Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/12/04 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA DECEMBER 4, 2006 7:30 PM 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes of November 6, 2006 3b. Study Session Minutes of November 13, 2006 3c. City Council Minutes of November 20, 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. Public Hearing - Utility Rate Adjustments Proposed revisions to Chapters 22 and 32 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to allow utility rates to be set by resolution rather than by ordinance. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of the ordinance amendments to Chapters 22 and 32 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code removing utility rates from the general fee schedule and set second reading for December 18, 2006. 6b. Truth-in-Taxation Public Hearing on the 2007 Budget and Property Tax Levy This public hearing is to review the 2007 budget and property tax levy. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Watershed District Creek and Trail Construction This report requests that the City Council approve a temporary easement for Methodist Hospital and the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) to realign a portion of Minnehaha Creek, construct trails, boardwalks, and other related improvements. Recommended Action: Motion to approve a temporary easement for Methodist Hospital and the MCWD to realign a portion of Minnehaha Creek; construct trails, boardwalks and other related improvements; perform other hydrologic and ecosystem improvements; and install educational signage (together, the “Project”); all in accordance with the terms of a Funding Agreement executed by the Parties and pursuant to the water resource purposes of the MCWD as set forth in Minnesota Statutes §§103B.201 and 103D.201 (“Construction Easement”); and a perpetual easement allowing for inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Project ("Permanent Easement"). 8b. Second Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Criteria and Procedural Requirements for Sale of City Park Land Recommended Action: Motion to adopt second reading of the Ordinance establishing criteria and procedures for the sale of City owned park and open space; authorize summary ordinance and authorize publication. 8c. Agreement for citywide wireless management partner services provided through a private – public partnership. Recommended Action: Motion to approve attached agreement with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for citywide wireless broadband network. 9. Communications Report (No Discussion Required) Legislative Issues and Priorities for 2007 Administrative Services 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 DECEMBER 4, 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 adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed Modification of the Park Center Boulevard, Excelsior Boulevard, Oak Park Village and Highway 7 Tax Increment Financing Districts. 4b. Motion to approve Resolutions to Purchase Vacant Tax Forfeit Parcels relating to the Excess Land Sale process 4c. Motion to Approve Resolution in Support of Continued Livable Communities Levy 4d. Motion to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 122-04 with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2007. 4e. Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent Services (STL - Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2007. 4f. Adopt Resolution Approving Financing Approach for Wireless Project 4g. Motion to adopt resolution accepting the Project Report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2006-1800, approving plans and specifications, authorizing advertisements for bids. 4h. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Plat of Gateway Lofts 4i. Motion to adopt second reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to create a POS - Park and Open Space Zoning District, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4j. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal Project Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley paving project in the 2900 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenue. 4k. Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees for Property at 4123 Alabama Ave. South 4l. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Capital Improvement Project No. 20081300, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids to replace the roof system on the City Hall building. SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR - Continued 4m. Motion to amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase rates paid from $135 to $140 per hour for city attorney services. 4n. Housing Authority Minutes of October 11, 2006. 4o. Motion to approve Vendor Claims for Filing. AGENDA SUPPLEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING *** December 4, 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: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 6, 2006 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm. Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Housing Program Coordinator (Ms. Larsen), Inspections Administrative Supervisor (Ms. Boettcher), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Administrative Specialist (Ms. Hellekson), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations 2a. Shirley Huiras Recognition 20 Years of Service Resolution No. 06-166 Mayor Jacobs presented Resolution No. 06-166 to Shirley Huiras in honor of 20 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. 2b. Green Business Recognition Ms. Hellekson discussed the history of the Green Business Award. Mayor Jacobs presented plaques to representatives of the following Green Businesses: Brent’s Signs, Flextech, Hoigaard’s, Nordic Ware, Torah Academy, Commercial Furniture, Grossman Design, Linsk Flowers, and Phoenix Process Consultants. 2c. Recognition of Jim Rhodes Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution to Jim Rhodes recognizing for his many contributions to the City of St. Louis Park. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2006 The minutes were approved as presented. 3b. City Council Minutes of October 3, 2006 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 2 The minutes were approved as presented. 3c. Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2006 Councilmember Sanger indicated on page three, to insert “geographically concentrated” in paragraph eight. The minutes were approved as amended. 3d. City Council Minutes of October 16, 2006 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. 4a Approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2319-06 adopting fees for 2007 4b. Approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2320-06 amending the Zoning Ordinance for awnings, signs, building materials and non-conformities, approve summary and authorize publication. 4c. Approve Resolution No. 06-175 approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for workers compensation coverage effective December 1, 2006. 4d. Approve Amendment No. 3 to Contract 102-05 providing additional Professional Services related to the Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of the Sanitary Sewer System. 4e. Approve Resolution No. 06-176 amendment to the Special Permit to allow an 800 square foot addition to the office building located at 5775 Wayzata Blvd. 4f. Approve the contract with BCBS for Active Community Planning. 4g. Approve Resolution No. 06-171 Final Payment Claude M. Anderson Electric Company. 4h. Approve Resolution No. 06-177 establishing a special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 4237 Salem Avenue South. 4i. Planning Commission Minutes of September 20, 2006. 4j. Approve Resolution No. 06-178 authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees. 4k. Approve Resolution No. 06-165 recognizing Jim Rhodes. 4l. Approve the Second Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment with Highway 7 Business Center LLC (Real Estate Recycling). 4m. Approve Vendor Claims for Filing. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 3 6. Public Hearings 6a. Approval of the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1 and Extend Special Service District No. 1 through 2016 Resolution No. 06-167 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve Resolution No. 06-167 setting the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2 Resolution No. 06-168 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. David Payne, Al’s Bar, expressed support of the special service district. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve Resolution No. 06-168 setting the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 Resolution No. 06-169 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve Resolution No. 06-169 setting the 2007 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 4 Special Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 6d. 2007 Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed. It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to continue the public hearing setting the 2007 Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 4 to the November 20, 2006 City Council Meeting. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. Consider Excelsior Boulevard Streetscape Project - Project Nos. 20040400, 20040100, and 20040200. Resolution No. 06-170 Mr. Brink presented the staff report. He stated the purpose of the project is to improve vehicular and pedestrian safety, improve capacity for vehicles, restore the pavement to an adequate condition, and add streetscaping/landscaping to create a more attractive pedestrian environment. Guy Nowlin, senior project manager for Hennepin County Design Division, indicated there may be traffic delays during the construction. He stated however, the road would remain open during the roadwork and at times the four-lane road will be reduced to one lane in each direction. The first phase will not directly affect the entrances to Methodist Hospital and county staff would work with hospital staff to avoid any emergency vehicle delays on Excelsior Boulevard. Councilmember Basill stated his appreciation of staff’s effort on planning to make better crosswalks and the overall project. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt Resolution No. 06-170 approving project and entering into a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for Excelsior Boulevard roadway improvement and Streetscape project – Project Nos. 20040400, 20040100, and 20040200, and authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute the Agreement. The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 5 8b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – 2600 Natchez Avenue South, Case No.: 06-59-CP Resolution No. 06-172 Mr. Walther presented the staff report. Nancy Gibson, 2712 Glennhurst Av, stated she was a naturalist for the DNR non-game wildlife program and chaired the Environmental Trust Fund. She clarified how the DNR classified wetlands which are protected under the Federal Wetland Conservation Act. She discussed the results of the wetland report and requested an environmental review be done on this project. She was a member of the Vision St. Louis Park Environment Action Team and one of the recommendations is to expand and enhance parks and open space by 20% in the next ten years and to restore green space and eradicate invasive plants. Jeff Herman, 4740 27th St W, indicated the country has a century of neglect on the land and waterways. Last week, neighbors cleaned pieces of garbage from this wetland. The city is beginning to embrace their waterways, lakes, wetland and grasslands now, which sets a new tone. This is not going to be an affordable single family home. He read an article from the United States Census Bureau, the Department of Housing and the Department of Energy about the change in society. He disagrees with the recommendation to make this parcel a single-family residential home site. Cheryl Gibson, 2668 Glennhurst Av, stated she is a Hennepin County certified master gardener and discussed concerns about the trees and the practicality of thinking that the mature trees could be saved when building a home. She suggested staff go to the site and make an assessment about whether the trees could be saved. She asked that the sale not be approved until an environmental study be done. Debbie Reynolds, 2665 Huntington, indicated there is a lot of cover that bring birds through St. Louis Park. They needed to continue to support the flyways. This is one lot and one house and she didn’t think the fate of St. Louis Park would ride on whether they sold the lot for one house. The more they can keep the open land they have here, the better off the quality of life for citizens would be, and asked for further study. Leva Sweitbaum Herman, stated she was speaking as an advocate for the animals in the area and the sale of this parcel would affect the animals and plants in the area. Ann Drew Yu, 2636 Lynn Av S, stated she was there as a mother of two boys and discussed her conversations with them. This parcel wasn’t a logical choice for development when there were other choices that made sense. Constructing one house on a beautiful oasis didn’t make sense. There was nothing to gain and potentially a lot to be lost. She opposed reclassifying this land. Simon Goldman, 2641 Natchez, indicated animals cross this parcel and once they put a house in they can’t change it. This is extremely close to the wetland. Bulldozers will cause problems. They wouldn’t gain that much. If all of the people of St. Louis Park were to say what they wanted, a high majority would say they didn’t need a house here. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 6 His vision was to put a park bench there saying, “From the people of St. Louis Park. We’re dedicated to the future generation of our kids and their kids.” Deb Fowler, 2605 Natchez, stated opposition of developing this land and said the neighborhood is interested in further preservation of this wetland. Councilmember Basill stated he strongly prefers more single-family homes and move up single family housing for families with children. He thanked the speakers and many groups involved and stated his passion is for the process and the schools. It was difficult, because he also appreciated parks and open space. Councilmember Omodt asked if soil borings showed any contamination. Ms. Larsen replied that soil borings indicated evidence of construction debris, not contaminated soils. Councilmember Omodt asked staff about the trees and if they could build around trees without harm. Mr. Vaughan replied if the trees are dedicated for preservation, there are standards in place with 1.5 feet per diameter inch and plastic fencing around every five feet. He needed to review when there are plans in place, but felt they could protect the two oaks and the cottonwood, depending on the plan. A large tree in the middle of the lot looked structurally impaired and probably needed to be removed. There is room to preserve the trees if they do not store anything or drive over the roots within the protection zone. Councilmember Omodt asked if that could be put into the purchase agreement and Mr. Vaughan responded he believed yes. Councilmember Omodt asked if they had done that in the past and Mr. Vaughan replied developers have preserved trees. He does weekly inspections to make sure the protection is in place and nothing is damaging or hindering the tree. Councilmember Omodt asked if this parcel is in, near or adjacent to a wetland and potential impacts. There are other houses that look closer to a “wetland” than this property would be. At a previous study session, all seven Councilmembers agreed to allow a building next to a wetland. Mr. Vaughan responded with any new building you need to abide by erosion control standards, by a wetland or not. This is adjacent to a wetland and not part of a wetland. They would have erosion control standards in place, silt fences and best management practices to divert any kind of erosion, sediment or runoff from going into wetland areas. There is very little diversity on the site in terms of plant species. If they redevelop, they could enhance the plant species. The more diversity, the better the site. Councilmember Omodt asked if this could help the property and if some of the funding from this could be used to dredge and restore the wetland? Mr. Vaughan replied it depended on how far they went, because of the buckthorn and unhealthy plants. The area could be enhanced. Councilmember Omodt referred to a neighborhood in Minnetonka where none of the properties have grass and are on wooded lots. Is there a scenario like that for a lot like St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 7 this? Mr. Vaughan replied yes, there are several lots in St. Louis Park that have prairie grasses and wildflower instead of lawns. Councilmember Omodt asked about the requests for an environmental study. Mr. Vaughan replied an environmental study would identify species that would be affected in terms of building and if they would be affecting them, as well as how big the footprint of impact would be on the surrounding area. Councilmember Sanger commented she was concerned about trees, the wetland, and the process. The difference between this one and the parcel they talked about earlier, was that the proposed house would be a lot closer to the wetland. The wetland contains pesticides. Adding another house will make the problem worse. Secondly, the trees were a concern and needed to be protected. She didn’t see how there was enough space to build a house on this site. The third concern is the process. A number of groups have looked at this proposal in various ways, but they needed more detail. The Excess Land Task Force was given a series of criteria by the City Council to evaluate parcels. Environmental factors weren’t on the list. The task force recommendation came before the City Council and those factors still weren’t considered, but the sale was passed by a 4-3 vote. The Planning Commission didn’t talk about the environmental factors. The environmental factors are being left out of the decision making process. The process should get slowed down and they should do an environmental review to look at the impact on the trees and if there is a building site once the trees are protected, the pesticide overload and impact on potential flooding on the area. The Housing Summit Task Force talked about the importance of having more move up housing in the community, but they needed to be clear that did not say they needed to build a house on every site available. The Vision St. Louis Park Environment Action Team suggested they expand the amount of parks and green space by 20%. Every time they sell an open parcel, they minimize the future chances of complying with that goal. It is incumbent on this Council not to make a decision today and review the entire task force report, not only the Environmental Task Force, but of the other task forces as well, consider the implication because there is a tension between the needs for housing which are legitimate, but also the needs for open space and environmental protection. She would not be in favor of selling this parcel for a single-family home. Councilmember Paprocki stated the future of this parcel was voted on nearly a year ago. This is a procedural vote to carry out the decision that had already been made. By making this a revote of that decision, they had spent a lot of time and effort that could have been spent elsewhere. The decision had been made. He would be voting for the Comp Plan change. Councilmember Finkelstein thought this was not merely a procedural vote. When City Council revisited some of the other land sales, they took a look at compromise and reviewing different options and he believed that could be done here. They talked about the tension between the need for green space versus infill development. Staff had worked very hard and done an excellent job. They had learned from their mistakes and had taken steps to better identify and protect parks by changing the way they get rid of and maintain parkland. If they go ahead with this re-designation, they would be making a mistake. One more or one less house isn’t going to dramatically impact the City and schools. One more house will make a difference at 26th and Natchez. He viewed it as wetland and St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 8 open space and there had to be a place in the community for that. This way is an animal walkway. It has trees that are between 50-100 years old. He was glad the neighborhood took the opportunity to clean up the lot. Because it hadn’t been well cared for in the past, it didn’t mean they shouldn’t save it when they had an opportunity. Initially he supported putting one house on the edge of this open space. He thought it was part of the “base closing” and they were going to vote on all of the excess land together. When they took testimony, he started thinking about it and what if they weren’t right and how they could repair this. If they re-designate this land, they wouldn’t be able change it. The tension between the need for green space and the pressure of infill development is getting worse. They need quiet spaces. It is more critical in this neighborhood with the new development and completion of Highway 100. There was no rush to do this. Sometimes by revisiting issues they come up with better decisions. He encouraged them to vote against changing the designation. Councilmember Carver agreed with Councilmember Basill and the passion for move up housing. The City Council is in the role of being parents and can’t chose between the kids without trade offs. He looked at this as balance for the City as a whole. It is just one lot, but if every time this comes in, it is just one lot, eventually they have to do something for the good of the City. It is more than just a lot. It would be a family and the owner who moved into the house would be in charge of developing this lot. He agreed about the concerns for the wetland. A real concern was herbicides and fertilizers and they needed to be concerned about that everywhere in St. Louis Park. He understood they would lose trees and didn’t do this lightly, but it was worth it in this situation and he would support the motion. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Carver, to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a portion of 2600 Natchez Avenue from P – Parks and Open Space to RL – Low Density Residential as shown on the attached map, noting that staff should do whatever possible to protect as many trees as possible without preventing moving forward on the construction of a home. Councilmember Omodt stated they all wanted to be pro environment, but it came in all different shapes and sizes. They had all tried to do things to promote open space, clean living and reduce pesticides. He hoped what came out of this was a look at pesticides throughout the City. There was a vote taken on this in December and this was more or less procedural. They needed to look at the environmental issues citywide. The vote was taken a year ago and they could go on and on and have another task force, but the will of the Council in December was to sell this parcel. Councilmember Sanger stated it was not just procedural to change the Comp Plan. She took this seriously as an independent vote and the fact that the Charter mandates a 5-2 vote, underscores the fact that this is not a procedural vote and is serious business about the appropriate land use in the community. Mr. Harmening clarified that the motion was that staff do whatever reasonably possible to protect trees, but not disallow a home from being built on the property. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 9 Councilmember Basill replied do whatever they could do to reasonably protect the trees without preventing moving forward on the construction of a home on the site. Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification if the trees had to be cut down in order to build a house, was that OK? Councilmember Basill replied yes, they try to protect as many trees as they could and that was what staff would do. They would lose some trees, but should try to save some. Councilmember Sanger noted that the residents were talking about the very mature trees. If the sense of the amendment was to protect those particular oak trees and do the ring around them as was mentioned, that made sense. But she thought what Councilmember Basill was saying was contradictory because to protect the mature oak trees, there wouldn’t be room to build a house. They shouldn’t feel good about the amendment because it wasn’t going to work. Mr. Harmening indicated the direction given in the motion was not that dissimilar from what was done last December. Last December it said, “mature oak trees shall be retained to the degree possible.” Staff would do what they could to protect as many trees as possible, understanding that they were going to lose some trees. Councilmember Finkelstein asked about the vehicle passing area and if it would be required as part of the contract? Mr. Harmening replied Mr. Vaughan and Mr. Walther have been to the site to see how a home could be sited on the property. They would lose some trees, but would be able to retain some. Mr. Vaughan added depending on the design of the home, they could retain some of the oak trees. If they put the orange fence around the trees, they cannot drive or store anything in that tree preservation zone. Mr. Harmening noted as a part of working with builders and future homeowners on the design of a home on this site, it should be designed in a way to save as many trees as they could. Councilmember Basill asked if Councilmember Sanger wanted him to remove the amendment? Councilmember Sanger replied no, she was asking for clarification of what his intent was. She was not going to support the motion anyway. Councilmember Basill felt it was a better motion with the amendment. Mr. Herman stated in this neighborhood, there are many single-family homes for sale. They needed to let people know that St. Louis Park has housing and wants families. Nancy Gibson was concerned about the democratic process. There was not one person in favor of building the house there. They needed to have environmental impact statements for this land. You cannot put a house there and save the trees. In 7-8 years they would be gone. Councilmember Basill commented there is passion on both sides of this issue, which is a good thing. There is nothing more disheartening when they see people move out of the community. There are homes for sale, but look at the percentage compared to neighboring communities. He thought this was right for the community. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 10 Resolution No. 06-172 was passed 5-2, with Councilmember’s Finkelstein and Sanger opposed. 8c. Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Carpenter Park (5005 Mtka. Blvd), Case No.: 06-62-CP Resolution No. 06-173 Mr. Walther presented the staff report. Councilmember Basill stated this came out of their process and it was good to find that Carpenter Park needed the proper designation. It was nice to reclassify the 7.33 acres to parkland. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve a Comprehensive Plan amendment for a portion of 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard from CIV – Civic to P – Parks and Open Space as shown on the attached map. Councilmember Sanger supported the motion and was glad they had the new Park and Open Space Zoning District. They needed to be clear they weren’t adding park space. They were changing the legal designation of something that was already a park. They couldn’t claim they were adding park space. Councilmember Basill stated they were changing the Comp Plan tonight and would be creating the new zoning district on November 20th. Resolution No. 06-173 was passed 7-0. 8d. Consideration of citywide wireless broadband network provided through a private – public partnership. Resolution No. 06-174 Mr. Pires presented the staff report. Mike Siok, ARINC, Inc, stated that ARINC was founded in 1929 and the whole purpose of the company was to manage the wireless spectrum for the FAA, they continued to do that today. They put together a plan to deal with this six years ago. Their wireless strategy started in airports and they had invested in that. They decided to go into more wireless ISP services and acquired a company in 2005 and owns and operates a wireless ISP covering over 200 square miles providing wireless coverage to residents and businesses. The next step is to include the municipalities and go into the middle of America where there isn’t wireless services. To make that model work, he had to make the model in a municipal environment. ARINC is a very conservative company and before they enter any market, they do a very thorough market survey. They don’t go into these things half-heartedly. Don Mouritzen, Proxim, stated the intent was to get Proxim into the wireless outdoor arena with municipal wireless. They are one of the oldest players in the Wi-Fi market and went back ten years. They had shipped millions of the access points that this network was built around. They knew it extremely well and had chosen a great partner in ARINC. By the low power design and going solar, it delivers some extremely good things for the City. It will be the first battery backed up network in the country that would operate for St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 11 10.5 days in the event of a solar panel failure. If all communications failed, they still had a communications base. There is an obsolescence prevention and some of the products that have been used have are pre-WiMax. All of the radios are software based, which allows them to change the software to accommodate any changes that don’t require hardware. Proxim releases updates to the software on nearly a monthly basis with enhancement and does not charge for them. They stand behind the network and would be there through each phase of the implementation. Paul Kralovec, Unplugged Cities, LLC, stated this was a public/private partnership. The City was taking on risk and he was taking on a substantial amount of risk as well. He believed he could afford to do that because he believed he could get that market share. They have a very entrepreneurial structure in the way they operate and they intend to use that structure to maximize the subscriber base. They are going to go after the residents, the MDU’s (multiple dwelling units), the residents in the MDU’s, the single-family homes, businesses and use the entire structure, not just Wi-Fi radios. There is a way of utilizing all of the components of the structure of the Wi-Fi to provide the services. They would be making some changes and hadn’t done as well as they would have liked on the help desk. They were building an in-house help desk and would be operating it themselves versus outsourcing it to take care of the issues; they had to service the customer better. They were also getting some Mac specialists and would also have Linux specialists. ARINC is being extremely competitive to provide the service and they were getting extremely good pricing on equipment. They would do their best to provide the services. Mr. Pires concluded his presentation. Alexander Truskinovski, 1445 Utah Av. S, indicated when he moved here, they kept their dial up provider. When they heard the announcement for the wireless service, they thought it showed how sophisticated and vibrant St. Louis Park is and a cut above the average suburb, is future oriented, understanding the importance of communication and technology and providing good alternatives for the people. The options that exist in the commercial market cost a lot of money. This is a financially viable service. They were very happy with the pilot and it had improved their life. He hoped they kept this valuable service. Jack Singer, 2821 Monterey Pkwy, stated he was a pilot project user that was on the boundary of the pilot. Because he was on the boundary, the service was very low. He put a dish behind the antennae, which increased the signal. He noticed occasional drop outs of service. He thought Minneapolis would be twice as cheap, for the same level of service. The receiver sells for $75 and residents have to rent it for $5/month, which he believed was ridiculous. He was in favor of this service. Having a dish antennae would make it work better. Andy Shriner, Director of Government Affairs for Qwest, wanted to clarify what their offerings were in St. Louis Park. They offer DSL at $26.99/month, which is a price for life and includes an ISP. The question the Council ought to consider is whether this is a “must have” or a “want to have” for the City of St. Louis Park. They are risking St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 12 potentially thousands and thousand of dollars on a venture that there are no guarantees of success. He asked they keep that in mind as they go forward. Phillip Hogland, 2716 Vernon Av S, thanked staff and the City for the open house. He appreciated the thoughtfulness of how they would mount the units and using lower power units to reduce the noise levels. Using the solar panels enabled that approach. He supported the project. A year ago City Council worked with the cable companies on more local programming, and one of the Councilmember’s asked the ramifications if the City decided not to renew the franchise. The response was that since they had offered the franchise once and they had put in capital investment, unless they had a really good reason saying they had violated their contracts. In comparison to the different models, it struck him if they went the route of Minneapolis and allowed a company to build the whole network, they could be locked in forever unless there were serious problems. The other side of it here was if they were investing in the network and have more control and can address the help desk problems seen in the pilot. Mr. Truskinovski responded to the representative from Qwest that the customer needed to subscribe to all other services to get the lower fee for DSL. Craig Peterson, 4831 W 30th Ln, stated he was advocating the adoption of the Park Wi- Fi. The Twin Cities is a desirable place for businesses because of the technical infrastructure and a great resource of technical people and companies that is a natural draw to relocate. The City benefits from that. Park Wi-Fi and wireless is a competitive advantage and voting it down would put St. Louis Park at a competitive disadvantage compared to Minneapolis and other suburbs. He had been a Qwest DSL customer since the service was offered and shared the opinion of the previous speaker. For the same or greater cost Park Wi-Fi is offering, he gets a service that is about 1/5th the speed available. His other option is to use a cable provider and he had no interest in purchasing a bundle with cable television. The internet has catapulted them from the information age to the age of collaboration and there are some phenomenal examples on what that collaboration has enabled. Despite the excellent material gathered and presented, he suggested they had not yet identified the greatest impact Park Wi-Fi would have and he believed it hadn’t been conceived yet. There are tremendous benefits that would come forth from this It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 06-174 declaring ARINC, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with ARINC, Inc. for the supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for said network. Councilmember Paprocki pointed out they were not providing anything new. They have high speed internet now, it is just more expensive. This had been pitched as being fully paid for by the subscribers, so there is no cost to the City. Originally they needed 36%, now they were down to 32%, but they had never seen that. They had 25% enrollment in the pilot areas, which were more affluent areas of the wards. They might hit 25% the first and second year, but after that he didn’t believe they would hit those. Comcast prices will come down and they will be competing with them. He didn’t think it would St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 13 pay for itself. They would be about a $1.1 to $2 million deficit for this project. That was a high price tag, especially when they hadn’t been forthright with the community as to what it would cost to do this. He could not support spending that kind of money for something that was available now, just a little more costly. Councilmember Sanger disagreed with Councilmember Paprocki. There are quite a few positive benefits for implementing this program. One was making services available to people who can’t afford to buy the current internet service. She had hoped the price of cable provided high speed service would decrease, but it had been high for a long time and rates were increasing. They have a great advantage of helping kids in the community gain access to the internet. They have the ability to help the whole community become more global. This is a competitive edge for the city to help attract more businesses and more tech savvy residents. Private businesses had not come forward to offer this service. If they wait, the gap would get bigger and the services would not be available. There are risks in adopting this program. The numbers that Mr. Pires used were extremely conservative in terms of the financial estimates. They assumed the price that they set two years ago for monthly service wouldn’t change even for the next five years, which might be nice, but she questioned how realistic. That would be one way to address a gap. Many people had expressed interest in this project. People who did not sign up for the pilot project were waiting until this became a permanent city project. She was not as pessimistic about the level of subscribership they would gain. Staff had built in quite a lot of risk mitigation measures to keep this competitive technologically and continue to meet residents’ needs. The service providers had a huge incentive in making this successful and a marketing advantage to other communities. They had made a number of decisions involving much more significant risk (i.e. Excelsior and Grand) and they paid off. She thought the same would happen here and this was a worthwhile risk. Councilmember Paprocki stated talking about the risks, Excelsior and Grand was a real estate risk, this is a technology and a lot more volatile market. The risk they were talking about in the deal with the partners seemed largely on the City’s side and not so much on the partner’s side. Mr. Pires believed there were different risks. The city’s were on the fixed capital pieces -- including fiber -- which many believe had lasting value. The management partners also take some risks. Councilmember Basill asked what Frontier was doing in Burnsville? Mr. Asp responded Frontier is a competitive local exchange carrier based in that community and has an incentive to try to enhance and expand the services they are offering in the community. They are strategically looking to try to protect their DSL base, which was why they were talking about making the investment. They are looking at more of a “cherry picking” model where they are not going to be doing 100% universal coverage. They don’t have a universal service requirement. They are early in discussions. Mr. Pires added some of the details such as pricing are missing at this time, and it was unclear the degree to which the service would be available indoors. They had talked about outdoor coverage. Mr. Asp noted Frontier was looking at the mobile service, which was quite a bit different than an indoor service. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 14 Councilmember Basill asked who was taking the risk, was it joint or Frontier? Mr. Asp relied it would be Frontier. Councilmember Basill stated he was looking forward to Wi-Fi some day. If they go forward he would subscribe. He shared the concerns of Councilmember Paprocki and felt the risk should be on the shoulders of the private sector to choose the right technology versus the City Council, staff and community. If the majority of the Council votes to move forward with this, they want it to work because they would have dollars at risk. Councilmember Finkelstein commented they had studied the issue for two years and done a pilot project. It could probably be studied forever. They live in a digital world where there will be technological “haves” and “have not’s”. The risk as a nation is falling further behind. The decision to start municipal Wi-Fi is one with serious financial ramifications and not something to be taken lightly. It also has other civic ramifications that would affect the community for years to come. The deciding point is the answer to two basic questions. One, is this an activity that government should be involved in? Two, if so, does the public benefit outweigh the public costs? The answer to the first question isn’t easy. It depends on how you view the role of government. In some municipalities water is owned by the private sector and others the City is involved providing electricity and even liquor stores. He believed the role of government was to better their lives and the community lives in a fair, rational and efficient way. Municipal Wi-Fi could be a utility and something they can use to provide better services to all citizens. The answer to the first question is a strong maybe, because they need to answer the second question to answer the first. The public benefit outweighs the public cost. If they do this, this is serious money and 7-8% of their development money. They would be investing a large amount of money and would be expecting subscribers and possibly advertising revenues to pay back. In a bad case scenario they would lose several thousand dollars a year. However they provide other services to the public to make this a better community that don’t make money. The Rec. Center did not always make money, but people would agree that is a public service to people. They have to weigh the cost against the benefits. One is a better city infrastructure that would attract and maintain both small and large business. They want to provide more efficient City services. Another primary value is the competition it provides to the private sector. Keeping Wi- Fi honest and more competitive, they had learned the hard way from cable what happens when there is an exclusive franchise. Over 70% of the City only has one provider. If they are going to encourage the private sector and that puts municipal Wi-Fi out of business, it was a good incentive to the private sector. There are educational advantages from this. It is bringing a better sense of community to the city in which they live. The benefits outweighed the costs and Wi-Fi was worth the risk. If they are going to compete in the future, they had to engage change. He felt this plan was better than the plan in Minneapolis and was an open system that could be improved. The real reason they needed to do this was because the kids were competing against students in places like India. If they approve this, he wanted to bring the contract back to City Council for approval. There were a number of issues they had talked about when designing this system he wanted to be sure they take care of including: service guarantees, help desk guarantees, back up plans in case the solar panels fail, the ability to upgrade the revenue options and exit strategies. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 15 Councilmember Omodt stated he would be abstaining from this vote as he had in the past. His company does work for several of the vendors to the Wi-Fi project in addition to people in the cable industry. He did not work on those accounts, but would be abstaining. Councilmember Carver indicated after the discussion on Natchez a resident leaving the room stated that we were wasting their time. All of the elected members would speak and it was not wasting time. If they were to just take the vote and walk out of here, residents would want to know what they were thinking. He thanked staff for stellar work on this project and the City Council. Councilmember Paprocki had made this better, because he had questioned them throughout the entire process. To Councilmember Basill, now is the time. They don’t make money on water and they subsidize water. No private enterprise is looking to take over the water. There is a legitimate place for City government to hold in areas like this, which was why they should go forward with this proposal. They were risking millions of dollars. He was not going into this with any other understanding that there was real money at risk. A good bit of that is investment in capital. Fiber is something once it is in the ground would last a long time. This was not about doing what was easy; it was about making a well-informed fully vetted bold step into the future. They could do the easy thing by doing nothing and wait for the other providers. They could wait for the City of Minneapolis, but he submitted they should not do that. Everything worth doing involves risk. They could also continue with the status quo and that was a high number of residents who did not have access to high-speed internet and a high number who could not afford high-speed access. He wanted to put their kids on a level playing field with the kids of the world. They live in an information age and should not fail to take that bold step. If they didn’t have access to high speed internet they would be left behind. St. Louis Park is going to create an environment in which they would incubate a business that in the future they would look back and say, that’s just like Microsoft, etc. That is what they need to do in order to get there and why he was in support of this. Mayor Jacobs stated he could not articulate the reasons for and against this better than the six other Councilmembers. The question you ask is, is this worth it and is the risk worth the potential benefit in doing this? That was a difficult question and one that had given him tremendous pause. He was very skeptical about this project when it first came up because he wasn’t sure if it was worth it. They had been in these waters before. Because of the process they use and the staff, you can trust that resolve. He recalled discussions on the Rec. Center and the Park and Rec. Director recommended investing more money for a greater usership and increasing the use and value to the community. They analyzed the numbers and went through the process, he voted for it because he trusted staff. Excelsior and Grand was the same. He trusted the experts and market studies, and the process and this would be worth it. It was risky, they had done other projects that were risky. He believed the benefit outweighed the risk, but it was not taken lightly. They all wanted this to be a success and went into it with eyes wide open. Councilmember Finkelstein offered a friendly amendment to bring the contract back to City Council for approval. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 16 Councilmember Carver asked if that was feasible? Mr. Harmening replied yes, he had an amended motion that would allow for that. Amended MOTION: to adopt Resolution No. 06-174 declaring ARINC, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with ARINC, Inc. for the supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for said network and return to the City Council for review and approval of said agreement. Mr. Harmening stated they would be approving the ARINC proposal, which was a purchase of hardware and fiber, and would not bring back that agreement, but would bring back the agreement with Unplugged Cities for City Council final review and approval. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if that would continue the pilot project as well? Mr. Pires replied the assumption is should Council decide to move forward citywide, they would continue the pilot service. That should be added as a motion. Amended MOTION: to adopt Resolution No. 06-174 declaring ARINC, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder, authorizing staff to enter into an agreement with ARINC, Inc. for the supply and implementation of a wireless broadband network and to authorize staff to enter into negotiations with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for said network and return to the City Council for review and approval of said agreement. The pilot project shall be continued. Councilmembers Carver and Sanger accepted the amendment. Councilmember Basill agreed this had been a great process and in a democracy some disagree. He thanked Mr. Hogland for his contributions to the process. Councilmember Paprocki complimented staff. He would vote in opposition, but after that would be one of the biggest champions. Councilmember Sanger stated in addition to continuing the pilot project, what is the timeline for building out this project to the entire community? Mr. Pires replied the intent at this point is approximately June/July 2007. The next steps would be to work with ARINC and its subcontractors to look at the project management piece. They were still aiming toward the middle of next year. The fiber contractor has equipment that reportedly works most of the year. The motion passed 4-2-1 with Councilmember’s Basill and Paprocki opposed. Councilmember Omodt abstained. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs reported on a celebration of the Visioning Process, November 9th, 4:30-7:30 p.m. at the Doubletree Hotel. Election Day is Tuesday, November 7th. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3a - Council Meeting Minutes Of November 6, 2006 Page 17 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:16 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Of November 13, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION November 13, 2006 The meeting convened at 7:01 p.m. Councilmembers present: Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki, Susan Sanger, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Councilmembers absent: John Basill and C. Paul Carver. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening); Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin); Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms. Gothberg); Director Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires); Director of Parks & Recreation (Ms. Walsh); Community Development Director (Mr. Locke); Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal); Senior Planner (Mr. Walther); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt); Finance Director (Mr. DeJong); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Samson). Guest: Jean Morrison, Morrison & Associates. 1. Council Organizational Development Follow Up Jean Morrison, Morrison & Associates, reviewed the next steps in the Organizational Development process to increase Council effectiveness. Councilmember Sanger commented that in her view, the point is to discuss group dynamics and patterns and not the individualized approach. Councilmember Sanger would prefer to focus on the patterns of behavior among the group and do as a group. Councilmember Finkelstein asked Organizational Development Coordinator Bridget Gothberg and Ms. Morrison for a book recommendation for the Council to read regarding how to work effectively as a team. In order to have a common understanding, Councilmember Finkelstein would like to know what everyone’s definition of a highly effective Council is. Councilmember Paprocki suggested getting feedback from an individual not in the group but knowledgeable of the group. City Manager Tom Harmening said a special meeting may be required in order to complete the steps listed in the staff report. Ms. Gothberg distributed handouts entitled “Help Us Understand You” and “What is Important to You.” Council concurred with the process and requested staff continue to move forward with this. 2. Duke Concept Plan Update St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Of November 13, 2006 Page 2 Community Development Director Kevin Locke said the purpose of this discussion is to update Council on the Duke development proposal for the southwest corner of 394 and Highway 100, referred to as the West End project by Duke. Mr. Locke and his staff met with Duke on November 13, 2006, and Duke has prepared preliminary plans for a life-style retail center of approximately 350,000 square feet and 1,000,000 square feet of office development. Mr. Locke said the basic concept is to build a retail/lifestyle/center on the west side and an office development on the east side of the site. Mr. Locke said staff is looking for buildings at least two stories in height. Councilmember Omodt asked where the pond is. Mr. Locke said in terms of storm water, it will for the most part be handled below ground. Mr. Locked added that Duke is looking for TIF. Councilmember Sanger said she agrees with staff’s assessment and would also like to see a major public gathering space for St. Louis Park residents, especially if TIF is involved; good architecture; hidden or concealed parking behind or under retail; and more green space. Councilmember Sanger disagrees with one-story retail on this site. There should be no cookie- cutter development, and a 16th Street extension must cut through to the 394 frontage road (by Highway 100). Councilmember Finkelstein agrees with Councilmember Sanger. The design, he said, is uninspiring. At this point, Councilmember Finkelstein would not be able to support TIF. Councilmember Paprocki envisions at least three stories for the entire project. Mayor Jacobs said this is a desirable place to develop, and he is not inspired by the developer’s design. Mayor Jacobs likes the idea of turning Park Center Blvd. into a true boulevard that would be pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Councilmember Sanger asked for an updated communication mechanism in regard to the nearby Golden Valley and St. Louis Park neighborhoods. Typically, the Blackstone and Cedarhurst neighborhoods have meetings in early winter and this item could, and should, be placed on their agendas. Councilmember Sanger added that she hopes a day care center will be included in the development. Councilmember Paprocki would like Park Center Blvd. to be a walkable and a bikeable boulevard, and he urged staff to be mindful of pedestrian cues. Councilmember Sanger suggested a teen center; Mayor Jacobs would like a teen community center, i.e., a public center that would attract a lot of young adults and teens. Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal and Mr. Locke asked for feedback from the Council. Councilmember Finkelstein said the development would not be a good use of TIF; Councilmember Sanger does not favor a hotel. Economic Development Coordinator Greg Hunt said a hotel would help to create a 24/7 environment. Mayor Jacobs favors a hotel if it would create a sense of vibrancy and energy. Councilmember Omodt favors a hotel. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Of November 13, 2006 Page 3 Councilmember Sanger favors a small amount of housing but not concentrated housing. She remarked that bicyclists must be accommodated in a safe way. 3. 2007 Economic Development Authority (EDA) Budget Finance Director Bruce DeJong presented the staff report. Mr. Harmening said some projects are unfunded and with the help of local legislators, he thinks the City should make transportation St. Louis Park’s top priority. Councilmember Paprocki asked what the deadline for Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue is. Director of Public Works Mike Rardin said the funding for Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue must be under contract by 2011. 4. 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program Discussion Mr. DeJong presented the staff report. Staff and Council discussed allocation. Director of Technology and Support Services Clint Pires discussed technology replacement. The Technology Replacement Fund covers replacement of all computers, network infrastructure, and software for the City. Director of Parks and Recreation Cindy Walsh discussed the Park Improvement Fund, which covers building maintenance, landscaping, trails, and small remodeling projects for all parks and park buildings. Ms. Walsh asked Councilmember Finkelstein and the Council about an adult- type of playground. Councilmember Finkelstein would like to talk to Mr. Harmening and Ms. Walsh about it in detail. Councilmember Sanger suggested contacting the Lenox Community Center for feedback. Councilmember Paprocki asked for solid market research. Mr. Pires commented that Park Nicollet could partner with the community. An activity that Councilmember Sanger finds worthwhile for consideration is canoeing on Minnehaha Creek. Mr. Harmening said, at this time, the 36th Street Art Corridor Initiative is not in the CIP but resources are available. Mr. Rardin said the Enterprise Funds will be discussed on November 27. Mr. Rardin discussed the Pavement Management Fund, which covers annual improvements on non-MSA roads in the City. Councilmember Sanger would like to begin to identify the funding sources for the sanitary sewer and storm water systems. Mr. Harmening summarized that Council is directing Staff to maintain positive fund balances. 5. Annual Performance Evaluation for City Manager There was Council consensus to bring in Jean Morrison to facilitate and handle the evaluation process. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3b - Study Session Minutes Of November 13, 2006 Page 4 6. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Mr. Harmening and the Council discussed study session agenda planning. The meeting ended at 10:25 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 1 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 20, 2006 1. Call to Order Mayor Pro Tem Sanger called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm. Council members present: Mayor Pro-Tem, Susan Sanger, John Basill, C. Paul Carver, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Loran Paprocki Jeff Jacobs (arrived at 7:55 p.m.) Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke), Inspections Administrative Supervisor (Ms. Boettcher), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson). 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes of October 16, 2006 It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Paprocki to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 3c. Study Session Minutes of November 6, 2006 It was moved by Councilmember Paprocki, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 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. 06-180 to suspend collection of the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling through 2007 4b. Approve the Second Amendment to the Vehicle Towing and Impounding Agreement between the City and All Hours Towing and; Motion to approve the revised Lease Agreement between the City and All Hours Towing. 4c. Approve Planning Commission Minutes of October 18, 2006. 4d. Approve Vendor Claims for Filing. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 2 It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed 6-0. 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Appointment of Citizen Representative to Boards and Commissions It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to appoint Kelly Lund to the Police Advisory Commission. The motion passed 6-0. 6. Public Hearings 6a. Continuation of Public Hearing to Consider the 2007 Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4 Resolution No. 06-179 Ms. Boettcher presented the staff report. No speakers present. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger closed the public hearing. Councilmember Basill commented it was nice to have the special service district West of Highway 100. It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Carver approve Resolution No. 06-179 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. The motion passed 6-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions 8a. First Reading Parks and Open Space Zoning Text and Map Amendment, Case No. 06-56-Z and 06-64-ZA Mr. Walther presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Omodt, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to approve the first reading of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map Amendments to create a Park and Open Space Zoning District. The motion passed 6-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 3 8b. First Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Criteria and Procedural Requirements for Sale of City Park Land Mr. Locke presented the staff report. Councilmember Finkelstein complimented staff and the public for their work and asked about the five year lease. Mr. Locke replied staff tried to imagine this would be a lease similar to an actual sale of property. If Council felt another time frame was more appropriate, that could be addressed. Councilmember Finkelstein stated as currently drafted, for a lease of property for only four years, it wouldn’t take a super majority, but rather a majority of a Council, which was why it would become critical and possibly should be revised. In study session they also talked about covering not only sales, but also joint ventures and he wondered if the term under definition (b) should include the term of sale. There could be a situation where the land is not being sold or leased, but they were combining with the City of Minneapolis or a similar situation. Under the exemptions, it says for public purposes, is that as defined by St. Louis Park? Mr. Locke replied yes. Councilmember Basill indicated he was agreeable to those additions. Malcolm Chatfield, 4252 Toledo Av S, noted he was a part of the citizens group and supported this ordinance change. There is an unintentional loophole. If they agreed to rezone this land into park and open space, there was no provision, other than the current city ordinances, that describes how to un-zone this. Some future City Council could completely circumvent this ordinance by rezoning the land from park and open space to something else. When they talk about the sale and lease, they should also incorporate language preventing a future Council from avoiding this process by simply rezoning it. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if he was suggesting it be written that the land could never be rezoned or suggesting a different process? Mr. Chatfield replied no, there should be a way to prevent this process from being circumvented rather than just rezoning the land. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger hoped they could count on the ethics of future Councils to prevent that from happening. Councilmember Basill indicated they could apply the sale guidelines to rezoning. Once something is designated parkland, it would have to go through this process. Councilmember Carver asked about the current process for rezoning property. Mr. Locke replied it required a simple majority vote, unless they were rezoning residential property. The notification requirements are 350 feet of the property, ten days prior to the hearing. It requires a hearing at the Planning Commission and two readings at City Council. Typically, if they were going to rezone, they would also have to change the Comp Plan, which requires a super majority vote by the Council and notification of 500 feet. It is not inconsequential to rezone a property, but not as stringent as the requirements they were setting for the sale process. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 4 Councilmember Paprocki commented if it were easier to rezone, they might never use this route. Mr. Locke replied if they have an ordinance saying they have to go through a more stringent requirement to sell parkland, and the Council simply takes actions to go around using this ordinance, his guess was it would not be well received in the community. Councilmember Finkelstein asked what would happen if they changed the definition to account for that? Mr. Locke replied they could consider introducing different language. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could include, “the sale of park property shall include the rezoning” in addition to the other language. Mr. Scott stated they would apply the same procedure to rezoning or Comp Plan amendments. Councilmember Finkelstein added it also had different notice requirements. Mr. Scott indicated as long as they don’t change the vote requirement for Comp Plan, they could also apply this to amending the Comp Plan and rezoning park property and go through the same procedure in the sale ordinance. They could have a look back period if they re-guide or rezone park property. If it was sold within “x” number of years after that, they would have to go through this procedure. There could be some circumstances where the City may be rezoning the propert y for another City use, which would require them to go through the additional notice process when there was not intent for sale. Mr. Harmening stated staff could take the time between first and second reading and draft the most appropriate language regarding the changes brought up and bring it back for second reading. John Madou, 5617 Wood Ln, appreciated the work of the staff and Council. He encouraged they pass as strong an ordinance as possible. There is a loophole, but there may continue to be a loophole because an ordinance can be amended at any time. He viewed it as a first step, getting to some bigger things including open space. There is a need for a coalition to do more in this area. David Erickson, 4044 Utica Av S, asked which came first, a rezoning or Comp Plan change? Mayor Jacobs replied the Comp Plan. Mr. Erickson asked if there was a required timeline between the Comp Plan change and rezoning. Mr. Scott replied responded they shouldn’t create a situation where there is a conflict between the Comp Plan and the zoning ordinance, so once they re-guide, it should be followed fairly promptly with a rezoning. Mr. Erickson stated they were making progress and was pleased. Councilmember Omodt noted the point Councilmember Finkelstein was referring to in Section 1 (b) under definition, where the five-year is referenced, they decided on longer lease terms so it wouldn’t come before the Council every year for a lease renewal at their Study Session. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 5 Mr. Harmening added the idea of including the lease language in the ordinance was Councilmember Finkelstein’s. This would circumvent a future City Council leasing a significant piece of park property for a private purpose. There may be some circumstances where a short-term lease doesn’t change the nature of the park versus cell towers were one example, which were usually five year leases with five-year options for renewal. They would be subject to this ordinance. Councilmember Finkelstein replied it was correct that the purpose of adding the lease was to prevent a long-term lease that would be used to avoid the spirit of the proposal. Mr. Harmening stated if there is a short-term lease for a temporary use, even if it didn’t have to go through the process, they could deny the lease. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if a five year lease was the right amount of time. Councilmember Carver commented in terms of the amount of time, he thought the points the City Manager made held true. They don’t want to do something unreasonable and unnecessarily. One of the issues they needed to talk about was trust. They needed to trust one another and if something fell apart, they could fix it. Rather than changing other ordinances that concern the Comp Plan and zoning for a specific type of zoning, he encouraged Council to create one ordinance to address those situations. The so-called “loophole” focused on changing park and open space zoning to sell the property. In definition, they could determine that park property shall mean any city land owned that is zoned park and open space or has been in any of the past five years. This would have the affect of needing to pass a five year period after a City Council had changed the zoning designation in order to “escape” having to use this provision for selling that land. That keeps within one ordinance every tool they need to keep the land in the way they intended it to be and not have the unintended consequences. He encouraged that be the guiding principal as opposed to amending other ordinances. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger added this should also apply to lease extensions. Mr. Harmening indicated Councilmember Finkelstein originally suggested the lease provision would prohibit leased property for a use that is not permitted in the park zoning district and that they get around the notification requirement through a long term lease versus a sale. They could require they go through the process of notification for the lease of all or a part of a piece of park property for a use not allowed in the park zoning ordinance. If it is an allowed use they still have the ability to deny the lease. If it is permitted the city wouldn’t have to go through the more extensive process and can still protect the situation where the City leases a piece of property for 99 years to avoid a sale but still changes the use. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated they had a number of suggestions on how to tighten up or modify this ordinance. She asked if the Council wanted to vote on it with the understanding that staff would bring it back to a study session before coming back for second reading, or did they want to defer it. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 6 Councilmember Carver proposed they defer this discussion. There were potentially significant changes. He would like to have the opportunity for everyone to see the language. Councilmember Finkelstein felt each issue had a cascading affect and was worthy of more review. Councilmember Basill stated he would like to provide specific information from staff about changed. They wanted to protect parks and needed to make sure all issues were addressed. Mr. Harmening clarified the issues discussed: a joint venture; having a provision for lease extensions; the term of lease (five year); the ordinance being circumvented by rezoning or re-guiding and getting around having to go through this ordinance; and, having a look back provision. Staff could provide options at the next meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger believed it would be better to go before a study session. Mr. Harmening noted the next study session was full and therefore it would need to go into December. Councilmember Basill asked where Councilmember Finkelstein was regarding the five- year lease? Staff and residents had worked very hard on this and he didn’t want this delayed longer than the next Council Meeting. Councilmember Finkelstein stated he hadn’t considered the towers as part of the issue and wanted to also consider what the City Manager had said. Mr. Scott stated it would be helpful to know if the look back concept was acceptable to the Council as opposed to getting into the Comp Plan and re-guiding. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger asked if, to change the park designation, would they need to have the same process of notice and the super majority. Mr. Scott replied not in order to sell it. It could be rezoned and re-guided, but if they wanted to sell it within a certain time frame, they would need to go through the sale procedure as if it were currently zoned park. That would mean it would be contained within this ordinance and they would not put additional requirements to go through the rezoning process and Comp Plan. Councilmember Paprocki questioned even with the look back, they still have former parkland that is now rezoned, had they really done anything? There were too many questions and he appreciated they wanted to get this done in a quick manner, but he wanted to take the time to be sure this was done right. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger didn’t believe delaying it a couple of weeks would be harmful and wanted to have the right result at the end. Councilmember Carver stated to Councilmember Basill’s point, he would vote on this now, as it was. He had the trust that this would not be exploited and he trusts people he would elect to take over his seat. He felt the five-year lease period was fine, but wouldn’t go less than four years because of the administrative issues. The proposal he St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 7 made was a concession that to the extent there were concerns about the way this was written, he believed they should address it within the context of one statute. Although he appreciated there could be a Council that could rezone a plot, it could not be sold under his proposal except for following this procedure for another five years. That Council would probably not be here once the five years had passed. Councilmember Omodt agreed and would support this as is. There was nothing they couldn’t clean up between first and second reading. The reason they had the five years was because of the towers. It would become an administrative cost. If anything, it could be done before the next meeting. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there would be any objection to adding joint ventures now? Councilmember Carver replied no. Councilmember Finkelstein asked with the current language for tower usage and reducing the lease to one year, would it be approved. Mr. Harmening replied the way it was written, any lease that is five years or more, regardless of what it is for, would be subject to this ordinance. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the only way they could protect the land, was a five year lease. Mr. Harmening replied cell tower leases are usually multi-year with options for renewal. He suggested the lease provision would not be for uses permitted in the park and open space zoning district. Councilmember Finkelstein found that acceptable if they added the comments on the lease extension too. Councilmember Basill agreed with much of what Councilmember Carver stated regarding future Councils and trust. This is a roadmap to protect the parks. Previous Councils have done excellent work, but it would have been nice to have had this map in the past. They were laying out a map to tell future Councils their intent for parkland. They were down to determining if they are OK with the suggestion to keep it under one ordinance and to close the loophole by having the look back provision. He was OK with that as long as the look back provision extended four or more years. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated she was getting the consensus that they should vote on this and make the amendments discussed between the first and second reading and bring it back in two weeks. Mr. Harmening stated he was hearing agreement on the joint venture piece and on the look back approach. The only other question related to the lease provision. They could leave it as it was and work with that, or staff could make an exemption for any leases for permitted uses or uses permitted with conditions in that zoning district. Councilmember Finkelstein preferred the approach the City Manager suggested. It dealt with the issue Councilmember Omodt brought up in terms of the tower issue. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 3c - City Council Minutes Of November 20, 2006 Page 8 Mayor Pro Tem Sanger added they should include the lease extension as part of the definition. Mr. Harmening stated staff would bring it back for second reading with those changes. They would also provide the neighborhood residents and representatives a draft of the ordinance with the new language. Mayor Jacobs indicated the look back provision made a lot of sense and was comfortable voting on this. It demonstrated that the Council was serious about doing this and giving some affect to the process and effort people put into this. If they needed to change it between now and second reading, he was comfortable staff could do that. This sends the right message and road map to future Councils not to change parkland. It was moved by Councilmember Carver, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt first reading of the Ordinance establishing criteria and procedures for the sale of City owned park and open space and setting the second reading for December 4, 2006, staff shall make amendments regarding: a joint venture; look back provisions; lease for permitted uses; and including lease extensions. Mayor Jacobs added he would be supporting this and also would have supported item 8a. Mayor Pro Tem Sanger stated this was a great day for the Park system and for the residents who enjoyed it. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs thanked Councilmember Sanger for running the meeting. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:37 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ City Clerk Mayor St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4a - Request For Public Hearing Park Center TIF Page 1 4a. Motion to adopt a resolution calling for a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed Modification of the Park Center Boulevard, Excelsior Boulevard, Oak Park Village and Highway 7 Tax Increment Financing Districts. CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING: On May 16, 2006 the City Council approved the loan agreement with PPL for funding improvements to Louisiana Court. TIF funds from the Park Center Blvd. TIF District were the intended funding source for a portion of that deferred loan. To use TIF funds for the loan the Park Center TIF District needs to be modified. The first step in that process is to call for a public hearing. The purpose of this City Council action is to set the hearing date. Actions by both the EDA and the City Council are required to set the hearing date. A schedule for modifying the Park Center TIF District is attached. The proposed public hearing is scheduled to be held January 16, 2007. Setting a hearing date for modification of the Park Center Blvd. TIF District does not, in itself, authorize or commit the city to provide the proposed deferred loan. Procedurally it simply enables the EDA/City to hold a public hearing to consider the modification of the existing Park Center Blvd TIF District Plan budget that allows for the deferred loan. In addition, staff has been discussing with Ehlers & Associates the need to make modifications to the budgets to the Excelsior Boulevard, Oak Park Village and Highway 7 Tax Increment Financing Districts. Currently, the budgets for these three TIF districts are contained within one TIF plan. The Office of the State Auditor prefers that each plan for a TIF district contain its own TIF budget. The modifications would recognize the change in the TIF budgets, confirm the duration of the districts, and also recognize the internal financing which was utilized to fund the Park Commons TIF District public improvements. In order to make these proposed modifications a formal public hearing is required and for efficiency purposes it made sense to attach this request to the request to modify the Park Center Blvd TIF District. Attachments: Staff report from November 27, 2006 Resolution TIF Schedule 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: 120406 - 4a - Request For Public Hearing Park Center TIF Page 2 STAFF REPORT OF NOVEMBER 27, 2006 STUDY SESSION 7. Proposed Modification to the Park Center Blvd TIF District Plan to assist Louisiana Court. Community Development PURPOSE OF REPORT: Staff wishes to report on the need for a proposed Modification to the Park Center Blvd TIF District. BACKGROUND: In an effort to stabilize Louisiana Court, PPL developed a comprehensive stabilization plan that frames the long-term improvement and viability of the development. The Stabilization Plan incorporated several components including: additional capital improvements, efforts to retain current residents and reduce operating expenses, and the introduction of a limited number of rent subsidies. The capital improvement component of the Stabilization Plan proposes to initiate an estimated $2,507,000 in improvements, including soft costs. The improvements will enhance the marketability of the property, lower maintenance costs and lower utility expenses. PPL requested $400,000 from the City to assist in funding the proposed capital improvements. Additional funding commitments were secured from Hennepin County, Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) and the Limited Partner, ESIC. On December 19, 2005, the City Council adopted a resolution directing staff to undertake the steps necessary and prepare documents to provide a $400,000 deferred loan to The Louisiana Court Limited Partnership to assist with the improvements at Louisiana Court. The funding source for the deferred loan will be a combination of $268,900 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and $131,100 from the EDA’s Development Fund that will be replenished with tax increment from the Park Center Boulevard TIF District. On May 16, 2006, the City Council adopted a resolution approving the Loan Agreement with PPL and a resolution approving the internal loan. The deferred loan will come due in 30 years or at the time of sale of the property, or at the time of refinancing, whichever occurs first. The loan will be secured by a mortgage that will be subordinate to all the existing loans, but first in line of the new funding being invested at this time. The Park Center Boulevard TIF District is a Housing District originally certified as of May 19, 1997 by Hennepin County and later modified September 21, 1999. Typically, TIF districts are subject to the “five-year rule” under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1763 which requires any expenditure from within a TIF district be made within five years of certification. Since more than 5 years have passed from the last modification, no further expenditures would typically be allowed from the Park Center Boulevard TIF District. However, in last spring’s legislative session an amendment was passed to the “five-year rule” that allows authorities with existing housing districts, to amend their TIF plans to authorize expenditures for additional “housing projects” anywhere within the city’s redevelopment project area. Louisiana Court meets this locational requirement. “Housing projects” are housing developments that meet the income set- asides for a housing TIF district (whether rental or owner-occupied). After expiration of the five-year period from certification of the district, the authority may make new expenditures, enter new contractual obligations and issue new bonds related to housing projects. Thus, it is St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4a - Request For Public Hearing Park Center TIF Page 3 recommended that the TIF Plan for the Park Center Boulevard TIF District be modified to authorize the $131,100 deferred loan to PPL for the qualified improvements to Louisiana Court. In order amend the Park Center TIF Plan a formal modification process must occur. Attached is the Schedule of Events related to the approval of the proposed Modification to the Park Center Blvd. TIF District. It should be noted that the first actions related to this proposed modification are for the EDA to request the City Council to call for a public hearing and the City Council agreeing to hold the public hearing. These actions are scheduled for consideration at the upcoming December 4th EDA/Council meetings. Attachment: Schedule of Events Prepared By: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed By: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development Approved By: Nancy Gohman, EDA Executive Deputy Director St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4a - Request For Public Hearing Park Center TIF Page 4 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE MODIFICATION OF THE PARK CENTER BOULEVARD HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a housing district) November 27, 2006 City Council Study Session. December 4, 2006 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing. December 4, 2006 City Council calls for a public hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. December 5, 2006 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of potential modification (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice). [Ehlers will fax and mail by December 1, 2006] December 15, 2006 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will fax & mail by December 13, 2006] December 29, 2006 Ehlers & Associates conducts internal review of the Modifications. January 3, 2007 Planning Commission reviews Modifications to determine if they are in compliance with City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution approving the Modifications. January 4, 2007 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will e-mail notice & map to the Sun Sailor by December27, 2006] January 16, 2007 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Modifications. January 16, 2007 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving the Modifications. [Ehlers & Associates will email Council packet information to the City by January 9, 2007] ____________ Ehlers & Associates files Modifications with the MN Department of Revenue, OSA and Hennepin County. An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175, subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of: (1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or (2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, subdivision1. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4a - Request For Public Hearing Park Center TIF Page 5 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 06-181 RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF A MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF THE PARK CENTER BOULEVARD HOUSING, EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD, OAK PARK VILLAGE AND HIGHWAY 7 TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICTS. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "City"), as follows: Section 1. Public Hearing. This Council shall meet on January 16, 2007, at approximately 7:30 P.M., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the proposed modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plans for the Park Center Boulevard Housing, Excelsior Boulevard, Oak Park Village and Highway 7 Tax Increment Financing Districts, (collectively the "Modifications"), all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.124 to 469.134, and Sections 469.174 to 469.1799, inclusive, as amended, in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filing of the Modifications. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Modifications and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and St. Louis Park School District No. 283. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, nor more than 30, days prior to January 16, 2007, and to place a copy of the Modifications on file in the City Clerk's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4a - Request For Public Hearing Park Center TIF Page 6 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FOR THE MODIFICATION TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NO. 1 AND THE MODIFICATION OF THE PARK CENTER BOULEVARD HOUSING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT (a housing district) November 27, 2006 City Council Study Session. December 4, 2006 EDA requests that the City Council call for a public hearing. December 4, 2006 City Council calls for a public hearing on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District. December 5, 2006 Letter received by County Commissioner giving notice of potential modification (at least 30 days prior to publication of public hearing notice). [Ehlers will fax and mail by December 1, 2006] December 15, 2006 Fiscal/economic implications received by School Board Clerk and County Auditor (at least 30 days prior to public hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will fax & mail by December 13, 2006] December 29, 2006 Ehlers & Associates conducts internal review of the Modifications. January 3, 2007 Planning Commission reviews Modifications to determine if they are in compliance with City's comprehensive plan and adopts a resolution approving the Modifications. January 4, 2007 Date of publication of hearing notice and map (at least 10 days but not more than 30 days prior to hearing). [Ehlers & Associates will e-mail notice & map to the Sun Sailor by December27, 2006] January 16, 2007 EDA adopts a resolution approving the Modifications. January 16, 2007 City Council holds public hearing at 7:30 p.m. on a Modification to the Redevelopment Plan for Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District and passes resolution approving the Modifications. [Ehlers & Associates will email Council packet information to the City by January 9, 2007] ____________ Ehlers & Associates files Modifications with the MN Department of Revenue, OSA and Hennepin County. An action under subdivision 1, paragraph (a), contesting the validity of a determination by an authority under section 469.175, subdivision 3, must be commenced within the later of: (1) 180 days after the municipality’s approval under section 469.175, subdivision 3; or (2) 90 days after the request for certification of the district is filed with the county auditor under section 469.177, Subdivision1. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4b - Resolutions To Purchase Vacant Tax Forfeit Parcels Page 1 4b. Motion to approve Resolutions to Purchase Vacant Tax Forfeit Parcels relating to the Excess Land Sale process BACKGROUND: On December 5, 2005 the Council determined that certain parcels of vacant land should be developed for single family homes. Staff was directed to prepare these parcels for sale for the development of single family homes. The tax forfeit parcels require approval by the state and county before they could be purchased by the City; and, then re-sold as single family home sites. The state and county have now approved the sale of two parcels. They are located at 2715 Monterey Ave. and 7701 Edgebrook Drive, as noted on the attached map. PROCESS: In January 2005, Council passed Resolutions to re-convey the tax forfeit parcels to the State for the purpose of outright purchase by the City. Since January, the County and State have reviewed the parcels, confirmed the legal descriptions, and conducted appraisals. In November 2006, the County provided the purchase cost for two parcels. The City can now purchase the properties at the cost determined by the County. The purchase cost for each the parcel is: 2715 Monterey Ave, $143,000; 7701 Edgebrook Drive, $70,000; plus standard transfer costs that include Assurance Fees, State Deed Preparation Fee, Filing Fees and State Deed Tax. The purchase costs are consistent with the appraisals the City had conducted on the parcels. The Development Fund would be the funding source for this purchase, and will be reimbursed when the parcels are sold to individuals. Because these properties are being sold by the County as tax forfeited property, the County is required to share the proceeds from the land sale with the City. The City’s share of the County land sale proceeds will be approximately half the purchase costs, or $106,500. The City will receive additional revenue from the sale of the parcels to individuals. Staff anticipates the sale prices for the Monterey and Edgebrook parcels will be close to appraised values. The City Council action sought tonight is adoption of resolutions officially authorizing and directing staff to acquire these parcels from the state. Since these are tax-forfeited parcels the state official holds the legal title to these parcels. A resolution for each parcel is attached for council approval. 2715 Monterey Ave S 7701 Edgebrook Drive St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4b - Resolutions To Purchase Vacant Tax Forfeit Parcels Page 2 NEXT STEPS: Following approval of the resolutions staff will take the following actions. • Submit the required paperwork to the state and county. The legal requirements for acquisitions of this type include: a certified copy of the City Council’s resolution directing purchase of the parcels, payment, and a cover letter stating intention to purchase. • Following the City’s purchase of the parcels, the City will Quit Claim the parcels to the St. Louis Park Housing Authority for sale to private individuals. The City Council delegated the Housing Authority with the responsibility of actual sale of the vacant parcels for single-family homes. • The Bidding/Sale process will be implemented to sell the parcels to individuals for building single family homes. • Staff will proceed with these steps upon Council approval of the attached Resolutions. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council approve the resolutions directing the purchase from the State of Minnesota of certain tax-forfeited lands at: 1. 2715 Monterey Avenue South, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 2. 7701 Edgebrook Drive, St. Louis Park, Minnesota and, Attachment: Resolution directing the purchase from the state of MN of certain tax- forfeit lands at 2715 Monterey Ave S Resolution directing the purchase from the state of MN of certain tax- forfeit lands at 7701 Edgebrook Drive Prepared by: Kathy Larsen, Housing Programs Coordinator Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4b - Resolutions To Purchase Vacant Tax Forfeit Parcels Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 06-182 RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PURCHASE FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA OF CERTAIN TAX-FORFEITED LANDS AT 2715 MONTEREY AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota is present owner for public use of certain tax- forfeited lands located at 2715 Monterey Avenue South in the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and legally described as follows: Parcel B: That part of the following described tract of land lying easterly of the easterly right-of-way line of Monterey Avenue, as shown on MONTEREY ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota: Commencing 699.05 feet North of Southwest corner of Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 31, Township 29, Range 24, Hennepin County, Minnesota thence South 71 degrees 30 minutes East to the West line of Peabody Addition to St. Louis Park; thence South 105.4 feet; thence North 71 degrees 30 minutes West to West line of Southeast Quarter; thence North to beginning, except Monterey Avenue, in the Village of St Louis Park. The “Premises”. WHEREAS, the City desires to do an outright purchase of these tax-forfeited lands (the “Premises”) from the State of Minnesota at a cost to be determined by Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the City requests acquisition of the Premises for the redevelopment of a single family home under programs administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS: (1) Staff is authorized and directed to take such steps as are necessary for the outright purchase of the property by the City of St. Louis Park at a cost of $143,000.00 plus standard transfer costs. (2) The Mayor, City Manager and staff are authorized to prepare and execute such documents as are necessary to accomplish the purchase. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4b - Resolutions To Purchase Vacant Tax Forfeit Parcels Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 06-183 RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE PURCHASE FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA OF CERTAIN TAX-FORFEITED LANDS AT 7701 EDGEBROOK DRIVE, ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park is the official governing body of the City of St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota is present owner for public use of certain tax- forfeited lands located at 7701 Edgebrook Drive in the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, and legally described as follows: The Southwesterly 5 ft of Lot 8 and all of Lots 9, 10, 11 and 12, Block 330 Rearrangement of St. Louis Park PID 20 117 21 21 0087 WHEREAS, the City desires to do an outright purchase of these tax-forfeited lands (the “Premises”) from the State of Minnesota at a cost to be determined by Hennepin County; and WHEREAS, the City requests acquisition of the Premises for the redevelopment of a single family home under programs administered by the St. Louis Park Housing Authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS: (1) Staff is authorized and directed to take such steps as are necessary for the outright purchase of the property by the City of St. Louis Park at a cost of $70,000 plus standard transfer costs. (2) The Mayor, City Manager and staff are authorized to prepare and execute such documents as are necessary to accomplish the purchase. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4c - Resolution Met Council-Livable Communities Levy Page 1 4c. Motion to Approve Resolution in Support of Continued Livable Communities Levy BACKGROUND: On December 13th the Metropolitan Council will be considering reducing the metro wide Livable Communities property tax levy for 2007 by $1 million. Livable Communities Program grants have been an important redevelopment funding source for St. Louis Park as well as other metropolitan communities since the programs start in 1995. The City has successfully competed for and has been awarded Tax Base Revitalization Account (TBRA) and Livable Communities Demonstration Account (LCDA) grants in the past that have been used for the Excelsior & Grand project, and the Hwy 7 Corporate Center project (National Lead site). We are also expecting to receive a LCDA grant for the W36th Street/Hoigaard Village project. The purpose of the attached resolution is to encourage the Met Council to continue the current Livable Community tax levy. The Livable Communities Program is one of the few tools available to assist communities with redevelopment projects, re-use of contaminated sites, provision of affordable housing and creating walk-able transit-friendly development. The requests for LCDA funding routinely exceed the amount of funds available by a factor of two. The savings from a $1 million reduction in the levy would be only 66 cents for the average taxable parcel. It would seem a better investment for the metropolitan area to see these funds used to support quality redevelopment projects than to provide a tiny reduction in property taxes. Maintaining the Livable Communities Levy is supported by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities. They are encouraging communities to show their support for the programs and levy by contacting their Met Council representatives and communicating with the Met Council directly on this issue. PROCESS: The proposed resolution is attached. If approved, staff will share it with our Met Council representative, Peggy Leppik and send it to the Met Council. The Met Council will be considering the levy question at its December 13, 2006 meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution in support of the Metropolitan Council levy for the Livable Communities programs. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Director of Community Development Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4c - Resolution Met Council-Livable Communities Levy Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-184 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING CONTINUED METROPOLITAN COUNCIL LIVABLE COMMUNITIES PROPERTY TAX LEVY WHEREAS, The Minnesota Legislature created the Livable Communities Act (LCA) in 1995 as a voluntary, incentive-based approach to help the Twin Cities metropolitan area address affordable and lifecycle housing needs while providing funds to communities to assist them in carrying out their development plans; and WHEREAS, LCA funds have leveraged millions of additional dollars in private and public investment that has provided new jobs, housing choices, and business growth; and WHEREAS, Funds provided by the Livable Communities Act (LCA), make it possible for the Metropolitan Council to award grants to participating communities in the seven-county area; and WHEREAS, LCA grants help communities clean up polluted land for redevelopment, create new jobs and affordable housing; implement development and redevelopment projects that demonstrate efficient use of land and infrastructure; and WHEREAS, The City of Louis Park has participated in and received project funding from the LCA grant programs; and WHEREAS, The LCA grant programs have been a vital tool for the implementation of redevelopment and polluted site re-use projects in the City of St. Louis Park that demonstrate efficient use of land and infrastructure; and WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is deeply appreciative of the support it has received from the Metropolitan Council over the ten plus years that the LCA program has been in existence; and WHEREAS, continued funding of the LCA grant programs including the Livable Communities Demonstration Account in the future is of vital importance to the City of St. Louis Park and other communities in the metropolitan area. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, The City of St. Louis Park supports the continued full funding of the Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Program and maintaining the current property tax levy for that purpose. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4d - Reilly Site Consulting Engineering Services Contract 122-04 Page 1 4d. Motion to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 122-04 with ENSR Consulting and Engineering for consultant services related to the implementation of the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2007. BACKGROUND: In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly RAP (Response Action Plan). Over the last 20 years the City has retained the services of nine consulting engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of the RAP activities. One firm, ENSR, has served as the cornerstone of the professional “consortium” because of its extensive historical relationship with the Reilly project. Currently the City has a one (1) year Contract with ENSR for consultant services. The current contract expires December 31, 2006 but has a renewal option for year 2007. The activities or services provided by this contract are: Groundwater sampling and analysis Preparing annual reports for agency review Aquifer studies Investigation of leaking wells Laboratory audits and coordination Historical file searches General project administration DISCUSSION: While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed by ENSR and others, certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing activities which will require consultant assistance in year 2007 and into the foreseeable future. ENSR has provided consultant services for the ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Agencies) as an approved consultant for such activities. Staff supports the continued use of ENSR for such services. The general ongoing tasks identified above vary from year to year. The following tasks are planned for 2007: Task 100 – 2006 Annual Monitoring Report: This task involves drafting text and preparing figures and tables to assist the City in completing the 2006 Annual Monitoring Report. The Annual Monitoring Report includes analytical results from the past year sampling efforts, as well as groundwater contour maps. Additionally, a historical summary of analytical results is provided in the Annual Monitoring Report. This report is due to the U.S.EPA and MPCA (Agencies) on March 15, 2007. Task 150 - 2006 Annual Progress Report and GAC Plant Report: ENSR will assist the City in completing these two reports for submittal to the Agencies on March 15, 2007. Task 400 – Groundwater Monitoring: This task involves groundwater sample collection in accordance with the 2007 Sampling Plan and water level measurements pursuant to that Plan. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4d - Reilly Site Consulting Engineering Services Contract 122-04 Page 2 Table 1 indicates a cost of $54,000 for this work, which matches last year’s budget, as well as the actual cost expected to be incurred during 2006 for this task. This cost includes ENSR labor to collect samples from the municipal drinking water wells, GAC plant, and the gradient control wells. Task 500 – Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer Remedy Implementation: The Prairie du Chien- Jordan Remedy includes pumping the SLP municipal wells currently being used (e.g., SLP-10 or SLP-15 and SLP-4), and monitoring the groundwater. The potential complication presented by pumping at the Meadowbrook golf course (well W119) has not been officially resolved, and PAH concentrations above the drinking water advisory level in well E13 are being monitored. In 2007, changes to the remedy may include the installation and monitoring of well W413; however, the 2007 project budget does not budget for W413 to be installed. Also, if there are indications of contamination spreading southward, then well SLP-6 would be activated for gradient control. The costs in Table 1 reflect a task structure to track costs in accordance with Exhibit A of the City-Reilly Cost Sharing Agreement. Task 540 will cover ENSR’s costs to collect 12 groundwater samples (quarterly sampling of three wells). Task 600 – Laboratory Coordination: This task includes three subtasks: 1. Working with STL (Severn Trent Services) on implementing the QAPP (Quality Assurance Project Plan), coordinating sampling events, and updating and maintaining the water qualit y database. 2. Providing data review and data validation at the levels described in the new QAPP. The data validation and data quality review will be documented in the Annual Monitoring Report. 3. Auditing the STL Laboratory in Arvada, Colorado at the same cost as prior audits. Task 700 – Site Closure: In 2007, this task includes ENSR’s labor and expenses for coordinating the abandonment of various wells with MPCA, the City, water well contractors, and other parties, as necessary. ENSR anticipates negotiating with the agency to shut down additional pumping wells in 2007. Contractor costs for actual well abandonment are not included in this budget. Task 810 – Program Management and Miscellaneous: This task includes overall planning, directing, and controlling ENSR’s resources to perform this project. This task also includes miscellaneous activities throughout the year such as next year’s Sampling Plan (due October 31, 2007), that includes the Site Management Plan and the Quality Assurance Project Plan. ENSR’s average costs for the past several years have been approximately $25,000 for Task 810. FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Recent correspondence with ENSR estimates the cost for year 2007 work tasks at $126,500. All work performed under this contract is paid for on a time and materials basis; ENSR labor rates for 2007 will remain the same as for 2006. Following is a summary of the year 2007 tasks and estimated costs: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4d - Reilly Site Consulting Engineering Services Contract 122-04 Page 3 TABLE 1 Task Estimated Cost, $ Task 100 2006 Annual Monitoring Report (due March 15, 2007) $ 17,500 Task 150 2006 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report $ 3,000 Task 400 Groundwater Monitoring in 2006 $ 54,000 Task 500 Prairie du Chien Aquifer Remedy Implementation $ 5,000(a) Subtask 530 W413 Installation $ 0(a) Subtask 540 W48, W119, W413 Monitoring $ 5,000(a) Subtask 550 NPDES Permitting $ 0(a) Task 600 Laboratory Coordination $ 21,000 Subtask: Lab Coordination $ 5,000 Subtask: Data Validation and Review $ 7,000 Subtask: STL Laboratory Audit $ 9,000 Task 700 Site Closure $ 1,000 Subtask: Well Abandonment $ 1,000 Task 810 Project Management/Miscellaneous $ 25,000 Total Estimated Project Cost for 2007 $ 126,500 (a) Costs will be split with Reilly. The 2007 Reilly Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. CONTRACT TERMS: The following significant terms are incorporated into this contract: 1. Contract terminates on December 31, 2006 with City right to extend for one (1) additional one (1) year period. 