HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/12/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
DECEMBER 15, 2008
All Council must be present for Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar –
particularly related to Item 4a.
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Discussion Items
1. 6:30 p.m. Energy Audit of City Facilities Preliminary Findings Presentation
Written Reports
2. Update on Contract Extensions for Development of Vacant City Lots Located at 5609 Wood
Lane and 2715 Monterey Avenue
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Minutes November 17, 2008
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. EDA Vendor Claims
6. Old Business
7. New Business
7a. Adoption of 2009 EDA Budget and HRA Levy
Recommended Action:
Motion to Approve a Resolution adopting the EDA Budget for 2009 and approving
the 2008 Housing and Redevelopment Authority Property Tax Levy collectible in
2009
8. Communications
9. Adjournment
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. St. Louis Park Historical Society Donation to Beehive Restoration Project
Meeting of December 15, 2008
City Council Agenda
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes November 10, 2008
3b. Special Study Session Minutes November 17, 2008
3c. City Council Minutes November 17, 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
5a. Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions
Recommended Action:
Motion to reappoint Commissioners as city representatives to their respective
commissions.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating
Easements (Case No. 08-39-VAC)
Recommended Action:
• Mayor to close public hearing
• Motion to approve First Reading of an Ordinance vacating easements for the
Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment and set the Second Reading of Ordinance for
January 5, 2009
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levies
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Budget for 2009 and approving the 2008
Property Tax Levy collectible in 2009
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the HRA Levy for 2009
8b. Summary and Acceptance of City Manager Evaluation
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt a Resolution for formal acceptance of the final City Manager
annual evaluation
Meeting of December 15, 2008
City Council Agenda
8c. 2009 Employee Compensation
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt a Resolution confirming a 3% general increase for non-union
employees, setting salary for City Manager, continuing the Volunteer Firefighter
Benefit Program, increasing Performance Program Pay for Paid-on-Call Firefighters
by 3% for 2009, and adding a Health Care Savings Plan transfer to the Personnel
Manual
8d. 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
Recommended Action:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for
the property at 5005 Highway 7
8e. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication
Towers and Antennas
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt the first reading of the attached ordinance relating to
Communication Towers and Antennas, and set the second reading for January 5,
2009
8f. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to “Service” Land Uses in
the Office (O) Zoning District
Recommended Action:
Motion to adopt the first reading of the attached ordinance, and set the second
reading for January 5, 2009
8g. Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No.
2008-0211
Recommended Action:
Motion to reject all bids and authorize staff to engage the services of LOGIS to
replace the City campus telephone system, provide required hardware and software
from the State (already bid) contract, and provide on-going telephone system
maintenance services at a capital cost not to exceed $303,629. On-going
maintenance services may be canceled with 7 months notice and obtained from an
alternate managed service provider or provisioned with existing or additional in-
house staff
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 December 15, 2008
City Council Agenda
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
4a. Approve Second Reading of Ordinance to amend the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter:
Table of Contents, Chapters 3, 5, and Index and set publication (7 affirmative votes
required)
4b. Adopt Resolution accepting the equipment replacement schedule budgeted for 2009 and
authorize staff to acquire equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance
4c. Adopt the Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map to change
the zoning of 3409, 3413 and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue South and 3408 and 3412 France
Avenue South from R4 - Multiple Family Residence District to MX - Mixed Use District,
approve summary ordinance and authorize publication
4d. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 14-04 with T-Mobile (Voice Stream Minneapolis
Inc.) at Elevated Water Tower No. 4 (EWT #4), located at 2541 Nevada Ave. So
4e. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 127-07 with ENSR Consulting and
Engineering for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar &
Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2009
4f. Adopt the Water Supply Plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources
4g. Accept Donation from St. Louis Park Historical Society in the amount of $10,000 for the
Beehive Restoration project
4h. Accept for Filing Planning Commission Minutes November 19 2008
4i. Accept for Filing Police Advisory Commission Minutes November 5 2008
4j. Accept for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes August 19 2008
4k. Accept for Filing Human Rights Commission Minutes September 16 2008
4l. Accept for Filing Housing Authority Minutes November 12 2008
4m. 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: December 15, 2008
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:
St. Louis Park Historical Society Donation to Beehive Restoration Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Rick Birno will be present to accept a donation in the amount of $10,000 from Historical Society
Representatives, Megan Crosby, Kathy Johnson, Faye Ross, John Olson, Barbara Reiss, Jeanne
Andersen and Bob Jorvig. The donation will be formally accepted by the City Council as a consent
item following the presentation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
The Historical Society has been fundraising in an effort to help restore the Beehive as well as some of
the other historical features previously located along Lilac Way. They have been a constant
supporter for the restoration of the 1939 Works Progress Administration features. The restoration
project includes improvements to the beehive, the council ring, picnic tables, a new bike trail
connection, new landscape plan and interpretive signage at Roadside Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This donation is a commitment to the total project cost of $220,000 to restore and move the
historical features from Lilac Park to Roadside Park.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Rick Birno, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
November 10, 2008
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, and Loran Paprocki.
Council members absent: Sue Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development (Mr. Locke), Economic
Development (Mr. Hunt), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Assistant Finance Director (Mr.
Swanson), Management Assistant (Ms. Honold), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Larrea).
Guest: Scott Bader (President of Bader Development, LLC. and a principal of Steven Scott
Companies), Vic Moore (Franzen & Associates), and Dennis McGrann (Lockridge, Grindal,
Nauen).
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 17 and November 24, 2008
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. On November 17th Friends of the Arts will attend the
study session. The meeting will begin at 6:45 p.m. Mr. Omodt questioned if Friends of the Arts
will be proposing building a structure. He would like this clarified before the meeting.
On November 24th the Councilmembers will be having their photos taken at 6:00 p.m.
2. Business Terms for Redevelopment Contract with Bader Development for the Ellipse
on Excelsior Project
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. He requested feedback on the proposed Business Terms and, if
acceptable, asked if the EDA/Council was willing to call for a public hearing regarding the creation
of a Redevelopment TIF District to facilitate the proposed project.
Mr. Hunt noted that the preliminary TIF request was $900,000, however more had been learned
about the redevelopment site and Bader Development had more accurately estimated the
construction costs of the proposed project. It had been determined that there are greater
extraordinary costs than previously anticipated. As a result, Bader Development requested up to
$1.45 million in tax increment financing to offset the extraordinary redevelopment costs associated
with The Ellipse on Excelsior project.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes November 10, 2008
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned if they kept in mind that the motel or apartment sites could
later be redeveloped. Mr. Bader confirmed that they have kept this in mind. Councilmember
Finkelstein questioned if the Council should include this as a requirement in the TIF request. Mr.
Locke responded that this will not really affect the motel site. Councilmember Finkelstein wanted
to make sure that whatever happened to the motel site in the future, that they would have access to
public utilities.
Councilmember Basill questioned why the proposed building had to be five stories tall. Mr. Dovolis,
the project architect, responded that this was the size that they needed in order to meet the retail
requirements, construction efficiencies, and proforma targets. They could make the building shorter
but then they would need to also make it wider, which would push into the neighborhood.
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned how tall five stories would be. Mr. Dovolis responded that
it would be about 60 feet. He continued that the structure they are proposing would range from 50-
60 feet in height.
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned why the additional $250,000 was needed. Mr. Locke
responded that it is for the relocation of utility lines. Councilmember Finkelstein questioned,
assuming everything moved forward smoothly, when they plan to break ground. Mr. Hunt
responded that Bader hopes to break ground next spring and that it would take about a year and a
half to complete.
Councilmember Basill asked for confirmation that Bader Development had its financing in place.
Mr. Michael Margulies, Bader’s attorney, confirmed that Bader had obtained the necessary funding
commitments in place.
Councilmember Paprocki questioned why this was not a good contender for LEED. Mr. Hunt
responded that there was not likely to be significant energy savings in this type of a building. The
main reasoning being that residential buildings are much harder to control than commercial ones.
Mr. Hunt continued that the developer is including some green features but would not be able to
reach the LEED certification without significant financial assistance from the City.
Mr. Harmening asked Mr. Locke to explain the public art piece. Mr. Locke explained that Bader
will be incorporating public art in the plaza. They have agreed to have the community involved in
picking the artist and choosing the art. Bader is proposing a distinct landscape plaza. They would
like to have an integrated public art piece and plaza. Mr. Bader responded that they would like to
select the artist as soon as possible. They would like the boulevard, the plaza and the art piece to
complement one another and be cohesive.
Councilmember Paprocki questioned what was going on with Hoigaard’s and their public art. Mr.
Locke responded that Dunbar Development has designed and will be funding the art for that plaza.
Dunbar has selected a piece and Mr. Locke said he would bring in the model for the Council’s
review.
It was the consensus of the Council to move forward on the project and to call for the public
hearing.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes November 10, 2008
Legislative Update
Mr. Harmening presented to the Council a draft of legislative issues and priorities for Council’s
review and discussion.
Councilmember Carver asked about the prospects for funding infrastructure in the future.
Mr. McGrann responded that Congress is interested in long term investments in infrastructure over
rebates or short term cash infusion. He also noted that the second stimulus package will be 100%
federal money and it will come up for vote after President Elect Obama is sworn in because
President Bush has said that he will veto any future stimulus packages. Mr. McGrann also discussed
the reauthorization of the six-year transportation bill (SAFETEA-LU) in 2009.
The Council discussed the use of lobbyists and agreed that the city should continue to contract with
Franzen & Associates and Lockridge Grindal Nauen for 2009. Council agreed that lobbying
expenses should be evaluated annually.
Ms. Honold provided the Council with an update on the Glencoe Railroad Mitigation Project and
the grant which MnDOT submitted to the Federal Railroad Administration. Councilmember
Paprocki noted that they had a meeting with Twin Cities & Western Railroad and asked that staff
continue to work with the railroad to ensure that rail car sorting and blocking activities will be
moved out of the city if the grant money is secured.
Mr. Moore talked with Council about his involvement in the League of Minnesota Cities’
Residential Care Facilities’ stakeholder group. He also discussed two piece of proposed legislation.
The first bill would eliminate the sunset provision on Housing Improvement Areas and the second
bill would extend the life of the Elmwood TIF District.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the legislative short fall. Mr. Moore responded that it looks
like there is enough money to get through the current fiscal year but fiscal year 2009 and 2010 are
going to be bleak. Mr. Moore stated that he would know more after the financial forecast is released
in early December and he would keep the City informed on any changes.
3. Comprehensive Plan Update
Ms. McMonigal presented to the Council regarding the Comprehensive Plan update. The
Comprehensive Plan is a long range plan that carries out the City’s vision for the future. It sets
goals, policies, and direction in a comprehensive manner and provides a framework for achieving the
City’s goals.
Ms. McMonigal noted that staff would like to bring a draft plan to the neighborhoods for input.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes November 10, 2008
Mr. Harmening noted that staff is hoping to enter into the public initiation phase. Councilmember
Omodt questioned if Council would be reviewing the neighboring cities’ Comprehensive Plans. Ms.
McMonigal responded that it is generally a staff to staff exchange.
4. 2009 Budget and Levy
Mr. DeJong presented to the Council and asked for more direction on the final levy amount that the
Council would be comfortable in considering.
Mr. Harmening reviewed the items of the budget that have changed since October 13, 2008. First,
staff has received a revised levy limit determination from the Department of Revenue. The levy was
originally estimated to be at 6.27% but has now been set at a 5.8% levy. Staff has analyzed the
permit revenue history and has now come up with a number they feel would be more consistent
from year to year. This reflects an increase of $260,000. Staff is anticipating strong permit revenue
in 2008. If permit revenues come in lower than the $1,500,000 level used to prepare the budget
document, the fund balance will remain comfortably above 40%.
Councilmember Omodt questioned the market value homestead credit. Mr. DeJong noted that this
credit is a declining revenue and could be cut by the State at any time. Currently it is about
$700,000 a year in revenue.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that the Council will have to go with the maximum on the levy
limit. He also noted he felt that they could minimize the Park Perspective. He doesn’t feel that the
mailing is environmentally friendly and that it should be sent out electronically.
Councilmember Finkelstein felt that the City should go with a 5.8% levy limit.
Councilmember Carver also agreed that they needed to go with the maximum 5.8% levy limit. In
regard to the Park Perspective mailing, he wanted to give residents an option to opt for an electronic
version so the City is still reaching out to them.
Mr. Harmening questioned the Council if they would like to look into the $90,000 they currently
have in the budget for the school liaison. He noted that currently the schools pays for half of this
service and the City pays for the other half. The schools would like assistance with this cost.
Councilmember Omodt noted that he would rather have a list of items to analyze and discuss them
simply, discussing ones that come to mind. He feels that it is unnecessary to send out the truth in
taxation mailing and there is no reason to spend money on a mailing that could be posted on the
City’s website.
Mr. Harmening suggested looking at the cost of supervising the clearing of sidewalks after snowfall.
Councilmember Carver noted the City has to be prepared to explain these costs.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Subject: City Council Study Session Minutes November 10, 2008
Councilmember Omodt questioned when the Council will be presented with a list of the items that
could possibly be eliminated. He also noted that he would like to see this process done with some
type of sequence.
Councilmember Paprocki noted that the current times called for a full evaluation of the City’s
programs. He suggested posing a question to department heads, what are small budget programs
they could live without. He would like these programs first identified by the department heads and
then reviewed by the Council.
Councilmember Carver would like to focus on finding the programs that made it into the budget
but now don’t have a place.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted that he likes the idea of evaluating programs to see if any could be
eliminated. He is not interested in taking away the funding for the police liaison.
Mr. Harmening stated that staff will try and put together of list of programs for the Council to
review.
5. Communications (Verbal)
Mr. Harmening noted that the City recently completed a compliance check on Pawn America.
They did not pass.
Mr. Harmening noted that Benilde St. Margaret’s is planning to complete some field improvement
and there will be a small group meeting on this.
Mr. Harmening noted that the recount on the State senate race will be taking place next week at
City Hall.
Mr. Harmening noted that STEP has asked for some help and he questioned if staff should further
explore helping their program. There is a possibility of a one time allocation.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
NOVEMBER 17, 2008
The meeting convened at 6:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt and Loran Paprocki.
Councilmember absent: Sue Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh),
Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hamer).
Guests: Friends of the Arts Board Members: President Susan Schneck and Vice-President George
Hagemann.
1. Friends of the Arts Update
Ms. Walsh provided a brief staff report.
Ms. Schneck presented the Friends of the Arts (FOTA) Update. She provided information on
FOTA’s involvement in connecting people and organizations around the arts, providing arts-related
information and resources, and coordinating community arts programs. She expressed the position
of FOTA that the organization’s strength has been in community and defining community in
different ways.
There was discussion on the efforts of FOTA to increase awareness of the Arts for Life Scholarship
Program. There was also discussion on whether there is a need for a community theater in St. Louis
Park. It was suggested that a theater would not necessarily need to be used for performing space,
and that other possible uses could be gallery space and classroom teaching space.
The following suggestions were made by Council/Staff:
Consideration of FOTA coordinating a community project in conjunction with The West
End Project.
Possible re-advertisement of the Paint the Pavement Project.
The West End Theater opening coinciding with the opening of the Coen Brothers film.
The meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 17, 2008
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt and Loran Paprocki.
Councilmember absent: Susan Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Parks and
Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Community Development Director (Mr.
Locke), Management Assistant (Ms. Honold), Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), Planning &
Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hamer).
Guests present: Mark Ruff and Stacie Kvilvang of Ehlers and Associates.
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes – None
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. Designate EnComm Midwest, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $533,335.00 for Water
Project – Water Treatment Plant No. 8 – Project No. 2006-2000
4b. Adopt Resolution No. 08-136, authorizing Worker’s Compensation insurance
renewal for December 1, 2008 – November 20, 2009
4c. Authorize entering into an agreement with Oertel Architects for the planning,
design, bidding services, enhanced construction phase services and other
miscellaneous services for the MSC project
4d. Extend the time limit to act on the Dahl Tower application (08-25-CUP) to January
29, 2009. Staff is directed to notify the Applicant of the extension.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 08-144 requesting the Minnesota Department of
Transportation (Mn/DOT) to grant a variance from Municipal State Aid Standards
– Alabama Avenue from Excelsior Blvd to West 36th Street – Project No. 2009-1100
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Subject: City Council Minutes November 17, 2008
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 08-145 calling for a public hearing by the City Council on
January 20, 2009 relative to the proposed Ellipse on Excelsior Tax Increment
Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1 (a redevelopment district)
4g. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes October 15, 2008
4h. Approve for filing Vendor Claims
4i. Approve for filing Housing Authority Minutes October 15, 2008
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Charter
Ms. Honold presented the staff report.
No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
approve first reading of the ordinance to amend the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter;
Table of Contents, Chapter 3, 5, and index, and set second reading for December 1, 2008.
The motion passed 6-0.
Mayor Jacobs thanked the Charter Commission for its work on the City Charter
amendment.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Accept Bids for the GO Bonds (MSC) and GO TIF Revenue Bonds (West
End) Resolutions No. 08-146 and 08-147
Mr. Ruff, Ehlers and Associates, provided key information outlined in the S&P Report and
upgraded AAA bond rating for the City of St. Louis Park. He presented information on the
savings to the City of approximately $250,000 due to the upgraded rating. Mr. Ruff
presented a plaque recognizing the City of St. Louis Park for the assignment of the AAA
rating.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Subject: City Council Minutes November 17, 2008
Mayor Jacobs pointed out that the upgraded AAA rating is due in no small measure to work
of the Council, staff and the City’s financial consultants. He stated this is something the
community should be very proud of.
Ms. Kvilvang, Ehlers and Associates, provided an overview of bids received on the following:
1) Bond Sale – November 17, 2008; $4,075,000 General Obligation Utility Revenue
Bonds, Series 2008A: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for
$4,075,000 GO Bonds, Series 2008A to the low bidder, Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Minneapolis, MN. True interest cost is 3.8038%.
2) Bond Sale – November 17, 2008; $5,490,000 General Obligation Tax Increment
Bonds, Series 2008B: It is recommended that the City Council award the bid for
$5,490,000 GO TIF Revenue Bonds to the low bidder, Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Minneapolis, MN. True interest cost is 4.2676%.
Councilmember Finkelstein requested clarification on the $250,000 in savings referred to by
Mr. Ruff. Mr. Ruff explained the $250,000 in savings is related to the lower interest rate
associated with the upgraded bond rating. In addition, the upfront fees and capital interest
were less than anticipated due to savings from receiving a higher amount in Utility Revenue
Bonds and the ability to reduce the Tax Increment Bonds. When factoring in these
additional savings, the amount is more than the $250,000 in interest savings.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
adopt Resolution No. 08-146 awarding the sale of $4,075,000 General Obligation utility
revenue bonds, Series 2008A; fixing their form and specifications; directing their execution
and delivery; and providing for their payment; and to adopt Resolution No. 08-147
awarding the sale of the $5,490,000 General Obligation Tax Increment bonds, Series
2008B; fixing their form and specifications; directing their execution and delivery; and
providing for their payment
The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Harmening stated the City Council has set the tone and deserves credit for the upgraded
bond rating. He recognized Mr. Ruff and Ms. Kvilvang of Ehlers and Associates, as well as
City staff, for their involvement in the meeting with S&P. He stated almost every
department head was present at the meeting with S&P to show that staff works together for
the good of the organization. Leadership starts from the top, and the Council provides that
leadership.
8b. Second Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments for Institutional Uses in
Residential Districts
Mayor Jacobs stated there was a lot of discussion on this topic at the last City Council
meeting, and there are a number of issues the Council wanted to discuss. He suggested
laying the second reading over and holding a study session on the topic. He noted there has
been discussion on the idea of having this apply only to institutions of a certain size, which is
a change he does not believe can be made on the second reading.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Subject: City Council Minutes November 17, 2008
Councilmember Omodt stated his preference would be to lay this over until the entire
Council is present for the discussion.
Councilmember Carver stated this topic has been discussed at study session and questioned
what more there is to be discussed. He stated his position that doing nothing may be the
best thing and that there does not seem to be a real synergy forming around a particular
position or a great need shown for this.
Councilmember Omodt stated they are not able to ascertain the will of the Council without
having the full Council present. He expressed concern with gamesmanship occurring over
who is present and who is not when important votes are taken. He further stated it is
important to the community and the neighborhoods and institutions that this is done right
and he would like to have the full Council present to debate and discuss.
Councilmember Paprocki pointed out that the full Council was not present at the first
reading either. He stated he voiced his issue on this at the last meeting, which is the impact
on schools and churches. He also noted that other council members have issues with this as
well. He stated his position that there is not much that can be done with this tonight, he
agrees there is not a lot of synergy, and a fresh start may be the way to proceed.
There was discussion on the options of tabling, continuing action to a certain date, or taking
action on the ordinance amendments.
Councilmember Carver stated his opposition to continuing action to a certain date. He
stated he would vote against this tonight and would also be willing to table the item. He
stated there are not facts to support the accusations that have been made of gamesmanship.
He further stated it is inconsistent and is not good policy to say this is the most important
thing to work on and to direct staff to put it at the top of their inbox. Tabling is commonly
used in just such a situation as this in order to allow additional time to study an issue. He
verified with Mr. Scott that the issue can be studied while it is on the table.
Councilmember Paprocki stated his position that the ordinance amendments provide the
ability to be proactive before a proposal is submitted to the City. He stated he would not be
in support of putting the ordinance off for too long, and stated his position that a cohesive
draft is not likely by the next City Council meeting.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated his opposition to tabling action and expressed concern
with the precedent that would be set. He stated it should be noted for the record that there
are a variety of votes that members of the Council have all missed because they have other
responsibilities, and the Council has moved ahead with business.
Councilmember Omodt stated his preference to continue the ordinance to a study session.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 5
Subject: City Council Minutes November 17, 2008
Councilmember Basill stated his preference to defer the ordinance to a date certain on an
agenda with enough time for discussion.
Mayor Jacobs stated his preference to discuss the ordinance until a level of consensus is
achieved. He suggested continuing the ordinance to a date certain.
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to table
second reading of Zoning Ordinance amendments to require conditional use permits
(CUPS) for several institutional uses in residential zoning districts.
Mr. Scott advised on the associated process if the ordinance is tabled. He advised a meeting
agenda could be amended and a motion could be made to remove the ordinance from the
table.
Mayor Jacobs stated if there was to be an attempt to take the ordinance off the table without
notice he would not vote in support of the ordinance being un-tabled. Councilmember
Basill and Councilmember Carver concurred.
The motion passed 4-2. Councilmember Finkelstein and Councilmember Omodt opposed.
8c. First Reading of Ordinance Amendment Relating to Water Services
Disconnections
Ms. Honold presented the staff report.
Councilmember Basill inquired about situations where the heat is shut off and pipes inside
the house are filled with water. Mr. Hoffman replied staff will attempt to make every
contact they can. If the water is shut off at the street and the temperature drops below
freezing there is a good chance the water will freeze in the pipes inside the home. In
situations where this has occurred in the past there have been cases where the water was
turned back on and there were many leaks. However, if the water is not shut off there will
be the same problem and the water will continue to run as well.
Councilmember Basill questioned if the City would have any liability if crews were not able
to shut the water off for a few days and water froze in the pipes. Mr. Scott replied it is hard
to say that there could not be any liability under any circumstances, but generally under that
type of scenario the City would not have liability. There can always be unique
circumstances, but generally the City has protections.
Councilmember Carver noted the ordinance states authorized to shut off, rather than
obligated to shut off.
Ms. Honold explained there is a different process involved if the home is not occupied. The
Public Works Director would get other departments involved to see what needs to be done.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 3c) Page 6
Subject: City Council Minutes November 17, 2008
It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to adopt
first reading of ordinance amending Section 32-38 of the City Code relating to water services
disconnections and set second reading for December 1, 2008.
The motion passed 6-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs thanked the election judges and staff for their work in the recent election. He
encouraged people to attend the high school play Into the Woods and stated it was
remarkably well done.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Charter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Approve Second Reading of Ordinance to amend the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter:
Table of Contents, Chapters 3, 5, and Index and set publication (7 affirmative votes required).
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to amend the Table of Contents, Chapters 3 (Section 3.10), 5 (Section
5.06) and Index of the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter, as recommended by the Charter
Commission?
BACKGROUND:
On November 17, 2008, Council held the public hearing and approved first reading of the
ordinance without change. Council set second reading of the ordinance for December 1, 2008. At
the December 1, 2008 meeting, Council moved the second reading of the ordinance to the
December 15, 2008 Council meeting because all seven Council members need to be present to
approve the second reading. If approved, amendments to the Charter will be effective 90 days after
publication.
At the Charter Commission meeting on September 10, 2008, Charter Commissioners unanimously
voted to recommend that the City Council pass an ordinance amending Sections 3.10 and 5.06 of
the St. Louis Park City Charter. Amendments are as follows:
Section 3.10 requires the city to recodify the City Code every ten years. The City Clerk’s office
updates the Code whenever ordinances are adopted, amended or repealed in a timely manner
and keeps these records electronically. While this section may have been needed in earlier years,
with electronic recordkeeping, this section is not necessary.
Section 5.06 requires the City Council to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder. In
recent years, the State Legislature has amended contract laws to include best value contracting,
which considers other factors than just price. The proposed amendment, if adopted, would give
the Council the ability to use best value contracting in the future.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 2
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Charter
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Ordinance to Amend the St. Louis Park Home Rule Charter
Amended Home Rule Charter Table of Contents/Index on File with City
Clerk
Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4a) Page 3
Subject: Second Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the City Charter
ORDINANCE NO. ____-08
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
CITY CHARTER CONCERNING REVISION AND CODIFICATION
OF ORDINANCES AND CONTRACTS
PREAMBLE
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 7 the Charter Commission has recommended to
the City Council that the Charter be amended as provided herein; and
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 410.12, Subd. 7 provides that upon recommendation of the Charter
Commission the City Council may enact a Charter Amendment by ordinance.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 3.10 of the St. Louis Park City Charter is deleted:
SECTION 2. Section 5.06 of the St. Louis Park City Charter is amended as follows:
Section 5.06. Contracts--How Let.
City contracts must be made in compliance with State law. The City Council may reject any and all bids.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect ninety days after its publication.
Date of Publication October 23, 2008 & October 30, 2008
Public Hearing and First Reading November 17, 2008
Second Reading December 15, 2008
Date of Publication December 25, 2008
Date Ordinance takes effect March 25, 2009
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Approve Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) Budgeted for 2009.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting the equipment replacement schedule budgeted for 2009 and
authorize staff to acquire equipment as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue the City’s planned replacement of equipment for
operational purposes?
BACKGROUND:
By Statute, Charter, and Ordinance, all purchases over $50,000 must be authorized by the Council
and are purchased in accordance with public contracting laws. Procurement of vehicles is
accomplished in a variety of ways. After equipment purchases are authorized by Council, the City
can either call for bids or purchase through cooperative purchasing ventures whereby other agencies
have established equipment contracts (i.e. State of Minnesota contracts, Hennepin County contracts,
etc.).
Replacement of equipment costing less than $50,000 does not require Council authorization. Staff
replaces this type of equipment by purchasing it through State or County contracts or by obtaining
competitive quotes.
FINAL LIST FOR REPLACEMENT:
The final list for year 2009 contains 23 units estimated to cost (gross) $893,928 (see attached list).
Of those, there are three vehicles that will cost more than $50,000 and require Council
authorization to purchase.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
In the second quarter of 2008, Parks and Recreation staff met with each equipment-using
department to discuss short term and long term planned replacements. Participants recommend
which vehicles to replace on the basis of age, mileage, downtime for repairs and future work
assessments. From this discussion, Parks and Recreation revised the planned replacement list. From
this list, replacements were placed in the 2008 proposed budget. The source of funding for these
replacements is the Revolving Equipment Replacement Fund. The exception to this relates to the
Multi-Media Vehicle (for Cable TV local origination purposes). This vehicle will be purchased using
the payment made by Time Warner to the City at the time the franchise agreement was renewed.
Per the FCC these dollars are only allowed to be used for Cable TV equipment purposes. Please
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Subject: Approve Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) Budgeted for 2009
note that the estimated cost of this vehicle is $305,000 and should last at least 20 years. Staff feels
that this cost estimate is on the high side and is looking at ways to lower the price.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. By replacing gas
powered vehicles with hybrids, we are expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations.
Attachments: Resolution for 2009 Equipment Replacement
2009 Equipment Purchase List
Prepared by: Dennis Millerbernd, Equipment Superintendent
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 3
Subject: Approve Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) Budgeted for 2009
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS,
AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR
YEAR 2009 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 related to major equipment scheduled for replacement
during year 2009,
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 year 2009 equipment replacement is
hereby accepted.
2. The following three (3) pieces of equipment costing more than $50,000 are authorized for
replacement or addition during year 2009:
Old Vehicle
Unit No.
New Vehicle Description
Estimated Cost
8001 Truck, Multi Media $305,000
0111 Mower, Hydraulic 16 Foot $ 90,525
0209 Articulated Narrow Line Tractor $126,602
3. The Director of Parks and Recreation is further authorized to acquire all year 2009 equipment
purchases as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance through the following methods: by bid,
by purchase from State of Minnesota Contract, Hennepin County Contract, or by quotations.
4. The necessary specifications for year 2009 equipment purchases as prepared under the direction
of the Director of Parks and Recreation are approved.
5. When necessary, the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the
official newspaper, appropriate trade journals, magazines and bulletins the advertisement for bid,
said equipment listed above under said specifications. Advertisements shall appear not less than
twenty-one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that
no bid will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a
cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the
amount of the bid.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Page 4
Subject: Approve Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) Budgeted for 2009
6. Bids received for the equipment listed above shall be tabulated by the Director of Parks and
Recreation who shall report her tabulation and recommendation to the City Council.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
No.Old Unit No.Old DescriptionRpl. Cycle Age Primary Department Primary DivisionNew Vehicle DescriptionEst. Cost 2008 1 8001 TRUCK, MULTI MEDIA20 28 INFORMATION RESOURCESCIVIC TV TRUCK, MULTI-MEDIA$305,0002 0108 SEDAN, MID-SIZE8 7 INSPECTIONSENVIRONMENTAL HYBRID, SEDAN, SMALL$25,5273 0117 SEDAN, MID-SIZE8 7 INSPECTIONSENVIRONMENTAL HYBRID, SEDAN, SMALL$25,5274 0119 SEDAN, MID-SIZE8 7 INSPECTIONSENVIRONMENTAL HYBRID, SEDAN, SMALL$25,5275 0205 TRUCK, 1/4 TON, 4X4, SUV, ADMIN8 6 INSPECTIONSBUILDINGHYBRID, SUV, SMALL $25,5276 0111 MOWER, HYDRAULIC 16 FOOT8 7 PARKS & RECREATIONMAINTENANCE MOWER, HYDRAULIC 16 FOOT$90,5257 8909 WATER SPRAYER, TRAILER MOUNTED 15 19 PARKS & RECREATIONMAINTENANCE 300 GALLON WATER SPRAYER, TRAILER MOUNTED $6,4508 0821 SKID STEER LOADER1 1 PARKS & RECREATIONMAINTENANCE SKID STEER LOADER - S160$2,8009 0009 SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, UNMARKED 8 8 POLICE INVESTIGATION SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, UNMARKED$27,18210 0109 SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, UNMARKED 8 7 POLICE INVESTIGATION SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, UNMARKED$27,18211 0702 SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED 2 1 POLICEPATROLSEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED$27,86512 0703 SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED 2 1 POLICEPATROLSEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED$27,86513 0704 SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED 2 1 POLICEPATROLSEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED$27,86514 0705 SEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED 2 1 POLICEPATROLSEDAN, FULL SIZE, POLICE, MARKED$27,86515 9907 MINI VAN8 9 POOLPOOLMINI VAN$23,51716 n/a NONE15 n/a POLICE, FIRE, PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS ALL5,000 WATT PORTABLE SCENE LIGHT$9,60017 8438V V-PLOW15 24 PUBLIC WORKSOPERATIONS V-PLOW$3,82718 8439V V-PLOW15 24 PUBLIC WORKSOPERATIONS V-PLOW$3,82719 0209 ARTICULATED NARROW LINE TRACTOR 6 6 PUBLIC WORKSOPERATIONS ARTICULATED NARROW LINE TRACTOR$126,60220 0830 SKID STEER LOADER1 1 PUBLIC WORKSOPERATIONS SKID STEER LOADER - S250$3,10021 0831 ALL STEER UTILITY VEHICLE1 1 PUBLIC WORKSOPERATIONS ALL STEER UTILITY VEHICLE$6,00022 n/a NONEn/a n/a PUBLIC WORKSUTILITYBREAKER BUCKET, 24"$35,00023 n/a NONEn/a n/a PUBLIC WORKSUTILITYTRAILER$9,748TotalNote: For units estimated near or over $50,000; request City Council to authorize purchase.2009 Equipment Purchases893,928$ Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4b) Subject: Approve Equipment Replacement Schedule (Fleet) Budgeted for 2009Page 5
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance to Rezone from R4 to MX.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt the Second Reading of an Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map to
change the zoning of 3409, 3413 and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue South and 3408 and 3412 France
Avenue South from R4 - Multiple Family Residence District to MX - Mixed Use District, approve
summary ordinance and authorize publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to provide final approval of this rezoning?
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Bader Development, proposes to redevelop the Al’s Bar and Anderson Cleaners sites
on the northwest corner of Excelsior Boulevard and France Avenue. The applicant proposes a five-
story mixed use building with 132 residential apartments and 16,394 square feet of commercial on
the ground floor, with underground and surface parking. Bader Development requests rezoning five
lots from R4 – Multiple Family Residence District to MX - Mixed Use.
The City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance December 1, 2008. A supermajority
of the City Council (five affirmative votes) is required to adopt the ordinance.
The proposed development is a mixed-use building that promotes efficient use of the land and
roadway system. The Developer has been working with City staff and the surrounding
neighborhoods for several months to identify, understand, and address issues of concern and
improve the site design. Considerable attention and effort has been given to appropriately buffer the
use from the adjacent single-family residential properties. The plan places the majority of the
parking underground, in order to reduce the amount of land devoted to surface parking. The plan
provides a significant amount of designed outdoor recreation area, including a prominent, accessible
and spacious plaza. The development exhibits high quality architectural design, innovative site
design, and uses high quality materials. All these factors support the goals and purposes of the MX
Mixed Use Zoning District.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable with this application. An application for TIF assistance is being considered by the
EDA.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance to Rezone from R4 to MX
VISION CONSIDERATION:
This project and site design address three parts of the strategic direction, including increasing use of
new gathering spaces, providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock, and promoting and
integrating arts and community aesthetics in all City initiatives and implementation where
appropriate.
Attachment: Ordinance and Summary (2nd reading)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance to Rezone from R4 to MX
ORDINANCE NO. ____-08
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3408 and 3412 France Avenue
3409, 3413, and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 08-34-Z).
Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance
No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December 17, 2001,
Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning
district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district
classification to the new zoning district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to
wit:
Lots 3, 4 and 11, Block 5, in “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota”.
(Registered property: Certificate of Title No. 666066)
Lots 9 and 10, Block 5, in “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota”.
from R4 – Multiple Family Residence District to MX – Mixed Use District as shown on Exhibit “A”.
Section 3. The contents of Planning Case File 08-34-Z are hereby entered into and made
part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Section 4. This Ordinance becomes effective 15 days after the date of its publication.
Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
First Reading December 1, 2008
Second Reading December 15, 2008
Date of Publication December 25, 2008
Date Ordinance takes effect January 9, 2009
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance to Rezone from R4 to MX
EXHIBIT “A”
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4c) Page 5
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior – Second Reading of Ordinance to Rezone from R4 to MX
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. ____-08
AN ORDINANCE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS
3408 and 3412 France Avenue
3409, 3413, and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue
This ordinance states that the zoning classification of 3408 and 3412 France Avenue and 3409,
3413, and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue will be changed from R4 - Multiple Family Residence District to
MX – Mixed Use District.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 25, 2008
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 14-04 - Antenna Lease Agreement with T-Mobile at Elevated
Water Tower No. 4.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 14-04 with T-Mobile (Voice Stream
Minneapolis Inc.) at Elevated Water Tower No. 4 (EWT #4), located at 2541 Nevada Ave. So.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
City Council approval is required whenever contract changes are requested:
• To Council-authorized contracts, or
• If total contract expenditures exceed $50,000.
BACKGROUND:
Lease
On April 19, 2004 the City Council approved a lease agreement with T-Mobile allowing for the
placement of antennas and related equipment on EWT #4.
EWT #4 Rehabilitation Project
On June 2, 2008 Council approved City Project 2007-1500 and authorized staff to enter into an
agreement with Odland Protective Coatings (OPC) to recoat and rehabilitate EWT#4. The project
began in August and was expected to be completed by the end of October.
As part of the project, the four (4) telecoms were required to remove their antennas and related
equipment from the water tower and relocate them to temporary facilities (cell-on-wheels or power
poles) on-site near the water tower.
On October 21, 2008 OPC requested the project be suspended for the season and complete the
project in the spring, due to unworkable weather conditions required to complete the painting.
Both City staff and our consultant, KLM Engineering feel that OPC has made every effort possible
to complete the project this fall and that granting the suspension was warranted.
T-Mobile’s Rent Reduction Request
On November 21, 2008 the City received a formal request, from T-Mobile, to reduce their annual
rent under the Agreement for the time period from November 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009
(representing most of the time period of the project delay, without proration for May 2009) by
$1,837.86 (based on the city’s rent formula).
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 14-04 - Antenna Lease Agreement with T-Mobile at Elevated Water Tower
No. 4
T-Mobile has stated that the use of the temporary cell facilities has resulted in a significant loss of
height and coverage and is seriously impacting their ability to provide proper coverage to their
customers in the area.
Requests By Other Telecom’s
The City is not aware of any problems being encountered by the other telecom’s currently using
temporary facilities during the rehabilitation project and has not received any similar rent reduction
requests. Should similar requests be received, staff will evaluate the requests on a case-by-case basis.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The approval in rent reduction will result in a loss of income in the amount of $1,837.86. The
revenue from antenna leases goes into the Water Utility Fund to help pay for maintenance and
repairs needed at the water tower site. This loss of income will have no significant impact to City
maintenance at the facility.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachment: Amendment
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Project Manager
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Subject: Amendment No. 1 to Agreement 14-04 - Antenna Lease Agreement with T-Mobile at Elevated Water Tower
No. 4
AMENDMENT NO 1
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 14-04
THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 15, 2008, by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City”),
and T-MOBILE CENTRAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as successor in interest
to VoiceStream Minneapolis, Inc., a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as “ T-Mobile”).
1. BACKGROUND: The parties have previously entered into a lease agreement dated
April 19, 2004 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement authorizes VoiceStream
Minneapolis, Inc. (T-Mobile) to enter into a lease agreement for space on the water tower at
2541 Nevada Avenue for communications antenna at an annual cost of $18,000, with a 5%
increase for each subsequent year of the lease.
2. ITEM NO. 3: RENT and FEES: This Item shall be amended to add paragraph “D”
which shall read as follows:
D. Due to a delay in the completion of the City’s Water Tower Renovation Project
(2007-1500), during which T-Mobile was required to relocate their antennas on a
temporary facility at lower height for a longer period time that was originally planned
for, the City agrees to reduce T-Mobile’s annual rent for the time period from
November 1, 2008 to April 30, 2009 (representing most of the time period of the
project delay, without proration for May 2009) by $1,837.86.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written.
T-MOBILE CENTRAL LLC CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:________________________________ By:________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Title:_______________________________ and________________________________
Thomas Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Amend Contract No. 127-07: 2009 Consultant Services (Reilly).
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 127-07 with ENSR Consulting and
Engineering for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical
Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
None.
BACKGROUND:
History:
In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City accepted
responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly Remedial
Action Plan (RAP). Over the last 21 years the City has retained the services of nine consulting
engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of the RAP activities. One firm,
ENSR, has served as the cornerstone of the professional “consortium” because of its extensive
historical relationship with the Reilly project. Currently the City has a one (1) year Contract with
ENSR for consultant services. The current contract expires December 31, 2008 but has renewal
options for the years 2009 and 2010. The contract activities have included, but not been limited to:
Groundwater sampling and analysis
Drafting annual reports for agency review
Aquifer studies
Investigation of leaking wells
Soil investigations
Historical file searches
General project administration
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Subject: Amend Contract No. 127-07: 2009 Consultant Services (Reilly)
Discussion:
While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed by ENSR and others,
certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing activities
which will require consultant assistance in 2009 and in the future. ENSR has provided consultant
services for the ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) as
an approved consultant for such activities. Staff supports the continued use of ENSR for such
services.
2009 Environmental Services
The following work tasks describe the work and associated costs expected during 2009:
Task 100 - 2008 Annual Monitoring Report:
This task involves drafting text and preparing figures and tables to assist the City in completing
the 2008 Annual Monitoring Report. The Annual Monitoring Report includes analytical results
from the past year sampling efforts, as well as groundwater contour maps. Additionally, a
historical summary of analytical results is provided in the Annual Monitoring Report. A data
quality review will again be part of the Annual Monitoring Report. This report is due to the
U.S. EPA and MPCA (Agencies) on March 15, 2009.
Task 150 - 2008 Annual Progress Report and GAC Plant Report:
ENSR will assist the City in completing these two reports for submittal to the Agencies on
March 15, 2009.
Task 400 - Groundwater Monitoring and Sample Shipping:
This task involves groundwater sample collection in accordance with the 2009 Sampling Plan
and water level measurements pursuant to that Plan. Table 1 indicates a cost of $58,000 for this
work, which is slightly higher than last year’s cost, due to the likelihood of collecting additional
Drift-Platteville Aquifer wells to evaluate source and gradient control well pumping. This cost
includes shipping the samples via overnight Federal Express by ENSR.
Task 500 - Five-Year Review Issues:
The Agencies' approved the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer Gradient Control Plan in their
letter dated September 23, 2008. The scheduled activities for that plan will extend throughout
2009. ENSR anticipates the scope of work for this task will include field work to investigate the
Thermo Tech well in Hopkins, and meetings with the Agencies to discuss the water level and
water quality data, and modeling results. ENSR will continue to coordinate work with Summit
who is doing the bulk of the water level data collection via transducers.
The other primary task identified in the 2006 Five-Year Review was to evaluate the possibility of
vapor intrusion in the on-site residential buildings. During June 2008, MPCA used passive samplers
to collect soil gas data at the site. The Agencies have not indicated if further soil gas sampling and
analysis is needed to address the vapor intrusion issue.
Table 1 shows the same budgets for these five-year review tasks as established last year.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Subject: Amend Contract No. 127-07: 2009 Consultant Services (Reilly)
Task 600 - Laboratory Coordination:
This task includes two subtasks:
1. Working to implement the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), coordinate
sampling events, and update and maintain the water quality database.
2. Providing data review and data validation at the levels described in the QAPP. The
data validation and data review will be documented in the Annual Monitoring Report.
Task 700 - Site Closure:
In 2009, this task includes ENSR's labor and expenses for coordinating the abandonment of various
wells with MPCA, the City, water well contractors, and other parties, as necessary. Contractor costs
for actual well abandonment are not included in this budget.
Task 810 - Program Management and Miscellaneous:
This task includes overall planning, directing, and controlling ENSR's resources to perform this
project. This task also includes miscellaneous activities throughout the year such as next year's
Sampling Plan (due October 31, 2008), that includes the Site Management Plan and the QAPP.
ENSR proposes to establish the same task budget for 2009 program management as for prior years.
ENSR proposes to conduct this work on a time and materials basis using the same terms and
conditions as our existing contract, for the costs shown in Table 1.
Financial Considerations:
Recent correspondence with ENSR estimates the cost for year 2009 work tasks at $140,000.
Following is a summary of the 2009 ENSR work tasks and their estimated costs:
Table 1
TASK ESTIMATED
COST, $
Task 100 2008 Annual Monitoring Report (due March 15, 2009) 16,500
Task 150 2008 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report 2,500
Task 400 Groundwater Sampling and Monitoring in 2009 58,000
Task 500 Five-Year Review Issues 25,000
Subtask: Prairie du Chien – Jordan modeling 5,000
Subtask: Vapor intrusion 20,000
Task 600 Laboratory Coordination 12,000
Subtask: Lab coordination 5,000
Subtask: Data validation and review 7,000
Task 700 Site Closure 1,000
Subtask: Well abandonment 1,000
Task 810 Project Management/Miscellaneous 25,000
Total Estimated Project Cost for 2009 140,000
The 2009 Water Utility/Reilly Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Subject: Amend Contract No. 127-07: 2009 Consultant Services (Reilly)
Contract Terms
The following significant terms have been in the past contracts and will also be incorporated into
this contract:
1. Contract terminates annually on December 31, (2008) with City rights to extend for up to
two (2) additional one (1) year periods.
2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of
$140,000 for 2009.
3. ENSR will defend and indemnify the City for ENSR’s actions related to this contract.
4. ENSR has independent contractor status.
5. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 30 day written notice.
The City Attorney was involved in the preparation of this contract.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not Applicable
Attachments: Contract Extension Agreement
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4e) Page 5
Subject: Amend Contract No. 127-07: 2009 Consultant Services (Reilly)
EXTENSION TO
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 15, 2008, by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘City”),
and ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred
to as ‘ENSR”).
1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting
services dated December 3, 2007 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement authorizes
the CITY to extend its terms for up to two (2) additional one-year periods.
2. EXTENSION. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, the Initial Agreement is
extended for a one (1) year period terminating on December 31, 2009.
3. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.
The Council report dated December 15, 2008, from the City Manager, describing the year
2009 project tasks and estimated costs, is incorporated herein by reference.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
By:________________________________ By:________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Title:_______________________________ and ________________________________
Thomas Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Adopt the Water Supply Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Motion to adopt the Water Supply Plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is the City Council comfortable in adopting the plan or does it desire further information or
explanation?
