Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/12/19 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK,MINNESOTA December 19, 2005 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt and Sue Santa Councilmember Susan Sanger was absent. Staff present: City Clerk (Ms Stroth), City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr Jamnik), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Community TV Coordinator (Mr. McHugh), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Human Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Fire Chief(Mr. Stemmer), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms McMonigal), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations 2a. Farewell to Sue Santa, departing Ward 3 Councilmember and Jim Brimeyer, departing Ward 4 Councilmember Mayor Jacobs presented a plaque to Councilmember Santa and thanked her for her years of service on the Council. Councilmember Finkelstein added his appreciation. Mayor Jacobs presented a certificate of appreciation to Councilmember Brimeyer and thanked him for his dedication to the Council and the community. Councilmember Brimeyer stated they should discuss transitioning someone from the Council onto the Light Rail Transit Commission within the next year. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of December 5,2005 Councilmember Santa indicated on page three, the third paragraph (6a), should state, "Councilmember Santa asked the hours they were open." On page five, the second from the bottom paragraph should read, "Councilmember Santa believed ... considered senior, but do not want to be labeled as such." Councilmember Bnmeyer stated on page 14, second paragraph from the bottom, after "environmental issues" to insert "open space enhancements, beautification projects, public art, improvements at the Westwood Nature Center, etc. The Council should look at trust fund options so there is no mistake in ten or fifteen years that this money had been set aside for a variety of purposes and a trustee group is responsible for administering it." Mayor Jacobs indicated the last paragraph on page 14, to insert a period after"General Fund." The minutes were approved as corrected. Council Meeting Minutes -2- December 19, 2005 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE. The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion Consent items are acted upon by one motion If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience,that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion 4a. Approve the St. Louis Park Community Celebration Service Agreement with Parktacular, Inc. 4b. Approve Resolution No. 05-186 accepting Work Copeland Building Corp for Construction of Browndale and Nelson Park Buildings City Project No. 20050090 Contract No. 45-05. 4c. Authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 122-04 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 2006. 4d. Authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent Services (STL- Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2006. 4e. Approve Resolution No. 05-187 authorizing Gambling Premises Permit for Community Charities of Minnesota operating at TexaTonka Lanes, 8200 Minnetonka Boulevard. 4f. Authorize execution of a contract in the amount of$60,000.00 with Ostvig Tree, Inc. for 2006 Tree Pruning(trimming). 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 05-188 rescinding parking restrictions on the south side of Republic Avenue from the driveway apron in the 1st Street Northwest right-of- way to a point 110 feet to the northwest. Traffic Study No. 592. 4h. Approve Resolution No. 05-189 authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Hopkins Raspberry Festival Association, Inc., operating at Al's Bar, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard. 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 05-176 accepting a grant from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resource (DNR) for partially funding the construction of a local trail connection to the regional trail system. 4j. Approve Resolution No. 05-190 accepting Work from Penn Contracting for Watermain Relocation City Project No. 2005-0100 Contract No. 33-05. 4k. Accept Joint SchooUCity Minutes of November 29, 2005 for filing. 41. Accept Planning Commission Minutes of November 2, 2005 for filing. 4m. Accept Planning Commission Minutes of November 16, 2005 for filing. 4n. Accept Telecommunication Commission Minutes of October 6, 2005 for filing 4o. Accept Housing Authority Minutes of November 9, 2005 for filing. 4p. Accept vendor claims for filing(supplement). It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 6-0 5. Boards and Commissions Council Meeting Minutes -3- December 19, 2005 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to consider granting an off-sale intoxicating liquor license to Trader Joe's East, Inc., DBA Trader Joe's, 4500 Excelsior Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN Ms. Stroth presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a time frame to have a store manager in place, so they could do a background search? Ms. Stroth replied the background check must be completed before the paperwork is sent to the State for final approval of the license. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve an off-sale intoxicating liquor license for Trader Joe's at 4500 Excelsior Boulevard contingent upon successful background check of new designated store manager The motion passed 6-0. 