The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2007/12/10 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionDecember 10, 2007 6:00 p.m. Board and Commission Interview, Westwood Room 6:30 p.m. City Council Study Session, Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. Future Study Session Agenda Planning 2. 6:35 p.m. Housing Authority Report 3. 7:05 p.m. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review and Final Budget Review 4. 7:50 p.m.. Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services 5. 8:35 p.m. Update on Pawnshop Study 6. 9:20 p.m. Communications (verbal) Written Reports 7. Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow Advertising Signs on Athletic Fields 8. Beehive Relocation Project 9. Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings 10. Update on Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty 9:30 p.m. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD (952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the Monday January 14, 2008 study session, which will start at 6:30 p.m. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed? BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the study session on January 14. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: None. Attachment: Tentative Study Session Agenda for January 14, 2008 Prepared by: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 1) Page 2 Subject: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Future Study Session Agenda Planning Tentative Discussion Items Monday, January 14, 2008 – 6:30 p.m. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes) 2. Southwest Transit Update – Jim Brimeyer (30 minutes) Jim Brimeyer to provide the Council with an update on Southwest Transit. 3. Legislative Priorities for 2008 – Administrative Services (60 minutes) Council to have a conversation with Representative Winkler, Senator Latz, Representative Simon, and Commissioner Dorfman about the 2008 Minnesota Legislative Session and St. Louis Park. 4. Reinvestment Assistance Policy – Community Development (30 minutes) Does the Council support the policy as it currently reads? 5. Real Estate Recycling– Community Development (30 minutes) Does the Council wish to provide financial assistance for the proposed office building on the former Erv’s site? 6. Communications – Administrative Services (10 minutes) Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session for the purposes of information sharing. 9:15 p.m. End of Meeting Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Housing Authority Annual Report. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are the activities of the Housing Authority in line with the City Councils expectations? BACKGROUND: The City Council reviewed the Housing Authority’s (HA) Annual report and Action Plan at its November 26, 2007 study session. The Housing Authority Board will meet with the City Council at the December 10, 2007 study session to discuss past and future activities. The attached 2007 Activity Report and Action Plan is a copy of the November 26 study session report and attachments and will assist the Council in preparing for the discussion with the HA Board. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: The HA’s Action Plan has incorporated activities and initiatives that are reflective of the City’s Housing Goals and that will support the strategic direction and vision of the City of St. Louis Park. Attachments: November 26, 2007 Study Session Report (19 pages) Prepared by: Michele Schnitker Reviewed by: Kevin Locke Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: November 26, 2007 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan. RECOMMENDED ACTION: To provide the Council with the work plan and annual report prepared by the Housing Authority (HA) Board in advance of the meeting with the Commissioners on December 10, 2007. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Ensure the work of St. Louis Park’s Housing Authority supports the strategic direction and vision of the City of St. Louis Park. BACKGROUND: The City Council has requested draft copies of each commission’s work plan and annual report prior to the annual meeting with commissions. The HA’s current 2007/2008 annual Action Plan and the tables from the Bi-Annual Housing Activity report noting housing program activity through October 31, 2007 is attached for the Council’s review and discussion. The HA Action Plan runs concurrent with the HA’s fiscal year, April 1 through March 31. 2007 St. Louis Park Authority Board Members • Catherine Courtney, Chairperson • Steve Fillbrandt, Vice- Chairperson • Anne Mavity, Secretary • Judith Moore • Trinicia Hill St. Louis Park Housing Authority Staff • Kevin Locke, Director • Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor • Shannon Bodnar, Housing Manager • Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator • Cindy Stromberg, Section 8 Manager • Tanya Warren, Public Housing Specialist • Abe Shariff, Maintenance Coordinator • Joe Wellentin, Maintenance Technician Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Page 2 Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan 2007 HA Highlights • Provided rental assistance to over 500 low income households • Attained HUD’s High Performer status for the administration of both the Section 8 Voucher and Public Housing programs. • Facilitated the approval of the Louisiana Court rehab loan and implemented the LC Development Oversight Committee. • Implemented two new Shelter Plus Care rental assistance grants in partnership with Community Involvement Program and Pillsbury United Communities, bringing the total number of S+C grants administered by the HA to 5 with a total number of units of 38. • Renewed contract to provide 20 Project Based rental assistance vouchers for Wayside’s supportive housing development. • Exceeded 97% annual occupancy in the Public Housing program and 94% annual utilization in the Section 8 Voucher rental assistance program. • Completed approximately $200,000 in capital improvement in the Public Housing units. • West Hennepin Affordable Housing Land trust (WHAHLT) purchased, rehabbed and sold three affordable homes in SLP to low income families. • Staff members served as staff liaison to the 2006 Vision Housing Action Team and are now working on specific focus areas - affordable housing and housing remodeling and expansion. • Approved six development agreements for the sale of lots under the Excess Land program. One home completed and occupied, another nearing completion and the others are in the design phase. • Successfully submitted a grant application to fund the coordinator services for the Section 8 portion of the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program. 41 individuals participating in the rental assistance programs received services to promote economic self-sufficiency. • Utilization of the Move-Up-In-The-Park housing rehab programs are exceeding original estimates. • Housing Matrix completed – 1st Housing Activity Report distributed to policy makers in 2007. • Implemented new process for opening waiting lists for Public Housing involving requests for applications through a phone bank. • Participated as Board member in the completion of strategic planning for the Meadowbrook Collaborative creating a new oversight structure. • MHFA Excellence in Housing Choice Award for Citywide Inspection/Rehab program. • Successfully submitted a grant in partnership with Vail Place to provide service coordination and case management services to the residents at Hamilton House. In 2005 the HA board went through a strategic planning session facilitated by Bridget Gothberg. At the meeting, two goals were established for the Board to be accomplished over the next year. The two HA Board goals identified at that meeting are as follows: 1. Review and confirm our Mission Statement, and 2. Define HA Commission’s and HA Board’s level of influence and involvement. Later that year the Board adopted an amended Mission Statement reflective of the HA’s vision and the work being accomplished. Vision Elements previously adopted will remain unchanged. The new Mission Statement is as follows: Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Page 3 Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan HA Mission The Housing Authority develops, integrates and operates housing and housing assistance policies and programs to ensure the availability of safe, affordable and desirable housing options that meet the diverse, lifecycle housing needs of all of the residents of St. Louis Park. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: The activities of the Housing Authority have a direct relationship to the Strategic Direction the Council adopted related to “St Louis Park is committed to a well maintained and diverse housing stock”. Attachments: HA Board Goals 2007 Housing Activity Report Tables through October 31, 2007 HA Action Plan 2007/2008 Prepared By: Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager HA Board Goal: Define HA Commissioner’s and HA Board’s level of influence and involvement. Action Plan Influence/Involvement – Current/Continue Board Staff Provide Planning Agendas for Board Review X X Annually Review the Status of New Development in the City X Provide Case-by-Case Review of Specific Projects/Developments X X Influence/Involvement – Future Board Staff Provide Timely Information to Board on New Developments that Impact Housing in the Community X X Work with Planning Staff to Develop Process for Reviewing Housing Impact of New Development that Incorporates the Use of the Housing Summit Housing Matrix X Effectively Administer Current Programs and Make them Better – Choose a Focus X X Improve Existing Housing: Assist and Make Existing Affordable Housing in the Community Better, especially Underutilized Developments X Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 4 City of St. Louis Park Housing Report – Through October 31, 2007 The purpose of this report is to apprise the Housing Authority of 2007 year to date housing activity including the City’s vigorous 2007 “Move Up in the Park” activity. In addition to the program activity, this report includes: • Housing Matrix including Housing Affordability Goals and Status • Recent Foreclosure Activity in St. Louis Park 1. MOVE UP IN THE PARK ACTIVITY SUMMARY Again, in 2007, the Move Up program is very active and on pace to exceed last year’s activity. The comprehensive package of services and loans resulted from the Housing Summit’s emphasis of facilitating and promoting the expansion of existing homes as the most effective tool to achieve more family size homes in the city. The Move Up in the Park program successfully kicked off in 2005 and 2006 was an active year of vigorous home improvement activity. A synergy between the marketing of our “Move up in the Park” programs and services, with strong remodeling interest, has resulted in resident use that continues to outpace projections. Chart 1. Resident Investment in 2006 and 2007 through October 2007 In 2006, residents invested over fifteen million dollars in renovations to their homes. In 2007, residents are on track to exceed last year’s investments. The resident investment for remodeling and expansion through October 2007 is over $23,000,000. Over 97 permits for major remodeling/expansion projects have been issued so far this year, compared to 86 during 2006. Resident Remodeling Investment based on Permit Valuations $15,200,000 $23,050,000 $0 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000 $25,000,000 2006 2007 through October Year$ Permit Valuation The following table provides a snapshot of the 2007 use of the Move Up programs and services along with funding levels. It is followed by the description of each of the program components. Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 5 • The transformation-move up loans, have exceeded 2007 estimates. Twenty homes have been significantly expanded using the transformation loan. The architectural design service remains popular. There are a limited number of residents that can use this service, and staff expects the saturation point is being reached. This will continue to be popular with newer residents seeking to expand their starter homes. • The discount loan program though not as active as last year continues to be used by residents. Through October 31, 41 loans have been closed compared to 88 for all of 2006. • The remodeling home tour was very successful. • The “green” home remodeling fair was less well attended this year due to a very snowy day, and approximately 2,000 folks attended. • Even with the softened housing market, the private sector is still purchasing and renovating small homes, and staff has not identified suitable homes for the small home acquisition and expansion program at a reasonable price point. Table 1. Move Up Housing Activity January 1 – October 31, 2007 Activity Goal Through October 31, 2007 Annual Budget Expended through 10/31/2007 Move Up - Transformation Loan 15 20 $500,000 $620,000 Architectural Design Service 100 45 $22,500 $10,025 Remodeling Advisor 300 171 $39,000 $22,230 Discount Loans 80 41 $150,000 $74,300 1,000 Home Remodeling Tour attendees 1,000 $5,000 $5,000 Home Remodeling Fair 2,000 attendees 2,000 $0 $0 Small Home Acquisition Program 5 0 $137,500 $0 Neighborhood Green Home Improvement and Energy Workshops (Spring 2008l) 2 0 $3,500 0 All multi-lot parcels have been bid out, and all sf except one have been bid out. Vacant Public Land for SF Homes Move Up In the Park Programs & Loans Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 6 The initiatives include educational, technical and financial activities designed to motivate and assist residents with renovation to their homes. The overall initiatives are more successful than projected, especially for the technical and design assistance, and program costs are being held in line. These programs are funded from the Housing Rehabilitation Fund. • Move – Up Transformation Loan The purpose of this loan is to encourage residents with incomes at or below 120% of median area income ($92,000 for a family of four) to expand their homes. The program provides deferred loans for 25% of the applicant’s home expansion project cost. Loan repayment at 0% interest is deferred until the home is sold - if the resident remains in the home for 30 years, the loan will be forgiven. This in effect establishes a revolving loan pool which will continue to fund future expansions. This loan requires significant upfront work by the residents, from deciding on the scope of the project to selecting contractors. The average loan exceeded $25,000. o Only residents making significant expansions are eligible. The minimum project cost must exceed $35,000. o The maximum loan amount of $37,500 will be reduced to $25,000 to serve even more residents. o The City has established a revolving loan pool, administered by a third party. o The loan has 0% interest with a carrying cost fee of 3% paid by the borrower. • Architectural Design Service This service provides an architectural consultation for residents to assist with brainstorming remodeling possibilities and to raise the awareness of design possibilities for expansions. Residents select an approved architect from a pool developed in conjunction with the American Institute of Architects and local architects. All homeowners considering renovations would be eligible for this service regardless of income, however to ensure committed participants, residents make a $25 co-pay. Resident surveys not only provided ideas to refine the program, but indicated a high level of satisfaction with the service. • Remodeling/Rehab Advisor The intention of this service is to help residents improve their homes (either maintenance or value added improvements) by providing technical help before and during the construction process. All homeowners are eligible for this service regardless of income. Resident surveys indicated that homeowners valued the service and would recommend it to others. The City contracts with the Center for Energy and Environment (CEE) for this service. • Discount Loan Program This program encourages residents to improve their homes by “discounting” the interest rate on the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) home improvement loans. The MHFA’s Community Fix-up Fund is restricted to Minnesota residents residing in cities that elect to participate in the program. Residents with incomes of Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 7 $63,000 or less qualify for a greater discount than those with incomes of $89,000 or less. Eligible improvements include most home improvement projects with the exception of luxury items such as pools and spas. The City’s Housing Rehabilitation Fund is the funding source for the discount loan program, and CEE is the loan administrator. St. Louis Park implemented the discounting of MHFA loans in late 1999 as a pilot project. Successful marketing efforts have led the City to be third among all Minnesota cities to use the MHFA loans, only exceeded by Minneapolis and St. Paul. • Home Remodeling Tour The 3rd annual Home Remodeling Tour of six recently remodeled homes proved very popular with an average 400 residents visiting each of the six tour homes. The Tour’s goal is to provide residents hands-on examples of remodeling and expansion projects of typical St. Louis Park housing, to motivate and encourage residents to enlarge and enhance their homes. • Annual Home Remodeling Fair The cities and community education departments of St. Louis Park, Hopkins, Minnetonka and Golden Valley co-sponsored the 2007 Fair. The 2007 Fair had a “green theme” and over 1,500 residents from the four cities attended the one day event, with over half of the attendees living in St. Louis Park. The fair provides residents an opportunity to attend seminars, talk with vendors and city staff about permits, zoning, home improvement loans, and environmental issues related to remodeling. The fair is now a self-sustaining event where vendor registration fees more than cover the costs of the event. • Small Home Acquisition Program. Staff is recommending this program be coupled with the existing home renewal program. Even with the softened housing market, the private sector is still purchasing and renovating small homes, and staff has not identified suitable homes for the small home acquisition and expansion program at a reasonable price point. • Neighborhood Green Home Improvement and Energy Workshops Two neighborhood workshops are planned for fall 2007. The timing of the workshops is to being coordinated with the New State Green Remodeling Guidelines and could continue the excitement and buzz about remodeling into the fall. The purpose is to provide concrete education about codes and zoning, design and rehab assistance and information about the city’s financial incentives including existing loan programs. Last years attendance quite low, however the new green guidelines could increase interest. • Vacant Public Land Progress of the single family and multi-family lots is bulleted below. Sale proceeds for the first seven parcels is $644,000. The most recent update is that the deadline for request for proposals (RFP) for up to four single family homes on the 9019 Cedar Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 8 Lake Road occurred. No RFPs were received. Two interested developers relayed to staff that the soft housing market is too uncertain to pursue development at this time. Complete or well underway. 4525 West 42nd Street, home complete, family moved in. 4515 West 42nd Street, under construction, completion fall 2007. 4309 Browndale Ave side-yard sliver sold to abutting property owner. Designs approved, closings scheduled, construction scheduled. 7701 Edgebrook Drive. Still trying for fall construction start. 2715 Monterey Ave S. Spring construction start. Design phase – Design Review Committee has reviewed and provided feedback. 2005 Louisiana Ave S. Spring construction start. 5609 Wood Lane. Spring construction start. Lot to bid – Green criteria incorporated into bid design 2600 Natchez Ave. Green component bid in November. Multi-lot parcels. Requests for housing development proposals for I-394 Frontage Road & 13th Lane and Frontage Road & Texas Ave were solicited and due to the slow housing market no proposals were received. Staff suggests that these parcels not be purchased from MNDOT by the City at this time, and that they be revisited for development in the future. 9019 Cedar Lake Road. No RFP’s received. Staff suggests this parcel be retained in City ownership, and revisited for development in the future. 2. OTHER HOUSING PROGRAM ACTIVITY Other city housing activity is outlined in the table with descriptions below: Table 2. Housing Activity Report, January 1 – October 31, 2007 Activity Goal To Date Annual Budget Expended 10/31//2007 Citywide Inspection Rehab Program (City & MHFA Funds) 200 units 184 $325,000 (18 months) $291,100 Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 1 HIA Wolfe Lake HIA (130 units) established and Westmoreland in process (72 units) $10,000 $6,000* CDBG $211,913 $287, 213** *The City fronts legal, financial and City admin costs which will be reimbursed through the HIA loan. **Actual 2006 CDBG expenditures included CDBG funding from 2004/5 Grant Years. • Citywide Home Inspection Rehab Program (CHIRP) The City received a $147,000 matching grant from the MN Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) for deferred and discount loans for low income residents identified by Inspections as requiring exterior maintenance improvements. Of the 200 homes and owners Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 9 identified as having significant exterior code violations, over 184 of the homes have been improved, and almost all the funds have been expended. This program received MN Housing’s Housing Development Choice Award in 2006. • Housing Improvement Area (HIA) The Wolfe Lake Association HIA was established on October 1, 2007. $1,268,000 worth of common area improvements would be paid with a 15 year term loan at 5.85% interest rate. The Westmoreland Hills Owner Association anticipates submitting an HIA application by end of 2007. • Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Activity completed as of October 31, 2007 included activities that were funded with 2005 and 2006 Grant Year funds. 2007 contracts are being disbursed by the County the week of November 19, 2007. Table 3. 2007 CDBG Allocation and Activity 2005/6 Allocation and Activity Budget Expended 10/31//07 Emergency Repair Program - single family housing rehabilitation $56,413 $68,302 Housing Land Trust - acquisition single family housing $18,500 $18,500 Multifamily Rehabilitation – Louisiana Court $80,000 $80,000 Single Family Rehab Deferred Loan Program $120,411 STEP Acquisition $57,500 Total $211,913 $287,213 • Housing Trust Affordable Homeownership. The Housing Trust closed on one St. Louis Park homes in May 2007. It was sold to an owner with income below 50% median area income. 3. ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY The St. Louis Park Housing Authority activity is outlined the tables below: Table 4. St. Louis Park Housing Authority Assisted Housing Programs Public Housing Public Housing Total Units 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR Occupancy 2007 Hamilton House 108 108 98.9% Scattered Site Single Family 57 0 0 17 17 3 97.8% Louisiana Court, Metropolitan Housing Opportunity (MHOP) Units 12 12 97.9% Total (bedroom size) 108 12 17 17 3 Total 157 Rental Assistance Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 10 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HUD Approved) Units Utilization YTD 2007 Tenant-Based 220 101% Tenant-Based Portability Units* 91 Avg./month Project-Based: 45 96% Wayside House 20 90% Excelsior & Grand 18 100% Vail Place 7 100% Shelter Plus Care Rental Assistance: 38 Perspectives Inc. 11 100% Community Involvement Program (CIP) – Scattered Site Homes 11 100% CIP- Clear Spring Road 8 65% Project for Pride In Living (PPL) 8 100% Total 303 *For First Half 2007, the HA administered an average of 78 vouchers for Sec. 8 households that have moved to SLP from other jurisdictions. Waiting Lists Assisted Housing Waiting List as of December 31, 2006 Public Housing 1-BR 1-BR Handicap 2-BR 3-BR 3-BR Handicap 4-BR 5-BR Total 194 12 103 120 22 36 19 506 Section 8 1229 Housing Matrix: Housing Types, Numbers & Percentages - June 2007 In 2005 the Council approved housing goals that evolved from the 2003-05 Housing Summit. Along with the goals, strategies were defined for implementation to achieve the goals. One of the strategies was to develop a matrix of existing housing types including detached/attached, owner/rental, family/senior, and affordable/market rate with production goals for each. The matrix is to be a guide to evaluate future housing development proposals. The attached matrix is updated semi-annually and presented to the City Council, Housing Authority and Planning Commission. It shows at a glance the numbers and percentages of: housing types, tenure (owner or rental), affordable units, senior designated units and large single family homes. Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 11 St. Louis Park Housing Types, Numbers and PercentagesHOUSING MATRIXJune 30, 20007Housing TypeUnits added 1/1/07-6/30/07# Units % Units # UnitsSingle Family Detached11,565 50% 5Duplex424 2% 0Condos and townhomes 3313 14% 349Apartments 7526 33% 0COOPs125 1% 0Total22,953 100% 354 14,581 64% 8372 36% 1,073 5% 5,993 26% 1057 5% 946 4% Data source: SLP Community Development, Multiple Residential Developments 1998-2007 and SLP Assessing. Percentages are based on the percentage of the total number of all housing units.0Large Family Homes, Affordable and Senior Housing0Large Family Home - 1,500 sq ft., 3+Bedrooms, 2+ Bath & 2+ Car Garage#1,073Senior Designated00Housing UnitsAffordable Market Rate (includes 2,633 rental & 3360 owner occupied units)Affordable Subsidized (includes 1010 rental & 120 owner occupied units)Owner Occupied Rental0##390188268752611,17523630450Large Single Family Homes: As of June 30, 2007, 65 major expansions, 5 new large single family homes and 3 "tear down" large homes were issued permits. In 2006, there were 86 major expansions, in 2005 there were 57.2,1251911,1022560836110470Affordable Rental Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 50% MAI ($39,250 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Monthly rent of $883, or less for a 2 bedroom apartment for a family of four is considered affordable.Affordable Owner Occupied Housing is defined as housing affordable to households with incomes at or below 80% MAI ($62,800 family of four), paying thirty percent of their income for housing costs. Homes selling at $201,800 or less, are considered affordable for a family of four with household income of $62,800 or less.Housing Production by Type15##97337125#11/21/2007Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 12 St. Louis Park Housing Authority Fiscal Year End March 31, 2008 - Updated 11/20/2007 HA Vision Elements Implementation Status Action Items In Progress Complete Comments The Community a. Desirable housing choices exist for families and individuals of all incomes. a. Apply for 1st Time Homebuyer funds in cooperation with MN Housing Finance Agency, MN Cities Participation and Community Action Set-Aside Programs. b. Monitor the ongoing administration and utilization of Sec. 8 project-based developments. Review results with the HA Board, including the impact of project basing on the administration of the Section 8 program. c. Continue to look for opportunities to facilitate and promote affordable home ownership i. e., partner with Habitat for Humanity, continue partnering and support of WHAHLT. d. Encourage expansion, remodeling and maintenance of single-family homes through the development, application and marketing of rehab loan products, including the Move-Up-In-The-Park programs. e. Continue working with homeowner associations interested in utilizing HIA as a resource to meet the housing rehab needs of condominium and townhouse development. f. Consider applying for additional “Fair Share” Section 8 units, Shelter Plus Care or other assisted housing X X X X X X 1st time Home-buyer funds are available through MHFA. Staff is continuing to collaborate with WHAHLT and is also exploring other possible programs to provide affordable homeownership opportunities for 1st time home buyers. Staff monitors the utilization of the Sec. 8 program, as well as, the 45 project based units on an ongoing basis. Current utilization rates through June 30 where included in the Housing Activity report distributed to the Board at the August meeting. A thorough analysis of the voucher program’s utilization will be provided prior to renewal of the Wayside project-based contract in February 2008. The HA submitted a letter supporting WHAHLT’s application to MHFA’s super NOFA. Staff is researching programming provided in other communities and meeting with other community and housing industry organizations to explore possible programming and partnerships options. The Home Remodeling Tour was held at the end of April. An informational announcement was mailed to all single family homes. Staff continues to market housing programs through on the WEB, through the utility bills and the Park Perspective. The Wolfe Lake Condominium Assoc. gathered the required number of petitions to request that the Council establish them as a HIA – the first reading was held Sept. 10th , the second reading was on Oct.1st . $1.25 mil in improvements are proposed, construction scheduled to begin late November. HUD recently requested that the HA administer Disaster Housing Agency Program (DHAP) rental ass’t. to 4 families living in the SLP jurisdiction Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 13 resources based on community need, community goals and staff capacity to administer additional units when available. Support other service and housing agencies efforts to secure additional affordable housing units. g. Explore potential/financial feasibility/need for creating acquisition/rehab duplex program to create affordable homeownership opportunities for low income households. X through. The program provides rental ass’t. and case management services for families displaced by Hurricane’s Katrina and Rita. Staff agreed to administer 2 additional DHAP households: I in Hopkins and 1 in Spring Brook. Staff submitted renewal applications for the 22 units of rental assistance for the Perspectives and Community Involvement Program S+C programs. Staff has met with staff from another community currently administering a similar program; housing staff has also met with inspection department staff and identified several possible target areas and specific properties. Staff is in the process of contacting owners to determine their interest in selling and recently inspected a potential property with WHAHLT. A follow-up meeting with WHAHLT is scheduled for early December. There is a balance of housing choices for households at all phases of the life cycle. a. Continue to address housing strategies identified in Vision St. Louis Park, HA strategic planning and Housing Summit Goals. b. Complete Excess Public Land process to sell vacant land for construction of large family housing units. Assist in process for use of sale proceeds. c. Assist nonprofit and for profit developers who will work with the City on the acquisition, improvement and/or development of additional and/or non-traditional housing opportunities to meet the City’s diverse housing needs. d. Maintain/distribute Housing Activities Report bi-annually and Matrix of existing housing types to confirm benchmarks and to evaluate future housing development. e. Explore interest/feasibility of conducting a senior housing market study to determine future senior housing needs in the community. X X X X X Two housing staff persons have been named as the “asset champions” and are overseeing efforts to address two of the focus areas identified by the Council in the 18 month Strategic Plan. Staff is also serving as team members on other focus areas. 1 single family property complete and occupied, 1 under construction, 4 in design phase, 1 going out to bid this month. 2 of the multi-family lots did not receive viable bids-will re-bid at a later date. Bids for the Cedar Lake Road parcel closed on 11/16- no bids were received – a reflection of the soft housing market. Staff has met with WHAHLT to explore collaborating on additional affordable housing programs. Staff is also working with multiple non profits providing affordable multi-family housing regarding rehab needs to their rental properties. The 2006 Housing Activity Report was distributed in Feb. 2007, the mid-year Report was distributed to the Council at their July and the HA at their August Board meeting. Staff is working with Hennepin County staff on the possibility of a conducting a County wide senior housing study. The County has indicated some interest – staff will be following –up with the County. St. Louis Park is a unique, safe, a. Incorporate livable communities’ principles into policies Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 14 pedestrian- and transit-oriented community. and planning including downtown center; pedestrian, bicycle and public transit oriented development; strong neighborhoods and developments located with access to employment opportunities. b. Work with the Inspections department to complete 2005/2006 citywide housing inspection program to inspect single family homes for exterior code violations b. Assist with amendment of Comp Plan and review and determine the impact of the revised Livable Community Goals on the City’s housing initiatives. c. Consider development of a “green” incentive program for use of environmentally friendly design and products in home rehab/expansion/maintenance. X X Program is finishing up, 184 have complied and made improvements. $291,000 of the MHFA and City funds have been expended. ($325,000 was available). Staff met with the Green Institute to discuss possible environmentally friendly home remodeling programs that the City could support or help facilitate. Staff is in the process of developing program specifics. Staff is submitting a grant to the MN Pollution Control Agency for a technical assistance grant to assist with start up costs for new programs. Agency Administration and Programs The public housing stock is well-maintained and a positive community asset. a. Continue efforts to improve PHAS property inspection indicator score through regular and thorough assessment of properties addressing maintenance deficiencies, maintaining properties at a level that ensures we meet the highest PHAS property inspection standards. b. Implement improvements as noted in the public housing one-year capital fund improvement plan utilizing the formula allocated Capital Improvement grant funds. Continue to enhance 5 year Plan, developing a comprehensive PH property condition inventory that includes all capital and equipment improvements/replacements regardless of funding source. X X Staff conducts inspections of the Hamilton House apartments annually and the scattered site homes semi-annually. More frequent inspections may be conducted for tenants with noted housekeeping concerns. The PH Manager conducts walk through inspections of all turnovers to assess extra ordinary needs and ensure quality control standards are being met. The PH Manager conducted a thorough inspection of all PH properties and developed a comprehensive 5 year capital improvement program. The 2005 CFP funds are spent and closed out. Bids were recently obtained for 2006 CFP funds – contracts presented at the September 2007 meeting and the work is underway. Plans are being made for use of the of the 2007 CFP funds. A grant application was submitted to the state for $120,000 in capital funds to assist with roof and patio door replacements at Hamilton House. The Housing Authority is financially solvent and strives for a. Achieve and maintain adequate accounting systems and internal control procedures to comply with HUD’s asset X Audit for FY 2007 completed, auditors noted two “significant” findings. Neither was of any major program consequence that compromised the Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 15 greater financial capacity. management and audit requirements b. Continue to assess maintenance operation and activities ensuring the most effective and efficient use of staff and resources. c. Develop budgets for agency programs that reflect prudent fiscal operation and are responsive to HUD’s recent declining federal funding policies. Continue to review financial principles and policies related to HA reserve funds. d. Continue to apply for HUD grant opportunities to ensure a self-supported TRAILS program and service coordinator at Hamilton House. e. Enhance financial monitoring of housing rehab programs; determine approach to ensure long-term viability and use of the Housing Rehab fund and the Park Center TIF (affordable housing related uses). X X X financial integrity of the HA’s programs. Both findings were resolved immediately. The PH Manager meets with maintenance staff weekly to assess maintenance needs, staff work assignments and establish work plans. Established balanced budgets for FYE 2008 for both the Sec. 8 and PH programs. Budgeting for FYE 2009 will begin in Nov./Dec.. HA received a 3-year grant for $210,000 to fund coordination and case management services at HH. Applications have been submitted to HUD for FSS grant funding to serve both the Section 8 and PH programs participants. The HA is currently administering a $22,000 HUD grant to support FSS Coordinator services for the Sec. 8 Voucher program participants. The administration of Housing Authority programs is efficient, effective and productive. a. Continue to “Rethink” our products, services and systems. Institute uniform policies across programs to improve management functions reflective of Congressional changes, HUD rules and procedural practices. b. Continue to develop “monthly management reports” utilizing the new Hab. Inc. software to track key program indicators needed for Public Housing Management System (PHAS), asset management, Section Eight Management Assessment System (SEMAP) and operational performance. c. Revise/update Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy X X X Housing staff met with finance staff to develop a new system for applying PH payments. Staff drafted and the Board approved new policies to comply with the VAWA. Waiting list inquires revised to eliminate applicant speculation and confusion in numbering system. Hab. Inc Software that will enhance the reporting capability of the current software was purchased and installed. Staff working with Hab Inc on modifying software to accurately reflect SLP data. Lease is currently under review. The HA recently purchased the Nan McKay Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 16 Plan and Lease to reflect Congressional changes, HUD rules, HA policies and Family Resident Handbook. d. Continue to operate the Section 8 and Public Housing programs in a manner that maintains HUD “high performer” status under SEMAP & PHAS. e. Maximize utilization of Sec. 8 program and occupancy of the PH program. f. Implement new computer applications to enhance program administration, i.e. management software. X X X leasing and Occupancy handbook Template and will begin a significant revision of the PH policy. Staff has developed a work plan and begun a series of meetings to review and update the plan. Both programs are currently rated a “High Performers” under HUD’s PHAS and SEMAP systems. Staff recently resolved long standing issues related to PIC reporting to ensure that our HUD tenant reporting rate exceeds 95% for both Sec. 8 and PH. On June 30th Section 8 utilization was > 96% and the occupancy of the PH program exceeded 97%. Hab Inc. management software which provides multiple management reports was purchased and installed. The Housing Authority has a good professional image as a developer, property manager and policy maker in St. Louis Park. a. Continue to pursue community outreach opportunities such as the Neighborhood Home Remodeling Fair & Tour. b. Enhance the information related to City housing programs provided on the City’s web site, appropriately ensure policy makers and the public are kept informed of housing related activities and programs. c. Be responsive to inquires or comments from the policy makers, businesses, service agencies and the public. d. Develop long range plan for City rehab development funds and Park Center TIF (affordable housing). X X X X (ongoing) This year’s Remodeling Fair and Tour were very successful. Dates for next year’s Remodeling Fair and Tour have already been scheduled and on the community calendar. Staff continues to work with the IT department to enhance the info available to the public on the City’s web site. New housing program information is kept up to date. Staff responds in a timely and appropriate manner to all internal and external inquiries. Park Center TIF was used as a funding resource for the Louisiana Court Deferred Loan. The Agency as Partner The Housing Authority seeks opportunities to work in partnership with for-profit and nonprofit organizations to address housing needs in St. Louis Park a. Continue to participate in NAHRO activities and work with Hennepin County, MHFA and other housing related organizations etc. b. Seek opportunities to collaborate with nonprofit and for profit developers to expand home improvement programming, resources and financing options. X X Staff attended the Spring and Fall NAHRO conference and participates in the Metro HA/City bi-monthly meetings. Staff attends bi-monthly meetings with Anoka and Ramsey county communities to discuss housing issues. Staff regularly attends Sensible Land Use educational seminars. Staff met with the Green Institute to discuss possible environmentally friendly home remodeling programs that the City could support or help facilitate. Staff is in the process of developing program specifics. Staff is submitting a grant to the MN Pollution Control Agency for a technical assistance grant to assist with Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 17 c. Act as staff liaison working with Louisiana Court funding partners. Support council appointed Board member to Louisiana Court Board of Governors. Create and participate in oversight committee to monitor project’s ongoing operational and financial status. d. Continue to seek ways to utilize CDBG funds for non-profits serving low income households in a fair and open manner. e. Support/collaborate with nonprofit and for profit developers to address housing needs in the community, both, ownership and rental. X X X start up costs for new programs. Staff continues to monitor the ongoing operation of Louisiana Court, attends weekly police/management meetings and serves on the Oversight Comm. with other funders. A notice will be sent in December to all multi-family affordable housing providers to inquiry about rehab needs. Staff has assisted WHAHLT with 3 affordable land trust homeownership properties. One more is funded and we are exploring partnering on other programs including a duplex conversion. Staff works with the rental owners and managers through the SPARC organization that meets monthly. The Housing Authority has a strong relationship with the City Council, City staff and the citizens of St. Louis Park. a. Continue to collaborate with the Police Department to support the St. Louis Park Rental Coalition (SPARC) and serve as Community Development staff liaison to the Coalition. b. Conduct neighborhood workshops on housing rehab resources and programs. Work with neighborhoods to address housing related issues. Through analysis of housing rehab activity, determine need to target under represented neighborhoods. c. Staff representation on the Intra-City Community Connections Committee to build collaboration and awareness of City’s department activities with residents. d. Continue to identify activities to better market City housing-related programs to the residents. Enhance information on the City’s WEB. e. Maintain comprehensive housing report on various X X X Ongoing X X Bi-monthly meetings continue. Coalition has combined with the Hopkins Rental Coalition to hold joint meetings on topics of interest. SLP Coalition will continue to meet separately 2-3x per year. Picnic held in June at Oak Hill Park sponsored by the SLP Police Dept. Funding was proposed in the 2008 Rehab budget to implement another “targeted neighborhood” program. Kathy Larsen continues to participate as the CD/Hsg. Representative on the Community Connections Comm. Staff worked with P & R to fund park shelter & park programming at Ainsworth Park (adjacent to Louisiana Court). Staff extensively markets programs on a regular basis, i.e., the Park Perspective, Star & Tribune articles, Sun Sailor, Utility Bills, remodeling Fair, remodeling Tour, Web, Direct mailing, annual City Neighborhood Meeting, etc. The 2006 report was distributed in Feb. 2007 and the mid-year Housing Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 18 11/21/2007 housing activities/programs in the City, include housing matrix and information on rental assistance program, distribute to policy makers semi-annually. Activity Report distributed to Council and the HA at their July/Aug meetings. Reported included info on Met Council affordable housing goals and SLP foreclosures. Next report due in Jan, 2008 Our Residents Current and past residents of subsidized housing have improved their economic status and are less dependent on public assistance. a. Continue to administer the Trails family self-sufficiency program, submit HUID application to support coordinator position to service Sec. 8 clients. Cont. to seek funding to support services to PH clients. b. Investigate role of HA and opportunities for linking to programming with community supportive services organizations. X X Current program is serving 27 individuals; 15 of whom have established escrow accounts. Staff recently submitted 2 applications for continued funding through HUD’s Sec. 8 and PH FSS grant program. Worked with Senior Community Services on Dial-a-ride program, implementation currently on hold, working with Lennox to address transportation needs to senior activities, other agencies providing services to residents at Hamilton House include STEP, Meals on Wheels, Community Involvement Program, Jewish & Family Service, Methodist Hospital . Residents unable to achieve economic independence because of age, disability or circumstance have improved their quality of life and are contributing members of the community. a. Help tenants through referral and advocacy to strengthen their relationships with local service organizations. b. Partner with Vail Place in seeking funding to sustain social service coordination staff at Hamilton House. X X The ROSS grant award now enables the HA to have a service coordinator/case management at Hamilton House fulltime. The HA received a HUD ROSS grant to fund a service coordinator at Hamilton House for three years. Meeting of November 26, 2007 (Item 2) Subject: Housing Authority Report & Work Plan Page 19 Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 3 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: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review and Final Budget Review. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. This is an opportunity for the City Council to discuss these items prior to taking action at the Council Meeting on December 17, 2007. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the city fund all the included projects in the CIP at least for 2008? Are sufficient resources available in each CIP fund to finance these activities over the five years? Should the budget be amended based on input received at the Truth-in-Taxation hearing? BACKGROUND: CIP The CIP is an annual document which lays out all capital purchases anticipated during the next five years along with their proposed funding source. The nature of this document is somewhat speculative since it is very difficult to predict future project scopes and prices with significant accuracy. The first two years (2008-2009) are much more likely to be close than projects that are farther out. This document is the purchasing authority for the City Manager and Department Directors. Approved items will be purchased as long as they don’t exceed the amount in the CIP or need additional legal processes, such as bid approval, prior to implementation. The CIP expenditures are balanced against revenues by year with the exception of some Public Works projects. Those projects have significant expenditures incurred for engineering and design work prior to receiving reimbursement from an outside source. The attached sheets show the expenditures by department and category. The revenues are segregated by funding source and project. Some funds do not maintain a positive balance through the entire timeframe of the document and will required additional revenues to complete all anticipated projects. Since these projects in the out years are less certain, we don’t have to be fully concerned about the ultimate source of those funds. Finance is recommending several transfers to help alleviate those funding shortfalls in another report included with the packet for December 10th. Those transfers are $350,000 to the Municipal Building Fund and $85,000 to the Technology Replacement Fund. While not complete long-term solutions, these will provide sufficient liquidity to cover 2008 and 2009. We will discuss more permanent funding alternatives when we bring up long-range planning at a future study session and the City Council retreat planned for February, 2008. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Page 2 Subject: Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Review and Final Budget Review There are several items that are unfunded in this document. The largest are two road projects: the Hwy 7 & Wooddale intersection and Hwy 100 reconstruction. These are specifically unfunded in order to seek additional assistance from state or federal financing sources. With the other projects, we are either not sure if the project is necessary or do not have a financing sources identified at this time. In either instance, the projects will not be undertaken until a financing source has been identified and approved by the City Council. Budget The input received at the Truth-in-Taxation hearing did not address any specific city program expenditures or revenues. Staff would like to know if the Council wants any specific changes to be made prior to the budget adoption that will take place on December 17th. There will not be any specific items presented by staff at this meeting, but we want an opportunity for Council to react to the hearing input. As was evident at the meeting, the general concern about city taxes relates primarily to individuals who are experiencing the effects of the limited market value phase-out. This will continue for some of our residents again next year, but most will have their market value and tax value match up after 2008. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the December 17, 2007 Council Meeting, resolutions will be proposed to approve the 2008- 2012 CIP and adopt the 2008 Budget and Tax Levy. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: CIP Sheets Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Capital Improvement Program City of St. Louis Park, MN PROJECTS BY CATEGORY AND DEPARTMENT 2008 2012thru Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Department Category Future Cable TV Cable TV 6,000 6,000Replacement NL Edit systems 9,000 9,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units 36,000 36,000Cameras & pan tilt heads 4,000 4,000Video server 4,000 4,000Controller for Chambers cameras 5,000 5,000Public address system 3,000 3,000Replacement digital camcorder 3,000 3,000Replacement digital camcorder 6,000 58,000 6,000 70,000Category Sub-Total 6,000 58,000 6,000 70,000Department Total: Fire Fire-Equipment 312,000 312,000SCBA Replacement 312,000 312,000Category Sub-Total 312,000 312,000Department Total: Inspections Facilities Projects 95,000 95,000City Hall / Police Station Landscaping 50,000 50,000MSC Security 11,000,000 11,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 1,800,000 1,800,000MSC Complex Expansion 40,000 40,000MSC Floor Drains 40,000 40,000City Hall 3rd Floor Space Reallocation 350,000 350,000City Hall Exterior 100,000 100,000MSC Storage Bins 25,000 25,000Westwood Wind Genset 200,000 200,000City Hall 1st Floor Space Reallocation 150,000 150,000City Hall Parking Lot Above Garage 700,000 12,950,000 200,000 13,850,000Category Sub-Total 700,000 12,950,000 200,000 13,850,000Department Total: Parks & Recreation PR-Basketball 6,000 6,000Justad Park Basketball Court Resurface 15,000 15,000Jackley Park Basketball and Trail Overlay Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 3 Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Department Category Future 7,500 7,500Roxbury Park Basketball Court and Trail 80,000 80,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth Aquila Nelson Parks 28,500 80,000 108,500 Category Sub-Total PR-Buildings 190,000 190,000Building Replacement - Fern Hill Park 40,000 40,000Carpenter Park Concession Building 6,000 6,000Energy Audit 180,000 180,000Building Replacement - Birchwood Park 10,000 10,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement 30,000 30,000Aquila Park Storage Building - Replace and Move 236,000 180,000 10,000 30,000 456,000 Category Sub-Total PR-Dog Park 15,000 15,000Off-Leash Dog Park Second Location 15,000 15,000Category Sub-Total PR-Equipment 50,000 50,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement 908,760 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106 4,555,404 4,656,764Annual Equipment Replacement Program 908,760 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,688,106 4,605,404 4,656,764 Category Sub-Total PR-Fencing 45,000 45,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 3) 48,000 48,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 4) 45,000 48,000 93,000Category Sub-Total PR-Field 52,000 52,000Aquila Park Lighting Upgrade - Field 2 25,000 25,000Bronx Park Field Improvements 100,000 100,000Aquila Park Field Lighting (Field 5) 15,000 15,000Field Rnvtn: Ainsworth, Keystone, Louisiana & Wlkr 77,000 100,000 15,000 192,000 Category Sub-Total PR-General Parks Improvement 22,392 22,392 44,784Ford Park Redevelopment 50,000 50,000Beehive Relocation to a Park, Phase I 305,000 305,000Fern Hill Park Redevelopment 50,000 50,000Frisbee Golf Course 60,000 60,000Beehive Restoration Project, Phase II 5,000 5,000Skate Park Addition 100,000 100,000Dakota Park Fencing, Lights, Dugout & Storage Bldg 10,000 10,000Hurd Park Community Garden 12,000 12,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Addition 10,000 10,000Beehive Restoration Upgrade 6,000 6,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail and Asphalt Work 427,392 87,392 110,000 12,000 16,000 652,784 Category Sub-Total PR-Irrigation 40,000 40,000Carpenter Park Irrigation 42,000 42,000Ainsworth Park Irrigation Addition 50,000 50,000Louisiana Oaks Park Irrigation Upgrade 40,000 42,000 50,000 132,000Category Sub-Total Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 4 Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Department Category Future PR-Parking Lot 185,000 185,000Aquila Park Parking Lot & Trail Reconstruction 25,000 25,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot Expansion 65,000 65,000Dakota Park Parking Lots Overlay 210,000 65,000 275,000Category Sub-Total PR-Playgrounds 70,000 70,000Playground Equipment Replacement 120,000 120,000Playground Equipment Replacement 135,000 135,000Playground Equipment Replacement 125,000 125,000Playground Eqpt Rplcmt-Aquila, Dakota & Nelson Pks 70,000 70,000Playground Equipmnt Rpl - Blackstone & Jersey Prks 70,000 120,000 135,000 125,000 70,000 520,000 Category Sub-Total PR-Rec Center 10,000 10,000Rec Center and Wolfe Park Amphitheater Landscaping 20,000 20,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Floor Replacement 20,000 20,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replacement 300,000 300,000Rec Center Dehumidification System 15,000 15,000Rec Center Offices Carpet Replacement 30,000 30,000Rec Center Sign and Banner Replacement 30,000 20,000 315,000 30,000 395,000Category Sub-Total PR-Rec Center Pool 60,000 60,000Aquatic Park Sand/Water Play Area 60,000 60,000Category Sub-Total PR-Shelters 35,000 35,000Sun Shelter Addition at Louisiana Oaks Park 15,000 15,000Oak Hill Park Reroof Central & Rustic Shelters 23,000 23,000Sun Shelter Addition at Willow Park 45,000 45,000Dakota Park Picnic Shlter Rmvl & Sun Shelter Adtn 23,000 23,000Cedar Manor Park Sunshelter 55,000 55,000Sun Shelter Addition - Jersey & Pennsylvania Parks 35,000 38,000 45,000 23,000 55,000 196,000 Category Sub-Total PR-Tennis Courts 13,000 13,000Carpenter Park Tennis Court Resurface 15,000 15,000Senior High School Tennis Court Overlay 28,000 28,000Category Sub-Total PR-Trails 40,000 40,000Trail Mill & Overlay (Jordan & Keystone Parks) 6,000 6,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work 35,000 35,000Cedar Lake Boulevard Trail from JCC West 50,000 50,000Dakota Park Trail Reconstruction 15,000 15,000Jersey Park Trail Overlay 30,000 30,000Walker Trail Replacement 6,000 6,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work 35,000 35,000Cedar Manor Park Trail Access 6,000 6,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail & Asphalt Work 46,000 136,000 41,000 223,000Category Sub-Total PR-Trees Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 5 Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Department Category Future 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 300,000Tree Replacement 10,000 10,000City Wide Natural Resource Inventory 70,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 310,000 Category Sub-Total PR-Turf 15,000 15,000Turf Upgrade at Oak Hill, Louisiana Oaks & Walker 15,000 15,000Category Sub-Total PR-Westwood Nature Center 20,000 20,000Westwood Hills Front Electronic Entrance Gate/Fnce 20,000 20,000Westwood Hills Picnic Shelter Restrooms 20,000 20,000Westwood Hills Wood Stair Replacement 40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph. I 31,000 31,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement 40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II 10,000 10,000Westwood Hills Trail Sign Replacement 40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement 35,000 35,000Westwood Hills Bridge Replacement 40,000 40,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph III 75,000 75,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement 25,000 25,000Westwood Hills Raptor Building 50,000 50,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement 60,000 40,000 81,000 265,000 446,000Category Sub-Total 1,925,652 1,495,835 2,197,048 1,090,047 2,014,106 8,722,688 4,656,764Department Total: Police Police-Equipment 54,000 54,000Firing Range Reconditioning 20,000 20,000Wi-Fi Cameras 74,000 74,000Category Sub-Total TRF-Network 23,000 23,000Redundant Fiber Path 23,000 23,000Category Sub-Total 97,000 97,000Department Total: Public Works PW-Parking Lot 150,000 600,000 7,500 757,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 150,000 600,000 7,500 757,500 Category Sub-Total PW-Railroad Crossings 100,000 100,000Railroad Proj. - Crossing Protection @ 2 crossings 100,000 100,000Category Sub-Total PW-Reilly 35,000 35,000Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413) 35,000 35,000 Category Sub-Total PW-Retaining Walls 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 6 Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Department Category Future 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000 Category Sub-Total PW-Sanitary Sewers 162,245 162,245Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #4) 65,000 65,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - FM Rehab (Park Ctr Blvd) 69,795 69,795Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #5) 20,000 262,500 282,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #17 & FM Rehab 160,000 160,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6) 75,500 75,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls 166,198 166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7) 166,198 166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8) 250,000 250,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #2 and FM Rehab 247,245 332,295 235,500 166,198 416,198 1,397,436 Category Sub-Total PW-Sidewalks 85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 85,000 85,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 85,000 425,000 Category Sub-Total PW-Storm Sewers 37,500 280,000 317,500Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 100,000 100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 250,000 250,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft) 150,000 150,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 200,000 200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 50,000 1,400,000 1,450,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 200,000 200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 200,000 200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 187,500 2,080,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 2,867,500 Category Sub-Total PW-Street Lights 95,991 123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019 622,841 132,036Street Light Project - System Replacement 95,991 123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019 622,841 132,036 Category Sub-Total PW-Streets 370,000 4,300,000 4,670,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave) 2,900,000 2,900,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim) 1,360,696 13,225,000 14,585,696Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter. 5,000 95,000 100,000Street Project - W44th Street 200,000 400,000 9,400,000 10,000,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1,360,000 1,360,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4) 514,000 514,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 5,000,000 5,000,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd 279,430 279,430Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8) 65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 50,000 1,400,000 1,450,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5) 3,000 167,000 170,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 5,000 360,000 365,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 350,000 350,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 1,492,962 1,492,962Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 282,341 282,341Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1) Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 7 Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Department Category Future 65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 35,000 890,097 925,097Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6) 22,000 533,000 555,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6) 220,816 220,816Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2) 65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 340,000 340,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 40,000 1,053,852 1,093,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7) 15,000 335,000 350,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 7) 225,232 225,232Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3) 65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 60,000 1,575,664 1,635,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8) 15,220 289,182 304,402Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 8) 229,737 229,737Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4) 65,000 65,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs 500,000 500,000 10,550,000 10,550,000 22,100,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter. 61,000 61,000 1,264,121Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 1) 15,525 15,525 294,966Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 1) 50,000 1,950,000 2,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 50,000 1,989,051 2,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 10,814,088 20,703,341 3,092,913 12,304,304 29,025,159 75,939,805 1,559,087 Category Sub-Total PW-Traffic Signals 250,000 250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 400,000 400,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 30,000 470,000 500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 30,000 470,000 500,000Traffic Signal - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd. 11,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000 60,000Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals 261,000 411,500 12,000 72,500 953,000 1,710,000 Category Sub-Total PW-Water 45,000 490,000 535,000Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation 835,000 835,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4 75,000 820,000 895,000Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation 146,000 146,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 5,000 175,000 180,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 50,000 50,000 531,700Water Project - WTP #6 Filter Rehabilitation 90,000 90,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 250,000 250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir WTP#6 364,000 364,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 312,000 312,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 10,000 790,000 800,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 211,000 211,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement 1,031,000 740,000 1,160,000 374,000 1,363,000 4,668,000 531,700 Category Sub-Total 12,891,824 24,595,742 5,539,797 13,350,843 32,244,876 88,623,082 2,222,823Department Total: Technology TRF-Network 120,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 760,000Local Area Network Servers / Electronics 120,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 760,000 Category Sub-Total TRF-PC Hardware 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 175,000 1,050,000PC Hardware Replacement Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 8 Total2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Department Category Future 175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 175,000 1,050,000 Category Sub-Total TRF-PC Software 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000PC Software Replacement 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 Category Sub-Total TRF-Telephones 300,000 300,000Citywide Telephone System 300,000 300,000Category Sub-Total 795,000 535,000 535,000 710,000 535,000 3,110,000Department Total: 16,727,476 39,634,577 8,477,845 15,150,890 34,793,982 114,784,770 6,879,587GRAND TOTAL Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 9 Capital Improvement Program City of St. Louis Park, MN PROJECTS BY FUNDING SOURCE 2008 2012thru TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Developer Agreement 20041700 69,00069,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter. 1 20071101 250,000250,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd 2 20092000 200,000200,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 2 519,000250,000 269,000Developer Agreement Total Development Fund - HRA Levy 20041700 1,864,7081,864,708Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1 20092000 200,000200,000Traffic Signal Project - Louisiana Ave @ Oxford St 2 2,064,7082,064,708Development Fund - HRA Levy Total Equipment Replacement Fund 20082400 312,000312,000SCBA Replacement 3 E - XX01 4,555,404908,760 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106Annual Equipment Replacement Program n/a TRF-211 300,000300,000Citywide Telephone System 3 5,167,4041,520,760 426,443 1,108,048 474,047 1,638,106Equipment Replacement Fund Total G.O. Bonds 20081700 11,000,00011,000,000Fire Stations 1 & 2 Upgrade/Replacement 2 20081900 1,800,0001,800,000MSC Complex Expansion 3 12,800,00012,800,000G.O. Bonds Total Hennepin County 20040420 4,400,0004,400,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3 20040440 2,500,0002,500,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)5 20100005 235,000105,000 110,000 20,000Street Project - France Ave Improvements 5 7,135,000105,000 4,510,000 20,000 2,500,000Hennepin County Total Met Council Grant 20082600 872,040872,040Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 2 872,040872,040Met Council Grant Total Municipal Building Fund 20061600 95,00095,000City Hall / Police Station Landscaping 4 20071300 50,00050,000MSC Security 2 20082000 40,00040,000MSC Floor Drains 3 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 10 TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20082100 40,00040,000City Hall 3rd Floor Space Reallocation 4 20082700 350,000350,000City Hall Exterior 3 20082800 100,000100,000MSC Storage Bins 3 20082900 25,00025,000Westwood Wind Genset n/a 20091600 200,000200,000City Hall 1st Floor Space Reallocation 3 20091700 150,000150,000City Hall Parking Lot Above Garage n/a 1,050,000700,000 150,000 200,000Municipal Building Fund Total Municipal State Aid 20071100 529,585529,585Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 2 20071101 195,000195,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd 2 20081100 170,000170,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 2 20081101 365,000365,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab 2 20091100 555,000555,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 6)3 20101100 350,000350,000Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 7)4 20111100 304,402304,402Street Project - MSA Street Rehab (Area 8)4 2,468,987724,585 555,000 535,000 350,000 304,402Municipal State Aid Total Other TEMP-0001 17,50017,500Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)5 17,50017,500Other Total Park Improvement Fund 20044230 44,78422,392 22,392Ford Park Redevelopment 1 20071010 300,00060,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000Tree Replacement 2 20080010 45,00045,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 3)n/a 20080020 50,00050,000Beehive Relocation to a Park, Phase I n/a 20080030 190,000190,000Building Replacement - Fern Hill Park n/a 20080040 40,00040,000Carpenter Park Concession Building n/a 20080050 10,00010,000City Wide Natural Resource Inventory 2 20080060 6,0006,000Energy Audit n/a 20080070 305,000305,000Fern Hill Park Redevelopment 3 20080080 50,00050,000Frisbee Golf Course 4 20080090 15,00015,000Jackley Park Basketball and Trail Overlay n/a 20080110 15,00015,000Off-Leash Dog Park Second Location n/a 20080120 70,00070,000Playground Equipment Replacement 2 20080130 10,00010,000Rec Center and Wolfe Park Amphitheater Landscaping n/a 20080140 20,00020,000Rec Center East Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a 20080150 7,5007,500Roxbury Park Basketball Court and Trail n/a 20080170 35,00035,000Sun Shelter Addition at Louisiana Oaks Park n/a 20080180 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Front Electronic Entrance Gate/Fnce n/a 20080190 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Picnic Shelter Restrooms n/a 20080200 20,00020,000Westwood Hills Wood Stair Replacement n/a 20090010 60,00060,000Aquatic Park Sand/Water Play Area n/a 20090020 52,00052,000Aquila Park Lighting Upgrade - Field 2 n/a 20090030 48,00048,000Aquila Park Field Fence (Field 4)n/a 20090040 185,000185,000Aquila Park Parking Lot & Trail Reconstruction n/a 20090050 60,00060,000Beehive Restoration Project, Phase II n/a 20090060 25,00025,000Bronx Park Field Improvements n/a 20090070 180,000180,000Building Replacement - Birchwood Park n/a Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 11 TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20090080 40,00040,000Carpenter Park Irrigation n/a 20090090 13,00013,000Carpenter Park Tennis Court Resurface 3 20090110 25,00025,000Lake Victoria Parking Lot Expansion n/a 20090120 15,00015,000Oak Hill Park Reroof Central & Rustic Shelters n/a 20090130 120,000120,000Playground Equipment Replacement 3 20090140 20,00020,000Rec Center West Arena Rubber Floor Replacement n/a 20090150 15,00015,000Senior High School Tennis Court Overlay n/a 20090160 5,0005,000Skate Park Addition n/a 20090170 23,00023,000Sun Shelter Addition at Willow Park n/a 20090180 40,00040,000Trail Mill & Overlay (Jordan & Keystone Parks)n/a 20090190 15,00015,000Turf Upgrade at Oak Hill, Louisiana Oaks & Walker n/a 20090200 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph. I n/a 20100010 42,00042,000Ainsworth Park Irrigation Addition n/a 20100020 100,000100,000Aquila Park Field Lighting (Field 5)n/a 20100050 35,00035,000Cedar Lake Boulevard Trail from JCC West n/a 20100060 100,000100,000Dakota Park Fencing, Lights, Dugout & Storage Bldg n/a 20100070 65,00065,000Dakota Park Parking Lots Overlay n/a 20100080 45,00045,000Dakota Park Picnic Shlter Rmvl & Sun Shelter Adtn n/a 20100110 50,00050,000Dakota Park Trail Reconstruction n/a 20100120 10,00010,000Hurd Park Community Garden n/a 20100130 15,00015,000Jersey Park Trail Overlay n/a 20100140 135,000135,000Playground Equipment Replacement n/a 20100150 300,000300,000Rec Center Dehumidification System n/a 20100160 15,00015,000Rec Center Offices Carpet Replacement n/a 20100170 30,00030,000Walker Trail Replacement n/a 20100180 31,00031,000Westwood Hills Boardwalk Section Replacement n/a 20100190 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement Ph II n/a 20100200 10,00010,000Westwood Hills Trail Sign Replacement n/a 20110010 23,00023,000Cedar Manor Park Sunshelter n/a 20110020 35,00035,000Cedar Manor Park Trail Access n/a 20110030 10,00010,000Jorvig Park Depot Furnace Replacement n/a 20110040 50,00050,000Louisiana Oaks Park Irrigation Upgrade n/a 20110050 12,00012,000Oak Hill Park Splash Pad Addition n/a 20110060 125,000125,000Playground Eqpt Rplcmt-Aquila, Dakota & Nelson Pks n/a 20110070 30,00030,000Rec Center Sign and Banner Replacement n/a 20110080 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Brick House Kitchen Replacement n/a 20110090 35,00035,000Westwood Hills Bridge Replacement n/a 20110110 40,00040,000Westwood Hills Perimeter Fence Replacement, Ph III n/a 20110120 75,00075,000Westwood Hills Pond and Landscape Replacement n/a 20110130 25,00025,000Westwood Hills Raptor Building n/a 20110140 50,00050,000Wolfe Park Boardwalk Replacement n/a 20120010 30,00030,000Aquila Park Storage Building - Replace and Move n/a 20120020 80,00080,000Basketball Ct Rplc- Ainsworth Aquila Nelson Parks n/a 20120030 10,00010,000Beehive Restoration Upgrade n/a 20120040 15,00015,000Field Rnvtn: Ainsworth, Keystone, Louisiana & Wlkr n/a 20120050 70,00070,000Playground Equipmnt Rpl - Blackstone & Jersey Prks n/a 20120060 50,00050,000Skate Park Equipment Replacement n/a 20120070 55,00055,000Sun Shelter Addition - Jersey & Pennsylvania Parks n/a 4,137,2841,010,892 1,063,392 1,083,000 610,000 370,000Park Improvement Fund Total Parks & Recreation 20072010 6,0006,000Justad Park Basketball Court Resurface n/a 20092010 6,0006,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work n/a Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 12 TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20102010 6,0006,000Park Mtce Misc. Trail & Asphalt Work n/a 20112010 6,0006,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail & Asphalt Work n/a 20122010 6,0006,000Park Maintenance Misc Trail and Asphalt Work n/a 30,0006,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000Parks & Recreation Total Pavement Management Fund 20071000 1,390,0001,390,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 4)2 20080001 242,288242,288Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)n/a 20080004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20081000 1,450,0001,450,000Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 5)2 20090001 244,456244,456Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)n/a 20090004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20091000 925,097925,097Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 6)3 20100001 182,173182,173Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)n/a 20100004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20101000 1,093,8521,093,852Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 7)4 20110001 185,816185,816Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)n/a 20110004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20111000 1,635,6641,635,664Street Project - Local Street Rehab (Area 8)4 20120001 189,533189,533Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)n/a 20120004 50,00050,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 7,788,8791,682,288 1,744,456 1,157,270 1,329,668 1,875,197Pavement Management Fund Total Police & Fire Pension 20083000 54,00054,000Firing Range Reconditioning n/a 54,00054,000Police & Fire Pension Total PW Operations Budget 20080001 37,14237,142Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 8)n/a 20080003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a 20080004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20090001 37,88537,885Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 1)n/a 20090003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a 20090004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20100001 38,64338,643Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 2)n/a 20100003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a 20100004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20110001 39,41639,416Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 3)n/a 20110003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a 20110004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a 20120001 40,20440,204Street Mt Proj - Sealcoat Streets (Area 4)n/a 20120003 85,00085,000Sidewalk Maint. Project - Annual Repairs n/a 20120004 15,00015,000Street Maint. Project - Annual C & G Repairs n/a M - XX07 60,00011,000 11,500 12,000 12,500 13,000Traffic Signal Maint. Project - Paint Signals n/a M - XX08 100,00020,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000Retaining Wall Maint. Project - Wall Repair n/a M - XX10 622,84195,991 123,606 134,384 128,841 140,019Street Light Project - System Replacement 1 1,476,131264,133 292,991 305,027 300,757 313,223PW Operations Budget Total Sanitary Sewer Utility Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 13 TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20082200 162,245162,245Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #4)2 20082300 65,00065,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - FM Rehab (Park Ctr Blvd)2 20092200 69,79569,795Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #5)2 20092300 282,50020,000 262,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #17 & FM Rehab 2 20102200 160,000160,000Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #6)2 20102300 75,50075,500Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #19 Generator & Controls 2 20112200 166,198166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #7)2 20121800 90,00090,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement 2 20122200 166,198166,198Sanitary Sewer Proj - Mainline Rehab (PMP Area #8)2 20122300 250,000250,000Sanitary Sewer Proj. - LS #2 and FM Rehab 2 1,487,436247,245 332,295 235,500 166,198 506,198Sanitary Sewer Utility Total Special Assessments 20031400 158,750158,750Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 3 158,750158,750Special Assessments Total State of Minnesota 20031400 158,75037,500 121,250Storm Water Project - Flood Area #32 3 20081200 325,000325,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 4 20091500 750,000750,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 2 1,233,75037,500 1,196,250State of Minnesota Total Stormwater Utility 20072300 100,000100,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3 20072400 250,000250,000Storm Water Project - Lift Sta # 6 (Taft)2 20081600 150,000150,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3 20091400 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3 20091500 750,000750,000Storm Water Project - Minnehaha Creek Flooding 2 20101600 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3 20111200 200,000200,000Storm Water Project - Sewer Rehab / Replacement 3 20121800 31,00031,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement 2 1,881,000100,000 1,150,000 200,000 200,000 231,000Stormwater Utility Total Tax Increment - Elmwood 20041700 150,000150,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1 20082500 250,000250,000Traffic Signal Project - W36th St @ Xenwood Ave 2 20082600 620,922620,922Street Project - W36th St Streetscape 2 20121300 2,000,0002,000,000Street Project - Wooddale Ave Reconstruction 2 20121301 2,039,0512,039,051Street Project - W36th Street Reconstruction 2 20121302 500,000500,000Traffic Signal Project - Wooddale @ W36th St 2 5,559,973870,922 150,000 4,539,051Tax Increment - Elmwood Total Tax Increment - Excelsior Blvd 20040420 300,000300,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd ( Lou - Dak Ave)3 300,000300,000Tax Increment - Excelsior Blvd Total Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 14 TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Tax Increment Financing 20071101 4,555,0004,555,000Street Project - Park Place Blvd 2 4,555,0004,555,000Tax Increment Financing Total Technology Replacement Fund 20083100 20,00020,000Wi-Fi Cameras n/a 20083200 23,00023,000Redundant Fiber Path n/a TRF-001 1,050,000175,000 175,000 175,000 350,000 175,000PC Hardware Replacement 2 TRF-002 1,000,000200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000PC Software Replacement 2 TRF-003 760,000120,000 160,000 160,000 160,000 160,000Local Area Network Servers / Electronics 2 2,853,000538,000 535,000 535,000 710,000 535,000Technology Replacement Fund Total Time Warner Equipment Grant 20080006 6,0006,000Replacement NL Edit systems 2 20090006 9,0009,000Upgraded Cablecast/Carousel units 2 20090007 36,00036,000Cameras & pan tilt heads 2 20090008 4,0004,000Video server 2 20090009 4,0004,000Controller for Chambers cameras 2 20090011 5,0005,000Public address system 2 20100006 3,0003,000Replacement digital camcorder 2 20100007 3,0003,000Replacement digital camcorder 2 70,0006,000 58,000 6,000Time Warner Equipment Grant Total U.S. Government 20041700 5,885,0005,885,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1 20120100 7,000,0007,000,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.2 12,885,0005,885,000 7,000,000U.S. Government Total Unfunded 20040440 400,000400,000Street Project - Excelsior Blvd (Lou - W City Lim)5 20041700 9,975,0009,975,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Wooddale Ave Inter.1 20050500 100,000100,000Street Project - W44th Street 4 20052000 10,000,000200,000 400,000 9,400,000Street Project - TH 100 Reconstruction 1 20081200 25,00025,000Street Project - Hwy 7 Merge Lane Mod @ Blake Road 4 20090005 100,000100,000Railroad Proj. - Crossing Protection @ 2 crossings 3 20120100 15,100,00015,100,000Street Project - Hwy 7 and Louisiana Ave Inter.2 20121303 500,000500,000Traffic Signal - CSAH 25 @ Beltline Blvd.4 M - XX11 757,500150,000 600,000 7,500Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project 2 36,957,500350,000 10,100,000 1,100,000 25,407,500Unfunded Total Water Utility 20062000 535,00045,000 490,000Water Project - WTP #8 Filter Rehabilitation 1 20071500 835,000835,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #4 1 20081400 895,00075,000 820,000Water Project - WTP #1 Filter Rehabilitation 1 20081500 146,000146,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 2 20091300 180,0005,000 175,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3 20101400 90,00090,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 15 TotalSourceProject# Priority 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 20101500 250,000250,000Water Project - Recoat Reservoir WTP#6 2 20111400 364,000364,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3 20121400 312,000312,000Water Project - Watermain Replacement 3 20121500 800,00010,000 790,000Water Project - Recoat Elevated Water Tower #3 1 20121800 90,00090,000Water / Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement 2 TEMP-0001 17,50017,500Reilly Site Project - Monitor Well (W413)5 4,514,5001,031,000 740,000 1,160,000 374,000 1,209,500Water Utility Total 118,036,84214,925,365 44,487,285 7,650,845 4,520,670 46,452,677GRAND TOTAL Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 3) Subject: CIP and Final Budget Review Page 16 Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item # 4 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: Contract delivery of solid waste services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This study session item is intended to present Draft Request for Proposals (RFP’s) for solid waste collection services from late 2008 to late 2013. Council will have the opportunity to discuss and comment on the RFP’s, discuss additional staffing needs associated with these proposed contracts and services, and direct staff to begin the official RFP process. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Council will be asked to provide input on the RFP process in general and on city or contractor provided staffing of the Field Quality Assurance positions associated with these contracts. BACKGROUND: History At the November 13, 2007 Study Session, staff presented Council with contracting options for delivering solid waste collection services over the next five-year contract. The contracting option that Council directed staff to pursue was the following: • Citywide contract for recycling collection for residential customers. • Citywide contract for refuse collection and yard waste collection for residential customers with provisions to implement co-collected organics (CCO) in the future. If or when CCO becomes feasible for the city, CCO collection prices will be negotiated with our contractor. • Citywide contract for optional large volume refuse and recycling collection for commercial and multi-family residential properties. At the October 22, 2007 Study Session, staff provided Council with a report which discussed improving recycling collection and processing, presented organics collection options for residential properties and expanding refuse and recycling collection services to commercial and high density residential property owners. The discussion focused on: • The need for our recycling efforts to provide for the best use of the most recycled materials reasonably possible. Staff discussed contracting with a collector and a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) that can process materials in such a way that allows the most materials to be recycled and sent to their highest and best use end markets; not just land filled elsewhere. Council supported requesting a separate proposal for recycling to improve our recycling efforts. • Offering organics collection to residential properties in order to expand environmental stewardship. Council debated the merits of source separated organics (SSO) and co- collected organics (CCO) and determined that CCO would provide the city with the best long-term environmental and financial benefit. Council also discussed and decided this is not the right time to contract for CCO collection considering the limited number of permitted organic composting facilities currently available. Meeting of: December 10, 2007 - Item 4 Page 2 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery • Council also discussed and expressed support for offering businesses and multi-family residential properties an optional service for refuse and recycling collection. The reason to add this city service is to allow these properties / owners an opportunity to increase their recycling and reduce their disposal of refuse. Council supported requesting a separate proposal to contract out this service. Proposed Request for Proposals In an effort to gain a better understanding of industry trends, over the past several months staff has been discussing contracting options with other cities; reviewing collection RFP’s and agreements from other cities; and talking to possible haulers about contracting issues. Staff has prepared three (3) draft RFP’s for the Council’s review. The RFP’s include many of the elements that will be included in the final agreements. Residential Collection Listed below is a brief overview of some of the contract items that will change from the current contract to what is being required in the attached proposal requests. See Attachments “A” and “B” to review each of the RFP’s in their entirety. 1. Residential Recycling Collection (see Attachment “A”) • Residential recycling collection will now be done under a separate contract from garbage and yard waste. • Includes optional service for multi-family dwellings and businesses that have similar service volume requirements as residential properties. • Contractor provides revenue sharing option. • Contractor provides monthly end market reporting. • Contractor performs an annual material composition analysis. • Contractor provides assistance with emergency / disaster services. • Contractor provides an annual report showing trending, analysis, and recommendations. • Optional - eliminate the required Field Quality Assurance from the contract. 2. Residential Garbage and Yard Waste Collection (see Attachment “B”) • Residential garbage and yard waste collection will now be done under a separate contract from recycling. • Includes optional service for multi-family dwellings and businesses that have similar service volume requirements as residential properties. • Provides Co-Collected Organics during the contract at the time the City deems appropriate. • Contractor provides electronics collection (similar to bulk collection, extra paid for service). • Contractor provides assistance with emergency / disaster services. • Optional - eliminate the required Field Quality Assurance from the contract. Multi-family & Business Collection The draft RFP for garbage and recycling services for multi-family & businesses is less defined and structured than for the residential collection proposals. The intent is to have the haulers recommend how they would propose to provide the collection services. This approach is necessary for commercial collection due to the wide range of refuse materials, varied access to containers, large range in number and size of containers needed and assorted collection Meeting of: December 10, 2007 - Item 4 Page 3 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery frequencies required. Another difficulty is the unknown number of customers to setup routes in a cost effective manner. The intent of the RFP will be to develop a contract which minimizes risk to a contractor to allow them to provide us with low prices for materials collection and dumpster delivery and pickup. It appears the City will have to assume the risk associated with establishing this City service in order to obtain cost effective proposals. Field Quality Assurance As part of our current contract, we require our Contractor to provide a full-time field quality assurance person. The role of the field quality control person is to address any resident problems or concerns, observe and notify City of any resident conformance issues along with working with the drivers on educational tagging efforts, monitor drivers to ensure quality service, investigate problem calls, and to interface between the City/Contractor customer service staff and the drivers. This field quality assurance person is required to be on-site during all collection periods and to report to the City at a minimum of once a day. As currently written, each of the three draft RFP’s require the contractor to provide a full-time field quality assurance person. Staff believes that it may be more effective for the City to hire our own (one) full time field quality assurance person to provide this service across all three contracts. Additional tasks this person could do, which are only being partially done now, or not being done at all, include: conduct monthly inspections with the contractor(s); provide more frequent field observations of resident and driver behaviors / activities; inventory work areas and conduct space assessments for multi-family facilities; provide for MFR education and assist in improved signage; hold regular meetings with MFR mangers; work with businesses; coordinate tagging of ordinance violations; distribute educational materials; attend neighborhood events; etc. Contractor Selection In addition to addressing cost and service requirements, the RFP’s also request vendor information for Council to consider. Staff expects the residential recycling proposal to have some subjective issues for the City to evaluate in addition to cost, such as: end markets information reflecting true recycling ability; customer education programs; and revenue sharing options. In contrast, staff thinks the residential garbage & yard waste proposal and the multi- family / business garbage & recycling proposals will basically consist of a cost evaluation (low cost scenario will likely be recommended). Summary / Next Steps Staff is currently reviewing the RFP’s with the City Attorney. Following discussion with the Council staff intends to make final revisions to the RFP’s so they can be sent to potential haulers the week of December 17th. Proposals will be due in late January. A complete schedule is included in each RFP. Assuming the RFP’s can be finalized as described above, staff will present a consent item to the Council on December 17th requesting authorization to begin the RFP process for these three contracts. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As noted on October 22 and November 13, the above approach (3 separate service contracts along with expanded services) will result in additional staffing needs. However, there will not be any cost implications to the General Fund resulting from any program or staffing changes, as the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund and related collection fees will cover these costs. Meeting of: December 10, 2007 - Item 4 Page 4 Subject: Solid Waste Program and Contract Delivery VISION: The activities above support or complement the following Strategic Direction adopted by the City 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. Community members are responsible stewards of the environment and realize their actions today influence the greater ecology inherited by future generations. Focus areas: • Educating staff and the public on environmental consciousness, stewardship, and best practices. • Working in areas such as…environmental innovations. Attachments: Attachment “A” - RFP for Residential Recycling Collection Attachment “B” - RFP for Residential Garbage and Yard Waste Collection Attachment “C” - RFP for Multi-Family & Business Garbage and Recycling Collection Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Public Works Department DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RECYCLING COLLECTION SERVICES Due: January 25, 2008 No later than: 4:00 p.m. CST Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 5 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1 Table of Contents 2 1. Introduction 3 2. Background 3 3. Terms and Conditions 4 4. Definitions 4 5. Recyclable Materials 7 6. Collection Requirements 7 7. Emergency or Disaster Services 13 8. Customer Service Requirements 13 9. Reporting & Meeting Requirements 15 10. Material Processing & Marketing 16 11. Payments & Penalties 18 12. Public Information & Education 21 13. Term of Contract 22 14. Proposal Submittal Instructions 22 15. Contractor Selection Process 25 16. Proposed Schedule 26 17. Attachments 26 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 6 1. INTRODUCTION This Request for Proposal (RFP) defines the service standards, specifications and proposal requirements of the residential recycling collection program for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (City). The City seeks to enter into a recycling contract with a company that has the resources and ability to provide residential recyclable materials collection services for the City while maximizing environmental efficiencies. It is the intent of the City to accept and evaluate proposals for residential recycling services including collection, processing, and marketing of materials. The goals of the City are to maximize the fullest recovery of recyclable materials possible with the least impact on the environment and to achieve the most cost-effective solution in doing so. The City’s goals include increasing the amount and types of materials being recycled, improving education and recycling services, and expanding participation to the smaller multi-family dwellings and commercial properties. Another goal of the City is to improve public education about recycling services to increase recovery rates and waste reduction. The Contractor will work very closely with the City to achieve these goals. The City encourages Proposers to submit their best proposal possible. The requirements within this RFP may be altered by Proposers if proposals explicitly describe the change, rationale and price implications. The services shall begin on October 1, 2008 and terminate at the will of the City on or by September 30, 2013. The services may be renewed before expiration of the contract and annually thereafter. 