BACKGROUND:
Public water suppliers that service more than 1,000 people are required under Minnesota Statutes
103G.291 to have a Water Supply Plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources. These
plans (formerly known as Water Emergency and Conservation Plans) were first required in 1996 and
must be updated every ten years. In addition, all communities that have public water supplies in the
Twin Cities Metropolitan Area are required to prepare water supply plans and submit them to the
Metropolitan Council as part of their local comprehensive plans (Minnesota Statutes 473.859). The
City of St Louis Park’s Water Supply Plan (WSP) prepared by Bluestone Engineering, in
conjunction with Public Works and Community Development staff input, was approved by the
Minnesota DNR on October 20, 2008 and satisfies the DNR and the Metropolitan Council
requirements referenced above (letter attached).
Water Supply Plan Components:
The St Louis Park Water Supply Plan provides information to the City, DNR and Metropolitan
Council to help determine and analyze the sustainability of the water resources of St Louis Park.
With the information provided in this plan, better decisions can be made on a local, regional and
state level about water systems. Attached is the Executive Summary of the Plan. A copy of the full
plan is available at City Hall. Please contact staff if you would like a full copy.
There are four main parts to the Water Supply Plan.
1. Water Supply System Description and Evaluation
Part I evaluates the current water system, projects demand for the future system and
examines the sustainability of the City’s water resources. Emergency interconnections are
described in this part.
2. Emergency response procedures
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 2
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan
Part II presents the procedures used by the water utility in the event of a water emergency.
Water supply limitations (triggers) requiring staff to take action (restrict water usage) to
reduce demand on the water system are included in this section. This part also includes
procedures for emergency notification and a list of emergency contacts. Enforcement
procedures to ensure an adequate reduction in demand are also included in this part of the
plan. This part includes procedures for augmenting water supplies.
3. Water Conservation Plan
Part III covers the procedures for conserving water including the reduction of unaccounted
for water use and a review of residential water use per person. The conservation plan
examines if the community’s water rates provide an incentive for customers to conserve
water.
4. Items for Metropolitan Area Public Suppliers
Part IV is information for the Metropolitan Council and in general presents any impacts the
Water Supply Plan will have on the City’s comprehensive plan and presents projected
populations and water demands. The Metropolitan Council compares the information
presented in the Water Supply Plan with the Met Council’s projected values.
Additionally, the WSP highlights areas where the City’s water system meets or exceeds the state
recommendations and areas where the City’s water system can be improved.
Plan Summary and Future Considerations:
In general, the new WSP is generally the same as the old plan except it has updated system
information and provides some additional information required by the agencies. There are only
three future considerations worth mentioning:
1. The city is required to adopt and implement water conservation rates no later than January
2010. The Finance Department is considering this as a part of the current rate evaluation
study now underway.
2. Unaccounted for water appears to be higher than average. Better metering of both plants
and customers is underway and is expected to remedy this situation in the future.
3. Water system interconnects to other Cities are to be verified and enhanced to the extent
practicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The costs to implement the Water Supply Plan are those associated with the three future
considerations described above and will be budgeted for in the Water Utility Budget as needed.
These implementation costs should be minimal and are not expected to impact the budget or future
rates.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The following Strategic Direction and focus area has been identified by Council:
St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will
increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.
Focus will be on:
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 3
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan
• Expanding energy efficiencies in the City’s operations.
• Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship
and best practices.
Attachments: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Approval Letter
Executive Summary of Water Supply Plan
Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities
Reviewed by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 4
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Page 5
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan
2008 Water Supply Plan
DNR Approved
October 20, 2008
Prepared by
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 6
i
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Supply Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................................ I
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................................................ II
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................................. II
LIST OF APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................................................... II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................. 3
PART I. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION ................................................................ 4
A. ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND ......................................................................................................................... 4
B. TREATMENT AND STORAGE CAPACITY .......................................................................................................... 6
C. WATER SOURCES ................................................................................................................................................... 7
D. DEMAND PROJECTIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 10
E. RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY ........................................................................................................................... 10
F. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) .............................................................................................................. 13
PART II. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 14
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN ................................................................................................................ 14
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES ................................................................................................................... 15
A. EMERGENCY TELEPHONE LIST ...................................................................................................................................... 15
B. CURRENT WATER SOURCES AND SERVICE AREA ........................................................................................................... 15
C. PROCEDURE FOR AUGMENTING WATER SUPPLIES ......................................................................................................... 15
D. ALLOCATION AND DEMAND REDUCTION PROCEDURES ................................................................................................. 16
E. ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................................................................... 19
PART III. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ................................................................................................................. 20
A. CONSERVATION GOALS ................................................................................................................................................. 20
B. WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................................. 21
1. Metering .................................................................................................................................................................... 21
2. Unaccounted Water .................................................................................................................................................. 22
3. Conservation Water Rates ........................................................................................................................................ 23
4. Regulation ................................................................................................................................................................. 24
5. Education and Information Programs ...................................................................................................................... 25
6. Retrofitting Programs ............................................................................................................................................... 26
PART IV. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC SUPPLIERS .................................................................. 28
PLAN SUBMITTAL AND REVIEW OF THE PLAN .................................................................................................................... 29
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 7
ii
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Supply Plan
List of Tables
TABLE 1 – HISTORIC WATER DEMAND ................................................................................................................................... 5
TABLE 2 – LARGE VOLUME USERS ......................................................................................................................................... 6
TABLE 3(A) – WATER TREATMENT ........................................................................................................................................ 6
TABLE 3(B) – STORAGE CAPACITY ......................................................................................................................................... 7
TABLE 4(A) – TOTAL WATER SOURCE CAPACITY FOR SYSTEM .............................................................................................. 8
TABLE 4(B) – GROUNDWATER SOURCES ................................................................................................................................ 8
TABLE 4(C) – SURFACE WATER SOURCES .............................................................................................................................. 9
TABLE 4(D) – WHOLESALE OR RETAIL INTERCONNECTIONS .................................................................................................. 9
TABLE 4(E) – EMERGENCY INTERCONNECTIONS .................................................................................................................... 9
TABLE 5 – TEN YEAR DEMAND PROJECTIONS....................................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 6 – MONITORING WELLS ........................................................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 7(A) – PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS .................................................................................................................. 16
TABLE 7(B) – PRIVATE WATER SOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 16
TABLE 8 – WATER USE PRIORITIES ....................................................................................................................................... 17
TABLE 9 – DEMAND REDUCTION PROCEDURES .................................................................................................................... 18
TABLE 10(A) – CUSTOMER METERS ..................................................................................................................................... 22
TABLE 10(B) – WATER SOURCE METERS ............................................................................................................................. 22
List of Figures
(All figures located after Part IV of the report)
Figure 1 – Annual Precipitation Maps for Minnesota for 2002 and 2003
Figure 2 – Monthly/Annual Precipitation in Saint Louis Park (2001 – 2005)
Figure 3 – Water Use Trends from 1998 to 2007
Figure 4 – Water Use Trends from 2003 to 2007
List of Appendices
(All appendices located after figures)
Appendix A – Water Level Data
Appendix B – Water System Capital Improvement Plan
Appendix C – Emergency Notification Lists
Appendix D – City Water System Ordinances
Appendix E – Minnesota DNR and Metropolitan Council Review and Approval Letters
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 8
1
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Supply Plan
Executive Summary
Why was this report prepared for the City?
Public water suppliers that service more than 1,000 people are required to have a Water Supply Plan
approved by the Department of Natural Resources (Minnesota Statutes 103G.291). These plans were
first required in 1996 and must be updated every ten years. In addition, all communities that have
public water supplies in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area are required to prepare water supply plans
and submit them to the Metropolitan Council as part of their local comprehensive plans (Minnesota
Statutes 473.859).
The City of Saint Louis Park’s Water Supply Plan (WSP) prepared by Bluestone Engineering and
approved by the Minnesota DNR on October 20, 2008 satisfies the Minnesota Statute requirements
mentioned above for the DNR and the Metropolitan Council.
What’s important about the WSP?
Water is a critical resource for the health and vitality of people, businesses and communities. Even
though Minnesota is a relatively water rich state, as our state grows we must manage this resource
responsibly. The Saint Louis Park Water Supply Plan provides information to the City, DNR and
Metropolitan Council to help determine and analyze the sustainability of the water resources of Saint
Louis Park. With the information provided in this plan, better decisions can be made on a local,
regional and state level about water systems.
There are four main parts to the Water Emergency and Conservation Plan.
1.Water Supply System Description and Evaluation
2.Emergency response procedures
3.Water Conservation Plan
4.Items for Metropolitan Area Public Suppliers
Following are short summaries of each part of the plan. Important specific information about Saint
Louis Park’s report is included under the question, “What does this do for the City?”
Part I evaluates the current water system, projects demand for the future system and examines the
sustainability of the City’s water resources. Emergency interconnections are described in this part.
Part II presents the procedures used by the water utility in the event of a water emergency. Triggers
that require staff to take action to reduce demand on the water system are included in this section. This
part also includes procedures for emergency notification and a list of emergency contacts.
Enforcement procedures to ensure an adequate reduction in demand are also included in this part of the
plan. This part includes procedures for augmenting water supplies.
Part III covers the procedures for conserving water including the reduction of unaccounted for water
use and a review of residential water use per person. The conservation plan examines if the
community’s water rates provide an incentive for customers to conserve water.
Part IV is information for the Metropolitan Council and in general presents any impacts the Water
Supply Plan will have on the City’s comprehensive plan and presents projected populations and water
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 9
2
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Supply Plan
demands. The Metropolitan Council compares the information presented in the Water Supply Plan
with the Met Council’s projected values.
The Water Supply Plan is important because it provides the City an opportunity to analyze their water
system and related conservation and emergency planning procedures and determine if any changes
may be needed or should be considered.
What does this WSP do for the City?
The water emergency and conservation plan approved by the DNR on October 20, 2008:
1. Keeps you in compliance with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes 103G.291 through
2018.
2. Highlights areas where the City’s water system meets or exceeds the state recommendations,
for example:
a. Saint Louis Park maximum day to average day ratio average is 1.79, which is
significantly lower than the 2.6 required by the state.
3. Highlights areas where the City’s water system can be improved, for example:
a. Saint Louis Park average unaccounted for water use is 16.1%, which is significantly
higher than the 10% required by the state. But the unaccounted for water use is
dropping and was below the 10% to 9.1% in 2007.
b. Saint Louis Park’s water rate structure is a conservation neutral rate because the water
cost per unit volume stays the same no matter the total volume used. This rate structure
will need to be changed to a conservation rate by January 1, 2010 to meet state statutes.
c. Saint Louis Park’s 78.5 gallons per person per day (gpcd) is slightly higher than the 75
gpcd average in the metro area. Saint Louis Park’s per capita use is trending lower but
continued efforts to reduce per capita use such as enforcement of sprinkling bans and
other planned conservation measures will assist in reducing per capita use to below 75
gpcd.
What are the recommended next steps for the City?
We recommend that the City consider implementing the following critical next steps.
1. Consider a feasibility study that would examine possibilities for emergency connections with
adjoining communities and costs associated to install these connections.
2. Adopt this Water Emergency and Conservation Plan as approved by the DNR on October 20,
2008.
3. Change your rate structure to a conservation rate structure by January 1, 2010.
4. Enforce water restrictions by issuing tickets or fining customers for non-compliance of the
sprinkling bans.
5. Begin the process of implementing utility agreements with adjoining communities.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 10
3
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Supply Plan
Introduction
The City of Saint Louis Park Water Supply Plan was prepared using the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources Microsoft Word template. Much of the text was left as shown in the original DNR
template, which includes instructions and comments to the preparer of the Water Supply Plan.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 11
4
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Supply Plan
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES – DIVISION OF WATERS and
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
WATER SUPPLY PLANS
These guidelines are divided into four parts. The first three parts, Water Supply System Description
and Evaluation, Emergency Response Procedures and Water Conservation Planning apply statewide.
Part IV, relates to comprehensive plan requirements that apply only to communities in the Seven-
County Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. If you have questions regarding water emergency and
conservation plans, please call (651) 259-5703 or (651) 259-5647 or e-mail your question to
wateruse@dnr.state.mn.us. Metro Communities can also direct questions to the Metropolitan Council
at watersupply@metc.state.mn.us or (651) 602-1066.
DNR Water Appropriation
Permit Number(s)
731007
Name of Water Supplier City of Saint Louis Park, MN
Address 3752 Wooddale Avenue, Saint Louis Park, MN 55416
Contact Person Scott Anderson
Title Superintendent of Utilities
Phone Number 952-924-2557
E-Mail Address sanderson@stlouispark.org
PART I. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND EVALUATION
The first step in any water supply analysis is to assess the current status of demand and supplies.
Information in Part I can be used in the development of Emergency Response Procedures and
Conservation Plans.
A. ANALYSIS OF WATER DEMAND
Fill in Table 1 for the past 10 years water demand. If your customer categories are different than
the ones listed in Table 1, please note the changes below.
The City of Saint Louis Park’s customers are categorized into either residential or commercial.
There are no other customer categories.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 12
5 City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering Water Emergency and Conservation Plan TABLE 1 – Historic Water Demand Year Total Population Population Served Total Connections Residential Water Sold (MG) C/I/I Water Sold (MG) Accounted for water losses (MG) Total Water Sold (MG) Total Water Pumped (MG) Percent Unmetered/ Unaccounted Average Demand (MGD) Maximum Demand (MGD) Residential gallons/ capita/day Total gallons/ capita/day 1998 43,967 43,967 13,224 1,352.2 744.6 NA 2,096.8 2,305.4 9.0% 6.299 NA 84.0 143.3 1999 44,000 44,000 13,321 1,337.0 751.6 30.8 2,088.6 2,479.6 14.5% 6.793 NA 83.3 154.4 2000 44,126 44,126 13,318 1,338.0 756.0 18.4 2,094.0 2,498.7 15.5% 6.846 NA 83.1 155.1 2001 44,126 44,126 13,305 1,404.0 639.0 71.7 2,043.0 2,445.9 13.5% 6.701 15.061 87.2 151.9 2002 44,126 44,126 13,189 1,289.8 601.4 23.5 1,891.2 2,220.2 13.8% 6.083 11.554 79.9 137.5 2003 44,126 44,126 13,310 1,357.4 647.1 42.5 2,004.5 2,576.1 20.5% 7.058 13.315 84.3 159.9 2004 44,126 44,126 13,208 1,232.2 655.1 18.5 1,887.3 2,315.3 17.7% 6.343 11.196 76.5 143.8 2005 44,896 44,896 13,569 1,203.8 646.9 NA 1,850.7 2,229.8 17.0% 6.109 11.363 73.5 136.1 2006 44,896 44,896 13,616 1,268.3 723.1 29.3 1,991.4 2,411.2 16.2% 6.606 11.461 77.2 146.7 2007 44,896 44,896 13,485 1,325.3 729.5 31.0 2,054.8 2,293.8 9.1% 6.284 10.775 80.9 140.0 MG – Million Gallons MGD – Million Gallons per Day C/I/I- Commercial, Industrial, Institutional NA- Data not available Residential. Water used for normal household purposes, such as drinking, food preparation, bathing, washing clothes and dishes, flushing toilets, and watering lawns and gardens. Institutional. Hospitals, nursing homes, day care centers, and other facilities that use water for essential domestic requirements. This includes public facilities and public metered uses. You may want to maintain separate institutional water use records for emergency planning and allocation purposes. Commercial. Water used by motels, hotels, restaurants, office buildings, commercial facilities, both civilian and military. Industrial. Water used for thermoelectric power (electric utility generation) and other industrial uses such as steel, chemical and allied products, food processing, paper and allied products, mining, and petroleum refining. Wholesale Deliveries. Bulk water sales to other public water suppliers. (Not included in table because City does not supply wholesale water to other water suppliers. Accounted for Water Losses. Water used for backwashing, parks, rinks, hydrant flushing and carbon backwashing. Unaccounted. Unaccounted for water is the volume of water withdrawn from all sources minus the volume sold. Residential Gallons per Capita per Day = total residential sales in gallons/population served/365 days Total Gallons per Capita per Day = total water withdrawals/population served/365 days NOTE: Non-essential water uses defined by Minnesota Statutes 103G.291, include lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation and other non-essential uses. Some of the above categories also include non-essential uses of water. Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 13
6
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
Water Use Trends. Discuss factors that influence trends in water demand (i.e. growth, weather,
industry, conservation). If appropriate, include a discussion of other factors that affect daily
water use, such as use by non-resident commuter employees or large water consuming industry.
The population of the City of Saint Louis Park has not changed significantly, having only
increased by 2% in the past ten years. Although the population has remained about the same,
water use for both residential and commercial customers is decreasing per capita. In the past ten
years, both residential and commercial per capita consumption has decreased at about 1
gpcd/year.
Water demand in Saint Louis Park is somewhat more influenced by changes in weather since the
population is relatively stable. For example, 2003 which was a dry year, had a per capita
residential use of 84.3 gpcd which is 3.3 gpcd more than the average of 81.0 gpcd for the last ten
years. While 2002 was a wet year with a per capita residential use of 79.9 gpcd or 2.1 gpcd
below the average. Refer to Figure 1 which shows annual precipitation departure maps in
Minnesota for 2002 and 2003. Figure 2 shows annual precipitation in the Minneapolis/St. Paul
area between 2001 and 2005.
Per capita water use is anticipated to decrease in the future because of several factors that
conserve water use. These items are discussed in detail under Part III. Conservation.
TABLE 2 – Large Volume Users
The top 10 largest water users for 2007 are shown below.
Customer Gallons per year % of total annual use
Novartis Corporation 123,974,250 7.34
Methodist Hospital 43,116,000 2.55
Bigos Properties Meadowbrook 18,323,250 1.09
Douglas Corporation 18,026,250 1.07
Metropointe 12,711,000 0.75
Double Tree Hotel 11,843,250 0.70
Recreation Center 11,666,250 0.69
St. Louis Park Plaza 11,010,000 0.65
Bigos Investments 10,479,750 0.62
Coperine 10,155,000 0.60
B. TREATMENT AND STORAGE CAPACITY
TABLE 3(A) – Water Treatment
Water Treatment Plant Capacity 15,120,000 Gallons per day
Describe the treatment process used (i.e., softening, chlorination, fluoridation, Fe/Mn removal,
reverse osmosis, coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, others). Also, describe the annual amount
and method of disposal of treatment residuals, if any.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 14
7
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
St. Louis Park water is disinfected to prevent contamination from microorganisms. Fluoride is
added to enhance children’s dental protection. The nuisance minerals iron and manganese are
removed from the water by aeration and filtration. Radium is removed through chemical
injection and filtration. Organic contaminates are removed from two wells by granular activated
carbon filtration. The water treatment operators check the treatment system every day to ensure
water quality standards are met.
The City of St. Louis Park has six water treatment plants, which are located near the wells.
Capacities at each water treatment plant, based on rated flow for the high service pumps (HSP),
are as follow: WTP No. 1 = 5400 gpm, WTP No. 4 = 1250 gpm, WTP No. 6 = 3900 gpm, WTP
No. 8 = 1200 gpm, WTP No. 10 = 4200 gpm, WTP No. 16 = 1600 gpm. The total HSP capacity
from the treatment plants is 17,550 gpm.
The total well capacity going into the treatment plants though is less than the capacity of the high
service pumps. The total well capacity (as shown below under Water Sources) is 10,500 gallons
per minute (gpm) or 15.12 million gallons per day (MGD). These figures are based on the rated
value of the well pumps. Actual pumping production will be influenced by water availability of
the aquifers and time of year.
TABLE 3(B) – Storage Capacity
St. Louis Park has two underground concrete reservoirs, with one having a capacity of 1.5
million gallons and the other at 2.0 million gallons. There are two steel ground storage reservoirs
each with a capacity of 1.5 million gallons. There are two two-legged tanks each with a 1.0
million gallon capacity and one fluted column tank with a 1.0 million gallon capacity. The total
storage capacity is 9.5 million gallons. In the event of the malfunction, destruction, or
contamination of one of the storage facilities, it could be taken out of service without any
concern to satisfy maximum demand.
Total Storage Capacity Average Day Demand (average of last 5 years)
9,500,000 Gallons 6,480,000 Gallons per day
Type of Structure Number of Structures Gallons
Elevated Storage 3 3,000,000
Ground Storage 2 2,000,000
Other: Underground 2 3,500,000
C. WATER SOURCES
All groundwater, surface water and interconnections that supply water to the City of Saint Louis
Park water system are shown below.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 15
8
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
TABLE 4(A) – Total Water Source Capacity for System
(Excludes emergency connections)
Total Capacity of Sources 10,500 Gallons per minute (15.12 MGD)
Firm Capacity (largest pump out of service) 9,250 Gallons per minute (13.32 MGD)
TABLE 4(B) – Groundwater Sources
The City currently maintains detailed well record information including well logs and well
maintenance for each of their municipal wells and has done so for many years. This large volume
of data is kept in files at City facilities and is quickly accessible to City staff. For security
reasons the water well records are not included in this plan as the plan will be submitted to two
public agencies; the Department of Natural Resources and the Metropolitan Council.
Well # or
name
Unique
Well
Number
Year
Installed
Well &
Casing
Depth
(ft)
Well
Diameter
(in)
Capacity
(GPM)
Geologic
Unit
Status
3 206440 1939 103 24 900 PS Active Use
4 200542 1946 304 24-18 1250 PJ Active Use
5 203196 1947 305 24-20 NA Water Level
Monitoring *
6 206457 1948 303 24-20 1200 PJ Emergency
7 206436 1952 247 24-20 NA PJ Water Level
Monitoring *
8 203678 1955 311 24-16 1200 PJ Active Use
9 206437 1956 289 24-16 NA PJ Future
Availability *
10 206442 1955 316 24-16 1250 PJ Active Use
11 206439 1960 880 24-16 1200 MH Active Use
12 206456 1965 900 30-24-16 1150 MH Active Use
13 206424 1964 891 30-24-16 1200 MH Active Use
14 227965 1965 389 30-24-16 1200 PJ Active Use
15 215447 1969 389 30-24 1250 PJ Alternate
16 203187 1973 425 30-24 1150 PJ Active Use
17 147459 1983 818 36-30-24-
16
1250 MH Standby
Status: Active use, Emergency, Standby, Water Level Monitoring, Future Availability, Alternate.
Alternate: SLP10 or SLP15 can be operated but cannot both produce water at the same time.
Geologic Unit: Name of formation(s), which supplies water to the well
GPM – Gallons per Minute
Key to Symbols
MH = Mt. Simon-Hinckley
PJ= Prairie du Chien-Jordan
PS = Platteville-St. Peter
* SLP 5, 7, 9 are all PCJ wells that will require water treatment. The City would like to keep them available for
future use as production wells.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 16
9
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
TABLE 4(C) – Surface Water Sources
Intake ID Resource Name Capacity (GPM/MGD)
No surface water sources - -
GPM – Gallons per Minute MGD – Million Gallons per Day
TABLE 4(D) – Wholesale or Retail Interconnections
List interconnections with neighboring suppliers that are used to supply water on a regular basis
either wholesale or retail.
Water Supply System Capacity (GPM/MGD) Wholesale or Retail
No wholesale or retail
interconnections
- -
GPM – Gallons per Minute MGD – Million Gallons per Day
TABLE 4(E) – Emergency Interconnections
List interconnections with neighboring suppliers or private sources that can be used to supply
water on an emergency or occasional basis. Suppliers that serve less than 3,300 people can leave
this section blank, but must provide this information in Section IIC.
Water Supply System Capacity (GPM/MGD) Note any limitation on use
Plymouth 8” Plymouth main connected
to a 12” SLP main (Betty
Crocker Drive)
None noted
Minnetonka 6” Minnetonka main to 6”
SLP main (Ford Road)
None noted
GPM – Gallons per Minute MGD – Million Gallons per Day
The Plymouth connection is adequate to supply the Shelard Park area west of Highway 169 to
the Plymouth border and North of Interstate 394. The Minnetonka connection is adequate for the
area west of Highway 169 to the Golden Valley border and south of Interstate 394. These lines
are not of adequate size to supply large portions of the City.
A study was done many years ago about the possibility of connecting the east side of the City to
a 48 inch main owned by Minneapolis. But no connection was ever implemented. Saint Louis
Park is planning to reexamine the possibility of making a connection with that 48-inch main.
There is also a previously abandoned connection that could be reconnected with Golden Valley.
It is a 12 inch connection.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 17
10
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
D. DEMAND PROJECTIONS
TABLE 5 – Ten Year Demand Projections
Year Population
Served
Average Day
Demand
(MGD)
Maximum Day
Demand
(MGD)
Projected
Demand
(MGY)
2008 45,597 6.625 11.859 2,418
2009 46,299 6.727 12.042 2,455
2010 47,000 6.829 12.224 2,493
2011 47,230 6.863 12.284 2,505
2012 47,460 6.896 12.344 2,517
2013 47,690 6.929 12.404 2,529
2014 47,920 6.963 12.463 2,541
2015 48,150 6.996 12.523 2,554
2016 48,380 7.030 12.583 2,566
2017 48,610 7.063 12.643 2,578
MGD – Million Gallons per Day MGY – Million Gallons per Year
Projection Method. Describe how projections were made (assumptions for per capita, per
household, per acre or other methods used).
Average day demand was determined by multiplying the projected population served by 145.3
gallons per person per day (gpcd). The value 145.3 gpcd is the average total gpcd for the last
five years. The maximum day demand was determined by multiplying the average day demand
by 1.79, which is the 5 year average of the maximum day to average day ratio.
E. RESOURCE SUSTAINABILITY
Monitoring. Records of water levels should be maintained for all production wells and source
water reservoirs/basins. Water level readings should be taken monthly for a production well or
observation well that is representative of the wells completed in each water source formation.
TABLE 6 – Monitoring Wells
List all wells being measured
Unique Well
Number
Type of Well
(production,
observation)
Frequency of
Measurement
(daily, monthly, etc.)
Method of
Measurement (steel
tape, SCADA, etc.)
Platteville-St. Peter Wells
206440 Well 3 – production Monthly Transducer
Prairie du Chien-Jordan Wells
200542 Well 4 - production Monthly Transducer
203196 Well 5 – production None – out of service N/A
206457 Well 6 – production None Cannot measure –
sounder gets stuck
206436 Well 7 – production None – out of service Transducer
203678 Well 8 – production Monthly Well sounder
206437 Well 9 – production None – out of service N/A
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 18
11
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
206442 Well 10 – production Monthly Transducer
227965 Well 14 – production Monthly Well sounder
215447 Well 15 – production Monthly Well sounder
203187 Well 16 – production Monthly Transducer
Mt. Simon-Hinckley Wells
206439 Well 11 – production Monthly Well sounder
206456 Well 12 – production Monthly Well sounder
206424 Well 13 – production Monthly Well sounder
147459 Well 17 – production None – in standby N/A
Water Level Data. Summarize water level data including seasonal and long-term trends for each
ground and/or surface water source. If water levels are not measured and recorded on a routine
basis then provide the static water level (SWL) when the well was constructed and a current
water level measurement for each production well. Also include all water level data taken during
well and pump maintenance.
The City of Saint Louis Park has some records for water levels in SLP 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 12 and 14.
These were taken manually using a well sounder. The wellheads for the other operational wells
do not permit a well sounder to be inserted into the wells. Table A.1 in Appendix A shows the
available water level records between August 2006 and July 2008.
There are also quarterly water levels available from the Reilly report. That data is not included in
this report.
To be able to better analyze the sustainability of the City’s aquifers in the future, Saint Louis
Park has decided to improve their well level monitoring by installing well transducers in all of
their production wells.
Starting this year, water levels have started being collected monthly for each well. This will be
made easier with the well transducers being installed. Currently four wells (SLP 3, 4, 7 and 10)
have had well transducers installed and a fifth will be installed later this year. These transducers
are new within the last year. The plan is to install two well transducers each year. All wells
should have well transducers within 5 years.
The City’s Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system will be modified to
collect the well level monitoring data. The City is committed to revising this software so that
static and pumping water levels are recorded on a periodic basis. Using this software the City
will be able to trend the water level data and analyze the resource sustainability.
The City will have more well monitoring data for the next update of the Water Supply Plan
which will allow the City to better analyze any seasonal or long term trends over the next ten
years.
Appendix B includes well monitoring data (tables).
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 19
12
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
Ground Water Level Monitoring – DNR Waters in conjunction with federal and local units of government maintain
and measure approximately 750 observation wells around the state. Ground water level data are available online
www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters. Information is also available by contacting the Ground Water Level Monitoring Manager,
DNR Waters, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, MN 55155 4032 or call (651) 259-5700.
Natural Resource Impacts. Indicate any natural resource features such as calcareous fens,
wetlands, trout streams, rivers or surface water basins that are or could be influenced by water
withdrawals from municipal production wells. Also indicate if resource protection thresholds
have been established and if mitigation measures or management plans have been developed.
The City does not have any natural resources that could be impacted by withdrawal from the
production wells.
Sustainability. Evaluate the adequacy of the resource to sustain current and projected demands.
Describe any modeling conducted to determine impacts of projected demands on the resource.
Precipitation recharges all aquifers. Recharge of the confined aquifers, used by City wells, takes
place on a regional scale encompassing large areas that extend outside the City's DWSMAs. The
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has maintained a system for monitoring hydrologic
data that addresses precipitation within the metropolitan region.
The City is within a semi-humid region where average annual precipitation exceeds average
annual evapotranspiration, leading to a net surplus of water. The Climatology Working Group
(a cooperative effort between state and academic organizations) has developed an interactive
web site to locate and access precipitation data. Based on regional data the metropolitan area
receives an average annual precipitation of 28 inches. Local and regional precipitation is
presented in Figure 2.
The sustainability of the City’s water sources (aquifers) is impacted by many factors including
precipitation, aquifer characteristics such as transmissivity and thickness, water withdrawal from
pumping or aquifer flow through and other factors.
As discussed above there is some water level data for the years 2000 through 2004 but there is
not adequate information to assess the sustainability of the aquifers. With the installation of well
transducers and the monthly collection of static and pumping water levels, the City should have
adequate information when the next Water Supply Plan is prepared to assess if the aquifer levels
are changing over time.
The City’s Superintendent of Utilities is interested in the sustainability of the City’s aquifer. For
that reason he has been actively attending the Metro Water Supply Advisory committee
meetings. Saint Louis Park is supplying data for the advisory committee to help the
Metropolitan Council to determine the sustainability of the metropolitan area aquifers.
Source Water Protection Plans. The emergency procedures in this plan are intended to comply
with the contingency plan provisions required in the Minnesota Department of Health’s (MDH)
Wellhead Protection (WHP) Plan and Surface Water Protection (SWP) Plan.
Date WHP Plan Adopted The plan was adopted in July 2006
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 20
13
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
Date for Next WHP Update City plans to start preparing a WHP update in 2014 and
completing the update in 2016.
SWP Plan: In Process Completed Not Applicable
F. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP)
Adequacy of Water Supply System. Are water supply installations, treatment facilities and
distribution systems adequate to sustain current and projected demands? Yes No If no,
describe any potential capital improvement plans (CIP) over the next ten years and state the
reasons for the proposed changes (See Appendix B for CIP).
There are no water supply installations, treatment facilities or distribution systems needed other
than replacement of aging systems.
Proposed Water Sources. Does your current CIP include the addition of new wells or intakes?
Yes No If yes, list the number of new installations and projected water demands from
each for the next ten years. Plans for new production wells must include the geologic source
formation, well location, and proposed pumping capacity.
No new water sources (wells) are included in the current CIP.
Water Source Alternatives. If new water sources are being proposed, describe alternative
sources that were considered and any possibilities of joint efforts with neighboring communities
for development of supplies.
No new water sources are being proposed.
Preventative Maintenance. Long-term preventative programs and measures will help reduce
the risk of emergency situations. Identify sections of the system that are prone to failure due to
age, materials or other problems. This information should be used to prioritize capital
improvements, preventative maintenance, and to determine the types of materials (pipes, valves,
couplings, etc.) to have in stock to reduce repair time.
The City is committed to constant improvement of the water system and this includes long-term
preventative maintenance. The City has a well maintenance program that includes complete well
rehabilitation of each well at least once every seven years. Wells SLP 4, SLP8 and SLP10 are
rehabilitated every 5 years because these wells are operated 24 hours a day and seven days a
week.
One area that the City knows it needs to improve is in hydrant maintenance. Currently there is
not adequate funding and staff to provide an aggressive hydrant maintenance program as the City
would like.
The City’s SCADA system provides printouts of items that need maintenance when required.
Pumps are lubricated on a regular schedule based on number of hours pumped. City conducts
periodic maintenance checks on the water systems valves. Backwash tanks are cleaned on an
annual basis. Flow meters for wells and treatment plants are calibrated annually.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 21
14
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
PART II. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES
Water emergencies can occur as a result of vandalism, sabotage, accidental contamination,
mechanical problems, power failures, drought, flooding, and other natural disasters. The purpose
of emergency planning is to develop emergency response procedures and to identify actions
needed to improve emergency preparedness. In the case of a municipality, these procedures
should be in support of, and part of, an all-hazard emergency operations plan. If your community
already has written procedures dealing with water emergencies we recommend that you use these
guidelines to review and update existing procedures and water supply protection measures.
FEDERAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Section 1433(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act as amended by the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness Response Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-188, Title IV – Drinking
Water Security and Safety) requires community water suppliers serving over 3,300 people to
prepare and Emergency Response Plan. Community water suppliers that have completed the
Federal Emergency Response Plan and submitted the required certification to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency have satisfied Part II, Sections A, B, and C of these
guidelines and need only provide the information below regarding the emergency response
plan and source water protection plan and complete Section D (Allocation and Demand
Reduction Procedures), and E (Enforcement).
Provide the following information regarding your completed Federal Emergency Response Plan:
Emergency Response Plan Contact Person Contact Number
Emergency Response Lead Scott Anderson 612-751-0455
Alternate Emergency Response Lead Bruce Berthiaume 612-751-0506
Emergency Response Plan Certification Date June 28, 2004
Operational Contingency Plan. An operational contingency plan that describes measures to be
taken for water supply mainline breaks and other common system failures as well as routine
maintenance is recommended for all utilities. Check here if the utility has an operational
contingency plan. At a minimum a contact list for contractors and supplies should be included in
a water emergency telephone list.
Communities that have completed Federal Emergency Response Plans should skip to Section D.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 22
15
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROCEDURES
Although the City has completed a Federal Emergency Response Plan, instead of skipping to
Section D, some parts of Sections A, B and C include discussions and information about Saint
Louis Park’s system.
A. Emergency Telephone List
A telephone list of emergency contacts is included, as required, as Appendix C. The list includes
key utility and community personnel, contacts in adjacent communities, and appropriate local,
state and federal emergency contacts. Please be sure to verify and update the contacts on the
emergency telephone list on a regular basis (once each year recommended). In the case of a
municipality, this information should be contained in a notification and warning standard
operating procedure maintained by the warning point for that community. Responsibilities
and services for each contact should be defined.
B. Current Water Sources and Service Area
Quick access to concise and detailed information on water sources, water treatment, and the
distribution system may be needed in an emergency. System operation, water well and
maintenance records should be maintained in a central secured location so that the records are
accessible for emergency purposes and preventative maintenance. A detailed map of the system
showing the treatment plants, water sources, storage facilities, supply lines, interconnections, and
other information that would be useful in an emergency should also be readily available. Check
here if these records and maps exist and staff can access the documents in the event of an
emergency.
The City of Saint Louis Park has drawings of the water system including distribution system
valves and mains, wells, wellhouses and treatment plants. These drawings are available in
electronic and hard copy form and used on a daily basis. All Utility trucks also have copies of
maps and intersection books. Currently there are two service trucks with laptop computers which
include data and drawings of the water system. The City plans to install more laptops in the next
couple years and plans to have laptops in all service trucks by the year 2010. The City is
currently in the process of acquiring GIS coordinates for all manholes and valves in the City.
C. Procedure for Augmenting Water Supplies
List all available sources of water that can be used to augment or replace existing sources in an
emergency. In the case of a municipality, this information should be contained in a notification
and warning standard operating procedure maintained by the warning point for that community.
Copies of cooperative agreements should be maintained with the City’s copy of the plan. There
are currently no formal cooperative agreements between the City and the adjoining communities.
Be sure to include information on any physical or chemical problems that may limit
interconnections to other sources of water. Approvals from the MN Department of Health are
required for interconnections and reuse of water.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 23
16
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
TABLE 7(A) – Public Water Supply Systems
List interconnections with other public water supply systems that can supply water in an
emergency. The Saint Louis Park interconnections are shown in Table 4(E).
Water Supply System Capacity (GPM/MGD) Note any limitations on use
See Table 4(E)
GPM – Gallons per Minute MGD – Million Gallons per Day
TABLE 7(B) – Private Water Sources
List other sources of water available in an emergency
Name Capacity (GPM/MGD) Note any limitations on use
No private sources
GPM – Gallons per Minute MGD – Million Gallons per Day
D. Allocation and Demand Reduction Procedures
The plan must include procedures to address gradual decreases in water supply as well as
emergencies and the sudden loss of water due to line breaks, power failures, sabotage, etc.
During periods of limited water supplies public water suppliers are required to allocate water
based on the priorities established in Minnesota Statutes 103G.261.
Water Use Priorities (Minnesota Statutes 103G.261)
First Priority. Domestic water supply, excluding industrial and commercial uses of municipal water supply, and use for power
production that meets contingency requirements.
NOTE: Domestic use is defined (MN Rules 6115.0630, Subp. 9), as use for general household purposes for human needs
such as cooking, cleaning, drinking, washing, and waste disposal, and uses for on-farm livestock watering excluding
commercial livestock operations which use more than 10,000 gallons per day or one million gallons per year.
Second Priority. Water uses involving consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day.
Third Priority. Agricultural irrigation and processing of agricultural products.
Fourth Priority. Power production in excess of the use provided for in the contingency plan under first priority.
Fifth Priority. Uses, other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural products, and power production.
Sixth Priority. Non-essential uses. These uses are defined by Minnesota Statutes 103G.291 as lawn sprinkling, vehicle
washing, golf course and park irrigation, and other non-essential uses.
List the statutory water use priorities along with any local priorities in Table 8. Water used for
human needs at hospitals, nursing homes and similar types of facilities should be designated as a
high priority to be maintained in an emergency. Local allocation priorities will need to address
water used for human needs at other types of facilities such as hotels, office buildings, and
manufacturing plants. The volume of water and other types of water uses at these facilities must
be carefully considered. After reviewing the data, common sense should dictate local allocation
priorities to protect domestic requirements over certain types of economic needs. In Table 8, list
the priority ranking, average day demand and demand reduction potential for each customer
category (modify customer categories if necessary).
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 24
17
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
TABLE 8 – Water Use Priorities
Customer Category Allocation Priority Average Day Demand
(GPD)
Demand Reduction
Potential (GPD)
Residential 1 4,053,000 3,247,300
Commercial 5 2,231,000 1,786,500
Non-essential 6 0 1,250,200
TOTALS 6,284,000 6,284,000
GPD – Gallons per Day
Average Day Demands shown in Table 8 are based on water sold quantities in 2007. Demand
Reduction Potentials shown in Table 8 are based on the water sold quantity of 516,865,500 for
the fourth quarter (Oct., Nov., Dec.) of 2007 which gives an average winter day demand of
5,618,100 gallons. Average Day Water Pumped for all of 2007 was 6,284,000. Based on 2007
water sold the average day residential use was 3,631,000 or 57.8% of the total. Average day
commercial use was 1,999,000 gallons or 31.8% of the total. Average day unaccounted for
water and accounted for water losses in 2007 was 654,800 gallons or 10.1%. In Table 8 this
10.1% was applied proportionately to the residential and commercial water use to include water
losses and unaccounted for water. Based on a served population of 44,896 in 2007 and a demand
reduction potential of 3,247,300, the per person winter water use is 72 gallons per person per
day. There are no second, third or fourth priority water demands in the City of Saint Louis Park.
There are several hospitals located within the City of Saint Louis Park.
Demand Reduction Potential. The demand reduction potential for residential use will typically be the base
demand during the winter months when water use for non-essential uses such as lawn watering do not occur. The
difference between summer and winter demands typically defines the demand reduction that can be achieved by
eliminating non-essential uses. In extreme emergency situations lower priority water uses must be restricted or
eliminated to protect first priority domestic water requirements. Short-term demand reduction potential should be
based on average day demands for customer categories within each priority class.
Triggers for Allocation and Demand Reduction Actions
Triggering levels must be defined for implementing emergency responses, including supply
augmentation, demand reduction, and water allocation. Examples of triggers include: water
demand >100% of storage, water level in well(s) below a certain elevation, treatment capacity
reduced 10% etc. Each trigger should have a quantifiable indicator and actions can have multiple
stages such as mild, moderate and severe responses. Check each trigger below that is used for
implementing emergency responses and for each trigger indicate the actions to be taken at
various levels or stages of severity in Table 9.
Water Demand Water Main Break
Treatment Capacity Loss of Production
Storage Capacity Security Breach
Groundwater Levels Contamination
Surface Water Flows or Levels Other (list in Table 9)
Pump, Booster Station or Well Out of Service
Governor’s Executive Order – Critical Water Deficiency (required by statute)
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 25
18
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
TABLE 9 – Demand Reduction Procedures
Condition Trigger(s) Actions
Ongoing
Condition
No trigger Permanent sprinkling restrictions are in place.
Customers limit outdoor watering to every other day
and no watering between noon and 6:00 p.m.
Customers with odd-numbered street addresses
alternate outdoor watering with even-numbered
addresses. All municipal operations are placed on
mandatory conservation with park irrigation limited as
defined by the directors of parks and public works.
Water Storage
Emergency
Level 1
Water Supply
Capacity < 10.5
MGD (summer)
< 8.0 MGD (winter
or storage capacity
at 6 am < 5 MG
A mandatory water conservation decree is issued,
limiting outdoor watering by customers to once every
five days. Watering of trees will be allowed on an
odd-even address basis. No watering between noon
and 6:00 p.m. No private carwashing will be allowed.
Special water users, as designated by the City
Manager, may be allowed a supplemental water
allowance in order to maintain operations.
Water Storage
Emergency
Level 2
Water Supply
Capacity < 9.5 MGD
(summer)
< 7.0 MGD (winter)
or storage capacity
at 6 am < 4 MG
A mandatory water conservation decree is issued,
banning all lawn watering. Major industrial/
commercial users over 10,000 gpd may be restricted at
the discretion of the City Manager.
Water Storage
Emergency
Level 3
Water Supply
Capacity < 8.5 MGD
(summer)
< 6.0 MGD (winter)
or storage capacity
at 6 am < 3 MG
A mandatory water conservation decree is issued,
placing weekly limits on water use by all customers.
Limits shall be set at the discretion of the City
Manager, based on available supply system capacity,
priority of users, and other pertinent considerations
(i.e. nursing homes, hospitals, child care centers and
schools).
Critical Water
Deficiency
(M.S.
103G.291)
Executive Order by
Governor & as
provided in above
triggers
Stage 1: Restrict lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf
course and park irrigation and other nonessential uses
Stage 2: Suspend lawn watering, vehicle washing, golf
course and park irrigation and other nonessential uses
Note: The potential for water availability problems during the onset of a drought are almost impossible to predict. Significant
increases in demand should be balanced with preventative measures to conserve supplies in the event of prolonged drought
conditions.
Notification Procedures. List methods that will be used to inform customers regarding
conservation requests, water use restrictions, and suspensions. Customers should be aware of
emergency procedures and responses that they may need to implement.
The City uses several methods to inform customers of water use restrictions. Any restrictions are
included in the City newsletter which is published every month. During emergency conditions
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 26
19
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
where water use needs to be restricted over a very short term, the City contacts news agencies for
local television and radio stations and asks these stations to notify their viewers/listeners about
the water use restrictions in Saint Louis Park.
E. Enforcement
Minnesota Statutes require public water supply authorities to adopt and enforce water
conservation restrictions during periods of critical water shortages.
Public Water Supply Appropriation During Deficiency.
Minnesota Statutes 103G.291, Subdivision 1.
Declaration and conservation.
(a) If the governor determines and declares by executive order that there is a critical water deficiency, public water supply
authorities appropriating water must adopt and enforce water conservation restrictions within their jurisdiction that are
consistent with rules adopted by the commissioner.
(b) The restrictions must limit lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, golf course and park irrigation, and other nonessential uses,
and have appropriate penalties for failure to comply with the restrictions.
Sample regulations are available at www.dnr.state.mn.us/waters.
Authority to Implement Water Emergency Responses
Emergency responses could be delayed if city council or utility board actions are required.
Standing authority for utility or city managers to implement water restrictions can improve
response times for dealing with emergencies. Who has authority to implement water use
restrictions in an emergency?
Utility Manager City Manager City Council or Utility Board
Other (describe):
Emergency Preparedness. If city or utility managers do not have standing authority to
implement water emergency responses, please indicate any intentions to delegate that authority.
Also indicate any other measures that are being considered to reduce delays for implementing
emergency responses.
The City Manager has authority to implement water emergency responses. These responses are
published in the Sun-Sailer and Minneapolis Star Tribune newspapers and the City’s newsletter.
For shorter duration reduction measures, the City will notify various television news agencies,
and radio stations. The local television stations include 4, 5, 9 and 11 and Cable TV channel 17.
The radio stations include WCCO and KSTP.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 27
20
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
PART III. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN
Water conservation programs are intended to reduce demand for water, improve the efficiency in
use and reduce losses and waste of water. Long term conservation measures that improve overall
water use efficiencies can help reduce the need for short-term conservation measures. Water
conservation is an important part of water resource management and can also help utility
managers satisfy the ever increasing demands being placed on water resources.
