate the same uses allowed in the C-1 District, but also
includes larger uses and buildings that generate more traffic and noise, and are more regional in
character. Properties in the C-2 District tend to be larger than those located in the C-1 District
and are clustered together to form large commercial nodes or corridors typically located along
high volume roads such as state highways and county roads such Excelsior Blvd and Minnetonka
Blvd.
C-2 Districts are located along the higher traffic roads to keep traffic generated by these uses
away from residential neighborhoods. The C-2 uses typically have direct access to major streets.
Ideally the commercial uses cluster together in C-2 Districts to form a mutually beneficial
commercial node with a strong regional identity.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 13
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Given the pattern of development in St. Louis Park over the past 100 years, it is inevitable,
however, for some C-2 Districts to be adjacent to residential neighborhoods. To protect
residential neighborhoods the C-2 District has additional conditions aimed at mitigating any
negative impact from C-2 uses on the residential neighborhoods. These conditions are discussed
in more detail below.
The uses allowed in the C-2 District are grouped into four categories. The categories are
permitted uses, uses permitted with conditions, uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
and uses permitted by Planned Unit Development (PUD). Each of these categories represents a
different level of control and regulation by the city. Permitted uses are the least stringently
controlled and PUD uses are the most stringently controlled.
Some of the uses permitted without additional regulations beyond standard zoning and licensing
include small retail, offices, showrooms, banks and pawnshops. Other uses are permitted with a
short list of additional conditions including uses such as dry cleaning, kennels, small engine
repair, hotel, outdoor display, private entertainment and restaurants without intoxicating liquor,
shopping centers, and sexually oriented businesses. Neither permitted uses nor uses permitted
with conditions require review by the Planning Commission or City Council. They also do not
require a public hearing.
Finally, some uses are permitted by conditional use permit (CUP) or Planned Unit Development
(PUD). These uses require a public hearing at the Planning Commission and approval by the
City Council. CUP uses include gas stations, car dealerships, auto repair shops, restaurants and
entertainment with intoxicating liquor, drive-throughs, places of assembly, and larger shopping
centers. The PUD category applies only to very few situations and large uses.
Each use that is permitted with conditions or requires a CUP includes a list of additional
conditions that must be met before it can be approved. These conditions are geared toward
mitigating some of the adverse effects the use can have on the neighborhood. Typical conditions
include:
1. Greater setbacks from residential uses.
2. Limits on access designed to reduce/eliminate traffic through residential neighborhoods.
3. Additional screening.
4. Limits on size of the structure.
5. Distance requirements from similar uses.
6. Limits on architectural design.
7. Limits on building and property appearance.
8. No outside sale or display.
Pawn shops are not permitted in the C-1 District. Pawn shops are permitted as “Permitted Uses”
without additional conditions in the C-2 District. The zoning ordinance defines pawn shops as
follows:
Pawnshop means a facility where money is loaned based on the value of goods deposited
at the facility by the borrower of the money, which goods are held by the lender of the
money occupying the facility as collateral for the loan. Items held by the lender which
are not redeemed by a borrower may be put up for sale at the facility to the general
public.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 14
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Current Licensing Regulations.
Pawn shops in St. Louis Park are required to have a license. The following are the primary
elements of the city’s pawn shop license ordinance:
A maximum of two pawnbroker licenses may be active at any time. As of November
2007, there is one active pawnbroker license in St. Louis Park – Excel Pawn located at the
Texa-Tonka Center.
Automated Pawn System (APS). Pawn shops are required to participate in this system.
APS is a database of business transactions from more than 100 pawn shops in Minnesota. It
is implemented and maintained by the Minneapolis Police Dept. The system is intended to
help police departments identify stolen merchandise handled by pawn shops.
Licensing Eligibility. To be eligible for or to maintain a pawnbroker license, a person must
operate lawfully and fairly; cannot be a minor; cannot have been convicted of any crime
related to the license unless shown to be successfully rehabbed; must be of good moral
character or repute; and cannot hold an intoxicating liquor license within the city.