2. BACKGROUND The City’s current recycling contract requires all residential households (single-family to 4-plex) to be serviced on a weekly basis. The City will also be offering this as an optional service to smaller sized multi-family dwellings (up to and including 8-plexes) and businesses. The current population of St. Louis Park is estimated to be 44,380 persons. The City has approximately 12,275 property units included as part of the City’s residential recycling program. The City has a dual-stream recycling program for fiber and rigid containers. Fiber or paper products accepted in the City’s recycling program include old newspaper (ONP), old magazines (OMG) including catalogs, old corrugated containers (OCC), mixed mail, old boxboard (OBB), and phone books. Rigid containers accepted in the program include glass food and beverage containers, plastic bottles with a neck, steel and tin cans, aluminum foil, and aluminum cans. These materials are described in more detail in Section 4, Definitions. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 7 The 2008 rate for residential recycling services is $2.65 per household/month in the current contract. The 2006 total quantity of recyclable materials collected from the residential program was 4,166 tons. See Attachment “B” 2005 - 2007 Recycling Tonnage Estimates for the breakdown of 2005, 2006 and 2007 recyclable materials collected in the City, by material type. 3. TERMS & CONDITIONS This Request for Proposals does not obligate the City to accept a proposal. The City reserves the right to cancel this solicitation if it is considered to be in the City’s best interest. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or parts of proposals, to accept part or all of the proposals on the basis of consideration other than lowest cost. No member of the governing body, officer, employee or agent of the City, who exercises any functions of responsibilities in connection with the carrying out of solid waste services to which this Contract pertains, shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract. The contents of the Proposal and any clarifications or modifications to the contents of a proposal submitted by the successful proposer shall, at the City’s option, become part of the contractual obligation and be incorporated by reference into the ensuing contract. The contents of the submitted proposal are subject to negotiation. 4. DEFINITIONS 4.1 “City" means the City of St. Louis Park. 4.2 “Commercial Property” for purposes of this Agreement, means any business generating the amount of waste similar to a household, who may elect to use the City contracted solid waste services, including recycling collection. 4.3 "Contractor" means the party or parties contracting to perform the work to be done under these specifications or to the legal representative of such party or parties. 4.4 “Customer” is any residential single through four-plex household, which is required to use the City contracted recycling services, and any small multi-family dwelling property (8-plex and less) and small commercial property that chooses to use the City contracted recycling service and is also deemed suitable by the City and Contractor in what it produces in waste and recyclables to do so. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 8 4.5 “Glass Jars and Bottles” means unbroken flint (clear) and colored glass jars, bottles, and containers (lids/caps and pumps removed) that are primarily used for packing and bottling of food and beverages. 4.6 “Markets” means any person or company that buys (or charges) for recycling of specified materials and may include, but are not limited to: end-markets, intermediate processors, brokers and other recyclable material reclaimers. 4.7 “Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)” means a recycling facility in which recyclable materials are processed. The facility will conform to all applicable rules, regulations and laws of state, local or other jurisdictions. 4.8 “Metal Cans” means unsorted disposable containers fabricated primarily of aluminum, steel, bi-metal, and "tin" cans (food and beverage containers) commonly used for soda, beer, juice, water or other beverages. 4.9 “Mixed Paper” means old newspaper (ONP) including inserts; old magazines (OMG) including catalogs; old corrugated containers (OCC); mixed mail; old boxboard (OBB); phone books; office paper; school papers; soft-covered books; and envelopes. Shredded paper is acceptable in closed paper bags, no plastic bags. 4.10 “Mixed Rigid Containers” means any combination of glass jars and bottles, metal cans, and plastic bottles in a recycling container set out for collection. 4.11 “Multi-Family Dwellings (MFD)” means any building used for residential purposes consisting of five or more residential units is considered multi-family dwellings (MFDs). 4.12 “Non-Targeted Materials” means non-recyclable materials that are not included in the City’s recycling program. Examples of typical non-targeted items include (but are not limited to): pop and beer carriers/cartons, pumps on plastic bottles, ceramic material, plastic tubs such as butter or whipped topping containers, yogurt containers, deli containers, and frozen food boxes. 4.13 “Old Boxboard (OBB)” means boxes used for the packaging of dry goods including cereals, cakes, chips, crackers and tissues. It does not include boxboard type containers used for wet products such as beverage cans, cold food product storage or microwavable boxes. 4.14 “Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC)” means cardboard material with double wall construction and corrugated separation between walls. Does not include plastic, wax or other coated cardboard. 4.15 “Old Magazines (OMG)” means glossy and non-glossy magazines and catalogs, including advertisements and inserts. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 9 4.16 “Old Newspaper (ONP)” means newspapers including inserts. 4.17 “Plastic Bottles” means plastic bottles with a narrow neck including milk jugs, laundry bottles, ketchup bottles, pop bottles, etc. Wide neck containers such as butter or whipped topping containers are not included. 4.18 “Process Residuals” means the normal amount of material that cannot be economically recycled due to material characteristics such as size, shape, color, cross- material contamination, etc. and must be disposed as mixed municipal solid waste. Process residuals include subcategories including, but not limited to, bulk items, contaminants, sorted tailings, floor sweepings and rejects from specific processing equipment (e.g., materials cleaned from screens, etc). Process residuals does not include clean, separated products that are normally processed and prepared for shipment to markets as commodities but are of relatively low- value because of depressed market demand conditions. 4.19 “Processing” means the sorting, volume reduction, baling, containment or other preparation of recyclable materials delivered to a material recovery facility. 4.20 "Recycling containers" means uniform receptacles supplied by the City in which recycled materials can be stored and later placed at curbside, alley side or other locations for collections as specified by this Agreement. 4.21 "Recyclable materials" means mixed paper, plastic bottles, unsorted glass, unsorted metal cans, and other materials as mutually agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. Recyclable materials shall always include all items designated by the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services to be part of an authorized recycling program and which are intended for transportation, processing and re- manufacturing or reuse. 4.22 "Recycling service" means the collection, hauling, processing, and marketing of all recyclable materials accumulated in recycling containers at single-family through four-plex homes and at other locations as mutually agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. 4.23 “Recycled Content Products” means products or goods, including roadbed or other aggregate products that are openly marketed and have positive value. Recycled content products do not include use of any commodity as landfill cover or as landfill drainage or fill media. 4.24 “Tagging” means leaving an educational tag for residents on the garbage cart or yard waste container. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 10 4.25 "Unacceptable materials" for recycling collection means materials which are not recyclable or have not been properly prepared and/or properly located in compliance with the provisions of this contract. The following materials are not included in the recycling collection service: electronics, toxic and hazardous wastes including, but not limited to, poisons, pesticides, herbicides, acids, caustics, pathological wastes, radioactive materials, flammable or explosive materials, motor oils and paint in liquid form. 4.26 “Walk-up Service” is a service option offered by the Contractor to any customer for an extra fee payable directly to the Contractor. In subscribing to this service, the household chooses not to move recycling to the curb/alley for collection, but rather places it in such a way that the Contractor collects it from another area of the property (outside a building, unless a waiver is signed). 5. RECYCLABLE MATERIALS 5.1. Ownership of Materials. All recyclable materials, placed for collection, remain the responsibility of the property owner or tenant until handled by the Contractor at which point they become the responsibility and ownership of the Contractor. 5.2. Recyclable Materials Collected. The Contractor shall collect all recyclable materials as designated by Hennepin County to be part of an authorized recycling program and which are intended for transportation, processing and re-manufacturing, or reuse. Upon mutual agreement between City and Contractor, additional recyclable materials may be added to the program. For a current definition of recyclable materials, see Section 4 Definitions. 5.3. Recyclable Glass Material Collected. All glass material collected within the City shall be processed to meet market specifications for and delivered to Anchor Glass in Shakopee, Minnesota for glass bottle to bottle recycling. In the event that the local market for that glass recyclable material ceases to exist, or becomes economically depressed, upon mutual agreement between Contractor and City, another location shall be determined. The Contractor shall demonstrate an effort to find market sources, and show the financial information justifying the conclusion that the market is economically unfeasible. 6. COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS 6.1 Service Requirements The services to be performed by the Contractor shall be adequate to ensure the satisfactory collection of said recycling materials at all times. The Contractor shall Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 11 supply all equipment, labor, and materials necessary to complete collection, hauling, and processing of recyclable materials, except the recycling bins (see recycling containers below). The Contractor will be properly licensed and insured to operate in the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota, and shall comply with all statutes, regulations, and ordinances of the State, County and City in the execution of the Contract. The Contractor shall provide customers with a two-sort recycling collection, unless specified differently by the City. The Contractor is responsible to advise the customers as to the proper preparation of materials through educational tags and other means. The City is responsible for educating and informing residents and businesses regarding the solid waste program. The Contractor is responsible for providing information, materials and in assisting the City in providing education, as stated in Section 5 Recyclable Materials and in Section 12 Public Information and Education. 6.2 Recycling Containers Collection of recyclable materials shall be from City provided recycling containers. Uniform receptacles are purchased and supplied by the City and distributed by the Contractor. The Contractor will distribute recycling containers as needed weekly to households and businesses upon request. Extra containers are stored at the City’s Municipal Service Center located at 7305 Oxford St. The City reserves the option to convert to other receptacles at a future date subject to terms and conditions mutually agreed upon by the City and Contractor. 6.3 Collection Times The Contractor shall provide collection at least once per week per customer. Collections shall take place between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays except during holiday weeks. Contractor shall maintain the current scheduled pickup day for households to the extent possible. 6.4 Non-Completion of Collection and Extension of Collection Hours If Contractor determines that the collection of recyclable materials will not be completed by 6:00 p.m. on the scheduled collection day, Contractor shall notify the City by 4:00 p.m., and request an extension of the collection hours. Contractor shall inform the City of the areas not completed, the reason for non-completion, and the expected time of completion. 6.5 Point of Collection Recyclable material collection service from single-family to 4-plex housing units will occur at both curbside and alley (approximately 30%) locations. Multi-family and business point of collection locations will vary. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 12 6.6 Collection at City Facilities The Contractor shall provide recycling collection at fire stations in residential route areas. Locations will be provided by the City. 6.7 City Retains Right to Specify Preparation Instructions The Contractor shall agree that it is the City’s sole right to clearly specify the sorting and setout requirements. At the City’s discretion, such information shall be included in the City’s education material. 6.8 Procedure for Unacceptable Recyclable Materials Proposers must provide samples of public education and promotional materials, which were used in other programs; particularly those related to residential, commercial and multifamily recycling programs. Proposer must provide its procedure for unacceptable recyclable materials, the measure of effectiveness and contact information for the jurisdictions in which they were effective. Unacceptable materials shall be left by the Contractor with an educational tag. 6.9 Collection Routes and Route Maps Collection routes have been established in a manner to maintain the existing collection days (see Attachment “A” Map showing Days of Collection). The Contractor shall not change any routes without the prior approval of the City. The Contractor will work with the City to revise the routes and notify the City of any route changes and the City will keep the maps current provide the Contractor with revised route maps. The Contractor shall keep up-to-date route maps in all collection vehicles at all times. Quarterly, the Contractor will submit written or electronic correspondence that the route maps are still accurate. 6.10 Cleanup Responsibilities The Contractor shall adequately clean up any materials spilled or blown during the course of collection and/or hauling operations. As stated in Section 6.16.B, Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements, all collection vehicles shall be equipped with a broom and shovel for cleaning up spills. The driver shall take all precautions possible to prevent littering of unacceptable recyclable materials. Contractor shall have no responsibility to remove any items that are not recyclable materials. 6.11 Missed Pickup Policies and Procedures Contractor will be penalized for non-compliant missed pickups, area-wide missed pickups, and administrative non-compliance, as stated in Section 11 Payments and Penalties. 6.12 Transporting of Materials The Contractor will transport recyclable materials to a State of Minnesota permitted facility as approved by the City. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 13 6.13 Holiday Collection The Contractor shall not make regular collections on the following legal holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. During the holiday week beginning on the holiday, the Contractor will make collections one day after the regularly scheduled day through Saturday (9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday due to noise ordinance). It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to notify customers of any changes in the collection schedule as a result of a holiday, in a manner and frequency as reasonably directed by the City. 6.14 Walk-up Service for Households The Contractor will make available walk-up service to every household, as an extra service beyond the standard City service. The Contractor will be responsible for determining the walk-up service fee and billing the cost separately to each household. This means that the household does not place recycling at the curb or alley and the Contractor collects it from another area of the property. Walkup service agreements must include a City liability waiver signed by the household if the walkup service entails the Contractor entering a building or enclosed structure to service the property. The Contractor will provide the City with a list of addresses receiving walkup service at least quarterly, and as requested by the City. 6.15 Special Pick-up Requests The Contractor will provide special recycling pickups to every customer as requested by customers, as an extra service beyond the standard City service. The Contractor will be responsible for determining the special pickup service fee per pickup and bill the cost separately to each customer. 6.16 Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements A. Licenses and Permits. All collection vehicles used in performance of the contract shall be duly licensed and inspected by the State of Minnesota and shall operate within the weight allowed by Minnesota statutes. The Contractor shall obtain all pertinent licenses from the City, County and State. B. Vehicle and Equipment Requirements. All of the required equipment must be in proper working order. All vehicles must be maintained in proper working order, prevent leaky seals and hydraulics, and be as clean and free from odors as possible. All vehicles must be clearly identified on both sides with Contractor’s name and customer service telephone number for City customers on both sides of the vehicle. If compaction vehicles are used for the collection of recyclable materials, compaction will not be used on any loads containing mixed rigid containers. If the vehicle uses a separate compartment for mixed paper and a separate compartment for mixed rigid containers, the compaction of mixed paper is allowable. Each collection vehicle shall be equipped with the following: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 14 1) Two-way communications device. 2) First aid kit. 3) An approved 2A10BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher. 4) Warning flashers. 5) Warning alarms to indicate movement in reverse. 6) Sign on the rear of the vehicle which states “This Vehicle Makes Frequent Stops” or similar language. 7) A broom and shovel for cleaning up spills. C. Clean and Sanitary Condition. The Contractor shall make all collections with vehicles so constructed that their contents will not leak, blow away, or spill therefrom. Such vehicles shall be kept clean and as free from all offensive odors as possible and shall not be allowed to stand in any street, alley, or other place longer than is reasonably necessary for collections. All vehicles and equipment used in the performance of this Agreement shall be maintained in good operating condition and in a clean, sanitary condition. Generally, this shall mean washed and painted regularly. 1) Size of Vehicle. The Contractor shall not use recycling trucks greater than 30 yards. Vehicles shall be designated such to accommodate collection material separation as designated by the Contract, and shall be clearly signed on both sides as a recycling collection vehicle. 2) Other Equipment and Maps. Should the City require it, the Contractor shall equip all trucks with Automated Vehicle Location Systems. The City, prior to installation of any such systems, will determine exact requirements. The City will be responsible for the cost of the Automated Vehicle Location System equipment purchase and installation. The Contractor will be responsible for the cost of operating and maintaining the equipment at no additional cost to the City. 6.17 Personnel Requirements The Contractor shall provide full-time daily on-site supervision of the collection within the City. The supervisor will address all problems as they arise, interface directly with customers, and have continual direct communication with the Contractor’s customer staff and route drivers. The supervisor shall meet or communicate with City staff daily and as necessary. This supervisor shall have a separate vehicle with contact information clearly printed on the vehicle. The supervisor will also be involved in regularly scheduled monthly meetings with the City. The Contractor shall report all hydraulic fluid spills and leaks to the City immediately. If the Public Works office is closed, spills must be reported to the Fire Department (911 or 952-924-2618). Contractor is responsible to clean up spills. Reporting to the City all spills and leaks does not replace the state requirement to report spills to the Minnesota Duty Officer. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 15 Contractor’s personnel will be trained both in program operations and in customer service and ensure that all personnel maintain a positive attitude with the public and in the work place and shall: A. Conduct themselves at all times in a courteous manner and use no abusive or foul language. B. Perform their duties in accordance with all existing laws and ordinances and future amendments thereto of the Federal, State of Minnesota, and local governing boards. C. Be clean and presentable in appearance, as so far as possible. D. Wear a uniform and employee identification badge or name tag. E. Drive in a safe and considerate manner. F. Manage containers in a careful manner, by picking them up, emptying their contents into the collection vehicle, and placing – not throwing or sliding – the container back to its designated location so as to avoid spillage and littering or damage to the container. G. Monitor for any spillage and be responsible for cleaning up any litter or breakage. H. Avoid damage to property. The Contractor’s employees may not collect or scavenge through recycling or other materials in any manner that interferes with the contracted services. The Contractor shall immediately report to the City any instances of suspected scavenging or unauthorized removal of recyclable materials from any collection containers. 6.18 Protecting Utilities The Contractor shall be obligated to protect all public and private utilities whether occupying street or public or private property. If such utilities are damaged by reason of the Contractor’s operations, under the executed contract, Contractor shall repair or replace same, or failing to do so promptly, the City shall repair or replace and the cost of doing so shall be deducted from payment made to the Contractor. 6.19 Damage to Property The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect public and private property. Except for reasonable wear and tear, the Contractor shall repair or replace any private or public property, including, but not limited to sod, mailboxes, or recycling bins, which are damaged by the Contractor. Such property damage shall be addressed for repair or replacement, at no charge to the property owner, within forty-eight (48) hours with property of the same or equivalent value at the time of the damage. If the Contractor fails to address the repair or replacement damaged property within forty-eight (48) hours, the City may, but shall not be obligated to, repair or replace such damaged property, and the Contractor shall fully reimburse the City for any of its reasonably incurred expenses. The Contractor shall reimburse the City for any such expenses within ten (10) days of receipt of the City’s invoice. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 16 7. EMERGENCY OR DISASTER SERVICES The Contractor shall provide upon request of the City any additional collections (materials or times) requested and reasonably necessary during a declared emergency in the City. The cost of this service will be mutually negotiated between the Contractor and the City. The Contractor shall submit to the City upon signing of this Agreement, an electronic copy of Contractor’s business continuity plan. 8. CUSTOMER SERVICE REQUIREMENTS This section describes the minimal amount of customer service required and shall not limit the Contractor in providing expanded customer service. 8.1 Service Requirements Provide a description of the following: A. Management procedures for handling inquiries and complaints and procedures. B. System capability and/or procedures to ensure timely accessibility of information by City. C. Explain if the Proposer has the capability to create a separate customer service center for handling City of St. Louis Park calls exclusively, if required by the City. D. City requires the Contractor to provide a phone number and email address exclusive to City customers. 8.2 Staffing The Contractor shall provide full time oversight of the City’s collection, and shall administer its obligations to provide quality service to customers of St. Louis Park. The Contractor shall maintain an office equipped with telephones, computers with email, and be staffed with sufficient personnel to effectively handle complaints, inquiries, and/or receive instructions. The Contractor shall provide customer staff dedicated exclusively to handle phone calls and emails from City customers. The office shall be staffed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday except for the legal holidays as specified previously. A voicemail system or answering service shall be operative during all non-office hours. Customer service staff shall be accessible via email during office hours and the system shall receive email during non-office hours for review and response during office hours. 8.3 Responding to Customer Calls The Contractor will receive customer service inquiries, complaints, special needs, special pickups and other issues by phone or email, and record them in an electronic database for means of tracking, recording, mapping, and reporting for quality control/quality Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 17 assurance purposes. The customer service program will be set up to maximize the number of calls being handled by a live person and minimize the calls into voicemail. The Contractor shall address all voicemail and email correspondence with a return call or email to the City customer within thirty (30) minutes if the City customer contacted the Contractor between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and by 10:00 a.m. the next consecutive working day if the call or email was made during non-working hours. 8.4 Documentation of Customer Calls The Contractor shall use the City’s electronic (MS Access based) database for tracking customer issues. Should the Contractor desire to use another electronic system, the City must first approve it (see Section 10.5 Alternative Documentation Program for Customer Calls.). The database will include all City customer communications regarding complaints, inquiries, service requests and other issues. Contractor shall input all required fields and update notes and comments as appropriate. Contractor will provide updated electronic database files at least weekly to the City. The electronic database format is subject to change with updates in technology as determined by the City. 8.5 Alternative Documentation Program for Customer Calls Should the Contractor desire to use another electronic system other than the City’s electronic tracking system, the City must first approve it. For the alternative system, provide a description of the following: A. Management procedures for handling inquiries and complaints and procedures. B. System capability and/or procedures to ensure timely accessibility of information by City. C. Indicate if the system is used company-wide or for select jurisdictions (listing which jurisdictions). D. How the customer service information interfaces with route data. E. Procedures used to satisfactorily respond to, record, and report common customer complaints such as: missed pick-ups; spills and litter resulting from collection; broken or missing containers; damaged property; improperly prepared set-outs; noise complaints; traffic and sidewalk obstruction during collection; and safety around collection vehicles during operations. F. How the company measures customer service with regard to the customer service center’s responsiveness and accuracy of responses, as well as the quality of collection service. Identify specific performance metrics or targets your company tracks. Provide actual reports for at least three jurisdictions that document the actual performance level against your targets including, at a minimum, average hold times of the customer service call center and missed pick-ups. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 18 9. REPORTING AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS The Contractor shall create, collect, and maintain all records required by the federal, state, and local governments regarding waste management services, and other records as specified below. 9.1 Customer Reports The Contractor shall provide the City with a monthly report showing number of customers participating in the recycling program. 9.2 Customer Service Reports The Contractor shall provide the City with weekly electronic downloads of data from the customer service database, as stated in Section 8 Customer Service Requirements. 9.3 Inventory Reports The Contractor shall provide to the City a monthly inventory of the recycling bins. 9.4 Material Reports The Contractor shall provide to the City: A. Certified monthly weight slip with the date, time, collection route, driver’s identification, vehicle number, tare weight, gross weight, and net weight for each loaded vehicle. Submit weight receipts from all collected materials within fifteen (15) days of the previous month. Reports shall be broken down by commodity and weight; only total weight must be certified; B. Monthly and yearly amounts (in tons) of recyclable materials collected in the City broken down by grade; C. Monthly and yearly amounts (in tons) of non-targeted materials collected in the City; D. Monthly and yearly amounts (in tons) of process residuals generated at the MRF both in total and that portion attributable to the City’s collection program (see Section 10 Materials Processing and Marketing); E. Monthly and yearly amounts (in tons) of mixed glass generated at the MRF, both in total and that portion, attributable to the City’s collection program; F. A list of end markets that recyclable materials were delivered to including the name of the market, location, commodity type sent to that market, and the type of product manufactured or material manufactured at that location. End market information will be kept confidential unless Contractor agrees it can be used for educational purposes; G. Monthly and yearly revenue share credits back to the City (if any). Monthly reports shall be due to the City by the 15th day of each month for material collected by the Contractor during the preceding calendar month. The reports shall be made available in an electronic spread sheet format (e.g., MS Excel), and should be submitted electronically to the City. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 19 Annual reports to the City shall be due by the 15th of January for materials received by the Contractor during the preceding calendar year. The Contractor must state in writing to the City that all recyclable materials collected in St. Louis Park the preceding calendar year were indeed recycled and not disposed as garbage, other than the non-targeted materials and residuals reported in the monthly reports. The Contractor will be encouraged to include in its annual report recommendations for continuous improvement in the City’s recycling program (e.g., public education, reduction of non-targeted materials, reporting, etc.). 9.5 Vehicle Report The Contractor shall provide the City with a yearly written plan of the type, make, and model of all vehicles that will be utilized. 9.6 Monthly Performance Meeting The Contractor and City will meet monthly or at a regular scheduled interval determined by the City, to discuss general operations. Topic areas at these meetings will include (but not be limited to): collection; customer service; education; and reporting. 9.7 Annual Performance Review Meeting Upon receipt of the Contractor’s annual report, the City shall schedule an annual meeting with the Contractor. The objectives of this annual meeting will include (but not be limited to): A. Review Contractor’s annual report, including trends in recovery rate and participation; B. Efforts the Contractor has made to expand recyclable markets; C. Review Contractor’s performance based on feedback from customers to City staff; D. Review Contractor’s recommendations for improvements to the City’s recycling program, including enhanced public education and other opportunities; E. Review staff recommendations for improving Contractor’s service; F. Discuss other opportunities for improvement with the remaining years under the current contract. 10. MATERIALS PROCESSING AND MARKETING 10.1 Material Recovery Facilities Must Be Specified It is intended that all recyclable materials collected from City customers by the Contractor will go to recycling markets to be manufactured into recycled content products. The Contractor shall assure the City that adequate recyclable material processing capacity will be provided for City material collected. The proposals must clearly specify the location(s) of its material recovery facility (or subcontractor’s facility) where materials collected from the City will be delivered and processed. The Contractor shall provide written notice to the City at least 60 days in advance of any substantial change in Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 20 these or subsequent plans for receiving and processing recyclable materials collected from the City. It is unlawful for any person to transport for disposal or to dispose of designated recyclable materials in a mixed municipal solid waste disposal facility. The Contractor shall assure that all recyclable materials collected in the City are not landfilled or incinerated. The Contractor shall dispose of no more than five percent (5%) of material (by weight) as process residuals as part of recyclable materials processing operations. (Should the Proposer wish to offer a different percentage, it must be stated in the proposal with an explanation and rationale for the alternative limit.) 10.2 Highest and Best Use of Recyclable Materials The City of St. Louis Park desires and expects all recyclable materials collected and delivered to a material recovery facility to be processed to meet market specifications for their highest and best use (i.e., paper to paper products, glass to glass containers, etc.). Preference will be given to Proposers who can meet this requirement. 10.3 Estimating Materials Composition as Collected The Contractor shall conduct at least one materials composition analysis of the City’s recyclable materials each year to estimate the relative amount by weight of each recyclable commodity by grade, as well as the relative amount by weight of non-targeted materials, or offer a suitable alternative to a composition analysis. The results of this analysis shall include: (1) percent by weight of each recyclable commodity by grade as collected from the City; (2) percent by weight of non-targeted materials as collected from the City; (3) relative change compared to the previous year’s composition; and (4) a description of the methodology used to calculate the composition, including number of samples, dates weighed, and City route(s) used for sampling. The Contractor shall provide the City with a copy of each analysis. 10.4 Estimating Process Residuals The Contractor shall provide the City a written description of the means to estimate process residuals, as defined in Section 4.21 Definition of Recyclable Materials, derived from the City’s recyclable materials. This written description shall be reviewed and approved in writing by the City. This written description shall be updated by the Contractor immediately after any significant changes to the processing facilities used by the Contractor. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 21 10.5 Performance Monitoring The City will monitor the performance of the Contractor against goals and performance standards required within this RFP and in the Agreement, such as, but not limited to Section 6 Collection Requirements, Section 8 Customer Service Requirements and Section 9 Reporting and Meeting Requirements. Substandard performance as determined by the City will constitute non-compliance. If action to correct such substandard performance is not taken by the Contractor within 60 days after being notified by the City, the City may initiate the contract termination procedures. 10.6 End Markets Upon request of the City at any time during the contract, the Contractor shall provide end market information, such as name, location and type of materials accepted. As part of the annual report (see Section 9 Reporting and Meeting Requirements), the Contractor must state in writing to the City that all recyclable materials collected in the City have been recycled and were not disposed as garbage. 11. PAYMENTS AND PENALTIES 11.1 Payment Responsibilities The City will invoice customers directly for recycling services. The Contractor hauler shall invoice customers for special pickups, walk-up service and other special services. 11.2 Compensation for Services The City agrees to pay the Contractor for recycling collection services provided to the City as described in the Contractor’s proposal, and made part of an executed contract, based on the number of household and small business units certified by the City. The City will provide to the Contractor the collection number existing at the beginning of the contract. The City will review the collection number monthly and provide the Contractor with changes on or before the tenth of each month. The Contractor shall submit itemized bills for recycling collection services provided to the City on a monthly basis. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City. 11.3 Revenue Sharing All qualified proposals shall state explicitly if the Contractor elects to participate in revenue sharing with the City. If the City awards the contract to a Contractor that elected to propose revenue sharing, and if the final contract negotiated includes revenue sharing, the Contractor shall, on a monthly basis, rebate an amount to the City based on a mutually agreed upon formula. The primary revenue sharing scenario for purposes of this RFP consists of the following formula: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 22 A. A per ton payment on all paper grades collected from the City based on the published index less the proposed paper processing cost per ton. The published index used shall be the Official Board Markets (OBM) “Yellow Sheet” (first issue of the month), Chicago region for Old Newspapers (ONP) # 8, high-side of range. Proposers must state on the price worksheet (Attachment C, Pricing List) what percent of this index will be used for the “gross revenue”. In addition, Proposers shall provide a proposed paper processing cost per ton. B. A per ton payment on aluminum collected from the City based on the published index less the proposed aluminum processing cost per ton. The published index used shall be the American Metal Market (AMM), Aluminum (first issue of the month), high-side nonferrous scrap prices: scrap metals, domestic aluminum producers, buying prices for processed used aluminum cans in carload lots, f.o.b. shipping point, used beverage can scrap. Proposers must state on the price worksheet (Attachment C, Pricing List) what percent of this index will be used for the “gross revenue”. In addition, Proposers shall provide a proposed aluminum processing cost per ton. C. A per ton payment on HDPE collected from the City based on a published index less the proposed HDPE processing cost per ton. The published index used shall be suggested by the Proposer and approved by the City. Proposers must state on the price worksheet (Attachment “C” Price Worksheet) what percent of this index will be used for the “gross revenue”. In addition, Proposers shall provide a proposed HDPE processing cost per ton. D. A per ton payment on PET collected from the City based on a published index less the proposed PET processing cost per ton. The published index used shall be suggested by the Proposer and approved by the City. Proposers must state on the price worksheet (Attachment “C” Pricing Form) what percent of this index will be used for the “gross revenue”. In addition, Proposers shall provide a proposed PET processing cost per ton. If a revenue sharing component is offered (i.e., greater than zero percent) for paper, aluminum, HDPE, or PET, each month the Contractor shall provide, together with the monthly rebate to the City, adequate documentation of the corresponding monthly estimate of tons of all paper grades, tons of aluminum, tons of HDPE, and tons of PET collected from the City, even in the case where the City were to receive no rebate for the month. The City understands that net revenues may equal zero at times due to poor markets, however, the City shall not pay any costs above and beyond processing costs. The Contractor shall provide copies of the referenced OBM market index and AMM market index with each monthly statement. The Proposer shall also provide copies of market indices for HDPE and PET plastics. The Proposers shall provide a detailed explanation of how the tonnage estimates will be calculated. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 23 Each proposal scenario must contain a percent revenue share offer for paper, aluminum, HDPE and PET as described immediately above (see Attachment C, Pricing List). Proposers may offer from zero (0) percent to one hundred (100) percent revenue share. The City or the Contractor may propose other revenue sharing commodities and corresponding proposed pricing formulae, at any time during the duration of the contract. The parties shall enter into negotiations in good faith and any new revenue sharing agreement shall be reduced to writing in the form of an amendment to the contract. 11.4 Penalties The Contractor shall agree, in addition to any other remedies available to the City, that the City may withhold payment from the Contractor in the amounts specified below as penalty for failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations. Contractor will be penalized for non-compliant missed pickups, area-wide missed pickups, and administrative non-compliance, as listed below: A. Non-Compliant Missed Pickup. Whenever the City or a customer notifies the Contractor before 2:00 p.m. of locations that have not received scheduled service, the Contractor shall be required to service such locations before 6:00 p.m. the same day. When notified after 2:00 p.m., the Contractor shall be required to service such locations not later than 10:00 a.m. of the following day, excluding Saturday and Sundays. Missed pickup calls shall be entered, by the Contractor, into the database identifying the time when the call is received and when the service is completed. The missed pickups that fail to comply with the requirements of this section are “non-compliant missed pickups”. The City shall deduct $2,500 for each non-compliant missed pickup from the compensation payable to the Contractor. B. Area-Wide Missed Pickup. An area-wide missed pickup is defined as one or both sides of a street or alley one block or larger if contiguous. Whenever the Contractor misses an area that should have received scheduled service, the City shall deduct $5,000 for the compensation payable to the Contractor. Missing a portion of an area on one side of a street or an alley in not considered missing an area and will be addressed as a non-compliant missed pickup. C. Administrative Non-Compliance. Whenever the Contractor performs services in a non-compliant manner, as determined by the City, the City shall deduct $2,500 per occurrence from the compensation payable to the Contractor. Examples include, but are not limited to, items such as: 1) Failure to comply customer service requirements, see Section 8; 2) Failure to accurately document incidents in the customer service database, see Section 8.3 and 8.4; 3) Failure to provide monthly and annual reports, see Section 9; Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 24 4) Failure to clean-up spills with three (3) hours of notification, see Section 6.10; 5) Failure to report on changes in location of recyclable materials processing operations, see Section 10.1; 6) Exceeding the maximum process reject rate, see Section 10.1; 7) Failure to conduct annual composition analysis or agreed upon alternative, see Section 10.3; 8) Failure to maintain vehicles in proper working order, see Section 6.16; 9) Failure to provide customers notice when they are in violation of City collection regulations, see Section 6.1 and 6.7; 10) Failure to return containers to their original location, see Section 6.17(f); 11) Failure to correct chronic problems. The Contractor shall be liable for penalty amount(s) upon determination of the City of St. Louis Park that performance has occurred that is not consistent with the provisions of the Agreement. The City shall notify Contractor in writing or electronically of each act or omission discovered by the City. It shall be the duty of the Contractor to take whatever steps or action may be necessary to remedy the cause of the complaint. The City may deduct the full amount of any damages from any payment due to the Contractor. The remedy available to the City under this paragraph shall be in addition to all other remedies that the City may have under law or at equity. Exceptions: For the purposes of this RFP and subsequent contract, the Contractor shall not be deemed to be liable for penalties where its inability to perform recycling collection service is the result of conditions beyond the control of the Contractor, including but not limited to civil disorder, acts of God, inclement weather severe enough that trucks cannot safely take collections, provided however, that the Contractor shall obtain the approval for the delay from the City prior to 4:00 p.m. of the scheduled collection day. 12. PUBLIC INFORMATION & EDUCATION 12.1 Provide Industry Related Information The City publishes a newsletter approximately once bi-monthly that is mailed to all residents and businesses. Periodically the newsletter contains recycling information. The City’s website provides recycling details such as a list of acceptable and unacceptable materials as well as proper recycling set-out instructions. Proposers are encouraged to specify and provide examples of other public education tools that the Contractor will provide to assist with this education effort. If the Contractor chooses to distribute its own public education information, the educational materials must first be reviewed by the City. The Contractor shall provide the City an article or industry-related information or educational materials at least bi-monthly for City publication or distribution, and assist in the development of brochures, flyers, and articles upon the request of the City. The Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 25 Contractor may encourage through various means, the reduction of waste, reuse of materials and increase of recycling in St. Louis Park. 12.2 Conduct and Participate in Educational Events The Contractor shall facilitate ongoing communication with all residents and businesses of St. Louis Park including hosting at least one (1) open house for all residents during the 5-year contract, and offering tours of its facilities at its discretion or at the request of the City. The Contractor shall demonstrate commitment to the promotion of responsible waste management through participation in community events, for example, by initiating and providing collection opportunities for recyclable materials at City-sponsored events. As part of this proposal, Contractor shall describe its experience in providing collection services at community events. 