Minnesota Statutes 103G.291, requires public water suppliers to implement demand reduction measures before
seeking approvals to construct new wells or increases in authorized volumes of water. Minnesota Rules
6115.0770, require water users to employ the best available means and practices to promote the efficient use of
water. Conservation programs can be cost effective when compared to the generally higher costs of developing
new sources of supply or expanding water and/or wastewater treatment plant capacities.
A. Conservation Goals
The following section establishes goals for various measures of water demand. The programs
necessary to achieve the goals will be described in the following section.
Unaccounted Water (calculate five year averages with data from Table 1)
Average annual volume unaccounted water for the last 5 years 383,220,000 gallons
Average percent unaccounted water for the last 5 years 16.1 percent
AWWA recommends that unaccounted water not exceed 10%. Describe goals to reduce
unaccounted water if the average of the last 5 years exceeds 10%.
Because of the high unaccounted for water losses, the City has implemented several programs in
the last few years.
To be able to track water use the City currently meters all customers for their water use including
City owned facilities. All residential meters are currently being replaced every 15 years and all
commercial meters are planned to be replaced every 10 years. Since meters typically underreport
water usage as they age, the water meter replacement program should dramatically reduce
unaccounted for water loss related to old meters. The City also recently started conducting
calibration of all water meters at wells and treatment plants. The City plans to calibrate these
meters every one to three years. Recent calibration discovered that some meters were only
reporting at 80% of actual water flow.
The City also has started conducting annual leak detection surveys.
The City also has programs in place to track water usage. The billing software compares
customer water use with the same period the previous year. Water use that exceeds 25% over the
previous year generates a notice to utility staff. City staff then conducts an onsite visit to these
customers’ homes/businesses and performs a water audit to determine what is causing the
excessive water use.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 28
21
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
Residential Gallons Per Capita Demand (GPCD)
Average residential GPCD use for the last 5 years (use data from Table
1)
78.5 GPCD
In 2002, average residential GPCD use in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area was 75 GPCD.
Describe goals to reduce residential demand if the average for the last 5 years exceeds 75 GPCD.
Both Figure 3 which shows GPCD for the past 10 years and Figure 4 which shows GPCD for the
past five years, indicate that although the City’s residential GPCD exceeds the Twin Cities 75
GPCD average, over the past ten years the GPCD has been steadily decreasing. If the City
continues at the annual decreases shown in these figures, within five years Saint Louis Park’s per
capita residential water use will fall below the 75 GPCD Twin Cities average.
Continued public education on conservation plus the other conservation methods mentioned
below are anticipated to continue the City’s ongoing reduction in residential GPCD use.
Total Per Capita Demand: From Table 1, is the trend in overall per capita demand over the past
10 years increasing or decreasing? If total GPCD is increasing, describe the goals to
lower overall per capita demand or explain the reasons for the increase.
Trend in overall per capita demand is decreasing. The total per capita demand has decreased
somewhat more than the residential in the last 10 years but a total per capita has had a more
significant decrease in the last 5 years. Figures 3 and 4 which graph the water use trends from
Table 1 show these trends. The decrease is likely partly due to the City’s shift to an ongoing odd-
even sprinkling ban during the summer months and a ban on sprinkling in the middle of the day.
As mentioned above the City will continue to track these trends.
Peak Demands (calculate average ratio for last five years using data from Table 1)
Average maximum day to average day ratio 1.79
If peak demands exceed a ratio of 2.6, describe the goals for lowering peak demands.
B. Water Conservation Programs
Describe all short term conservation measures that are available for use in an emergency and
long term measures to improve water use efficiencies for each of the six conservation program
elements listed below. Short term demand reduction measures must be included in the
emergency response procedures and must be in support of, and part of, a community all hazard
emergency operation plan.
1. Metering
The American Water Works Association (AWWA) recommends that every water utility meter
all water taken into its system and all water distributed from its system at its customer’s point of
service. An effective metering program relies upon periodic performance testing, and repair and
maintenance of all meters. AWWA also recommends that utilities conduct regular water audits to
ensure accountability.
Complete Table 10 (A) regarding the number and maintenance of customer meters.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 29
22
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
TABLE 10(A) – Customer Meters
Number of
Connections
Number of
Metered
Connections
Meter testing
schedule (years)
Average age/meter
replacement schedule
(years)
Residential 12,697 12,697 15 5 /15
Commercial 788 788 10 5 /10
Public
Facilities
10 / 20
Other
TOTALS 13,485 13,485
Unmetered Systems: Provide an estimate of the cost to install meters and the projected water
savings from metering water use. Also indicate any plans to install meters.
The only unmetered water use is from water leaks, watermain breaks and hydrant use
(flushing/fire use). Metering of these water uses is not practical or possible and the City has no
plans to meter this use. But the City does estimate hydrant use for annual watermain flushing.
TABLE 10(B) – Water Source Meters
Number of
Meters
Meter testing
schedule (years)
Average age/meter replacement
schedule (years)
Water Source
(wells/intakes)
11 5-7 10 / 15
Treatment Plant 6 5-7 10 / 15
2. Unaccounted Water
Water audits are intended to identify, quantify, and verify water and revenue losses. The volume
of unaccounted for water should be evaluated each billing cycle. The AWWA recommends a
goal of ten percent or less for unaccounted-for water. Water audit procedures are available from
the AWWA and MN Rural Water Association.
Frequency of water audits: each billing cycle yearly other:
Leak detection and survey: every year every years periodic as needed
Year last leak detection survey completed: 2007
The City’s billing software checks for bills that exceed the previous year’s volume by 25%.
Utility staff then conducts a water audit for these customers.
The City conducts an annual leak detection survey of the distribution system.
Reducing Unaccounted Water. List potential sources and efforts being taken to reduce
unaccounted water. If unaccounted water exceeds 10% of total withdrawals, include the
timeframe for completing work to reduce unaccounted water to 10% or less.
Potential sources for unaccounted water include water leaks, watermain breaks, treatment plant
backwashing and hydrant flushing. Watermain breaks are difficult to account for the water lost
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 30
23
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
and no efforts are planned to account for this water use. The City is now tracking the time spent
flushing their hydrants so as to account for some of the water use from the hydrants. Over the
last ten years the typical annual volume of water used during hydrant flushing has been estimated
to have been between 6 to 10 million gallons for each year. The City also tracks water used for
backwashing that is not recovered.
In the “Unaccounted Water” section above there are further discussions on steps being taken by
the City to reduce the unaccounted for water including calibration and replacement of old meters.
3. Conservation Water Rates
Plans must include the current rate structure for all customers and provide information on any
proposed rate changes. Discuss the basis for current price levels and rates, including cost of
service data, and the impact current rates have on conservation.
Billing Frequency: Monthly Bimonthly Quarterly
Other (describe):
The City of Saint Louis Park’s customers are billed quarterly. Utility bills are sent out each
month to one third of the customers. For example some customers are billed for January,
February and March, while other customers are billed for February, March and April and the
remaining customers are billed for March, April and May. This makes it difficult to match up
annual water pumped data with annual water sold data.
Volume included in base rate or service charge: zero gallons
Conservation Rate Structures
Increasing block rate: rate per unit increases as water use increases
Seasonal rate: higher rates in summer to reduce peak demands
Service charge or base fee that does not include a water volume
Conservation Neutral Rate Structure
Uniform rate: rate per unit is the same regardless of volume
Non-conserving Rate Structures
Service charge or base fee that includes a large volume of water
Declining block rate: rate per unit decreases as water use increases
Flat rate: one fee regardless of how much water is used (unmetered)
Other (describe):
Water Rates Evaluated: every year every years no schedule
Date of last rate change: January 1, 2004
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 31
24
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
Declining block (the more water used, the cheaper the rate) and flat (one fee for an unlimited
volume of water) rates should be phased out and replaced with conservation rates. Incorporating
a seasonal rate structure and the benefits of a monthly billing cycle should also be considered
along with the development of an emergency rate structure that could be quickly implemented to
encourage conservation in an emergency.
Current Water Rates. Current water rates including base/service fees and volume charges are
shown below.
The rate structure is to pay for the true cost of supplying, treating, and delivering the water,
including maintenance, billing, and all planned water system capital improvements.
All customers are billed at a rate of $1.14 per 100 cubic feet of water used. A service charge is
applied to all connections based on meter size.
Non-conserving Rate Structures. Provide justification for the rate structure and its impact on
reducing demands or indicate intentions including the timeframe for adopting a conservation rate
structure.
Rate structure is a uniform rate with no water usage included in the base charge. Therefore all
water use is charged. This is a conservation neutral rate structure.
The City conducted an informal internal rate study in 2005 which came up with annual rate
adjustments through 2008. The City plans to conduct another informal internal rate assessment
in late 2008. At that time the City will determine how best to implement a water rate structure
that meets the 2008 amendment to the 103G.291 Minnesota Statutes. The 2008 amendments
require all metropolitan area public water suppliers serving more than 1,000 persons to use
conservation rate structures by January 1, 2010.
4. Regulation
Plans should include regulations for short term reductions in demand and long term
improvements in water efficiencies. Sample regulations are available from DNR Waters. Copies
of adopted regulations or proposed restrictions are included in Appendix D of the plan. Indicate
any of the items below that are required by local regulations and also indicate if the requirement
is applied each year or just in emergencies.
Time of Day: no watering between 12 pm and 6 pm
(reduces evaporation) year around seasonal emergency only
Odd/Even: (helps reduce peak demand) year around seasonal emergency only
Water waste prohibited (no runoff from irrigation systems)
Describe ordinance:
Limitations on turf areas for landscaping (reduces high water use turf areas)
Describe ordinance:
Soil preparation (such as 4”-6” of organic soil on new turf areas with sandy soil)
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 32
25
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
Describe ordinance: All front yards, rear yards and side yards shall be sodded over a
minimum of four (4) inches of black dirt.
Tree ratios (plant one tree for every square feet to reduce turf evapotranspiration)
Describe ordinance: Each lot shall also contain one boulevard deciduous over story tree
and one front yard deciduous over story tree of two and one half-inch (2 ½”) caliper or
six foot (6’) coniferous tree. In addition, all corner lots will contain an additional
boulevard tree along the corner side yard.
Prohibit irrigation of medians or areas less than 8 feet wide
Describe ordinance:
Permit required to fill swimming pool every year emergency only
Other (describe):
State and Federal Regulations (mandated)
Rainfall sensors on landscape irrigation systems. Minnesota Statute 103G.298 requires “All automatically
operated landscape irrigation systems shall have furnished and installed technology that inhibits or interrupts operation of the
landscape irrigation system during periods of sufficient moisture. The technology must be adjustable either by the end user or the
professional practitioner of landscape irrigation services.”
Water Efficient Plumbing Fixtures. The 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act established
manufacturing standards for water efficient plumbing fixtures, including toilets, urinals, faucets,
and aerators.
Enforcement. Are ordinances enforced? Yes No If yes, indicate how ordinances are
enforced along with any penalties for non-compliance.
The City applies fines for non-compliance with the sprinkling ordinance. The first offense fine
for failing to follow sprinkling restrictions is $25. After that, the fine rises by $10 for each
subsequent violation. (For example, the second violation is $35, the third violation is $45, etc.)
5. Education and Information Programs
Customers should be provided information on how to improve water use efficiencies a minimum
of two times per year. Information should be provided at appropriate times to address peak
demands. Emergency notices and educational materials on how to reduce water use should be
available for quick distribution during an emergency. If any of the methods listed in the table
below are used to provide water conservation tips, indicate the number of times that information
is provided each year and attach a list of education efforts used for the last three years.
Current Education Programs Times/Year
Billing inserts or tips printed on the actual bill
Consumer Confidence Reports 1
Local news papers 1
Community news letters 4
Direct mailings (water audit/retrofit kits, showerheads, brochures)
Information at utility and public buildings always
Public Service Announcements 1
Cable TV Programs
Demonstration projects (landscaping or plumbing)
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 33
26
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
K-12 Education programs (Project Wet, Drinking Water Institute) 4
School presentations 12
Events (children’s water festivals, environmental fairs)
Community education
Water Week promotions
Information provided to groups that tour the water treatment plant By request
only
Website : http://www.stlouispark.org/residents/water.htm#2426 always
Targeted efforts (large volume users, users with large increases)
Notices of ordinances (include tips with notices)
Other:
Proposed Education Programs. Describe any additional efforts planned to provide
conservation information to customers a minimum of twice per year (required if there are no
current efforts).
The City of Saint Louis Park a water conservation outreach program to educate its citizens and
businesses. An integral part of this program is that the Superintendent of Public Utilities gives
talks and hands out information to kindergarten through 3rd grade students.
During late spring and summer months, the City publishes information about the City’s
sprinkling ban and the fines for non-compliance in the City’s newsletter, the Park Perspective.
The City also has water conservation information available at City Hall. AWWA water
conservation pamphlets are provided at community events such as the Fire Open House.
These are all ongoing educational efforts by the City. No new additional education programs are
currently planned.
A packet of conservation tips and information can be obtained by contacting DNR Waters or the
Minnesota Rural Water Association (MRWA). The American Water Works Association
(AWWA) www.awwa.org or www.waterwiser.org also has excellent materials on water
conservation that are available in a number of formats. You can contact the MRWA 800/367-
6792, the AWWA bookstore 800/926-7337 or DNR Waters 651/259-5703 for information
regarding educational materials and formats that are available.
6. Retrofitting Programs
Education and incentive programs aimed at replacing inefficient plumbing fixtures and
appliances can help reduce per capita water use as well as energy costs. It is recommended that
communities develop a long term plan to retrofit public buildings with water efficient plumbing
fixtures and that the benefits of retrofitting be included in public education programs. You may
also want to contact local electric or gas suppliers to see if they are interested in developing a
showerhead distribution program for customers in your service area.
A study by the AWWA Research Foundation (Residential End Uses of Water, 1999) found that the average
indoor water use for a non-conserving home is 69.3 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The average indoor
water use in a conserving home is 45.2 gpcd and most of the decrease in water use is related to water efficient
plumbing fixtures and appliances that can reduce water, sewer and energy costs. In Minnesota, certain electric
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 34
27
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
and gas providers are required (Minnesota Statute 216B.241) to fund programs that will conserve energy
resources and some utilities have distributed water efficient showerheads to customers to help reduce energy
demands required to supply hot water.
Retrofitting Programs. Describe any education or incentive programs to encourage the
retrofitting of inefficient plumbing fixtures (toilets, showerheads, faucets, and aerators) or
appliances (washing machines).
The 1992 Energy Policy Act requires all household plumbing fixtures manufactured after 1993
to be water efficient. The Saint Louis Park plumbing code requires all new homes and retrofits
of existing homes to utilize compliant fixtures. These regulations help to ensure long-term
improvements in water use efficiencies. There currently are no retrofitting programs or education
programs to encourage retrofitting of inefficient plumbing in the City.
The City’s education program provides customers information on the benefits of low water use
fixtures.
Plan Approval
Water Emergency and Conservation Plans must be approved by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) every ten years. Please submit plans for approval to the following address:
DNR Waters or Submit electronically to
Water Permit Programs Supervisor wateruse@dnr.state.mn.us.
500 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN 55155-4032
Adoption of Plan
All DNR plan approvals are contingent on the formal adoption of the plan by the city council or
utility board. Please submit a certificate of adoption (example available) or other action adopting
the plan.
Metropolitan Area communities are also required to submit these plans to the Metropolitan
Council. Please see PART IV. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC SUPPLIERS.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 35
28
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
PART IV. ITEMS FOR METROPOLITAN AREA PUBLIC SUPPLIERS
Minnesota Statute 473.859 requires water supply plans to be completed for all local units of
government in the seven-county Metropolitan Area as part of the local comprehensive planning
process. Much of the required information is contained in Parts I-III of these guidelines.
However, the following additional information is necessary to make the water supply plans
consistent with the Metropolitan Land Use Planning Act upon which local comprehensive plans
are based. Communities should use the information collected in the development of their plans
to evaluate whether or not their water supplies are being developed consistent with the Council's
Water Resources Management Policy Plan.
Policies. Provide a statement(s) on the principles that will dictate operation of the water supply
utility: for example, "It is the policy of the city to provide good quality water at an affordable
rate, while assuring this use does not have a long-term negative resource impact."
The St. Louis Park Water Utilities mission is to provide an uninterrupted supply of safe, high
quality water to our customers. We also strive to be an integral part of the community-ready to
educate children and adults about drinking water and the system delivering it. In addition to
pumping, treating and delivering water to our customers, the City’s Minnesota Department of
Health certified water treatment operators provide educational seminars to schools and others
groups about the city’s water system and water quality issues.
Impact on the Local Comprehensive Plan. Identify the impact that the adoption of this water
supply plan has on the rest of the local comprehensive plan, including implications for future
growth of the community, economic impact on the community and changes to the
comprehensive plan that might result.
The City is preparing an updated comprehensive plan in 2008. The results in this Water Supply
Plan are being incorporated into that plan.
Year Total
Community
Population
Population
Served
Average Day
Demand
(MGD)
Maximum
Day Demand
(MGD)
Projected
Demand
(MGY)
2010 47,000 47,000 6.829 11.859 2,418
2020 49,300 49,300 7.163 12.822 2,614
2030 51,500 51,500 7.482 13.394 2,731
Ultimate 51,500 51,500 7.482 13.394 2,731
Population projections should be consistent with those in the Metropolitan Council’s 2030
Regional Development Framework or the Communities 2008 Comprehensive Plan update. If
population served differs from total population, explain in detail why the difference (ie, service
to other communities, not complete service within community etc.).
Population projections are the same as the Metropolitan Council’s.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 36
29
City of Saint Louis Park, MN Bluestone Engineering
Water Emergency and Conservation Plan
Plan Submittal and Review of the Plan
The plan will be reviewed by the Council according to the sequence outlined in Minnesota
Statutes 473.175. Prior to submittal to the Council, the plan must be submitted to adjacent
governmental units for a 60-day review period. Following submittal, the Council determines
if the plan is complete for review within 15 days. If incomplete, the Council will notify the
community and request the necessary information. When complete the Council will complete its
review within 60 days or a mutually agreed upon extension. The community officially adopts
the plan after the Council provides its comments.
Plans can be submitted electronically to the Council; however, the review process will not begin
until the Council receives a paper copy of the materials. Electronic submissions can be via a CD,
3 ½” floppy disk or to the email address below. Metropolitan communities should submit their
plans to:
Reviews Coordinator electronically to:
Metropolitan Council watersupply@metc.state.mn.us
390 Robert St,
St. Paul, MN 55101
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 37
Figures
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 38
Figure 1 City of Saint Louis Park Water Supply Plan Annual Precipitation Maps for Minnesota For 2002 and 2003 Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 39
Figure 2
Minneapolis/St Paul Area
Monthly/Annual Precipitation (2001-2005)
Year MMM Precip
Annual
Totals Year MMM Precip
Annual
Totals
Jan 1.56 Jan 0.50
Feb 1.73 Feb 1.54
Mar 1.12 Mar 1.77
Apr 6.77 Apr 2.22
May 4.50 May 7.16
Jun 3.02 Jun 4.10
Jul 2.91 Jul 2.58
Aug 3.79 Aug 1.54
Sept 3.15 Sept 4.65
Oct 0.65 Oct 3.62
Nov 3.39 Nov 1.30
2001
Dec 0.63
33.22
2004
Dec 0.32
31.30
Jan 0.48 Jan 1.38
Feb 0.62 Feb 1.83
Mar 2.00 Mar 1.69
Apr 4.29 Apr 1.92
May 4.56 May 3.65
Jun 7.46 Jun 7.07
Jul 6.16 Jul 3.23
Aug 5.26 Aug 3.36
Sept 3.30 Sept 8.53
Oct 4.19 Oct 4.54
Nov 0.12 Nov 1.92
2002
Dec 0.27
38.71
2005
Dec 1.33
40.45
Jan 0.38
Feb 0.82
Mar 1.48
Apr 2.91
May 6.33
Jun 6.80
Jul 1.77
Aug 0.64
Sept 2.27
Oct 1.22
Nov 1.15
2003
Dec 0.94
26.71
Source: National Weather Service
Coon Creek Station 211785
[31N 23W S21]
[Lat: 45.16087 Lon: 93.21470]
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 40
Figure 3City of Saint Louis ParkWater Use Trends From 1998 to 2007y = -1.0933x + 152.87100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0Water Use (GPCD)y = -0.8879x + 85.8530.020.040.060.080.01998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Water Use (GPCD)YearResidential Water UseTotal Water UseLinear (Residential Water Use)Linear (Total Water Use)Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 41
Figure 4City of Saint Louis ParkWater Use Trends From 2003 to 2007y = -3.6962x + 156.39100.0120.0140.0160.0180.0Water Use (GPCD)y = -0.6131x + 80.3010.020.040.060.080.020032004200520062007Water Use (GPCD)YearResidential Water UseTotal Water UseLinear (Residential Water Use)Linear (Residential Water Use)Linear (Total Water Use)Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 42
Appendix A
City of Saint Louis Park Water Level Data
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 43
Table A.1
Well Levels
Water Supply Plan
City of St. Louis Park
Date Well Static Level Pumping Level Date Well Static Level Pumping Level
10/2/2006 SLP 8 115.47 8/17/2006 SLP 12 402.49
12/1/2006 SLP 8 147.95 3/22/2007 SLP 12
2/1/2007 SLP 8 149.27 4/16/2007 SLP 12
3/22/2007 SLP 8 158.50 5/1/2007 SLP 12
4/16/2007 SLP 8 158.91 5/10/2007 SLP 12
5/1/2007 SLP 8 155.90 5/15/2007 SLP 12
5/10/2007 SLP 8 155.59 5/22/2007 SLP 12
5/22/2007 SLP 8 166.28 6/22/2007 SLP 12
6/22/2007 SLP 8 154.87 8/24/2007 SLP 12 344.00
9/26/2007 SLP 8 160.61 9/26/2007 SLP 12 329.56
10/9/2007 SLP 8 153.09 10/9/2007 SLP 12 400.53
11/1/2007 SLP 8 154.06 11/1/2007 SLP 12 390.36
12/10/2007 SLP 8 146.47 12/10/2007 SLP 12 346.50
1/3/2008 SLP 8 145.62 1/3/2008 SLP 12 312.10
2/29/2008 SLP 8 122.23 2/1/2008 SLP 12 326.70
3/11/2008 SLP 8 148.30 3/11/2008 SLP 12 314.40
4/2/2008 SLP 8 149.75 4/2/2008 SLP 12 360.40
5/1/2008 SLP 8 148.84 5/1/2008 SLP 12 329.20
6/2/2008 SLP 8 160.35 6/5/2008 SLP 12 396.10
7/1/2008 SLP 12 423.10
Date Well Static Level Pumping Level
10/2/2006 SLP 5 117.70 Date Well Static Level Pumping Level
12/1/2006 SLP 5 109.10 8/17/2006 SLP 11 371.22
2/1/2007 SLP 5 111.10 12/1/2006 SLP 11 335.71
3/22/2007 SLP 5 111.90 2/1/2007 SLP 11 315.60
4/16/2007 SLP 5 111.30 3/22/2007 SLP 11 303.05
5/4/2007 SLP 5 120.20 4/16/2007 SLP 11 300.68
5/10/2007 SLP 5 117.60 5/1/2007 SLP 11 308.41
5/15/2007 SLP 5 126.40 5/10/2007 SLP 11 306.24
5/22/2007 SLP 5 130.90 5/15/2007 SLP 11 307.26
6/22/2007 SLP 5 142.00 5/22/2007 SLP 11 312.47
8/16/2007 SLP 5 133.40 6/22/2007 SLP 11 446.03
9/26/2007 SLP 5 121.90 6/28/2007 SLP 11 448.82
10/9/2007 SLP 5 115.10 7/13/2007 SLP 11
11/1/2007 SLP 5 113.05 8/16/2007 SLP 11 362.07
12/10/2007 SLP 5 111.50 9/26/2007 SLP 11 333.60
1/3/2008 SLP 5 109.90 10/9/2007 SLP 11 328.68
2/1/2008 SLP 5 109.60 11/1/2007 SLP 11 323.89
3/4/2008 SLP 5 111.90 12/10/2007 SLP 11 310.58
4/2/2008 SLP 5 111.20 1/3/2008 SLP 11 305.75
5/1/2008 SLP 5 112.40 2/29/2008 SLP 11 306.15
7/1/2008 SLP 5 136.80 3/4/2008 SLP 11 306.00
4/2/2008 SLP 11 294.33
5/1/2008 SLP 11 303.38
6/5/2008 SLP 11 303.95
7/1/2008 SLP 11
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 44
Table A.1
Well Levels
Water Supply Plan
City of St. Louis Park
Date Well Static Level Pumping Level Date Well Static Level Pumping Level
10/2/2006 SLP 7 93.00 8/17/2006 SLP 4 172.03
12/1/2006 SLP 7 86.10 10/2/2006 SLP 4 159.22
2/1/2007 SLP 7 88.20 12/2/2006 SLP 4 151.71
3/22/2007 SLP 7 90.10 2/1/2007 SLP 4 151.48
4/16/2007 SLP 7 88.20 3/22/2007 SLP 4 150.40
5/4/2007 SLP 7 97.50 4/16/2007 SLP 4 153.42
5/10/2007 SLP 7 94.20 5/1/2007 SLP 4 156.12
5/15/2007 SLP 7 104.20 5/10/2007 SLP 4 164.70
5/22/2007 SLP 7 107.70 5/22/2007 SLP 4 169.64
6/22/2007 SLP 7 117.80 7/13/2007 SLP 4 170.15
8/16/2007 SLP 7 109.40 8/16/2007 SLP 4 162.17
9/26/2007 SLP 7 97.90 9/26/2007 SLP 4 154.79
10/9/2007 SLP 7 91.60 10/9/2007 SLP 4 150.85
11/1/2007 SLP 7 89.90 11/1/2007 SLP 4 152.70
12/10/2007 SLP 7 88.60 12/10/2007 SLP 4 144.72
1/3/2008 SLP 7 87.50 1/3/2008 SLP 4 145.47
2/1/2008 SLP 7 87.40 2/28/2008 SLP 4 152.80
3/4/2008 SLP 7 89.40 3/11/2008 SLP 4 146.80
4/2/2008 SLP 7 183.00 4/2/2008 SLP 4 144.49
5/1/2008 SLP 7 181.10 5/1/2008 SLP 4 144.95
7/1/2008 SLP 7 180.50 6/5/2008 SLP 4 152.71
7/1/2008 SLP 4 172.67
Date Well Static Level Pumping Level
8/17/2006 SLP 14 107.65
10/2/2006 SLP 14 94.67
12/1/2006 SLP 14 89.20
2/1/2007 SLP 14 95.89
3/22/2007 SLP 14 100.80
4/16/2007 SLP 14 92.35
5/1/2007 SLP 14 103.7
5/10/2007 SLP 14 222.30
6/28/2007 SLP 14 262.21
10/8/2007 SLP 14 232.62
2/1/2008 SLP 14 95.20
3/13/2008 SLP 14 123.60
4/2/2008 SLP 14 247.40
5/1/2008 SLP 14 97.80
6/5/2008 SLP 14 262.50
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 45
Appendix B
City of Saint Louis Park
Water System Capital Improvement Plan
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 46
SAINT LOUIS PARK UTILITY DIVISIONWATER SYSTEMCIP PROJECTSRevised 01/04/08Printed on 7/25/20082005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Main Rehabilitation/Replacement:PROJ. #150,000$ 150,000$ 150,000$ Street Project - HWY 100 Noise Wall (West) - (relocate Vernon Ave)20050100 121,439$ Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1) - (replace Nevada Ave)20041000 59,052$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Excelsior Blvd w of HWY 100)20040402387,000$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Parkwoods Road)20061900203,447$ 24,000$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Kilmer NH north of W16th St)20071400524,650$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 4 of Pavement Mgt Pgm)200815004,000$ 146,000$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 5 of Pavement Mgt Pgm)200913005,000$ 175,000$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 6 of Pavement Mgt Pgm)2010140090,000$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 6 of Pavement Mgt Pgm)20111400364,000$ Water Project - Watermain Replacement (Area 6 of Pavement Mgt Pgm)20121400312,000$ SCADA Replacement: Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement (2007)2006180063,671$ Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement (2012)2012180090,000$ Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement (2017)NAEmergency Power Generators (Install or replace): Water Project - Back Up Power (Install @ WTP's #1 & #4)20051500 34,156$ 601,323$ 34,946$ Water Project - Back Up Power (Replace @ WTP #16)NA150,000$ Meter Replacements / Upgrades: Water Project - Replace/Upgrade Commercial Meters20071200 138,136$ 2,052$ 270,000$ Water Project - Residential Automated Meter Reading (AMR)NA552,000$ 552,000$ Water Treatment Plant Rehab: Water Project - WTP #10 Filter Rehabilitation (Zarthan Ave @ CLR)20041300 398,734$ 7,200$ Water Project - WTP #4 Filter Rehabilitation (Susan Lindgren)20041301 219,347$ 16,857$ Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation (16th & Lancaster) 2006200075,000$ 500,000$ Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation (Bronx Park)2008140075,000$ 820,000$ Water Project - WTP #16 Filter Rehabilitation (20th & Flag)2009120037,687$ 412,313$ Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation (42nd & Zarthan) 2010130050,000$ 531,700$ Recoat Elevated Water Towers: Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower (Tower #2)NA400,000$ Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower (Tower #3)2012150010,000$ 790,000$ Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower (Tower #4)2007150015,000$ 835,000$ Rehab / Restore Water Storage Reservoirs: Water Project - Reservoir #1 Minor Rehabilitation20062300105,000$ Water Project - Reservoir #2 Rehabilitation20101500250,000$ Miscellaneous Projects: Water Project - WTP #10 Pump Drive Upgrade2007120545,000$ Reilly: Reilly Site Project - GWTF Equip Replacement20042000 21,013$ 1,394$ TOTAL991,877$ 869,960$ 1,885,580$ 1,061,000$ 750,000$ 1,160,000$ 374,000$ 1,242,000$ 681,700$ 1,252,000$ 702,000$ Inflated Costs4.00% 991,877$ 869,960$ 1,885,580$ 1,103,440$ 811,200$ 1,304,842$ 437,527$ 1,511,083$ 862,568$ 1,647,547$ 960,735$ NA means a project number has not yet been assigned.Watermain Replacement 2005-2012 based on multiple breaks & coordinated with the Pavement Mgt Pgm (average of 30 breaks per year)Projected replacement based on multiple breaks and historyWTP Rehabilitation 20 Year Cycle If Radium compliance is reached after rehabilitation of WTP 4 & 10 in 2005 the schedule for WTP rehab could be changed to every other year. Water Tower/ Reservoir 20 Year Cycle WTP 6 possible construction of GAC Plant to run SLP 6 24/7. Cost estimated at $2M which may be split with Reilly Tar. This cost is in addition to $581,700. Possible financing may be available through MDH Revolving Fund for InfrastructurePartial reimbursement by special assessment - about $35,000Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 47
Appendix C
Emergency Notification Lists
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 48
Emergency Call Phone Numbers
Utilities Division
Scott Anderson (Superintendent of Utilities)
(H) 952-920-9790
(M) 612-751-0455
Bruce Berthiaume (Field Supervisor)
(H) 952-920-9600
(M) 612-751-0506
John Laumann (Field Supervisor) Lift Station – Pump House
(H) 763-494-3232
(M) 952-215-8208
Tom Gasman 763-561-3158
Joel Suhl 612-823-7987
Bill Healy 763-424-7994
David Cain 763-420-5827
Ted Rich 952-929-3125
Don Olson 612-751-0443
Tim Jones 763-315-0591
Ismail Eddihi 952-884-3359
Andy Beebe 952-200-5518
Andrew Klobe 952-220-6444
Dustin Hanly 763-560-6566
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 49
Revised: 02-06-08
CONTACT PERSON FOR
UTILITY COMPANY SERVICES
Andrew Balgobin Phone: 612/321-5426
CenterPoint/Reliant Energy (MNgasco) Fax: 612/321-5480
Engineering Services Pager: 612/530-4216
P. O. Box 1165 Email: Andrew.Balgobin@CenterPointEngergy.com
700 Linden Avenue West
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1165 Restoration: Sue Anderson 612/321-5157
Kevin Jones (all locations) Phone: 612/630-4549
(Resource Management Group) Fax: 612/630-4509
Xcel Energy (NSP) Cell: 612/720-5462
Distribution Engineering Outage: 1-800-895-1999
1518 Chestnut Avenue No., 1st Floor Email: kevin.m.jones@xcelenergy.com
Minneapolis, MN 55403
cc: Michelle Swanson – michelle.m.swanson@xcelenergy.com)
Rand Olson - Beard Phone: 612/861-8702 (all correspondence)
Qwest (Phone) Fax: 612/861-8173
6244 Cedar Ave. So.
Richfield, MN 55423 Email: Randall.Olson@qwest.com
Ron Amey – Orchard Phone: 612/381-5567
Qwest (Phone) Fax: 612/381-5571
2800 Wayzata Boulevard Room 300 Pager: 612/621-0001
Minneapolis, MN 55405 Email: Ron.Amey@qwest.com
Mike Johnson - Hopkins Phone: 612/861-8133
Qwest (Phone) Fax: 612/861-8173
6244 Cedar Avenue South Pager: 612/621-1381
Richfield, MN 55423 Cell: 612/250-4002
Email: mwjohns@qwest.com
Kelly Doonan Phone: 952/607-4033
Comcast Cable Fax: 952/607-4363
9705 Data Park Mobile: 612/369-5939
Minnetonka, MN 55343 Email: Kelly_doonan@cable.comcast.com
Barry Strelow 952/974-1637
KMC Communications Fax: 952/974-1626
7800 Equitable Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
GOPHER STATE ONE Phone: 651/454-0002
CC: MPR, MH, RK, JS, SB, JO, ENG TECH, LA, SA, BB, JL,
SM, Support Staff
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 50
The following agencies/organizations have agreements. Either written or
understood with the City of St. Louis Park Utility Division whereby they will
provide assistance on request in an emergency.