Fees. The current license fee is $2,000. This is a one time fee required with the license
application and covers expenses incurred while processing the application. An investigation
fee of $1,000 is also required at the time an application is submitted. This fee covers
expenses incurred for background checks on the applicant. A billable transaction fee is
charged to each transaction and paid to the city monthly. The fee is $1.50 per transaction,
and covers the expense incurred while receiving and processing the monthly reports given
from the pawn shops to the police department. A penalty fee of $50 per day is applied when
the required monthly reports are late.
Photo/video/digital images. Pawn shops operators are required to take photos of each
customer and item involved in the transaction.
Record-keeping and daily reports. Records must be kept and reported daily to the police
detailing the item and person involved in each transaction.
Holding and redemption periods. Items must be held for at least 90 days before they can
be sold. This can be extended by police order.
Hours of operation. Hours are limited to 7 am – 10 pm all days of week.
Police inspections. Police have the right to enter property and inspect items.
5. Review of Other Cities Pawn Shop Land Use Controls
Staff contacted 13 cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area to see how they regulated pawn shops.
Six of the cities allow pawn shops with a CUP with additional conditions, seven cities permit
them with additional conditions and one does not permit them at all. (This totals 14 because St.
Paul allows them in some districts by CUP and permits them in others with additional
conditions.) Two of the cities, Mounds View and Robbinsdale, adopted an overlay district where
pawn shops are allowed. The overlay allows the cities to control where the pawn shop can
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 15
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
locate. For instance, in Mounds View, the overlay is in an isolated light industrial area that is
away from residential and their Hwy 10 commercial corridor. Below is a synopsis of what was
learned from each city.
Bloomington:
Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted in B3, General Business Districts as CUP, and some
conditions include:
• Use will not cause traffic hazard;
• Adjacent residentially zoning land will not be adversely affected;
• Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected.
Licensing restrictions: No Pawnbrokers license shall be granted to any location within 500 feet
of a school, City-owned athletic playfield, publicly-owned park, playfield, recreational area or
open space.
Brooklyn Park:
Zoning: Pawn shops are allowed by CUP in the Business District, conditions include:
• All entrances to business must be visible from public right-of-way;
• Layout must allow observation of all patrons while they have access to any
merchandised offered for sale;
• site must be 500 feet from property line of a site containing a religious institution,
school, day-care/preschool, another pawnshop, an adult entertainment/adult service
business, a currency exchange or any residential district;
• All establishments must apply for and obtain license from City before building permit
issued.
Edina
Zoning: Pawn shops are not permitted.
Fridley
Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted in the C-2, General Business District.
Golden Valley
Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted uses in the B-2 and B-3 Business Districts.
Hopkins
Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted uses in the B-2 and B-3 Business Districts.
Maple Grove:
Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted in the Industrial District. Conditions include:
• Must be properly and currently licensed;
• Shall not be located within 750 feet any premises currently licensed as massage,
pawnbroker, sexually oriented business, liquor sales, or within 750 feet licensed day
care, residence, house of worship, school, playground, park, library, community
recreational center or facility;
• No pawnshop may be located in or on any building, premises, or lot already containing
pawnshop.
Licensing Site Requirements: No exterior loudspeaker; no public address system; no outside
storage, display, or sale of merchandise shall be permitted.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 16
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Minneapolis:
Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted with specific development standards in the C4 and B4C
(Downtown) Districts. Conditions include:
• Use is at least 1,000 feet from all existing pawnshops, currency exchanges, missions,
and secondhand goods stores;
• Back-lighted signs, Back-lighted awning, portable signs, temporary signs and
freestanding signs shall be prohibited;
• Window and door area of any existing first floor façade facing public street or sidewalk
shall not be reduced, nor shall changes be made to block views into building at eye
level;
• New construction, at least 30% first floor façade facing public street or sidewalk shall
be windows or doors of clear or lightly tinted glass;
• Use of bars, chains or similar security devices that are visible from public street or
sidewalk shall be prohibited;
• The premises, adjacent streets, sidewalks and alleys, and all sidewalks and alleys within
100 feet shall be inspected regularly for purposes of removing any litter found thereon;
• All receipt, sorting and processing of goods shall occur within a completely enclosed
building.