13. TERM OF CONTRACT The term of the new contract shall begin on October 1, 2008 and terminate at the will of the City on or by September 30, 2013. The services may be renewed before expiration of the contract and annually thereafter. 14. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 14.1 Notification of Intent Prospective Contractors interested in responding to this RFP shall notify the City in writing (email acceptable) of their interest by January 8, 2008. Notifications of intent should be sent to: Scott Merkley Public Works Coordinator 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Email: smerkley@stlouispark.org 14.2 How to Submit Proposals Proposal shall be submitted to City Hall no later than 4:00 p.m., January 25, 2008, to be considered eligible. Said Bids MUST be submitted in a 9” x 12” or larger envelope with the OFFICIAL PROPOSAL label attached. Label will be supplied with project specifications (see Attachment “E”, Official Mailing Label) or can be obtained from the Public Works office in City Hall on 2nd Floor. Recycling Collection Service Proposal Office of the Director of Public Works 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 26 Proposers must include five (5) bound printed copies, one (1) unbound printed copy, and one electronic copy of the proposal on a Compact Disk (CD) inside the sealed envelope. The proposal file must be formatted in Microsoft Word or a suitably compatible alternative. Only the company names of Contractors submitting proposals will be made public. All proposal documents shall be held as confidential until the City Council awards a new contract and authorizes staff to execute the new contract. 14.3 Requests for Clarification Questions, requests for clarification or requests for information about this RFP or process must be submitted in writing or by email by 4:00 p.m., January 8, 2007. Authorized contacts for this Requested for Proposal are: Scott Merkley Sarah Hellekson Public Works Coordinator Public Works Administrative Specialist 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 smerkley@stlouispark.org shellekson@stlouispark.org Any other unauthorized contact (as determined by the Director of Public Works) with City staff, or City Council members will subject the company to disqualification from further consideration. This restriction will be in effect for Proposer from the date of notification of intent to bid by Proposer through the date of final contract award (including authorization for execution) by the City Council. All questions and requests for more information and the City’s responses will be summarized in writing and forwarded to all qualified Proposers who submitted prior to or on January 18, 2007. 14.4 Contractors May Team with Other Companies It is recognized that some prospective haulers may wish to subcontract with other companies for processing services. This is allowed as needed, but all such Contractor- subcontractor relationships must be explicitly described in each proposal scenario. The City will contract with only one primary Contractor for the recycling services. Multiple Contractors may team up with other complementary hauling or recycling companies provided there is no collusion. A company may be listed as a part of more than one team as long as this company submits a written certification that no collusion occurred between competing proposals. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 27 14.5 Proposal Content Qualified proposals must include at least the following elements: A. Statement of Contractor qualifications, including at least three references (contact names and phone numbers) of other municipal clients in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul) metropolitan region receiving similar services. B. List of Principal Officers’ names, addresses and contact numbers (telephone, e- mail, fax). C. Provide names and titles of key personnel and related tasks they would perform during the transition, if applicable, and during the term of the Agreement. Key personnel should include the area district manager, operations manager, customer service manager, driver/route supervisor and public education specialist. D. List of materials proposed to be collected and a discussion and rationale for any proposed changes to the City’s standard list of recyclable materials. E. Description of operations at materials processing facility where recyclable materials will be taken including location, hours of operation and capacity. F. Completed price worksheets (Attachment C, Pricing List). G. Completed contractor questionnaire (Attachment D, Contractor Questionnaire). H. Example of an education tag as described in Section 6.1 and 6.7. I. Example of monthly report forms as described in Section 9.4. J. Fully execute Attachment “F” Authorized Signature Page. 14.6 Price Worksheet Prospective Contractors must complete a price worksheet as part of the proposal they submit (see Attachment C, Pricing List). 14.7 Proposals May Be Rejected in Whole or Part The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or parts of proposals, to negotiate modifications of proposals submitted, to accept part or all of the proposals on the basis of consideration(s) other than proceeds or cost, and to negotiate specific work elements with a respondent into a project of lesser or greater expense and reimbursement than described in this RFP or the respondent's reply. 14.8 RFP and Proposal to Become Part of Final Contract The contents of this RFP, the successful proposal, and any written clarifications or modifications to the contents thereof submitted by the successful Contractor shall become part of the contractual obligations and be incorporated by reference into the ensuing contract. If any provision of the contract is in conflict with the referenced RFP or proposal, the contract shall take precedent. 14.9 Items Not Addressed in RFP The following two (2) items will need to be addressed upon execution of a contract: a) Insurance: Prior to commencement the Contractor shall submit certificates of all insurance required which include: Comprehensive/General, Workers’ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 28 Compensation and Employer’s Liability, Auto, Bodily Injury, and Property, Environmental, and Errors and Omissions. b) Performance Bond: The Contactor must provide a performance bond in the sum of $1,000,000. Other standard items that will be addressed in the contract include, but are limited to: termination, arbitration / mediation, indemnification, non-discriminatory practices, successors and assigns, severability, whole agreement. 15. CONTRACTOR SELECTION PROCESS 15.1 Contractor Selection Process To the best of its ability, the City will use the following process for its decision-making: A. City staff will review and analyze the details of the qualified submitted proposals. The City reserves the right to ask Proposers for additional information/clarification to better understand the proposals. Additionally, City staff may request Proposers to attend a staff interview. City staff will make a recommendation to the City Council. B. City staff will negotiate with the top ranked Proposer. If negotiations with top- ranked Proposer are not successful, the City may then initiate negotiations with the second ranked Proposer, and so on. C. Once a draft contract has been successfully negotiated, City staff will present its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council may then award the contract and authorize staff to execute it. D. The new recycling contract will commence on October 1, 2008. The City intends to complete the evaluation and selection process by February 15, 2008. However, the City reserve the right to extend the evaluation and selection process if necessary. All Proposals submitted shall remain in full force and effect during the City’s evaluation and selection process. 15.2 Evaluation Criteria The City will objectively evaluate the proposals submitted to determine the best value for the City and its residents. A comprehensive set of criteria will be used to determine the merits of each proposal package, including (but not limited to): A. Strength of operational qualifications of the Proposer (together with any proposed subcontractor, if any). Qualifications will include (but not be limited to) the proven capacities of the Proposer (and any subcontractor) to meet the operational requirements of the City. B. Strength of financial qualifications and capabilities as evidenced by the ability of the Proposer to provide the necessary levels of service, insurance and performance bond. C. Past and current performance of the Proposer on other similar contracts in terms of quality of services provided. References provided by the Proposer will serve as the basis for these criteria. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 29 26 D. Innovations proposed to increase participation and recyclable material quantities collected, including innovations proposed to improve public education about recycling to all City residents and businesses. E. Proposed end markets for recyclable materials with greater preference given to highest and best use markets. F. Relative amount of revenue sharing to the City. G. The price of the recycling collection services. H. Responsiveness of the Proposer to all other provisions of this RFP. These evaluation criteria are not presented in any special order. No ranking of these criteria within this RFP is intended or implied. 16. PROPOSED SCHEDULE January 8, 2008 Notice of Intent Due, Questions Due January 18, 2008 City Responses to Questions Due January 25, 2008 Proposal Submittal Due February 6, 2008 Complete Proposal Evaluation February 8, 2008 Presentations by Selected Vendors to Staff February 15, 2008 Staff Complete Evaluations and Negotiations February 25, 2008 Council Review of Proposal at Study Session March 3, 2008 Council Award of Contract March 10, 2008 Notice to Proceed October 1, 2008 Contract Start Date 17. ATTACHMENTS Attachment “A” – Map showing Days of Collection Attachment “B” – 2005 - 2007 Recycling Tonnage Estimates Attachment “C” – Pricing Form Attachment “D” – Contractor Questionnaire Attachment “E” – Official Proposal Label Attachment “F” – Authorized Signature Page Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 30 ± BEP 8/8/05KENTUCKY AVE SO A K L E A F D R NATCHEZ AVE SFLAG AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE SHILLSBORO AVE SINDEPENDENCE AVE SENSIGN AVE S18TH ST W TEXAS AVE SQUEBEC AVE SNEVADA AVE S23RD ST W 22ND LANE16TH S T WINDEPENDENCE AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N CEDAR LA K E R D ( C O . R D N O . 1 6 )BURD PL SWYOMING AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS DRFORD ROADWEST 1 8 T H S T MELROSE AVE SKILMER AVE.WEST 16TH KILMER AVELANCASTER AVEU.S. HIGHWAY NO. 169FORD CIR FORD RO A D FORD LANE SHELARDPARKWAY VIRGINIA CIR S XYLON AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE S24TH ST W DECATUR AVE SCAVELL AVE S24TH ST W 23RD ST W 28TH S T W C A V E L L A V E S CEDAR L A K E R D STANLEN ROAD BOONE CTBOONE AVE SXYLON AVE SY UKONAVE SZINRAN AVE S25TH ST W AQUILAAVE SAQUILA AVE S29TH ST W 28TH S T W CLUB RD WESTMORELAND LA FRANKLIN AVE WHILLSBORO AVE SFAIRWAY LA18TH ST W 14TH ST W FLAG AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS CURVEFRANKLIN A V E W FLAG AVE S22ND ST N 22ND ST W VIRG IN IA AVE S TEXA T O NKAAVESUMTER AVE SSUMTER AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE S24TH S T W RHODEISLANDAVESQUEBECAVESPENNSYLVANIA AVE SOREGON AVE SLOUISIANA AVE S25TH ST W 26TH ST W RHODEISLANDAV E S LOUISIANA CT 27TH ST W MARYLAND AVE SNEVADA AVE SOREGON AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SQUEBEC AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SSUMTER AVE STEXAS AVE SVIRGINIAAVES16TH ST W MARYLAND AVE SNEVADA AVE S18TH ST W TEXAS CIR 14TH ST W 13 1/2 ST WRHODE ISLAND13TH LANE 13TH LA PENNSYLVANIA AVE SOREGON AVE SLOUISIANA AVE STEXAS AVE S18TH ST WUTAHDR 16TH ST W UTAH AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS RDVIRGINIA AVE SUTAH AVE S23RD ST W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SQUEBEC DR22ND ST W WAYZATA BLVD RALEIGH AVE SUTICA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVEHAMILTON ST WOODDALE AVEOTTAWA AVE S38TH S T W 31ST ST W EXCELSIOR B L V D BROOK LAMEADOWBROOK BLVDCOLORADA AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE S41ST ST W ALABAMA AVE SBROOKSIDE AVE S36TH ST W 37TH ST W OXFORD ST DAKOTA AVE SMOUND STHAMPSHIRE AVEM O N I T O R S T LOUIS IANA AVE S MEADOWBR O O K B L V D M EADOWBROOKLALOUISIANA CIR LOUISIANA AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SOXFOR D S T GOODRICH AVE CAMBRIDGE ST 39TH ST WCOLORADO AVEBRUNSWICK AVE SALABAMA AVE S39TH ST W DAKOTA AVE SCOLORADO AVE SALABAMA AVE S31ST ST W BRUNSWICK AVE S34TH ST 35TH ST W WALKER ST BRUNSWICK AVE SWO O D D A L E A V E STATE HI G H W A Y N O. 72ND ST NW ID A H O A V E S LI B R A R Y L A N E B R O W N L O W A V E LAKE ST W R E P U B L I C A V EGORHAM AVE1ST ST NW 41ST ST W UTICA AVE STOLEDO AVE SSALEM AVE SBROWNDALE AVEDART AVE 42ND ST W MORNINGSIDE RD 43 1/2 ST W OTTAWA AVE SPRINCETON AVE SDEVANEY S T QUENTIN AVE S42ND ST W STATE HIGHWAY NO. 100WOOD LA 42ND ST W 41ST ST W HOBART LAVERMONT ST WEBSTER AVE SBRO O K S I D E A V E YOSEMITE AVE SZARTHAN AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE S36TH ST W WOODDAL E AVE S 40TH S T W 41ST S T W SALEM AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE S 40TH L A 40TH ST WPRINCETON OTTAWA AVE SPRINCETONNATCHEZEXCEL SI O R B L V D 36TH ST W WOO D D A L E A V E ZARTHAN AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE S31ST ST W RALEIGH AVE SQUENTINPARK G L E N R O A D BELT LINE BLVDRALEIGH AVE S35TH ST WYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE S33RD ST W 35 1/2 ST W MO N T E R E Y D R 36 1/2 ST W KIPLING AVE SLYNN AVE S36TH ST W JOPPA AVE SINGLEWOOD AVE S37TH ST W HUNTINGTON AVE SFRANCE AVE SGLENHURST AVE SKIPLING AVE SLYNN AVE S39TH S T W 39TH ST W 38TH ST W NATCHEZ AVE SVALLA C H E R A V E S HUNTINGTON AVE SRANDAL L A V E GLENHURST AVE SSTATE HI G H W A Y N O. 7MONTEREY AVE S31ST ST WLYNN AVE S34TH ST W FRANCE AVEFLORIDA AVEWESTRIDGE LAUTICA AVE SC ED A RWOOD RDDREW AVE SCEDA R L A K E R D 23RD ST W 24TH ST W 23RD ST W KENTUCKY LA 29TH ST W 28TH ST W 26TH ST W EDGEWOOD AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SJERSEY AVE SIDAHO AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SFLORIDA AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SDAKOTA AVE SALABAMA AVE SCOLORADO AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SALABAMA AVE S27TH ST W ZARTHAN AVE SALABAMA AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE S18TH ST W COLORADO AVE S16TH ST W 14TH ST W14TH ST W 16TH ST W 16 T H S T W 18 T H S T W FR A N K L I N A V E WEDGEWOOD AVE SDAKOTA AVE SJERSEY AVE SIDAHO AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SFLORIDA AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SELIO T VI E W R D CEDA R L A K E R O A D WAYZATA BLVD 27TH ST W 26TH ST W UTICA AVE STOLEDO AVE SPRINCETON AVE SOTTAWA PLPRINCETON 29TH ST W QUENTIN AVE SOTTAWA AVE SVERNON AVE SSALEM AVE SRALEIGH AVE S25 1/2 ST W 26TH ST W YOSEMITE AVE SWEBSTER AVE S27TH ST W 28TH ST W 29TH ST W XENWOOD AVE S26TH ST W ZARTHAN AVE S16TH ST W PARKDALE D R STATE HIGHWAY NO. 100OLD CEDAR LAKE RD OTTAWA AVE SPRINCETON AVE SQUENTIN AVE S23RD ST W PARKWOODS RDHILLLAS16TH ST W C E DAR LAKE RD RIDGE DRIVE2 5 T H S T WKIPLING AVE SLYNN AVE SMONTEREY AVE S26TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W 26TH ST W FRANCE AVE25TH ST W 25TH ST W CEDAR S H O R E S D R NATCHEZ AVE SJOPPA AVE S27TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMON T E R E Y P K W Y JOPPA AVE SSUNSET BLVD CEDAR LAKE AVE CEDA R S T GLENHURST AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SDOUGLAS AVE PARKLANDS RDWILLOW LA NWILLOW LAPA R K L A NDSLA CEDA R L A K E R D GLENHURST RDFORES T R D HIGH W O O D R D GLENHURST RDF O R E S T L A 36TH ST W 30 1/2 ST W 31ST ST W 33RD ST W 34TH ST W GETTYSBURGAVESU.S.HIGHWAYNO.16937TH ST WBOONE AVE SXYLON AVE SAQUILA AVE SXYLON AVE SMINNETONKA B L V D CAVELL AVE SDECATUR AVE SENSIGN AVE S31ST S T W AQUILALACAVE LL LA DECATURLA34TH ST WGETTYSBURG AVE SHILLSBORO AVE S32ND ST W FREDE RI C K A V E HILLSBORO AVE S 36TH ST W FLAG AVE SMINNEHAHA CIR S MINNEHAHA CIR N GETTYSBURG AVE S XYLON AVE SYUKON AVE SYUKON AVE S35TH ST W AQUILA CIR MEADOWBROOK RDPOWELL RDSTATE HIGH W A Y N O . 7 OREGON AVE SLAKE S T W TAFT AVE S 37TH ST W POWELL RD DIVISION ST CAMBRIDGE ST BROOKVIEW DRWOODLAND DR EDGE B R O O K D RRHODE ISLAND AVE S NORT H S T PENNSYLVANIA AVE S 33RD ST W 32 1/2 ST W OAKPA R K V IL L AGE DR OAK TROAK LEAF CT LOUISIANA AVE SWA L K E R STUTAH AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S31ST ST W 32ND ST W VIRGINIA AVE SUTAH AVE SVIRGINIA AVE AWYOMING AVE STEXAS AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SWYOMING AVE S34 1/2 ST W TWIN LAKES PARK SHELARD PARK MINNEAPOLIS GOLF CLUB MEADOWBROOK PARK MEADOWBROOK GOLF COURSE (CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PARK BOARD) OAK PARK VILLAGE PARK AINSWORTH PARK CEDAR KNOLL PARK POST OFFICE WESTDALE PARK WILLOW PARK JACKLEY PARK JUSTAD PARKJORDAN AVE SJORDAN AVE SJORDAN AVE S22ND ST W OREGON CTFRANKLIN AVE W PARK PLACE BLVD SGAMBLE DR UTICA AVE S25TH 1/2 ST W QUENTIN CTPRINCETON CT24TH ST WCEDARWOOD RD BASSWOOD R D B A S SWOOD RDGLENHURST PLNATCHEZ AVE SMINIKAHDA CTP A R K C ENTER BLVDPARK CENTER BLVDSTATE HIGHWAY NO 100WEBSTER AVE SAUTO CLUB WAY 39TH S T W VERNON AVE SG E O R G I A A V E S 33RD ST W BLACKSTONE AVE SPHILLIPS PKWY3 4 T H S T WSUNSET RIDGE RDMINNEHAHA CT FLAG A V E S INDEPENDENCE AVE SPARKER ROAD PARKER LAINDEPENDENCE AVE SKILMER POND BOONE AVE SAQUILA AVE SZINRAN AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SSUMTER AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SQUEBEC AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SUTAH AVE S34TH ST W 35TH ST W WALKER ST MINNETONKA BLVD PRINCETON AVE S28TH ST W STATE HIGHWAY NO. 10035TH ST W PARK G L E N R O A D 32ND ST W 33RD ST W 32ND ST W 31ST ST W MINNETONKA BLVD 24TH LA SUMTER DR22ND ST W 22ND ST W WAYZATA BLVD STEPHENS DR DAKOTA AVE SBROOKVIEW LA PARK NICOLLET BLVDGLENHURST CI RNATCHEZ AVE SOTTAWA CT42 1/2 ST W MACKEY AVEBROOK AVECOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVEGLEN PL 43RD 1/ 2 S T W 44TH ST W WESTWOOD LAKE CEDAR MANOR LAKE HANNAN LAKE COBBLE CREST LAKE COBBLE CREST LAKE VICTORIA HURD PARK FIRE STATION NO 2 NORTHSIDE PARK LAMPLIGHTER POND JERSEY PARK PENNSYLVANIA PARK HAMPSHIRE PARK NELSON PARK DAKOTA PARK BRONX PARK TEXA-TONKA PARK RAIN- PARK BOW MINNEHAHA PARK AQUILA PARK AQUILA SCHOOL MINNEHAHA WETLANDS PUBLIC LIBRARY OAK HILL PARK OREGON PARKFREEDOM PARK WALKER PARK BLIE PARK SUNSET PARK KNOLLWOOD GREEN PARK KNOLLWOOD MALL SOUTH OAK POND EDGEBROOK PARK OAK POND PARK CREEKSIDE MUNICIPAL SERV. CTR. MEADOWBROOK MANOR PARK MEADOWBROOK LAKE BROWNDALE PARK SUSAN LUNDGREN SCHOOL MINIKAHDA VISTA PARK ST. LOUIS PARK REC. CENTER WOLFE PARK BASS LAKE PARK JORVIG PARK CENTER PARK FIRE NO. 1 STATION LAKE STREET PARKSENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW PARK ROWBURY PARK KEYSTONE PARK SUNSHINE PARK FERN HILL PARK TWIN LAKE BIRCHWOOD PARK CEDARHURST PARK BASS LAKE WOLFE LAKE CITY HALL POLICE STATION CARPENTER PARK TALMUD TORAH AC. BENILDE ST. MARGARETS HIGH SCHOOL ST LOUIS PARK JR H.S. WESTWOOD HILLS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER CEDAR MANOR SCHOOL CENTRAL COMMUNITY CENTER PETER HOBART SCHOOL ELIOT COMM CTR LENNOX CENTER COMMUNITY GROVES LEARNING CENTER BROOKSIDE COMM. CTR. OTTEN POND BLACKSTONE PARK EXCELSIOR WAYWEBSTER PARK Legend Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Daily Collection Route Map Attachment "A" Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 31 ATTACHMENT "B" St. Louis Park’s Residential Recycling Tonnage Estimates by Material Type 2005 to 2007 Material 2005 Residential Total (tons) 2005 % of Total 2006 Residential Total (tons) 2006 % of Total 2007 Residential Total (tons) 2007 % of Total (1) PAPER Newspaper 2,173.7 50.0%2,082.9 50.0%1,575.5 50.0% Cardboard 159.7 3.7%153.0 3.7%115.7 3.7% Chipboard 22.2 0.5%21.3 0.5%16.1 0.5% Magazines 26.6 0.6%25.5 0.6%19.3 0.6% Mixed Paper 776.3 17.9%743.9 17.9%562.7 17.9% Phone Books 22.2 0.5%21.3 0.5%16.1 0.5% METALS Tin 142.0 3.3%136.0 3.3%102.9 3.3% Aluminum 93.2 2.1%89.3 2.1%67.5 2.1% GLASS Clear Glass 266.2 6.1%255.0 6.1%192.9 6.1% Amber Glass 75.4 1.7%72.3 1.7%54.7 1.7% Mixed Glass 310.5 7.1%297.6 7.1%225.1 7.1% Green Glass 93.2 2.1%89.3 2.1%67.5 2.1% PLASTIC HDPE Natural 66.5 1.5%63.8 1.5%48.2 1.5% HDPE Colored 44.4 1.0%42.5 1.0%32.2 1.0% PET 75.4 1.7%72.3 1.7%54.7 1.7% TOTAL TONS 4,347.3 100.0%4,165.7 100.0%3,151.0 100.0% (1) 2007 Numbers are for Jan. to Oct. (Nov. & Dec. info pending) (2) Source: Contractor (Waste Management) Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 32 Attachment “C” Recycling Collection Services RFP Pricing Form Instructions for RFP Pricing Form All proposers must fill out the pricing form. Proposers may fill in the attached form or use their own similar format. However, the contents in the attached pricing form must be included if alternate formats are submitted. The basic revenue share formula within this RFP can be summarized as a portion of the proposer’s materials sales revenue from sale of all paper grades, aluminum and plastic, less processing costs for these commodities. The City has a stated preference for using the specified published indexes as a means to simplify the accounting of proposed revenue share. Proposers can indicate from zero (0) to one hundred (100) percent revenue share for percent of published price index. Thus, the proposers may opt out of the revenue share component by simply inserting zero (0) percent for paper, aluminum, and plastic revenue share lines for each scenario proposed. Alternate revenue sharing formula can be proposed, but these must be clear with examples for each alternate formula. Also, prospective contractors proposing alternate revenue sharing formula must justify how the monitoring and accounting of the alternate formula will be at least as simple as the basic revenue share formula contained within this RFP. The City will use the assumed tonnage and material splits in Attachment B for calculating the net revenue share back to the City from all proposers. It is important to note that the City does not guarantee any minimum tonnage or any specific material splits. These are estimates only for purposes of this RFP and comparing the value of any revenue sharing proposals. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 33 Recycling Collection Services RFP Pricing Form Company Name: DUAL-STREAM Every Week Collection (Approximately 12,275 units) 1.1 Proposed price per Residential Household per Month Year 1 – Oct. 1, 2008 to Dec. 31, 2009 $ per HH per month 1.2 Proposed price per Residential Household per Month Year 2 – Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2010 $ per HH per month 1.3 Proposed price per Residential Household per Month Year 3 – Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2011 $ per HH per month 1.4 Proposed price per Residential Household per Month Year 4 – Jan. 1, 2012 to Dec. 31, 2012 $ per HH per month 1.5 Proposed price per Residential Household per Month Year 5 – Jan. 1, 2013 to Sept. 30, 2013 $ per HH per month Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 34 DUAL-STREAM Every Week Collection (Approximately 12,275 units) REVENUE SHARE PROPOSAL 2.1 Paper “gross” revenue share percentage: Less paper processing cost per ton: % of published paper price index1 $ per ton of all paper grades 2.2 Aluminum “gross” revenue share percentage: Less aluminum processing cost per ton: % of published aluminum price index2 $ per ton of aluminum 2.3 HDPE Plastic “gross” revenue share percentage: Less plastic processing cost per ton: % of published plastic price index3 $ per ton of plastic 2.4 PET Plastic “gross” revenue share percentage: Less plastic processing cost per ton: % of published plastic price index3 $ per ton of plastic 1 OBM “Yellow Sheet” (first issue of the month), Chicago region for Old Newspapers (ONP) #8, high-side of range. 2 AMM, Aluminum (first issue of the month), high-side nonferrous scrap prices. 3 Contractor to specify what price index will be used for HDPE and PET plastics. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 35 RECYCLING BIN DISTRIBUTION The Hauler will be responsible for distribution of City-owned recycling bins. The distribution of the recycling bins will be done at the request of the City or by customers. The bins will be stored at the City’s Municipal Service Center located at 7305 Oxford St., St. Louis Park. Service Year 1 Cost / Month Year 2 Cost / Month Year 3 Cost / Month Year 4 Cost / Month Year 5 Cost / Month 3.1 Distribution $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 36 Attachment “D” CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE Please provide requested information to the items listed below. All questions should be answered fully in order to provide the City with an understanding of the services you would provide. Information and answers can be attached on separate sheets as needed. 1. Describe how you will staff and deliver customer service for this contract. What could be changed to provide better customer service? What are the cost implications? ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Describe what you propose as an education plan, both initially and over the term of this contract. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. Describe your experience providing collection at community events. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 37 CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (continued) 4. Describe how you think the City should deal with poor performance or with non- performance in collection or customer service. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 5. What do you expect to be the number of non-compliant missed and area-wide missed pickups per year? What is your average number of non-compliant missed pickups in other communities per year? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 6. In the past three years, have there been City contract requirements or promises that you were not able to meet? If so, please explain. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 7. Describe any new recycling contracts you have recently begun. What made the contract transition successful and what issues did you encounter when coming in as a new provider? What issues do you expect here, and how do you would propose to deal with those issues? ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 38 CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE (continued) 8. Provide written names and contacts of cities or large commercial ventures in the Twin Cities Seven County Metropolitan Area where you previously held and lost contracts in the last five (5) years. List the date when the contract ended and the reason for loss of contract. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 9. Provide written names and contacts of cities or large commercial ventures in the Twin Cities Seven County Metropolitan Area where you previously were involved in litigation within the last five (5) years. What caused the litigation and what were the results? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 39 SUBMIT BID IN 9” X 12” OR LARGER ENVELOPE LABEL BELOW MUST BE ATTACHED - - - - - - - - - - - - CUT ON THE LINE AND REMOVE BACKING TO ATTACH - - - - - - - - - - - OFFICIAL PPOPOSAL Project Title: Date/Time Bids Due: PROPOSALS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED AT: Office Of Public Works St. Louis Park City Hall (2nd Floor) 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY: Firm Name: Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Official Contact: Area Code/Phone No.: ______________________________________________________________________________ RECEIPT OF QUOTE RECEIVED: _______________ _______________ _____________________ DATE TIME BY WHOM: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 40 Attachment “F” Authorized Signature Page I/We, the undersigned, having reviewed this Request for Proposal for 2008 – 2013 Recycling Collection Services and all related information made available by the City, do hereby submit this Proposal to provide all equipment, labor, processing arrangements, and other resources necessary to perform the requested services. These services will be carried out to fulfill the requirements of this proposal as well as meeting the expectations and requirements of the City. It is acknowledged that this proposal, along with the Request for Proposal, may be incorporated into subsequent contractual documents at the discretion of the City. Acknowledgement _____________________________ Signature State whether bidder is: Respectfully Submitted Partnership __________________ ______________________________ Firm Name Individual ___________________ ______________________________ By Corporation _________________ ______________________________ Title ______________________________ Name of Partner Address ___________________________ ______________________________ Phone State in which incorporated ______________________________ ____________________________ Email Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 41 Public Works Department DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SOLID WASTE AND YARD WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES Due: January 25, 2008 at 4:00 P.M. No later than: 4:00 P.M. CST Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page 1 Table of Contents 2 1. Introduction 3 2. Background 3 3. Terms and Conditions 4 4. Definitions 4 5. Solid Waste and Yard Waste Collection and Disposal Requirements 7 6. Appliance, Bulk Item, and Electronic Collection, Processing and Disposal Requirements 13 7. Emergency or Disaster Services 14 8. Organics Collection 14 9. Customer Service Requirements 15 10. Reporting and Meeting Requirements 17 11. Payments and Penalties 18 12. Public Information and Education 20 13. Community Clean-Up Events 21 14. Term of Contract 21 15. Proposal Submittal Instructions 21 16. Contractor Selection Process 24 17. Proposed Schedule 25 18. Attachments 25 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 43 1. INTRODUCTION This request for proposals (RFP) defines the service standards, specifications and proposal requirements of the residential solid waste and yard waste collection program for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (City). The City seeks to enter into a solid waste and yard waste collection contract with a company that has the resources and ability to provide residential solid waste and yard waste collection services for the City while maximizing environmental efficiencies. It is the intent of the City to accept and evaluate proposals for residential solid waste collection and yard waste services including collection and composting of yard waste materials. The City is currently evaluating the possibility of adding co-collected organics (household organics and yard waste collected together) and hopes to add this component sometime during this contract. Understanding, that this expanded service will require renegotiation with the successful Contractor for this to occur. The City’s goals include moving toward a zero waste community by maximizing re-use of materials, expand recycling and increase waste reduction in an effort to create the least impact possible on the environment and achieve this in the most cost-effective manner possible. Another goal of the City is to improve public education to help achieve these environmental goals. The City will need to work very closely with the Contractor to achieve these goals. The City encourages Proposers to submit their best proposal possible. The requirements within this RFP may be altered by Proposers if proposals explicitly describe the change, rationale and price implications. The services shall begin on October 1, 2008 and terminate at the will of the City on or by September 30, 2013. The services may be renewed before expiration of the contract and annually thereafter. 2. BACKGROUND The City’s current solid waste collection contract requires all residential households (single-family to 4-plex) to be serviced on a weekly basis. The City will also be offering this as an optional service to smaller sized multi-family dwellings and businesses. The current population of St. Louis Park is estimated to be 44,380 persons. The City has approximately 12,275 property units included as part of the City’s residential solid waste and yard waste collection program. In 2003, the City moved to a pay-as-you throw program to promote waste reduction and fairly charge residents for the amount of solid waste they are generating that requires disposal. The solid waste is currently being collected weekly in 30+, 60+, and 90+ gallon Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 44 carts owned by the City. The City has eight (8) service levels for the residents to choose from ranging from 30 gallon all the way up to 540 gallon. Also in 2003, the City started a 2-tier yard waste collection program. The full service collection option includes leaves, grass clippings, bundled twigs and branches (up to 4” in diameter and 4’ long), and weeds. Under the no-grass clipping option collection includes everything except grass clippings and residents receive a $3 per quarter credit from the city for composting their grass clippings. Under that current contract the solid waste collection rates are the same for all service levels, with the City paying the costs for disposal. The 2008 solid waste collection rate the City pays the Contractor is $5.56 per household per month for weekly residential solid waste collection and $1.22 per household per month for yard waste collection. Yard waste is collected mid-April through November and during the first two weeks in January (Christmas trees). See Attachment “B” 2005 – 2007 Solid Waste and Yard Waste Tonnages for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 solid waste and yard waste tonnages. 3. TERMS AND CONDITIONS This Request for Proposals does not obligate the City to accept a proposal. The City reserves the right to cancel this solicitation if it is considered to be in the City’s best interest. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or parts of proposals, to accept part or all of the proposals on the basis of consideration other than lowest cost. No member of the governing body, officer, employee or agent of the City, who exercises any functions of responsibilities in connection with the carrying out of solid waste services to which this Contract pertains, shall have any personal interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract. The contents of the Proposal and any clarifications or modifications to the contents of a proposal submitted by the successful proposer shall, at the City’s option, become part of the contractual obligation and be incorporated by reference into the ensuing contract. The contents of the submitted proposal are subject to negotiation. 4. DEFINITIONS 4.1. "Appliances" means household appliances including items such as refrigerators, stoves, dishwashers, washers and dryers, water heaters, microwave ovens, furnaces, air conditioners and dehumidifiers. “Appliances” includes the industry term “white goods.” 4.2. "Bulk items" means large items such as bathtubs, beds, mattresses, bikes, carpet (less than 4 foot bundles & less than 45 pounds), chairs, couches, doors, dressers, Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 45 exercise equipment, garage door openers, gas grills (without tank), lawnmower (drained), pallets, sinks, swing set (less than 4 feet in length and less than 45 pounds), tables, toilets, vacuums, water softeners, windows, construction debris (less than 4 feet in length and less than 45 pounds), and items that are too large to fit into the garbage cart or container. 4.3. "City" means the City of St. Louis Park. 4.4. “Clean-Up Day” means a City and Contractor hosted event at which residents are invited to bring unwanted materials for disposal. See Attachment “F” for details. 4.5. “Co-collection of Organics” means the co-mingled collection of yard waste and food waste. This may also include contaminated, non-recyclable paper. 4.6. “Commercial Property” for purposes of this Agreement, means any business generating the amount of waste similar to a household, who may elect to use the City contracted solid waste services, including recycling collection. 4.7. "Contractor" means the party or parties contracting to perform the work to be done under these specifications or to the legal representative of such party or parties. 4.8. “Customer” is any residential single through four-plex household, which is required to use the City contracted solid waste services, and any small multi-family dwelling property (8-plex or less) and small commercial property that chooses to use the City contracted recycling service and is also deemed suitable by the City and Contractor in what it produces in waste and recyclables to do so. 4.9. “Electronics” means computers and peripherals, televisions, video display device, printers, FAX machines, DVD players, video cassette recorders and other devices as acceptable by the Contractor and the state. All definitions of electronics are as defined by state law. 4.10. “Extra Refuse Stickers” means the stickers provided by the City for use by the residents for placement on bags of regular household solid waste that does not fit in their usual garbage cart. The stickers are bright orange and labeled “Extra Refuse Sticker” and available for purchase at City Hall. 4.11. “Food Waste” means garbage (as defined below), kitchen scraps, and garden waste as deemed acceptable by Hennepin County and the compost collection point. 4.12. "Garbage" means waste material, animal or vegetable that results from the handling, preparation, cooking, service, and consumption of food. 4.13. “Multi-family Dwelling or MFDs” means residential premises with five (5) or more living units, which have centralized solid waste and recyclable materials collection service for all units in the building and are billed as one address. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 46 4.14. “Organics” means plant materials commingled with food waste and contaminated, non-recyclable paper 4.15. “Pay-As-You- Throw” means the City’s volume based solid waste collection service that the Contractor shall provide where the customer may choose from eight levels of service collected in city provided carts. If any custom has more solid waste than will fit into the cart(s), the customer must purchase an “extra refuse” sticker from the City at an additional cost and place the sticker on a securely sealed bag for collection. 4.16. "Receptacle" means, unless specified otherwise, whether referred to as “cart”, "garbage can", "plastic bag", "suitable container", "cans", or "containers", means a receptacle which shall be of such size and form as to permit collection by one individual. Garbage carts with hinged lids are provided by the City and a single cart may not exceed 96 gallons. Garbage cans for yard waste shall not exceed 32 gallons in capacity and shall be fitted with handles. 4.17. "Refuse" means all wastes which normally result from the operation of a household and does not decay or have a foul odor. This includes, but is not limited to, non-recyclable containers, non-recyclable papers, non-recyclable cardboard, non- recyclable glass, ashes, plastics, and household materials that will fit into the garbage receptacle. 4.18. "Residential Dwelling" means any single building consisting of four or fewer separate dwelling units with individual kitchen facilities for each. 4.19. "Solid Waste Collection" or "collection" means the taking up and collecting of all solid waste accumulated in containers at single, double, triple, and four-plex dwelling residences within the corporate limits of the City or at other locations as mutually agreed upon by the City and the Contractor, and also includes transportation of such materials to the Hennepin County Energy Resource Company (HERC) facility or other permitted place of disposal or transfer station outside the City limits of St. Louis Park. 4.20. “Solid Waste” means garbage, refuse, rubbish, and other discarded materials except animal wastes used as fertilizer, including solid waste materials resulting from industrial, commercial and agricultural operations, and from community activities. Solid waste does not include earthen fill, boulders, rock and other materials normally handled in construction operations, solids or dissolved material in domestic sewage or other significant pollutants in waste resources, such as silt, dissolved or suspended solids in industrial waste water effluent, dissolved materials in irrigation return flows; or other common water pollutants. 4.21. “Tagging” means leaving an educational tag for customers on the garbage cart or yard waste container. 4.22. "Unacceptable Materials" for collection means materials which have not been properly prepared and/or properly located in compliance with the provisions of this Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 47 contract. The following materials are not included collection service: toxic and hazardous wastes including, but not limited to, poisons, pesticides, herbicides, acids, caustics, pathological wastes, radioactive materials, flammable or explosive materials, motor oils and paint in liquid form. 4.23. “Walk-up Service” is a service option offered by the Contractor to any household for an extra fee payable directly to the Contractor. In subscribing to this service, the household chooses not to move solid waste to the curb/alley for collection, but rather places it in such a way that the Contractor collects it from another area of the property (outside a building, unless a waiver is signed). 4.24. "Yard Waste" means all compostable organic plant material that consists of grass clippings, leaves, weeds, and soft garden materials, including Christmas trees, and brush and limbs under four inches in diameter and four feet in length provided they are bundled with twine or other organic material. 4.25. "Yard Waste Collection" means the taking and receipt of all "yard waste" accumulated in "yard waste receptacles" at single-family through four-plex homes in the City or at other locations as mutually agreed upon by the City and the Contractor. Yard waste shall be kept unmixed from other types of waste or refuse unless an organics collection program is established. At the time an organics collection program is put in place the grass clippings, weeds, leaves and other garden waste may be mixed with food waste and non-recyclable paper. Collections shall also include the weighing of each load of material and transportation to a Hennepin County approved compost site. 4.26. "Yard Waste Container" means any permanent container labeled with a yard waste sticker (available from the City), a biodegradable bag made for yard waste, a brown craft yard waste bag, or a cart labeled for organics and yard waste collection. 5. SOLID WASTE AND YARD WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS 5.1. Service Requirements The Contractor will be properly licensed and insured to operate in the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and the State of Minnesota, and shall comply with all statutes, regulations, and ordinances of the State, County and City in the execution of the Contract. Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, and equipment and perform all work for the collection, hauling, processing and disposal of solid waste, yard waste, appliances, bulk items, and electronics for customers in the City as described below, or as required by subsequent legislative or administrative enactment of the federal, state, or local governments. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 48 The Contractor is responsible to advise the customers as to the proper preparation of materials through educational tags and other means. The City is responsible for educating and informing residents and businesses regarding the solid waste program. The Contractor is responsible for providing information, materials and in assisting the City in providing education, as stated in this section and Section 12 Public Information and Education. 5.2. Frequency of Collections The Contractor shall provide solid waste collection at least once per week during the term of this contract unless otherwise described in this agreement. The Contractor shall provide yard waste collection for two weeks in January following the religious holiday season and weekly during the growing season from April through November as necessary and requested by the City. Weekly service shall be provided no fewer than eight months per year. Collection services shall be provided on the same day of the week as the household's solid waste collection. 5.3. Collection Times The Contractor shall provide collection at least once per week per household. Collections shall take place between 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays except during holiday weeks. Contractor shall maintain the current scheduled pickup day for households to the extent possible. 5.4. Non-Completion of Collection and Extension of Collection Hours If Contractor determines that the collection of solid waste will not be completed by 6:00 p.m. on the scheduled collection day, Contractor shall notify the City by 4:00 p.m., and request an extension of the collection hours. Contractor shall inform the City of the areas not completed, the reason for non-completion, and the expected time of completion. 5.5. Point of Collection Solid waste service from single-family to 4-plex housing units will occur at both curbside and alley (approximately 30%) locations. Multi-family and business locations will vary. 5.6. Ownership of Materials All materials, placed for collection, remain the responsibility of the property owner or tenant until handled by the Contractor at which point they become the responsibility and ownership of the Contractor. 5.7. Manner of Collection The collection of solid waste will, at no time, create a nuisance or become injurious to the public health of persons living either within or outside the corporate limits of the City. Contractor shall take measures to protect all public and private property, including utility property from damages caused by the provision of services under this Agreement, and if damage occurs, Contractor will be solely responsible for repairing, replacing, or compensating for the damage. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 49 Contractor shall segregate yard waste from solid waste and recyclables. However, when an organics collection program is implemented, yard waste can be mixed with food waste and non-recyclable paper waste. 5.8. Solid Waste Containers Collection of solid waste shall be from City owned carts. Carts are purchased and supplied by the City and distributed by the Contractor. The Contractor will distribute carts as needed weekly to households upon request. Extra containers are stored by the Contractor at Contractor’s facility. Any bag of solid waste that does not fit entirely inside a solid waste cart shall not be collected unless it has an Extra Refuse sticker on the bag. “Extra Refuse” stickers are ONLY for bags of regular household solid waste (see Section 4 Definitions). 5.9. Yard Waste Container All households that participate in the yard waste collection program shall use containers or bags as described in Section 4 Definitions. Contractor shall not mix other types of waste or refuse or inorganic materials with the yard waste or take any action so as to make the yard waste unacceptable at a compost facility satisfactory to the City and Contractor. Contractor shall use a list provided by the City to ascertain the yard waste service option for each household. Upon rollout of the organics collection program (see Section 8 Organics Collection), Contractor will provide new wheeled carts for weekly collection of organics to every household (approximately 12, 275 property units). The service levels will be 60-65 or 90- 96 gallon carts. Contractor will be required to provide more than one cart if requested by resident at no additional cost to resident. Residents will be required to place the carts curbside or in the alley for collection. Walk up service will be provided at an extra charge to the customer. 