Updated July 2008
Organization Address Phone Contact
Type of Assistance
to be provided Required Authorization
Minnesota Pipe
5145 211th St W
Farmington, MN 55024 612-860-4407 Mike Stordahl
Watermains &
Hydrants Parts Maintenance III
Hawkins Chemicals
3100 E Hennepin Ave
Mpls, MN 55413 612-867-7969 Rick Kaiser
HFS-Chorline Maintenance III
Automatic Systems
P.O. Box 120359
St.Paul, MN 55112 651-631-9005 Mark Juker
Scada System Maintenance III
Valley-Rich Co, INC
S Eden Prairie, MN
55344 612-839-8502 Steve Ingram
Underground
Excavation & Repair Superintendent
Highview Plumbing, INC
4301 Highview Pl
Minnetonka, MN 55345 952-933-8600 Dan Swanson
Underground
Excavation & Repair Superintendent
E.H. Renner & Sons
15688 Jarvis St NW
Elk River, MN 55330 427-6100 Roger Renner
Well Maintenance Superintendent
City of Edina
5146 Eden Ave
Edina, MN 55427 952-826-0311 Roger Glanzer
Manpower &
Equipment Superintendent
City of Golden Valley
7800 Golden Valley Rd
Golden Vly, MN 55327 763-593-3981 Bert Tracy
Manpower &
Equipment Superintendent
City of Hopkins
1601 2nd Street S
Hopkins, MN 55343 952-548-6373 Doug Anderson
Manpower &
Equipment Superintendent
City of Minntonka
14600 Minnetonka BV
Minnetonka, MN 55343 952-988-8410 Jim Malone
Equipment, Water
Reserve Superintendent
City of Plymouth
3500 Plymouth BV
Plymouth, MN 5447 763-509-5999 Scott Newberger
Equipment, Water
Reserve Superintendent
SUPPORT CALL-UP LIST
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 51
Priority Service FormNAMEADDRESS TELEPHONEREASON FOR PRIORITY REQUESTALTERNATE SOURCE EMERGENCY ACTIONS Methodist Hospital6500 Exelsior Blvd. St.Louis Park, MN. 55416993-5000 Medical CareBypassValvingPark Nursing & Convalescent Center4415 West 36 1/2 St. St.Louis Park, MN. 55426927-9717 Medical CareBypassHydrant / HosePark Nursing & Convalescent Center3704 Kipling Ave. St Louis Park, MN.55426927-4949 Medical CareBypassHydrant / HoseSt. Louis Park Plaza Healthcare Center3201 Virginia Ave. St.Louis Park, MN. 55426 935-0333 Medical CareBypassHydrant / HoseTexas Terrace Convalescent Center7900 West 28th St. St.Louis Park, MN.55426920-8380 Medical CareBypassHydrant / HoseWestwood Health Care Center7500 West 22nd St. St. Louis Park MN.55426546-4261 Medical CareBypassHydrant / HoseTexa Tonka Health Associates3015 Utah Ave. S. St. Louis Park MN.55416933-8900 Medical CareBypassHydrant / HoseBenilde-St. Margarets High School2501 Hwy 100 S. St.Louis Park MN.55416927-4176BypassHydrant / HoseMetropolitan Open School4100 Vernon Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN. 55416926-5552BypassHydrant / HoseMinneapolis Jewish Day School4330 Cedar Lake Rd, MN. 55416374-5650BypassHydrant / HoseMost Holy Trinity School3946 Wooddale Ave. S. St. Louis Park, MN.55416926-2222BypassHydrant / HoseIndividuals/organizations located at the following service connections are critically dependent on an uninterrrupted supply of water. In the event of an emergency effecting their primary source, the following actions must be taken: 1. Notify the customer immediately. Verify that the second source, if any is functioning. 2. Take the indicated emergency action, if required.SEA:OPERATIONS/Emergency Services Contact List.XLS1Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 52
NAMEADDRESS TELEPHONEREASON FOR PRIORITY REQUESTALTERNATE SOURCE EMERGENCY ACTIONS Aquila Primary Center St. Louis Park, MN.55416928-6500BypassHydrant / HoseCedar Manor Intermediate CenterSt. Louis Park, MN. 55416928-6555BypassHydrant / HosePeter Hobart Primary Center St. Louis Park, MN. 55416928-6600BypassHydrant / HoseSusan Lindgren Intermediate Center4801 West 41st St. St. Louis Park, MN. 55416928-6700BypassHydrant / HoseSt. Louis Park Jr. High School Districk 2832025 Texas Ave. S.St. Louis Park,MN. 55416 541-1579BypassHydrant / HoseSt. Louis Park Sr. High School6425 West 33rd St. St. Louis Park, MN. 55416928-6100BypassHydrant / HoseTalmud Torah School8200 West 33rd St. St. Louis Park,MN. 55416935-0316BypassHydrant / HoseTimothy Lutheran Church & School-Wels7814 Minnetonka Blvd. ST. Louis Park, MN. 55416929-8317BypassHydrant / HoseTorah Academy 2800 Joppa Ave, St. Louis Park, MN. 55416920-7117BypassHydrant / HoseSEA:OPERATIONS/Emergency Services Contact List.XLS2Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 53
NAMETITLERESPONSIBILITY AS LISTED IN JOB DESCRIPTIONAdminstrationMike RardinPublic Works DirectorResponsible for planning, supervising and directing the programs, activities and personnel of the Public Works. Responsible for the Engineering, Operations and Utilities divisions.Scott MerkleyPublic Works CoordinatorTo provide overall coordination, direction and support to administrative activities within Public Works, such activities include: Refuse / Recycling Program Management, Infrastructure Management, Contract Development and Management, oversight of IS/GIS and Clerical/Support Staff, and Department Safety Program Management. Ensures the administrative activities both support and assist in all areas within the Public Works Division. Additionally, oversees the development and construction of Capital Improvement Projects, as assigned.Sarah Hellekson Public Works Administrative SpecialistNo up-to-date job descriptionSupport Char RohlikDepartment SecretaryProvide customer service, administrative assistance, and support services in a manner consistent with the mission and goals of the Public Works Department. Functions as the lead support staff member working with other department support staff team members to support all the divisions in Public Works and the maintenance division in Parks as needed.Judy EllingsonSecretaryProvide customer service, administrative assistance, and support services in a manner consistent with the mission and goals of the Public Works Department. Works with other department support staff team members to support all the divisions in Public Works and the maintenance division in Parks as needed.Jean Zimmerman SecretaryProvide customer service, administrative assistance, and support services in a manner consistent with the mission and goals of the Public Works Department. Works with other department support staff team members to support all the divisions in Public Works and the maintenance division in Parks as needed.Beth HolidaSecretaryProvide customer service, administrative assistance, and support services in a manner consistent with the mission and goals of the Public Works Department. Works with other department support staff team members to support all the divisions in Public Works and the maintenance division in Parks as needed.Kim FullerOffice AssistantProvide administrative assistance to the Division Secretary in a manner consistent with the mission and goals of the Public Works Department.IMSTim WilliamsInformation Systems SpecialistProvides functions relating to operation and applications of Public Works Information Systems and other related support services. Collects, records, maintains and analyzes data to be used for planning and management of Public Works maintenance activities. Provides data, reports, and recommendations to various divisions and customers as needed.Perry WhiteInformation Systems SpecialistProvides functions relating to operation and applications of Public Works Information Systems and other related support services. Collects, records, maintains and analyzes data to be used for planning and management of Public Works maintenance activities. Provides data, reports, and recommendations to various divisions and customers as needed.EngineeringScott BrinkCity EngineerManage and direct all activities in the Engineering Division. Responsible for division budget(s) and implementation of activities including engineering (planning, design and construction), bridge inspections, traffic management, storm water management, pavement management, R/W permitting, and development reviews/coordination. Serve as Project Manager on major projects in the Public Works Department. Responsible for providing day to day work direction and supervision for the Engineering Division staff. Manage consultant contracts relating to the Division.Jim OlsonSenior Engineering Project ManagerCoordinates project tasks of engineering staff and consultants to assure that projects are delivered on time, within budget constraints, and in accordance with specifications. Represents Public Works at public meetings to provide information and solicit input on improvement projects. Assists the City Engineer in implementation of activities including management of the Municipal State Aid System, bridge inspection, design & construction standards, and various safety and infrastructure management activities.Bill ThurstonEngineering Technician IIIResponsible for designing, inspecting and coordinating the delivery of public improvement projects to meet the needs of the City and its citizens. Applies semi-professional technical skills and knowledge to perform a variety of advanced civil engineering efforts including: design of public infrastructure, construction plans and specifications development, contract management, field surveying, and inspection. Al OliveiraEngineering Technician IIIResponsible for designing, inspecting and coordinating the delivery of public improvement projects to meet the needs of the City and its citizens. Applies semi-professional technical skills and knowledge to perform a variety of advanced civil engineering efforts including: design of public infrastructure, construction plans and specifications development, contract management, field surveying, and inspection. Tom PecchiaEngineering Technician IIIResponsible for designing, inspecting and coordinating the delivery of public improvement projects to meet the needs of the City and its citizens. Applies semi-professional technical skills and knowledge to perform a variety of advanced civil engineering efforts including: design of public infrastructure, construction plans and specifications development, contract management, field surveying, and inspection. Mark FremderEngineering Technician IIIResponsible for designing, inspecting and coordinating the delivery of public improvement projects to meet the needs of the City and its citizens. Applies semi-professional technical skills and knowledge to perform a variety of advanced civil engineering efforts including: design of public infrastructure, construction plans and specifications development, contract management, field surveying, and inspection. Laura AdlerEngineering Program CoordinatorResponsible for coordination and delivery of public works programs including surface water management, traffic, and permitting. Responsible for overseeing and coordinating Public Works Department review and approval of private development efforts. Works closely with and assists City Engineer on program activities.OperationsMark HansonOperations SuperintendentTo provide overall supervision, direction, coordination, planning and support to Public Works Operations, which includes functions in the area of Streets and Traffic. Supervises Operations staff and oversees activities and staff development. Responsible for division program delivery and management of division assets. Assists Public Works Director with budgets, council issues, purchasing, managing contracts and ensuring the public receives effective and efficient maintenance services consistent with vision of Department and City.Streets Jeff StevensField Supervisor-StreetsResponsible for providing day to day work direction and assistance to maintenance staff, projects and programs. Works with the Superintendent in a variety of Public Works areas ensuring work and projects are completed as scheduled.Jeff WolffPublic Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlDave Klumpner Public Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlRevised 8/30/07DIVISIONEMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTO:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\Employee & TitleMeeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 54
NAMETITLERESPONSIBILITY AS LISTED IN JOB DESCRIPTIONRevised 8/30/07DIVISIONEMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTDon SchmausPublic Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlEllwood Backlund Public Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlDon StruckPublic Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlJoe ProbstPublic Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlDean BackausPublic Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlPeter (Al) Jolley Public Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlO:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\Employee & TitleMeeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 55
NAMETITLERESPONSIBILITY AS LISTED IN JOB DESCRIPTIONRevised 8/30/07DIVISIONEMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTRoss Ostendorf Public Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlMike OkeyPublic Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlTraffic Rick KieferField Supervisor - TrafficResponsible for providing day to day work direction and assistance to maintenance staff, projects and programs. Works with the Superintendent in a variety of Public Works areas ensuring work and projects are completed as scheduled.Randy Lawrence Public Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlDennis (DJ) Deming Public Service Worker - OperationsPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way including:• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting, including:• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.• Traffic controlUtilitiesOperations Scott Anderson Utilities SuperintendentTo provide overall supervision, direction, coordination, planning and support to the Public Works Utilities division, which includes functions in the Water, Sanitary Sewer, and Storm Sewer systems as well as the Reilly superfund site. Supervises staff and oversees activities and staff development. Responsible for division program delivery and management of division assets. Assists Public Works Director with budgets, council issues, purchasing, managing contracts and ensuring the public receives effective and efficient maintenance services consistent with vision of Department and City.Bruce Berthiaume Field Supervisor - UtilitiesResponsible for providing day to day work direction and assistance to maintenance staff, projects and programs. Works with the Superintendent in a variety of Public Works areas ensuring work and projects are completed as scheduled.Tom GasmanPublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.O:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\Employee & TitleMeeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 56
NAMETITLERESPONSIBILITY AS LISTED IN JOB DESCRIPTIONRevised 8/30/07DIVISIONEMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTJoel SuhlPublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.Bill HealyPublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.David CainPublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.Ismail EddihiPublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.O:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\Employee & TitleMeeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 57
NAMETITLERESPONSIBILITY AS LISTED IN JOB DESCRIPTIONRevised 8/30/07DIVISIONEMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTAndy BeebePublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.Andrew KlobePublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.OpenPublic Service Worker - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.PlantJohn LaumannField Supervisor-Water / SewerResponsible for the daily operations, maintenance, inspection and repair of the City’s water treatment plants, storage facilities, sewer lift stations and remedial activity at Reilly site. Supervises maintenance of all related facilities and equipment as necessary to ensure maximum efficiency of the operations.Ted RichMechanic - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.O:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\Employee & TitleMeeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 58
NAMETITLERESPONSIBILITY AS LISTED IN JOB DESCRIPTIONRevised 8/30/07DIVISIONEMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTDon OlsonMechanic - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.Robert "Tim" Jones Mechanic - UtilitiesPerforms various types of manual labor and operates equipment in all areas of PW. May work with heavy equipment and other types of equipment to perform various functions as necessary. Responds to after hour emergencies and essential tasks as needed in all areas of maintenance. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on utilities.• Jetting sanitary and storm sewer lines.• Sewer line, manhole and catch basins maintenance and repair.• Installs and removes meters, regulators, test or usage recording equipment.• Operates, troubleshoots and maintains lift pump stations.• Operates fire hydrants and performs water system repair in emergency situations. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on Public streets, alleys, sidewalks, trails and right-of-way.• Snow and ice removal (plowing, blowing, shoveling).• Bituminous repair, crack sealing and patching.• Concrete repair and replacement.• Hauling of materials. Performs a variety of maintenance and repair services on traffic signals, street signs and street lighting.• Striping of roadways, parking lots and crosswalks.• Fabrication and installation of street and information signs.• Installation of less complex light systems.Traffic control.O:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\Employee & TitleMeeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 59
ISSUECALLOUT NO. RESPONSIBLE DIVISION CONTACT NAME PHONE NO.SERVICE / EQUIPMENT / SUPPLY PROVIDEDAll Hours TowingGeneralN/AOperationsDick Hughes 612-546-7211 City Contract TowingAutomatic SystemsGeneralN/AUtilitiesMark Juker 651-631-9005 SCADA SystemBNSF RailroadRoadway Restoration1OperationsDispatch 1-800-832-5452 Railroad Problems - 24 hr. recorded lineCenterPoint Energy (Minnegasco)GasUtilities612-372-4727 Gas Service - website: www.centerpointenergy.comCity of EdinaGeneralN/AUtilitiesRoger Glanzer612-927-8861 Manpower & EquipmentCity of Golden ValleyGeneralN/AUtilitiesDave Lemke 763-593-8075 Manpower & EquipmentCity of Golden ValleySignsOperationsLyle Johnson763-593-8082 Signs (Streets Superintendent)City of HopkinsN/AUtilitiesMike Lauseng 612-939-1373 Manpower & Equipment City of MinneapolisGeneralN/AUtilities311 Reporting Line for Lights Out, Potholes, Signals, etc.City of MinneapolisTraffic Signal Systems 4 Operations Scott Tacheny 612-673-5758 SignalsCity of MinnetonkaGeneralN/AUtilitiesJim Malone 612-938-1431 Manpower & Equipment, Water ReserveCity of PlymouthGeneralN/AUtilitiesGreg Cook612-509-5992 Manpower & Equipment, Water ReserveColliSysTraffic Signal Systems 2 Operations Bob Gorg 763-504-3455 Electrician on Call Superintendent - Signals & Street LightsColliSysTraffic Signal Systems Operations On Call Cell 763-504-3456 Electrician on Call Superintendent -cell 612-328-7267ComcastCableOperations612-522-2000 Cable Service - website: www.comcast.comContact CommunicationGeneralN/AUtilitiesN/A612-922-1355 Radio - pumphouse and lift stationCP RailRoadway Restoration1OperationsDispatch 1-800-766-4357 Railroad Problems ( 1-800-SOO-HELP)Department Natural ResourcesStormwater CollectionUtilitiesJim Japs651-297-2835 Environmental DamageDepartment Natural ResourcesWastewater Collection Utilities Jim Japs 651-297-2835 Environmental DamageEgan McKayGeneralN/ACraig Carlson 763-591-5599Egan McKayTraffic Signal Systems2OperationsCraig Carlson 763-591-5599 Electrician on Call Superintendent - Signals & Street LightsGopher One CallGeneralN/AN/AN/A651-454-0002 Fax 651-454-0170Granite LedgeGeneralN/AJeff Brown 320-980-1261 Office 320-294-5557Granite LedgeGeneralN/ATodd Warne 320-980-1259 CellGranite LedgeTraffic Signal Systems2OperationsJeff Brown 320-294-5557 Electrician on Call Superintendent -Cell: 320-980-1261Hawkins ChemicalsWater ProductionUtilitiesRick Kaiser 612-331-9100 HFS-ChlorineHennepin CountyGeneralN/AOperationsN/A612-596-0251 Emergency Preparedness NumberHennepin CountyGeneralOperationsDispatch612-596-0299 Public WorksHennepin CountyTemporary Traffic Control2OperationsEric Drager612-596-0309 Operations Superintendent TransportationHennepin CountyTraffic CountsOperationsStan Albrecht 612-596-0356 Traffic CountsHennepin CountyTraffic Signal Systems1OperationsRoy Doron 612-596-0293 SignalsHennepin CountyTraffic Signal Systems1OperationsDispatch612-596-0299 Signals - After Hours Pager-WatermainsHennepin CountyTraffic Signal Systems1OperationsPager612-596-0299 Signals - After Hours PagerHennepin CountyTraffic Signal SystemsOperationsTom/Darryl612-596-0296 SignalsHennepin CountyTraffic Signal SystemsOperationsDarryl Cell 612-685-0968 SignalsHennepin CountyTraffic Signal SystemsOperationsFax763-478-4003 Signals - FaxHennepin CountyTraffic Signal SystemsOperationsRoy -Cell612-282-6525 Signals - Cell phoneHennepin CountyTemporary Traffic Control2OperationsSteve Boisclair612-596-0310 Sign Superintendent (cell 612-685-7638)Highview Plumbing, Inc.GeneralN/AUtilitiesDan Swanson 612-933-8600 Underground Excavation & RepairInterstate DieselWastewater CollectionUtilitiesDave Buhr612-759-8448 GenSets RepairInterstate DieselWater ProductionUtilitiesDave Buhr612-759-8448 GenSets RepairKeys Well DrillingWater ProductionUtilitiesJeff Keys651-646-7871 Well MaintenanceLube Tech, Inc.Equipment Procurement1OperationsEmergency651-636-7990 Emergency Contact Number Involving FuelEMERGENCY OPERATIONS AGENCY / VENDOR LISTUpdated 4/15/08 Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 60
ISSUECALLOUT NO. RESPONSIBLE DIVISION CONTACT NAME PHONE NO.SERVICE / EQUIPMENT / SUPPLY PROVIDEDEMERGENCY OPERATIONS AGENCY / VENDOR LISTUpdated 4/15/08 MCTORoadway Restoration Operations Ed Smith 612-418-2735MCTORoadway RestorationOperationsBruce Bakke 612-418-3253 24 hour telephone numberMCTORoadway RestorationOperationsBob Beutz612-418-1134MCTODebris Removal and Disposal2OperationsControl Center 612-349-7317 Transit Control CenterMCTORoadway Restoration2OperationsControl Center 612-349-7317 Transit Control CenterMidwest Renewable EnergyDebris Removal and DisposalOperationsSteve Schwab 612-719-1349 Wood waste processingMidwest Renewable EnergyDebris Removal and DisposalOperationsJohn Vorlicky 651-797-9409 Operator at boneyard site, 24-hour numberMidwest Fuels, Inc.Loss of Electric Power2GeneralOffice651- 452-1332 Fuel Oil (Diesel)(Minnegasco)-CenterPoint EnergyGasUtilities612-372-4727 Gas Service - website: www.centerpointenergy.comMinnesota Duty Officer (PCA)Hazardous Spills1AllMN Duty Officer 651-649-5451 Hazardous spill/sewage overflowMN Department of HealthGeneralN/AUtilitiesWilliam Anderl 651-627-5173 Public HealthMn/DOTGeneralN/AOperationsDispatch651-634-5303 Traffic Management CenterMn/DOTTemporary Traffic Control/Signs3OperationsStephen Aguirre 651-366-5191 Sign Problems, Repair, Etc. or 651-775-0311 - cellMn/DOTTraffic Signal Systems3OperationsDave or Joe/ESS 651-366-5750 Traffic Signal Repair or 651-366-5751Mn/DOTTraffic Signal Systems3OperationsMarlin Rienardy 651-366-5759 SignalsMn/DOTTraffic Signal SystemsOperationsBuzz Kimble 651-234-7826 Signal TimingMPCAHazardous Spills Utilities State Duty Officer 651-649-5451 Hazardous SpillsNAPAEquipment Procurement2OperationsCity Desk952-925-0188 Parts WarehousePoison Control CenterDebris Removal and Disposal1OperationsWest Metro 612-347-3141 Poison Control ServiceQwest (U S West)Telephone ServiceOperations1-800-244-1111 Telephone Service - website: www.qwest.comRegional Mutual Aid AssociationEquipment Procurement1OperationsVariousVarious Regional Mutual Aid AssociationRRT Processing Solutions, Inc.Debris Removal and Disposal2Parks(612) 331-4610 Wood waste processingUnited RentalDebris Removal and Disposal1OperationsDispatch612-521-4200 Traffic Control ProviderUnited RentalGeneralN/AOperationsDispatch612-521-4200 Traffic Control ProviderUnited RentalLoss of Electric Power2GeneralN/A612/277-4750 Honda Portable GensetsUnited RentalRoadway Restoration1OperationsDispatch612-521-4200 Traffic Control ProviderUnited RentalTemporary Traffic Control 1 Operations Dispatch 612-535-4200 Traffic Control ProviderValley Rich Co., Inc.GeneralN/AUtilitiesSteve Ingram612-829-8882 Underground Excavation & RepairVisu-SewerGeneralN/AUtilitiesRon Fenny 763-252-0004 Sanitary Sewer CleaningWaste ManagementDebris Removal and Disposal1AdministrationChris Gust 651-775-2297 Refuse Hauler-Residential Operations Manager-cellWaste ManagementDebris Removal and Disposal2AdministrationForrest Sartell 612-328-7315 Refuse Hauler- Area Manager-cellWaste ManagementDebris Removal and Disposal3AdministrationCustomer Service 763-783-5423 Refuse HaulerXcel EnergyGeneralN/AOperationsDispatch 1-800-960-6235 Lights Out & 651-634-7828Xcel EnergyGeneralN/AOperationsMain Reporting Line 1-800-895-4999 Street Light ProblemsXcel EnergyHazardous SpillsUtilitiesN/A651-282-1000 Power Outages-1-800-895-1999Xcel EnergyLoss of Electric Power/Businesses 1GeneralN/A800-481-4700 Power Outages-1-800-895-1999Xcel EnergyLoss of Power/Residential2GeneralN/A800-895-4999 Power Outages-1-800-895-1999Xcel EnergyStormwater CollectionUtilitiesN/A651-282-1000 Power Outages-1-800-895-1999Xcel EnergyWastewater CollectionUtilitiesN/A651-282-1000 Power Outages-1-800-895-1999Xcel EnergyWater ProductionUtilitiesN/A651-282-1000 Power Outages-1-800-895-1999Xcel EnergyWater ProductionUtilitiesRichard Cook 612-630-4813 Meter SupervisorZieglerStormwater Collection 1 Utilities Loren Bahls 612-887-5816 GenSets RepairZieglerWastewater Collection 1 Utilities Loren Bahls 612-887-5816 GenSets RepairZieglerWater Production Utilities Loren Bahls 612-887-5816 GenSets RepairDistribution List following each update: PW - Superintendents, Supervisors, Shannon Hansen, Char Rohlik Fire - Sue Rasmussen Parks - Cindy Walsh, Craig Panning, Rick Beane, Dennis MillerberndMeeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 61
CALL OUT #NAMEHOME PHONE # CELL PHONE # PAGER # NEXTEL #BOB CATBUCKET TRUCKCHAIN SAWCHIPPERDUMP TRUCKEOC PHONEFORKLIFTGENSETGRADERLIEBHERRLOADERLOG GRAPPLE(LOADER)RED CROSS MASS CARESEWER VACTORTANDEM TRUCKAdminstration1 Mike Rardin 952-930-0136 612-708-7278 104*2*46192 Scott Merkley 651-452-3460 612-590-0807 104*2*5343Support Char Rohlik 952-545-1970Judy Ellingson 952-935-7938 Jean Zimmerman 952-926-7430 952-215-5854**Beth Holida 763-479-3723Kim Fuller 952-858-8620IMSTim Williams952-472-6716Perry White763-478-2188612-723-3050OfficePW Admin Office952-215-8239104*2*3013Engineering1 Project Contractor See Construction Emergency Callout list2Project Inspector See Construction Emergency Callout list3Scott Brink763-494-3035612-750-0424104*2*53454Jim Olson952-922-6315612-750-0404104*2*56075Bill Thurston952-920-4320952-924-2187104*2*31856Al Oliveira952-922-3452952-292-3007104*2*43487Tom Pecchia651-426-6083952-292-0417104*2*18668 Mark Fremder952-854-8342 952-292-0590104*2*43499Laura Adler612-822-0845OfficeEngineering Base952-924-2555104*2*3013OperationsStreets1ON-CALL952-215-9146104*2*457182Jeff Stevens763-494-9429612-708-7305104*2*3040 X X XXXXXX X3Mark Hanson763-557-0077612-751-4862104*2*30444Al Jolley763-788-7211104*2*3051 X X XXXXXX X5Jeff Wolff763-425-3133612-221-4153**104*2*3022 X X X X XXXXX X6Dave Klumpner1-218-426-3238104*2*3052 X X XXXXXX X7Don Schmaus763-428-8322104*2*3055 X X X X XX XX8 Ellwood Backlund763-428-4950104*2*3049 X X XXXXXX X9Don Struck952-473-3371104*2*3056 X X X X XX XX10Dean Backaus952-937-0686104*2*3048 X X X X XX XX11Ross Ostendorf763-315-3779612-750-4810**104*2*3053 X X X X XX XX12Mike Okey612-616-1663612-616-1663**104*2*3050 X X X X XXX13Matthew Druley952-467-0624104*2*3054 X X XXXXX XTraffic1ON-CALL952-215-9146104*2*457182Rick Kiefer952-945-0806952-215-8232104*2*3070XXXXX XX3Randy Lawrence763-493-4539952-215-8231104*2*3069XXXXX XXX X4 Dennis (DJ) Deming952-210-6726952-215-8230104*2*3068XXXXX XX XX5Mark Hanson763-557-0077612-751-4862104*2*3044OfficeOperations Base/Office952-924-2562/3952-292-0817104*2*1364Revised 4/15/08EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTDIVISIONO:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\EmployeeLast Update: 4/15/08Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 62
CALL OUT #NAMEHOME PHONE # CELL PHONE # PAGER # NEXTEL #BOB CATBUCKET TRUCKCHAIN SAWCHIPPERDUMP TRUCKEOC PHONEFORKLIFTGENSETGRADERLIEBHERRLOADERLOG GRAPPLE(LOADER)RED CROSS MASS CARESEWER VACTORTANDEM TRUCKRevised 4/15/08EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTDIVISIONUtilitiesOperations 1Scott Anderson952-920-9790612-751-0455104*2*5344 X X X2 Bruce Berthiaume952-920-9600612-751-0506104*2*3043 X X X XXXX XXXXXX3Tom Gasman763-561-3158952-215-3060104*2*3060 X X X X X X X X4Joel Suhl612-823-7987612-760-2558104*2*3067 X X X X X X X5Bill Healy763-424-7994952-215-8223104*2*3061XXXXX X XX6David Cain763-420-5827952-215-8220104*2*3058XXXX XXXXX7Ismail Eddihi952-884-3359952-215-8226104*2*3064 X X X X X XXX X8Andy Beebe952-200-5518952-215-8225104*2*3063XXXX X XX9Andrew Klobe952-926-9374952-215-8227104*2*3065 X X XX X10Dustin Hanly763-560-6566104*2*305711Plant1 ON-CALL (Group Call)612-579-50962John Laumann763-494-3232952-215-8208104*2*3046X X X XXX3Ted Rich952-929-3125952-215-8209104*2*3047 X X X X X X X X X4Don Olson952-472-3928612-751-0443104*2*3042XXXXX XX XXXXXX5 Robert "Tim" Jones763-315-0591612-215-8207104*2*3045 X X X X X X X XOfficeUtilities Base / Office952-924-2558/9952-292-0818104*2*1365O:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\EmployeeLast Update: 4/15/08Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 63
CALL OUT #NAMEHOME PHONE # CELL PHONE # PAGER # NEXTEL #BOB CATBUCKET TRUCKCHAIN SAWCHIPPERDUMP TRUCKEOC PHONEFORKLIFTGENSETGRADERLIEBHERRLOADERLOG GRAPPLE(LOADER)RED CROSS MASS CARESEWER VACTORTANDEM TRUCKRevised 4/15/08EMERGENCY OPERATIONS EMPLOYEE / EQUIPMENT LISTDIVISIONParksMaintenance 1Rick Beane952-953-3292952-292-1013104*2*1391XXXXXXXXXXXX X2Jim Thompson952-925-2660952-292-0867104*2*1377 XX XXX3Don Drennen952-894-9140952-292-0992104*2*1385XXXX X X XXX X4Larry Schwantz952-935-6989104*2*1380XXXX5Josh Nelson952-401-7077612-875-0830**104*2*3065 X X X X XX X X X X6Dave Vann763-559-8814104*2*1379XXXXX XXX X7Dallas Bahe952-930-1104104*2*1376XXXXX X8Jeff Musgjerd763-428-4645952-292-0849104*2*1371X X XXXXX X9Gary Fix952-374-4353104*2*1378X X XX10Shawn Rice952-885-9038104*2*1375XXXXX11Jayme Hamilton952-476-9675952-292-0854104*2*1374XXXXX X XX12Wade Carroll952-544-3715104*2*1372 X X X X X X XEquipment 1Rick Beane952-953-3292952-292-1013104*2*1391XXXXXXXXXXXX X2 Dennis Millerbernd651-437-8938612-750-3434104*2*3041XXXXXX X XXX X3Rick Bahe952-448-7625XXXXX XXX XXX X4Charlie Hennessy952-657-1140X XXX XXX X5 Thomas O'Donnell612-866-3811X XXXXXX6Jeffry Oman612-727-3505XXXXX7Scott VanderVegt952-933-0961XXXX X XEquipment Shop 1952-292-4537104*2*1606Equipment Shop 2952-217-1256104*2*3523 Buildings1Craig Panning612-869-7845952-292-1002104*2*1388XXX2John Monte952-935-1778952-292-1016104*2*1393X3Rick Birno952-474-1185952-292-1009104*2*1390XDirector1Cindy Walsh952-292-1005104*2*1389Environmental 1Jim Vaughan763-377-7667952-292-1015104*2*1392X X XXDistribution List following each update:Pubwks - Mike Rardin, Scott Brink, Scott Anderson, Mark Hanson, Scott Merkley, Rick Kiefer, Jeff Stevens, Bruce Berthiaume, John Laumann, all Support StaffFire Admin. - Sue Rasmussen (4 copies)Parks - Cindy Walsh, Rick Beane, Dennis Millerbernd** Personal phone and plan.O:Pubwks\Emergency Mangement\PW Emergency Plan\PW Lists\Emergency Ops Employee Equipment & Agency Vendor Lists.XLS\EmployeeLast Update: 4/15/08Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f) Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 64
Appendix D
City Water System Ordinances
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 65
UTILITIES § 32-32
ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL
Secs. 32-1--32-30. Reserved.
ARTICLE II. WATER SERVICE
Sec. 32-31. Water rates.
(a) Rates. The rate due and payable to the city by each water user with the city for billings on
or after February 26, 2001, for water taken from the city water supply system shall be set by city
council resolution. All charges for single-family and multiple-family dwelling users shall be
determined and payable on a quarterly basis, and all charges for commercial, industrial and
institutional users shall be determined and payable on a monthly or quarterly basis; provided,
however, that there shall be a service charge to each water user for each quarter year period during
which water service is furnished as set by city council resolution. In case the meter is found to
have stopped or to be operating in a faulty manner, the amount of water used will be estimated in
accordance with the amount previously used for the comparable period of the last previous year.
(b) Construction purposes. When water is desired for construction purposes, the owner shall
make application in the regular way and on the regular form and, if approved, the service shall be
carried inside the foundation wall. If for any reason the meter cannot be installed at the time, the
charges for the water shall be set forth under water rates, and when the building is completed, the
meter shall be set per code requirements.
(c) Water bills. Water bills shall be mailed to customers for the service periods set forth in
subsection (a) of this section, and shall specify the water consumed and the charges in accordance
with rates set forth by city council resolution.
(d) Rates beyond boundaries. Rates due and payable to the city by each water user located
beyond the territorial boundaries of the city shall be on the same basis as specified in subsections
(a)--(c) of this section.
(e) Revision of water rates. The city council reserves the right to adjust the rates provided in
the foregoing sections from time to time.
(Code 1976, § 9-101; Ord. No. 2191-01, § 1, 2-5-2001; Ord. No. 2324-06, 1-12-07)
Sec. 32-32. Service connection fee.
The state-mandated service connection fee listed in this section for testing water supplies will
be collected by the city and remitted to the state department of revenue. The service connection fee
due and payable to the city by each water user within the city for water taken from the city water
supply system shall be an amount set by city council resolution.
(Code 1976, § 9-101.101; Ord. No. 2324-06, 1-12-07)
Supp. No. 13 (01-07) 32:3 St. Louis Park City Code
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 66
§ 32-33 UTILITIES
Sec. 32-33. Charges for services or noncompliance.
(a) Charges will be made and collected by the city for the following water services: Tapping
and making connections with the city water mains; for turning on and off water as requested for
nonpayment of water bills, or failure to repair leaks; for raising or lowering stop box taps; for
remote meter register installations; for meter-reading service; for meter-reading noncompliance;
and for other services related to water department operations.
(b) Charges shall also be made and collected for noncompliance with restrictions on water
use, section 32-42. Charges for the services or noncompliance shall be fixed by the city in writing
and shall become effective 24 hours after the filing of a charge with the city clerk who shall
endorse on each filing the time and date of filing.
(Code 1976, § 9-102)
Sec. 32-34. Delinquent water accounts.
All charges for water shall be due and payable within three weeks of the billing date specified
by the director of finance. Accounts shall be considered delinquent and subject to a penalty of ten
percent if not paid within three weeks of the billing date. It shall be the duty of the director of
finance to endeavor to promptly collect delinquent accounts, and in all cases where satisfactory
arrangements for payments have not then been made, the director of public works shall be
instructed to discontinue water service at the stop box. All delinquent accounts shall be certified
by the city clerk to the city assessor who shall prepare an assessment roll each year providing for
assessment of the delinquent amounts against the respective properties served, for collection as
other taxes.
(Code 1976, § 9-103)
Sec. 32-35. Discontinuance of service for ordinance violations.
The director of public works is authorized to shut off water service at any stop box connection
at any time provided that:
(1) The owner or occupant of the premises served, or any person working on any pipes or
equipment thereon which are connected with the city water supply system, has
intentionally violated any of the requirements of the ordinances of the city relative to the
water supply system or connections therewith.
(2) The owner or occupant of the premises served threatens to violate, or cause to be
violated, any of the provisions of this chapter or does not provide access to city water
meter reader or maintenance personnel to read or inspect the water meter or water
supply system; or does not provide the city with current water meter readings.
(3) Any charge for water, service, meter, meter parts or any other financial obligations
imposed on the present or former owner or occupant of the premises served, by the
provisions of this chapter, is unpaid.
(4) Fraud or misrepresentation by the owner or occupant in connection with an application
for service.
Supp. No. 13 (01-07) 32:4 St. Louis Park City Code
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 67
UTILITIES § 32-41
(5) Water shall not be turned off from any service pipe between the hours of 12:00 noon on
Friday to 9:00 a.m. on the following Monday.
(Code 1976, § 9-104)
Sec. 32-36. Deficiency of water and shutting off water.
The city shall not be liable for any deficiency or failure in the supply of water to consumers,
whether occasioned by shutting the water off for the purpose of making repairs or connections, or
from any other cause whatever. In case of fire, or alarm of fire, the city may shut off water to
ensure a supply for firefighting; or in making repairs or constructing new works, the director of
public works may shut off the water at any time and keep it shut off so long as he shall deem
necessary.
(Code 1976, § 9-105)
Sec. 32-37. Access to buildings.
The officers of the water division, and every person delegated by them for that purpose shall
have free access at reasonable hours of the day to all parts of every building and premises
connected with the city water supply system for reading of meters and inspections.
(Code 1976, § 9-106)
Sec. 32-38. Reserved.
Sec. 32-39. Water meter inspection and repairs.
The city shall provide for inspection, testings and repair of all water meters connected with the
city water supply system at reasonable times.
(Code 1976, § 9-108)
Sec. 32-40. Consent to city water regulations.
Every person applying for or receiving water service from the city systems, and every user of
water or owner of property for which such application is made or water service received, shall be
deemed by such application or use to consent to all the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations
and rates of the city, and to all modifications thereof, and all new ordinances, rules, regulations or
rates duly adopted, including charges for services or for noncompliance.
(Code 1976, § 9-109)
Sec. 32-41. Cost of installation borne by consumer.
(1) The cost of original installation or repair of all plumbing between the main and the
meter shall be borne entirely by the consumer. Such plumbing shall at all
reasonable times be subject to inspection by the city. Any repairs found to be
necessary by such representatives shall be made promptly or the city will
discontinue service.
Supp. No. 15 (12-07) 32:5 St. Louis Park City Code
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 68
§ 32-41 UTILITIES
(2) The cost of replacing all plumbing within the City right of way between the main
and the shut off as part of a street reconstruction project shall be a charge to the
consumer. The cost shall be added to the consumer’s water bill and be payable
over a period of 10 years in equal installments, together with an amount equal to
interest on the unpaid balance at a fixed annual rate set by the City Finance
Department equal to the special assessments interest rate adopted that year.
(Code 1976, § 9-110; Ord. No. 2347-07, 12-28-07)
Sec. 32-42. Restrictions on water use.
To avoid a water shortage due to a capacity problem in the water system, the city shall act in
accordance with the city's water contingency conservation plan as required by M.S.A. § 103G-291.
Secs. 32-43--32-90. Reserved.
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 69
Appendix E
Minnesota DNR and Metropolitan Council
Review and Approval Letters
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 70
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 71
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 72
Meeting of December 11, 2008 (Item No. 4f)
Subject: Adopt the Water Supply Plan Page 73
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4g
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Acceptance of Donation for the Beehive Restoration Project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Accept Donation from St. Louis Park Historical Society in the amount of $10,000 for the
Beehive Restoration project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use?
BACKGROUND:
State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order
to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation
prior to it being expended.
The St. Louis Park Historical Society is graciously donating to the City of St. Louis Park/Park and
Recreation Department an amount of $10,000 cash. The donation is given with the restriction that
it be used for the restoration of the Beehive at Roadside Park.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The donation will assist us in restoring this park to its 1930’s glory.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Park and Recreation Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4g) Page 2
Subject: Acceptance of Donation for the Beehive Restoration Project
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION
FROM THE ST. LOUIS PARK HISTORICAL SOCIETY IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000
FOR THE BEEHIVE RESTORATION
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any
donations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor;
and
WHEREAS, the St. Louis Park Historical Society desires to assist the Park and Recreation
Department with the Beehive Restoration with a donation of $10,000;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that
the gift is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4h
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 19, 2008--6:00 p.m.
RECREATION CENTER - 3700 MONTEREY DRIVE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Robert Kramer, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis
Morris, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Adam Fulton,
Nancy Sells
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Garrett Lysiak, Consulting Engineer
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of November 5, 2008
Claudia Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes of
November 5, 2008. Robert Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 7-0.
3. Hearings
A. Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance relating to communication towers and
antennas
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 08-23-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He stated that
Garrett Lysiak, consulting engineer and City Attorney Tom Scott assisted staff with the
proposed ordinance.
Mr. Morrison said it comes down to aesthetics in a residential neighborhood; and proposed
heights that are consistent with the technology needed.
Chair Robertson asked if there was any reason not to have height in the C2 General
Commercial District and Office District at 199 feet.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 2
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
Mr. Morrison responded that one reason is the vision of the commercial and office districts
with higher standards of development. Another consideration is the practicality of the
height.
Commissioner Person asked about the Office District at 360 feet currently and how that
height was determined.
Chair Robertson replied that was 50% more than the allowed building height in the O
district which is 240 feet.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about FCC jurisdiction.
Mr. Morrison stated that the FCC has regulations that simply state when an antenna goes in
or modification is made to existing antenna, the owner of the antenna is responsible to
mitigate all interference complaints or concerns made within one year. After one year they
are not required to address interference.
Chair Robertson asked about wetlands and distance.
Mr. Morrison said staff has been debating that. Technically a wetland or floodplain can be
altered so land can be taken out of the wetland. He said some tweaking of that language is
probably required. According to DNR rules, towers exceeding 300 feet and located within
1000 feet of a wetland require an EAW.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about monopoles and setbacks.
Mr. Morrison discussed the 10 foot setback for monopoles.
Commissioner Carper asked, if two times the height of the tower setback in residential and
mixed-use districts is not for safety reasons, what is the issue?
Mr. Morrison replied that it is not so much a safety issue in that the tower won’t collapse on
structures. There may be some concerns of falling ice from the towers; but primarily it is
aesthetics. He added that is continued from the current code.
Commissioner Carper asked Mr. Morrison to discuss aesthetic concerns.
Mr. Morrison commented that it is primarily visual. He spoke about residential settings
where a tower would typically be located on an institutional building that has wide open
spaces. It could be located in a wetland under today’s standards, or near the edges of
wetlands. The idea is to preserve the views on those wide open spaces, views that are coveted
by residents of St. Louis Park.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Thomas Scott, 2749 Edgewood Ave. S., stated he had been a resident of the Bronx Park
neighborhood for nearly 20 years. He said he opposes the proposed radio tower for several
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 3
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
reasons. He fears it will potentially lower the property values of his home and homes in the
Bronx Park neighborhood. He said he is concerned the tower will have a deleterious impact
on the wetlands adjacent to it. Mr. Scott said he is concerned about electrical interference
with phone and television reception. He said he has a very strong fear, having served on the
site council of Peter Hobart School, that it will have a negative impact on school
communications. Mr. Scott added that he also opposes the tower as it doesn’t promote
sustainable quality of life development for the community. He said he sees no obvious
benefit that St. Louis Park will receive from the tower. It will be an aesthetic eyesore. He
concluded by saying he agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
Chair Robertson stated for clarification that there is not a proposal for a tower in front of the
Planning Commission currently. The Commission is not considering approving or not
approving a particular tower. The public hearing regards a change to the zoning ordinance.
He asked that comments not be directed about being against a tower that is not relevant to
the big picture zoning ordinance currently under consideration. Chair Robertson went on
to say the proposed language regards putting a cap on the height of towers through
conditional use permit in the various zoning districts. Currently the cap language is not
clear.
Chris Dahl, 5404 Interlochen Blvd., stated he is the owner of the property of the proposed
tower and which is the reason many people are in attendance at the meeting. He said he
grew up in St. Louis Park. Mr. Dahl said he attended the July 2nd Planning Commission
public hearing and has attended most of the subsequent Council meetings and study sessions
on this topic. He stated that since 1974 he has owned and operated numerous properties in
St. Louis Park. In 1990 he located his radio business on Excelsior Blvd. which is how he
came to own the tower site. Mr. Dahl said he vigorously opposes many things the new
ordinance tries to accomplish, not the least of which makes his property totally unusable as
far as its present use is concerned in terms of wetlands and floodplain. He spoke about the
uniqueness of communication towers. He stated that radio and TV towers are more
attractive than cell phone towers, and seek to provide their audiences with the clearest and
cleanest signals and images that they possibly can. Mr. Dahl said everyone is part of a
community that demands the best possible service from the electronic world. He said there
isn’t much proof that communications facilities and equipment are disruptive to other
devices. He said with the exception of the four towers, his site has remained unchanged
since St. Louis Park was incorporated as a city. It has been a tower site for the last 50 years.
His business has enjoyed a good relationship with the community that developed around the
tower site. He wants to work with residents and the city in crafting an ordinance which
works for everyone.
Mr. Dahl stated that a number of individuals were present on his behalf including Tom
Loucks, Jared Andrews, Mark Durenburger, Terry Moore, Bruce Malkerson, Tim Keane,
and Steve Woodbury.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 4
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
Mr. Dahl said in regards to the issues which have arisen regarding potential competition
from another radio station, he hoped something could be worked out for the benefit of
everybody.
Phil Hoglund, 2716 Vernon Ave. S., said he is an amateur radio operator. He has concerns
about the proposed ordinance for amateur radio and end-user over the air digital and
internet antenna classification. He distributed a letter which was prepared for the City
Council meetings of October 10th and November 3rd outlining his concerns. He spoke
about arbitrary height limits with no system for administrative evaluation of reasonable
accommodation. He spoke about case law which indicates amateurs can reasonably request
antennas with heights of up to 120 feet. He mentioned another arbitrary limit is 15 feet
above a roof line. Mr. Hoglund said the arbitrary limits are much too restrictive and don’t
provide the reasonable accommodation required by Federal law. He went on to say the
Federal government requires that different radio services be treated differently with respect to
land use. He spoke about the ordinance of the City of Plymouth which exempts amateur
radio and applies two times the height of the district. Mr. Hoglund discussed Section 207
WiFi antennas which require a clear line of sight. The FCC regulations pre-empt local use
zoning. Mr. Hoglund noted that since the last public hearing, the language on building
height was changed regarding the height of an antenna on a roof. He suggested the
additional language could create a problem for a tall building like Methodist Hospital.
Claire Christison, 2744 Georgia Ave. S., stated she hoped the Commission’s suggestions
would be accepted by the City Council. She stated there is an issue that she is personally
working with but the suggestions and recommendations of the Commission would suffice
for what she has been trying to do in her community to keep St. Louis Park the city she
moved to. Ms. Christison said she appreciated all of the work that has been done.
Steve Woodbury, CEO and President Northern Lights Broadcasting, B96 Radio, stated that
he graduated from St. Louis Park High School. He spoke about Northern Light’s desire to
relocate and rebuild their radio transmitter tower at an existing tower site. Mr. Woodbury
said this change will better serve St. Louis Park listeners and the entire community of
Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Tim Keane, attorney, stated that he would address a few points on Mr. Malkerson’s behalf,
as Mr. Malkerson needed to leave the meeting. Mr. Keane said he took exception to a letter
of opinion of value offered on the record. It was not offered by a licensed Minnesota real
estate appraiser as is required by law. This is a record proceeding and they were unable to
question his assumptions, statements and testimony. He referenced a case where the court
made clear expert testimony of that nature should be available for questioning and
examination when it is offered into the record. He said they take notable exception to
evidence offered by the opposition. Mr. Keane said they wished to remind the Commission
that the proposal by the applicant would conform and be subject to an Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW). He stated many of the issues and concerns that have been
raised would be examined and addressed in the EAW process. Mr. Keane requested that
Mr. Loucks letter be made a part of the record and proceeding.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 5
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
Tom Loucks, principal planner Loucks Associates, said the applicant appeared before the
Commission on July 2, 2008. They had considerable discussion about the proposed
amendment. Mr. Loucks said the Planning Commission discovered the ordinance had
purpose and they made a recommendation not to adopt any changes to the ordinance.
He stated that what began as a clarification to the ordinance has taken on a life of its own.
He spoke about the July 7th City Council meeting. Mr. Loucks said that since July 7th,
Loucks Associates has attended six City Council study sessions. As these were study
sessions, the consultant for the tower application was not allowed any testimony. Mr.
Loucks referenced correspondence which he distributed to Commissioners. He spoke about
correspondence Loucks Associates sent to Commissioners and interested parties on Nov.
11th. Mr. Loucks outlined concerns with the proposed ordinance in Nov. 19th staff report.
He said the first issue is the non-interference clause which requires a guarantee that there will
not be any interference issues. Mr. Loucks said that is a very difficult standard. They
suggest a modification that a radio frequency engineer or another qualified person renders an
opinion as to what the interference issues might be. He spoke about the FCC one-year time
limit regarding interference issues. He said Mr. Dahl has been in the community a long
time and has no intention of walking away after one year if there are interference issues.
Mr. Loucks said the proposal is for an FM tower which has fewer interference issues than
AM towers.
Mr. Loucks said at the first Planning Commission meeting a tower height of 392 feet was
discussed. During study sessions a standard of 200 feet and by conditional use permit up to
400 feet to accommodate the existing site and proposal was discussed. He commented that
through the process it became somewhat convoluted. It went from 200 feet in the Industrial
District to 200 feet with no exception and no conditional use permit to go above that height.
He said some of the rationale was recognition by several members, or at least one member of
the City Council, that they should limit height to less than 200 feet so towers would not
need to be lighted as required by FCC. Mr. Loucks discussed lighting. He displayed
examples of lighting.
Mr. Loucks discussed his objections to setbacks in residential areas. They suggest that
setback from any property line should be 200 feet or 1.5 times the fall radius of the tower,
whichever is greater. Mr. Loucks said they have no objection to co-location requirements.
Mr. Loucks spoke about the wetland issue. The current tower has existed in a wetland for 45
years. The new ordinance proposes that towers are specifically prohibited from being located
in wetlands. He said other agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and Watershed District
regulate what is allowed in wetlands and floodplains. He stated it is a deal killer period for
his proposed tower if a tower is not allowed in a wetland. An industrial building is allowed
under the current ordinance. He remarked that doesn’t seem to be a fair, rationale,
reasonable land use issue. Mr. Loucks said the applicant will prepare an EAW which will
answer a lot of questions about the site. Mr. Loucks mentioned a number of experts
available to act as a resource on this matter. He urged the Commission not to make a
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 6
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
decision at this time, but to evaluate all of the information and make a studied decision at
the next meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner Morris, City Attorney Tom Scott, stated that
Federal regulations do provide for reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operators.
Commissioner Morris asked about existing uses if the wetland provision is adopted.
Mr. Morrison said those uses would be legally non-conforming. He added that at this time
staff does not know if the tower is in a wetland. Staff has yet to see a wetland delineation on
that application. The proposed language is a blanket statement to protect all the wetlands
and floodplains.
Ann Rokoski, 2060 Ridge Drive #14, stated that her unit faces the wetland. She supports
the Planning Commission recommendations. She stated she couldn’t help but comment
on the way radio towers look. She commented on being able to see quite easily all four 200
ft. radio towers on the Hwy. 100 wetlands. Ms. Rokoski said the towers are a visual
presence.
Fred Anderson, 2921 Natchez Ave., said he agreed with the comments made about amateur
radio by Mr. Hogland. He said he also agreed with some of the comments made about
commercial radio. He agreed that the Commission should consider waiting and looking at
some of the information before final resolution. Mr. Anderson asked if the exemption
granted to amateur radio still requires the CUP process if a 70 ft. tower was requested.
Mr. Morrison answered it would require a CUP to go above 45 feet up to 70 feet.
Mr. Anderson asked if the CUP allowed for gray area variations beyond what definitions
exist in the ordinance.
Mr. Morrison responded that the nature of the CUP is to review the application as it
pertains to the specific site. He explained if there is a performance standard that cannot be
achieved, such as height, if Council advised it could be accommodated for amateur radio
operations.
Mr. Anderson spoke about setback requirements and a situation where trees provide good
antenna support. He asked if that would be in compliance.
Mr. Morrison said it was a good question and he had not considered that situation.
Terry Moore, attorney representing Northern Lights Broadcasting, said there is no question
that the tower being discussed is in a floodplain. It may or may not be in a wetland, but it is
in a floodplain. Mr. Moore spoke about pre-emption of local law. He went on to state that
there are no issues of interference with schools. He discussed whether the tower would
benefit anyone in St. Louis Park. He said the highest and best use in a low lying wetland is
often communication towers. They have a very low environmental impact, preserve the
nature of the open space and otherwise unusable parcel and still make use of it. He
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 7
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
commented that it is done all over the country. He spoke about the proliferation argument.
Mr. Moore stated that proliferation is not the case. Regarding co-location, he said a 200
foot tower inhibits the ability to co-locate. Mr. Moore offered himself as a resource for
further study.
Thomas Christiansen, 2170 Ridge Drive, #32, said it is proper to divide antennas below 200
feet and above 200 feet. He said the government does it, and St. Louis Park could certainly
do it. He commented that the city doesn’t allow signs on towers and he doesn’t see why
the city should allow lights on towers. He stated that lights are noticeable. He
commented that towers and antennas are two different things. More than one antenna can
be put on a tower which wouldn’t be part of the city planning process. He suggested that
eliminating towers over 200 feet would prevent that kind of problem. Mr. Christiansen
explained that more antennas on a tower increase possibilities for interference. He said
once that happens it is too late and avoiding that altogether is a good policy. He stated it
allows the city to have control of their environment by simply putting a cap on tower height.
He said broadcast technology is becoming obsolete. He suggested it is just a matter of time
before broadcast towers won’t be needed at this height. He spoke about the internet and
satellite communication. Mr. Christiansen said the existing four towers in St. Louis Park
currently create interference problems for residences close by. He said he knows of no effort
by the owner to take care of those problems. He stated promises to correct problems in the
future don’t mean anything, they are just promises.
Marshall Tanick, attorney, said he represents a group of residents known as NOT,
Neighbors Opposed to Towers. The group supports the recommendation the Planning
Commission has offered. The group is uniformly against the concept of expanding the
height limits of proposed towers, including the tower which has been discussed. He
referenced a communication that had been forwarded to the Commission from NOT. Mr.
Tanick spoke about the group’s concern about the effect of any expansion and extension of
the height of radio towers on property values throughout the City; and particularly the
property values of homes near large towers. He referenced documentation provided by
three different real estate personnel. Mr. Tanick spoke about safety concerns expressed by a
commercial pilot regarding medi-vac helicopters, even with the FAA requirements of lighting
on towers in excess of 200 feet, especially in residential areas. He discussed environmental
concerns. He said the prohibition proposed in the ordinance is a wise one. The NOT
neighbors he represents are in the area bounded by Cedar Lake Road, Louisiana and Ridge
Drive in the area near the wetlands, where the 200 foot towers now exist. The NOT group
is strongly supportive of the proposed ordinance. They oppose any effort to expand or
increase the height of radio towers beyond the 200 feet.
Blois Olson, 502 Texas Ave., representing Northern Lights Broadcasting, stated he felt it was
important in the spirit of open government and transparency that everyone representing
Northern Lights Broadcasting has said who they are representing. He referred to the
Northern Lights news release which was distributed to the Commission. He stated that the
community group, NOT SLP.com, was registered by a Clear Channel employee, Claire
Christison, resident of St. Louis Park. He said that Ms. Christison has never stated the name
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 8
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
of her employer in a public hearing, in the NOT SLP website, or to the media. Mr. Olson
stated that Clear Channel is a direct competitor.
Ms. Christison spoke about her employer, K102 Radio. She said her employment is a
separate issue. Ms. Christison stated that the Mayor, Councilmember Sanger, and City staff
know where she is employed. She asked why she shouldn’t be able to speak as a resident.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was not present at the July 2, 2008 meeting of the
Planning Commission. She said she is not prepared to make a decision or recommendation
on the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Kramer stated he is not in favor of changing the ordinance at this time. He
said he doesn’t think enough of the issues such as future technology, interference, and
setbacks have been addressed. He said he was in favor of voting against the proposed
ordinance.
Commissioner Carper said he didn’t think the ordinance had been drafted very well. He
said he felt it may be based on a lot of speculation and hypothesis that may not be based
upon fact. He suggested it needs to be rewritten and needs to include reference to amateur
radio. He said he would not be able to vote on the proposed ordinance at this time.
Commissioner Person said he agreed that more work needs to be done on the ordinance. He
said he would support tabling the item.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggesting holding a study session on the item.
Commissioner Shapiro said he agreed and would like to look more carefully at the proposed
ordinance.
Commissioner Morris asked for feedback from commissioners on what revisions to the
ordinance they propose.
Items mentioned by commissioners were amateur radio, wetlands issues, setbacks, capping
the height through a conditional use permit rather than by zoning district, and scientific
issues.
Tom Scott, City Attorney, spoke about the timing of Mr. Dahl’s pending application.
Mr. Loucks stated that the applicant will not waive another deadline requirement. He said
the applicant has been waiting six months.
Commissioner Morris suggested that City Council study session minutes be provided to
Commissioners for their use in studying issues which have been raised. He said the
Commission could oppose, approve, or send the proposed ordinance on to the Council
without a recommendation.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to table the request and hold a study
session of the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Commissioner Morris seconded the
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 9
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
motion, and the motion to table the request and hold a Planning Commission study session
passed on a vote of 6-1 (Kramer voting opposed).
