The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008/06/02 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:30 P.M. JUNE 2, 2008 6:15 p.m. BOARD AND COMMISSION INTERVIEW – Westwood Room 6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Westwood Room DISCUSSION ITEMS 1. Proposed Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 4 of the City Code concerning dogs, dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs. 2. Community Open House 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Fire Department Life Saving Commendation 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Study Session Minutes May 12, 2008 3b. City Council Minutes May 19, 2008 3c. Closed Executive Session Minutes May 5, 2008 3d. Closed Executive Session Minutes May 19, 2008 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items on the consent calendar. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items remaining on the consent calendar.) 5. Boards and Commissions – None Meeting of June 2, 2008 City Council Agenda 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing on Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Recommended Action: Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance to establish the Westmoreland Hills Owner’s Association Housing Improvement Area and to set Second Reading for June 16, 2008. 6b. 7200 Cedar Lake Road – Utility Easement Vacation Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an Ordinance approving the vacation of a storm sewer easement at 7200 Cedar Lake Road, and setting the second reading of the proposed ordinance for June 16, 2008. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Minor Amendment to Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Methodist Hospital Campus Recommended Action: Staff recommends approval of a PUD Minor Amendment for the Methodist Hospital Campus at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to conditions, to allow a 3,590 square foot addition to the emergency center. Staff prepared a resolution that includes all the conditions from the 2003 PUD approval and 2007 PUD amendments. New conditions relating to the emergency center addition are underlined. 8b. Web Development Presentation – Redesigned website and GraffitiNet – Information Item/No Action Required 9. Communication Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting of June 2, 2008 City Council Agenda 4. CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Designate Concrete Idea, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $104,754.00 for the 2008 Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Maintenance Project – Project No. 2008-0003, 2008-0004, 2008-0005, and 2009- 0004 4b. Designate Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $874,000.00 for Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4 – Project No. 2007-1500 4c. Designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $4,038,465.97 for Street Project - Park Place Boulevard - Project No. 2007-1101 4d. Approve a contract with SRF which provides construction engineering services for Street Project: Park Place Boulevard – Project No. 2007-1101 4e. Approve Resolution authorizing Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes to provide alcohol during the hours of 5:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. at the Parktacular Street Dance to be held on June 13, 2008 4f. Adopt Resolution approving a pilot program to allow intersection painting to bring public art into the neighborhoods of the City 4g. Approve Resolution authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County for participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2008-2011 4h. Adopt the Resolution amending the equipment replacement schedule budget for 2008 and authorize staff to acquire equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance 4i. Approve payment to School District #283 for $52,000 from Cable TV franchise fees in 2008, which includes an operations grant of $35,000, an equipment grant of $13,000 and $4,000 to support the Junior High video club 4j. Approve for filing Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes February 21, 2008 4k. Approve for filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes May 7, 2008 4l. Approve for filing Vendor Claims St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Proposed Ordinance amending Article III, Chapter 4 of the City Code concerning dogs, dangerous dogs and potentially dangerous dogs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff would like to update Council on changes contained in the attached draft ordinance since the first study session discussion, answer questions and receive Council direction on whether to revise or proceed to first reading. Some minor changes to the Dangerous Dog statute were made at the legislature during the session which just ended. Those changes are incorporated in the attached draft and will be reviewed at the study session. POLICY CONSIDERATION: State law lists the minimum requirements to be imposed on the owner of a dangerous dog. State law also imposes a single requirement as a minimum for a potentially dangerous dog. Does the City Council wish to add any additional provisions for either a dangerous or potentially dangerous dog? At the April 14th study session, Council showed interest in changing language related to defining when a dog is considered “at large” and “under control.” Staff recommends against changing these definitions as it will be problematic for the determination and prosecution of those violations. Staff also forwarded additional questions and concerns and comments from Council members to the City Attorney for review. Both Tom Scott and Prosecutor Mike Colich will be present at the study session to explain responses to Council member concerns and possible remedies in this draft. BACKGROUND: The current City ordinance concerning dogs is not in compliance or alignment with state statutes and is cumbersome and awkward in its application to dangerous behavior by dogs. The proposed amendments focus primarily on three issues: 1. Insure compliance with state statute regarding “dangerous dog” procedures. 2. Add an optional section regarding registration of “potentially dangerous dogs.” 3. Clarify existing code provisions dealing with dog impoundment procedures. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Minnesota law defines “dangerous dogs” and sets forth minimum requirements that a local ordinance must contain. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 345.50, a dangerous dog is any dog that has: 1. Without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; 2. Killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or 3. Been found to be potentially dangerous and, after the owner has noticed that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Minimum Requirements The attached draft ordinance includes a listing of the minimum requirements state law imposes on the owner of a dog that is determined to be dangerous. The draft ordinance also contains language outlining the procedure declaring a dog “dangerous” and for the determination that a dog should be destroyed. It should be noted that the “dangerous dog” determination may be appealed to the City Manager or designee and the determination that a “dangerous dog” should be destroyed is subject to an automatic hearing by the City Manager or designee. Minnesota law defines “potentially dangerous dog” and sets forth a requirement and a number of options the City can impose on potentially dangerous dogs. A potentially dangerous dog is any dog that: 1. When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; 2. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or 3. Has known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. The only requirement in state law for owning a potentially dangerous dog is that the owner must implant the dog with a micro chip for identification. The City can impose all or some of the same restrictions on potentially dangerous dogs that it does on dangerous dogs. As stated earlier, the minimum list of requirements imposed by state law on owners of “dangerous dogs” can be found in the draft ordinance. As outlined in the draft ordinance, the determination that a dog is potentially dangerous may be appealed to the City Manager or designee. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 3 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs The following table shows the number of animal calls that the police department has responded to during the past 3 years: 2005 2006 2007 Animal Call ** 547 602 446 Barking Dog 177 141 191 Animal Bite 16 18 29 Animal at Large 157 174 228 ** Includes found, injured or dead animals, nuisance calls, mistreatment of animals, and aggressive/potentially dangerous animals. Also includes some barking dogs and animals at large. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: John Luse, Chief of Police Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 4 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs D R A F T ORDINANCE NO. ___-08 ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III, CHAPTER 4 OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, CONCERNING DOGS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Sections 4-81 through 4-89 are hereby amended by deleting and adding the language as follows: Sec. 4-81. Purpose. The purpose of this Article is to enact regulations governing dogs, dangerous dogs, potentially dangerous dogs, and to provide for dog enforcement procedures. Sec. 4-82. Findings of the City Council. The City Council of the City makes the following findings of fact regarding the need to regulate and license dogs: (a) The regulation of dogs is found by the City Council to be necessary in order to protect the health and safety of the community. Unrestrained and/or unlicensed dogs Dogs at large can expose human beings and other animals to danger; can cause damage to public and private property; can exacerbate the existing overpopulation of dogs; can disrupt the quiet enjoyment of residential areas and parks; and can expose human beings and other animals to unsanitary and unhealthy conditions. (b) The improper impoundment or enclosure of dogs can constitute a public health nuisance. Nuisances can be created by site, odor, noise, and sanitation problems associated with improper dog enclosures and impound facilities. (c) The regulation of dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs is deemed necessary by the City in light of the threat such dogs pose to the safety of human beings and other animals in the community. Dogs deemed to be dangerous or potentially dangerous pose a serious risk to the health and safety of the community. (d) Procedures for determining whether a dog is dangerous or potentially dangerous to the community are warranted. The procedures prescribed herein balance the interest in immediate public protection from dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs with reasonable due process rights of dog owners. Sec. 4-83. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Animal Control Authority means the city police officers, community service officers, and the animal control officer. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 5 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs At large means when a dog is off the premises of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under control of that person or a designee, either by leash, cord, or chain. Dangerous dog means any dog that has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner’s property; or (3) been found to be potentially dangerous, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Dog means any male or female of any breed of a domesticated dog. Great bodily harm has the meaning given to it under Minn. Stat. § 609.02, subd. 8. Own means to keep, harbor, or have control, charge, or custody of a dog. Owner means any person, firm, corporation, organization, or department possessing, harboring, keeping, having an interest in, or having care, custody, or control of a dog. Potentially dangerous dog means any dog that: (1) when unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chases or approaches a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public or private property, other than the dog owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack; (3) has a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. Proper enclosure means securely confined indoors or in a securely enclosed and locked pen or structure suitable to prevent the animal from escaping and providing protection from the elements for the dog. A proper enclosure does not include a porch, patio, or any part of a house, garage, or other structure that would allow the dog to exit of its own volition, or any house or structure in which windows are open or in which door or window screens are the only obstacles that prevent the dog from exiting. Provocation means an act that an adult could reasonably expect may cause a dog to attack or bite. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 6 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Substantial bodily harm means bodily injury that involves a temporary or permanent but substantial disfigurement, or which causes temporary or permanent but substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member. Sec. 4-84. General dog regulations. (a) License. All dogs shall be licensed in compliance with section 8-626. The license tag must be displayed on the dog when off the owner’s property at all times. Sec. 4-81. (b) Dogs running at large. (1) No person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, nor the parents or guardians of any such person under 18 years of age, shall allow the dog to run at large within the corporate limits of the city except in a designated off-leash dog area after obtaining a permit in accordance with section 20-6 of this ordinance. (2) A dog shall be deemed to be running at large if the dog is off the premises of the person who owns, harbors or keeps the dog, and not under the control of that person or a designee, either by leash, cord or chain not more than twenty (20) feet long. (3) The term "premises," when used in this chapter, means the usual place of residence, including a building, structure or shelter and any land appurtenant thereto, of a person who owns, harbors or keeps a dog, whether domesticated or non- domesticated; or the dog owned, harbored or kept by such a person. Sec. 4-82. (c) Barking dogs. No person shall own, harbor, keep or possess any dog that by loud and frequent barking, howling or yelping causes noise, disturbance or annoyance to persons residing in the vicinity of the dog. Sec. 4-83. (d) Certain dogs declared a public nuisance. Every dog that runs at large, strays, trespasses or barks or causes disturbance, annoyance or noise in violation of any provision of sections paragraphs 4-81 (b) or 4-82 (c) of this section is hereby declared a public nuisance, and it is unlawful to own, harbor or keep such a dog. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 7 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (e) Removal of excrement. (1) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, unless that person is carrying at the time a device for the removal of excrement and a depository for the transmission of excrement to a proper receptacle located upon property owned or possessed by that person. (2) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that person. (3) The provisions of this section do not apply to the ownership or use of Seeing Eye dogs by blind persons, dogs when used by the city in connection with police activities, or tracking dogs when used by or with the permission of the city. (f) General duty of owners. Every owner of a dog must exercise reasonable care and take all necessary steps and precautions to protect other people, property and animals from injuries or damage that might result from the dog’s behavior, regardless of whether such behavior is motivated by playfulness or ferocity. Sec. 4-84. Proceedings for destruction of certain dogs. (a) Upon sworn complaint to a judge of the county district court that any one of the following facts exist: (1) That any dog at any time has destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on property of persons other than the owner; (2) That any dog at any time has attacked or bitten a person outside the owner's or custodian's premises; (3) That any dog is a potentially dangerous dog, which means a dog that: a. When unprovoked, inflicts bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; b. When unprovoked, chases or approaches a person upon the streets, sidewalks or any public property in an apparent attitude of attack; or c. Has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals; (4) That any dog is a public nuisance as defined in section 4-83; (4) That any dog is running at large or violates its quarantine contrary to the provisions of this article. (b) The judge shall issue a summons directed to the owner or person having possession of the dog commanding that person to appear before the judge and to show cause why the dog should not be seized by the animal control officials or any police officer and destroyed or otherwise disposed of as authorized in this article. Any dog that is alleged to have, without provocation, attacked or bitten a person as provided in subsection (a)(2) of this section, or that otherwise is a "dangerous dog" as such term is defined under M.S.A. § 347.50, or other state statutes, must be dealt with according to the procedures outlined in M.S.A. §§ 347.50--347.55, or elsewhere in state statutes; provided, Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 8 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs however, that those statutory procedures do not apply to cats or other animals, whether domesticated or nondomesticated, except as state statutes may provide. If, after a hearing, the judge finds the facts stated in the complaint to be true, the judge may: (1) Order the dog destroyed; (2) Order the owner or custodian to remove the dog from the city; or (3) Order the owner or custodian to keep the dog confined to a designated place. (c) Upon a finding by the county district court that the owner or custodian has disobeyed a court order issued under this section, the city may impound the dog and may destroy or otherwise dispose of it as provided in this article. The provisions of this section are in addition to and supplemental to other provisions of this chapter. Costs of the proceeding specified by this section shall be assessed against the owner or custodian of the dog. Sec. 4-85. Removal of excrement. (a) It is unlawful for any person to cause or permit a dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, unless that person is carrying at the time a device for the removal of excrement and a depository for the transmission of excrement to a proper receptacle located upon property owned or possessed by that person. (b) It is unlawful for any person who causes or permits any dog to be on any property, public or private, not owned or possessed by that person, to fail to remove excrement left by that dog to a proper receptacle located on property owned or possessed by that person. (c) The provisions of this section do not apply to the ownership or use of Seeing Eye dogs by blind persons, dogs when used by the city in connection with police activities, or tracking dogs when used by or with the permission of the city. Sec. 4-865. Animal boarding facility. The city council shall from time to time designate a place as the city animal boarding facility where suitable arrangements are made for keeping and maintaining any domesticated animals that may be seized or taken into custody by any officer of the city pursuant to this article. Sec. 4-86. Dog impoundment procedures. Sec. 4-87. (a) Impoundingment of unlicensed dogs. It is the duty of city police officers, community services officer, and The city Animal Control Authority to may impound any dogs found in the city without a tag or found running at large, harbored or kept contrary to any provisions of this article. (b) Notice. The Animal Control Authority shall, without delay, notify the owner, personally or through the United States mail, if the owner is known to the Animal Control Authority or can be ascertained with reasonable effort. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 9 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Sec. 4-88. (c) Redemption of impounded dogs. Any unlicensed dog that is impounded dog shall be kept for five (5) regular business days by the city. For the purpose of this section, “regular business day” means a day during which the Animal Control Authority having custody of the dog is open to the public at least four consecutive hours between 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The owner may be redeemed by the owner the dog within the time for redemption by payment to the city treasurer of the current dog license fee, plus a penalty of an amount set from time to time by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code by resolution or ordinance, and an impounding fee according to the following schedule: (1) When any one person has had a dog picked up and impounded one or more times during any consecutive 12-month period, the impounding charges shall be as set from time to time by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code by resolution or ordinance. (2) In addition to the charges required under subsection (1) of this section, a sum for each day, as set from time to time by the city and listed in appendix A of this Code by resolution or ordinance, will be charged for board for each day or part thereof during the time the dog is impounded. The boarding fees may be paid on authorization of the city council to its agent, pursuant to any contract currently in effect providing for the impounding of dogs within the city and its kennels. Sec. 4-89. Disposal of unredeemed dogs. (d) Impounded dogs not reclaimed. If the owner does not reclaim the dog impounded under this section Any dog that is not claimed as provided in subsection 4-88 within five (5) regular business days after impounding must be disposed of according to state law, or may be adopted through a veterinarian boarding facility with which the city has contracted, or may be turned over to the county animal humane society, the dog will be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3. The owner will be responsible for the costs of confiscation, boarding, and destruction. (e) Records. The Animal Control Authority must maintain the following records of the dogs in custody and preserve the records for at least six (6) months: (1) the description of the breed, sex, approximate age, and other distinguishing traits; (2) the location at which the animal was seized; (3) the date of seizure; (4) the name and address of the person from whom any animal three months of age or over was received; and (5) the name and address of the person to whom any animal three months of age or over was transferred. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 10 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs Sec. 4-87. Destruction of Dogs in Certain Circumstances. (a) Certain dogs may be destroyed. Upon notice to the owner and an opportunity for a hearing, a dog may be seized and destroyed in a proper and humane manner upon a finding of any of the following: (1) the dog has destroyed property or habitually trespassed in a damaging manner on property of persons other than the owner; (2) the dog is a public nuisance as defined by section 4-84(d); or (3) if the owner is in violation of quarantine under section 4-2, the dog may be seized and impounded, and destroyed at the end of the quarantine period. (b) Request for hearing. Within fourteen (14) days of the notice that the Animal Control Authority seeks to destroy the dog, the owner of the dog may request a hearing on the destruction. Failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this section. (c) Hearing procedure. (1) A hearing must be held fourteen (14) days after receipt of the request. (2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or other impartial city employee or person designated by the City Manager to conduct the hearing. “Impartial” means that the hearing officer did not have any direct involvement in the original determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the dog should be destroyed. (3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority officer are admissible without further foundation. (4) The City Manager or designee shall make a determination whether the dog shall be destroyed. The decision is final and there is no right to further administrative appeal. Sec. 4-88. Regulations regarding dangerous dogs. (a) Determination of dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer shall determine that a dog is a dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's professional judgment that the dog has: (1) without provocation, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a human being on public or private property; (2) killed a domestic animal without provocation while off the owner's property; or (3) been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog, and after the owner has notice that the dog is potentially dangerous, the dog aggressively bites, attacks, or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 11 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (b) Exemption. Dogs may not be declared dangerous if the threat, injury, or damage was sustained by a person: (1) who was committing, at the time, a willful trespass or other tort upon the premises occupied by the owner of the dog; (2) who was provoking, tormenting, abusing, or assaulting the dog or who can be shown to have repeatedly, in the past, provoked, tormented, abused, or assaulted the dog; or (3) who was committing or attempting to commit a crime. (c) Destruction of dangerous dog. Upon a declaration by an Animal Control Authority officer that a dog is dangerous pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 347, the dog shall be impounded immediately if the Authority intends to seek the dog’s destruction pursuant to this subsection and Minn. Stat. § 347.56. (1) Circumstances. A dog may be destroyed in a proper and humane manner by the Animal Control Authority if the dog: (a) inflicted substantial or great bodily harm on a human on public or private property without provocation; (b) inflicted multiple bites on a human on public or private property in the same attack without provocation; (c) bit multiple human victims on public or private property in the same attack without provocation; or (d) bit a human on public or private property without provocation in an attack where more than one dog participated in the attack. (2) Notice. The Animal Control Authority must provide notice of its intention to destroy a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. (3) Appeal and Hearing Procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure shall be as set forth in subsections (f) and (g) of this section. (d) Notice of dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control Authority officer that a dog is dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Animal Control Authority shall provide a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by posting a copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing on the property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include: (1) a description of the dog deemed to be dangerous; the authority for and purpose of the dangerous dog declaration and seizure, if applicable; the time, place, and circumstances under which the dog was declared dangerous; and if seized, the telephone number and contact person where the dog is kept, is seized; (2) the name of the officer making the determination; (3) a statement as to whether the dog’s destruction is being sought by the City pursuant to subsection (c) of this section and Minn. Stat. § 347.56; (4) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under subsection (e) of this section; (5) a statement of the criminal penalties for violating requirements pertaining to dangerous dogs; Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 12 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (6) a statement that the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the dangerous dog declaration and, if applicable, prior potentially dangerous dog declarations for the dog, and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection; (7) a statement that if an appeal request is made within fourteen (14) days of the notice, the owners must immediately comply with the requirements of subsections (e) (3) and (8) and until such time as the hearing officer issues an opinion; (8) a statement that if the hearing officer affirms the dangerous dog declaration, the owner will have fourteen (14) days from receipt of that decision to comply with subsection (e) and all other requirements of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515, and 347.52; (9) a form to request a hearing under this section; and (10) a statement that all actual costs of the care, keeping, and disposition of the seized dog are the responsibility of the person claiming an interest in the dog, except to the extent that a court or hearing officer finds that the seizure or impoundment was not substantially justified by law. (e) Dangerous dog requirements. If an Animal Control Authority officer does not order the destruction of the dog pursuant to subsection (c), within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice that the dog has been declared dangerous, the owner must: (1) register the dog as a dangerous dog, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 347.51 both in Hennepin County and in the city and renew the registration annually until the dog is deceased. The owner shall pay the fee set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance; (2) license the dog as a dangerous dog and photograph the dog on an annual basis; (3) keep the dog at all times, while on the owner’s property, in a proper enclosure; (4) secure surety coverage or liability insurance as required by Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2(2), insuring the owner for any personal injuries inflicted by the dangerous dog; (5) if the dog is outside the proper enclosure, keep the dog muzzled and restrained by a substantial leash or chain and under the physical restraint of a responsible person. The muzzle must be made in a manner that will prevent the dog from biting any person or animal, but that will not cause injury to the dog or interfere with its vision or respiration; (6) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification and provide the City with the name of the microchip manufacturer and the serial identification number. If the microchip is not implanted by the owner, it may be implanted by the Animal Control Authority and the owner will be responsible for all costs related to the purchase and implantation of the microchip.; (7) have the dog sterilized at the owner’s expense. If the owner does not have the animal sterilized within 30 days, the Animal Control Authority shall seize the dog and have it sterilized at the owner’s expense; Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 13 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (8) notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the death of the dog or its transfer to a new location where the dog will reside within 30 days of the death or transfer and execute an affidavit under oath setting forth either the circumstances of the dog’s death and disposition or the complete name, address, and telephone number of the person to whom the dog has been transferred or the address where the dog has been relocated; (9) for a person who transfers ownership of a dangerous dog, notify the new owner that the Animal Control Authority has identified the dog as dangerous. The current owner must also notify the Animal Control Authority in writing of the transfer or ownership and provide the Animal Control Authority with the new owner’s name, address, and telephone number; (10) for a person who owns a dangerous dog and who rents property from another where the dog will reside, disclose to the property owner prior to entering a lease agreement and at the time of any lease renewal that the person owns a dangerous dog that will reside at the property; (11) post a clearly visible warning sign that there is a dangerous dog on the property, including a warning symbol to inform children; and (12) affix to the dog’s collar at all times, a standardized, easily identifiable tag identifying the dog as dangerous and containing the uniform dangerous dog symbol. (f) Appeal of the dangerous dog designation or destruction of dog. The owner of any dog declared dangerous has the right to a hearing by an impartial hearing officer. The owner of the dog may request in writing a hearing on the designation or on the destruction within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice. Failure to timely appeal the determination will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under subsection (g). The owner’s request for a hearing must be submitted on a form to the City Clerk along with the fee set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance. The form will be provided by the City Clerk. The form must contain the following information: (1) the full name, address, daytime and evening telephone numbers of the person requesting an appeal; (2) the full name and address of all of the dog’s owners; (3) the ownership interest of the person requesting the appeal; (4) the names of any witnesses to be called at the hearing; (5) a list and copies of all exhibits to be presented at the hearing; and (6) a summary statement as to why the dog should not be declared dangerous. (g) Hearing procedure. (1) Any hearing must be held within fourteen (14) days of the request to determine the validity of the dangerous dog declaration or destruction of a dangerous dog. The city shall mail written notice of the hearing to the owner requesting the hearing to the address provided on the request and to any person who was in the past a victim of the actions of the dog that is the subject of the hearing. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 14 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (2) The hearing officer shall be the City Manager or designee or other impartial city employee or an impartial person designated by the City Manager to conduct the hearing. “Impartial” means that the hearing officer did not have any direct involvement in the original determination that the dog is a dangerous dog or that the dog should be destroyed. (3) At the hearing, the parties shall have the opportunity to present evidence in the form of exhibits and testimony. Each party may question the other party’s witnesses. The strict rules of evidence do not apply and the records of the Animal Control Authority officer are admissible without further foundation. (4) The City Manager or designee shall make written findings of fact and reach a written conclusion as to whether the dog is a dangerous dog pursuant to subsection (a) of this section or whether the dog is subject to destruction under subsection (c) and Minn. Stat. § 347.56 within ten (10) days after the hearing. The decision must be delivered to the dog’s owner by hand delivery or registered mail as soon as practical and a copy must be provided to the Animal Control Authority. (5) The decision of the City Manager or designee is final without any further right of administrative appeal. An aggrieved party may obtain review thereof by petitioning the Minnesota Court of Appeals for a Writ of Certiorari not more than thirty (30) days after service of the City Manager or designee’s written decision. (6) In the event that the dangerous dog declaration is upheld by the hearing officer, actual expenses of the hearing up to a maximum of $1,000 will be the responsibility of the dog’s owner. (h) Annual review of dangerous dog designation. (1) Beginning six months after a dog is declared dangerous, the owner may request annually that the city review the designation by serving upon the city a written request for review that includes the full name, address and telephone numbers of the requestor, a list of the names and addresses of all owners of the dog, and a summary of the basis for the claimed change in the dog’s behavior. The owner must submit the fee as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance along with the request for review. (2) If the Animal Control Authority finds sufficient evidence that the dog’s behavior has changed, the Authority may rescind the dangerous dog designation. (i) Violation of dangerous dog requirements. (1) The Animal Control Authority shall immediately seize any dangerous dog if: (a) after fourteen (14) days the owner has notice that the dog is dangerous, the dog is not validly registered pursuant to subsection (e)(1) and Minn. Stat. § 347.51; (b) after fourteen (14) days after the owner has notice the dog is dangerous, the owner does not secure the proper liability insurance or surety coverage pursuant to subsection (e)(4) and Minn. Stat. § 347.51, subd. 2; (c) the dog is not maintained in a proper enclosure pursuant to subsection (e)(3) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52; Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 15 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (d) the dog is outside the proper enclosure and not under physical restraint of a responsible person pursuant to subsection (e)(5) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52; or (e) the dog is not sterilized within thirty (30) days pursuant to subsection (e)(7) and Minn. Stat. § 347.52(d) (2) If the owner of the dog is convicted of a crime for which the dog was originally seized, the court may order that the dog be confiscated and destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs incurred in confiscating, confining, and destroying the dog. (3) The dangerous dog may be reclaimed by the owner upon payment of impounding and boarding fees as set from time to time by the city by resolution or ordinance and presenting proof to the Animal Control Authority that the dangerous dog requirements will be met. A dangerous dog not reclaimed within seven (7) days may be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3, and the owner is liable for all costs incurred in confining and disposing of the dog. (4) If the owner has been convicted for violating dangerous dog requirements and the owner is charged with a subsequent violation relating to the same dog, the dog must be seized by the Animal Control Authority. If the owner is convicted for the crime for which the dog was seized, the court shall order that the dog be destroyed in a proper and humane manner and the owner pay the costs of confining and destroying the dog. If the owner is not convicted and the dog is not reclaimed within seven (7) days after the owner has been notified that the dog may be reclaimed, the dog may be disposed of pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 35.71, subd. 3. (j) Ownership restrictions. (1) Dog ownership prohibited. Except as provided for in subsection (3), no person may own a dog if the person has: (a) been convicted of a third or subsequent violation of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515, or 347.52; (b) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.205(4); (c) been convicted of a gross misdemeanor under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd. 1; (d) been convicted of a violation under Minn. Stat. § 609.226, subd. 2; or (e) had a dog ordered destroyed under Minn. Stat. § 347.56 and been convicted of one or more violations of Minnesota Statutes, sections 347.51, 347.515, 347.52, or 609.226, subd. 2 (2) Household members. If any member of a household is prohibited from owning a dog in subsection (1), unless specifically approved with or without restrictions by an Animal Control Authority, no person in the household is permitted to own a dog. For purposes of this section, a “household” means any group of persons living together as one housekeeping unit. (3) Dog ownership prohibition review. Beginning three (3) years after a conviction under subsection (1) that prohibits a person from owning a dog, and annually thereafter, the person may request that the animal control authority review the prohibition. The Animal Control Authority may consider such facts as the Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 16 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs seriousness of the violation or violations that led to the prohibition, any criminal convictions, or other facts that the Animal Control Authority deems appropriate. The Animal Control Authority may rescind the prohibition entirely or rescind it with limitations. The Animal Control Authority also may establish conditions a person must meet before the prohibition is rescinded, including, but not limited to, successfully completing dog training or dog handling courses. If the Animal Control Authority rescinds a person's prohibition and the person subsequently fails to comply with any limitations imposed by the Animal Control Authority or the person is convicted of any animal violation involving unprovoked bites or dog attacks, the Animal Control Authority may permanently prohibit the person from owning a dog in this state. Sec. 4-89. Regulations regarding potentially dangerous dogs. (a) Determination of potentially dangerous dog by city. An Animal Control Authority officer shall determine that a dog is a potentially dangerous dog if the officer believes, based upon the officer's professional judgment that a dog has: (1) when unprovoked, inflicted bites on a human or domestic animal on public or private property; (2) when unprovoked, chased or approached a person, including a person on a bicycle, upon the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the dog owner's property, in an apparent attitude of attack; or (3) a known propensity, tendency, or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of humans or domestic animals. (b) Notice of potentially dangerous dog. Upon a determination by an Animal Control Authority officer that a dog is potentially dangerous pursuant to this chapter, the Authority shall provide a notice of this section by delivering or mailing it to the owner of the dog, or by posting a copy of it at the place where the dog is kept, or by delivering it to a person residing on the property, and telephoning, if possible. The notice must include: (1) a description of the dog deemed to be potentially dangerous; the authority for and purpose of the potentially dangerous dog declaration; the time, place, and circumstances under which the dog was declared potentially dangerous; (2) the identity of officer who has made the determination; (3) a description of the requirements with which the owner must comply under subsection (c) of this section; (4) a notice that if the dog endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals again, it will be considered a dangerous dog; (5) the criminal penalties for violation of the requirements pertaining to potentially dangerous dogs; and (6) a statement the owner of the dog may request a hearing concerning the potentially dangerous dog declaration and that failure to do so within fourteen (14) days of the date of the notice will terminate the owner’s right to a hearing under this subsection. (c) Potentially dangerous dog requirements. Within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the notice that the dog has been declared potentially dangerous, the owner must: (1) have a microchip implanted in the dog for identification, and the name of the manufacturer and identification number of the microchip must be provided to the Animal Control Authority; and Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 1) Page 17 Subject: Proposed Ordinance Amendment Chapter 4, Article III Concerning Dogs (2) register and license the dog as a potentially dangerous dog and photograph the dog on an annual basis. (d) Appeal and Hearing Procedure. The appeal and hearing procedure for a potentially dangerous dog shall be as set forth in section 4-88(f) and (g) relating to dangerous dogs. Sec. 4-90. Complaint procedures. Any person may file a complaint of a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog as defined in this chapter with the Animal Control Authority. SECTION 2. Effective Date: This ordinance becomes effective on the date of its publication. First Reading Second Reading Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council ________, 2008. City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: 2009 Community Open House. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action requested. Staff wishes to receive feedback from the City Council on the possibility of hosting a Community Open House in June 2009. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish staff to proceed with planning a Community Open House for June 2009? BACKGROUND: In the fall of 2007, City Manager, Tom Harmening, asked Marney Olson and Jamie Zwilling to research other metro area City Open House initiatives. Several metro communities including Eagan, Burnsville, Minnetonka and West St. Paul host community or city open houses for residents of their city which gives residents the opportunity to learn more about the city in which they live. Some cities tie their event to a local celebration, while others hold their open house as a stand alone event. Each month representatives from each of the various City departments meet to discuss and share what is going on in the community and in our neighborhoods. This group, the Outreach Connection Group, began discussing the Community Open House idea in December, 2007. Through many discussions, the Community Open House idea has emerged into what could be a true Community Celebration for June 2009. The idea has been discussed at the weekly Department Head meetings and has gained support from all departments. The purpose of the Community Open House would be to reach out to both new and long-term residents of St. Louis Park and to connect people in this community with one another and the City itself... The goal is to bring residents together in a community-wide event that will be fun and inviting, that encourages residents to learn about the city and many of our key partners such as the St. Louis Park School District, STEP, and Children First. This idea is really not new. The Fire Department Open House has involved many city departments and has given residents a chance to meet with city staff as well as acquaint themselves with the City’s fire trucks and other equipment. The Community Open House is intended to do much of the same, only on a much larger scale. Because on the success of the Fire Department Open House on the Tuesday before Parktacular, the Community Open House would be planned for this date in 2009. The Fire Department would participate in the Community Open House and they have indicated a willingness to move their department open house to October during Fire Prevention Week. Many residents are used to attending the Fire Department Open House, so we are hoping to Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Community Open House draw that crowd in to the Community Open House. With the addition of more entertainment and other features, we hope to draw an even larger crowd including people who have never attended the Fire Department Open House. The Community Open House is intended to be a celebration for the whole community of St. Louis Park. Here is what it would look like: In addition to city staff, our key partners and city equipment (Fire Trucks, Public Works Vehicles, Police Cars, etc.), there would be a lot of fun activities. The event would be held at Wolfe Park and the Aquatic Center which can accommodate a much larger crowd than the fire station. The aquatic center would be open for free swimming, free skating would be offered in the Rec Center, and there would also be bands, inflatables, and free food! There would be something for everyone. This would be a great chance to market our Rec Center and Aquatic Center and promote Parktacular. Most importantly, residents would get to connect with the City and their neighbors. All residents would be welcome to attend this event. Marketing will play an important role in getting residents of all ages and backgrounds to attend this event. The event would be marketed through both the Park & Rec and Community Education brochures, Park Perspective, Posters, Cable TV, the Web Site, Sun Sailor, Kids backpack stuffers, and neighborhood associations. Why is the Community Open House an important event for St. Louis Park? Vision. As outlined in the Vision Consideration area below, the Community Open House aligns with the St. Louis Park Strategic Direction of being a connected and engaged community. At this time it is not proposed that this event be held every year. Rather, it is anticipated we would hold this every two or three years. This approach is being suggested at this time based in part on the experience in other cities. Also, by holding it every two or three years it will assist in keeping the event fresh with new information to share with our residents, which would not likely be the case if we held it every year. Staffing and other resource implications would be mitigated as well. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Based on the following conclusions, our estimated budget is $10,000: • Food: hotdogs, chips, pop and ice cream • Entertainment: Two bands and moon walks/inflatable jumps • Marketing: Including advertising in the Sun Sailor and professional department signs which will be reusable If the Council desired staff to proceed with this event, necessary dollars would need to be programmed into the 2009 Budget. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Community Open House VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. This is one of the vision strategic directions and is the reason for hosting a Community Open House. The Vision handbook that was sent to the community in July 2007 said the following about community events: “Activities and celebrations throughout the year provide ways for residents, workers and visitors to come together and keep the St. Louis Park community welcoming, vibrant, and active. In the fullest sense of community, such events provide an opportunity for residents of different ages and backgrounds to connect on common ground.” The Community Open House is part of St. Louis Park’s vision. Attachments: None Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 City Council Agenda Item #: 2a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Fire Department Life Saving Commendation. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: The St. Louis Park Fire Department recommends that both Geoff Grassle and Brian Dingman receive a Citizen Commendation. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The Mayor is asked to present the Citizen Commendations to Geoff Grassle and Brian Dingman. Both Mr. Grassle and Mr. Dingman will be in attendance at the meeting to accept their Citizen Commendation as well as the Vinitskeys, the homeowners who were saved due to the efforts of Mr. Grassle and Mr. Dingman. BACKGROUND: On Sunday morning March 16th around 7:00 a.m. Geoff Grassle and Brain Dingman had never met each other. They were both driving to their respective offices to try to catch up on work, when they noticed a plume of smoke cutting through the orange sunrise. Both pulled off the freeway and followed the smoke in the sky and drove a few blocks until they came upon a raging house fire in the 1400 block of Oregon Avenue here in St. Louis Park. Mr. Grassle was the first to arrive and immediately jumped the fence to gain access to the home on fire. As the windows burst from heat and the flames shot through the roof he could think only of his own family and thought that there may be another family inside that needed help. He attempted to try to enter through the door but it was to hot to touch. As fire licked at the neighbor’s house he called 911 alerting fire crews that were only minutes away. Mr. Grassle was joined by Mr. Dingman and their immediate attention was focused on the homes adjacent to the house on fire. One was vacant, but the other was owned by Harvey and Helen Vinitsky and it was starting to burn. With the siding melting and the roof smoking, they attempted to alert the Vinitskys by pounding on their door. Unable to alert them, Brian Dingman tried blowing his car horn with no success. Both men return again to the home of the Vinitskeys and banged on the door until they were able to rouse them. Forcing their way inside, they assisted in getting the couple safely out of their residence. That Sunday morning two strangers decided to get involved, and their quick action in notifying the fire department and alerting the Vinitskys to the impending danger in all likely hood saved not only their house, but their lives. Tragically they were not in time to save Paul Hoenack who perished in the home on fire. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 2a) Page 2 Subject: Fire Department Life Saving Commendation “It’s a great feeling knowing there are people like that” said an emotional Harvey Vinitsky. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Recognizing individuals through a Citizen Commendation when warranted supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community. Prepared by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Citizen Commendation In recognition of our sincere appreciation, the St. Louis Park City Council is pleased to present Brian Dingman with this citizen commendation in honor of your lifesaving efforts. On the morning of March 16, a house was on fire on the 1400 block of Oregon Ave. Driving in the vicinity, and realizing that the home was fully engulfed in flames, you took action and immediately awakened two next door neighbors—whose house was in close proximity of the burning home. Your quick action and bravery during this fire not only saved life, but demonstrates the strength and compassion of your character. The St. Louis Park City Council thanks you for your actions during this fire. Presented on this 2nd day of June, 2008 On behalf of the City Council of theCity of St. Louis Park _____________________________ Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Fire Department Live Saving Commendation Page 3 Citizen Commendation In recognition of our sincere appreciation, the St. Louis Park City Council is pleased to present Geoff Grassle with this citizen commendation in honor of your lifesaving efforts. On the morning of March 16, a house was on fire on the 1400 block of Oregon Ave. Driving in the vicinity, and realizing that the home was fully engulfed in flames, you took action and immediately awakened two next door neighbors—whose house was in close proximity of the burning home. Your quick action and bravery during this fire not only saved life, but demonstrates the strength and compassion of your character. The St. Louis Park City Council thanks you for your actions during this fire. Presented on this 2nd day of June, 2008 On behalf of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park _____________________________ Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 2a) Subject: Fire Department Live Saving Commendation Page 4 Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MAY 12, 2008 The meeting convened at 8:21 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: None Energy Efficiency Task Force Members present: Craig Panning, Mark Oestreich, John Altepeter and Cary Smith. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Park and Rec (Ms. Walsh), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Tuesday, May 27, 2008 Mr. Harmening stated the May 27 Study Session agenda will be devoted to financial issues. Councilmember Sanger requested that the agenda item regarding Highway 100 reconstruction be postponed since she will not be in attendance on May 27. It was the consensus of Council to postpone consideration of the agenda item regarding Highway 100 reconstruction. 2. Vision Strategic Direction Update – Expanding Energy Efficiencies in City Operations Mr. Hoffman presented a proposal to improve energy efficiency by developing a comprehensive understanding of current energy usage in the City, including conducting a comprehensive energy audit and improvement plan for City operations, establishing a Council policy to incorporate LEED principles and methods into the design and construction of all new/remodeled City buildings, and establishing a Council policy for the City to consider seeking energy efficient and environmentally safe options during daily operations. He stated the City’s current expenditure for all forms of energy used is approximately $1.8 million per year. He explained the action team members propose to hire a consultant to perform the detailed audit, establish an energy usage baseline for all City facilities and operations, and develop a plan of improvement possibilities for the City to consider; this audit will cost approximately $12,000-$18,000. Mayor Jacobs stated he was in favor of hiring a consultant and added it is important to look for ways for the City to save money. He stated he felt the Council should have a policy that encourages the maximum possible energy efficiency and in terms of specifics, the Council should wait until the audit comes back. Councilmembers Sanger and Finkelstein concurred. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes May 12, 2008 Councilmember Paprocki concurred and stated it will be important for the City to remain good stewards of its resources over the long term. Mayor Jacobs stated he is less concerned about LEED certification and added it costs money to become energy efficient; however, over the course of time, the City will save money. Mr. Harmening stated the goal will be to meet LEED principles, but to forego some of the paperwork costs associated with it. The Council discussed having measurable goals and ways to show improvement in areas that show tangible results. Mayor Jacobs stated at some point, he would like to see the City become a clearinghouse for residents and businesses so they have data and information on being energy efficient, etc. and this may have a ripple effect into the private market. Councilmember Basill stated he wants any plan to provide an impact and the City needs to be cognizant of the types of things it can do. He stated with respect to a policy that selects energy efficient and environmentally safe options, the policy should specify research. Mr. Harmening stated there was a biomass energy producing plant proposed in Minneapolis that fell through and he was recently contacted by one of the representatives from that company to further discuss their plans to build something like this. He added from time to time, he and the Mayor are contacted about the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement; a decision was made over a year ago to hold off on this and if this is something the Council wishes staff to pursue, he requested the Council to let him know. The Council discussed biomass, how successful it has been, the impact on surrounding neighborhoods, and how a City benefits from it. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to retain a consultant for the purpose of conducting a comprehensive energy audit and improvement plan for City operations, to establish a Council policy to incorporate LEED principles and methods into the design and construction of all new/remodeled City buildings, and to establish a Council policy for the City to consider selecting energy efficient and environmentally safe options during daily operations. 