Mounds View
Zoning: A pawn shop overlay district was adopted in 2003. Pawn shops are a permitted use in
this district. The following condition is required:
• A building containing a pawnshop may not be located within 1,000 feet of another
building containing a pawnshop.
Plymouth:
Zoning: Pawn shops are allowed by CUP in the C4 District, with the condition that:
• Business is not within 750 feet property containing another pawnshop, currency
exchange, religious institution, or residentially zoned or guided property.
Richfield:
Zoning: Pawn shops are prohibited in C1, Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Pawn shops are
allowed with a CUP in C2 General Commercial District, conditions include:
• Such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from any school, church, daycare
center, public library, or governmental building;
• Such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from any existing pawn operation,
secondhand goods operation which requires a license under section 1186 of the city
code, auction house, or consignment auction house;
• Such uses shall be located not less than 250 feet from residentially zoned property;
• Such uses shall be screened, as approved by the city;
• The business operator shall secure all applicable licenses and approvals from the city,
county, state, or other applicable jurisdictions before the conditional use permit shall
become effective;
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 17
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
• Off-street parking requirement:
Pawn operations and secondhand goods operations which require a license
under section 1186 of the city code shall provide at least five parking spaces
per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or ten parking spaces, whichever is
greater; and
Auction houses and consignment auction houses shall provide at least 35
parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 70 parking spaces,
whichever is greater.
• Such uses shall be contained within a completely enclosed building, and no outside
storage, display, or sale of merchandise shall be permitted;
• Exterior loudspeakers or public address systems shall not be audible from any
residential parcel;
• Auction houses and consignment auction houses shall have designated on-site loading
and drop-off areas which are designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian
movements;
• Such uses shall not be operated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The
following day; and
• Such uses which were legally established on or before November 22, 1993 shall be
classified as legal nonconforming uses, and subject to the provisions of Section 511.13
of this code.
Robbinsdale:
Zoning: B4p overlay district provides regulations for pawnbrokers (and secondhand goods
dealers, consignment house dealers, auction house dealers and traders). The purpose of the
overlay is to provide special regulations necessary to ensure that adverse effects of uses will not
contribute to blight or downgrading of surrounding neighborhoods, and to prevent a
concentration of these used in any one area.
Pawnbrokers are permitted by CUP in the overlay with the following conditions:
• The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the facility will not be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, general welfare;
• The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity, nor substantially diminish property values within the
neighborhood;
• Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and necessary facilities have been or are
being provided;
• An off-street loading and unloading rear entrance is provided;
• Requirements of Minnesota statutes regarding pawn and secondhand goods,
consignment, auction, and trading establishments are met;
• Licensing requirements of section 1135 of the Robbinsdale City Code are met;
• No alcohol is allowed on the premises;
• That the standards set forth in subdivision 7 (the minimum site requirements in the B4p
overlay district) are met;
• That there is no other pawnbroker, secondhand goods dealer, auction house dealer,
consignment house dealer greater than 2,250 square feet or a trader greater than 2,250
square feet within 1,000 square feet.
• That the structure of the business complies with the architectural design guidelines.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 18
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Licensing Site Requirements: No exterior loudspeaker; no public address system that is audible
from any residential parcel; no outside storage, display, or sale of merchandise outside of the
enclosed building shall be permitted.
St. Paul:
Zoning: Pawnshops are permitted in the B4-Central Business District B5 - Central Business-
Service District, and the I2-General Industrial District. They are allowed by CUP in the B3
General Business District and the I1-Light Industrial District, with the following conditions:
• The business shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building.
• The building in which the business is located shall be at least one hundred fifty (150)
feet from the closest point of any residentially zoned property; provided, however, that
this condition may be modified pursuant to section 61.500 subject to the following
conditions:
There is no existing pawnshop within five thousand two hundred eighty
(5,280) feet of the proposed location, measured from the nearest building wall
of the existing pawnshop to the nearest building wall of the proposed use, or
if there is no building, to the nearest lot line of the proposed use.
Customer entrances shall not be oriented toward residentially zoned property.
Customer parking shall not be closer to residentially zoned property than the
primary entrance.