B. Major amendment to special permit for warehouse addition and site improvements
Location: 5005 Highway 7
Applicant: Nordic Ware
Case No.: 08-40-SP
Adam Fulton, Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Person inquired about meeting the requirement for reduction of phosphorus.
He mentioned the stormwater ponds in the proposal. He asked if anything else could be
done to meet the new stormwater management requirements.
Mr. Fulton said the applicant will meet the basic requirements by installing the stormwater
ponds. He stated that the applicant will need a Watershed District permit, and some of the
other technical aspects may be handled through that permit.
Commissioner Person asked about the possibility of pervious pavements in the new parking
areas.
Commissioner Kramer asked how an adjacent building at the northwest corner will be
affected by the proposal.
Mr. Fulton responded that there will be no negative impacts to that property regarding
access. He said the improvements will probably reduce the number of truck trips occurring
near that building.
Commissioner Kramer asked about the pedestrian bridge supports and the truck radius.
Mr. Fulton said he mentioned it in his presentation because the supports are in close
proximity to the site. He added that the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has
found the proximity not to be an issue.
Commissioner Kramer asked about ice and the possibility of trucks sliding near the supports.
Mr. Fulton said a solution would be the installation of some safety bollards.
Commissioner Kramer said he would recommend that installation.
Commissioner Morris and Mr. Fulton discussed the lack of screening at the truck dock and
the end of the Hennepin County trail. Mr. Fulton said as required by special permit
regulations, the proposal brings the Nordic Ware site into greater compliance with current
regulatory standards.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4h) Page 10
Subject: Planning Commission Minutes November 19, 2008
Commissioner Morris said he was uncomfortable with the proximity of the truck crossing
adjacent to the trail crossing.
Mr. Fulton stated that the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and has no issues with the
turn radius, the drive access, and the bridge.
Commissioner Shapiro asked what remaining items would bring the site into greater
compliance.
Mr. Fulton said as an industrial facility the use itself is generally in compliance. Parking,
landscaping, and some technical aspects are not fully in compliance.
Chair Robertson commented that it was an exciting addition.
David Dahlquist, Nordic Ware, spoke about the expansion.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, he
closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Person recommended approval of the Major Amendment to the Special
Permit, subject to conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Shapiro seconded the
motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
4. Other Business
5. Communications
6. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4i
City of St. Louis Park
Police Advisory Commission
Minutes – November 5, 2008
Aquila Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Gormley called the meeting to order at 7:00.
Commissioners Present: Joan Barnes, Gage Dennison, Maureen Gormley, Jim Lanenberg, Justin
Noznesky, Jim Smith, Pat Swiderski and Hans Widmer
Staff Present: Lieutenant Harcey and Ms. Stegora-Peterson.
II. Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Widmer noted a date change.
Motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner
Dennison. The minutes were approved as revised.
III. Golf Tournament Update
Lt. Harcey noted that the total income from the tournament was $3,487.38. Last year they raised
$2,500.90. There were not as many golfers, but they got some good ideas for the next year such as
advertising earlier. He suggested possibly lowering the entrance fee. Commissioners presented
believed $90 was appropriate. They may also consider changing the date and having it prior to
Labor day.
Commissioners wanted to continue doing the tournament and suggested they begin discussions in
January.
IV. Bike Safety Update
Commissioner Widmer indicated a group of Commissioners met to develop an informational
handout (distributed) for bicyclists. It included a map and safety tips. They will distribute it to bike
stores and Police Officers could also distribute it.
Lt. Harcey noted he could provide it to the City’s graphic artist to finalize.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4i) Page 2
Subject: Police Advisory Commission Minutes November 5, 2008
Suggestions were made to add a web site of State laws and statistics of accidents. Other places to
distribute are: A community education class for bike maintenance, doing a cable show, Lifetime
Fitness bike club and libraries.
V. HRC Update
Commissioner Swiderski noted she had been unable to attend recent meetings and did not have an
update.
Lt. Harcey noted the HRC were working on a film series and the next film is November 20th. They are
also seeking submissions for the annual Human Rights Award. They are working on creating a Vision
Lens, which will help keep City employees focused on diversity.
VI. End of Year Report to Council
Chair Gormley noted that the report is usually presented to City Council in February and the
Committee Chair attends a Council Study Session. City Council generally provides ideas for the
Commission to work on. Some of the items the Commission has accomplished include: Golf
tournament, PAC information brochure, work with HRC (ice cream social), Citizens Academy, and
the Bike Safety brochure. She would draft a report and include goals for the next year including:
continuing the traffic and bike safety work, and cable programs (quarterly).
VII. Election of Officers for 2009
Chair Gormley noted the election was for Chair and Vice Chair.
Commissioner Barnes nominated Commissioner Widmer as Chair. Approved
Commissioner Gormley nominated Commissioner Smith as Vice Chair. Approved.
Lt. Harcey indicated terms were expiring for Commissioners Gormley, Swiderski, Lanenberg and the
youth member.
Commissioners Gormley and Lanenberg stated they would be resigning. Commissioner Swiderski
agreed to continue.
VIII. New Business
Lt. Harcey reported that residential burglaries had increased and burglaries of businesses had
decreased. The Police Department is receiving two awards for their graffiti program and were
looking to market their program. He also noted the Cohen Brothers had been shooting a movie in
St. Louis Park.
IX. Adjourn
The meeting adjourned at 7:50 PM.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4j
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – August 19, 2008
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Helen Fu, Mary Feldman, Sharon Lyon, Lisa Miller, Stuart Morgan,
Vladimir Sivriver, Mohamed Abdi and Shelley Taylor
Absent: Bill Gavzy, Sonja Johnson, Ahmed Maaraba, Joe Polach and Dalton Shaughnessy
Staff: Marney Olson and Amy Stegora-Peterson
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of Minutes
The May 20, 2008 minutes were approved as presented.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Louisiana Court Resource Fair - Ms. Olson reported the event went well and various local
resources were at the fair. About 40 adults and 80 kids were present. It was an opportunity
to let people know that the Human Rights Commission is in existence.
Neighborhood Night Out at Meadowbrook – Commissioners Lyon, Abdi and Morgan
attended the Meadowbrook event. It was a good event and a great chance to meet new
people and tell them about the Human Rights Commission.
Commissioner Lyon discussed the HRC being involved in another event with Meadowbrook
September 22nd and noted (later in the meeting) this could fit in with one of their work plan
items. Ms. Olson felt the Commission should focus on their current work plan items and the
first film of the film series on September 18th since the HRC was in attendance at
Meadowbrook’s Neighborhood Night Out.
III. Unfinished Business - None
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4j) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes August 19, 2008
IV. New Business
A. Film Series
Commissioner Taylor reported the committee hadn’t met. The first film, A Dream in
Doubt, is scheduled for September 18th and will be viewed in the City Hall Council
Chambers. The Committee needs to meet to discuss publicity and solidify the speakers. Ms.
Olson noted an article was put into the Park Perspective with September and November film
information. The Park and Recreation brochure will also have information. Two films will
be shown this year. The series is a big undertaking and they hope to make it sustainable and
have more people attend.
B. Vision
Ms. Olson stated she attended a City Council study session in August to report on the
Diversity section of Vision and to make sure the Vision Lens was going in the right
direction. The report was well received and categorizing the vision items showed how much
the City is already doing in some of these areas. City Council brought up some specific areas
of interest related to diversity and staff explained that the Diversity Lens is a tool that will
help address these issues. The next step is to get the Lens out to City staff and explain how
to use it as a tool. Future steps include using the Diversity Lens in City publications and
communications.
C. Work Plan
Ms. Olson indicated at the last meeting the Commission discussed other work plan items to move
forward on. She suggested having a sub committee come up with ideas pertaining to those work
plan items and present them to the full commission. Commissioners Miller, Lyon, Morgan and
Abdi agreed to work on the sub committee.
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Work Plan sub committee
Film Series
Vision
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4k
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Minutes – September 16, 2008
Westwood Room, City Hall
I. Call to Order
Chair Miller called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
A. Roll Call
Commissioners Present: Helen Fu, Sharon Lyon, Lisa Miller, Stuart Morgan, Joe Polach and
Vladimir Sivriver
Absent: Mohammed Abdi, Mary Feldman, Bill Gavzy, Ahmed Maaraba and Shelley Taylor
Staff: Marney Olson, Lt. Lori Dreier and Amy Stegora-Peterson
B. Approval of Agenda
The agenda was approved as presented.
C. Approval of Minutes
The August 19, 2008 minutes were approved as presented.
II. Commissioner and Committee Reports
A. Individual commissioner and staff reports
Lt. Dreier reported a bias crime had occurred at the Junior High. A swastika was found in the
boy’s bathroom. The School Liaison called and talked with the school who would be looking for
anything else and address it as needed. The Commission sends a letter to the victim.
III. Unfinished Business - None
IV. New Business
A. Film Series
Commissioner Morgan asked available Commissioners to arrive at 6PM. Flyers have been
distributed by Email and posted at various locations. He would follow up with the speaker prior
to the film.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4k) Page 2
Subject: Human Rights Commission Minutes September 16, 2008
B. Work Plan Sub Committee Update
Chair Miller met with Commissioner Lyon and Ms. Olson to reexamine the Commissions Work
Plan to see what was working and what was not. They came up with three ideas:
Create criteria of what they are doing and if it would be effective
Have Commissioners attend a diversity training which would help them become a cohesive
working group and also learning how to use the Diversity Lens
Reach out to other Human Rights Commissions in the Metro and State to find out what
they are doing, what is working, what is not working and how they can be connected and
engaged in the community.
Ms. Olson noted Hopkins is interested in doing a film series which would be a good opportunity
to partner. This committee will meet again and all commissioners are invited to attend.
C. Vision
Ms. Olson stated there was a report to City Council in August on the Diversity Lens. She and
Lt. Dreier met with Communications staff and Human Resources to talk about the roll out plan
to City staff. They will begin presenting in October and start putting it to use. The concept
and the Diversity Lens and the purpose will be explained. The Communications Department is
also looking at how to get it out to residents. Once the lens has been rolled out to staff it will be
presented to residents on cable television, the web, Park Perspective, included in publications
and will tie in with the City’s mission and goals.
V. Set Agenda for Next Meeting
Film Series
Work Plan Sub Committee
Vision
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Amy L. Stegora-Peterson
Recording Secretary
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4l
MINUTES
St. Louis Park Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall – Westwood Room
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Renee
Fitzgerald, Trinicia Hill, Judith Moore
STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:03 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for October, 2008
The Board minutes of October 15, 2008 were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Addendum to Contract for Private Development between St. Louis Park HA and
Stillman-Susman for 2715 Monterey Avenue South
Ms. Larsen explained the Stillman’s request to extend the deadline for completion of
construction of their new home to December 31, 2009, due to tightening of the
credit market, a general economic downturn and a slowdown in housing sales. After
discussion, Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve the Addendum to Contract
for Private Development (2715 Monterey Avenue South) By and Between the
Housing Authority of St. Louis Park and Martin Stillman and Amy Susman-
Stillman, dated December 19, 2007. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion,
and the motion passed 5-0.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 41) Page 2
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes November 12, 2008
b. CFP Contract Award – Hamilton House Roof
Mr. Locke provided background on the roof and patio door replacement bids for
Hamilton House. The lowest and winning bid was received from Central Roofing
Company. Studio Five Architects contacted three references provided by Central
Roofing and received favorable feedback. Central Roofing could start the roof
replacement mid-November, weather permitting. Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to
authorize the Housing Authority to enter into a contract with Central Roofing
Company, in the amount of $84,442, for replacement of the roof at Hamilton
House; Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0.
c. Affordable Home Ownership Update
Ms. Larsen informed the Commissioners about the Land Trust Home Ownership
Model, stating that staff proposes to continue to provide financial assistance through
the allocation of CDBG and Housing Rehab funds to facilitate the purchase of two
homes annually through West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land Trust
(WHAHLT). Additionally, the City and WHAHLT are collaborating on a duplex
conversion program, wherein a distressed or foreclosed duplex will be acquired and
rehabbed, improving existing property and creating two affordable home ownership
opportunities for low/moderate income St. Louis Park households. Ms. Schnitker
provided an update on the “Live Where You Work” Home Ownership Program, an
employer assisted home ownership program that will provide employees of
participating St. Louis Park businesses with a grant toward the purchase of a house in
St. Louis Park, near their place of employment.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List November – 2008
b. Communications
1. Monthly Report for November – 2008
2. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
Commissioner Fitzgerald suggested that in order to gain additional green space or land for
residents to build move-up housing, the City might consider vacation of certain intersections
that are not heavily used and/or abandon right of way parcels adjacent to privately owned
properties. Additionally, she proposed that the City consider zoning changes to allow rooms
above garages, as a means of increasing livable space. Mr. Locke stated he would arrange for
a City planning and zoning staff person to attend the next Board meeting to provide the
Commissioners information on ordinances related to garage structures. Commissioners
Courtney and Moore stated they would not be interested in pursuing vacating existing
intersections as a means to provide additional land. Commissioner Fillbrandt stated he
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 41) Page 3
Subject: Housing Authority Minutes November 12, 2008
would be interested in a presentation from a planning and zoning staff person. Ms.
Schnitker stated she would check into providing additional information on the excess land
sale process.
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Hill seconded the
motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________
Renee Fitzgerald, Secretary
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 4m
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 November 27 through December 12,
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
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
1Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
16.74GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSA-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
16.74
202.35WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESAAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT
202.35
1,580.42EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTAAA-LICENSE DIVISION
1,580.42
184.25SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
184.25
370.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESACZ LABORATORIES INC
370.00
644.63EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESADMINISTRATION RESOURCES CORP
644.63
309.75ESCROWSBass Lake/EDI/UPAECOM INC
309.75
60.72WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSALLARD, BRUCE
60.72
1,137.00H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
136.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,273.00
137.70PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESAMERIPRIDE LINEN & APPAREL SER
101.34PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
47.96ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
88.58VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
115.30WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
115.29SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
606.17
728.53POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIESANCHOR PAPER CO
728.53
50.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAININGANDERSON, SCOTT
50.00
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
2Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
85.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESANGELL'S WORLD OF FUN INC
85.00
887.84BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESAPACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA
887.84
1,314.83GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHERAPPLIANCE SMART
1,314.83
150.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATAPWA REGISTRATION
150.00
194.60ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS
194.60
31.32COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONEAT&T
31.32
717.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEAUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
1,071.62SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,788.62
1,000.00ESCROWSBROOKSIDE TRAFFIC STUDYB&E GRADING
1,000.00
41.11PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESB&F FASTENER SUPPLY
41.11
53.00INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICALBARBEROT, DAVID & CHRISTINA
53.00
35.06ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARBO, BARBARA
35.06
84.31HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD
84.31
41.02ENTERPRISE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESBATTERIES PLUS
41.02
675.00PATROLTRAININGBCA - BTS
675.00
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
3Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
200.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEALKE INDUSTRIES, ROBERT
200.00
11.98PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIESBECKER ARENA PRODUCTS
11.98
140.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBENDEL, PATRICIA
140.00
123.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBENSON, JANET
123.75
450.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBERGFORD ARCHITECTURE, JOHN
450.00
50.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONBEST BUY
50.00
338.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBEXAR COUNTY
338.00
173.16ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBIRNO, RICK
173.16
173.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBJORGAARD, DEB
173.44
730.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESBLUESTONE ENGINEERING
730.00
135.79WARMING HOUSE GENERAL SUPPLIESBRENTS SIGNS AND DISPLAYS
135.79
595.95ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESBRO TEX INC
198.65PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
198.65WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
238.38SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,231.63
743.37SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESBROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS
743.37
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
4Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
692.19HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESBUNKER PARK STABLE
692.19
184.67ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARBUSKEY, JENNIFER
184.67
350.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONCABELA'S
350.00
64,334.00OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLYCALGON CARBON CORP
64,334.00
9.93-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCALL ONE INC
151.23COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
11.44COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL POSTAGE
152.74
12,807.85ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
30.00FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION LEGAL SERVICES
548.74GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A LEGAL SERVICES
352.80WIRELESS G & A LEGAL SERVICES
13,739.39
2,000.00ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAININGCANNON & ASSOCIATES, KATE
2,000.00
200.00VARIANCESZONING/SUBDIVISIONCANNON, MICHAEL & KATHLEEN
200.00
15.93-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCARDIAC SCIENCE INC
260.93OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
245.00
595.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATCARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
595.00
139.36GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSCATCO PARTS SERVICE
139.36
121.36BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESCEMSTONE PRODUCTS CO
121.36
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
5Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
8,480.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENTCENTRAL PENSION FUND
8,480.00
125.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESCERTIFIED PLUMBING INC
125.00
37.52GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESCINTAS FIRST AID & SAFETY
37.52
285.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTCITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
427.49ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES
311.43ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE
195.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
255.00ASSESSING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
8.79ASSESSING G & A INTEREST/FINANCE CHARGES
108.20INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
4.63-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
3.20VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
75.89GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
54.95CABLE TV G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT
171.31NEIGHBORHOOD PUBLIC ART OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,891.63
2,500.00COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHINGCITY IMAGE COMMUNICATIONS
2,500.00
1,298.69CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESCOCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
1,298.69
10,981.73ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESCOLICH & ASSOCIATES
10,981.73
940.10CE SURVEYS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDICOMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
491.07CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
63,935.56CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
65,366.73
16.25WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSCOOKE JR, RONALD
16.25
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
6Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
76.25TREE REMOVAL TREE MAINTENANCECRARY, JEROME
76.25
13.99-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSCREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC
210.34DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
18.90DARE PROGRAM POSTAGE
215.25
101.12POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIESCUB FOODS
48.96POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE
30.07NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING EXPENSE
180.15
5.10INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESCULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER
5.10
1,718.59WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESDAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP
1,718.59
51.63WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSDAVIS, JAMES
51.63
299.00OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESDE PAUL LETTERING
299.00
1.43-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDELTA MEDICAL SUPPLY GROUP INC
23.41OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
21.98
9,308.82INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSDEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
9,308.82
120,675.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDMJ CORPORATION
120,675.00
199.69WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESDON'S RODENTS
199.69
100.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESDOSS, ROBERT
100.00
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
7Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
126.19WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSDURNAN, JAMES
126.19
1,664.19ELECTRICAL SYSTEM MTCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEDYMANYK ELECTRIC INC
1,664.19
334.90ARENA MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESE-Z SHARP INC
334.90
948.00OPERATIONSTRAININGEDEN PRAIRIE FIRE DEPARTMENT
948.00
340.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEGAN COMPANIES INC
340.00
1,063.75SUNSET RIDGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESEHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
1,063.75
1,366.20OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESSEMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC
1,366.20
683.77GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSEMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
5,911.24GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
6,595.01
12.73-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSEMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS
208.65OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
195.92
4,899.00TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICEEMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC
4,899.00
1,060.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESEMPLOYERS ASSOCIATION INC
1,060.00
125.95WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSENGLAND, BARBARA
125.95
14,430.75STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIESS BROTHERS & SONS INC
14,430.75
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
8Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
33,884.55SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICEEUREKA RECYCLING
33,884.55
28.64GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSFASTENAL COMPANY
28.64
12.00POLICE G & A POSTAGEFEDEX
189.92SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
201.92
1,710.95OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESFIRE EQUIPMENT SPECIALTIES INC
1,710.95
112.89BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESFLOYD TOTAL SECURITY
112.89
333.34ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICESFRANZEN & ASSOCIATES LLC
333.34
76.78WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSFULOP, STEPHAN
76.78
54.99COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARFULTON, ADAM
54.99
82,382.17PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESG L CONTRACTING INC
82,382.17
150.00COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONEGARDEN & ASSOCIATES INC
150.00
23.80WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSGARTHWAIT, JEFF
23.80
867.91ARENA MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICEGARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
867.91
86.63ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESGOLDSTEIN, GAIL
86.63
4,074.23INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGOPHER SIGN
4,074.23
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
9Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
147.85GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSGRAINGER INC, WW
176.45WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER
324.30
1,150.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESGROTH SEWER & WATER
1,150.50
237.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHAMILTON, SYLVIA POSZ
237.00
58,550.00PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER ENGINEERING SERVICESHAMPSHIRE ASSOCIATION
58,550.00
5,558.77WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESHAWKINS INC
5,558.77
648.64ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGEHENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
2,108.00POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
32.97SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
103.34PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
10,252.60CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
250.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
13,395.55
1,287.50OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESHENNEPIN FACULTY ASSOCIATES
1,287.50
1,691.98OPERATIONSTRAININGHENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
1,691.98
4,151.93WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEHIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
4,151.93
75.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESHILLSTROM, TOM
75.00
8.07FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEESHIRSHFIELDS
177.91PAINTINGBLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
185.98
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
10Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
35.95WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHOFFMAN, BRUCE
35.95
10,485.88WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSHOIGAARDS
10,485.88
29.65PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
44.44PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
50.44SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
124.53
33.06WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
33.06
.53INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTSHOME ENHANCEMENT SERVICES
49.00INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING
49.53
24.70GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESHOME HARDWARE
101.64PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.86WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
106.49WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
36.04SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
76.62SEWER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
21.29STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
396.64
213.79INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESHSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
43.15WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
256.94
641.13INSTALLATIONOTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESHUBBELL LIGHTING INC
641.13
240.52PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTSI-STATE TRUCK CENTER
1,458.03GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
1,698.55
1,697.50SANDING/SALTING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESICEMAN INDUSTRIES INC
1,697.50
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
11Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
1,154.95CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIMPLEX.NET INC
1,154.95
1,593.30SEWER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICEINDELCO
1,593.30
2,550.00TV PRODUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESINDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #2
2,550.00
72.15BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESINDUSTRIAL CONTROLS DISTRIBUTO
72.15
75.00COMM & MARKETING G & A TELEPHONEINGCO INTERNATIONAL LLC
75.00
142.63WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSINTEGRATED ASSET SERVICES LLC
142.63
290.59GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM OF M
290.59
324.49GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSINVER GROVE FORD
324.49
53.96POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESIRON MOUNTAIN
53.96
100.00ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATISA
100.00
282.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATJACOBS, JEFF
282.00
10.23GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESJERRY'S MIRACLE MILE
11.97VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.20
200.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESJOHNSON, QUINTIN
200.00
10.69WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSKEATING, MARY
10.69
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
12Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
693.00ESCROWSDuke Realty - West EndKENNEDY & GRAVEN
2,023.00ESCROWS
339.00SUNSET RIDGE LEGAL SERVICES
844.00WESTMORELAND HIA LEGAL SERVICES
3,899.00
8,425.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEKEYS WELL DRILLING CO
8,425.00
112.50ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESKOEPCKE, STEPHEN
112.50
628.82GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEKREMER SPRING & ALIGNMENT INC
628.82
119.00BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICEKRUGE-AIR INC
119.00
20.62ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLAIDERMAN, NESSA LEE
20.62
215.34WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICELARSCO INC
215.34
60.26HOUSING REHAB G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARLARSEN, KATHY
60.26
105.75ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLARSON, DAVID
105.75
946.10SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESLARSON, JH CO
946.10
45.36WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLAUMANN, JOHN
45.36
72.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESLAVONG, NATALIE
72.00
142.31GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSLAWSON PRODUCTS INC
142.31
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
13Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
22,934.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES
22,934.00
5,861.90UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSSLEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE
5,861.90
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEVIN ARCHITECTS, CHARLES
225.00
31.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESLEXISNEXIS
31.00
60.90POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTATLUSE, JOHN
60.90
248.37ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSEMACKENZIE & FRIENDS, INC
248.37
65.00COMM & MARKETING G & A TRAININGMAGC
65.00
56.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMALCOMSON, NANETTE
56.25
83.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMARSDEN, RICK
83.25
30.35VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELSMCCOY, WILLIAM PETROLEUM FUELS
30.35
18.69PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESMENARDS
11.48SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES
77.12WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
107.29
212.00VOLLEYBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMETRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS
212.00
108.64PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIESMIDWEST ASPHALT CORP
3,633.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
3,742.14
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
14Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
100.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMILLER, ANTHONY
100.00
5.91-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSMILLERBERND, DENNIS
96.88PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
90.97
392.00PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESMINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
392.00
476.76EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
476.76
245.00SUPERVISORYSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSMINNESOTA CHIEFS POLICE ASSOC
245.00
1,259.73EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTSMINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CT
1,259.73
70.00INSPECTIONS G & A TRAININGMINNESOTA DEPT OF HEALTH
70.00
16.00EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITSMINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE INS
16.00
3,433.20EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A UNEMPLOYMENTMINNESOTA UI FUND
3,433.20
120.00INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSESMN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
120.00
160.73OPERATIONSTRAININGMN STATE COLLEGES & UNIV
160.73
2,116.07ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICEMORRIE'S BODYWORKS
2,116.07
16.77GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSMORRIE'S PARTS & SERVICE GROUP
16.77
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
15Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
3,025.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESMORRISON & ASSOCIATES INC
3,025.00
7.98GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIESNAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
147.99SNOW PLOWING GENERAL SUPPLIES
57.49ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
9.35PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS
199.01GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES
126.55GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
548.37
112.32ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARNATHANSON, BRIDGET
112.32
23,718.76EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTNELSON AUTO CENTER
23,718.76
26.69WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSNOAM, DARCHEI
26.69
103.55OPERATIONSTRAININGNORDBY, MATTHEW
103.55
2.53-PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTSNORTHERN SAFETY CO INC.
41.40VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.87
40.00YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUEO'DONNELL, SHEILA
40.00
500.00ANIMAL CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESOAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
500.00
8,025.00GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOERTEL ARCHITECTS
8,025.00
195.44ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESOFFICE DEPOT
122.65ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
310.25FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
27.79GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES
98.66FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
16Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
56.46OPERATIONSOFFICE SUPPLIES
378.91INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
37.47PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
23.82PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
401.44ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
23.82PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
85.93WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES
23.82VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
1,786.46
131.86NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES DATACOMMUNICATIONSOFFICE OF ENTERPRISE TECHNOLOG
62.86VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONE
4,197.64FACILITY OPERATIONS TELEPHONE
101.15NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH TELEPHONE
758.61COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
5,252.12
1,716.00INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESOFFICE TEAM
1,716.00
15.18DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLSOLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
15.18
106.50PORTABLE TOILETS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESON SITE SANITATION
106.50
200.00NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPANNELL, LISA
200.00
212.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESPARK NICOLLET CLINIC
212.00
18,758.35CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPEARSON BROTHERS INC
18,758.35
1,437.50GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTPERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
12,408.01COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
8,098.36SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER
21,943.87
22.97POLICE G & A TRAININGPETTY CASH
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
17Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
10.68PUBLIC WORKS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
14.25PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING
25.86TRAININGMEETING EXPENSE
13.87ENVIRONMENTAL G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.50VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES
14.87GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
1.67WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS
5.70WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
21.50WATER UTILITY G&A LICENSES
4.25SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES
51.69EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
209.81
375.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A TRAININGPLT SERVICES
375.00
355.01PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE TIRESPOMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
355.01
361.93PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONEPOPP TELECOM
361.93
212.65WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGEPOSTMASTER - PERMIT #603
212.65SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
212.65SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE
212.66STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE
850.61
17.18GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSPRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN
17.18
1,782.02CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIPRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
1,782.02
905.00ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESPREDICTABLE PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
905.00
266.25PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUALITY METALCRAFTS INC
266.25
9,446.46WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEQUALITY RESTORATION SERVICES I
9,446.46
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
18Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
22.06GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
22.06
6,800.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESQUIRING EXCAVATING LLC
6,800.00
17.30ICE RESURFACER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESR & R SPECIALTIES
17.30
1,746.93FACILITY OPERATIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICERANDY'S SANITATION INC
747.59REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
73.54WATER UTILITY G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
711.55SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
3,279.61
48.43WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSRANEY, ASHLEE
48.43
35.00PUBLIC WORKS G & A MEETING EXPENSERARDIN, MICHAEL
35.00
7,213.62SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS OTHERREHRIG PACIFIC CO
7,213.62
406.20ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESRICHARDSON, TERESA
406.20
3,185.00HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESRILEY, DETTMAN & KELSEY
3,185.00
116.99HOLIDAY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIESROSA, NATE
37.80BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES
154.79
100.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONRUN N FUN
100.00
13,618.22EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTSCHARBER & SONS
13,618.22
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
19Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
39.19ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESSCHULTZ, MARY
39.19
2,096.42H.V.A.C. EQUIP. MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSCHWAB VOLLHABER LUBRATT SERVI
2,096.42
300.00BASKETBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSCULLY, KEVIN
300.00
167.80WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLSSEARS COMMERCIAL ONE
167.80
367.20ADULT FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHEEHAN, ALEEAH
367.20
225.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM SERVICES/MRKTG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSHELTER ARCHITECTURE
225.00
61.83WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERSSHERNO, TIMOTHY
61.83
171.55OPERATIONSFIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIESSMITH, CARY S
171.55
2,998.46ESCROWSGENERALSRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
699.18GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,749.29PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
3,993.13PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
110,538.68PE PLANS/SPECS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
76,899.25CE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
196,877.99
56,500.00CDBG BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK EMERGENCY PROGRA
56,500.00
6,733.12HOUSING AUTHORITY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESST LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORIT
6,733.12
50.00SPECIAL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESSTAGES THEATRE CO
50.00
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
20Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
62.92ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITYSTANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, TH
55.19HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY
15.76COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY
43.35IT 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
125.46POLICE 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
2,245.68EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY
3,272.49
232.97BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIESSTATE SUPPLY CO
232.97
1,210.84BASKETBALLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTITCHIN POST
210.68JUNIOR NATURALISTS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,421.52
6,465.83POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESSTREICHER'S
106.44GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS
117.14WATER UTILITY G&A SMALL TOOLS
4,398.54-EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
2,290.87
473.15WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDISTRUCTURAL DESIGN ASSOC INC
473.15
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
21Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
609.19ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICESSUN NEWSPAPERS
609.19
38.25ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTAPE, WILLIAM
38.25
150.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITIONTARGET
150.00
18.10POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESTARGET BANK
28.80DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
32.04NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH MEETING EXPENSE
78.94
300.00HUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSTCALMC
300.00
80.06-GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTSTEE'S PLUS
1,311.71DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,231.65
46.44ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTELELANGUAGE INC
46.44
105.07GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIESTERMINAL SUPPLY CO
105.07
97.00BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICETERMINIX INT
47.33WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
144.33
46.00OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIESTEXA TONKA TAILORING
46.00
2,360.00RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESTHERKELSEN & ASSOCIATES INC, G
2,360.00
155.80ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESTIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
155.80
6,800.03EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTTRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO
6,800.03
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
22Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
28.60STORM WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTSTWIN CITY SAW & SERVICE CO
28.60
80.00GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNTUNIFORMS UNLIMITED
545.15NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
497.14SUPERVISORYOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
1,665.91PATROLOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
438.91OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
3,227.11
11,660.93EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTUNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC
11,660.93
244.50EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAYUNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
244.50
13,291.36WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESUNPLUGGED CITIES LLC
13,291.36
66.30WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONEUSA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC
66.30
3,619.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICEVALLEY-RICH CO INC
3,619.00
156.20ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CARVAUGHAN, JIM
156.20
22,250.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDIVEIT & CO
22,250.00
1,373.44VOICE SYSTEM MTCE TELEPHONEVERIZON WIRELESS
72.34COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE
1,445.78
2,912.18INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESVICTORIA, CITY OF
2,912.18
305.48WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIESVIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
305.48
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
23Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
174.50GRANTSOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWASTE MANAGEMENT
174.50
989.30CONCESSIONSCONCESSION SUPPLIESWATSON CO INC
989.30
15,000.00WAYSIDE HOUSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWAYSIDE HOUSE INC
15,000.00
267.75GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTSWAYTEK
267.75
12,442.20EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENTWESTSIDE EQUIPMENT
12,442.20
126.00ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICESWICKERSHAM, MARY
126.00
75.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESWILHELM, EMMA
75.00
534.50INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESWILLIAMS SCOTSMAN INC
534.50
12.00CABLE TV G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPSWIRED
12.00
602.96EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S STATE WITHHOLDINGWISCONSIN DEPT OF REVENUE
602.96
9,464.88FACILITY OPERATIONS ELECTRIC SERVICEXCEL ENERGY
173.61PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE
340.23WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
12,400.04ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE
705.38WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE
71.50WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
23,155.64
2,250.00WIRELESS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESXO COMMUNICATIONS
2,250.00
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24
12/10/2008CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 13:22:37R55CKSUM LOG23000VO
24Page -Council Check Summary
12/12/2008 -11/27/2008
Vendor AmountBusiness Unit Object
50.00GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICESZATOS, FRANCILLE
50.00
51.07PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
51.06PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES
51.06VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES
153.19
115.13VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIESZEP MFG
115.13
26.00-EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT B/S DUE TO OTHER GOVTSZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
426.00EQUIPMENT REPLACE G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
400.00
Report Totals 1,180,678.64
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 4m)
Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 5a
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:
Reappointment of Citizen Representatives to Boards and Commissions.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to reappoint the following Commissioners as city representatives to their respective
commissions with terms as follows:
Name Commission Term
Expiration
Susan Bloyer Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2011
James Gainsley Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2011
Henry Solmer Board of Zoning Appeals 12/31/2011
William MacMillan Fire Civil Service 12/31/2011
Mohamed Abdi Human Rights Commission 12/31/2011
Mary Feldman Human Rights Commission 12/31/2011
Helen Fu Human Rights Commission 12/31/2011
Steve Halfin Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
Tom Worthington Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
Claudia Johnson-Madison Planning Commission 12/31/2011
Cal Robertson Planning Commission 12/31/2011
Pat Swiderski Police Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
R. Bruce Browning Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
David Dyer Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
Michael Mulligan Telecommunications Advisory Commission 12/31/2011
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the Council wish to reappoint the Commissioners listed above to serve another term to their
respective Commissions?
BACKGROUND:
The terms of the Commissioners listed above will expire on December 31, 2008. Staff liaisons have
been consulted and these Commissioners have indicated that they wish to be reappointed to a new
term. Terms are for three years.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 5a) Page 2
Subject: Board and Commission Reappointments
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Appointing diverse citizen representatives who volunteer as commissioners to the various Boards and
Commissions assures St. Louis Park is consistent with the Council’s Strategic Direction of being a
connected and engaged community.
Prepared by: Lisa Songle, Office Assistant
Reviewed by: Nancy Stroth, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements (Case No.
08-39-VAC).
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
• Mayor to close public hearing.
• Motion to approve First Reading of an Ordinance vacating easements for the Ellipse on
Excelsior redevelopment and set the Second Reading of Ordinance for January 5, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Is there a need for the easements proposed to be vacated?
BACKGROUND:
The Ellipse on Excelsior redevelopment site is located on the northwest corner of France Avenue and
Excelsior Boulevard. It includes nine lots addressed 3900, 3912, 3920 Excelsior Boulevard; 3409,
3413, 3417 Glenhurst Avenue South; and 3408, 3412, 3416 France Avenue South. City Council
approved a preliminary plat that will combine all nine lots into one lot, and a preliminary planned
unit development (PUD) for a mixed use building on the property. A condition of approval is
successful applications to vacate existing easements on the property.
The applicant requests vacation of six existing easements to accommodate the Ellipse on Excelsior
redevelopment. Easement vacations are approved by ordinance. The vacation requires a public
hearing before the council and a second reading at a future council meeting.
Provided below is a list and brief description of the six easements to be vacated. The numbers
correspond to labels on the attached Index Map.
1. Drainage and utility easement per MINIKAHDA OAKS plat
• Perimeter easements dedicated on the MINIKAHDA OAKS plat
• Overhead electric lines are partially within this easement
• Developer proposes to relocate overhead electric lines
2. A portion of a sanitary sewer easement per Doc. Nos. 2695611 and 2698090
• Easement over an existing 8-inch sanitary sewer main
• Developer proposes to relocate sanitary sewer within the development site
3. Easement for utility purposes per Doc. No. 6921887
• Easement for existing lift station control panel
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
• Developer proposes to relocate lift station control panel
4. A portion of a sanitary sewer easement dedicated in Doc. No. 2650579
• Unused sanitary sewer easement
• ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR plat dedicates a drainage and utility easement that will
envelop and replace this easement
5. Easement for landscape purposes per Doc. No. 6717492
• Acquired for Excelsior Boulevard streetscape improvements and maintenance
• Existing landscaping to be removed
6. Three feet wide landscape easement per Doc. No. 6733686
• Acquired for Excelsior Boulevard streetscape improvements and maintenance
• Existing planter to be removed
Several of the above easements relate to either standard perimeter easements required when the lots
were initially platted or existing utilities that will be relocated. Essentially, the ELLIPSE ON
EXCELSIOR plat logically replaces these easements based on the proposed development plan.
Easements numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 fit into this category.
Two easements, numbers 5 and 6, relate to landscaping improvements to be removed. The
proposed development landscape plan provides attractive and suitable replacements for these two
existing landscape areas.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Attachments: Draft Ordinance
Index Map showing easements to be vacated (11x17)
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
ORDINANCE NO._____-09
AN ORDINANCE VACATING HIGHWAY, DRAINAGE, SANITARY SEWER, UTILITY,
AND LANDSCAPING EASEMENTS AT
3900, 3912 and 3920 Excelsior Boulevard
3409, 3413 and 3417 Glenhurst Avenue South
3408, 3412 and 3416 France Avenue South
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 easements proposed to be vacated has been duly filed. The notice of
said petition has been published in the St. Louis Park Sailor on December 4, 2008 and the City
Council has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the easements
are not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said
easements be vacated.
Section 2. The easements described on attached Exhibits “A” through “F” as now
dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, are vacated.
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.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon relocation of the utilities and recording
of the ELLIPSE ON EXCELSIOR final plat with Hennepin County, but not less than fifteen days
after its publication.
First Reading December 15, 2008
Second Reading January 5, 2009
Date of Publication January 15, 2009
Date Ordinance takes effect January 30, 2009
Adopted by the City Council January 5, 2009
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
EXHIBIT “A”
Description of Easement to be Vacated
That particular utility easement originally dedicated in Document Number 6921887, Office of the
County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated, described as follows:
The Northwesterly 12.00 feet of Southeasterly 14.00 feet of the Southwesterly 10.00 feet of the
following described tract of land:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range
24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the
Southwesterly line of “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota” which point is 50
feet Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of Excelsior Avenue also known as
U.S. Trunk Highway #169, thence Southwesterly parallel with the center line of Excelsior
Avenue a distance of 30 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described,
thence Northwesterly along a line drawn at right angles to said Excelsior Avenue, a distance
of 190 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with the center line of Excelsior Avenue a distance
of 140 feet; thence Southeasterly along a line drawn at right angles to Excelsior Avenue a
distance of 190 feet to a point 50 feet Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of
said Excelsior Avenue; thence Northeasterly parallel with said center line 140 feet to the
actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and
situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 5
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
EXHIBIT “B”
Description of Easement to be Vacated
That particular landscaping easement originally dedicated in Document Number 6717492, Office of
the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated, described as follows:
The Southeasterly 10.00 feet of the Northeasterly 64.70 feet of the Southwesterly 104.09 feet of
the following described tract of land:
That part of the Northeast ¼ of the Southeast ¼ of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range
24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing at a point on the
Southwesterly line of “Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota” which point is 50
feet Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of Excelsior Avenue also known as
U.S. Trunk Highway #169, thence Southwesterly parallel with the center line of Excelsior
Avenue a distance of 30 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described,
thence Northwesterly along a line drawn at right angles to said Excelsior Avenue, a distance
of 190 feet; thence Southwesterly parallel with the center line of Excelsior Avenue a distance
of 140 feet; thence Southeasterly along a line drawn at right angles to Excelsior Avenue a
distance of 190 feet to a point 50 feet Northwesterly at right angles from the center line of
said Excelsior Avenue; thence Northeasterly parallel with said center line 140 feet to the
actual point of beginning, according to the United States Government Survey thereof and
situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 6
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
EXHIBIT “C”
Description of Easement to be Vacated
That particular landscaping easement originally dedicated in Document Number 6733686, Office of
the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated, described as follows:
The part of the Northwesterly 3.00 feet of the Southeasterly 20.00 feet of Lot 6, Block 5,
Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to said plat on file and of record in
the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies Northeasterly of
the following described line:
Commencing at the Southeast corner of said Lot 6; thence Southwesterly, along the
Southeasterly line of said Lot 6, a distance of 20.16 feet to the point of beginning of said line
to be hereinafter described; thence Northwesterly, deflecting right 90 degrees 00 minutes 00
seconds a distance of 30.00 feet and there terminating.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 7
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
EXHIBIT “D”
Description of Easement to be Vacated
That particular drainage and utility easement originally dedicated in Block 5, Minikahda Oaks,
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated, lying
southerly of the north lines of Lots 3 and 11, said Block.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 8
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
EXHIBIT “E”
Description of Portion of Easement to be Vacated
That part of the Sanitary Sewer easement originally dedicated in Document Numbers 2695611 and
2698090, Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated,
described as follows:
An easement in and over a tract of land twenty (20) feet in width and situated in the South
One-half of Section Six (6), Township Twenty-Eight (28), Range Twenty-four (24), and
being ten (10) feet on either side of a line described as follows: Commencing on the
northwesterly line of Excelsior Avenue at a point fifty-three and 3/10 (53.3) feet
southwesterly along said Excelsior Avenue from the southwesterly line of Block Five (5),
Minikahda Oaks, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of said Hennepin County; thence northwesterly at right angles to Excelsior
Avenue to the point of intersection of the center line of Glenhurst Avenue extended south of
said Glenhurst Avenue extended south of said Glenhurst Avenue as laid out in the plat of
Minikahda Oaks (which line extending from Excelsior Avenue to the intersection of the
center line of Glenhurst Avenue is hereinafter referred to as Line A, and the point of said
intersection is hereinafter referred to as Point B); thence deflecting at an angle to the left of
sixty-one degrees fifteen minutes (61º15’) to Line A one hundred twenty-one (121) feet;
thence in a straight line deflecting at an angle to the right of forty-nine degrees fifty-five
minutes (49º55’) to said last described line a distance of sixty-five (65) feet to an existing
manhole which is the termination of existing sanitary sewer constructed to serve premises
know as Minikahda Court.
Over the following described property:
Parcel 1:
Lots 3, 4 and 11, Block 5, in "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota".
(Registered property: Certificate of Title No. 666066)
Parcel 2:
Lots 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 5, in "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on
the southwesterly line of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" which is distant
50 feet at right angles from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue; thence southwesterly parallel
with said centerline of Excelsior Avenue 30 feet; thence northwesterly at right angles to
Excelsior Avenue 190 feet to a point on the centerline of Greeley Avenue (now Glenhurst
Avenue) extended southerly; thence at an angle of 48 degrees 17 minutes to the right 97 feet
along said extended centerline to the southwesterly line of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 9
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
County, Minnesota"; thence southeasterly 258.4 feet along last mentioned line, to the
beginning; and
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on
the southwesterly line of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" which point is
50 feet northwesterly at right angles from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue also known as
U.S. Trunk highway No. 169; thence southwesterly parallel with the centerline of Excelsior
Avenue a distance of 30 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described;
thence northwesterly along a line drawn at right angles to said Excelsior Avenue, a distance
of 190 feet; thence southwesterly parallel with the centerline of Excelsior Avenue a distance
of 140 feet; thence southeasterly along a line drawn at right angles to said Excelsior Avenue a
distance of 190 feet to a point 50 feet northwesterly at right angles from the centerline of
said Excelsior Avenue; thence northeasterly parallel with said centerline 140 feet to the actual
point of beginning.
(abstract property)
Parcel 3:
Lot 6, Block 5, in "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota".
(abstract property)
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 10
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
EXHIBIT “F”
Description of Portion of Easement to be Vacated
That part of the Sanitary Sewer easement originally dedicated in Document Number 2650579,
Office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and now to be vacated, described as
follows:
That part of the Southeast Quarter (SE 1/4) of Section Six (6), Township Twenty-eight
(28), Range Twenty-four (24) West of the 4th Principal Meridian described as follows:
Certain strips of land, 10 feet in width, the center lines of which shall be the lines
described as follows: Commencing at a point on the northwesterly line of Excelsior
Avenue, as now laid out and opened a distance of 170 feet southwesterly measured along
said northwesterly line of said Excelsior Avenue from its intersection with the
southwesterly line of Minikahda Oaks; thence northwesterly at right angles to said
northwesterly line of Excelsior Avenue a distance of 300 feet to a point (which last
described line shall be known as Line A, and which point shall be known as Point B);
thence continuing at a deflection angle of 57º to the left from Line A a distance of 90
feet; thence at a deflection angle of 32º to the right from last described course a distance
of 130 feet; thence at a deflection angle of 90º to the left from last described course a
distance of 463 feet; thence at a deflection angle of 65º to the left from last described
course a distance of 160 feet and there terminating.
Also commencing at said Point B and thence at a deflection angle of 115º to the left
from said Line A a distance of 265 feet and there terminating.
Also commencing at said Point B and thence at a deflection angle of 15º to the right
from said Line A a distance of 125 feet and there terminating.
Also the right to enter upon and temporarily pile dirt upon, strips of land five (5) feet in
width parallel with and abutting the above mentioned easement strips on either side
during the progress of any construction or reconstruction of said sewer line; provided
that nothing herein contained shall be construed as to prevent parties of the first part
from placing any buildings or other construction upon all or any part of said abutting
five (5) foot strips, and the rights granted in this paragraph shall terminate as to any
portion of said five (5) foot strips upon which construction shall be placed immediately
upon commencement of said construction.