5.10. Procedure for Unacceptable Materials Proposers must provide samples of public education and promotional materials, which were used in other programs; particularly those related to residential, commercial and multifamily solid waste programs. Proposer must provide its procedure for unacceptable materials and the measure of effectiveness and contact information for the jurisdictions in which they were effective. Unacceptable materials shall be left by the Contractor in the containers with an educational note. 5.11. Collection Routes and Route Maps Collection routes have been established in a manner to maintain the existing collection days (see Attachment “A” Daily Collection Route Map). The Contractor shall not change any routes without the prior approval of the City. The Contractor will work with the City to revise the routes and notify the City of any route changes and the City will keep the maps current provide the Contractor with revised route maps. The Contractor shall keep up-to-date route maps in all collection vehicles at all times. Quarterly, the Contractor will submit written or electronic correspondence that the route maps are still accurate. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 50 5.12. Cleanup Responsibilities The Contractor shall adequately clean up any materials spilled or blown during the course of collection and/or hauling operations. As stated below in Section 5.20, all collection vehicles shall be equipped with a broom and shovel for use in cleaning up any spills. The driver shall take all precautions possible to prevent littering. 5.13. Missed Pickup Policies and Procedures Contractor will be penalized for non-compliant missed pickups, area-wide missed pickups, and administrative non-compliance, as stated in Section 11 Payments and Penalties. 5.14. Disposal of Solid Waste All solid waste shall be hauled, transported, weighed-in, and disposed of at the HERC or alternatively at a Hennepin County approved facility. The Contractor shall weigh each collection truck before and after unloading. The Contractor shall provide the City with a monthly weight report and tonnage slips for every St. Louis Park load disposed. 5.15. Alternate Disposal Site for Solid Waste Contractor shall designate an alternate location for the hauling, transport, weigh-in, and disposal of the City's solid waste and submit to the City for prior approval. With regard to this alternate facility, Contractor shall provide construction, operation, and location information as well as detail on the Contractor's ability to provide financial indemnification at this alternate facility under State and Federal Superfund laws. The City retains discretion to direct the destination of the solid waste produced within City limits. 5.16. Weighing and Disposal of Yard Waste Contractor shall weigh, transport, and dispose of each load of material. Disposal of the material shall be at a Hennepin County approved compost site, unless otherwise approved by the City. 5.17. Holiday Collection The Contractor shall not make regular collections on the following legal holidays: New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. During the holiday week beginning on the holiday, the Contractor will make collections one day after the regularly scheduled day through Saturday (9:00 a.m. through 6:00 p.m. on Saturday due to noise ordinance). It shall be the Contractor’s responsibility to notify customers of any changes in the collection schedule as a result of a holiday, in a manner and frequency as reasonably directed by the City. 5.18. Walk-up Service for Households The Contractor will make available walk-up service to every household, as an extra service beyond the standard City service. The Contractor will be responsible for determining the walk-up service fee and billing the cost separately to each household. This means that the household does not place solid waste at the curb or alley and the Contractor collects it from another area of the property. Walkup service agreements must Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 51 include a City liability waiver signed by the household if the walkup service entails the Contractor entering a building or enclosed structure to service the property. The Contractor will provide the City with a list of addresses receiving walkup service at least quarterly, and as requested by the City. 5.19. Special Pick-up Requests The Contractor will provide special solid waste and yard waste pickups to every customer as requested by customers, as an extra service beyond the standard City service. The Contractor will be responsible for determining the special pickup service fee and bill the cost separately to each customer. 5.20. Collection Vehicle Equipment Requirements A. Licenses and Permits. All collection vehicles used in performance of the contract shall be duly licensed and inspected by the State of Minnesota and shall operate within the weight allowed by Minnesota statutes. The Contractor shall obtain all pertinent licenses and registrations from the City, County and State and have DOT record books. B. Vehicle and Equipment Requirements. Proposer is invited to present proposal to use alternative fuel and other environmental (green) options. All of the required equipment must be in proper working order. All vehicles must be maintained in proper working order, prevent leaky seals and hydraulics, and be as clean and free from odors as possible. C. Vehicles must be capable of collection in St. Louis Park in all seasons of the year, and in all streets and alleys without damage to existing structures or public utilities. Fully automated vehicles must be approved in advance by the City. All vehicles must be clearly identified on both sides with Contractor’s name and customer service telephone number for City customers on both sides of the vehicle. Each collection vehicle shall be equipped with the following: 1) Two-way communications device. 2) First aid kit. 3) An approved 2A10BC Dry Chemical Fire Extinguisher. 4) Warning flashers. 5) Warning alarms to indicate movement in reverse. 6) Sign on the rear of the vehicle which states “This Vehicle Makes Frequent Stops” or similar language. 7) A broom and shovel for cleaning up spills. 8) Each collection vehicle shall have sufficient room in a weather-proof area, for storage of the customer education tags to be distributed to customers, and for the bottoms of the tags, and all City-provided route maps. D. Clean and Sanitary Condition. The Contractor shall make all collections with vehicles so constructed that their contents will not leak, blow away, or spill Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 52 there from. Such vehicles shall be kept clean and as free from all offensive odors as possible and shall not be allowed to stand in any street, alley, or other place longer than is reasonably necessary for collections. All vehicles and equipment used in the performance of the contracted services shall be maintained in good operating condition and in a clean, sanitary condition. Generally, this shall mean washed and painted regularly. 1) Size of Vehicle. The Contractor shall not use garbage and yard waste trucks greater than 30 yards. 2) Other Equipment and Maps. Should it be required by the City, the Contractor shall equip all trucks with Automated Vehicle Location Systems. The City, prior to installation of any such systems, will determine exact requirements. The City will be responsible for the cost of the Automated Vehicle Location System equipment purchase and installation. The Contractor will be responsible for the cost of operating and maintaining the equipment at no additional cost to the City. 5.21. Personnel Requirements The Contractor shall provide full-time daily on-site supervision of the collection within the City. The supervisor will address all problems as they arise, interface directly with customers, and have continual direct communication with the Contractor’s customer staff and route drivers. The supervisor shall meet or communicate with City staff daily and as necessary. This supervisor shall have a separate vehicle with contact information clearly printed on the vehicle. The supervisor will also be involved in regularly scheduled monthly meetings with the City. The Contractor shall report all hydraulic fluid spills and leaks to the City immediately. If the Public Works office is closed, spills must be reported to the Fire Department (911 or 952-924-2618). Contractor is responsible to clean up spills. Reporting to the City all spills and leaks does not replace the State requirement to report certain size spills to the Minnesota Duty Officer. Contractor’s personnel will be trained both in program operations and in customer service and ensure that all personnel maintain a positive attitude with the public and in the work place and shall: A. Conduct themselves at all times in a courteous manner and use no abusive or foul language. B. Perform their duties in accordance with all existing laws and ordinances and future amendments thereto of the Federal, State of Minnesota, and local governing boards. C. Be clean and presentable in appearance, as so far as possible. D. Wear a uniform and employee identification badge or name tag. E. Drive in a safe and considerate manner. F. Manage containers in a careful manner, by picking them up, emptying their contents into the collection vehicle, and placing – not throwing or sliding – the Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 53 container back to its designated location so as to avoid spillage and littering or damage to the container. G. Monitor for any spillage and be responsible for cleaning up any litter or breakage. H. Avoid damage to property. The Contractor’s employees may not collect or scavenge in any manner that interferes with the contracted services. The Contractor shall immediately report to the City any instances of suspected scavenging or unauthorized removal of materials from any collection containers. 5.22. Protecting Utilities The Contractor shall be obligated to protect all public and private utilities whether occupying street or public or private property. If such utilities are damaged by reason of the Contractor’s operations, under the executed contract, Contractor shall repair or replace same, or failing to do so promptly, the City shall repair or replace and the cost of doing so shall be deducted from payment made to the Contractor. 5.23. Damage to Property The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to protect public and private property. Except for reasonable wear and tear, the Contractor shall repair or replace any private or public property, including, but not limited to sod, mailboxes, solid waste carts, privately owned yard waste receptacles, or recycling bins, which are damaged by the Contractor. Such property damage shall be addressed for repair or replacement, at no charge to the property owner, within forty-eight (48) hours with property of the same or equivalent value at the time of the damage. If the Contractor fails to address the repair or replacement damaged property within forty-eight (48) hours, the City may, but shall not be obligated to, repair or replace such damaged property, and the Contractor shall fully reimburse the City for any of its reasonably incurred expenses. The Contractor shall reimburse the City for any such expenses within ten (10) days of receipt of the City’s invoice. 6. APPLIANCE, BULK ITEM AND ELECTRONIC COLLECTION, PROCESSING AND DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS The Contractor shall collect, transport, dispose of, and/or process household appliances, bulk items and electronics as specified below: 6.1. Optional Service The Contractor shall provide appliance, bulk item, and electronic collection services as an optional service for customers upon a request for such service. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 54 6.2. Frequency of Collection The Contractor shall provide this collection service to customers that request the service from the Contractor at least twice weekly for the term of the contract. 6.3. Process for Collection and Billing The customer will contact the Contractor directly to request pickup of the items. Contractor shall be responsible for billing and collecting all service charges and fees. Contractor shall report costs to be billed to respective customers in the format and frequency requested by the City. Contractor shall also report tonnages & type of collection, and tonnage of bulk, tonnage of electronics, and number of appliances collected in the format and frequency requested by the City. Contractor shall also properly register under the electronics law with the State of Minnesota and follow relevant reporting laws. 6.4. Recording Contractor shall input customer information and service information in the customer service database. 6.5. Pricing for Collection Service Annually, the Contractor will provide the City with an itemized list of collection items and costs. See Attachment “C” Pricing Form for a sample list showing an example of what may be included. 7. EMERGENCY OR DISASTER SERVICES The Contractor shall provide upon request of the City any additional collections (materials or times) requested and reasonably necessary during a declared emergency in the City. The cost of this service will be mutually negotiated between the Contractor and the City. The Contractor shall submit to the City upon signing of this Agreement, an electronic copy of Contractor’s business continuity plan. 8. ORGANICS COLLECTION (to be negotiated in the future) The City may begin an organics collection program during the life of the service agreement for all residents of single through four-plex houses. At the time the City has better determined exact organic program requirement, the Contractor will be asked to provide a proposal for this service including organics / yard waste carts. The organics collection program will likely be co-collection combining food waste, yard waste and non-recyclable paper. In an August 2007 survey, 53% of St. Louis Park Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 55 residents surveyed favored organics collection not knowing if there was a cost involved. The City is committed to waste reduction and the environmental vision and will diligently educate residents on the benefits of organics recycling and the corresponding waste reduction and reduction in solid waste costs. The selected Contractor shall demonstrate their commitment to the promotion of organics collection and may be requested to provide organics collection opportunities for food waste at City-sponsored events. As part of this proposal, Contractor shall describe its experience in providing organics collection services at community events, if any. 9. CUSTOMER SERVICE REQUIREMENTS This section describes the minimal amount of customer service required and shall not limit the Contractor in providing expanded customer service. 9.1. Service Requirements Provide a description of the following: A. Management procedures for handling inquiries and complaints and procedures. B. System capability and/or procedures to ensure timely accessibility of information by City. C. Explain if the Proposer has the capability to create a separate customer service center for handling City of St. Louis Park calls exclusively, if required by the City. D. City requires the Contractor to provide a phone number and email address exclusive to City customers. 9.2. Staffing The Contractor shall provide full time oversight of the City’s collection, and shall administer its obligations to provide quality service to customers of St. Louis Park. The Contractor shall maintain an office equipped with telephones, computers with email, and be staffed with sufficient personnel to effectively handle complaints, inquiries, and/or receive instructions. The Contractor shall provide customer staff dedicated exclusively to handle phone calls and emails from City customers. The office shall be staffed from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday except for the legal holidays as specified previously. A voicemail system or answering service shall be operative during all non-office hours. Customer service staff shall be accessible via email during office hours and the system shall receive email during non-office hours for review and response during office hours. 9.3. Responding to Customer Calls The Contractor will receive customer service inquiries, complaints, special needs, special pickups and other issues by phone or email, and record them in an electronic database for Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 56 means of tracking, recording, mapping, and reporting for quality control/quality assurance purposes. The customer service program will be set up to maximize the number of calls being handled by a live person and minimize the calls into voicemail. The Contractor shall address all voicemail and email correspondence with a return call or email to the City customer within thirty (30) minutes if the City customer contacted the Contractor between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and by 10:00 a.m. the next consecutive working day if the call or email was made during non-working hours. 9.4. Documentation of Customer Calls The Contractor shall use the City’s electronic (MS Access based) database for tracking customer issues. Should the Contractor desire to use another electronic system, the City must first approve it (see Section 11.1 Service Requirements and Section 11.5 Alternative Documentation Program for Customer Calls.) . The database will include all City customer communications regarding complaints, inquiries, service requests and other issues. Contractor shall input all required fields and update notes and comments as appropriate. Contractor will provide updated electronic database files at least weekly to the City. The electronic database format is subject to change with updates in technology as determined by the City. 9.5. Alternative Documentation Program for Customer Calls Should the Contractor desire to use another electronic system other than the City’s electronic tracking system, the City must first approve it. For the alternative system, provide a description of the following: A. Management procedures for handling inquiries and complaints and procedures. B. System capability and/or procedures to ensure timely accessibility of information by City. C. Indicate if the system is used company-wide or for select jurisdictions (listing which jurisdictions). D. How the customer service information interfaces with route data. E. Procedures used to satisfactorily respond to, record, and report common customer complaints such as: missed pick-ups; spills and litter resulting from collection; broken or missing containers; damaged property; improperly prepared set-outs; noise complaints; traffic and sidewalk obstruction during collection; and safety around collection vehicles during operations. F. How the company measures customer service with regard to the customer service center’s responsiveness and accuracy of responses, as well as the quality of collection service. Identify specific performance metrics or targets your company tracks. Provide actual reports for at least three jurisdictions that document the actual performance level against your targets including, at a minimum, average hold times of the customer service call center and missed pick-ups. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 57 10. REPORTING AND MEETING REQUIREMENTS The Contractor shall create, collect, and maintain all records required by the federal, state, and local governments regarding waste management services, and other records as specified below. 10.1. Customer Service Reports The Contractor shall provide the City with weekly electronic downloads of data from the customer service database, as stated in Section 9 Customer Service Requirements. 10.2. Inventory Reports The Contractor shall provide to the City a monthly inventory of carts and their sizes in storage at the Contractor’s storage facility. 10.3. Material Reports The Contractor shall provide to the City monthly and annual reports for the solid waste, yard waste, organics, appliances, bulk items and electronics collected from the City. Information to be provided will include: A. Certified monthly weight slips with the date, time, collection route, driver’s identification, vehicle number, tare weight, gross weight, and net weight for each loaded vehicle. Submit weight receipts from all collected materials within fifteen (15) days of the previous month. Reports shall be broken down by commodity and weight; only total weight must be certified; B. Monthly and yearly net amounts (in tons) for solid waste, yard waste, organics (when applicable), appliances, bulk items and electronics collected; and C. Disposal facilities, transfer stations, processing facilities, and/or markets materials were delivered to. Monthly reports shall be due to the City by the 15th day of each month for solid waste, yard waste, organics (when applicable), appliances, bulk items and electronics collected by the Contractor during the preceding calendar month. The reports shall be made available in an electronic spread sheet format (e.g., Excel), and should be submitted electronically to the City. Annual reports to the City shall be due by the 15th of January for solid waste and other materials and items collected by the Contractor during the preceding calendar year. The Contractor must state in writing to the City that all materials collected in St. Louis Park the preceding calendar year. The Contractor will be encouraged to include in its annual report recommendations for continuous improvement in the City’s program (e.g., public education, reporting, etc.). 10.4. Vehicle Report The Contractor shall provide the City with a yearly written plan of the type, make, and model of all vehicles that will be utilized. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 58 10.5. Monthly Performance Meeting The Contractor and City will meet monthly or at a regular scheduled interval determined by the City, to discuss general operations. Topic areas at these meetings will include, but not be limited to: collection, customer service; education; and reporting. 10.6. Annual Performance Review Meeting Upon receipt of the Contractors annual report, the City shall schedule an annual meeting with the Contractor. The objectives of this annual meeting will include (but not be limited to): A. Review Contractor’s annual report; B. Timing for starting co-collected organics collection; D. Review Contractor’s performance based on feedback from customers to City staff; E. Review Contractor’s recommendations for improvement in the City’s waste reduction program, including enhanced public education and other opportunities; F. Review staff recommendations for improving Contractor’s service; G. Discuss other opportunities for improvement with the remaining years under the current contract. 11. PAYMENTS AND PENALTIES 11.1. Payment Responsibilities The City will invoice the customers directly for solid waste and yard waste services. The City will pay county and state taxes directly to the respective entities. The Contractor shall invoice customers for special pickups, walk-up service, appliance collection, bulk collection, electronic collection, and other special services. 11.2. Compensation for Services The City agrees to pay the Contractor for collection services provided to the City as described in the Contractor’s proposal, and made part of an executed contract, based on the number of household and business units certified by the City. The City will provide to the Contractor the collection number existing at the beginning of the contract. The City will review the collection number monthly and provide the Contractor with changes on or before the tenth of each month. The Contractor shall submit itemized bills for solid waste collection services provided to the City on a monthly basis. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 59 11.3. Penalties The Contractor shall agree, in addition to any other remedies available to the City, that the City may withhold payment from the Contractor in the amounts specified below as penalty for failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations. Contractor will be penalized for non-compliant missed pickups, area-wide missed pickups, and administrative non-compliance, as listed below: A. Non-Compliant Missed Pickup. Whenever the City or a customer notifies the Contractor before 2:00 p.m. of locations that have not received scheduled service, the Contractor shall be required to service such locations before 6:00 p.m. the same day. When notified after 2:00 p.m., the Contractor shall be required to service such locations not later than 10:00 a.m. of the following day, excluding Saturday and Sundays. Missed pickup calls shall be entered, by the Contractor, into the database identifying the time when the call is received and when the service is completed. The missed pickups that fail to comply with the requirements of this section are “non-compliant missed pickups”. The City shall deduct $2,500 for each non-compliant missed pickup from the compensation payable to the Contractor. B. Area-Wide Missed Pickup. An area-wide missed pickup is defined as one or both sides of a street or alley one block or larger if contiguous. Whenever the Contractor misses an area that should have received scheduled service, the City shall deduct $5,000 for the compensation payable to the Contractor. Missing a portion of an area on one side of a street or an alley in not considered missing an area and will be addresses as a non-compliant missed pickup. C. Administrative Non-Compliance. Whenever the Contractor performs services in a non-compliant manner, as determined by the City, the City shall deduct $2,500 per occurrence from the compensation payable to the Contractor. Examples include, but are not limited to, items such as: 1) Failure to comply with customer service requirements, see Section 9; 2) Failure to accurately document incidents in the customer service database, see Section 9.4; 3) Failure to provide monthly and annual reports, see Sections 10.3, 10.6; 4) Failure to clean-up spills with three (3) hours of notification, see Sections 5.12 and 5.20; 5) Failure to maintain vehicles in proper working order, see Section 5.20; 6) Failure to provide customers notice when they are in violation of City collection regulations, see Section 5.10; 7) Failure to return containers to their original location, see Section 5.21(F); 8) Failure to correct chronic problems. The Contractor shall be liable for penalty amount(s) upon determination of the City of St. Louis Park that performance has occurred that is not consistent with the provisions of the contract. The City shall notify Contractor in writing or electronically of each act or Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 60 omission discovered by the City. It shall be the duty of the Contractor to take whatever steps or action may be necessary to remedy the cause of the complaint. The City may deduct the full amount of any damages from any payment due to the Contractor. The remedy available to the City under this paragraph shall be in addition to all other remedies which the City may have under law or at equity. Exceptions: For the purposes of this RFP and subsequent contract, the Contractor shall not be deemed to be liable for penalties where its inability to perform collection service is the result of conditions beyond the control of the Contractor, including but not limited to civil disorder, acts of God, inclement weather severe enough that trucks cannot safely take collections, provided however, that the Contractor shall obtain the approval for the delay from the City prior to 4:00 p.m. of the scheduled collection day. 12. PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION 12.1. Provide Industry Related Information The City publishes a newsletter approximately once bi-monthly that is mailed to all residents and businesses. Periodically the newsletter contains solid waste, yard waste and other industry-related information. The City’s website provides similar details such as a list of acceptable and unacceptable materials as well as proper set-out instructions. Proposers are encouraged to specify and provide examples other public education tools that the Contractor will provide to assist with this education effort. If the Contractor chooses to distribute its own public education information, the educational materials must first be reviewed by the City. The Contractor shall provide the City an article or industry-related information or educational materials at least bi-monthly for City publication or distribution, and assist in the development of brochures, flyers, and articles upon the request of the City. The Contractor may encourage through various means, the reduction of waste, reuse of materials and increase of recycling in St. Louis Park. 12.2. Conduct and Participate in Educational Events The Contractor shall demonstrate commitment to the promotion of responsible waste management through participation in community events, for example, by initiating and providing collection opportunities for recyclable materials at City-sponsored events. As part of this proposal, Contractor shall describe its experience in providing collection services at community events. 12.3. Provide Educational Tags for Unacceptable Collection The Contractor shall give written notice to households when items for collection don’t conform to contract requirements, as is noted above in Section. 5.10 Procedure for Unacceptable Materials. Some examples include but not limited to: inclusion of unacceptable materials, timely setout of materials for collection, placement location of Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 61 containers, preparation of materials, weight, additional service required, litter, and other issues as agreed upon by Contractor and City. Written notice shall be on forms provided by the Contractor and approved by the City. 13. COMMUNITY CLEAN UP EVENTS Proposer is required to describe how it will provide two annual community drop-off, clean-up events. These events are held in the spring and the fall. In the description the Proposer must address: A. Material types Proposer will accept; B. Material types Proposer won’t accept; C. Any limitations on allowable amounts; D. Customer participation requirements; E. Control mechanisms, spills and contamination; and F. Cost to the City to operate these events. (Section in Attachment “C” Pricing Form.) These events would supplement the on-call clean-up program and provide additional opportunities for residents to divert or dispose of materials. If held during the weekend, the events can be held at the City’s Municipal Service Center on Oxford Street in St. Louis Park. See Attachment “F” Clean Up Events Summary for a description of the most recent spring and fall community clean up events. 14. TERM OF CONTRACT The term of the new contract shall begin on October 1, 2008 and terminate at the will of the City on or by September 30, 2013. The services may be renewed before expiration of the contract and annually thereafter. 15. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS 15.1. Notification of Intent Prospective Contractors interested in responding to this RFP shall notify the City in writing (email acceptable) of their interest by January 8, 2008. Notifications of intent should be sent to: Scott Merkley Public Works Coordinator 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Email: smerkley@stlouispark.org Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 62 15.2. How to Submit Proposals Proposal shall be submitted to City Hall no later than 4:00 p.m., January 25, 2008, to be considered eligible. Said Bids MUST be submitted in a 9” x 12” or larger envelope with the OFFICIAL PROPOSAL label attached. Label will be supplied with project specifications (see Attachment “F”) or can be obtained from the Public Works office in City Hall on 2nd Floor. Solid Waste and Yard Waste Collection Service Proposal Office of the Director of Public Works 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Proposers must include five (5) bound printed copies, one (1) unbound printed copy, and one electronic copy of the proposal on a Compact Disk (CD) inside the sealed envelope. The proposal file must be formatted in Microsoft Word or a suitably compatible alternative. Only the company names of Contractors submitting proposals will be made public. All proposal documents shall be held as confidential until the City Council awards a new contract and authorizes staff to execute the new contract. 15.3. Requests for Clarification Questions, requests for clarification or requests for information about this RFP or process must be submitted in writing or by email by 4:00 p.m., January 8, 2007. Authorized contacts for this Request for Proposal are: Scott Merkley Sarah Hellekson Public Works Coordinator Public Works Administrative Specialist 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 smerkley@stlouispark.org shellekson@stlouispark.org All questions and requests for more information and the City’s responses will be summarized in writing and forwarded to all other qualified Proposers who submitted prior to or on January 18, 2007. Qualified proposers are then invited to attend a Pre- Proposal meeting from 10:00 to 11:00 a.m. on January 10, 2008 at City Hall. Proposers intending to submit a proposal must be present at the meeting to hear instructions, comments and qualify. Any other unauthorized contact (as determined by the Director of Public Works) with City staff, or City Council members will subject the company to disqualification from further consideration. This restriction will be in effect for Proposer from the date of notification of intent to bid by Proposer through the date of final contract award (including authorization for execution) by the City Council. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 63 15.4. Contractors May Team with Other Companies It is recognized that some prospective haulers may wish to subcontract with other companies for disposal services. This is allowed as needed, but all such Contractor- subcontractor relationships must be explicitly described in each proposal scenario. The City will contract with only one primary Contractor for the solid waste services. Multiple Contractors may team up with other complementary hauling companies provided there is no collusion. A company may be listed as a part of more than one team as long as this company submits a written certification that no collusion occurred between competing proposals. 15.5. Proposal Content Qualified proposals must include at least the following elements: A. Statement of Contractor qualifications, including at least three references (contact names and phone numbers) of other municipal clients in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul) metropolitan region receiving similar services. B. List of Principal Officers’ names, addresses and contact numbers (telephone, e- mail, fax). C. Provide names and titles of key personnel and related tasks they would perform during the transition, if applicable, and during the term of the Agreement. Key personnel should include the area district manager, operations manager, customer service manager, driver/route supervisor and public education specialist. D. Completed Attachment “C” Pricing Form. E. Completed Attachment “D” Contractor Questionnaire. F. Fully executed Attachment “G” Authorized Signature Page. G. Copy of an education tag as described in Section 5.7. H. Copy of monthly report forms as described in Section 7.3. 15.6. Price Worksheet Prospective Contractors must complete a price form as part of the proposal they submit (see Attachment “C” Pricing Form). 15.7. Proposals May Be Rejected in Whole or Part The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or parts of proposals, to negotiate modifications of proposals submitted, to accept part or all of the proposals on the basis of consideration(s) other than proceeds or cost, and to negotiate specific work elements with a respondent into a project of lesser or greater expense and reimbursement than described in this RFP or the respondent's reply. 15.8. Proposal to Become Part of Final Contract The contents of this RFP, the successful proposal, and any written clarifications or modifications to the contents thereof submitted by the successful Contractor shall become part of the contractual obligations and be incorporated by reference into the ensuing contract. If any provision of the contract is in conflict with the referenced RFP or proposal, the contract shall take precedent. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 64 15.9. Items Not Addressed in RFP The following two (2) items will need to be addressed upon execution of a contract: a) Insurance: Prior to commencement the Contractor shall submit certificates of all insurance required which include: Comprehensive/General, Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability, Auto, Bodily Injury, and Property, Environmental, and Errors and Omissions. b) Performance Bond: The Contactor must provide a performance bond in the sum of $1,000,000. Other standard items that will be addressed in the contract include, but are not limited to: termination, arbitration / mediation, indemnification, non-discriminatory practices, successors and assigns, severability, whole agreement. 16. CONTRACTOR SELECTION PROCESS 16.1. Contractor Selection Process To the best of its ability, the City will use the following process for its decision-making: A. City staff will review and analyze the details of the qualified submitted proposals (see Section 16.2, Evaluation Criteria). The City reserves the right to ask Proposers for additional information/clarification to better understand the proposals. Additionally, City staff may request Proposers to attend a staff interview. City staff will make a recommendation to the City Council. B. City staff will negotiate with the top ranked Proposer. If negotiations with top- ranked Proposer are not successful, the City may then initiate negotiations with the second ranked Proposer, and so on. C. Once a draft contract has been successfully negotiated, City staff will present its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council may then award the contract and authorize staff to execute it. D. The new contract will commence on October 1, 2008. The City intends to complete the evaluation and selection process by February 15, 2008. However, the City reserves the right to extend the evaluation and selection process if necessary. All proposals submitted shall remain in full force and effect during the City’s evaluation and selection process. 16.2. Evaluation Criteria The City will objectively evaluate the proposals submitted to determine the best value for the City and its residents. A comprehensive set of criteria will be used to quantify the merits of each proposal package, including (but not limited to): A. Strength of operational qualifications of the Proposer (together with any proposed subcontractor, if any) especially related to the particular needs of the City of St. Louis Park. Qualifications will include (but not be limited to) the proven capacities of the Proposer (and any subcontractor) to meet the operational requirements of the City. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 65 25 B. Strength of financial qualifications and capabilities as evidenced b y the ability of the Proposer to provide the necessary levels of service, insurance and performance bond. C. Past and current performance of the Proposer on other similar contracts in terms of quality of services provided. References provided by the Proposer will serve as the basis for this criteria. D. The price of the solid waste and yard waste collection services. E. Responsiveness of the Proposer to all other provisions of this RFP. These evaluation criteria are not presented in any special order. No ranking of these criteria within this RFP is intended or implied. 17. PROPOSED SCHEDULE January 8, 2008 Notice of Intent Due, Questions Due January 10, 2008 Pre-Proposal Meeting, 10:00 – 11:00 a.m. January 18, 2008 City Responses to Questions Due January 25, 2008 Proposal Submittal Due February 6, 2008 Complete Proposal Evaluation February 8, 2008 Presentations by Selected Vendors to Staff February 15, 2008 Staff Complete Evaluations and Negotiations February 25, 2008 Council Review of Proposal at Study Session March 3, 2008 Council Award of Contract March 10, 2008 Notice to Proceed October 1, 2008 Contract Start Date 18. ATTACHMENTS Attachment “A” – Daily Collection Route Map Attachment “B” – 2005 - 2007 Solid Waste & Yard Waste Tonnages Attachment “C” – Pricing Form Attachment “D” – Contractor Questionnaire Attachment “E” – Clean-Up Events Summary Attachment “F” – Official Proposal Label Attachment “G” – Authorized Signature Page Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 66 ± BEP 8/8/05KENTUCKY AVE SO A K L E A F D R NATCHEZ AVE SFLAG AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE SHILLSBORO AVE SINDEPENDENCE AVE SENSIGN AVE S18TH ST W TEXAS AVE SQUEBEC AVE SNEVADA AVE S23RD ST W 22ND LANE16TH S T WINDEPENDENCE AVE SVIRGINIA CIR N CEDAR LA K E R D ( C O . R D N O . 1 6 )BURD PL SWYOMING AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS DRFORD ROADWEST 1 8 T H S T MELROSE AVE SKILMER AVE.WEST 16TH KILMER AVELANCASTER AVEU.S. HIGHWAY NO. 169FORD CIR FORD RO A D FORD LANE SHELARDPARKWAY VIRGINIA CIR S XYLON AVE SGETTYSBURG AVE S24TH ST W DECATUR AVE SCAVELL AVE S24TH ST W 23RD ST W 28TH S T W C A V E L L A V E S CEDAR L A K E R D STANLEN ROAD BOONE CTBOONE AVE SXYLON AVE SY UKONAVE SZINRAN AVE S25TH ST W AQUILAAVE SAQUILA AVE S29TH ST W 28TH S T W CLUB RD WESTMORELAND LA FRANKLIN AVE WHILLSBORO AVE SFAIRWAY LA18TH ST W 14TH ST W FLAG AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS CURVEFRANKLIN A V E W FLAG AVE S22ND ST N 22ND ST W VIRG IN IA AVE S TEXA T O NKAAVESUMTER AVE SSUMTER AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE S24TH S T W RHODEISLANDAVESQUEBECAVESPENNSYLVANIA AVE SOREGON AVE SLOUISIANA AVE S25TH ST W 26TH ST W RHODEISLANDAV E S LOUISIANA CT 27TH ST W MARYLAND AVE SNEVADA AVE SOREGON AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SQUEBEC AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SSUMTER AVE STEXAS AVE SVIRGINIAAVES16TH ST W MARYLAND AVE SNEVADA AVE S18TH ST W TEXAS CIR 14TH ST W 13 1/2 ST WRHODE ISLAND13TH LANE 13TH LA PENNSYLVANIA AVE SOREGON AVE SLOUISIANA AVE STEXAS AVE S18TH ST WUTAHDR 16TH ST W UTAH AVE SWESTWOOD HILLS RDVIRGINIA AVE SUTAH AVE S23RD ST W PENNSYLVANIA AVE SQUEBEC DR22ND ST W WAYZATA BLVD RALEIGH AVE SUTICA AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVEHAMILTON ST WOODDALE AVEOTTAWA AVE S38TH S T W 31ST ST W EXCELSIOR B L V D BROOK LAMEADOWBROOK BLVDCOLORADA AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE S41ST ST W ALABAMA AVE SBROOKSIDE AVE S36TH ST W 37TH ST W OXFORD ST DAKOTA AVE SMOUND STHAMPSHIRE AVEM O N I T O R S T LOUIS IANA AVE S MEADOWBR O O K B L V D M EADOWBROOKLALOUISIANA CIR LOUISIANA AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SOXFOR D S T GOODRICH AVE CAMBRIDGE ST 39TH ST WCOLORADO AVEBRUNSWICK AVE SALABAMA AVE S39TH ST W DAKOTA AVE SCOLORADO AVE SALABAMA AVE S31ST ST W BRUNSWICK AVE S34TH ST 35TH ST W WALKER ST BRUNSWICK AVE SWO O D D A L E A V E STATE HI G H W A Y N O. 72ND ST NW ID A H O A V E S LI B R A R Y L A N E B R O W N L O W A V E LAKE ST W R E P U B L I C A V EGORHAM AVE1ST ST NW 41ST ST W UTICA AVE STOLEDO AVE SSALEM AVE SBROWNDALE AVEDART AVE 42ND ST W MORNINGSIDE RD 43 1/2 ST W OTTAWA AVE SPRINCETON AVE SDEVANEY S T QUENTIN AVE S42ND ST W STATE HIGHWAY NO. 100WOOD LA 42ND ST W 41ST ST W HOBART LAVERMONT ST WEBSTER AVE SBRO O K S I D E A V E YOSEMITE AVE SZARTHAN AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE S36TH ST W WOODDAL E AVE S 40TH S T W 41ST S T W SALEM AVE SRALEIGH AVE SQUENTIN AVE S 40TH L A 40TH ST WPRINCETON OTTAWA AVE SPRINCETONNATCHEZEXCEL SI O R B L V D 36TH ST W WOO D D A L E A V E ZARTHAN AVE SYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE S31ST ST W RALEIGH AVE SQUENTINPARK G L E N R O A D BELT LINE BLVDRALEIGH AVE S35TH ST WYOSEMITE AVE SXENWOOD AVE SWEBSTER AVE S33RD ST W 35 1/2 ST W MO N T E R E Y D R 36 1/2 ST W KIPLING AVE SLYNN AVE S36TH ST W JOPPA AVE SINGLEWOOD AVE S37TH ST W HUNTINGTON AVE SFRANCE AVE SGLENHURST AVE SKIPLING AVE SLYNN AVE S39TH S T W 39TH ST W 38TH ST W NATCHEZ AVE SVALLA C H E R A V E S HUNTINGTON AVE SRANDAL L A V E GLENHURST AVE SSTATE HI G H W A Y N O. 7MONTEREY AVE S31ST ST WLYNN AVE S34TH ST W FRANCE AVEFLORIDA AVEWESTRIDGE LAUTICA AVE SC ED A RWOOD RDDREW AVE SCEDA R L A K E R D 23RD ST W 24TH ST W 23RD ST W KENTUCKY LA 29TH ST W 28TH ST W 26TH ST W EDGEWOOD AVE SKENTUCKY AVE SJERSEY AVE SIDAHO AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SFLORIDA AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SDAKOTA AVE SALABAMA AVE SCOLORADO AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SALABAMA AVE S27TH ST W ZARTHAN AVE SALABAMA AVE SBLACKSTONE AVE SBRUNSWICK AVE S18TH ST W COLORADO AVE S16TH ST W 14TH ST W14TH ST W 16TH ST W 16 T H S T W 18 T H S T W FR A N K L I N A V E WEDGEWOOD AVE SDAKOTA AVE SJERSEY AVE SIDAHO AVE SHAMPSHIRE AVE SGEORGIA AVE SFLORIDA AVE SEDGEWOOD AVE SELIO T VI E W R D CEDA R L A K E R O A D WAYZATA BLVD 27TH ST W 26TH ST W UTICA AVE STOLEDO AVE SPRINCETON AVE SOTTAWA PLPRINCETON 29TH ST W QUENTIN AVE SOTTAWA AVE SVERNON AVE SSALEM AVE SRALEIGH AVE S25 1/2 ST W 26TH ST W YOSEMITE AVE SWEBSTER AVE S27TH ST W 28TH ST W 29TH ST W XENWOOD AVE S26TH ST W ZARTHAN AVE S16TH ST W PARKDALE D R STATE HIGHWAY NO. 100OLD CEDAR LAKE RD OTTAWA AVE SPRINCETON AVE SQUENTIN AVE S23RD ST W PARKWOODS RDHILLLAS16TH ST W C E DAR LAKE RD RIDGE DRIVE2 5 T H S T WKIPLING AVE SLYNN AVE SMONTEREY AVE S26TH ST W 25 1/2 ST W 26TH ST W FRANCE AVE25TH ST W 25TH ST W CEDAR S H O R E S D R NATCHEZ AVE SJOPPA AVE S27TH ST W INGLEWOOD AVE SHUNTINGTON AVE SMON T E R E Y P K W Y JOPPA AVE SSUNSET BLVD CEDAR LAKE AVE CEDA R S T GLENHURST AVE SNATCHEZ AVE SDOUGLAS AVE PARKLANDS RDWILLOW LA NWILLOW LAPA R K L A NDSLA CEDA R L A K E R D GLENHURST RDFORES T R D HIGH W O O D R D GLENHURST RDF O R E S T L A 36TH ST W 30 1/2 ST W 31ST ST W 33RD ST W 34TH ST W GETTYSBURGAVESU.S.HIGHWAYNO.16937TH ST WBOONE AVE SXYLON AVE SAQUILA AVE SXYLON AVE SMINNETONKA B L V D CAVELL AVE SDECATUR AVE SENSIGN AVE S31ST S T W AQUILALACAVE LL LA DECATURLA34TH ST WGETTYSBURG AVE SHILLSBORO AVE S32ND ST W FREDE RI C K A V E HILLSBORO AVE S 36TH ST W FLAG AVE SMINNEHAHA CIR S MINNEHAHA CIR N GETTYSBURG AVE S XYLON AVE SYUKON AVE SYUKON AVE S35TH ST W AQUILA CIR MEADOWBROOK RDPOWELL RDSTATE HIGH W A Y N O . 