The location of a pawnshop at this location will not be contrary to any
adopted district plan or other city program for neighborhood conservation or
improvement, either residential or nonresidential.
The proposed use meets all other requirements for conditional use permits.
6. Potential Land Use Controls
Issues regarding neighborhood image and encouraging investments in properties are especially
important for St. Louis Park.
St. Louis Park is a fully developed first ring suburb with many small scattered commercial areas.
Many, if not most of these commercial areas abut single family homes with no buffer between
the homes and commercial areas. While the close proximity of uses and the walkability of the
city is part of its charm, it requires fine tuned control of commercial land uses, especially
potential negative land uses, so that they don’t damage the vulnerable residential areas.
The City’s aging commercial areas are vulnerable to the potential negative impacts of uses like
pawn shops. Many of the city’s commercial buildings are old, and often outmoded by
comparison with state of the art commercial space. As a result, individual commercial properties
often have difficulty competing for tenants or buyers. This difficulty is compounded when other
buildings in the area are occupied by uses that discourage new business investment. This
competitive disadvantage can result in neighborhood decline and disinvestment. The city’s land
use controls need to limit detrimental uses and encourage positive, area enhancing land uses,
with the goal of maintaining the city’s long term economic well being.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 19
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Numerous articles and studies identify concerns surrounding the effect pawn shops and similar
uses have on residential neighborhoods and neighboring commercial entities. The primary
concerns found in these works include the connection between pawn shops and crime; and the
potential decrease in personal safety, property values and neighborhood image.
Common practice is to mitigate these impacts through the use of land use controls such as
spacing requirements between pawn shops and similar uses, distance requirements between pawn
shops and residential properties, requirements for direct access to major streets, more stringent
design standards and other restrictions to pawn shop operations such as requirements for
photographing patrons, limits on hours of operation and requiring participation in the APS.
A closer look at these practices follows:
A. Establishing minimum distances between pawn shops, adult oriented uses, and certain
other similar (licensed) businesses.
The purpose of the distance requirement is to prevent adverse effects on a neighborhood
resulting from the concentration of certain uses that have characteristics that could have negative
impacts on the community. Studies indicate that a concentration of uses such as pawn shops,
check cashing, liquor stores and adult uses can contribute to blight, an increase in crime, and
discourage investment in the neighborhood. For example, a study by the Santa Clara Police
Department in California entitled “Secondary Effect of Crime,” reviewed studies conducted in
Oakland California; St. Paul, Minnesota; Seattle Washington; Phoenix, Arizona; and the City of
Santa Clara and found “that specified regulated uses do have numerous negative effects upon the
area and lead to increasing calls for service in response to crime. The study included information
that pawn shops are ready buyers for stolen property with many related police calls.” (Santa
Clara 1998).
Some studies have also been conducted in the real estate and socio-economic fields to determine
the impact certain uses have on property values and people’s perception of the stability of a
neighborhood. These studies maintain that a concentration of certain uses such as pawn shops,
adult uses, check cashing, etc. lead to a perception that the neighborhood is not thriving, which
results in neighborhood disinvestment. Disinvestment occurs when residents and business
owners are no longer confident that their property is a good investment. As a result, they no
longer invest in the property through expansions and improvements. In most cases homeowners
will even defer maintenance causing the property to prematurely fall into disrepair (Canada
Mortgage 2001 and Simons 1998).
Regulations requiring a minimum distance between such uses can insure that a concentration will
not occur, thereby helping to prevent blight and/or the downgrading of neighborhoods or
businesses. Several cities through out the metro area and in states nationwide have adopted
spacing regulations to prevent clustering of these uses. Most cities we looked at have a spacing
requirement of at least 1,000 feet. This distance would be adequate to prevent adverse impacts
resulting from a cluster of these uses. A table and list of these cities and their specific
requirements is attached as Exhibit B.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 20
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Minneapolis recently adopted a zoning text amendment that addressed separation distance
requirements and a list of restricted uses. They now require a minimum of 1,000 feet between
pawn shops and other restricted uses. Minneapolis’ reasons for adopting the text amendment
were to prevent urban blight and resulting economic disinvestment. The Minneapolis
requirement has been upheld by the courts.