2. Compensation to be based on actual work performed with a maximum contract amount of $126,500 for 2007. 3. ENSR will defend and indemnify the City for ENSR’s actions related to this contract. 4. ENSR has independent contractor status. 5. City may terminate this contract at any time for any reason with a 30 day written notice. The city attorney was involved in the preparation of this contract. Attachments: Contract Extension Agreement Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4d - Reilly Site Consulting Engineering Services Contract 122-04 Page 4 EXTENSION TO CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 4, 2006, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘City”), and ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘ENSR”). 1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting services dated December 20, 2004 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement authorizes the CITY to extend its terms for up to two (2) additional one-year periods. 2. EXTENSION. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, the Initial Agreement is extended for a final one (1) year period terminating on December 31, 2007. 3. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. The Council report dated December 4, 2006, from the City Manager, describing the year 2007 project tasks and estimated costs, is incorporated herein by reference. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers. ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By:________________________________ By:________________________________ Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Title:_______________________________ and ________________________________ Thomas Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4e - Reilly Site Laboratory Services Contract 1893 Page 1 4e. Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Severn Trent Services (STL - Denver) for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2007. BACKGROUND: The City has maintained a contractual relationship with STL - Denver (formerly Quanterra Corporation and previously Rocky Mountain Analytical Laboratory) for the analysis of groundwater in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree with Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) since 1988. Staff has identified only two firms capable of providing necessary laboratory services. STL - Denver and CH2M Hill, the laboratory used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Insofar as the USEPA remains opposed to the use of its laboratory consultant by either the City or Reilly, STL - Denver remains the only available consultant for laboratory services. The contract with STL – Denver has been amended each year since 1988. The City Council has previously authorized staff to negotiate contract amendments with STL – Denver. The staff has completed negotiations in costs (unit prices) for the laboratory analysis to be performed in year 2007. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The City, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledge advances in the technology of groundwater analysis methods since the original testing methodology was agreed to in 1986. City staff has been advocating for several years to update the testing methodology at the Reilly site. Staff also determined the procedures for laboratory data reporting, data validation and data quality review needed updating and simplifying. The entire groundwater monitoring process, which is outlined in the Reilly Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), was re-formatted by the City in 2000, with EPA guidance, to current acceptable methodologies. As a result of this, the proposed 2007 monitoring program and this contract amendment include changes that have significantly reduced the cost of the overall monitoring program the past several years. A summary of recent expenses follows: YEAR AMOUNT COMMENT 1995 132,070 Actual 1996 178,640 Actual 1997 174,695 Actual 1998 123,500 Actual 1999 125,620 Actual 2000 86,020 Actual 2001 85,300 Actual 2002 58,540 Actual 2003 59,800 Actual 2004 52,325 Actual 2005 49,250 Actual 2006 53,585 Estimated 2007 53,585 Projected St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4e - Reilly Site Laboratory Services Contract 1893 Page 2 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Contract authorizations from 1988 through 2006 provide for a cumulative contract amount of $2,254,000 with total estimated expenses of $2,248,557 thereby creating an estimated contract balance of $5,443 at the end of 2006. Based on the updated analytical process and other changes related to data, staff estimates that approximately $53,585 will be expended for water sample analysis during year 2007. Therefore, staff is seeking an additional authorization of $55,000 to the contract to cover the expected 2007 costs plus unanticipated contingencies. The proposed 2007 Reilly Budget contains funding for this Reilly activity. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Contract No. 1893 be amended to increase the contract amount by $55,000 to provide for groundwater sample analysis during year 2007. Attachments: Amendment No. 17 to Contract No. 1893 Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4e - Reilly Site Laboratory Services Contract 1893 Page 3 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AMENDMENT NO. 17 TO CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 1893 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 17 to Contract No. 1893 is made on December 4, 2006, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation hereinafter referred to as “CITY”, and SEVERN TRENT SERVICES (formally QUANTERRA CORPORATION AND PREVIOUSLY ROCKY MOUNTAIN ANALYTICAL LABORATORY/ENSCO) hereinafter referred to as “STL - DENVER”. BACKGROUND On December 12, 1988, the CITY and STL - DENVER entered into Contract No. 1893 for consultant services related to certain rights and responsibilities the CITY accepted under an agreement with Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) which is attached as Exhibit B to a Consent Decree in United States of America, et al. vs. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation, Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Louis Park, Oak Park Village Associates, Rustic Oaks Condominium, Inc. and Philips’s Investment Company, United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Civil File No. 4-80-469. Pursuant to communication between the CITY and STL – DENVER, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of the CITY and STL - DENVER to extend the term of Contract No. 1893 to December 31, 2007, and amend the provisions of Contract No. 1893 and amendments issued thereto dated June 29, 1989, March, 1990, November 18, 1991, February 22, 1994, January 11, 1995, February 20, 1996, December 2, 1996, March 2, 1998, December 7, 1998, December 6, 1999, January 16, 2001, December 17, 2001, December 16, 2002, December 1, 2003, December 20, 2004, and December 19, 2005, incorporating responsibilities each party will assume through year 2007 to discharge those responsibilities the CITY has accepted under Exhibit B to the Consent Decree. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above facts and mutual covenants herein contained, it is hereby agreed that Contract No. 1893 and all previous Amendments are amended as follows: I. Contract Period 1. The length of Contract No. 1893 shall be extended to December 31, 2007. 2. Total compensation to STL – DENVER for all services rendered pursuant to Contract No. 1893, as amended, shall not exceed $2,309,000. IT IS FURTHER AGREED that all other provisions of Contract No. 1893 and all previous Amendments shall remain unchanged and fully effective, and this Amendment shall become an integral part thereof. EXECUTED as to the day and the year first above written. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEVERN TRENT SERVICES By: ________________________________________ Mayor _______________________________________ City Manager Attest: _______________________________________ City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4f - Approve Financing Approach For Wireless Project Page 1 4f. Adopt Resolution Approving Financing Approach for Wireless Project BACKGROUND: With the approval to allow Park WiFi to proceed with full build out plans, we must determine a financing method for this project. Staff has suggested to the City Council throughout this process that the least expensive, yet most effective method of providing cash is through an internal loan from the Development Fund. PROCESS: We propose to fund the construction cost and initial operating costs through a loan with a principle cap of $3,300,000. This loan should be sufficient to cover the cost of the wireless hardware, customer premise equipment (CPEs), half of the wireless pilot project costs, and the fiber backbone additions. As discussed previously, the loan would be structured in two parts: (1) - 5 year repayment schedule for the hardware, CPE’s, and half of the wireless pilot project costs and (2) - 20 year financing of the fiber portion. The terms of the loan will be a 5% interest rate (comparable to current general city investments) with repayment to start effective one year after final acceptance of the system from ARINC. If all systems were completed today, the cost for the five-year loan would be $2,680,645 for the wireless network improvements (hardware), the CPE’s, and pilot project costs to date. This portion of the financing would require annual payments of $619,160 with the first payment due on June 1, 2008. The twenty-year loan will be based on the $533,300 fiber and facility modification costs. The repayment schedule for this portion of the loan would require annual payments of $42,800. It is important to keep in mind that these costs are subject to change since the pilot project will continue until the full build out system is accepted and may also include change orders as we proceed with the project. Another issue that we must decide is how to handle the financial arrangements for billing of the wireless service. The billing process for wireless services during the pilot has not gone well. Trying to generate an invoicing file out of Unplugged Cities system, uploading it into the City billing system, receiving payments at the City, downloading the payment files back to the Unplugged Cities system, and keeping the two systems in balance has been difficult. We initially billed in advance of service being provided, but have experienced enough delays with the back and forth billing/payment process, that now the November billing won’t go out until December. Staff is proposing to eliminate the billing of the December service. We would like Unplugged Cities to begin billing in advance for service starting in January. The idea throughout the pilot project was to somehow reward the customers who remained with us during the entire pilot project. Staff proposes to allow free service for those customers in the month of December. This will allow us to get current on the billing cycles and thank the customers for their valuable feedback during this process. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the loan from the Development Fund to finance the wireless project and authorize the new billing process. Attachment: Resolution Prepared by: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Reviewed by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology & Support Services Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4f - Approve Financing Approach For Wireless Project Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-185 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINANCING APPROACH FOR THE WIRELESS PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council approved bids for a municipal wireless project on November 6, 2006; and WHEREAS, the most cost effective method of financing this project is through internal loans from the Development Fund; and WHEREAS, the Economic Development Authority of the City of St. Louis Park authorized such a loans; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Wireless Enterprise fund is authorized to borrow an amount not to exceed $3,300,000 from the Development Fund. 2. Two loans will be made – the first with a twenty (20) year term for the cost of fiber optic extensions and a second for all other wireless infrastructure costs with a five (5) year repayment term. 3. The interest rate for these loans will be set at 5% per annum. 4. The monies will be advanced as required by the build out process and interest will begin to accrue at the time of disbursement. 5. Repayment will begin in 2008 one year after acceptance of completed system by the city from ARINC, the primary vendor. 6. These loans may be prepaid by the Wireless Enterprise Fund at any time in any amount up to the full balance due without penalty. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4g - Bid Authorization - Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement Approval - 2006-1800 Page 1 4g. Motion to adopt resolution accepting the Project Report, establishing and ordering Improvement Project No. 2006-1800, approving plans and specifications, authorizing advertisements for bids. BACKGROUND: The City’s first Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system for operation, control, and monitoring of the water supply and sanitary sewer systems was initially installed in 1963 and upgraded in 1978. In 1993 the system was replaced, with minor upgrades made in 2001. These systems have provided the analytical information necessary to operate and maintain an adequate water supply and real time monitoring data of the sanitary sewer lift stations. The current system is run by programmable logic controllers (PLC’s) that are located at each of the 36 remote sites with the main control station located in the Utility Division office at Fire Station #1. The PLC’s provide the system operator with the data required to manage the water operation. ANALYSIS: The current software program has been experiencing random errors which interrupt normal operations and lead to water supply or sanitary monitoring issues. The system software is now outdated and poorly supported by local vendors because it is no longer commonly used in the water industry. The closest software expert is located in Des Moines, Iowa. The system’s PLC’s will no longer be supported by the manufacturer in the near future as they have been replaced by newer models. Therefore, staff believes it is imperative for the City to install a new system that will provide dependable operation which can be supported by various local vendors. This project will also provide the opportunity to install operational controls and monitoring for some of the main storm sewer stations (such as at Lamplighter Pond). FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: It is proposed that this project be funded from the Water Utility Fund, Sewer Utility Fund, and the Storm Utility Fund. The project has been budgeted for and is in the 5-year CIP. PROJECT COSTS: Construction (includes 10% contingency) $189,000 Preliminary & Construction Engineering $ 34,500 TOTAL $223,500 REVENUE SOURCES: Water Utility Fund (42.5%) $ 95,000 Sewer Utility Fund (42.5%) $ 95,000 Storm Utility Fund (15%) $ 33,500 TOTAL $233,500 FEASIBILITY: This project as proposed herein is necessary, cost effective, and feasible under the conditions noted and at the costs estimated. PUBLIC PROCESS: None required with this project. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4g - Bid Authorization - Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement Approval - 2006-1800 Page 2 PROPOSED PROJECT TIMELINE: Should the City Council approve the Project Report, it is anticipated that the following schedule could be met: Approval of Plans/Authorization to Bid by City Council December 2006 Advertise for bids December 2006 Bid Opening January 2007 Bid Tab Report to City Council; Award contract February 2007 Construction Completion June 2007 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Project Report and adoption of the attached resolution which establishes and orders Improvement Project No. 2006-1800, thereby authorizing staff to advertise for bids. Attachments: Resolution Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Superintendent of Utilities Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator Reviewed By: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4g - Bid Authorization - Sewer Project - SCADA Replacement Approval - 2006-1800 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 06-186 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE PROJECT REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006-1800, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2006-1800 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Superintendent of Utilities related to the Water & Sewer SCADA Replacement Project, Project No. 2006-1800. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Project Report regarding Project No. 2006-1800 is hereby accepted. 2. Such improvement as proposed is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project Report. 3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 2006-1800, is hereby established and ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the City Engineer, or designee, are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper, an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said- approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time of receipt of bids, and specify the work to be done, state the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The City Engineer, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council for award of contract. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 1 4h. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Plat of Gateway Lofts BACKGROUND: Gateway Lofts received approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat in November, 2005. The developer did not file the Plat with Hennepin County within the 6-month timeline required by the Subdivision Ordinance and is required to reapply for approval. The developer is proposing the construction of a 3-story, 12-unit condominium building. The approved PUD allowed for some modifications to the required setbacks, but the proposal otherwise met all zoning requirements. Demolition permits have been applied for, but to date no modifications to the site have taken place. The developer has recently taken steps to maintain the site in a neat and orderly manner. Attached are copies of the 2005 report, City Council minutes, and building plans. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a motion to adopt a resolution approving the Final Plat of Gateway Lofts. Attachment: Resolution granting approval of the Final Plat of Gateway Lofts Except of Staff Report, Gateway Lofts Plat and PUD, Nov. 7, 2005 Resolution 05-147, granting approval of Gateway Lofts PUD Excerpt of City Council Minutes, Nov. 7, 2005 Final Plat of Gateway Lofts (Supplement) Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-187 RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR FINAL PLAT OF GATEWAY LOFTS NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St.. Louis Park: Findings 1. Parrish Hemmeke, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as Gateway Lofts, Lot 1, Block 1, has submitted an application for approval of final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: That part of Lots 355 through 358 inclusive, RICHMOND, according to the plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 358 in said RICHMOND; thence North 89 degrees 37 minutes 37 seconds East assumed bearing along the south line of said lot 358 for a distance of 133.01 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 358; thence North 02 degrees 05 minutes 44 seconds East for a distance of 160.00 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 355; thence South 60 degrees 07 minutes 28 seconds West for a distance of 156.58 feet; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes 04 seconds West for a distance of 82.82 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. 4. The combined preliminary and final plat of Gateway Lofts was approved by the City Council on November 7, 2005 as part of Resolution 05-148. The subdivision ordinance requires the final plat to be recorded by Hennepin County within six months of approval, and this was not accomplished for the final plat of Gateway Lofts. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 3 Conclusion 1. The proposed final plat of Gateway Lofts is hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this resolution, the approved Official Exhibits of Resolution 05-147, and City Code. b. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: 1) A development agreement, as approved by the City Attorney, shall be signed to address sidewalk construction, landscaping and street repair and repaving. 2) Submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 125% of the costs of the required improvements. 3) Submit a financial security in the form of cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 to ensure that a Mylar and electronic copy of the final plat is provided. 4) Condominium association papers must be approved by the City Attorney. 5) Park Dedication, Trail Dedication, and Tree Replacement fees must be received by the City. c. Developer shall reimburse City attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the Final Plat approval. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 4 The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 5 Site Area: 0.37 Acres Zoning: RC – Multi-Family Residential Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Residential Current Use: Parking and Low-Density Residential Proposed Use: High-Density Residential Description of Request: Requested is approval of the Gateway Lofts Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the Preliminary and Final Plat with a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for easements for a redevelopment site at the southwest corner of Kentucky Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard. Development Proposal: Gateway Lofts is proposed for development at Kentucky Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard. The proposal calls for the removal of an existing parking lot and one single-family home. In their place, Mr. Parrish Hemmeke plans to build a 3-story, 12-unit condominium building. The final plans for the site include the construction of a stormwater pond to the south of the proposed building, 21 underground parking spaces, and a sidewalk connection between Wayzata Boulevard and the neighborhood to the south. The units will range in size from 1,149 to 1,422 square feet. The largest units will feature 2 bedrooms plus a den. Site Context: The City Council approved Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments for the Gateway Lofts site in August of 2005. Both parcels are now zoned RC – Multi-Family Residential and are designated in the Comprehensive Plan as high density residential. In the Comprehensive Plan, the RH – High Density Residential land use category “is intended to be for higher density, compact urban residential developments” at a density not to exceed 75 units per acre. The Comprehensive plan states, “pedestrian-scale three and four story buildings will be appropriate in some areas…depending on the specific guidelines found in the Plan by Neighborhood section.” STAFF REPORT OF NOVEMBER 7, 2005 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 8b Gateway Lofts Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary and Final Plat, and Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance Case No. 05-52-PUD and 05-53-S Mr. Parrish Hemmeke 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue Recommended Action: • Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions • Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 6 The Plan by Neighborhood section for the subject property calls for dense commercial development along the south I-394 frontage road, subject to an adequate buffer between commercial and residential uses. The proposed low-rise condominium project will provide such a buffer. The inclusion of improved neighborhood sidewalks in the proposal also meets a goal of the Eliot neighborhood’s Plan by Neighborhood. The Gateway Lofts maintain a similar character to existing uses. The proposal indicates a residential use which will differ from the low-density character of the neighborhood to the south and the commercial character of the properties to the east. However, the proposal provides a transition between the two uses and due to topography does not dramatically differ in height in comparison to the single family homes to the south. The Zoning Code describes the commercial uses to the east (predominately retail stores) as characterized by high parking demand and high off-peak traffic generation. In contrast, single family residential uses are often characterized by a comparatively low parking demand and few off-peak trips. The proposed use will be characterized by an intermediate parking demand and relatively low off-peak traffic generation. As such, it will act as a transitional use between the more intense commercial uses and the less intense single family homes. Surrounding Connections: Automobile: The City Council requested that Staff retain SRF Consulting to complete a traffic study of the area affected by the proposed condominiums. The traffic study notes that the proposal would have a negligible effect upon the surrounding traffic patterns. In addition, it notes and that either with or without the proposal, the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard operates at a low level of efficiency. While there is nothing specific that the applicant can do to improve the operating efficiency of the intersection, the study indicates steps that can be taken by Staff to work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to improve the operation of the intersection. Such steps will primarily involve altering (and improving) the timing of the existing traffic signals in the proximity of I-394 and Louisiana Avenue. The location of Gateway Lofts provides a high degree of access through the use of a personal automobile. The development is located in close proximity to I-394 and associated frontage roads, providing easy access to the regional freeway system and most points east and west in St. Louis Park. Convenient access to Louisiana Avenue and Highway 100 makes available most destinations to the north and south. Transit: The Louisiana Avenue Transit Center (LATC), which is located immediately east and west of Louisiana Avenue along Wayzata Boulevard, is directly across the street from the proposed Gateway Lofts. The transit center provides easy, frequent access to downtown Minneapolis as well as many other destinations throughout the western portion of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The LATC typically serves park-and-ride patrons; however, the facility is accessible through sidewalks and features other pedestrian amenities to improve the safety and comfort level of those persons choosing to access the facility by foot. The LATC serves as a hub location St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 7 for several circulator routes, including those serving St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Crystal, New Hope, Brooklyn Park, and Minnetonka. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 8 Pedestrian: As part of the Gateway Lofts development, a sidewalk is planned along the west side of Kentucky Avenue. This sidewalk will connect the neighborhood to the south to the pedestrian facilities along Wayzata Boulevard. At the present time, the area does not feature a great deal of pedestrian activity. However, with the construction of the new sidewalk, it is expected that easier access to the businesses along Wayzata Boulevard may result in new pedestrian trips. Zoning Analysis: Factor Required Proposed Is Standard Met? 1. Use Multi-Family Dwelling Multi-Family Dwelling Yes 2. Density Max. of 75 units/acre (PUD) 32 units/acre Yes 3. Lot Area Min.: 15,000 sq. ft. 16,434 sq. ft. Yes 4. Height No max. (PUD) 40’ 9” Yes 5. Building Materials 60% Class I Materials Exceeds 60% Class I materials, using brick, stucco, and glass Yes 6. Off-Street Parking 20.4 Spaces 21 Spaces Yes 7. Setbacks – Front/Rear 30 / 25 (RC) 0 / 25 (PUD) 17’ / 25’ 2” PUD Setbacks – Side / Side 15 / 15 (RC) 0 / 0 (PUD) 6’ 7” / 28’ PUD 8. Floor Area Ratio 1.2 1.2 Yes 9. Ground Floor Area Ratio 0.25 0.19 Yes 10. Open Area / DORA 12% 21%; 3,430 square feet Yes 11. Bufferyards – Front / Rear F / E F / E Yes Bufferyards – Side / Side C / F & E C / F & E Yes 12. Landscaping 1,478 Units 1,522 Units Yes 13. Trees Must replace 115 inches Planting 120 inches Yes 14. Lot Width/Depth 80’ / 0’ 159’ / 160’ Yes 15. Outdoor Storage None allowed None proposed Yes 16. Fences / Walls May use to meet bufferyard requirements Used only as retaining walls Yes 17. Mechanical Equipment Must be fully screened Underground / Interior Yes 18. Sidewalks Minimum of 5’ wide 5’ wide Yes 19. Refuse handling Adequate size and accessibility Underground with trash and recycling chutes on each floor Yes 20. Transit service None required Regular service provided within 1 block Yes 21. Bicycle Parking None required Bicycle parking provided on Yes St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 9 east side of building 22. Stormwater Required Retention pond provided Yes 23. Lighting No more than 1 foot candle at property line No more than 1 foot candle at property line Yes 24. Signage Maximum of 40 sq. ft. None proposed Yes Summary of Zoning Analysis: The applicant is able to meet all requirements of the Zoning Code using the PUD. The PUD is required due to the site’s size, and is applied in relation to the ground floor area ratio, side yard setback and front yard setback. PUD modifications are discussed below. The applicant has requested a 15% zoning reduction in required off-street parking. This reduction is allowed because of proximity to transit (10%) and the provision of bicycle parking (5%). Staff has determined that the proposed off-street parking is sufficient for guest parking. Should overflow parking be required, there are 4 on-street spaces available in the adjacent cul- de-sac. Mechanical equipment and refuse handling will be located in the underground parking area. By intensively using this area, the applicant has ensured that a majority of the site area outside of the building envelope can be used to meet the DORA requirements. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Objectives: The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate how the proposal will “enhance, support, and further the following objectives”: 1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project: A sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of the project, linking the sidewalk along Wayzata Boulevard to the neighborhood south on Kentucky Avenue. At this time, no pedestrian linkages exist between the two areas. 2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities: The proposal is located less than 1 block from a transit station serving the entire western portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Louisiana Transit Station features regular transit service and will enable residents of the proposed development easy access to Minneapolis and many points to the west. It is likely that future residents of Gateway Lofts may not require the use of a personal automobile for the majority of their work- related trips. 3. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing: The applicant has indicated that the proposed units will sell for between $200,000 and $350,000. Units within that price range often serve moderate-income households in the region. 4. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD plan: The applicant has indicated an intention of marketing to persons interested in using transit to complete their daily commute. The site plan also includes bicycle parking for those residents who may choose to commute by bicycle. Additional travel demand management strategies would be inappropriate given the small size of the project. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 10 5. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum chapter requirements: The applicant has proposed providing 3,430 square feet of Designed Outdoor Recreation Area and open space. The requirement for DORA in this district is 12% of a site; the applicant is proposing to use 21% of the site for such purposes. 6. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art: The proposal exceeds the Zoning Code requirements for architectural building materials including brick, concrete stucco, and glass. The use of those materials indicates a high degree of aesthetics through overall design. PUD Modifications:  Side Yard Setback: PUDs allow for a modified side yard setback, reducing the requirement from 15’ to 0’. The modification will be used on the east side of the site, which has a side yard setback of 6’ 7”. The decreased setback enables the construction of underground parking on a site of this size.  Front Yard Setback: PUDs allow for a modified front yard setback, reducing the requirement from 30’ to 0’. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 15’. By moving the building closer to Wayzata Boulevard, a larger setback than would otherwise be possible is included between the proposed building and the single family neighborhood to the south. The location of the building in relation to the street is appropriate given the commercial nature of Wayzata Boulevard and the uses across the street from the project site. The most limiting factor for the applicant is the lot size. The applicant has worked within the lot’s size by placing parking underground and designing a building with only four condominium units per floor. The site’s size of 0.37 acres results in a density of 32 units per acre, far below the maximum of 75 units per acre permitted through the use of a PUD. Without the use of a PUD, the applicant would still be below the requirements, as 50 units per acre are permitted in the RC Zoning District. Preliminary and Final Plat: The Plat for Gateway Lofts will involve replatting several existing lots into a single lot with condominium ownership. Drainage and utility easements will be provided for utilities and the stormwater pond as required by the City Engineer. A variance for easements around the property lines is addressed below. Prior to filing the final plat, the applicant shall submit a maintenance plan for the stormwater pond, a maintenance agreement for the sidewalk, and condominium association papers to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Park and trail dedication fees are required and will be collected with the final plats for the development. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 11 Subdivision Variance: The Gateway Lofts proposal requires a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for a reduction in Section 26-154, “Easements”. Such variances are held to a different standard than variances from the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has completed an analysis of the Gateway Lofts project and determined that sufficient drainage and utility easements are provided. The Ordinance states “A variance shall only be recommended when the Planning Commission finds that all of the following exist”: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land. The property in question consists of four lots. Since the time of the original development, a large triangular portion of the northern two lots was taken by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for the construction of Interstate 394 and associated frontage roads. Due to this taking, resultant shape of the property makes redevelopment and productive use of all lots difficult. 