Over the following described property:
Parcel 1:
Lots 3, 4 and 11, Block 5, in "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota".
(Registered property: Certificate of Title No. 666066)
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Page 11
Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Easements
Parcel 2:
Lots 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Block 5, in "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; and
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on
the southwesterly line of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" which is distant
50 feet at right angles from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue; thence southwesterly parallel
with said centerline of Excelsior Avenue 30 feet; thence northwesterly at right angles to
Excelsior Avenue 190 feet to a point on the centerline of Greeley Avenue (now Glenhurst
Avenue) extended southerly; thence at an angle of 48 degrees 17 minutes to the right 97 feet
along said extended centerline to the southwesterly line of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin
County, Minnesota"; thence southeasterly 258.4 feet along last mentioned line, to the
beginning; and
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 6, Township 28,
Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point on
the southwesterly line of "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota" which point is
50 feet northwesterly at right angles from the centerline of Excelsior Avenue also known as
U.S. Trunk highway No. 169; thence southwesterly parallel with the centerline of Excelsior
Avenue a distance of 30 feet to the actual point of beginning of the tract to be described;
thence northwesterly along a line drawn at right angles to said Excelsior Avenue, a distance
of 190 feet; thence southwesterly parallel with the centerline of Excelsior Avenue a distance
of 140 feet; thence southeasterly along a line drawn at right angles to said Excelsior Avenue a
distance of 190 feet to a point 50 feet northwesterly at right angles from the centerline of
said Excelsior Avenue; thence northeasterly parallel with said centerline 140 feet to the actual
point of beginning.
(abstract property)
Parcel 3:
Lot 6, Block 5, in "Minikahda Oaks, Hennepin County, Minnesota".
(abstract property)
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Ellipse on Excelsior - Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Vacating EasementsPage 12
Meeting Date: December 15, 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:
Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levies.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving the Budget for 2009 and approving the 2008 Property Tax
Levy collectible in 2009.
Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the HRA Levy for 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
The City Council must annually adopt a budget providing for the expenses of the city for the
following year. By Charter, this budget must be balanced with current revenues and current
expenditures in matching amounts. The budget must be enacted in the time frame allowed by state
statute and the Truth-in-Taxation process.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council has been discussing the 2009 budget, 2009 property tax levy, and the HRA levy
for the past 6 months. In September, the City Council approved the preliminary tax levy, budget,
and HRA levy for 2009. The Truth-in-Taxation public hearing was held on these items December
1, 2008 as part of the regular City Council meeting.
2008 PROPERTY TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2009
The proposed property tax levy payable for 2009 reflects an increase of 5.8% when compared to the
2008 property tax levy. The allocation of property taxes is illustrated below:
2008 2009
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY Adopted Proposed
General Fund and Park & Recreation $ 17,857,376 $ 19,043,393
Park Improvement 1,010,000 1,010,000
Pavement Management 415,000 415,000
Debt Service 1,337,300 1,347,000
TOTAL TAX CAPACITY LEVIES $ 20,619,676 $ 21,815,393
Dollar Increase $ 1,195,717
Percentage Increase 5.80%
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levies
2009 Budget
General Fund and Park & Rec
Summary of Expenditures
Department, Division 2007 2008 2009
and Activity Actual Adopted Proposed % change
General Government:
Administration/Legislative 936,706 1,034,327 992,335
Communications & Marketing 192,117 287,782 289,225
Community Outreach 111,755 83,983 86,055
Human Resources 581,874 629,674 644,550
Information Resources 1,545,110 1,460,839 1,483,770
Finance 1,100,538 1,123,213 1,168,480
Community Development 1,027,281 1,080,897 1,108,250
Facilities Maintenance 1,135,194 1,187,926 1,203,942
Total General Government 6,630,575 6,888,641 6,976,607 1.3%
Public Safety:
Police 6,291,045 6,927,117 7,307,522
Fire Protection 2,762,736 3,029,118 3,121,673
Inspectional Services 1,743,479 1,852,874 2,053,927
Total Public Safety 10,797,260 11,809,109 12,483,122 5.7%
Public Works:
Public Works Administration 797,114 832,583 855,450
Engineering 816,501 785,182 924,300
Operations 2,213,232 2,412,414 2,486,300
Total Public Works 3,826,847 4,030,179 4,266,050 5.9%
Park & Recreation:
Organized Recreation 1,241,759 1,250,699 1,292,110
Recreation Center 1,314,548 1,358,383 1,455,167
Park Maintenance 1,396,902 1,377,517 1,460,835
Westwood 455,855 466,678 492,036
Environment 531,172 288,982 286,993
Vehicle Maintenance 834,737 1,033,270 1,180,777
Total Park & Recreation 5,774,973 5,775,529 6,167,918 6.8%
Non-Departmental:
General Services/Contingency - 180,000 180,000
City Contribution Increase Estimate (15,000)
Total Non-Departmental - 180,000 165,000 -8.3%
Total General & Park Funds 27,029,655$ 28,683,458$ 30,058,697$ 4.8%
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 3
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levies
General Fund and Park & Rec
Summary of Revenues
2007 2008 2009
Actual Adopted Proposed
Revenues:
General Property Taxes 15,873,751$ 17,857,376$ 19,043,393$
Licenses and Permits 2,946,437 2,712,715 2,515,000
Intergovernmental 2,339,090 1,765,767 1,702,916
Charges for Services 2,348,486 2,143,145 2,343,498
Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 277,005 311,000 312,000
Investment Earnings 526,346 326,600 350,000
Miscellaneous Revenue 1,250,381 936,161 997,000
Transfers In 2,858,323 2,630,694 2,628,910
Use of Fund Balance 165,980
Total Revenues 28,419,819 28,683,458 30,058,697
The 2009 Operations Budget revenues and expenditures show an increase over the 2008 adopted
budget of approximately 4.8%. The increase in revenue is due primarily to the property tax levy
increase. Primary expenditure increases are due to personnel and energy costs. The budget
document identifies the areas of change for each division.
HRA LEVY:
The reason for adopting the HRA levy is because of legislative changes in 2001 which affected tax
increment revenue streams. The legislative changes have severely hampered the ability of the City to
do necessary infrastructure improvements as part of specific redevelopment projects or in areas of the
city undergoing redevelopment and renewal. As such, these dollars will be used for infrastructure
improvements in areas experiencing redevelopment or renewal.
The EDA, as well as the City Council, is required to approve this levy. Based on a change made by
the Minnesota Legislature in 2008, the maximum allowable percentage has been adjusted upward
from .0144% to .0185% of the taxable market value in the City. The market value allows the City
to levy $1,028,045 in 2009. In 2008, the allowable levy amount was $796,848.
SPECIFIC BUDGET ITEMS:
During recent budget discussions on various cuts or shifts proposed by staff, specific note was made
of a recommendation to turn off the flashing signal light on Lake Street and installing a 4-Way Stop.
The approximate annual savings was estimated to be $2,000. This recommendation is still assumed
in the budget. In addition, Council discussed a possible cut of $2,000 in the City’s allocation to
Teen’s Alone (from $4,000 to $2,000). Council asked for more information on the services Teens
Alone provides to the City. Attached is correspondence from Teens Alone which hopefully will help
answer some of the City Councils questions. Please note that in past years the City provided $2,000
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 4
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levies
to Teens Alone. Given the information provided by Teens Alone, PD initially proposed increasing it
by another $2,000 for 2009 for a total of $4,000.
STATE AID TO SLP:
As the City Council is aware, the City no longer receives Local Government Aid from the State.
However, we do receive approximately $700,000 from the State via the Market Value Homestead
Credit program. The budget the Council is asked to adopt still assumes we will receive this aid.
And Staff recommends we still adopt it as such. However, given the economic climate the State is
in, Staff would also recommend that as we move into 2009 we prepare and implement, as
appropriate, a plan to modify the budget (expenditure reductions, new revenues or shifts) to take
into account the loss of the MVHC payment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
This action will allow the City to fund its 2009 operations subject to future modifications noted
above.
Attachments: Resolutions
Information from Teens Alone
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 5
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levies
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE BUDGET FOR 2009 AND
APPROVING 2008 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2009
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by Charter and State law to approve a
resolution setting forth an annual tax levy to the Hennepin County Auditor; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes currently in force require approval of a property tax levy
and a budget in December of each year; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received the budget document;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that the 2009 budget is adopted as presented in the 2009 budget document; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, that the following sums of money be levied in 2008, collectible in
2009 upon the taxable property in said City of St. Louis Park for the following purposes:
2009
TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVY Proposed
General Fund and Park & Recreation $ 19,043,393
Park Improvement 1,010,000
Pavement Management 415,000
Debt Service 1,347,000
TOTAL TAX CAPACITY BASED TAX LEVIES $ 21,815,393
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a) Page 6
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax, and HRA Levies
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HRA LEVY FOR 2009
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.090 to 469.108 (the “EDA
Act”), the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park created the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority (the "Authority"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the EDA Act, the City Council granted to the Authority all of the
powers and duties of a housing and redevelopment authority under the provisions of the Minnesota
Statutes, sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the "HRA Act"); and
WHEREAS, Section 469.033, subdivision 6 of the Act authorizes the Authority to levy a
tax upon all taxable property within the City to be expended for the purposes authorized by the
HRA Act; and
WHEREAS, such levy may be in an amount not to exceed 0.0185 percent of taxable market
value of the City; and
WHEREAS, the Authority has filed its budget for the special benefit levy in accordance
with the budget procedures of the City; and
WHEREAS, based upon such budgets the Authority will levy all or such portion of the
authorized levy as it deems necessary and proper;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. That approval is hereby given for the Authority to levy, for taxes payable in 2009,
such tax upon the taxable property of the City as the Authority may determine, subject to the
limitations contained in the HRA Act.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 7
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 8
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 9
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 10
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 11
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 12
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 13
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8a)
Subject: Adoption of 2009 Budget, Property Tax and HRA Levies Page 14
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8b
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
Summary and Acceptance of City Manager Evaluation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a Resolution for formal acceptance of the final City Manager annual evaluation.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to formally accept the annual City Manager evaluation?
BACKGROUND:
On Monday, December 8, 2008, Council met in a closed Executive Session to discuss the annual
City Manager evaluation. Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator, reviewed
the results and facilitated the discussion with Council.
The Mayor will provide a summary of the evaluation results.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8b) Page 2
Subject: Summary and Acceptance of City Manager Evaluation
RESOLUTION NO. 08-____
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE
ANNUAL CITY MANAGER EVALUATION
WHEREAS, the City Council provides an opportunity to hold an annual evaluation of the
City Manager; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2008, an Executive Session of the Council was held to discuss
the evaluation; and
WHEREAS, Bridget Gothberg, Organizational Development Coordinator, facilitated the
conversation with the Council to finalize the evaluation;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park hereby accepts the annual evaluation of the City Manager.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8c
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 Employee Compensation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt a Resolution confirming a 3% general increase for non-union employees, setting
salary for City Manager, continuing the Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program, increasing
Performance Program Pay for Paid-on-Call Firefighters by 3% for 2009, and adding a Health Care
Savings Plan transfer to the Personnel Manual.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does Council wish to confirm the recommended 2009 employee compensation and modify the
Personnel Manual?
BACKGROUND:
This report summarizes employee compensation for 2009.
A. Non-Union Employee Compensation - 3% General Increase Effective 1/1/09
Our compensation plan, which was adopted in 1997, allows the City Manager to approve
the standard adjustment. A review of the positions was conducted by Rod Kelsey,
Compensation Consultant, Principal and Vice President of Riley, Dettmann & Kelsey. Mr.
Kelsey reviewed the salaries of St. Louis Park in comparison with metro area cities (suburbs)
with population over 25,000, but less than 90,000, as required in our compensation plan.
After review of the market, the Consultant determined that pay maximums for St. Louis
Park should increase an overall 3%.
When setting compensation for staff, we also look internally at increases approved for our
other employee groups. For 2009, employees in all five of our union contracts (Firefighters,
Patrol Officers, Police Sergeants, Public Safety Dispatch and Local 49 Maintenance) will
receive a 3% increase effective 1/1/09.
Upon review of the data and to be consistent with our other employee groups, the City
Manager has approved a 3% standard wage adjustment for non-contract employees effective
January 1, 2009.
The 3% increase will be applied in accordance with our compensation plan. In our plan,
after successful completion of probation (typically six months), a position receives up to
double the standard increase to step through the pay range. This type of pay progression
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Subject: 2009 Employee Compensation
continues until the pay line is reached, which is the maximum of the pay range. Positions at
the maximum will receive the standard adjustment of 3%.
B. Salary Cap & City Manager Salary
The contract for the City Manager states that base salary and benefits must be set when
salaries are established for other non-union employees.
Salary Cap: During the 2005 Legislative Session, a bill was passed that allows the salary cap
to be adjusted annually for inflation. MN Department of Employee Relations (DOER) has
issued a statement that the salary cap for 2009 will increase from $144,711 to $150,065.
The 2008 annual salary for City Manager is $144,711, not including car allowance which is
subject to the PTO program.
2009 Pay Range: After review of the regional market data in the United States, our
Consultant recommends Council increase the pay range 3% for City Manager consistent
with the other union and non-union employees. A 3% increase also puts the max of the
range equal to the State salary cap. The 2008 pay range is $123,845 to $145,701, and with
a 3% increase, the 2009 pay range will be $127,555 to $150,065.
2009 Salary: It is recommended that the City Manager’s salary progress through the pay
range consistent with other non-union employees (letter A above). This would mean the
City Manager’s salary for 2009 would be set at $150,065. To comply with the salary cap,
the 2009 salary of $150,065 does not include car allowance, on which PTO will apply.
Paid Time Off (PTO Program)
The PTO program is approved by Council and part of the City’s Personnel Manual. Section
9.13 Paid Time Off (PTO) Program states:
Effective 01/01/02, exempt employees, including the City Manager, who reach the
salary limit requirements of M.S. 43A.17, Subd. 9, shall receive equivalent hours
above the limit in paid leave (PTO). Amount of paid leave (PTO) is determined by
the City Council. Paid leave (PTO) is typically accrued on a per pay period basis,
although the Council may issue paid leave (PTO) as a lump sum amount of time.
Paid leave (PTO) may be used as earned, maintained in a paid leave (PTO) bank or
cashed out upon separation of employment. Paid leave (PTO) is separate and not
part of the flex leave program (Resolution 02-127). Each July 31, all hours in the
PTO balance must transfer to a Health Care Savings Plan account established for the
employee in accordance with plan requirements (Resolution 05-104).
C. Volunteer Firefighter Benefit Program
Our paid-on-call firefighters receive a life insurance benefit through the Volunteer
Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council
approval for conditions of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Subject: 2009 Employee Compensation
This program is very affordable. The cost for the total program is $336 for July 1, 2008
renewal and covers one career firefighter eligible (due to a continuation clause) and our paid-
on-call firefighters. It covers life insurance up to $20,000 and also provides some disability
coverage. This program is a typical benefit offered to other paid-on-call firefighters in
municipalities in the metro area. Since paid-on-call firefighters are not eligible for the
benefits of other employees, it is important that we provide some type of life insurance
coverage for this group. We recommend Council approves continued participation in this
program consistent with Resolution 05-150.
D. Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program
Our Paid-on-Call Firefighter Performance Program system was established in 1996. The
Performance Program system was designed for our paid-on-call firefighters to be competitive
with our volunteer neighbors, and alleviate the need of a Fire Department Relief Association.
The Performance Program is reviewed annually. The Fire Chief has recommended a 3%
increase to this program, effective January 1, 2009. (Payment is typically made at year end
based on performance as approved by the Fire Chief.)
E. Personnel Manual Change – Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) Transfer
Staff routinely reviews the Employee Personnel Manual and makes recommendations for
changes. Over the past years, the Employee Benefits Committee members have received
feedback from employees that they are interested in ways of putting additional funds into
their Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP)/VEBA accounts. The plan that is recommended
below is already in place in bargaining agreements for Police Sergeants, Police Dispatchers,
and Local 49 Maintenance employees. Information regarding this plan was presented to
non-union groups and they were allowed to vote whether or not to implement this plan. A
majority of responses were favorable to add this change to the Personnel Manual.
The change to the Personnel Manual would eliminate the current practice of allowing
employees to cash out a portion of their accrued leave each year, and instead require a
transfer of those hours to the HCSP/VEBA account. As a reminder, an HCSP/VEBA
account is a way for employees to set aside tax-free dollars, earn tax-free interest, and be
reimbursed tax-free for eligible medical expenses.
Since this is a shift in how the program is paid out, moving it from a cash pay out to transfer
of hours to the HCSP/VEBA, is cost neutral.
Delete current section:
9.5 Annual Cash-out of Accumulated Flex Leave
Employees may cash-out a portion of their flex leave accrual. The cut-off is the first
payroll date of September of each year and is paid based on your current rate of pay.
Cash out occurs in October. In order to be eligible to cash-out time, you must have,
at a minimum, an accumulated flex leave balance of two times the annual accrual
plus 20 days. Cashing-out is limited to five days (40 hours maximum) of
accumulated flex leave above the accumulation cap. Any flex time above that is
forfeited.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Subject: 2009 Employee Compensation
Replace with new section:
9.5 Annual Transfer of Accumulated Flex Leave
Employees are required to transfer the value of 40 hours of accumulated flex leave
into a Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) in accordance with plan design and IRS
regulations. In order to be eligible to transfer time, you must have, at a minimum,
an accumulated flex leave balance of two times the annual accrual plus 20 days (flex
leave cap as defined in Section 9.4) as of the first payroll in September. Employees
who meet this eligibility requirement will be required to transfer 40 hours of flex
leave, based on the employee’s current rate of pay, into the HCSP. Any flex leave
above the cap after the transfer will be forfeited. Transfer occurs in October.
Program administration for the HCSP is determined by the City Manager.
General comment: Copies of the Compensation Plan and Personnel Manual are available from the
City Clerk.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The wage increase is included in the 2009 budget along with other increases for other contract
employees. The increase to the 2009 Volunteer Firefighter Benefit and Performance Program is in
the 2009 budget. The change to the Personnel Manual regarding the HCSP transfer is budget
neutral (no cost).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Not directly applicable.
Attachments: Resolution
Appendix A
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Subject: 2009 Employee Compensation
RESOLUTION NO. 08-_____
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
A GENERAL INCREASE FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES;
SETTING CITY MANAGER SALARY;
CONTINUING PARTICIPATION IN THE VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTER BENEFIT
PROGRAM;
INCREASING PERFORMANCE PROGRAM PAY FOR PAID-ON-CALL
FIREFIGHTERS;
AND ADDING HCSP TRANSFER LANGUAGE TO THE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL
MANUAL
WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and Section VIII-C of such
Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard adjustment to the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt policies for City employees and has conferred
upon the City Manager the power to establish and administer additional administrative policies and
rules as may be appropriate for the employment practices of the City;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
A. Confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of 3%,
effective January 1, 2009 for non-union employees in accordance with the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan, consistent with other employee groups.
B. Effective January 1, 2009, confirms a salary of $150,065 for the City Manager, not
including car allowance. Car allowance remains at $600/month per contract and is
converted to PTO each month. Application of PTO is in accordance with Section
9.13 of the Personnel Manual.
C. Approves continuation of participation in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit
Association of MN Benefit Program for 2009, consistent with Resolution 05-150.
D. Approves a 3% percentage increase in the Paid-on-Call Firefighters 2009
Performance Program, effective January 1, 2009.
Performance Program: Paid-on-Call Firefighters
For 0 – 23 months of service, paid-on-call firefighters are eligible to receive a
monthly amount. After 23 months, they are eligible to receive an annual amount.
This amount may be pro-rated for actual number of months worked. All amounts
after the 23 month timeframe show annual amounts and should be adjusted
accordingly as follows:
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Subject: 2009 Employee Compensation
Years of Service 2009 Annual
Up to 23 Months
of Service
$140 per month
2 $1,824
3 $1,958
4 $2,107
5 $2,242
6 $2,376
7 $2,512
8 $2,660
9 $2,796
10 $2,930
11 $3,080
12 $3,228
13 $3,363
14 $3,511
15 $3,646
16 $3,782
17 $3,917
18 $4,065
19 $4,200
20 $4,336
E. Approves a change to Section 9.5 of the Employee Personnel Manual which
eliminates cash out of flex leave and instead requires a transfer of leave to the
employee’s HCSP/VEBA account. This language is attached as Appendix A.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Subject: 2009 Employee Compensation
APPENDIX A TO RESOLUTION 08-_____
UPDATING SECTION 9.5 OF THE EMPLOYEE PERSONNEL MANUAL
New language:
9.5 Annual Transfer of Accumulated Flex Leave
Employees are required to transfer the value of 40 hours of accumulated flex leave into a
Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) in accordance with plan design and IRS regulations. In
order to be eligible to transfer time, you must have, at a minimum, an accumulated flex leave
balance of two times the annual accrual plus 20 days (flex leave cap as defined in Section 9.4)
as of the first payroll in September. Employees who meet this eligibility requirement will be
required to transfer 40 hours of flex leave, based on the employee’s current rate of pay, into
the HCSP. Any flex leave above the cap after the transfer will be forfeited. Transfer occurs
in October. Program administration for the HCSP is determined by the City Manager.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8d
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:
5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to Adopt Resolution approving a Major Amendment to a Special Permit for the property at
5005 Highway 7.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
New Special Permits are no longer created under the Zoning Ordinance. In cases where an existing
use was constructed under the guise of a Special Permit, the Zoning Ordinance calls for it to:
• Become a permitted use
• Become a conditional use
• Continue as a Special Permit
As a use permitted by a Special Permit, Nordic Ware must demonstrate that after the proposed site
modifications, the site will be in greater or complete compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Most
pertinently, the site must improve compliance with parking, landscaping, and stormwater
requirements. Manufacturing and warehouse uses are permitted in the I-G district.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Major Amendment.
BACKGROUND:
Description of Request:
Requested is approval for the construction of a 60,000 square foot warehouse expansion to the
existing warehouse and manufacturing facility. In cases where the use intensity increases due to site
modifications, a major amendment to the Special Permit is required.
Site:
The site at 5005 Highway 7 is approximately 12 acres in size. At the current time, there are four
buildings on the site. The warehouse expansion will be added onto the existing warehouse on the
site’s east side. Also taking place on the site is the manufacture of kitchenware products, product
design, company administration and a small retail store.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 2
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
Process:
Nordic Ware has over the past several years brought forward various plans to improve their site. Last
year, improvements were completed to the new Nordic Ware Retail Outlet, located on their site and
directly adjacent to the frontage road. Should the improvements proposed as part of this application
be approved, Nordic Ware will complete not only the 60,000 square foot warehouse addition but
also improvements to the site’s landscaping, stormwater, and parking. The new proposal would also
eliminate outdoor storage on the site’s eastern boundary.
Construction Plan:
The proposed expansion would be used for warehouse space. At the present time, much of Nordic
Ware’s warehousing capabilities are handled in trailers on the site. The expansion will result in a
minor increase in the parking requirement, discussed below. To allow for construction while the
manufacturing facility remains operational, the expansion would have to occur in phases. The first
phase would involve improvements to the west side of the site, where temporary loading docks
would be built to handle all products moving into and out of the site during construction. The
second phase would involve the construction of the building expansion on the site’s east side. Each
phase of construction would include the corollary improvements to stormwater, landscaping, and
other site amenities, as well as a new access drive to the frontage road.
Nordic Ware has also applied for a Conditional Use Permit to bring over 400 cubic yards of fill onto
the site. This aspect of the proposal will go before the Planning Commission for review in early
2009. The fill is associated with the new access drive; for this reason, site work on the building
expansion could begin prior to final approval of the CUP for fill.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 3
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
Zoning and Special Use Permit Issues:
Use Characteristics
The new warehouse is appropriate for sites located in the I-G General Industrial Zoning District.
Uses in the I-G district are typically subject to fewer performance standards than many other Zoning
Districts, because it is the highest intensity industrial use district in the City. As nearly all of the
outdoor storage would be accommodated in the new warehouse, the proposal would bring the site
into substantially greater compliance with the performance standards for outdoor storage.
Parking
The proposed building expansion includes substantial improvements to the site’s parking for
employees. At the current time, much of the parking on the site is informal and takes place in
parking lots to the east and west of the building. It is estimated that the site currently has 162
parking spaces. Following the proposed expansion, there would be 234 parking spaces on the site.
All the new parking spaces would be formalized to meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance,
and no gravel parking lots would remain. In addition to the 234 parking spaces, a location for 79
additional future parking spaces has been identified on the site. The additional spaces could be built
by Nordic Ware if needed. At a total of 306 spaces, the site meets the requirements for Special
Permits, which requires that sites come into greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance during
any expansion project. Bicycle parking is included on the site plan for employees arriving to both
the east and west sides of the site.
Factor Required Proposed Met?
Height 75’ maximum 28’ at the highest point Yes
Building Materials 25% Class I materials Minimum 25% glass Yes
Setbacks – Front / Rear 20’ 10’ NA 15.9’ Yes
Setbacks – Side / Side 0’ 12’ NA’ 253’ Yes
Off-Street Parking 162 existing 234 proposed (72 new spaces)
79 proof of parking
Total: 306 spaces
Yes
Bicycle Parking 23 spaces 52 spaces Yes
Floor Area Ratio 1.0 maximum Less than 1.0 Yes
Open Area / DORA None required Improved access to adjacent park
and trail
NA
Landscaping 60 trees
360 shrubs
105 trees
94 shrubs
Alternative landscaping provided
Yes
Refuse Handling Full screening required Internal trash rooms and
screening provided
Yes
Stormwater Required city and
watershed standards
Two new stormwater ponds
provided on-site
Yes
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 4
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
Landscaping and Screening
The proposal includes landscaping and screening improvements to the entire Nordic Ware site.
109 new trees are included; scattered throughout the site, the new trees would replace existing
nuisance trees and improve screening of parking areas. New shrubs are also provided throughout the
site.
In the past, a major concern was improving screening of the trailer storage area to the east of the
Nordic Ware building. The proposal eliminates the need for storage trailers, so the need for
additional screening in this part of the site is mitigated. However, additional screening is proposed.
The new screening would serve as a buffer between the parking areas and trails adjacent to the site.
An additional screening issue is that of the building’s south wall along the Southwest Regional LRT
Trail. The applicant had intended to provide new trees in that location; however, before the plans
were completed, Planning Staff was informed that the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority, in
a partnership with Tree Trust, was planting new trees in that location. Those trees have now been
installed and will be maintained by Hennepin County and the Tree Trust. For this reason, the trees
proposed by the applicant were able to be diverted to other parts of the site.
Nordic Ware is proposing the installation of native plant species in several locations on the site,
meeting the Alternative Landscaping provisions of the code. The native species will be installed as a
buffer around the new stormwater ponds and other areas of the site where appropriate.
Improvements around the Peavey Grain Elevator are also planned as part of this project. The Peavey
Grain Elevator, a St. Louis Park landmark, is on the National Register of Historic Landmarks.
Landscaping improvements around that part of the site will enhance the grain elevator’s stature;
however, improved public access to base of the grain elevator is not possible at this time because of
its proximity to active loading docks.
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area (DORA)
No DORA is required on industrial sites. The Nordic Ware site, however, is well situated to take
advantage of several recreational amenities. The site plan improves employee access to these
amenities, including the Southwest Regional LRT Trail, which runs to the south of the facility; and
the reconstructed Roadside Park, located just west of the site.
Stormwater
Two new stormwater ponds are proposed as part of the warehouse expansion. Handling stormwater
on the Nordic Ware site has been a challenge in other expansion proposals where only one side of
the facility would be under construction, because the site is split into two sub-watershed areas.
Water on the east side of the site flows east, while water on the west side of the site flows west; such a
situation makes it impossible to accommodate the entire site in only one pond. The new stormwater
ponds will be sized and designed in accordance with the policies of the City and the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 5
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
Height and Materials
The proposed warehouse expansion would mimic the warehouse and manufacturing facility to the
west. The wall line would continue along the south property line; with the building height
remaining the same at approximately 28 feet in height. The Zoning Ordinance in the I-G district
limits buildings to 75 feet, so the proposed expansion is within those parameters. The expansion,
similar to the building, will be constructed of tip-up panels with a dark colored aggregate coating.
The expansion will bring the Nordic Ware facility into a higher level of compliance with the
architectural requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the existing facility is
constructed of exposed aggregate concrete panels, which is a Class II material. The expansion will
include glass to allow light into the facility on all sides, with a substantial amount of glass on the
north face of the building. Glass, which is a Class I material, improves the ratio of Class II to Class I
materials for the entire building, meeting the requirement that expansions completed under a Special
Permit come into greater compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
Access to Frontage Road
Nordic Ware’s proposal includes the construction of a fourth access drive connecting the proposed
60,000 square foot warehouse building with the frontage road on the east side of the site. The new
drive would be used predominately by truck traffic entering and leaving the loading docks along the
east side of the building. Nordic Ware does not anticipate increased truck traffic directly as a result
of the expansion project; however, it remains possible that truck traffic could increase at the site as
business conditions warrant. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed access drive and has
determined that the new access point meets applicable engineering standards.
In constructing a fourth access drive, the majority of truck traffic will be consolidated to one location
on the Nordic Ware site. Trucks bringing supplies will continue to travel to the facility’s west side,
but trucks transporting finished products will not. At the current time, trucks use each of the three
entrances to the Nordic Ware site in different capacities. The new configuration will separate the
truck traffic from all office employees and retail customers visiting the site. Some employees will
continue to park in a lot to the east of the truck loading docks; however, a pedestrian walkway has
been included on the site plans to improve access and safety for individuals arriving at the site via
bicycle or on foot.
Signage
The site enhancements would include a new monument sign identifying Nordic Ware’s
international headquarters. This sign would be located to the north of the retail outlet center along
Highway 7. Signage on the site has been improved over the past several years, as Nordic Ware has
made improvements to other portions of the site. It is expected that the building addition will
feature a small amount of wall signage. The amount of signage on the Nordic Ware site remains
within the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 6
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
Summary
The proposal by Nordic Ware meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. As a use permitted
through the mechanism of a Special Permit, Nordic Ware must bring the site into greater
compliance with current regulatory standards before completing any sort of building expansion.
Improved compliance is achieved by not only eliminating the outdoor storage currently taking place,
but also by improving landscaping, parking, and stormwater amenities on the site.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Nordic Ware’s request on November 17th. No
one was present to speak regarding the proposal. The Planning Commission recommended approval
of the Major Amendment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
None.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
None.
Attachments: Resolution – Special Permit
Location Map
Site Plan and related documents
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke. Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 7
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
RESOLUTION NO. 08-___
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 90-105
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 90-
105 ADOPTED ON AUGUST 6, 1990, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT
TO EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST.
LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO
ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF THE WAREHOUSE FACILITIES AT 5005
HIGHWAY 7
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, Nordic Ware (Dalquist Properties, LLP) has made application to the City
Council for an amendment to an existing special permit under Section 36-36 of the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code to allow an expansion of the warehouse facilities at 5005 Highway 7 within a I-G
General Industrial Zoning District having the following legal description:
Lot 1, Block 1, DALQUIST INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos.
90-33-SP and 08-40-SP and the effect of the proposed expansion of warehouse facilities 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 special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 90-105 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated August 6, 1990 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 special permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 90-105, to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate
all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Case No. 08-40-SP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 8
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
CONCLUSION
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 90-105 (document not
filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special
permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting the expansion of warehouse facilities
within the I-G General Industrial Zoning District at the location described above based on the
following conditions:
CONDITIONS
1. That the site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A – Plat;
Exhibit C – General Drainage Plan; Exhibit E – Northland Aluminum Co. Warehouse Floor Plan
and Elevation Plan; Exhibit F – Maid of Scandinavia Site Plan – Landscape Plan; Exhibit G – Maid
of Scandinavia Elevation Plan; Exhibit H – Maid of Scandinavia Garage Plan as modified on June 2,
1982 by the Planning Department; Exhibit J – Site Plan; Exhibit K – Elevation Plan; Exhibit M –
Elevation Plan; Exhibit N – Mezzanine Plan; Exhibit P – 1981 Construction Phase; and Exhibit Q –
Office – Warehouse Elevation Plan. (Exhibit J replaced with Exhibit U by Condition No. 15).
2. All electric, gas, water, sanitary sewer, telephone and other utilities shall be placed
underground.
3. The private roadway with a minimum width of 24 feet shall have a poured-in-place concrete
curb at least 6 inches high. Said road and curb shall be constructed at standards acceptable to the
City Engineer. Said road shall be designated as a fire lane, shall not be used for parking, and shall be
kept clean and free from potholes and maintained thereafter.
4. Signs shall be limited to name plate signs, symbols, logos and architectural features that
identify a particular business, service or good which is provided on the site. All the signs shall meet
the following conditions:
a. Billboards are hereby prohibited.
b. All new signs are to be integrated with the architecture of the buildings and there
shall be no more than one free standing sign per lot and said sign shall not exceed 200 square
feet in total sign area and 25 feet in height. The pylon (elevator) is excluded from this
requirement.
c. Lighting for signs shall be interior or indirect so that light rays are not directly visible
beyond the lot lines.
5. New buildings in the development and any major alteration or modification to the existing
building shall be done so that the architectural treatment of the exterior of the building is equal in
standard or exceeds the standard set by the existing building on Lot 2 and the proposed building on
Lot 1.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 9
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
6. The City shall be given the necessary easement for a north-south pedestrian walkway at least
30 feet wide in the vicinity of Ottawa extended or east within 60 days after the specific location is
approved by the City Council.
7. There shall be no outside storage of equipment, raw materials, chemicals or waste with the
exception of the trash container between Buildings 2 and 5.
8. All rooftop equipment shall be painted a light blue and maintained in that fashion.
9. Parking lot striping shall be completed by October 1, 1983.
10. No additional building permits shall be issued until the outside storage of materials on the
west side of Building 5 is discontinued.
11. The office-warehouse addition shall be completed by October 30, 1984.
12. The metal building on the east end of the property shall be removed by October 30, 1988.
13. That a building to house an outer marker beacon is hereby permitted, subject to the
following:
a. That an outer marker beacon facility consisting of a building and antenna partly
enclosed by a decorative fence no more than 6 feet high without barbed wire and landscaping
consisting of deciduous and coniferous trees and shrubs shall be permitted at the east end of
the property in accordance with Exhibit R – Outer Marker Beacon Plan, Exhibit S – Outer
Marker Beacon Landscape Plan and Exhibit T – Outer Marker Beacon Elevation Plan. Said
exhibits are applicable only for the outer marker beacon area.
b. Said improvements including decorative fence and landscaping shall be completed by
May 15, 1988.
14. That a building addition housing a two-way fork lift corridor between building one and
building three is hereby permitted to be constructed over the existing utility easement.
15. That Exhibit J referred to in Condition 1 be replaced with Exhibit U, Site Plan.
16. That all existing utilities to be located under the building addition, as described under
condition number 14 above, be protected by placing them in an approved casing extending a
minimum of 8 feet beyond the building on both the east and west sides.
17. That construction plans for the building and utility casing be approved and signed by a
structural engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and that structural plans must be approved
by the City Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 10
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
18. That an agreement acceptable to the City be entered into by the City Manager on behalf of
the City and the landowner identifying the conditions under which the building may be constructed
over the easement and holds the City harmless prior to issuance of a building permit.
19. That, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, an agreement be reached between the
applicant and the Fire Department to eliminate the fire hazard within the complex.
20. The special permit shall be amended on December 15, 2008 to incorporate all of the
preceding conditions and add the following conditions:
a. Approval is granted for a 60,000 square foot expansion of warehouse space on the site.
b. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with exhibits
incorporated by reference herein.
c. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
1) A pre-excavation conference shall be held with the appropriate development,
construction and city representatives.
2) All necessary erosion control measures shall be installed.
3) All necessary permits must be obtained.
4) The Plat of DALQUIST INDUSTRIAL PARK 2ND ADDITION, approved on
April 9th, 2007, shall be filed.
5) The site plan shall be revised to include a fence and vegetative screening of the
east loading docks from the trail to the south.
6) The site plan shall be revised to include landscape islands as required by the
Zoning Ordinance in the east parking lot.
d. The applicant 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
10:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. on weekends.
2) The site shall be kept free of dust and debris that could blow onto neighboring
properties.
3) Public streets shall be maintained free of dirt and shall be cleaned as necessary.
4) The Zoning Administrator may impose additional conditions if it becomes
necessary in order to mitigate the impact of excavation on surrounding
properties.
e. Fire lanes shall be signed in accordance with the Official Exhibits and the requirements
of the Fire Marshal.
f. Following construction of the warehouse expansion, outdoor storage, including the
storage of semi-truck trailers, shall be prohibited, except that incidental, temporary
outdoor storage shall be permitted for a time period not to exceed 24 hours.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d) Page 11
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 – Nordic Ware Major Amendment to a Special Permit
g. On-site signage shall at all times comply with the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per
violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure
for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is
different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 15, 2008
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
HIGHWAY 7
HIGHWAY 100 SBELT LINE BLVD35TH ST W
PARK GLEN
R
DUTICA AVE SNB HWY100 S TO HWY733RD ST WSALEM AVE SRALEIGH AVE SPRINCETON AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 7
HIGHWAY 7
HIGHWAY 7
SALEM AVE S5005 Highway 7 - Nordic WareMajor Amendment to a Special Permit
$
November 19, 2008
3
Zoning Classification
R1 - Single Family Residential
R2 - Single Family Residential
R3 - Two Family Residential
R4 - Multi-Familiy Residential
RC - Multi-Family Residential
POS - Parks and Open Space
MX - Mixed-Use
C1 - Neighborhood Commercial
C2 - General Commercial
O - Office
IP - Industrial Park
IG - General Industrial
400 Feet
I-G
X
R-4
R-4
POS
I-G
I-P
I-P
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 - Nordic Ware Major Amendment to Special Permit Page 12
L1.1(11-25-08).dgn 12/4/2008 2:51:09 PM
T
T
U
T
T
14
7
2 5
14
14
9
9
16
9
7
20
14
6
5
3
11
6
2
2
15
10
881.5
898.5
896.4
886.7
888.6
889.9
890.9
892.3
893.6
895.2
896.2
896.8
897.9
898.5
899.9
886.3
886.0
881.5
881.4
896.4
#4925
1 Story Brick Bldg
#5005
Concrete
Bldg
#5051
1 Story Brick Bldg
#5107
Masonary Bldg
#5009
Bldg
Silo
HYD
WATER
MH
HYD
HYD
HYD
HYD
NW Corner Of
SW 1/4, Sec 6,
Twp 28, Rng 24 ---200.00---100.0050.00200.00
50.00
L=398.60
R=2864.93
293.30 78 3 3 ’00"
NE Cor. Of Lot 2,
Blk 4, "LEWISTON"
1.7 E. Line Of Lot 2,Blk 4, "LEWISTON"50.00
40.00
Right Of Access Acquired
Per Doc. No. 5034825
Dc=100’00"---
L=572.30
---R=5729.65 50.00100.0094.00
150.00
Line Desc’d In Doc. No. 5034825
SE Cor. Of Blk 6,
"LEWISTON PARK"E. Line Of Block 6Line 2
L=589.17R=1268.10347.423.0
29.83.555.5
47.2
3.528.7 29.87.475 Ft. Right Of Access
Per Doc. No. 5034825
50 Ft. Right Of
Access Per Doc.
No. 5034825
SCALE 1" = 60’-0"
1
NEW ADDITION
60,000 SF
ALLOWABLE AREA SUMMARY
BASE BUILDING AREA: 17,500 SF
(ONE STORY SPRINKLERED = 300%)
AREA INCREASE FOR SPRINKLER: 52,500 SF
AREA INCREASE FOR FRONTAGE: 4,375 SF
([515’/1030’ - 0.25] X 30/30 = 0.25 X 100 = 25%)
TOTAL ALLOWABLE AREA: 74,375 SF
PROPOSED AREA: 60,000 SF
(PER IBC 506, TABLE 503)
(ASSUMES ADDITION IS BUILT AS SEPARATE BUILDING
WITH NECESSARY FIREWALLS BETWEEN NEW ADDITION
AND EXISTING STRUCTURE)
BUILDING SEPARATION SUMMARY
(PER IBC 705.1)
PORTIONS OF A BUILDING SEPARATED BY A FIREWALL
SHALL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATE BUILDINGS
(PER IBC 903.2.8) GROUP S-1 BUILDINGS WITH FIRE AREAS
EXCEEDING 12,000 SF SHALL BE FULLY SPRINKLERED.
(PER IBC 705.4)
FIREWALLS IN S-1 BUILDINGS SHALL BE 3 HOUR RATED.
WALL SHALL EXTEND 30" ABOVE BOTH ADJACENT ROOFS.
BUILDING SHALL BE STRUCTURALLY INDEPENDENT.
(PER IBC TABLE 715.4)
OPENINGS IN 3 HOUR FIREWALLS SHALL HAVE 3 HOUR FIRE
RATED DOORS OR SHUTTER ASSEMBLIES.SOLID-PILED AND SHELF STORAGE SUMMARY
(PER IFC 2307.2.1)
SHELF STORAGE GREATER THAN 12’ BUT LESS THAN 15’ SHALL
BE SPRINKLERD IN ACCORDANCE WITH NFPA 13. (SPRINKLERS @ CEILING).
SHELF STORAGE 15’ OR MORE IN HEIGHT SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH
IN-RACK SPRINKLERS.
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: IIB (NON-COMBUSTIBLE, NON-RATED)
OCCUPANCY TYPE: S-1 (STORAGE OF COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS)
NEW ACCESS ROAD
5 7
8
6
3
8
11
8
8
13
2
79 PROOF OF PARKING SPACES
PARKING
18 EXISTING PARKING
17 EXISTING
PARKING
10 EXISTING
PARKING
2 EXISTING
PARKING
15 PARKING SPACES
N
SITE
PLAN
L1.124’-0"1
5
’-
1/
4
"
330’-0"
9’-0"
TYP
18’-0"TYPR 15’-0"R30’-0"R2’-6"
R
2
’-6
"
135’-0"R60’-0"STOP SIGN
38’-0"
2
8
’-
5
"
108’-1 13/32 "
2
8
’-
0
"
5’-
1
0
"
6
3
’-
0
"
58 PARKING
SPACES
2
5
’-
0
"R15’-0"R 15’-0"
BITUMINUS PARKING
AND LOADING
72 PARKING SPACES
BITUMINUS PARKING
AND LOADING
1
8
4’-
8
1
3/
3
2
"
SITE PLAN/LIGHTING PLAN
DOUBLE LIGHT FIXTURE
ON 30’ POLE WITH
CONCRETE STANDARD
DOUBLE LIGHT FIXTURE
ON 30’ POLE WITH
CONCRETE STANDARD
STREET LIGHTING
FIXTURES
ON 15’ POLES
WALL PACK LIGHTING
FIXTURES
NEW LOADING DOCK
WITH WALL PACK
LIGHTING FIXTURES
NEW STORM
WATER POND
SEE CIVAL
NEW STORM
WATER POND
SEE CIVAL
STOP SIGN
10’R22’R10’
CURB BREAK
SEE CIVIL
+/-10’ WIDE DRY STREAMBED
PEDESTRIAN RAMP
STAIRS
8’-
0
"
80’-0"
5’-
0
"
CEMENT DECK
STEEL BOLLARDS
RETAINING WALL
SEE CIVIL
RETAINING WALL
SEE CIVIL
1
1 NE
W
L
OADI
NG DOCKSQuentin Ave S(F.K.A. Quincy Ave)Frontage RoadFrontage RoadFrontage
RaleighAve SRoad
Frontage
Road
(County Road No. 25) Highway 7
1
5
’-
1
1
"
30’-0"
24 PARKING
BITUMINUS PARKIN LOT
24’-0"5’-0"
8’-0"8’-0"
PEDESTRIAN RAMP
ADA PARKING
WITH SIGNAGER45’-0"R60’
-0"2
5’-
0"
31 NET PROOF OF PARKING SPACES
EXISTING - (+/-)162 SPACES
TOTAL PROPOSED SPACES - 210 SPACES
(320 WITH PROOF OF PARKING)
(54 NET ADDITIONAL SPACES)
PROOF OF PARKING - 110 SPACES
REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE - (+/-)387 SPACES
RETAIL BUILDING(1SPACES/250 SF MIN) - 2,771 SF(11 SPACES MIN)
BUILDING #5005(MAN. 1 SPACE/500 SF) - 38,890 +21,540 UPPER SF(120 SPACES)
(OFFICE 1 SPACE/250 SF) - 12,769 SF(51 SPACES)
BUILDING #5107(MAN. 1 SPACE/500 SF) - 65,394 SF(131 SPACES)
BUILDING #5009(WHAR. 1 SPACE/1500 SF) - 37,554 + 13,883 MEZ. SF(34 SPACES)
PROPOSED ADDITION(WHAR. 1 SPACE/1500 SF) - 60,000 SF(40 SPACES)R5’-0"R
5’-0"R5’-
0
"R5’-0"1L2.210’-0"
23’-0"
1
8
’-
0
"
3
6
’-
0
"
9’-0"
TYP
1
8
’-
0
"
T
YP
2
5
’-
0
"TYP
179’-0"
CONCRETE APRON R30’-0"R15’-0"R 210’-0"R 180’-0"
R300’-0"R60’-0"R270’-0"30’-0"PEDESTRIAN RAMP
PEDESTRIAN RAMP
CONCRETE
APRON
2L2.2+/-10’ WIDE DRY STREAMBED
WITH RIP RAP
GENERAL SITE NOTES
1. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR GRADING PLAN.
2. ALL PARKING LAYOUT DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB, UNLESS
NOTED, EXCEPT DIMENSIONS ON SURMOUNTABLE CURBS, WHICH ARE 8"
FROM THE BACK OF CURB.