3. Vision Strategic Directions Update – Arts & Culture Ms. Walsh stated staff requests direction regarding the next steps in the Vision item relating to promoting arts, culture, and community aesthetics in the City, including (1) whether the City should implement a one percent funding requirement for the arts, (2) whether the City should create an Arts Fund, (3) whether the City should officially adopt a Public Arts Policy, and (4) whether the City should be proactive in identifying future sites where public art would be appropriate. She explained that initial conversations with the City Attorney have indicated the one percent funding requirement is not a common occurrence in Minnesota and the City Attorney would have to perform further research to determine if the City has the legal authority to implement this Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes May 12, 2008 requirement. She explained that staff is proposing to utilize some of the money budgeted for vision to work with the City Attorney and Mr. Becker; at this time, the cost to work with these consultants is not expected to exceed $3,000. Mayor Jacobs stated he is in favor of the one percent funding requirement. Councilmember Sanger concurred. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he wants to see the City do more with the arts but is concerned with the one percent requirement given the tough economic times. Councilmember Paprocki stated this is a nice goal to have but did not like having a set figure. Councilmember Sanger requested clarification regarding public art and stated it will be important to determine who will decide what is defined as art. She stated she would like to see this concept included in heightened architectural requirements without having a one percent funding requirement. The Council discussed ongoing efforts of Friends of the Arts. It was the consensus of Council to direct staff to work further with the City Attorney regarding the one percent funding requirement and to present the results of his research to the City Council. 4. Fernhill Park Capital Improvements Ms. Walsh presented a proposal for redevelopment of Fern Hill Park to make the existing facilities more useable to residents and athletic teams who use the park. She stated the proposal includes reconstruction of the parking lot (with a cost sharing of 25% to be paid by Torah Academy), drainage improvement in the entire park, reconstructing the basketball court, reconstructing the baseball field, addition of a safety light by the playground equipment, and the addition of a trail that surrounds the park. She indicated that following several meetings with the neighborhood, it became apparent that they would like to have tennis courts added to the park; because of size limits, a compromise was reached for one single tennis court. Councilmember Basill stated the proposed reconstruction of the park looks good and pointed out that the Council and staff need to remain cognizant of the fact that the City has previously received a number of requests for tennis courts that have been turned down. Ms. Walsh stated the estimated cost of the project could exceed the budgeted amount by $100,000; options for financing the additional cost include authorizing staff to spent the additional amount from the Park Improvement Fund, or the Council could choose to make changes in proprieties in the proposed 2008 CIP projects by delaying the Frisbee golf course project (estimated at $50,000), or the Council could choose to complete the project in phases and add a tennis court at a later date; however, this may increase the cost of adding the trail and tennis court since there are some economies of scale associated with doing all the paving work at one time. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes May 12, 2008 The Council discussed using environmentally friendly design standards where possible on the building. Council concurred delaying the Frisbee golf course project and using the additional $50,000 from the park improvement fund to complete the project. 5. 2008 Council Canoe Ride Mr. Harmening asked if the Council is interested in taking a canoe trip again this year and suggested making the trip a more productive exercise by inviting a representative from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Three Rivers Park District to attend a study session following the canoe trip in order that these organizations can share information about ongoing initiatives and joint programs that exist with other cities. Councilmember Paprocki suggested starting the canoe trip further upstream and inviting Minnetonka to attend. It was the consensus of Council to schedule a canoe trip in June. 6. Communications (verbal) Mr. Harmening stated he spoke to Tom O’Keefe at MnDOT and Mr. O’Keefe indicated the City should not plan on Highway 100 reconstruction getting moved up before the 2014 date. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: None. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA MAY 19, 2008 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Paul Omodt and Loran Paprocki. Councilmembers absent: Phil Finkelstein and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Planner (Mr. Fulton) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Schmidt). 2. Presentations 2a. Public Works Week Proclamation Mayor Jacobs read proclamation proclaiming May 18 – 24, 2008 as National Public Works Week, and called upon all citizens to recognize the contributions that public works officials make every day to our health, safety, comfort and quality of life. He further added his personal thank you to the staff in the Public Works Department for doing what they do so well. Mr. Rardin also extended his personal thank you to the staff for their hard work. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Study Session Minutes April 28, 2008 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. 3b. City Council Meeting Minutes April 28, 2008 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Subject: City Council Minutes May 19, 2008 3c. Closed Executive Session April 28, 2008 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. 3d. City Council Meeting Minutes May 5, 2008 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. 3e. Joint City Council/School Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2008 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 5-0. 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. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2354-08 approving the vacation of a portion of the 1st Street NW right-of-way extending approximately 90 feet northeast of Walker; and to approve the summary and authorize publication. 4b. Entering into the Twin City Environmental Health Mutual Aid Agreement. 4c. Adopt Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2355-08 approving changes to Chapter 34 of the City Code approve ordinance summary and authorize publication. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 08-067, Authorizing the Fund Equity Transfer. 4e. Designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $201,255.39 for the 2008 MSA Street Improvement Project – Project No. 2007-1100. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 08-066, approving an amendment to the Easement Agreement for 3515 Beltline Boulevard. 4g. Approve for Filing Planning Commission Minutes April 16, 2008. 4h. Approve for Filing Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes March 19, 2008. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Subject: City Council Minutes May 19, 2008 4i. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes April 9, 2008. 4j. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims. It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 5-0. 5. Boards and Commissions – None 6. Public Hearings - None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. 7200 Cedar Lake Road – Walgreens Retail Store Resolution No. 08-068 and 08-069 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. John Kohler, architect for Net Lease, added that they would be reducing and combining a number of access points to minimize traffic conflicts. Councilmember Omodt asked how many cars would be stacked in the drive through. Mr. Kohler stated approximately 5 - 6 per hour; peak busy times 5 – 10 vehicles. Mr. Fulton stated the stacking requirement is 6 cars. Mr. Koehler added that the traffic generated would be 40% less than the current use. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 08-068, approving a Conditional Use Permit for drive-through service at 7200 Cedar Lake Road and motion to Adopt Resolution No. 08-069, approving a Variance for a drive-through setback for the project at 7200 Cedar Lake Road. The motion passed 5-0. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Subject: City Council Minutes May 19, 2008 8b. Westling Estates Final Plat and Variance (formerly Isabelle Estates) – 8550 Minnetonka Boulevard Resolution Numbers 08-070, 08-071 and 08-072 Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Peter Knaeble, Terra Engineering, Inc., stated the sellers requested the name be changed to Westling Estates. He also stated they have received a number of calls to request that they preserve the buildings, so their intent is to remodel existing home to three bedrooms for move-up housing. Councilmember Carver asked if they would be doing the remodeling prior to selling and Mr. Knaeble responded yes. Councilmember Carver asked if the purchaser would have the option of destroying the barn. Mr. Knaeble stated that would be up to the buyer. Councilmember Basill asked if the owner of lot 4 declines keeping the barn, would the variances apply for them to build a new structure. Mr. Morrison stated the variances would not apply. It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 08-070, approving the final plat of Westling Estates with variances to allow a two foot drainage and utility easement instead of the required 10 feet and a three foot drainage and utility easement instead of the required five feet; adopt Resolution No. 08- 071, allowing a 3.2 foot side yard instead of the required six feet for the existing home, and to allow a 9.5 foot side yard instead of the required 12.7 feet for the existing home; and adopt Resolution No. 08-072, allowing an existing accessory building with a ground floor area of 1165 square feet instead of the allowed maximum of 800 square feet, and a variance to allow an accessory building to have a 25.6 foot height instead of the allowed maximum of 24 feet. Councilmember Carver noted that he had voted against the previous proposal, but liked the new proposal and would be voting in its favor. Mayor Jacobs read a statement from Councilmember Sanger, which read: “I wish to thank the developer, Peter Knaeble, for his reconsideration and revision of the proposed plan for the property. This property contains the oldest house and the only remaining barn in St. Louis Park. By agreeing to save these structures, he is allowing our community to remain and appreciate part of the history and part of the heritage. I hope that someone with imagination and a good sense of historical preservation will buy the property and fix it up. Overall, it is a much better plan than the previous proposal and if I were at the meeting, I would vote in support of.” Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Subject: City Council Minutes May 19, 2008 Mayor Jacobs also stated they received a letter from the historical society in support of the proposal. The motion passed 5-0. 8c. Hoigaard Village – Design of Park Area and Art – Discussion Item/No Action Required Mr. Fulton introduced Paul Olson, Urban Works Architecture, who gave a presentation on the design for the park area adjacent to the Hoigaard Village Pond. Councilmember Paprocki asked the height of the tallest member in the art design. Mr. Olson stated about 5 feet. Councilmember Paprocki stated concern with the various opening sizes on the Hoigaard image and asked the opening diameters. Mr. Olson stated they have taken that into account, stating they would be approximately 3 inches. Councilmember Basill thanked them for meeting with the neighborhood and stated the representatives were very pleased with the proposed artwork. Ms. McMonigal stated they have also met with the Parks Department for guidance on the appropriate plantings and skateboard prevention concerns. Mayor Jacobs asked what the proposed completion date was. Frank Dunbar, developer, stated September 1, 2008. Councilmember Basill asked if this proposal replaced the previous proposal. Mr. Dunbar stated yes. 8d. Adjourn to a Closed Door/Executive Session to discuss with the City Attorney pending/threatened litigation with ARINC. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs thanked everyone involved in organizing the Ice Cream Social event on May 18th, stating it was a very successful event. Mayor Jacobs also thanked everyone involved with the Caring Youth Event, including the solo done by Councilmember Paprocki’s daughter. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Subject: City Council Minutes May 19, 2008 Mayor Jacobs reminded everyone of the VFW Memorial Celebration on Monday, May 26 at 11 a.m. at Wolfe Park and also of the upcoming Parktacular Events, which includes a June 10th open house at the Wooddale fire station and the parade at noon on June 14th. Councilmember Omodt stated the Slugfest Baseball Event was this past weekend which involved more than 80 baseball teams from 60 communities and Canada. He further wanted to acknowledge that the U15 A team won the championship in their division and the U13 B team took second in theirs. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:23 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION MAY 5, 2008 1. Roll Call Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 8:02 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phillip Finkelstein, Sue Sanger, and Paul Omodt. Councilmembers absent: C. Paul Carver and Loran Paprocki Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) Others present: City Attorney (Mr. Scott). 2. Update on pending/ongoing litigation with Pawn America City Attorney Tom Scott provided an update in a Closed Executive Session on the pending/ongoing litigation with Pawn America. 3. Update on pending/threatened litigation with ARINC. City Attorney Tom Scott provided an update in a Closed Executive Session on the pending/threatened litigation with ARINC. 4. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 3d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION MAY 19, 2008 1. Roll Call Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 8:28 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Loran Paprocki and Paul Omodt. Councilmembers absent: Phillip Finkelstein and Sue Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening) Others present: City Attorney (Mr. Scott). 2. Update on pending/threatened litigation with ARINC. City Attorney Tom Scott provided an update in a Closed Executive Session on the pending/threatened litigation with ARINC. 4. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: June 2, 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: Bid Tabulation: 2008 Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Maintenance Project – Project No. 2008-0003, 2008-0004, 2008-0005, and 2009-0004. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Concrete Idea, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $104,754.00 for the 2008 Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Maintenance Project – Project No. 2008-0003, 2008-0004, 2008-0005, and 2009-0004. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Bid Information: Bids were received on May 21, 2008 for the annual repair and construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter, and storm sewer catch basins at various locations in the city. Staff annually surveys the condition of the sidewalk to identify hazards for repair. Panels of sidewalk that are cracked or have been lifted by tree roots and create trip hazards are removed and replaced under this contract. Curb and gutter with similar defects that create drainage problems are also repaired. Deteriorating catch basins that are within the work area will also be repaired or rebuilt. Most of the work will be concentrated in next year’s sealcoating area (Area 1), which includes the Texa Tonka, Oak Hill and Lenox Neighborhoods. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 8 and 15, 2008, and in the Construction Bulletin on May 5 and 12, 2008. A total of seven (7) bids were received for this project. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Concrete Idea, Inc. $104,754.00 Ron Kassa Construction, Inc. $123,530.00 Pember Companies, Inc. $129,646.00 Quality Restoration Services, Inc. $138,837.00 Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $145,869.00 Create Construction, LLC $147,798.00 Thomas and Sons $159,727.50 Engineer’s Estimate $153,094.50 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Subject: Bid Tabulation: 2008 Sidewalk Curb and Gutter Maintenance Project –Project Nos. 2008-0003, 2008-0004, 2008-0005 and 2009-0004 Evaluation of Bids: A review of the bids indicates Concrete Idea, Inc. submitted the lowest responsible bid. This contractor has satisfactorily completed concrete work in the past for the City. Construction Timeline: Construction is planned to begin in late-June and is scheduled to be completed in 25 working days. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds for this maintenance project are allocated in the Public Works Operations budget, Stormwater Utility budget and the Pavement Management budget. $85,000 of the Operations budget is available for sidewalk repairs. $50,000 of the Pavement Management budget plus $15,000 of the Operations budget is available for curb and gutter repairs. $20,000 of the Stormwater Utility budget is available for catch basin repairs. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: June 2, 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: Bid Tabulation: Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4 – Project No. 2007-1500. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $874,000.00 for Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4 – Project No. 2007-1500. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Project Information: The project includes recoating of both the interior and exterior surface of the tank. Also included are some structural modifications and repairs to bring the EWT #4 into compliance with OSHA regulations, American Water Works Association (AWWA) standards, allow for safer access in and on the tank and, in some cases, removing unnecessary items. Bid Information: Bids were received on May 20, 2008 for the recoating of Elevated Water Tower #4 located at 2541 Nevada Avenue So. A total of five (5) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 15 and May 24, 2008 and in the Construction Bulletin on May 12, and May 19, 2008. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. $874,000.00 LeadCon, Inc. $911,000.00 TMI Coatings, Inc. $956,400.00 Classic Protective Coatings $1,070,000.00 Abhe & Svoboda, Inc. $2,606,310.00 Engineer’s Estimate $951,600 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Subject: Bid Tabulation: Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4 – Project No. 2007-1500 Evaluation of Bids: Staff has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff recommends Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. Odland Protective Coatings, Inc. is a reputable contractor that has worked for other metro cities before and has successfully completed previous contracts. Construction Timeline: Construction is planned to begin in early August and should be completed in 12 weeks. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.). Staff has verified that adequate funds are available in the Water Utility Fund for this work. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: June 2, 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: Bid Tabulation: Street Project - Park Place Boulevard - Project No. 2007-1101. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate Valley Paving, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $4,038,465.97 for Street Project - Park Place Boulevard - Project No. 2007-1101. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Bid Information: Bids were received on May 27, 2008 for the Park Place Boulevard Reconstruction Project. The project generally involves the reconstruction Park Place Boulevard from Wayzata Boulevard to Gamble Drive, and includes widening of the roadway, new traffic signals, new lighting and streetscape amenities, and the construction of a multi-use trail along the west side of Park Place Boulevard. The project is being conducted in close coordination with the West End development project, and includes some adjacent segments of 16th Street and Gamble Drive. A total of four (4) bids were received for this project. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 8, and 15, 2008 and in the Construction Bulletin on May 5, and 12, 2008. A summary of the bid results is as follows: CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT Valley Paving, Inc. $4,038,465.97* Park Construction $4,121,561.33* Hardrives, Inc. $4,209,755.76* Thomas and Sons $4,355,998.46* Engineer’s Estimate $4,442,423.55 *Bid corrected upon extension Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Subject: Bid Tabulation: Street Project – Park Place Boulevard - Project No. 2007-1101 Evaluation of Bids: The consulting engineer has reviewed all of the bids submitted and has tabulated the results. From the review, staff recommends Valley Paving, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder. Valley Paving is a reputable contractor that has worked for the city before and has successfully completed previous contracts. Construction Timeline: Construction is expected to commence within the next 2-3 weeks. A construction timeline is as follows: • Bid Opening May 27, 2008 • Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract June 2, 2008 • Begin Construction June, 23, 2008 • Substantial Completion of Roadway November, 2008 • Final Completion, Including Streetscape Amenities August, 2009 Prior to the start of construction, an “open house” pre-construction meeting for adjacent property owners and businesses will also be scheduled. In addition to notifying stakeholders of the upcoming construction, this will allow, staff, the consulting engineer, and the contractor to receive questions and identify any further issues prior to the start of construction. Regular updates and meetings as appropriate will also be provided throughout construction. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and is included in the City’s adopted Capital Improvement Program (C.I.P.). Staff has verified that adequate funds are available for this work. VISION CONSIDERATION: Design of the Park Place Boulevard Roadway and Streetscape Improvements 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. Attachments: None Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: June 2, 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: Consultant Contract for Street Project: Park Place Boulevard – Project 2007-1101. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Motion to approve a contract with SRF which provides construction engineering services for Street Project: Park Place Boulevard – Project No. 2007-1101. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable BACKGROUND: History and Recent Activities In November of 2007, SRF commenced work on the preparation of plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Park Place Boulevard. The Park Place Boulevard project includes the complete reconstruction of the roadway itself between Wayzata Boulevard and Gamble Drive, and also includes streetscape amenities for the same corridor area, including portions of 16th Street and Gamble Drive. Also proposed is a multi-use trail along the west side of Park Place Boulevard. Development of the plans over the past several months included an extensive public process and close coordination with the developer of the West End project (Duke Construction). Construction plans were ultimately completed and presented to the Council for approval at its April 28, 2008 regular meeting, and an advertisement for bids was authorized. Bids were opened on May 27, 2008, and award of a contract is being presented as a separate Council item for this June 2, 2008 regular Council meeting. Presuming a contract is awarded June 2, construction is expected to commence on this project within the next 2-3 weeks. Additional Professional Services SRF’s current contract with the City for the Park Place Boulevard project covers design services (plans and specifications) only. Construction engineering services will be required during the course of construction. These services generally include staking, inspection, contract management and administration. SRF has provided a proposal dated May 16, 2008 that details the scope of services (including estimated fees) required to successfully complete the project. The services proposed can be summarized as follows: Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Subject: Consultant Contract for Street Project: Park Place Boulevard – Project 2007-1101 Construction Staking $158,000 Construction Observation/Supervision $178,800 Construction Administration $ 60,350 Final Inspection $ 14,080 Record Drawings $ 18,840 Legal Descriptions, Easements, Additional Surveys $ 12,156 Subtotal In-construction $442,586 Testing Services (By Sub-Consultant) $ 17,000 Direct Expenses/Reimbursables $ 9,950 Total (Not to Exceed Cost) $469,536 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: In summary, it is proposed that the City hire SRF for construction engineering services and related tasks as described above. Based on past experience, SRF provides quality work and good project management at competitive rates. Subcontractors (consultants) may be used by SRF 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 the project, as identified in the City’s five year CIP, will come from a combination of the following: Developer Agreement (Duke), Tax Increment funds, and HRA Levy/TIF. The following terms will be incorporated into this contract: 1. Work is expected to begin in June 2008 and be completed by September 2009 (two construction seasons) 2. Compensation is based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $469,536 3. SRF 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. SRF’s May 16, 2008 proposal will be referenced and attached as part of the agreement. VISION CONSIDERATION: Completion of the Park Place Boulevard Improvements 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: None Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: June 2, 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: Parktacular Street Dance – Park Tavern Adult Beverages. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve Resolution authorizing Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes to provide alcohol during the hours of 5:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. at the Parktacular Street Dance to be held on June 13, 2008. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to allow Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes to serve alcohol at Parktacular Street Dance on June 13, 2008? BACKGROUND: The Parktacular 2008 Community Celebration will be held June 12th – June 15th. The Parktacular Street Dance will be held on the Excelsior & Grand Town Green on Friday, June 13th with gates opening 5:00 p.m. and closing 10:00 p.m. The outdoor concert entertainment will include the Consolation Champ’s front man John Richards performing 5:30 – 6:45 pm and the Tim Mahoney Band performing 7 – 10 p.m. Free parking will be available in the Excelsior & Grand ramps and at the Rec Center. Park Tavern has once again donated $5,000 to Parktacular and will be sponsoring the Street Dance for the second year which includes entertainment, food, and beverages. Along with food and soda, they will be selling adult beverages to anyone 21 years of age and older in an area to be fenced off as shown in the attached map. The hours in which alcohol will be available is from 5:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. Park Tavern will be providing staff to check ID’s and wrist bands to assure no alcohol will be sold to minors. Police officers will also be on duty at the event. Gate fee tickets and Parktacular buttons will be sold at the two entrances and many volunteers will be monitoring crowd control along with a “dump bucket” at each entrance/exit. After the 10:00 p.m. closing time of the Street Dance, the area will be cleaned. As stated by MN Statute 340A.404 Subd. 4. (b) regarding community festivals, the governing body of a municipality may authorize a holder of a retail on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the municipality to dispense intoxicating liquor off premises at a community festival held within the municipality. The authorization shall specify the area in which the intoxicating liquor must be dispensed and consumed, and shall not be issued unless the licensee demonstrates that it has liability insurance as prescribed by section 340A.409 to cover the event. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Subject: Parktacular Street Dance – Park Tavern Adult Beverages Park Tavern currently holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license and upon approval by City Council to serve alcohol at the Parktacular Street Dance, the required insurance certificate will be submitted to the Clerk’s office. Park Tavern has met all requirements to provide alcohol at the Parktacular Street Dance, and staff is recommending approval. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: The annual Parktacular Street Community Event supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community by increasing use of existing gathering places and ensuring accessibility throughout the community and promoting Arts & Culture. Attachments: Map Resolution Prepared by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 3 Subject: Parktacular Street Dance – Park Tavern Adult Beverages Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 4 Subject: Parktacular Street Dance – Park Tavern Adult Beverages RESOLUTION NO. 08-_____ RESOLUTION APPROVING AUTHORIZATION OF PARK TAVERN LOUNGE & LANES, 3401 LOUISIANA AVE S TO DISPENSE INTOXICATING LIQUOR OFF PREMISES AT THE PARKTACULAR STREET DANCE HELD ON JUNE 13, 2008 AT THE EXCELSIOR & GRAND TOWNE GREEN IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code Chapter 3, provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety: and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 340A.404 Subd. 4. (b) regarding community festivals, states the governing body of a municipality may authorize a holder of a retail on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by the municipality to dispense intoxicating liquor off premises at a community festival held within the municipality; and WHEREAS, the 2008 Parktacular event is an annual celebration with many sponsors and volunteers promoting a spirit of pride, a sense of community and an atmosphere of celebration for all residents of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes, 3401 Louisiana Ave. S. currently holds an on- sale intoxicating liquor license and will be sponsoring the Parktacular Street Dance featuring entertainment, food, beverages, and staff to assure no alcohol will be sold to minors by checking identification and the use of wrist bands. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of St. Louis Park City Council authorizes Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes, 3401 Louisiana Ave. S. to dispense intoxicating liquor off premises at the Parktacular Street Dance to be held June 13, 2008 from the hours of 5:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. at the Excelsior & Grand Towne Green. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 2, 2008 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: June 2, 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: Paint the Park Pilot Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt Resolution approving a pilot program to allow intersection painting to bring public art into the neighborhoods of the City. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Would the Council like to consider a pilot program for neighborhood art based on the painting of selected intersections within the community? BACKGROUND: Staff provided Council with written reports on the potential of a program called “Paint the Park” in January and April of 2008. The Staff report from April 14, 2008 is attached for review. The attached resolution approves a pilot program to allow for intersection painting in up to two locations within the City. Following the steps outlined in the attached Staff report, the locations would be pre-approved by City Staff and art design would be reviewed to prevent hazards to safety and offensive images. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This program will be predominately volunteer-based. Staff does not anticipate any unexpected financial or budgetary impacts at this time. The Community Liaison would coordinate the program. City support would be provided through the temporary use of roadblocks and staff assistance with coordination of volunteers in cooperation with Friends of the Arts. It is expected that a “Paint the Park” project would be eligible for neighborhood grant funding. The 2007 neighborhood grants had $2,850 of unused funds which will be available for neighborhoods interested in completing a “Paint the Park” project. If funds remain available following the 2008 granting year, those funds could also be used to assist in completing a “Paint the Park” project. This funding would be used to purchase paint, no-skid additives for safety, brushes and paint trays. It is estimated that the cost to complete one project, not including volunteer time and effort, would be between $1,000 and $1,500. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program VISION CONSIDERATION: The Council adopted two Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions that directly relate to Paint the Park. “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” is the first Strategic Direction this project addresses. Paint the Park is a neighborhood driven project that enhances community connections by bringing neighbors together to work on a shared project. Neighbors will work together from concept to completion which will help build strong community connections and involvement in their neighborhood. The pilot program also meets the Vision Strategic Direction that “St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.” Because only low-volume intersections would be painted, the program brings art to neighborhood areas where civic works of art would typically not be found. Attachments: Resolution Staff Report – 041408 – Paint the Park Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: John Luse, Police Chief Kevin Locke. Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program RESOLUTION NO. 08-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING A PILOT PROGRAM TO ALLOW INTERSECTION PAINTING TO BRING PUBLIC ART INTO NEIGHBORHOODS OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the programs for artistic intersection painting initiated within the cities of Rochester, Minnesota and St. Paul, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes such a program would provide benefits to neighborhoods and the greater community within the St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, safety considerations have been taken into account and intersection painting has been judged to be an appropriate activity at the neighborhood level; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that City Staff in various departments, as directed by the City Manager, shall initiate a pilot program for intersection painting to be known as “Paint the Park,” as follows: 1. The pilot program shall permit the painting of up to two intersections within the City, after which a report on the effects on community, safety and functionality shall be delivered to the City Council. 2. The City Engineer shall determine the eligibility of intersections for painting within the City, which shall predominately include those intersections with no known safety problems and with sufficiently low traffic volumes. 3. Approval of property owners adjacent and near the intersection to be painted is important. To ensure approval, 100% of the neighbors directly adjacent to the intersection shall petition for the painting, and 80% of neighbors within 750 feet of the intersection shall petition for the painting. 4. The design of the artwork to be painted on the intersection shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff. 5. Long term maintenance and care for the painted intersection shall be the responsibility of the neighborhood. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program 6. City Staff shall provide support to neighborhoods interested in completing an intersection painting, including project coordination, temporary street closure, and painting logistics. 7. Neighborhoods shall be responsible for the initial painting and its long term maintenance. It is expected that the painting shall be completed predominately on a volunteer basis. 8. Any intersection painting project may be subject to additional requirements as set by the City Council, the City Manager, or designee, to maintain an adequate level of safety at all times. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the “Paint the Park” pilot program shall become effective immediately upon passage of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 2, 2008 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: April 14, 2008 Agenda Item #: 7 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Paint the Park Pilot Program. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Study Session report only. No action required at this time. Staff will be bringing a resolution to the City Council at an upcoming Council meeting authorizing implementation of the pilot program. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Would the Council like to consider a pilot program for neighborhood art based on the painting of selected intersections within the community? BACKGROUND: Paint the Park would be based on successful programs for intersection painting in the Minnesota cities of Rochester and St. Paul. Each has initiated a pilot effort to provide public art within the intersection of two low-volume streets. To date, there has been one intersection painted in Rochester and three in St. Paul. Intersection painting is somewhat common in Portland, Oregon; it is from Portland that the idea originated in St. Paul and Rochester. Attached are examples of intersection painting from St. Paul and Rochester. St. Paul’s program has been successfully driven by neighborhood residents who wished to see the intersection art in their neighborhood. Involvement from immediate neighbors near the artwork along with surrounding residents within the neighborhood boundaries and neighborhood association made the project a great community building event. Projects would be started by neighborhood groups or neighborhood associations. City Staff would only provide logistical support. The Community Liaison would be the contact person and coordinator of the program. Prior to conducting such a project in St. Louis Park, it would be required that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing a framework for the pilot program. The neighborhood would be expected to follow these 10 Basic Steps to conduct a “Paint the Park” project: 1. Talk to neighbors about the program and idea of neighborhood-based art. If people are interested, work together on broader neighborhood involvement and ultimately the neighborhood association to spread the idea. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 5 Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 2 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program 2. Contact the Community Liaison to confirm the intersection/areas that are eligible for painting, find out the street reconstruction/recoating schedule, and gain an understanding of other miscellaneous issues. 3. Work with your Neighborhood Association to let them know you are starting to plan a project. This will help them connect you to other neighbors that may be interested in being involved. This project should be supported by the neighborhood association before moving forward. Work with the Community Liaison if your neighborhood is not formally organized. 4. Hold gatherings with your neighbors, ideally within a two block radius. Talk about shared values, the value of public gathering spaces and neighborhood livability. Work together to design and then create your street painting. 5. Form a project team that will work to usher the entire project through completion. The project team should plan a process where as many neighbors as possible have input and involvement in the various aspects of Paint the Park. The project team will also be responsible for organizing neighborhood participation in the project and overseeing usage and maintenance of the new public place. 6. Create your intersection design! Create a design following requirements of the City of St. Louis Park which will be approved by the city. 7. Start fundraising and organizing supplies for the painting day. What can be borrowed, what must be purchased? Some funding may be available through the Neighborhood Association grant by talking to your neighborhood association. 8. Complete and submit the required documents, including a petition form with signatures from your neighbors. The Community Liaison will return a copy of the agreement if your project is approved, or contact you if they have questions about your submission. Neighbor approval would be required as follows: a. Neighbors directly adjacent to the artwork: 100% approval b. Neighbors within 750 feet of artwork: 80% approval 9. Paint the intersection! Plan a day-long event that includes a community celebration. Involve as many of the talents and skills of local residents as possible in the process of construction, installation, and during celebration events and performances. Make sure to set a rain date. 10. Look to the future. After your day of installation and celebration, your group should review its work and plan for ongoing work on a regular basis to ensure proper use and maintenance of your painting and to maintain relationships developed through the course of the project. Your group may want to create regular programming around the painted area, create new improvements around the area, etc. The city will not maintain the painted intersection. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 6 Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 3 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Representatives from the Public Works Department have reviewed the Paint the Park pilot program. Traffic, Operations and Engineering provided input to minimize the aspects of the program that might result in negative reactions from the community. They also reviewed the Checklist, attached, to better understand the operational aspects of the program and any short-term traffic disruptions. The Community Liaison will be the contact person for the pilot program; however, the art design, location, and other specifics such as timing and intersection closures will be reviewed and approved by the Development Review Committee and the Public Works Department. The final approval to paint a pilot intersection will be granted by the Public Works Department, because the art would be proposed in the public right-of-way. Working together with Planning staff, the City Engineer will identify the low traffic intersections that would be best suited for this pilot program. The Paint the Park idea has been presented to Friends of the Arts director Margaret Rog who was very interested in the project. Ms. Rog brought the idea to the Friends of the Arts Board at the December 2007 meeting and the board was enthusiastic and supportive of the idea and interested in partnering on the project. Friends of the Arts sees Paint the Park as valuable and relevant and a great way to build communities through the arts. Since the initial discussion with Ms. Rog, Friends of the Arts has designated Jim Kelly as a liaison to the Paint the Park project. Staff included a Paint the Park booth in the January 31, 2008 Neighborhood Forum. There, information on the potential pilot program was shared with interested neighborhood representatives. Support at the neighborhood level is imperative for a successful Paint the Park pilot program; therefore, soliciting feedback from neighborhood leaders is an important step in this process. The goal is to have one or two neighborhoods pursue a “Paint the Park” project as a test or pilot project. Several neighborhood leaders expressed interest in the program at the Neighborhood Forum. The next step toward conducting the “Paint the Park” pilot program will be to review and adopt the proposal in a resolution at a future council meeting. The resolution will create specific parameters for the Paint the Park Pilot Program. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Because this program would be predominately volunteer-driven, Staff does not anticipate any financial or budgetary impacts at this time. The Community Liaison would coordinate the program. City support would be provided only through the temporary use of roadblocks and staff assistance with coordination of volunteers in cooperation with Friends of the Arts. VISION CONSIDERATION: The Council adopted two Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions that directly relate to Paint the Park. “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community” is the first Strategic Direction this project addresses. Paint the Park is a neighborhood driven project that enhances community connections by bringing neighbors together to work on a shared project. Neighbors will work together from concept to completion which will help build strong community connections and involvement in their neighborhood. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 7 Meeting of April 14, 2008 (Item No. 7) Page 4 Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program The pilot program also meets the Vision Strategic Direction that “St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate.” Because only low-volume intersections would be painted, the program brings art to neighborhood areas where civic works of art would typically not be found. Attachments: Graphics: St. Paul’s “Paint the Pavement” & Rochester’s “Rneighbors” Prepared by: Marney Olson, Community Liaison Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: John Luse, Chief of Police Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 8 Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org St. Paul: Paint the Pavement Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 9 Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 10 Image courtesy of creatingplaces.org Image courtesy of rneighbors.org Rochester: RColorful Corners Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Paint the Park Pilot Program Page 11 Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 4g Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item x Consent Item x Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and Hennepin Count for participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program in FY 2008-2011. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Resolution authorizing the execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County for participating in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant Program in FY 2008-2011. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Cooperation with Hennepin County ensures that CDBG funds are available for “sticks and bricks” improvements to the housing stock for low-income families, both single-family owners and multifamily housing residents. In the past years a small portion of funds have also been allocated to support services for City Park and Recreation programming and St. Louis Park Housing Authority residents. BACKGROUND: The Joint Cooperation Agreement sets forth broad shared powers for carrying out housing and community development activities. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requires the agreement in order for Hennepin County to qualify as an urban county and receive CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) entitlement funds. The purpose of the Agreement is to authorize Hennepin County and St. Louis Park to cooperate to undertake community renewal and lower income housing assistance activities for the benefit of eligible St. Louis Park residents to be funded from the annual CDBG and HOME appropriations for Fiscal Years 2009, 2010 and 2011. The current Joint Cooperation Agreement expires this year, and the new agreement would become effective October 1, 2008. The only modification being proposed to the existing agreement is to clarify the automatic renewal clause for participation in the CDBG program. Beginning in 2011 the Joint Cooperation Agreement will become an automatically renewed agreement unless the city decides to opt out. In 2011 the county will notify cities of their right to not participate in the CDBG Program, if the city continues participation in the CDBG program the agreement will automatically be renewed for another three-year term. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The city receives an approximate annual CDBG allocation of $200,000. CDBG funds are important in maintaining housing for our low income residents. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement VISION CONSIDERATION: The City Council’s adopted Strategic Direction related to housing is, “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The use of CDBG funds helps achieve this goal. Attachments: Resolution Joint Cooperation Agreement Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement RESOLUTION NO. 08-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICPATION IN THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM IN FISCAL YEAR 2009-2011 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota and the County of Hennepin have in effect a Joint Cooperation Agreement for purposes of qualifying as an Urban County under the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) Programs; and WHEREAS, the City and County wish to execute a new Joint Cooperation Agreement in order to continue to qualify as an Urban County for purposes of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs. BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that a new Joint Cooperation Agreement between the City and County be executed effective October 1, 2008, and that the Mayor and the City Manager be authorized and directed to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. Given my hand and seal this 2nd day of June, 2008 (seal) Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 2, 2008 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 4 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 5 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 6 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 7 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 8 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 9 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 10 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 11 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Subject: Joint Cooperation Agreement Page 12 Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 4h 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 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to adopt the Resolution amending the equipment replacement schedule budget for 2008 and authorize staff to acquire equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: The City Council approved the 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) by resolution at the December 17, 2007 Council Meeting. The 2008 schedule included the replacement of vehicle #9813, a 1998 ¼ ton - extended cab service vehicle (Ford Ranger) assigned to the Utilities Division. The replacement vehicle in the Council approved schedule was erroneously listed by staff as the same type vehicle. An assessment by Utility Division staff indicates a ½ ton - crew cab service vehicle is actually needed as a replacement vehicle. This vehicle is assigned to a Field Supervisor who responds to a wide variety of service requests from sewer back-ups to emergency water shut-offs. A ¼ ton - extended cab truck does not allow for the storage of tools and equipment necessary to respond to service calls; a larger ½ ton - crew cab truck is actually needed for this work. The larger truck can be equipped with the necessary tools and equipment required for proper response to emergency calls. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The estimated cost shown in the 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) for the ¼ ton service truck was $25, 727. There is no discernible cost difference between a ¼ ton service truck and the ½ ton - crew cab service truck so there are no budget implications associated with this vehicle change. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Subject: Amend 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule, Fleet VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Resolution 2008 Equipment Purchase List Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Reviewed by: Rick Beane, Park Superintendent Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 3 Subject: Amend 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule, Fleet RESOLUTION NO. 08-____ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT AMENDING 2008 MAJOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report from the Director of Parks and Recreation regarding the amendment of major equipment scheduled for replacement during year 2008, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, MN, that: 1. The Director of Parks and Recreation report regarding amendment of the 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) is hereby accepted. 2. The previously approved 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) is hereby amended to provide for the replacement of vehicle #9813 Truck, 1/4T, 4X2, Ext Cab with a 1/2T, 4X2, Crew Cab type vehicle. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council June 2, 2008 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk No.Old Unit No. Old DescriptionRpl. Cycle Age Primary Department Primary Division New Vehicle Description Est. Cost 2008 1 9315 TRUCK, 1T, 4X4, CREW CAB, UTILITY 10 15 FIRE ADMIN.TRUCK, 1T, 4X4, CREW CAB, UTILITY $56,652*2 0012 TRUCK, 1/4T 4X4 SUV7 8 INSPECTIONSBUILDING CODES FWD SUV, HYBRID$24,8253 0016 TRUCK, 1/4T 4X4 SUV8 8 INSPECTIONSBUILDING CODES FWD SUV, HYBRID$24,9314 0017 TRUCK, 1/4T 4X4 SUV8 8 INSPECTIONSBUILDING CODES FWD SUV, HYBRID$24,9315 8001 TRUCK, 1T, MEDIA STEP VAN15 27 INFO. RESOURCES CIVIC TVTRUCK, 1T, MULTI-MEDIA TRUCK $120,000*6 0025 TRUCK,3/4T,4X4,CREW CAB8 8 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE TRUCK,1T,4X4,CREW CAB, S BOX $29,5997 0718 SKID-STEER LOADER1 1 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE SKID-STEER LOADER$3,3478 7719T TRAILER20 31 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE TRAILER, 20', SPRING ASSIST $12,0009 8837T TRAILER20 20 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE TRAILER, 20', SPRING ASSIST $12,00010 9120B BROOM15 17 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE BROOM$5,83511 9812 ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE10 10 PARKS & RECREATION MAINTENANCE UTILITY, ALL TERAIN VEHICLE$18,08812 9820 MOWER, GROUNDSMASTER 72"10 10 PARKS & RECREATION REC CENTER MOWER, Z-TURN, DIESEL$19,41413 9905 TRUCK,1T,2X4, UTILITY10 9 PARKS & RECREATION NATURE CENTER TRUCK,1T,2X4, UTILITY$19,89214 N/A N/A5 N/A PARKS & RECREATION NATURE CENTER GOLF CART, ELECTRIC, USED$3,20015 0009 SEDAN,FULL-SIZE, SQUAD8 8 POLICE INVESTIGATIONS SEDAN,FULL-SIZE, UNMARKED $23,84716 0601 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05317 0602 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05318 0603 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05319 0604 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05320 0605 SEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD 2 2 POLICE PATROLSEDAN,FULL SIZE, MARKED SQUAD $27,05321 9705 TRUCK,1/4T,4X4 SUV8 11 POLICE ADMIN.TRUCK,1/2T,4X4 SUV$35,27522 0019 TRUCK, 1/2T, 2X4 EXT CAB10 8 PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFICTRUCK, 1T, 4X4 REG CAB$26,24223 0726 SKID-STEER LOADER1 1 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS SKID-STEER LOADER$3,34724 0727 ALL-STEER UTILITY VEHICLE1 1 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS ALL-STEER UTILITY VEHICLE$4,53225 8851T TRAILER20 20 PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFICTRAILER$2,000269206TRUCK, FLUSHER (purchased in 2007) 1516PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONSTRUCK, FLUSHER ($118,450)$0*27 9720 PAVER, ASPHALT10 11 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS PAVER, ASPHALT$89,152*28 9813 TRUCK,1/4T, 4X2, EXT CAB8 10 PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES TRUCK,1/4T, 4X2, EXT CAB$25,72729 9622T TRAILER20 3 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS 20 TON PAVING TRAILER$19,50030 N/A N/A10 N/A PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS PLOW, FRONT-END, 9', W / WINGS $4,47931 N/A 3 YD. TRUCK MOUNTED SEWER VAC N/A N/A PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES 3 YD. TRUCK MOUNTED SEWER VAC $183,180* Total 927,260$ Notes:* For units estimated near or over $50,000; request City Council to authorize purchase.2008 Equipment PurchasesUpdated: 12/12/2007Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Subject: Amend 2008 Equipment Replacement Schedule, FleetPage 4 Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 4i 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: School District #283 Annual Grant from Cable TV Franchise Fees for 2008. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve payment to School District #283 for $52,000 from Cable TV franchise fees in 2008, which includes an operations grant of $35,000, an equipment grant of $13,000 and $4,000 to support the Junior High video club. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City continue to provide an annual grant to the School District from Cable TV franchise fees? BACKGROUND: The School District has received funding from Cable TV franchise fees since 1982, and since 1996 the Telecommunications Advisory Commission has reviewed the District’s request and recommended action to the City Council. The Commission has traditionally felt that franchise fees should be used to produce programming and District video text display for Educational Access Channel 14, which benefits all Cable TV viewers. The Commission formerly adopted the following policy on October 11, 2007: Telecommunications Advisory Commission School District Grant Funding Policy: 1. The School District annual request for franchise fees should include: • A summary of how past grant dollars have been spent • A description of new funding requested, for what purpose and a timeline for the expected purchase • Quarterly programming reports including information on titles, length, and frequency of replays • An updated production equipment inventory • An updated 3-year equipment purchase plan and background information about District video production and communications technology needs and plans 2. Preference will be given for funding requests that support additional programming for the educational access channel. 