Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/11/06 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Regular CITY OF OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING PARK ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 6,2006 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Inspections Administrative Supervisor (Ms. Boettcher), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Administrative Specialist (Ms. Hellekson), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther) and Recording Secretary(Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations 2a. Shirley Huiras Recognition 20 Years of Service Resolution No. 06-166 Mayor Jacobs presented Resolution No. 06-166 to Shirley Huiras in honor of 20 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. 2b. Green Business Recognition Ms. Hellekson discussed the history of the Green Business Award. Mayor Jacobs presented plaques to representatives of the following Green Businesses: Brent's Signs, Flextech, Hoigaard's, Nordic Ware, Torah Academy, Commercial Furniture, Grossman Design, Linsk Flowers, and Phoenix Process Consultants. 2c. Recognition of Jim Rhodes Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution to Jim Rhodes recognizing for his many contributions to the City of St. Louis Park. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2006 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. City Council Minutes of October 3, 2006 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2006 Councilmember Sanger indicated on page three, to insert "geographically concentrated" in paragraph eight. The minutes were approved as amended. City Council Minutes -2- November 6, 2006 3d. City Council Minutes of October 16, 2006 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience,that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion 4a Approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2319-06 adopting fees for 2007 4b. Approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2320-06 amending the Zoning Ordinance for awnings, signs, building matenals and non-conformities, approve summary and authonze publication. 4c. Approve Resolution No. 06-175 approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for workers compensation coverage effective December 1, 2006. 4d. Approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 102-05 providing additional Professional Services related to the Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the Sanitary Sewer System. 4e. Approve Resolution No. 06-176 amendment to the Special Permit to allow an 800 square foot addition to the office building located at 5775 Wayzata Blvd. 4f. Approve the contract with BCBS for Active Community Planning. 4g. Approve Resolution No. 06-171 Final Payment Claude M. Anderson Electric Company. 4h. Approve Resolution No. 06-177 establishing a special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 4237 Salem Avenue South. 4i. Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006. 4j. Approve Resolution No. 06-178 authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees. 4k. Approve Resolution No. 06-165 recognizing Jim Rhodes. 41. Approve the Second Amendment to Contract for Pnvate Redevelopment with Highway 7 Business Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling). 4m. Approve Vendor Claims for Filing. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 6. Public Hearings 6a. Approval of the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1 and Extend Special Service District No. 1 through 2016 Resolution No. 06-167 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing No speakers present. The public heanng was closed. City Council Minutes -3- November 6, 2006 It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve Resolution No. 06-167 setting the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2 Resolution No. 06-168 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Payne, Al's Bar, expressed support of the special service distract. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve Resolution No. 06-168 setting the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 Resolution No. 06-169 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve Resolution No. 06-169 setting the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County The motion passed 7-0 6d. 2007 Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to continue the public hearing setting the 2007 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4 to the November 20, 2006 City Council Meeting. The motion passed 7-0 City Council Minutes -4- November 6, 2006 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public—None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Consider Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Project - Project Nos. 20040400, 20040100, and 20040200. Resolution No. 06-170 Mr. Brink presented the staff report. He stated the purpose of the project is to improve vehicular and pedestnan safety, improve capacity for vehicles, restore the pavement to an adequate condition, and add streetscaping/landscaping to create a more attractive pedestnan environment. Guy Nowlin, senior project manager for Hennepin County Design Division, indicated there may be traffic delays during the construction. He stated however, the road would remain open dunng the roadwork and at times the four-lane road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The first phase will not directly affect the entrances to Methodist Hospital and county staff would work with hospital staff to avoid any emergency vehicle delays on Excelsior Boulevard. Councilmember Basill stated his appreciation of staff's effort on planning to make better crosswalks and the overall project. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 06-170 approving project and entering into a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for Excelsior Boulevard roadway improvement and Streetscape project — Project Nos 20040400, 20040100, and 20040200, and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Agreement. The motion passed 7-0 8b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment — 2600 Natchez Avenue South, Case No.: 06-59-CP Resolution No. 06-172 Mr. Walther presented the staff report Nancy Gibson, 2712 Glennhurst Av, stated she was a naturalist for the DNR non-game wildlife program and chaired the Environmental Trust Fund. She clarified how the DNR classified wetlands which are protected under the Federal Wetland Conservation Act. She discussed the results of the wetland report and requested an environmental review be done on this project She was a member of the Vision St. Louis Park Environment Action Team and one of the recommendations is to expand and enhance parks and open space by 20% in the next ten years and to restore green space and eradicate invasive plants. Jeff Herman, 4740 27`h St W, indicated the country has a century of neglect on the land and waterways. Last week, neighbors cleaned pieces of garbage from this wetland. The city is beginning to embrace their waterways, lakes, wetland and grasslands now, which sets a new tone. This is not going to be an affordable single family home. He read an article from the United States Census Bureau, the Department of Housing and the Department of Energy about the change in society. He disagrees with the recommendation to make this parcel a single-family residential home site. City Council Minutes -5- November 6, 2006 Cheryl Gibson, 2668 Glennhurst Av, stated she is a Hennepin County certified master gardener and discussed concerns about the trees and the practicality of thinking that the mature trees could be saved when building a home. She suggested staff go to the site and make an assessment about whether the trees could be saved. She asked that the sale not be approved until an environmental study be done. Debbie Reynolds, 2665 Huntington, indicated there is a lot of cover that bnng birds through St. Louis Park. They needed to continue to support the flyways. This is one lot and one house and she didn't think the fate of St. Louis Park would ride on whether they sold the lot for one house. The more they can keep the open land they have here, the better off the quality of life for citizens would be, and asked for further study. Leva Sweitbaum Herman, stated she was speaking as an advocate for the animals in the area and the sale of this parcel would affect the animals and plants in the area. Ann Drew Yu, 2636 Lynn Av S, stated she was there as a mother of two boys and discussed her conversations with them. This parcel wasn't a logical choice for development when there were other choices that made sense. Constructing one house on a beautiful oasis didn't make sense. There was nothing to gain and potentially a lot to be lost. She opposed reclassifying this land. Simon Goldman, 2641 Natchez, indicated animals cross this parcel and once they put a house in they can't change it. This is extremely close to the wetland. Bulldozers will cause problems. They wouldn't gain that much. If all of the people of St. Louis Park were to say what they wanted, a high majonty would say they didn't need a house here. His vision was to put a park bench there saying, "From the people of St. Louis Park. We're dedicated to the future generation of our kids and their kids." Deb Fowler, 2605 Natchez, stated opposition of developing this land and said the neighborhood is interested in further preservation of this wetland. Councilmember Basill stated he strongly prefers more single-family homes and move up single family housing for families with children. He thanked the speakers and many groups involved and stated his passion is for the process and the schools. It was difficult, because he also appreciated parks and open space. He thanked the Park and Recs. Commission, the Housing Summit, the Excess Land Task Force, the previous Council and the Planning Commission for their hard work through the process. Mobility in the schools is high. Leading school officials are letting them know that the number of kids, has decreased over the last ten years. There is a shortage of move up housing in the community. Every house can make a difference and that was the purpose of the Excess Land Task Force. He talked about compassion for families and the passion for the schools. This was the nght thing and the fair thing, and was a vote for the families, stability, their children and the schools. Councilmember Omodt asked if soil borings showed any contamination. Ms. Larsen replied that soil bonngs indicated evidence of construction debns, not contaminated soils. Councilmember Omodt asked staff about the trees and if they could build around trees without harm. Mr. Vaughan replied if the trees are dedicated for preservation, there are standards in place with 1.5 feet per diameter inch and plastic fencing around every five feet He needed to review when there are plans in place, but felt they could protect the two oaks and the cottonwood, depending on the plan A large tree in the middle of the lot looked structurally impaired and probably needed to be removed. There is room to City Council Minutes -6- November 6, 2006 preserve the trees if they do not store anything or dnve over the roots within the protection zone. Councilmember Omodt asked if that could be put into the purchase agreement and Mr. Vaughan responded he believed