7 OREGON AVE SLAKE S T W TAFT AVE S 37TH ST W POWELL RD DIVISION ST CAMBRIDGE ST BROOKVIEW DRWOODLAND DR EDGE B R O O K D RRHODE ISLAND AVE S NORT H S T PENNSYLVANIA AVE S 33RD ST W 32 1/2 ST W OAKPA R K V IL L AGE DR OAK TROAK LEAF CT LOUISIANA AVE SWA L K E R STUTAH AVE SVIRGINIA AVE S31ST ST W 32ND ST W VIRGINIA AVE SUTAH AVE SVIRGINIA AVE AWYOMING AVE STEXAS AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SWYOMING AVE S34 1/2 ST W TWIN LAKES PARK SHELARD PARK MINNEAPOLIS GOLF CLUB MEADOWBROOK PARK MEADOWBROOK GOLF COURSE (CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS PARK BOARD) OAK PARK VILLAGE PARK AINSWORTH PARK CEDAR KNOLL PARK POST OFFICE WESTDALE PARK WILLOW PARK JACKLEY PARK JUSTAD PARKJORDAN AVE SJORDAN AVE SJORDAN AVE S22ND ST W OREGON CTFRANKLIN AVE W PARK PLACE BLVD SGAMBLE DR UTICA AVE S25TH 1/2 ST W QUENTIN CTPRINCETON CT24TH ST WCEDARWOOD RD BASSWOOD R D B A S SWOOD RDGLENHURST PLNATCHEZ AVE SMINIKAHDA CTP A R K C ENTER BLVDPARK CENTER BLVDSTATE HIGHWAY NO 100WEBSTER AVE SAUTO CLUB WAY 39TH S T W VERNON AVE SG E O R G I A A V E S 33RD ST W BLACKSTONE AVE SPHILLIPS PKWY3 4 T H S T WSUNSET RIDGE RDMINNEHAHA CT FLAG A V E S INDEPENDENCE AVE SPARKER ROAD PARKER LAINDEPENDENCE AVE SKILMER POND BOONE AVE SAQUILA AVE SZINRAN AVE SVIRGINIA AVE SSUMTER AVE SRHODE ISLAND AVE SQUEBEC AVE SPENNSYLVANIA AVE SUTAH AVE S34TH ST W 35TH ST W WALKER ST MINNETONKA BLVD PRINCETON AVE S28TH ST W STATE HIGHWAY NO. 10035TH ST W PARK G L E N R O A D 32ND ST W 33RD ST W 32ND ST W 31ST ST W MINNETONKA BLVD 24TH LA SUMTER DR22ND ST W 22ND ST W WAYZATA BLVD STEPHENS DR DAKOTA AVE SBROOKVIEW LA PARK NICOLLET BLVDGLENHURST CI RNATCHEZ AVE SOTTAWA CT42 1/2 ST W MACKEY AVEBROOK AVECOOLIDGE AVEBROWNDALE AVEGLEN PL 43RD 1/ 2 S T W 44TH ST W WESTWOOD LAKE CEDAR MANOR LAKE HANNAN LAKE COBBLE CREST LAKE COBBLE CREST LAKE VICTORIA HURD PARK FIRE STATION NO 2 NORTHSIDE PARK LAMPLIGHTER POND JERSEY PARK PENNSYLVANIA PARK HAMPSHIRE PARK NELSON PARK DAKOTA PARK BRONX PARK TEXA-TONKA PARK RAIN- PARK BOW MINNEHAHA PARK AQUILA PARK AQUILA SCHOOL MINNEHAHA WETLANDS PUBLIC LIBRARY OAK HILL PARK OREGON PARKFREEDOM PARK WALKER PARK BLIE PARK SUNSET PARK KNOLLWOOD GREEN PARK KNOLLWOOD MALL SOUTH OAK POND EDGEBROOK PARK OAK POND PARK CREEKSIDE MUNICIPAL SERV. CTR. MEADOWBROOK MANOR PARK MEADOWBROOK LAKE BROWNDALE PARK SUSAN LUNDGREN SCHOOL MINIKAHDA VISTA PARK ST. LOUIS PARK REC. CENTER WOLFE PARK BASS LAKE PARK JORVIG PARK CENTER PARK FIRE NO. 1 STATION LAKE STREET PARKSENIOR HIGH SCHOOL PARKVIEW PARK ROWBURY PARK KEYSTONE PARK SUNSHINE PARK FERN HILL PARK TWIN LAKE BIRCHWOOD PARK CEDARHURST PARK BASS LAKE WOLFE LAKE CITY HALL POLICE STATION CARPENTER PARK TALMUD TORAH AC. BENILDE ST. MARGARETS HIGH SCHOOL ST LOUIS PARK JR H.S. WESTWOOD HILLS ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CENTER CEDAR MANOR SCHOOL CENTRAL COMMUNITY CENTER PETER HOBART SCHOOL ELIOT COMM CTR LENNOX CENTER COMMUNITY GROVES LEARNING CENTER BROOKSIDE COMM. CTR. OTTEN POND BLACKSTONE PARK EXCELSIOR WAYWEBSTER PARK Legend Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Daily Collection Route Map Attachment "A" Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 67 Attachment "B" 2005 - 2007 Solid Waste and Yard Waste Tonnages Solid Waste Yard Waste 2005 2006 2007 2005 2006 2007 Jan.697.3 718.4 661.4 Jan.0.0 35.9 3.1 Feb.600.7 586.7 567.8 Feb.0.0 0.0 0.0 Mar.721.9 716.4 681.7 Mar.0.0 0.0 0.0 Apr.746.7 735.5 711.0 Apr.509.7 458.9 352.4 May 766.2 816.6 803.1 May 360.3 427.0 486.1 Jun.884.3 871.3 789.7 Jun.537.3 407.1 309.7 Jul.757.6 745.3 774.0 Jul.254.2 209.8 172.3 Aug.866.6 825.2 816.9 Aug.223.2 307.1 263.7 Sep.826.4 768.3 699.4 Sep.280.7 276.7 212.0 Oct.770.5 758.5 788.6 Oct.522.2 706.2 565.1 Nov.807.5 789.5 N/A Nov.953.9 577.9 N/A Dec.654.5 668.2 N/A Dec.4.4 4.3 N/A (1) 2007 Numbers are for Jan. to Oct. (Nov. & Dec. info pending) Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 68 Attachment “C” 1. REFUSE & GARBAGE SERVICES 1.1 Refuse and Garbage Collection and Hauling a. Hauler must detail the proposed per unit costs per household per month for the refuse and garbage collection and hauling, under the City’s proposed volume based collection program. Do not include state or county taxes in the costs below. Service Level Year 1 HH / Month Year 2 HH / Month Year 3 HH / Month Year 4 HH / Month Year 5 HH / Month 30+ Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 60+ Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 90+ Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 90-180 Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 270 Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 360 Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 450 Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 540 Gal. $ $ $ $ $ 1.2 Refuse and Garbage Disposal a. Hauler shall invoice the City for the actual disposal cost for the City’s refuse and garbage. The Hauler will deliver the City’s refuse and garbage to the disposal facility selected by the City. Disposal costs depend on tipping fees and tonnage at the HERC or alternate approved facility. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 69 1.3 Refuse Cart Distribution, Storage & Maintenance a. Hauler shall store, maintain and distribute the City-owned refuse carts. The distribution of the refuse carts will be as requested by the City or as needed in cases of damage. The hauler must provide the proposed per month cost of storing, maintaining and distributing. Service Year 1 Cost / Month Year 2 Cost / Month Year 3 Cost / Month Year 4 Cost / Month Year 5 Cost / Month Storage, Maintenance & Distribution $ $ $ $ $ 2. YARD WASTE (COMPOST) COLLECTION & DISPOSAL 2.1 Yard Waste Costs a. Hauler must detail the proposed per unit costs per household per month for the yard waste collection and hauling, and disposal, under the City’s proposed volume based collection program. Service Year 1 Cost/Ton Year 2 Cost/Ton Year 3 Cost/Ton Year 4 Cost/Ton Year 5 Cost/Ton Disposal $ $ $ $ $ * Collection for Full Service Option $ $ $ $ $ ** Collection for Reduced Service Option $ $ $ $ $ * Full Service Option - collection includes twigs, leaves, weeds, and grass clippings. ** Reduced Service Option - collection includes twigs, leaves, and weeds. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 70 3. APPLIANCE COLLECTION SERVICE 3.1 Appliance Collection, Hauling & Disposal Costs a. Hauler must provide proposed unit costs for collection, hauling, disposal and/or processing of both gas and electric household appliances. Customers are charged directly for this service by the Contractor. Appliance Service Year 1 Cost / Unit Year 2 Cost / Unit Year 3 Cost / Unit Year 4 Cost / Unit Year 5 Cost / Unit Per Appliance (except Air Conditioners) $ $ $ $ $ Per Air Conditioners $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 4. BULK ITEM COLLECTION SERVICE 4.1 Bulk Item Collection, Hauling & Disposal Costs a. Haulers must provide proposed fee per item for the collection and disposal of bulk items listed below, adding any other items hauler will collect and cost for each of those items added. (May attach list.) The resident is charged directly for these costs. Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Bathtub (Fiberglass) $ $ $ $ $ Bathtub (Cast Iron) $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 71 Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Air Compressor $ $ $ $ $ Antenna (Large Outdoor) $ $ $ $ $ Aquarium (Up to 50 gallons) $ $ $ $ $ Aquarium (More than 50 gallons) $ $ $ $ $ Aquarium with Stand (Up to 50 gallons) $ $ $ $ $ Aquarium with Stand (More than 50 gallons) $ $ $ $ $ Artificial Tree $ $ $ $ $ Awning (Large) $ $ $ $ $ Awning (Small) $ $ $ $ $ Basketball Hoop/Backboard $ $ $ $ $ Basketball Hoop with Pole & Stand (Portable) $ $ $ $ $ Bathtub $ $ $ $ $ Bed Frame $ $ $ $ $ Bike (All Sizes) $ $ $ $ $ Blinds/Curtain Rod (Each) $ $ $ $ $ Cabinets or Vanity without Sink $ $ $ $ $ Carpet/Pad Per Roll (Roll must be less than 4 feet and weigh less than 50 pounds) $ $ $ $ $ Carpet/Pad (30 gallon bag must weigh less than 50 pounds) $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 72 Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Carpet/Pad Per 12 x 12 Room (Must be bundled into rolls less than 4 feet and 50 pounds) $ $ $ $ $ Chair – kitchen-desk- child-deck-folding $ $ $ $ $ Chair – upholstered $ $ $ $ $ Child Car Seat $ $ $ $ $ Clothes Line Pole (Each) $ $ $ $ $ Construction Debris Per Yard (1/2 Yard Minimum $ $ $ $ $ Crib $ $ $ $ $ Desk $ $ $ $ $ Door (Interior, Exterior) $ $ $ $ $ Dresser/Night Stand $ $ $ $ $ Entertainment Center $ $ $ $ $ Exercise Equipment $ $ $ $ $ Fan $ $ $ $ $ Fertilizer Spreader $ $ $ $ $ File Cabinet $ $ $ $ $ Fireplace Door $ $ $ $ $ Fireplace Grate $ $ $ $ $ Fireplace (Portable) $ $ $ $ $ Footboard $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 73 Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Futon with Mattress $ $ $ $ $ Futon without Mattress $ $ $ $ $ Garage Door Tracks & Opener $ $ $ $ $ Garage Door (Overhead per panel) $ $ $ $ $ Garage Door Rails $ $ $ $ $ Garage Door Spring $ $ $ $ $ Garden Tools (Long Handled) $ $ $ $ $ Grill (No Tank) $ $ $ $ $ Headboard $ $ $ $ $ High Chair $ $ $ $ $ Hose Reel $ $ $ $ $ Hot Tub Cover $ $ $ $ $ Humidifier $ $ $ $ $ Ironing Board $ $ $ $ $ Kennel (Empty & Portable) $ $ $ $ $ Kennel Fence $ $ $ $ $ Ladder $ $ $ $ $ Lamp $ $ $ $ $ Lamp Post (Outdoor) $ $ $ $ $ Lawnmower (Drained) $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 74 Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Lawnmower – Riding (Drained) $ $ $ $ $ Love Seat $ $ $ $ $ Mangle (Appliance) $ $ $ $ $ Mattress or Box Spring (All Sizes) $ $ $ $ $ Mattress – Crib $ $ $ $ $ Misc. Debris (Per Cubic Yard) $ $ $ $ $ Organ $ $ $ $ $ Ottoman $ $ $ $ $ Pallets $ $ $ $ $ Patio Door (Each pane) $ $ $ $ $ Patio Umbrella $ $ $ $ $ Piano $ $ $ $ $ Ping Pong Table $ $ $ $ $ Playpen $ $ $ $ $ Pool (Small Plastic Kid’s) $ $ $ $ $ Pool Heater (Appliance) $ $ $ $ $ Range Hood $ $ $ $ $ Roll Away Bed (No Mattress) $ $ $ $ $ Sand Box (Plastic) $ $ $ $ $ Satellite Dish (Large) $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 75 Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Satellite Dish (Small) $ $ $ $ $ Shelf $ $ $ $ $ Sink – bathroom, kitchen, laundry tub $ $ $ $ $ Skis $ $ $ $ $ Snow Blower (Drained) $ $ $ $ $ Sofa $ $ $ $ $ Sofa – Sleeper $ $ $ $ $ Space Heater $ $ $ $ $ Stroller $ $ $ $ $ Swing Set (No Concrete) $ $ $ $ $ Table – kitchen, dining, end, coffee $ $ $ $ $ Table – Card $ $ $ $ $ Table – Picnic $ $ $ $ $ Toilet $ $ $ $ $ Toys (Large Outdoor Toys) $ $ $ $ $ Trampoline $ $ $ $ $ Trash Can (Empty) $ $ $ $ $ Trunk $ $ $ $ $ Vacuum $ $ $ $ $ Wagon $ $ $ $ $ Water Bed Frame $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 76 Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Water Softener $ $ $ $ $ Weights (Each) $ $ $ $ $ Wheelbarrow $ $ $ $ $ Window (Complete) $ $ $ $ $ Window (Basement) $ $ $ $ $ Window Screen/Storm (Each) $ $ $ $ $ Window Well $ $ $ $ $ 5. ELECTRONIC ITEM COLLECTION SERVICE 5.1 Electronic Item Collection, Hauling & Disposal Costs a. Haulers must provide proposed fee per item for the collection and disposal of electronic items listed below, adding any other items hauler will collect and cost for each of those items added. (May attach list.) The resident is charged directly for these costs. Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Camera $ $ $ $ $ CD Player $ $ $ $ $ Cell Phone $ $ $ $ $ Copier (Small) $ $ $ $ $ Copier (Medium 30-50 lbs) $ $ $ $ $ Copier (Large over 50 lbs) $ $ $ $ $ Computer/Laptop $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 77 Item Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Fax Machine $ $ $ $ $ Monitor (Up to 17”) $ $ $ $ $ Monitor (19” & Up) $ $ $ $ $ Printer (Small) $ $ $ $ $ Printer (Large/Laser) $ $ $ $ $ Scanner $ $ $ $ $ Small Radio $ $ $ $ $ Stereo Radio $ $ $ $ $ Telephones $ $ $ $ $ TV’s (Under 13”) $ $ $ $ $ TV’s (13” to 19”) $ $ $ $ $ TV’s (20” to 27”) $ $ $ $ $ TV’s (28” & Larger) $ $ $ $ $ TV’s (Console) $ $ $ $ $ Vacuum Cleaner $ $ $ $ $ VCR $ $ $ $ $ 6. SPECIAL PICKUP 6.1 Special Electronic Item Collection, Hauling & Disposal Costs a. Hauler should specify the cost for special pick-ups of refuse/garbage and yard waste. Hauler may also state any special service, practice or policy they would follow regarding special pick-ups. Hauler will bill households directly for any cost of special pickup. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 78 Description Year 1 Cost/ Pickup Year 2 Cost/Pickup Year 3 Cost/Pickup Year 4 Cost/Pickup Year 5 Cost/Pickup Special Pickup $ $ $ $ $ 7. WALK-UP SERVICE 7.1 Special Electronic Item Collection, Hauling & Disposal Costs a. Hauler should specify the quarterly cost for special pick-ups of refuse/garbage and yard waste. Hauler may also state any special service, practice or policy they would follow regarding walk-up service. Hauler will bill households directly for any cost of walk-up service. Description Year 1 Cost/ Pickup Year 2 Cost/Pickup Year 3 Cost/Pickup Year 4 Cost/Pickup Year 5 Cost/Pickup Special Pickup $ $ $ $ $ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 79 Attachment “D” CONTRACTOR QUESTIONNAIRE Please provide requested information to the items listed below. All questions should be answered fully in order to provide the City with an understanding of the service you would provide. Information and answers can be attached on separate sheets as needed. 1. Describe how you will staff and deliver customer service for this contract. What could be changed to provide better customer service? What are the cost implications? _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 2. Describe what you propose as an education plan, both initially and over the term of this contract. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ 3. Describe your experience providing collection at community events. _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 80 ATTACHMENT “E” CLEAN-UP EVENTS SUMMARY The fifth annual Spring Clean-Up Day was held Saturday, June 9, 2007 at the Municipal Service Center from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The second annual Fall Clean-Up Day was held Saturday, October 13, 2007 at the same location and time. STAFF The events are staffed as follows: City staff – sets up cones, barricades and traffic signs; directs traffic; initial contact; distributes price lists; and taps down roll-offs with loader. Hauler staff – prices items, takes cash, directs traffic to on-site locations, drivers, driver supervisor. LOGISTICS Rolloffs are dropped off at the site on Friday (day prior to the event). Rear-load garbage trucks and the appliance trucks are brought in just before the event. Electronics were also collected fall 2008. The events begin at 8:00 a.m. There are usually 4 dozen cars in line prior to 7:00 a.m. during the spring. During the fall, only a dozen or so line up in advance. During both seasons, traffic is steady throughout the event with most of the people in line only having to wait for 10-15 minutes. PUBLIC EDUCATION During the spring collection, the second Saturday in June when the City typically holds the clean up day, Hennepin County also holds a free County Household Hazardous Waste Drop Off Event in St. Louis Park on City property. Residents tend to take advantage of both events on that day. STATISTICS COLLECTED AT SPRING CLEAN UP EVENTS PER YEAR Material 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Appliances unknown* 151 appliances 107 appliances 97 appliances 125 appliances Trash 14.73 tons 21.07 tons 20.49 tons 18.58 tons 22.61 tons C&D** 9.53 tons 10.27 tons 3.75 tons 90 yards 6.72 tons Metal 6.36 tons 4.69 tons 6.6 tons 90 yards 4.12 tons Tires 0 *** 185 tires 66 tires 40 tires 46 tires Attendees 408 vehicles 508 vehicles 459 vehicles 436 vehicles 464 vehicles Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 81 *Appliances collected by ARCA in 2003. Numbers not reported. **C&D = construction & demolition Estimated 9 tons C&D & 4.2 tons of metal in 2006. ***Tires not collected in 2003. COLLECTED AT FALL CLEAN UP EVENTS PER YEAR Material 2006 Fall 2007 Fall Appliances 38 appliances 57 appliances Trash 11.8 Tons 10.89 tons C&D** 2.85 Tons 2.52 tons Metal 1.44 Tons 2.11 tons Tires 13 Tires 13 tires Electronics Not Collected 176 items Attendees 138 vehicles 284 vehicles **C&D = construction & demolition Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 82 SUBMIT BID IN 9” X 12” OR LARGER ENVELOPE LABEL BELOW MUST BE ATTACHED - - - - - - - - - - - - CUT ON THE LINE AND REMOVE BACKING TO ATTACH - - - - - - - - - - - OFFICIAL PPOPOSAL Project Title: Date/Time Bids Due: PROPOSALS WILL ONLY BE ACCEPTED AT: Office Of Public Works St. Louis Park City Hall (2nd Floor) 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY: Firm Name: Mailing Address: City/State/Zip: Official Contact: Area Code/Phone No.: ______________________________________________________________________________ RECEIPT OF QUOTE RECEIVED: _______________ _______________ _____________________ DATE TIME BY WHOM: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 83 Attachment “G” Authorized Signature Page I/We, the undersigned, having reviewed this Request for Proposal for 2008 – 2013 Solid Waste and Yard Waste Collection Services and all related information made available by the City, do hereby submit this Proposal to provide all equipment, labor, processing arrangements, and other resources necessary to perform the requested services. These services will be carried out to fulfill the requirements of this proposal as well as meeting the expectations and requirements of the City. It is acknowledged that this proposal, along with the Request for Proposal, may be incorporated into subsequent contractual documents at the discretion of the City. Acknowledgement _____________________________ Signature State whether bidder is: Respectfully Submitted Partnership __________________ ______________________________ Firm Name Individual ___________________ ______________________________ By Corporation _________________ ______________________________ Title ______________________________ Name of Partner Address ___________________________ ______________________________ Phone State in which incorporated ______________________________ ____________________________ Email Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 84 Public Works Department DRAFT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OPTIONAL SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES Due: January 25, 2008 at 4:00 P.M. CST Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 85 1. INTRODUCTION This request for proposals (RFP) defines the service standards, specifications and proposal requirements for refuse and recycling collection services that the City of St. Louis Park (City) desires to contract to provide for multi-family residential (MFR) and businesses collection services. The City encourages Proposers to submit their best proposal possible. The requirements within this RFP may be altered by Proposers if proposals explicitly describe the change, rationale and price implications. The services shall begin as mutually negotiated in 2008 and terminate at the will of the City or no later than by September 30, 2013. The services may be renewed before expiration of the contract and annually thereafter. 2. BACKGROUND The current population of St. Louis Park is estimated to be 44,380 persons. The City has approximately _____ multi-family units and ____ commercial properties. Currently the City contracts for solid waste collection services for residential properties (single family to 4-plex) and has very limited involvement with the refuse and recycling collection services for the MFR and businesses. These services are currently provided by a variety of licensed haulers. The City desires to provide these services to interested property owners. City information shows that there is only limited recycling being done by MFR and businesses and in many cases recycling is not provided at all. To address this issue the City Council has directed staff to expand the City’s collection program to provide solid waste and recycling collection for interested MFR and businesses. At this point, the City has had minimal contact with the potential customers to determine their interest in switching to City service other than conducting a survey to poll interest. The survey response level received was lower than desired The City understands that many of the potential customers are most likely under multi-year contracts with haulers and initially getting a large number to sign-up for City service may not be realistic. We also understand that it will be the responsibility the City to contact MFRs and businesses and get them signed up for the City service. After discussion with several haulers, the City understands some of the complexities in attempting to structure a standardized contract for solid waste collection at commercial properties with the large number of variables from one business to the next. Some of these issues include: large fluctuation in material composition, ease of access to containers, time it takes to provide service, number of containers needed, variable collection frequency, etc. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 86 With all of this in mind and knowing that the haulers have expertise in this field, the City is interested having Proposers submit innovative proposals how to provide these collection services and how to structure a contract with the City. Beyond collection, the City is also interested in proposals which ensure the highest and best use of recycling materials (i.e. paper to paper, glass to glass containers, etc.). Preference will be shown to Proposers who can meet this requirement. 3. SCOPE OF SERVICES The City of St. Louis Park seeks to enter into a solid waste collection contract with a company that has the resources and ability to provide multi-family and commercial customers solid waste and recycling collection services. Contractor Responsibilities a) Prepare innovative proposal showing how to increase recycling and reduce waste for MFR and businesses. The proposal should show how a contract, with the City, could be structured providing for environmental stewardship for all aspects for collecting, hauling, processing / disposal services. b) Furnish all labor, supervision, collection vehicles, collection containers, other equipment, materials, supplies, and all other items and services necessary to perform service. c) Provide solid waste (refuse), recycling, bulk, appliance, and electronics collection as well as disposal and processing services. d) Provide customer and waste assessments to determine service level, frequency of service, etc. e) Provide customers with collection containers and educational signage. f) Provide customer service for city customers including receive customer service inquiries, complaints, special needs, special pickups and other issues by phone or email, and record them in an electronic database. g) Provide educational tags for improper collection procedures by customers. h) Provide monthly reports of recycling participation. i) Assist City with program education. Provide examples of public education such as recycling signage for collection points, brochures and newsletters. j) Provide Christmas tree collection services. k) Certified monthly weight slip with the date, time, collection route, driver’s identification, vehicle number, tare weight, gross weight, and net weight for each loaded vehicle. Submit weight receipts from all collected materials within fifteen (15) days of the previous month. Reports shall be broken down by commodity and weight; only total weight must be certified. l) Monthly and yearly amounts (in tons) of recyclable materials collected in the City broken down by grade. m) Monthly and yearly amounts (in tons) of non-targeted materials collected in the City. n) Monthly and yearly amounts (in tons) of process residuals generated at the MRF both in total and that portion attributable to the City’s collection program. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 87 o) A list of end markets that recyclable materials were delivered to including the name of the market, location, commodity type sent to that market, and the type of product manufactured or material manufactured at that location. End market information will be kept confidential unless Contractor agrees it can be used for educational purposes; City Responsibility a) Market City provided services. b) Provide Contractor with a customer list a minimum of 90 days prior to the start of the contract. c) Invoice and collect from customers for refuse and recycling collection services. d) Provide program education. 4. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS a) All garbage and refuse shall be hauled, transported, weighed-in, and disposed of at the HERC or alternatively at a Hennepin County approved facility. b) All recyclable materials as designated by Hennepin County to be part of an authorized recycling program and which are intended for transportation, processing and re-manufacturing, or reuse. c) The proposals must clearly specify the location(s) of its material recovery facility where materials collected from the City will be delivered and processed. 5. PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS A. Notification of Intent Prospective Contractors interested in responding to this RFP shall notify the City in writing (email acceptable) of their interest by January 8, 2008. Notifications of intent should be sent to: Scott Merkley Public Works Coordinator 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Email: smerkley@stlouispark.org B. How to Submit Proposals Proposal shall be submitted to City Hall no later than 4:00 p.m., January 25, 2008, to be considered eligible. Said Bids MUST be submitted in a 9” x 12” or larger envelope with the OFFICIAL PROPOSAL label attached. Label will be supplied with project specifications (see Attachment “B”, Official Proposal Label) or can be obtained from the Public Works office in City Hall on 2nd Floor. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 88 Multi Family and Commercial Collection Service Proposal Office of the Director of Public Works 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Proposers must include five (5) bound printed copies, one (1) unbound printed copy, and one electronic copy of the proposal on a Compact Disk (CD) inside the sealed envelope. The proposal file must be formatted in Microsoft Word or a suitably compatible alternative. Only the company names of Contractors submitting proposals will be made public. All proposal documents shall be held as confidential until the City Council awards a new contract and authorizes staff to execute the new contract. C. Requests for Clarification Questions, requests for clarification or requests for information about this RFP or process should be directed: Scott Merkley Sarah Hellekson Public Works Coordinator Public Works Administrative Specialist 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 smerkley@stlouispark.org shellekson@stlouispark.org D. Proposal Content Qualified proposals must include at least the following elements: a) Statement of Contractor qualifications, including at least three references (contact names and phone numbers) of other municipal clients in the Twin Cities (Minneapolis/St. Paul) metropolitan region receiving similar services. b) Provide names and titles of key personnel and related tasks they would perform during the transition, if applicable, and during the term of the Agreement. Key personnel should include the area district manager, operations manager, customer service manager, driver/route supervisor and public education specialist. c) List of materials proposed to be collected and a discussion and rationale for any proposed changes to Hennepin County’s approved list of recyclable materials. d) Description of operations at materials processing facility where recyclable materials will be hauled, including location, hours of operation and capacity. 6. CONTRACTOR SELECTION PROCESS A. Contractor Selection Process To the best of its ability, the City will use the following process for its decision-making: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 89 1. City staff will review and analyze the details of the qualified submitted proposals. The City reserves the right to ask Proposers for additional information/clarification to better understand the proposals. 2. City staff will negotiate with the top ranked Proposer. If negotiations with top- ranked Proposer are not successful, the City may then initiate negotiations with the second ranked Proposer, and so on. 3. Once a draft contract has been successfully negotiated, City staff will present its recommendations to the City Council. The City Council may then award the contract and authorize staff to execute it. 4. A multi-family and commercial solid waste collection contract will commence as mutually agreed to in 2008. B. Evaluation Criteria The City will objectively evaluate the proposals submitted to determine the best value for the City and possible customers. A comprehensive set of criteria will be used to determine the merits of each proposal package, including (but not limited to): 1. Strength of qualifications of the Proposer. Qualifications will include (but not be limited to) the proven capacities of the Proposer to meet the operational requirements. 2. Comments from the Proposer’s references. 3. Innovations proposed to improve public education about recycling to MFR and businesses. 4. The price of the collection services. 5. Responsiveness of the Proposer to all other provisions of this RFP. These evaluation criteria are not presented in any special order. No ranking of these criteria within this RFP is intended or implied. 7. POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS 1. Contractor Notice of Intent Due 2. Pre-Proposal Meeting 3. Proposal Submittal Due 4. Complete Proposal Evaluation 5. Complete Evaluations and Negotiations 6. Council Review of Proposal at Study Session 7. Council Award of Contract 8. Notice to Proceed 9. Contract Start Date Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 90 8. ATTACHMENTS Attachment “A” – St. Louis Park City Map Attachment “B” – Official Proposal Label Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 4) Subject: Contract Delivery of Solid Waste Services Page 91 Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 5 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: Update on Pawn Shop Study. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct to Staff to proceed with the process to amend the zoning ordinance regarding pawn shops. POLICY CONSIDERATION: A study report on pawn shops and possible amendments to the zoning ordinance is attached for City Council review and comment. Staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding potential zoning amendments. BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2007, an Interim Ordinance went into effect temporarily prohibiting pawn shops in St. Louis Park. The purpose of the interim ordinance was to provide time to study pawn shop issues and review the city’s zoning ordinance provisions regarding pawn shops. City Planning staff was directed to conduct studies for the purpose of consideration of possible amendments to the City’s official controls to address the issues concerning pawnshops. The Planning Staff has prepared a study report on pawnshops. It is attached for City Council review. The study included review City of St. Louis Park ordinance regulations, review of ordinance regulations from other cities, review of information on pawnshops in general including operations, trends, and impacts on surrounding properties; and, looking at related land uses. The study also provides potential regulations to consider amending into the zoning ordinance. The report recommends that pawn shops be designated a “conditional use” within the C-2 zoning district, and that specific conditions are established controlling the location and design of pawn shops. Designation as a conditional use means that a pawn shop would require approval of a “conditional use permit (CUP)” by the City Council following a public hearing before the planning commission. It also means that specific conditions would need to be met before a CUP could be approved. The conditions recommended to be required for a pawn shop CUP would include design standards, setbacks from residential property, spacing from other restricted uses (other pawn shops, liquor stores, gun shops, etc) and spacing from sensitive land uses (schools, playgrounds, religious institutions, etc.). The intent of a CUP is to review the applicant’s proposal in the context of the specific site where they desire to locate. It allows the City to “consider the effect of the proposed use on the comprehensive plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood”. It allows the city to place appropriate conditions and safeguards upon the proposed use to ensure the community is protected from any potential negative impacts from the proposed use. If the City Council concurs with the study report recommendations, specific text amendments to the zoning ordinance will be prepared and a public hearing on the revisions to the Zoning Ordinance will be held before the Planning Commission in January. Comments from the public Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Page 2 Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update hearing and the recommendation of the planning commission will then be forwarded to the City Council for its consideration and action. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: The city’s Vision is all about creating a healthy, safe, aesthetically pleasing, strong community with diverse well-maintained housing and places for residents to gather. Managing land use to protect the strength and quality of our residential neighborhoods; and, the economic vitality of our business districts is a key to achieving our Vision. Amending our zoning ordinance to put appropriate controls in place for pawn shops is an important element of managing land use. Attachments: Pawn Shop Study Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Page 1 of 21 Pawn Shop Zoning Study 12/05/07 1. City Council Request On October 1, 2007 the City Council directed staff to conduct a study on the regulations pertaining to pawn shops and to draft amendments to the City’s official controls for the Council’s consideration. The study reviews ordinance provisions such as the appropriate locations and the conditions under which pawn shops may be allowed within the City, including compatibility with existing uses in the area. In addition to pawn shops, staff was directed to review similar uses to determine if current regulations are sufficient, and offer recommendations. On October 26, 2007, an interim Ordinance went into effect temporarily prohibiting pawn shops in St. Louis Park with the intent of providing time for staff to complete the study. 2. Study Process The study process included reviewing regulations at the City of St. Louis Park and other cities; reviewing Minnesota State Statutes pertaining to pawn shops, visiting several pawn shops in and near St. Louis Park, reviewing literature and other information regarding the general working of pawnshops including operations, trends and impacts on surrounding properties; reviewing police data; looking at related uses; and developing a set of potential regulation alternatives to consider. Thus far, staff has reviewed the information gathered and prepared a set of options including items that could be requirements and/or conditions for pawn shops. 3. Pawn Shop Uses How do they work? Pawn shops are a facility where money is loaned based on the value of goods deposited at the facility by the borrower of the money. The goods are held by the pawn shop as collateral for the loan. Items that are not redeemed by the borrower are put up for sale by the pawnbroker. (St. Louis Park’s Pawnbrokers Licensing Ordinance requires items to be held at least 90 days before they can be sold.) According to the National Pawnbrokers Association an estimated 70% of loans are repaid. Who typically uses a pawn shop? Since the pawn transaction is a loan on the security of pledged goods, Minnesota Statute 325J requires all persons pawning goods to be at least 18 years of age. There is no age minimum, however, to purchase goods from a pawn shop. According to John Caskey, in his book entitled “Fringe Banking: Check Cashing Outlets, Pawnshops and the Poor,” interviews with Pawnbrokers show that pawn “loan customers come from a variety of socioeconomic groups,” but the vast majority have low to moderate incomes. Most consumers using pawn shops do not have a bank account or have poor credit and would Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 3 Page 2 of 21 be denied a loan by other financial institutions. When explaining their reason for borrowing, in a 1990 survey referenced by Caskey, 53 percent of customers stated they used pawnshops for “family or personal emergency” and 28 percent to “pay or consolidate bills.” The average loan size nationwide in 1990 was less than $100. (Caskey 1994). Pawn shops are unique uses in that they loan money and sell the goods held as collateral. Also, unlike other retail stores or financial institutions, they cater to customers in need of cash and with limited options for raising funds. A 1998 study by Georgetown University titled, “Pawnbroking in the U.S.: A Profile of Customers,” found a majority of pawn shop customers come from the “family raising stage of life, ages 25 to 34 years, when the demands upon household frequently are greater than the income.” When pawn shop customers were asked in a questionnaire why they borrow from a pawn shop instead of a bank or a small loan company, the main reason given is, “they have a much better chance of getting the loan they need at a pawnshop.” The study also found that there was a large portion of “shop only” customers who were young, under 25 years of age. Pawn shops sell many items popular with younger consumers, such as stereos, CDs, movies, video games, jewelry, etc. Pawnshops are generally a destination use. A check of the Dex on-line phone directory shows that there are only 78 pawn shops within a 50 mile radius of Minneapolis. This is a relatively small number compared to the number of grocery stores (764) and coffee shops (341). Since there are relatively few in the metropolitan area, pawn shop customers often travel outside their own neighborhood or community to use them. This is typical of a use that is more regional in character, not of neighborhood businesses. While local residents might frequent the nearby coffee shop or grocery store weekly or even daily, pawn shop customers are more likely to visit infrequently and come from greater distances. If they have a criminal intent, they may travel to several pawn shops over great distances. In an article by the Pioneer Press title “Surge In Burglaries Tied To Meth Use”, Mike Meyer, a St. Paul police narcotic agent stated, “We’ll see people from Wisconsin come here (Twin Cities) with stolen merchandise and pawn it.” Can pawn shops be linked to stolen property? Since pawn shops exchange cash for goods without proof of ownership, they can become a target for criminals seeking to cash in on stolen goods. The Automated Pawn System (APS) is intended to discourage criminals from using pawn shops by identifying pawned goods and the individuals that are pawning them. For example, since implementing APS in Minneapolis in 1997, there has been an increase in the recovery of stolen property. The number of items held as evidence was up 235%, and it is estimated that $100,000 in retail value of stolen property is recovered every month as a result of APS (GovToGovSolutions 2007). Simon M. Fass and Janice Francis writing in the Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, conducted research on the role of pawnshops in disposing of stolen goods. What they found is that while effective, systems like APS are limited by the ability of the Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 4 Page 3 of 21 owner of the stolen good to prove the item is his or hers, since most home owners do not maintain records containing serial numbers or photographs of their items. In addition to this, jewelry is difficult to clearly differentiate one piece from another. As is true with most stolen goods, a majority of jewelry does not have unique identifying features that can be reported to the police. Therefore, Fass and Francis included more than statistics showing how many stolen items have been recovered in their research. They expanded their approach to include criminal records of those found pawning items, and individual interviews with known criminals. This data comes largely from Texas, and shows that there is typically a small number of prolific pawners, but those regulars pawn a largely disproportionate amount of goods. They also claim that a large percentage of those prolific pawners have a record of arrest for thievery (Fass, 2004). See the table below for data on this study Table 1: Pawn Transactions in Dallas, Texas, 1991-1996 The potential for criminal activity means pawn shops often have a heightened focus on security. The owner will typically obstruct the windows by installing bars or placing shelving units against the windows so would be criminals cannot see into the store and/or gain entry through the window. The frequent use of these measures seems to indicate that pawn shops are susceptible to criminal activity. 4. St. Louis Park Existing Regulations A. Current Zoning Regulations. The City has two commercial districts, the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial District and the C-2 General Commercial District. A zoning map is attached as Exhibit A, and shows the proximity of each district to residential neighborhoods, traffic corridors and other non-residential uses. The C-1 District is intended for commercial uses that can be located in close proximity to residential uses, especially single family homes. C-1 areas are intended to form small Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 5 Page 4 of 21 commercial nodes that service the immediate neighborhood. Traits include small, quiet shops that generate little vehicular traffic. The C-2 District is intended to accommodate the same uses allowed in the C-1 District, but also includes larger uses and buildings that generate more traffic and noise, and are more regional in character. Properties in the C-2 District tend to be larger than those located in the C-1 District and are clustered together to form large commercial nodes or corridors typically located along high volume roads such as state highways and county roads such Excelsior Blvd and Minnetonka Blvd. C-2 Districts are located along the higher traffic roads to keep traffic generated by these uses away from residential neighborhoods. The C-2 uses typically have direct access to major streets. Ideally the commercial uses cluster together in C-2 Districts to form a mutually beneficial commercial node with a strong regional identity. Given the pattern of development in St. Louis Park over the past 100 years, it is inevitable, however, for some C-2 Districts to be adjacent to residential neighborhoods. To protect residential neighborhoods the C-2 District has additional conditions aimed at mitigating any negative impact from C-2 uses on the residential neighborhoods. These conditions are discussed in more detail below. The uses allowed in the C-2 District are grouped into four categories. The categories are permitted uses, uses permitted with conditions, uses permitted by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and uses permitted by Planned Unit Development (PUD). Each of these categories represents a different level of control and regulation by the city. Permitted uses are the least stringently controlled and PUD uses are the most stringently controlled. Some of the uses permitted without additional regulations beyond standard zoning and licensing include small retail, offices, showrooms, banks and pawnshops. Other uses are permitted with a short list of additional conditions including uses such as dry cleaning, kennels, small engine repair, hotel, outdoor display, private entertainment and restaurants without intoxicating liquor, shopping centers, and sexually oriented businesses. Neither permitted uses nor uses permitted with conditions require review by the Planning Commission or City Council. They also do not require a public hearing. Finally, some uses are permitted by conditional use permit (CUP) or Planned Unit Development (PUD). These uses require a public hearing at the Planning Commission and approval by the City Council. CUP uses include gas stations, car dealerships, auto repair shops, restaurants and entertainment with intoxicating liquor, drive-throughs, places of assembly, and larger shopping centers. The PUD category applies only to very few situations and large uses. Each use that is permitted with conditions or requires a CUP includes a list of additional conditions that must be met before it can be approved. These conditions are geared toward mitigating some of the adverse effects the use can have on the neighborhood. Typical conditions include: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 6 Page 5 of 21 1. Greater setbacks from residential uses. 2. Limits on access designed to reduce/eliminate traffic through residential neighborhoods. 3. Additional screening. 4. Limits on size of the structure. 5. Distance requirements from similar uses. 6. Limits on architectural design. 7. Limits on building and property appearance. 8. No outside sale or display. Pawn shops are not permitted in the C-1 District. Pawn shops are permitted as “Permitted Uses” without additional conditions in the C-2 District. The zoning ordinance defines pawn shops as follows: Pawnshop means a facility where money is loaned based on the value of goods deposited at the facility by the borrower of the money, which goods are held by the lender of the money occupying the facility as collateral for the loan. Items held by the lender which are not redeemed by a borrower may be put up for sale at the facility to the general public. Current Licensing Regulations. Pawn shops in St. Louis Park are required to have a license. The following are the primary elements of the city’s pawn shop license ordinance: A maximum of two pawnbroker licenses may be active at any time. As of November 2007, there is one active pawnbroker license in St. Louis Park – Excel Pawn located at the Texa-Tonka Center. Automated Pawn System (APS). Pawn shops are required to participate in this system. APS is a database of business transactions from more than 100 pawn shops in Minnesota. It is implemented and maintained by the Minneapolis Police Dept. The system is intended to help police departments identify stolen merchandise handled by pawn shops. Licensing Eligibility. To be eligible for or to maintain a pawnbroker license, a person must operate lawfully and fairly; cannot be a minor; cannot have been convicted of any crime related to the license unless shown to be successfully rehabbed; must be of good moral character or repute; and cannot hold an intoxicating liquor license within the city. Fees. The current license fee is $2,000. This is a one time fee required with the license application and covers expenses incurred while processing the application. An investigation fee of $1,000 is also required at the time an application is submitted. This fee covers expenses incurred for background checks on the applicant. A billable transaction fee is charged to each transaction and paid to the city monthly. The fee is Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 7 Page 6 of 21 $1.50 per transaction, and covers the expense incurred while receiving and processing the monthly reports given from the pawn shops to the police department. A penalty fee of $50 per day is applied when the required monthly reports are late. Photo/video/digital images. Pawn shops operators are required to take photos of each customer and item involved in the transaction. Record-keeping and daily reports. Records must be kept and reported daily to the police detailing the item and person involved in each transaction. Holding and redemption periods. Items must be held for at least 90 days before they can be sold. This can be extended by police order. Hours of operation. Hours are limited to 7 am – 10 pm all days of week. Police inspections. Police have the right to enter property and inspect items. 5. Review of Other Cities Pawn Shop Land Use Controls Staff contacted 13 cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area to see how they regulated pawn shops. Six of the cities allow pawn shops with a CUP with additional conditions, seven cities permit them with additional conditions and one does not permit them at all. (This totals 14 because St. Paul allows them in some districts by CUP and permits them in others with additional conditions.) Two of the cities, Mounds View and Robbinsdale, adopted an overlay district where pawn shops are allowed. The overlay allows the cities to control where the pawn shop can locate. For instance, in Mounds View, the overlay is in an isolated light industrial area that is away from residential and their Hwy 10 commercial corridor. Below is a synopsis of what was learned from each city. Bloomington: Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted in B3, General Business Districts as CUP, and some conditions include: • Use will not cause traffic hazard; • Adjacent residentially zoning land will not be adversely affected; • Existing businesses nearby will not be adversely affected. Licensing restrictions: No Pawnbrokers license shall be granted to any location within 500 feet of a school, City-owned athletic playfield, publicly-owned park, playfield, recreational area or open space. Brooklyn Park: Zoning: Pawn shops are allowed by CUP in the Business District, conditions include: • All entrances to business must be visible from public right-of-way; Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 8 Page 7 of 21 • Layout must allow observation of all patrons while they have access to any merchandised offered for sale; • site must be 500 feet from property line of a site containing a religious institution, school, day-care/preschool, another pawnshop, an adult entertainment/adult service business, a currency exchange or any residential district; • All establishments must apply for and obtain license from City before building permit issued. Edina Zoning: Pawn shops are not permitted. Fridley Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted in the C-2, General Business District. Golden Valley Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted uses in the B-2 and B-3 Business Districts. Hopkins Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted uses in the B-2 and B-3 Business Districts. Maple Grove: Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted in the Industrial District. Conditions include: • Must be properly and currently licensed; • Shall not be located within 750 feet any premises currently licensed as massage, pawnbroker, sexually oriented business, liquor sales, or within 750 feet licensed day care, residence, house of worship, school, playground, park, library, community recreational center or facility; • No pawnshop may be located in or on any building, premises, or lot already containing pawnshop. Licensing Site Requirements: No exterior loudspeaker; no public address system; no outside storage, display, or sale of merchandise shall be permitted. Minneapolis: Zoning: Pawn shops are permitted with specific development standards in the C4 and B4C (Downtown) Districts. Conditions include: • Use is at least 1,000 feet from all existing pawnshops, currency exchanges, missions, and secondhand goods stores; • Back-lighted signs, Back-lighted awning, portable signs, temporary signs and freestanding signs shall be prohibited; • Window and door area of any existing first floor façade facing public street or sidewalk shall not be reduced, nor shall changes be made to block views into building at eye level; • New construction, at least 30% first floor façade facing public street or sidewalk shall be windows or doors of clear or lightly tinted glass; Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 9 Page 8 of 21 • Use of bars, chains or similar security devices that are visible from public street or sidewalk shall be prohibited; • The premises, adjacent streets, sidewalks and alleys, and all sidewalks and alleys within 100 feet shall be inspected regularly for purposes of removing any litter found thereon; • All receipt, sorting and processing of goods shall occur within a completely enclosed building. Mounds View Zoning: A pawn shop overlay district was adopted in 2003. Pawn shops are a permitted use in this district. The following condition is required: • A building containing a pawnshop may not be located within 1,000 feet of another building containing a pawnshop. Plymouth: Zoning: Pawn shops are allowed by CUP in the C4 District, with the condition that: • Business is not within 750 feet property containing another pawnshop, currency exchange, religious institution, or residentially zoned or guided property. Richfield: Zoning: Pawn shops are prohibited in C1, Neighborhood Commercial Districts. Pawn shops are allowed with a CUP in C2 General Commercial District, conditions include: • Such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from any school, church, daycare center, public library, or governmental building; • Such uses shall be located not less than 1,000 feet from any existing pawn operation, secondhand goods operation which requires a license under section 1186 of the city code, auction house, or consignment auction house; • Such uses shall be located not less than 250 feet from residentially zoned property; • Such uses shall be screened, as approved by the city; • The business operator shall secure all applicable licenses and approvals from the city, county, state, or other applicable jurisdictions before the conditional use permit shall become effective; • Off-street parking requirement: Pawn operations and secondhand goods operations which require a license under section 1186 of the city code shall provide at least five parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or ten parking spaces, whichever is greater; and Auction houses and consignment auction houses shall provide at least 35 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or 70 parking spaces, whichever is greater. • Such uses shall be contained within a completely enclosed building, and no outside storage, display, or sale of merchandise shall be permitted; • Exterior loudspeakers or public address systems shall not be audible from any residential parcel; Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 10 Page 9 of 21 • Auction houses and consignment auction houses shall have designated on-site loading and drop-off areas which are designed to avoid interfering with traffic and pedestrian movements; • Such uses shall not be operated between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The following day; and • Such uses which were legally established on or before November 22, 1993 shall be classified as legal nonconforming uses, and subject to the provisions of Section 511.13 of this code. Robbinsdale: Zoning: B4p overlay district provides regulations for pawnbrokers (and secondhand goods dealers, consignment house dealers, auction house dealers and traders). The purpose of the overlay is to provide special regulations necessary to ensure that adverse effects of uses will not contribute to blight or downgrading of surrounding neighborhoods, and to prevent a concentration of these used in any one area. Pawnbrokers are permitted by CUP in the overlay with the following conditions: • The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the facility will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, general welfare; • The conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity, nor substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood; • Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and necessary facilities have been or are being provided; • An off-street loading and unloading rear entrance is provided; • Requirements of Minnesota statutes regarding pawn and secondhand goods, consignment, auction, and trading establishments are met; • Licensing requirements of section 1135 of the Robbinsdale City Code are met; • No alcohol is allowed on the premises; • That the standards set forth in subdivision 7 (the minimum site requirements in the B4p overlay district) are met; • That there is no other pawnbroker, secondhand goods dealer, auction house dealer, consignment house dealer greater than 2,250 square feet or a trader greater than 2,250 square feet within 1,000 square feet. • That the structure of the business complies with the architectural design guidelines. Licensing Site Requirements: No exterior loudspeaker; no public address system that is audible from any residential parcel; no outside storage, display, or sale of merchandise outside of the enclosed building shall be permitted. St. Paul: Zoning: Pawnshops are permitted in the B4-Central Business District B5- Central Business-Service District, and the I2-General Industrial District. They are allowed by Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 11 Page 10 of 21 CUP in the B3 General Business District and the I1-Light Industrial District, with the following conditions: • The business shall be conducted within a completely enclosed building. • The building in which the business is located shall be at least one hundred fifty (150) feet from the closest point of any residentially zoned property; provided, however, that this condition may be modified pursuant to section 61.500 subject to the following conditions: There is no existing pawnshop within five thousand two hundred eighty (5,280) feet of the proposed location, measured from the nearest building wall of the existing pawnshop to the nearest building wall of the proposed use, or if there is no building, to the nearest lot line of the proposed use. Customer entrances shall not be oriented toward residentially zoned property. Customer parking shall not be closer to residentially zoned property than the primary entrance. The location of a pawnshop at this location will not be contrary to any adopted district plan or other city program for neighborhood conservation or improvement, either residential or nonresidential. The proposed use meets all other requirements for conditional use permits. 6. Potential Land Use Controls Issues regarding neighborhood image and encouraging investments in properties are especially important for St. Louis Park. St. Louis Park is a fully developed first ring suburb with many small scattered commercial areas. Many, if not most of these commercial areas abut single family homes with no buffer between the homes and commercial areas. While the close proximity of uses and the walkability of the city is part of its charm, it requires fine tuned control of commercial land uses, especially potential negative land uses, so that they don’t damage the vulnerable residential areas. The City’s aging commercial areas are vulnerable to the potential negative impacts of uses like pawn shops. Many of the city’s commercial buildings are old, and often outmoded by comparison with state of the art commercial space. As a result, individual commercial properties often have difficulty competing for tenants or buyers. This difficulty is compounded when other buildings in the area are occupied by uses that discourage new business investment. This competitive disadvantage can result in neighborhood decline and disinvestment. The city’s land use controls need to limit detrimental uses and encourage positive, area enhancing land uses, with the goal of maintaining the city’s long term economic well being. Numerous articles and studies identify concerns surrounding the effect pawn shops and similar uses have on residential neighborhoods and neighboring commercial entities. The Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 12 Page 11 of 21 primary concerns found in these works include the connection between pawn shops and crime; and the potential decrease in personal safety, property values and neighborhood image. Common practice is to mitigate these impacts through the use of land use controls such as spacing requirements between pawn shops and similar uses, distance requirements between pawn shops and residential properties, requirements for direct access to major streets, more stringent design standards and other restrictions to pawn shop operations such as requirements for photographing patrons, limits on hours of operation and requiring participation in the APS. A closer look at these practices follows: A. Establishing minimum distances between pawn shops, adult oriented uses, and certain other similar (licensed) businesses. The purpose of the distance requirement is to prevent adverse effects on a neighborhood resulting from the concentration of certain uses that have characteristics that could have negative impacts on the community. Studies indicate that a concentration of uses such as pawn shops, check cashing, liquor stores and adult uses can contribute to blight, an increase in crime, and discourage investment in the neighborhood. For example, a study by the Santa Clara Police Department in California entitled “Secondary Effect of Crime,” reviewed studies conducted in Oakland California; St. Paul, Minnesota; Seattle Washington; Phoenix, Arizona; and the City of Santa Clara and found “that specified regulated uses do have numerous negative effects upon the area and lead to increasing calls for service in response to crime. The study included information that pawn shops are ready buyers for stolen property with many related police calls.” (Santa Clara 1998). Some studies have also been conducted in the real estate and socio-economic fields to determine the impact certain uses have on property values and people’s perception of the stability of a neighborhood. These studies maintain that a concentration of certain uses such as pawn shops, adult uses, check cashing, etc. lead to a perception that the neighborhood is not thriving, which results in neighborhood disinvestment. Disinvestment occurs when residents and business owners are no longer confident that their property is a good investment. As a result, they no longer invest in the property through expansions and improvements. In most cases homeowners will even defer maintenance causing the property to prematurely fall into disrepair (Canada Mortgage 2001 and Simons 1998). Regulations requiring a minimum distance between such uses can insure that a concentration will not occur, thereby helping to prevent blight and/or the downgrading of neighborhoods or businesses. Several cities through out the metro area and in states nationwide have adopted spacing regulations to prevent clustering of these uses. Most cities we looked at have a spacing requirement of at least 1,000 feet. This distance would be adequate to prevent adverse impacts resulting from a cluster of these uses. A table and list of these cities and their specific requirements is attached as Exhibit B. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 13 Page 12 of 21 Minneapolis recently adopted a zoning text amendment that addressed separation distance requirements and a list of restricted uses. They now require a minimum of 1,000 feet between pawn shops and other restricted uses. Minneapolis’ reasons for adopting the text amendment was to prevent urban blight and resulting economic disinvestment. The Minneapolis requirement has been upheld by the courts. B. Design standards The appearance of pawn shops can contribute to the negative impacts they can have on adjoining property and surrounding neighborhoods. Design elements such as bars on windows, opaque windows, unscreened dumpsters, and excess temporary signage are perceived by residents and business owners as signs of a neighborhood in decline, and may result in decisions to not reinvest in their property. The City currently uses design standards to mitigate the impact certain uses have on adjacent properties. These design standards effectively preserve the character and value of its neighborhoods with the goal of preventing neighborhood disinvestment. Limits on temporary signage, requirements that dumpsters be screened from view, are examples of design controls already in city ordinances. How windows are treated has an impact on the image presented by a business which in turn effects the image of the immediately surrounding area. Windows that are barred or filled with signage or blocked by shelving can present a negative image. Recently the City addressed the issue of window treatments in the context of liquor stores. Measures were taken to ensure that views into windows were maintained and that a positive image would be presented to the public. The following requirement was recently adopted into the liquor license ordinance: Interior and exterior bars, grills, mesh or similar obstructions, whether permanently or temporarily affixed, shall not cover any exterior door or more than ten percent of any individual window or contiguous window area. and Example of bars and window obstructions at a pawn shop located in the metro area. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 14 Page 13 of 21 The total area of signs in windows shall not exceed 50% of the total area of windows fronting a street. Signs shall not be displayed on doors, and doors shall not be included in the window area for purposes of determining the 50% maximum coverage. The liquor ordinance requires more than transparent windows. It also prohibits obstructions such as bars across the windows. Bars and similar obstructions on windows give the perception that crime is a serious problem in the neighborhood, and reduces confidence in the neighborhood’s long term viability. The obstruction also obscures visibility of activities inside the shop and reduces safety. An unobstructed view into a shop discourages inappropriate activity, and is safer for everyone. Additional design conditions to consider for pawn shops include prohibiting outdoor storage, display, or sales. Exterior loudspeakers and drive-throughs should also be prohibited. These accessory uses can create noise and other nuisance problems for adjoining properties. They are particularly incompatible with residential neighborhoods. C. Establish minimum distance between pawn shops and residentially zoned property, residentially used property, religious institutions, schools, community center, parks, library, childcare/preschool. A primary goal of the City of St. Louis Park as stated in its Comprehensive Plan is to maintain a healthy and safe environment for its residents. Pawn shops have the potential to have a negative affect on a residential neighborhood as shown above. While the merchandise sold at pawn shops is attractive to youth, the activities involved with a pawn shop are for adults and sometimes involve criminal activity. They are a use that serves a regional or sub-regional customer rather than local or neighborhood residents. They can present a negative image and often signal the area is in decline. The City’s Pawnbroker Licensing Ordinance acknowledges this, and states that “pawnbrokers potentially provide an opportunity for the commission of crimes and their concealment because such businesses have the ability to receive and transfer stolen property easily and quickly.” Pawn shops are essentially adult uses and are not appropriate to be in close proximity to sensitive land uses and places where children frequent. Given these concerns, residential areas, religious institutions, schools, parks, playgrounds, daycare facilities, libraries and similar uses should be protected from pawn shops. Distance requirements between pawn shops and residential or other sensitive uses would be consistent with the general approach taken with other uses that have the potential to negatively affect residentially zoned or used property. Currently, the City’s ordinance has residential distance requirements for numerous uses such as sexually-oriented businesses (350 feet), liquor stores (300 feet), drive throughs (100 feet), outdoor dining areas (500 feet), indoor entertainment (100 feet) restaurants and others. Other cities have also utilized distance requirements to protect residential uses and other sensitive land uses Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 15 Page 14 of 21 from pawn shops. These requirements range from 1,000 feet to 350 feet (See Exhibit B). Establishing a distance requirement for pawn shops would be in keeping with this approach. D. Street Access Requirements The tight fit between residential neighborhoods and commercial areas throughout St. Louis Park increases the vulnerability of residential areas to negative impacts of all commercial uses, but especially those with a more regional customer base, an adult orientation or a negative image. Pawn shops can exhibit all of these characteristics when commercial traffic, access and parking occur within the adjacent residential neighborhood. The neighbors will pay a price in noise, disruption and other negative effects from the proximity of a pawn shop but without the counter-balancing benefits other commercial uses might provide. While a few neighbors may use a pawn shop, many neighbors might benefit from the close proximity of a use such as a music store or coffee shop. Many of the kids in the neighborhood may benefit from the close proximity of music lessons or small cafe, but they would not be likely to benefit from close proximity of a pawn shop and arguably could be harmed. The City’s current zoning ordinance regulates access for all commercial uses to minimize impacts to residential areas. The intent of these regulations is that regional uses, such as a pawn shop, should not intrude on a residential area for its access or parking. Section 36-192(10) Commercial restrictions and performance standards, requires access for all commercial uses to be from a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. Additionally, certain uses, such as food service, drive through, places of assembly, restaurants, motor vehicle services, etc. also have specific conditions/requirements limiting access on local residential streets. Pawn shop zoning requirements should be considered, similarly requiring all access be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial. This would keep pawn shop vehicular traffic off of nearby residential streets. Another common condition for some uses ties approval of the use to the neighborhood or redevelopment plan which can be found in the comprehensive plan. E. Procedural Requirements Currently pawn shops are a permitted use in the C-2 District. Considering the unique characteristics of pawn shops it seems appropriate to make them a use requiring a CUP. This would mean that a public hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council approval would be required before a pawn shop would be permitted. The hearing process ensures that effected properties and the community in general are made aware of a pending land use decision; and have an opportunity to raise issues, ask questions, and make suggestions before the final decision is made permitting a pawn shop. It also Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 16 Page 15 of 21 affords the City Council some discretion to make sure any issues particular to a specific proposal or site are adequately addressed before the land use decision is made. 7. Proposed Changes to Land Use Controls: The City’s current zoning requirements for pawn shops are woefully inadequate. They allow pawn shops as permitted uses in the C-2 District without any special conditions or public hearing requirements. This means that a pawn shop is permitted to locate anywhere in the C-2 District, regardless of access conditions, proximity to residential or other sensitive uses, the appearance of the shop, or its proximity to other restricted and/or adult uses. There are no special conditions or procedures in the zoning ordinance to address the potential negative impacts a pawn shop may create, or to and protect the community and/or adjoining properties. Based on the review of the City’s existing land use controls and study of pawn shops the following actions should be considered: 1.) Amend the Zoning Ordinance to require a conditional use permit for pawn shops with the following conditions: 1. The site must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing another pawn shop, gun shops, liquor stores, a sexually-oriented business or a currency exchange. 2. The pawn shop use shall not operate in conjunction with a sexually-oriented business, or a currency exchange 3. The use shall be located a minimum of 350 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential, or is an institutional use including but not limited to schools, religious institutions, day care facilities, parks, playgrounds, libraries and community centers. 4. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial only. 5. Drive throughs are prohibited 6. Fire arm transactions are prohibited 7. Such uses shall be contained within a completely enclosed building, and no outside storage, display, or sale of merchandise are permitted. 8. Exterior loudspeakers or public address systems are prohibited. 9. All windows and door areas shall be of clear or lightly tinted glass and visual obstructions are prohibited. 10. Interior and exterior bars, grills, mesh or similar obstructions, whether permanently or temporarily affixed, shall not cover any exterior door or window area. 11. Neon accents and back-lighted awning shall be prohibited. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 17 Page 16 of 21 2.) Other possible actions: A. In the course of this study other areas of potential review were discovered. It may be appropriate to conduct a study on commercial districts and determine if: • Any existing commercial properties should be rezoned; and/or, • A new commercial zoning district should be created Specifically, much of the City’s C-2 District is in narrow stripes along major roads. Often these areas back-up directly to residential areas and difficult to use for C-2 uses. A study of these areas may be appropriate. B. Consider regulations for other uses: currency exchange/same day lending. Current zoning controls on these uses are limited. More stringent requirements maybe appropriate. A closer review may be in order at this time. C. Review licensing restriction to determine if amendments are needed. Some of the zoning controls recommended for a review of pawn shops may be appropriate to incorporate into the license requirements as well. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 18 Page 17 of 21 Exhibits A. Zoning Map B. Table Regulations Comparison between Cities Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 19 Page 18 of 21 Exhibit A – Zoning Map Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 20 Page 19 of 21 Exhibit B. Table of Regulations- Comparison between Cities City Distance existing Pawn Shops & similar uses Distance from residential, Institutional, etc Windows clear Bars on windows Outside storage, sales, display Other Bloomington 500 ft Brooklyn Center 300 ft 300 ft Brooklyn Park 500 ft 500 ft Entrance visible from ROW Crystal None None Eden Prairie None None Edina Pawn shops are not permitted in any district. Fridley None None Golden Valley None None Hopkins None None Maple Grove 750 ft 750 ft prohibited No exterior loudspeaker Minneapolis 1,000 ft Views shall not be blocked prohibited prohibited Back-light portable & temporary signs prohibited Minnetonka Pawn shops are not specifically addressed Mounds View 1,000 ft Plymouth 750 ft 750 ft Richfield 1,000 ft 250 ft from residential 1,000 ft from institution prohibited Exterior loudspeakers not audible from res. Robbinsdale 1,000 sq ft prohibited Exterior loudspeakers not audible from res. St. Paul 5280 ft 150 ft Prohibited entrances not oriented to res. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 21 Page 20 of 21 Bibliography Brewer, John. 2006. “Surge in Burglaries Tied to Meth use (Minnesota)”. St. Paul Pioneer Press (Minnesota). February 5. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. 2001.” Disinvestment and the Decline of Urban Neighborhoods”. Research Highlights, Socio-Economic Series 90. November (Grammenos, Fanis Project Manager) Caskey, J.P. 1994. Fringe Banking: Check-Cashing Outlets, Pawnshops, and the Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundations. Chattanooga-Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency. 2006. Alternative Financial Services: Chattanooga, Tennessee. Committee on Criminal Justice. 2000. “A Review of Florida’s Pawnbroking Law”. The Florida Senate. January. CriMNet Program Office. 2006. Criminal Justice Information Systems Available Applications and Related Terms. http://crimnet.state.mn.us/docs/AvailableSystems.pdf.. July 12 Fass, Simon M. 2004. “Where Have All the Hot Goods Gone? The Role of Pawnshops.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41 (2): 156–179. GovToGov Solutions. 2007. APS Overview. http://www.govtogovsolutions.org. Hurley, James T. 2000. “Property Crime and Pawnshops: Correlation or Coincidence?” Police, May. Johnson, Dr. Robert W., Johnson, Dr. Dixie P. 1998. “Pawnbroking in the U.S.: A Profile of Customers.” Georgetown University. July. Jonsson, Patrick. 2007. “The War on Pawnshops.” Christian Science Monitor, July 11. Minnesota Court of Appeals, State of . 2000. Pawn America Minnesota L.L.C. vs City of Minneapolis, Case C6-99-1702 National Pawnbrokers Association. 2007. Briefing Book. http://nationalpawnbrokers.org. Nick, Stephen C. 2007. “Pawnbroker Licensing-Regional Electronic Reporting.” Eau Claire City Attorney Legal Comment, September. Saint Louis Park (SLP), Minnesota. City Council Resolution # 05-183. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 22 Page 21 of 21 Santa Clara (California), City of. 1998. Santa Clara Municipal Code. Chapter 18.70. Section 18.70.010-18.70.090. Use Regulations Applicable to Specified Regulated Businesses. Simons, Robert A., Quercia, Roberto G., Maric, Ivan. 1998. The Value Impact of New Residential Construction and Neighborhood Disinvestment on Residential Sales Price, Journal of Real Estate Research. 15:1/2. St. Paul (Minnesota), City of. 1998. Pawn Shop Zoning Study, December 14. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 5) Subject: Pawn Shop Study Update Page 23 Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 6 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: Communications (verbal). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Not Applicable. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. BACKGROUND: At every Study Session, verbal communications will take place between staff and Council for the purpose of information sharing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable. Attachments: None. Prepared and Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 7 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Request for Zoning Ordinance Amendment to allow advertising signs on athletic fields. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. The report is to provide an update to Council on recommended changes to our zoning ordinance specific to signs on athletic fields. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the city amend the zoning ordinance to allow advertising signs on the outfield fences of athletic fields in city parks and use funds for a youth activities scholarship program? BACKGROUND: On November 29, 2007, the city received an application from the St. Louis Park Baseball (Association) requesting an amendment to section 36-362 of the zoning ordinance regulating signage. The requested amendment would allow advertising signs to be placed at athletic fields. The Association states that the revenue generated from the signs will fund scholarships, recruitment and training. The Parks & Recreation Department supports this request and feels it is important to the sustainability of the baseball program. Parks and Recreation staff worked with the community baseball organizations, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission, City Attorney and Community Development staff to develop an amendment to the current zoning regulations to allow this type of signage. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission is supportive of this amendment change, has reviewed it, and made recommendations to make sure the program fits with park green spaces. Thus, the proposal is very specific as to signage type, size and design. There are restrictions on length of display, locations and type of advertising allowed. Existing Ordinance: Under the zoning ordinance, the requested signs are classified as off- premises signs. Off-premises signs include billboards or any other type of signage that advertises a product or service that does not occur on the property on which the sign is located. The current sign ordinance does not allow off-site advertising in any manner. Proposed Amendment: The proposed amendment would create another sign category called “Athletic Field Signs”. Athletic field signs would be considered temporary signs, and would be allowed only in the Park and Open Space Zoning District (POS) with specific conditions. The conditions include the following: 1. The sign must be inside of, and face the interior of, an athletic field that is fully enclosed by a fence. 2. The sign shall not be displayed before May 1 and/or after October 31. 3. The maximum sign height is 4 feet. 4. The maximum sign face is 4 feet by 8 feet. 5. The maximum height of text (letters and numerals) is 7 inches. 6. The maximum height of logos is 15 inches. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 7) Page 2 Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment Athletic Field Signage 7. Pictures and illustrations are permitted at any size within the 4 x 8 sign face. 8. The back side of the sign must be blank and painted a dark shade of green. 9. The sign cannot be illuminated or made of reflective materials. 10. There shall be no more than 15 signs per field. In addition to adding the athletic field signage provision, the amendment also proposes to: 1. Add the Park and Open Space District to Table 36-362A, thereby establishing minimum sign area and height standards for permanent and temporary signs in the POS district. This amendment would allow up to 80 square feet of permanent signage with a maximum height of 15 feet, which would be applied to park identification signage. 2. Allows up to 80 square feet of temporary signage that would be used for special events. The 80 square feet is above and beyond the athletic field signage. 3. Allow one scoreboard per athletic field with a maximum height of 24 feet and a maximum area of 144 square feet. Implementation: Even though the Baseball Association is requesting the amendment, other associations may apply for a permit to install an athletic field sign that meets the conditions. The Zoning Department will allow one application per association per ball field per year, and the Parks and Recreation Department will oversee the daily implementation of the ordinance to ensure compliance. The permit fee is $30 per application, and would cover up to a maximum 15 signs per athletic field. The Parks and Recreation Department would administer a separate policy on the signs that will require each association to be responsible for installing, maintaining, removing and storing the signs. Next steps: This recommended amendment to the zoning ordinance will go before the planning commission, then to Council. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City will receive a fee for permits. Parks and Recreation will develop the program to handle the other funds generated and it’s recommended that they will be used for scholarships for children to participate in the programs who would have otherwise been unable to participate due to financial limitations. VISION CONSIDERATION: The intent of the request is to raise revenue so more scholarships can be awarded to children who would have otherwise been unable to participate in organized sports due to financial limitations. Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator; Rick Birno, Parks Superintendent Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Cindy Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 8 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: Beehive Relocation Project. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No specific action is requested at this time. However, if the City Council has concerns or questions regarding this project, please let staff know. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. BACKGROUND: There are two significant Wayside Park areas in St. Louis Park, both built in 1939. The first is Lilac Park (official name) which is located on the east side of Highway 100 and north of Minnetonka Boulevard. This park has four structures of interest which include the Beehive, a large picnic table, an old parking area wall and what is referred to as a rock garden (an old water feature with seating areas, a small water fall, a circular water storage area and a small slab to walk across the circular water area). The only features that can potentially be moved from this park are the Beehive and the picnic table. MnDOT has suggested they would remove the other two structures and save the limestone for future renovation projects. All structures need to be moved as the Highway 100 expansion project will take most of the property at Lilac Park. The second park is Roadside Park (official name), located on the east side of Highway 100 and south of County Road 25/Highway 7 just west of Nordic Ware. This park area will not be impacted during the Highway 100 project. This park contains a council ring (round seating area) with fire pit, four picnic tables, and a stone refuse container. The National Park Service in Washington D.C. and the Minnesota Department of Transportation can document only two “Beehives” remaining in the United States. One is in St. Louis Park and the other is located in the City of Robbinsdale at Graeser Park along Highway 100. Study Committee A Committee was formed and began meeting in November of 2005 to discuss the options to relocate/restore the Beehive and picnic table from Lilac Park (listing of committee members in on page 4 of the attached document St. Louis Park Historical Wayside Park/Beehive Restoration Project). The Committee, with guidance and input from the State Historical Preservation Organization (SHPO) and MnDOT, has met to discuss issues surrounding the relocation of the two structures, reviewed the historical construction documents and photos, toured potential relocation sites in St. Louis Park and met with the SHPO. These Works Progress Administration (WPA) features are unique to the Midwest and many of the other features located at other Wayside Parks have been eliminated. The WPA was federally funded as part of the labor relief program. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Page 2 Subject: Beehive Relocation Staff recommendations to City Council: 1. Relocate the Beehive and picnic table from Lilac Park to Roadside Park -next to Nordic Ware; (Park may be renamed at a later date); 2. Restore most of the historically significant structures at Roadside Park; 3. Create a bike loop from the LRT trail down and around Roadside Park; 4. Implement historical signage about the park and features; 5. Maintain the area as a City Park (with the help of Nordic Ware); 6. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) would transfer the property to the City of St. Louis Park once Highway 100 expansion project is complete. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The city’s Park Improvement Fund CIP includes money for this project over the next two years. Staff will also apply for grants both locally and nationally to assist with funding this project. In addition to city money and potential grant sources, the St. Louis Park Historical Society and area businesses have expressed interest in being a part of this historical restoration process. Unless Council suggests otherwise, staff plans to solicit funds for the refurbishing and relocation of the Wayside Park features located in Lilac Park and Roadside Park. Staff will keep the City Council posted as we proceed. VISION CONSIDERATION: Relocating these historical features, obtaining Roadside Park and adding trail links to the park fits directly with Vision to connect and engage the community by preserving the history of the City of St. Louis Park. Attachments: Beehive Proposal Prepared by: Rick Birno, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 3 !!!! "#$#%"#$#%"#$#%"#$#%&&&& ’(#%’(#%’(#%’(#% ’)&&%’)&&%’)&&%’)&&% ****+#+#+#+#+&% +&% +&% +&% ****$&&&$&&&$&&&$&&& **** **** # # # # ’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%, ’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%,’)&&%,#-#-#-#- ’(#%,’(#%,’(#%,’(#%, ’(#%,#-’(#%,#-’(#%,#-’(#%,#- ’,.)’,.)’,.)’,.)#### #### ’#/#’#/#’#/#’#/# (#0 (#0(#0(#0 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 4 1 - / ,( % #/ #+ + &./ ####& .&%". Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 5 2 ! 33 33 // // // // 4 & ,(%"#,# )#%$ /,(% $#. %5)# &-## $1 3&#06 3& &#7 & /,(% 84 ,(%"#,# $4- ,(%"#,# !%!#9- )&:(&# ## !!#! /,(% $5$) ,(%"#,# ) )&:) $ /,(% 4* /,(% ,0 /,(% (;0 !3:1 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 6 < $-)##/ #&/.=# > 1&#$-/(#% 6!%$-&+:".7)&&%6? 3&#07& $-.##&#/)&& %$-.&&/-.& &/ 1&### /(#%)&&%)& ###&#. ##&.#-&/## &%:.% ,-#/ (#%6%.&#%&:./7 &#/#&/ =#)&&% )/##)&& %&#.##& &&####/ %-+##+&/ /&## )##)&&%/ .&&.&./ && Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 7 @ -%)&&% ###/ )&&%,.) #./ %/A- &&&&%#)&& %&/#&#+". +/& 1&#/ +%+##+&- &#)&&%. &-/&# 1-%#/ )&&%.3&#0 2./& %)&&% ###&.// /#-&,"# -;6,"7 1-&- ##+&#+&/# )&&% Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 8 .!1+,"+,(%"# ,#+)-%1#+") ) +&3&#0&- -#%&/ 3./)&&% /!1/,(%# ".?=##& 3.!1"0B? =#C&.&&&. )&&%&"0B%&/ .&-/"0B& 0&) D&&% )C###&,( %D/#/#% )-.#&&%#& %/##/## /#/# &&E ’0%.!1;-&0 =#&9&*/ ’.F)(#0G -%=# Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 9 A F(#.G#&& -.& %-# < (#1-: ".#& (#%6". &!% $-&7&)&& %6?3&# 0#/".& , "<7,(%./ .&%#& "0B&&%:##&& &&#.&& &### 3#&# #&/"0B& &/.3.1&)/ (&D91 "0B=#./D/& /=#+(#%.# % ?&&.&&& -+#&-&% Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 10 $(#% &)&& %# C/ #/# # . +&? #? /3%,-##&#/& /(#-# ##C;&#& .&&#& &# !1/& 3%,-#01%. /.F$-G6:/##7 H&,#&9% )&&(#%,( % Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 11 (#%.&.&? /"./# (#%$-)# #&/#&> )#&$-)&&% )#&)## )&&% ,-&/% . 2,-&/#%&: ./ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 12 )&&%6?3&#07. #&&". ?=##. .&%,( %-/###& )&&%> ## #/ 6.##7 2,/# +#.&!1+& =#3&#0(#&3&#0 H&,D+& .&D+/##- #&%.##& A 3&#0+D.?+-&& #/)&&% Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 13 "## $-)#- -%/## #/.&%#> -% ##,.) &&/%#%# 2 &&/& Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 14 $% • 1+#+&61)5)7- I+ • 1)5)## I@+ • &##/-5## I<+ • ,-5/.:#%& I<+ • )/## I+ • )##&/ I2+ • ### I2<+ • -:&&/## I+ / • )&#%.#- I<+ • 1&/ I+< • #:/- I+< • &&%## I+< • 2./ I<+ • 9///#& I+< • 1--%&&# I<+ • /%!1 I • //./ $1 • )/)&&% I J,! J1 (EJ,! J1 (EJ,! J1 (EJ,! J1 (E I+ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 15 2 & $-)# #&=/&> /,(% I+ ,("#,# I+ 167 I@+ 9 I+ E I+ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 16 < $" E ,#/)&&%/!1 ,,(%//& # $#/?/& 0/=# 1-=#/:%# /& AE 1+)5)$-)&&% 1+)5)#&&% ,-&/.:#%& 1-&- 1&&/:&# 1-# )#/&#-&," 0& )/##)&&% .!1D"0B& ;&&### )&&%&&&. /#D&&&# Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 17 @ $" E )##&/)&&% #,.)## -%&&##/ &&/%#%# ./& /:&# &# ,#&.# 1%#/# )%6K7 1-&- #%&# ;##;##;##;##:##:##:##:## #-#-#-#-//// 0 =0 =0 =0 =#,(%#,(%#,(%#,(% $&E /./% /!1 /,(% Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 18 (#E(#E(#E(#E ,J#/=#". &".+,(%+!3 B$EB $EB$EB$E A 1E1 E1E1E 3#+ )(&# ## $&E$&E$&E$&E 0% & 60 7 "#:HE"#:HE"#:HE"#:HE )&&% "#,/##E"#,/##E"#,/##E"#,/##E # &&-& /,(%)& &% //- &&%". /%. -##+ &/-%. -## ,(%)&&% ./F(# 0G.=# && (/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E ,#,#,#,#B$B $B$B$ • #)#)#)#) (#&#/##+/ # ?D& • ######## /&##J# #//./ # • ,#,#,#,# ##/ <DD/# • ,)/,)/,)/,)/ 3#+#.& &&#&// /+&<DC+2D+..AG #%#&&#&& .#&&/ Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 19 A Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 20 !"" # !"" $%&’()*# +$*,$$- ./.01+1 +!232&)4.#&$ $)(&"5(,&!67 ’&85(-##, #()&(&!232&) 49#&##)&: &&&)$($(, ,),&:#); ’&385&)<85-&:&##&),(& #,&:35&)85#&:,<5& ##&)&(#&#(#& :###&)&#& =;(&#!232&)4. ((&##,&$($) ((&85&)25& $,),(+!232&) 4.#;77’##) ((-&$)$(’,(& &-(85;$<5$,,&67 = ./+1./..0 ($##::( )#$::, :25,##:#>#(:# #&:: !"",)# ,&) #,&$#58<?) : !""#,,) #($:$$#) $(#,)&,(#) ,& .0 (9(($$ !"" &) !"",) ,$ !""@ $(( $,&(#’()* #+$*,$$- :) 9#(+0:’.!26(. (!26!-(#9 .0A (#&=#&(&# (,’#&&)#(#- &(:/#($))$$ $($,(#$$.+B#&$$ ## ##&)#:,# Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 21 =++C0=1./ ,&&)4(’4-# !""’!""!3"38"-#,#&&)(#!232$, )D’&,( !""-,(#$ # !"" :&&!23? ,&): !""&&!23?’83"6 83"2-8<?# : !"",&!23245 !"",#%# !"")#’( ((- ,&).,,+ #*/#( ,)(!23)!2<". ##74)$7# !"",,)#(5!236#(#( /:#(&#(5:#( !""B*# #(&&:)###:& #::#&,)()#%))# #;##,&$#$, #,,),(#&:#( ’#!236-:# !"",*@/= /:#(:):# &,)## !""(B 0 0 D ,# !"":&(B9:’ !""9:-0,:’ !""0,:-:) ,## !""B !""+:’8<<- !"" 88 4(&,(( >=1 =>4 !"?:,,&!223,## !""’ =23"!3"$2<3?"$26"3"?-# !""&(&)* )&&.4) /& ,)$,&$#$#:) :( !""&, ’-8":.’-, !22<!22$##*(((’*=-&, 4$ =$+ $ =,!22!22*=#,B (#%’&,0,:.8":.-#( .&#:#(:#) !""(#%’&,& 0,:.4-:)% !""# !2<$#(.&#(, ’#!226-$:)&(#,#,,) (!"?:,’ =:,(&23"!3"$2<3?"$ 26"3"?-*=$:(#$:#’#()#&) *)!228 !22- Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 22 *.=0.+.+ ,&!232&)43## :),&&)’#:&&&)-4(?"## :),&)$&$.##)&: ,97/:#(* ,)$!2"!2?"7 ((##):)0.&( ,;(B(#%,& #5#% !""’4)- !23<!2<!’.+-#))#,) )##:)$):# &$),##:)’. +- )/:#(,& #74)$79:,)##%,/:# (/:5$(,#&D$(:&$#%/&)* /+ #.$4)5##/:5 ,&,)$$ )#$&$:$,,&:: #&:,,,)(&&’.+ -($(?6/###: )#* /5:#( (#9(#,4##,* /$* / :.,/4&(&:,#& (&%::#(,#:,%& 5(#)’.+-# ) ,&#,)((#)# !""$&!23<!2<!$,,)#%,)#) )#44(:#(,#,,+( # !""),)* (5:’.+-/ 9(#/:#(/:5 #!23"5#99(#7. :)7##:#()5(), 9$,#)#&:;: (D&)* ,&#4)$9:,)##% ,:#(,#(#. ’.++-##),4) /$, =)(0.7+ $!233!2<379((4) /=* ;(/:#(9& (,###)()&,7( $!6"!2<8771&+$!6"!2<"79 = +=**. ##)();:# !""&)$ (,),(::) (:$&(,&,: $$;#&( 0$D$’ !""-$,&*( : Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 23 .+ #(#(/:#( ,)* */#( ,)!236!232 7##:)4/,4= /#( ,)$*71#&(#$!236 #+(( ,)*!238!23?’#&E!$!23F!23!236 ’#&*!$!232-F!2<!2<<’#&/!$!2<<- $&E+ :B !""’4)- <3#*/#(#&):$$#(& !22 $#7 ,)/#(##:54)54+)7*#E$E)6$!238$ ##!<74) 7*#E$E3"$!236$# *)$$*$,E(+: ,)!""#*/#(#&)!"? 0#$&!8$!228 //=.+C0=1./.=*=. !""4) 4) /&(&&.( #,( !""&,($ (’&<8(-&,0,:0>) 8’,+ 6!-&&$(’!<(-&, 4?&,!23<!2<!$)&)4$4) ’)!8(( 8 8&&-,5 #%4),(#, !"" , !"",#7 ,)7$&)!28"$,+ ,??(,).&(4)) &&:#(,+#’:#($ (:#($($-$5#% :#,)#$: &$#($99(#,# . !"",)&4(’4-#%&) (:)’-44,!238$ !""&(4#%( #)&,$8""3$"""()#%(6"",) !238##9()!$8""()#!23’*)!228B6- & !""$(# =: ?!/’:)-, #%,&5& ,(#)(,(, !""#%,7()(#) (&&$$##7’*)!228B2- &E ,$&,#:$,$& )#9##,)9# #(%,)$:$( #,)$&#:$,$(&,($9 :#$(#’ !22B!"- &#( !""B#,)$(&)#:$ ,9)#D)#:<"##( ,3:$&$:(& ##(3$8"8,((’!$62"-: D$(’2$<6-$#’$!22-$’$<6-$((’8$<"6-1 ((9(#$#####$((&&’!-$ ,’8-$’!-$+(():’3-’ !22B!-4)5 &,9#/:#(/:5#)#, ,&,)#($"""&!: :’74) 7!236- (( Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 24 (#(#(#(#EEEE 3J#/".&! %$-&+,(%+!3 B$B $B$B$EEEE 1111 EEEE 3#+ )(& # $&$&$&$&EEEE 0% & 60 7 "#:H"#:H"#:H"#:H EEEE )&&% "#,/##"#,/##"#,/##"#,/##EEEE /.$- ,%.H&, (#%%.! %$-&)&&% &C&. +/#+&%/ +&. %/-%. -## &/+&/ .-. /:#%&(#% ./D/& /=#/2 2 (/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E(/,&,#E ,#,#,#,#B$B $B$B$ • #6$-7+#6$-7+#6$-7+#6$-7+ $-&/#+/ &&#&/+#&.#% &#% • ##+##+##+##+ $/#%.#/#&# .&&/#. &#%/#&& • &&&& • 0000 -&.+/#-&..? @D?/&". . • )#%9&:0)#%9&:0)#%9&:0)#%9&:0 3&/+/. /&&.&3 &/&-&& .&##&/# &&..& &/&&/./ &/ ./&/&#% Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 25 2 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 26 < $,*:$ !""*:’+ 8- # !"" *: ./.01+1 #!232&)4#&:# ##&$$( (%,#35#($ &!"5$,&# #,&9,&(, #((##( :(# &!232&)49#& ’:,###9()(&:& #-:(#)#9 #&&&&$)($( ,,)=&# <5&)85#&,## ’)?5&)85-.#&,$#25&) 35&,&,##&)(# &#(#&:#&# $,($&(&$#&# 4!232&)4.#’#,2 (:-,,&#,# &:&(,)!67&$( $(!?5$:# ,,#,# #,,),,$:#: ’(:-#&&)(#:,( ,,(:::(!2?6,9 (#(& !"",& .0!232&)4. &(&):,&&$( (&&,:#,( ,.:## ,&)#’& !6"5(-,(&&,,, !"5&$(#,&((#$ (#, ((:(#(&&, ,(#&,5& 5:##:,,##,,$ ,#$,:$ , Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 27 @ ##,:,&)(:$ $&,#(#!2?6&)9(#( & !""*:,#’*)!232 #=>($##!3$!8- = ./+1./..0 $(,#9(*:, !"",)#,##9() #$&:#$$!!#&$# #5:,’9-#, (#&)::’#&&),##-, ,)#:,,)9(#,$ # 9(#(& !""*:, !2?6#: !"",): *::$#5 #,(’($(#$#$-&’ -$9,)& ,(:,#, !"" .0 & !"" *:’+ 8-&,&) !""F&) !"" ,)F&)*:8826’&!232-*:: !""F&),)&(# !""$ 9(#(& !""*:$:,), .0A ##:&):&#$9#::% ,,&:,)###9()9# &$#$$$ ,,):&(:’(#&#,##)(:!2?6 ’ !22B!3-- !2?6$9(#(& !""*:,&# ,#(#$, ,(:$::,,(, :,))$$($,(#$$ )&(#(&)(:() .+ ##(:(# #&#,($&(&$ #&#,:, =++C0=1./ $,*:$,&!232&)4 (’4-# !""’!""!3"38"- #,(#&)*)!232#8826# *:’+ 8-: !"",&!232 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 28 45 !"",#%# !"")#’( ((-#,# ?(#%’38"()!""!3"3-# (#7+/:.43!GG!36!366!327 ,&).,,+#*/# ( ,)!23")!2<".# #74)7# !"", ,)#(5!236#(#(/:#(& #(5:#( !""B *##(&&: )###:&#:: #&,)()#%))# #;##,&$#$, #,,),( #&:#(’#!236-:# !"",*@/= /:#(:):# &,)## !""(B 0 0 D ,# !"":&(B 9:’ !""9:- 0,:’ !""0,:- :),## !""B !""+:’8<<- !"" 884 (&,(( >=1 =>4 !"?:,,&!223,## !""’ =23"!3"$2<3?"$26"3"?-# !"" &(&)* )&&. 4) /&,)$,&$# $#:):( !""&, ’ -8":.’-,!22<!22$##*(( (’*=-&, 4$ =$+ $ =,!22 !22*=#,B(#%’&,0,:. 8":.-#(.&#:#( :#) !"" Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 29 A (#%’&,&0,:. 4-:)% !""#!2<$#( .&#(,’#!226-$:) &(#,#,,)( !"?:,’ =:,(&23"!3"$2<3?"$26"3"?-*=$: (#$:#’#()#&)*)!228 !22- *.=0.+.+ ,&!232&)43##:) ,&&)’#:&&&)-4( ?"##:),&)$&$. ,))::)#&$),## &:#$),: &,&#5 #% !""’74)7-!23<!2<! 4),/:#(/:5$(,#&D$(:&$ #%##)&:,97/:#(* ,)$!2"!2?"7(($#&:$##) .=./>/1A0.9) ,:$##),4) /$, =) (0.7+$!233!2<37 9((4) /=*;( /:#(9&(,# ((&4) /$##)(), 71&+$!6"!2<"77($!6"!2<879 = +=**. ##)();:# !""&)$(,),(::) !""9(#(&) (&:#&(0$ D$’ !""-$,&*( :&:#(#0 .+ #(#(/:#( ,) **/#( ,)!236!232 7##:)4/,4= /#( ,)$*71#&(#$!236 #+(( ,)*!238!23?’#&E!$ !23F!23!236’#&*!$!232-F!2<!2<<’#&/!$!2<<- (&$’* -/*’*@/=-E)!2$!223 $&E+ :B !"" ’4)-<3#*/#(#&): $$#(&!22 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 30 $#7 ,)/#(##:54)54+)7*# E$E)6$!238$##!< 74) 7*#E$E3"$!236$# *)$$*$,E(+ : ,)!""#*/#( #&)!"?0#$&!8$!228 .$$(#&(/:#(%:&(## /:#(/:$*/#( ,)+!23!2<! =$ $(# **<:#&) /:#(/:$*/#( ,)+!2<$#!28< //=.+C0=1./.=*=. !""4) 4) /&(&&. (#,( !""& ,($(’&<8(-&,0, :0>) 8’,+ 6!-&&$(’!<( -&, 4?&&, !23<!2<!$)&)4$4)’)!8(( 8 8&&-,5#%4),( #, !"", !"",#7 ,)7$&)!28"$,+,??(,).& (4))&&:#(,+ #’:#($(:#($($-$ 5#%:# ,)#$:&$#($9 9(#,#. !"",)&4( ’4-#%&)(:)’-44,!238$ !""&(4#%(#)&,$8""3$"""() #%(6"",)!238##9()!$8""()# !23’*)!228B6-& !""$(# =: ?!/ ’:)-,#%,& 5&,(#)(,(, !""#% ,7()(#)(&&$$# #7’* &E ,$&,#:$ ,$&)#9##,)9# #(%,)$:$( #,)$&#:$,$(&, ($9:#$(#’ !22B!"- &# ( !""B#,)$(&)#: $,9)#D)#:<"##( ,3:$&$:(& ##(3$8"8,((’!$62"-: D$(’2$<6-$#’$!22-$’$<6-$((’8$<"6-1 ((9(#$#####$((&&’!-$, ’8-$’!-$!22B!-4)5& ,9#/:#(5#)#,, &,)#($"""&!: :’74) (( Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 31 Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 8) Subject: Beehive Relocation Page 32 Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 9 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: Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is required at this time. This is a written report to provide Council with information to consider prior to taking action at the Council Meeting on December 17, 2007. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Are sufficient fund balances being maintained in each fund to have adequate reserves and be able to fund all desired projects? BACKGROUND: Equity Transfers As of December 31, 2006, the General Fund balance was $9,952,115. This was an increase of $1,212,022 over 2005. The State Auditor recommends a balance between 35-50% of the next year’s expenditures. While not a formal policy, staff has targeted at least a fund balance of 40%. The expenditure budget for 2008, as presented at the Truth-in-Taxation meeting, totals $22,907,927 for the General Fund. 40% of that amount is $9,163,170. The difference between the 40% target and our actual total of $9,952,115 leaves us with about $785,000 available for transfer at this time. The Employee Flexible Spending Fund covers expenses such as workers compensation, tuition reimbursement, unemployment, and other employee benefits. The funding source for these expenses has been a transfer from the General Fund. The most recent transfer was done in 2005 in the amount of $200,000. At the beginning of 2007, this fund had a negative cash balance of $189,978. At this time, the fund has a deficit balance of $325,600. A transfer of $350,000 is recommended to this fund. Each year, all fund balances are evaluated to determine if they are adequate to meet the current year’s obligations as well as future years. At the October 22, 2007 Study Session, two funds, the Municipal Building Fund and Technology Replacement Fund, were identified as having a projected deficit within the next one to two years. The Municipal Building Fund has no dedicated annual funding source at this time. Its purpose is to fund all capital improvements to City facilities. While it will maintain a positive fund balance through December 31, 2007, it is projected that the Municipal Building Fund will have a deficit of approximately $335,000 by the end of 2008 if all proposed projects are completed. A transfer of $350,000 from the General Fund to the Municipal Building Fund would keep the fund in a positive position until 2009. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 9) Page 2 Subject: Fund Equity Transfers and Fund Closings Another fund that will be experiencing a deficit is the Technology Replacement Fund. This fund also has no dedicated annual funding source, with limited revenues coming in from charges to the Housing Authority, EDA, and Enterprise Funds. It consistently is projected to have large deficits each year through 2012, which will erode the current fund balance into a negative position by 2009. A transfer of $85,000 from the General Fund to the Technology Replacement Fund would keep the fund in a positive position to cover planned expenses to 2009. Fund Closings The Finance Department has identified a number of funds that are no longer necessary. We would like the City Council to take formal action to close them and transfer their balances. The funds are: Fund Number Name Estimated Balance as of 12/31/06 Disposition 4150 1999 GO Improvement Cap Proj $0 Close 4290 Hutchinson Trail Construction $0 Close 4450 2003 GO Improvement Cap Proj $0 Close 4240 Louisiana Court Improvement $1,064 Xfer to Housing Rehab 4470 2005A GO Bond Cap Proj $481,628 Xfer to Debt Service Fund 3810 1997A GO TIF Bond $230,529 Xfer to Refunding Bond 3200 1996 GO TIF Bond $700,927 Xfer to Refunding Bond These funds will be able to be closed with the audit for 2007. We will not have to report on them in future years. Staff will verify with bond counsel that we no longer need to keep the Louisiana Court fund as a separate capital projects fund since the remodeling expenditures are completed. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the December 17, 2007 Council Meeting, a resolution will be proposed to authorize the recommended transfers and fund closing. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Meeting Date: December 10, 2007 Agenda Item #: 10 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: Update on Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty. RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action requested at this time. However, if the City Council/EDA has questions on the content of this report, please pass them on to staff at your earliest convenience. This matter is scheduled to be brought to the City Council/EDA for formal action on December 17. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA/City Council support the financial terms proposed for inclusion within the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty to facilitate The West End project? BACKGROUND: At the November 26th Study Session Duke Realty and its retail partner Jeffrey R. Anderson Real Estate provided the city with an update on The West End project and reviewed the latest proposed Master Site Plan, which was favorably received. In addition, staff summarized the status of the proposed financial terms to be incorporated in the Redevelopment Contract to facilitate the project. While the proposed terms were likewise favorably received staff was encouraged to find a way to make the project financially work with 20 years worth of tax increment assistance. For nearly a year staff has been working with Duke representatives to arrive at a level of financial assistance that is both appropriate and consistent with City policies and past practices. Recently, an assistance package was negotiated that appears to be financially feasible. In order to offset the extraordinary costs associated with redeveloping the Duke Property, it is proposed that the EDA and City provide the Redeveloper with $21.1 million in tax increment and a reduction of $900,000 in Parkland Dedication fees (approximately half the required amount) in recognition of the public gathering places to be provided by the Redeveloper. These TIF funds would be used to reimburse the Redeveloper for a portion of the public improvement costs incurred while constructing the project. In addition the city would issue two general obligation TIF Bonds totaling $5 million to finance necessary public improvements to Park Place Boulevard. These TIF Bonds would be reimbursed with the first tax increment dollars received from the recently approved West End TIF District. Structuring the assistance in this way saves the project financing costs and allows all the tax increment to be generated over a 20-year period. The city’s total participation, not to exceed $27 million, would leverage approximately $375 million in new private investment. As a percentage of total project costs the proposed amount of financial assistance is less than 7.5%. This is reasonable in light of the assistance required by other redevelopment projects previously assisted by the city. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 2 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update Given the substantial size of the proposed West End project (approximately 1.5 million square feet of new office, hotel and retail space), Duke Realty will incur substantial extraordinary development expenses (building demolition, soil corrections, and utility relocations). In addition, significant infrastructure improvements (i.e. roadways, intersection improvements, medians, pedestrian connections, parking ramps and various utility work) will be required in order for the project to proceed. While Duke is responsible for the majority of these components, the project is not financially feasible without some public assistance to offset a portion of these extraordinary costs. Duke’s request for tax increment financing (TIF) assistance is considered reasonable given the complexity, quality, projected total value, and other residual economic benefits derived from the proposed West End redevelopment. REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT: Duke Realty’s proposed project plans and request for financial assistance have been presented and/or discussed at over six study sessions this past year. A list of specific business points was discussed at several of the study sessions and was favorably received. These terms served as the basis for a Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty, which is in the final stages of completion. It is anticipated that the Contract will be presented for formal consideration December 17th. An abridgement of the proposed Redevelopment Contract as completed to date is attached. This abridgement is subject to final revision due to ongoing negotiations with the Redeveloper. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: It is proposed that $26.1 million in tax increment and a reduction of $900,000 in Parkland Dedication fees be provided to offset the extraordinary redevelopment costs associated with The West End commercial project. VISION CONSIDERATION: This project supports the strategic direction of being a connected and engaged community and the focus area of creating community gathering places. Attachment: Abridgement of the Redevelopment Contract with Duke Realty Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 3 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update December 6, 2007 ABRIDGEMENT Redevelopment Contract between City of St. Louis Park, St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority Duke Realty Limited Partnership The West End Development SW Corner I-394 & Highway 100 St. Louis Park, MN Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 4 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update ABRIDGEMENT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT FOR THE WEST END REDEVELOPMENT The following is an abridgement of the Redevelopment Contract (“Agreement”) negotiated to date between the City of St. Louis Park (“City”) and the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“EDA”) and Duke Realty Limited Partnership, an Indiana limited partnership (“Redeveloper”), for the “West End Property” (SW quadrant of I-394 and Highway 100, St. Louis Park). The Agreement and this Abridgement are subject to further revision due to ongoing negotiations with the Redeveloper. The Agreement is in addition and in conjunction with the Preliminary Development Agreement between the above parties dated May 21, 2007 and amended September 4, 2007. The Redevelopment Property. The Redeveloper will prepare and obtain City approval of a planned unit development (“PUD”) and Plat of the Redevelopment Property (and the Golden Valley Property, to the extent the City has jurisdiction over such matters under the JPA), at Redeveloper’s cost and subject to all City ordinances and procedures. The Plat and PUD must be consistent with the Master Site Plan. In the Plat, the Redeveloper must dedicate to the City all public rights of way and utility easements. Environmental Conditions. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the EDA makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the soils or the buildings or structures on the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property or the fitness of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property for construction of the Minimum Improvements and that the assistance provided to the Redeveloper under the Agreement neither implies any responsibility by the EDA for any contamination of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property nor imposes any obligation on such parties to participate in any cleanup of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property. The Redeveloper will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the EDA, the City, and their governing body members, officers, and employees, from any claims or actions arising out of the presence, if any, of hazardous wastes or pollutants existing on or in the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, unless and to the extent that such hazardous wastes or pollutants are present as a result of the actions or omissions of the indemnities. Relocation. Upon or before commencement of construction of the Minimum Improvements, Redeveloper must deliver to the EDA a written relocation waiver agreement. The Redeveloper will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the EDA and its governing body members, etc from any and all claims for benefits or payments arising out of the relocation or displacement of any person from any Parcels of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property as a result of the implementation of the Agreement. Payment of Administrative Costs. Until the Termination Date, the Redeveloper is responsible to pay all reasonable out of pocket costs for legal and financial advising services incurred by the EDA that are incurred in connection with the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement and other documents and agreements in connection with the development contemplated hereunder and including all costs related to the creation of the TIF District. (collectively, “Administrative Costs”). Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 5 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update Business Subsidy. The parties agree and understand that the financial assistance described in the Agreement does not constitute a business subsidy within the meaning of the Business Subsidy Act. The Redeveloper releases and waives any claim against the EDA and its governing body members, etc arising from application of the Business Subsidy Act to the Agreement, including any claim that the EDA failed to comply with the Business Subsidy Act with respect to the Agreement. Construction of Improvements. The Redeveloper agrees that it will construct or cause construction of Phases I, IIA, IIB and IIC of the Minimum Improvements and the Redeveloper Public Improvements on the Redevelopment Property and/or the Golden Valley Property. Subject to market conditions and financing availability, it will construct or cause the construction of Phase III of the Minimum Improvements on the Redevelopment Property or the Golden Valley Property. All construction will be substantially in accordance with the Master Site Plan and approved Construction Plans. The Redeveloper agrees that it will, at all times, while Redeveloper owns any Phase and through the Maturity Date operate and maintain, preserve and keep each Phase of the Minimum Improvements in good repair and condition. The EDA and the City will have no obligation to operate or maintain the Minimum Improvements, except as otherwise provided in the Agreement. Minimum Improvements. The Minimum Improvements consist of the following constructed in phases, located as shown on the Master Site Plan: Phase I: Demolition of all buildings on the Redevelopment Property (except the two existing restaurants on the Parcel at 5245 Wayzata Boulevard) and on the Golden Valley Property; public utility relocation and construction work under Utica Avenue and 16th Street; soil correction and earthwork for the entire Redevelopment Property; and the construction of 16th Street between Park Place Blvd to Utica Avenue and Utica Avenue north to Wayzata Blvd. Phase IIA: Approximately 350,000 square feet of retail, entertainment, and restaurants; approximately 28,000 square feet of second story office space, certain public space and all related parking structures; and the construction of West End Boulevard as a private road; Phase IIB: Approximately 277,555 square feet of class A office space and space for related uses in one office building to be located on the eastern portion of the Redevelopment Property along with site improvements and structured or surface parking as required. Parking facilities for Phase IIB are currently expected to be constructed on the Golden Valley Property, Phase IIC: a 130 to 140-room hotel. Phase III: Approximately 833,000 square feet of class A office space in addition to Phase IIB, to be located in two or three office buildings to be located adjacent to, integrated with and to share parking with Phase IIB. Parking facilities for Phase III are currently expected to be constructed on the Golden Valley Property. Phase III may be further staged in additional phases to accommodate the need to meet changing market conditions and financing availability. Additional Covenants. In addition to any other requirements of the Agreement, the Minimum Improvements must substantially comply with the Master Site Plan and must meet the following specifications: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 6 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update (1) The Redeveloper shall use commercially reasonable efforts to obtain Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (“LEED”) core and shell certification for all office buildings and must construct all office developments in Phases IIB and III in accordance with LEED standards in effect as of November 19, 2007. As a condition to issuance of a Certificate of Completion for a subject Phase, Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA either (a) evidence of LEED certification or (b) in absence of actual certification, evidence that construction complied with LEED standards in effect as of November 19, 2007. (2) The Redeveloper shall use commercially reasonable efforts to incorporate LEED core and shell design elements for the retail elements of Phase IIA. Such design elements shall be identified and articulated in a report to the EDA upon construction completion, and as a condition for issuance of the Certificate of Completion for that Phase. (3) The Redeveloper agrees to provide outdoor gathering places in Phases IIA, IIB, and III, as generally shown on the Master Site Plan. The outdoor gathering places shall include parks, plazas, town greens, or other open space available for use by the general public and incorporating features such as fountains, space for public art, street furnishings, special lighting or other public amenities. Such spaces will be privately owned, controlled and managed but available for use by the public, subject to such protocols and scheduling as mutually agreed by the Redeveloper and the city. (4) The Redeveloper agrees to provide at least one indoor public gathering place in Phase IIA of approximately 5,000 square feet, as generally shown on the Master Site Plan. Part of this space will include a separate meeting room of approximately 750 square feet for use by the public. Such space will be privately owned, controlled and managed but available for use by the public. (5) The Redeveloper shall provide pedestrian connections throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, in accordance with the Master Site Plan. (6) The Redeveloper shall provide a public pedestrian/bicycle connection through the structured parking in Phase IIB or III that joins Wayzata Boulevard and Utica Avenue. (7) The Redeveloper shall accommodate public transit throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property, in accordance with the Master Site Plan. (8) The Redeveloper shall accommodate public art throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property; provided that Redeveloper shall not be responsible to pay for the acquisition, installation, removal, security, insurance or other display costs of such public art. (9) The Redeveloper shall accommodate wireless communication construction and cabling by the City throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 7 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update Property. Except for contribution of easements, installation of wireless communication shall be at no cost to Redeveloper. (10) The Redeveloper agrees to provide to the City, without charge, approximately 250 square feet of finished space for use as a neighborhood City police station. The police station must be located within Phase IIA at a site approved by the City. The Redeveloper must accommodate the security and communication requirements identified in the specifications provided by the City. Upon completion, the Redeveloper must operate and maintain the facility at Redeveloper’s cost, including cleaning, heat and electricity (11) The Redeveloper agrees to construct a public restroom for men and for women, or two uni-sex bathrooms, located within Phase IIA at a site and with amenities mutually agreed by the Redeveloper and the City. The area of the public restroom will be part of the 5,000 square foot public space identified in Item 3 above. Upon completion, the Redeveloper must operate and maintain the public restroom at Redeveloper’s cost. Master Site Plan; Phasing Plans and Construction Plans. The parties agree that the Master Site Plan may be refined and modified as part of the review and approval process for the PUD, and that upon City approval of the preliminary PUD for the entire Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property (and the final PUD for each Phase), the preliminary or final PUD will supersede the Master Site Plan. Any changes to any preliminary or final PUD after approval by the City will be processed according to City codes and procedures Construction Plans. Before commencement of construction of any Phase of the Minimum Improvements, the Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA Construction Plans for that Phase. The Construction Plans shall provide for the construction of the relevant improvements for the respective Phase and shall be in material conformity with the Redevelopment Plan, the PUD, the Master Site Plan, the Agreement, and all applicable State and local laws and regulations. The EDA’s approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Change in Construction Plans. If the Redeveloper desires to make any Material Change in the Construction Plans after their approval by the EDA, the Redeveloper shall submit the proposed change to the EDA for its approval. Commencement and Completion of Construction. The Redeveloper agrees to promptly begin and diligently proceed to completion the development of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property through the construction of the Minimum Improvements and that such construction shall in any event be commenced and completed within the period specified below: Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 8 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update Phase Required Commencement Date Required Completion Date Phase I December 18, 2007 September 30,2009 Phase IIA July 1, 2008 June 1, 2010 Phases IIB & IIC March 1, 2009 December 31, 2011 Phase III June 1, 2011 June 1, 2016 Minimum Improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays the Redeveloper shall commence construction of each Phase of the Minimum Improvements by the Required Commencement Date, and shall substantially complete construction of each Phase by the Required Completion Date, all as shown above. All work with respect to the Minimum Improvements to be constructed by the Redeveloper shall be in substantial conformity with the Construction Plans as submitted by the Redeveloper and approved by the EDA. If the Redeveloper anticipates that the timetable for any Phase will not be met, Redeveloper shall provide a written and oral presentation to the City Council of the City at a regular City Council meeting prior to the relevant Required Commencement Date or Completion Date. The parties understand that the schedule for construction of Phase III is subject to market conditions and financing availability existing at the time of construction and execution in full of a JPA. The Redeveloper agrees to use its commercially reasonable efforts to commence and complete construction Phase III by the specified Commencement and Completion Dates. Failure to commence or complete construction of Phase III by those dates is not an Event of Default under the Agreement, provided that failure to comply with the reporting requirement remains an Event of Default. Public Improvements: Redeveloper Public Improvements Streets and Utilities: The Redeveloper shall prepare plans and specifications for and construct (at its sole cost and expense) all roads, sewer, water, storm sewer, traffic improvements located within the right of way related to: 1. West 16th Street extended east from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. 2. Utica Avenue extended starting from its current alignment north to Wayzata Boulevard as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. 3. West End Boulevard as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. 4. Improvements to the T-intersection along Wayzata Blvd in Golden Valley (presuming the JPA is in full force and effect). 5. Traffic calming improvements along Wayzata Blvd in Golden Valley (presuming the JPA is in full force and effect). Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 9 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update All improvements must include the lane configurations as recommended in the AUAR. The Redeveloper shall insure that its plans accommodate public bus stops and bus layover facilities throughout the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property substantially in accordance with the Master Site Plan. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, and issuance of all applicable permits by the City, Redeveloper agrees to substantially complete construction of the above Redeveloper Public Improvements by September 30, 2009. Streetscape: The Redeveloper shall construct (at its sole cost and expense) all streetscape improvements (including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscaping, streetlights and other related amenities) located within the right of way of: 1. The east side of Park Place Boulevard between Gamble Drive and the north end of the Redevelopment Property as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. 2. The north side of Gamble Drive as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. The Redeveloper shall prepare construction plans and specifications for and construct (at its sole cost and expense) all streetscape improvements (including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscaping, streetlights and other related amenities) located within the right of way of: 1. West 16th Street extended east from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. The Redeveloper shall prepare concept plans, construction plans and specifications for and construct (at its sole cost and expense) all streetscape improvements (including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscaping, streetlights and other related amenities) located within the right of way of: 1. Utica Avenue extended (both sides) starting from its current alignment north to Wayzata Boulevard as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. Before commencing such construction, the Redeveloper must submit plans and specifications regarding the Redeveloper Public Improvements for approval by the City substantially in accordance with procedures for Construction Plans. All work on the Redeveloper Public Improvements shall be in accordance with the approved construction plans and shall comply with all City requirements regarding such improvements. The parties agree and understand that the City will accept the improvements in accordance with City procedures and the Planning Contract. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, and issuance of all applicable permits by the City, Redeveloper agrees to substantially complete construction of the above Redeveloper Public Improvements by June 1, 2010. Redeveloper shall pay all costs of Redeveloper Public Improvements. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 10 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update Public Improvements constructed by the Redeveloper will be considered substantially complete upon acceptance of the relevant improvement by the City. Redeveloper must guaranty, or cause contractors to guaranty for the benefit of the City, all Public Improvements constructed by Redeveloper for at least one year (except underground utilities which shall be two years) after substantial completion of the relevant improvement Public Improvements: City Public Improvements Streets and Utilities: The City shall prepare plans and specifications for, and cause the reconstruction of Park Place Boulevard generally between Gamble Drive and I-394 (generally as shown on the Public Improvements Plan) including all road, sewer, water, storm sewer, and traffic signal improvements located within the right of way at its sole cost and expense. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the City agrees to substantially complete construction of the above Park Place Boulevard Street Improvements by September 30, 2009. Streetscape: The City shall prepare shall prepare concept plans, construction plans and specifications for and construct (at its sole cost and expense) all streetscape improvements (including, but not limited to, sidewalks, landscaping, streetlights, and other related amenities) located within the right of way of: 1. The west side and median of Park Place Blvd between Gamble Drive and I-394 and on the east side of Park Place Blvd north of the Redevelopment Property as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. 2. The south side and median of Gamble Drive as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. The City shall prepare concept plans (at its sole cost and expense) for all streetscape improvements located within the right of way of West 16th Street extended east from Park Place Boulevard to Utica Avenue South as generally shown on the Public Improvements Plan. The City shall construct the City Public Improvements in accordance with the construction plans and all City procedures for such improvements. Subject to Unavoidable Delays, the City agrees to substantially complete construction of the above City Public Improvements by June 1, 2010. Neither the Redeveloper nor the Redevelopment Property shall be assessed or otherwise charged for the initial construction or installation of the City Public Improvements. The City is responsible for the cost of all City Public Improvements (which are expected to be financed primarily through issuance of two TIF Bonds) with the exception of the cost of the Park Place Blvd matching grade changes for which the Redeveloper agrees to reimburse the city $250,000. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 11 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update Certificate of Completion. Promptly after substantial completion of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with those provisions of the Agreement relating solely to the obligations of the Redeveloper to construct the Minimum Improvements or relevant Phase the EDA Representative will furnish the Redeveloper with a Certificate of Completion. Reports. The Redeveloper must submit to the EDA a written report at least quarterly, starting with the commencement of Phase I and continuing until issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the final Phase of the Minimum Improvements. The report must describe progress on construction of the Minimum Improvements and Public Improvements as well as progress on leasing the commercial and office space within the project. The Redeveloper agrees to provide a report to the EDA annually and continuing until issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the final Phase of the Minimum Improvements which describes the cumulative number of full time equivalent (FTE) employees created on the Redevelopment Property. The EDA will provide to Redeveloper, upon request from time to time, written reports regarding the amounts of Available Tax Increment and other matters related to the activities of the City and EDA under this Agreement. Maintenance Requirements. The parties agree that, as a condition to issuance of the Certificate of Completion for each Phase, the Redeveloper and City shall execute a reciprocal easement and maintenance agreement (“REMA”) that assigns those parties’ respective responsibilities regarding maintenance, repairs, and cost of such activities, related to the subject Phase. The City and Redeveloper agree that the REMA will be based on the following principles. (a) The City will have primary responsibility for maintenance and snow removal relative to the public streets within and around the Redevelopment Property. (b) The Redeveloper will have primary responsibility for maintenance and snow removal relative to the private streets and alleys within the Redevelopment Property. (c) The City will have primary responsibility for maintenance and snow removal relative to the streetscape along the west side and median of Park Place Blvd between Gamble Drive and I 394 as well as along the south side and median of Gamble Drive. (d) The Redeveloper will generallly have primary responsibility for maintenance and snow removal relative to the streescape within and around the Redevelopment Property including the medians on West 16th Street and Utica Avenue. Taxes. The Redeveloper acknowledges that the EDA is providing substantial aid and assistance in furtherance of the redevelopment described in the agreement through issuance of the TIF Bonds and the Initial Notes. The Redeveloper understands that the Tax Increments pledged to the TIF Bonds and Initial Notes are derived from real estate taxes on the Redevelopment Property, which taxes must be promptly and timely paid. To that end, until the Termination Date the Redeveloper agrees for itself, its successors and assigns, in addition to the obligation pursuant to statute to pay real Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 12 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update estate taxes, it is also obligated e to pay all real estate taxes assessed against the Redevelopment Property and the Minimum Improvements. Reduction of Taxes. The Redeveloper agrees that prior to completion of the Minimum Improvements, it will not cause a reduction in the real property taxes paid in respect of the Redevelopment Property. Assessment Agreements. Before issuance of any TIF Bonds and any Initial Notes, the Redeveloper shall, with the EDA, execute Assessment Agreements specifying an assessor’s minimum market value for the Minimum Improvements or Phases together with the Parcel on which they are constructed. The amount of minimum market value for each agreement will be mutually determined by the parties based upon final Construction Plans. However, Assessment Agreements and aggregate minimum market values must be in effect by the specified completion dates. The Assessment Agreements will terminate as of the Termination Date. Redeveloper Financing. Before commencement of any Phase, Redeveloper shall submit to the EDA evidence of one or more commitments for financing which is sufficient for the construction of that Phase of the Minimum Improvements. Approval of the Redeveloper’s financing will not be unreasonably withheld. Subordination. In order to facilitate the Redeveloper obtaining external financing for the development of the Minimum Improvements, the EDA agrees to subordinate its rights under the Agreement to the Holder of any Mortgage, provided that the EDA will not subordinate the EDA’s rights under any Assessment Agreement, or the City’s rights under any maintenance agreement. EDA Financing Generally. In order to offset the extraordinary costs associated with development the Redevelopment Property, the EDA and City will provide the financial assistance which consists of the following elements: financing of City Public Improvements undertaken by the City through issuance of TIF Bonds financing of Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by Redeveloper through issuance of Initial Notes (and potentially Refinancing Notes) and a reduction of park dedication fees. The aggregate principal amount of assistance from all sources will not exceed $27,000,000, and the aggregate principal amount of the TIF Bonds and Initial Notes, combined, will not exceed $26,100,000 City Public Improvements. The City and EDA will finance the cost of the City Public Improvements through issuance by the City of general obligation bonds secured by The West End Tax Increments and a pledge of the City’s full faith and credit. Bonds that produce net proceeds (after deducting costs of issuance, discount and capitalized interest) in the amount of $4,500,000 will be primarily secured by Available Tax Increments from all property in the TIF District. Such bonds are referred to as “Senior TIF Bonds.” The City may also issue a bond for approximately $500,000 primarily secured in whole or in part by any portion of the five (5) percent of Tax Increments that are withheld by the EDA as Administration Fee. Senior TIF Bonds and Discretionary TIF Bonds are referred to together as “TIF Bonds.” Conditions. The City’s obligation to issue any Senior TIF Bonds is conditioned upon execution of Assessment Agreements specifying minimum market values sufficient to produce Available Tax Increments in the amount necessary to pay 120% of debt service on the Senior TIF Bonds, all as Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 13 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update determined by the EDA and its financial advisor based on tax rates and class rates in effect at the time of calculation. Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other Public Redevelopment Costs. Initial Notes--Generally. The EDA will reimburse the Redeveloper for Redeveloper Public Improvements and Other Public Redevelopment Costs incurred by the Redeveloper, through issuance of one or more Initial Notes in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The EDA will issue the Initial Notes in series, with one Initial Note primarily secured by Available Tax Increment generated by Phases IIA, IIB and IIC and generated by all other property within the TIF District; and a second Initial Note primarily secured by Available Tax Increment from Phase III. All Initial Notes are subordinate to any outstanding TIF Bonds. Principal Amount. The Initial Notes shall be issued in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $21,100,000. The principal amount of any individual Initial Note will be the net present value of the projected Available Tax Increment attributable to the relevant Phase provided that Initial Notes will be issued separately to reimburse Redeveloper Public Improvements (which constitute public infrastructure) and Other Public Redevelopment Costs (which constitute private improvements). The obligation to deliver each Initial Note is conditioned upon (1) the Redeveloper having delivered to the EDA an investment letter for the Initial Note in a form reasonably satisfactory to the EDA; (2) there being no uncured Event of Default by the Redeveloper under the Agreement with respect to the relevant Phase. Terms. Each Initial Note will bear interest at a rate of 6.75% percent and will be paid in semi- annual installments on each February 1 and August 1, commencing with the first August 1 after Available Tax Increment is anticipated to be received from the subject Phase and concluding no later than (i) February 1 of the year following the 20th year after the year of the first installment payment or (ii) February 1 of the year following the last calendar year in which the EDA receives Tax Increment from the TIF District, whichever date occurs first. Five Year Rule. If Principal Advances for the maximum principal amount of the Initial Notes have not been entered on the Principal Advance Ledger within five years after the date of certification of the TIF District by the County, no additional Principal Advances will be made and the EDA has no further obligation with respect to such un-registered amounts. Qualifications. The Redeveloper understands and acknowledges that the EDA makes no representations or warranties regarding the amount of Available Tax Increment, or that revenues pledged to the Initial Notes will be sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the Initial Notes. Redeveloper expressly acknowledges that estimates of Tax Increment prepared by the EDA or its financial advisors in connection with the TIF District or this Agreement are for the benefit of the EDA, and are not intended as representations on which the Redeveloper may rely. If the Redeveloper Public Improvements costs or Other Public Redevelopment Costs exceed the maximum principal amount of the Initial Notes, such excess is the sole responsibility of Redeveloper. Issuance of Refunding Notes. Upon the Redeveloper’s request, the EDA will refinance the outstanding principal amount of any Initial Note by issuing one or more tax increment revenue notes or bonds (the "Refunding Notes") to one or more third parties. The Refunding Notes may Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 14 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update be issued in one or more series, or in series over time. Refunding Notes will be secured solely by Available Tax Increment. Redeveloper shall be solely responsible for securing buyer(s) for the Refunding Notes. Tax Status; Redeveloper Guaranty. Refunding Notes may be additionally secured by a guaranty of Redeveloper or other credit enhancement (a “Redeveloper Guaranty”). If a Refunding Note refinances an Initial Note related to Redeveloper Public Improvements, the Refunding Note will be issued on a tax-exempt basis to the extent possible as determined by the EDA’s bond counsel. If a Refunding Note refinances an Initial Note related to Other Public Redevelopment Costs, the Refunding Note will be issued on a taxable basis (if secured by a Redeveloper Guaranty) or on a tax-exempt basis (if not secured by a Redeveloper Guaranty and subject to bond counsel’s determination regarding the ability to issue such obligation on a tax-exempt basis). The parties will negotiate in good faith regarding the relative merits of a tax-exempt and taxable Refunding Notes related to Other Public Redevelopment Costs, provided that the EDA shall be entitled to make the decision regarding tax status of such Refunding Notes. TIF Lookback. Upon the Calculation Date for Phase IIA and IIB and each office facility in Phase III, the Redeveloper must deliver to the EDA evidence of its Yield on Total Project Costs for the subject Phase or facility calculated as of the Calculation Date, determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Redeveloper agrees to provide to the EDA’s consultant any background documentation related to the financial data, upon request. The amount by which the Yield on Total Project Costs exceeds 15% is a percentage referred to as “Excess Percentage.” The Excess Percentage, multiplied by Redeveloper’s Total Project Costs, is the “Excess Amount.” On the Calculation Date, 50% of the Excess Amount will be applied to reduce the outstanding principal amount of the Initial Note related to the subject Phase or facility, or applied to reduce the principal amount of a Refunding Note prior to such Refunding Note being issued. Definitions. the above terms have the following definitions: “Calculation Date” means 60 days after the earliest of (i) the date of Stabilization for a Phase or facility; (ii) the date of any Transfer in whole or in part of the subject Phase or facility; or (iii) three years after the date of issuance of the Certificate of Completion for the Phase or subject facility. “Net Operating Income” means all rental income from the subject Phase or facility less (i) an allowance for 5% vacancy (ii) non-reimbursable expenses associated with the 5% vacancy (e.g., common area maintenance charges, taxes, and insurance allocated to the 5% vacancy area); and (iii) a structural reserve in the amount of $.10 per square foot of the subject Phase or facility. “Stabilization” means 95% of leaseable space in the subject Phase or facility is leased. “Total Project Costs” means all costs incurred by Redeveloper in connection with the subject Phase or facility, including allocated costs of land and related soft costs, net of the principal amount of any Initial Notes allocable to the subject Phase or facility and proceeds from sale of any undeveloped portion of the Redevelopment Property allocable Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 15 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update to the subject Phase or facility, such allocations to be pro rata based on the square footage of the subject Phase or facility as a share of the total square footage of Minimum Improvements under the Master Site Plan. “Yield on Total Project Costs” means Net Operating Income divided by Total Project Costs. Fee Reductions. In addition to other assistance provided to the Redeveloper, the City will accept dedication of the public spaces in the development as partial satisfaction of the park dedication fee under City ordinances and will reduce the required park dedication fee by $900,000. Prohibition Against Redeveloper’s Transfer of Property and Assignment of Agreement. If the Redeveloper seeks to affect a Transfer, the EDA shall be entitled to require as conditions to such Transfer that: (1) Any proposed transferee shall have the qualifications and financial responsibility, in the reasonable judgment of the EDA, necessary and adequate to fulfill the obligations undertaken in this Agreement by the Redeveloper as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property to be transferred; and (2) Any proposed transferee, shall, for itself and its successors and assigns, have expressly assumed all of the obligations of the Redeveloper under the Agreement as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property to be transferred and agreed to be subject to all the conditions and restrictions to which the Redeveloper is subject. (3) Any and all instruments and other legal documents involved in effecting the transfer of any interest in this Agreement or the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property governed by this Article VIII, shall be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the EDA. If the conditions described above are satisfied, then the Transfer will be approved and the Redeveloper shall be released from its obligation under the Agreement, as to the portion of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property that is transferred, assigned, or otherwise conveyed, unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. The EDA will review and respond to a request for Transfer within 30 days after receipt of a written request. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, any Transfer that releases the Redeveloper from its obligations under this Agreement (or any portion thereof) shall be approved by the EDA’s Board of Commissioners. The parties agree and understand that as of the date of this Agreement Redeveloper has conveyed a portion of the Redevelopment Property on which Phase IIA is to be developed to AD West End, and that AD West End will construct Phase IIA. The EDA acknowledges such prior Transfer, provided that nothing in this Section will be construed to release Redeveloper from its obligations regarding Phase IIA, and Redeveloper remains bound by all terms of this Agreement as they related to Phase IIA. Meeting of December 10, 2007 (Item 10) Page 16 Subject: Duke Redevelopment Contract Update The parties further agree and understand that Redeveloper intends to Transfer Phase IIC (the hotel property) to a third party in order to construct that Phase, and that Redeveloper will seek release of Redeveloper’s obligations with respect to that Phase. The EDA will cooperate with Redeveloper in such effort, provided that the Transfer will be subject to all the terms and conditions above including the EDA’s rights to approve the transferee as described herein. Equal Employment Opportunity. The Redeveloper, for itself and its successors and assigns, agrees that during the construction of the Minimum Improvements provided for in the Agreement it will comply with all applicable federal, state and local equal employment and non-discrimination laws and regulations. Restrictions on Use. Redeveloper shall not discriminate upon the basis of race, color, creed, sex or national origin in the sale, lease, or rental or in the use or occupancy of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property or any improvements erected thereon. Redeveloper agrees that no portion of the Redevelopment Property and Golden Valley Property will be used for a sexually- oriented business, a pawnshop, a check-cashing business (but not excluding a bank or credit union), a tattoo business, or a gun business (but not excluding a sporting goods store that sells, as part of its sporting goods inventory, guns and ammunition), and that such prohibitions shall be placed on any deed transferring any portion of the Minimum Improvements to any subsequent purchaser.