3. Telecommunications Advisory Commission recommendations to approve School District funding should specify the expected use of the funds. For example: “X” dollars for an operations grant and “Y” dollars for equipment grant to buy “A, B, C.” Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Subject: School District #283 Annual Grant from Cable TV Franchise Fees for 2008 The Commission reviewed the requested reports on May 15, 2008 and Tom Marble, School District #283 Director of Information Services, made a presentation and answered questions. The School District is reinstating video production classes as part of the International Baccalaureate Film Class, and plans to buy more camcorders and replace computer edit systems that were purchased in 2001. Responding to Commission questions, Mr. Marble said the request for 2 edit computers was conservative, and that an additional edit system would help prevent bottlenecks for student use. As a result, the Commission passed this motion: It was moved by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner Keeler, to approve $35,000 for operating expenses, $10,000 for equipment (4-mini DV camcorders, 4-tripods, 5- DVR/DVD recorders and 2-video editing computers), $4,000 to support the Junior High Video Club and $3,000 for an additional video editing computer. School District Grant History from cable franchise fees Year Operations Grant Equipment Grant Total School District Grant Franchise Fees received by City Additional funding (Cable company equipment grants required by franchise) 1999 25,000 36,167 61,167 279,970 $86,000 2000 25,000 12,900 37,900 310,713 - 2001 35,000 15,000 50,000 379,000 - 2002 35,000 38,000 73,000 385,545 - 2003 35,000 0 35,000 368,917 - 2004 35,000 31,500 (from $100K grant) 66,500 425,208 $100,000 received 12/31/03 2005 35,000 0 35,000 421,959 - 2006 35,000 0 35,000 477,344 $800,000 equipment grant 6/30/06 2007 35,000 $9,000 44,000 522,881 - 2008 35,000 proposed $13,000 proposed $52,000* proposed 565,000 estimate *Includes additional $4,000 for Jr. High Video Club support FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Starting in 1998, the Commission recommended separate grants for operations and equipment, basing the equipment grants on District proposals. These grants are just a part of the budget for educational access; the School District also financially supports cable TV efforts. The equipment grant was discontinued in 2003 for budget reasons, but was reinstated in 2007. Last year the Commission recommended staff increase the amount of funding available for the School District for 2008 to recognize the success of the of the District-wide cable TV operations and because franchise fees received from Comcast continue to increase. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4i) Page 3 Subject: School District #283 Annual Grant from Cable TV Franchise Fees for 2008 VISION CONSIDERATION: Upgrading the High School equipment promotes and integrates arts, culture, and community aesthetics as outlined in Vision St. Louis Park. Attachments: None Prepared by: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 4j OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF February 21, 2008 ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Rick Dworsky, David Dyer, Dale Hartman, Bob Jacobson, Toby Keeler, Rolf Peterson MEMBERS ABSENT: Bruce Browning and Kirk Morrow STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator OTHERS PRESENT: None 1. Call to Order Vice Chair Jacobson called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM. 2. Roll Call Present at roll call were Commissioners Dworsky, Dyer, Hartman, Jacobson and Keeler (via telephone). New Commissioners Dyer and Keeler were introduced. 3. Approval of Minutes for December 6, 2007 It was moved by Commissioner Dworsky to approve the minutes of December 6, 2007, without changes. The motion passed 3-0-2 (Commissioners Dyer and Keeler abstained) by a roll call vote. 4. Adoption of Agenda Mr. Dunlap noted the agenda had been revised to add item 6e, MACTA Request for Funds to file FCC Comments opposing Qwest forbearance request It was moved by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion passed 5-0 by a roll call vote. Commissioner Peterson arrived. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 4_) Page 2 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes February 21, 2008 5. Public Comment – None 6. New Business A. Broadband over power lines (BPL) Update Mr. Dunlap noted he sent articles summarizing the information. BPL is coveted technology, especially in rural areas because the wires to all homes already exist. Testing speeds were similar to DSL and it is widespread in Europe. There is some bad news about deployments in the United States: there are no industry-wide standards, and trials have been mixed. Rochester, Minnesota did a trial, but closed it down. Xcel may develop BPL and Centerpoint Energy has a trial going on and customers in Houston. Commissioner Dworsky suggested contacting Centerpoint and Xcel to see if they are interested in pursuing BPL. Mr. Dunlap noted he would contact staff in Rochester. Vice Chair Jacobson suggested staff attain more information and report back to the Commission. It was moved by Commissioner Dworsky, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to request staff inquire with Xcel, Centerpoint and the City of Rochester on Broadband over power lines and report back to the Commission. The motion passed 6-0 by a roll call vote. B. Data privacy issues, the Data Privacy Act and Comcast information that is public Mr. Dunlap indicated that Comcast would ask a customer for their social security number for identification and the information is available in the billing system with only the last four digits. This complies with State and Federal law. A customer does not have to provide that information and could come up with another code to identify themselves. C. Federal Communications Commission video franchising update Mr. Dunlap stated that the FCC adopted regulations allowing telephone companies to come into markets and build competing video systems. There was no new information since the last meeting. D. State law update and possible resolution supporting Minnesota statute 238 Mr. Dunlap read from the sample resolution supporting the existing State law because the State Legislature is involved in this again. Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Advisors (MACTA) has been working to make sure a State law, similar to those in other states, is not passed to allow a company to get a statewide franchise and redistribute franchise fees. Part of the reason the law had been passed in other states was because it was cheaper and more efficient for the telephone companies that are building new Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 4_) Page 3 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes February 21, 2008 systems in other states, with few restrictions under some detrimental statewide franchises. MACTA believes local cable franchising should be maintained to ensure local needs are met. The Commissioner should consider if they wanted to address the sample resolution and send it forward to the City Council for consideration. It was moved by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to approve the resolution supporting Minnesota Statute 238 and forward it to City Council. The motion passed 6-0 by a roll call vote. E. MACTA Request for Funds to file FCC Comments opposing Qwest forbearance request Mr. Dunlap stated that MACTA had been monitoring an issue that Qwest has asked the FCC for relief from regulations that would impact business providers. Business providers may get phone and Internet services from other providers, but must access those services through Qwest lines. If forbearance is allowed and Qwest has no regulation, they may raise rates to business providers significantly, which makes it harder for them to compete with Qwest. MACTA is requesting Telecomm commissions provide a total of $3,000 to help provide comments to the FCC. The Commission could make a motion expressing City interest in assisting with the process and provide an amount not to exceed $300. Commissioner Peterson asked if that would be statewide for Qwest or Federal? Mr. Dunlap replied it was for Qwest’s petition in Minnesota. Commissioner Peterson asked if it had been granted in other areas? Mr. Dunlap replied AT&T and Verizon requested forbearance in other states and the FCC had denied those requests because of local opposition. Commissioner Peterson asked where the $300 would come from? Mr. Dunlap responded the Commission would make a recommendation to City Council. He could notify MACTA that the Commission was interested in supporting this. It was moved by Commissioner Peterson, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to recommend the City Council pass a Resolution responding to the MACTA Request for Funds to file FCC Comments opposing Qwest forbearance request in an amount not to exceed $300. The motion passed 6-0 by a roll call vote. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 4_) Page 4 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes February 21, 2008 7. Old Business A. Park WiFi update Mr. Dunlap stated there was no new information. The policy is to continue working with ARINC to resolve the situation. ARINC is in default of their contract and the poles would need to be removed at their expense. The Commission will be meeting with City Council in March or April. Mr. McHugh suggested language for the Commission to propose to the City Council that they are willing to explore community connectivity. They could have a sub committee meet with the Chief Information office and find out the options (WiFi hotspots, etc.) The Commission can inquire if the Council wants them to research community connectivity and meet with City staff to come up with findings to present in May. Vice Chair Jacobson noted they should also find out if the Commission should be doing more with their mission statement. Commissioners felt it was appropriate to pursue this issue further. Commissioner Dyer was willing to work on a sub committee. Mr. McHugh noted they would need to get approval from the City Council first. If Commissioners had relevant information, please share it with staff. B. Review of cable company franchise fee audits Mr. Dunlap referred to the handout. Comcast will provide information that relates to City’s oversight of the franchise. The Commission could request information. Commissioner Jacobson suggested this go to City Council. Commissioner Dworsky asked what would be gained on audit versus reviews? Mr. Dunlap replied it was unclear how it would play out. Commissioner Dyer suggested since Comcast took over in 2006, they might be more responsible to wait another year so there was more time to analyze it. Mr. Dunlap noted traditionally it was done in three-year terms. If they waited, they wouldn’t be able to go back to 2005. It was moved by Commissioner Dworsky, seconded by Commissioner Dyer, to direct staff to prepare requests for proposal for a cable television franchise fee audit, at the discretion of City Council to audit or review, for 2005 through 2007. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 4_) Page 5 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes February 21, 2008 The motion passed 6-0 by a roll call vote. C. Park TV & Community TV update Mr. McHugh presented concepts for community TV operation (new logo, promotions of community announcements, programming opportunities in community, promotion for student videos, use of community studio, ad in Park Perspective, Community Education catalog, channel promos for what is playing, example of how channel programming is done, community television has senior video club at Lenox (slpseniors.org), promotion of channel for senior video club, and senior newsletter). He showed an example of camcorders available for use. Mr. Dunlap displayed the Park TV web site (live streaming, schedules, video on demand, cable TV information, Comcast information, federal laws and regulations, franchise information, contact information, etc.). Vice Chair Jacobson commended staff on excellent work. D. Fiber optic ordinance update - None 8. Reports A. Complaints Vice Chair Jacobson commented there seemed to be a misunderstanding from people calling in about the costs. On a national basis, there has been a deregulation of fees and fee structures and cable companies could charge what they wanted and people wouldn’t get notices. Commissioner Dyer noted the complaint about services going in and out and believed that problem was more common with digital service. Mr. Dunlap noted the customer service tech related that issue to the cold weather. Residents should let staff know about issues and they could ask Comcast. Commissioner Peterson noted the complaint report was getting shorter, but problem seemed to drag on. Vice Chair Jacobson believed the escalation team seemed to do well along with the number of customer service representatives and more training. B. 2007 Park TV Programming Report Mr. Dunlap noted there was a memo in the packet with the programming for the summer of 2007. Channel 15 plays the most different programs, 579. On Channel 17, half of the programming is public meetings. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 4_) Page 6 Subject: Telecommunications Advisory Commission Minutes February 21, 2008 9. Communications from the Chair Vice Chair Jacobson felt it was important for people to understand the terms in the technology industry and noted a good source was techweb.com. Comcast produced a monthly magazine of their schedule, which is available for $3-5/month. He thanked staff for their presentation of available services. 10. Communications from City Staff Mr. Dunlap noted Lance Leupold from Comcast indicated Channel 1 would be available soon for video on demand (free and for charge). The Commission will be meeting with City Council in either March or April. He would contact Commissioners for availability. 11. Adjournment Commissioner Dworsky made a motion, Commissioner Peterson seconded to adjourn at 8:28 p.m. The motion passed. Respectfully submitted by: Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 4k Police Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes 7 May 2008 Vice Chair Widmer called the meeting to order at 7:02. Commissioners Present: Joan Barnes, Cindy Hoffman, Dick Markgraf, Justin Noznesky, Jim Smith, Pat Swiderski and Hans Widmer Staff Present: Lieutenant Harcey and Ms. Stegora-Peterson. I. Approval of Minutes Motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Barnes. The minutes were approved. II. Children First Ice Cream Social Commissioner Swiderski stated the Human Rights Commission requested PAC members to help work at a booth for the ice cream social. They will have information about the commissions and kids activities. Lt. Harcey noted the Police Reserves would be at the ice cream social and a Commission presence would be nice. III. Marketing Campaign Development Commissioner Markgraf stated he met with Jamie Zwilling and they discussed working on softening the Police image and creating an informational pamphlet. He would try to create a hand out for the ice cream social. Lt. Harcey showed the HRC flyer as an example of something PAC could do (Commissions role, etc.). Commissioners discussed the type of message they wanted to get across and the tools to use as part of the marketing. There was further discussion about an article sent via Email by Commissioner Widmer and how the St. Louis Park Police Department is already doing many of the things mentioned. They are looking for a “bridge” between the Police Department and the community. Meeting of May 19, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Subject: Police Advisory Commission Minutes May 7, 2008 IV. New Business Commissioner Smith indicated the golf tournament would be held on September 5th at 8 AM. They need to create a flyer and send it to businesses. Commissioners discussed advertising at the Ice Cream Social, Parktacular, National Night Out, via Email distribution, to Rotary members and others. The Police Department has a grill and can grill for the event. Lt. Harcey stated the Police Department is working on Graffiti Net software to track crimes. Work has been completed on the City branding. An Emergency Preparedness exercise is being planned for July 28th at the High School and another at Benilde to test the Emergency Preparedness Center. V. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 PM. Meeting Date: June 2, 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 May 17, 2008 through May 30, 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 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 160.65GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSA&T UPHOLSTERY 160.65 52.26WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT 52.26 1,207.80EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTAAA-LICENSE DIVISION 1,207.80 103.46WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC 124.79SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER 228.25 1,320.60SEASON TICKETS CONCESSION SUPPLIESACTIVE NETWORK LTD 1,320.60 344.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTAD STRATEGIES 344.00 252.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC 252.00 57.43-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSAMERICAN MARKING CORP 941.03WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 883.60 858.34GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSAMERICAN PRESSURE INC 858.34 122.72GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER 146.02PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 53.25PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 48.13ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.52VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 127.19WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 127.17SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 722.00 1,595.07FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESANDERSEN INC, EARL 1,595.07 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 2Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,795.59AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAQUA-PHIN INC 1,795.59 433.76GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS 433.76 50.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TRAININGASSOC OF TRAINING OFFICERS 50.00 3.24-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSAUSTIN HARDWARE & SUPPLY 43.41GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 40.17 25,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWBACHAUS, CHRIS 25,000.00 19.73-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSBARCO PRODUCTS CO 323.23PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 303.50 410.27PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBARTLEY SALES CO 410.27 50.00ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEBEAUPRE, HEATHER 50.00 2,958.58ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS 2,958.58 288.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERG, STEVE 288.00 185.33ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK 185.33 3,285.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBLUE STONE ENGINEERING 3,285.00 602.68EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONBORKEN, AARON 602.68 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 3Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 2,124.04GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSBOYER TRUCK PARTS 2,124.04 276.90PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBRENTS SIGNS AND DISPLAYS 276.90 167.66ENGINEERING BUDGET TRAVEL/MEETINGSBRINK, SCOTT 167.66 3,881.93SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS 3,881.93 185.71REILLY BUDGET EQUIPMENT PARTSCALGON CARBON CORP 13,425.00OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 13,610.71 36.75PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCAMDEN INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 36.74ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.49 1,707.23DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICECARTRIDGE CARE 1,707.23 207.20APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTCDW GOVERNMENT INC 207.20 9,380.75DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT 1,430.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,810.75 6,748.40FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GASCENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN 6,748.40 144.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCHURCHILL, LEE 144.00 34.74WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY 34.74 32.30-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK 3.50ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 4Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 181.88ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 7.23HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.07HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 450.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 75.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING 70.43HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 625.36COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONE 4.28COMM & MARKETING G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 35.00COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 83.02APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE OFFICE EQUIPMENT 26.57FINANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 821.17FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 1,943.68COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 79.99POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 502.67POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 11.79POLICE G & A POSTAGE 213.29POLICE G & A TRAINING 158.00DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,116.65SUPERVISORYSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 156.69SUPERVISORYTRAVEL/MEETINGS 223.24ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 117.54-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 58.00ORGANIZED REC G & A MEETING EXPENSE 151.89ADULT SOFTBALL GENERAL SUPPLIES 457.76WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 412.46YOUTH PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 203.58ARENA MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 359.36AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 14.31VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 422.74VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 155.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS 23.52VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES 849.92GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 5.32BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 10.87-CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 178.16CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2.80CABLE TV G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES .86TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES 348.10HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAINING 10,320.58 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 5Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 2,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGCITY IMAGE COMMUNICATIONS 2,500.00 160.56POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESCMI INC 8.86POLICE G & A POSTAGE 169.42 2,559.00WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOLUMBIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS CO 2,559.00 149.95NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSCOMCAST 149.95 4,296.81PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCOMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY 4,296.81 366.58BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP 366.58 192.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCOX, BARB 192.00 500.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC 500.00 34.17-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCROWN MARKING INC 559.92TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 525.75 223.24POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS 29.35POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 117.18DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 2.67ANIMAL CONTROL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 372.44 474.26ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESCUMMINS NPOWER LLC 474.26 1,272.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESCUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES 1,344.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 584.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,200.00 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 6Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 762.55POLICE G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENTDELAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVIC 762.55 68.56VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLSDELEGARD TOOL CO 68.56 127.50ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC 127.50 662.70POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGEDO-GOOD.BIZ INC 662.70 1.56-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSELIM GROUP 25.56ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 24.00 165.00WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE INC 165.00 1,282.26STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEESS BROTHERS & SONS INC 1,282.26 903.65GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO 903.65 21,257.40TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTFAIR'S NURSERY & LANDSCAPING 21,257.40 43.06PATROLTRAININGFLAHERTY, BRIAN 43.06 266.78GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFORCE AMERICA INC 266.78 39.97HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSEFOSSE, ALI 39.97 2,328.34EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONGARLAND, MIKAEL 2,328.34 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 7Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,141.45WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEGOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 1,141.45 127.94WATER UTILITY G&A OTHERGRAINGER INC, WW 127.94 285.48-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSGRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTR 20,548.79WIRING REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20,263.31 225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESGUNSTAD, MARK 225.00 528.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHAMILTON, MIKE 528.00 12,063.97WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSESHANSEN INFORMATION TECH 736.30-WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 11,327.67 2.28-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHANSON ASSOC INC, RD 37.28OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 35.00 3,278.00NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHARMONY THEATER COMPANY & SCHO 3,278.00 1,201.49AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP 10,146.18WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 11,347.67 54.63GENERAL REPAIR TIRESHEARTLAND DISTRIBUTION LLC 54.63 526.86STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHEDBERG AGGREGATES 526.86 96.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHENDERSON, TRACY 96.00 397.48NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICESHENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 8Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,689.76POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,245.84OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS 3,333.08 951.35POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICEHENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFFS ACCTG 951.35 420.00SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 420.00 1,497.64DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTHEWLETT-PACKARD CO 1,497.64 119.72FABRICATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHIGHWAY TECHNOLOGIES INC 119.72 174.86WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESHIRSHFIELDS 174.86 58.04INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGHOFFMAN, BRIAN 58.04 38.92ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 24.71PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.26BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.07BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 190.64BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 355.60 9.14GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE 9.14 1,000.00ESCROWSGENERALHOWARD, WILLIE 1,000.00 192.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHOWES, KRISTINE 192.00 64,313.00EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTI-STATE TRUCK CENTER 64,313.00 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 9Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,465.50EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESI.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 1,465.50 5.95-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSICE SKATING INST AMERICA 97.45INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 91.50 3,496.92PRINTING/REPRO SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEIKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 3,496.92 11.78WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESINDELCO 11.78 218.33PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESINDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO 521.86WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 740.19 1.81-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSINDIANHEAD WELDING & MACHINE 29.58PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 27.77 562.15FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M 244.93PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 807.08 411.31GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINVER GROVE FORD 411.31 1,089.96EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONJASMER, JERRY 1,089.96 80.