B. Design standards
The appearance of pawn shops can contribute to the negative impacts they can have on adjoining
property and surrounding neighborhoods. Design elements such as bars on windows, opaque
windows, unscreened dumpsters, and excess temporary signage are perceived by residents and
business owners as signs of a neighborhood in decline, and may result in decisions to not
reinvest in their property.
The City currently uses design standards to mitigate the impact certain uses have on adjacent
properties. These design standards effectively preserve the character and value of its
neighborhoods with the goal of preventing neighborhood disinvestment.
Limits on temporary signage, requirements that dumpsters be screened from view, are examples
of design controls already in city ordinances.
How windows are treated has an
impact on the image presented by a
business which in turn affects the
image of the immediately
surrounding area. Windows that are
barred or filled with signage or
blocked by shelving can present a
negative image. Recently the City
addressed the issue of window
treatments in the context of liquor
stores. Measures were taken to
ensure that views into windows were
maintained and that a positive
image would be presented to the public.
The following requirement was recently adopted into the liquor license ordinance:
Interior and exterior bars, grills, mesh or similar obstructions, whether permanently or
temporarily affixed, shall not cover any exterior door or more than ten percent of any
individual window or contiguous window area.
and
The total area of signs in windows shall not exceed 50% of the total area of windows
fronting a street. Signs shall not be displayed on doors, and doors shall not be included in
the window area for purposes of determining the 50% maximum coverage.
Example of bars and window obstructions at a
pawn shop located in the metro area.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 21
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
The liquor ordinance requires more than transparent windows. It also prohibits obstructions such
as bars across the windows. Bars and similar obstructions on windows give the perception that
crime is a serious problem in the neighborhood, and reduces confidence in the neighborhood’s
long term viability. The obstruction also obscures visibility of activities inside the shop and
reduces safety. An unobstructed view into a shop discourages inappropriate activity, and is safer
for everyone.
Additional design conditions to consider for pawn shops include prohibiting outdoor storage,
display, or sales. Exterior loudspeakers and drive-throughs should also be prohibited. These
accessory uses can create noise and other nuisance problems for adjoining properties. They are
particularly incompatible with residential neighborhoods.
C. Establish minimum distance between pawn shops and residentially zoned property,
residentially used property, religious institutions, schools, community center, parks,
library, childcare/preschool.
A primary goal of the City of St. Louis Park as stated in its Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a
healthy and safe environment for its residents. Pawn shops have the potential to have a negative
affect on a residential neighborhood as shown above. While the merchandise sold at pawn shops
is attractive to youth, the activities involved with a pawn shop are for adults and sometimes
involve criminal activity. They are a use that serves a regional or sub-regional customer rather
than local or neighborhood residents. They can present a negative image and often signal the area
is in decline. The City’s Pawnbroker Licensing Ordinance acknowledges this, and states that
“pawnbrokers potentially provide an opportunity for the commission of crimes and their
concealment because such businesses have the ability to receive and transfer stolen property
easily and quickly.” Pawn shops are essentially adult uses and are not appropriate to be in close
proximity to sensitive land uses and places where children frequent. Given these concerns,
residential areas, religious institutions, schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare facilities, libraries
and similar uses should be protected from pawn shops.
Distance requirements between pawn shops and residential or other sensitive uses would be
consistent with the general approach taken with other uses that have the potential to negatively
affect residentially zoned or used property. Currently, the City’s ordinance has residential
distance requirements for numerous uses such as sexually-oriented businesses (350 feet), liquor
stores (300 feet), drive throughs (100 feet), outdoor dining areas (500 feet), indoor entertainment
(100 feet) restaurants and others. Other cities have also utilized distance requirements to protect
residential uses and other sensitive land uses from pawn shops. These requirements range from
1,000 feet to 350 feet (See Exhibit B). Establishing a distance requirement for pawn shops would
be in keeping with this approach.
D. Street Access Requirements
The tight fit between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas throughout St. Louis Park
increases the vulnerability of residential areas to negative impacts of all commercial uses, but
especially those with a more regional customer base, an adult orientation or a negative image.