6b. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Mr. Pires presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. Jim Erickson, Fiber First Minnesota, asked Council to consider a proposed ordinance that would require fiber optic connectivity in all new construction in the City. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Santa to approve first reading of the attached franchise renewal ordinance and set the second reading for January 3, 2006, and extend the term of the current franchise agreement to January 3, 2006. The motion passed 6-0. Mayor Jacobs suggested the fiber optic issue be put on a study session agenda. Councilmember Omodt agreed and would like to hear Comcast's thoughts as well. Mr. Pires suggested it was an appropriate topic for the Telecommunications Advisory Committee and possibly the Planning Commission. Mr. Harmening thanked Mr. Pires, Mr. McHugh and Mr. Dunlap for their work, as well as Mr. Jammk and Mr. Grogan. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None Council Meeting Minutes -4- December 19, 2005 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Comcast Transfer - Resolution No. 05-177 Mr. Pires presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa stated she was disturbed Comcast had not responded to the requests of Council and residents about the issue of their Internet provider changing and asking for assistance with a transition. Mayor Jacobs agreed with the concern. Internet addresses would change with the transfer. Mr. Pires responded this concern was raised early and they communicated concerns to Comcast. They had not heard Comcast's plan to assist in transition of domain names and e-mail addresses. Past transitions from AT&T to Comcast had caused e-mail address confusions for subscribers. Emmett Coleman, Director of Government Affairs for Comcast, stated he understood the concern. The only time he knew this question had been posed was in front of the Telecommunications Commission and Ms. Donnelly-Cohen attempted to address the question. They recognized this is a concern for customers and is a business transition issue. With the AT&T transition, they provided a very long transition period for customers to migrate to the Comcast addresses. Specific details hadn't been worked out between Comcast and Time Warner. He believed the process would be similar to the AT&T transition. A window would be made available to all customers to migrate, where both addresses will work simultaneously. Comcast customers are going to Time Warner as well and this is a cooperative relationship where both companies are trying to make the process efficient Mayor Jacobs asked if there would be a customer service number or a web page where customers could go to with questions. Mr. Coleman replied he would presume there would be a number of communication methods and information provided to customers, telling them how to set up new e-mail addresses. Councilmember Brimeyer stated these were permitted monopolies regulated at a level over which they had no control. This would happen regardless of whether they approved the transfer. Mayor Jacobs added this is a federally regulated transfer and they did not have a lot of control over it Mr. Pires indicated they had the ability to look at the legal, technical and financial capabilities of the company. Staff made a request of Comcast on a number of occasions for this information and evaluated what they could with regard to the transfer application. Councilmember Santa asked if Council could be assured that Comcast would address their concerns and consider the issues surrounding the transition since they were now aware of the concerns. Mr. Coleman responded some of the details were not yet available. He would pass along the Council's concern. They wanted to have solid communication with customers and that they knew what to do. Council Meeting Minutes -5- December 19, 2005 Mayor Jacobs indicated he had heard concerns from people running businesses as well who depended on the ability of their e-mail. Councilmember Finkelstein asked when the public could expect to get an answer from Comcast regarding the procedure. Mr. Coleman responded the specific details of the process probably would not be revealed until closer to the close of the transfer, sometime at the end of the first quarter, start of the second. Brian Grogan indicated historically they have begun with bill inserts to notify people. He did not expect that until after closing. Next they would send e-mail tutonals directing the customer to an on-line tutorial, allowing them to transition e-mail addresses, then send letters. People who failed to take advantage of either of those steps would be contacted by phone and requested to take advantage of that step. There is a significant delay before there is a cut off of an e-mail address. Mr. Pires stated this would be a long-term arrangement with Comcast and he hoped Mr. Coleman would do everything possible on Comcast's behalf to establish a good relationship with the community. He suggested they could present more specifics to the Telecommunications Commission and Council as details became known. Mayor Jacobs agreed. Information needed to be provided to residents and businesses. Councilmember Omodt welcomed Comcast to St. Louis Park. What they hear from their constituents is a big need to stay connected. There is a lot of angst about changing Internet access and the more comfort they can provide, the better off they would be. He hoped they heard them and understood the message they were sending. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt Resolution No.05-177 approving the transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The motion passed 6-0. 8b. Adopt 2006 Property Tax Levy, 2006 Budget, 2005 Revised Budget, HRA Levy for 2006, 2004 Fund Balance Allocations, and 2006 — 2010 Capital Improvement Program Resolution No.'s 05-178, 05-179, 05-180 and 05-181 Ms. McGann presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa thanked Ms. McGann for her work on the budget. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to• 1) Adopt Resolution No.05-178 approving the 2005 Property Tax Levy collectible in 2006, adopting the Budget for 2006, and adopting the Revised Budget for 2005, 2) Adopt Resolution No.05-179 authorizing the HRA Levy for 2006, 3) Adopt Resolution No.05-181 transferring reserves out of the General Fund; 4) Approve 2006—2010 Capital Improvement Program; and, Council Meeting Minutes -6- December 19, 2005 5) Adopt Resolution No. 05-180 approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Year 2000 to Year 2020 for the City per Minnesota Statutes, incorporating the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Year 2006 to Year 2010; approve summary resolution for publication. The motion passed 6-0. Mr Harmening stated a lot of work had gone into the document the Council had approved and Ms. McGann had to made many improvements to the budget document. 8c. First Reading of Fire Department Service Fees Ms. McGann presented the staff report. Councilmember Santa asked for clarification of fee requirements to residents and if their required services would be affected. Chief Stemmer replied residents, for the most part, would not be required to pay a fee. State Statue says in the event of a hazardous incident, a resident could be responsible for a large hazardous matenals release, which could result in a fee for a response It was not the intent to charge residents for fire calls. State Statute allowed them to charge for railroad right of ways, public right of ways and hazardous materials and they had been doing that based on industry standards, not actual cost. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve first reading of an ordinance establishing Fire Department Service Fees and set second reading for January 3, 2006. The motion passed 6-0. 8d. Excelsior and Grand — Phase NW Preliminary and Final Plat of Park Commons East 4th Addition; Major Amendment to the Park Commons East Planned Unit Development for Final PUD approval for Phase NW. Location: 4730 Park Commons Drive, Case No.: 05-64-PUD & 05-65-S, Applicant: TOLD Development Resolution No. 05-182 and 05-183 Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs stated this had been a good process and to be talking about the final phase was amazing. Councilmember Finkelstein stated this process had been improved by neighborhood involvement and future developers could take a lesson from that to listen to neighbors. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No.05-182 approving the Preliminary and Final Plat of Park Commons East 4th Addition. Council Meeting Minutes -7- December 19, 2005 Bob Cunningham, TOLD Development, stated they were selected by the City in July of 2000 to work on this project. The redevelopment agreement had them wrapping up in the summer of 2007 and with approval this evening that would happen. He thanked the Council for their support They were concerned in the beginning about owner-occupied housing and would only agree to 35 units in the redevelopment agreement. As of tonight, they had sold 228 units and were still going strong. Councilmember Brimeyer asked if the price points were consistent the others? Mr. Cunningham replied price points on the final phase were higher than the previous phases. Construction costs had escalated significantly over the three years, which was reflected in the pncing. Pricing on average was $40-60/square foot higher than Phase NE. They believed there was still a market and they were about 40%pre-sold on this building. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the build out cost was about $275-300/square foot? Mr. Cunningham replied about $275/square foot on average. Councilmember Brimeyer stated having this come to fruition after the planning process was good to see. The motion passed 6-0. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No.05-183 to approve a Major Amendment to the Park Commons East PUD granting Final PUD approval for Phase NW(Excelsior & Grand Phase NW) subject to conditions recommended by staff The motion passed 6-0 8e. Request of Julie L. Murphy for a Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment from Industrial to Medium Density Residential; and a Zoning Map Amendment from General Industrial (IG) to Two Family Residential (R-3), Resolution No. 05-184 Location: 6300-6312 Cambridge Street, Applicant: Julie L. Murphy, Case No.: 05-50-CP and 05-51-Z Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. Steve Murphy, applicant, stated they had issues with the property because it was a non- conforming use. Last August the state changed the law with regard to rebuilding or repairing properties that have