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJOHN HENRY FOSTER MN 80.40 3,863.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJT MURAL PAINTING & THEME ARTS 3,863.00 198.00WESTMORELAND HIA LEGAL SERVICESKENNEDY & GRAVEN 198.00 3,975.00WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESKILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC 3,975.00 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 10Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 300.00PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIKRAMER, TAMMY 300.00 119.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEKRUGE-AIR INC 119.00 409.47WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSCO INC 409.47 2,339.82EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESLAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES 2,339.82 439.58GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESLAWSON PRODUCTS INC 439.58 350.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLEAGUE OF MN CITIES 350.00 93,458.50EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l expLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE 93,458.50 22.10-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSLIFEGUARD STORE, THE 362.10AQUATIC PARK G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 340.00 312.48POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESLOFFLER COMPANIES 8.00POLICE G & A POSTAGE 320.48 40,949.81APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICE COMPUTER SERVICESLOGIS 1,525.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES COMPUTER SERVICES 1,740.90APPLICATION SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENT 44,215.71 7,646.81PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLSV METALS INC 7,646.81 5,000.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWLUNDGREN & KENT PAULSON, ADAM 5,000.00 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 11Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 4.52GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMACQUEEN EQUIP CO 2,433.13GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,437.65 209.60ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMALONE, DANIEL 368.80FITNESS CAMPS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 578.40 1,494.44GROUNDS MTCE LANDSCAPING MATERIALSMAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE 2,372.62SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,535.63SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,402.69 101.18PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS 48.51VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS 149.69 70.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMCFOA 70.00 157.45INSTALLATIONSMALL TOOLSMENARDS 9.69PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 62.97WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.41SPRINGGENERAL SUPPLIES 238.52 268.16PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARMERKLEY, SCOTT 268.16 825.00WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEMETROPOLITAN COUNCIL 1,650.00REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 294,271.77OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 1,650.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 298,396.77 31.97DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES OFFICE EQUIPMENTMICRO CENTER 31.97 485.14PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 485.14 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 12Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 28,389.15VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELSMIDWEST FUELS INVER GROVE HEIG 28,389.15 429.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT 429.00 751.63WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIMINNESOTA BOLT & NUT COMPANY 751.63 991.67EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT 991.67 113.41EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA DEPT REVENUE 113.41 1,700.00PATROLTRAININGMINNESOTA HIGHWAY SAFETY & RES 1,700.00 20.00COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TRAININGMINNESOTA SHERIFFS' ASSOC 20.00 221.52WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMINVALCO INC 221.52 139,371.82EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTMONTICELLO FORD MERCURY 139,371.82 238.24GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMORRIE'S MINNETONKA FORD 59.95GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 298.19 3,256.82ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMORRISON & ASSOCIATES INC 3,256.82 5,896.91EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTMTI DISTRIBUTING CO 5,896.91 909.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMVTL LABORATORIES 909.00 12.34GROUNDS MTCE EQUIPMENT PARTSNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO) Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 13Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 9.53PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.00AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 309.75PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 305.05GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 27.34WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 881.01 190.00GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICENATL AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER CO 190.00 1,560.00NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES TRAININGNEW HORIZONS LEARNING CENTER 1,560.00 75.48HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONENEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 162.47EDA / HA REIMBURSEMENT TELEPHONE 633.57POLICE G & A TELEPHONE 602.27OPERATIONSTELEPHONE 271.62ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE 397.27PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE 102.32PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE 424.27ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE 324.71PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE 87.77ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE 296.72WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE 75.48REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL TELEPHONE 85.12VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE 408.81WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 190.42SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 4,138.30 225.46WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESNORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPLY 225.46 65.90INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDINGNORTHLAND HOME EXTERIORS 65.90 128.78STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESO'CONNOR, CHARLES 128.78 174.20ENGINEERING G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEOCE 174.20 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 14Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 235.66HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT 24.43TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 24.43DESKTOP SUPPORT/SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 135.41POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 28.37OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES 19.34INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.87PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 119.47ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 634.98 131.86NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSOFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG 62.86VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONE 4,150.92FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONE 100.02NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TELEPHONE 750.17COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE 5,195.83 280.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM 280.50 9.59GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC 9.59 167.80PORTABLE TOILETS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION 167.80 91.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTPARK NICOLLET CLINIC 91.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 182.00 264.86SUPERVISORYTRAININGPARKER, JON 264.86 570.81SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC 1,235.50PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,806.31 4,095.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPETERSON, BRENT 4,095.00 18.00ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESPETTY CASH Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 15Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 9.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 57.48HUMAN RESOURCES CITE 5.50HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 14.92ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 60.77INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.51INSPECTIONS G & A MEETING EXPENSE 21.32PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 39.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LICENSES 5.00TRAININGSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 9.77PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.61VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 213.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES 1.27GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 2.32WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18.50WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES 36.50SEWER UTILITY G&A LICENSES 541.47 5,139.99ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPHILIP'S TREE CARE INC 264.00WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 5,403.99 5.31GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSPIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO 5.31 41.79INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBINGPLOCHARSKI, JEFF 41.79 25.71-STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSPOLLARDWATER.COM 421.27STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS 395.56 219.92WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603 219.92SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 219.92SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE 219.92STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 879.68 339.20AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEPROFESSIONAL BEVERAGE SYSTEMS 339.20 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 16Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 6,535.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE 6,535.00 36.21BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESPUMP & METER SERVICE 36.21 248.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESQA SPORTS 248.00 1,804.11SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHERQUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 1,804.11 53.72GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSQUEST ENGINEERING INC 53.72 169.31TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESQUILL CORP 169.31 445.65INSPECTIONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRANDY'S SANITATION INC 445.65 412.20TRAININGMEETING EXPENSERARDIN, MICHAEL 412.20 185.23NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESRDJ SPECIALTIES INC 185.23 304.01-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSRECREONICS ETAL 4,981.15AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 4,677.14 248.04STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIREED BUSINESS INFORMATION 248.04 225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESREHKAMP LARSON ARCHITECTS INC 225.00 1,400.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRUDDY, WILLIAM 1,400.00 49.95GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICESAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 49.95 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 17Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSALA ARCHITECTS INC 225.00 290.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSANI-MASTERS INC 290.00 11.69GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSSCHARBER & SONS 11.69 308.00STORM WATER UTILITY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSEH 308.00 169.11VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLSSEVEN CORNERS ACE HDWE 169.11 186.67PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESSIMPLEXGRINNELL LP 186.67PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 186.66VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 560.00 1,318.01EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUESSLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993 1,318.01 163.78ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONESPRINT 56.16COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONE 302.85RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE 104.52FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE 270.16POLICE G & A TELEPHONE 52.26INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE 949.73 40.43PLUMBING MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSPS COMPANIES INC 121.03PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.21WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 193.67 674.28PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 674.28 350.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK FRIENDS OF THE A 350.00 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 18Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 1,667.47PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESST PAUL, CITY OF 1,667.47 62.92ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYSTANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, TH 55.19HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY 15.76COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 43.35TECH & SUPPORT SERVICES G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 19.89ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 73.25FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 114.67COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 18.17FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 125.47POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 79.69OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY 77.18INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 45.37PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 58.05ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 21.18PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 85.00ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 21.18PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17.66ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17.66WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 18.67REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY 18.17VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17.16HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 21.18WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 2,249.57EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 3,276.39 438.00ADULT SOFTBALL GENERAL SUPPLIESSTITCHIN POST 5.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 286.40AQUATIC PARK BUDGET OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 729.40 750.00ESCROWSPMC ESCROWSTOKES, SEAN 750.00 159.96POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S 138.44GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 298.40 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 19Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 175.85GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSSUBURBAN CHEVROLET 2,752.15GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,928.00 3,886.10GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTSUNDE LAND SURVEYING LLC 3,886.10 10.15GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSSWEENEY BROS 10.15 118.68ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC 118.68 229.33ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESTEXSTYLES INTERNATIONAL INC 229.33 210.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTHE WATERS CONSULTING GROUP 210.00 643.70ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 643.70 12,310.63CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDITKDA 12,310.63 1,399.33EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONTOMASKO, MARY 1,399.33 1,170.28GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETRANSMISSION SHOP INC 1,170.28 492.00ADULT SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTRAUTMANN, JOHN 492.00 5,713.73TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENTTREEMENDOUS INC 5,713.73 150.81GARAGE MTCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICETWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 150.81 286.16SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 20Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 640.00SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 226.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,152.16 182.50POLICE G & A REPAIRSUHL CO INC 182.50 2,177.48SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESUNIFORMS UNLIMITED 425.46SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,865.16PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 288.63RESERVESOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 120.00COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 4,876.73 244.50EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA 244.50 110.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS 110.00 20.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTUNPLUGGED CITIES LLC 20.00 14.49WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIESUPS STORE 14.49 3.20-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSUSI INC 52.44ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 49.24 7.36BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESVALLEY NATIONAL GASES WV LLC 7.35GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.36SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 22.07 220.20WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC 220.20 40.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENTVERIFIED CREDENTIALS 40.00 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21 05/28/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 14:07:23R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 21Page -Council Check Summary 05/30/2008 -05/17/2008 Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object 51.25TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR 51.25 19.05-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSVILLAGE CHEVROLET 312.13GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 293.08 67,298.24SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICEWASTE MANAGEMENT 32,075.60SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE 14,766.88SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE 26,076.24SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 15,001.69SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE 155,218.65 46.76GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSWAYTEK 46.76 1,300.12EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITIONWEIGEL, GREG 1,300.12 30,630.40WOLFE LAKE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWOLFE LAKE ASSOCIATION 30,630.40 2,922.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY 20.23BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE 50.19WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,704.08OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE 2,985.07OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE 1,747.15OPERATIONSELECTRIC SERVICE 137.38WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,567.07 99.26PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVESYOCUM OIL CO INC 99.26 Report Totals 1,208,624.36 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22 Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 6a 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: Public Hearing on Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close Public Hearing. Motion to adopt first reading of an ordinance to establish the Westmoreland Hills Owner’s Association Housing Improvement Area and to set Second Reading for June 16, 2008. POLICY CONSIDERATION: State Statute authorizes cities to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The Council adopted the HIA policy in 2001, as a tool to finance the preservation and improvement of existing housing. The Westmoreland Hills HIA proposal meets the intent of city policy. Since 2001 the City has created three HIAs – Cedar Trails Condominium Association in 2002, Sungate One Condominiums in 2006, and Wolfe Lake Condominium in 2007. BACKGROUND: Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association, located at 4530 Park Commons Drive, is a three-story 72 unit building. The building was constructed in 1962 and converted to condominiums in 1980. The units vary in size and features and are 83% owner occupied. The City’s HIA policy requires that only associations where the average unit value is less than or equal to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agencies guideline for first time homebuyers ($298,000 in 2008) can apply for the HIA tool. The value of the Westmoreland units is consistent with the policy, with 2008 estimated market values ranging from the $70,000 to $140,000. The preliminary application was submitted in April 2008, and has been reviewed by staff and the City’s financial advisor, Ehlers and Associates. The Association presented 38 signed petitions, representing 52.8% of the owners, requesting this public hearing (city policy requires petitions from 51% of the owners). Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA Analysis of Application: The following analysis describes how the proposal meets the HIA policy and intentions of the statute. 1. The Association contracted with a third party to conduct a reserve study. The Association has contracted with Multiventure Properties Inc., their property management company for the past five years. The Association, in preparation of the HIA application, had a reserve study conducted by Reserve Advisors, Inc. in 2005. The study includes a physical needs assessment, twenty year capital improvement plan and a financial analysis of the existing and projected financial situation. The Board of Directors had contracted with a firm to compile a scope of work in 2007, and has since contracted with The Collaborative Design Group for architectural services including bidding assistance. The proposed scope of work is based on the physical assessment determination of two firms, the reserve study and discussions with the Board. The membership, Board, and architects have discussed the proposed plans at a full membership meeting and discussion in March and April of 2008. The reserve study indicates that projected association fee increases will meet operational needs and the Association will be capable of funding future improvements with their reserves. 2. Project Costs are reasonable and eligible for use of the HIA. The total construction estimate is $1,000,000. The following improvements are consistent with HIA guidelines in that they are all common area improvements and improvements integral to the operation of the buildings and include: Site Improvements. $94,000. Build accessory storage building. Replace retaining wall. Remove wood pool deck. Renovate privacy walls. Replace awning. Landscape improvements & install irrigation as budget allows. Parking lot - replace wheel stops and signage. Building Exterior. $473,000. Replace windows and patio doors, & remove patio door guardrails. Repair fixed windows. Replace exterior trim, repair stucco, and clean exterior. Replace south entrance design feature & siding. Replace downspouts & attachments. Paint exterior trim and seal joints. Building Interiors. $98,000. Replace carpeting, wall coverings, furniture and artwork. Paint and stain. Renovate saunas and toilets. Replace signage, mail boxes, lockers, and mail drop. Elevator. $88,000. Renovate and modernize to comply with 2007 state standard. Mechanical. $15,000. Repair/renovate the air conditioner and bath exhaust ducting. Electrical. $40,000. Replace and renovate exterior & interior lighting. Renovate car engine heater connections. Replace smoke detectors. Contingency. $73,000. General Contractor Costs $119,000. Permits, GC conditions, letter of credit, fee & profit. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA 3. Estimated Cost of Improvements to be paid in whole or in part by Housing Improvement Fee: $1,026,125 including $11,500 for city admin and legal fees, financial advisor and inspecting architect as well as $14,625 for capitalized interest. The above estimates are based on bids that have been received and reviewed by Collaborative Design Group, Inc, the project architect, and the Association Board and membership. The proposed loan would be $1,026,125 and would cover construction and soft costs as noted in the following table. The loan would include the fee to be paid to the City along with funds to cover the City’s legal and advisory costs. Table 1. Project Costs Westmoreland Hills HIA Project Costs Construction Costs $1,000,000 City Admin Fee $5,000 Legal Fees $2,500 Financial Advisor $3,000 Construction Oversight $1,000 Capitalized Interest $14,625 Total $1,026,125 3. The HIA meets City Goals The proposed improvements meet the City goals in that they will upgrade the existing housing stock in a neighborhood, stabilize the owner-occupancy level within the association, and preserve existing affordable housing stock. 4. The Association’s Process and Timeline meets requirements. The Association’s communication regarding the HIA has been ongoing since April 2005. • Staff met with the Board and members to discuss the HIA tool and process at three meetings during the preliminary process. • The membership meeting in March of 2006 resulted in an owner survey regarding financing common area improvements. Two-thirds of the owners responded that they favored financing between $600,000 – 1,000,000 for improvements. In addition to the survey, the scope of work and financing were discussed at the Annual meetings in 2006, 2007 and again in 2008. At a meeting in March 2008, forty percent of the owners were present and indicated support of the HIA designation from the City. This meeting is a requirement of City policy. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 4 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA • Petitions have been signed by just over 52.8% (38) of the owners and a public hearing is scheduled for June 2, 2008. According to city policy and statutory requirements, the only time in which a city may implement an HIA is when Association members petition the city to do so. State Statute requires that 25% of the owners sign petitions, while City policy requires petitions from a majority of the owners. • Construction is proposed to begin in July/August 2008 and complete in same year. 5. The HIA financing is necessary for this project. The Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association applied for credit from M&I, TCF and Wells Fargo Bank. Their requests were rejected based on insufficient collateral and large amount requested. The HIA is designed to be a last resort finance tool for associations. It is also designed to address obstacles some associations confront when applying for financing. • The City will lend the money to the association and be repaid by the owners, through their property tax payments. • The City’s risk is minimal compared to a private lender as property taxes are in the first position over any other mortgage encumbrances on the property. The actual delinquency rate for past HIA’s is very low, consistent with delinquency rating of single family homes. • The HIA provides affordable payment options, averaging approximately $127/month. This payment will still allow association fees to increase gradually to ensure adequate funds for operation and long term maintenance. 6. Fees and Loan Term. The average fee per unit will be $14,250 with an annual cost per unit of $1,525 including interest, payable over 15 years. Owners will be allowed to prepay the full amount without interest until November 19, 2008 at which time the fee information will be provided to the County for certification. Owners opting to make a 15 year repayment will begin payments with the 2009 property tax payments. It is interesting to note that forty percent of the Cedar Trails owners, twenty-five percent of the Sungate One owners, and sixteen percent of Wolfe Lake owners opted to prepay the fee amount. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 5 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA Table 2. Loan Terms Project Costs $1,000,000 Capitalized Interest $14,625 Soft Costs $11,500 Total Loan Amount $1,026,125 Term (years) 15 Interest Rate 5.85% Average Annual Debt Service $104,620 Required Coverage (105%) $109,851 Total Units 72 Cost/Unit - Annual $1,525 Cost/Unit - Monthly (Average) $127 Average Assessment - Per/Unit $14,250 Next Steps: • June 16, 2008, second reading of the ordinance; consider adoption of ordinance and resolution and EDA Loan Resolution. • Staff will continue to work with the Association Board, Kennedy & Graven and Ehlers & Associates to finalize a Development Agreement and Internal Loan Fund Resolution. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed HIA would result in the City lending Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association $1,026,125. The loan to the association would be an internal loan, using City/EDA Development Funds, rather than issuing bonds. The use of the Development Fund for the internal loan meets the Fund’s policy criteria. An internal loan resolution will be drafted to formalize the arrangement. The City’s Finance Director and City Assessor are involved in structuring the loan and ensuring assessment procedures are followed. A Development Agreement with the Association will ensure that the loan is secured by Association Assets, defined as dues, fees, assessments and other income owing to the Association from unit owners. Fees will be payable with property taxes beginning in 2009. Owners will have the option to prepay prior to the fees being assessed and avoid interest costs. The HIA loan actually earns money for the City in that the interest on the loan, 5.85%, is higher than interest that would be realized on the money if the city invested the money in approved city investments. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 6 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA VISION CONSIDERATION: The proposed Westmoreland Hills Owners’ HIA improvements are consistent with Vision St. Louis Park and the Strategic Directions adopted by the City Council: “St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock”. The HIA tool addresses affordably valued, aging owner-occupied townhouse and condominium housing stock. The proposed improvements specifically address the focus of property maintenance to foster quality housing and community aesthetics. The proposed improvements also preserve affordable single-family home ownership by making the improvements affordable using a low interest long-term loan. Attachments: HIA Ordinance HIA Resolution (for reference only) Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 7 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA ORDINANCE NO. ____-08 ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE WESTMORELAND HILLS OWNERS’ HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21. BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2001. 1.03. The City has determined a need to establish the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area as further defined herein, in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "Westmoreland Hills Owners Association’” all in accordance with the Housing Improvement Area policy. 1.04. The City has consulted with the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association (the “Condominium Association”) and with residents in the proposed Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area regarding the establishment of the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area and the housing improvements to be constructed and financed under this ordinance. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The Council finds that, in accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 25 percent of the housing units within the proposed Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding establishment of such housing improvement area. 2.02. The Council has on June 2, 2008, conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this ordinance, at which all persons, including owners of property within the proposed Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard. 2.03. The Council finds that, without establishment of the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter defined) could not be made by the condominium association for, or the housing unit owners in, the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 8 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA 2.04. The Council further finds that designation of the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within such area. 2.05 The City will be the implementing entity for the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area and the improvement fee. 2.06 The Council finds that the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing. The Condominium Association presented evidence to the Council adequate to demonstrate that these criteria were met, including presentation to the Council of the petitions described in 2.01 above. Section 3. Housing Improvement Area Defined. 3.01. The Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area is hereby defined as the area of the City legally described in Exhibit A. 3.02. The Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area contains 72 housing units as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, along with garage units and common areas. Section 4. Housing Improvements Defined. 4.01. For the purposes of this ordinance and the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area, the term "Housing Improvements" shall mean the following improvements to housing units, garages, and common areas within the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area: Site Improvements. Build accessory storage building. Replace retaining wall. Remove wood pool deck. Renovate privacy walls. Replace awning. Landscape improvements & install irrigation. Parking lot - replace wheel stops and signage. Building Exterior. Replace windows and patio doors, & remove patio door guardrails. Repair fixed window. Replace exterior trim, repair stucco, and clean exterior. Replace south entrance design feature & siding. Replace downspouts & attachments. Paint exterior trim and seal joints. Building Interiors. Replace carpeting, wall coverings, furniture and artwork. Paint and stain. Renovate saunas, toilets and elevator. Replace signage, mail boxes, lockers, and mail drop. Mechanical. Renovate the air conditioner and bath exhausts. Electrical . Replace and renovate exterior & interior lighting. Renovate car engine heater connections. Replace smoke detectors. 4.02. Housing Improvements shall also be deemed to include: (a) all costs of architectural and engineering services in connection with the activities described in Section 4.01; Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 9 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA (b) all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area; and (c) costs of arranging financing for the Housing Improvements under the Housing Improvement Act; and (d) interest on the internal loan as described in Sections 5.04 and 6.01. Section 5. Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. The City may, by resolution adopted in accordance with the petition, hearing and notice procedures required under Section 428A.14 of the Act, impose a fee on the housing units within the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area, at a rate, term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to provide the Housing Improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee"), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section. 5.02. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed on the basis of each owned housing unit’s Percent of Undivided Interest in Common Areas and Facilities, as described in Exhibit B to Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements of Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association dated as of July 28, 1980. 5.03. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater than 15 years after the first installment is due and payable. 5.04. Housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in accordance with the terms specified in the resolution imposing the fee. 5.05. The Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the resolution setting the Housing Improvement Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution. Section 6. Housing Improvement Area Loan. 6.01. At any time after a contract with the Condominium Association for construction of all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the period for prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee has expired as described in Section 5.04 hereof, the Council may begin disbursement to the Condominium Association of the proceeds of an internal loan (the “loan”) of available City funds in the principal amounts necessary to finance the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together with administrative costs. 6.02. The City may refinance the loan or any unpaid portion of the loan at any time by issuing bonds secured by Housing Improvement Fees, as outlined by Section 428A.16 of the Act. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 10 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA Section 7. Annual Reports. 7.01. On October 1, 2009, and each October 1, thereafter until there are no longer any outstanding obligations issued under the Act in connection with the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area, Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association (and any successor in interest) shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of the condominium association's audited financial statements. 7.02. The Condominium Association (and any successor in interest) shall also submit to the City any other reports or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into between that entity and the City. Section 8. Notice of Right to File Objections. 8.01. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 35 percent of the housing units within the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 9. Amendment. 9.01. This ordinance may be amended by the Council upon compliance with the public hearing and notice requirements set forth in Section 428A.13 of the Act. Section 10. Effective Date. 10.1. This ordinance shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof. Read, approved and adopted and ordered published at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park on June 16, 2008. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 11 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA EXHIBIT A TO ORDINANCE NO. ____-08 Legal description Unit Legal Description 101 Apartment No. 101, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 102 Apartment No. 102, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 103 Apartment No. 103, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 104 Apartment No. 104, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 105 Apartment No. 105, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 106 Apartment No. 106, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 107 Apartment No. 107, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 108 Apartment No. 108, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 109 Apartment No. 109, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 110 Apartment No. 110, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 111 Apartment No. 111, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 112 Apartment No. 112, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 113 Apartment No. 113, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 114 Apartment No. 114, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 115 Apartment No. 115, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 116 Apartment No. 116, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 117 Apartment No. 117, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 118 Apartment No. 118, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 119 Apartment No. 119, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 120 Apartment No. 120, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 121 Apartment No. 121, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 122 Apartment No. 122, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 123 Apartment No. 123, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 124 Apartment No. 124, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 201 Apartment No. 201, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 202 Apartment No. 202, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 203 Apartment No. 203, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 204 Apartment No. 204, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 205 Apartment No. 205, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 206 Apartment No. 206, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 207 Apartment No. 207, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 208 Apartment No. 208, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 209 Apartment No. 209, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 210 Apartment No. 210, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 211 Apartment No. 211, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 212 Apartment No. 212, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 213 Apartment No. 213, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 214 Apartment No. 214, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 215 Apartment No. 215, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 216 Apartment No. 216, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 217 Apartment No. 217, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 218 Apartment No. 218, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 219 Apartment No. 219, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 220 Apartment No. 220, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 221 Apartment No. 221, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 222 Apartment No. 222, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 223 Apartment No. 223, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 224 Apartment No. 224, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 301 Apartment No. 301, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 302 Apartment No. 302, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 12 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA 303 Apartment No. 303, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 304 Apartment No. 304, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 305 Apartment No. 305, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 306 Apartment No. 306, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 307 Apartment No. 307, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 308 Apartment No. 308, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 309 Apartment No. 309, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 310 Apartment No. 310, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 311 Apartment No. 311, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 312 Apartment No. 312, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 313 Apartment No. 313, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 314 Apartment No. 314, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 315 Apartment No. 315, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 316 Apartment No. 316, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 317 Apartment No. 317, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 318 Apartment No. 318, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 319 Apartment No. 319, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 320 Apartment No. 320, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 321 Apartment No. 321, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 322 Apartment No. 322, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 323 Apartment No. 323, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. 324 Apartment No. 324, Apartment Ownership No. 238, Westmoreland Hills Condominium, located in Hennepin County. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 13 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK RESOLUTION NO. 08-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING A HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FEE FOR THE WESTMORELAND HILLS OWNERS’ HOUSING IMPROVEMENT AREA PURSUANT TO MINNESOTA STATUTES, SECTIONS 428A.11 to 428A.21. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park ("City") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The St. Louis Park City Council (“Council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2001. 1.03. By Ordinance No. ______ adopted on the date hereof (the "Enabling Ordinance"), the Council has established the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as the "Westmoreland Hills Owners Association", all in accordance with the Housing Improvement Area policy. 1.04. In accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act, owners of at least 25 percent of the housing units within the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding imposition of a housing improvement fee for the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area. 1.05. The Council has on June 2, 2008 conducted a public hearing, duly noticed in accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, regarding adoption of this resolution at which all persons, including owners of property within the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area, were given an opportunity to be heard. 1.06 The Council finds that the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area meets each of the approval criteria contained in the Housing Improvement Area Policy (listed as 5.01A- 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the condominium association owners support the project and the Housing Improvement Area financing. 1.07. Prior to the date hereof, Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association (the "Condominium Association") has submitted to the City a financial plan prepared Reserve Advisors, Inc., an independent third party, acceptable to the City and the Condominium Association, that provides for the Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 14 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA Condominium Association to finance maintenance and operation of the common elements in the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, all in accordance with Section 428A.14 of the Act. 1.08. For the purposes of this Resolution, the terms "Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings provided in the Enabling Ordinance. Section 2. Housing Improvement Fee Imposed. 2.01. The City hereby imposes a fee on each housing unit within the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area (the "Housing Improvement Fee"), as specified in Exhibit A attached hereto, which Housing Improvement Fee is imposed on the basis of each housing unit’s Percent of Undivided Interest in Common Areas and Facilities, as described in Exhibit B to Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements of Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Association dated as of July 28, 1980, and as shown under the heading Percentage Ownership in that Exhibit. 2.02. The owner of any housing unit in the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area may prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in total and without interest thereon between the effective date of this resolution and November 19, 2008. The amount of the prepayment is shown under the headings Total Prepayment Fee in Exhibit A. After November 19, 2008, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed on an annual basis as described in 2.03, and housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the outstanding principal portion, with accrued interest at the rate of 5.85%, on any date. If a prepayment is made by November 20of 2009 or any subsequent year, the amount must include interest on the outstanding principal portion of the fee through the end of that calendar year. If a prepayment is made after November 20 of 2009 or any subsequent year, the amount must include interest through the end of the following calendar year. Partial prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must be made to the City Treasurer. 2.03. If the Total Prepayment Fee is not paid between the effective date of this resolution and November 19, 2008, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in the amount shown under the heading Annual Fee in Exhibit A. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed in equal installments, beginning in 2009, for a period no greater than 15 years after the first installment is due and payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total Housing Improvement Fee. Interest shall begin to accrue on January 1, 2009 at an annual interest rate of 5.85% percent per annum. The Annual Fee shall be structured such that estimated collection of the Annual Fee will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Housing Improvement Fee. 2.04. Unless prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and November 19, 2008, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.15 and 428A.05. As set forth therein, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included in the calculation of levies or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 15 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA 2.05 A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. Section 3. Notice of Right to File Objections. 3.01. Within five days after the adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area: a summary of this Resolution; notice that owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this Resolution if owners of at least 35 percent of the housing units within the Westmoreland Hills Owners’ Housing Improvement Area file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this Resolution; and notice that a copy of this Resolution is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This Resolution shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof. Section 5. Filing of Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. The City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with a final update of Exhibit A hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax lists of the county for taxes payable in 2009 and thereafter. Approved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park this 16th day of June, 2008. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 16 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 08-____ Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 17 Subject: Public Hearing Westmoreland Hills HIA Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 6b 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: 7200 Cedar Lake Road – Utility Easement Vacation. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an Ordinance approving the vacation of a storm sewer easement at 7200 Cedar Lake Road, and setting the second reading of the proposed ordinance for June 16, 2008. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None. The storm sewer would be relocated by the developer during construction, and a new easement would be dedicated. The ordinance requires the developer to grant the new easement before the vacation can be filed with Hennepin County. BACKGROUND: Net Lease Development, LLC is requesting the vacation of a storm sewer easement to permit the construction of a Walgreens pharmacy with a drive-through. In May 2008, Council approved a Conditional Use Permit and Variance for the drive-through for Net Lease Development, LLC to allow the construction of a Walgreens store with drive-through service and a small adjacent retail business. The site is adjacent to Fire Station #2. The proposed redevelopment would not impair the City’s future use of Fire Station #2. The current easement serves City-owned storm sewer infrastructure. The City Engineer and Utility Superintendent have reviewed the applicant’s request and have no objections. The cost of relocating the storm sewer infrastructure would be borne by Net Lease Development. During the relocation process, engineering staff would be present to ensure that the new utilities are constructed to the required standards. Prior to filing the vacation, a new easement would be filed with the County to ensure permanent access to the relocated infrastructure. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6b) Page 2 Subject: 7200 Cedar Lake Road – Vacation VISION CONSIDERATION: None Attachments: Ordinance – Vacation Site Survey with Easement to be Vacated Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke. Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6b) Page 3 Subject: 7200 Cedar Lake Road – Vacation ORDINANCE NO. _____-08 ORDINANCE VACATING A UTILITY EASEMENT 7200 Cedar Lake Road THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the easement proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on May 22, 2008 and the City Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the utility easement is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said utility easement be vacated. Section 2. The following described utility easement as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: DESCRIPTION OF PARCEL OVER WHICH EASEMENT IS TAKEN: Lot 9, HOME ADDITION TO ST. LOUIS PARK, according to the recorded plat thereof, EXCEPT the south 7.00 feet thereof, and EXCEPT the north 87.10 feet front and rear of that part of said Lot 9, which lies easterly of a line drawn parallel with the east line of said Lot 9, from a point on the north line of said Lot 9 distant 150.00 feet west from the northeast corner of said Lot 9. DESCRIPTION OF EASEMENTS: An easement for storm sewer and sump purposes over, under, and across the north 10.00 feet of the above-described parcel. Together with a 20.00 foot storm sewer and sump easement over, under, and across the above described parcel. The centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 9; thence on an assumed bearing of North 89 degrees 51 minutes 35 seconds East along the north line of said Lot 9, a distance of 10.50 feet to the point of beginning of the centerline to be described; thence South 0 degrees 47 minutes 44 seconds East to a distance of 130.80 feet; thence South 0 degrees 19 minutes 18 seconds East a distance of 100.03 feet; thence South 76 degrees 20 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 81.89 feet; thence North 83 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East a distance of 56.99 feet and said centerline there terminating. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6b) Page 4 Subject: 7200 Cedar Lake Road – Vacation Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Sec.4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon relocation of the storm sewer and the recording of a new easement serving the relocated storm sewer, but not less than fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 6b) Subject: 7200 Cedar Lake Road - Vacation Page 5 Meeting Date: June 2, 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: Minor Amendment to Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Methodist Hospital Campus. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approval of a PUD Minor Amendment for the Methodist Hospital Campus at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard, subject to conditions, to allow a 3,590 square foot addition to the emergency center. Staff prepared a resolution that includes all the conditions from the 2003 PUD approval and 2007 PUD amendments. New conditions relating to the emergency center addition are underlined. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The emergency center remodeling project includes a 4,840-square foot building expansion, and remodeling 33,335 square feet of the existing building. The project includes demolition of the existing ambulance garage, which results in a net building area increase of 3,590 square feet. The building expansion will be under the existing ambulance canopy and roof structures. The current patient entry will remain in the same location, and the ambulance entry will move east as part of the new exterior wall. BACKGROUND: In 2003, Park Nicollet prepared a General Development Plan for the Methodist Hospital campus that described short-term and long-term plans for expansion. The City approved the General Development Plan Phase II (longer-term) improvements in concept only. In 2007, Park Nicollet proceeded with another phase of construction for the Frauenshuh Cancer Center and a parking ramp. Park Nicollet worked closely with Brooklawns neighborhood representatives on the plans for both projects. Also in 2003, the City completed an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW), which analyzed a potential hospital building area of 1,235,927 square feet. This included approximately 209,000 square feet of building additions for Phase I and 217,000 square feet with Phase II proposed in the General Development Plan. Park Nicollet has since completed all but 60,000 square feet of the Phase I improvements, and 77,000 square feet of Phase II is under construction. Park Nicollet still proposes to keep the total campus building area below the area analyzed in the EAW; however, it has modified the timing and amount of expansion of each phase. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital Existing Conditions Zoning R-C High Density Multi-Family Residential Floodway and Flood Fringe Comprehensive Plan Office PUD Size 38.1 Acres Current Use Hospital/Clinic Gross Building Area 1,035,927 square feet Building Height 8 stories (existing hospital building only) Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) 0.58 Ground Floor Area Ratio (G.F.A.R.) 0.11 Parking – Automobile On-site 2,589 Off-site* 538 Total 3,127 (144 ADA) Parking – Bicycle 121 stalls ZONING ANALYSIS: The proposed new construction meets all the requirements of the Zoning Code and RC Zoning District. This relatively small project does not expand the rooftop of the building, and it is consistent with the Methodist Hospital Campus General Development Plan. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital Compliance Table Factor RC District Requirement Allowed by PUD Proposed Met? Use Hospital/Clinic Hospital/Clinic Hospital/Clinic Yes Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. n/a 38.1 ac. Yes Height 6 stories or 75 ft. No maximum, if consistent with Comprehensive Plan The proposed expansion is underneath the existing roof structure. Yes Building Materials 60% Class I materials on each building elevation 100% Class I materials, including brick and glass Yes Off-Street Parking (Automobile) 2,674 stalls (40 ADA) with 10% transit reduction 15% reduction allowed, but not requested On-site 2,591 Off-site* 538 Total 3,129 (146 ADA) Yes Off-Street Parking (Bicycle) 266 stalls 121 stalls total, plus 145 proof-of-parking stalls Yes Front/South: 30 ft. No yard required Front/South: n/a Setbacks – Front/Rear Rear/North: 25 ft. No yard required Rear/North: n/a Side/West: 28 ft. No yard required Side/West: n/a Setbacks – Side/Side Side/East: 33 ft. No yard required Side/East: 139 ft.+ (new 1st floor) 80 ft. (existing 2nd floor) Yes Floor Area Ratio 1.20 Limited by height, GFAR 0.58 Yes Ground Floor Area Ratio 0.25 5% increase 0.11 Yes Trees No additional trees required No new tree plantings provided Yes Shrubs No additional shrubs required 75 shrubs, 156 perennials Yes Mechanical Equipment Screened Enclosed in a pre-finished metal penthouse Yes Sidewalks Required along all streets and building frontages Existing, and project will close a gap in the campus sidewalk network Yes Refuse Full screening Provided Yes Transit Service None required Frequent operating transit service on Route 12, including limited service directly into the site on Routes 12C, 12X, and 604 Yes Stormwater Required Provided Yes *Proposed automobile parking total excludes the Purple and Gold remote parking lots that Park Nicollet does not anticipate using regularly, but for which they have long-term leases. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital Architectural Design The building materials will be brick and glass to match the existing building. The project will add new rooftop mechanical equipment that will meet screening requirements. Landscaping The plan provides new shrub and perennial plantings along the edges of the parking lot and driveway in the area being disturbed by this project. Drainage, Grading and Utilities Floodplain: Although a portion of the property is within the floodway and flood fringe zones, the proposed project first floor elevation is above the regulatory flood elevation. Utilities: The sanitary sewer, water main and storm sewer are adequate to serve the facility. Lighting The proposed lighting plan meets City Code requirements. However, the existing parking lot lighting on the north side of the site does not conform to current City Code requirements. The PUD requires replacement of the existing lighting by November 17, 2009 to eliminate direct illumination and glare onto neighboring properties. Signage The plan does not propose new signs. PUD MODIFICATIONS: Park Nicollet is not requesting any PUD modifications (elements that stray from typical RC District requirements) for the emergency center addition. PROCESS: This proposal requires a Minor Amendment to the PUD. It does not require a public hearing or mailed notice to adjacent property owners. City Council may approve PUD Minor Amendments by resolution. Park Nicollet and City staff met with Brooklawns residents on April 22, 2008 to explain the project and understand neighbors’ concerns. Three neighbors attended. Concerns included: Lighting, including increased light due to more windows closer to the neighborhood Response: The photometric plan supplied with the plan meets City Code. The exterior lighting fixtures are downcast and should not cause any problems with glare. Traffic noise and noise impact due to proposed changes in Emergency Center vehicle traffic flow (changes in entrance or exit locations). Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital Response: The project will not increase traffic and is consistent with the General Development Plan effort to divert traffic to the Blue and Orange ramps on either end of the campus. The driveway between the north and south ends of the campus becomes a secondary connection. The traffic impacts of parking lot and driveway changes should be imperceptible. Security / surveillance of odd activity that randomly occurs near the neighborhood fence next to the Emergency Entrance. Response: Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital security will monitor the area. Pedestrian safety adjacent to the driveway near Emergency Center area Response: The proposed sidewalk closes a gap in the campus sidewalk network, provides some separation from vehicular traffic, and improves the existing condition for pedestrians. Currently, pedestrians walk through the grass or in the drive lane. However, the sidewalk design is not ideal. The proposed sidewalk is five-feet wide, located at the back of the curb, and has four light poles obstructions. "Square footage creep" of overall campus: The neighborhood requests that the proposed 5,000- square foot Emergence Center expansion come out of the total square footage available for future campus expansion per the existing PUD, and not to add another 5,000 square feet to the overall allowance, in this new minor amendment. Response: The net 3,590 square feet building expansion counts toward the 1,235,927 square feet studied in the 2003 EAW. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the project consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Methodist Hospital Campus General Development Plan? FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 6 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachments: Resolution Images of Proposed Building Addition General Development Plan Demolition Plan Site Plan Landscape Plan Existing Floor Plan Proposed Floor Plan Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 7 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital RESOLUTION NO.08-____ Amends and Restates Resolution Nos. 03-174, 07-083 and 07-165 RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NOS. 03- 174, 07-083 AND 07-165 ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 17, 2003, AUGUST 6, 2007, AND DECEMBER 17, 2007 RESPECTIVELY AND APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO THE EMERGENCY CENTER FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-C MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 6500 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD METHODIST HOSPITAL WHEREAS, Park Nicollet Health Services has made application to the City Council for a Minor Amendment to a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance code to allow for an addition to the emergency center at 6500 Excelsior Boulevard within a R-C Multi-Family Residential Zoning District having the following legal description: Par 1: That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 20, Township 117, Range 21, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter, thence North to a point 90 feet South of the South line of Calhoun Street, thence West parallel with the South line of Calhoun Street and the same extended, to a point 111 feet West of the East line of Section 20, the actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing West on said parallel line to the West line of Mount St., extended; thence North along said line and the West line of Mound St. 202.5 feet; thence West parallel with the extension of the South line of Calhoun St., 644.9 feet to the Southeasterly line of right of way of the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Co.; thence Southwesterly along said right of way line to the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section; thence South to the Southwest Corner of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence East along the South line of said Northeast Quarter of Northeast Quarter of said Section to the point of intersection with a line running parallel with the East line of said Section from the actual point of beginning; thence North along said parallel line to the actual point of beginning. Par 2: The Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter that part of the North 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter which lies North of the center line of Excelsior Boulevard, Section 20, Township 117, Range 21 excepting there from that part which lies East of a line described as follows: Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 8 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital Commencing at a point on the East line of said Section 90 feet South of the South line of Calhoun Street; thence West parallel with the South line of Calhoun Street and the same extended to a point 111 feet West of the East line of said Section the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South parallel with the East line of Section 20 to the center line of Excelsior Boulevard and except that part lying Southerly and Westerly of a line drawn from a point in the West line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 425 feet South of the Northwest corner thereof to a point in the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter distant 480 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof; thence along said line projected Southeasterly to the intersection with a line drawn 411 feet West of, measured at a right angle to and parallel with the East line of the North 1/2 of the Southeast Quarter; thence South along last said parallel line to the center line of Excelsior Boulevard and there terminating. Subject to a power line easement over a strip of land 35 feet in width as set forth in the record, Book 1045 of Deeds, page 41, the center line of which strip was described as follows, to wit: Beginning at a point 17 1/2 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Section 20, thence North parallel to East section line and equidistant therefrom to the South line of Excelsior Boulevard sometimes called Hopkins Road; thence Northwesterly to a point on the North line of said Excelsior Boulevard 128 1/2 feet West of said East section line; thence North and parallel to said section line to a point 128 1/2 feet West of said Section line and 14 feet South of the South line of said Lot 14, Block 78, in the Village of St. Louis Park all as shown by plat on file herein of which a certified copy shall be filed with the Registrar of Titles. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 07- 07-054-PUD, 07-25-PUD, 03-44-PUD, and 03-61-VAR and the effect of the proposed building addition on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, a Final Planned Unit Development (Final PUD) with variances from sign requirements was approved regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 03-174 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated November 17, 2003 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the information related to Planning Case No. 07- 25-PUD and the effect of the proposed building addition and parking structure on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 9 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council approved a Major Amendment to a Final PUD pursuant to Resolution No. 07-083 dated August 6, 2007 to allow a 77,000 square foot Cancer Center building addition and five-level parking structure which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park City Council approved a Minor Amendment to a Final PUD pursuant to Resolution No. 07-165 dated December 17, 2007 to allow relocation of the helistop which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that Final PUD; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of Resolution Nos. 03-174, 07-083 and 07-165, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; and WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 08-19-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution Nos. 03-174, 07-083 and 07- 165 are hereby restated and amended by this resolution, which continues and amends a Final Planned Unit Development to the subject property for an addition to the emergency center described above based on the following conditions: A. Variance from sign ordinance requirements to allow additional sign area, permit the exemption of on-site private directional signs in excess of 4 square feet, a 1-foot sign setback, and two signs per street frontage is approved based on the following findings: 1. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property and no not apply generally to other land or structure in the district in which such land is located. 2. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which property is situated, or be contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The granting of the variance is necessary to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 10 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital 5. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonable increase the congestion in the public streets, increase danger of fire, or endanger the public safety. B. The sign variances are granted based upon the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. Illuminated signage, excluding emergency signs, shall be prohibited on the on the east elevation of the ramp and of the hospital. 2. The variance excludes a 208 square foot wall sign on the east elevation and reduces a 157.5 wall sign on the east elevation to a maximum of 60 square feet. 3. The variances approve a maximum of 1500 square feet of total sign area, two wall signs 376 square foot each, and a maximum of 304.5 square feet for monument identification signs. C. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the following Official Exhibits, which shall be amended prior to signing to meet the conditions of Final PUD approval: Exhibit A – General Development Plan Exhibit B – Existing Site Conditions (C1.1 & C1.2) Exhibit C – Demolition Plan (C1.3) Exhibit D – Phase I Site Plan (C2.1) Exhibit E – Site Plan (C2.2 & C2.3) Exhibit F – Grading & Erosion Control Plan (C3.1 & C3.2) Exhibit G – Utility Plan (C4.1) Exhibit H – Site Lighting Plan (E2.1) Exhibit I – Tree Removal Plan (L1.1) Exhibit J – Landscape Plan (L2.1 & L2.2) Exhibit K – Exterior Elevations (A301, A302, A301P, A302 & Colored Renderings) Exhibit L – Sign Plan Exhibit M – Cross Sections (XXX) D. Final PUD approval and development is contingent upon developer meeting all conditions of final approval including all Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and Hennepin County requirements. E. Prior to any site work, the developer shall meet the following requirements: 1. A copy of the Watershed District permit shall be forwarded to the City. 2. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained (i.e. Hennepin County). 3. Sign assent form and Final PUD official exhibits, as revised to eliminate valet parking stalls and meet all condition of Final PUD approval. 4. Obtain the required demolition permit, erosion control permits, utility permits and other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions. 5. A development agreement shall be executed between the developer and the City, which covers at a minimum, sidewalk construction and maintenance, repair and cleaning of public streets, construction conditions, off site infrastructure improvements and cost share formulas, off-site parking, and criteria for Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 11 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital administrative amendments to the PUD. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute this agreement. 6. Submit financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of sidewalk installation and repair/cleaning of public streets, and tree replacement. 7. Reimbursement of City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents. 8. Tree protection fencing must be installed and maintained throughout construction. 9. A parking agreement must be recorded prohibiting the applicant assigning their parking lease to another entity. F. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional requirements, the developer shall comply with the following: 1. Meet any Fire Department emergency access requirements for during construction. 2. Building materials samples/colors shall be submitted to and approved by City. 3. An irrigation plan meeting the ordinance regulations shall be submitted to and approved by the Zoning Administrator. 4. Revised ramp elevations showing a 5-foot architectural (brick) wall on the east side or an equivalent alternative, and additional brick on the west side in keeping with other elevations and elimination of cable per Chief Building Official shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. G. A PUD ordinance modification to allow the existing hospital building to be 8 stories rather than the required 6 as shown on the signed official exhibits is contingent upon final PUD approval. H. A PUD ordinance modification to allow the 6 story/74 foot (elevation 974 feet) tall Heart & Vascular Center to include 18 foot tall penthouse for mechanical equipment (total building and penthouse height of 92 feet, elevation of 992 feet 1 ½ inches) is contingent upon final PUD approval and approval of exterior materials. I. Methodist’s campus design should generally adhere to the principles set forth in the November 10, 2003 design plan document. J. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: 1. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. 2. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. 3. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. 4. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. 5. The developer or owner shall provide temporary sidewalks as needed during construction to meet Public Works Department and Metro Transit’s requirements and the Excelsior Blvd access and north-south roadway shall remain open as needed to provide adequate transit service. 6. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 12 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital K. The usable floor area of the Heart & Vascular Center is limited to no more than 6 stories (192,950sq. ft) as shown on the official exhibits. The 13,500 sq. ft. penthouse may only be used to store mechanical equipment. L. The parking ramp may have no more than 500 parking spaces and four levels, two above ground level with a maximum elevation of 925 feet 4 inches (or 23.42 feet) including a 42 inch safety rail. A 3 foot high parapet screen wall is permitted on top of safety rail and is required along the north, south and east elevation of the ramp. M. The applicant shall require delivery vehicles to use Louisiana Avenue entrance as the “official” delivery truck/service entrance. N. Hennepin County shall approve the final design of the Excelsior Blvd entrance and all necessary permits must be obtained. Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) devices shall be installed on the signal upgrades if feasible. O. Within six years from Final PUD approval the lights in the north parking lot will be updated to eliminate direct illumination and glare onto residential properties per City Ordinance. P All nonconformities, including parking lot design and bufferyards, will be brought into compliance with any future expansion of occupiable floor area or any future reconstruction of the Orange parking lot or a new Orange ramp to the extent reasonable and possible as determined by the City via the PUD amendment process. Q. Prior to the installation of any signs, including temporary signs or new sign faces, the applicant shall obtain sign permits. Illuminated signage, excluding emergency signs, shall be prohibited on the ramp and above the second level of the east elevation of the hospital. R. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. S. Phase II is approved in general concept only and is required to obtain future Preliminary and Final PUD approval. T. The development agreement shall include provisions relating to the cost share formula between the applicant and City regarding various off-site infrastructure improvements. The cost share allocation shall be pursuant to a memo from SRF Consulting dated 7/20/03 and revised on 10/02/03 on file at City Hall. The development agreement shall contain a provision allowing for the applicant’s share of the off-site improvements to be specially assessed U. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on August 4, 2007 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions related to the Cancer Center addition and five-level parking ramp: 1. The approval is contingent upon the Federal Emergency Management Agency approval of the Letter of Map Revision amending (lowering) the base flood elevation to 889.9. 2. The approval is contingent upon the City of St. Louis Park amending its zoning ordinance to adopt the base flood elevation of 889.9 approved by FEMA. 3. The applicant shall submit a proof-of-parking plan for the Methodist Hospital Campus providing the remaining 145 bicycle parking stalls required by City Code. 4. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the following Official Exhibits: a. General Development Plan (Sheet 106) Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 13 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital b. Existing Site Conditions (Sheet 200.C10) c. Demolition Plan (Sheet 200.C11) d. Site Plan (Sheet 200.C21) e. Grading & Erosion Control Plan (Sheet 200.C31) f. Utility Plan (Sheet 200.C41) g. Landscape Plan (Sheets 200.L21, 200.L21A, 200.L21B, 200.L21C, 200.L71) h. Site Lighting Plan (Sheets E.1, E.2, E.3, E.4, E.5, E.6, E.7, E.8, E.9) i. Exterior Elevations (Sheets 510, 511, 512, 513) 5. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall meet the following requirements: a. Applicant and owner must sign Assent Form and Official Exhibits. b. The applicant shall provide a copy of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit to the City of St. Louis Park. c. Any other necessary permits from other agencies shall be obtained (i.e. Hennepin County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, etc.). d. Obtain the required Erosion Control, Right-of-way, Utility and other permits required by the City, which may impose additional conditions. e. A development agreement shall be executed between the applicant and the City of St. Louis Park, which addresses, at a minimum, traffic signal installation at Oxford Street and Louisiana Avenue, repair and cleaning of public streets, criteria for administrative amendments to the PUD. f. A preconstruction conference shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, city and other agency representatives. g. A staging plan for demolition and construction shall be filed with the City. h. The applicant shall reimburse the City for City attorney fees in preparing and reviewing the PUD development agreement. i. The applicant shall submit a financial guarantee in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of public infrastructure, exterior lighting, surface parking and driveways, and landscaping improvements. 6. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall meet the following conditions: a. Submit building materials and samples to the City of St. Louis Park for review and approval. b. A Development Contract shall be signed and financial guarantees shall be in place. c. Any future modifications to sign plan may be approved administratively with a sign permit, provided the total sign area is not increased (excluding directional signage) and no new variances are required. 7. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. weekdays, and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 14 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital b. Loud equipment shall be kept as far as possible from residences at all times. c. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. d. Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary. e. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. 8. The project shall be constructed in accordance with the official exhibits. 9. All nonconformities, including parking lot design, lighting, landscaping and screening will be brought into compliance prior to issuance of the Final Certificate of Occupancy for the Cancer Center building addition. 10. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements. V. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on December 17, 2007 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for relocating the helistop to the rooftop of the west tower: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the following Official Exhibits: a. General Development Plan b. Helistop General Arrangement (Sheet H-1) c. Helistop Electrical Arrangement (Sheet E-1) d. Exterior Elevation 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant and owner must sign the Assent Form and Official Exhibits. 3. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. weekdays, and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. W. The Planned Unit Development shall be amended on June 2, 2008 to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions for an addition to the Emergency Center: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the following Official Exhibits: a. General Development Plan b. Existing Conditions (Sheet C1.1) c. Demolition Plan (Sheet C1.2) d. Site Plan (Sheet C2.1) e. Preliminary Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan (Sheet C3.1) f. Landscape Plan (Sheet L2.1) Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 15 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital g. First Floor Existing Plan (Sheet AE101) h. Proposed First Floor Plan (Sheet A101) i. Building Sections (Sheets A401, A402) j. Photometric Plan 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits the applicant and owner must sign the Assent Form and Official Exhibits. 3. The developer shall comply with the following conditions during construction: a. All City noise ordinances shall be complied with, including that there be no construction activity between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. weekdays, and 10 p.m. and 9 a.m. on weekends and holidays. b. The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring properties. c. The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes necessary in order to mitigate the impact of construction on surrounding properties. Adopted by the City Council June 2, 2008 ___________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ City Clerk Reviewed for Administration: _______________________________ City Manager Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 16 Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist Hospital View of Proposed Emergency Center Addition Looking West from Property Line View of Proposed Emergency Center Addition Looking Southwest from Parking Lot Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist HospitalPage 17 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist HospitalPage 18 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist HospitalPage 19 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist HospitalPage 20 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist HospitalPage 21 Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Subject: Minor Amendment to PUD - Methodist HospitalPage 22 Meeting Date: June 2, 2008 Agenda Item #: 8b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: Communication EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Web Development Presentation – Redesigned website and GraffitiNet. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None – No action required. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None – This is an information item only. BACKGROUND: Website Redesign – One of our most visible communications tools available to us is our city website, so as we began implementing our marketing and branding into city communications we began plans for a redesigned and enhanced website. We are often complimented on, and won awards for, our current website. Thus, our main goal has been to remain consistent in function, and also implement elements from our brand manual. Jason Huber, the city’s Web Developer and Applications Coordinator, will be in attendance to give a brief demonstration of the redesigned site and its features. The redesigned site will debut June 15, 2008. GraffitiNet – The Information Resources Department is one of the many departments currently working with the Police Department and the community in its fight against graffiti. The Police Department approached Information Resources earlier this year asking if it would be possible to create a database that could allow West Metro police departments to share information on graffiti incidents. Web Coordinator and Applications Developer Jason Huber will be in attendance to offer a brief demonstration. GraffitiNet is currently used by Hopkins, Maple Grove, Three Rivers Park District, Minneapolis, Eden Prairie and Minnetonka, in addition to St. Louis Park. GraffitiNet went “live” on May 1, 2008. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Website Redesign – A website redesign of this magnitude, completed by an outside firm, could easily cost upwards of $25,000 – a cost many cities must budget for in order to keep its website fresh and functional. The city’s addition of a web coordinator/applications developer has enabled us to bring all of this work in-house. This complete website redesign was accomplished completely in-house without the use of any additional financial resources. GraffitiNet – GraffitiNet was again developed in-house; however, the city has recouped the cost of staff time spent on the project through small development fees charged to participating cities. Participating cities will also pay annual maintenance fees to support the relatively small amount of staff time needed to maintain the database. Meeting of June 2, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Subject: Web Development Presentation VISION CONSIDERATION: The website is a significant tool to aid in the connectedness and the engagement of our community. GraffitiNet enhances our city’s ability to protect people and property and to protect the community’s aesthetics. Attachments: None Prepared by: Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director