yes. Councilmember Omodt asked if they had done that in the past and Mr. Vaughan replied developers have preserved trees. He does weekly inspections to make sure the protection is in place and nothing is damaging or hmdenng the tree. Councilmember Omodt asked if this parcel is in, near or adjacent to a wetland and potential impacts. There are other houses that look closer to a "wetland" than this property would be. At a previous study session, all seven Councilmembers agreed to allow a building next to a wetland. Mr. Vaughan responded with any new building you need to abide by erosion control standards, by a wetland or not. This is adjacent to a wetland and not part of a wetland. They would have erosion control standards in place, silt fences and best management practices to divert any kind of erosion, sediment or runoff from going into wetland areas. There is very little diversity on the site in terms of plant species. If they redevelop, they could enhance the plant species. The more diversity, the better the site. Councilmember Omodt asked if this could help the property and if some of the funding from this could be used to dredge and restore the wetland? Mr. Vaughan replied it depended on how far they went, because of the buckthorn and unhealthy plants. The area could be enhanced. Councilmember Omodt referred to a neighborhood in Minnetonka where none of the properties have grass and are on wooded lots. Is there a scenano like that for a lot like this? Mr. Vaughan replied yes, there are several lots in St. Louis Park that have prairie grasses and wildflower instead of lawns. Councilmember Omodt asked about the requests for an environmental study. Mr. Vaughan replied an environmental study would identify species that would be affected in terms of building and if they would be affecting them, as well as how big the footpnnt of impact would be on the surrounding area. Councilmember Sanger commented she was concerned about trees, the wetland, and the process. The difference between this one and the parcel they talked about earlier, was that the proposed house would be a lot closer to the wetland. The wetland contains pesticides. Adding another house will make the problem worse. Secondly, the trees were a concern and needed to be protected. She didn't see how there was enough space to build a house on this site. The third concern is the process. A number of groups have looked at this proposal in various ways, but they needed more detail. The Excess Land Task Force was given a senes of criteria by the City Council to evaluate parcels. Environmental factors weren't on the list. The task force recommendation came before the City Council and those factors still weren't considered, but the sale was passed by a 4-3 vote. The Planning Commission didn't talk about the environmental factors. The environmental factors are being left out of the decision making process. The process should get slowed down and they should do an environmental review to look at the impact on the trees and if there is a building site once the trees are protected, the pesticide overload and impact on potential flooding on the area. The Housing Summit Task Force talked about the importance of having more move up housing in the community, but they City Council Minutes -7- November 6, 2006 needed to be clear that did not say they needed to build a house on every site available. The Vision St Louis Park Environment Action Team suggested they expand the amount of parks and green space by 20%. Every time they sell an open parcel, they minimize the future chances of complying with that goal. It is incumbent on this Council not to make a decision today and review the entire task force report, not only the Environmental Task Force, but of the other task forces as well, consider the implication because there is a tension between the needs for housing which are legitimate, but also the needs for open space and environmental protection. She would not be in favor of selling this parcel for a single-family home. Councilmember Paprocki stated the future of this parcel was voted on nearly a year ago. This is a procedural vote to carry out the decision that had already been made. By making this a revote of that decision, they had spent a lot of time and effort that could have been spent elsewhere. The decision had been made. He would be voting for the Comp Plan change. Councilmember Finkelstein thought this was not merely a procedural vote. When City Council revisited some of the other land sales, they took a look at compromise and reviewing different options and he believed that could be done here They talked about the tension between the need for green space versus infill development. Staff had worked very hard and done an excellent job. They had learned from their mistakes and had taken steps to better identify and protect parks by changing the way they get rid of and maintain parkland. If they go ahead with this re-designation, they would be making a mistake. One more or one less house isn't going to dramatically impact the City and schools. One more house will make a difference at 26th and Natchez. He viewed it as wetland and open space and there had to be a place in the community for that. This way is an animal walkway. It has trees that are between 50-100 years old. He was glad the neighborhood took the opportunity to clean up the lot. Because it hadn't been well cared for in the past, it didn't mean they shouldn't save it when they had an opportunity. Initially he supported putting one house on the edge of this open space. He thought it was part of the "base closing" and they were going to vote on all of the excess land together. When they took testimony, he started thinking about it and what if they weren't right and how they could repair this. If they re-designate this land, they wouldn't be able change it. The tension between the need for green space and the pressure of infill development is getting worse. They need quiet spaces. It is more critical in this neighborhood with the new development and completion of Highway 100. There was no rush to do this. Sometimes by revisiting issues they come up with better decisions. He encouraged them to vote against changing the designation. Councilmember Carver agreed with Councilmember Basill and the passion for move up housing. The City Council is in the role of being parents and can't chose between the kids without trade offs He looked at this as balance for the City as a whole. It is just one lot, but if every time this comes in, it is just one lot, eventually they have to do something for the good of the City. It is more than just a lot. It would be a family and the owner who moved into the house would be in charge of developing this lot. He agreed about the concerns for the wetland. A real concern was herbicides and fertilizers and they needed to be concerned about that everywhere in St. Louis Park. He understood they would lose trees and didn't do this lightly, but it was worth it in this situation and he would support the motion. City Council Minutes -8- November 6, 2006 It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a portion of 2600 Natchez Avenue from P—Parks and Open Space to RL —Low Density Residential as shown on the attached map, noting that staff should do whatever possible to protect as many trees as possible without preventing moving forward on the construction of a home Councilmember Omodt stated they all wanted to be pro environment, but it came in all different shapes and sizes. They had all tried to do things to promote open space, clean living and reduce pesticides. He hoped what came out of this was a look at pesticides throughout the City. There was a vote taken on this in December and this was more or less procedural. They needed to look at the environmental issues citywide. The vote was taken a year ago and they could go on and on and have another task force, but the will of the Council in December was to sell this parcel. Councilmember Sanger stated it was not just procedural to change the Comp Plan. She took this seriously as an independent vote and the fact that the Charter mandates a 5-2 vote, underscores the fact that this is not a procedural vote and is serious business about the appropriate land use in the community. Mr. Harmening clarified that the motion was that staff do whatever reasonably possible to protect trees,but not disallow a home from being built on the property. Councilmember Basill replied do whatever they could do to reasonably protect the trees without preventing moving forward on the construction of a home on the site. Councilmember Sanger asked for clanfication if the trees had to be cut down in order to build a house, was that OK? Councilmember Basill replied yes, they try to protect as many trees as they could and that was what staff would do. They would lose some trees, but should try to save some. Councilmember Sanger noted that the residents were talking about the very mature trees. If the sense of the amendment was to protect those particular oak trees and do the ring around them as was mentioned, that made sense. But she thought what Councilmember Basill was saying was contradictory because to protect the mature oak trees, there wouldn't be room to build a house. They shouldn't feel good about the amendment because it wasn't going to work. Mr. Harmening indicated the direction given in the motion was not that dissimilar from what was done last December. Last December it said, "mature oak trees shall be retained to the degree possible." Staff would do what they could to protect as many trees as possible, understanding that they were going to lose some trees. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the vehicle passing area and if it would be required as part of the contract? Mr. Harmening replied Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Walther have been to the site to see how a home could be sited on the property. They would lose some trees, but would be able to retain some. Mr. Vaughan added depending on the design of the home, they could retain some of the oak trees. If they put the orange fence around the trees, they cannot drive or store anything in that tree preservation zone. Mr. Harmening noted as a part of working with builders and future homeowners on the design of a home on this site, it should be designed in a way to save as many trees as they could. City Council Minutes -9- November 6, 2006 Councilmember Basill asked if Councilmember Sanger wanted him to remove the amendment? Councilmember Sanger replied no, she was asking for clanfication of what his intent was. She was not going to support the motion anyway. Councilmember Basill felt it was a better motion with the amendment. Mr. Herman stated in this neighborhood, there are many single-family homes for sale. They needed to let people know that St. Louis Park has housing and wants families. Nancy Gibson was concerned about the democratic process. There was not one person in favor of building the house there. They needed to have environmental impact statements for this land. You cannot put a house there and save the trees. In 7-8 years they would be gone Councilmember Basill commented there is passion on both sides of this issue, which is a good thing. There is nothing more disheartening when they see people move out of the community. There are homes for sale, but look at the percentage compared to neighboring communities. He thought this was right for the community. Resolution No. 06-172 was passed 5-2, with Councilmember's Finkelstein and Sanger opposed. 