non-conforming uses. Mr. Murphy wanted to rezone the property and start the process to amend City ordinance to reflect current state law. A way to solve the problem would be to have a certificate of rebuild stating that the City would allow the building to be rebuilt, which was necessary to get financing on a non- conforming use property. He asked where the City was in their process to change the non-conforming ordinance? Council Meeting Minutes -8- December 19, 2005 Mr. Morrison responded they were continuing with his application to amend the zoning and comprehensive plan maps. They were also looking at the non-conforming ordinance. Last year the state had changed the law. Previously if a structure were destroyed by more than 50 or 60% the property owner couldn't rebuild. Today under state law a structure could be rebuilt if it was destroyed or removed in its entirety. The City ordinance had not been changed to reflect the new law. Mayor Jacobs asked if the City's ordinance was changed to reflect the change in state law, would it solve the applicant's problem? Ms. McMonigal responded that state law supersedes City ordinance. Mayor Jacobs stated it wouldn't change the status as a non-conforming use. It would enable him to rebuild. The issue was they couldn't refinance or sell it. Mr. Murphy replied a mortgage company wouldn't finance a property that could be worth a lot less than the money they were lending for it. Mr. Hannemng stated State Law superseded City ordinance and it was not necessary for their ordinance to be amended to allow state law provisions to be enacted. Ms. McMonigal indicated they had asked the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance consistent with state law. They had also been advised by the Attorney that the state law spoke for itself and mortgage and insurance companies could research that. Mayor Jacobs asked if the change in State law solved this problem and the issue of refinancing? Councilmember Finkelstein believed as a result of the change in state law, city ordinance no longer met that and as a result mortgage companies were refusing to let them get insurance so they could rebuild. Mr. Murphy indicated they were refusing to grant loans. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they changed the ordinance would they be creating a bad precedence? They had less than 10% industrial in the City and he had a concern. Mr. Jamnik responded the request was to conform the ordinance to the Statutes. The Statute provided more rights to owners. The ordinance change would eliminate any ambiguity. Councilmember Basill stated he didn't have a problem looking at the ordinance to make sure it was conforming to state law. He couldn't support the change. This had been industrial since 1959. It was zoned the correct way. State law had made it more advantageous to be non-conforming. The property should be more attractive to buyers and mortgage companies because they could rebuild if something happened. Prior to the law change, they weren't. The applicant's request to match City ordinance to State Statute was reasonable. Council Meeting Minutes -9- December 19, 2005 Mr. Murphy asked the time frame to change the ordinance? If they try to sell the property, an appraisal would be done and state it was non-conforming Ms. McMonigal responded they had asked the City Attorney to prepare a draft ordinance and expected to bring it forward in the next month. It would take 60 days for it to be in place. Mr. Murphy asked if the City at that point would be able to issue a rebuild certificate? Mr. Jamnik replied they would attach a copy of the State Statute on non-conformities to the certificate. If state law changed in a few years, the certification would change. They would not have staff warrant a commitment that this could be rebuilt for the term of the mortgage. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 05-184 to deny the request for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use designation from Industrial to Medium Density Residential, and, to adopt Resolution No05-184 to deny the request for a zoning map amendment to change the zoning designation from IG— General Industrial to R3— Two Family Residential. The motion passed 6-0. 8f. First Reading of a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to create a category titled "Places of Assembly" and allow such uses in the C-1, C-2 and 0 zoning districts by Conditional Use Permit, Case No. 05-60-ZA Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report. Councilmember Omodt asked if there was anything related to the recently changed smoking ban that came into play with this and had there been any discussion with the County or other municipalities related to this? Ms. McMonigal replied no. She didn't believe there would be any effect. Mr. Jamnik also believed there wouldn't be an impact Ms. McMonigal clarified if it is more than 50% of the area, it would be classified as a restaurant and fall under the restaurant rules. Mayor Jacobs stated this is potentially categorized as a private club and there was some language in the most recent pronouncement from the County about private clubs. It would be better to check. Mr. Harmening indicated staff could check between first and second readings. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve first reading of Zoning Ordinance amendment, and set second reading for January 3, 2006 The motion passed 6-0. 8g. Authorization to Direct Staff to Prepare the Required Documents for a Deferred Loan to the Louisiana Court Limited Partnership to Assist with Capital Improvements at Louisiana Court Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report. Councilmember Omodt asked if it was a deferred loan to be paid back in 30 years? Mr. Locke replied yes, or under certain circumstances if they sold the property or refinanced it. Council Meeting Minutes -10- December 19, 2005 Councilmember Omodt asked if the City expected to be paid back within those 30 years? Mr. Locke replied they needed to be clear that there would be several loans positioned ahead of this loan on the property; and that it will depend on how well the real estate market does and how well the project operates over the coming years. Councilmember Omodt stated he didn't expect to see the money paid back. There was a strong discussion at study session that Council expected PPL to live up to their commitments to run a good project. Now six months later PPL created another crisis to deal with on a deadline, US Bank pulled out and now there was a new deadline. He would be voting against this, not because of the people that lived there, but because of his belief that this was throwing bad money after bad money For all the money the City, County, Federal and State government put into this, they could have done a much better project starting from scratch. Councilmember Brimeyer didn't believe any of them would vote for or against this because of the people living there He didn't know if it was throwing good money after bad or trying to leverage the position that they already had. Not doing this didn't resolve whether or not they made a mistake in 1999. This project needs to be watched very carefully. It would have been nice to have a pro forma. Mr. Locke indicated they could share the pro formas as new ones are created. Regarding deadlines, they're always tricky. It has been a struggle to keep things moving forward with the project over the last six months while a new partner has been sought. They were at a point, from a physical standpoint, where improvements were needed. Those improvements would benefit people living there today and the ability for the owners and the partners to make it a success, but also would protect the millions of dollars the City had lent to the project. There had been improvements with the new management team. One of the key pieces that had come out of the process was the level of commitment from the other housing funding agencies and their direct involvement. Councilmember Brimeyer stated if they didn't provide the additional funding, it won't get done and the development could get worse. They have a chance to salvage this now. Councilmember Finkelstein stated in 1999 the Council made a very difficult decision. The neighborhood had a number of detenorating apartment buildings. The hope was to put them under common ownership and management would assist to get control of the situation. That hadn't worked out the way they intended it to, but by walking away from it now and not putting in the $400,000, it would all go to heck and they would be left as one of the guarantors holding the bag. He suggested adding the following conditions: 1) PPL not to have the unilateral nght to hire a general contractor. Previous money had been provided and there was a concern about the work that had been done. He preferred to see either ESIC (Enterprise Social Investment Corporation) and the City hiring the general contractor, or PPL hiring a general contractor, with the written approval of the City so they could ensure that they had someone doing this appropriately; 2) City assistance was conditioned on getting the money mentioned on pages two and three of the staff report. They were talking about using the $400,000 City loan to leverage 3.1 million, and he wanted to be sure they got the money if they were making a decision based on that; 3) Trying to expand a Meadowbrook model to Louisiana Court. PPL would agree that one apartment could be utilized for purposes of a"Meadowbrook"type Council Meeting Minutes -11- December 19, 2005 of collaborative where they could have after school programs, volunteers, a library or homework help. Ms. Schnitker replied that PPL had already taken the initiative to use one of the units and create a community center/room. They have a Vista volunteer and a part-time social worker. Councilmember Finkelstein asked for how long? Ms. Schnitker replied it had been close to two years. Councilmember Finkelstein suggested that be continued. Mayor Jacobs indicated his preference would be to have a community building police presence, which was something for the City to deal with. The relationship at Meadowbrook is a good model to use for having more passive, as opposed to an active police presence. That was something to be discussed in the future. Steve Cramer, Executive Director of PPL, noted that was the essence of the cooperative grant proposal that Ms. Schnitker alluded to and that the proposal included a restorative justice component They hoped that funding would come through. It was collaboration between Perspectives, PPL and the Police Department. They took the initiative to write the grant and continue to look for opportunities to have a fuller range of activities. Mayor Jacobs stated he agreed with a lot of what Councilmember Omodt said, but disagreed that he did expect to be paid back. The City had a lot of money into this. He sensed their chances of recouping the money would increase rather than decrease, but recognized that there was a nsk. Councilmember Finkelstein added under point number five where PPL was committing to participate in supporting and cooperating with a joint housing committee to prepare and monitor a five-year plan, he wanted to see that commitment in writing by a date certain, with a report to the City Council. City staff could determine details. Mr Cramer stated they would be happy to provide it Councilmember Santa stated this was one of the first issues she dealt with as a Councilmember. Things change a lot. They were all aware the chances for failure were high, everyone was going to work hard and there were going to be bumpy roads. Part of the issue was that the Council had not felt like they had gotten regular updates. She recommended Council be informed of the issues and be able to be more prepared to respond. Councilmember Basill also had concerns. He was glad to switch from US Bank to ESIC. The City would have to put up another $400,000, but were not giving up the position of being the first nght on the mortgage. In return they would leverage about $3.1 million and would make about $1.7 million in improvements. If the property defaults, the City would benefit from the additional money being invested in the property and the City would retain control. The property would be valued at more than the $400,000 they put in. They had to be prepared for an exit strategy and know how to recapture the $400,000 if it didn't go well. Council Meeting Minutes -12- December 19, 2005 Councilmember Santa added this was an investment, but it was also a City asset and a part of their community. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the conditions he suggested were reasonable to add as part of the negotiation process? Mr. Locke replied yes. Mr. Cramer also agreed. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein to approve Resolution No. 05-191 directing staff to undertake the steps required to utilize CDBG and TIF funds from the Park Center TIF District to finance a deferred loan for $400,000 to the Louisiana Court Limited Partnership, and prepare the necessary documents in accordance with the terms as discussed with the Council for approval, with the following additional conditions: 1) Either ESIC (Enterprise Social Investment Corporation) and the City hire the general contractor, or PPL hires a general contractor, with written approval of the City; 2) City assistance is conditioned on getting the $3.1 million (on pages 2 & 3 of the staff report); 3) PPL agree that one apartment could be utilized for purposes of a "Meadowbrook" type of collaborative where they could have after school programs, volunteers, a library or homework help. Councilmember Basill mentioned he had some reservations. He hoped this wouldn't be coming back to the Council and that they ran it nght. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Omodt opposed. 8h. Resolution to confirm 2006 employee compensation Resolution No. 05-185 Ms. Gohman presented the staff report. Councilmember Brimeyer stated the idea behind car allowance was to compensate employees that needed to be on call and move around a lot without having to worry about mileage. He recommended the Council look at the policy regarding car allowances and why it was granted and not granted. Mayor Jacobs agreed it should be for people required to be on call at all hours. That was something they should look at. Councilmember Omodt shared the concern. The report said the reason was parity, but that didn't address service to residents. He didn't see a compelling reason for a car allowance. It was something that should be offset in an overall salary package for some of the positions. A $250/month car allowance was a $3,000/yr. raise. The panty argument didn't speak to service to citizens. Councilmember Basill saw the service to the citizens in retention of employees. If other cities are doing this, to recruit and retain the best employees for the citizens and get the best service, they needed to be sure they were competitive. There were different tax implications for a car allowance and putting it into the salary that can make you competitive. The question was if they wanted to keep the best department heads in St. Louis Park. Council Meeting Minutes -13- December 19, 2005 Mayor Jacobs asked if they wanted to wait on the car allowance issue? Councilmember Finkelstein didn't believe that would be fair to the employees. He would like to see it added on to salaries and suggested this be studied further. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt Resolution No. 05-185 confirming a 3% general increase for non-union employees, setting the salary for City Manager, updating the car allowance in the Personnel Manual and increasing Performance Program Pay for Paid-on-Call Firefighters for 2006. The motion passed 5-1 with Councilmember Omodt opposed 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs indicated an open house would be held on January 12, 2006, from 4-7 PM at Benilde High School to discuss Highway 100. Councilmember Santa stated the annual New Year's Eve party would be held at Oak Hill Park. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. --)qa,,,,,,gottz:g4:, L___),/ LL-q City Clerk Mayor