3. ALL ENTRIES INTO BUILDING TO HAVE STOOPS W/ FOUNDATIONS. ALL ABUTTING
WALKS SHOULD BE DOWELED INTO WALKS POURED ON STOOPS.
4. SEE SHEET L3.1, FOR THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
5. ALL CURBS IN THE PARKING LOT AREA ARE TO BE B6-12 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
6. ALL SMALL RADIUS CURVES ARE 3’ UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
7. THE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS
8. CARE MUST BE TAKEN DURING CONSTRUCTION AND EXCAVATION TO PROTECT ANY
SURVEY MONUMENTS AND/OR PROPERTY IRONS.
9. ADJACENT STREETS AND ALLEYS MUST BE SWEPT TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SEDIMENT.
CONTRACTOR MUST MONITOR CONDITIONS AND SWEEP AS NEEDED AND WITHIN
24 HOURS OF NOTICE BY THE CITY.
10. CONSTRUCTION PARKING SHALL BE PROHIBITED FROM CIRCULATION DRIVES,
FIRE LANES AND OTHER AREAS AS DETERMINED BY CITY REGULATIONS.
BIKE PARKING - UP TO 21 BIKES
(3)7 BIKE CAPACITY BIKE RACKS
BIKE PARKING - UP TO 25 BIKES
(2)7 BIKE CAPACITY BIKE RACKS
(1)11 BIKE CAPACITY BIKE RACK
R5’-0"Prepared For:
' 2008 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
WWW.TMIARCHITECTS.COM
10/30/08
7645 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, #100
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423-4084
612 . 861 . 9636 FAX: 612 . 861 . 9632
DATE
Issue & Revision DatesNORDIC WARE ADDITIO N5005 HIGHWAY 7 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PROJECT #208124
UPDATED SET
CO
N8941’42"W 128.27
N8941’42"W 129.25
N014’17"EN8941’42"W 129.22
S010’57"W 227.25N940’20"W
289.98N6422’03"E 394.17
S6413’06"W 206.97
5
3
.
9
8N2
53
7
’
5
7
"WN030’57"E 117.005.27
N8941’42"W
N6422’03"E 1674.70
N8941’42"W 271.87
S020’57"W 78.00N8941’42"W 128.19S017’37"W 114.76S8935’43"E
30.00
38.90 N024’17"E30.00
N8935’43"W
=522’52"L=122.29R=1302.101659.24
15.46
15.10
20.00
251.87 20.0023.7391.0333.95193.30Frontage
Road
BeltLineBl
vd N8945’43"W
7.00
7.00
S8945’43"E
14.00
S8939’03"E
92.35
N8942’02"W 39.98TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
CURB
CUT
w/RIPRAP
CURB
CUT
w/RIPRAP
TIPOUT
CURB
12/4/08
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 - Nordic Ware Major Amendment to Special Permit Page 13
L2.2(Sections).dgn 12/2/2008 10:07:51 AM
2
SECTION
SCALE 1/4" = 1’-0"
1
SECTION
SCALE 1/4" = 1’-0"
FRONTAGE ROAD
CENTERLINE
SECTIONS -
DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE
L2.218’-3"CLEARANCE+/-13’-6"Prepared For:
' 2008 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
WWW.TMIARCHITECTS.COM
10/30/08
7645 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, #100
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423-4084
612 . 861 . 9636 FAX: 612 . 861 . 9632
DATE
Issue & Revision DatesNORDIC WARE ADDITIO N5005 HIGHWAY 7 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PROJECT #208124
12/2/08UPDATED SET
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 - Nordic Ware Major Amendment to Special Permit Page 14
L3.1.dgn 12/4/2008 2:58:55 PM
T
T
U
T
T
14
7
2 5
14
14
9
9
16
9
7
20
14
6
5
3
11
6
2
2
15
10
881.5
898.5
896.4
878.7
878.8
878.6
879.0
879.4
886.7
888.6
889.9
890.9
892.3
893.6
895.2
896.2
896.8
897.9
898.5
899.9
888.7
887.2
883.7
880.7
886.3
886.0
880.0
881.5
881.4
896.4
#4925
1 Story Brick Bldg
#5005
Concrete
Bldg
#5051
1 Story Brick Bldg
#5107
Masonary Bldg
#5009
Bldg
Silo
NW Corner Of
SW 1/4, Sec 6,
Twp 28, Rng 24
293.30
50.00
40.00
SE Cor. Of Blk 6,
"LEWISTON PARK"
Line 2
L=589.17R=1268.10347.423.0
29.83.555.5
47.2
3.528.7 29.87.4LANDSCAPE PLAN
1
SCALE 1" = 60’-0"
N
LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L3.1
10 BALSAM FIR
5 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
5 BLACK HILLS
SPRUCE
7 AMERICAN HAZELNUT
7 AMERICAN HAZELNUT
HARDWOOD MULCH BED
HARDWOOD MULCH BED
HARDWOOD MULCH BED
5 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
5 BALSAM FIR
5 RIVER BIRCH
6 REDMOND LINDEN
6 NORTHWOOD MAPLE
6 RIVER BIRCH
5 BALSAM FIR
8 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE
12 RED TWIGGED DOGWOOD
5 GRAY DOGWOOD
10 RED TWIGGED DOGWOOD
5 REDMOND LINDEN
8 WITHEROD
VIBURNUM
9 TOR SPIREA
11 MINT JULEP
JUNIPER
6 RED TWIGGED DOGWOOD
3 COMMON HACKBERRY
3 NORTHWOOD
MAPLE
5 AUTUMN
BLAZE MAPLE
12 GRAY DOGWOOD
50 BIG BLUESTEM
24 BLACK-EYED-SUSAN
29 PURPLE CONEFLOWER
26 GOLDENROD
26 BUTTERFLY FLOWER
6 COMMON
HACKBERRY
5 NORTHWOOD
MAPLE
4 GREEN MOUNTAIN
SUGAR MAPLE
SOD
3 GREEN MOUNTAIN
SUGAR MAPLE
15 TOR SPIREA
SOD
3 RIVER BIRCH
10 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY
SOD
DISTURBED
AREAS
1 QUAKING ASPEN CLUMP
1 QUAKING ASPEN CLUMP
3 BUR OAK
3 BUR OAK
5 BUR OAK
--
SHRUBS
-
---
PERENNIALS
X-
---X -
---X -
---X -
#5 -X
29
68
24
26
26
Purple Coneflower
Big Bluestem
Black-Eyed-Susan
Butterfly Flower
Goldenrod
Echinacea purpurea
Andropogon gerardii
Rudbecia hirta
Asclepias tuberosa
Solidago speciosa ---X -
#1
#1
#1
#1
#1
---#5 -X
---#5 -X
---#5 -X
---#5 -X
PLANT LIST - SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS
Mint Julep Juniper
Tor Spirea
Red Twigged Dogwood
Gray Dogwood
American Hazelnut
Witherrod Viburnum
11
24
28
17
14
8
Juniperus chinensis
’Monlep’
Spiraea betulifolia
’Tor’
Cornus sericea ’Cardinal’
Cornus racemosa
Corylus americana
Viburnum cassinoides #5 ---X -
MIN.
SIZE CALIPERHEIGHTB & BCONTAINERNOTESBOTANICAL NAMEQTY.COMMON NAME(ABBREVIATION)
BOTANICAL NAME CALIPERHEIGHTB & BPLANT LIST - TREES
QTY.
MIN.
SIZE
OVERSTORY TREES
COMMON NAME(ABBREVIATION)
-X X -CONTAINEREVERGREEN TREES
-X X --
3-5 CANE CLUMP
NOTES
X -X -
X -X -
X -X -
X -X -
X -X -
Black Hills Spruce(BHS)
Balsam Fir(BAF)
Picea gluaca ’densata’
Abies balsamea
8’
6’-X X --
28
20
X X -3-5 CANE CLUMP Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry(ABS)10 6’-Amelenchier x grandiflora
’Autumn Brilliance’
ORNAMENTAL TREES
X -X -
17
9
11
14
7
5
13
2
8’
3"
3"
3"
3"
4"
3"
#25 ---X 3-5 CANE CLUMP
River Birch Clump(RBC)
Common Hackberry(CHB)
Redmond Linden(RLI)
Green Mountain Sugar
Maple(GMM)
Fall Fiesta Maple(FFM)
Autumn Blaze Maple(ABM)
Bur Oak(BOK)
Quaking Aspen(QAS)
Betula nigra
Celtis occidentallis
Tilia americana ’Redmond’
Acer rubrum ’Green Mountain’
Acer saccharum ’Bailsta’
Acer x freemanii ’Jeffersred’
Quercus macrocarpa
Populus tremuloides
LANDSCAPE PLANTING NOTES:
1. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL GUARANTEE ALL PLANT MATERIAL FOR A PERIOD
OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATE OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION FOR
THE PROJECT OR LATER IF INSTALLED LATER BECAUSE OF PLANTING SEASON.
2. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL MEET MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE
"AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK" (ANSI Z60.1-2004).
3. NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION OF THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
4. TREES SHALL ONLY BE STAKED WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN
CASES OF EXTREMELY WINDY LOCATIONS AND/OR WET CLAY OR VERY SANDY SOIL;
EVERGREEN TREES GREATER THAN 8 FEET IN HEIGHT SHALL BE GUYED; STAKING
AT HEIGHTS LESS THAN 8 FEET IS NOT NECESSARY. REFER TO PLAN AND DETAILS
FOR SPECIFIC PLANTING INSTRUCTIONS.
5. IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PLANT QUANTITIES IN THE PLANT LIST
AND THOSE REPRESENTED GRAPHICALLY, THE GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION SHALL
TAKE PRECEDENCE.
6. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY UTILITY LOCATIONS AND PROTECT
ALL UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES. DAMAGE TO UTILITIES AND STRUCTURES SHALL
BE REPAIRED BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER.
7. THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE LOCATIONS OF PLANTS FOR LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTS APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION OR INSTALLATION.
8. UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE, ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WITHIN THE SITE BOUNDARY SHALL
RECEIVE SOD. AREAS OUTSIDE THE SITE BOUNDARIES THAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED SHALL
RECEIVE SEED.
9. ALL LANDSCAPED,SEEDED, AND SODDED AREAS SHALL BE IRRIGATED WITH AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION
SYSTEM, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE COMPLETE DESIGN AND
SHOP DRAWINGS FOR INSTALLATION.
10. IN AREAS WHERE AN EXISTING PARKING LOT OR DRIVE AREAS HAVE BEEN REMOVED,
ALL SUB-BASE SHALL BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH TOPSOIL AND PLANTINGS AS INDICATED.
11. SEEDED AREAS SHALL HAVE EXISTING VEGETATION KILLED WITH ROUND-UP(OR EQUIVALENT)
ONE WEEK TO 10 DAYS PRIOR TO SEEDING.
12. SEED SHALL BE BROADCAST OR DRILLED AT THE SPECIFIED RATES, ONLY DURING
APPROVED PLANTING DATES.
13. NATIVE GRASS HAY MULCH MAY BE USED TO PROTECT SEED ON RELATIVELY LEVEL AREAS
FIBER BLANKET SHALL BE USED ON SLOPED AREAS.
14. ALL LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS OUTSIDE OF PLANTING BEDS SHALL RECEIVE EIGHT FOOT DIAMETER
RING OF LANDSCAPE MULCH. 5 BLACK HILLS
SPRUCE
2 BUR OAK
18 BIG BLUESTEM
Prepared For:
' 2008 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
WWW.TMIARCHITECTS.COM
10/30/08
7645 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, #100
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423-4084
612 . 861 . 9636 FAX: 612 . 861 . 9632
DATE
Issue & Revision DatesNORDIC WARE ADDITIO N5005 HIGHWAY 7 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PROJECT #208124
12/4/08UPDATED SET
5 7
8
6
3
8
11
8
8
13
2
Quentin Ave S(F.K.A. Quincy Ave)Frontage
RaleighAve SRoad
Frontage
Road
N8941’42"W 128.27
N8941’42"W 129.25
N014’17"EN8941’42"W 129.22
S010’57"W 227.25N940’20"W
289.98N6422’03"E 394.17
S6413’06"W 206.97
5
3
.
9
8N2
53
7
’
5
7
"WN030’57"E 117.005.27
N8941’42"W
N6422’03"E 1674.70
N8941’42"W 271.87
S020’57"W 78.00N8941’42"W 128.19S017’37"W 114.76S8935’43"E
30.00
38.90 N024’17"E30.00
N8935’43"W
=522’52"L=122.29R=1302.101659.24
15.46
15.10
20.00
251.87 20.0023.7391.0333.95193.30Frontage
Road
BeltLineBl
vd N8945’43"W
7.00
7.00
S8945’43"E
14.00
S8939’03"E
92.35
N8942’02"W 39.98TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
TIPOUT
CURB
CURB
CUT
w/RIPRAP
CURB
CUT
w/RIPRAP
TIPOUT
CURB
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 - Nordic Ware Major Amendment to Special Permit Page 15
A3-1.dgn 12/2/2008 10:18:36 AM
SCALE x" = 1’-0"
SCALE x" = 1’-0"
SCALE x" = 1’-0"
NORTH ELEVATION - NEW ADDITION
1
EAST ELEVATION - NEW ADDITION
2
SOUTH ELEVATION - NEW ADDITION
3
SCALE x" = 1’-0"
4 A3.1
TOP OF WALL
TO MATCH EXISTING
APPROX. 128’-0"
MEZZANINE
110’-0"
FIRST FLOOR
100’-0"
EXISTING BUILDINGNEW BUILDING
EXISTING BUILDING NEW BUILDING
ALUM. WINDOW (TYP.)
ALUM. STOREFRONT
OFFICE WINDOWS
PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL WALL SYSTEM;
COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING CONC. PANELS
STL. GUARDRAIL
PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL WALL SYSTEM;
COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING CONC. PANELS
ALUM. WINDOW (TYP.)
PRECAST CONCRETE PANEL WALL SYSTEM;
COLOR TO MATCH EXISTING CONC. PANELS
SIGNAGE
5’ X 19’
ALUM. STOREFRONT
OFFICE WINDOWS
ALUM. ENTRY DOOR
STL. GUARDRAILS
DOCK DOORS
H.M. EXIT DOOR
NORTH ELEVATION - EXISTING WEST LOADING DOCK
NEW DOCK DOORS
IN EXISTING WALL
RETAINING WALL
LIGHTS UNDER CANOPYILLUMINATED SIGNAGE
(6’-6" X 25’-0")
METAL CANOPIES
W/ CABLE TIES
METAL CANOPIES
W/ CABLE TIES
ELEVATIONS
W/ METAL CANOPIES
DOWNSPOUT
(TYP.)
Prepared For:
' 2008 TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY & ASSOCIATES, INC.
WWW.TMIARCHITECTS.COM
10/30/08
7645 LYNDALE AVENUE SOUTH, #100
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55423-4084
612 . 861 . 9636 FAX: 612 . 861 . 9632
DATE
Issue & Revision DatesNORDIC WARE ADDITIO N5005 HIGHWAY 7 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416PROJECT #208124
12/2/08UPDATED SET
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 - Nordic Ware Major Amendment to Special Permit Page 16
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 - Nordic Ware Major Amendment to Special Permit Page 17
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8d)
Subject: 5005 Highway 7 - Nordic Ware Major Amendment to Special Permit Page 18
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8e
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and
Antennas.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the first reading of the attached ordinance relating to Communication Towers and
Antennas, and set the second reading for January 5, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the ordinance be amended to clarify the approval process for communication towers and
antennas, and add performance standards and application submittal requirements?
BACKGROUND:
Development of the Ordinance
The issue of allowable heights was the initial impetus for changing the ordinance. Two
interpretations meant the ordinance needed to be clarified.
An amendment to the zoning ordinance was presented to the Planning Commission on July 2,
2008. The intent of the proposed amendment was to clarify the existing language pertaining to
height limitations for communication towers. Staff interpreted the language to say that the
maximum height established in each zoning district can be increased up to a maximum of 50% by
conditional use permit. Another interpretation was made saying the height established in each
zoning district can be increased by 50% administratively, and to any height above the 50% increase
by conditional use permit. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendment, and
recommended on a 4-1 vote that the City Council deny the proposed amendment.
On August 18, 2008 the initial proposed change to the ordinance was discussed by the City Council
at a Study Session. The Council requested additions and clarification in several areas such as
environmental factors; views and aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood; and signal interference
with residents’ reception. The Council also asked for some flexibility in the heights in the Industrial
zoning district.
Planning Staff began a more comprehensive look at the ordinance by gathering information on
towers and antennas, researching provisions by other governmental agencies and reviewing other
ordinances for content and provisions.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
As a result, Staff drafted an ordinance that kept the height restrictions in each district and placed the
tower and antenna provisions in a new section. Several new areas were addressed in this section,
including: interference, co-locating, aesthetics/neighborhood impacts, lighting and removal of
unused towers.
The draft ordinance also suggested some heights be allowed under “permitted with conditions” and
taller towers be allowed with a “Conditional Use Permit” (CUP). All new tower proposals:
• are required to conform to new ordinance provisions
• need to show a structure would not be dangerous, and would not adversely affect
surrounding properties,
• are required to be an appropriate distance from residential property,
• are setback a distance depending upon tower design and probability of collapsing; and
• address aesthetic considerations such as color and design.
On September 8, 2008, antennas and towers were discussed at another Council study session.
Alternatives were presented for height limitations that generally retained the heights as initially
interpreted by Planning Staff, with a suggested reduction for the O, Office zoning district and an
increase for the I, Industrial districts of up to 400 feet in height. The Council gave Staff direction
on heights, including having an upper limit, and direction to require CUPs for taller towers.
On October 6, 2008, the item was brought to a regular Council meeting, and a number of questions
were discussed. The 1st reading was tabled, and Staff was asked to look more closely at several items
such as collapse radius, wetlands and floodplain, interference, aesthetics, park and open space and
mixed use zones, ham radio operator concerns, monopole clarification; setback requirements, lights,
limiting the number of towers; and language on how to handle disputes over interference problems.
Also information on what the surrounding communities are doing was requested.
On October 20, 2008, the ordinance was discussed at a Council Study Session. Staff provided
several options related to the 1) park and open space district, 2) mixed-use district, 3) amateur radio
concerns, 4) fall zone options, 5) regulating amount of towers per parcel, 6) interference issues, 7)
lighting requirements, 8) wetland impact, and 9) proliferation of towers.
Interference, proliferation of towers and lighting requirements led to the suggestion that the overall
maximum height allowance be 200’ for both the office and industrial districts. In addition,
surrounding cities do not allow towers higher than 200 feet, and in most cases have maximum
heights of 100 or 125 feet. Council directed staff to further investigate the 1) fall zone options, 2)
number of towers allowed per parcel, 3) options for a no light requirement, yet abiding by the FCC
requirements, and 4) language to address assistance with interference issues that may occur. The
intent was to bring it back to Council on November 3, 2008.
On November 3, 2008, it was determined the ordinance should be reviewed by the Planning
Commission since so much had changed in the content and structure of the ordinance from what
was initially proposed. A new public hearing was set for November 19, 2008.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
On November 19, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to send the
item to a Commission study session for more discussion and clarification. There were several people
in attendance of the hearing. The Commission Chair clarified that the purpose of the hearing was to
receive comments on the ordinance, not a specific tower request. This being said, people spoke
against the tower request, and the tower applicant spoke in favor of the tower and expressed some
concerns regarding the ordinance. The discussion of the ordinance revolved around the prohibition
in wetlands and floodplains, height limits, amateur radio exemptions, lights and setbacks. The
minutes of the hearing are attached.
A study session was held on December 3, 2008, prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting
held on the same date. At the study session, staff reviewed the ordinance, and summarized the
research and discussions that resulted in the current draft. Tom Scott, City Attorney, and Garrett
Lysiak P.E., (OWL Engineering & EMC Test Labs, Inc.) the city’s consulting communications
engineer was at the meeting to answer questions. The Commission discussed the proposed heights.
Staff explained that with the exception of the Office district, the proposed heights are close to the
height limits in the existing ordinance, which are based on the building height limits of each zoning
district. Also, Mr. Lysiak explained that the Personal Communication Systems (PCS) industry,
which includes cell phone and wi-fi technology, does not need towers in excess of the proposed
heights. PCS antennas can be installed in one of two methods.
1. Antennas can be placed on towers 100 to 150 feet in the air. The higher the tower the
greater the range of the antenna, and the fewer towers needed. This strategy works well in
rural areas, because fewer antennas also mean a reduction in the volume of calls the system
can handle.
2. Antennas can be placed on short towers, typically 50 – 75 feet or preferably co-located on
existing buildings and structures. This reduces the range of the antennas, but allows for
numerous antennas to be installed in the community. This strategy is pursued in developed
areas, such as St. Louis Park where handling a high volume of calls takes priority over an
antennas range, as more antennas means the system can handle more calls.
The Commission discussed the provision to prohibit towers in wetlands and floodplains. They
noted that the DNR and watershed districts regulate impacts on wetlands, and that many of the
large wetlands within the city are owned by the city.
The Planning Commission regular meeting was held after the study session, on December 3, 2008.
The Commission voted 6-1 to recommend the City Council approve the ordinance with the change
that the provision prohibiting towers in wetlands and floodplains be removed from the amendment.
Tower and Antenna Provisions:
The revised ordinance is attached.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
The following is a summary of key performance standards included in the proposed ordinance. The
ordinance includes revisions and recommendations resulting from comments received from the
Planning Commission.
Height:
The proposed height limit changes are shown on the table below.
Interference, proliferation of towers, and lighting requirements led to the suggestion that the overall
maximum height allowance be 199’ for both the office and industrial districts. In addition,
surrounding cities do not allow towers higher than 199 feet and in most cases have maximum
heights of 100 or 125 feet.
Heights limitations are based on several issues as discussed for each district below.
A discussion of the rationale for the proposed heights follows the table.
Table of Height Allowances for Towers
Zoning District Current Proposed
POS – Park & Open Space
Permitted
CUP
Accessory
---
---
Permitted
---
70 feet
---
R-1 & R-2 – Single Family
Permitted
CUP
45 feet
68 feet
45 feet
70 feet
R-3 - Two Family
Permitted
CUP
52 feet
78 feet
45 feet
70 feet
R-4 – Multi-Family
Permitted
CUP
60 feet
90 feet
45 feet
70 feet
RC – High Density Multi-Family
Permitted
CUP
112 feet
168 feet
45 feet
70 feet
C-1 – Neighborhood Commercial
Permitted
CUP
52 feet
78 feet
45 feet
70 feet
C-2 - General Commercial
Permitted
CUP
112 feet
168 feet
110 feet
170 feet
O – Office
Permitted
CUP
360 feet
540 feet
110 feet
170 feet
IP – Industrial Park
Permitted
CUP
112 feet
168 feet
110 feet
199 feet
IG – General Industrial
Permitted
CUP
112 feet
168 feet
110 feet
199 feet
MX – Mixed Use
Permitted
CUP
n/a
n/a
45 feet
70 feet
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Park & Open Space District (POS):
Communication towers are currently allowed as an accessory use in the POS district with no height
limit. The proposed ordinance changes the heights to be consistent with the single family district
because the two districts are closely interconnected, and have the same community expectations of
maintaining neighborhood standards of scale and preserving views.
All communication towers in the POS district are proposed to be allowed by CUP to allow
additional neighborhood input.
Residential Districts (R1, R2, R3, R4, RC, MX):
The current communication tower height limits in all residential districts are based on the building
height limits of the zoning districts. The permitted heights are 50% more than the maximum
building height allowed. In addition to the permitted height limit, an additional 50% is allowed by
CUP.
The proposed ordinance keeps communication towers at a residential scale by continuing the
existing communication tower height limits of the single family districts, which are tied to the
allowable building heights. The proposed ordinance also treats all residential properties the same by
establishing the same height limits for all residential zoning districts regardless of the density allowed.
This change was made because the zoning ordinance and vision of the city calls for the same purpose
and residential standards regardless of the density allowed. For example, all residential districts
include the same purpose statement:
…provide institutional and community services such as parks, schools, religious facilities, and
community centers supportive of a residential area while safeguarding its residential character; and
protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke,
vibration, heat, glare, and other objectionable influences.
In the R-4 and RC districts, antennas could reach heights taller than the freestanding tower
maximums by co-locating on the roofs of buildings. Buildings in the R-4 and RC districts are
allowed to be 40 feet and 75 feet respectively.
The proposed heights will encourage antennas to be mounted on existing multi-family buildings if
additional height is needed. Roof mounted antennas are less intrusive, and are more effective at
preserving the residential character.
Neighborhood Commercial District (C-1):
Approval method Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance
Permitted with Conditions 52 feet 45 feet
Conditional Use Permit 78 feet 70 feet
Properties in the Neighborhood Commercial district are small (10,000 - 20,000 square feet) and
located in close proximity to residential districts, typically single family residential. As a result, a
communication tower will have the same impact on the residential character of the neighborhood
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 6
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
whether it is located on a parcel zoned residential or C-1. Therefore, the proposed ordinance
reduces the communication tower height limits to the same limits proposed in the residential
districts, which are only eight feet less than the existing height limits.
General Commercial District:
Approval method Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance
Permitted with Conditions 112 feet 110 feet
Conditional Use Permit 168 feet 170 feet
The height limits in the General Commercial (C-2) District are proposed to be consistent with those
currently in place. Communication towers are currently allowed (permitted with conditions) to be
up to 112.5 feet in height. 112.5 feet is equal to 1.5 times the maximum height allowed for
buildings in the C-2 district. (The maximum allowed building height is 75 feet, 1.5 times 75 feet
equals 112.5 feet.)
Today, Section 36-78 allows a 50% increase for communication towers over the height limits
established in the zoning districts. The additional 50% raised the overall height to 168.75 feet.
The proposed ordinance continues the height limits of 112.5 and 168.75, except that the numbers
were rounded off, 110 feet as a permitted with conditions height, and 170 feet by CUP.
Office District(O):
Approval method Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance
Permitted with Conditions 360 feet 110 feet
Conditional Use Permit 540 feet 170 feet
Towers are currently allowed to be as tall as 360 feet in the Office district, which is 50% more than
the maximum building height of 240 feet. Towers can be increased an additional 50% by
conditional use permit to a maximum of 540 feet.
The purpose section of the Office district calls for development that achieves coordinated and
harmonious development based on performance standards, and achieves high standards of site
planning, architecture, and landscape design sought by many business and professional enterprises.
Communication towers reaching heights up to 540 feet is not consistent with the expectations of a
professional office district which is striving to meet high standards of planning, architecture and
landscaping. Alternatively, communication tower heights should be consistent with the C-2 General
Commercial district, because the development expectations of the C-2 district are similar to those of
the Office district. Therefore, the proposed ordinance reduces the current height limits to heights
consistent with the C-2 district.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 7
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Industrial Districts (IP, IG):
Approval method Current Ordinance Proposed Ordinance
Permitted with Conditions 112 feet 110 feet
Conditional Use Permit 168 feet 199 feet
Communication tower height limits are based on the maximum height allowed for buildings.
Buildings are allowed to be up to 75 feet in height, and communication towers are allowed an
additional 50% height for a permitted maximum height of 112 feet. An additional 50% is allowed
by CUP, for a maximum height of 168 feet.
The proposed height limits in the Industrial (I) districts are consistent with the current standards for
communication towers. The only change proposed is rounding the height limit off to 110 feet
instead of the current maximum of 112 feet, and the maximum height allowed by CUP is proposed
to be increased from 168 feet to 199 feet. The additional height is proposed to provide a location in
the city where antennas could be located at an increased height in areas of the city where taller
towers would have a minimal impact on residential properties.
Setbacks:
Currently, communication towers are required to be setback 1.5 times the collapse radius from
property lines and twice the height from property lines adjacent to properties zoned R-1, R-2 and R-
3.
The proposed ordinance continues these setbacks and proposes the following additional criteria.
The setback from residential properties is proposed to be amended to require the setback to be twice
the tower height from all residential districts and the mixed-use district, not just the R-1, R-2 and R-
3 districts. The ordinance includes all residential properties to consistently preserve views and
residential character through all residential zoning districts.
The requirement that the communication tower be setback 1.5 times the collapse radius is modified
to provide an option for the tower owner. The communication tower can be setback a distance
equal to 1.5 times the collapse radius, or a distance equal to the communication tower height if a
collapse radius has not been determined. The intent of this provision is to minimize the possibility
of damage on adjacent properties should the tower collapse.
Collapse radius: Communication towers are typically designed to collapse within a
specified distance measured from the base of the tower. The distance varies depending on
the design of the tower, and the cumulative weight of equipment the tower is supporting,
but is usually substantially less than the height of the tower. The collapse radius must be
determined by a qualified individual, typically a structural engineer.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 8
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
The possibility of a monopole collapsing is very unlikely, so the setback for monopoles is proposed
to be reduced from 1.5 times its collapse radius to 10 feet, which is consistent with building
setbacks. The requirement for towers to be set back twice the height from residential zoning
districts, including the MX district, would still apply to monopoles.
Guyed wire towers typically collapse inward, and therefore may be able to have a reduced setback.
The ordinance allows that if a tower owner can provide a report from a qualified engineer to show
how a tower will collapse; the setback could be reduced to 1.5 times its collapse radius – or its
expected area of collapse.
Interference:
Interference is regulated and enforced by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The
following language is proposed to safeguard public safety related communications:
Section 36-368(j) Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required
elsewhere in this Code, Development applications for towers and antennas shall include the
following supplemental information:
(1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer that:
i. Guarantees non-interference with public safety telecommunications, complies with the FCC
with regards to all non-interference requirements, and a copy of the FCC approval of the
antennae in regards to non-interference.
A concern was raised at the hearing that the word “guarantees” is unrealistic, and that it is not
possible for a qualified individual to guarantee there will not be interference. A recommendation
was made that the word be replaced with a phrase such as “Renders an opinion as to what the
interference issues may be resulting from the proposed antenna, and how the interference can be
mitigated.” Staff revised the ordinance to reflect this change. The section now reads as follows:
(1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer that:
i. Reviews potential interference with public safety telecommunications equipment, and
renders an opinion as to what the interference issues may be resulting from the proposed
antenna, and recommendations as to how the interference can be mitigated. The report must
also state whether or not the proposed antenna complies with all non-interference
requirements of the FCC, a copy of the FCC approval of the antennae in regards to non-
interference must be attached.
Amateur Radio:
The proposed ordinance was revised since the Planning Commission meeting to consolidate amateur
radio provisions and exceptions into one subsection. Communication towers installed on residential
parcels and used for amateur radios would be allowed to have a 15 foot setback. They would be
exempt from the setback requirements of 1.5 times the collapse radius and the “twice the height”
setback from residential properties.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 9
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
A provision was also added requiring towers and antennas used for amateur service to be maintained
in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications, and stating that provisions of the ordinance may be
modified to provide reasonable accommodations for an amateur radio antenna to the extent required
by federal law. This will give the city the flexibility needed to reasonably accommodate amateur
radio needs.
Aesthetics/neighborhood impact:
Several provisions are proposed to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and aesthetics of the
subject property and surrounding properties. Some provisions are specific performance standards
such as limiting one tower per parcel zoned residential, setting a maximum height and minimum
setback, prohibiting attachments to communication towers such as signs, limits on lighting and co-
locating. Other provisions are general in nature, allowing the city to evaluate the neighborhood and
environmental conditions specific to a tower proposal. For example, provisions are included in the
proposed communication tower section, such as:
Excerpts from the “Purpose” section:
To establish appropriate maximum heights of communication towers and antennas,
considering their potential adverse impacts on the community at large and the ability to
mitigate such impacts;
To minimize adverse impacts on properties in close proximity to communication towers and
antennas;
To minimize adverse visual effects of communication towers and antennas through careful
design and citing standards;
Excerpts from the general regulations section:
Ground equipment associated with a tower or communications facility shall be housed in a
building. The building shall meet the architectural design standards of the Zoning
Ordinance, and shall meet the minimum setback requirements of the underlying zoning
district.
Antenna designs and mounts shall be designed to minimize visual impact.
All building-mounted equipment shall be consistent with the architectural features of the
building and be painted to match the color of the building exterior, roof or sky, whichever is
most effective, as determined by the Zoning Administrator.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 10
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Co-locating:
The proposed ordinance encourages co-locating on existing towers and buildings by requiring the
applicant to prove to the city that there are no other towers or buildings in the area that can
accommodate the tower due primarily to available space, structural integrity and required height.
The proposed language is as follows:
A proposal for a new communication tower or antenna shall not be approved unless the
applicant shows that the antenna cannot be reasonably accommodated on an existing
communication tower or building.
The owner of any communication tower exceeding 50 feet in height constructed after the
effective date of this Ordinance shall permit the reasonable joint use of the structure for
other antennas.
Lighting:
The proposed ordinance prohibits illumination of the communication tower, with the exception of
lighting required by the FAA. Towers 200 feet or higher require lighting; white flashing beacons are
required for the day time and red flashing beacons are required for night time.
The proposed language is as follows:
Communication towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means and shall not display strobe lights
unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation Administration or other federal or
state law or regulation that preempts local regulations.
Wetlands & Floodplains:
The ordinance proposed to the Planning Commission prohibited communication towers and
antennas in wetlands and floodplains. The Planning Commission however recommended that
towers be allowed in wetlands and floodplains.
The intent of this provision was to preserve the character of the natural areas of the city by
prohibiting communication towers in wetlands and floodplain. Instead, communication towers are
guided to the more intensely developed areas of the city such as large commercial, institutional,
office and industrial developments. This provision seems to be consistent with the PCS industry.
According to Mr. Lysiak, it adapted the technology to meet regulations requiring stealth and co-
location. Their priority is to install numerous antennas in a community and attach them to existing
structures instead of constructing stand alone towers. This allows them to handle a greater volume
of calls, and to discretely place the antennas throughout a community. PCS providers have less
interest in building tall towers in developed cities such as St. Louis Park.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 11
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Wetlands and floodplains are governed by multiple jurisdictions. Attached is a map showing the
location of all DNR jurisdiction wetlands and FEMA floodplains. This map shows that there are
many areas within the city to locate communication towers in locations required to meet the wireless
communications needs of the city.
Towers that exceed 300 feet and are located within 1,000 feet of any public water or public waters
wetland” requires an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) by State law. This process
typically takes three to six months; an application for a tower cannot be considered by a local
government until this process is complete.
Antennas on Buildings
To minimize visual impacts on the community, the proposed ordinance encourages antennas on
buildings. Antennas would be allowed to be 30 feet above the building. This provision was changed
from 15 to 30 feet after verification that existing rooftop antennas at the Methodist Hospital are 30
feet high.
The proposed ordinance accommodates another option to tall towers for antennas that need
additional height by allowing roof mounted antennas that extend up to 30 feet above the building.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
N/A.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed amendments are consistent with the community vision. The amendments will
strengthen the community making it a safe, aesthetically pleasing community with quality gathering
places and well maintained housing while meeting the technology needs of its residents and
businesses.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Amendments relating to Towers and Antennas
Wetland & floodplain map
Table comparing regulations of other cities
Excerpts of Minutes of the November 19, 2008 Planning Commission
meeting (public hearing)
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 12
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
ORDINANCE NO. _____-09
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4, 36-78, 36-142, 36-151, 36-164, 36-165,
36-166, 36-167, 36-193, 36-194, 36-223, 36-243, 36-263, 36-264, 36-265, 36-266,
36-267, 36-268, 36-368
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case
No. 08-23-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-78, 36-142, 36-151, 36-164, 36-165, 36-166,
36-167, 36-193, 36-194, 36-223, 36-243, 36-263, 36-264, 36-265, 36-266, 36-267, 36-268, and 36-368 is hereby
amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
Sec. 36-4. Definitions.
***
Height-Communication Towers and Antennas. The height of a communication tower or antenna which is not attached
to a building shall be determined by measuring the vertical distance from the point of contact with the ground of the
communication tower or antenna to the highest point of the communication tower, or antenna, including, in the case of
a communication tower, all antennas and other attachments.
***
Sec. 36-78. Height limitations.
(a) Height limitations set forth elsewhere in this ordinance shall be increased by 50 percent when applied to the
following structures:
(1) Art objects in non-residential districts and accessory to permitted principal non-residential uses
(churches, schools, parks, etc.) in residential districts.
(Ord. No. 2255-03, 11-3-03)
(2) Belfries.
(3) Chimneys.
(4) Church spires.
(5) Communication towers. Heights in excess of those allowed under this section shall be permitted only
by conditional use permit granted by resolution of the city council determining that such structure
would not be dangerous and would not adversely affect adjoining or adjacent property. This
determination will be made based on the following conditions:
a. Distance from abutting residential property.
b. Tower design and collapse radius.
Aesthetic considerations such as color and design.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 13
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
[Renumber accordingly]
(6) Cooling towers.
(7) Cupolas and domes which do not add additional floor area.
(8) Elevator penthouses.
(9) Fire and hose towers.
(10) Flagpoles.
(11) Monuments.
(12) Observation towers.
(13) Smokestacks.
(b) Parapet walls extending not more than three feet above the limiting height of the building.
(c) Water towers are exempt from height limitations.
***
Sec. 36-142. Descriptions
***
(c.) Institutional Use.
(1) Antenna means any free-standing structure or device attached to a building used for the purpose of collecting or
transmitting electromagnetic waves through the air, including but not limited to directional antennas, such as panels,
microwaves dishes, and satellite dishes, and omni-directional antennas, such as whip antennas, except for Building-
Mounted antennas for private use on the premises where it is located, such as amateur radio antennas, and antennas
receiving television or radio signals.
(2) Communication tower means a free-standing tower structure which supports one or more antennae and
includes accessory uses directly related to the tower, such as utility buildings. those activities. The tower and antennae
heights result in negative visual and sight line impacts.
***
[Renumber accordingly]
***
Sec. 36-151. POS park and open space district
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any POS district shall be used for the
following uses except by conditional use permit. These uses shall comply with the requirements of all general conditions
provided in section 36-365 and with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 14
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(1) Communication towers up to 70 feet in height, subject to the provisions of Section 368 (Communication
Towers and Antennas).
***
(e) (d) Accessory uses.
***
(3) Communication tower
***
(f) (e) Dimensional standards/densities.
***
Sec. 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(9) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Sign shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 45 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free-standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(5) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 15
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(9) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 45 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free-standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(3) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(10) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height, subject to Section 368
(Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 52.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free-standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 16
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(4) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-166. R-4 multiple-family residence district
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(11) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 60 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that another alternative to
piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum of twice its height
from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(9) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-167. RC high-density multiple-family residence district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 17
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
***
(11) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A free standing communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that another alternative to
piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum of twice its height
from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(6) Communication towers and antennas more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, subject to
the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-193. C-1 neighborhood commercial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(21) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 45 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. The tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
b. The tower structures shall be a maximum of 52.5 feet high.
c. The tower structure shall not be permitted within any required yard.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 18
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
d. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
e. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
f. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that another alternative to
piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building is not possible.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure.
h. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum of twice its height
from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
i. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
***
(d) Conditional uses. Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(9) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-194. C-2 general commercial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(20) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 110 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. The tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
b. The tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
c. The tower structure shall not be permitted within any required yard.
d. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
e. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
f. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that another alternative to
piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building is not possible.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 19
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
h. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum of twice its height
from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
i. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(15) Communication towers more than 110 feet in height but not to exceed 170 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-223. O Office district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(17) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 110 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Communication towers shall be screened to the greatest extent practicable to minimize visual impacts.
b. Communication towers shall be limited in height to 360 feet.
c. Communication towers shall not be permitted within any required yard.
d. No freestanding communication tower shall be located within 1 1/2 times its collapse radius from any
property line.
e. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
f. If a tower exceeds 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that the desired result cannot be
achieved by piggybacking the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building.
g. The owner shall permit joint use of any tower exceeding 50 feet in height.
h. Any tower exceeding 50 feet in height shall bc located at a distance of at least 1.5 times its height from
any R-1, R-2 or R-3 district.
i. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 20
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(10) Communication towers more than 110 feet in height but not to exceed 170 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-243. I-P industrial park district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
***
(4) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 110 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that another alternative to
piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum of twice its height
from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
***
(d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(5) Communication towers more than 110 feet in height but not to exceed 199 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
Sec. 36-244. I-G general industrial district.
***
(c) Uses permitted with conditions.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 21
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
***
(8) Communication towers The conditions are as follows: that are 110 feet or less in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
a. Signs shall not be permitted on the tower structure or the antenna.
b. Tower structures shall be screened to minimize visual impacts.
c. Tower structures shall be a maximum of 112.5 feet high.
d. Tower structures shall not be permitted within any required yard.
e. A freestanding communication tower shall be located a minimum of 1 1/2 times its collapse radius
from any property line of the site on which it is located.
f. Any tower exceeding 50 feet shall be painted light blue-gray in color.
g. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the applicant shall demonstrate that another alternative to
piggyback the proposed antenna on another existing tower or building is not possible.
h. For any tower exceeding 50 feet in height, the owner shall permit joint use of the structure.
i. If any tower exceeds 50 feet in height, it shall be located at a distance of a minimum of twice its height
from any R-1, R-2 or R-3 zoned parcel.
***
Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
***
(4) Communication towers that are more than 110 feet in height but not to exceed 199 feet in height, subject to
the provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
***
DIVISION 8. M-X MIXED USE DISTRICT
***
Section 36-263. Uses permitted with conditions
(1) General cConditions for mixed use development are as follows:
a. (1) The development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan land use designations for the area.
b. (2) The development is in conformance with a redevelopment plan for the area that has been adopted as part of
the comprehensive plan.
c. (3) The development conforms with all performance standards of this district or an adopted overlay district for
the area unless certain standards are specifically waived or amended by the adopted redevelopment plan.
(Code 1976, § 14:5-8C)
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 22
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(2) Communication towers that are 45 feet or less in height, subject to the provisions of Section 368
(Communication Towers and Antennas).
Section 36-264. Uses permitted by conditional use permit.
(1) Communication towers more than 45 feet in height but not to exceed 70 feet in height, subject to the
provisions of Section 368 (Communication Towers and Antennas).
Sec. 36-264 265. Uses permitted by PUD.
***
Sec. 36-265 266. Accessory uses.
***
(3) Parking lots designed in accordance with section 36-361 except that the number of required spaces may be
reduced as provided in subsection 36-266267(6).
***
Sec. 36-266 267. Dimensional/performance standards and general requirements.
***
Secs. 36-267268--36-290. Reserved.
***
Sec. 36-368. Communication towers and antennas.
(a) Purpose.
(1) To accommodate the reasonable communication needs of residents and business in the community
while protecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the community;
(2) To establish appropriate maximum heights of communication towers and antennas, considering their
potential adverse impacts on the community at large and the ability to mitigate such impacts;
(3) To minimize adverse impacts on properties in close proximity to communication towers and
antennas;
(4) To minimize adverse visual effects of communication towers and antennas through careful design and
sitting standards;
(5) To avoid potential damage to adjacent properties from communication tower and antenna failure
through structural standards and setback requirements; and,
(6) To maximize the use of existing communication towers, antennas and buildings to accommodate new
antennas in order to reduce the number of communication towers needed to serve the community.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 23
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(b) Zoning compliance. Communication towers and antennas are allowed as provided in each zoning district and
must be in compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(c) Co-Location Requirements.
(1) A proposal for a new communication tower or antenna shall not be approved unless the applicant
shows that the antenna cannot be reasonably accommodated on an existing communication tower or
building.
(2) The owner of any communication tower exceeding 50 feet in height constructed after the effective
date of this Ordinance shall permit the reasonable joint use of the structure for other antennas.
(d) Communication Tower Setbacks.
(1) Monopoles shall be setback at least 10 feet from all lot lines. Communication towers of all other
construction types shall be setback a distance equal to 1.5 times their engineered collapse radius or a
distance equal to their height, whichever is less.
(2) All communication towers shall be located a minimum distance of twice their height from any parcel
zoned or used for residential purposes, or zoned mixed-use.
(3) Communication towers shall not be located between a principal structure and a public street, with the
following exceptions:
a. In industrial zoning districts, communication towers may be placed between the building and the
side lot line abutting a street.
b. On sites adjacent to public streets on all sides, communication towers may be placed between the
building and either the side lot line abutting a street or the rear lot line.
(e) Location specific regulations for communication towers and antennas.
(1) Residential Zoning Districts.
a. No more than one communication tower is allowed per parcel. Communication towers located
on parcels occupied by residential dwellings are only allowed in the rear yard.
b. Communication towers and antennas located on property used for residential purposes shall be
limited to communication towers and antennas used for the private enjoyment of those on the
premises.
(2) Antennas in the Public Right-of-Way. Antennas may co-locate on existing poles or communication
towers in the City, County, or State right-of-way within any zoning district. A City Public Works
permit for uses in the public right-of-way and written permission from applicable jurisdictions are
required.
(3) Communication towers shall not be allowed in:
a. Department of Natural Resources (DNR) protected wetlands and Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) jurisdiction wetlands.
b. Land located within the floodplain, flood fringe and floodway districts.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 24
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(f) Communication Tower and Antenna Design Requirements. Proposed or modified communication towers
and antennas shall meet the following design requirements.
(1) Communication towers up to 120 feet in height shall be of a monopole type.
(2) Antenna designs and mounts shall be designed to minimize visual impact.
(3) Communication Tower Lighting. Communication towers shall not be illuminated by artificial means
and shall not display strobe lights unless such lighting is specifically required by the Federal Aviation
Administration or other federal or state law or regulation that preempts local regulations.
(4) Signs, Advertising and Display. The use of any portion of a communication tower for displaying
flags, signs other than warning or equipment information signs is prohibited.