Pawn shops can exhibit all of these characteristics when commercial traffic, access and parking
occur within the adjacent residential neighborhood. The neighbors will pay a price in noise,
disruption and other negative effects from the proximity of a pawn shop but without the counter-
balancing benefits other commercial uses might provide. While a few neighbors may use a pawn
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 22
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
shop, many neighbors might benefit from the close proximity of a use such as a music store or
coffee shop. Many of the kids in the neighborhood may benefit from the close proximity of
music lessons or small cafe, but they would not be likely to benefit from close proximity of a
pawn shop and arguably could be harmed.
The City’s current zoning ordinance regulates access for all commercial uses to minimize
impacts to residential areas. The intent of these regulations is that regional uses, such as a pawn
shop, should not intrude on a residential area for its access or parking. Section 36-192(10)
Commercial restrictions and performance standards, requires access for all commercial uses to
be from a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or otherwise
located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential
streets.
Additionally, certain uses, such as food service, drive through, places of assembly, restaurants,
motor vehicle services, etc. also have specific conditions/requirements limiting access on local
residential streets. Pawn shop zoning requirements should be considered, similarly requiring all
access be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial. This would
keep pawn shop vehicular traffic off of nearby residential streets.
Another common condition for some uses ties approval of the use to the neighborhood or
redevelopment plan which can be found in the comprehensive plan.
E. Procedural Requirements
Currently pawn shops are a permitted use in the C-2 District. Considering the unique
characteristics of pawn shops it seems appropriate to make them a use requiring a CUP. This
would mean that a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council approval
would be required before a pawn shop would be permitted. The hearing process ensures that
effected properties and the community in general are made aware of a pending land use decision;
and have an opportunity to raise issues, ask questions, and make suggestions before the final
decision is made permitting a pawn shop. It also affords the City Council some discretion to
make sure any issues particular to a specific proposal or site are adequately addressed before the
land use decision is made.
7. Proposed Changes to Land Use Controls:
The City’s current zoning requirements for pawn shops are woefully inadequate. They allow
pawn shops as permitted uses in the C-2 District without any special conditions or public hearing
requirements. This means that a pawn shop is permitted to locate anywhere in the C-2 District,
regardless of access conditions, proximity to residential or other sensitive uses, the appearance of
the shop, or its proximity to other restricted and/or adult uses. There are no special conditions or
procedures in the zoning ordinance to address the potential negative impacts a pawn shop may
create, or to and protect the community and/or adjoining properties.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 23
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Based on the review of the City’s existing land use controls and study of pawn shops the
following actions should be considered:
1.) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a conditional use permit for pawn shops with the
following conditions:
m. The site must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing another
pawn shop, gun shops, liquor stores, a sexually-oriented business or a currency
exchange.
n. The pawn shop use shall not operate in conjunction with a sexually-oriented business,
or a currency exchange
o. The use shall be located a minimum of 350 feet from any parcel that is zoned
residential, or is an institutional use including but not limited to schools, religious
institutions, day care facilities, parks, playgrounds, libraries and community centers.
p. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or
arterial only.
q. Drive throughs are prohibited
r. Fire arm transactions are prohibited
s. Such uses shall be contained within a completely enclosed building, and no outside
storage, display, or sale of merchandise are permitted.
t. Exterior loudspeakers or public address systems are prohibited.
u. All windows and door areas shall be of clear or lightly tinted glass and visual
obstructions are prohibited.
v. Interior and exterior bars, grills, mesh or similar obstructions, whether permanently or
temporarily affixed, shall not cover any exterior door or window area.
w. Neon accents and back-lighted awning shall be prohibited.
2.) Other possible actions:
A. In the course of this study other areas of potential review were discovered. It may be
appropriate to conduct a study on commercial districts and determine if:
• Any existing commercial properties should be rezoned; and/or,
• A new commercial zoning district should be created
Specifically, much of the City’s C-2 District is in narrow stripes along major roads. Often these
areas back-up directly to residential areas and difficult to use for C-2 uses. A study of these areas
may be appropriate.
B. Consider regulations for other uses: currency exchange/same day lending.
Current zoning controls on these uses are limited. More stringent requirements maybe
appropriate. A closer review may be in order at this time.