8c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment— Carpenter Park (5005 Mtka. Blvd), Case No.: 06-62-CP Resolution No. 06-173 Mr. Walther presented the staff report. Councilmember Basill stated this came out of their process and it was good to find that Carpenter Park needed the proper designation. It was nice to reclassify the 7.33 acres to parkland. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a portion of 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard from CIV— Civic to P—Parks and Open Space as shown on the attached map. Councilmember Sanger supported the motion and was glad they had the new Park and Open Space Zoning Distnct. They needed to be clear they weren't adding park space. They were changing the legal designation of something that was already a park. They couldn't claim they were adding park space. Councilmember Basill stated they were changing the Comp Plan tonight and would be creating the new zoning district on November 20` . Resolution No. 06-173 was passed 7-0. 8d. Consideration of citywide wireless broadband network provided through a private—public partnership. Resolution No. 06-174 Mr. Pires presented the staff report. Mike Siok, ARINC, Inc, stated that ARINC was founded in 1929 and the whole purpose of the company was to manage the wireless spectrum for the FAA, they continued to do that today. They put together a plan to deal with this six years ago. Their wireless strategy started in airports and they had invested in that. They decided to go into more City Council Minutes -10- November 6, 2006 wireless ISP services and acquired a company in 2005 and owns and operates a wireless ISP covering over 200 square miles providing wireless coverage to residents and businesses. The next step is to include the municipalities and go into the middle of Amenca where there isn't wireless services. To make that model work, he had to make the model in a municipal environment. ARINC is a very conservative company and before they enter any market, they do a very thorough market survey. They don't go into these things half-heartedly. Don Mouritzen, Proxim, stated the intent was to get Proxim into the wireless outdoor arena with municipal wireless. They are one of the oldest players in the Wi-Fi market and went back ten years. They had shipped millions of the access points that this network was built around. They knew it extremely well and had chosen a great partner in ARINC. By the low power design and going solar, it delivers some extremely good things for the City. It will be the first battery backed up network in the country that would operate for 10 5 days in the event of a solar panel failure. If all communications failed, they still had a communications base. There is an obsolescence prevention and some of the products that have been used have are pre-WiMax. All of the radios are software based, which allows them to change the software to accommodate any changes that don't require hardware. Proxim releases updates to the software on nearly a monthly basis with enhancement and does not charge for them. They stand behind the network and would be there through each phase of the implementation. Paul Kralovec, Unplugged Cities, LLC, stated this was a public/pnvate partnership. The City was taking on risk and he was taking on a substantial amount of risk as well. He believed he could afford to do that because he believed he could get that market share. They have a very entrepreneurial structure in the way they operate and they intend to use that structure to maximize the subscriber base. They are going to go after the residents, the MDU's (multiple dwelling units), the residents in the MDU's, the single-family homes, businesses and use the entire structure, not just Wi-Fi radios. There is a way of utilizing all of the components of the structure of the Wi-Fi to provide the services. They would be making some changes and hadn't done as well as they would have liked on the help desk. They were building an in-house help desk and would be operating it themselves versus outsourcing it to take care of the issues; they had to service the customer better. They were also getting some Mac specialists and would also have Linux specialists. ARINC is being extremely competitive to provide the service and they were getting extremely good pricing on equipment. They would do their best to provide the services. Mr. Pires concluded his presentation. Alexander Truskinovski, 1445 Utah Av. S, indicated when he moved here, they kept their dial up provider. When they heard the announcement for the wireless service, they thought it showed how sophisticated and vibrant St Louis Park is and a cut above the average suburb, is future oriented, understanding the importance of communication and technology and providing good alternatives for the people. The options that exist in the commercial market cost a lot of money. This is a financially viable service. They were very happy with the pilot and it had improved their life. He hoped they kept this valuable service. Jack Singer, 2821 Monterey Pkwy, stated he was a pilot project user that was on the boundary of the pilot. Because he was on the boundary, the service was very low. He put a dish behind the antennae, which increased the signal. He noticed occasional drop City Council Minutes -11- November 6, 2006 outs of service. He thought Minneapolis would be twice as cheap, for the same level of service. The receiver sells for $75 and residents have to rent it for $5/month, which he believed was ridiculous. He was in favor of this service Having a dish antennae would make it work better. Andy Shriner, Director of Government Affairs for Qwest, wanted to clarify what their offerings were in St. Louis Park. They offer DSL at $26.99/month, which is a price for life and includes an ISP. The question the Council ought to consider is whether this is a "must have" or a "want to have" for the City of St. Louis Park. They are risking potentially thousands and thousand of dollars on a venture that there are no guarantees of success. He asked they keep that in mind as they go forward. Phillip Hogland, 2716 Vernon Av S, thanked staff and the City for the open house. He appreciated the thoughtfulness of how they would mount the units and using lower power units to reduce the noise levels. Using the solar panels enabled that approach He supported the project. A year ago City Council worked with the cable companies on more local programming, and one of the Councilmember's asked the ramifications if the City decided not to renew the franchise. The response was that since they had offered the franchise once and they had put in capital investment, unless they had a really good reason saying they had violated their contracts. In comparison to the different models, it struck him if they went the route of Minneapolis and allowed a company to build the whole network, they could be locked in forever unless there were serious problems. The other side of it here was if they were investing in the network and have more control and can address the help desk problems seen in the pilot. Mr. Truskinovski responded to the representative from Qwest that the customer needed to subscribe to all other services to get the lower fee for DSL. Craig Peterson, 4831 W 30th Ln, stated he was advocating the adoption of the Park Wi- Fi. The Twin Cities is a desirable place for businesses because of the technical infrastructure and a great resource of technical people and companies that is a natural draw to relocate. The City benefits from that. Park Wi-Fi and wireless is a competitive advantage and voting it down would put St. Louis Park at a competitive disadvantage compared to Minneapolis and other suburbs. He had been a Qwest DSL customer since the service was offered and shared the opinion of the previous speaker. For the same or greater cost Park Wi-Fi is offering, he gets a service that is about 1/5th the speed available. His other option is to use a cable provider and he had no interest in purchasing a bundle with cable television. The Internet has catapulted them from the information age to the age of collaboration and there are some phenomenal examples on what that collaboration has enabled Despite the excellent material gathered and presented, he suggested they had not yet identified the greatest impact Park Wi-Fi would have and he believed it hadn't been conceived yet. There are tremendous benefits that would come forth from this It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 06-174 declaring ARINC, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with ARINC, Inc.for the supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for said network Councilmember Paprocki pointed out they were not providing anything new. They have high speed internet now, it is just more expensive. This had been pitched as being fully City Council Minutes -12- November 6, 2006 paid for by the subscnbers, so there is no cost to the City Originally they needed 36%, now they were down to 32%, but they had never seen that. They had 25% enrollment in the pilot areas, which were more affluent areas of the wards. They might hit 25% the first and second year, but after that he didn't believe they would hit those. Comcast prices will come down and they will be competing with them. He didn't think it would pay for itself. They would be about a $1.1 to $2 million deficit for this project. That was a high pnce tag, especially when they hadn't been forthright with the community as to what it would cost to do this. He could not support spending that kind of money for something that was available now,just a little more costly. Councilmember Sanger disagreed with Councilmember Paprocki. There are quite a few positive benefits for implementing this program. One was making services available to people who can't afford to buy the current Internet service. She had hoped the price of cable provided high speed service would decrease, but it had been high for a long time and rates were increasing. They have a great advantage of helping kids in the community gain access to the Internet. They have the ability to help the whole community become more global. This is a competitive edge for the city to help attract more businesses and more tech savvy residents Private businesses had not come forward to offer this service. If they wait, the gap would get bigger and the services would not be available. There are risks in adopting this program. The numbers that Mr. Pires used were extremely conservative in terms of the financial estimates. They assumed the price that they set two years ago for monthly service wouldn't change even for the next five years, which might be nice, but she questioned how realistic. That would be one way to address a gap. Many people had expressed interest in this project. People who did not sign up for the pilot project were waiting until this became a permanent city project. She was not as pessimistic about the level of subscribership they would gain. Staff had built in quite a lot of nsk mitigation measures to keep this competitive technologically and continue to meet residents' needs. The service providers had a huge incentive in making this successful and a marketing advantage to other communities. They had made a number of decisions involving much more significant risk (i.e. Excelsior and Grand) and they paid off. She thought the same would happen here and this was a worthwhile risk. Councilmember Paprocki stated talking about the risks, Excelsior and Grand was a real estate risk, this is a technology and a lot more volatile market. The risk they were talking about in the deal with the partners seemed largely on the City's side and not so much on the partner's side. Mr. Pires believed there were different nsks. The city's were on the fixed capital pieces -- including fiber -- which many believe had lasting value. The management partners also take some risks. Councilmember Baslll asked what Frontier was doing in Burnsville? Mr. Asp responded Frontier is a competitive local exchange carrier based in that community and has an incentive to try to enhance and expand the services they are offering in the community. They are strategically looking to try to protect their DSL base, which was why they were talking about making the investment. They are looking at more of a "cherry picking" model where they are not going to be doing 100% universal coverage. They don't have a universal service requirement. They are early in discussions. Mr. Pires added some of the details such as pricing are missing at this time, and it was unclear the degree to which the service would be available indoors. They had talked about outdoor coverage. Mr. City Council Minutes -13- November 6, 2006 Asp noted Frontier was looking at the mobile service, which was quite a bit different than an indoor service. Councilmember Basill asked who was taking the risk, was it joint or Frontier? Mr. Asp relied it would be Frontier. Councilmember Basill stated he was looking forward to Wi-Fi some day. If they go forward he would subscribe. He shared the concerns of Councilmember Paprocki and felt the risk should be on the shoulders of the private sector to choose the right technology versus the City Council, staff and community. If the majority of the Council votes to move forward with this, they want it to work because they would have dollars at nsk. Councilmember Finkelstein commented they had studied the issue for two years and done a pilot project. It could probably be studied forever. They live in a digital world where there will be technological "haves" and "have not's". The risk as a nation is falling further behind. The decision to start municipal Wi-Fi is one with serious financial ramifications and not something to be taken lightly. It also has other civic ramifications that would affect the community for years to come. The deciding point is the answer to two basic questions. One, is this an activity that government should be involved in? Two, if so, does the public benefit outweigh the public costs? The answer to the first question isn't easy. It depends on how you view the role of government. In some municipalities water is owned by the private sector and others the City is involved providing electricity and even liquor stores. He believed the role of government was to better their lives and the community lives in a fair, rational and efficient way. Municipal Wi-Fi could be a utility and something they can use to provide better services to all citizens. The answer to the first question is a strong maybe, because they need to answer the second question to answer the first. The public benefit outweighs the public cost. If they do this, this is serious money and 7-8% of their development money. They would be investing a large amount of money and would be expecting subscribers and possibly advertising revenues to pay back. In a bad case scenario they would lose several thousand dollars a year. However they provide other services to the public to make this a better community that don't make money. The Rec. Center did not always make money, but people would agree that is a public service to people. They have to weigh the cost against the benefits. One is a better city infrastructure that would attract and maintain both small and large business. They want to provide more efficient City services. Another primary value is the competition it provides to the private sector. Keeping Wi- Fi honest and more competitive, they had learned the hard way from cable what happens when there is an exclusive franchise. Over 70% of the City only has one provider. If they are going to encourage the private sector and that puts municipal Wi-Fi out of business, it was a good incentive to the private sector. There are educational advantages from this. It is bringing a better sense of community to the city in which they live. The benefits outweighed the costs and Wi-Fi was worth the risk. If they are going to compete in the future, they had to engage change. He felt this plan was better than the plan in Minneapolis and was an open system that could be improved. The real reason they needed to do this was because the kids were competing against students in places like India. If they approve this, he wanted to bring the contract back to City Council for approval. There were a number of issues they had talked about when designing this system he wanted to be sure they take care of including: service guarantees, help desk guarantees, back up plans in case the solar panels fail, the ability to upgrade the revenue options and exit strategies. City Council Minutes -14- November 6, 2006 Councilmember Omodt stated he would be abstaining from this vote as he had in the past. His company does work for several of the vendors to the Wi-Fi project in addition to people in the cable industry. He did not work on those accounts,but would be abstaining. Councilmember Carver indicated after the discussion on Natchez a resident leaving the room stated that we were wasting their time. All of the elected members would speak and it was not wasting time. If they were to just take the vote and walk out of here, residents would want to know what they were thinking. He thanked staff for stellar work on this project and the City Council. Councilmember Paprocki had made this better, because he had questioned them throughout the entire process To Councilmember Basill, now is the time. They don't make money on water and they subsidize water. No pnvate enterprise is looking to take over the water. There is a legitimate place for City government to hold in areas like this, which was why they should go forward with this proposal. They were risking millions of dollars. He was not going into this with any other understanding that there was real money at risk. A good bit of that is investment in capital. Fiber is something once it is in the ground would last a long time. This was not about doing what was easy; it was about making a well-informed fully vetted bold step into the future. They could do the easy thing by doing nothing and wait for the other providers. They could wait for the City of Minneapolis, but he submitted they should not do that. Everything worth doing involves risk. They could also continue with the status quo and that was a high number of residents who did not have access to high-speed internet and a high number who could not afford high-speed access. He wanted to put their kids on a level playing field with the kids of the world. They live in an information age and should not fail to take that bold step. If they didn't have access to high speed Internet they would be left behind. St. Louis Park is going to create an environment in which they would incubate a business that in the future they would look back and say, that's just like Microsoft, etc. That is what they need to do in order to get there and why he was in support of this. Mayor Jacobs stated he could not articulate the reasons for and against this better than the six other Councilmembers. The question you ask is, is this worth it and is the risk worth the potential benefit in doing this? That was a difficult question and one that had given him tremendous pause. He was very skeptical about this project when it first came up because he wasn't sure if it was worth it. They had been in these waters before. Because of the process they use and the staff, you can trust that resolve. He recalled discussions on the Rec. Center and the Park and Rec. Director recommended investing more money for a greater usership and increasing the use and value to the community. They analyzed the numbers and went through the process, he voted for it because he trusted staff. Excelsior and Grand was the same. He trusted the experts and market studies, and the process and this would be worth it. It was risky, they had done other projects that were risky. He believed the benefit outweighed the risk, but it was not taken lightly. They all wanted this to be a success and went into it with eyes wide open. Councilmember Finkelstein offered a friendly amendment to bring the contract back to City Council for approval. Councilmember Carver asked if that was feasible? Mr. Harmening replied yes, he had an amended motion that would allow for that. Amended MOTION to adopt Resolution No. 06-174 declaring ARINC, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with ARINC, Inc for the City Council Minutes -15- November 6, 2006 supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for said network and return to the City Council for review and approval of said agreement. Mr. Harmening stated they would be approving the ARINC proposal, which was a purchase of hardware and fiber, and would not bring back that agreement, but would bring back the agreement with Unplugged Cities for City Council final review and approval. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if that would continue the pilot project as well? Mr. Pires replied the assumption is should Council decide to move forward citywide, they would continue the pilot service. That should be added as a motion. Amended MOTION to adopt Resolution No. 06-174 declaring ARINC, Inc the lowest responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with ARINC, Inc.for the supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for said network and return to the City Council for review and approval of said agreement. The pilot project shall be continued. Councilmembers Carver and Sanger accepted the amendment. Councilmember Basill agreed this had been a great process and in a democracy some disagree. He thanked Mr Hogland for his contnbutions to the process. Councilmember Paprocki complimented staff He would vote in opposition, but after that would be one of the biggest champions. Councilmember Sanger stated in addition to continuing the pilot project, what is the timeline for building out this project to the entire community? Mr. Pires replied the intent at this point is approximately June/July 2007. The next steps would be to work with ARINC and its subcontractors to look at the project management piece. They were still aiming toward the middle of next year. The fiber contractor has equipment that reportedly works most of the year. The motion passed 4-2-1 with Councilmember's Basill and Paprocki opposed Councilmember Omodt abstained 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reported on a celebration of the Visioning Process, November 9th, 4:30-7:30 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel. Election Day is Tuesday, November 7th 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m. 1--) City Clerk 9Ma i yqr L/ �.