(5) Associated Equipment. Ground equipment associated with a communication tower or antenna shall
be housed in a building. The building shall meet the architectural design standards of the Zoning
Ordinance , and shall meet the minimum communication tower setback requirements of the
underlying zoning district.
(g) Communication Tower Construction and Maintenance Requirements.
(1) Construction Requirements. All antennae and communication towers erected, constructed, or located
within the City shall obtain a building permit. Every communication tower or free-standing antenna
shall be protected to discourage climbing of the tower or antenna by unauthorized persons.
(2) Maintenance. Communication tower and antenna finish and paint shall be maintained in good
condition, free from rust, graffiti, peeling paint, or other blemish.
(h) Building-Mounted Antennas.
(1) Antennas attached to a building shall be no higher than 30 feet above the highest point of the
building.
(2) All building-mounted equipment shall be consistent with the architectural features of the building and
be painted to match the color of the building exterior, roof or sky, whichever is most effective, as
determined by the Zoning Administrator.
(i) Free-Standing Antennas. Any antenna that is a separate structure and not attached to a building shall comply
with all height and other requirements of this Chapter relating to Towers.
(j) Additional Submittal Requirements. In addition to the information required elsewhere in this Code,
applications for communication towers or antennas that are permitted with conditions or require a conditional
use permit shall include the following supplemental information unless it is determined by the Zoning
Administrator that certain information is not required based upon the nature of the proposed antenna or
communication tower:
(1) A report from a qualified and licensed professional engineer that:
a. Describes the communication tower height, width including antennas, and design including a
cross section and elevation; a site plan which demonstrates all building dimensions and
horizontal setbacks of associated equipment, HVAC and decibels, paving, landscaping, security
lighting , and fencing.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 25
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
b. Documents the height above grade for all potential mounting positions for co-located antennas
and the minimum separation distances between antennas;
c. Describes the communication tower's capacity, including the number and type of antennas that it
can accommodate;
d. Documents what steps the applicant will take to avoid interference with established public safety
telecommunications;
e. Includes an engineer's stamp and registration number;
f. Includes other information necessary to evaluate the request;
g. Includes the dimensions and expected quality of the existing and proposed transmission service
area;
h. Includes the location, depth of utilities and other land lines connected to the communication
tower and associated equipment;
i. Reviews potential interference with public safety telecommunications equipment, and renders an
opinion as to what the interference issues may be resulting from the proposed antenna, and
recommendations as to how the interference can be mitigated. The report must also state whether
or not the proposed antenna complies with all non-interference requirements of the FCC, a copy
of the FCC approval of the antennae in regards to non-interference must be attached.
(2) For all communication towers which are not used solely for private use antenna, a letter of intent
committing the communication tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the
communication tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions
for shared use.
(3) Before the issuance of a conditional use permit and/or building permit, proof that the proposed
communication tower complies with regulations administered by the Federal Aviation Administration
and Federal Communications Commission shall be submitted.
(k) Discontinued or Unused Communication Towers or Antennas. All discontinued or unused
communication or antennas or portions of communication towers and antennas, together with associated
facilities shall be removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at the site. In the event that a
communication tower is not removed within 12 months of the cessation of operations at a site, the
communication tower and associated facilities may be removed by the City and the costs of removal assessed
against the property.
(l) Amateur Radio Towers.
(1) Communication towers supporting amateur radio antennas shall be exempt from subsections (d)(1)
and (d)(2) above. They shall be setback at least 15 feet from any property line.
(2) Amateur radio towers must be installed in accordance with the instructions furnished by the
manufacturer of that tower model. Because of the experimental nature of amateur radio service,
antennas mounted on such a tower may be modified or changed at any time so long as the published
allowable load on the tower is not exceeded and the structure of the tower remains in accordance with
the manufacturer’s specifications.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 26
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
(3) As part of any administrative or Conditional Use Permit approval, any requirements of this Chapter
may be modified to the extent necessary to provide reasonable accommodations to an amateur radio
antenna to the extent required by federal law.
(m) Legal Non-Conforming Towers. New or replacement antennas may be installed on a legal non-conforming
tower so long as the new or replacement antenna does not increase the overall height of the tower and is
designed to minimize visual impact.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 27
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 28
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 29
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 30
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
EXCERPT OF OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 19, 2008--6:00 p.m.
RECREATION CENTER - 3700 MONTEREY DRIVE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Robert Kramer, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris,
Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Larry Shapiro
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Gary Morrison, Adam Fulton,
Nancy Sells
OTHERS PRESENT: Tom Scott, City Attorney
Garrett Lysiak, Consulting Engineer
1. Call to Order – Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of November 5, 2008
Claudia Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend approval of the minutes of November 5, 2008.
Robert Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 7-0.
3. Hearings
A. Proposed amendments to Zoning Ordinance relating to communication towers and antennas
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 08-23-ZA
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. He stated that Garrett Lysiak,
consulting engineer and City Attorney Tom Scott assisted staff with the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Morrison said it comes down to aesthetics in a residential neighborhood; and proposed heights that are
consistent with the technology needed.
Chair Robertson asked if there was any reason not to have height in the C2 General Commercial District and
Office District at 199 feet.
Mr. Morrison responded that one reason is the vision of the commercial and office districts with higher
standards of development. Another consideration is the practicality of the height.
Commissioner Person asked about the Office District at 360 feet currently and how that height was
determined.
Chair Robertson replied that was 50% more than the allowed building height in the O district which is 240
feet.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about FCC jurisdiction.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 31
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Mr. Morrison stated that the FCC has regulations that simply state when an antenna goes in or modification is
made to existing antenna, the owner of the antenna is responsible to mitigate all interference complaints or
concerns made within one year. After one year they are not required to address interference.
Chair Robertson asked about wetlands and distance.
Mr. Morrison said staff has been debating that. Technically a wetland or floodplain can be altered so land can
be taken out of the wetland. He said some tweaking of that language is probably required. According to
DNR rules, towers exceeding 300 feet and located within 1000 feet of a wetland require an EAW.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked about monopoles and setbacks.
Mr. Morrison discussed the 10 foot setback for monopoles.
Commissioner Carper asked, if two times the height of the tower setback in residential and mixed-use districts
is not for safety reasons, what is the issue?
Mr. Morrison replied that it is not so much a safety issue in that the tower won’t collapse on structures. There
may be some concerns of falling ice from the towers; but primarily it is aesthetics. He added that is continued
from the current code.
Commissioner Carper asked Mr. Morrison to discuss aesthetic concerns.
Mr. Morrison commented that it is primarily visual. He spoke about residential settings where a tower would
typically be located on an institutional building that has wide open spaces. It could be located in a wetland
under today’s standards, or near the edges of wetlands. The idea is to preserve the views on those wide open
spaces, views that are coveted by residents of St. Louis Park.
Chair Robertson opened the public hearing.
Thomas Scott, 2749 Edgewood Ave. S., stated he had been a resident of the Bronx Park neighborhood for
nearly 20 years. He said he opposes the proposed radio tower for several reasons. He fears it will potentially
lower the property values of his home and homes in the Bronx Park neighborhood. He said he is concerned
the tower will have a deleterious impact on the wetlands adjacent to it. Mr. Scott said he is concerned about
electrical interference with phone and television reception. He said he has a very strong fear, having served on
the site council of Peter Hobart School, that it will have a negative impact on school communications. Mr.
Scott added that he also opposes the tower as it doesn’t promote sustainable quality of life development for the
community. He said he sees no obvious benefit that St. Louis Park will receive from the tower. It will be an
aesthetic eyesore. He concluded by saying he agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendations.
Chair Robertson stated for clarification that there is not a proposal for a tower in front of the Planning
Commission currently. The Commission is not considering approving or not approving a particular tower.
The public hearing regards a change to the zoning ordinance. He asked that comments not be directed about
being against a tower that is not relevant to the big picture zoning ordinance currently under consideration.
Chair Robertson went on to say the proposed language regards putting a cap on the height of towers through
conditional use permit in the various zoning districts. Currently the cap language is not clear.
Chris Dahl, 5404 Interlaken Blvd., stated he is the owner of the property of the proposed tower and which is
the reason many people are in attendance at the meeting. He said he grew up in St. Louis Park. Mr. Dahl said
he attended the July 2nd Planning Commission public hearing and has attended most of the subsequent Council
meetings and study sessions on this topic. He stated that since 1974 he has owned and operated numerous
properties in St. Louis Park. In 1990 he located his radio business on Excelsior Blvd. which is how he came to
own the tower site. Mr. Dahl said he vigorously opposes many things the new ordinance tries to accomplish,
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 32
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
not the least of which makes his property totally unusable as far as its present use is concerned in terms of
wetlands and floodplain. He spoke about the uniqueness of communication towers. He stated that radio
and TV towers are more attractive than cell phone towers, and seek to provide their audiences with the clearest
and cleanest signals and images that they possibly can. Mr. Dahl said everyone is part of a community that
demands the best possible service from the electronic world. He said there isn’t much proof that
communications facilities and equipment are disruptive to other devices. He said with the exception of the
four towers, his site has remained unchanged since St. Louis Park was incorporated as a city. It has been a
tower site for the last 50 years. His business has enjoyed a good relationship with the community that
developed around the tower site. He wants to work with residents and the city in crafting an ordinance which
works for everyone.
Mr. Dahl stated that a number of individuals were present on his behalf including Tom Loucks, Jared Andrews,
Mark Durenburger, Terry Moore, Bruce Malkerson, Tim Keane, and Steve Woodbury.
Mr. Dahl said in regards to the issues which have arisen regarding potential competition from another radio
station, he hoped something could be worked out for the benefit of everybody.
Phil Hoglund, 2716 Vernon Ave. S., said he is an amateur radio operator. He has concerns about the proposed
ordinance for amateur radio and end-user over the air digital and internet antenna classification. He
distributed a letter which was prepared for the City Council meetings of October 10th and November 3rd
outlining his concerns. He spoke about arbitrary height limits with no system for administrative evaluation of
reasonable accommodation. He spoke about case law which indicates amateurs can reasonably request
antennas with heights of up to 120 feet. He mentioned another arbitrary limit is 15 feet above a roof line.
Mr. Hoglund said the arbitrary limits are much too restrictive and don’t provide the reasonable
accommodation required by Federal law. He went on to say the Federal government requires that different
radio services be treated differently with respect to land use. He spoke about the ordinance of the City of
Plymouth which exempts amateur radio and applies two times the height of the district. Mr. Hoglund
discussed Section 207 WiFi antennas which require a clear line of sight. The FCC regulations pre-empt local
use zoning. Mr. Hoglund noted that since the last public hearing, the language on building height was
changed regarding the height of an antenna on a roof. He suggested the additional language could create a
problem for a tall building like Methodist Hospital.
Claire Christison, 2744 Georgia Ave. S., stated she hoped the Commission’s suggestions would be accepted by
the City Council. She stated there is an issue that she is personally working with but the suggestions and
recommendations of the Commission would suffice for what she has been trying to do in her community to
keep St. Louis Park the city she moved to. Ms. Christison said she appreciated all of the work that has been
done.
Steve Woodbury, CEO and President Northern Lights Broadcasting, B96 Radio, stated that he graduated
from St. Louis Park High School. He spoke about Northern Light’s desire to relocate and rebuild their radio
transmitter tower at an existing tower site. Mr. Woodbury said this change will better serve St. Louis Park
listeners and the entire community of Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Tim Keane, attorney, stated that he would address a few points on Mr. Malkerson’s behalf, as Mr. Malkerson
needed to leave the meeting. Mr. Keane said he took exception to a letter of opinion of value offered on the
record. It was not offered by a licensed Minnesota real estate appraiser as is required by law. This is a record
proceeding and they were unable to question his assumptions, statements and testimony. He referenced a case
where the court made clear expert testimony of that nature should be available for questioning and examination
when it is offered into the record. He said they take notable exception to evidence offered by the opposition.
Mr. Keane said they wished to remind the Commission that the proposal by the applicant would conform and
be subject to an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). He stated many of the issues and concerns
that have been raised would be examined and addressed in the EAW process. Mr. Keane requested that Mr.
Loucks letter be made a part of the record and proceeding.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 33
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Tom Loucks, principal planner Loucks Associates, said the applicant appeared before the Commission on July
2, 2008. They had considerable discussion about the proposed amendment. Mr. Loucks said the Planning
Commission discovered the ordinance had purpose and they made a recommendation not to adopt any changes
to the ordinance. He stated that what began as a clarification to the ordinance has taken on a life of its own.
He spoke about the July 7th City Council meeting. Mr. Loucks said that since July 7th, Loucks Associates has
attended six City Council study sessions. As these were study sessions, the consultant for the tower application
was not allowed any testimony. Mr. Loucks referenced correspondence which he distributed to
Commissioners. He spoke about correspondence Loucks Associates sent to Commissioners and interested
parties on Nov. 11th. Mr. Loucks outlined concerns with the proposed ordinance in Nov. 19th staff report.
He said the first issue is the non-interference clause which requires a guarantee that there will not be any
interference issues. Mr. Loucks said that is a very difficult standard. They suggest a modification that a radio
frequency engineer or another qualified person renders an opinion as to what the interference issues might be.
He spoke about the FCC one-year time limit regarding interference issues. He said Mr. Dahl has been in the
community a long time and has no intention of walking away after one year if there are interference issues.
Mr. Loucks said the proposal is for an FM tower which has fewer interference issues than AM towers.
Mr. Loucks said at the first Planning Commission meeting a tower height of 392 feet was discussed. During
study sessions a standard of 200 feet and by conditional use permit up to 400 feet to accommodate the existing
site and proposal was discussed. He commented that through the process it became somewhat convoluted. It
went from 200 feet in the Industrial District to 200 feet with no exception and no conditional use permit to go
above that height. He said some of the rationale was recognition by several members, or at least one member
of the City Council, that they should limit height to less than 200 feet so towers would not need to be lighted
as required by FCC. Mr. Loucks discussed lighting. He displayed examples of lighting.
Mr. Loucks discussed his objections to setbacks in residential areas. They suggest that setback from any
property line should be 200 feet or 1.5 times the fall radius of the tower, whichever is greater. Mr. Loucks said
they have no objection to co-location requirements.
Mr. Loucks spoke about the wetland issue. The current tower has existed in a wetland for 45 years. The new
ordinance proposes that towers are specifically prohibited from being located in wetlands. He said other
agencies such as the Corps of Engineers and Watershed District regulate what is allowed in wetlands and
floodplains. He stated it is a deal killer period for his proposed tower if a tower is not allowed in a wetland.
An industrial building is allowed under the current ordinance. He remarked that doesn’t seem to be a fair,
rationale, reasonable land use issue. Mr. Loucks said the applicant will prepare an EAW which will answer a lot
of questions about the site. Mr. Loucks mentioned a number of experts available to act as a resource on this
matter. He urged the Commission not to make a decision at this time, but to evaluate all of the information
and make a studied decision at the next meeting.
In response to a question from Commissioner Morris, City Attorney Tom Scott, stated that Federal regulations
do provide for reasonable accommodation for amateur radio operators.
Commissioner Morris asked about existing uses if the wetland provision is adopted.
Mr. Morrison said those uses would be legally non-conforming. He added that at this time staff does not know
if the tower is in a wetland. Staff has yet to see a wetland delineation on that application. The proposed
language is a blanket statement to protect all the wetlands and floodplains.
Ann Rokoski, 2060 Ridge Drive #14, stated that her unit faces the wetland. She supports the Planning
Commission recommendations. She stated she couldn’t help but comment on the way radio towers look.
She commented on being able to see quite easily all four 200 ft. radio towers on the Hwy. 100 wetlands. Ms.
Rokoski said the towers are a visual presence.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 34
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Fred Anderson, 2921 Natchez Ave., said he agreed with the comments made about amateur radio by Mr.
Hogland. He said he also agreed with some of the comments made about commercial radio. He agreed that
the Commission should consider waiting and looking at some of the information before final resolution. Mr.
Anderson asked if the exemption granted to amateur radio still requires the CUP process if a 70 ft. tower was
requested.
Mr. Morrison answered it would require a CUP to go above 45 feet up to 70 feet.
Mr. Anderson asked if the CUP allowed for gray area variations beyond what definitions exist in the ordinance.
Mr. Morrison responded that the nature of the CUP is to review the application as it pertains to the specific
site. He explained if there is a performance standard that cannot be achieved, such as height, if Council advised
it could be accommodated for amateur radio operations.
Mr. Anderson spoke about setback requirements and a situation where trees provide good antenna support.
He asked if that would be in compliance.
Mr. Morrison said it was a good question and he had not considered that situation.
Terry Moore, attorney representing Northern Lights Broadcasting, said there is no question that the tower
being discussed is in a floodplain. It may or may not be in a wetland, but it is in a floodplain. Mr. Moore
spoke about pre-emption of local law. He went on to state that there are no issues of interference with schools.
He discussed whether the tower would benefit anyone in St. Louis Park. He said the highest and best use in a
low lying wetland is often communication towers. They have a very low environmental impact, preserve the
nature of the open space and otherwise unusable parcel and still make use of it. He commented that it is done
all over the country. He spoke about the proliferation argument. Mr. Moore stated that proliferation is not
the case. Regarding co-location, he said a 200 foot tower inhibits the ability to co-locate. Mr. Moore offered
himself as a resource for further study.
Thomas Christiansen, 2170 Ridge Drive, #32, said it is proper to divide antennas below 200 feet and above
200 feet. He said the government does it, and St. Louis Park could certainly do it. He commented that the
city doesn’t allow signs on towers and he doesn’t see why the city should allow lights on towers. He stated
that lights are noticeable. He commented that towers and antennas are two different things. More than one
antenna can be put on a tower which wouldn’t be part of the city planning process. He suggested that
eliminating towers over 200 feet would prevent that kind of problem. Mr. Christiansen explained that more
antennas on a tower increase possibilities for interference. He said once that happens it is too late and
avoiding that altogether is a good policy. He stated it allows the city to have control of their environment by
simply putting a cap on tower height. He said broadcast technology is becoming obsolete. He suggested it is
just a matter of time before broadcast towers won’t be needed at this height. He spoke about the internet and
satellite communication. Mr. Christiansen said the existing four towers in St. Louis Park currently create
interference problems for residences close by. He said he knows of no effort by the owner to take care of those
problems. He stated promises to correct problems in the future don’t mean anything, they are just promises.
Marshall Tanick, attorney, said he represents a group of residents known as NOT, Neighbors Opposed to
Towers. The group supports the recommendation the Planning Commission has offered. The group is
uniformly against the concept of expanding the height limits of proposed towers, including the tower which has
been discussed. He referenced a communication that had been forwarded to the Commission from NOT.
Mr. Tanick spoke about the group’s concern about the effect of any expansion and extension of the height of
radio towers on property values throughout the City; and particularly the property values of homes near large
towers. He referenced documentation provided by three different real estate personnel. Mr. Tanick spoke
about safety concerns expressed by a commercial pilot regarding medi-vac helicopters, even with the FAA
requirements of lighting on towers in excess of 200 feet, especially in residential areas. He discussed
environmental concerns. He said the prohibition proposed in the ordinance is a wise one. The NOT
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 35
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
neighbors he represents are in the area bounded by Cedar Lake Road, Louisiana and Ridge Drive in the area
near the wetlands, where the 200 foot towers now exist. The NOT group is strongly supportive of the
proposed ordinance. They oppose any effort to expand or increase the height of radio towers beyond the 200
feet.
Blois Olson, 502 Texas Ave., representing Northern Lights Broadcasting, stated he felt it was important in the
spirit of open government and transparency that everyone representing Northern Lights Broadcasting has said
who they are representing. He referred to the Northern Lights news release which was distributed to the
Commission. He stated that the community group, NOT SLP.com, was registered by a Clear Channel
employee, Claire Christison, resident of St. Louis Park. He said that Ms. Christison has never stated the name
of her employer in a public hearing, in the NOT SLP website, or to the media. Mr. Olson stated that Clear
Channel is a direct competitor.
Ms. Christison spoke about her employer, K102 Radio. She said her employment is a separate issue. Ms.
Christison stated that the Mayor, Councilmember Sanger, and City staff know where she is employed. She
asked why she shouldn’t be able to speak as a resident.
Chair Robertson closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she was not present at the July 2, 2008 meeting of the Planning
Commission. She said she is not prepared to make a decision or recommendation on the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Kramer stated he is not in favor of changing the ordinance at this time. He said he doesn’t
think enough of the issues such as future technology, interference, and setbacks have been addressed. He said
he was in favor of voting against the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Carper said he didn’t think the ordinance had been drafted very well. He said he felt it may be
based on a lot of speculation and hypothesis that may not be based upon fact. He suggested it needs to be
rewritten and needs to include reference to amateur radio. He said he would not be able to vote on the
proposed ordinance at this time.
Commissioner Person said he agreed that more work needs to be done on the ordinance. He said he would
support tabling the item.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison suggesting holding a study session on the item.
Commissioner Shapiro said he agreed and would like to look more carefully at the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Morris asked for feedback from commissioners on what revisions to the ordinance they propose.
Items mentioned by commissioners were amateur radio, wetlands issues, setbacks, capping the height through a
conditional use permit rather than by zoning district, and scientific issues.
Tom Scott, City Attorney, spoke about the timing of Mr. Dahl’s pending application.
Mr. Loucks stated that the applicant will not waive another deadline requirement. He said the applicant has
been waiting six months.
Commissioner Morris suggested that City Council study session minutes be provided to Commissioners for
their use in studying issues which have been raised. He said the Commission could oppose, approve, or send
the proposed ordinance on to the Council without a recommendation.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8e) Page 36
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments Relating to Communication Towers and Antennas
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to table the request and hold a study session of the Planning
Commission as soon as possible. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion, and the motion to table the
request and hold a Planning Commission study session passed on a vote of 6-1 (Kramer voting opposed).
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8f
Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance
Presentation Other:
EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other:
Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other:
TITLE:
First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to “Service” Land Uses in the Office (O)
Zoning District.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to adopt the first reading of the attached ordinance, and set the second reading for January
5, 2009.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the ordinance be amended to allow the “Service” land use as a permitted use in the Office
zoning district?
BACKGROUND:
An application was received from Kelly Schroeder to amend the zoning ordinance to allow the
Service land use as a permitted use in the Office Zoning District.
Ms. Schroeder owns the therapeutic massage business known as Body-Mind Connection located at
7127 Cedar Lake Road. This property is the Westwood Shopping Center, and is zoned General
Commercial (C-2). She would like to relocate her business to the Sunset Ridge Business Park,
which is zoned Office (O). This office park is located on the south side of Cedar Lake Road, across
from Costco and Home Depot.
Planning Commission Review:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on December 3, 2008. No comments were
received from the public, and the Commission recommended approval (7-0) with a clarification to
the Service definition saying that the Service land use is not limited to the list of uses.
The proposed amendments are to:
1. add service to the list of uses permitted in the Office zoning district,
2. add nail salons to the definition of service land uses; and
3. incorporate the Planning Commission recommendation to clarify that uses allowed by the
Service classification are not limited to those specifically listed in the definition.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
Not applicable.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8f) Page 2
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Service Land Use in the Office (O) Zoning
District
VISION CONSIDERATION:
The proposed amendment is consistent with the community vision. The amendment will strengthen
the Office zoning district by allowing service uses in close proximity to the community’s
employment centers, and encouraging employees and customers of office tenants to walk and bike to
commercial uses.
ANALYSIS:
Service Definition:
The Service land use is described in the zoning ordinance as follows:
“Service means on-site service provided directly to an individual. This use includes barbershops,
beauty shops, therapeutic massage, laundromats, shoe repair shops, and dry cleaners where articles to
be cleaned are picked up and delivered by the patron. This use excludes pawnshops.”
The Service uses are typically small in size and small in scale when compared to the office uses
around them. Hair salons are typically 1,500 – 1,200 square feet in area when located in a retail
mall. Similar uses located in office buildings are typically smaller due to the higher rents. For
example, the hair salon located in the Duke building is less than 1,000 square feet in area.
Also, the city has seen an influx of nail salons, which fall under the Service definition. Staff proposes
adding “nail salon” to the list of uses.
Office District:
The attached office district map identifies properties zoned Office. The zoning ordinance identifies
several purposes for the Office district, including:
1. to provide for high-density office development in areas outside of commercial districts,
2. to allow for functionally related uses to be located in relatively close proximity to one another
to provide efficient and optimum use of land,
3. to meet the needs of modern offices.
In keeping with the purpose of the Office district, the majority of the buildings are office buildings
of four or more stories. In addition to the office buildings, Park Nicollet clinic, two hotels, one
small retail mall adjacent to the Double Tree, and the retail center as part of the Duke development
are all zoned office as shown on the attached map.
Commercial uses in the Office District:
Larger office complexes often have a retail/service courtyard located on the first floor. They
commonly include such things as restaurant or coffee shop, salon, spa and retail store. The larger
towers located at Metropoint, Duke, the Parkdales and Park Place East all have such first floor
services. The purpose of these areas is to provide convenient and quick services to the employees
working within the complex. These buildings were originally built with a courtyard concept, and
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8f) Page 3
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Service Land Use in the Office (O) Zoning
District
the Service uses located in these buildings are legally non-conforming to the current zoning
ordinance.
In addition to these large office complexes, St. Louis Park also has one business park that is zoned
Office. The Sunset Ridge Business Park consists of 10 one story (with basement) office buildings.
Each building is individually owned, and can be occupied by one or more tenant(s). Some of the
buildings are occupied by Medical Office uses, such as chiropractors and medical offices that
specialize in a particular area, such as sports injuries. These uses typically utilize therapeutic massage
as part of their treatment, or they will refer patients to a therapeutic massage facility. Therapeutic
massage conducted within the medical office is allowed as a health related service or treatment, and
therapeutic massage facilities are compatible with the medical uses currently allowed in the office
district.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS:
The proposed amendments update the Service definition, and allow the Service use as a Permitted
Use in the Office district. Additional conditions typically found in the “Permitted with Conditions”
or “Conditional Use Permit” categories are not required because the Service uses are small by nature.
The land uses occurring in the building and/or campus will continue to be dominated by office uses,
and the Service uses will not generate additional traffic, noise or other nuisances.
Attachments: Proposed ordinance amendment
Office District map
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8f) Page 4
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Service Land Use in the Office (O) Zoning
District
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Sec. 36-142. Descriptions.
***
(d) Commercial uses. The following are typical of the commercial uses referred to in this chapter.
***
(30) Service means on-site service provided directly to an individual. This use includes, but is not
limited to, barbershops, beauty shops, therapeutic massage, nail salon, laundromats, shoe repair
shops, and dry cleaners where articles to be cleaned are picked up and delivered by the patron.
This use excludes pawnshops.
***
Sec. 36-223. O office district.
***
(b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the O district, if the use complies with the office restrictions
and performance standards of section 36-222:
(1) Parks and open spaces.
(2) Police and fire stations.
(3) Banks.
(4) Business and trade schools.
(5) Printing process facilities.
(6) Studios.
(7) Transit stations.
(8) Service.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8f) Page 5
Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments relating to Service Land Use in the Office (O) Zoning
District
Office Districts
The properties outlined in yellow are zoned Office.
Meeting Date: December 15, 2008
Agenda Item #: 8g
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: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion to reject all bids and authorize staff to engage the services of LOGIS to replace the City
campus telephone system, provide required hardware and software from the State (already bid)
contract, and provide on-going telephone system maintenance services at a capital cost not to exceed
$303,629. On-going maintenance services may be canceled with 7 months notice and obtained from
an alternate managed service provider or provisioned with existing or additional in-house staff.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Does the City Council wish to continue with this initiative? If yes, does Council wish to do so by
engaging services of LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems), a joint powers agreement
association of which the City of St. Louis Park has been a member since its inception in 1972, or use
a private vendor?
BACKGROUND:
At its July 21 meeting, Council received an update on plans to replace the existing PBX-based Nortel
phone system, which serves most major City buildings including City Hall, Police Station, Fire
Stations, MSC, Utilities, Recreation Center, and Nature Center. Since that time, Hamilton House
has also become eligible to participate in the system upgrade due to a Housing Authority funded
initiative. The Nortel telephone system was installed in the mid-1980’s and has been upgraded
several times in the intervening 20+ years. The Nortel system has served the City well and has been
quite reliable. However, the phone system is aging from a maintenance perspective and lacking
features constituents increasingly expect. Reasons for replacement were detailed in the July 21 report.
Since that time, Nortel as a company has been reported recently in the business news as struggling to
compete effectively in the new Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) arena. That said, Nortel was
certainly invited to submit a bid on this project and did so, in collaboration with Qwest.
Elert & Associates was selected as the consultant to assist the City in defining needs, preparing a
Request for Bid, and assisting with system implementation. One of the steps in defining needs was
to meet with various employee groups to solicit input on needs and features. More important, Elert
learned more about current business practices in phone use. That process was completed in August.
We also met with the City Council on August 11 and with the Telecommunications Advisory
Commission on August 13 to gain perspective on phone system needs with those external to City
Hall - those who call into the system. We received some excellent input from both groups. In
addition, a brief web survey was conducted during the month of September to provide an
opportunity for input from anyone else who was interested. A total of 16 responses were received. By
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8g) Page 2
Subject: Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211
far, the single most common request was to enhance the opportunity for the caller to speak with a
real person easily and quickly, if needed. (More information on survey results may be obtained via
request to staff.)
DISCUSSION:
Clearly, much work has been done collecting information about our existing infrastructure, phone
use, and needs. The project reached the stage of issuing a Request for Bid (RFB) in September, and
Council authorized same on September 15. This RFB took into account the feedback received,
feature options requested, the business processes in various departments and for the City as a whole,
needs, and cost. Feature options ultimately included will result in part from new technology that has
new features built in as standard. More important, however, true value of new features is driven from
how the City’s business processes can be enhanced through the commitment to use those new
features. Not all new features apply. Choices and trade-offs will be necessary, especially given a more
challenging economic climate. Bids were received until October 29, and then vetted in the context
of RFB specifications and feature alternates. Final recommendations provided in this report are
based on the RFB specifications, feature alternates, costs, and a comparison with the option to have
LOGIS provide similar services through the existing joint powers agreement and a hosted solution.
Elert & Associates continues to support staff throughout these phases.
As mentioned above, the City of St. Louis Park has been a member of LOGIS since 1972.
Historically, 8 cities initially formed this joint powers agreement to share and lower the cost to
individual cities for operating computer systems that helped automate business functions. In the
1970’s, those applications were initially focused on financial, payroll, and utility billing systems.
Since then, LOGIS has almost quadrupled the number of member cities and added several computer
applications, training, and network services. There can be significant value added to cities whose
culture is compatible with the notion of sharing costs, information, risks, and decision making. This
requires that participating cities share sufficient common ground to get both their collective and
individual needs met, not easy in a world of many alternatives and dominant culture of
individualism.
Newer phone systems (i.e., VoIP) are nothing more than one of the more recent computer
applications. Modern telephone systems run over the same fiber optic network cooperatively built by
the City, School District, and LOGIS and use networks within and between buildings to transport
voice. This same fiber optic network is leveraged to transport data, video, and radio
communications. Based on member city demand, LOGIS has gotten in the business of offering
telephony services to its members, in a fashion similar to other computer applications. Only those
member cities using telephony services pay for it. Current LOGIS cities using LOGIS telephony
services include Maple Grove, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale, Richfield, and soon to include
Minnetonka and Hutchinson.
One could ask why the City of St. Louis Park did not simply skip the bidding process and acquire
new telephony services directly through LOGIS using the already bid State contract. The answer is
twofold: City staff felt it important to bolster the credibility of this process by testing the market for
alternatives and comparing the market results to LOGIS on all dimensions of the phone system
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8g) Page 3
Subject: Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211
including features, costs, redundancy and fault tolerance, and on-going system maintenance. In
addition, City staff felt the private sector should be invited to bid as it may well be able to provide
the best value for taxpayers and users of the phone system. Bidders and LOGIS were made aware of
this comparison. As a result, LOGIS provided a proposal but no bid for such comparison.***
BID INFORMATION:
Bids were received on October 29, 2008 for the Telephone System Replacement project. A total of
seven (7) bids were received for the City’s project (another 5 bids were received for the School
District’s telephone project). The bidding and bid opening was shared to reduce administrative costs
for the City and School District. An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-
Sailor on September 25 and October 2, 2008. A summary of the bid results is as follows. Please note
that all complete bids include all options and alternates except panic alarm buttons and reverse 911.
Reseller / Manufacturer Capital Costs 5-Year Cost
(including Capital
and Maintenance)
Transcend / ShoreTel Bid $298,867 $344,489*
Parallel / Cisco $326,576 $425,940
Marco / Mitel $353,124 $480,544
Voice & Data / Avaya $530,283 $639,645
Disqualified Bids (for various
reasons):
Matrix / NEC
Integra / Mitel
Qwest / Nortel
LOGIS / Cisco Proposal*** $303,629 $391,276**
*Includes pre-payment of 5 years annual maintenance (assuming Council approval to exceed
$300,000 capital budgeted for this project by over $44,000), with discounts in years 3, 4, and 5 for
pre-payment. Does not include any offsetting interest earnings loss to the City for pre-payment or
estimate of after-hours maintenance charges over 5 years. However, these represent real and
somewhat unpredictable additional costs.
**As a managed service, these are annual maintenance costs, can vary from year to year, and are
spread over participating cities. For example, if more cities participate in the LOGIS telephone
service, the per city annual maintenance cost can fall. In addition, annual maintenance covers 24 x 7
x 365 and no after-hours maintenance charges. Since maintenance is not pre-paid, there is no lost
interest. The City currently pays approximately $25,000 per year in telephone maintenance charges.
That is included in the Facilities Maintenance operations budget. Under the plan with LOGIS,
annual maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $22,000, a savings of $3,000 per year
from current costs.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8g) Page 4
Subject: Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211
***LOGIS submitted a sealed proposal instead of a sealed bid due its nature as a State of Minnesota
joint powers agreement and consortium of governmental agencies. As such, its members have not
authorized LOGIS to issue bid or performance bonds.
See Financial and Budget Considerations section below to see broader comparisons and
considerations that have both financial and non-financial implications.
ANALYSIS:
Staff and the consultant reviewed all of the bids submitted and tabulated the above results. The next
step was to review the proposal submitted by LOGIS. Both the bid from Transcend and the
proposal from LOGIS appeared to meet system requirements. Demonstrations were then held in late
November with Transcend demonstrating the ShoreTel equipment and LOGIS demonstrating
Cisco equipment. A major factor in the demonstrations was evaluating the structure, cost, and time
availability of maintenance required for each offering. Other system specifications were also
evaluated to ensure their inclusion.
Both Transcend and LOGIS provided thorough and impressive demonstrations and information,
answering all questions posed by the consultant and City project committee, composed of a cross-
section of departments. From the demonstrations, site visits, and references, it is clear that both
systems are solid and can technically provide the basic service. A couple of major differences are that
(1) with Transcend, maintenance costs could be pre-paid for 5 years (discounted) and capitalized
with the system purchase, while paid annually with LOGIS from operational budgets; and (2) with
Transcend, City employees would be responsible for staffing daily maintenance of the telephone
system while with LOGIS, all maintenance can be provided by LOGIS staff and is included in its
costs.
Transcend’s ShoreTel system is one of the simplest to administer in the industry, while Cisco’s is
more complex. All system administration is provided by LOGIS and its several staff for the Cisco
system. With Transcend, a portion of a City staff member’s time is required for daily maintenance,
while Transcend provides more complex site maintenance. More than one City staff member would
also need to be trained and ready to provide such ShoreTel maintenance in the event of illness,
vacation, etc. While City staff could conduct such maintenance, it would come at the cost of other
City projects (opportunity costs) as no staff increases in Information Resources or Facilities
Maintenance are contemplated in the foreseeable future. Moreover, Transcend’s pre-paid
maintenance contract is 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. Monday – Friday, with holidays, nights, and weekends
available but at extra cost. The LOGIS maintenance is 24 x 7 x 365 for one annual cost. The LOGIS
maintenance also includes unlimited labor for implementing existing system features or making
system modifications.
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8g) Page 5
Subject: Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211
In addition to maintenance costs, staffing, opportunity costs, other key comparisons include:
LOGIS/Cisco Transcend/ShoreTel Advantage
Call Center More robust call center
package – if the City had to
manage this, it is a lot for the
City to learn. With LOGIS,
they manage it. The reports
are also more robust.
Basic package that fits the needs
of the City.
LOGIS
Call Accounting Included Not included – not required LOGIS
Conferencing and Web 30 ports of audio and 20
ports of web available and
shared between members.
More than 12 are available
and increases would be the
result of more member
demand and absorbed in the
monthly costs. The security is
managed by LOGIS (less
City staff time needed).
12 ports – more could be added if
purchased – the City has to
manage the security (more staff
time needed).
LOGIS
Ability to Record Web and
Audio Conferences
Yes Yes None
Recording On demand is not standard –
LOGIS will be adding a
recording system but not
identified, so features not
available – there will be no
additional charge.
All users (who the City allows) can
have record on demand. Plus,
there is a recording device that is
proposed for recording all calls,
random calls, or buffering so on
demand will record the entire
conversation.
ShoreTel, until
we have more
exposure to the
LOGIS offering
Disaster Recovery (DR)
Emergency Operations Center
(EOC)
Can set up a DR or EOC
site in any LOGIS city, at
LOGIS, the LOGIS hot site,
or anywhere LOGIS can get
to the network
Partial DR within St. Louis Park,
assuming the core telephone
system in City Hall is available.
EOC also depends on core system
availability
LOGIS
Speech Recognition Auto
Attendant (press or say 1)
Yes Not yet available with ShoreTel LOGIS
Text to Speech – Read Emails Yes Not yet available with ShoreTel LOGIS
Business Continuity with
PSTN (Public Switched
Telephone Network – the
public)
If Integra lines installed, call
can overflow on a busy or
down condition to the lines
at LOGIS.
Not available LOGIS
Data Network and
Management
LOGIS knows and
understands City data
network now and can
manage it directly.
Transcend can install network but
starts from a different point. They
would also need permission to
manage it each time needed for
system fixes.
LOGIS
User / System Manager
Training
User training is sufficient,
and includes time for user to
experiment with phone set
prior to cutover.
They will train both users and in-
house system managers on the
system.
LOGIS
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8g) Page 6
Subject: Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211
CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE:
System implementation with Transcend could likely be conducted as early as the January – February
2009 (or later) timeframe. LOGIS can complete the project as early as the April - May 2009 (or
later) timeframe. Either time frame could work for the City.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION:
The CIP has a total overall capital budget of $300,000 for this project. The Transcend capital bid is
$298,867 and the LOGIS capital proposal is $303,629. This price includes all options and
alternatives specified except panic buttons and reverse 911 services, which may or may not be
obtained later, plus a 5% contingency. This bid and proposal pricing allows staff and Council to
consider pricing differences for each significant feature, and the potential value of that feature now
or as an add-on in the future. This is consistent with feedback received from the City Council that
staff first seek a solid and reliable replacement telephone system, and recommend adding only those
features that provide true and projectable value to serving constituents. Based on actual features used
and maintenance required in the future, the total 5-year cost to go with LOGIS could actually be
either lower or higher than with Transcend. Approximately $100,000 in network upgrades is also
projected. While these upgrades are necessary to support the new telephone system, these network
upgrades ultimately support data, video, and radio traffic much more than voice traffic. As a result,
these upgrades would be funded as part of planned (and now accelerated) network capital
investments through the Capital Replacement Fund. With the LOGIS proposal, the replaced
network equipment would be traded in for credit as part of the project.
The total Transcend capital bid is approximately $4,800 and the 5-year cost approximately $47,000
lower than the LOGIS proposal, and includes capitalizing 5 years of maintenance through pre-
payment. However, that assumes all options and alternatives are selected and counts no interest lost
to the City for pre-payment. With regard to alternates, it may well be that the number of EOC
phones or uninterruptible power supplies purchased would be reduced. In that event, the LOGIS
proposal and ShoreTel bid become almost indistinguishable regarding cost. On the other hand,
other financial and non-financial benefits offered by the LOGIS proposal (but not the Transcend
bid) include:
1. Staffing: Off-loading from City staff system maintenance and opportunity costs, current and
additional, caused by implementation of future features and their security
2. Predictable Maintenance Costs / Coverage: 24 x 7 x 365 maintenance included in annual
costs, avoiding after hours charges, and including support for additional features and security
3. Cost of Additional Phone Features: Sharing the cost of future features between participating
cities (with the trade-off that decisions must be shared with other cities), or St. Louis Park
can pay for those features on its own
4. Current Feature Set: Strong call center, call accounting, and conferencing and web
collaboration included (ShoreTel was not asked to include call accounting, but this is a
feature typically in the $5,000 - $8,000 range plus maintenance)
5. Disaster Recovery and Emergency Operations Center Support: Full disaster recovery and
EOC at multiple City sites, metro locations, and a LOGIS hot site
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8g) Page 7
Subject: Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211
6. Communications with the Outside World: LOGIS has backup lines to the phone system
used by the public to communicate with the City that allows full functionality in the event
our main line fails.
7. Future Feature Set Use: Voice recognition and text-to-speech capabilities come with the
LOGIS / Cisco solution (not required but also not available with ShoreTel)
8. Support Services: Higher levels of support for business continuity, network management,
and cutover to new system use. For example, one call to LOGIS for troubleshooting
telephony or data network issues versus calling a private provider for some issues, LOGIS for
others, and mediating between multiple network maintenance providers saves times and
serves customers quicker and more effectively.
9. Future Synergies: Unpredictable future synergies between the voice network and data
network, which is already managed by LOGIS
10. User Groups: As with other LOGIS applications, the opportunity for staff from various
LOGIS cities to meet and share tips, knowledge, and support for system feature set
Transcend / ShoreTel has a robust on demand call recording system, a feature which LOGIS is
going to add soon. Other LOGIS cities are requesting call recording features similar to those
requested by St. Louis Park. There would be no additional capital cost to the City of St. Louis Park
for this feature.
While some of the additional capabilities described above are optional and not necessary to install a
basic telephone system, staff felt it important that Council be aware of these value added features
currently available only through LOGIS. They in fact represent many of the reasons that 30 cities,
including St. Louis Park, formed LOGIS for technology-related services. Should the City of St.
Louis Park decide to ever terminate its membership in LOGIS or the telephony service, it could also
keep the Cisco equipment and software licenses purchased and retain another managed service
provider, or acquire additional equipment and staff and manage the telephone system in house.
CITY – SCHOOL DISTRICT COLLABORATION:
The City Council requested staff to continue to consider ways in which the City and St. Louis Park
Schools can collaborate to enhance joint effectiveness and efficiency in investment of taxpayer
dollars. Thus, it is worth noting that the St. Louis Park School District is also planning replacement
of its existing telephone system based on results of the November referendum and funding. Staff
discussions occurred among City, Schools, and consultant staff to determine whether any synergies
or economies of scale exist should the City and Schools collaborate in some form on acquisition of
replacement telephone systems. Some efficiencies were already realized in the joint bidding process
and sharing the same consultant. There is much to consider in a collaborative process of this
complexity. As a result of the joint bidding process, the School District is also currently considering
2 – 3 vendors in its analysis. Because the School District currently administers its own phone system,
and LOGIS did not make a proposal for the School’s phone system, the School District is
considering vendors primarily relative to costs and ease of management. Contrary to the Schools, the
City currently outsources most management of its phone system. Potential benefits if both the City
and Schools used the same provider could include sharing spare equipment, backup facilities, and
staff knowledge. Potentially, the City and Schools could also develop joint phone protocol to
Meeting of December 15, 2008 (Item No. 8g) Page 8
Subject: Bid Tabulation: City Building Telephone System Replacement Project – Project No. 2008-0211
minimize the difference in what callers hear when contacting each agency. Whatever choices are
made, the City and Schools will continue to collaborate on this and other technology-related
projects whenever it makes sense. And, by the City participating in the LOGIS phone service, the
City is collaborating with several other municipalities to share costs, risks, features, interoperability,
and information.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is clear that Transcend and LOGIS both have solid telephone system options. Both could meet
the basic telephone needs of the City. Transcend is in the private sector, but has been able to provide
performance bonds for even recent projects in a turbulent economy. LOGIS is owned by its member
cities and in good financial condition according to recent financial reports. Staff felt it was
responsible to determine what the market could offer. Staff felt it was also responsible to determine
what is available through the LOGIS joint powers agreement. In this particular case, it is the
consultant and phone replacement committee’s view that the value added brought by the LOGIS
proposal more than offset’s the $4,800 and $47,000 five-year cost advantages of Transcend. For
example, the cost of building our own hot site, duplicating telephone equipment and infrastructure
necessary for such a site, testing, and managing the site alone would likely exceed the 5-year cost
difference. That is just one example from the list above. The likelihood that the core phone system
will be kept much longer than 5 years only enhances the LOGIS value added.
The City Attorney has confirmed that the City may reject all bids (as indicated in the Request for
Bid). It is staff’s view that this should be done only when all bids are deemed incomplete or
irresponsible, or there is a better option. While the Transcend / ShoreTel solution is a very good
one, for the reasons stated earlier in this report, staff feels the LOGIS option with Cisco equipment
brings an overall longer term value advantage to the City telephony system management and, more
importantly, the well being and safety of its stakeholders. In addition, the LOGIS managed services
solution minimizes the potential need for additional staffing resources, especially important during
these economic times. If the City Council also sees similar value in what LOGIS offers, staff
recommends the action stated at the beginning of this report as the most responsible action. If
Council does not see such value, staff recommends that Council authorize staff to execute an
agreement with Transcend for a replacement telephony system in an amount not to exceed
$344,489 (includes prepaid maintenance).
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Community connections can be enhanced with a robust and well managed phone system.
Attachments: None
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager