HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/11/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 6, 2006
7:30 PM
7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Shirley Huiras Recognition 20 Years of Service
2b. Green Business Recognition
2c. Recognition of Jim Rhodes
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2006
3b. City Council Minutes of October 3, 2006
3c. Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2006
3d. City Council Minutes of October 16, 2006
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine
and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is
desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an
appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on
the consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to
move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to
approve those items remaining on the consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions
6. Public Hearings
6a. Approval of the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special
Service District No. 1 and Extend Special Service District No. 1 through 2016
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 1 and the extension of the Special Service
District No. 1 through 2016.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual
service charges to Hennepin County.
6b. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 2
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 2.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual
service charges to Hennepin County.
6c. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District
No. 3
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 3.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual
service charges to Hennepin County.
6d. 2007 Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 4.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the
2007 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District
No. 4 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to
Hennepin County.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Consider Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Project - Project Nos. 20040400,
20040100, and 20040200
This report considers approving project and Cooperative Agreement between
Hennepin County and the City of St. Louis Park for Excelsior Boulevard
Streetscape Project.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution approving project and
entering into a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County
for Excelsior Boulevard roadway improvement and
Streetscape project – Project Nos. 20040400, 20040100, and
20040200, and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the Agreement.
8b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – 2600 Natchez Avenue South
Case No.: 06-59-CP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a
portion of 2600 Natchez Avenue from P – Parks and Open
Space to RL – Low Density Residential as shown on the
attached map.
8c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Carpenter Park (5005 Mtka. Blvd)
Case No.: 06-62-CP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a
portion of 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard from CIV – Civic to P
– Parks and Open Space as shown on the attached map.
8d. Consideration of citywide wireless broadband network provided through a
private – public partnership.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution declaring ARINC, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an
agreement with ARINC, Inc. for the supply and
implementation of a wireless broadband network and with
Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner
services for said network.
or
Motion to reject all bids, phase out pilot wireless Internet
project and service to pilot subscribers by December 31, 2006,
terminate agreements with all related pilot vendors and
suppliers, and discontinue plans for any citywide wireless
broadband service.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call
the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF NOVEMBER 6, 2006
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a Motion to approve second reading of the ordinance adopting fees for 2007
4b. Motion to adopt second reading of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
for awnings, signs, building materials and non-conformities, approve summary and
authorize publication.
4c. Motion to adopt a resolution approving continued participation in the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for workers compensation coverage
effective December 1, 2006.
4d. Motion to approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 102-05 providing additional
Professional Services related to the Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the Sanitary
Sewer System.
4e. Motion to approve an amendment to the Special Permit to allow an 800 square foot
addition to the office building located at 5775 Wayzata Blvd.
4f. Motion to approve the contract with BCBS for Active Community Planning
4g. Final Payment Claude M. Anderson Electric Company
4h. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the
repair of the water service line at 4237 Salem Avenue South
4i. Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006
4j. Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased
Trees
4k. Resolution recognizing Jim Rhodes
4l. Motion to approve the Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
with Highway 7 Business Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling)
4m. Motion to approve Vendor Claims for Filing
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
***November 6, 2006***
Items contained in this section are those items
which are not yet available in electronic format
and which are identified in the individual reports
by inclusion of the word “Supplement”.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 2a - Resolution Recognizing Shirley Huiras
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 06-166
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING
APPRECIATION TO SHIRLEY HUIRAS
WHEREAS, Shirley Huiras began her employment with the City of St. Louis Park 20 years
ago on August 11, 1986; and
WHEREAS, Shirley has not only worked diligently in the Fire Department but also spent
time in both Human Resources and Parks and Recreation; and
WHEREAS, Shirley helped form and is a charter member of the Fire Service Secretaries
Group, served on the City’s CITE Committee, and is a member of the Metropolitan Emergency
Managers Association; and
WHEREAS, Shirley will spend her retirement transitioning from Fire Department Mom to
Fire Department Grandmother, spending time with her grandchildren, volunteering, traveling
with her husband Ken, and if there is any time left, sitting quietly and reading;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, would like to thank Shirley Huiras for her
great contributions and 20 years of dedicated service to the City of St. Louis Park and wish her
the best in her retirement.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 2b - Green Bussiness - Keep America Beautiful Awards
Page 1
2b. Green Business Awards
This report is to update the City Council on the Green Business Awards.
Recommended
Action:
To congratulate, express appreciation, and present plaques to Green
Business award recipients.
BACKGOUND:
The City of St. Louis Park was nominated by Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. and granted
$3,000 from Keep America Beautiful, Inc. At the July 17, 2006 a representative from Waste
Management presented the grant dollars to the City Council.
Staff developed a program to focus on environmental stewardship in the business community.
This program is modeled after a similar program at Dakota Valley Recycling (cities of Apple
Valley, Burnsville and Eagan). The St. Louis Park Green Business Program is designed to
recognize local businesses that make environmentally friendly choices in managing their
resources, such as recycling waste, reducing packaging or reuse of materials.
Incentives for businesses to apply are education and publicity such as a listing on a membership
roll on the City’s web site, ads in the Sun Sailor, council recognition, and a plaque at an awards
function. Applications were mailed in July to all businesses. Staff received eleven applications
and determined that nine businesses met the environmental stewardship requirements.
After the initial application process, the applications will be ongoing with no deadline. The
membership roll of awardees will be ever-increasing. Annually, around America Recycles Day
(November 15), the City will advertise the Green Business members and the new businesses.
The program should be sustainable through staff support and other resources.
PRESENTATION INFORMATION:
The Green Business awards will be presented to nine environmentally sensitive businesses in
St. Louis Park at the Nov. 6 Council meeting. Prior to the Council meeting a reception will be
held in the City Hall lunchroom at 7:00 pm with the business representatives and Waste
Management.
GREEN BUSINESS AWARD WINNERS
Brent’s Signs Commercial Furniture
Flextech Grossman Design
Hoigaard’s Linsk Flowers
Nordic Ware Phoenix Process Consultants
Torah Academy
Prepared by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist
Reviewed by: Michael Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Of September 25, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 25, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:01 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki, and Mayor
Jeff Jacobs.
Coucilmembers absent: C. Paul Carver and Sue Sanger.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Director of Park & Recreation (Ms. Walsh);
Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms.
McMonigal); Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison); Economic Development
Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); Finance Director (Mr. DeJong);
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson).
Guests: Friends of the Arts Margaret Rog and Susan Schneck; Stacy Kilvang from Ehlers &
Associates;
1. Friends of the Arts Update
Susan Schneck, co-chair of Friends of the Arts (“FOTA”), introduced Margaret Rog, FOTA’s
Planning and Development Director. Ms. Schneck and Ms. Rog reviewed FOTA’s goals and
provided an update of their 2006 activities. FOTA will return to Council in 2007 to discuss the
future of arts in St. Louis Park, after the visioning process is completed.
Ms. Rog said since April, FOTA has accomplished a great deal. Among other things, FOTA has
improved communications through newsletters, website and direct communication with the
school district and business community. FOTA’s membership base has grown by 50 people, and
they have received donations from local businesses. They have applied for a grant from the
committee foundation and have opened an office at Lenox. Ms. Rog said a brochure will be
designed by a FOTA board member regarding the arts and culture grant program.
Councilmember Finkelstein would like to use the city website and city cable to advertise FOTA
and its programs.
Ms. Schneck said there will be literary arts workshops for teens who are interested in writing
through a partnership with The Loft. There will also be a creativity lecture series.
Councilmember Finkelstein wants to promote creativity and asked about having poetry time on
cable.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested a community project geared toward recognizing Jim
Rhodes and Steve Kelley. Mayor Jacobs suggested talking to Jim Brimeyer.
As current chair of Children First, City Manager Tom Harmening said it is exciting to see how
kids and families are being brought into the arts, engaging kids in arts is one of the 40
developmental assets.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Of September 25, 2006
Page 2
Councilmember Paprocki would like to concentrate on public art, and he asked if metrics are in
place for people to see public art. Councilmember Finkelstein would like to make funding for
live performances conditional, i.e., St. Louis Park may televise live performances and air those
performances on local access cable channels and on the Internet.
Ms. Schneck said an art center is not really just a building and that is one reason to start with the
creativity lecture series. Ms. Schneck asked if Council would like to hear about arts events
coming up in the community. The response was affirmative. Councilmember Paprocki
requested putting that information into the neighborhood association newsletters. Ms. Schneck
asked Council to check out FOTA’s website and respond with comments.
2. Procedure for 36th Streetscape and Art
Director of Parks & Recreation Cindy Walsh presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Basill are supportive of the RFQ process. Councilmember
Basill appreciates the attempt to refurbish planters at one of the businesses on West 36th Street
just beyond Hoigaard’s where the demolition is occurring, however, they may be unaware of
upcoming improvements to 36th Street.
Councilmember Finkelstein said he would like Wooddale and West 36th Street to be a destination
point. Councilmember Paprocki said this location will be its own place. Councilmember
Finkelstein suggested having poetry readings at the train station. Councilmember Basill
suggested taking advantage of the historic significance of this area.
Ms. Walsh will return with ideas for Council’s consideration.
3. Village in the Park II Request for TIF Assistance
Community Development Director Kevin Locke presented the staff report. Mr. Locke is
proposing to move forward with Ehlers and David Bernard.
Councilmember Finkelstein questioned if TIF assistance for this project is a good use.
Councilmember Basill thinks the Council should consider if retail is an appropriate use here.
Either way Councilmember Basill is okay with it, i.e., four stories with retail or three stories
without retail. He would be concerned about the impacts on parking of four stories with retail.
Councilmember Basill said now, however, is the time to move forward.
Mayor Jacobs thinks retail would be imperative in the long term.
Councilmember Basill wants a pedestrian friendly sidewalk on West 36th Street. Councilmember
Omodt said he thinks four stories would be a good choice.
Mr. Locke said a look back provision would be required.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3a - Study Session Minutes Of September 25, 2006
Page 3
Councilmember Basill said he is being asked by Elmwood residents if the city is building
without adequate infrastructure. Councilmember Basill recapped the concern of Elmwood
residents by saying the city is building without ample infrastructure. Mr. Harmening said the
State of Minnesota is not willing to contribute any money toward the bridge project. The city
may need to rely on TIF projects to build a bridge.
Mr. Locke said the next step will be to create a development agreement and return to Council.
4. Sanitary Sewer Back-up Policy
Director of Public Works Mike Rardin provided Council with additional information regarding
sanitary sewer back ups, specifically personal property insurance availability. Mr. Rardin also
offered staff recommendations. Mr. Rardin said the city cannot require back flow prevention
devices.
In regard to costs eligible for reimbursement by the City (point #3 of the staff report),
Councilmember Finkelstein said the costs should be documented third party clean up. Point #4,
Limit City reimbursement, it should be stated one time per owner.
Councilmember Basill is satisfied with points 1 and 2, however, he suggested not excluding
personal property. Mr. Rardin said the maximum amount of insurance one can buy is $35,000
and the amount will depend on the insurance carrier.
Councilmember Basill asked how to educate residents and property owners that they should buy
back-up insurance. Mr. Rardin said a huge public education program should be run by the city
regarding awareness of back ups, the need for back flow prevention devices, and insurance
coverage.
Councilmember Finkelstein would like the sanitary sewer back up policy to state that the city can
change the policy at any time.
Mr. Harmening said staff will prepare a draft policy based on tonight’s discussion with a little
more information what the impacts will be on rates and return to Council for final consideration.
Councilmember Basill said it must be stated that it is supplemental insurance.
5. Future Study Session Agenda Planning
Mr. Harmening and the Council discussed study session agenda planning.
The meeting ended at 9:17 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3b - City Council Minutes Of October 3, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 3, 2006
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt and Loran Paprocki
Councilmember Sanger was absent.
Staff present: Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), City Manager (Mr. Harmening),
City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning
Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Recreation Supervisor (Ms. Margo) and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
2a. Sponsorship Parks and Recreation
Mayor Jacobs and Michelle Margo presented certificates of appreciation to the following
businesses for collaboration with the City: RLK Inc. (Canoe Landing); Target
(Bookmark in the Park, Operations for the Police and Fire Depts. and Canoe Landing);
Sam’s Club (Bookmark in the Park, the Healthy Heart 5k, the Goblin March and
Halloween party); American Automobile Association (Summer concert series and the
Fall Music Fest); Excelsior and Grand (Park and Run, Fall Music Fest, Bunny Egg Hunt
and Halloween events); and, Park Nicollet Heart and Vascular Center (Park and Run and
Health Heart 5k). Representatives of RLK and Target accepted their certificates.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes of September 11, 2006
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b. City Council Minutes of September 18, 2006
The minutes were approved as presented.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3b - City Council Minutes Of October 3, 2006
Page 2
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for
the purchase of Granular Activated Carbon in the amount of $79,600.00
4b. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 06-155 appointing student election judges and
additional regular election judges to staff the polls at the General Election
November 7, 2006.
4c. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 06-156 approving the Final Plat of Hoigaard
Village 2nd Addition
4d. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 06-157 approving a Minor Amendment to the
Planned Unit Development for Hoigaard Village
4e. Motion to approve the Amendment to the Vehicle Towing and Impounding
Agreement between the City and All Hours Towing.
4f. Motion to approve the Lease Agreement with All Hours Towing for a portion of
5100 Park Glen Road for use as a towing and impound lot.
4g. Motion to designate Jay Bros., Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $59,322.50 for the
Edgebrook Park Trail Connection – City Project No. 2004-0301
4h. Motion Restating Resolution No. 06-158 Authorizing Award of the 2006 St.
Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants.
4i. Motion approving the Cooperative Agreement between Hennepin County, Three
Rivers Park District, and the City of St. Louis Park for the CSAH 25 Pedestrian
and Bicycle Bridge and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the
Agreement.
4j. Motion to adopt Resolution No. 06-159 Imposing Civil Penalty for Liquor
License Violation at Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes according to the
recommendation of the City Manager.
4k. Motion to approve Resolution No. 06-160 establishing a special assessment for
the installation of a fire suppression sprinkler system at 5551 West Lake Street,
St. Louis Park, MN 55416, amending and restating Resolution No. 06-069.
4l. Motion to Approve Planning Commission Minutes of August 16, 2006
4m. Motion to Approve Vendor Claims For Filing (supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
6. Public Hearings - None
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3b - City Council Minutes Of October 3, 2006
Page 3
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Elmwood Village in the Park II - Preliminary Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and Preliminary Plat, Location: 36th Street and Wooddale Avenue,
Applicant: David Bernard Builders and Developers,
Case No.: 05-77-PUD & 05-78-S
Resolution No.’s 06-153 and 06-154
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report.
Tim Whitten, Executive Vice President of Rottlund Company, appreciated their
partnership with staff and were pleased about the first phase and the neighborhood this
was creating.
Councilmember Finkelstein strongly encouraged indoor trash handling. Other residential
living facilities with outdoor trash handling hadn’t worked well.
Ms. McMonigal indicated they were planning to store the residential trash indoors. They
were working on the commercial area.
Councilmember Basill stated he liked that the 55+ housing, which had been popular on
the first phase and was needed. He liked the larger setback, which was good for walk-
ability. He had concerns about parking, but felt it was the best that could be done under
the circumstances. His biggest concern was traffic. Wooddale and Highway 7 needs an
above grade crossing to be safer for pedestrians and children. They were continuing to
work on that and he felt there was support to continue that work.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 06-153 approving the Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD),
subject to conditions as recommended by Planning Commission and staff; and to adopt
Resolution No. 06-154 approving the Preliminary Plat for Elmwood Village 2nd
Addition, subject to conditions as recommended by Planning Commission and staff.
The motion passed 6-0.
8b. Update on Community Foundation, Vision St. Louis Park, and Southwest
LRT Study - Jim Brimeyer
Jim Brimeyer presented an update on the Community Foundation priorities: Support
youth activities, improve and beautify the environment, and build strong, livable
neighborhoods. They had a balance of approximately $40,000 after grants and
fundraising, and about $47,000 in 2006 grants. They were working to match the city’s
commitment to Children’s First, Meadowbrook Collaborative and STEP. They will be
hosting a Give Back Day on October 23rd at the Doubletree.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3b - City Council Minutes Of October 3, 2006
Page 4
Vision St. Louis Park – St. Louis Park has a proven track record and is one of the few
that has done this. The partners are the city, School, Chamber, Children’s First and Park
Nicollet. All of the data had been compiled and volunteers are chairing steering
committees, with 125 citizen volunteers on the Vision action teams. They plan to be
done by November. They are using the data collected at their meetings. They are going
to make a book of dreams projecting to 2017, writing a present day description of what
St. Louis Park will be like in 2017. The areas are environment, transportation, sidewalks
and trails, gathering places, community events, housing, arts and culture and diversity.
They have been given a report template and guidance for a one-page dream for their area.
Each action team will set up goals, action steps, a timeline and identify lead partners.
There is a celebration on November 9th from 4-7 PM at the Doubletree.
Southwest LRT Study – The Hiawatha line has been so successful that the Federal
Transportation Administration has developed new criteria for new starts. The ridership is
out of sight. The board decided to look at other alternatives for a line. There are two
alternatives, LRT A and LRT C. LRT A comes from Shady Oak Rd in Hopkins to
downtown Minneapolis along the Kenilworth corridor. When you get West of that, there
are four alternative stops, stop three picks up the most ridership. LRT C branches off at
West Lake and goes across the greenway corridor, comes down Nicollet in a tunnel and
comes into downtown. The reason that was being considered was because there was
more possible ridership along the corridor and along Nicollet and it serves more low-
income households. The CEI (Cost Effective Index) needs to be considered.
In the past LRT lines went in based on the congressional influence from that district and
local funding. In the middle of this process they were told unless they had a dedicated
local funding source, the Federal government wouldn’t fund it no matter how good it
looked. They set up a sub committee and heard about local funding, but it wasn’t
enough. They are considering the Central corridor between Minneapolis and St. Paul,
and one of the questions he raised was if they could go ahead the Central corridor.
According to the Met Council’s transportation plan, the Central Corridor goes next, and
then Northstar and they were in the mix with other lines after those. At the last meeting,
he noticed that LRT C did not connect to the main corridor. It goes into downtown to 7th
Street, and then passengers take a streetcar to get on the Central Corridor or Hiawatha.
LRT A goes to the Royalston Station, which loops around and connects with Hiawatha
and goes to the Central Corridor. He could not suggest they build LRT in the Southwest
corridor that does not connect to the Central or Hiawatha Corridor. The implication is
that freight rail goes through St. Louis Park, which is one of the big challenges for LRT
A. One of the factors that needed to be considered was how to mitigate the impact of
freight rail. There is no good way to build LRT C and get it connected.
The committee meets again in November and they need to pick a desired alternative.
Then they go into the draft environmental impact statement and look at the impacts on
neighborhoods as well as ridership and cost. There is also an economical impact. This
would be up to the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority to follow through on.
This would be done around 2016 or 2017.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3b - City Council Minutes Of October 3, 2006
Page 5
Mr. Harmening noted the Technical Advisory Committee recommendation is, as the
study process continues through the environmental impact statement process, that they
look at both LRT A and C. Assuming the PAC and County Board agree with that, those
two alternatives would still be examined. It had not been narrowed down to one specific
alignment.
Mr. Brimeyer stated he would not support LRT C because of the tunnel under Nicollet
and secondly because it didn’t connect to the other lines. He thought they should also
push to connect the SW Corridor to the Hiawatha Corridor via the Midtown Greenway.
Mayor Jacobs felt the point of mass transit was connectedness and LRT C did not make
sense to him.
Mr. Brimeyer indicated to go ahead with Federal approval, the CEI has to be at $29 to go
to preliminary engineering and when you are done, you have to be at $23. They needed
to impose criteria.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about financing? Mr. Brimeyer replied the Federal
share is 90% and the local is 10%. You need to show that the 10% is dedicated for future
capital and operating costs and they didn’t have that. All they had was what the
legislature funds, which is why it takes so long. MVST is a start, but it was only about
1/3 of what they needed.
Mayor Jacobs stated the Regional Council of Mayors has been talking about this and has
asked representatives of Denver to come. The difficulty is to get the people that might be
subject to the sales tax that might not have the same sense of the problem.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked why the City of Minneapolis was pushing LRT C
when it didn’t connect? Mr. Brimeyer replied one of the big reasons was because it
served a population that should be served.
Ms. McMonigal noted Minneapolis hadn’t taken a formal position on the route.
Mr. Brimeyer noted the numbers needed to be crunched. The next step is the Hennepin
County Railroad Authority authorizing someone to do the environmental impact
statement.
Mr. Harmening asked about the community meetings? Mr. Brimeyer stated there were
four set up. The next is October 12th at City Hall from 6-8 PM.
Ms. McMonigal noted that the neighborhood leaders were invited and it was advertising
in the Park Perspective.
Councilmember Basill indicated he appreciated Mr. Brimeyer’s work on these projects.
He asked if they went with LRT A and stopped at Hopkins, which would be a fairly
inexpensive route, was there a chance of getting this moved up? Mr. Brimeyer replied it
would still be behind Central Corridor, but possibly ahead of other corridors. The
problem with stopping there was the ridership would not be as dramatic as if they did
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3b - City Council Minutes Of October 3, 2006
Page 6
LRT 3A. Ms. McMonigal added they had discussions about that and Hopkins had
concerns about the demand for park and ride. They would still have to build certain
facilities either way. The cost per mile comes out a lot higher because there were so
many fewer miles.
Mr. Brimeyer noted there is criteria that needs to be met for the line chosen.
Mayor Jacobs asked what the best guess would be for this to happen? Mr. Brimeyer felt
it would be started in about ten years, assuming there is a local funding source.
Councilmember Carver agreed on the feelings about the LRT C route.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs reminded residents that there would be a book reading and other events at the Rec.
Center on October 7th for Bookmark in the Park. The author of Bridge to America, Linda Glaser,
will be in attendance.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:44 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3c - Study Session Minutes Of October 9, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
October 9, 2006
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki, Susan Sanger, and Mayor
Jeff Jacobs.
Councilmember Finkelstein arrived at 7:12.
Coucilmember absent: C. Paul Carver.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke);
Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Assistant Planner (Mr. Fulton); Finance
Director (Mr. DeJong); Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg); Director of
Technology & Support Services (Mr. Pires); City Attorney (Mr. Jamnik); and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Samson).
Guests: Jean Morrison, President of Morrison & Associates; Tom Asp, Columbia
Telecommunications Corporation
1. Overview of Upcoming Organizational Development Session
City Manager Tom Harmening introduced Jean Morrison. Ms. Morrison is the facilitator for the
Organization Development (OD) session, which is scheduled for October 23rd at City Hall.
2. Overview of Upcoming Joint Meeting of City Council/School Board
Mr. Harmening discussed the upcoming joint meeting of the City Council and school board. A
draft agenda was given to Councilmembers.
Mayor Jacobs and Councilmember Omodt would like to discuss the closing of the school on a
false pretense.
Councilmember Sanger requested data for the dialogue regarding data/demographics (see #3 on
the agenda). She would like to know about the impacts of housing programs on the type of
student populations. To item #4 on the agenda, dialogue on external communication,
Councilmember Sanger would like to emphasize and discuss two-way communication, not just
external communication. Mayor Jacobs agrees.
Councilmember Paprocki would like to hear from the school board what the city could do to help
the school board. Mayor Jacobs commented that transience is a big problem. Councilmember
Basill inquired about busing programs.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3c - Study Session Minutes Of October 9, 2006
Page 2
3. 2007 Budget Discussion
Director of Finance Bruce DeJong said since staff last met with the Council it has achieved a
5.2% tax levy increase.
Councilmember Finkelstein arrived at 7:12 p.m.
Councilmember Sanger asked when updated CIP information will be available. Mr. DeJong said
Council will have updated CIP information next month.
Mayor Jacobs would like to know about future TIFs coming up and their tax capacities.
Mr. Harmening said staff has met the 5.2% tax levy target. Staff and Council will return to the
2007 budget in December during the truth in taxation hearing. Mr. Harmening said there will be
no cuts in service.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked what effect would re-instituting levy limits have in terms of
planning. Mr. DeJong said it would be very difficult to say. Councilmember Finkelstein would
like to begin budget discussions earlier in the year.
4. R-1 Zoning District Study
Councilmember Sanger remarked that there is a timing problem, i.e., the R-1 zoning district
study lacked public education and participation. Councilmember Sanger requested deferment
until the Lake Forest neighborhood association has its annual meeting on October 26th. She said
there is a great deal of support for making some changes, some of which have not been addressed
to date. Councilmember Sanger said side yard setbacks should be looked at.
Councilmember Omodt doesn’t want to get into neighborhood spot zoning. Councilmember
Finkelstein asked how to handle splits and environmental issues.
Zoning and Planning Supervisor Meg McMonigal said the environment/neighborhood portion of
the study is underway and has not been completed. Staff is currently compiling and reviewing
environmental/land use regulations. It is expected that further information and recommendations
will come forward to the Council in January or February.
Councilmember Paprocki said very few properties are affected. When staff returns in January or
February, Councilmember Finkelstein would like more discussion regarding splitting of lots.
Councilmember Omodt thinks the Planning Commission had it right, i.e., look at environmental
and neighborhood issues such as slope and drainage.
Mr. Harmening will put this item on a formal Council agenda only if asked to do so.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3c - Study Session Minutes Of October 9, 2006
Page 3
5. WiFi Update
Director of Technology and Support Services Clint Pires presented the most recent information
on WiFi. Five vendors responded to the request for bids for the possible citywide wireless
project. Staff is currently in the process of bid reviews and follow-up with the apparent lowest
responsible bidder in a manner consistent with consultations with the city attorney. A written
report is not available at this time. Mr. Pires distributed the bid results.
Councilmember Sanger asked about back-up power and Mr. Pires responded that there is a five
day battery back up. Mayor Jacobs asked if there could be a wind powered back-up generator
and Mr. Pires said any city-owned asset could be used to mount equipment.
Mr. Pires discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the citywide wireless project, revenues,
financials, and exit strategy.
Tom Asp, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, discussed US Internet. Mr. Pires said
more information is to come. Background information on the bidders will be provided to the
Council.
Councilmember Sanger said customer service must be top-notch.
Mr. Asp discussed embedded technology.
Councilmember Paprocki, Councilmember Finkelstein and Councilmember Basill would like
more time and a written report. Councilmember Sanger would like to delay the WiFi vote until
November.
6. Council Policy Item—Group Homes
Councilmember Sanger asked for the Council’s support in regard to dispersing group homes and
fewer referrals. Group homes are licensed by the State and she suggested the Council offer a
resolution.
Councilmember Omodt would like to offer tools. Councilmember Basill would like to enlist the
help of legislators. The Council needs more time to consider.
The meeting ended at 10:08 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 16, 2006
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran
Paprocki and Susan Sanger
Councilmember Carver was absent.
Staff present: Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), City Manager (Mr. Harmening),
City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Engineering Program Coordinator (Ms.
Adler), Finance Director (Mr. DeJong), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal) and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
2a. TwinWest Chamber – Minnesota Manufacturers Week Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution on Minnesota Manufacturers Week to Barb
Overshaw and Monica Murphy.
3. Approval of Minutes - None
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Approve Resolution No. 06-163 authorizing services and fees paid to the City’s
Prosecuting Attorney.
4b. Approve a Professional Services Agreement with ENSR, Inc. for storm sewer
inspection services.
4c. Approving the Cooperative Agreement between Hennepin County, Three Rivers
Park District, and the City of St. Louis Park for the CSAH 5 (Minnetonka
Boulevard) Bridge Replacement and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute the Agreement – City Project No. 2006-1200.
4d. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 81-05 providing additional Professional
Services related to Ford Road Sanitary Sewer Lift Station Replacement, Project
No. 2005-1200.
4e. Approve Resolution No. 06-164 establishing 2007 employer benefits
contribution.
4f. Approval of Human Rights Commission Minutes of July 18, 2006
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 2
Mr. Harmening indicated there would be a staff report under Boards and Commissions
regarding potential appointment to the Police Advisory Commission.
It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 6-0.
5. Boards and Commissions
Mayor Jacobs indicated that the Council interviewed a candidate for the Police Advisory
Commission and the Council received clarification from the City Attorney regarding a
possible conflict of interest.
Councilmember Basill suggested this be brought to the next meeting.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2007 Fees
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was
closed.
Councilmember Paprocki clarified that the City was not making money off the fees and
fees needed to accurately represent the costs. Mr. DeJong replied that was correct and
fees are also.
Councilmember Paprocki noted special permit fees went from $500 to $750, but it would
still not cover all of the costs in some cases. He asked if the fees should be higher. Mr.
DeJong replied they made the adjustments based on feedback from the Community
Development Department and that staff was uncomfortable with the $750 fee for basic
planning process.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
approve 1st reading of an ordinance adopting fees for 2007 and set second reading for
November 6, 2006.
The motion passed 6-0.
6b. Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree
Removal/Injection, Nuisance Abatements, False Alarms, and Other
Miscellaneous Charges Resolution No. 06-161
Mr. DeJong presented the staff report.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 3
Mayo r Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Mr. Harmening stated a speaker present (operator of China Jade restaurant) had received
a copy of a letter sent to the property owner, Inner City Investment, indicating they were
being charged for a delinquent utility account in the amount of $80.40. He wondered the
period of time the delinquent account related to. Mr. DeJong would discuss this with
him.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing closed.
Councilmember Sanger asked what steps they could take to try to get people to make
their payments. Mr. DeJong replied he was unsure; the city already imposes penalties
and tries to collect on a timely basis. The city could send more out letters, but that didn’t
seem to make a lot of difference; many were several quarters delinquent. The charges
may be lower than other financing methods they may have available which may be a
reasonable way for them to “float” their bills.
Councilmember Sanger stated that was her concern, it would seem they should look at
whether they can take more aggressive steps to give people an incentive to pay their bills
on time. Mr. DeJong stated delinquent accounts are charges a 10% fee on the amount
that is late. He wasn’t sure if a higher rate of interest would be any better.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki, to
adopt Resolution No.06-161 to assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and
charges.
The motion passed 6-0.
6c. Public Hearing to consider authorizing staff to enter into agreements for the
supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to provide
management partner services for said network.
Mr. Pires presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Phillip Hogland, 2716 Vernon Av S, stated when the process started he was not in favor
of Wi-Fi, but now supported it. He believed the technical side was reasonable and was
not concerned about the solar technology, although he was concerned about the solar
power technology having future ancillary applications, as referenced in the staff report.
Wimax is typically more of a back end developer and didn’t see it as a competitor to Wi-
Fi.
Mayor Jacobs asked Mr. Hogland’s about other providers. Mr. Hogland replied the Wi-
Fi mobile standard is evolving and the telephone companies are hoping it develops to a
point where they can move into the Internet providing area. They are trying to target the
business users and are probably not too concerned about making it available to everyone.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 4
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if Mr. Hogland could comment on the Minneapolis
model. Mr. Hogland replied he hadn’t gotten a lot of information on the Minneapolis
model. Minneapolis will award the contract to a company that will build the network and
run it. He hadn’t drawn a conclusion on one versus the other.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the use of a Wi-Fi standard versus a proprietary
system that some of the cellular companies are offering. Mr. Hogland replied he would
be concerned about that. Wi-Fi standard is a very stable standard and has improved over
time. Proprietary standards are going to limit you from moving from one piece of
equipment to another.
Councilmember Basill asked Mr. Hogland his concerns about the business side? Mr.
Hogland responded it was a business decision and thought it was an appropriate thing for
the City to become involved in. He didn’t have knowledge about a business plan.
Jean Sloan, 1420 Flag, asked about the pilot program results? Mayor Jacobs replied he
knew people involved in the pilot were satisfied. There were initial growing pains with
configurations, but that had been resolved. Mr. Pires responded it was not perfect, but
they learned a lot. It was an indoor technology being used outdoors and because of the
limited amount of equipment they had, there were limitations in the service they could
provide. It was a good decision to have a pilot first. The pilot went well enough that
based on the feedback from the subscribers that Council asked for pricing on a citywide
project.
Dale Stenseth, 3153 Edgewood, commented he liked the way the process worked with
the research and information collection. The solar technology was great, although he had
concerns about the system running with very little daylight. He was eager to be a user,
he felt it was not a big risk of funds, particularly since the City and schools would be
major users of the technology.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. He invited residents to the open house for more
information.
Councilmember Sanger asked for more explanation about the battery back-up for the
solar power and cloud cover? Mr. Pires replied solar had been used in Boulder Colorado
for Wi-Fi and they had raised similar concerns. Sunwise goes through a rigorous
engineering process for power requirements. There is a large gap between the amount of
energy produced and the amount needed. More of this will be explained at the open
house. In the event that a solar panel breaks, it has a 5 ½ day battery back up, which
would be the only time they would expect a drain down of the battery. Mr. Pires’ concern
had been snow and ice build-up, but the angle of the slanted panels and with the sun and
slick surface, it tends to slide off and had not been a problem.
Councilmember Sanger stated it would be helpful to get information on how this had
worked in Boulder.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 5
Mayor Jacobs asked if they could supplement the solar power technology either with
power hard wire back-up or wind power technology. Mr. Pires replied they were also
looking at that.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked for information in the next report about: 1) Wi-Fi in
apartments and condominium buildings; 2) the cost of future CPE’s; 3) concerns about
vandalism; and 4) if the vendor would be paying $14/month and catching any excess.
Would they still be able to control the rates and the costs? Mr. Pires replied that was part
of the model.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the model addressed a situation in which they did
not provide service. If so, could the city terminate the contract with adequate notice and
move on to someone else? Mr. Pires replied that was correct.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the terms of a proposed contract the next
meeting? Mr. Pires replied the intent was to have the business principals and the contract
nailed down.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they were still collecting information about
Minneapolis? Mr. Pires replied yes.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked for the differences between a city owned franchise
versus a Verizon, Sprint, or Clear Channel model, includes disadvantages and costs.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to place on
November 6, 2006 agenda consideration of Council options, including authorizing staff
to enter into agreements for the supply and implementation of a wireless broadband
network and to provide management partner services for said network; follow-up on
remaining questions; and provide additional community communications on project.
The motion passed 5-0-1, Councilmember Omodt abstained.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Permit parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst Ave So - Traffic Study No. 600
Resolution No. 06-162
Ms. Adler presented the staff report.
Diane Pecoraro, 2900 Glenhurst Av, stated since Yum opened, parking on the street had
become an issue, as well as safety. All neighbors polled on Glenhurst were supportive of
the permit parking.
Bill Goldman, 2909 Glenhurst Av, agreed with Ms. Pecoraro regarding the safety
concerns and felt permit parking was appropriate.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 6
Karen Olson, 2840 Glenhurst Av, indicated since Yum opened, the parking situation had
become more critical and dangerous, although there were problems before this time that
needed to be resolved.
Councilmember Sanger commented this had been a problem before Yum opened.
Residents had contacted City staff several times to ask for relief. Staff did a study and
found a problem with parking congestion. This was the preferred solution of all residents
living on the 2900 block.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 06-162 installing permit parking on the 2900 block of Glenhurst
Avenue South and “No Parking Anytime” restrictions on the east side of Glenhurst
Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard to a point 110 feet to the north.
Ms. Pecoraro stated it would be somewhat inconvenient with permit parking and asked
how it would work. Ms. Adler replied four permits would be issued to each household
to be permanently affixed to the vehicles. They would also be for guests. The proposed
limits for the parking are permit parking only 6 AM to 7 PM, seven days per week.
Councilmember Omodt asked about the extra parking spaces proposed for new parking
lot for Yum in addition to the Thomas Charles Salon. Ms. Adler replied that based on the
Planning and Zoning review of the proposed extra tables in Yum and the expansion of
the Thomas Charles Salon, they exceed the code requirements by 15 spaces.
Councilmember Sanger added what staff said was accurate, but Yum met all of their
parking requirements on paper when it opened. There was a lot of spill over parking and
also from the hair salon. What worked on paper wasn’t the actual reality.
Councilmember Omodt asked if the oak tree in the new parking lot would remain? Ms.
Adler replied yes.
Councilmember Paprocki asked if it would be safer to have parking on one side of the
street and why that was not being considered. Councilmember Sanger replied in
discussions with residents, one sided parking was not viewed as a favorable solution
because one of the problems is that people were blocking driveways.
Councilmember Basill commented he was glad Yum was adding additional parking.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed it made sense to get this done before winter.
Elaine White, 7921 Victoria Curve, believed if Yum built a parking lot, they would
enlarge the restaurant adding more people. Ms. Adler clarified that was part of their
proposal.
Mr. Goldman commented they were happy the parking lot was being built, but human
nature made it easier for people to park on Glenhurst, which was why permit parking was
necessary.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 7
The motion passed 6-0.
8b. Zoning Ordinance Amendments for awnings, signs, building materials, and
non-conformities, Case No. 06-52-ZA
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger asked if canopies and awnings have to be supported from above
or can they put posts on the sidewalks to support them. Mr. Morrison replied that was
the difference between an awning and a canopy. An awning is supported solely from the
building, a canopy comes from the building, but also has posts that support it. Those
would be allowed in the public right-of-way under review of the public works
department.
Councilmember Sanger asked why they were deleting the section on non-conforming
lighting. Mr. Morrison replied they were making all of the language consistent with state
law. That will all be put into one section.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there were different classes of hardy board. The
samples the Council had seen were fine, but he had a concern about there being a lower
standard. Ms. McMonigal replied that Planning Commission had discussed this and were
concerned about the 4’ x 8’ boards that were sometimes plain looking. They suggested
adding the language that it must be clapboard or shake style fiber reinforced cement
board so it would look more like wood.
Councilmember Omodt asked about different quality standards because he doesn’t want
the standards lowered.
Councilmember Finkelstein shared that concern and wanted to be sure the hardy board
was attractive and not a straight cement look. Ms. McMonigal replied the standard was
fairly even based on her knowledge.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked when hardy board became cement board. Ms.
McMonigal replied Hardy is the brand name. There are several providers.
Councilmember Basill also agreed and felt it was a good point because products come
out and then they start having different levels and price costs. To protect the City, he
suggested putting language that the top rated or top class be used. That way it wouldn’t
be obsolete if they began making a cheaper product.
Councilmember Finkelstein added that it shall not be a flat surface.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Basill, to adopt 1st
Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendments, and setting second reading for November 6,
2006, with the addition that the cement board be top quality or Class 1 and shall not be a
flat surface.
The motion passed 6-0.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 3d - City Council Minutes Of October 16, 2006
Page 8
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs thanked the volunteers for their work on the Bookmark in the Park event. The
League of Women’s Voters is having a discussion on the book, The Middle of Everywhere on
October 26th at the library. The Community Foundation Give Back Day is October 23rd at the
Doubletree Hotel from 11:30 – 1:00.
Councilmember Sanger stated the League of Women’s Voters Candidate Debate for the State
Legislative candidates would be at City Hall on Thursday, October 19th at 7:00 PM.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 1
4a. Motion to approve second reading of the ordinance adopting fees for 2007
DESCRIPTION:
The amended fee schedule was presented at a public hearing on October 16, 2006. There were
no objections raised regarding any of the amendments at that time. The City Council approved
the first reading of this ordinance. Approval of the second reading is required to adopt the
ordinance and establish fees for 2007.
BACKGROUND:
All fees are reviewed annually with recommendations brought to the City Council for adjustment
starting on January 1 of each year. Staff is still in process of reviewing the utility rates with
Ehlers & Associates. Those rates will be discussed at the study session on November 27 and
brought back to the Council for a first reading on December 4.
The following fees were revised for 2007 based on an analysis of the cost of providing each
service:
Store Manager Investigation
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$500 $250
Installation of Traffic Signal per Location Fee
Current Proposed
New Fee – removed from regular $150 flat permit fee
electrical fee schedule
Annual Residential Rental License
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Multi Family: $125 per building and $140 per building and
$7 per unit $8.50 per unit
One & Two Family
Homes: $75 per unit $80 per unit
Duplex –
both units licensed: $125 $130
Final Plat
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$250 $300
Exempt and Administrative Subdivision
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$250 $300
Special Permits – Minor Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
$500 $750
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 2
Planned Unit Developments and Major Amendments
Current Fee Proposed Fee
Final $750 $1,000
Preliminary and
Final Combined $1,500 $2,250
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the second reading of the ordinance adopting fees for 2007.
Attachments: Ordinance
Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. 2319 - 06
ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2007
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby
set by this ordinance for calendar year 2007.
Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the
City Code and shall replace those fees adopted October 17, 2005 by Ordinance # 2301-05 which
is hereby rescinded.
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PROVISIONS
1-14 Administrative Penalties
First Violation $25
Each Subsequent in Same Calendar Year add $10 to previous fine
CHAPTER 3: ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
3-59 Liquor License
Non-intoxicating on-sale $750
Non-intoxicating off-sale $100
Intoxicating on-sale $7,500
Sunday Sale $200
Club (per # members)
1 - 200 $300
201 - 500 $500
501 - 1000 $650
1001 - 2000 $800
2001 - 4000 $1,000
4001 - 6000 $2,000
6000+ $3,000
Wine $2,000
Intoxicating off-sale $200
Temporary (On & Off sale) $50/day
New License Investigation $1,000
Store Mgr Investigation $250
CHAPTER 4: ANIMALS
4-88 Animal Impound
Initial impoundment $20
2nd offense w/in year $30
3rd offense w/in year $40
4th offense w/in year $60
Boarding per day $10
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 4
CHAPTER 6: BUILDINGS & REGULATIONS
6-32, 6-67 Plan Review
Building Permits
Repetitive building
65% of Permit Fee
25% of Permit Fee for duplicate structure
Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee
Sewer and Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee
6-32 Building and Fire Protection Permits
Valuation Base Fee Plus For Each Additional
(or fraction thereof)
Up to $500.00 $35.50 -
$500.01 to $2,000.00 $35.50 $2.25 $100 over $500.01
$2,000.01 to $25,000.00 $69.25 $14.00 $1000 over $2,000.01
$25,000.01 to $50,000.00 $391.25 $10.10 $1000 over $25,000.01
$50,000.01 to $100,000.00 $643.75 $7.00 $1000 over $50,000.01
$100,000.01 to $500,000.00 $993.75 $5.60 $1000 over $100,000.01
$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 $4.75 $1000 over $500,000.01
$1,000,000.01 and up $5,608.75 $4.25 $1000 over $1,000,000.01
6-32 Electrical permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single family: one appliance $40
6-32 Electrical permit contd.
Installation of traffic signals per location $150
6-32 Mechanical Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $55
Install single fuel burning appliance
with piping
$55
Install, replace or repair single
mechanical appliance
$40
6-32 Plumbing Permit
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace single plumbing
fixture
$40
Water treatment
(softener or drinking system)
$15
6-32 Sewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)
Installation, replacement, repair $40 + 1.75% of job valuation
Single Family Exceptions:
Repair/replace sewer or water service $40
6-32 Tent Permit
Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75
Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 5
6-35 After Hours Inspections $50 per hour (minimum 2 hrs)
6-69 Certificate of Occupancy
For each condominium unit completed
after building occupancy
$100
Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)
Up to 5,000 sq ft $250
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $400
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft.
above 200,000 sq. ft.
$800
$1,000
$1,200
6-69 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50
6-103 Building Moving $500
6-177 Certificate of Property Maintenance
Change in Ownership
Single Family Dwellings $195
Duplex (2 family dwellings) $275
Condominium Unit $115
All other buildings
Up to 5,000 sq ft $250
5,001 – 25,000 sq ft $400
25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $600
75,001 to 100,000 sq ft
100,001 to 200,000 sq ft
above 200,001 sq ft
$800
$1,000
$1,200
6-187 Temporary Certificate of Property
Maintenance
$50
6-213
ISTS Permit (sewage treatment system
install or repair)
$125
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 6
CHAPTER 8: BUSINESS LICENSING
8-33 General License Fees
Commercial entertainment $250
Environmental emission $275
Food and Beverage
High + & large grocery store
(25,000 sq. ft. +)
High + small grocery store
(to 25,000 sq. ft.)
$1,125
$825
Class H $775
Class M $525
Class L $275
Class V – Food vending machine $15
Public Sanitary Facilities
Class I $750
Class II $400
Class III $250
Massage Therapy Establishment $275
Lodging (Hotel/Motel)
Building Fee $125
Unit Fee $7
Rental Housing
Multiple Family Building $140
Multiple Family per Unit $8.50
Tobacco products & related device sales $450
Vehicle Parking facilities
Parking ramp $125
Enclosed Parking $175
Dog Kennel $125
Billboards $125 per billboard
8-33 Temporary Use Permits
Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $100
Circuses, Carnival and Amusement Rides $250
Petting Zoos $50
Commercial Film Production
Application
$50
8-37 Insurance Requirements
Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability
Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability
Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability
Circus $1,000,000 General Liability
Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability
8-66 Contractor
Solid Waste $175
Tree Maintenance $60
Mechanical $85
8-67 Exam Fees (Competency)
Mechanical per test $25
Renewal – 3 year Mechanical $15
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 7
8-138 Solid Waste – Vehicle Decal $15
8-163 Tree Maintenance & Removal –
Vehicle Decal
$5
8-191 Late fee 20% of license fee (minimum $25)
Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license
8-192 Transfer of Ownership $50
8-258 Restaurant Smoking Area Surcharge $700
8-326 Rental Housing License
1 & 2 family rental housing $80 per dwelling unit
Duplex when both units are licensed $130 per duplex
Housing Authority owned single family
dwelling units
$15 per unit
8-349 Sexually Oriented Business
Investigation fee (High Impact) $500
High Impact $4,500
Limited Impact $125
8-428 Pawnbroker
License Fee $2,000
Per Transaction Fee $1.50
Investigation Fee $1,000
Penalty $50 per day
8-514 Temporary Food Service
3+ Days $125
1 – 3 Days $75
Prepackaged food only $35
8-572 Solicitor/Peddler Registration $50
8-602 Dog License
Dog License – 1 year $15
Dog License – 2 year $25
Dog License – 3 year $35
Penalty for no license $35
Interim License $7
8-661 Courtesy bench $35 per bench
CHAPTER 12: ENVIRONMENT
12-1 Food and Beverage Equipment Permit
Installation (Used equipment valued as
new)
$50 +1.75% permit valuation
Plan Review Fee 35% of Permit Fee
12-1 Public Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
12-2 Private Swimming Pools
Permit Fees Building permit fees apply
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 8
12-131 Noise
Temporary Permit $50
CHAPTER 14: FIRE
14-103 Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred
14-104 Service Fee for fully-equipped and
staffed vehicles
$440 per hour for a ladder truck
$285 per hour for a full-size fire truck
$155 per hour for a rescue unit
Service Fee of a Chief Officer $85 per hour
CHAPTER 16: LAW ENFORCEMENT
16-34 Criminal Background Investigation
(Volunteers & Employees)
$5
16-35 Administrative fee in certain vehicle
forfeiture cases
$250
CHAPTER 18: OFFENSES & MISC PROVISIONS
18-153 False Alarm
First $0
Each subsequent in same year $90
Late payment fee 10%
CHAPTER 20: PARKS AND RECREATION
20-6 Permit Fee Off-Leash Dog areas $25 St. Louis Park Resident
$50 Non-Resident
CHAPTER 21: PLANNING
21-33 Official Map Amendment $500
CHAPTER 22: SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
22-33 Special pickup (refuse/recycling/yard waste) $15 each
22-34 Extra Cart
30 Gallon $40 each
60 Gallon $44 each
90 Gallon $48 each
22-35 Extra refuse stickers $2.25 quarterly
22-37 Refuse/Garbage Service Rate (includes tax)
30 Gallon $37.01 quarterly
60 Gallon $47.58 quarterly
90 Gallon $58.16 quarterly
90P (120 – 180 Gallon) $68.73 quarterly
270 Gallon $88.73 quarterly
360 Gallon $108.73 quarterly
450 Gallon $128.73 quarterly
540 Gallon $148.73 quarterly
22-37 Yard Waste Credit $3.00 quarterly
22-37 Extended absence 31% credit for the # of weeks absent (per table below)
Number of
Weeks Absent
30 Gallon
60 Gallon
90 Gallon
90+ Gallon
270 Gallon
360 Gallon
450 Gallon
540 Gallon
1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 9
2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5 $4.40 $5.70 $6.90 $8.20 $10.60 $13.00 $15.30 $17.70
Number of
Weeks Absent
30 Gallon
60 Gallon
90 Gallon
90+ Gallon
270 Gallon
360 Gallon
450 Gallon
540 Gallon
6 $5.30 $6.80 $8.30 $9.80 $12.70 $15.60 $18.40 $21.30
7 $6.20 $7.90 $9.70 $11.50 $14.80 $18.10 $21.50 $24.80
8 $7.10 $9.10 $11.10 $13.10 $16.90 $20.70 $24.60 $28.40
9 $7.90 $10.20 $12.50 $14.80 $19.00 $23.30 $27.60 $31.90
10 $8.80 $11.30 $13.90 $16.40 $21.20 $25.90 $30.70 $35.50
11 $9.70 $12.50 $15.30 $18.00 $23.30 $28.50 $33.80 $39.00
12 $10.60 $13.60 $16.60 $19.70 $25.40 $31.10 $36.80 $42.60
13 $11.50 $14.70 $18.00 $21.30 $27.50 $33.70 $39.90 $46.10
14 $12.40 $15.90 $19.40 $22.90 $29.60 $36.30 $43.00 $49.70
15 $13.20 $17.00 $20.80 $24.60 $31.70 $38.90 $46.00 $53.20
16 $14.10 $18.20 $22.20 $26.20 $33.90 $41.50 $49.10 $56.70
17 $15.00 $19.30 $23.60 $27.90 $36.00 $44.10 $52.20 $60.30
18 $15.90 $20.40 $25.00 $29.50 $38.10 $46.70 $55.30 $63.80
19 $16.80 $21.60 $26.40 $31.10 $40.20 $49.30 $58.30 $67.40
20 $17.70 $22.70 $27.70 $32.80 $42.30 $51.90 $61.40 $70.90
21 $18.50 $23.80 $29.10 $34.40 $44.40 $54.40 $64.50 $74.50
22 $19.40 $25.00 $30.50 $36.10 $46.50 $57.00 $67.50 $78.00
23 $20.30 $26.10 $31.90 $37.70 $48.70 $59.60 $70.60 $81.60
24 $21.20 $27.20 $33.30 $39.30 $50.80 $62.20 $73.70 $85.10
25 $22.10 $28.40 $34.70 $41.00 $52.90 $64.80 $76.70 $88.70
26 $22.90 $29.50 $36.10 $42.60 $55.00 $67.40 $79.80 $92.20
22-37 Late payment penalty 10% of amount due (quarterly)
CHAPTER 24: STREETS, SIDEWALKS & OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
24-92 Record deed transfer with Hennepin
County
$120 + Recording cost
24-122 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $300
24-153 Installation/repair of sidewalk, curb
cut or curb and gutter
$100 per 100 linear feet (minimum $100)
24-251 Work in Public Right of Way
Hole in Roadway/Blvd $100 each
Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400)
$200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200)
Trenching in Boulevard
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 10
CHAPTER 26: SUBDIVISIONS
26-42 Subdivisions/Replats
Preliminary Plat $500 plus $50 per lot
Final Plat $300
Combined Process and Replats $750 plus $25 per lot
Exempt and Admin Subdivision $300
26-158 Subdivision Dedication Fee
Park Land Dedication Fee
Multifamily dwelling units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Single-family dwelling units $1,500 per dwelling unit
Commercial/Industrial properties 5 percent of current market value of the unimproved
land as determined by the city assessor
Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit
CHAPTER 30: TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES
30-44 Permit to exceed vehicle weight
limitations
$30 each
30-158 Snowfall parking permit
No off-street parking available No charge
Off street parking available $125
Caregiver parking $25
30-160 Permit parking No charge
CHAPTER 32: UTILITIES
32-31 Water rates $0.90 per 100 cubic feet (see table below)
100 cubic feet = 750 gallons = 1 unit
Meter Size Code Meter Size
(in inches)
Monthly Quarterly
1 5/8 $ 3.63 $ 5.60
2 ¾ 4.08 6.80
3 1 5.27 9.96
4 1 ½ 7.77 16.82
5 2 11.27 26.04
6 3 19.82 49.03
7 4 33.42 79.38
9 6 64.58 155.56
32-98 Sewer service rates $1.7023 per 100 cubic feet of water
consumption during the winter quarter
Sewer service charge – monthly $ 3.55
Sewer service charge – quarterly $10.65
32-142 Stormwater Utility
Residential Equivalent Factor (REF)
2006 = $9.50 REF
CHAPTER 36: ZONING
36-33 Conditional Use Permit $1,500
Major Amendment $1,000
Minor Amendment $750
36-33 Variances
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 11
Residential $300
Commercial $500
36-33, 36-36 Special Permit
Major Amendment $1,000
Minor Amendment $750
36-34 Zoning Map Amendments $2,000
36-34 Zoning Text Amendments $2,000
36-34 Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,000
36-34 Filing Fee
Single Family $50
Other Uses $120
36-34 Time Extension $75
36-367 Planned Unit Developments
Preliminary PUD $1,500
Final PUD $1,000
Prelim/Final PUD Combined $2,250
PUD – Major Amendment $1,000
PUD – Minor Amendment $750
36-80 Erosion Control Plan
Application and Review $150
36-81 Tree Replacement
Cash in lieu of replacement trees $105 per caliper inch
36-162 Zoning Permit
Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25
36-339 Traffic Management Plan
Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor
36-361 Parking Lot Permit
Installation/Reconstruction $75
36-362 Sign Permit
Installation of permanent sign $75
Installation of permanent sign w/ footing
insp.
$100
Erection of Temporary sign $30
Erection of Real Estate, construction sign
40+ ft
$30
36-364 Fence Permit
Installation $15
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2007.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 12
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4a - 2nd Reading 2007 Fee Ordinance
Page 13
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2319-06
AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR BY ORDINANCE FOR
CALENDAR YEAR 2007
This ordinance sets 2007 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City code of Ordinances. The fee
ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to
determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2007.
Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 16, 2006
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 1
4b. Motion to adopt second reading of an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance
for awnings, signs, building materials and non-conformities, approve summary and
authorize publication.
BACKGROUND:
As a part of our on-going efforts to update the zoning ordinance, several amendments are
presented for Council consideration. The purpose of the changes is to amend and clarify
language in several places, and to include the following substantive changes:
A. Signs – increase size for blade signs, reduce setbacks for some free standing signs, and
increase sign area for multi-family signs.
B. Awnings and canopies – allow awnings and canopies to extend over walkways.
C. Use of fiber cement board (Hardie) as a building material.
D. Non-conformities.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 16, 2006 and on September 20,
2006 recommended approval of the attached proposed ordinance. The first reading was held on
October 16, 2006.
At the first reading, the Council directed staff to insert language requiring the cement board to be
textured and also requiring a minimum specification to be used. Staff researched the material,
and found studies and reports conducted by independent organizations such as the International
Code Council (ICC) that establish a ¼ inch minimum thickness in order to meet code.
Additional language was added to the ordinance to require textured boards of at least ¼ inch
thickness; the changes are shown in bold.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the 2nd reading of the attached
zoning ordinance amendments.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Summary for Publication
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. 2320-06
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 36-73, 36-362, 36-366, AND ARTICLE VI.
RELATIVE TO AWNINGS AND CANOPIES; SIGNS; BUILDING MATERIALS,
NON-CONFORMITIES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Findings
Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 06-52-ZA).
Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-73, 36-362, 36-366, and Article
VI are hereby amended as follows by deleting striken language and adding underscored
language. Section breaks are represented by ***.
***
Section 36-73 (Yard Encroachments)
***
(b) Principal building - any yard. The following shall not be encroachments on yard
requirements for principal buildings provided no permanent structure is placed in an
easement without first obtaining approval of an encroachment agreement:
(1) Balconies, bays and window wells not exceeding a depth of three feet and or
containing an area of less more than 20 square feet.
(2) Chimney, flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels, ornamental features,
cornices, eaves, and gutters; provided they do not extend more than three feet into
a required yard; and provided such encroachment is no closer than four feet from
all lot lines. Building overhangs shall also comply with the state building code.
(3) Terraces and steps which do not extend more than 2 1/2 feet above the height of
the ground floor level of the principal building, awnings, and door hoods provided
they are a minimum of two feet from any lot line.
(4) Uncovered porches, stoops, patios or decks which do not extend above the height
of the ground floor level of the principal building and are a minimum of two feet
from any interior side or rear lot line and 15 feet from any front lot line and do not
encroach on any side yard abutting a street.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 3
(5) Open covered porches that do not contain either windows or screens and are a
minimum of five feet from any interior side lot line, nine feet from any side yard
line abutting a street, 25 feet from any rear lot line and 20 feet from any front lot
line. Porches shall be open between the floor and the ceiling. All railings shall be
open utilizing posts and spindles.
(6) Awnings, canopies less than 25 feet in width and door hoods for commercial,
industrial, office and multi-family buildings of at least 12 residential units may
extend to the front and side yard abutting the street lot line. Awnings, canopies
and door hoods for single family homes and multi-family buildings of up to 11
residential units may extend up to four feet into a front and side yard abutting the
street. For all uses, awnings, canopies and door hoods may extend up to four feet
into an interior side and rear yard.
***
Sec. 36-362. Sign regulations.
***
(f) General provisions. Subject to the following regulations, signs are a permitted accessory
use in all use districts:
***
(2) Required yards. Signs shall maintain a 10 foot minimum yard to any property line
unless exempted below: No sign shall be erected or maintained in any required yard
in any use district with the following exceptions:
a. In the C-1, C-2 and M-X districts the required yard for any sign less than
200 square feet in sign area shall be 5 feet. All other signs shall have a
required yard of 20 feet unless exempted below.
b. In the C-1, C-2 and M-X districts, a blade sign may project into the required
front yard if the sign meets the following requirements:
1. The sign is attached to a wall in such a manner that meets the building
code; and
2. The lowest portion of the sign is no closer than 8 feet to the ground;
and
3. The sign shall not extend higher than the lowest portion of a window
of a residential unit located on the second story of a mixed use
building.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 4
4. No portion of the sign shall extend more than 4 5 feet into the required
yard from the building, and in no instances shall the sign project into
the public right-of-way.
5. The portion of any sign face extending into the required yard does not
exceed 9 40 square feet.
***
TABLE 36-362A
SIGN AREA AND HEIGHT
Use District
&Lot Size
(sq ft)
Maximu
m Sign
Height
(feet)
PERMANENT
SIGNAGE
TEMPORAR
Y
SIGNAGE
REAL
ESTATE
SIGNAGE
Maximu
m Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximu
m Size of
Sign
Face (sq
ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
Maximum
Total
Area
(sq ft)
R-4 6 25 40 25 40 25 80
R-C
0 - 20,000 15 40 40 25 80
Over 20,000 15 80 60 25 80
***
Sec. 36-366. Architectural design.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to serve the public interest by promoting a high
standard of development in the city. Through a comprehensive review of both functional and
aesthetic aspects of new or intensified developments, the city seeks to accomplish the following:
(1) Implement the comprehensive plan;
(2) Preserve the character of neighborhoods, commercial and industrial areas;
(3) Reasonably maintain and improve the city tax base;
(4) Reduce the adverse impacts of dissimilar land uses;
(5) Promote orderly and safe flow of vehicular and pedestrian traffic;
(6) Discourage the development of identical and similar building facades which detract from
the character and appearance of the neighborhood;
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 5
(7) Preserve the natural and built environment; and
(8) Minimize adverse impacts on adjacent properties from buildings which are or may
become unsightly.
To these ends, the city regulates the development of property in the manner stated in subsection
(b) of this section.
(b) Standards. The standards for development of property are as follows:
(1) The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the following
methods:
a. A parapet wall.
b. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the
rooftop equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the
building.
c. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky,
whichever is most effective.
Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is visible within 400 feet
from property in an R district, only the items listed in subsections (b)(1)a. and
(b)(1)b. of this section shall be used.
(2) The development must locate the noise-producing portions of the development, such as
loading docks, outside storage and outside activity away from adjacent residential areas.
(3) All outside storage areas shall be screened to minimize off-site views using as a
minimum bufferyard F.
(4) Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers, aboveground
tanks); refuse handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and other ancillary
equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from off-site views.
(5) All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this chapter.
(71) Building Design. Building design shall be consistent with the following requirements:
a. d. In addition to the minimum criteria, other a Architectural design elements
which that will be considered in the determination as to whether architecture
design is superior the review of buildings and site plans include are building
materials, color, and texture, building bulk, general massing, roof treatment,
proportion of openings, facade design elements and variation, fenestration,
windows and openings compatibility of materials,. Site plan design elements
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 6
which that will be considered in the determination as to whether site plan design
is superior include quantity, quality, variation, compatibility and size of plant
materials, landscape berms and screening walls. Also considered will be the
overall harmony and unity order, symmetry and proportion of the various
elements within the site and also within the larger context of the area or corridor.
b. The height, bulk, general massing, roof treatment, materials, colors, textures,
major divisions, and proportions of a new or remodeled building shall be
compatible with that of other buildings on the site and on adjacent sites.
c. Building wall deviations are required where the unbroken building wall length to
wall height ratio meets or exceeds 2:1. The minimum depth of each building wall
deviation at the 2:1 ratio shall be two feet. The unbroken wall length to wall
height ratio may be increased to 3:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is
increased to three feet. The unbroken wall length to wall height ratio may be
increased to 4:1 if the depth of the building wall deviations is increased to four
feet. The building wall deviations must extend from the grade to the roof, or top
of the parapet.
d. No building may display more than five percent of any elevation surface in bright,
pure accent colors.
e. Design review shall be done by the zoning administrator or the zoning
administrator's designee, except in cases where a conditional use permit or
planned unit development process is required, in which case the design review
shall be done by the planning coordinator. The staff decision is subject to review
by the city council.
e. The development must locate the noise-producing portions of the development,
such as loading docks, outside storage and outside activity away from adjacent
residential areas.
e. Generally, buildings of lower height, lesser bulk, pitched or gabled roofs,
variations in facade, and numerous fenestrations and openings will be considered
of higher quality. Generally, site plans with increased amount, variation and size
of landscape materials and higher landscape berms and screening walls will be
considered of higher quality.
f. All exterior finishes for one- and two-family dwellings and accessory structures
shall be installed within one year from the issuance of the building permit.
a. g. All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on
other buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and
additions thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that
covers more than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater than two
hours between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year.
Subsection (b)(13) of This section will not prohibit shading of buildings in an
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 7
industrial use district, or as approved for buildings covered by the same PUD,
CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor employee
break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and possible.
(62) Building Materials. Exterior surface materials of buildings shall be installed in
accordance with the adopted building code and the manufacturer’s specifications,
and shall be subject to the following regulations:
a. Classes of materials. For the purpose of this subsection (b)(61), mMaterials shall
be divided into class I, class II and class III categories as follows:
1. Class I. Brick, marble, granite or other natural stone, textured cement
stucco, copper, porcelain and glass are class I exterior building materials
on buildings other than those used as dwellings which contain four or
fewer dwelling units. Wood, or vinyl siding, fiber-reinforced cement
board and prefinished metal are class I materials on residential buildings
containing four or fewer dwelling units in addition to the other class I
materials listed in this subsection. Wood is a class I material on park
buildings under 3,000 square feet. If a minimum of two other Class I
materials are in use, clapboard and shake-style fiber-reinforced cement
board with a minimum thickness of ¼ inch may be used as a Class I
material for up to 10 percent of the façade on residential buildings with
more than four (4) units. “Smooth” finish fiber-reinforced cement
board is not permitted as a Class I material.
2. Class II. Exposed aggregate concrete panels, burnished concrete block,
integral colored split face (rock face) and exposed aggregate concrete
block, cast-in-place concrete, artificial stucco (E.I.F.S., Drivit), artificial
stone, fiber-reinforced cement board siding with a minimum thickness of
¼ inch, and prefinished metal.
3. Class III. Unpainted or surface painted concrete block (scored or
unscored), unpainted or surface painted plain or ribbed concrete panels,
and unfinished or surface painted metal.
b. Minimum class I materials. At least 60 percent of each building face visible from
off the site must be of class I materials except as permitted by subsection (b)(6)c.
of this section. Not more than ten 10 percent of each building face visible from off
the site may be of class III materials. Portions of buildings not visible from off the
site may be constructed of greater percentages of class II or class III materials if
the structure otherwise conforms to all city ordinances. The mixture of building
materials must be compatible and integrated.
c. Buildings in I-G and I-P districts.
1. Not on major streets and not near residential. For buildings in the I-G and
I-P districts which are not located on a principal arterial, minor arterial,
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 8
major collector, or adjacent to or across from any residentially zoned
property, class I materials may be reduced to a minimum of 25 percent
provided that the remaining materials are functionally and durably equal to
a class I material as certified by the architect or manufacturer.
2. On major streets or near residential. For building walls in the I-G and I-P
districts facing on a principal arterial, minor arterial or major collector, or
adjacent to or across from any residentially-zoned property, class I
materials may be reduced to a minimum orof 25 percent provided that the
remaining materials are functionally and durably equal to a class I material
as certified by the architect or manufacturer and that the architectural
design and site plan are superior quality as determined by the zoning
administrator. The architecture and site plan shall meet the following
minimum criteria to be considered superior quality:
i. The exposed height of the building wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
ii. The number of required plant units shall be increased by 20
percent or the size of 20 percent of the overstory trees installed
shall be increased to 3 1/2 caliper inches.
iii. A minimum of ten percent of the building facade must be windows
or glass spandrels.
(8) The site lighting shall provide adequate light for the safety and welfare of persons using
the site but shall not present a nuisance or hazard. Site lighting shall comply with the
regulations of section 36-363.
(9) For projects within all use districts where the lot area exceeds 50,000 square feet, at least
one percent of the lot area shall be devoted to pedestrian use such as plazas or walks.
(103) Additions and accessory structures. The exterior wall surface materials, roof treatment,
colors, textures, major divisions, proportion, rhythm of openings, and general
architectural character, including horizontal or vertical emphasis, scale, stylistic features
of additions, exterior alterations, and new accessory buildings shall conform to address
and respect the original architectural design and general appearance of the principal
buildings on the site and shall comply with the requirements of this section.
(4) Site design.
a. All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other
buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions
thereto shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow that covers more
than 50 percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year. Subsection
(b)(13) of this section will not prohibit shading of buildings in an industrial use
district, or as approved for buildings covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 9
Permit. Shading of existing public spaces and outdoor employee break areas shall
be minimized to the extent reasonable and possible.
b. Open lot area. For projects within all use districts where the lot area exceeds
50,000 square feet, at least one percent of the lot area shall be devoted to pedestrian
use such as plazas or walks.
(4) Screening.
a. The visual impact of rooftop equipment shall be minimized using one of the
following methods. Where rooftop equipment is located on buildings and is
visible within 400 feet from property in an R district, only the items listed in
subsections 1 and 2 shall be used.
1. A parapet wall.
2. A fence the height of which extends at least one foot above the top of the
rooftop equipment and incorporates the architectural features of the
building.
3. The rooftop equipment shall be painted to match the roof or the sky,
whichever is most effective.
b. Utility service structures (such as utility meters, utility lines, transformers,
aboveground tanks); refuse handling; loading docks; maintenance structures; and
other ancillary equipment must be inside a building or be entirely screened from
off-site views utilizing a privacy fence or wall that is at least six feet in height. A
chain link fence with slats shall not be accepted as screening.
c. All utility services shall be underground except as provided elsewhere in this
chapter.
(115) Parking ramps. All new parking ramps constructed after the adoption of the ordinance
from which this section is derived shall meet the following design standards:
a. Parking ramp facades which that are visible from off the site shall display an
integration of building materials, building form, textures, architectural motif, and
building colors with the principal building.
b. No signs other than directional signs shall be permitted on parking ramp facades.
c. If the parking ramp is located within 20 feet of a street right-of-way or
recreational trail, the facade facing the street shall be subject to the same
requirements for exterior surface materials as for buildings.
(12) The relationship of the building to the site and adjacent property, including site access
and pedestrian movement, shall be complementary.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 10
(13) All developments shall consider the effect of sun angles and shade patterns on other
buildings. All new multiple-family and nonresidential buildings and additions thereto
shall be located so that the structure does not cast a shadow which covers more than 50
percent of another building wall for a period greater than two hours between 9:00 a.m.
and 3:00 p.m. for more than 60 days of the year. Subsection (b)(13) of this section will
not prohibit shading of buildings in an industrial use district, or as approved for buildings
covered by the same PUD, CUP, or Special Permit. Shading of existing public spaces
and outdoor employee break areas shall be minimized to the extent reasonable and
possible. (Ord. No. 2262-03, 12-15-03)
(6) Awnings and canopies.
a. Awnings and Canopies.
1. Construction. Awnings and canopies shall have noncombustible frames. If an
awning can be collapsed, retracted or folded, the design shall be such that the
awning does not block any required exit.
2. Projection. Awnings and canopies less than 25 feet in width may extend up to
two feet from the face of the nearest curb line measured horizontally.
3. Clearance. All portions of any awning and canopy shall provide at least eight
feet of clearance or any walkway and twelve feet of clearance over nay
driveway or roadway.
4. Supports. Canopy posts or other supports located within a public right-of-way
or easement shall be placed in a location approved by the city engineer.
b. Permit required. A building permit shall be issued prior to the installation of any
awning or canopy. In addition to the building permit, an encroachment agreement
shall be issued by the city engineer prior to the installation of any awning or canopy
that extends into, upon or over any street or alley right-of-way, park or other public
property. The encroachment agreement shall include provisions that hold the owner
of the awning or canopy liable to the city for any damage which may result to any
person or property by reason of such encroachment or the removal of such
encroachment. Additional conditions may be imposed on encroachment permits to
protect the health, safety or welfare of the public or to protect nearby property
owners from hardship or damage or to protect other public interests as determined
by the city engineer.
c. Submission requirements. The following information shall be submitted prior to
the installation of an awning or canopy.
1. Application form and fee. A separate fee shall be required for the building
permit and encroachment agreement.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 11
2. Dimensioned and scaled site plan and building elevations.
3. Four sets of drawings for each awning or canopy proposed.
d. Projections to be safe. All such projections over public property shall be
structurally safe, shall be kept in a safe condition and state of repair consistent with
the design thereof and repaired when necessary in the opinion of the city engineer
or building official by and at the expense of the person having ownership or control
of the building from which they project.
e. Removal upon order. The owner of an awning or canopy, any part of which
projects into, upon, over or under any public property shall upon being ordered to
do so by the city engineer remove at once any part or all of such encroachment and
shall restore the right-of-way to a safe condition. Such removal and restoration of
the right-of-way will be at the sole expense of the property owner. The city may,
upon failure of the property owner to remove the encroachment as ordered, remove
the encroachment, and the reasonable costs of removing such encroachment
incurred by the city shall be billed and levied against the property as a special
assessment.
(14c) Appeal. In any instance where the zoning administrator denies a permit or a request for
preliminary approval of building materials or building design, the applicant may submit
an appeal to the interpretation, based upon the plans and other papers on file in the office
of the zoning administrator, to the city council without payment of additional filing fees
of any kind.
ARTICLE VI. NONCONFORMITIES
Sec. 36-401. Scope of article.
Nothing in this article shall be construed to permit a violation of any section of this
chapter or the continuation of any unsafe or unsanitary condition.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-1.0)
Sec. 36-402. Purpose.
The purpose of this article is to provide for the continuation and eventual elimination of
all nonconforming uses and certain other nonconformities and other instances of
nonconformance by:
(1) Recognizing certain developmentsnonconformities which lawfully existed prior to the
effective date of the ordinance from which this article is derived.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 12
(2) Prohibiting the enlargement, intensification, expansion, rebuilding or extension of
nonconformities.
(3) Providing criteria which provide for the reconstruction of nonconforming uses which are
damaged by fire or other natural disaster.
(4) Encouraging the elimination of nonconformities or minimizing their impact on adjacent
properties.
(5) Requiring certain nonconformities and other instances of nonconformance in certain
situations to either comply with this chapter or terminate.
(6) Providing an equitable system for the termination of certain nonconformities.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-1.1)
Sec. 36-403. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
Legal nonconforming means anything lawfully existing before the enactment of the
ordinance from which this chapter is derived which does not conform to a condition or provision
of this chapter, including but not limited to buildings and other structures, off-street parking,
outdoor sales and storage, land use, signs, outdoor lighting, subdivided parcels of land and
developments. Nonconforming and nonconformity mean any development, structure, sign, site
lighting, off-street parking lot, bufferyard, land use, or parcelNonconformity means any use, lot,
or structure which was legally constructed or established prior to the effective date of the
ordinance from which this chapter is derived, or subsequent amendment to it, which would not
be permitted by or is not in full compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Nonconforming bufferyards means bufferyards which do not conform to the distance,
height, screening, density, material or planting requirements of this chapter.
Nonconforming buildings means buildings which do not conform to the dimensional
standards or densities of the district in which they are located.
Nonconforming land use not permitted in the city means a land use which is not listed as
permitted, permitted with conditions, or permitted with a conditional use permit in any district in
the city.
Nonconforming land use not permitted in a district means a land use which is not listed
as permitted, permitted with conditions, or permitted with a conditional use permit in the district
in which it is located.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 13
Nonconforming land use with no conditional use permit means a land use which requires
a conditional use permit in the district in which it is located for which a valid conditional use
permit has not been issued.
Nonconforming lighting means outdoor site lighting which does not conform to the
intensity or source visibility requirements of this chapter. Nonconforming lot means a lot of
record which does not conform to the width, lot area, or other dimensional requirements of the
district in which it is located.
Nonconforming signs means signs which do not conform to the requirementsstructure is
any structure which was legally constructed prior to the effective date of the ordinance from
which this chapter is derived, or subsequent amendment to it, which would not be permitted by
or is not in full compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
Nonconforming use means any use which was legally established prior to the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived, or subsequent amendment to it, which
would not be permitted by or is not in full compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-1.2)
Structure for purposes of this article means a permanent building having a roof which
may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or personal property.
Cross reference(s)--Definitions generally, § 1-2.
Use for purposes of this article means the overall general purpose or activity for which a
premises is generally designed, arranged or intended for which it is or may be occupied or
maintained.
Sec. 36-404. General requirements.
A legal nonconformity existing at the time of the ordinance from which this chapter is
derived may be continued except as provided in this article.
(1) Right to continue. A legalExcept for a Sexually Oriented Business as defined in the City
Code, a nonconformity may be continued at the size andin the manner of operation
existing at the time of adoption of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived,
except as provided in this articlesubject to the provisions of this Article.
(2) Subject to general requirements of this chapter. Subject to its right to continue, a
property having a nonconformity is subject to all provisions of this chapter and future
amendments thereto.
(3) Expansion prohibited. A nonconformity shall not be enlarged, extended, expanded or
changed in any manner or dimension except to comply with the provisions of this
chapter.(3) Intensification prohibited. A nonconforming land use shall not be
intensified in. Expansion includes the intensification of the character or operation.
Intensification of a nonconformity. Expansion shall include, but not be limited to,
increased hours of operation, expansion of the use to a portion of the property not
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 14
previously used, reducing the size of the parcel containing the nonconforming
usenonconformity by subdivision or administrative lot line adjustment, expansion of a
parking area and increased number of employees.
(4) Damaged or destroyed structures. If the cost to repair aany nonconformity involving a
damaged structure is more than 60is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of
greater than 50 percent of the assessor'sits assessed market value of the structure at the
time of the damage, the structure shall be removed or made to conform with this chapter
within 12 months of the occurrence of the damage., and no building permit has been
applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged, the building official may
impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly
created impact on adjacent property. If the building permit has not been applied for
within one year of the date of destruction, any right to continue the nonconformity is
terminated and any future use of the land must comply fully with this chapter.
(5) Termination of rights through discontinuation of the use. If a nonconformity is
discontinued for a period of more than one year, any right to continue the nonconformity
is terminated and any future use of the land must comply fully with this chapter.
(5) Reduction in nonconformity. Any nonconformity which is reduced in size, intensity or
otherwise becomes more conforming may not again expand or become less conforming.
Removal of a structure, relocation, reduction, or elimination of any site element, such as
outdoor storage, is a reduction in intensity.
Sec. 36-405. Special requirements.
(6
(1) City approvals.
a. Condition for approval. The city may not issue a conditional use permit,
Conditional Use Permit (CUP), Planned Unit Development (PUD), or building
permit for an addition which increases the leasable floor area or density for any
property which contains a nonconformity unless the nonconformity is removed as
a condition of the approvalthat is not in compliance with the provisions of this
chapter. Amendments to existing special permits shall be administered in
accordance with section 36-36(c)(4).
b. Exception. If a new use requiring a conditional use permitCUP, PUD or special
permit amendment is proposed for part of a multiple tenant building, and there are
no exterior modifications needed to accommodate the new tenant which would
result in an increase in floor area ratio, ground floor area ratio, building height,
density, or a decrease in required yards, or other substantial change (other than
property improvement to meet building code requirements), then the city may
issue a conditional use permitCUP, PUD or special permit amendment provided
the following standards are met:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 15
1. The new use does not increase or intensify nonconformities on the
propertyinvolve an expansion of the nonconformity or otherwise increase
the noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter.
2. Any nonconformitiesnonconformity or other items of noncompliance
existing on the site shall be brought into greater or complete compliance
with other provisions of this chapter to the extent reasonable and possible,
except that greater or complete compliance will not be required with the
following provisions of this chapter:
i. Lot area.
ii. Lot width.
iii. Required yards.
iv. Building height
v. Floor area ratio.
vi. Ground floor area ratio.
vii. Density.
viii. Usable open space.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-2; Ord. No. 2155-00, 2-7-2000; Ord. No. 2163-00, 3-20-2000; Ord. No.
2188-01, 2-5-2001)
Sec. 36-405. Special requirements.
(a) Nonconforming land use.
(1) Termination of rights through discontinuation of the use. If a legal nonconforming land
use terminates operations or use for a period of time exceeding one year or if the land or
building is vacant for a period of time exceeding one year, the city may infer an intent to
abandon the use and the nonconforming rights granted by this section are terminated and
any future use of the land must comply fully with this chapter. As evidence of an intent to
discontinue or abandon the operation or use, the city may consider, but is not limited to,
the following factors:
a. Filing of a petition for tax abatement.
b. Notice of tax forfeiture.
c. Disconnection of utilities.
d. Boarding up and securing of building.
e. Voluntary destruction of the building or property.
f. Voluntary change to a conforming land use.
g. Unpermitted and illegal change from one nonconforming land use to another.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 16
h. Change in business practices.
i. Lease or conveyance of property for a different use, including sublease of the
premises for another nonconforming use or the same use conducted by another
tenant.
j. Any other factors from which an intent to discontinue or abandon may be
reasonably inferred.
(2) Change in tenant or ownership. Any change of a tenant or in the ownership of any land
which is classified as a legal nonconforming land use shall require the new tenant or
owner to obtain a certificate of occupancy before the nonconforming use may be
continued.(3) Permitted construction. Construction is permitted on a lot under the
following circumstances:
a. Where a legal nonconforming land use exists and where the construction is
determined by the director of inspections to be necessary to bring the building
into compliance with applicable health and safety codes.
a. The repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement of any
nonconformity, but not including expansion, except that such construction is
prohibited in floodplain areas to the extent necessary to maintain eligibility in the
National Flood Insurance Program and not increase flood damage potential or
increase the degree of construction to flood flows in the floodway.
b. Where the constructionConstruction which would allow additions and alterations
to buildings containing legal nonconforming residentialdwelling units provided
they complycomplying with the following conditions:
1. The construction will not result in an increase in the number of dwelling
units.; and
2. The building or parcel is not located in an area which the council has
designated as a high priority for redevelopment according to an adopted
redevelopment strategy or plan. For the purpose of this section, a
redevelopment strategy or plan shall be defined as a document and/or
process which specifically outlines the area to be redeveloped and may
include timelines and/or action steps to be taken, or which are being taken,
to achieve the redevelopment. These action steps may include, but are not
limited to, solicitation of developers, the purchase of property,
environmental testing or remediation, demolition of structures and other
similar activities.
(3) Change in tenant or ownership. Any change of a tenant or in the ownership of any land
which is classified as a nonconforming use shall require the new tenant or owner to
obtain a certificate of occupancy or Registration of Land Use before the nonconforming
use may be continued.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 17
(4) Reduction in intensityChange to less intense use. A nonconforming land use may be
changed to a less intense nonconforming land use subject to approval by the zoning
administrator. The property owner or tenant has the burden of providing evidence that the
proposed land use is less intense than the existing nonconforming land use. The zoning
administrator shall consider the evidence provided by the property owner or tenant in
evaluating relative intensities including, but not limited to, each of the following factors:
a. Hours of operation.
b. Signage.
c. Off-street parking and loading.
d. Nature of business operations.
e. Type of equipment or machinery.
f. Outdoor storage.
g. Number of employees.
h. Aesthetic impacts on surrounding property.
i. Property values.
The decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed in the manner set forth in
section 36-31.
(b) Nonconforming structures. In the following cases, construction is permitted on or
within a legal nonconforming structure:
(1) Construction which is determined by the building official to be necessary to bring
the building into compliance with applicable health and safety codes.
(2) Construction which does not extend, expand or intensify the nonconformity.
(5) Reduction in nonconformity. Any nonconformity which is reduced in size, intensity or
otherwise becomes more conforming may not again expand or become less conforming.
(3) Routine maintenance and nonstructural alterations and repairs that do not extend the
useful economic life of the structure.(c6) Nonconformity as a result of government
action.
(1) If a governmental body takes land by exercise of its right of eminent domain and
by that taking creates a parcel which does not conform to the width, area, or yard
requirements of this chapter, the nonconforming parcel shall become a legal non-
conformity and may be used thereafter only by complying with the provisions of
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 18
this section, however, such a legal nonconformity is exempt from the amortization
provisions as contained in section 36-406. The same nonconforming status of the
nonconforming parcel will result if the governmental body acquired the land by
negotiation rather than by condemnation.(2) If the owner of a property which
becomes a legal nonconformity or nonconforming lot as the result of a
governmental takingacquisition by condemnation or negotiation applies for a
variance to reinstateeliminate the legalnonconforming status toof the property, the
governmental takingacquisition shall constitute a hardship for the purpose of the
variance.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-3; Ord. No. 2212-01, § 2, 10-3-2001)
Sec. 36-406. Amortization of certain uses.
(a) Purpose. St. Louis Park is a fully developed city and as such, there are certain uses
which are no longer compatible with the nature of the community. In general, these uses tend to
create noise, traffic and dust problems and have a negative impact on property values and
aesthetics due to the fact they are incompatible with the surrounding area. It is the intent of the
city to gradually eliminate those uses which, because of their location or manner of operation,
create a negative impact on the health and welfare of the neighborhood in which they exist. To
the extent practical and consistent with good land use planning and zoning principles, the city
has made every effort to accommodate permitting uses in districts where they are less likely to
cause negative impact. In reaching its conclusion to provide for the gradual elimination of all
nonconforming uses not permitted in any zoning district in the city, the city council has weighed
the interests of the individual property owners who will be required to gradually terminate their
nonconforming use and the health, welfare and safety of the community generally and the
surrounding neighborhoods specifically.
(b) Registration of land uses required. All owners of property that contain a use not
permitted in any zoning district shall register their nonconforming use with the city, within one
year from the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived. Property owners
are responsible for determining the applicability of this provision to their property.
(1) Notice. The city will provide property owners of nonconforming uses subject to the
provisions of this section with written notice that the property must be registered. The
city shall also have notice of the registration requirement published in the city's official
newspaper within 60 days of the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter
is derived. The failure of the city to provide a property owner with written notice shall
not absolve the property owners from the responsibility for registering their property, nor
shall it extend the length of the registration period.
(2) Registration process. The property owner shall file a registration application with the
zoning administrator on a form provided by the city and accompanied by a fee to be
determined by the city council. The registration application shall require the property
owner to submit pertinent information including, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Name, address and telephone number of the legal owner of the property;
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 19
b. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of any tenants or lessees, along with a
copy of lease agreements;
c. Legal description of the property;
d. Description of the type and nature of the nonconforming use, including a
description of the structures and improvements on the property, manner of
operation, hours of operation, size of structure, type of construction, age of
structure and location of structures on the property;
e. Description of surrounding neighborhood including street patterns and access;
f. Information relating to the length of time the nonconforming use has been in
existence;
g. Description of land use within 350 feet of the property;
h. Evidence of the original cost of the property and structures and any subsequent
improvements to the structures;
i. A current appraisal of the value of the property and structures;
j. A description of the depreciation method applied to the property for income tax
purposes, based on generally recognized accounting principles applicable at the
time the property was originally acquired by the owner;
k. The assessed value of the property for property tax purposes;
l. Copies of income tax and financial statements for the past five years;
m. Any additional information the property owner may want to provide that may
affect the length of the amortization period.
(3) Exceptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to bars which existed as a
principal use upon the effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived.
(c) Failure to register. Failure to register a nonconforming use within one year from the
effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived shall require the owner or
tenant to terminate the nonconforming use within six months from the end of the registration
period. The city may take any and all action permitted by law to require the termination of the
nonconforming use, including but not limited to securing and boarding the property containing
the nonconforming use.
(d) Determination of amortization period. Within 90 days from the time the zoning
administrator receives a complete registration application, the city shall advise the property
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 20
owner in writing of the length of the amortization period along with the factors used by the city
to determine the amortization period.
(1) Meeting with property owner. Within 15 days of receiving a registration application, the
zoning administrator shall meet with the property owner to review the registration
application and whether it is complete. The city shall not undertake an analysis of the
registration application until it is complete.
(2) Factors in determining the length of the amortization period. The zoning administrator
shall consider, at a minimum, the following factors in determining the length of the
amortization period:
a. Information relating to the structure located on the property;
b. Nature of the use;
c. Location of the property in relation to surrounding uses;
d. Description of the character of and uses in the surrounding neighborhood;
e. Cost of the property and improvements to the property;
f. Benefit to the public by requiring the termination of the nonconforming use;
g. Burden on the property owner by requiring the termination of the nonconforming
use;
h. The length of time the use has been in existence and the length of time the use has
been nonconforming.
(3) Staff report recommending amortization period. The zoning administrator shall prepare a
written report detailing the factors considered in establishing the length of the
amortization period. The report shall contain a recommendation to the city council on the
length of the amortization period.
(4) City council to establish amortization period. The city council shall by ordinance amend
the ordinance from which this chapter is derived to establish an amortization period for
individual land uses not permitted in the city. The amortization period shall commence
upon publication of the ordinance establishing the length of the amortization period.
(e) Nonconforming signs. All nonconforming signs must be brought into compliance with
this chapter or removed within the time established in section 36-362.(f7) Nonconforming
parking.
(1)a. Any land use on any property which contains a nonconforming parking lot or
paved area shall not be expanded or intensified unless the property is brought into
compliance with the standards contained in section 36-361(b). However, all
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 21
nonconforming parking lots and paved areas must comply with section 36-361(b)
on or before October 31, 1997. In addition to the other penalties provided by law,
the city may withhold a certificate of occupancy for any property not in
compliance with this section.
(2) b. Any land use which does not provide the number of parking spaces required by
section 36-361(c) may remain as a nonconformity. However, the land use may not
be expanded or intensified unless it provides the parking spaces required under
this chapter for the expansion or intensification. A use will be considered to be
expanded or intensified if any of the following occur:
a. The floor area is increased.b. The parking requirement is increased.
c. The building bulk is increased.
d. A building addition is constructed.(3) Land usesUses with nonconforming
parking in terms of numbers of stalls need not provide additional parking to bring
the use into compliance if such parking would occupy required yards or
bufferyards.
(g8) Nonconforming bufferyards. If buildings were existing on a parcel of land on the
effective date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived which, due to their
location, make construction of the required bufferyards impossible, the following
reductions in the bufferyard requirements may be made if the required bufferyard is:
(1)a. A bufferyard B and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less
than ten feet, a bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using 100
percent of the required plant units.
(2)b. Either A or B and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F1 fence
and 50 percent of the plant units required for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard
shall be installed.
(3)c. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than
ten feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F2 fence
plus 50 plant units for each 100 linear feet of bufferyard.
(4)d. Either C or D and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, an F4 fence
shall be installed plus 25 plant units for each 100 linear feet of required
bufferyard.
(5)e. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least ten feet but less than 15
feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using a BW1 berm
wall plus 75 plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 22
(6)f. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is at least four feet but less than
ten feet, the bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall
and 50 plant units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
(7)g. Either E or F and the available bufferyard width is less than four feet, the
bufferyard shall be installed on the available width using an F6 wall plus 25 plant
units per 100 linear feet of required bufferyard.
(h) Nonconforming lighting. All site lighting which exceeds the maximum allowable light
levels at the property line or where the direct light source is visible from off the site must be
modified to comply with section 36-363 or removed from the site within one year of the effective
date of the ordinance from which this chapter is derived.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-4)
Sec. 36-407. Amortization of Apple Valley Red-E-Mix.
The reasonable amortization period applicable to the ready-mix facility owned and
operated by Apple Valley Red-E-Mix at 3270 Gorham Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
shall be two years, commencing upon publication of this ordinance. At the conclusion of the
two-year amortization period, Apple Valley Red-E-Mix's nonconforming ready-mix use shall
terminate and cease to operate. In accordance with M.S.A. § 462-362 and section 36-37(a), this
section shall be enforceable by mandamus, injunction, or any other appropriate remedy in any
court of competent jurisdiction.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-4.1)
Sec. 36-408. Appeals.
With the exception of section 36-405(a)(4), the provisions of sections 36-402 through 36-
406 are not subject to appeal to the city council.
(Code 1976, § 14:7-5.0)
Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 06-52-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 23
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4b - 2nd Reading Zoning Text Amendments For Awnings, Signs, Building
Materials And Non-Conformities
Page 24
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO.2320-06
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING
This ordinance states that amendments will be made to the zoning code relative to awnings and
canopies; signs; building materials; and non-conformities.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 16, 2006
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4c - Workers Compensation Renewal
Page 1
4c. Motion to adopt a resolution approving continued participation in the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for workers compensation coverage
effective December 1, 2006.
BACKGROUND:
In 2003, the Council approved participation in the LMCIT for workers compensation coverage.
The policy year on our workers compensation coverage runs from December 1 – November 30
each year.
From 1993 to 2003, the City was self-insured for worker’s compensation, using Sedgwick
Claims Management to administer our claims. We continue to be responsible for work comp
activity, including reactivated claims during this timeframe. We are hopeful that we will be able
to continue with Sedgwick for administration of claims and activity from 1993 – 2003.
Costs
The quote for renewal with LMCIT for workers compensation, including managed care, is:
12/1/05 – 11/30/06 12/1/06 – 11/30/07 Increase
$340,318 $342,076 0.5%
We are pleased with this quote. The increase is based on actual estimated payroll and our
experience modification factor (review of claims activity) of .83. The lower the experience
modification number, the higher the discount we could receive on premiums. Our experience of
.83 shows that we had a low level of claims activity in 2006. We also receive a 3% discount on
our premium rates by participating in managed care.
We are in the process of obtaining a 2007 quote from Sedgwick to administer our old claims.
Budget
Funds to cover a fully insured workers compensation program through the LMCIT are included
in the budget. Funds for coverage for “tail claims” during the timeframe we were self-insured
have also been reserved in our budget and the uninsured loss fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
We are pleased with how the workers compensation claims are being handled through LMCIT.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving continued
participation in the League of Minnesota Workers Compensation Program effective
December 1, 2006.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator
Reviewed by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4c - Workers Compensation Renewal
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-175
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION IN THE
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST (LMCIT)
WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt workers compensation coverage and
programs to limit liability to the City of St. Louis Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that:
1. The City continues coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for
workers compensation coverage effective December 1, 2006.
2. The City Manager shall continue to secure coverage for management of claims made
between the period of 1993 through 2003 when the City was self-insured for workers
compensation and also has the authority to continue to approve payment for necessary
administration, processing and settlement of such open claims.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4d - Amendment Additional Professional Services Infilitration-Inflow
Analysis Of Sanitary Sewer System
Page 1
4d. Motion to approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 102-05 providing additional
Professional Services related to the Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the Sanitary
Sewer System.
BACKGROUND:
The Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) has determined the capacity in their
sanitary interceptors and treatment plants is being compromised by Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) from
local municipal systems. As a result MCES is proposing to charge cities, including St. Louis
Park, a surcharge if this situation isn’t corrected. This surcharge would have substantial cost
implications to the City, with estimated costs of approximately $630,000 per year.
Based on the Met Council I/I study and requirements, SEH, Inc. was retained in August 2005 to
review/assess our situation and advise on how we might proceed in this matter. An initial
contract with SEH provided for review of past I/I abatement work conducted by City personnel,
evaluation of lift station data based on local rainfall records, and installation of groundwater
monitoring wells followed with a Phase I report summarizing their investigation results along
with recommended future I/I study actions. In January 2006 Amendment No. 1 to this contract
was approved providing for Phase II of this study. Phase II activities consisted of the collection
of sanitary sewer flows, rainfall, and groundwater elevation data from February through August
of 2006. In August 2006 Amendment No. 2 to this contract was approved providing for Phase
III of this study. Phase III activities consisted of a preliminary analysis of data collected in Phase
II with a technical report determining the adequacy of data and alternatives available for
completing this study. Phase III activities were completed in late September.
ADDITIONAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
Additional professional services are needed to perform Phase IV of our Sanitary Sewer I/I study
(would represent third amendment to original contract). Phase IV is the final phase of the I/I
study and consists of a detailed flow monitoring analysis of the sewer system, development of an
I/I abatement plan, provide sewer ordinance recommendations, preparation of a final report, and
attendance at meetings with staff / Council. Staff expects this will complete the analysis work
required to allow the City to consider how to proceed with future I/I abatement activities. The
proposed funding source for this third amendment would be the Sanitary Sewer Fund.
FINANCIAL:
The professional service cost for Contract 102-05 with SEH, Inc. is as follows:
Original Contract $ 15,000
Amendment No. 1 $ 19,400
Amendment No. 2 $ 15,000
Amendment No. 3 (proposed) $ 18,600
Total $ 68,000
Attachments: Proposed Amendment No. 3
Prepared By: Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator
Reviewed By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4d - Amendment Additional Professional Services Infilitration-Inflow
Analysis Of Sanitary Sewer System
Page 2
AMENDMENT NO. 3
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
INFLOW & INFILTRATION (I&I) ANALYSIS OF THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM
CONTRACT NO. 102-05
THIS AGREEMENT is made on August 3, 2005, by and between the CITY OF ST.
LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, and SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.
1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement to conduct an
I/I Analysis of the Sanitary Sewer System dated August 3, 2005. On January 30, 2006
Amendment No. 1 was approved to perform data collection services. On August 10,
2006 Amendment No. 2 was approved to perform preliminary analysis of flow
monitoring data and prepare a recommendations report.
2. ITEM NO. 1: SCOPE of SERVICES is modified to include Phase IV Work Tasks as set
forth in Exhibit “D” to perform detailed flow monitoring analysis, development of an I/I
abatement plan, provide sewer ordinance recommendations, prepare final report, and
attend meetings with staff / Council.
3. ITEM NO. 2: TIME for PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES is modified to have a new
completion date of February 24, 2007, allowing for the completion of tasks identified in
Exhibit “D”.
4. ITEM NO. 3: COMPENSATION for SERVICES is modified to include additional
compensation of $18,600 for the completion of tasks identified in Exhibit “D”. The total
compensation for Contract No. 102-05 including amendments is increased to $68,000.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their respective duly authorized officers.
EXECUTED as to the day and year first above written.
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Reviewed for Public Works:
_________________________________ ____________________________________
Jeffery W. Jacobs, Mayor Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
___________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager SHORT ELLIOT HENDRICKSON, INC.
By_________________________________
Attest:
Its__________________________________
__________________________________
Nancy J. Stroth, City Clerk By _________________________________
Its__________________________________
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4d - Amendment Additional Professional Services Infilitration-Inflow
Analysis Of Sanitary Sewer System
Page 3
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4d - Amendment Additional Professional Services Infilitration-Inflow
Analysis Of Sanitary Sewer System
Page 4
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4d - Amendment Additional Professional Services Infilitration-Inflow
Analysis Of Sanitary Sewer System
Page 5
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4e - Minor Amendment Special Permit Addition CDI 5775 Wayzata Blvd
Page 1
4e. Motion to approve an amendment to the Special Permit to allow an 800 square foot
addition to the office building located at 5775 Wayzata Blvd.
BACKGROUND:
On July 15, 1985, the City Council approved a special permit to construct a nine story office
building, drive-in banking facility, and Class III restaurant at 5775 Wayzata Blvd (Park Place
East). Since then, the permit was amended to allow additions, a trailer housing temporary
medical equipment for CDI (Center for Diagnostic Imaging).
REQUEST:
CDI is asking for an amendment to allow the construction of an 800 square foot, one-story
addition on the south east side of the building. The space is needed to provide an open MRI
scanner which will greatly increase the service CDI can offer, making it the only imaging facility
in the area to offer all three types of MRI technology. The benefits of the new scanner, and the
services offered by CDI St. Louis Park, are explained in the attached memo from CDI. The
addition will be constructed entirely within the landscaped area between the parking lot and the
building. It will not require additional parking, and it will not alter the existing parking lot.
Additional landscaping will be planted around the addition to replace two trees that will be
removed, and to provide more screening than what is currently at the site.
The site is required to maintain at least 12% of the property in open space. The site has
approximately 135,900 square feet of open space, and is required to have at least 65,606 square
feet. With this addition, the open space will be reduced to 135,100 square feet, which is well
above the 65,606 square foot minimum required.
The proposal meets all zoning requirements, and no issues were identified by the Building
Inspections, Engineering and Fire Departments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the existing special permit to allow the
construction of the 800 square foot addition with the following conditions:
1. The addition is to be constructed as illustrated in the attached site plan, landscaping plan
and building elevation exhibits.
Attachments: Proposed Resolution
Site Aerial Photo
Proposed Elevations (supplement)
Letter from CDI (supplement)
Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4e - Minor Amendment Special Permit Addition CDI 5775 Wayzata Blvd
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-176
Amends and Restates Resolution No. 06-139
RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 06-139
ADOPTED ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2006, AND GRANTING AMENDMENT
TO EXISTING SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER SECTION 36-36 OF THE ST.
LOUIS PARK ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN 800 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION AT
5775 WAYZATA BOULEVARD
Findings
WHEREAS, Center for Diagnostic Imaging-CDI (Park Place Opco, LLC), has made
application to the City Council for an amendment to an existing special permit under Section
36-36 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow the construction of an 800 square foot
addition at 5775 Wayzata Boulevard within an (O) Office Zoning District having the following
legal description:
That part of Lot 4, Block 2, Park Plaza, Hennepin County; lying southerly and
easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the most northerly
corner of said Lot 4; thence on a plat bearing of South 47 degrees 01 minute 08
seconds West along the northwesterly line of said Lot 4 a distance of 140.50 feet;
thence South 01 degree 39 minutes 00 seconds West, along the west line of said
Lot 4, a distance of 85.62 feet to the Point of Beginning of the line to be
described; thence South 89 degrees 40 minutes 35 seconds East a distance of
168.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of
179.50 feet; thence North 00 degrees 02 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of
179.69 feet to the North line of said Lot 4 and there terminating. Subject to that
portion taken for highway purposes in the Final Certificate filed under Doc. No.
2498477. Subject to drainage easement as shown on plat, subject to drainage and
utility easements as shown on plat, Subject to drainage easements as shown on the
plat of Minneapolis Baseball and Athletic Association Addition and Deed Doc.
No. 683511, but free from the utility easements of the plat and Doc. No. 683511;
(Now as to above land)
Together with a non-exclusive easement for driveway and sidewalk purposes
over adjoining Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 1512, as created in
Document No. 1431433. (See Order Doc. No. 2460505).
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case
Nos. 78-127-DDD, 81-114-SP, 85-31-SP, 87-84-SP, 04-58-CUP, 06-55-CUP and 06-65-CUP
and the effect of the proposed amendment to the site plan on the health, safety, and welfare of the
occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on
values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan;
and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4e - Minor Amendment Special Permit Addition CDI 5775 Wayzata Blvd
Page 3
WHEREAS, a special permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to
Resolution No. 87-209 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated December 21, 1987, which
contained conditions applicable to said property; and
WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now
necessary, requiring the amendment of that special permit; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the
permit granted by Resolution No. 06-139, to add the amendments now required, and to
consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution;
WHEREAS, the contents of Case Nos. 78-127-DDD, 81-114-SP, 85-31-SP, 87-84-SP,
04-58-CUP, 06-55-CUP and 06-65-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public
hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 06-139 is hereby
restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special permit to the
subject property for the purposes of permitting the construction of an 800 square foot addition
within the (O) Office District at the location described above based on the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A -
Site Plan; Exhibit B - Planting and lighting Plan; Exhibit C - Grading Plan;
Exhibit D - Garage Level Plan; Exhibit E - Elevation Plans; Exhibit F - Site Plan
and Utility Diagram, except as modified on November 9, 1978 and on July 1,
1985, and on August 18, 2003. (Exhibits are on file in the City Development
office at the City of St. Louis Park.)
2. All landscaping, parking improvements, curbing, sodding, building construction
and related elements as shown on the exhibits shall be completed by October 15,
1980.
3. That a Class III restaurant be allowed on the first floor as shown on Exhibit G -
Cafeteria, containing no more than 1,800 square feet of floor area and without any
exterior signage.
4. An addition to the east side of the building containing 1,866 square feet is hereby
permitted in accordance with Exhibit H - Park Place Office Building Addition
Site Plan/Floor Plan; and Exhibit I - Park Place Office Building Addition
Elevations. Said Exhibits H and I supersede the exhibits in Condition No. 1, but
only to the extent relative to the 1,866 square foot addition and realignment of the
abutting driveway connecting the two parking lots and adjacent landscaping. If
the proposed addition is constructed, it shall be completed, including the said
landscaping adjustments and driveway, by May 15, 1986.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4e - Minor Amendment Special Permit Addition CDI 5775 Wayzata Blvd
Page 4
5. An addition to the northeast side of the building containing 1,492 square feet is
hereby permitted in accordance with Exhibit A1 - Site Plan and Planting Plan; and
Exhibit E1 - Elevation Plan, with all improvements to be completed by October 30, 1988.
6. The following conditions pertain to the restaurant building located in the
northwest corner of the subject property:
a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with
Exhibit A, Site Plan; Exhibit B, Planting and Lighting Plan; Exhibit C,
Grading Plan; Exhibit D, Garage Level Plan; Exhibit E, Elevation Plans;
Exhibit F, Site Plan and Utility Diagram, except as modified by the
Planning Department on November 8, 1978; and as amended by condition
"h" adopted on August 18, 2003.
b. All landscaping, parking improvements, curbing, sodding, building
construction, and related elements shown on the exhibits, shall be
completed by October 15, 1980.
c. That the northwest corner of the lot be developed, used, and maintained in
accordance with the following site plans and development plans: Sheet
A1, A3, A4 and SC1 and the Landscape Plan, Exhibit G.
d. That the exterior columns be brick, compatible and consistent with the
brick planter.
e. That all on-sale liquor sales shall occur only within the restaurant building
and the attached patio court adjacent to the northwest corner of the
building as shown on the site plan.
f. That all landscaping, site development, and construction required and as
shown on the exhibits, be completed by May 15, 1980.
g. The special permit shall be amended on September 5, 2006 to incorporate
all of the preceding conditions as modified and allow exterior
modifications to the existing restaurant subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The Exterior Elevation Exhibit is hereby replaced with the attached
exhibit marked as Elevation Exhibit 2006.
(2) Prior to issuing a building permit for the remodel of the TGI
Friday’s, the applicant shall:
a. Provide proof of recording the administrative lot split at
Hennepin County.
b. Provide a revised Utility, Encroachment and Parking
Easements Agreement reflecting the new legal description of
the TGI Friday’s parcel.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4e - Minor Amendment Special Permit Addition CDI 5775 Wayzata Blvd
Page 5
7. The special permit shall be amended on November 6, 2006 to incorporate all of
the preceding conditions and to add the following conditions to permit the
construction of an 800 square foot addition to the office building:
a. The addition is to be constructed as illustrated in the site plan, landscaping
exhibits and building elevation exhibits.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or
structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed.
Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of building permit.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4e - Minor Amendment Special Permit Addition CDI 5775 Wayzata Blvd
Page 6
Site Aerial Photo
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 1
4f. Motion to approve the contract with BCBS for Active Community Planning
SUMMARY:
Attached is the proposed contract with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota (BCBS) that will
provide St. Louis Park with $75,000 to incorporate “active living principles” into our
Comprehensive Plan. The City Attorney reviewed the contract and staff recommends approval.
A written report regarding the funding and contract was provided in the City Council’s October
23, 2006 Study Session agenda packet.
BACKGROUND:
In July, BCBS selected City of St. Louis Park to participate in the Active Community Planning
program through a competitive application process. This program will provide $75,000 to the
City of St. Louis Park to incorporate “active living principles” into our Comprehensive Plan. The
goal is to integrate physical activity into daily routines by creating a pedestrian and bicycle-
friendly transportation system and built environment. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) recommends 30 minutes of moderately intense physical activity on five or
more days per week.
The City will use the BCBS funding to update portions of the Comprehensive Plan. Participation
in the BCBS Active Community Planning program is just one of many actions that we will take
to complete the update of our Comprehensive plan. State law requires us to complete the update
by 2008.
The BCBS funds will pay for a consultant to assist us in the portions of the Comprehensive Plan
update. A request for proposals was sent to qualified firms on October 26, 2006. Staff will bring
a contract with the proposed consultant before the City Council for approval in December.
Actual work would begin in January and be completed by the end of 2007.
The timing of the BCBS funded work will fit well with completion of the City’s Vision process.
The City’s Vision will serve as a key guide both for the update of the Comprehensive Plan in
general and the BCBS work specifically.
The proposed consultant work plan includes:
Updating the 1999 Sidewalk and Trail Master Plan;
Updating the Transit portion of the Transportation Plan;
Exploring urban design goals and policies that support active living;
Analyzing zoning code incentives that promote incorporating pedestrian, bicycle and transit
amenities into development projects;
Public participation and input opportunities; and
Incorporating applicable community Vision elements
The BCBS program and the proposed work plan appear to fit together very well with ideas
coming out of the Vision St. Louis Park process, and could complement current Comprehensive
Plan goals. Staff also hopes the product of this work will better position the City for capital
project grants that may be available in the future.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 2
To receive the funding, the City must enter into a contract with BCBS committing the City to use
the $75,000 toward the above work, and to complete that work within one year. The exact
design of the public input process will be determined based upon the selected consultant’s
proposals and direction from the City. In addition to the funding, BCBS contracted with the
Metropolitan Design Center at the University of Minnesota to provide workshops, library
resources and technical assistance to communities participating in the program.
PROCESS:
Upon approval, the City will execute the contract with BCBS and staff will proceed with the
consultant selection process. City Council approval of the selected consultant will be on the
Council’s agenda in December. The planning work will begin in January 2007.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the contract with BCBS for Active Community Planning.
Attachment: Blue Cross Blue Shield Contract Agreement
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 3
Name of Agreement/Project Active Community Planning
Date of Agreement
Location of Services Onsite Offsite
Contractor Company Name City of St. Louis Park
Address 1 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
City, State, Zip St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Federal ID # 416005519
Contractor Contact Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Email Address for Contractor swalther@stlouispark.org
Voice Phone Number 952-924-2574
Fax Phone Number 952-574-2663
Agreement Start Date Agreement End Date
1. Scope of Work:
The Contractor shall provide the following “Services” to BCBSM, INC. dba Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Minnesota (“BCBSM”):
A. Contractor will consider comprehensive plan amendments for its community. The planning
process will fully explore incorporating “active living principles” and clear provisions and
strategies for accommodating non-motorized transportation modes as their community
develops. Active living principles define a way of life that integrates physical activity into
daily routines. The CDC (Centers for Disease Control) recommends 30 minutes of
moderately intense physical activity on five or more days per week.
2. Deliverables To Be Furnished by Contractor:
A. Contractor shall perform the following duties
Contractor will describe the process for updating portions of its Comprehensive Plan by
December 31, 2007. The comprehensive planning process will specifically consider
community strategies for accommodating non-motorized transportation modes and other
characteristics (zoning revisions, density guidelines, etc.) that are consistent with “active
living principles.” This is expected to include consideration of a “complete streets” policy.
Complete Streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and
across a complete street.
Contractor will send one or more staff to participate in educational sessions to be arranged by
the Metropolitan Design Center of the University of Minnesota, retained by BCBSM as
technical assistance provider (“TA provider”). A proposed schedule of educational sessions
is attached (Attachment _).
Contractor will consult with the TA provider to finalize contractor’s schedule of
participation.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 4
Contractor will prepare and submit a schedule of activities and meetings related to the
completion of Comprehensive Plan updating to the TA provider and BCBSM.
Contractor will submit a draft of the Comprehensive Plan to the TA provider for preliminary
review and critique. The timing of draft submission will be jointly determined by the TA
provider and Contractor.
Contractor agrees to consult with the TA provider during the course of the Comprehensive
Plan updating process, with the draft Plan being subjected to review, critique, and
consideration as a potential model for other municipalities. Such a request will be made at
the discretion of the TA provider and BCBSMN subsequent to the preliminary review
referenced in paragraph 3 above.
Contractor will employ the Health Impact Assessment tool provided by the TA provider.
Contractor will (if located within the seven-county Twin Cites Metropolitan Area) submit the
resulting Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council for review and approval
consistent with schedules established by the Metropolitan Council for their mandatory
updating of Comprehensive Plans.
Contractor will submit a copy of the final Comprehensive Plan revision to both the TA
provider and BCBSM.
Contractor will designate one (1) staff person responsible for coordinating their funded
activities and serving as primary contact for BCBSM and the TA provider.
Contractor will provide BCBSM Project Manager the opportunity to review before
distributing and/or implementing letters to the editor, press releases (including joint press
releases), and advertising that references BCBSM.
Contractor will provide BCBSM project manager with copies of all media coverage.
Contractor will make available to BCBSM copies of any products produced by activities
supported by these funds.
Contractor agrees to adhere to communications guidelines provided by BCBSM.
Contractor will submit a program budget, attached hereto as Appendix A, which by this
reference becomes a part of this Agreement, that must be approved by BCBSM prior to work
beginning. BCBS reserves the right to refuse payment for any expenses which were not in an
approved budget. Contractor will obtain pre-approval of BCBSM Project Manager for the
following:
a. Any budget change after work begins that results in more than a 10% change in
individual line items. Proposed changes cannot affect the overall contract amount.
a. Modifying or adding subcontractors that are not in the approved budget
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 5
b. Equipment purchases of $500 or greater that are not in the approved budget.
Examples of equipment include computers, projectors, printers, etc.
c. Travel outside the state of Minnesota
d. Costs for attending conferences. The only exception is if it is a BCBSM-mandated
conference. Examples include conference registration fees and travel costs.
Contractor will participate in independent evaluation interviews (BCBSM will contract with
an external evaluator who will conduct a review of the process and may need to speak with a
number of key individuals involved).
Contractor must initiate contact with BCBSM Project Manager at least once per month, or as
agreed upon by Contractor and Project Manager.
Contractor will notify BCBSM Project Manager when there is a change of personnel on the
Contract.
3. Compensation
A. For the Services described herein, BCBSM shall pay Contractor the fees for the actual costs
for the items listed in the budget in Appendix A, attached hereto which becomes by this
reference a part of this Agreement.
B. Total fees under this Agreement will not exceed $75,000.
4. Payments
A. Method of Payment
1. Unspent Advance Funds
Notwithstanding the advance payment provisions below, Contractor agrees to repay any
unspent advanced funds within sixty (60) days of written request by BCBSM, following
financial report reconciliation procedures set forth in this section.
2. Payment
Contractor is eligible to receive an advance payment of up to 20% of their contract amount
upon the signing of the contract. To receive the advance, contractor must complete and
submit an Advance Request form to BCBS Project Manager.
Subsequent payments to Contractor will be made on a reimbursement basis based on the
actual costs the Contractor incurs for the deliverables stated in this contract. The contractor
will submit requests for reimbursement using the Invoice form provided by BCBSM.
At the last billing cycle, BCBSM will reconcile the total amount that was paid to the
Contractor to the total amount of expenditures Contractor incurred on this contract. The total
amount paid to contractor (including advance payments) must equal the total expenses for the
contract. If the total amount paid to the Contractor is greater than the total expenses incurred,
the Contractor will pay BCBSM the difference.
B. The following expenses will not be reimbursed by BCBSM under this agreement.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 6
1. Capital purchases
2. Provision of alcohol, tobacco, or other controlled substances
3. Gifts for staff
4. Pay down existing debt
Project Manager will communicate to contractor any additional expenses that will not be
reimbursed. The effective date will be the date given in the notice and will only apply to
expenses from that date forward. It will not be applied retroactively.
C. BCBSM will not reimburse for costs that were incurred for activity either before the start
date or after the end date of this contract stated in this contract.
D. Indirect or administrative costs
Indirect or administrative expenses on this contract cannot exceed 15% of direct costs.
Contractor should not automatically include 15% as their indirect rate. There needs to be a
method to the calculation of the indirect/administrative expense rate or amount, and upon our
request, you may be asked to explain the calculation.
Indirect costs are those costs that are intended to cover contract-related costs that are not
easily identifiable, but are necessary to conduct the work. Indirect costs are the types of
expenses the organization would incur whether or not it was awarded the contract. Examples
include rent, utilities, insurance, executive director’s salary, and other overhead expenses.
E. Contractor needs to allow approximately six weeks for payment from the date invoice was
submitted.
F. All invoices must be approved by BCBSM Project Manager in order to be paid. Payment
will be authorized when Project Manager determines satisfactory progress is being made and
costs are in agreement with budget in Appendix A, attached hereto which becomes by this
reference a part of this Agreement, or with agreed upon changes as required in section 2.
5. Invoicing
A. Invoices must be submitted on at least a quarterly basis, but invoices can be submitted as
often as monthly. All invoices are due within 45 days of the ending date of the reporting
period.
B. Contractor shall use the invoice form provided by BCBSM and needs to provide all
information requested. Incomplete invoices or invoices not submitted in accordance with the
above will be returned to Contractor without payment for correction.
C. An invoice must be signed by the person who signed the Contract or his/her designee. If
there is a question as to the authority of the signer that cannot be resolved to the satisfaction
of BCBSM, the invoice will not be honored.
D. Each invoice is subject to approval by Project Manager and/or other BCBSM staff, and
possible audit by BCBSM before payment may be disbursed. If an invoice is questioned by
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 7
BCBSM, the Project Manager shall contact the Contractor within fifteen (15) days of receipt
of the invoice.
E. Mail Invoice to:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
Attn. Accounts Payable Mail M109
3535 Blue Cross Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122-1154
6. Agreement
Contractor shall provide the Services identified above in accordance with the provisions of this
Contractor Agreement and the “Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota Contractor Terms &
Conditions” pages 1 through 8 which are attached and made a part of this Contractor Agreement,
and which together constitute the “Agreement”.
In Witness whereof, the parties have executed this Contractor Agreement on the date(s) indicated
below.
BCBSM, INC., dba
Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of
Minnesota:
Contractor:
By By
Signature Signature
Print Name Print Name
Date Date
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 8
1. SCOPE OF WORK
BCBSM, INC., dba Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota (hereafter referred to as
“BCBSM”) hereby engages the Contractor, as an independent contractor, to perform and furnish
the Services and work product/deliverables described in the Contractor Agreement to which
these Terms and Conditions are attached. All Services are to be performed in accordance with
the Contractor Agreement and if no other schedule of performance is provided, Services are to
begin immediately and proceed at a pace consistent with industry practice, time being of the
essence to BCBSM.
2. MODIFICATIONS - CHANGES
No amendment or variation of the terms of this Contract shall be valid unless made in writing
and agreed upon by Contract Manager. Major changes to the Contract including, but not limited
to, increases or decreases to the overall Contract amount and substantial revisions to the project
deliverables, require formal amendment of this Contract. Changes such as budget line items
changes greater than 10% do not require amendment of the Agreement; however, the Contractor
shall obtain prior written approval from Contract Manager before making such changes. All
requests should be submitted in writing and include a description of the proposed change and the
reason for the change.
3. PERSONNEL
Contractor will furnish qualified workers to perform the Services at the times and location(s)
designated by Workplan. Contractor is responsible for overseeing and managing the tasks and
functions for the Services provided under the Contractor Agreement. Contractor will make
reasonable efforts to honor specific requests by BCBSM with regard to the workers who are
assigned and any other aspect of obtaining the desired results under the Contractor Agreement.
Contractor shall not subcontract with any third party for the performance of any Services to be
provided under this Agreement without in each instance notifying BCBSM of Contractor’s use
of such third party subcontractor. Contractor shall require each such third party for which
BCBSM’s consent may be given, to agree in writing to perform in accordance with, and subject
to the terms of this Agreement prior to the performance of Services by such third party. Neither
BCBSM’s consent to the use of any subcontractor, nor the failure of performance thereof by such
subcontractor, shall relieve, release or affect Contractor’s duties, liabilities or obligations
hereunder, and Contractor shall at all times be and remain liable hereunder. Contractor will
ensure that its employees and permitted subcontractors will in the performance of this
Agreement and whenever on BCBSM's premises, comply with all reasonable instructions,
protocols policies and procedures as may be adopted by BCBSM from time to time, including its
ban on firearms and all other weapons in all buildings BCBSM owns or leases.
4. TERM/TERMINATION
This Agreement is effective for a term (“Term”) commencing on the Start Date and continuing
until the End Date, or until the contracted Services have been completed, or the maximum dollar
amount has been reached, whichever occurs first. The start date is defined as the later of either
the start date stated in this contract or the date the contract was signed by BCBSM. Contractor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 9
cannot start work until the contract has been signed by BCBSM. “Start work” is defined as
beginning work on the deliverables stated in this contract. Contractor will meet with Contract
Manager prior to a signed Contract in order to do necessary work to reach an agreement on the
deliverables, budget, and work plan.
Additional Services may be contracted by a written amendment to the Contractor Agreement
which is signed by the parties. BCBSM or contractor may terminate this Agreement without
cause upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party, and upon such termination without
cause, BCBSM shall be responsible for payment of fees for Services performed by Contractor to
the date of termination, and, if fixed fee, any fees shall be pro-rated to the date of termination. In
the event of material breach by either party, notice of breach shall be given by the nonbreaching
party. In the event such breach is not cured within 10 days of receipt of such notice, the
nonbreaching party may immediately terminate this Agreement and in addition may exercise any
other right or remedy provided herein or at law or in equity.
5. CHARGES
BCBSM agrees to pay Contractor at the rate specified in the Contractor Agreement for the
Services outlined therein. Contractor shall invoice BCBSM in accordance with the Contractor
Agreement and BCBSM shall remit payment to Contractor within the time period specified in
the Contractor Agreement. Contractor is solely responsible for paying its employees and any
subcontracted personnel for Services performed under this Agreement. In no event shall
BCBSM be liable to Contractor's employees or subcontracted personnel for payment for any
Services provided under the Contractor Agreement. BCBSM is not liable to pay or reimburse
any type of expense which is not listed in the Contractor Agreement unless otherwise agreed
upon in writing. Contractor assumes responsibility for the timely payment of all income tax,
unemployment and workers' compensation insurance, and all other employment-related taxes
arising out of the performance of Services under the Contractor Agreement.
6. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR RELATIONSHIP
Contractor is an independent contractor, and is not an employee, servant, agent, partner, or joint
venture of BCBSM. BCBSM shall identify and request the Services to be performed, but
Contractor shall determine the legal means by which all Services are to be accomplished.
BCBSM is not responsible for withholding, and shall not withhold, FICA or any other
employment-related taxes of any kind from any payments made to Contractor. Neither
Contractor, its employees, nor any subcontracted personnel shall be entitled to receive any
benefits which employees of BCBSM are entitled to receive, nor shall Contractor, its employees
or subcontracted personnel be entitled to workers' compensation, unemployment compensation,
medical insurance, life insurance, paid vacations, paid holidays, pension, profit sharing or Social
Security on account of Services performed under the Contractor Agreement.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 10
7. CONFIDENTIALITY
Contractor acknowledges and agrees that in the course of performing Services hereunder,
Contractor might be given or obtain access to Confidential Information of BCBSM. Contractor
shall not disclose, nor shall the Contractor permit its employees or subcontractors to disclose, to
any employee or subcontractor of Contractor not specifically assigned to perform Services
hereunder, or to any person, entity or organization not a party to this Agreement, any such
Confidential Information of BCBSM.
a. “Confidential Information” shall for purposes of this Agreement include, without
limitation, all information in any form which relates to the business, expertise and/or
operations of BCBSM and/or its affiliates, including, without limitation, information in any
form generally understood to be trade secret, proprietary or confidential and/or that is related
to its corporate strategic goals, plans, strategies, products and services, commercial and
financial information, system functionality charts and descriptions, program code logic, trade
secret information, and information about employees, health care providers, customers and/or
business partners. “Confidential Information” shall also include any notes, analyses, cost
data, compilations, studies, interpretations, or documents which contain or are based upon
any Confidential Information, regardless of whether any such materials or information are
specifically labeled as “confidential”, and any other information in any form generally
understood to be proprietary, trade secret or confidential, or which under all the
circumstances ought reasonably to be treated as proprietary, trade secret or confidential. All
Confidential Information disclosed is provided “AS IS”. Contractor shall have no rights of
ownership or otherwise in any Confidential Information disclosed by BCBSM hereunder and
all such rights are expressly reserved to BCBSM and/or the rightful owner thereof.
Contractor will otherwise protect the confidentiality of BCBSM’s Confidential Information
in at least the same manner it protects the confidentiality of its own proprietary and
Confidential Information of like kind. This paragraph is subject to Contractor’s obligations
under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and any other State of Minnesota or
Federal law regulating disclosure of government data.
8. EQUIPMENT
The Parties agree that BCBSM shall hold and retain throughout the term of this Contract rights
and interest in personal property, including equipment, purchased with funds provided through
this contract. In the event this Contract is terminated before full performance and completion of
all activities and work authorized and funded herein, the Contractor shall, within sixty (60) days
of Contractor’s receipt of a written demand from BCBSM, surrender possession of and any
rights to all such property specified in BCBSM written demand. After sixty (60) days, and upon
the BCBSM’s termination that Contractor has complied with all terms and conditions of this
Contract and has completed all Contractor obligations reflected herein, BCBSM shall relinquish
to the Contractor any and all rights to, and interests in, personal property, including equipment
purchased with funds provided throughout this Contract.
The contractor shall, at the request of BCBSM or as specifically directed in the Project Narrative,
of Contract Application, herein, provide the Department with copies of any data, design plans,
specifications, photographs, negatives, audio and video productions, films, recordings, reports,
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 11
findings, recommendations and memoranda of every description or any part thereof, prepared
under the Agreement.
BCBSM shall have the right to copy and distribute said copies in any manner when and where it
may determine without any claim on the part of the Contractor, its vendors or subcontractors to
any additional compensation.
9. SITE VISITS
BCBSM may conduct periodic site visits, at its own expense, to monitor progress during the
Contract term. Also, interim oral or written progress reports may be required to supplement the
more formal status reports.
10. RECORD KEEPING REQUIREMENTS
a. Contractor will establish an official file for the project. The file shall contain documentation of
all actions taken regarding this contract.
b. Contractor shall establish separate ledger accounts for the receipt and expenditure of Contract
funds and maintain expenditure detail in accordance with the approved budget detail. Separate
bank accounts are not required.
c. Contractor shall maintain financial records in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. Contractor shall maintain adequate supporting documentation in such detail so as to
provide an audit trail of receipts, expenditures, and disbursements. Contractor’s records will
permit tracing transactions from support documentation to the accounting records to financial
reports and billings. Such documentation shall include proof of all match contributions,
including identification of the source of each and every such contribution, and may include, but
shall not necessarily be limited to subsidiary ledgers, payroll records, vendor invoices, canceled
checks, bank or other financial account records, consultant contracts and billings, volunteer
rosters and work logs, and lease or rental agreements. Such documentation shall be readily
available for inspection, review, and/or audit by Project Staff or other representative of
BCBSM.
d. Subcontractor(s) employed by the Contractor and paid with moneys under the terms of this
Contract shall be responsible for maintaining accounting records as specified above. BCBSM
reserves the right to conduct audits of sub-contractors.
e. The books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and practices of Contractor
relevant to this agreement shall be retained and made available and subject to examination by
BCBSM for a minimum of three years.
11. ALLOWABLE COSTS AND DOCUMENTATION
To be allowed under this Contract, costs must meet the following criteria:
a. Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the contract.
b. Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
c. Be adequately documented.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 12
12. REASONABLE COSTS
A cost is reasonable if, in its nature or amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred
by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to
incur the cost. Consideration will be given to:
a. Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the
performance of the Contract.
b. The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as generally accepted sound business
practices, arms length bargaining, federal and state laws and regulations and the terms and
conditions of the Contract.
c. Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances, considering
their responsibilities to the organization, its members, employees, clients, and the public at large.
d. Significant deviations from the established practices of the organization that may
unjustifiably increase Contract costs.
13. REIMBURSEMENT LIMITED TO NET COSTS
All costs charged against the Contract shall be net of all applicable credits. The term “applicable
credits” refers to those receipts or reductions of expenditures that operate to offset or reduce
expense items that are reimbursable under this Contract. Applicable credits may include, but are
not necessarily limited to, rebates or allowances, discounts, credits toward subsequent purchases,
and refunds. Contractor shall, where possible, deduct the amount of the credit from the amount
billed as reimbursement for the cost, or shall deduct the amount of the credit from the total billed
under a future invoice.
14. AUDITS
The Contractor agrees that BCBSM and its representatives shall have an absolute right of access to,
and right to review and copy, all of the Contractor’s records pertaining to this Contract and to
conduct reviews and/or audits related to this Contract. Contractor shall, for the purpose of any
such review or audit, retain and provide access to all records related to the Contract including, but
not necessarily limited to, those records specified in Clauses (# 11, #12, #13, and #14) above.
Contractor shall also provide access to and allow interview of any employee who might reasonably
have information related to such records. Such access to employees and records shall be provided
during normal business hours throughout the Contract term and for at least three years after the
final payment is disbursed pursuant to this Contract, or until completion of any action and
resolution of all issues which may arise as a result of any audit or review of such records,
whichever is later.
15. DOCUMENTATION OF TIME SPENT
Contractor shall maintain reports or other detailed records (e.g. activity logs or timesheets)
documenting time spent by each employee, agent, contractor or volunteer whose work in support
of the Contract is billed under the Contract or used as match. Records used to meet this
requirement shall identify the individual performing the work, the date on which the work was
performed, the specific Contract-related activities or objectives to which the individual’s time was
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 13
devoted, and the amount of time spent. Such records shall reflect actual time spent, rather than that
which was planned or budgeted. This paragraph is subject to Contractor’s obligations under the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and any other State of Minnesota or Federal law
regulating disclosure of government data.
16. INDEMNITY AND INSURANCE
Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and the results thereof to the extent
authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts of the other party and the results
thereof. The liability of the parties shall be governed by the provisions of the Minnesota
Municipal Tort Claims Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 and other applicable law.
17. AMENDMENT
This Agreement may be amended only by mutual written agreement of the parties.
18. GOVERNING LAW
The formation, interpretation and performance of this Agreement and any disputes arising out of
it shall be governed by the laws of the state of Minnesota, and, to the extent applicable, the laws
of the United States of America.
19. NOTICES
Every notice or other communication to be given by either party to the other with respect to this
Agreement, shall be in writing and shall not be effective for any purpose unless the same be
delivered personally or by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed if to BCBSM
as follows:
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota
3535 Blue Cross Road
Eagan, Minnesota 55122
Attn: Purchasing Manager
and if to Contractor at the address set forth in the Contractor Agreement; or at such other address
or addresses as BCBSM or Contractor, respectively, may from time to time designate by notice
given as above provided.
20. WARRANTIES
Contractor warrants that (a) all Services performed hereunder will be performed in good faith
and in a good, professional, workmanlike, competent and timely manner, in conformity with all
applicable professional standards and the requirements of these Terms and Conditions and the
Contractor Agreement, (b) Contractor, its employees and permitted subcontractor personnel, if
any, shall have and maintain the requisite technical knowledge, skills, abilities, licenses and
qualifications to provide the Services, (c) Contractor will comply with all applicable local, state
and federal ordinances, laws and regulations in providing the Services, and (d) all work product
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 14
to be provided BCBSM as a result of the Services will comply, function and perform in
accordance with specifications and requirements set forth in the Contractor Agreement, if any.
Contractor warrants that Contractor (including Contractor's personnel performing Services
hereunder) (a) has not offered or provided any gifts, gratuities or other consideration to any
BCBSM employee for the purpose of inducing BCBSM to enter into this Agreement, and (b) has
no personal, financial or other interest in or with (i) any supplier of goods or services
recommended by Contractor to BCBSM, or (ii) any BCBSM customer or supplier to BCBSM of
goods or services, which relate to Services performed or to be performed by Contractor under
this Agreement. Contractor agrees that it will not permit any person having such a "conflict of
interest" to perform services for or on behalf of BCBSM.
21. Entire Agreement
The parties mutually agree and understand that this Contract is a legally binding document.
These Terms and Conditions and the Contractor Agreement to which they are attached and
hereby made a part thereof, together with any Exhibits or Attachments to the Contractor
Agreement, to the extent specifically referenced in and incorporated into the Contractor
Agreement, constitute the entire “Agreement” between the parties and supercede all previous
discussions, proposals and/or written or oral agreements, if any, relative to the subject matter
hereof. In the event of any inconsistency between these Terms and Conditions, the Contractor
Agreement, the Exhibits or Attachments, if any, these Terms and Conditions shall control.
23. Assignment
Neither party shall have the right to assign this Agreement without the prior written consent of
the other party, and any attempted assignment shall be null and void; provided, however, that
BCBSM may without consent, assign this Agreement to any entity that, directly or indirectly,
through one or more intermediaries, controls, or is controlled by, or is under common control
with, BCBSM.
24. Severability
If any term or provision of this Agreement should be or become invalid or prohibited under
applicable law, such provision shall be ineffective to the extent of any such prohibition without
impairing the remaining provisions in any way.
25. Attorney’s Fees
In the event that any action, suit or other proceeding is instituted to remedy, prevent, or obtain
relief from, a breach of this Agreement, or arises out of a breach of this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all of such party’s reasonable attorney’s fees, costs
and expenses incurred in connection therewith.
26. Time
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 15
27. Waiver
No waiver of or to this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and signed by the party to be
charged with such waiver. No waiver of, or failure to exercise, any option, right or privilege
under this Agreement by either of the parties hereto on any occasion or occasions shall be
construed to be a waiver of the same or similar option, right or privilege on any other occasion.
28. Survival
No expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement shall affect the rights and obligations of
the respective parties hereto which have accrued prior to the effective date of expiration or
termination.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4f - BCBS Active Community Planning Contract
Page 16
Appendix A: Budget
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4g - Final Payment Claude M. Anderson Electric Company
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 06-171
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK FOR
INSTALLATION OF A
GENERATOR AT THE REC CENTER
CITY PROJECT NO. 20050130
CONTRACT NO. 141-05
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated November 9, 2005; Claude M. Anderson
Electric Company, Inc. has satisfactorily completed work for the installation of a generator at
The Rec Center, as per Contract No. 141-05.
2. The Director of Parks and Recreation has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of
the work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $ 350,250.00
Change Order/Overrun $ -6,000.00
Final Contract Price $ 344,250.00
Previous Payments $ 327,037.50
Balance Due (final payment) $ 17,212.50
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4h - Resesolution Special Assessment Water Line 4237 Salem
Page 1
4h. Motion to approve the attached resolution establishing a special assessment for the
repair of the water service line at 4237 Salem Avenue South
BACKGROUND:
Donald Swiderski, owner of the single family residence at 4237 Salem Avenue South, has
requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for their home and assess the
cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy.
ANALYSIS:
The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and
welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of
water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This
program was put into place because property owners’ sometimes face financial hardships when
emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were prepared, submitted, and approved by
City staff. Donald Swiderski hired a contractor and repaired the water service line in compliance
with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the
City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the
water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the
repair has been determined to be $1,540.00
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Bruce DeJong, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4h - Resesolution Special Assessment Water Line 4237 Salem
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-177
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE REPAIR AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT 4237 SALEM AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 4237 Salem Avenue have petitioned the City of St.
Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the single
family residence located at 4237 Salem Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive their right to a public hearing,
right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for
the water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications
approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby
accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the water service line is accepted at $1,540.00.
4. The total special assessment against the property has been determined to be $1,540.00.
5. The Property Owners have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing, notice and appeal
from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by
other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law.
6. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the cost of the above improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of the 20 year
Treasury bill rate on November 1, 2006 plus 1%.
7. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes Of September 20, 2006
Page 1
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 20, 2006 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris, Carl
Robertson
Robert Kramer arrived at 6:04, Jerry Timian arrived at 6:18 and
left at 8:05
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Adam Fulton, Kathy Larsen and
Nancy Sells
1. Call to order - Roll Call
2. Approval of Minutes of August 16, 2006
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the minutes of August 16, 2006.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of
4-0.
3. Public Hearings
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Parks and Open Space to Low Density
Residential
Location: 2600 Natchez Ave. S.
Case No.: 06-59-CP
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Senior Planner Sean Walther presented the staff report. Mr. Walther said staff received a
call from Jane DeMay, who represents a nearby condominium association. The
association has concerns regarding storm water. Mr. Walther said there would be no
impact to the condominium property in regard to storm water based on the development
of this site.
Chair Carper asked why the city is disposing of park land.
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, explained that in December, 2005, the
Council approved a resolution to sell the northeast upland portion of the parcel for the
construction of one single family home, and to retain the entire wetland area. The
approval by the Council was preceded by a public process that began in January, 2005,
with the appointment of the Excess Land Task Force. She went on to say that the task
force determined the parcel was excess land that could be suitable for single-family home
construction. The task force found that there were 9 parcels city-wide that could be used
for the construction of up to 17 new single family homes.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes Of September 20, 2006
Page 2
Commissioner Kramer stated that the matter before the Commission is the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which is the next step in preparing the parcel for
sale to the public.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
Nancy Gibson, 2712 Glenhurst, stated that she has a background in biology and chaired
the Environmental Trust Fund for 14 years. Ms. Gibson asked the Planning Commission
to retain the site as open space. She and the Vision Action Environmental Team would
like to have higher tree preservation requirements. The team plan will be available to the
city by November 1st. Ms. Gibson said the site is a critical space for wetland. She asked
that the Vision Action team plan be allowed to be put together. She asked the
Commission to recommend holding off on this site or to consider not developing it.
Patsy Munson, 4240 Browndale, is also a member of the Environmental Team. She said
the team is committed to preserving and expanding the city’s open space and park land.
Ms. Munson asked that the land use designation of 2600 Natchez not be changed.
Richard Kelber, 2600 Monterey Avenue, said move up housing is a worthy goal but it is
already being created by market forces without any diminution in market space. He asked
that the property be left as is.
Ann Drew Yu, 2636 Lynn, said she agrees with the previous speakers. She spoke about
the aesthetics and spirit of the land as a gateway to the neighborhood. Ms. Yu said
technically the site is not park land but it is a treasure of the neighborhood.
Jane DeMay, 2505 Quentin Court, represents 24 homeowners who comprise Princeton
Court Townhomes. They are opposed to the development of this parcel unless the city
would include the correction of the storm sewer line that cannot at the present time
handle water run off. Overflow has occurred 12-15 times in the last 20 years. Ms.
DeMay said the city is aware of this issue.
Joan Abelson, 2617 Natchez, said the people on her block have been criticized for
opposing the construction of a single family home across the street. Ms. Abelson said
building one house on the site will disturb the area. She said it is hard for her to
understand why it is an issue. People should be delighted to have this refuge and it
should be preserved.
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Road, said $1 million plus homes are not move up
homes. She said that she questions meeting the need for move up housing. Ms. Abelson
said it is important to see the open space; there is no need to continue to develop little
pieces of land.
Chris Garwick Foley, 5100 Morningside Road, said open space is very valuable to
residents.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes Of September 20, 2006
Page 3
Deb Fowler, 2605 Natchez, attended all but one meeting regarding the Excess Land
process. She said she has heard fewer than five comments in support of developing this
land, and the supporting comments came from developers—all other comments were in
opposition. Ms. Fowler said the neighborhood is interested in further preservation of this
wetland and they are organizing to clean it up.
Commissioner Kramer and Ms. Larsen discussed debris in the wetland parcel. Ms.
Larsen said the soil study recommended that clean fill would have to be added.
John Schenk, 2605 Natchez, said it is a good suggestion to wait for input from the Vision
group. He said the city needs to not only preserve but also restore the open space. Mr.
Schenk would like to know what the long-term plan and decision might be for parks in
general.
Simon Goldman, 2641 Natchez, said he is troubled with the process. He said the Excess
Land Task Force was stacked with architects who are good people, but who want to build.
He added that building won’t make St. Louis Park great, but saving land will be
something to be proud of.
Chair Carper closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris said this has not been a hasty decision. The Council has decided to
dispose of the land and this request is the mechanism to create the change. He is in favor
of recommending approval.
Commissioner Robertson commented that it was a long and thorough process. He was a
member of the Excess Land Task Force. He said he is very interested in ecology. He
spoke about safeguards and the design review process. He said the city is obliged to be
creative and responsible by doing some infill. He supports moving forward on this
request.
Ms. Larsen spoke about the design review committee which determines compatibility
with the neighborhood. She said the sales process has a strong residency preference.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how much park land the city added back into the
mix in the past 10 years.
Ms. Larsen responded she thinks close to 50 acres of park land has been added in the past
10 years.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison, also a task force member, said she favors moving this
forward to the City Council.
Commissioner Timian said as new information becomes available, it is necessary to step
back sometimes and take a wait-and-see stance. The city has asked citizens to get
involved in the visioning process. Commissioner Timian suggested this item be tabled.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes Of September 20, 2006
Page 4
Ms. Gibson said the Vision task force report is to be completed by November 1, 2006.
Commissioner Kramer said he would prefer to move ahead.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison favors moving forward; she doesn’t want to table this
item. She said the City Council can be provided with new information.
Chair Carper said he could support tabling, and if not that, he is opposed to moving
forward on this regardless of the previous decisions made on this.
Commissioner Morris asked if staff can continue with other aspects of preparing the lot if
this item is tabled. Ms. McMonigal said once the title work is done, staff could begin to
prepare a preliminary plat.
Commissioner Kramer would like to move this item to the City Council; he doesn’t want
to table.
Commissioner Robertson said he favors moving forward and letting the Council review
new information and decide.
Commissioner Timian made a motion to table and wait to hear recommendations from
the Vision Environmental team. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion. The motion
failed on a 3-3 vote (Johnston-Madison, Kramer, and Robertson opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend a Comprehensive Plan
amendment for a portion of 2600 Natchez Avenue from P – Parks and Open Space to RL
– Low Density Residential. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4-2 (Carper and Timian opposed).
Ms. McMonigal said this item is tentatively scheduled to go to the City Council on
October 16th.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes Of September 20, 2006
Page 5
4. Other Business
A. R-1 Zoning District Study
Associate Planner Adam Fulton presented the staff report.
Ms. McMonigal said staff notified, by mail, a portion of the Crestview neighborhood and
the Lake Forest neighborhood regarding this item. She said the item is not an official
public hearing, but staff is seeking input from neighbors prior to making a
recommendation to the Planning Commission.
Bob Klepenski, 2124 Parklands Lane, asked if there an issue or problem.
Ms. McMonigal said the Lake Forest neighborhood asked for a study as a result of a
recent Hill Lane subdivision. Staff is studying the issues and presenting alternatives.
Nicholas Slade, 2316 Westridge, asked about average lot size throughout St. Louis Park
and in specific neighborhoods.
Kristine Stevenson, 9421 West Franklin, said barring a problem, some R-1 lots could be
protected and that is good.
Cindy Baumann, 2300 Parkwoods Road, thanked staff for the study. She asked about
setbacks. Mr. Fulton said uniform setbacks in Lake Forest would be difficult.
Sandra Stanley, 2205 South Hill Lane, asked if some subdividable lots don’t have
adequate frontage, would there be pressure to insist that new roads be built. Ms.
McMonigal said it would be very complicated but possible.
Ellen McGratten, 4636 Cedarwood, asked what neighboring cities are using for lot sizes.
Ms. McGratten supports a 13,500 square foot minimum.
Dan Schneiger, 1600 Independence, asked if multi-family or duplexes are allowed on
subdivided lots. Ms. McMonigal said multi-family and duplexes are not allowed in the
R-1 District.
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Road, asked about smaller lots in Lake Forest.
Mr. Fulton responded that zoning changes from the 1950s are hard to track.
Betty Goodman, 2211 S. Hill Lane, asked about subdividable lots in Lake Forest.
Ed Christensen, 1830 Flag Avenue, recommends moving to a 13,500 square foot
minimum to allow larger lots to be subdivided.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes Of September 20, 2006
Page 6
Nicholas Slade, 2316 Westridge, said the floodplain is vastly oversized and he
encourages subdivision and in-fill to avoid sprawl. He recommends reducing the
minimum lot size.
Pat Schmidt, 9322 W. 18th St., said it seems to be a personal choice issue. She said she
agrees with Mr. Christensen.
Joyce Prudden, 2318 Parkwoods Road, said she has mixed feelings. She is a Sierra Club
member. She said that Lake Forest epitomizes 1950s urban sprawl. Ms. Prudden said if
done carefully, a certain amount of in-fill is not a bad idea. Hill Lane has terrain issues,
and she would like to see higher restrictions for those lots. She would like to see study on
setbacks. She said she isn’t sure about lot size.
Sharon Segal, 2211 Parklands Road, supports a 13,500 square foot minimum lot size.
She said the neighborhood is a treasure.
Paul Olfelt, 2206 Parklands Lane, said development is good and bad but it can work out
well in the market place. He said it would be wrong to take away privileges of 9,000
square foot lots.
Ellen McGratten, 4636 Cedarwood, said she supports the 13,500 minimum lot size. She
said the neighborhood is a treasure.
Bob Klepenski, 2124 Parklands Lane, stated that it seems to be a personal choice
affecting 6-8 homeowners. He said there isn’t a crisis or a problem. He commented that
the marketplace has been working on Lake Forest for a long time. He said everyone has
things they don’t like but that isn’t a reason to change zoning. He said that in-fill is
upgrading the neighborhood.
Commissioner Robertson said he doesn’t think it is a big issue and he is strongly opposed
to changing the zoning along these lines. He said it is incumbent for cities to do in-fill
thoughtfully and respectfully. Commissioner Robertson doesn’t support increasing the
minimum lot size at all.
Commissioner Kramer agrees with Commissioner Robertson.
Commissioner Morris favors a vote now; he opposes a zoning change for the R-1 on a
neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison agrees with Commissioner Morris. She said the study
showed how many lots were affected. The issue doesn’t seem to be there.
Commissioner Carper said positives have been accomplished by the study and it doesn’t
make sense to go forward with changes. The Planning Commission should vote on it
now.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4i - Planning Commission Minutes Of September 20, 2006
Page 7
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending to the City Council that the R-1
zoning lot size remain as is. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. The motion
passed on a 4-1 vote (Carper opposed).
Ms. McMonigal said this item is tentatively scheduled to go to a City Council study
session on October 9, 2006.
B. Zoning Ordinance amendments related to building materials
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Case No.: 06-52-ZA
Ms. McMonigal reviewed proposed changes.
Commissioner Robertson requested the following revision on page 3 of the staff report:
under (1) Building Design, b., the language shall be compatible should be replaced with
the words address and respect. He thinks staff has done a good job with the proposed
amendment.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend approval of proposed ordinance
changes, including his recommended change. Commissioner Johnston-Madison
seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0.
5. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action – September 5, 2006
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.
Minutes prepared by, Respectfully submitted,
Linda Samson Nancy Sells
Recording Secretary Administrative Secretary
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4j - Council Report Dutch Elm Diseased Trees
Page 1
4j. Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased
Trees
BACKGROUND:
At the July 26, 2004 Study Session, Council discussed the large volume of trees that are required
to be removed due to Dutch Elm Disease (DED). At that time, a program was introduced which
allows home owners to have the cost of removal of these trees assessed to their property.
This program allows an assessment to be placed on the property and repaid over a specific
number of years based on the dollar amount of the assessment.
Since October of 2004, seventeen (17) assessments have been approved for this program. At this
time, the City has received an additional petition for special assessment. This petition indicates
that the property owner waives their right to a public hearing and wishes to have the cost of the
removal of the DED tree placed as a special assessment against their property.
The total dollar amount that will be assessed to this property is $4,100.25 at an interest rate of
5.88% over a 5 year period. The actual property address is 3781 Kipling Avenue South, PID
#06-028-24-43-0029.
Diseased trees continue to be removed and staff anticipates there will be additional residents that
will want to take advantage of the special assessment program. Any additional requests for this
program that come in before mid-November will be placed as an assessment on the 2007
property taxes. After that date, the assessment will be on the 2008 property taxes.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4j - Council Report Dutch Elm Diseased Trees
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-178
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
DUTCH ELM DISEASED TREE AT 3781 KIPLING AVE S
WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3781 Kipling Avenue South (“Benefited Property”)
has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the removal of
Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Forester related to the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special
assessment for the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is hereby accepted.
2. The removal of the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) in conformance with the
specifications on file in the office of Park & Recreation, Environmental Division
is hereby authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is accepted
at $4,100.25.
4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive their rights to public hearing, notice and
appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution,
or common law.
5. The Property Owner agrees to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements through special assessment over 5 years at 5.88% interest.
6. The Property Owner agrees to execute an agreement with the City and any other
documents necessary to implement the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s)
and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4k - Jim Rhodes Resolution
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 06-_______
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK,
MINNESOTA, RECOGNIZING THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF AND EXPRESSING
APPRECIATION TO JIM RHODES
WHEREAS, Jim served as St. Louis Parks State Representative in the Minnesota
Legislature from 1993 to 2004; and
WHEREAS, during Jim’s tenure in the State Legislature he represented his constituents
in St. Louis Park with great enthusiasm and conviction; and
WHEREAS, Jim was deeply involved in a host of legislative activities in the State
Legislature that have been of great benefit to the St. Louis Park community including funding for
the Westwood Hills Nature Center, the Veterans Memorial Amphitheater, Flood Mitigation
Projects, and the Meadowbrook Collaborative, to name just a very few; and
WHEREAS, Jim cares deeply about our young people and co-chaired the Early
Childhood Caucus, a bipartisan committee focusing on the needs of our youngest citizens; Jim
continues to be involved with our youth and is a strong supporter of Children First; and
WHEREAS, Jim has served on the School Board and the Community Education
Advisory Council and supported major funding for community education; and
WHEREAS, Jim is passionate about music. Jim was the founder of the Gift of Music
Program, which collects and reconditions used musical instruments for distribution to young
people who otherwise would not have one, and he also helped start and is currently the leader of
the community band; and
WHEREAS, since leaving the State Legislature Jim has very actively continued his
service to the community and is currently the Co-Chair of the St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts,
he is an active member of the St. Louis Park Rotary Foundation Board, and currently serves as a
Board member for the Park Nicollet Foundation and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park, Minnesota, by this resolution and public record, expresses its deep thanks and
appreciation to Jim Rhodes for his exemplary service to the St. Louis Park community during his
tenure in the Minnesota State Legislature and for his many outstanding contributions, dedicated
service, and support to our community and its people.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4l - 2nd Amendment To RER Redevelopment Contract
Page 1
4l. Motion to approve the Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
with Highway 7 Business Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling)
BACKGROUND:
On June 29, 2006, the EDA and City approved execution of the above referenced Contract.
Section 3.1(d) of the Contract provides that the Redeveloper must lease a portion of the
Redevelopment Property to All Hours Towing, Inc. (the “Towing Company”) for use as an
impound lot through October 19, 2006. Section 3.1(e) of the Contract provides that the City will
locate an alternate City-owned site for the Towing Company for use as an impound lot by
October 19, 2006, and that the Redeveloper will contribute not more than $75,000 toward the
cost of installation of any necessary site improvements on the impound lot.
As presented at the September 11, 2006 Study Session, the City has determined that the most
appropriate location for the impound lot is the City’s Water Tower property located at 5100 Park
Glenn Road. In light of the Redeveloper’s and EDA’s relocation obligations with the Towing
Company under the Contract, and in order to construct the required improvements necessary for
the impound lot in the most efficient and timely manner, the Redeveloper has agreed to assume
the responsibility of constructing the impound lot. The total estimated cost for construction of
the impound lot is $225,000. As noted above, the Redeveloper’s monetary contribution to the
project is limited to $75,000. As discussed at the Study Session, the remaining $150,000 share
of the construction costs will be paid out of the City’s Development Fund and lease revenues
from the Towing Company will be used to reimburse the Development Fund. The purpose of the
proposed Second Amendment is to formalize the above arrangement and to clarify that the EDA
will reimburse the Redeveloper for those costs over $75,000.
RECOMENDATION:
The EDA’s legal counsel prepared the attached Second Amendment to Contract for Private
Redevelopment with Highway 7 Business Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling) and Staff
recommends its approval.
Attachments: Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4l - 2nd Amendment To RER Redevelopment Contract
Page 2
SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment (the “Amendment”) is
dated as of November 6, 2006, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), the
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”), and HIGHWAY 7
BUSINESS CENTER LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”).
RECITALS
A. The Authority currently administers Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”),
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.001 to 469.047 (the “HRA Act”) within an area
located in the City.
B. The Authority has approved a Tax Increment Financing Plan for the Highway 7
Corporate Center Tax Increment Financing District and Hazardous Substance Subdistrict (the “TIF
District”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 to 469.179, made up of the area to be
developed by the Redeveloper (the “Redevelopment Property”) within the Project.
C. The Authority, City, and Redeveloper executed a certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment, dated as of June 29, 2006, as amended by a First Amendment to Contract for
Private Redevelopment dated as of September 18, 2006 (together, the “Contract”), whereunder the
parties agreed that a new impound lot (the “Impound Lot”) for All Hours Towing, Inc. (the “Towing
Company”) would be constructed in a location in the City to replace the existing impound lot on the
Redevelopment Property.
D. The parties have agreed to clarify the respective responsibilities of the parties
relating to construction of the Impound Lot site improvements as set forth below.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1. Amendment to Section 3.1(e) of the Contract. Section 3.1(e) of the Contract is
amended to read as follows:
(h) The parties agree and understand that the Redeveloper will construct all necessary
site improvements within an alternate impound lot for towed vehicles (the “Impound Lot”) for the
use of the Towing Company on the site of the City water tower, described as Lot 3, Block 2,
Beltline Business Park Addition. The Authority will reimburse the Redeveloper, from the
Development Fund of the City, for all costs of construction of the necessary site improvements
within the Impound Lot over $75,000.
2. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain
in full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority and the City
for all out-of pocket-costs incurred by the Authority and City in connection with negotiating,
drafting and approval of this Amendment.
(The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank.)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4l - 2nd Amendment To RER Redevelopment Contract
Page 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority, the City, and the Redeveloper have caused this
Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By
Its President
By
Its Executive Director
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2006, by Paul Omodt and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis
Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the
Authority.
Notary Public
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4l - 2nd Amendment To RER Redevelopment Contract
Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
By__________________________________
Its Mayor
By__________________________________
Its City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2006, by Jeff Jacobs and Tom Harmening, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of St. Louis
Park, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the City.
Notary Public
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 4l - 2nd Amendment To RER Redevelopment Contract
Page 5
HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC
By________________________________
Its ________________________________
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF _______ )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _________,
2006, by _________________, the _________________ of Highway 7 Business Center LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6a - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #1
Page 1
6a. Approval of the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special
Service District No. 1 and Extend Special Service District No. 1 through 2016
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 1 and the extension of the Special Service
District No. 1 through 2016.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the 2007
Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges
to Hennepin County.
BACKGROUND:
On June 3, 1996, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year service charge
for Special Service District No. 1 (this district is located along Excelsior Blvd from Quentin Ave
to Hwy 100 and along Park Center Blvd and Monterey Drive). Annually, the City Council must
adopt a service charge for the District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The
Special Service District Advisory Board (Advisory Board) approved the proposed 2007 budget
and service charges by ballot following their July 20, 2006 meeting. The notice of public
hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on October 12, 2006 and October 26, 2006. The public
hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the District more than ten (10) days prior to
the meeting.
Special Service District No. 1 Extension
The District’s 1996 multi-year service charge was for ten years expiring in 2006. Service
District members have shown interest in extending the District beyond 2006. Staff sent a
petition to each property owner to approve service charges commencing 2007 through and
including 2016. As required by law, the City has received signed petitions from the owners of at
least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area of property and twenty-five percent
(25%) or more of the net tax capacity that would be subject to the service charge.
Special Service District No. 1 Financial Position: As of November 1, 2006, the Special
Service District No. 1 had an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately $63,000. Staff
and the Advisory Board have agreed that the operating reserve should be maintained at a level of
at least 50% of the annual operating budget. The proposed 2007operating budget is $126,412.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters: The budget and service charge
do not have to be the same dollar amount since excess operating reserves may be used in some
years. Under both the 1996 service charge resolution and the proposed new ten-year resolution,
the maximum service charge increase cannot exceed the previous year’s authorized budget
amount by more than the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase, up to a maximum of 5%. This
adjustment is based upon the applicable CPI percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul
metropolitan area.
Proposed 2007 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board recommended approval of
the 2007 budget amount of $126,412, an increase of $412. The Advisory Board approved the
2007 service charge amount of $126,412, an increase of $18,412 from 2006. The District will
use the reserve fund balance to cover any difference between revenues and expenditures.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6a - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #1
Page 2
2007 City Portion of Service Charge: The Facilities Maintenance Division incurs service
charges for the property located at 3700 Monterey Drive (Recreation Center/Wolfe Park), which
is in Special Service District No. 1. The proposed fee for 2007 is $33,041. The 2006 charge was
$26,689.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends Council approve the
resolution as presented.
Attachments: Resolution
2007 Proposed Budget
2007 Proposed Service Charges
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspections Administrative Supervisor
Through: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6a - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #1
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-167
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2007 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 1
BE IT RESOLVED by the Cit y Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows:
Section 1. Recitals: Findings.
1.01 In 1996, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2067-96, the City created a special service
district for certain property located with an area approximately bounded on the south by Excelsior
Boulevard, on the north by 36th Street, on the west by Highway 100 and on the east by Natchez
Avenue South. The specific properties included within this area are identified on Exhibit “A”
attached hereto and generally depicted on Exhibit “B” hereto and the right-of-way adjacent thereto
(the “District”). The City by Resolution 96-87 also adopted a multi-year service charge through
and including the year 2006.
1.02 The City has received a petition to impose a new multi-year service charge for 2007
and through and including the year 2016 from the owners of property within the District (the
"Petition").
1.03 The City Council has determined each of the following:
(a) the owners of at least twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the land area
within the District have signed the Petition;
(b) at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the individuals or business
organizations subject to the proposed service charge have signed the
Petition;
(c) only owners of property located within the District have signed the Petition;
(d) only owners of property classified under Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.13
as commercial, industrial, or public utility purposes, or that is vacant land
zoned or designated on a land use plan for commercial, industrial, or public
utility purposes, have signed the Petition; and
(e) notice of a public hearing has been given and a public hearing has been
held.
Section 2. Adoption of 2007 Budget
2.01 2007 Budget. The 2007 Budget for Special Service District No. 1 of $126,412 is
hereby approved as recommended by the Special Service District No. 1 Advisory Board.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6a - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #1
Page 4
2.02 Authorized 2007 Service Charge. The authorized 2007 Service Charge for Special
Service District No. 1 is $126,412 in the amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit
“A” attached to this Resolution.
Section 3. Imposition of Service Charge.
3.01 Amount of Service Charge. There is hereby imposed a service charge in the
amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit "C" attached hereto (the "Service
Charge").
3.02 Multi-year Service Charge. The Service Charge imposed by this resolution is a
charge for more than one year. The Service Charge will remain in effect through and including the
year 2016 for taxes payable in said year. Exhibit "C" specifies the maximum cost of any
improvement to be paid for in whole or in part by the Service Charge, if any; the maximum cost of
operating and maintaining the improvements during the first year and upon completion of the
improvements; the proposed method and source of financing the improvements; and the maximum
cost of operating and maintaining the improvements. The maximum service charge imposed in
any year will be adjusted as provided in Section 3.04.
3.03 Calculation of Service Charge. The Service Charge for services related to the
removal of snow and ice shall be distributed based upon the front feet of sidewalk for each parcel
in the District. The Service Charge for all other costs shall be distributed based upon the area
(square feet) of each parcel within the District and subject to the Service Charge.
3.04 Inflation Adjuster. The maximum service charge to be imposed in any year (the
"Current Year") will increase from the maximum authorized budgeted amount for the year
immediately preceding the Current Year (the "Prior Year") based upon the following:
The Consumer Price Index (All Items) for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan
Area, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics ("Index"), which is published for the date nearest the commencement of
the Current Year (the "Current Year Index"), shall be compared with the Index
published for the date nearest the commencement of the Prior Year (the "Prior Year
Index"). If the Current Year Index has increased over the Prior Year Index, the
Service Charge shall be increased by multiplying the Service Charge by a fraction,
the numerator of which is the Current Year Index and the denominator of which is
the Prior Year Index. If the Index is discontinued or revised, such other
government index or computation with which it is replaced shall be used in order to
obtain substantially the same result as would be obtained if the Index had not been
discontinued or revised. Notwithstanding increases in the Index of greater than five
percent (5%), the Service Charge shall not increase from any Prior Year to any
Current Year by an amount greater than five percent (5%) of the Prior Year's
Service Charge.
3.05 Distribution of Total Service Charge. The distribution of the total Service Charge
among properties within the District and subject to the Service Charge may vary and shall be
recalculated pursuant to the formula specified in Section 3.03 if and to the extent that: (i) the front
footage of sidewalks constructed on such properties increases or decreases; or (ii) a parcel
increases or decreases in size by acquisition or sale.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6a - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #1
Page 5
Section 4. Collection of Service Charges.
4.01 Collection. The Services Charges shall be payable and collected at the same time
and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. For purposes
of determining the appropriate tax rate, taxable property or net tax capacity shall be determined
without regard to captured or original net tax capacity under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.177
or to the distribution or contribution value under Minnesota Statutes, Section 473F.08.
4.02 Penalty and Interest. Service Charges made payable in the same manner as
provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, if not paid on or before the applicable
due date, shall be subject to the same penalty and interest as in the case of ad valorem tax amounts
not paid by the respective date.
4.03 Due Date. The due date for the Service Charge payable in the same manner as ad
valorem taxes is the due date given in law for the real or personal property tax for the property on
which the service charge is imposed. Service Charges imposed on net tax capacity which are to
become payable in the following year must be certified to the County Auditor by the date provided
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 429.061, Subd. 3 for annual certification of special assessment
installments.
Section 5. Revenue Surplus. To the extent that the total of Service Charges collected
exceed the cost of services rendered within the District, at the election of the City, either: (i) such
excess amount shall be held as a reserve to pay the cost of future services provided under this
resolution; or (ii) the next year's levy of taxes and service charges shall be decreased by a
corresponding amount.
Section 6. Recording. The City may record this Resolution against parcels located
within the District and subject to the Service Charge for the purpose of providing notice of the
Service Charge to prospective purchasers of such parcels.
Section 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective on the forty-fifth (45th)
day following adoption, which effective date shall be December 21, 2006.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6a - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #1
Page 6
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 1
2007 Budget
No.
Item
2006 Revised
Budget
2007
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,200 1,200
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 8,500 10,500
6410 GENERAL PROFFESSIONAL
SERVICES
29 29
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 4,500 4,500
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 54,000 54,000
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 5,660 5,660
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 3,000 2,000
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 8,000 5,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 7,500 7,500
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 26,900 29,500
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 110
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 413 413
7207.880 SSD Infrastructure Repair 4,000 4,000
7301.890 SSD Pedestrian 2,000 2,000
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 600 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 126,412 126,412
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6a - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #1
Page 7
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachement A
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Authorized 2007 Service Charge
PAR.OWNER PID PROPOSED
NO.NO.2007
SERVICE
CHARGE
1 3601 Park Center Boulevard PCOB Properties LLC Park Shores 06-028-24-33-0019 6,337
2 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Dayton Hudson Corp.Target 06-028-24-33-0015 13,689
3 3777 Park Center Boulevard Park Center Ltd.Byerly's 06-028-24-33-0014 14,343
4 5400 Auto Club Way AAA Minneapolis AAA 07-028-24-22-0004 6,970
5 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-22-0035 5,429
6 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC Frauenshuh Co.07-028-24-22-0036 7,799
7 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place LLC Frauenshuh Co.07-028-24-22-0037 1,785
8 5100 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-22-0034 2,454
9 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-22-0031 7,187
10 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-22-0031 1,595
11 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-22-0033 4,383
12 5000 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-22-0032 987
13 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Koblas Zip Printing 07-028-24-21-0006 724
14 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-21-0005 595
15 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-21-0004 881
16 4951 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS 07-028-24-21-0253 5,751
17 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0023 813
18 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0024 1,088
19 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0025 756
20 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investment Prop.Miracle Mile 07-028-24-22-0026 9,804
21 3700 Monterey Drive City of St. Louis Park Rec. Ctr.06-028-24-34-0017 33,041
TOTAL $126,412
Note:
(1)The proposed 2007 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology / formulas used for the
initial service charge collection.
ADDRESS
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6b - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #2
Page 1
6b. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service
District No. 2
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 2.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the 2007
Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges
to Hennepin County.
BACKGROUND:
On December 1, 1997, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for
Special Service District No. 2 (this district is located along Excelsior Blvd. from Monterey
Drive/38th St. to France Ave.). Annually, the City Council must adopt a service charge for the
District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District
Advisory Board (Advisory Board) approved the proposed 2007 budget at their July 20, 2006
meeting. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on October 12, 2006 and
October 26, 2006. The public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the District
more than ten (10) days prior to the meeting.
Special Service District No. 2 Financial Position: As of November 1, 2006, the Special
Service District No. 2 had an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately $10,000. Staff
and the Advisory Board have agreed that the operating reserve should be maintained at a level of
at least 50% of the annual operating budget. The proposed 2007 operating budget is $38,219.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters: The budget and service charge
do not have to be the same dollar amount, as has typically been the case in past years. By
ordinance, the maximum budget increase allowed per annum can not exceed the Consumer Price
Index increase up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon the applicable consumer
price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
Proposed 2007 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board recommended approval of
the 2007 budget amount of $38,219 compared to $36,300 in 2006. The Advisory Board also
recommended approval of the 2007 service charge amount of $38,219.
2007 City Portion of Service Charge: The Facilities Division incurs service charges for the
City owned property where the bus shelter is located at 3929 Excelsior Blvd., which is in Special
Service District No. 2. The proposed fee for 2007 is $51.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends Council approve the
resolution as requested.
Attachments: Resolution
2007 Proposed Budget
2007 Proposed Service Charges
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspections Administrative Supervisor
Through: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6b - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #2
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-168
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2007 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT No. 2
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2093-97, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 2 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 97-165, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2008 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 97-165, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 97-165, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 6, 2006.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2007 Budget for Special Service District No. 2 of $38,219 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 2 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2007 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 is $38,219
in the amounts and against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6b - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #2
Page 3
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 2
2007 Budget
No.
Item
2006 Revised
Budget
2007
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 300 300
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,500 3,500
6410 GENERAL PROFFESSIONAL
SERVICES
50 50
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,000 2,000
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 4,000 0
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 800 800
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 640 640
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 4,000 3,500
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 4,500 5,700
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 13,100 17,500
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 110
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 119 119
7207.880 SSD Infrastructure Repair 2,000 2,000
7301.890 SSD Pedestrian 1,300 2,000
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 0 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 36,419 38,219
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6b - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #2
Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
AUTHORIZED 2007 SERVICE CHARGE
PAR.OWNER PID PROPOSED
NO.NO.2007
SERVICE
CHARGE
1 3920 Excelsior Blvd Al's Liquor 06-028-24-41-0002 1,836
2 3924 Excelsior Blvd American Inn 06-028-24-41-0003 2,208
3 3542 Minikadha Ct.Sage Company
4 3551 Huntington Ave.Frank Murray
5 4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling 06-028-24-41-0008 1,282
6 4120 Excelsior Blvd Baldwin & Mattson 06-028-24-41-0009 1,312
7 3921 Excelsior Blvd Miller Management Co.06-028-24-41-0010 699
8 3939 Excelsior Blvd Anderson-Cherne, Inc.06-028-24-41-0014 1,098
9 3500 Glenhurst Ave Gary James
10 4011 Excelsior Blvd Richard Hogan
11 4015 Excelsior Blvd Jeffery Miller
12 4025 Excelsior Blvd Terrance Williams
13 4031 Excelsior Blvd Joann Armstrong
14 3601 Huntington Ave.Martin & Alice Fowler
15 3901 Excelsior Blvd Minikahda Union "76"06-028-24-41-0047 1,293
16 3900 Excelsior Blvd Modelette Inc./Anderson Cleaners 06-028-24-41-0053 216
17 3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park 06-028-24-41-0067 51
18 3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.06-028-24-41-0068 810
19 3912 Excelsior Blvd Al's Liquor 06-028-24-41-0069 1,885
20 3947 Excelsior Blvd Miller Management 06-028-24-41-0070 1,818
21 4300 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0017 588
22 4306 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0018 503
23 4308 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0019 694
24 4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments 06-028-24-43-0020 1,314
25 4321 Excelsior Blvd Koval Furniture & Appliance 06-028-24-43-0021 779
26 3757 Kipling Ave S Bruce Remmington
27 4409 Excelsior Blvd JEM Enterprises LLC - Nevab 06-028-24-43-0040 687
28 4415 Excelsior Blvd Davis Chiropractic 06-028-24-43-0041 611
29 4419 Excelsior Blvd Smith Motors 06-028-24-43-0042 1,414
30 4424 Excelsior Blvd Al Roers Salon 06-028-24-43-0064 1,174
31 4331 Excelsior Blvd Furniture Liquidators 06-028-24-43-0091 1,137
32 4320 Excelsior Blvd Opitz Outlet 06-028-24-43-0186 1,945
33 4400 Excelsior Blvd Kamps/Craven Prop. Partnership 06-028-24-43-0187 4,690
34 4140 Excelsior Blvd Slumberland 06-028-24-44-0001 2,270
35 3600 Huntington Ave.Elmer Nordstrom
36 4115 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
37 4121 Excelsior Blvd Kooros & Grace Rejali
38 4131 Excelsior Blvd Roxanna, Kooros & Grace Rejali
39 4221 Excelsior Blvd Nat'l Gear Molding Inc.06-028-24-44-0088 376
40 4143 Excelsior Blvd Sam & Pearl Bix
41 4201 Excelsior Blvd Ackerberg & Assoc. Architects 06-028-24-44-0173 2,208
42 4200 Excelsior Blvd Dijomi 06-028-24-44-0175 1,497
43 4150 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership 06-028-24-44-0176 1,823
TOTAL 38,219
(1)The proposed 2006 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology /
formulas used for the initial service charge collection.
ADDRESS
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6c - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #3
Page 1
6c. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 3.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the 2007
Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service
District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges
to Hennepin County.
BACKGROUND:
On April 15, 2002, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 3. This district is located along Excelsior Blvd. between Quentin Ave and
Monterey Drive/38th Street. Annually, the City Council must adopt a service charge for the
District following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District
Advisory Board (Advisory Board) approved the proposed 2007 budget and service charges by
ballot following their July 20, 2006 meeting. The notice of public hearing was published in the
Sun Sailor on October 12, 2006 and October 26, 2006. The pubic hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the District more than ten (10) days prior to the meeting.
Special Service District No. 3 Financial Position: As of November 1, 2006 Special Service
District No. 3 had an anticipated year-end fund balance of approximately $31,000. Staff and the
Advisory Board have agreed that the operating reserve should be maintained at a level of at least
50% of the annual operating budget. The proposed 2007 operating budget is $61,702.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters: The budget and service charge
do not have to be the same dollar amount, as has typically been the case in past years. By
ordinance, the maximum budget increase allowed per annum can not exceed the Consumer Price
Index increase up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon the applicable consumer
price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
Proposed 2007 Budget and Service Charges: The Advisory Board recommended approval of
the 2007 budget amount of $61,702 compared to $61,500 in 2006. The Advisory Board also
recommended approval of the 2007 service charge amount of $61,702.
2006 City Portion of Service Charge: The City incurs service charges for the property located
at 4760 Excelsior Blvd., which is undeveloped and owned by the St. Louis Park Economic
Development Authority. The proposed fee for 2007 is $1345.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and
recommends Council approve the resolution as presented.
Attachments: Resolution
2007 Proposed Budget
2007 Proposed Service Charges
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspections Administrative Supervisor
Through: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6c - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #3
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-169
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2007 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 3
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2224-02, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 3 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 02-043, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2012 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.04 of Resolution No. 02-043, the maximum budget to
be imposed in any year will be subject to adjustment calculations based on Consumer Price
Index (CPI) data for the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 02-043, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 6, 2006.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The 2007 Budget for Special Service District No. 3 of $61,702 is hereby approved
as recommended by the Special Service District No. 3 Advisory Board.
2. The authorized 2007 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 is $61,702
being charged against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6c - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #3
Page 3
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District No. 3
2007 Budget
No.
Item
2006 Revised
Budget
2007
Proposed
Budget
6212 GENERAL SUPPLIES 700 700
6224 LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,000 2,300
6410 GENERAL PROFFESSIONAL
SERVICES
50 50
6410.678 SSD Mgmt Services 2,500 2,500
6630.772 SSD – Snow Removal 34,500 34,500
6630.773 SSD - Site Maintenance 1,000 1,000
6630.774 SSD – Banner Install/Removal 1,000 1,000
6630.775 SSD – Irrigation Service 4,000 4,000
6630.776 SSD – Decorative Install 2,400 2,400
6630.777 SSD – Landscape Service 11,000 11,000
6950 LEGAL NOTICES 110 110
7106 PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 202 202
7207.880 SSD Infrastructure Repair 0 0
7301.890 SSD Pedestrian 1,940 1,940
7302 GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 300 0
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 61,702 61,702
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6c - Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #3
Page 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment A
Special Service District #3
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Authorized 2007 Service Charge
PID Address Business Owner Proposed
2007
Service Charge
0702824210033 4911 Exc Blvd Old World Antiques J & F Reddy Rents In 861
0702824210032 4907 Exc Blvd Vogue Furniture C/O Carol Lindgren 801
0702824210031 4901 Exc Blvd Checks II Claudia Corrigan 848
0702824210017 4825 Exc Blvd German Autoworks DW Lindall 948
0702824210016 4821 Exc Blvd German Autoworks DW Lindall 930
0702824210015 4811 Exc Blvd Latitudes/Laundramat Ralph I Fine 1,683
0702824210252 4801 Exc Blvd Loffhagen Insurance Gordon Loffhagen 1,935
0702824210012 4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Office Bldg Arnold Feinberg 4,030
0702824210011 4701 Exc Blvd Steve's Park Amoco Amoco Corp (Tax Dept)2,340
0702824210009 4637 Exc Blvd Jennings Liquor Michael J. Jennings 2,033
0702824120052 4617 Exc Blvd Flower Fair Michael J. Jennings 1,947
0702824120051 4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann & Friends Judith McGrann 1,461
0702824120050 4611 Exc Blvd Dilly Lilly T F James Co 1,831
0702824120049 4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd Office Bldg Park Blvd LLP 3,657
0702824120048 4509 Exc Blvd Lang Nelson Office Lang Nelson Assoc.2,497
0702824120047 4501 Exc Blvd S & D Cleaners Chi Won Sohn 1,234
0702824210002 4900 Exc Blvd Bally Total Fitness Bally Total Fitness 5,275
0702824210258 4760 Exc Blvd Outlot H - Vacant SLP EDA 1,345
0702824210256 4730 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand LLC 10,082
0702824120175 4630 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand LLC 8,645
602824430190 4500 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand LLC 7,319
Total 61,702
Notes:
1. The cost allocation formula used for sidewalk snow removal is based upon the sidewalk area (square footage)
of the parcel. All other costs are based on the front footage.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6d -Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #4
Page 1
6d. 2007 Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4
This report considers the approval of the 2007 budget and property owner service
charges for Special Service District No. 4.
Recommended
Action:
Close Public Hearing. Motion to approve resolution setting the 2007
Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4 and
directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin
County.
BACKGROUND:
On July 18, 2005, the City Council approved a resolution imposing a service charge for Special
Service District No. 4 (this district is located on Excelsior Blvd west of Hwy 100). Annually, the
City Council must adopt a service charge for the District following a public hearing on the
proposed charge. The notice of public hearing was published in the Sun Sailor on October 12,
2006 and October 26, 2006. The pubic hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the
District more than ten (10) days prior to the meeting.
Special Service District No. 4 Financial Position: As Special Service District No. 4 is a new
district for which the first expenses will occur in 2008, Staff is recommending 50% of the
anticipated annual operating budget be set as the service charge for 2007 so that sufficient funds
are available in 2008 until such time as the 2008 service charges are reviewed. Two properties
are not included in the first phase of constructing of the streetscape, 6500 and 6600 Excelsior
Boulevard and therefore will not be assessed a service charge in 2007. These properties will be
assessed a service charge in 2008, as the second phase of the streetscape construction is
completed.
Maximum Budget / Service Charge Restriction Parameters: The budget and service charge
do not have to be the same dollar amount, as has typically been the case in past years. By
ordinance, the maximum budget increase allowed per annum can not exceed the Consumer Price
Index increase up to a maximum of 5%. This adjustment is based upon the applicable consumer
price index (CPI) percentage increase for the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
Proposed 2007 Service Charges: The proposed 2007 service charge in the amount of $14,941
is to develop sufficient reserve funds to cover the initial expenses anticipated in 2008.
2007 City Portion of Service Charge: The City incurs service charges for the City Municipal
Parking Lot located on Excelsior Blvd. The proposed fee for 2007 is $553.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff is not aware of any issues associated with this item and recommends Council approve the
resolution as presented.
Attachments: Resolution
2007 Proposed Service Charges
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher, Inspections Administrative Supervisor
Through: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6d -Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #4
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 06-
RESOLUTION APPROVING 2007 BUDGET
AND SERVICE CHARGES FOR
SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT NO. 4
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2298-05, the City Council created Special
Service District No. 4 (the “District”). The specific properties located within the District are
identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 05-100, the City Council is authorized to
impose service charges within the District on a multi-year basis through and including the year
2015 for taxes payable in said year; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3 of Resolution No. 02-043, the Service Charges shall
be payable and collected at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and
collection of ad valorem taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City is required by Statute to certify assessments to the County by
December 6, 2006.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park as follows:
1. The authorized 2007 Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3 is $14,941
being charged against the properties specified on Exhibit “A” attached to this Resolution.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 6d -Approve 2007 Budget And Service Charges For SSD #4
Page 3
Special Service District #4 Attachment A
2007 Proposed Service Charges
PID #Owner Front Ft.2,007
SSD Annual
Charge
2111721320022 6127 Excelsior Blvd Gregory White 78 $360
2111721320021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Hung LLC 97 $445
2111721320006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Blaeser Properties LLC 157 $726
2111721230100 6011 Excelsior Blvd Ward Properties Inc Kathleen Hames 155 $716
2111721230097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation 75 $347
2111721240195 5925 Excelsior Blvd Dys Properties 206 $949
2111721240185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC 197 $910
2111721240209 5813 Excelsior Blvd Universal Outdoor, Inc.10 $45
2111721240208 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Prtnr II LLP 67 $308
2111721240161 5801 Excelsior Blvd Hentges Properties, Inc.77 $356
2111721240193 5717 Excelsior Blvd LMC, Inc 175 $807
2111721240141 5707 Excelsior Blvd Len Paul/Gene Pretty Good 133 $614
2111721240205 4015 Xenwood Ave. So.Len Paul/Gene Pretty Good
2011721410009 6600 Excelsior Blvd G & N Limited Partnership 569 $2,621
2011721140023 6550 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park
Wetland City of St. Louis Park
2011721140026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Asbury Methodist Hospital 301 $1,388
6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd *432 $1,990
2111721230130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co.86 $396
2111721230155 6100 Excelsior Blvd James & Laurene Meger 60 $276
2111721230128 6006 Excelsior Blvd Lamert Canine LLC 43 $199
2111721230127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Himmelman Properties 83 $383
City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park 120 $553
2111721230011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard C Riley 59 $272
2111721230010 5922 Excelsior Blvd Gerald B. Frederick 28 $128
2111721230156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner 145 $670
2111721240083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Speedway Superamerica, LLC 131 $606
2111721240067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd. Co 111 $511
2111721240066 5804 Excelsior Blvd 5804 Excelsior Blvd., LLC 95 $436
2111721240040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Holiday Stationstores Inc 167 $771
2111721240202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer 103 $475
2111721240019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Trestman Music Center Sharon Trestman 150 $692
4,110 $18,950
Denotes other non-SSD properties
Denoted properties in Phase 2 construction, so will not be charged until 2008 $14,941
* 6200 and 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges
2111721320133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 RE 1 LLC $116
2111721320134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson $121
2111721320135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 Laurie G Holasek $117
2111721320136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 Laurie G Holasek $132
2111721320137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $112
2111721320138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $118
2111721320139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 United Rope Holland Dist $152
2111721320140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Dennis and Lois Schlutter $136
2111721320141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $124
2111721320142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 Lgh Properties LLC $115
2111721320143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Donald J & Joyce E Borgen $126
2111721320144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 Lgh Properties LLC $114
2111721320145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James V and June M Fieger $121
2111721320146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Skads Travel Service Inc $110
2111721320147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 Lgh Properties LLC $162
2111721320148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Joseph Urista $114
Total Charged to equal as stated in the above table $1,990
Address
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8a - Approve Plans And Coop Agmt Excelsior Blvd Streetscape - Projects
20040400, 01 & 02
Page 1
8a. Consider Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Project - Project Nos. 20040400,
20040100, and 20040200
This report considers approving project and Cooperative Agreement between Hennepin
County and the City of St. Louis Park for Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Project.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution approving project and entering
into a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for Excelsior
Boulevard roadway improvement and Streetscape project – Project
Nos. 20040400, 20040100, and 20040200, and authorizing the Mayor
and City Manager to execute the Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
Approximately 2-3 years ago, the Hennepin County Transportation Department began the
process of developing plans for the reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard from Xenwood
Avenue (Highway 100) west to Louisiana Avenue. The purpose of the project is to improve
vehicular and pedestrian safety, improve capacity for vehicles, restore the pavement to an
adequate condition, and add streetscaping/landscaping to create a more attractive pedestrian
environment.
As part of the plan development process, several meetings were held with residents, businesses,
Council, and staff. This process eventually led to approval of the preliminary layout by the City
Council in May of 2005. The layout approved reflected much of the input and suggestions
received from stakeholders throughout that process.
Since approval of the preliminary layout, staff have worked with the County and adjacent
property owners to finalize the project plans, including acquiring authorizations for streetscape
plantings and amenities. Since the preliminary plan was approved by Council last year, several
additional informational meetings have been conducted, including meetings in October of 2005
and September 19, 2006. Several other individual meetings with businesses, residents, and
property owners have been conducted as well. In addition, property owners have also been
informed of the water main and service line replacement work that will be occurring as part of
the project, including the water service line replacement practice recently discussed and directed
by the City Council.
The plans as presented include construction from Xenwood Avenue (T.H. 100) to approximately
Colorado/Dakota Avenue. The remaining portion (Dakota Avenue to Louisiana Avenue), is
scheduled to be constructed in 2009 and 2010.
As reported previously to the Council, key features of the project can be summarized as follows:
General. Essentially, the roadway and sidewalk will be reconstructed within the confines of the
existing right of way and physical constraints as much as possible. Agreements with adjacent
property owners have been secured to allow for streetscape amenities that extend beyond the
right of way limits. The streetscape portion of the project has been designed to be consistent with
existing Excelsior Boulevard east of T.H. 100 as much as possible. This would include the
lighting, sidewalks, medians, banners and other streetscape amenities. Because of maintenance
issues and safety related complaints (poor visibility), a modification to the type of crosswalk
treatments is also being proposed (see attached sketches).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8a - Approve Plans And Coop Agmt Excelsior Blvd Streetscape - Projects
20040400, 01 & 02
Page 2
Median Closures. Median locations including closures are consistent with the layout approved
by the City Council in May of 2005. Essentially, full access will be maintained for all
intersecting side streets with the exception of Colorado Avenue (south of Excelsior) and
Alabama Avenue (south of Excelsior) where the center median extends across the intersection.
On-Street Parking. Currently, there is no on-street parking along this portion of Excelsior
Boulevard except in parking bays. Hennepin County has retained all of the existing spaces
within the parking bays except for 5 parking stalls. This includes removal of the parking bay on
the north side, adjacent to 5810 Excelsior Blvd. where 3 parking spaces will be removed. This is
consistent with the earlier layout approved by Council.
Storm Sewer. Although the street portion of this first phase of construction will terminate
between Colorado and Dakota Avenues, replacement of the existing storm sewer to Minnehaha
Creek will be included as part of the project. The new storm sewer pipe has been sized to
eventually receive additional flow from the Brooklawns neighborhood to alleviate street flooding
issues in that neighborhood.
Watermain and Other Utilities. Since the roadway will be completely reconstructed, it is the
opportune time to repair or replace utilities as may be needed. City watermain (8in. – 12in.) and
individual service connection lines will be replaced across the length of the project. Some
sanitary sewer repair such as manhole replacement and adjustments will also be performed.
Funding has been allocated for these repairs from the appropriate utility fund. However, the
costs for individual water service connection lines will be paid for by the adjoining property
owners as recently discussed with the City Council.
Special Service District: A special service district has been established to provide a mechanism
to pay for the maintenance of the streetscape enhancements.
COSTS & FUNDING: In accordance with the County’s Cost Participation Policy and the
Cooperative Agreement, the City will be expected to pay for a portion of the project costs
including road construction, streetscaping, watermain replacement work, and right-of-way
acquisition.
The total project cost is estimated to be $5,339.452. Of that amount, $2,360,387.89 is the
responsibility of the City of St. Louis Park. Much of that amount is attributable to the landscape
and enhancement costs. A further breakdown is as follows:
Construction $1,720,242.34
Engineering (Design&Const) $ 245,795.55
Traffic Signal $ 9,250.00
Right of Way (Perm/Temp) $ 375,000.00
Environmental Studies $ 10,100.10
Total $2,360,387.89
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8a - Approve Plans And Coop Agmt Excelsior Blvd Streetscape - Projects
20040400, 01 & 02
Page 3
Of the $1,720,242.34 attributed to the City’s share of the construction cost, the amount can be
summarized as follows:
Roadway Construction
(Includes roadway, streetscaping, and City supplied
lighting)
$ 998,670.13
Watermain $ 347,619.50
Storm Sewer $ 373,952.71
Total $1,720,242.34
The City successfully gained County participation in the Streetscape Enhancement costs, through
Hennepin County’s Roadside Enhancement Partnership Program (REPP). Through the REPP
program, the County will be paying for $349,220.55 (about 35%) of the total enhancement
construction costs. REPP funds were also provided by the County for the previous streetscaping
project east of T.H. 100.
Costs for the City’s share of the street and storm sewer costs are anticipated to be paid for by
EDA Funds. Cost for watermain replacement and sanitary sewer work will come from the
Utility Funds, with the exception of the individual services which will be billed to property
owners.
The Agreement has been reviewed and found to be acceptable by the City Attorney.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the project and Cooperative Agreement per the attached
Resolution.
PROJECT TIMELINE: Should the City Council approve this project and agreement,
Hennepin County anticipates the following schedule:
• Council Final Plan and Cooperative Agreement Approval November 2006
• Bid Opening January 2007
• Award Contract February 2007
• Construction Start April 2007
• Construction Completion August 2008
Attachments: Resolution
Project Location (Supplement)
Crosswalk Treatments (Supplement)
Prepared By: Scott Brink, City Engineer
Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8a - Approve Plans And Coop Agmt Excelsior Blvd Streetscape - Projects
20040400, 01 & 02
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 06-170
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROJECT AND ENTERING INTO A COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT AND STREETSCAPE PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO.
20040400, 01, AND 02
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has completed plans for the reconstruction of Excelsior
Boulevard (CSAH 3) from Xenwood Avenue South to Dakota Avenue South; and
WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park has expressed its desire to participate in said
reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of St. Louis Park approved a preliminary
design layout for the reconstruction project on May 16, 2005; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has completed preparation of final construction plans;
and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County has prepared a Cooperative Agreement outlining cost
participation responsibilities of the County and the City of St. Louis Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. Final construction plans and specifications for the reconstruction of Excelsior Boulevard
(Xenwood Avenue South to Dakota Avenue South), referenced as City Project Nos.
20040400, 20040100, and 20040200) are approved.
2. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to sign Cooperative Agreement No. PW 32-
05-06 on behalf of the City of St. Louis Park.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 1
8b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – 2600 Natchez Avenue South
Case No.: 06-59-CP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a portion of
2600 Natchez Avenue from P – Parks and Open Space to RL – Low
Density Residential as shown on the attached map.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment would change the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation for the northeast corner of 2600 Natchez Avenue South from Parks and Open Space
to Low Density Residential.
The figure below shows the entire 2600 Natchez Avenue South parcel with a red outline. The
proposed amendment is applicable to the area outlined in yellow below.
Figure 1. Site Location Map
Current Comp. Plan: P - Parks and Open Space
Proposed Comp. Plan: RL - Low Density Residential (yellow),
P – Parks and Open Space (red)
Current Zoning: R-1 – Single Family Residential
Current Land Use: Open space
Proposed Land Use: One single-family lot (yellow)
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
On December 5, 2005, the City Council approved a resolution (Resolution No. 05-169) to sell
the northeast upland portion of the subject property for construction of one single-family home,
and to retain the entire wetland area. That action by the Council was preceded by a public
process that began in January of 2005 with the appointment of the Excess Land Task Force.
The Excess Land Task Force determined the parcel at 2600 Natchez Avenue South was suitable
for single-family home construction. The Excess Land Task Force found that there were nine
parcels city-wide that could be used for the construction of up to 17 new single-family homes.
The total parcel size is approximately 4.28 acres. Approximately 24,696 square feet of the parcel
is buildable area above the 100-year flood elevation. The comprehensive plan amendment would
change the land use designation of 13,000 square feet of the northeast corner of 2600 Natchez
Avenue South from Park and Open Space to Low Density Residential.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment is the next step in preparing this parcel for sale.
ANALYSIS:
Density: The Comprehensive Plan permits densities of up to 7.0 units per acre in the RL – Low
Density Residential. The proposed use of the site is one single-family home. The residential
development density would be 3.4 units per acre, which is consistent with the proposed
designation.
Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: The proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan map
for this parcel is consistent with the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, where it states
“the greatest deficit and need is for the creation and maintenance of detached, owner-occupied
single family housing which are large enough to accommodate families. City housing efforts
and resources should primarily address this need.” The proposal is also consistent with the
planning goals in the Land Use chapter that calls for infill development opportunities to help
meet housing goals.
Dimensions: The proposed amendment would allow the City to proceed with the subdivision,
sale and development of a single-family lot that is 100 feet x 130 feet (13,000 square feet) in
size. This lot area and width are larger than the minimum lot size in the R-1 Zoning District and
similar to other lot sizes on Natchez Avenue. The area would be too small to be split in the
future under current R-1 zoning standards. The larger lot area will also help meet the
requirement of City Council Resolution No. 05-169 adopted in December of 2005 to preserve the
existing mature oaks trees to the extent possible.
Wetland/Floodplain: WSB & Associates, Inc. prepared a Wetland Delineation Report for this
and other excess land parcels. The report states that the wetland at 2600 Natchez Avenue South
is not a MN DNR protected water body. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD),
therefore, administers the Wetland Conservation Act.
The City’s Wetland Management Plan (WMP) provides guidance for the 2600 Natchez parcel.
The WMP places the 2600 Natchez wetland in the Manage II classification. The plan states that
“Manage II wetlands will be managed as follows:
· Continue to utilize wetlands for stormwater management as wetlands are used in their
present condition.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 3
· A 10-foot buffer around the perimeter of wetlands will be encouraged through public
education efforts. Wider buffer widths will be implemented in accordance with Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (MWCD) standards if wetlands are proposed to be impacted by
filling or draining.”
The MCWD promotes a 35-foot vegetative buffer (i.e. not manicured lawns) along wetlands of
this size to help control the rate and quality of stormwater runoff into the wetland. Under the
proposal, a vegetative buffer area of at least 35 feet will be preserved and remain in public
ownership.
The attached survey shows the 100-year flood elevation line and wetland delineation. The area
to be designated Low Density Residential is not in the 100-year floodplain or the wetland. Also,
when subdivided, the single-family lot would be at least 35 feet from the wetland. A house
would at least 60 feet from the wetland based on rear yard requirements.
The City will require in the bid documents that the development protect the mature oak trees on
the site in accordance with City Council Resolution No. 05-169. The City Council could add
additional criteria for bids, such as conforming with MCWD requirements. Minimizing
impervious surface area or providing on-site stormwater infiltration (i.e. rain garden) are two
possible ways this individual single-family lot development could reduce its impact on the
wetland.
Guiding the upland areas of 2600 Natchez as residential development and providing a 35-foot
vegetative buffer to the adjacent wetland complies with our management plan.
PROCESS:
City staff mailed public hearing notices to property owners within ¼-mile of the property, and a
sign was posted on-site notifying passersby that an application was pending. These efforts went
beyond State law and local ordinance requirements.
The Planning Commission held the public hearing on September 20, 2006. The Planning
Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment (4-2 vote). Please
review the attached Planning Commission meeting minutes for a summary of the public
comments and discussion.
A motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan requires a supermajority of all City Council
members to pass (5 of 7 members).
The Comprehensive Plan amendment would be subject to Metropolitan Council review. The
City would also need to subdivide the lot prior to sale.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and City staff recommend approval of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment for the northeast 100’ x 130’ corner of the parcel at 2600 Natchez Avenue as shown
on the attached map.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 4
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
Survey for 2600 Natchez Avenue
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt
City Council Resolution 05-169 relating to the conditions of sale
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 06-172
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
NORTHEAST CORNER OF
2600 NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 6
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on September 20, 2006, based
on statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, extensive research and analyses involving the
interests of citizens and public agencies;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 06-59-CP);
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 06-59-CP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that
the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council,
is hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from P – Parks and Open
Space to RL – Low Density Residential
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 7
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 06-06-172
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
NORTHEAST CORNER OF
2600 NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH
This resolution states that the land use designation of the Northeast corner of 2600 Natchez
Avenue South will be changed from P – Parks and Open Space to RL – Low Density Residential,
as shown on the attached map.
Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 16, 2006
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 8
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 9
Site Survey for 2600 Natchez Avenue South
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 10
OFFICIAL MINUTES (excerpt)
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 -- 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Dennis Morris, Carl
Robertson
Robert Kramer arrived at 6:04, Jerry Timian arrived at 6:18 and
left at 8:05
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, Adam Fulton, Kathy Larsen and
Nancy Sells
…
3. Public Hearings
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Parks and Open Space to Low Density
Residential
Location: 2600 Natchez Ave. S.
Case No.: 06-59-CP
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Senior Planner Sean Walther presented the staff report. Mr. Walther said staff received a
call from Jane DeMay, who represents a nearby condominium association. The
association has concerns regarding storm water. Mr. Walther said there would be no
impact to the condominium property in regard to storm water based on the development
of this site.
Chair Carper asked why the city is disposing of park land.
Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator, explained that in December, 2005, the
Council approved a resolution to sell the northeast upland portion of the parcel for the
construction of one single family home, and to retain the entire wetland area. The
approval by the Council was preceded by a public process that began in January, 2005,
with the appointment of the Excess Land Task Force. She went on to say that the task
force determined the parcel was excess land that could be suitable for single-family home
construction. The task force found that there were 9 parcels city-wide that could be used
for the construction of up to 17 new single family homes.
Commissioner Kramer stated that the matter before the Commission is the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan which is the next step in preparing the parcel for
sale to the public.
Chair Carper opened the public hearing.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 11
Nancy Gibson, 2712 Glenhurst, stated that she has a background in biology and chaired
the Environmental Trust Fund for 14 years. Ms. Gibson asked the Planning Commission
to retain the site as open space. She and the Vision Action Environmental Team would
like to have higher tree preservation requirements. The team plan will be available to the
city by November 1st. Ms. Gibson said the site is a critical space for wetland. She asked
that the Vision Action team plan be allowed to be put together. She asked the
Commission to recommend holding off on this site or to consider not developing it.
Patsy Munson, 4240 Browndale, is also a member of the Environmental Team. She said
the team is committed to preserving and expanding the city’s open space and park land.
Ms. Munson asked that the land use designation of 2600 Natchez not be changed.
Richard Kelber, 2600 Monterey Avenue, said move up housing is a worthy goal but it is
already being created by market forces without any diminution in market space. He
asked that the property be left as is.
Ann Drew Yu, 2636 Lynn, said she agrees with the previous speakers. She spoke about
the aesthetics and spirit of the land as a gateway to the neighborhood. Ms. Yu said
technically the site is not park land but it is a treasure of the neighborhood.
Jane DeMay, 2505 Quentin Court, represents 24 homeowners who comprise Princeton
Court Townhomes. They are opposed to the development of this parcel unless the city
would include the correction of the storm sewer line that cannot at the present time
handle water run off. Overflow has occurred 12-15 times in the last 20 years. Ms.
DeMay said the city is aware of this issue.
Joan Abelson, 2617 Natchez, said the people on her block have been criticized for
opposing the construction of a single family home across the street. Ms. Abelson said
building one house on the site will disturb the area. She said it is hard for her to
understand why it is an issue. People should be delighted to have this refuge and it
should be preserved.
Sharon Abelson, 4340 Cedarwood Road, said $1 million plus homes are not move up
homes. She said that she questions meeting the need for move up housing. Ms. Abelson
said it is important to see the open space; there is no need to continue to develop little
pieces of land.
Chris Garwick Foley, 5100 Morningside Road, said open space is very valuable to
residents.
Deb Fowler, 2605 Natchez, attended all but one meeting regarding the Excess Land
process. She said she has heard fewer than five comments in support of developing this
land, and the supporting comments came from developers—all other comments were in
opposition. Ms. Fowler said the neighborhood is interested in further preservation of this
wetland and they are organizing to clean it up.
Commissioner Kramer and Ms. Larsen discussed debris in the wetland parcel. Ms.
Larsen said the soil study recommended that clean fill would have to be added.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 12
John Schenk, 2605 Natchez, said it is a good suggestion to wait for input from the Vision
group. He said the city needs to not only preserve but also restore the open space. Mr.
Schenk would like to know what the long-term plan and decision might be for parks in
general.
Simon Goldman, 2641 Natchez, said he is troubled with the process. He said the Excess
Land Task Force was stacked with architects who are good people, but who want to
build. He added that building won’t make St. Louis Park great, but saving land will be
something to be proud of.
Chair Carper closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Morris said this has not been a hasty decision. The Council has decided to
dispose of the land and this request is the mechanism to create the change. He is in favor
of recommending approval.
Commissioner Robertson commented that it was a long and thorough process. He was a
member of the Excess Land Task Force. He said he is very interested in ecology. He
spoke about safeguards and the design review process. He said the city is obliged to be
creative and responsible by doing some infill. He supports moving forward on this
request.
Ms. Larsen spoke about the design review committee which determines compatibility
with the neighborhood. She said the sales process has a strong residency preference.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how much park land the city added back into the
mix in the past 10 years.
Ms. Larsen responded she thinks close to 50 acres of park land has been added in the past
10 years.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison, also a task force member, said she favors moving this
forward to the City Council.
Commissioner Timian said as new information becomes available, it is necessary to step
back sometimes and take a wait-and-see stance. The city has asked citizens to get
involved in the visioning process. Commissioner Timian suggested this item be tabled.
Ms. Gibson said the Vision task force report is to be completed by November 1, 2006.
Commissioner Kramer said he would prefer to move ahead.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison favors moving forward; she doesn’t want to table this
item. She said the City Council can be provided with new information.
Chair Carper said he could support tabling, and if not that, he is opposed to moving
forward on this regardless of the previous decisions made on this.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 13
Commissioner Morris asked if staff can continue with other aspects of preparing the lot if
this item is tabled. Ms. McMonigal said once the title work is done, staff could begin to
prepare a preliminary plat.
Commissioner Kramer would like to move this item to the City Council; he doesn’t want
to table.
Commissioner Robertson said he favors moving forward and letting the Council review
new information and decide.
Commissioner Timian made a motion to table and wait to hear recommendations from
the Vision Environmental team. Commissioner Morris seconded the motion. The motion
failed on a 3-3 vote (Johnston-Madison, Kramer, and Robertson opposed).
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend a Comprehensive Plan
amendment for a portion of 2600 Natchez Avenue from P – Parks and Open Space to RL
– Low Density Residential. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The
motion carried 4-2 (Carper and Timian opposed).
Ms. McMonigal said this item is tentatively scheduled to go to the City Council on
October 16, 2006.
…
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8b - Comp Plan Amend 2600 Natchez Ave S
Page 14
RESOLUTION NO. 05-169
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SALE OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2600 NATCHEZ AVENUE SOUTH
WHEREAS, the parcel located at 2600 Natchez Avenue South; and identified as Parcel 3
on the City’s Excess Public Lands List is a tax forfeited property and can be acquired by the City
for resale; and
WHEREAS, the total parcel area is approximately186,400 square feet and includes a
wetland; and
WHEREAS, the buildable area above the 100 year flood line and not wetland is
approximately 24,696 square feet; and
WHEREAS, mature oak trees have been located on the Northeast upland portion of the
parcel; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the sale of the Northeast upland portion of
Parcel 3 is in the public interest.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that City staff is directed to take the
necessary steps to sell the northeast upland portion of Parcel 3 for the construction of one single
family home in accordance with the City’s adopted Sale and Design Review Process and Design
Guidelines. Mature oak trees shall be retained to the degree possible. The entire wetland area
shall be retained by the City.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 5, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8c - Comp Plan Amend Carpenter Park
Page 1
8c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Carpenter Park (5005 Mtka. Blvd)
Case No.: 06-62-CP
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a portion of
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard from CIV – Civic to P – Parks and Open
Space as shown on the attached map.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would change the land use designation of
Carpenter Park in the Comprehensive Plan from Civic to Parks and Open Space. This will
prepare the parcel for planned rezoning to POS - Park and Open Space. Carpenter Park is
located on the southern portion of the property at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard. The figure below
shows the parcel boundary outlined in red and Carpenter Park outlined in yellow.
Figure 1. Site Location Area
Current Comprehensive Plan: CIV - Civic
Proposed Comprehensive Plan: P - Parks and Open Space (park portion only)
Current Zoning: R-C – High Density Multiple Family Residential
Current Land Use: City Hall, Police Department, Park and Recreation
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8c - Comp Plan Amend Carpenter Park
Page 2
BACKGROUND:
As part of creating a park and open space zoning district, `staff identified an inconsistency with
the Comprehensive Plan designation of Carpenter Park. The Civic Comprehensive Plan land use
designation does not include park uses. This inconsistency would be a barrier to rezoning to the
property to POS – Park and Open Space.
ANALYSIS:
A change to Parks and Open Space is consistent with the existing land use and the Parks and
Open Space chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. The current designation may have been
assigned in error because of the City Hall and Police Department uses on the north side of the
same parcel. The proposal would affect approximately 7.33 acres of the 13-acre parcel.
PROCESS:
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18, 2006, and unanimously
recommended approval.
A motion to amend the Comprehensive Plan requires a supermajority of all City Council
members to pass (5 of 7 members). The Comprehensive Plan amendment is subject to
Metropolitan Council review.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Commission and City staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan
amendment for the south portion of the property at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, known as
Carpenter Park, as shown on the attached map.
Attachments: Draft Resolution
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Map
Draft Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Excerpt
Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8c - Comp Plan Amend Carpenter Park
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 06-173
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
CARPENTER PARK
5005 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 was adopted by the City Council on
May 17, 1999 (effective September 1, 1999) and provides the following:
1. An official statement serving as the basic guide in making land use, transportation and
community facilities and service decisions affecting the City.
2. A framework for policies and actions leading to the improvement of the physical,
financial, and social environment of the City, thereby providing a good place to live and work
and a setting conducive for new development.
3. A promotion of the public interest in establishing a more functional, healthful,
interesting, and efficient community by serving the interests of the community at large rather
than the interests of individual or special groups within the community if their interests are at
variance with the public interest.
4. An effective framework for direction and coordination of activities affecting the
development and preservation of the community.
5. Treatment of the entire community as one ecosystem and to inject long range
considerations into determinations affecting short-range action, and
WHEREAS, the use of such Comprehensive Plan will insure a safer, more pleasant, and
more economical environment for residential, commercial, industrial, and public activities and
will promote the public health, safety, and general welfare, and
WHEREAS, said Plan will prepare the community for anticipated desirable change,
thereby bringing about significant savings in both private and public expenditures, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan has taken due cognizance of the planning activities
of adjacent units of government, and
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed by the Planning
Commission of the City of St. Louis Park and amendments made, if justified according to
procedures, rules, and laws, and provided such amendments would provide a positive result and
are consistent with other provisions in the Comprehensive Plan, and
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8c - Comp Plan Amend Carpenter Park
Page 4
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of St. Louis Park recommended
adoption of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan 2000-2020 on October 18, 2006, based on
statutes, the Metropolitan Regional Blueprint, and extensive research and analysis;
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the
Planning Commission (Case No. 06-62-CP);
WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case File 06-62-CP are hereby entered into and
made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of St. Louis Park that
the Comprehensive Plan, as previously adopted by the Planning Commission and City Council,
is hereby amended as follows:
Change the land use designation as shown on the attached map from CIV – Civic to P –
Parks and Open Space.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan
Council
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8c - Comp Plan Amend Carpenter Park
Page 5
SUMMARY
RESOLUTION NO. 06-173
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN 2000 TO THE YEAR 2020 FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES 462.351 TO 462.364
CARPENTER PARK
5005 MINNETONKA BOULEVARD
This resolution states that the land use designation of Carpenter Park located at 5005 Minnetonka
Boulevard will be changed from CIV – Civic to P – Parks and Open Space.
Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
Contingent upon approval of the Metropolitan Council
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this resolution is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 16, 2006
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8c - Comp Plan Amend Carpenter Park
Page 6
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8c - Comp Plan Amend Carpenter Park
Page 7
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES (excerpt)
PLANNING COMMISSION
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 18, 2006 – 7:15 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer, Richard Person,
Dennis Morris, Carl Robertson, Jerry Timian
MEMBERS ABSENT: Lynne Carper
STAFF PRESENT: Meg McMonigal, Sean Walther, and Nancy Sells
…
3. Public Hearings
A. Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to Parks and Open Space
Location: 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard (Carpenter Park)
Case No.: 06-62-CP
Applicant: City of St. Louis Park
Senior Planner Sean Walther presented the staff report.
Commissioner Kramer asked if, other than making a correction, is there a material reason
why the proposed amendment is better or worse. Mr. Walther said there is no difference
except in the case that the property cannot be rezoned as park because that would be
inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan designation.
Commissioner Person said on the Comprehensive Plan map, the term Park is used but the
documents list Parks and Open Space. Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal
said staff will correct that.
Vice Chair Morris opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak Vice Chair
Morris closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Person made a motion to recommend a Comprehensive Plan amendment
for a portion of 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard from Civic to Parks and Open Space.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of
6-0.
…
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 1
8d. Consideration of citywide wireless broadband network provided through a private
– public partnership.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution declaring ARINC, Inc. the lowest
responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with
ARINC, Inc. for the supply and implementation of a wireless
broadband network and with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide
management partner services for said network.
or
Motion to reject all bids, phase out pilot wireless Internet project and
service to pilot subscribers by December 31, 2006, terminate
agreements with all related pilot vendors and suppliers, and
discontinue plans for any citywide wireless broadband service.
PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION:
At its October 16 meeting, the City Council held a public hearing to gather public input on the
possibility of implementing a wireless broadband network through a public – private partnership.
In addition to the public input provided at that meeting, staff provided information and updates
on the following related items:
• Background on this project.
• Results and status of the bid process, including various technologies contemplated.
• Status of the negotiation process with the management partner.
• Re-projected retail project financials per results of the bid and negotiation processes.
• Risk factors and efforts to mitigate them.
• Possible consideration of public safety, public service, and communitywide benefits.
• Possible exit strategies.
• Discussions with surrounding suburbs regarding wireless services.
• Review of the invitation to the intended Minneapolis service provider to bid on the St.
Louis Park project.
Council also provided additional questions for staff follow-up in conjunction with this November
6 meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to:
• Provide a refresher of project goals.
• Identify the lowest responsible bidder for equipment.
• Provide an update on negotiations with the management partner.
• Review current project financials.
• Report results of the October 30, 2006 open house.
• Provide information on remaining questions and issues surrounding this project.
• Describe risk mitigation efforts and their impact on the project.
• Describe some of the potential benefits beyond the core retail model – public safety,
public services, and communitywide benefits.
• Describe potential exit strategies.
• Describe resolution of findings.
• Based on this report, provide options and consequences to the City Council.
• Encourage the Council to complete this decision making phase following 2 years of study
and a pilot project.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 2
Please note that previous reports and details on this project may be accessed as needed in Adobe
Acrobat format at the City’s web site, http://www.stlouispark.org/residents/wireless.htm.
PROJECT GOALS:
At its November 21, 2005 meeting, the City Council approved moving forward with the pilot
project. Goals identified at the November 21 meeting focused on the following overarching and
more detailed policy questions:
Fundamentally, to ask whether and how the City and Schools should play a role to ensure
access to citywide competitively priced high speed indoor / outdoor wireless Internet service.
• Evolving Perception of Internet – Becoming as Essential as Roads?
• If High Speed Access to the Internet is Essential, Can Everyone Afford It?
• DSL (Digital Subscriber Line) Internet Service is Limited
• Cable Modem Internet Service Widely Available as a Single Broadband Source
• Low Speed Dial-Up Internet Service Becoming Increasingly Inadequate
• Coverage / Pricing / Competition May be Suboptimal
• Chaska, Moorhead, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Cloud, Rural
Oregon, Macedonia…more…Suggests Wireless Worthy of Study
• Small Business and Resident Interest Both Anecdotally and Via Market Research
• Municipal and Educational Opportunities – Some Apparent, Most to Evolve
• Increasing Demand for Wireless Tech – Wireless Phone Numbers Exceeded Wired
Numbers in 2005
• St. Louis Park Competes – So What Can Help Us Attract and Retain Residents and
Businesses?
• 200+ USA Cities Planning / Implementing Wireless – Why? For Some, Because…
• USA Ranks No. 12 / 16 Worldwide in High-Speed Internet Penetration Rates – Some
Feel We Can Do Better
• And, Maybe We Really Do Live in a Flat World, So What Can We Do to Stay Strong?
BID PROCESS RESULTS:
The following bids were received by the published bid deadline of 1:00 p.m. on Friday,
September 22, 2006. Information was received from others after the bid deadline, and therefore
could not be considered. Staff then reviewed the bids, and provided an updated bid tabulation to
vendors. This review included a correction which changed the apparent low bidder. As evident
from various bids, each vendor took a somewhat different approach to the project:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 3
Bidder Wireless Network Fiber Network/CPE (1,000)TOTAL
Backhaul
ARINC (Proxim)1,144,231.00 483,300.00 86,000.00 1,713,531.00
Onvoy (Nortel)1,652,398.17 647,601.79 100,000.00 2,399,999.96
BIG Wireless (Tropos)1,578,705.00 1,118,444.00 99,000.00 2,796,149.00
Johnson Controls (RoamAD)1,378,600.00 1,100,000.00 No Bid 2,478,600.00
Johnson Controls (Strix)1,498,500.00 1,100,000.00 No Bid 2,598,500.00
Johnson Controls (Cisco)1,756,500.00 1,100,000.00 No Bid 2,856,500.00
Note: In the table above, “Fiber Network / Backhaul” indicates some bidders included additional
fiber while others included wireless only for network backhaul. “CPE” means Customer
Premises Equipment, or the bridge that connects the customer’s computer to the wireless
network, typically through externally mounted radios.
The projected total bid cost based on staff projections was $2,900,000.00 and bidders were
informed at the September 7 pre-bid meeting that more competitively priced bids that met project
specifications would be viewed more positively by the City Council.
Bidders were informed that staff would review the packages to determine the lowest responsible
bid based on price and specifications – that is, the lowest priced bid that met project
specifications as outlined in the RFB. Per the City Attorney’s advice, staff followed up with the
apparent lowest responsible bidder, ARINC, first to determine if it met project specifications.
This follow-up included extensive review of the bid, follow-up questions with the bidder, and a
site visit to the bidder and sample installed sites. A similar process would have been followed
with the subsequent bidders based on bid price if it had become apparent the lowest responsible
had to be disqualified based on staff’s follow-up.
City and consultant staff visited ARINC and some of its installed sites during the week of
October 2. Staff also reviewed sites of Proxim, the wireless hardware vendor partnering with
ARINC. Meetings with Proxim, ARINC and its installed sites yielded very useful information
and the opportunity for verification of the bid items as part of the City’s due diligence. This
review became all the more important given the difference in price between ARINC’s bid and
other bids, as well as the projected bid cost. Staff has completed its analysis of the bid provided
by ARINC and determined that it meets project requirements as provided in the RFB. ARINC’s
approach is innovative in many ways. Here is a summary of highlights:
• Over 9 miles of additional fiber optic network infrastructure is part of this bid. At the
City’s option, additional fiber network segments could be installed to provide capacity
beyond that needed to support the wireless service, particularly in commercial and
industrial areas. This addresses the Council’s interest in adding fiber infrastructure
throughout the city.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 4
• Wireless network costs are managed primarily through the integration of solar panel
technology with wireless radios. Solar power technology itself is proven; its application
to powering a wireless access points is also not new. It is being used applied in this way
in hotspot areas of Boulder, Colorado; to the best of our knowledge, St. Louis Park would
be the first to employ solar for wireless service citywide. Fortunately, the same
manufacturer being proposed (SunWize) provides solar panels for many applications,
including transportation and pollution control applications in Minnesota. Solar power
mitigates against reliance on the electrical grid, especially in times of storm-related
emergencies when the grid is often most needed. See www.sunwize.com for more
information.
• The wireless access points are housed in a weatherproof enclosure that incorporates
needed components, including a rechargeable battery with a 5.5 day power supply (in the
event of solar panel destruction), mitigating against the project costs from energy
charges.
• Here is more detailed information on solar panel battery recharging and loss of load
probability provided to Council earlier. Understandably, we have heard some questions
about the solar technology. In summary, that information indicated solid and reliable
performance based on proper installation of the solar panels. Here are a couple of
common questions and some answers:
Q: What happens if we have cloudy weather for five or more consecutive days? If the
back-up battery ceases to function after 5 1/2 days, what then? How long will it take
before the solar panel or the battery re-energizes?
A: The simple answer is nothing will happen after 5 ½ days of cloudy weather, the
system is designed with over 10 days of battery backup. The system will continue to
operate. A fuller answer includes these facts:
The design of entire solar power supply is based on the historic climatic data for
Minneapolis, MN as provided by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
This data includes daily temperature, available solar energy, and variability of weather
(cloudiness). This indicates that statistically there is a chance that 1 day out of every 500
December days (16 years worth of Decembers) the battery could become so deeply
discharged that the Wi-Fi equipment would lose power. December is the riskiest time of
year.
If the battery does become so discharged that it is no longer able to power the equipment,
it could take about 4 to 5 days (in December) to recharge the battery sufficiently for the
Low Voltage Disconnect (LVD) function to reconnect the load.
The ultimate indication of the system's reliability is its Loss of Load Probability (LOLP).
The actual LOLP for December (worst month) is 0.05%, which equals about one
December day every 64 years. This indicates a very high degree of statistical reliability.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 5
As can be seen, reliability is projected to be very high, especially as we consider our
experience with standard electrical power sources. More detailed information was
available at the October 30 open house, where SunWize staff was present. At this time
they are not planning to be present on November 6, but will be represented by ARINC,
the prime bidder. More detailed specifications can be obtained by contacting City staff.
• The solar powered wireless access points, in conjunction with power backup at all points
along the network, provides real value for public safety and services applications as they
can continue to use the network during times of electric grid outages.
• The use of proven and currently used solar technology may be viewed as environmentally
sound stewardship, supportive of Vision St. Louis Park.
• Some equipment purchased during the pilot project can be re-deployed to support
wireless subscribers in locations such as MDU’s and wireless hot spots, or be sold to
other cities. Such re-deployment can potentially help provide coverage to the few larger
MDU’s with greater than 300 units (a total of approximately 1,600 residences), where
arrangements for internal radio installations need to be approved by those property
owners. All apartments but these approximately 1,600 residences in MDU’s will be
covered with typical external radios around buildings.
• The weatherproof enclosures can be upgraded to include newer wireless technologies as
they evolve and be relocated as needed, mitigating against technological obsolescence.
Many other solutions require complete replacement of the wireless radios and their
integrated enclosures.
• WiMAX continues to be an evolving standard, one that holds promise especially for
public safety wireless applications. Understanding Council’s interest in this coming
technology (and staff agrees it is a part of the future wireless landscape), a brief
applications comparison of WiFi and WiMAX was included in the October 16 report (see
City’s web site, http://www.stlouispark.org/residents/wireless.htm). Essentially, WiFi and
WiMAX are expected to co-exist and be complementary once WiMAX standards have
been finalized. They are designed for different applications. Currently, WiMAX is quite
appropriate for longer range applications in open areas without lots of trees and taller
buildings. WiFi complements WiMAX in denser urban areas where tree canopies, curved
streets, and hilly topography create signal reception challenges. This is why we see
virtually all municipal wireless Internet services around the country currently focused on
WiFi.
The complementary piece of WiMAX relevant to St. Louis Park is twofold: First, some areas are
somewhat “open”, allowing WiMAX type data transmission for specific high-speed business
services. This is an offering that the City and its management partner will consider for those
businesses requiring faster Internet service. Second, Proxim (the wireless network provider in the
bid) is a member of the standards setting WiMAX Forum. Proxim’s activity in the WiMAX
arena positions it to support and help integrate WiMAX into St. Louis Park’s network as
standards evolve, products become available at reasonable prices, and WiMAX technologies
become truly competitive. Signs of this happening will be when we start seeing WiMAX
customer device prices fall and WiMAX radios integrated into laptops and other devices in the
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 6
way WiFi radios have been integrated. Some computer manufacturers have also indicated plans
to provide options for both WiFi and WiMAX radios, suggesting the idea of complementary co-
existence in the next several years. This, along with Proxim’s partnership and active participation
in the WiMAX forum, positions the City as well as possible for future upgrades and helps
mitigate against the risk of technological obsolescence.
MANAGEMENT PARTNER NEGOTIATIONS:
While the RFB process has been underway for the wireless network hardware, staff has also been
negotiating with Unplugged Cities (UPC), the management partner that provides the ISP, help
desk, and technical support services. Unplugged Cities provided solid services during the pilot,
learned much that would help in a citywide implementation, and expressed interest in negotiating
an agreement to continue these services in a citywide implementation. Unlike the bid process,
which was necessary given bid law, Unplugged Cities was selected through a Request for
Proposal process that allows for negotiations.
Two elements to the management partnerships were key to negotiate. First, the services to be
provided must meet the expectations of subscribers (we also need to help set subscriber
expectations). Second, the revenues generated from the subscription fees must produce adequate
cash flows so the wireless service revenues meet operational and capital costs.
Major principles of the business points being negotiated between Unplugged Cities (UPC) and
the City of St. Louis Park (SLP) many of which build on those in the pilot, have been reviewed
by the City Attorney and are presented below. This reflects the agreement reached in principle
between SLP and UPC for the planned wireless Internet offering by SLP. The agreement is
subject to the authorization of the SLP City Council, the approval of the SLP City Council to
move forward with the wireless Internet offering, and completion of the Service Level
Agreement (SLA) and contract terms included below:
There is always risk that the management partner will not perform to expectations. To mitigate
against this risk, the agreement with the management partner is proposed to have an initial term
of 3 years, with the option to renew for another 2 years. Each term would include an opt out
clause for each party. The total length of the agreement of 5 years matches the expected life of
the wireless network equipment (the fiber portion would have a 20 – 30 year life). Mitigation of
risks is also promoted by the City owning almost all of the fixed network equipment and costs,
while the management partner is responsible for most of the variable costs. This provides the
City opportunities to consider cleaner exit strategies at the end of 5 years or sooner, if options are
present.
Highlights of the agreement include:
o UPC shall pay SLP $14 per month per subscriber for use of the network and specified
SLP support.
The per subscriber fee is the same for Dialup Buster, Basic, and Deluxe
connectivity services.
The fees for other connectivity services delivered via the WiFi network are to be
negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
All subscriber revenues for the Dial-Up Buster, Basic, and Deluxe services
beyond the $14 per month per subscriber are UPC’s.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 7
• This includes add on revenues such as VPN’s, static IP’s, VoIP, and other.
• The fee will be reduced by $2.00 to $2.50 (estimate) if the customer
supplies or purchases the CPE.
Subscribers have the option of purchasing the CPE from ParkWiFi.
• Purchase price to be determined, but will be in the $125 to $180 range
depending upon model and performance required to meet different
subscriber needs.
• Net revenue from sale to be split between SLP and UPC. Split to be
determined.
• SLP and UPC will explore the potential of UPC supplying the CPE’s after
the first 1,000 deployed.
Any net advertising or sponsorship revenue is SLP’s.
• UPC will be reimbursed based upon mutually agreed incremental
expenses, if any, required to support the selected advertising.
SLP upon reaching a breakeven and sustaining cash flow will initiate a
combination of reduction of incremental subscriber fees paid by the management
partner and implementing ways to increase subscribership. Actions that SLP will
consider include, but are not limited to:
• Develop an assistance program for low income households for equipment,
access, and/or training, which would increase the number of subscribers
and revenue to UPC.
• Reduce fees paid by UPC to SLP.
• Fund an expansion of wireless or fiber network to expand potential
subscriber base.
o Penalties and incentives will be based upon quantifiable and achievable targets which
include one or more of items below.
Penalty for SLP hot-line calls exceeding a specified level in a specified period if
not resolved to the subscriber’s satisfaction on a timely basis.
Penalty for not meeting a specified Mean Time Between Repair (MTBR) for
equipment that is UPC responsibility to maintain.
Incentive for SLP reaching a breakeven and sustaining cash flow.
• Reduction of incremental subscriber fees paid by UPC.
• Initiate ways to increase subscribership.
o MDU’s and businesses not connected via the Wi-Fi network will be dealt with on a
case-by-case base in terms of equipment investments and revenue sharing.
o Unless expressly specified otherwise in the agreement, UPC is responsible for all
costs and expenses to operate and maintain the ISP, the wireless network, and
electronic to optic interfaces to the SLP fiber network.
o Unless expressly specified otherwise in the agreement, SLP is responsible to fund all
network and CPE costs to implement the wireless and fiber network.
o Unless expressly specified otherwise in the agreement, SLP is responsible for
maintaining the physical fiber network including locates, repairing cuts, and other
damage to the fiber cable.
o SLP retains the right to set policies, approve pricing in a timely manner, and maintain
ownership of the subscriber.
o Both SLP and UPC are taking a risk; both SLP and UPC have potential rewards.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 8
More specific details of SLP and UPC roles and responsibilities follow. The format of the
following list is the start of the Service Level Agreement (SLA) and contract terms between SLP
and UPC.
1. St. Louis Park Responsibilities
1.1. Own & finance network.
1.1.1. Provide required network & CPE financing.
1.1.1.1. Finance network implementation.
1.1.1.2. Finance network upgrades.
1.1.1.3. Finance CPE purchase.
1.1.1.4. Cover vendor maintenance contracts.
1.1.2. Provide facilities for authentication server, core switches, and core routers.
1.1.3. Provide authentication hardware & software.
1.1.4. Provide core network (routers & switches).
1.1.5. Provide fiber repair & maintenance (locates, other).
1.1.6. Provide access to facilities for required network maintenance.
1.1.7. Provide material and labor for physical network upgrades (does not include
firmware updates).
1.2. Provide access to mounting assets
1.2.1. Provide access to Xcel Energy mounting assets
1.2.2. Cover pole attachment fees.
1.2.3. Provide access to SLP mounting assets
1.2.4. Help facilitate (best effort) access to non-Xcel and non-SLP mounting assets
1.3. Maintain ownership of subscriber
1.3.1. Provide community brand image
1.3.2. Monitor subscriber satisfaction
1.3.3. Maintain subscriber "hot-line"
1.3.4. Monitor feedback regarding management partner performance
1.3.5. Maintain ownership of domain names
1.3.6. Cover SLP requested adjustments (write-offs) to accounts
1.4. Set policies
1.4.1. Set operating policy
1.4.2. Approve service offerings & prices
1.4.3. Approve all marketing and promotion activities on a timely basis
1.4.4. Set policy for potential advertising and sponsorship revenues (i.e. Yahoo &
others)
1.4.4.1. Advertising revenue (different than value added services)
1.4.4.1.1. SLP retains net revenue.
1.4.4.1.2. Determination of UPC incremental expenses.
1.4.5. SLP ability to sell network.
1.4.5.1. Grant UPC first right of refusal, effective only during term of agreement
between UPC and SLP.
1.4.5.2. Calculation of market value.
1.5. Provide specified support to Management Partner.
1.5.1. Provide liaison staff support (Business Manager, in-house or contracted).
1.5.2. Support marketing efforts via existing communication mechanisms.
1.5.3. Monitor financial performance, including reports as required by City.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 9
1.5.4. Manage demarcation between SLP & management partner, which allows
replacement of management partner if required.
1.5.5. Provide primary & redundant Internet connection (transport and bandwidth).
1.5.6. Sponsor educational workshops.
1.5.7. Provide storefront.
2. Unplugged Cities Responsibilities.
2.1. Perform subscriber contact.
2.1.1. Maintain subscriber satisfaction.
2.1.2. Manage subscriber expectations.
2.1.3. Hold monthly subscriber meetings to listen to what is working well, what needs
improvement, and provide tips on getting more out of the wireless network.
2.1.4. Direct and fund sales & marketing efforts.
2.1.5. Perform monthly billing.
2.1.5.1. Issue monthly billing in format approved by SLP.
2.1.5.2. Cover uncollectible subscriber fees (bad debt).
2.1.5.3. Collect subscriber fees.
2.1.5.4. Deposit funds in destination approved by SLP.
2.1.6. Provide 7x24 help desk.
2.1.7. Provide Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 support.
2.1.7.1. Macintosh Requirements.
2.1.7.2. Windows Requirements.
2.1.7.3. Linux Requirements.
2.1.7.3.1. Tier 1, auto referral to Tier 2.
2.1.8. Provide store front staffing (minimum of 1 person in store at all times, rush hours
additional staff provided).
2.1.9. Set-up and program the CPE
2.1.9.1. Bulk shipments programmed by vendor.
2.1.9.1.1. Programming instructions provided by UPC.
2.1.9.2. Low volume and special orders programmed by UPC.
2.1.10. Conduct & schedule professional installations.
2.1.10.1. Can charge subscriber a "competitive" installation charge if required ($100
or less), SLP approval required.
2.1.10.2. Supply subscriber hardware and antennas (beyond standard CPE) for
installations.
2.2. Perform network operations.
2.2.1. Operate & maintain wireless network including fiber media converters.
2.2.2. Provide required wireless network firmware upgrades.
2.2.3. Maintain core network (routers & switches).
2.2.4. Monitor and maintain Internet connection.
2.2.4.1. Recommend capacity additions.
2.2.5. Monitor wireless and fiber network.
2.3. Operate the ISP.
2.3.1. Maintain and manage authentication (process).
2.3.2. Provide email services, including servers.
2.3.3. Provide all services including servers required to operate the ISP, except for
authentication server.
2.3.4. Perform operational statistics.
2.3.5. Maintain Quality of Service (QOS) standards.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 10
Acronyms
CPE: Customer Premises Equipment
IP: Internet Protocol
ISP: Internet Service Provider
SLA: Service Level Agreement
SLP: St. Louis Park
MDU: Multiple Dwelling Unit
MTBR: Meantime Between Repair
QOS: Quality of Service
VoIP: Voice over Internet Protocol
VPN: Virtual Private Network
UPC: Unplugged Cities
The wireless network needs to work reliably and meet performance expectations. Beyond that,
staff believes that the single most critical success factor is execution by the management partner,
its ability to respond appropriately to subscriber needs, build positive subscriber relationships,
and make course corrections in services provided as needed. The most significant course
correction needed during the pilot was the help desk. Unplugged Cities worked with and
improved the help desk, and has committed to hiring its own help desk staff in a citywide
service, instead of outsourcing it as happened in the pilot. Revenues generated for the City
through the management agreement, in conjunction with actual bid pricing, suggests a much
greater likelihood of revenues meeting costs than originally projected (see updated project
financials below).
UPDATED PROJECT FINANCIALS:
The apparent low-bid for the Wi-Fi network was substantially less than anticipated. In addition,
the low-bid included having the radios powered by solar and battery. This eliminates the energy
portion of the pole attachment fees and increases the network’s attractiveness for public service
and safety use. These cost reductions, along with the agreement in principle made with
Unplugged Cities (UPC) reduces the required investment and the required number of subscribers
(32% of residents – 6,100, and 15% of business – 300, within the first 12 months) to maintain a
break-even cash flow.
The updated cost-benefit model assumptions include:
o UPC pays St. Louis Park (SLP) $14 per month per subscriber (see above).
o The total bid price for the Wi-Fi network and CPE’s remain as quoted.
$86 per CPE (customer equipment)
$483,300 for fiber additions.
$1,144,321 for Wi-Fi additions.
o Additional implementation costs include:
$150,000 for storage, facility upgrades, project management, and misc. expense.
$225,000 for contingency and 50% of pilot costs.
$106,000 for equipment spares.
$200,000 for core network (routers, switches, and authentication).
$190,000 for sales tax.
o Financing requirements for $3,228,703
5 Year (Wi-Fi, Core Network and Operational Costs) $2,845,403
20 Year (Fiber) $483,300.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 11
Given the above assumptions, the break-even cash flow is at a subscriber level of 32% of all
eligible households (does not include the 1,600 residences in large MDU’s) and 15% of SLP
businesses. This cash flow analysis does not include potential public safety and service benefits,
potential advertising revenues, revenues from other services, or any other communitywide
benefits. It should be noted that the model above assumes that the monthly prices set almost a
year ago will remain unchanged through the estimated five-year life of the wireless network.
That is based on trying to meet the goal of keeping the service affordable. Any price increases
that are contemplated would be related to increased costs of providing service, as done by other
service providers. More detailed financial analysis is available in the October 16 report (see
City’s web site, http://www.stlouispark.org/residents/wireless.htm).
OCTOBER 30TH OPEN HOUSE:
Approximately 25 people attended the open house, including two council members. Guests had
the opportunity to ask detail questions about the solar technology, wireless radio technology, and
possible service offerings. They also got a chance to try ParkWifi live on Windows and
Macintosh PC’s. Representatives from ARINC, Proxim, SunWize, Unplugged Cities, and
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation were present. People generally expressed support
for the pilot project and moving ahead with a citywide service. Affordability, local subscriber
service, portability, and city involvement were among items cited by guests as advantages.
Just as a refresher, initial service tiers contemplated include:
14.99 Dial Up Buster (128 kb upload and download)
19.99 Basic Broadband (1 mb upload and download)
29.99 Deluxe Broadband (2.5 - 3 mb upload and download)
Each tier includes e-mail forwarding, spam and virus protection, always-on connection (free up
telephone line). Use built-in laptop wi-fi or recommended wireless bridge for best performance –
bridge may be purchased or leased at approximately $5 / month. Several other optional services
would also be offered, such as static IP’s, VoIP, hardware and software setup, etc.
REMAINING PROJECT QUESTIONS AND ISSUES:
SECURITY: One of the questions raised even before the pilot began is that of data security. In a
citywide implementation, methods such as encryption, password protected pages, secure web
pages (which include //https:), certificates, and SSL (Secured Socket Layers) would be employed
to provide security to subscribers using the customer bridge. Subscribers using their own built-in
laptop radios to connect at or outside the home would enjoy all these protections, except the
encryption feature, similar to other current wireless hot spots. This commercial-grade security is
greater than that in consumer-grade wireless systems that often remain unprotected.
UPDATE OF OTHER MUNICIPAL WIRELESS SERVICES: While every community is different,
what have been the experiences in other cities exploring and using wireless, and what have they
learned? How has St. Louis Park’s approach compared with those approaches, and what are the
implications?
Because of their prominence in our region and life span on a live basis, it is important to
comment on both Chaska and Moorhead. Both Chaska and Moorhead have experienced some
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 12
advances and some set-backs. It appears the issues that have initiated the set-backs can be pre-
empted or minimized in St. Louis Park. Experiences in other cities and the pilot project both
provided additional insights and data for our citywide business analysis updates and the bid
specification.
Chaska MN (Service Initiated Fall 2004)
Chaska is at 40 wireless nodes per square mile (Tropos equipment).
• Customer growth continues to increase; they serve over 2,500 customers which represents
32% of total potential customers, or an estimated 45% market share.
• Experienced a high acceptance rate, obtained 1,750 customers within first year, but
experienced a high customer loss after initial problems.
o Original customer roll-out did not require use of a high-power CPE.
o Original wireless network node deployment was approximately 20 per square
mile.
• With the above installation, a low Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) was experienced. The rate of
customer churn was lowered and customer gains were experienced once a high-power CPE
was required and additional wireless nodes were added.
• Completed a wireless network replacement.
o Original wireless node deployment supported only 802.11b
Customer top data rate seen was around 800 Kbps
o Upgraded to 802.11b/g
Equivalent to Moorhead Public Services (MPS’s) deployment
Planning to offer a 2 Mbps to 3 Mbps service.
• At this time, they do not appear to be actively pursuing expansion into other Twin Cities
municipalities.
• Successfully migrated from internally staffed help desk to outsourcing to Siemens.
• Business model suggests that operational expenses are supported from subscription revenues
while network capital principal and interest payments and system maintenance are supported
by other funds.
• Introducing a price increase of $1 per month.
Moorhead Public Service (MPS), MN (Service Initiated September 2005)
MPS’s deployment is approaching 30 wireless nodes per square mile (Tropos equipment).
• Customer sign-ups were ahead of projections from September to December 2005.
o Marketing efforts ceased in November due to technical and management issues
Customer sign-ups were outpacing projections for first 6 months.
• New sign-ups outpaced returns.
CPE performance (CPE’s tend to hop from wireless node to wireless node
regardless of Signal to Noise Ratio).
• This hopping condition was experienced in the St. Louis Park pilot,
though we aggressively addressed and corrected it when
encountered. Nevertheless, it is very likely a different CPE will be
required.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 13
Network management tool enhancements have been introduced. For
example:
• Bandwidth limiting by customer is now enabled.
o MPS is considering a tiered service.
o Prior to the upgrade, the lack of bandwidth control affected
overall system performance.
• Monitoring of marginal Signal to Noise Ratio and other statistics
have been improved.
o Currently support 3,400 customers (16% of all residents or 22% market share)
including 1,600 college students.
MPS had 2,500 sign-ups, 700 customers have discontinued service.
• MPS has sent a letter out to all residents advising them that they
are working on the issues.
o Customer base appears to be patient for now.
• The customer numbers continue to increase, but slowly.
• The number of returns has dropped off since MPS initiated a more
proactive approach with customers.
30% market share required for break even cash flow.
• Goal was to obtain greater than 40% market share
Service is intermittent for some customers.
MPS was initially understaffed, which limited their ability to proactively
manage network.
MPS in the process of replacing all CPE’s.
• 30% have been changed out; the remaining will be completed in 2
to 3 months.
o Plan to launch a marketing campaign in January 2007.
• Have hired an ISP manager, and will be taking over all outsourced services except for help
desk support.
• Expenses have run approximately $200,000 over budget.
o Plan called for any professional installations to be paid for by customer.
MPS decided to offer installation and service calls for free during the first
year.
• MPS ran a Beta test the summer of 2005
o Appears the issues were seen, however, not reported to MPS.
o Appears that staffing levels and reporting tools where not adequate to proactively
conduct network monitoring.
o Appears limited network testing done.
o Appears limited interaction with Beta customers occurred.
• Integration and testing is critical.
o Customers that obtain a good signal appear to be pleased.
St. Paul, MN
• Commissioned a feasibility study early in 2006. Study is complete and recommends the City
of St. Paul to pursue a retail offering.
o Projects a positive cash flow with obtaining 15% of potential subscribers.
o Our concerns with the studies projections include:
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 14
No CPE, professional installations, or other customer costs are included.
Staffing levels appear inadequate.
• Projects the addition of 4 staff to manage the network, run the ISP,
and conduct help desk functions.
Wireless node density is not adequate.
Study uses 20 nodes per square mile; whereas it appears at least 30 will be
required for desired services.
Unit prices for wireless node and installation appear to be underestimated.
• As an alternative model, St. Paul is planning to issue an RFP in January to encourage a
private provider to build a network.
St. Anthony Village, MN
St. Anthony Village projected 35 radio nodes per square mile (generic).
• Commissioned a feasibility study early in 2006. Study is complete and recommended the
City to take a cautious approach.
o Projects that to obtain a positive cash flow they would need to capture over 50%
of potential subscribers.
• Spreading costs such as staffing and Internet access provisioning over a small customer base
makes the model difficult.
• St. Anthony Village is interested in partnering with another community if it would help the
economics.
Alexandria, MN
• Alexandria Light & Power (ALP) offers dial-up services, is a DSL reseller, operates a point-
to-multipoint wireless network, and direct fiber connections.
o Interested in deploying a Wi-Fi network in the community.
o Decided to use a public-private partnership to operate its current network
o Taking a cautious approach, and have been tire-kicking for about 18 months.
o Have not released any immediate plans to move forward.
Austin, MN
• Offering being considered by the municipal electric department.
• Exploring the potential of a wireless network, using a similar business model as St. Louis
Park.
o The ISP partner under consideration is the largest dial-up provider in Austin
today.
• Commissioned a cost-analysis to be performed, which was completed in October. The utility
commission will vote on plan in December 2006.
Free Wireless
Discussions of “Free” wireless services continue to expand. As one may expect, “free” is not
always “free”. The most recent “free’ offering was announced by Aurora IL in association with
MetroFi, a silicon valley based ISP. In addition to Aurora IL, MetroFi has announced plans to
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 15
build out Portland OR and has installed a network covering Santa Clara, Cupertino and
Sunnyvale CA. The model proposed by MetroFi includes:
• Undisclosed commitment from municipality for use of network for public safety.
• Municipality provides access to city-owned light poles and other mounting assets.
• MetroFi offers a “free” basic service (appears to be 128Kbps) and premium services for a
fee.
o Pop-up advertising used to supplement revenues.
Another “free” service example is St. Cloud Florida, in concept it’s quite similar to MetroFi, but
with the city fronting all the capital and operating costs.
In many cases, “free” to the city appears to include free access to city-owned light poles (half of
the most usable light poles are owned by Xcel Energy in SLP), a minimum “anchor tenant”
payment commitment required on the part of the host city for municipal use, and it is not always
clear that high-speed offerings are mandatory in all parts of town or prioritized for public safety
at desirable speeds. Indoor signal reception and performance are also typically worse or non-
existent without additional equipment. Some have raised concern about long-term sustainability
of free wireless services through various advertising market cycles, and potential attendant
subscriber disruption. Only time will tell once several of these free services become real. Still, it
is important to keep a pulse on these offerings, which appear to be most popular to vendors in
larger cities.
COMPARATIVE COSTS AND FEATURES: Per Council request, staff has developed an updated
matrix of comparative features and costs among different Internet service providers. This
includes comparisons of costs for service as well as installation and features. Average speed of
functions is also included. Pricing shown for each provider is based on either visiting the
provider’s web site or talking to its customer representative. Prices can vary based on any
particular special promotions as well. Both the telephone company and cable company continue
to provide DSL and cable modem service and coverage in the city very similar to that provided
when this study began 2 years ago.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 16
3,920,000 24,000 480 400 3,920,000 24,000 480 400
1 1/2 Hour
Movie
Presentation
w/ Graphics
Presentation
w/o Graphics
640x480
Photo
1 1/2 Hour
Movie
Presentation
w/ Graphics
Presentation
w/o Graphics
640x480
Photo
AOL Dial-Up 56 56 24$ na -$ na 1,166.667 7.143 0.143 0.119 1,166.667 7.143 0.143 0.119 No
384 4,000 61$ na 60$ yes 170.139 1.042 0.021 0.017 16.333 0.100 0.002 0.002 Yes
384 6,000 63$ 46$ 60$ yes 170.139 1.042 0.021 0.017 10.889 0.067 0.001 0.001 Yes
768 8,000 71$ 56$ 60$ yes 85.069 0.521 0.010 0.009 8.167 0.050 0.001 0.001 Yes
384 5,000 58$ 45$ 60$ yes 170.139 1.042 0.021 0.017 13.067 0.080 0.002 0.001 Yes
512 8,000 98$ 70$ 60$ yes 127.604 0.781 0.016 0.013 8.167 0.050 0.001 0.001 Yes
80 800 na 20$
5MB limit per
month (send or
receive 2
photos per
month). $8 per
MB for data
above 5MB.816.667 5.000 0.100 0.083 81.667 0.500 0.010 0.008
Yes
80 800 na 30$
10MB limit per
month (send or
receive 4
photos per
month). $6 per
MB for data
above 10MB.
816.667 5.000 0.100 0.083 81.667 0.500 0.010 0.008
Yes
80 800 na 40$
20MB limit per
month (send or
receive 8
photos per
month). $4 per
MB for data
above 20MB.
816.667 5.000 0.100 0.083 81.667 0.500 0.010 0.008
Yes
80 800 na 50$
50MB limit per
month (send or
receive 20
photos per
month). $2 per
MB for data
above 50MB.
816.667 5.000 0.100 0.083 81.667 0.500 0.010 0.008
Yes
80 800 na 80$ Unlimited 816.667 5.000 0.100 0.083 81.667 0.500 0.010 0.008 Yes
256 256 37$ 32$ 255.208 1.563 0.031 0.026 255.208 1.563 0.031 0.026 No
896 1,500 50$ 45$ 72.917 0.446 0.009 0.007 43.556 0.267 0.005 0.004 Yes
896 4,000 60$ 55$ 72.917 0.446 0.009 0.007 16.333 0.100 0.002 0.002 Yes
128 128 20$ na 510.417 3.125 0.063 0.052 510.417 3.125 0.063 0.052 No
1,000 1,000 25$ na 65.333 0.400 0.008 0.007 65.333 0.400 0.008 0.007 Yes
2,500 2,500 35$ na 26.133 0.160 0.003 0.003 26.133 0.160 0.003 0.003 Yes
Notes:1
2 Comcast has indicated it will honor Time Warner pricing during the ownership
transition. The result is the non-bundled 5 to 6 Mbps will be priced $5 per month
lower than Comcast's standard pricing. For bundled and higher capacity services
Comcast's standard pricing appears lower than Time Warner's.
Upload
Speed
(kbps)
Download
Speed
(kbps)
Provider/Type of
Service
Cable modem, DSL, EvDO, and WiFi services require a CPE. For each of these
services the customer may supply, purchase, or lease the CPE. For comparative
purposes we have included the CPE lease cost in the monthly subscription fee.
Comcast
(See note
2)
Cable
Modem
Comment
yes
Free for
subscriber
set-up, &
TBD for
technician
set-up
Streaming
Video
Support
(Download)
Service
Call
Charged
Installation
Cost
Free for
subscriber
set-up, &70
for
technician
set-up
yes
Upload Transfer Time (Minutes) of File in kb (kilo bits)Download Transfer Time (Minutes) of File in kb (kilo bits)
$200 for PC
Card na
ParkWiFi WiFi
Monthly
Price (non-
bundled,
including
CPE) -
See note
1
Monthly
Price
(bundled,
including
CPE) -
See note
1
Cingular
(Verizon &
Sprint
Similar)
EvDO
Qwest DSL
Time
Warner
Cable
Modem
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 17
SPRINT/NEXTEL, VERIZON, AND CLEARWIRE AND WIMAX: Sprint/Nextel, Verizon, and
Clearwire are among those providers who have recently been discussing future WiMAX
deployments to provide higher speed wireless service. There have been many advertisements
about this future service. Staff has also conducted additional research on the status of this per
Council interest. What is generally understood is that such a service may be designed as the next
level of current higher end wireless broadband, targeted at business people and travelers and not
as a low-cost network designed around residential affordability. Below are more specifics.
Clearwire and the EvDO providers (including Sprint, Cingular, Nextel, and Verizon) are actively
deploying technologies that have the potential of competing with ParkWiFi. These and other
wireless technologies beg the questions of St. Louis Park’s ability to compete, and technology
obsolescence. When examining these questions, it is important to understand that:
o Any concern about St. Louis Park’s plans is not a question of technology; it’s one of what the
competitors’ market objectives are.
o All technologies are obsolete at the time they are deployed.
o Obsolescence occurs when the technology stops delivering the providers’ performance and
meeting price objectives.
An example of this is dial-up Internet.
Dial-up Internet technology is obsolete and is non-functional for half the households with
Internet, but is still used by the other half of households.
The choice of Wi-Fi fits well with St. Louis Park’s objective of making available a low-cost
high-speed indoor / outdoor alternative to dial-up Internet to all St. Louis Park households.
Although the technology is early in its implementation stage, it is not at the bleeding edge. Its
functionality allows for future growth and is relatively inexpensive to deploy and maintain. The
business plan calls for a five year life, not ten as is some wireless plans. In addition, the customer
interface is standards based, and embedded in millions of today’s laptop PC’s and Personal
Digital Assistants (PDA’s).
Clearwire, EvDO providers, Comcast, and Qwest have objectives that are not focused on the low
cost market. These providers have an objective to maximize revenues from each customer, serve
higher-end high-margin customers, and maximize revenue with the fewest number of customers.
These providers are not planning to provide a low cost high-speed indoor / outdoor service with
ubiquitous availability. For example,
o Clearwire service coverage is typically 70 percent to 80 percent.
o EvDO service coverage is typically 90 percent to 95 percent.
Although we do not see Clearwire and EvDO as a threat, it is important to understand their
offerings from a competitive perspective. The following table outlines some key features of their
offerings.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 18
Clearwire EvDO
Provider
Founded by Craig McCaw, Before
creating Clearwire, Craig McCaw
founded McCaw Cellular – later
purchased by AT&T Wireless
Deployed by PCS providers such as
Cingular, Verizon, ands Sprint
Technology Licensed 2.4GHz Licensed in PCS band
General
Comments
Clearwire has run rigorous
advertising campaigns in an attempt
to promote its service. Promotions
have included airline tickets and low
introductory rates offered to new
customers with contract agreement.
Clearwire has been reported to be
blocking or severely limiting several
Internet services such as Vonage ,
BitTorrent, Usenet/NNTP, FTP, and
peer-to-peer file sharing. Clearwire
will, however, make adjustments to
attempt to better accommodate third
party VoIP services if you are having
difficulties with the service.
(Source Wickipedia)
In the U.S., Alltel, Verizon Wireless
and Sprint have completed significant
deployment of 1xEV-DO since 2004,
Sprint currently has the broadest
EVDO coverage. Alltel currently
offers service in 11 major markets
covering hundreds of cities, and will
expand to cover more than 40
markets by January '07. Sprint
currently covers a population over
158 million with plans to reach 200
million by end of 2006 and 220 million
by Q3/2007. Verizon currently
reaches 150 million with EVDO.
Verizon Wireless has EV-DO rolled
out to 181 cities and Sprint has EV-
DO rolled out to 220 cities. Sprint in
the US, Iusacell Mexico and Bell
Canada now have EVDO roaming
agreements. Sprint also signed a
roaming agreement with Alltel for
both voice and (1xRTT & EV-DO)
data roaming that began Q3/2006.
The new agreement gives customers
of both companies free access to
each others networks. (Source
Wikipedia)
Availability
Not available in Metro area today. Not
sure when Clearwire will pursue large
Metro areas. Today Clearwire is after
metro area of 50,000 to 250,000 in
population. In the region, service is
available in St. Cloud, Duluth, and
Eau Claire.
Available today throughout the Metro
Area. Service starts at $20 per month
for 5MB of data transfer. Service is
$60 to$80 per month for unlimited
data transfer.
Deluxe: 1.5 Mbps down, 256 kbps up
for $42 per month (includes CPE).
Installation charge of $100 is often
waived.
Basic: 768 Kbps down, 256 kbps up
for $35 per month (includes CPE).
Installation charge of $80 is often
waived.
Service
Requires subscriber to have a
existing voice service. Packages start
at $20 per month with a total 5MB per
month transfer limit to $80 per month
for unlimited transfer. Data rates are
400 kbps to 800 kbps down, 40 kbps
to 80 kbps up.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 19
RECENT ANNOUNCEMENT: Frontier Communications has just announced plans to build a Wi-Fi
network covering 90% of Burnsville in the next two years, and is discussing a potential build out
in Apple Valley, Farmington, Lakeville, and Rosemount in future years. It appears the plan is
dependant upon Burnsville granting access to city traffic lights and lamp posts. The planned
service appears that it is:
o Primarily a mobile service, designed for Frontier Telephone customer retention, not
expansion of the customer base.
Telephone companies are not directly concerned about Internet competition; they are
concerned about competition from voice applications such as Skype and Vonage that are
enabled by high-speed alternatives.
o Designed for providing customers a mobile alternative, outdoors.
o Like many other entities, continuing a focus on wi-fi technology despite possible advances of
other wireless options.
o Currently short on details of service offerings, price, and detail plans of network operations.
However, this is new and just a general announcement. Staff felt Council should have this
information.
PREFERRED MINNEAPOLIS SERVICE PROVIDER: The City Council expressed interest in learning
more about the City of Minneapolis wireless project. During the St. Louis Park’s RFB process,
the City of Minneapolis continued its process in identifying a preferred vendor to provide its
wireless services. Through that process, U.S. Internet has been identified as the preferred vendor.
Minneapolis and U.S. Internet have been working on details for agreements. U.S. Internet (not
the City of Minneapolis) has been in contact with City of St. Louis Park staff and its consultant
regarding St. Louis Park’s project and the potential for U.S. Internet to provide wireless Internet
services to St. Louis Park. Here are some highlights of communications with U.S. Internet:
• The City of St. Louis Park appreciates U.S. Internet’s interest in the possible citywide
project. As a result of those conversations, U.S. Internet was invited and encouraged to
submit a bid in response to St. Louis Park’s RFB process.
• City of St. Louis Park staff also informed U.S. Internet of St. Louis Park’s interest in
developing a roaming agreement or other kinds of service reciprocity that would allow
subscribers in both Minneapolis and St. Louis Park to connect to wireless services in each
other’s city. It would seem that such roaming capability would be advantageous to
subscribers in both cities. St. Louis Park supports such open approaches for wireless
users.
• U.S. Internet did attend the pre-bid meeting on September 7 to receive information that
other potential bidders did.
• No bid was received from U.S. Internet by the bid submission deadline of 1:00 p.m. on
September 22. Thus, there is no offering from U.S. Internet that can legally be considered
in this current bid process.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 20
Please note that all staff and consultant contacts have been made by U.S. Internet, and not the
City of Minneapolis.
While U.S. Internet did not submit a bid in this process, staff recognizes the potential
significance of the project in Minneapolis. As a result, staff is providing for the City Council the
information below that compares and contrasts the approach in Minneapolis to that in St. Louis
Park on several cost and feature dimensions. Staff will provide any updates learned before or at
the November 6 Council meeting.
Status of Minneapolis US Internet Agreement
October 18, 2006
o Agreement reportedly will be signed November 2.
o Pilot test did not include the 4.9 GHz (public safety frequency) overlay.
o QOS (Quality of Service) guarantee is for 99.9% up time, excluding power
outages and regular maintenance.
Does not include coverage (availability) guarantees
Does not include speed guarantees (except for low-income neighborhoods)
o Must provide a 128 kbps service to low income neighborhoods.
Does not include CPE
US Internet and Minneapolis are anticipating that only 10% of customers
will require a CPE
o Pilot included 5 non-paying subscribers
o Proposal is not in public domain until contract completed
o No fiber is being added by US Internet
o See comparison document below for additional points
50% to 60% coverage for 4.9GHz
Proprietary solution for public safety.
Minneapolis must purchase new 4.9 GHz wireless card for each public
safety PC
10 year commitment for network with a 5 year life, including some
upgrades
Comparison of Metro Area WiFi Activities
Today, the three most discussed municipal WiFi projects in the Twin Cities include Minneapolis,
St. Louis Park, and Chaska. This report provides a comparison of each approach. Please note that
this document does not recommend one approach over another. Also, because a model is pursued
by one community, it does not mean it is appropriate for another community. When comparing
the approaches, it is important to review them in context of not only defined goals and
objectives, but the community’s general physical, visionary, and financial characteristics as well.
In Table 1, we show the primary goal driver (let’s say the main course, or Turkey) for each
community and secondary benefit (let’s call it Gravy). As shown, Minneapolis is driven by
public safety while St. Louis Park and Chaska are driven by retail services.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 21
Table 1: Turkey or Gravy
Minneapolis St. Louis Park Chaska
Public Safety Turkey Gravy Gravy
Public Service Turkey Gravy Gravy
Retail Service Gravy Turkey Turkey
Each of the approaches will serve public safety, public service, and retail services differently. In
Table 2 and Table 3 we show the support of public safety and public service applications.
o Minneapolis’s use of a licensed frequency offers the greatest security for
sensitive data transfers. However, they give up ubiquitous coverage in
Minneapolis and the surrounding communities by using the proprietary 4.9
GHz approach. Minneapolis will likely need to continue to use EvDO or other
technology for more ubiquitous coverage.
o St. Louis Park and Chaska are leveraging the ubiquitous availability of the
standards based 2.4 GHz licensed frequency for public safety and service uses
(police, fire, appraisers, inspectors and other mobile workforce). Use of the
unlicensed standards based approach is as secure as existing EvDO, cable
modem, or dial-up services currently used.
Table 2: Public Safety Support
Minneapolis St. Louis Park Chaska
Licensed 4.9 GHz WiFi
VPN over unlicensed 2.4
GHz WiFi with possible
upgrade to licensed 4.9
GHz WiMax
VPN over unlicensed 2.4
GHz WiFi
Vendor Proprietary
Access Future upgrade?Future upgrade?
Proprietary CPE Desires standards based
CPE Standard based CPE
Coverage not ubiquitous
in Minneapolis
Desires ubiquitous
coverage in St. Louis
Park
Coverage ubiquitous in
Chaska
Coverage not ubiquitous
in Twin Cities Metro Area
Desires coverage in
surrounding
communities.
Coverage not ubiquitous
in Twin Cities Metro Area
Supplement with EvDO?EvDO used today Supplement with EvDO?
Public Safety
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 22
Table 3: Public Service Support
Minneapolis St. Louis Park Chaska
VPN over unlicensed 2.4
GHz WiFi
Standard based CPE
Ubiquitous coverage in
St. Louis Park
Coverage not ubiquitous
in Twin Cities Metro Area
See Public SafetyPublic Service See Public Safety
As indicated, the 4.9GHz WiFi does not provide ubiquitous coverage in Minneapolis. This is not
to say it cannot. The anticipated coverage is a function of the number of radios deployed on lamp
posts and other assets. Information thus far indicates the plans for Minneapolis call for 90
percent coverage for retail services using the 2.4 GHz band. The 2.4 GHz coverage area is larger
than that for 4.9 GHz. When 4.9 GHz is collocated with 2.4 GHz, this results in coverage gaps as
seen in Figure 1. Given the 90 percent planned coverage of Minneapolis 2.4 GHz radios, and the
propagation differences, we estimate the coverage for 4.9 GHz for Minneapolis will be 50
percent to 60 percent unless additional radios are added. Minneapolis may plan to add radios in
the future, but this is unknown.
Figure 1: 2.4 GHz vs. 4.9 GHz WiFi Coverage
Another consideration is the network’s availability during power outages. In the case of
Minneapolis and Chaska, large portions of their WiFi network will not be operational during
power outages. This is due to the fact that not all of the WiFi radios are equipped with back-up
power. In the case of St. Louis Park, all radio nodes are solar powered with battery backup, thus
allowing continuous network communications during brief and extended power outages.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 23
Another difference between the networks is in the use of fiber backhaul. Minneapolis is using
primarily radio backhaul for WiFi radios, where St. Louis Park and Chaska use a combination of
wireless and fiber backhaul. In addition to providing a solid, expandable, and robust network
backbone, fiber positions the community to expand institutional connectivity options and expand
available retail service by third parties or the community.
In Table 4, the plans for retail services are presented. As seen in Table 4, St. Louis Park and
Chaska are pursuing networks which will allow the opportunity for all households to participate
and have mechanisms in place to guide the subscriber to help ensure that a connection will be
made (model designed to maximize participation). The Minneapolis model provides lower
coverage area, and the retail provider is not planning on high interaction with subscribers (model
designed to minimize expenses for customer service and maximize provider revenues).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 24
Table 4: Retail Support
Minneapolis St. Louis Park Chaska
90% Coverage 98% + Coverage 98% Coverage
Anticipates that
approximately 10% of
subscribers will require a
high power CPE
Anticipates that close to
100% of subscribers will
require a high power
CPE
Have experienced that
close to 100% of
subscribers will require a
high power CPE
Does not appear they
anticipate external
antenna installations will
be required.
Anticipates that up to
10% of customers will
require an external
antenna.
Have experienced a
substantial percentage of
customers have required
an external antenna
(actual percentage not
provided).
Have served 5 non-
paying subscribers with a
pilot WiFi network for 4
weeks.
Have served 300 paying
subscribers with a pilot
WiFi network for 6
months.
Have served over 2,500
paying subscribers with a
city-wide WiFi network
for almost 3 years
Price Influence Price Approval Set Price
Provider Branded SLP Branded Chaska Provided
10 year business model 5 year business model 5 year business model
As a basic tier, offer a 1
Mbps $20 per month
service to residents for a
10 year period.
Designed to supply a low-
cost high-speed
alternative that all
households have the
opportunity to subscribe
to.
Designed to supply a low-
cost high-speed
alternative that all
households have the
opportunity to subscribe
to.
Supply a $10 per month
128 kbps service to
identified low-income
neighborhoods.
Focus on education and
provision of refurbished
PC's donated by the city,
schools, and private
sector. Future
considerations include
use of excess cash flows
to address training and
hardware availability and
issuance of vouchers for
low-income households.
Uncertain on approach
or considerations.
Retail Service
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 25
The business model, partners/contractors and deployment status are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Business Model & Status
Minneapolis St. Louis Park Chaska
Business Model
Anchor Tenant -
Discounts when other
communities join
program
Private-Public
Partnership Retail Service
WiFi Vendor BelAir Proxim Evaluation In
Process Tropos
Partners/Contractors US Internet Unplugged Cities Siemens
Status Negotiation Decision Operational
Activation 2Q-3Q 2007 2Q-3Q 2007 4Q 2004
The choice of the business model affects the cash outlay and risk for each city.
o Minneapolis does not have a financial investment into building the network. It
provides payments to US Internet. The estimated payments are $2.4 million
upon contact signing, and $1.3 million each year for 10 years. In return, they
receive access to the network for public safety and public service use, and US
Internet will offer a $10 per month 128 Kbps service in low-income areas and
offer a $20 per month 1 Mbps service for other residents if they are in a
coverage area. These payments do not include the cost for development of the
plan and required radio hardware (vendor proprietary 4.9 GHz wireless cards
for public safety and public services).
o St. Louis Park has an initial investment (capital and operating expenses) of
$3.3 million, and $400,000 annual operating and interest expenses in year 2,
declining to $300,000 in year 5 (decline due to interest expense), for a total
commitment of $5.3 million during the 5 year period. In addition to use of the
high-speed network for ubiquitous public safety and public services, St. Louis
Park receives $14 per month per subscriber from Unplugged Cities.
Unplugged Cities also has responsibility for operating and maintaining the
network.
o We do not have current details regarding Chaska’s current investment,
operating costs, and business relationship with Siemens.
At the beginning of this summary, we indicated it is important to look at the models in context of
each community’s objectives. For example, Minneapolis is entering into an arrangement that it
feels is equitable and meets their objectives. What happens if we apply the model to St. Louis
Park?
o Basing the payments on the ratio of geographic size between Minneapolis and
St. Louis Park (ratio of 5, 55 square miles vs. 11 square miles), St. Louis Park
would pay US Internet $480,000 up front and $260,000 per year for the next
10 years, or a total commitment (net cost) of over $3 million.
In return, St. Louis Park would obtain access to the network for public
safety and public service uses. Anticipated coverage is 50 percent to 60
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 26
percent of the community and St Louis Park would need to acquire new
cards for each device desired to have access.
• The coverage requirement does not meet St. Louis Park’s needs,
since they still require public safety access in Golden Valley and
other communities.
• The coverage limits the value of use for public safety and service,
since only half of the community would have coverage.
• The proposed network does not provide for additional fiber to be
deployed.
In return, US Internet would provide service to residents, including a
subsidized service to low-income neighborhoods.
• The planned coverage (90 percent) falls short of the 100% goal.
• The planned limited subscriber interaction does not meet the
expectations to have the opportunity for all residents to participate
or provide the subscriber support clearly necessary based on the
pilot experience.
• The planned coverage does not address the connectivity
availability gaps that exist in the community.
The Minneapolis model is a different business approach, and when applied to St. Louis Park
does not meet St. Louis Park’s goals and objectives. The reverse is also true; St. Louis Park’s
model does not meet objectives of Minneapolis. Each community must consider its own
situation.
In addition, each community should also consider its relationship to the larger metropolitan area,
and how its solution fits those needs. Some have claimed that it is not technically feasible to
utilize wi-fi across cities that built their systems using different vendors. This is generally false.
As long as cities use standards-based wi-fi technology (such as that currently used in Chaska,
Moorhead, St. Louis Park, and being contemplated in Minneapolis and most other parts of the
world), subscribers will be able to technically connect to and see wi-fi networks wherever they
are. The only potential barrier to wi-fi use across cities is whether those cities’ policies promote
or prohibit roaming or reciprocity agreements. St. Louis Park’s approach has always
contemplated promotion of wi-fi access to others visiting St. Louis Park in a citywide project.
Our plans include roaming, reciprocity, and visitor usage of the wi-fi system. We hope other
cities would offer the same to their own and St. Louis Park subscribers. We believe this kind of
interoperability is good for the individual subscriber and promotes wider benefits of all
communications systems. Of course, the wi-fi systems need to be built in the first place.
Put simply, we as consumers and citizens expect to successfully make a cell phone call wherever
we are in the metropolitan area. We also expect to drive our cars or ride our bikes from city to
city unimpeded by borders. We should expect city policies that provide no less freedom of
movement when using wireless technologies. Standards based technology is open, neutral, and
compatible. We encourage city policies to reflect the same for the good of the larger community.
Please note that all staff and consultant contacts have been made by U.S. Internet, and not the
City of Minneapolis. Should the City Council decide to change course, reject all current bids, and
consider the Minneapolis model, it is recommended that St. Louis Park and Minneapolis officials
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 27
and their consultants meet to determine if any joint possibilities exist. If the City Council chooses
such a direction, some of the likely impacts anticipated include, but are not limited to:
• Project Delays – starting our process over would impact any deployment schedule.
• Message Sent to Community – after 2 years of study, many pilot subscribers and others
who are interested are waiting for the City Council to decide whether to move ahead or
cancel the process.
• End Pilot – the pilot project would likely end instead of migrating pilot subscribers into a
citywide project, while a new study occurs.
• Bidder Effect – Some bidders may experience a chilling effect should St. Louis Park ever
be interested in soliciting bids in the future. We would likely lose some bidders.
• Lower Coverage Rates for Retail – based on what we can see at this point, a lower than
desired coverage rate for residents and businesses.
• Lower Coverage Area for Public Safety / Public Services -- based on what we can see at
this point, a lower than desired coverage area and coverage gaps for mobile public safety
and public service workers.
• Net Cost vs. Breakeven – the anticipated net cost to St. Louis Park is $3 million with less
ability to manage and influence network performance and price.
If US Internet had submitted a bid as part of the open process, we would know with more
certainty how its approach compared with other bidders. Unfortunately, the analysis above can
only project US Internet’s approach to St. Louis Park based on how we currently understand it
plans to address needs and objectives of its anchor tenant customer, Minneapolis.
UPDATED RISK MITIGATION PROFILE:
A major concern around project approval is the mitigation of risk. Much of that has to do with
having as much information as possible, and minimizing costs where possible. Some of the ways
in which staff has attempted to mitigate risk for Council consideration includes:
• Overall project pricing, which has been significantly reduced through the bid process and
negotiations with the management partner.
• Elimination of a projected project deficit while also reducing the number of subscribers
necessary to do so.
• Technology that reduces use of electrical power and related costs.
• Technology that relies on solar power, reducing the risk of communications breakdowns
due to power outages, and is also good for the environment.
• For public safety and public services, a ubiquitous high speed indoor / outdoor data
communications system that works when the electrical grid is down or at risk, often at
times when public safety and services are most needed.
• Technology that is made up of components that can be upgraded as technology is
upgraded, moved as needed to optimize network performance, and re-used. This
mitigates against obsolescence.
• Integration of WiMAX style technology between the distributed wireless radios and fiber
backbone, initiating the use of the evolving standard into the wireless network.
• A much better informed projection of the potential cash flows, both positive and
negative, and better estimated ceilings of financial risk (presented in detail on October
16).
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 28
• To the extent possible, clean demarcation of fixed costs / activities and variable costs /
activities between the City and management partner. This facilitates a change of
management partner if needed, and a full or partial exit strategy.
• Review of the financial stability of vendors, particularly the lead vendor of the low bid,
ARINC. The City’s Finance Department has reviewed financials of ARINC and
concluded it believes that the company has adequate financial resources to perform the
contractual duties outlined in their bid.
• Review of the financials of the management partner, Unplugged Cities. The City’s
Finance Department has reviewed financials of Unplugged Cities. Unplugged Cities is
characteristic of a startup. It has also served well during the pilot, and plans to expand to
meet the needs – help desk, technical, etc. – of a citywide effort.
• Identification of the Development Fund as a source of financing for the capital and
working operational startup needs of the wireless service.
• In depth research and analysis since September 22 of the low bid prior to a determination
that it is the lowest responsible bid.
• If a decision is made to move forward citywide, an implementation plan that starts with
pilot neighborhoods, optimizes performance there first, and then expands into other parts
of the city in a phased approach.
PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC SERVICE, AND COMMUNITYWIDE BENEFITS:
A number of public safety, public service, and communitywide benefits present themselves:
• The City currently pays approximately $20,000 per year for wireless services. The speed
of this technology (EvDO) is insufficient to transmit or receive large files such as pictures
and graphics as well as video services either in a reasonable amount of time or at all. The
citywide wireless system would improve those speeds to make such functions possible.
• The $20,000 per year cost for EvDO would be reduced significantly as this service would
be needed only when outside the boundaries of St. Louis Park. The share needed is
estimated for EvDO services is estimated to fall to less than $5,000 per year, a direct
benefit to the General Fund supporting Police, Fire, and other public services.
• Communitywide, this would provide an affordably priced high speed indoor / outdoor
wireless Internet service for current dial-up users or people who cannot currently afford
Internet service at all, the core market gap prompting consideration of this service at all.
• Complementing this service would be an initiative to provide refurbished computers to
households that cannot currently afford them, so that people have a digital device with
which to connect to the wireless service. This would be augmented with education and,
hopefully, support from the school district.
• Adding 9.1 miles of fiber infrastructure would expand the community’s fiber
infrastructure to over 21 miles, providing high speed capacity for future economic growth
and possible leasing revenues. For example, one area that would be connected back to
City Hall on Minnetonka Boulevard would be the corridor along Highway 100 up to the
proposed Duke Realty project.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 29
• WiMAX technology is likely to evolve, equipment become more affordable and non-
proprietary, and would be ideal to provide mobile metropolitan area public safety
coverage on the 4.9 GHz frequency. At that point, it will be worth considering fuller
deployment of WiMAX. Until then, this project would incorporate some early versions of
WiMAX while continuing use of EvDO outside of St. Louis Park.
• Public safety and services data communications is available during electrical grid
interruptions.
• Police is also very interested in using the system for remote video/sensor monitoring of
high activity areas or special projects.
• Other field workers, such as appraisers and inspectors, are enabled to be more productive
and in the field more than their offices.
POSSIBLE EXIT STRATEGIES:
Should the City decide to move forward with a citywide project, then later consider exit
strategies due to market corrections or other reasons, the approach described above facilitates
that by separation of fixed and variable costs and investments between the city and management
partner, and placing responsibility for billing and customer service on the management partner.
As a result, in this plan, the city has minimized its staffing needs to one FTE.
A partial exit strategy would likely include new ownership of the wireless network and customer
equipment, while a fuller exit strategy would likely include that and ownership transfer of other
network hardware owned by the city. It is difficult to foresee a time when the city and schools
would surrender ownership of the fiber infrastructure. If anything, there may well be more
benefit to seeing that infrastructure grow as an “information highway” for communitywide
benefit, much like the city builds roads on which economic development occurs.
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS:
A resolution of findings has been provided to the Council as part of its possible action. This
resolution is similar to what the Council approved for the pilot project in November 2005. It
essentially provides background, and recites a history of actions taken and findings by the City of
St. Louis Park to research this particular version of wireless services, including its low cost, high
speed indoor / outdoor, and ubiquitous features that fill a current and foreseeable market void.
That is consistent with much of the City Council’s impetus for embarking on this project in the
first place. It is also consistent with actions taken in the past with regard to the pilot wireless
project and the City’s fiber optic project completed in 2005.
As indicated earlier, such findings are necessitated by state statute. In this case, such findings
would support the City’s authorization to construct and maintain facilities for internet access.
The wireless and fiber optic facilities are required to make available a wireless, low-cost, high-
speed indoor / outdoor, and ubiquitous Internet connectivity service that is not and will not be
available through other providers or the private market in the reasonably foreseeable future. Such
a service is unique and does not directly compete with service provided private entities whose
market goals are different.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 30
SOME OPTIONS AND CONSEQUENCES:
Assuming the Council continues to have interest in the primarily retail model that has been the
focus of our 2 year study, there are several options. Each option has consequences, only some of
which are identified here:
1. Option 1: Stop Everything and Phase Out – Reject all bids, then cease all efforts at this
time to any city involvement in promoting the availability of an affordable, wireless, high-
speed indoor / outdoor, ubiquitous Internet service in St. Louis Park, a service specifically
designed for those unable to get or afford an alternative wireless Internet service. We would
also shut down the pilot project by the end of the year.
Primary Results: No investment risk, possible lost opportunity to meet a community need
/ opportunity and ability to compete. Impact on image as city “with an edge” could go in
either direction – smart for thoughtful analysis and decision to cancel project, or as a city
hesitant to engage in well measured and bounded risk to sustain and improve the
community. The existing telecommunications market dynamics continue.
2. Option 2: Wait and Watch Minneapolis and Other Cities – Same as Option 1, including a
shut down of the pilot project, plus keeping an eye on future experience of Minneapolis and
other cities. The current Minneapolis model applied to St. Louis Park suggests a net 5-year
cost of approximately $3 million in public safety anchor tenancy costs with little ability to
directly manage network performance or a retail offering to residents and businesses.
Primary Results: Similar to Option 1, plus St. Louis Park could learn from the experience
of other cities and take a safer course of action in years ahead to determine whether it
makes sense to make any investment in wireless technologies. It could also be that we
lose an opportunity to sustain our competitiveness and serve community members with
an affordable service that improves more people’s chances to succeed in a flat world.
Finally, legislative changes may occur that restrict or pre-empt any city role in future
wireless services.
3. Option 3: Move Ahead with Citywide Service -- In this case, we would move ahead with
agreements with the equipment vendor and management partner under the conditions and
projections previously identified. Pilot subscribers would continue to be served and migrated
into the citywide service. Expansion of the pilot to serve the remainder of the city would be
pursued and completed in the summer of 2007.
Primary Results: There is an investment risk. We have lots of information, projections,
and the best handle on costs and revenues possible. We project that the technology will
work, service will meet expectations, and revenues will meet expenses. This is the best
we can do; we cannot guarantee the results, except to say they will be different than
projected and hopefully better. A performance bond from ARINC (hardware bidder) will
be in place if the worst scenario occurs. This could also be an opportunity to meet a
community need / opportunity and better compete as a community. Impact on image as
city “with an edge” could go in either direction – not very smart for thoughtful analysis
and decision to go ahead with the project anyway, or as a city that has courage to engage
in well measured and bounded risk, willing to take chances to sustain and improve the
community. The existing telecommunications market forces are modified and, hopefully,
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 31
encouraged to engage wireless services to a degree that the city can eventually and
confidently select an exit strategy due to market correction.
From a comparative perspective, if the City of St. Louis Park does move forward and
only 15% of residents subscribe to the service (67% less than in the pilot project), the
estimated 5-year loss is $2 million. For that investment, we would also provide
ubiquitous high-speed indoor / outdoor wireless services for public safety and public
services, plus at least 9 miles of additional fiber infrastructure. This may be compared to
the Minneapolis model applied to St. Louis Park, which is estimated to result in a $3
million cost (loss) for a public safety network without ubiquitous coverage, and no
additional fiber assets.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
Council has been studying the possibility of wireless service for two years. This study has
included the very wise decision to implement and learn from a pilot project. Staff feels the City
has completed much due diligence and gathered much information, including the latest bids.
Technology and circumstances will continue to evolve. This can feel like a threat; it can also be
an opportunity. This report has tried to present a balanced approach to findings to provide
Council information to make an informed choice.
Staff has taken the time to analyze the apparent lowest bid to ensure it is responsible, address
follow-up questions of Council, and provide additional community education, especially on the
solar technology being contemplated. Staff feels the time to choose is now. The reasons are
fourfold:
• First, based on two years of study and pilot testing, we have as much information to make
a decision as we will at any point in time. Things always change and there are no
guarantees. We now need to decide.
• Second, if the City Council continues to be interested in enhancing opportunities in the
community, we currently have equipment bidders and a management partner who are
willing to participate, take risks of their own, and provide this service within cost and risk
constraints that are as good as or better than originally projected.
• Third, it is clear to staff that people are hopeful for decisiveness on the part of the City.
Put bluntly, pilot fatigue has set in – people want to know whether the wireless service is
one they can fully commit to or this high-speed indoor / outdoor Internet service
alternative is not going to continue. This is a window of opportunity to make a thoughtful
and timely decision. Staff feels it would be better for the City Council to decide to not
move forward at all with this project and shut down the pilot than delay a decision
beyond November 6.
• Fourth, and most importantly, the key policy question is one only the Council can answer
-- whether the community of St. Louis Park is better off by the City playing some role in
the provision of an affordable, wireless, high-speed indoor / outdoor, ubiquitous Internet
service in St. Louis Park to meet the various goals of the service. While community and
Council members will see the answer to this question differently, it is strongly
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 32
recommended that the decision be made. Staff hopes Council feels it has the information
to do so after an intensive 2-year process.
The 300 people who signed up for the pilot, the 2,600 residents and businesses who have pre-
registered for a citywide service, people who have even volunteered to make an interactive
mapping application on a web site for the wireless project, and the rest of the community in St.
Louis Park and beyond await Council’s wisdom on this subject.
Attachments: Resolution
Bidder and Management Partner Descriptions
Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 33
RESOLUTION NO. 06-174
RESOLUTION DECLARING ARINC, INC. THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER,
AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH ARINC, INC.
FOR THE SUPPLY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A CITYWIDE WIRELESS
BROADBAND NETWORK AND WITH UNPLUGGED CITIES, LLC TO PROVIDE
MANAGEMENT PARTNER SERVICES FOR SAID NETWORK THROUGH A
PRIVATE – PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP
WHEREAS, the City Council directed study of wireless high-speed indoor / outdoor
Internet service beginning in November 2004, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered several questions around current Internet
service in St. Louis Park including availability, choice, cost, indoor / outdoor use, and mobility /
portability, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed informal community interest surveys to help
inform the study of wireless high-speed indoor / outdoor Internet service, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed the conduct of and participated in a due diligence
process including a formal study to determine technical, market, and financial feasibility of
wireless high-speed indoor / outdoor Internet service, including review of currently available
Internet services, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed and staff engaged in many methods of public
process to gather input from all communities of interest on the need for, concerns about, support
for, and opposition to the concept of a City role in ensuring the availability of competitively
priced wireless high-speed indoor / outdoor Internet service, including a task force organized
through the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce that included several local telecommunications
providers, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed as part of the due diligence process study of legal
powers of the City to play a role in ensuring the availability of competitively priced wireless
high-speed indoor / outdoor Internet service, and
WHEREAS, results of the technical, market, financial feasibility, and other studies and
processes mentioned above indicate the potential viability of wireless high-speed indoor /
outdoor Internet service through use of a private – public partnership model, and
WHEREAS, results of the technical, market, financial feasibility, and other studies and
processes mentioned above suggest use of a private – public partnership model would maximize
the community benefit from wireless high-speed indoor / outdoor Internet service through each
partner exercising its own respective technical, marketing, operational, and branding strengths,
and
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 34
WHEREAS, the City Council has given due consideration to results of the technical,
market, financial feasibility, and other studies and processes including those mentioned above,
and in addition considered public policy questions including the essentiality of available and
affordably priced high-speed indoor / outdoor Internet service to all members of the residential,
business, private, institutional, and non-profit communities, and for the provision of effective and
efficient municipal and educational services, and
WHEREAS, the City Council directed implementation of a pilot wireless project on
November 21, 2005, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed technical, market, financial feasibility results
of the pilot wireless project launched in April 2006 and considered other factors germane to the
wireless industry, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the City Charter through Section 1.02. Powers
of the City, provides the required authority to make available the wireless and fiber optic
facilities required to make available low-cost, wireless, high-speed indoor / outdoor, ubiquitous
Internet connectivity services, and
WHEREAS, similar wireless and fiber optic facilities have previously been constructed
consistent with Minnesota statutes and City Charter provisions for the pilot wireless project and
inter-building fiber optic network, and
WHEREAS, services to users of the proposed wireless and fiber optic facilities required
to make available low-cost, wireless, high-speed indoor / outdoor, ubiquitous Internet
connectivity services, will be provided through the private sector, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds in the two years since said study began and in the six
months since said pilot wireless project began, no significant changes have occurred with respect
to current high-speed Internet service in St. Louis Park regarding availability, choice, cost,
indoor / outdoor use, and mobility / portability, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the wireless and fiber optic facilities required to
make available low-cost, wireless, high-speed indoor / outdoor, ubiquitous Internet connectivity
services are not and will not be available through other providers or the private market in the
reasonably foreseeable future, and the proposed wireless, low-cost, high-speed indoor / outdoor,
ubiquitous Internet connectivity service is unique and does not directly compete with service
provided private entities, consistent with Minnesota Statute 429.021, Subd. 1, and
WHEREAS, the community of St. Louis Park competes with other cities throughout
Minnesota and the Untied States to attract and retain a wide variety of participating residents,
businesses, families and students, and institutions and other forms of community and economic
development to support and enhance St. Louis Park’s quality of life, and
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park strives to be a community of choice for a lifetime and a
Children First community, and provide opportunities for all to thrive.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 35
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park that:
1. The City Council hereby finds ARINC, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for the supply
and implementation of a citywide wireless broadband network.
2. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to enter into an agreement with ARINC, Inc. for
the supply and implementation of said citywide wireless broadband network
3. The City Council hereby authorizes staff to enter into an agreement with Unplugged
Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for said citywide wireless broadband
network.
4. The appropriate City officials are hereby directed to take steps necessary to make
available initial capital and operating funds for said citywide wireless broadband network
and services from the Development Fund.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2006
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 36
APPENDIX OF VENDOR INFORMATION
ARINC, INC.
Since our incorporation in 1929, ARINC has been a leader in aviation
communications. But our achievements go far beyond that. Today, we’re a
$891 million, ISO 9001:2000 certified company that’s recognized as the
leading provider of transportation communications and systems engineering
solutions for five major industries: aviation, airports, defense, government,
and transportation.
Headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, we’re global in reach. Our 3,200
dedicated employees located in more than 100 offices around the world
provide over 150 value-added solutions and services to customers in 104
countries.
To better serve our worldwide customers we have two regional headquarters:
Singapore, established in 2003 for the Asia Pacific region, and London,
established in 1999 to serve the Europe, Middle East, and Africa region.
The key to our success? Our employees and their commitment to delivering
technical excellence and outstanding products and services with
uncompromising integrity.
ARINC is a company built on answers. For over 75 years, we’ve answered
our customers’ most difficult questions and developed innovative solutions to
meet their toughest challenges.
www.arinc.com
City Finance Department Analysis: After reviewing the publicly available
documents, ARINC Incorporated appears to be in sound financial condition.
The company has been profitable for the last three years (years ended 2003-
2005), and has increased stockholders equity significantly in that time. They
have sufficient assets to maintain their liquidity with a current ratio (current
assets divided by current liabilities) of two times current liabilities. They
have two primary business segments, Transportation Information Systems &
Services and Aerospace/Defense Systems Engineering, which have both
shown healthy growth in revenues and income over the three year period
reviewed. Total assets of the company are nearly half a billion dollars.
There are three areas of minor concern. The financial statements had to be
restated due to miscalculated tax liabilities in 2003. That was a large error at
over $4,000,000 but presumably the accounting procedures being handled
properly now. The ownership of the company is primarily through six
airlines that collectively have over 91% of the outstanding shares. It is
unclear what effect the bankruptcy of one of the principal owners would have
on the company. Finally, their debt structure has a large payment increase in
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 37
June 2010 which obligates the company to repay over $29 million per quarter
for the next fiscal year.
Since the note repayment is at the end of the period of performance on our
contract, we see no significant problem with ARINC’s capital structure as it
relates to this project. We believe that the company has adequate financial
resources to perform the contractual duties outlined in their bid.
TERABEAM
Terabeam, Inc., originally called YDI Wireless, Inc., resulted from the
merger consummated on April 1, 2003 between Telaxis Communications
Corporation and Young Design, Inc. Telaxis was a publicly traded company
that focused on developing high capacity millimeter wave wireless products.
Young Design was a privately held company that developed, produced, and
sold wireless data products, primarily in microwave frequencies. Subsequent
to the merger, the company effected a 1 for 100 reverse stock split followed
by a 25 for 1 forward stock split, re-incorporated in Delaware, and changed
its name to YDI Wireless, Inc. Prior to its merger with Telaxis, Young
Design had grown through a combination of organic growth and acquisitions.
In March 2003, Young Design acquired certain assets and licensed
technologies to permit it to manufacture and sell the Link CX product. In
May 2002, Young Design acquired certain assets and licensed technology to
permit it to manufacture and sell the Link EX, Link 4X and RAN products.
In May 2001, Young Design purchased Zeus Wireless, Inc., a manufacturer
of low speed wireless data equipment.
On May 14, 2004, YDI acquired KarlNet, Inc., a pioneer and leader in
software development for operating and managing wireless networks.
Founded in 1993, KarlNet had grown from a pioneer in Internet firewall and
security solutions to a leading provider of wireless software and systems.
KarlNet has been integrated into the operations of YDI.
On June 22, 2004, YDI acquired Terabeam Corporation. Terabeam was a
provider of broadband wireless solutions that extended and optimized carrier
and enterprise networks using high frequency millimeter wave (60 GHz radio
frequency) and free space optics (invisible light beam) technologies.
Terabeam had a history of significant losses and cash burn. In connection
with the merger and subsequent consolidation, YDI reduced capital
expenditures, significantly reduced the personnel at Terabeam, closed
Terabeam’s two offices in the Redmond, Washington area, and consolidated
resources at Terabeam’s North Andover, Massachusetts facility. The North
Andover facility has been integrated into YDI focusing on millimeter wave
and microwave hardware development and support.
Based on Terabeam’s high level of positive name recognition, in mid-August
2004, YDI decided to adopt the name “Terabeam Wireless” for its go to
market strategy.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 38
On June 25, 2004, YDI acquired Ricochet Networks, Inc. Ricochet is a
leading mobile Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) headquartered in
Denver, Colorado. Ricochet provides high-speed mobile Internet
connectivity in San Diego, California and Denver and has over 7,000 paying
customers. Ricochet’s wireless Internet services business is operated
independent of Proxim Wireless’ equipment business except for certain
overlapping personnel and functions. Ricochet used to operate in many major
metropolitan cities including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle,
Chicago, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas/Fort
Worth, Minneapolis, and Washington, DC. Ricochet is investigating the
feasibility of restoring service in these markets. In addition, Ricochet is
pursuing opportunities to provide Homeland Defense and public safety
systems utilizing the Ricochet solution. Also, Ricochet is offering equipment
to service providers, WISPs, and municipalities who wish to offer wireless
Internet services and become part of Ricochet’s network.
On July 27, 2005, YDI acquired the operations of Proxim Corporation from
the bankruptcy estate of that company. Old Proxim was a leading provider of
wireless networking equipment for Wi-Fi and broadband wireless networks,
and provided enterprise and service provider customers with wireless
solutions for the mobile enterprise, security and surveillance, last mile
access, voice and data backhaul, public hot spots, and metropolitan area
networks. The equipment business of Proxim Wireless is the combination of
the business acquired from Proxim Corporation and the former YDI
equipment business.
On November 7, 2005, YDI changed its corporate name to Terabeam, Inc.
and its ticker symbol to TRBM.
Terabeam, Inc. a publically traded corporation (NASDAQ:TRBM), has two primary subsidiaries
Proxim Wireless Corporation and Ricochet Networks, Inc. Proxim Wireless Corporation
provides Wi-Fi and other broadband wireless solutions to meet the performance, scalability, and
security requirements of enterprises, government, and service providers. Ricochet Networks, Inc.
is a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) with operational markets in Denver and Aurora,
Colorado and San Diego, California. Excerpts from financial statements released for the last
quarter include:
o Revenue for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 was $20.8 million, an increase of
approximately 12% from the revenue of $18.5 million for the quarter ended
March 31, 2006 and an increase of approximately 189% from the revenue of
$7.2 million for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. The significant increase in
revenue over the prior year’s comparable quarter resulted primarily from
Terabeam’s acquisition of the operations of Proxim Corporation in the third
quarter of 2005.
o The net loss for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 was $3.0 million ($0.14 per
share-diluted) compared to net loss of $4.5 million ($0.21 per share-diluted)
for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 and net loss of $987,000 ($0.04 per
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 39
share-diluted) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005. The significant increase in
net loss over the prior year’s comparable quarter resulted primarily from
Terabeam’s acquisition of the operations of Proxim Corporation in the third
quarter of 2005.
o Robert Fitzgerald, Terabeam’s Chief Executive Officer, stated, “The second
quarter has been a quarter of transition for the company. Our new President,
Pankaj Manglik, has brought an ambitious and decisive management style that
has energized the organization. We have taken cost reduction actions that have
decreased our operating expenses. We are very encouraged by the response of
the market to our AP-4000-MR family of metropolitan scale Wi-Fi mesh
products, and we expect our mesh products to contribute an increasing
percentage of our overall revenues over the second half of the year. We still
have less visibility into the revenue side of the equation than we would like
but are addressing the situation with an enhanced management team and
renewed energy.”
Additional information about the company can be found at the company's website located at
http://www.terabeam.com or by contacting the company by telephone at 413-584-1425 or by
email at IR@terabeam.com.
PROXIM
Proxim Wireless Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Terabeam, Inc. (NASDAQ:
TRBM). Proxim Wireless is a global pioneer in developing and supplying scalable broadband
wireless networking systems for enterprises, governments, and service providers. From Wi-Fi to
wireless Gigabit Ethernet - our WLAN, mesh, point-to-multipoint, and point-to-point products
are available through our extensive global channel network, backed by world-class support.
Proxim is a Principal Member of the WiMAX Forum and is ISO-9001 certified.
www.proxim.com
SUNWIZE
SunWize offers a range of complete solar power systems to meet the demands of your power
requirements. The 600 watt SunWize Power Ready System shown above provides power for a
monitoring and control system located at a well site in rural Wyoming. The Power Ready System
was chosen based on its ability to deliver the exact power requirements for the site. Power Ready
Systems offer rapid turnaround in system design, manufacturing, installation, system power-up
and commissioning while presenting a reliable, durable and cost effective power delivery
solution. Power Ready systems are an ideal power supply for telemetry applications such as
wireless, broadband and Wi-Fi systems. When you purchase a SunWize pre-assembled system
you receive a quality PV system that is properly assembled, pre-wired and meets all applicable
code requirements.
www.sunwize.com
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110606 - 8d - Citywide Wireless Project
Page 40
UNPLUGGED CITIES
Unplugged Cities, a Twin Cities owned and operated Internet services company, provides
deployment and operations of citywide wireless broadband networks. This involves providing a
wireless infrastructure under a public/private initiative that creates a ubiquitous 802.11 b(g) city-
wide Hot Spot. This system provides mobile Internet access to city residents, businesses and,
governmental agencies. The notes below outline a few of the available residential, business and
governmental uses of the city-wide wireless network.
Public Safety
The ability to download and view emergency information from police squad cars, fire engines,
ambulances until now isn't available in a mobile environment. Migrating from current low-speed
data connections to wireless broadband will enable mobile, in-car access to the Amber Alert sex
offender database with full photo resolution, access to mug shots and lineups, as well as rapid
access to automobile registry systems.
Mobile City Employees
Outside emergency services, building inspectors, water meter reading, parking monitoring, video
surveillance for public safety, social workers and many more can take advantage of the
efficiencies of a mobile environment.
City Building Connectivity
Many of the access points used to create a wireless network will be connected to the Internet
through a fiber optic connection. City buildings will have the ability to be connected to the
Internet through these fiber connections, thus providing high speed, reliable Internet
connectivity.
Residential Benefits
The community as a whole benefits from the municipal wireless broadband network. City
residents have the ability to become customers of the low-cost high-speed Internet service. This
affordable service will help bridge the digital divide and bring broadband to city areas that are
currently not served.
Business Benefits
Small businesses can become customers of the broadband network to provide their primary
Internet connectivity. Larger businesses can utilize the network to provide an affordable
redundant Internet connection.
www.unpluggedcities.com