C. Review licensing restriction to determine if amendments are needed.
Some of the zoning controls recommended for a review of pawn shops may be appropriate to
incorporate into the license requirements as well.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 24
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Exhibits
A. Zoning Map
B. Table Regulations Comparison between Cities
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 25
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Exhibit A – Zoning Map
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 26
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Exhibit B. Table of Regulations- Comparison between Cities
City
Distance
existing
Pawn
Shops &
similar
uses
Distance
from
residential,
Institutional,
etc
Windows
clear
Bars on
windows
Outside
storage,
sales,
display
Other
Bloomington 500 ft
Brooklyn
Center 300 ft 300 ft
Brooklyn Park
500 ft 500 ft
Entrance
visible from
ROW
Crystal None None
Eden Prairie None None
Edina Pawn shops are not permitted in any district
Fridley None None
Golden Valley None None
Hopkins None None
Maple Grove 750 ft 750 ft prohibited No exterior
loudspeaker
Minneapolis
1,000 ft
Views shall
not be
blocked
prohibited prohibited
Back-light
portable &
temporary
signs
prohibited
Minnetonka Pawn shops are not specifically addressed
Mounds View 1,000 ft
Plymouth 750 ft 750 ft
Richfield
1,000 ft
250 ft from
residential
1,000 ft from
institution
prohibited
Exterior
loudspeakers
not audible
from res.
Robbinsdale
1,000 sq ft prohibited
Exterior
loudspeakers
not audible
from res.
St. Paul
5280 ft 150 ft Prohibited
entrances not
oriented to
res.
Meeting of January 7, 2008 (Item 8b) Page 27
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Pawnshops
Bibliography
Brewer, John. 2006. “Surge in Burglaries Tied to Meth use (Minnesota)”. St. Paul Pioneer Press
(Minnesota). February 5.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2001.” Disinvestment and the Decline of Urban
Neighborhoods”. Research Highlights, Socio-Economic Series 90. November (Grammenos, Fanis
Project Manager)
Caskey, J.P. 1994. Fringe Banking: Check-Cashing Outlets, Pawnshops, and the Poor. New York:
Russell Sage Foundations.
Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency. 2006. Alternative Financial Services:
Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Committee on Criminal Justice. 2000. “A Review of Florida’s Pawnbroking Law”. The Florida Senate.
January.
CriMNet Program Office. 2006. Criminal Justice Information Systems Available Applications and Related
Terms. http://crimnet.state.mn.us/docs/AvailableSystems.pdf. July 12
Fass, Simon M. 2004. “Where Have All the Hot Goods Gone? The Role of Pawnshops.” Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41 (2): 156–179.
GovToGov Solutions. 2007. APS Overview. http://www.govtogovsolutions.org.
Hurley, James T. 2000. “Property Crime and Pawnshops: Correlation or Coincidence?” Police, May.
Johnson, Dr. Robert W., Johnson, Dr. Dixie P. 1998. “Pawnbroking in the U.S.: A Profile of Customers.”
Georgetown University. July.
Jonsson, Patrick. 2007. “The War on Pawnshops.” Christian Science Monitor, July 11.
Minnesota Court of Appeals, State of. 2000. Pawn America Minnesota L.L.C. vs. City of Minneapolis,
Case C6-99-1702
National Pawnbrokers Association. 2007. Briefing Book. http://nationalpawnbrokers.org.
Nick, Stephen C. 2007. “Pawnbroker Licensing-Regional Electronic Reporting.” Eau Claire City Attorney
Legal Comment, September.
Saint Louis Park (SLP), Minnesota. City Council Resolution # 05-183.
Santa Clara (California), City of. 1998. Santa Clara Municipal Code. Chapter 18.70. Section 18.70.010-
18.70.090. Use Regulations Applicable to Specified Regulated Businesses.
Simons, Robert A., Quercia, Roberto G., Maric, Ivan. 1998. The Value Impact of New Residential
Construction and Neighborhood Disinvestment on Residential Sales Price, Journal of Real Estate
Research. 15:1/2.
St. Paul (Minnesota), City of. 1998. Pawn Shop Zoning Study, December 14.