2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or injurious to any surrounding properties. The granting of the variance (from the requirement to provide drainage and utility easements) is necessary partly because the applicant has taken extra steps to provide stormwater treatment on-site. The provision of stormwater on-site will be beneficial to surrounding properties. 3. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship such as topography, etc. The requested variance will correct the inequities resulting partly from the taking which occurred during the construction of I-394 and partly resulting from the construction of an on-site stormwater treatment pond. 4. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site for High Density Residential. The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site. As a result of staff findings in regard to the criteria governing variances from the Subdivision Ordinance, staff recommends approval of the variance from Section 26-154, “Easements”. Public Process: Mr. Hemmeke, the applicant, held a neighborhood meeting in July, 2005. Mr. Hemmeke presented his development proposal to the neighborhood, and sought their input on the building and site design. Approximately 10 neighbors attended the meeting; the largest concern from the neighbors was in regard to the construction period. After the neighborhood meeting, Mr. Hemmeke applied for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. A public hearing was held at a regular Planning Commission meeting, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the amendments. The City Council approved the amendments. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 12 On September 21, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Mr. Hemmeke’s proposed PUD, Plat, his request for a Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. Four neighboring residents attended the hearing. One resident spoke in regard to concerns about construction noise and parking. Additionally, a letter was received from an adjacent business owner regarding parking concerns during the construction period. The Planning Commission recommended approval of Mr. Hemmeke’s requests, subject to conditions recommended by staff. Mr. Hemmeke has indicated a willingness to work with the neighborhood and adjacent property owners to ensure that noise and parking problems during the construction process are minimized. Mr. Hemmeke responded to the concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting by stating that off-site parking would be utilized during the initial phase of construction, and that as permitted, on-site parking would be utilized as construction progresses. A construction parking schedule provided by Mr. Hemmeke is attached. Mr. Hemmeke has stated that he intends to begin construction during late fall to increase the likelihood that neighboring residents have their windows closed, reducing noise from the construction process. Construction Process: The applicant has proposed to begin construction on the project late in the fall of 2005. Site preparation involves the removal of an existing home and an unused parking lot. Upon completion of the site’s basement and first floor, the applicant intends to ensure that all construction employees park in the underground parking ramp provided for the building. All construction staging will be completed on-site and the exterior site work, including the construction of the sidewalk along Kentucky Avenue and the stormwater pond, will be completed after the exterior of the building is complete. During the construction period, site work may occur only between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekdays, and from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. In addition, the applicant will take steps to ensure that there are no negative side effects to the construction impacting the neighborhood to the south; including the prevention of dust migration, soil erosion, and parking in the neighborhood. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to those conditions contained in the resolution. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for a reduction in the required drainage and utility easements surrounding the proposed subdivision. Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 13 RESOLUTION NO. 05-147 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING FOR PROPERTY ZONED RC-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOCATED AT 1324 AND 1332 KENTUCKY AVENUE WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) was received on August 22, 2005 from the applicant, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary and Final PUD at the meeting of September 21, 2005, and moved to continue review, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and Final PUD at the meeting of October 19, 2005 on a 5-0 vote with all members present voting in the affirmative, and WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments in the record of decision. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Parrish Hemmeke has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the RC-Multi-Family Residential district located at 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue for the legal description as follows, to-wit: That part of Lots 355 through 358 inclusive, RICHMOND, according to the plat on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 358 in said RICHMOND; thence North 89 degrees 37 minutes 37 seconds East assumed bearing along the south line of said lot 358 for a distance of 133.01 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 358; thence North 02 degrees 05 minutes 44 seconds East for a distance of 160.00 feet to the northeast corner of said lot 355; thence South 60 degrees 07 minutes 28 seconds West for a distance of 156.58 feet; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes 04 seconds West for a distance of 82.82 feet to the point of beginning and there terminating. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 14 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 05-52-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD 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, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5). 4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-52-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Preliminary and Final PUD official exhibits. 2. PUD Modifications. Setback modifications are approved as follows: a. A side yard setback modification allowing a side yard setback of 6’ 7” on the east side of the site. b. A front yard setback modification allowing a front yard setback of 0’ on the north side of the site. 3. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the following conditions shall be met: a. Condominium association papers and other Final Plat documents shall be received and approved by the City Attorney. b. The developer, on behalf of the future homeowners association, shall submit an approved and signed maintenance agreement for the sidewalk along Kentucky Avenue. c. The developer shall submit a maintenance plan for the stormwater pond. 4. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met: a. A Development Contract shall be signed that addresses construction staging and duration, required completion of improvements prior to occupancy, allowable administrative amendments, prevention of garage space sales to non-residents, and consistency between documents as required by the City Attorney. b. The developer shall provide a construction staging plan that shall include information regarding the off-site location of parking during the construction process. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 15 5. The hours of construction shall be limited as follows: All outdoor activity and loud equipment operation shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm weekdays and 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekends. Indoor construction activity that does not involve loud equipment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekdays and 9:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekends and holidays. 6. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions, the following conditions shall be met: a. Color samples of all materials, shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. b. A Lighting Plan, including light fixture details shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning Administrator. c. The developer shall obtain all required permits from the City and other affected government agencies, including but not limited to Erosion Control Permits and Right-of-Way permits. 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. Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4h - Gateway Lofts Final Plat Page 16 EXCERPT FROM NOVEMBER 6, 2006 MINUTES 8b Gateway Lofts Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD), Preliminary and Final Plat, and Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance Case No. 05-52-PUD and 05-53-S Mr. Parrish Hemmeke 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Ave. Resolution No.’s 05-147 and 05-148 Mr. Fulton presented the staff report. Councilmember Brimeyer asked how long the project would take. Mr. Fulton replied construction was intended to begin this fall, but it may be too late. Councilmember Brimeyer indicated there was a concern about parking during construction. Lane Moore, Custom Structures, indicated they were looking at 36 weeks of construction time. The underground parking should be completed within 6-8 weeks and will be used to park construction vehicles. Mayor Jacobs asked when they planned to begin construction. Mr. Moore replied this fall if possible. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if there would be any major excavation, with many dump trucks. Mr. Moore responded they would try to keep all of their equipment on-site and use the driveway in the cul-de-sac. Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they would use the park and go. Mr. Moore replied no. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution No. 05-147 Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions as stated in the Resolution. The motion passed 7-0. It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve Resolution No. 05-148 Preliminary and Final Plat and Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to conditions as stated in the Resolution. The motion passed 7-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 1 4i. Motion to adopt second reading of ordinances amending the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map to create a POS - Park and Open Space Zoning District, approve summary, and authorize publication. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST: The proposed ordinances will create a new Parks and Open Space District and related regulations in the Zoning Code, as well as amend the Zoning Map to establish the boundaries of the new zoning district. The proposal includes only city-owned parks and open spaces. BACKGROUND: The City Council asked staff to create a new park zoning district classification to identify and protect City-owned park properties. The purpose of this amendment is to conspicuously identify park and open space property on the zoning map and protect these properties from private development. City Council approved the first reading of the ordinances on November 20, 2006. PROCESS:  The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 18 and November 1, 2006  The City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance on November 20, 2006  The City Council’s second reading of the ordinance is December 4, 2006  The ordinance would be effective January 3, 2007 RECOMMENDATION: The City Staff, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission and Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed zoning map and text amendments. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance amending the Zoning Text and Summary Ordinance amending the Zoning Map and Summary Proposed Official Zoning Map Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 2 ORDINANCE NO. 2322-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY INSERTING A NEW DIVISION AND SECTIONS 36-150 AND 36-151 CREATING A PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICT 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. 06-56-Z and 06-64-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Chapter 36, Article IV is hereby amended to insert the following new Division and Sections 36-150 and 36-151 creating a Parks and Open Space Zoning District and renumbering subsequent Divisions accordingly: Division 3. Section 36-150. Purpose of Division. (a) Purpose. The provisions of this division deal with the City-owned park, open space and recreation use of land and structures in the city. Sec. 36-151. POS park and open space district. (a) Purpose and effect. The purpose of the POS parks and open space district is to identify and preserve City-owned parks, undevelopable land and areas with valuable environmental qualities as open space to ensure the continued health, safety and welfare of the community and to provide a location for recreational activities. This district recognizes existing parks and protects those locations for local park use and related facilities. (b) Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the POS district: (1) Parks and open space. (2) Parks and recreation. (3) Golf course. (4) Community center. (5) Country club. (6) Park buildings. (7) Other uses customary to parks, open space and recreation. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 3 (c) Uses permitted with conditions. The following uses are permitted with conditions in the POS district: (1) Police/fire stations. a. Buildings shall be located at least 25 feet from a lot in an R district. b. Access shall be to a roadway identified in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial or shall be otherwise located so that access can be provided without generating significant traffic on local residential streets. c. Unobstructed visibility shall be provided from the driveway to the adjacent streets for emergency vehicles and a traffic light shall be installed at the entrance to the facility to control non-emergency traffic if recommended by the Director of Public Works. (d) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in a POS district: (1) Public service structure. (2) Utility substation. (3) Communication tower. (4) Signs. (5) Parking. (6) Offices. (7) Gardening and other horticultural uses. (8) Decorative landscape features. (9) Other uses incidental to parks, open space and recreation. (e) Dimensional standards/densities. (1) The principal structure shall be located at least 25 feet from a lot in an R district. 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. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 4 Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney First Reading November 20, 2006 Second Reading December 4, 2006 Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 5 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2322-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE CODE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTIRCT This ordinance states that Zoning Ordinance Code will be amended by inserting a new division and creating a Parks and Open Space Zoning District. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 4, 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: December 14, 2006 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 6 ORDINANCE NO. 2323-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case Nos. 06-56-Z and 06-64-ZA ). Section 2. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, amended December 17, 2001, Ordinance No. 2216-01, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries as shown on the attached map. Section 3. The contents of Planning Case Files 06-56-Z and 06-64-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney First Reading November 20, 2006 Second Reading December 4, 2006 Date of Publication Date Ordinance takes effect St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 7 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4i - Park & Open Space Zoning District Page 8 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2323-06 AN ORDINANCE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS Parks and Open Space Zoning District This ordinance states that a Parks and Open Space Zoning District will be created. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 4, 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: December 14, 2006 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4j - Adequacy Of Petition Alley Paving Raleigh-Salem Page 1 4j. Motion to adopt the attached resolution that declares the petition adequate for the purposes of preparing a formal Project Report on the feasibility and costs associated with a proposed alley paving project in the 2900 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenue. BACKGROUND: On August 11, 2006 residents from the 2900 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenue submitted a petition to the City requesting the alley be paved in accordance with the City’s standard for alleys, and that the cost of the improvements be assessed against all benefited properties. Mr. Brian Tiff of 2907 Salem Avenue circulated the petition. The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that at least 51% of the property owners (based on alley front feet) sign a petition for the improvement in order to investigate the feasibility and cost of construction. PETITION ANALYSIS: Signatures, representing 56% of the alley footage, have been obtained. This represents 9 of the 19 assessable properties. Therefore, the petition is deemed adequate in order to prepare a Project Report for review by the City Council. PROJECT TIMING: Surveying of the site was completed this fall. Staff has analyzed the site information and has determined that the alley construction is feasible. Preparation of construction plans has begun. Staff held an informational meeting on November 21, 2006 with the affected residents to inform them of the proposed project. Staff intends to present the feasibility report to the City Council at the December, 18, 2006 meeting. Upon receiving the feasibility report, Council will need to schedule a public hearing and assessment hearing, likely for the second City Council meeting in January 2007. If the project proceeds, construction could occur in the Spring of 2007. Attachments: Resolution Petitioner List Petition (Supplement) Prepared By: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed By: Scott Brink, City Engineer Michael P.Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4j - Adequacy Of Petition Alley Paving Raleigh-Salem Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-188 RESOLUTION DECLARING ADEQUACY OF PETITION AND ORDERING PREPARATION OF A REPORT TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF CONSTRUCTING AN ALLEY IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF RALEIGH AND SALEM AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a petition signed by affected property owners related to alley paving in the 2900 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The City’s Alley Paving Policy requires that a petition containing signatures from at least 51% of the affected property owners be received in order to investigate the feasibility and cost of construction. 2. A certain petition requesting the improvement of the alley in the 2900 block of Raleigh and Salem Avenue, filed with the Council on December 4, 2006, is hereby declared to be signed by the required percentage of owners of property affected thereby. This declaration is made in conformity to Minn. Stat. § 429.035. 3. The petition is hereby referred to the City Engineer who is instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4j - Adequacy Of Petition Alley Paving Raleigh-Salem Page 3 Petition Signatures for Concrete Alley Paving in 2900 Block of Raleigh/Salem Avenue Address Alley Front Footage Petition Signed by Property Owners 2901 Salem Avenue South 60 * 2907 Salem Avenue South 60 * 2915 Salem Avenue South 80 2919 Salem Avenue South 40 2925 Salem Avenue South 40 2929 Salem Avenue South 40 2933 Salem Avenue South 40 2937 Salem Avenue South 118 2900 Raleigh Avenue South 40 2904 Raleigh Avenue South 40 2908 Raleigh Avenue South 80 * 2916 Raleigh Avenue South 40 * 2920 Raleigh Avenue South 40 2924 Raleigh Avenue South 60 2930 Raleigh Avenue South 58 * 2936 Raleigh Avenue South 118 * 5100 Minnetonka Boulevard 90 * 5112 Minnetonka Boulevard 90 * 5124 Minnetonka Boulevard 90 * Total 1224 Petition signed by 56% of the alley front footage (686 feet / 1224 feet) St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4k - Special Assessment Dutch Elm Diseased Trees 4123 Alabama Page 1 4k. Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased Trees for Property at 4123 Alabama Ave. South 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, eighteen (18) 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 $878.62 at an interest rate of 5.82% over two years. The property address is 4123 Alabama Avenue South - PID #21-117-21- 32-0096. Diseased trees continue to be removed and staff anticipates there will be additional residents that 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: 120406 - 4k - Special Assessment Dutch Elm Diseased Trees 4123 Alabama Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. 06-189 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF DUTCH ELM DISEASED TREE AT 4123 ALABAMA AVE S WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 4123 Alabama 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 $878.62. 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 2 years at 5.82% 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 December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4l - City Hall Roof Replacement 20081300 Page 1 4l. Motion to adopt the attached resolution accepting this report, establishing and ordering Capital Improvement Project No. 20081300, approving plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids to replace the roof system on the City Hall building. BACKGROUND: The existing roof on City Hall is original to the building (Circa 1963). In 2004 INSPEC, a consulting firm specializing in roof systems, completed a condition survey on the existing roof system. They stated that the present roof system had exceeded its life cycle and recommended replacement in 2 – 4 years. Staff has hired INSPEC to develop plans and specifications to replace the existing roof with the same type roof system. Installation is proposed to occur during the 2007 season. The new roof system will include a significant increase in the insulation to an average of R-34. This will increase the energy efficiency of the building and lower our heating/cooling costs. In the past the Council has inquired about incorporating a “green roof’ as a part of this project. Staff investigated this approach and reported to the Council as part of an 11/27/06 study session report that, for various reasons, implementing a green roof on the existing roof structure did not appear to be a prudent option. FUNDING: This project is included in the 2007 Capital Improvement Plan and is funded by Municipal Building Fund. The cost estimate is as follows: Professional Services $ 14,000 Construction Cost and 10% Contingency $220,000 Total $234,000 PROJECT TIMETABLE: Listed below is the anticipated timetable for this project: Report to City Council December 4, 2006 Advertise for bids January 5 to January 11, 2007 Bid Opening January 26, 2007 Bid Tab Report to City Council February 5, 2007 Installation May 1 to September 30, 2007 Note: We are giving the contractors a window from May thru September to complete the job. Historically, by bidding out over the winter months with the option to schedule the install themselves we have gotten very favorable bids. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution which accepts the Facilities Superintendent’s Report, establishes and orders Capital Improvement Project 20081300, approves plans and specifications, and authorizes advertisement for bids for the replacement of the roof system on City Hall. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4l - City Hall Roof Replacement 20081300 Page 2 Attachment: Resolution Submitted By: John Altepeter, Facilities Superintendent Reviewed By: Brian Hoffman, Inspections Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4l - City Hall Roof Replacement 20081300 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 06-190 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FACILITIES SUPERINTENDENT’S REPORT, ESTABLISHING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 20081300, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 20081300 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Facilities Superintendent related to the replacement of the roof system on the City Hall building. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Facilities Superintendent’s Report regarding the replacement of the roof system on the City Hall building is hereby accepted. 2. Such improvement as proposed is necessary, cost effective, and feasible as detailed in the Project Report. 3. The proposed project, designated as Project No. 20081300, is hereby established and ordered. 4. The plans and specifications for the making of the improvement, as prepared under the direction of the Facilities Superintendent, are approved. 5. The City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin an advertisement for bids for the making of said improvement under said-approved plans and specifications. The advertisement shall appear not less than ten (10) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a bid bond payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 6. The Facilities Superintendent, or designee, shall report the receipt of bids to the City Council shortly after the letting date. The report shall include a tabulation of the bid results and a recommendation to the City Council for award of contract. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4m - Civil Attorney Fee Increase Page 1 4m. Motion to amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase rates paid from $135 to $140 per hour for city attorney services. BACKGROUND: The attorneys of Campbell Knutson have served the City since 1996. The firm has requested a $5/hour increase in rates for legal services from $135/hour to $140/hour. No other increases were requested. Listed below is a summary of rates over the past several years: Year Attorney Law Clerks/ Paralegals 2007 Proposed $140/hr $70/hr 2005 & 2006 $135/hr $70/hr 2003 & 2004 $130/hr $70/hr Budget Funds to cover this increase are in the 2007 proposed budget. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval to amend the agreement with our city attorney increasing rates effective January 1, 2007. Attachment: Addendum Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4m - Civil Attorney Fee Increase Page 2 ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES Effective January 1, 2007, City Contract # 4078 between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) and Campbell Knutson, P.A. (“Contractor”) is amended to provide for the following hourly rates for legal services: Attorney $140.00/hr Law Clerks/Paralegals $ 70.00/hr Approved by City Council December 4, 2006 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Manager CONTRACTOR Campbell Knutson, P.A. By St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4n - Housing Authority Minutes Of October 11, 2006 Page 1 1 MINUTES Housing Authority St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room St. Louis Park, Minnesota Wednesday, October 11, 2006 5:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Steve Fillbrandt, Trinicia Hill, Judith Moore Commissioner Mavity arrived at 5:10 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Shannon Bodnar, Jane Klesk, Kathy Larsen, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:06 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for August, 2006 Commissioner Moore moved to approve the minutes of August 9, 2006, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Approval of Sale of Excess Land – Natchez Ms. Larsen explained the recent sale process for the two excess land parcels located at 4200 Natchez Avenue South, and requested Board approval for execution of a Development Agreement with one of the purchasers. Commissioner Mavity moved for approval of the Development Agreement with Gary and Edith McGurgan for the purchase and development of the property at 4200 Natchez Avenue South, West Lot, in accordance with the guidelines established by City Council and the Home Renewal Program; contingent upon approval of the final house design according to recommendations of the Design Review Committee; and additionally contingent upon the final Development Agreement’s consistency with the general policies and guidelines of the Housing Authority. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed 5-0. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 4n - Housing Authority Minutes Of October 11, 2006 Page 2 2 b. Housing Activity Report Ms. Larsen updated the Commissioners on Move Up In The Park program activities and additional housing activities during 2006. Ms. Schnitker reported that the Vision Housing Task Force has identified many recommendations and has compiled their “Dream Statement”. c. Sungate One Condominiums – Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Ms. Larsen informed the Board of the completion of common area improvements at Sungate One Condominiums, which were made possible by using the Housing Improvement Area financial tool. The imposed fee per unit is $9,000, with a ten-year repayment period through real estate taxes. d. Housing Choice Voucher Utilization and Waiting List Management Update Ms. Schnitker updated the Commissioners on the utilization status of the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program and the impact that Project-Based Assistance (PBA) participant transitions from PBA to tenant-based assistance has on the administration of the Section 8 tenant-based voucher waiting list. Staff will continue to monitor this situation and will provide an update to the Board in March, 2007, along with consideration of renewal of a contract with Wayside for administration of 20 units of PBA rental assistance. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List September and October – 2006 Commissioner Moore moved for ratification of Claims List No. 9/10-2006, and Commissioner Mavity seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. b. Communications 1. Monthly Report for September and October, 2006 2. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report) 3. Draft Financial Statements – Report 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Anne Mavity, Secretary St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6a - 1st Reading 2007 Utility Rate Page 1 6a. Public Hearing - Utility Rate Adjustments Proposed revisions to Chapters 22 and 32 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code to allow utility rates to be set by resolution rather than by ordinance. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Motion to approve 1st reading of the ordinance amendments to Chapters 22 and 32 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code removing utility rates from the general fee schedule and set second reading for December 18, 2006. BACKGROUND: Chapters 22 and 32 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code state that utility rates called for within individual provisions of the Code are to be set by ordinance and list ed in Appendix A of the Code. Fees must also be reviewed and reestablished annually. Utility rates and charges are not ‘fees’ as defined in state statute, but have historically been included in Appendix A. Staff has reviewed this practice and is recommending that the utility rates be set by resolution annually rather than by ordinance which will allow the utility rates to be reviewed after the summer usage billings have been completed. The rates can then be set along with the rest of the budget in December. The general fee schedule for the next year is usually set much earlier. A notice was published on November 23, 2006 informing interested persons of our intent to consider rates for water, sewer, storm water, and solid waste collection utilities and to amend sections of the code related to rate setting. A summary of each service rate is listed below. Water Rates Current Rate Proposed Rate $0.90 per 100 Cubic Feet $1.04 per 100 Cubic Feet Explanation: The analysis performed by Ehlers & Associates show that while we are covering the cost of general operations, cash balances have dwindled because of an aggressive repair and replacement schedule. These capital improvements need to be covered in the rate structure. The $0.14 increase will allow us to maintain adequate cash balances and cover the cost of a bond issue that is needed to provide sufficient working capital to pay for the next two years of infrastructure improvements. The fixed charges were determined to be adequate by the study; therefore, no increase is necessary for those costs. Staff will prepare additional analysis with Ehlers to allow the City Council to consider implementing conservation rates and hookup charges in 2008. Sewer Rates Current Rate Proposed Rate $1.70 per 100 Cubic Feet $1.79 per 100 Cubic Feet Explanation: This fund has a stronger cash position than the water fund. Staff performed an analysis of these rates and determined an increase of 5.2% is needed to support the operations and capital projects in this enterprise fund. The $0.09 increase will allow us to maintain adequate cash balances to cover the inflationary costs of operations and pay cash for the repair and replacement expenditures. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6a - 1st Reading 2007 Utility Rate Page 2 Storm Water Rates Current Rate Proposed Rate $9.50 per Residential Unit $11.50 per Residential Unit Explanation: The storm water fund had a long list of projects that were scheduled with the Storm Water Utility Revenue Bonds of 2001. There are still a significant number of projects to be completed; however, the bond proceeds have already been spent. The increase of $2.00 will allow us to cover debt service on a new revenue bond issue that is needed to finance the remaining capital projects for next year. In addition, this new rate will push St. Louis Park just over the metropolitan city average for storm sewer rates. It is important to note that this increase will continue to allow the city to make substantial progress toward our storm water quality and quantity goals. Solid Waste Rates Current Rate Proposed Rate $35.00 per Basic Service $37.50 per Basic Service Explanation: This $2.50 general increase is necessary to cover the costs of the existing contract. Negotiations for a new contract, effective in 2008, will begin in 2007. This fund has a healthy cash balance which is available for cushioning any increase in Waste Management’s fees in 2008 while we gradually increase the rates to fully cover the cost of the service. NEXT STEPS: The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for December 18th. Finance will prepare the resolution with the proposed rate increases for approval at the December 18th meeting as well. If approved, the rates listed above will be effective for billing beginning in February, 2007. The reason for the delay is to allow the rates to take effect for each billing district during their “winter” quarter. This is the time period when we also set the base sewer usage for the year and it is typically the lowest bill of the year for most residents. Attachments: Proposed Ordinance Amendments Prepared By: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6a - 1st Reading 2007 Utility Rate Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. _______-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 22 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT, SECTION 22-37; AND CHAPTER 32 UTILITIES, SECTIONS 32-31, 32-32, 32-98, 32-202, AND 32-203 RELATED TO UTILITY RATES THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Chapter 22 is hereby amended by deleting stricken language and adding underscored language as follows Sec. 22-37. Garbage/refuse service rates. (a) A service charge for garbage/refuse collection, including recycling service, and yard waste collection service, provided to residential dwelling units with the city shall be an amount set from time to time by the city council resolution. and listed in appendix A of this Code. (b) Each dwelling unit in a residential dwelling will be charged a service charge for garbage/refuse collection and for yard waste collection, regardless of whether they utilize the service, provided that residents with an extended absence from the city and non-use of service during that period may apply to the City for a temporary suspension of service and charges. (c) A service charge in an amount set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code shall be added to the quarterly service charge for garbage/refuse collection for residential dwelling which mixes refuse with yard waste. (d) Charges for the collection and disposal of garbage/refuse, bulk items, electronics, appliances and yard waste shall be a charge against the owner, lessee, occupant, or all of them of the premises served, any of whom shall be charged and billed for such service. (e) Garbage/refuse bills will be mailed to customers for each quarter/year service period at the rate shown in this subsection. The proceeds from collection of these bills shall be placed in a separate fund. A penalty in an amount set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code shall be added to the amount due on any bill if not paid within three weeks after the billing date. Payments received three working days following the due date shall be deemed as paid within such period. Section 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Chapter 32 is hereby amended deleting stricken language and adding underscored language as follows: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6a - 1st Reading 2007 Utility Rate Page 4 Sec. 32-31. Water rates. (a) Rates. The rate due and payable to the city by each water user with the city for billings on or after February 26, 2001, for water taken from the city water supply system shall be set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code. All charges for single-family and multiple-family dwelling users shall be determined and payable on a quarterly basis, and all charges for commercial, industrial and institutional users shall be determined and payable on a monthly or quarterly basis; provided, however, that there shall be a service charge to each water user for each quarter year period during which water service is furnished as set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code. In case the meter is found to have stopped or to be operating in a faulty manner, the amount of water used will be estimated in accordance with the amount previously used for the comparable period of the last previous year. (b) Construction purposes. When water is desired for construction purposes, the owner shall make application in the regular way and on the regular form and, if approved, the service shall be carried inside the foundation wall. If for any reason the meter cannot be installed at the time, the charges for the water shall be set forth under water rates, and when the building is completed, the meter shall be set per code requirements. (c) Water bills. Water bills shall be mailed to customers for the service periods set forth in subsection (a) of this section, and shall specify the water consumed and the charges in accordance with rates set forth by city council resolution. in appendix A of this Code. *** Sec. 32-32. Service connection fee. The state-mandated service connection fee listed in this section for testing water supplies will be collected by the city and remitted to the state department of revenue. The service connection fee due and payable to the city by each water user within the city for water taken from the city water supply system shall be an amount set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code. Sec. 32-98. Sewer rental rates. Charges for sewer service to residential and nonresidential users within the city provided in section 32-97 for billings on or after February 26, 2001, shall be: an amount per 100 cubic feet of water consumption set by the city from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code, as measured during the winter quarter consumption (or otherwise determined in subsection (1) of this section), and a monthly service charge of an amount set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code, or an amount quarterly per dwelling or account set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code. (1) All residential sewer customer charges payable monthly/quarterly shall be determined by computing the winter water consumption as determined by the city billing cycle for each district. average monthly/quarterly water consumption from the combined St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6a - 1st Reading 2007 Utility Rate Page 5 water meter readings for any three of the months from November through April or, alternately, the Commercial sewer charges may shall be determined by computed computing based on the water consumption each month throughout the year. Such new change of rates shall be effective January 1 of each year and shall be billed monthly/quarterly thereafter. In any case where winter meter readings are not available or appropriate, monthly/quarterly charges shall be made on the basis of current water consumption. at which time the annual charge will be established and an adjustment of such charges collected will be made. Sec. 32-202. Repair of leaks. In case of failure upon the part of any consumer or owner to repair any leak occurring from their service pipe within 24 hours after verbal or written notice has been given upon the premises, the water will be shut off from the same and will not be turned on until the sum as set by the city council resolution from time to time and listed in appendix A of this Code has been paid. When the waste of water is great, or when damage is likely to result from the leak, the water will be turned off if the repair is not proceeded with immediately upon the giving of such notice. Sec. 32-203. Water meters. (e) Whenever any meter shall become obstructed or out of order, the director of public works shall cause it to be repaired. The director of public works shall direct the cost of such repairs to be paid out of the funds of the water department unless the meter has been damaged by freezing or willful neglect by someone outside of the city employ. On request of any customer and payment to the city clerk of a fee set from time to time by the city council resolution and listed in appendix A of this Code, the director of public works will test such water meter. All water meters obtained from the city shall remain the property of the city and may be replaced at any time by the director of public works if found to be worn or defective beyond repair. Such replacement shall be paid for from water department funds. Section 3. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Appendix A Fee Schedule is hereby amended to delete Chapter 22 Solid Waste Management Fees sections 22-33 through 22-37 and Chapter 32 Utilities Fees sections 32-31, 32-98, and 32-142. Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after its publication. First Reading December 4, 2006 Second Reading December 18, 2006 Date of Publication December 28, 2006 Date Ordinance takes effect January 12, 2007 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 18, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6b - Truth-In-Taxation Public Hearing 2007 Budget And Property Taxes Page 1 6b. Truth-in-Taxation Public Hearing on the 2007 Budget and Property Tax Levy This public hearing is to review the 2007 budget and property tax levy. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. BACKGROUND: Each year, under Truth in Taxation regulations, the City is required to hold a Public Hearing to review and discuss the annual budget and property tax levy. On September 5, 2006 the City Council approved the preliminary 2007 budget, property tax levy, and HRA levy. The City proposed to increase the property tax levy by 6% and levy the same percentage amount (.0144 % of taxable market value) as last year for HRA purposes. Council has reviewed and discussed both the 2007 Proposed Budget and the 2007 – 2011 Capital Improvement Program at great length. The general property tax levy is now recommended to be 5.2% (rather than 6%) based on discussion with the Council, City Manager, and department directors. Formal adoption of the 2007 budget along with the 2006 amended budget, property tax levy, and HRA levy is scheduled for December 18, 2006. DISCUSSION: 2007 Budget At this time the 2007 budget is balanced. Revisions have been made to reflect the anticipated cost of energy, supplies, and consultant fees. Staffing requests have also been reviewed and implemented. The General Fund and Park & Recreation budgets are individually balanced with current revenues equaling current expenditures. A contingency account has been established in case of an emergency. This emergency reserve is necessary in case of higher than estimated energy costs, significant snowfall, or high property tax delinquencies The biggest change for this year’s budget is the change in accounting methodology for vehicle maintenance. Rather than doing an allocated cost charging system for the general fund, we have made this a separate staff function in the Park & Recreation Fund. The vehicle maintenance budget now covers all of the costs for vehicle repairs rather than having estimated expenses distributed through all departments. This approach will simplify budgeting and allow for more accountability within that department. Due to the implementation of this new methodology, there have been cost shifts between the General Fund and Park & Recreation. Thus, comparing tax levies and expenses from 2006 to 2007 must be done carefully. The budget includes many assumptions, which have been discussed with the City Council, and are outlined below.  Tax levy increase of 5.2% of which 3.95% is for operations and 1.25% is for debt service  3% general cost of living increase for employees  Additional step toward equalization between exempt and non-exempt employee benefits  PERA increases as directed by the state legislature (City-wide impact of $120,000)  Partial funding of Dispatch by Police and Fire Pension fund St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6b - Truth-In-Taxation Public Hearing 2007 Budget And Property Taxes Page 2 Property Taxes Property taxes are allocated to several budgets to pay for a portion of general fund, park and recreation fund, debt service, and pavement management programs. The overall property tax levy is 5.2% greater than in 2006. The increased levy is divided between 3.95% going to fund operations costs and 1.25% to cover the increase in debt service due to the 2005A bond issue. The allocation of property tax revenues are as follows: 2007 Proposed Property Taxes Percent Allocation 2006 Property Taxes Percent Allocation General Fund **13,170,348$ 67.6%13,092,719$ 70.7% Parks and Recreation 3,540,854 18.2%2,887,292 15.6% Park Improvement **1,010,000 5.2%1,010,000 5.5% Debt Service 1,341,800 6.9%1,110,200 6.0% Pavement Management 415,000 2.1%415,000 2.2% Total 19,478,002 100.0%18,515,211$ 100.0% ** Includes property tax levy and market value homestead credit There has been a significant increase in the amount of calls to the Finance and Assessing staff this year regarding the Truth-in-Taxation notices. The concerns are primarily that people have noticed an increase in taxable market value on their homes. These concerns may generate more interest in the public hearing than in previous years. The usual answer is that these properties carry a limited market value. In 1999, when home prices were increasing at double digit rates for several years, the legislature decided to limit the increase in taxable market value to 15% per year as a method of property tax relief. This had unintended consequences in shifting the tax burden, so it has been phased out through 2008. The property owners who have a limited market value are not paying taxes on the full fair market value. This year they are still seeing the 15% catch-up on their taxable value which confuses them because of the well publicized cooling of the housing market. The other reason for increasing market value is the lag between setting values for tax purposes and actually having the value show up on the tax statement. The values used for collecting 2007 taxes were set as of January 2, 2006 by our City Assessor based on sales transactions from November 2004 through October 2005. This was while the market was still appreciating strongly and does not reflect the reality that we have faced in 2006. RECOMMENDATION: There is no action required at this meeting. The meeting is intended to provide information to the public about the budget and property tax levy as well as to receive comments and input from the public. Staff will give a presentation of the overall 2007 General Fund Budget and Property Tax Levy and provide other general information related to property taxes. Attachments: Draft Summary of 2007 Budget Prepared By: Bruce DeJong, Finance Director Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6b - Truth-In-Taxation Public Hearing 2007 Budget And Property Taxes Page 3 General Fund and Park & Recreation 2006 2007 Department, Division 2005 and Activity Actual Adopted CM's Proposed % change General Government: Administration/Legislative 739,278$ 907,399$ 982,931$ 8.3% Communications & Marketing 172,693 219,262 218,751 -0.2% Community Outreach 112,128 122,451 116,397 -4.9% Human Resources 505,270 531,287 568,372 7.0% Technology and Support Services 1,322,796 1,384,839 1,490,176 7.6% Finance 954,945 1,041,138 1,053,482 1.2% Community Development 899,065 982,831 1,024,954 4.3% Facilities Maintenance*809,422 913,624 1,164,367 27.4% Total General Government 5,515,597 6,102,830 6,619,430 8.5% Public Safety: Police*5,824,347 6,695,044 6,676,605 -0.3% Fire Protection*2,580,779 2,693,964 2,756,522 2.3% Inspectional Services*1,613,036 1,735,299 1,793,306 3.3% Total Public Safety 10,018,162 11,124,307 11,226,434 0.9% Public Works: Public Works Administration 733,413 828,648 799,587 -3.5% Engineering*647,230 724,824 745,302 2.8% Operations*2,392,011 2,505,968 2,295,663 -8.4% Total Public Works 3,772,654 4,059,440 3,840,552 -5.4% Park & Recreation: Organized Recreation 1,123,739 1,193,136 1,223,354 2.5% Recreation Center 1,283,891 1,306,850 1,319,600 1.0% Park Maintenance*1,532,978 1,527,675 1,333,382 -12.7% Westwood*411,451 445,457 452,085 1.5% Environment 826,793 273,618 276,598 1.1% Vehicle Maintenance - - 1,003,119 100.0% Total Park & Recreation 5,178,852 4,746,736 5,608,138 18.1% Non-Departmental: General Services/Contingency - 191,962 180,000 -6.2% Transfer Out 1,331,323 - - Total Non-Departmental 1,331,323 191,962 180,000 -6.2% Total General & Park Funds 25,816,588$ 26,225,275$ 27,474,553$ 4.7% *These departments were affected by the MSC change. To compare to last year: Budget Amt % Change Department w/o MSC w/o MSC Facilities Maintenance 955,675 4.60% Police 6,868,786 2.60% Fire Protection 2,863,867 6.31% Inspectional Services 1,804,495 3.99% Engineering 755,888 4.29% Operations 2,725,615 8.76% Park Maintenance 1,643,592 7.59% Westwood 454,491 2.03% Summary of Actual & Budgeted Expenditures By Department and Division St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 6b - Truth-In-Taxation Public Hearing 2007 Budget And Property Taxes Page 4 General Fund and Park & Recreation 2005 2007 Actual Adopted CM's Proposed % change AVAILABLE RESOURCES Revenues: General Property Taxes 15,265,342$ 15,980,011$ $16,711,202 4.6% Licenses and Permits 2,932,989 2,483,600 2,636,500 6.2% Intergovernmental 1,758,252 1,782,467 1,685,206 -5.5% Charges for Services 2,430,519 2,074,206 2,123,049 2.4% Fines, Forfeits, and Penalties 286,003 283,300 309,600 9.3% Investment Earnings 207,603 181,500 309,099 70.3% Miscellaneous Revenue 969,285 830,372 945,061 13.8% Transfers In 2,777,063 2,609,819 2,754,836 5.6% Total Revenues 26,627,056$ 26,225,275$ 27,474,553$ 4.7% Appropriations 25,816,588$ 26,225,275$ 27,474,553$ 4.7% Net Revenue Over (Under) Appopriations 810,468 0 0 2006 Summary of Actual & Budgeted Revenues St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 1 8a. Watershed District Creek and Trail Construction This report requests that the City Council approve a temporary easement for Methodist Hospital and the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District) to realign a portion of Minnehaha Creek, construct trails, boardwalks, and other related improvements. Recommended Action: Motion to approve a temporary easement for Methodist Hospital and the MCWD to realign a portion of Minnehaha Creek; construct trails, boardwalks and other related improvements; perform other hydrologic and ecosystem improvements; and install educational signage (together, the “Project”); all in accordance with the terms of a Funding Agreement executed by the Parties and pursuant to the water resource purposes of the MCWD as set forth in Minnesota Statutes §§103B.201 and 103D.201 (“Construction Easement”); and a perpetual easement allowing for inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Project ("Permanent Easement"). BACKGROUND: Over the years, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) has re-aligned Minnehaha Creek as it passes through St. Louis Park adjacent to Methodist Hospital to enhance the flow of the creek. In 2004, Park Nicollet filed a grant application with MCWD for assistance in the construction of rain gardens on the Methodist Hospital property to improve the quality of storm water runoff draining from the site into Minnehaha Creek (Exhibit B). The Methodist Hospital site currently comprises a number of parcels around and adjacent to Minnehaha Creek within the City of St. Louis Park. In 2004, MCWD hired a consultant (Kestrel Design Group) to develop a concept plan of potential environmental improvements for the site to improve the existing conditions, restore natural features, provide amenities to the hospital and its visitors, increase public access and provide for educational opportunities. The concept plan is attached as Exhibit B. The proposed project involves the restoration of a stream meander from the existing straight-line configuration of the creek, wetland vegetation restoration, construction of an elevated boardwalk and canoe landings to increase public access, and educational signage throughout the site. To move ahead with this project, the MCWD and Methodist Hospital is requesting the City’s approval of an easement on a piece of property the City owns along the creek. SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE: Park Nicollet will maintain the boardwalks and trails year-round. The City will not be responsible for maintaining this trail. Park Nicollet will be responsible for clearing of snow in the winter, closing them during icy conditions and fully maintaining the boardwalk and trails. If issues occur on the trails and boardwalk, Park Nicollet’s Safety and Security would respond and contact St. Louis Park Police if deemed necessary. PUBLIC ACCESS: The trails and boardwalk are open to the public without restriction. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 2 PROJECT CONTRACT SERVICES: For this project, it is the intent of MCWD to provide financial and technical assistance for the completion of the design and construction of the project. This would be accomplished through the execution of a Funding Agreement between the project partners. The Funding Agreement would designate roles and responsibilities of each of the parties in the design and construction, define operations and maintenance criteria for the project, establish conservation easements over improved areas, identify project milestones for scheduling and budgeting, and allocate costs between partners. Project cost estimates are included in this document. Other than providing the easement, the City has not been requested to assist with funding the project or maintaining the improvements. SCHEDULE & BUDGET: Through the Funding Agreement Methodist Hospital will identify a Schedule and Budget for design, construction and milestones for payments. Payments from MCWD will be issued per the Funding Agreement in lump sum payments upon certification of completion of identified tasks. At the time of the writing of this report, construction of the proposed improvements is anticipated to begin during the upcoming winter months with design work and planning on-going throughout the year. BUDGET ESTIMATES: Channel Meander/Restoration $105,000.00 Educational Items $11,000.00 Boardwalk Construction $360,000.00 Hospital Capital Items $55,000.00 Land Access Value $72,000.00 Design and Construction Observation $90,000.00 Operations & Maintenance – Natural Areas $23,000.00 Operations & Maintenance - Boardwalk $90,000.00 Total $806,000.00 PARTNER CONTRIBUTIONS: MCWD Methodist Hospital $105,000 Water Resources $72,000 In-Kind Land Use Value $11,000 Educational Items $65,000 Labor for Construction $31,000 Lumber for Boardwalk $55,000 Additional Capital Items for Hospital $261,000 Footings $50,000 Construction Oversight, Administration, and Documentation $3,000 Landscaping $90,000 Boardwalk O&M (30 years) $40,000 Design $23,000 Natural Areas O&M (30 years) $474,000 Through Funding Agreement $332,000 In-Kind Land Access, Labor, & Capital for Hospital Needs St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving a temporary easement for Methodist Hospital and the MCWD to realign a portion of Minnehaha Creek; construct trails, boardwalks and other related improvements; perform other hydrologic and ecosystem improvements; and install educational signage (together, the “Project”); all in accordance with the terms of a Funding Agreement executed by the Parties and pursuant to the water resource purposes of the MCWD as set forth in Minnesota Statutes §§103B.201 and 103D.201 (“Construction Easement”); and a perpetual easement allowing for inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Project ("Permanent Easement"). The City Attorney has reviewed the documents. Attachments: Exhibit A: Methodist Hospital Neighborhood Context Exhibit B: Project Proposal Proposed Easement Proposed Funding Agreement Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Parks and Recreation Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 4 Exhibit A St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 5 Exhibit B St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 6 DRAFT 11-29-06 EASEMENT On the Property of the City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County, Minnesota Legal description of Burdened Property: Described in Attachment A incorporated herein. THIS EASEMENT is entered into by and among the City of St. Louis Park, a statutory city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“City”); the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”), a special-purpose governmental body established under and with authorities specified at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D; and Methodist Hospital, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Methodist”) (together, the “parties”). WITNESS: A. The City owns in fee simple certain real property within City boundaries and riparian to Minnehaha Creek, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described in Attachment A hereto (the “Burdened Property”). B. The easement here conveyed includes: (1) A temporary easement for Methodist Hospital and the MCWD to realign a portion of Minnehaha Creek; construct trails, boardwalks and other related improvements; perform other hydrologic and ecosystem improvements; and install educational signage (together, the “Project”); all in accordance with the terms of a Funding Agreement executed by the Parties on ________ and pursuant to the water resource purposes of the MCWD as set forth in Minnesota Statutes §§103B.201 and 103D.201 (“Construction Easement”); and (2) A perpetual easement allowing for inspection, maintenance, repair and replacement of the Project ("Permanent Easement"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payment of one dollar and other good and valuable consideration, and the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which hereby are acknowledged, the City conveys to the MCWD and Methodist, and the MCWD and Methodist accept, an easement of both a perpetual and a temporary nature on the Burdened Property, as specifically set forth herein. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 7 1. Easement Description. The Permanent and Construction Easements are on that portion of the Burdened Property as delineated on the scaled and benchmarked site plan at Attachment B to this Easement ("Easement Area"). 2. Construction Easement. The Construction Easement is a temporary easement on the Burdened Property to allow for Project construction activity within the Easement Area. The City conveys to the MCWD and Methodist, and their authorized representatives, agents, contractors and subcontractors, until construction, demobilization and site stabilization are complete, the right to use the Easement Area for Project construction purposes, including but not limited to ingress and egress; the placement of construction-related structures; the placement, movement and operation of equipment; staging and stockpiling; and the placement and maintenance of erosion control and similar construction-phase site measures. 3. Permanent Easement. The City conveys to the MCWD and Methodist, and their authorized representatives, agents, contractors and subcontractors, the right in perpetuity, at their own expense and solely within the Easement Area, to inspect, maintain, repair and replace Project elements and undertake associated hydrologic, vegetative, structural and educational modifications to maintain and enhance the Project. This right includes the rights, within the Easement Area, of ingress and egress, equipment staging and use, material stockpiling and other rights as reasonably necessary or convenient for the work described. 4. City’s Limitations Within Easement Area. The City reserves all rights, privileges and responsibilities associated with ownership of the Burdened Property except as provided in this easement. a. Prohibited Uses. The City will not perform or knowingly allow others to perform acts within the Easement Area in violation of the specific terms of this easement or that would significantly impair or interfere with the function of the Project or the MCWD’s or Methodist’s exercise of rights under this easement. b. Structures and Disturbances. The City will not construct any structures, surfaces or utility facilities on or under the Easement Area. c. Surface Alteration. The City will not alter the surface of the Easement Area, including without limitation filling, excavating or removing soil, sand, gravel, rocks or other material. The City will not dump, dispose or otherwise place refuse, waste vegetation or other waste material within the Easement Area. d. Trees, Shrubs and Other Vegetation. The City will not remove, destroy, cut, mow or otherwise alter vegetation within the Easement Area, or apply fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides on or to the Easement Area, except with written MCWD approval and (i) as reasonably required to prevent or control infestations, noxious weeds, disease, fire, personal injury or property damage, or (ii) to improve the hydrological function and value of the water resources within or associated with the Easement Area. e. Wetland Regulation. In the event that the Project or any part thereof is subject to the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes §§103G.221 et seq., or other state or federal wetland regulations, the City will cooperate in the steps needed for St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 8 regulatory approval. This includes but is not limited to executing and recording covenants or declarations that may limit activity within the Easement Area in ways other than or in addition to those set forth in this easement, but excludes the placing of constraints or encumbrances on any part of the Burdened Property not within the Easement Area. 5. Recitations Incorporated. All recitations are a part of this agreement. 6. Public Ownership Rights and Regulatory Authorities Not Affected. The parties recognize that the rights in this Easement may be subject to ownership, easement or servitude interests of the State of Minnesota in the bed or banks of Minnehaha Creek or adjacent lands. This Easement does not replace or diminish the regulatory authority of any public body, including the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the MCWD and the City, as it may apply to the Burdened Property or any activity on it. Notwithstanding, the City will cooperate in any permits or approvals required for the Project. 7. Reserved Rights. The City reserves all rights accruing from the ownership of the Burdened Property not otherwise conveyed to the MCWD and Methodist herein, including without limitation the right to engage in or allow others to engage in all activities or uses of the Burdened Property that are not prohibited or limited by this Easement and the right to sell or transfer all or part of the Burdened Property subject to this Easement. Nothing in this easement creates any rights in third parties or alters any immunity, defense or liability limit of a party with respect to a third party. 8. Property Transfer. The City will inform the transferee of the existence of this easement in conjunction with any transfer of interest, including an easement or a leasehold interest, in all or part of the Burdened Property. The City will notify the MCWD and Methodist within fifteen (15) days of a transfer of all or any part of a property interest in the Burdened Property. 9. Taxes and Liens. The City retains all financial obligations, bears all costs and liabilities accruing from the fee ownership of the Burdened Property, and will pay all taxes and assessments levied against the Burdened Property. The MCWD or Methodist may, but is not obligated to, make any payment of taxes or assessments levied against the Burdened Property in place and on behalf of the City and will be reimbursed by the City for such amounts. 10. Indemnification. The MCWD and Methodist hereby hold the City harmless, and agree to defend and indemnify the City, from and against any and all suits, actions, causes of actions, proceedings, claims, costs and damages arising out of the design, construction, operation or maintenance of the Project, except to the extent resulting from an action or inaction of the City for which the City independently would be subject to liability. The obligations hereunder are not joint and several as between the MCWD and Methodist, but are the individual obligations of those parties in the same manner and to the same extent as set forth in the Funding Agreement for the Project. 11. Insurance. Each of the Parties remains solely responsible to maintain liability and other insurance for its own use of and authority over the Burdened Property. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 9 12. Waiver. A decision by a party not to exercise its rights of enforcement in the event of a breach of a term of this Easement is not a waiver of such term, any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, or any of the party’s rights under this Easement. The delay or failure to discover a breach or to exercise a right of enforcement as to such breach does not impair or waive a party’s rights of enforcement, all of which shall be cumulative and not exclusive. 13. Acts Beyond Party’s Control. A party will not exercise its right of enforcement against another party for injury or alteration to the Burdened Property resulting from: (a) a cause beyond the reasonable control of that party, including without limitation fire, flood, a precipitation event with a statistical recurrence interval of 100 years or more, storm, and earth movement resulting from natural forces or the act of a third party; or (b) any prudent action taken by the party under emergency conditions to prevent, abate or mitigate significant injury or alteration resulting from such a cause. 14. Notices. Any notice or other communication that a party must give to another will be in writing and delivered to the following address or such other address as the party designates by written notice to the others: [INSERT] 15. Miscellaneous. This Easement is governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. This Easement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior discussions and agreements. The parties may amend this Easement only by a writing duly executed by all parties and meeting all requirements of law. The terms of this easement shall bind and benefit the parties and their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors, assigns and all others who exercise any right by or through them and shall run in perpetuity with the Burdened Property. The MCWD bears the cost of duly recording this easement at the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder. [SIGNATURE BLOCKS, NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS] Prepared by: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 10 ATTACHMENT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BURDENED PROPERTY THAT PART OF E 1/4 OF SEC 20 LYING N OF EXCELSIOR BLVD AND LYING NELY OF MINNEHAHA CREEK AND LYING WLY OF A LINE DESC AS FOLLOWS BEG AT A PT IN W LINE OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 DIS 425 FT S FROM NW COR THOF TH SELY TO A PT IN S LINE THOF DIS 480 FT W FROM SE COR THOF TH CONT ALONG PROJECTION OF SAID LINE TO ITS INTERSEC WITH W LINE OF E 411 FT OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TH S TO N LINE OF EXCELSIOR BLVD AND THERE TER- MINATING EXCEPT ROAD St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 11 ATTACHMENT B SITE PLAN with DELINEATED EASEMENT AREA St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 12 FUNDING AGREEMENT METHODIST HOSPITAL CREEK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Hennepin County, Minnesota Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the City of St. Louis Park, and Methodist Hospital This Funding Agreement (this “Agreement”) is entered into this ____ day of _______, 2006 by and among the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota with powers set forth at Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D (“MCWD”); the City of St. Louis Park, a statutory city and political subdivision of the State of Minnesota (“City”); and Methodist Hospital, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (“Methodist”) (together, the “parties”). Recitals A. Methodist and the City are owners of certain real property located in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, each of which is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the “Methodist Property” and the “City Property,” respectively and, together, the “Properties”). Parties to this agreement have agreed to participate in the construction of the improvements with the intent of improving natural resources and increasing public access. B. Methodist has agreed to perform certain work to re-align a portion of Minnehaha Creek (the “Creek”) that runs within the Properties, construct trails, boardwalks and other related improvements (the “Improvements”) on the Properties and perform other hydrologic and ecosystem improvements to the Properties (collectively, the “Work”) in accordance with a concept plan (the “Concept Plan”) to be prepared by Inter- Fluve, Inc. (“Inter-Fluve”) as set forth herein. C. MCWD has agreed to reimburse Methodist up to $425,000 to defray the costs incurred by Methodist in performing the Work. The amount of funding contributed by the MCWD corresponds to the enhancement of public awareness and the hydrologic and aquatic ecosystem benefits that the innovative approach will provide to the Creek and the surrounding watershed. Under this agreement, the City has not assumed any financial obligation towards the project. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Design and Construction 1.1 Methodist will retain Inter-Fluve to prepare the Concept Plan for the Work, which Concept Plan shall be consistent with the Methodist Hospital Wetland St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 13 Concept Plan prepared by The Kestrel Design Group dated December 17, 2004 and shall be subject to the approval of the director of the MCWD or his or her designee, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. Methodist will perform the Work, or cause the Work to be performed, in accordance with the approved Concept Plan. Methodist will retain a designer to prepare construction plans and specifications (“plans and specifications”), prepare any necessary procurement documents for the Work, secure any required permits and approvals, coordinate site and traffic control with local unit(s) of government, contract for construction of the Work in substantial conformance with the Concept Plan, and manage the construction contract. 1.2 Methodist will give the MCWD and the City reasonable notice of pre- construction and construction meetings concerning the Work. The MCWD, the City and their authorized representatives may attend these meetings, inspect the Work at all reasonable times with advance notice to Methodist, and review all related documentation. 2. Funding 2.1 No more than once per month, Methodist will make a written request to the MCWD for reimbursement of costs incurred by Methodist with respect to the Work. Methodist will include with each such written request a copy of an invoice for each item to be reimbursed and a copy of the corresponding check showing payment of such invoices by Methodist. The MCWD will make payment for plans and specifications conforming to the Concept Plan, and for construction work conforming to the plans and specifications, within 30 days of receipt of Methodist’s written request accompanied by the supporting documentation described above. The total amount paid by the MCWD under this Agreement will not exceed $425,000 but will cover documented costs relative to design and construction of the Work. 2.2 The parties recognize that partial performance of the Work under paragraph 1 of this Agreement may confer no or limited benefit on the MCWD. If the Work is not completed in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, the MCWD may withhold any sum not yet paid, require reimbursement of sums already paid, and have any available contractual or quasi-contractual remedy for those purposes. If the Work is not substantially completed within three years of the Effective Date (as defined in Section 7 below), Methodist will repay the MCWD all reimbursements it received under this Agreement within 30 days of MCWD’s written request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Methodist is delayed or hindered from completing the Work by any cause or causes beyond its reasonable control, which shall include, without limitation, all delays caused by any other party hereto, labor disputes, riots, civil commotion or insurrection, war or warlike operations, invasion, rebellion, military or usurped power, interrupted utility services, sabotage, governmental restriction, regulations or controls, fire or other casualties, acts of terrorism, or Acts of God (each a “Force Majeure Event”), then the time period for completion of the Work shall be extended for each day of delay caused by a Force Majeure Event. For the purpose of this paragraph only, the term “substantially completed” means the point at which all of the Work has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications and may be placed into service for pedestrian use. Within thirty (30) days of substantial completion of the Work, the MCWD agrees to provide Methodist with written confirmation of said substantial completion. 2.3 Methodist will maintain all project records concerning the Work for at least three years from the date of substantial completion. On at least fifteen (15) days prior notice to Methodist, Methodist St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 14 agrees to make all such records available to the MCWD, which may examine, audit, and copy any such records. 3. Maintenance of Project Components and Educational Signage 3.1 Methodist will maintain the Improvements in accordance with the terms of a Maintenance Declaration (the “Declaration”) substantially conforming to the document attached hereto as Exhibit B, which establishes terms of maintenance, allows the MCWD access for purposes stated in paragraph 3.2 below and protects the conservation values of that portion of the Methodist Property described therein. The maintenance obligations contained in the Declaration shall be covenanted to the MCWD as a public body for the benefit of public resources and are not intended as “private covenants, conditions or restrictions” within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes §500.20. Before MCWD becomes obligated to make payments under this Agreement, Methodist will execute and record the Declaration with the Hennepin County recorder’s or registrar’s office as appropriate. 3.2 The MCWD may install, maintain, remove and replace informational signage of a design and at locations on the Methodist Property and the City Property acceptable to Methodist and the City, respectively, which acceptance will not be unreasonably withheld. The MCWD will be responsible at its sole cost and expense for installation, maintenance, removal and replacement of such signage. 4. City Easement Within 30 days of the Effective Date, the City will record an easement substantially conforming to Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated herein, allowing for performance and maintenance of the Work and signage pursuant to this Agreement and protecting the conservation values of that portion of the City Property described therein. [PLEASE PROVIDE FORM OF EASEMENT FOR REVIEW] 5. Independent Relationship The MCWD's role under this Agreement is solely to provide funds to support the construction, and the dissemination of knowledge about, innovative approaches to hydrologic and ecosystem management through the implementation of the Work. The MCWD has no authority to certify the final design and no authority to select, or role in selecting, the means, method or manner of performing any of the Work or the person or firm who will perform the Work. No employee, representative, contractor or consultant of any party to this Agreement acts in any respect as the agent or representative of any other party. This Agreement is not a joint powers agreement under Minnesota Statutes §471.59. Any right to review or approve a design, work in progress or constructed facility under this Agreement by the MCWD or its agent, representative or consultant is solely for the MCWD’s own purpose of accounting for funds expended. 6. Remedies; Immunities Only contractual remedies are available for the failure of a party to fulfill the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement creates no rights in and waives no immunities, defenses or liability limitations with respect to any third party or any other party to this Agreement. Each party agrees to hold harmless, defend and indemnify each of the other parties from and against that portion of any and all liability, loss, claim, damage or expense (including attorney fees, costs and disbursements) that the indemnified party may incur as a result of any act or omission of the indemnifying party that, in its performance under this Agreement, subjects it to liability in law or St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 15 equity. No action or inaction of the MCWD under this Agreement creates a duty of care on the part of the MCWD for the benefit of a consultant or contractor of Methodist or any other third party. Methodist agrees to defend and indemnify the MCWD with respect to any claim by a Methodist consultant, contractor or subcontractor arising out of performance of the Work described in this Agreement. 7. Effective Date; Termination; Survival of Obligations The Agreement is effective when fully executed by all parties (the “Effective Date”) and expires five years thereafter. All obligations that have come into being before expiration, specifically including, but not limited to, obligations under paragraphs 2, 3 and 6, shall survive expiration (provided the indemnities set forth in Section 6 shall survive expiration of this Agreement for a term of one (1) year). 8. Acknowledgment Any publicly distributed or displayed printed or electronic documents, other text display or public presentation concerning the Work shall properly acknowledge the funding and support of the MCWD. 9. Compliance with Laws 9.1 Methodist will comply with the laws and requirements of all federal, state, local and other governmental units in constructing the Work, and will procure all licenses, permits, approvals and other rights necessary to construct the Work. Notwithstanding anything apparently to the contrary herein, Methodist’s obligations under this Agreement, including its obligations to perform or cause the performance of the Work, are subject to Methodist obtaining said licenses, permits, approvals and other rights. The Work is subject to all applicable MCWD and City permit requirements. 9.2 In constructing the Work, Methodist will ensure that no person is excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the ground of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws, rules or regulations against discrimination otherwise will be subjected to discrimination. 9.3 The parties do not intend that this Agreement alter any legal obligations of Methodist with respect to the application of any competitive bidding statutes that may be applicable to its purchase or construction of the Work. 10. Notices Any written communication required under this Agreement will be addressed to the other parties as follows, except that any party may change its address for notice by so notifying the other parties in writing: To MCWD: Administrator Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 16 To City: _________________ _________________ _________________ To Methodist : Methodist Hospital 6500 Excelsior Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55426 Attn: Director of Engineering and: Methodist Hospital P.O. Box 650 Minneapolis, MN 55440-0650 Attn: Director of Engineering 11. Waiver A party’s failure to insist on the strict performance of any obligation under this Agreement, or to exercise any option, remedy or right herein, will not waive or relinquish that party’s right in the future to insist on strict performance of that or any other obligation. A party’s waiver of a breach of an obligation of this Agreement will not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach of that or any other obligation. A waiver must be in writing and signed by the party. 12. Venue and Jurisdiction This Agreement is to be construed under and governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any legal action hereunder is Hennepin County, Minnesota. 13. Counterparts This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be originals and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. [remainder of page intentionally left blank] St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 17 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound, the parties hereto execute and deliver this Agreement. MCWD: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District By: ______________________________ Its: ______________________________ Methodist: Methodist Hospital By: ______________________________ Its: ______________________________ City: City of St. Louis Park By: ______________________________ Its: ______________________________ St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 18 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of the Properties THAT PART OF E 1/4 OF SEC 20 LYING N OF EXCELSIOR BLVD AND LYING NELY OF MINNEHAHA CREEK AND LYING WLY OF A LINE DESC AS FOLLOWS BEG AT A PT IN W LINE OF SE 1/4 OF NE 1/4 DIS 425 FT S FROM NW COR THOF TH SELY TO A PT IN S LINE THOF DIS 480 FT W FROM SE COR THOF TH CONT ALONG PROJECTION OF SAID LINE TO ITS INTERSEC WITH W LINE OF E 411 FT OF NE 1/4 OF SE 1/4 TH S TO N LINE OF EXCELSIOR BLVD AND THERE TER- MINATING EXCEPT ROAD St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 19 EXHIBIT B Maintenance Declaration and Covenants St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8a - Watershed District Creek And Trail Construction Page 20 EXHIBIT C Easement on City Property St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 1 8b. Second Reading of an Ordinance Establishing Criteria and Procedural Requirements for Sale of City Park Land Recommended Action: Motion to adopt second reading of the Ordinance establishing criteria and procedures for the sale of City owned park and open space; authorize summary ordinance and authorize publication. PURPOSE: The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to establish the procedures that would need to be followed if the City ever decided to sell or lease (for a period of five years or more), all or a portion park and open space owned by the City. The ordinance is proposed in recognition of the importance of the City’s parks and open space to the overall success of the community and the well being of our residents. BACKGROUND: At the November 20, 2006 Council meeting a proposed park land sales ordinance was presented and the first reading held. After taking comments from the public and discussing the proposed ordinance, the Council approved the first reading and directed staff to make four ordinance revisions. The Council also scheduled the second reading of the ordinance for the December 4, 2006 City Council meeting. Staff was directed to bring the revised ordinance for consideration at the second reading. The revisions requested were as follows. 1. to add “joint ventures” with third parties to the definition of what constitutes a “sale of park property” ; 2. to add inclusion of lease extensions or renewal options when calculating whether a lease is a “sale of park property”. Leases of five years or more, including any renewal options, would be considered a sale of park property under the proposed ordinance. 3. to exclude leases for permitted uses in the new Parks & Open Space zoning district from the requirements of park land sales ordinance; and, 4. to add a look-back provision to ensure that park zoned properties are not rezoned to simply to get around the park land sales procedures required by this ordinance. In this case “park property” will include any city-owned land that, at the time of a proposed sale, either is or has been within the last five years zoned “Parks and Open Space” With the help of the City Attorney, these items have been incorporated into the Definitions and Exceptions sections of the proposed ordinance. The final version of the ordinance is attached. A summary of the ordinance and the next steps in the approval process are provided below. Summary of Proposed Ordinance The proposed ordinance requires a lengthy and comprehensive review of any proposal to sell or lease any city park land. A super-majority vote of the Council would be required to approve a sale or lease. The review process includes: 1. A public information meeting with published and mailed notice to residents within 1320 feet of the property in question, at least 21 days in advance of the meeting; 2. A public hearing at the Planning Commission with published and mailed notice must be held after the informational meeting; and, St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 2 3. Review of the proposed action by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission after the Planning Commission makes its recommendation. All three of these opportunities for public input and advisory commission review would occur prior to Council action on any proposed park land sale or longer term lease. The City Council itself will be required to approve both a first and second reading of the resolution of approval of a proposed park land sale or lease. The readings will need to be at meetings separated by a minimum of 14 days; and, both readings will require a super majority (5 affirmative votes) for approval. A separate notice of the time, date, and place of the City Council’s first reading of the resolution of approval will also be required to be mailed to each property owner and the neighborhood president (if any exist) within 1,320 feet of the park property being considered for sale, at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. Any sale or lease of city park land to another government entity or non-profit corporation for a purpose allowed in the city’s Park and Open Space zoning district would be exempted from these requirements. However if the other government entity or non-profit corporation ever discontinued park zoned use of the land, the title to the property would be required to revert back to the City. Connection with Proposed New Park Zoning District The proposed ordinance is designed to work in conjunction with the new park zoning district. The park property sales ordinance would only apply to city land that is zoned park and/or open space. It would not apply to other city owned property. Next Steps Following approval of the second reading of the ordinance, it will be published in the City’s official newspaper. The new ordinance will take effect 15 days after publication. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends adoption of the second reading of the revised ordinance establishing criteria and procedures for the sale of City park land; approve summary ordinance and authorize publication. Attachments: • Redlined version of ordinance • Ordinance Establishing the Criteria and Procedural Requirements for Considering the Sale of any City Park Property • Summary ordinance for publication Prepared by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 3 ORDINANCE NO. _________-06 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MUST MEET BEFORE CONSIDERING THE SALE OF ANY CITY PARK PROPERTY, AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 20 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to “Parks and Recreation” is amended by adding the following section: Sec. 20-7 Sale of Park Property (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to recognize that public parks and open space are essential for the well-being of the city and that their protection and enhancement is a City priority. (b) DefinitionDefinitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: Park Property. The term park property“park property” shall mean any city- owned land that is zoned “Park”, at the time of any proposed sale, either is or has been within the last five years zoned Parks and Open Space. Sale of Park Property. The term “sale of park property” shall mean the transfer of legal or equitable title to the property, the approval of a joint venture or other similar legal relationship with a third party which involves the use and control of the property, or a lease of the property, including any renewal options, for five years or more. The term shall not include a lease to a third party for an allowed use in the Parks and Open Space District. (c) Exception. This section shall not apply to the sale of park property to another governmental entity or non-profit corporation so long as the sale requires the acquiring entity to continue the use of the property for public park purposes consistent with the uses allowed in the Parks and Open Space District with title reverting to the City if such park use is discontinued. (d) Procedure. In addition to any procedural requirements under state statute and city code relating to comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, before the City Council can consider the sale of any park property to which this section applies, the following procedures must be followed: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 4 (1) Public Information Meeting a. A Public Information Meeting shall be conducted by City Staff. The process shall be initiated by the City Manager or its designee at the direction of the City Council. The purpose of the meeting is to inform and receive feedback from the community on the proposed land sale. b. The notice of the meeting shall be given in the same manner as the notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission, except that the published and mailed notice shall be given twenty- one (21) days before the meeting. (2) Planning Commission hearing. a. After the Public Information Meeting, a public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission. b. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City and posted on the city web site at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. c. A notice of the hearing shall also be mailed at least two weeks before the date of the hearing to each owner of record of property located wholly or partly within 1,320 feet of the park property being considered for sale. A notice shall also be mailed to the chair person (if any) of the neighborhood association within which the park property is located. d. The notice shall use the records of the County Auditor’s office or other appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners entitled to written notice. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the person giving the notice and shall be made a part of the record of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings provided a bona fide attempt has been made to comply with this section. e. A sign shall be posted by the City on the property clearly visible from the street advising the public that the property is being considered for sale and appropriate contact information. This sign shall be posted at least two weeks prior to the hearing. f. The hearing under this section shall be conducted concurrently with the public hearing required for a comprehensive plan St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 5 amendment and rezoning of the park property being considered for sale. g. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make its recommendations to the City Council. The matter shall then be referred to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for its review. h. In making its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall consider the information and comments expressed at the public hearing, the criteria relating to comprehensive plan and rezoning amendments and all other factors the Commission deems relevant based upon the specific proposal being considered. (3) Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Review. a. After the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, the Parks and Recreation Advisory commission shall review the matter and provide its comments and recommendation to the City Council. b. The Commission shall consider the impact of the proposed sale on the current and long range parks and recreation plans for the City. (4) City Council consideration: a. Except as provided for in Subsection 4(f) herein, the City Council may consider the sale of park property only after the Planning Commission has completed the public hearing and made its recommendation and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission has completed its review. b. A notice of the time, date, and place of the City Council’s first reading of a resolution considering the sale of park property shall be mailed at least ten (10) days in advance of the meeting to each owner of record of property located wholly or partially within 1,320 feet of the park property being considered for sale and the neighborhood president (if any). c. Consideration of the sale of park property may occur concurrently with the Council’s consideration of a comprehensive plan and rezoning amendments. d. The Council’s action shall be by resolution requiring a first and second reading separated by a minimum of fourteen (14) days. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 6 e. An affirmative vote of at least five (5) council members at both the first and second reading of the resolution is required to approve the sale of park property. f. If the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission have not made their recommendations and comments within 75 days of the date of the public hearing, the City Council at its discretion may act on the proposed sale without such recommendations and comments. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. First Reading November 20, 2006 Second Reading December 4, 2006 Date of Publication December 14, 2006 Date Ordinance takes effect December 29, 2006 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 7 ORDINANCE NO. 2321-06 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MUST MEET BEFORE CONSIDERING THE SALE OF ANY CITY PARK PROPERTY, AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 20 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances relating to “Parks and Recreation” is amended by adding the following section: Sec. 20-7 Sale of Park Property (a) Purpose. The purpose of this section is to recognize that public parks and open space are essential for the well-being of the city and that their protection and enhancement is a City priority. (b) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply: Park Property. The term “park property” shall mean any city-owned land that, at the time of any proposed sale, either is or has been within the last five years zoned Parks and Open Space. Sale of Park Property. The term “sale of park property” shall mean the transfer of legal or equitable title to the property, the approval of a joint venture or other similar legal relationship with a third party which involves the use and control of the property, or a lease of the property, including any renewal options, for five years or more. The term shall not include a lease to a third party for an allowed use in the Parks and Open Space District. (c) Exception. This section shall not apply to the sale of park property to another governmental entity or non-profit corporation so long as the sale requires the acquiring entity to continue the use of the property for public park purposes consistent with the uses allowed in the Parks and Open Space District with title reverting to the City if such park use is discontinued. (d) Procedure. In addition to any procedural requirements under state statute and city code relating to comprehensive plan or zoning amendments, before the City Council can consider the sale of any park property to which this section applies, the following procedures must be followed: St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 8 (1) Public Information Meeting a. A Public Information Meeting shall be conducted by City Staff. The process shall be initiated by the City Manager or its designee at the direction of the City Council. The purpose of the meeting is to inform and receive feedback from the community on the proposed land sale. b. The notice of the meeting shall be given in the same manner as the notice of the public hearing before the Planning Commission, except that the published and mailed notice shall be given twenty- one (21) days before the meeting. (2) Planning Commission hearing. a. After the Public Information Meeting, a public hearing shall be conducted by the Planning Commission. b. A notice of the time, place and purpose of the hearing shall be published in the official newspaper of the City and posted on the city web site at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. c. A notice of the hearing shall also be mailed at least two weeks before the date of the hearing to each owner of record of property located wholly or partly within 1,320 feet of the park property being considered for sale. A notice shall also be mailed to the chair person (if any) of the neighborhood association within which the park property is located. d. The notice shall use the records of the County Auditor’s office or other appropriate records to determine the names and addresses of owners entitled to written notice. A copy of the notice and a list of the owners and addresses to which the notice was sent shall be attested to by the person giving the notice and shall be made a part of the record of the proceedings. The failure to give mailed notice to individual property owners or defects in the notice shall not invalidate the proceedings provided a bona fide attempt has been made to comply with this section. e. A sign shall be posted by the City on the property clearly visible from the street advising the public that the property is being considered for sale and appropriate contact information. This sign shall be posted at least two weeks prior to the hearing. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 9 f. The hearing under this section shall be conducted concurrently with the public hearing required for a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the park property being considered for sale. g. After closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make its recommendations to the City Council. The matter shall then be referred to the Park and Recreation Advisory Commission for its review. h. In making its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall consider the information and comments expressed at the public hearing, the criteria relating to comprehensive plan and rezoning amendments and all other factors the Commission deems relevant based upon the specific proposal being considered. (3) Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Review. a. After the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, the Parks and Recreation Advisory commission shall review the matter and provide its comments and recommendation to the City Council. b. The Commission shall consider the impact of the proposed sale on the current and long range parks and recreation plans for the City. (4) City Council consideration: a. Except as provided for in Subsection 4(f) herein, the City Council may consider the sale of park property only after the Planning Commission has completed the public hearing and made its recommendation and the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission has completed its review. b. A notice of the time, date, and place of the City Council’s first reading of a resolution considering the sale of park property shall be mailed at least ten (10) days in advance of the meeting to each owner of record of property located wholly or partially within 1,320 feet of the park property being considered for sale and the neighborhood president (if any). c. Consideration of the sale of park property may occur concurrently with the Council’s consideration of a comprehensive plan and rezoning amendments. d. The Council’s action shall be by resolution requiring a first and second reading separated by a minimum of fourteen (14) days. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 10 e. An affirmative vote of at least five (5) council members at both the first and second reading of the resolution is required to approve the sale of park property. f. If the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission have not made their recommendations and comments within 75 days of the date of the public hearing, the City Council at its discretion may act on the proposed sale without such recommendations and comments. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 4, 2006 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8b - Second Reading Ordinance Establishing Criteria And Procedure Sale Of City Park Land Page 11 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2321-06 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSIDERING SALE OF CITY PARK PROPERTY This ordinance establishes criteria and procedural requirements that must be met before considering the sale of any City park property. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 4, 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: December 14, 2006 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 1 8c. Agreement for citywide wireless management partner services provided through a private – public partnership. Recommended Action: Motion to approve attached agreement with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for citywide wireless broadband network. PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: At its November 6 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution 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 this network. In addition, Council authorized continuation of services to pilot subscribers through build out of the citywide network. Finally, Council asked that a few remaining items of interest be clarified and the agreement with Unplugged Cities be returned to Council for approval. Clarification of these items and the agreement are presented below. CLARIFICATION OF ITEMS: Council requested clarification of several items. These are addressed below. Wireless Network Backup Power: Traditional wireless networks have relied on the electrical grid for the vast majority of power to service wireless radios (also known as “wireless access points”). During times the electrical grid is unavailable due to damage, construction projects, or other reasons, most traditional wireless radios and the wireless network generally will be inoperable. In St. Louis Park’s case SunWize solar panels, currently used for transportation and pollution control applications in Minnesota, mitigate against outages in the electrical grid. While continuous power in households and businesses during outages will rely on their own battery or generator backup systems, St. Louis Park’s wireless radios generally rely on their attached solar panels and batteries for power at all times. Thus, when there are interruptions to electrical service, these radios continue to operate. This system’s solar panels and batteries are designed specifically to operate in Minnesota throughout the year, taking into account all weather patterns, including cloudiness. The design of the entire solar power supply is based on the historic climatic data for Minneapolis 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. In the event a solar panel fails, the system is designed to continue operating for 10 days using battery backup. In the event the battery completely discharges or fails, the user can often connect to another wireless radio in the area while a replacement battery is quickly installed. Typical battery life approaches 10 years, well beyond the 5-year life of this initial wireless project. Replacement solar panels and batteries will be stocked. At least as important is backup power to the remainder of the wireless network. Routers, servers, switches, fiber connections, and other network gear are connected to the standard electrical grid. They are also backed up with uninterruptible power supplies (UPS’s) and electrical generators. Thus, for example, a resident or businessperson could connect to the Internet if they have a laptop, or battery or generator backup to their own PC, during times of power outages. And it is St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 2 the solar powered wireless access points, in conjunction with power backup at all points along the network, which provides real value for public safety and services applications as they can continue to use the network during times of electric grid outages, when they are often most needed. Upgrade Opportunities: Traditional wireless networks have relied on wireless access points whose components are completely integrated. That is, when newer wireless technologies emerge, it typically requires a “forklift” replacement of all wireless access point with little, if any, re-use. In St. Louis Park’s case, radios have been “componentized” and can be moved. The weatherproof enclosure that incorporates needed components holds the potential to be upgraded with future radios or other components later in this 5-year project, or as part of a future project. For example, 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), this project is positioned to incorporate elements of WiMAX as appropriate and as they become available. WiFi and WiMAX are expected to co-exist and be complementary for some time 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. We may also take some comfort in the estimate of over 250,000,000 existing devices that incorporate 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 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. Possible Exit Strategies: Now that the City Council has decided to move forward with a citywide project, it could consider exit strategies due to market corrections or other reasons. The approach established in this citywide project facilitates that by separation of fixed and variable costs and investments between the city and management partner to the extent practicable. It also places responsibility for billing and customer service on the management partner. As a result, in this plan, the city has minimized its additional 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 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 3 network hardware owned and housed 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. Possible leased access to the fiber infrastructure to one or more Internet Service Providers may make more sense in this model. A “first right of refusal” clause has been included in the agreement with the management partner. Advertising Revenue: The agreement with the management partner establishes that all advertising revenues (less management partner incremental costs) go to the city. Interestingly, industry-wide, the positive impact of the advertising model on revenues in Internet services is being questioned, particularly for “free” Internet access. Some of these free models are entirely 100% reliant on advertising revenues. Fortunately, the St. Louis Park business model is not relying on advertising revenues. Help Desk Quality Assurance: Help desk quality, including adequate and competent staffing, is the single most important factor is project success beyond the network simply working reliably. This has to do with reasonable response times, as well as the ability of the first individual who answers the phone (Tier 1) to resolve most questions. Subscribers will also be using Macintosh, Linux, and Windows based devices. Such quality assurance expectations have been built into the agreement with the management partner. The strongest quality assurance incentive is the market – residents and businesses can switch providers if the wireless service is not delivering competitive value. The management partner’s revenues rise and fall based on subscribership. MANAGEMENT PARTNER AGREEMENT: Council requested that the initial agreement between the city and the management partner, Unplugged Cities, be returned to Council for approval. It is attached. In part, the clarification of items above attempts to address questions Council raised on November 6. In addition, two elements to the management partnership 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 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 were presented at the November 6 Council meeting. They are presented again below. The agreement is subject to approval of City Council, and no progress on citywide planning, scheduling, detailed communications to residents and businesses, or implementation can be made by UPC until approval of the agreement by the City Council. 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. Importantly, each term would include Early Termination clause for each party. While we could impose incremental penalties over time, the ultimate penalty is the city’s option to terminate the agreement. 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 St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 4 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 more easily both change management partners and 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 paid to the city is the same for Dialup Buster, Basic, and Deluxe connectivity services.  The fees for other connectivity services (e.g., high speed service to businesses) 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. • This includes add-on revenues such as VPN’s, static IP’s, VoIP, and others. • The fee will be reduced by $2.00 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. • 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. o Expectations for help desk answer times, time to resolution, and support for Macintosh, Windows, and Linux users have been incorporated into the agreement. o The few MDU’s and small 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: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 5 o UPC will continue service to pilot subscribers under the existing pilot service agreement until no later than final acceptance of the citywide wireless network by the city. o SLP and UPC will begin transition of all billing functions from UPC to SLP for the pilot subscribers immediately upon approval of the attached agreement. In order to facilitate this transition, pilot subscribers will be billed as new accounts by UPC, effective January 1, 2007. Pilot subscriber fees for the month of December 2006 will be waived and pilot accounts through the city will be settled and closed with the city. This provides some small recognition of pilot subscriber contributions and risk since April. This also provides the month of December to complete as smooth a transition as possible for pilot subscribers and begin signing up new subscribers moving into 2007. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Council approve attached agreement with Unplugged Cities, LLC to provide management partner services for the citywide wireless broadband network. Attachments: Agreement for Management Partner Services Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 6 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is made on the __th day of ___________ 2006, between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”), whose business address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2216, and Unplugged Cities, LLC (“UPC”) whose business address is 6041 University Ave NE, Fridley MN 55432. Abbreviations and Definitions of terms used in this Agreement: ACH: Automatic Clearing House CPE: Customer Premises Equipment IP: Internet Protocol ISP: Internet Service Provider SLA: Service Level Agreement MDU: Multiple Dwelling Unit MTBR: Meantime Between Repair QOS: Quality of Service VoIP: Voice over Internet Protocol VPN: Virtual Private Network UPC: Unplugged Cities, LLC Add-on Service Revenues: Revenues obtained from additional services or enhancements such as VoIP telephone, static IP addresses, parental filters, etc. Add-on service revenues do not include advertising revenues. Backhaul Network: Portion of wide-area-network used to transport information to/from the sub-network gateways (base stations) to the network switches/routers located at City Hall. Basic Service: Internet access service which delivers a burstable 1 Mbps symmetrical data connection. Connectivity Service Revenues: Revenues obtained from the Dial-Up Buster, Basic, and Deluxe Internet access services. Connectivity Service: Service which provides the ability to connect with another device or facility; forming a logically continuous path between two or more devices/facilities. Examples include but are not limited to Internet access, point-to-point connection St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 7 between two facilities, Point-to-multipoint or routable connections among multiple facilities. Deluxe Service: Internet access service which delivers a burstable 2.5 to 3 Mbps symmetrical data connection. The decision of whether a 2.5 Mbps or 3 Mbps service defines the Deluxe service is to be mutually agreed upon between the City and UPC. Dial Up Buster: Internet access service which delivers a burstable 128 Kbps symmetrical data connection. Fiber Network: See backhaul network. Static IP: An IP address which does not change each time a subscriber logs in or is authenticated. Sub-Backhaul Network: Point-to-Multipoint radio network connecting the Wi-Fi access points to the backhaul network Technical Support: Technical Support services includes: • 24 x 7 x 365 Support • Installation Support • Ongoing Subscriber Support • Troubleshooting (hardware, software, bridge, software and wiring issues) • Usage Support (How to Perform a Specific Task) • Remote support (remotely configure subscriber PCs) • Live Internet chat (available during Subscriber Service hours) • Email questions/support (answered within 24 hours) • Subscriber self help (web-based and CD support) • Billing/account Inquiries Tier1 Support: Basic application software and/or hardware support for connectivity of callers and other products provided through this agreement. This would include new subscriptions; modifying existing subscription information (passwords, e-mail addresses and billing plan); instituting subscription suspension & cancellation. Support is available 24 x 7 X 365. At least one senior staff member will be available per shift. Tier2 Support: The role of the Tier 2 agent is typically that of a senior staff member. Escalation to this level is appropriate when Tier 1 interaction has been unable to resolve the issue and further St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 8 action transcends the authority of Tier 1 staff. Senior staff member will conduct one-on-one support activities with subscribers as needed. These individuals are also responsible for compiling periodic reviews of individual and team performance. Tier3 Support: This team is directly under the close supervision of the UPC management and engineers. Senior staff members have the authority to take actions that fall outside the standard operating policies. Escalation to Tier 3 is appropriate in cases where Tier 1 and Tier 2 interactions have been unsuccessful in resolving an operational issue. At this level there is typically a truck roll. Wi-Fi Network: Wireless network based upon subscriber access via IEEE 802.11b/g standards. Subscriber Churn Rate: The rate at which a subscriber switches his/her service provider. The City and UPC agree as follows: 1. UPC Services. UPC will provide the professional services herein set forth in conjunction with the City’s operation of a wireless broadband network. 2. Term of Agreement. UPC shall perform these services, including Internet Service Provision, Subscriber Service and Technical Support with an initial term beginning after acceptance of the system by the City but no later than June 1, 2007 and expiring May 30, 2010. Unless either party gives notice of termination under Paragraph 11, this agreement will automatically renew with a term beginning June 1, 2010 and expiring May 30, 2012. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. This contract for Professional Services is conditioned on the satisfactory performance of ARINC or its successor in constructing a Wireless Broadband Network within the City. If for whatever reason that system is not constructed or does not become operational neither the City nor Unplugged Cities shall have any obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Prior to the beginning of the initial term of this agreement, the existing agreement attached hereto between the City and UPC for the City wireless pilot project shall remain in effect. 3. UPC Responsibilities. 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 City’s fiber network. UPC shall comply St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 9 with all City standards and policies in the performance of this Agreement, as well as state data practices laws and other applicable statutes and rules. Additionally, UPC will perform the following services: 3.1. Internet Service Provider. 3.1.1 Operate the Internet service. The UPC servers are to provide high availability technology, redundant power supplies, and redundant servers. UPC servers are used for DNS, Email hosting, Website hosting, Virus protection and SPAM filtering. Each server is to be backed up nightly to tape. Monthly backups are to be archived and kept offsite for security and potential disaster recovery. Once a week UPC shall perform partial restores of data from tape to verify media integrity. Each server is also to have a monthly snapshot for disaster recovery assurance. 3.1.2 Maintain and manage authentication (process). 3.1.3 Provide email services, including servers. 3.1.4 Provide all services including servers required to operate the ISP, except for the Nomadix or alternative authentication server. 3.1.5 Provide monthly operational statistics. 3.1.6 Respond to subpoenas regarding subscriber traffic. Using log files archived on UPC servers, UPC will be able to track subscriber’s usernames to IP addresses. This information can be used in the event a subpoena is served for a subscriber. This information is archived on tape for not less than two years. All subpoenas for users will be coordinated by UPC. 3.1.7 Maintain Quality of Service (QOS) standards. 3.2 Customer Services & Technical Support. 3.2.1 Perform subscriber contact. 3.2.2 Maintain subscriber satisfaction. 3.2.3 Manage subscriber expectations. 3.2.4 Hold periodic subscriber meetings to listen to what is working well, what needs improvement, and provide tips on getting more out of the wireless network. 3.2.5 Direct and fund sales & marketing efforts. UPC to create a Technical Support CD that is sent to all new subscribers and contains the following freeware features if available: • Anti-Spam software • Anti-Virus software • Pop-up Blocker • Spyware/Adware Blocker • Parental controls • Desktop firewall • Intuitive web-based set-up instructions with pictures • Video with voice-over set-up instruction • Remote Support and Configuration 3.2.6 Perform monthly billing. 3.2.6.1 Issue monthly billing in format approved by the City. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 10 3.2.6.2 Recover uncollectible subscriber fees (bad debt). 3.2.6.3 Collect subscriber fees. 3.2.6.4 Deposit funds in destination approved by the City. 3.2.6.4 Credit card and ACH transactions will be available. 3.2.7 Provide 24x7x365 help desk. Customer service representatives are to respond to calls with greetings selected by the City. Internal benchmarks to include average two minute TTA (Time to Answer) and average fifteen minute TTR (Time to Resolution). UPC is to provide the City with daily, weekly and monthly call statistics reports on a monthly basis. City shall also have access real-time reports via a secure web interface. 3.2.7.1 A minimum of Six Help Desk staff members will be hired to provide 24x7x365 Help Desk Support. 3.2.7.2 The majority of Help Desk Calls will be answered in less than 2 minutes. Records and software will be available for the City to monitor actual performance. 3.2.7.3 Randomly Applied Help Desk Performance Survey: This survey may be delivered through web-based technology or electronic mail. Performance criteria must be clearly defined in these surveys in order to permit analysis of quality and timeliness of service. The results of these surveys must be reported once each quarter. The originating subscriber survey data should be kept for a minimum of six months from its receipt and must be available to the City upon request. The user survey will collect, at a minimum, the name of the agent, ticket number, area for narrative free form text entry by user, and the answers to the ratings on the following kinds of topics: • Courtesy and professionalism demonstrated by Help Desk staff • Technical knowledge demonstrated by Help Desk staff • Problem solving skills demonstrated by Help Desk staff • Keeping user informed of the progress/resolution of ticket • Overall satisfaction of the service provided by the Help Desk staff 3.2.8 Provide Tier 1, Tier 2, Tier 3 support. 75% of Help Desk calls will be successfully resolved by Tier 1 support as measured starting 90 days after system acceptance by the City. 3.2.8.1 Assistance for Macintosh users for operating systems still actively supported by manufacturer. 3.2.8.2 Assistance for Windows users for operating systems still actively supported by manufacturer. 3.2.8.3 Support for Linux users. 3.2.8.3.1 For Linux support allow for auto referral to Tier 2. 3.2.8.4 Good faith efforts to support older versions of the software will be made. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 11 3.2.9 Provide store front staffing (minimum of 1 person in store at all times, rush hours additional staff provided). At least 8 hours for business days and evenings and limited hours on weekends, excludes holidays. 3.2.10 Set-up and program the CPE. 3.2.10.1 Programming instructions provided by UPC for bulk shipments. 3.2.10.2 Low volume CPE and special CPE orders programmed by UPC. 3.2.11 Conduct & schedule professional installations. 3.2.11.1 Supply subscriber hardware and antennas (beyond standard CPE) for installations. 3.2.11.2 UPC may charge subscriber a "competitive" installation fee if required ($100 or less), City approval of proposed fees is required. 3.2.12 Free email transfer and forwarding up to 30 days after transfer from most other service providers. Subject to availability of access to prior provider system. 3.3. Perform network operations. 3.3.1 Operate & maintain wireless network including fiber media converters. 3.3.2 Provide required wireless network firmware upgrades. 3.3.3 Maintain core network (routers & switches and authentication server). 3.3.4 Monitor and maintain Internet connection. 3.3.4.1 Recommend capacity additions. 3.3.5 Monitor wireless and fiber network. 3.3.6 Document all repairs and replacements to the wireless network during and after the warranty in a logbook, a copy of which is updated and provided to the City. 4. City Responsibilities. The City retains the right to set policies, approve pricing in a timely manner, and maintain ownership of the subscriber, subscriber databases and records, the www.parkwifi.com domain name, and all other intellectual property excluding the materials identified in Paragraph 10. Unless expressly specified otherwise in the agreement, the City is responsible to fund all network hardware and CPE costs to implement the wireless and fiber network. The City is responsible for maintaining the physical fiber network including locates, repairing cuts, and other damage to the fiber cable. Additionally, the City shall be responsible for the following: 4.1 Network Ownership. 4.1.1 Own & finance all equipment including spares owned by the City for the network. 4.1.2 Provide required network & CPE financing. 4.1.2.1 Finance network implementation. 4.1.2.2 Finance network upgrades. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 12 4.1.2.3 Finance CPE purchase. 4.1.2.4 Pay for vendor maintenance contracts for the network. 4.1.3 Provide facilities for authentication server, core switches, and core routers. 4.1.4 Provide authentication hardware & software. 4.1.5 Provide core network (routers & switches and authentication server). 4.1.6 Provide fiber repair & maintenance (locates, other). 4.1.7 Provide access to facilities for required network maintenance. 4.1.8 Provide material and labor for physical network upgrades (does not include firmware updates). 4.2 Other Facilities. 4.2.1 Provide access to mounting assets 4.2.1.1 Provide access to Xcel Energy mounting assets (to the extent possible via the City and Xcel Energy agreement) 4.2.1.2 Cover pole attachment fees. 4.2.1.3 Provide access to City mounting assets 4.2.1.4 Help facilitate (best effort) access to non-Xcel and non- City mounting assets 4.3 Maintain ownership of subscriber. 4.3.1 Provide community brand image- service will be marketed as a City provided service. 4.3.2 Monitor subscriber satisfaction. 4.3.3 Maintain subscriber "hot-line" to monitor customer satisfaction performance. 4.3.4 Monitor feedback regarding UPC performance. 4.3.5 Maintain ownership of domain names used for the ParkWiFi service offering. 4.3.6 City shall be responsible for any City mandated adjustments (write-offs) to accounts. 4.4 Set Policies. 4.4.1 Set operating policy. (Acceptable Use Policy, Privacy Policy, Service Agreement, other) 4.4.2 Approve service offerings & prices 4.4.3 Approve all marketing and promotion activities on a timely basis 4.4.4 Set policy for potential advertising and sponsorship revenues (i.e. Yahoo & others) 4.4.4.1 Advertising revenue (different than value added services)—the City retains net revenue. 4.4.4.2 Net revenue determined by gross revenues less mutually agreed upon UPC incremental expenses. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 13 4.4.5 City ability to sell network, calculation of market value, right of first refusal to UPC. 4.5 Provide specified support to Management Partner. 4.5.1 City Council shall appoint a person to act as the City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City’s policy and decisions, with respect to the materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 4.5.2 Support marketing efforts via existing communication mechanisms. 4.5.3 Monitor financial performance, including reports as required by City. 4.5.4 Manage demarcation between City & UPC, which allows replacement of management partner if required. 4.5.5 Provide primary & redundant (as needed) Internet connection (transport and bandwidth). 4.5.6 Sponsor educational workshops. 4.5.7 Provide storefront facilities at City Hall or other City designated location. 5. Subscriber pricing and Compensation for Services. Prior to the beginning of the initial term of this agreement, the existing agreement attached hereto between the City and UPC for the City wireless pilot project shall remain in effect. Compensation to UPC will continue as described in that agreement until 500 continuous subscribers are using the connectivity services, at which time the revenue structure described below will be initiated. The City and UPC agree that initial subscriber pricing per month shall be as follows, in addition to a CPE lease fee of $5.00 per month: 14.99 Dial Up Buster (128 Kbps upload and download) 19.99 Basic Broadband (1 Mbps upload and download) 29.99 Deluxe Broadband (2.5 - 3 Mbps upload and download) The initial pricing and revenue sharing for other connectivity services delivered via the Wi-Fi network are to be established by the City Council. If the City reduces the subscriber pricing lower than the initial pricing, an equal reduction in the amount remitted to the City by UPC shall be made. If the City increases the subscriber pricing above the initial pricing, an equal increase in the amount remitted to the City by UPC shall be made. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 14 UPC shall remit $14 per month per subscriber to the City. UPC shall retain all connectivity services revenue in excess of $14 per month per subscriber, including revenues for additional services such as VPN’s, static IP’s, VoIP, and other. Subscribers have the option of purchasing the CPE. The purchase price is to be determined by the City and may vary depending upon model and performance required to meet different subscriber needs. The monthly per subscriber fee remitted to the City shall be reduced by $2.00 if the subscriber supplies or purchases the CPE (rather than leasing it for $5.00 per month). 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. Any net advertising or sponsorship revenue is the City’s. UPC will be reimbursed based upon mutually agreed incremental expenses, if any, required to support the selected advertising. 6. Method of Payment: UPC shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, the subscriber fee specified in Paragraph 5 above, along with itemized records detailing the professional services performed under Paragraph 3 of this Agreement to subscribers. 7. Customer Satisfaction. UPC and the City will establish policy guidelines for the issuance of credits and/or free services to be used in response to subscriber service issues. The subscriber fee payable to the City shall not be reduced by these credits or services awarded to a subscriber. 8. Subscribers with Disabilities and Non-English Speaking Subscribers. UPC and the City will establish policy and practice guidelines for addressing the needs of subscribers with disabilities and subscribers whose primary language is not English at as many points of subscriber contact as practicable based on need. 9. Project Manager and Staffing. UPC has designated Henry Camacho to serve on the Project. He shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Project in accordance with the terms established herein. UPC may not remove or replace Henry Camacho from the Project without the approval of the City. 10. Audit Disclosure and Document Retention. During UPC’s normal business hours upon reasonable notice, UPC shall allow the City or its duly authorized agents reasonable access to such of UPC’s books, premises, facilities, and records as are pertinent to all services provided under this Agreement. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by UPC under this Agreement which the City classified as not public pursuant to state law shall not be made available to any other individual or organization. The City’s audits will be conducted in a manner that does not unreasonably disrupt UPC’s business operations and no more frequently than once in any calendar year. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports prepared by UPC in the course of providing services hereunder that are specific to the provision of such services within the City shall become St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 15 the property of the City upon termination of this Agreement, but UPC may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. UPC will retain all right, title and interest in internally used training and operations documents by or for UPC and all other materials prepared by or for UPC that are generally applicable to the conduct of UPC’s business. 11. Early Termination. This Agreement may be terminated without cause by either party at any time during the initial or any renewal term by giving ninety (90) days written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this paragraph UPC shall pay the City any prorated monthly subscriber fees until the effective date of termination. Should the City terminate this agreement as part of its discontinuation of the service to its subscribers, the City hereby grants to UPC a first right of refusal, effective only during term of agreement between UPC and the City, for purchase of any capital assets related to this agreement. 12. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes herein, UPC is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find UPC an employee of the City. 13. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this contract, UPC shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age. UPC shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. UPC shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. 14. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 15. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the UPC not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 16. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement. 17. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 16 18. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the UPC shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to terminate this Agreement upon notice to UPC if UPC does not remedy the breach within ten (10) business days of notice of the breach. 19. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 20. Indemnification. Except to the extent arising from or caused by an act or omission of the City, its officers, or employees, UPC agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of UPC, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said UPC fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. UPC’s obligation to indemnify the City, its officers, and employees under this Agreement will be subject to the indemnified parties (i) providing UPC of prompt written notice of any third party claim that might give rise to an obligation to indemnify under this Paragraph 20 (ii) giving UPC sole control over the defense and settlement of all such third party claims, and (iii) cooperating with UPC in the defense of such claims. 21. Insurance. 21.1 General Liability. During the term of this Agreement, UPC shall maintain a general liability insurance policy with limits of at least $1,000,000 or the statutory minimum limit of liability then in effect as established in Chapter 466 of Minnesota Statutes for each person, and each occurrence, for both personal injury and property damage. This policy shall name the City as an additional insured for the services provided under this Agreement and shall provide that the UPC’s coverage shall be the primary coverage in the event of a loss. The policy shall also insure the indemnification obligation contained in Paragraph 20. A certificate of insurance on the City’s approved form which verifies the existence of this insurance coverage must be provided to the City before work under this Agreement is begun. 21.2 Worker’s Compensation. UPC shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect UPC from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of UPC’s services under this Agreement. 21.3 Professional Liability Insurance: UPC agrees to provide to the City a certificate evidencing that they have in effect, with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal liability arising out St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 17 of the performance of professional services for the City, in the insured’s capacity as the UPC, if such legal liability is caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of $1,000,000, or the minimum statutory limits established by Chapter 466 of Minnesota Statutes, whichever is greater. 22. Limited Warranty. Both parties will provide the services under this Agreement in a professional manner, consistent with industry standards. Both parties disclaim all other warranties with respect to such services, express or implied. 23. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ______________________________ Attest: Mayor ___________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk City Manager UNPLUGGED CITIES, LLC By____________________________ Paul D. Kralovec President St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 18 PILOT PROJECT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Agreement is made on the 6th day of February 2006, between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”), whose business address is 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416-2216, and Unplugged Cities (“Contractor”) whose business address is 6041 University Ave NE, Fridley MN 55432. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The City has adopted a policy regarding the selection and hiring of consultants to provide a variety of professional services for City projects. That policy requires that person, firms, or corporations providing such services enter into written contracts with the City. The purpose of this contract is to set forth terms and conditions to deliver Retail Broadband Access and Public Safety and Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network. The City and Contractor agree as follows: 1. Contractor’s Services. The Contractor agrees to provide professional services as described in the response to the Request-for-Proposal For Partnerships To Deliver Retail Broadband Access And Public Safety & Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network dated January 9, 2006. 2. Time for Performance of Services. The Contractor shall perform the services outlined in the response to the Request-for-Proposal For Partnerships To Deliver Retail Broadband Access And Public Safety & Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network dated January 9, 2006 and complete them by the end of the pilot project estimated to be June 30, 2006. 3. Compensation for Services. City agrees to pay the Contractor for services as described in the response to the Request-for-Proposal For Partnerships To Deliver Retail Broadband Access And Public Safety & Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network dated January 9, 2006. Compensation for these services shall be $6000 for a setup and initial programming fee and $5,000.00 per month for the months of March through June of 2006. The fee that the City will pay under this Agreement shall not exceed $26,000.00 unless agreed to by the City and the Contractor. 4. The Contractor, upon direction of the City, agrees to perform the following: A. Services detailed in retail ISP service as described in the response to the Request- for- Proposal For Partnerships To Deliver Retail Broadband Access And Public Safety & Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network dated January 9, 2006 with limited sales and marketing efforts. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 19 B. City agrees to pay Contractor for extra services (beyond those described in 4 A above) by the Contractor or Special Contractors when authorized in writing by the City. 5. The City agrees to provide the Contractor with the complete information concerning the scope of the Project and to perform the following services: A. Access to the Area: The City shall obtain access to and make all provisions for the Contractor to enter upon public and private lands as required for the Contractor to perform such work as surveys and inspections in the development of the Project. B. Consideration of the Contractor’s Work: The City shall give thorough consideration to all reports, sketches, estimates, drawings, and other documents presented by the Contractor, and shall inform the Contractor of all decisions within a reasonable time so as not to delay the work of the Contractor. C. Standards: The City shall furnish the Contractor with a copy of any design and construction standards they may require in the preparation of the report for the Project. D. Owner’s Representative: A person shall be appointed to act as the City’s representative with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement. He or she shall have complete authority to transmit instructions, receive information, interpret, and define the City’s policy and decisions, with respect to the materials, equipment, elements, and systems pertinent to the work covered by this Agreement. 6. Method of Payment: The Contractor shall submit to the City, on a monthly basis, itemized bills for professional services performed under Section 4 of this Agreement. Bills submitted shall be paid in the same manner as other claims made to the City. A. Progress Payment. Contractor shall verify all statements submitted for payment in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Sections 471.38 and 471.391. For reimbursable expenses, if permitted in the response to the Request-for- Proposal For Partnerships To Deliver Retail Broadband Access And Public Safety & Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network dated January 9, 2006, the Contractor shall provide such documentation as reasonably required by the City. B. Abandoned or Suspended Work. If any work performed by the Contractor is abandoned or suspended in whole or in part by the City, the Contractor shall be paid for any services performed on account of it prior to receipt of written notice from the City of such abandonment or suspension, all as shown on the response to the Request-for-Proposal For Partnerships To Deliver Retail Broadband Access And Public Safety & Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network dated January 9, 2006. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 20 7. Accuracy of Work. Contractor shall be responsible for the accuracy of the work and the utilization of all determinant data, and shall promptly make necessary revisions or corrections resulting from errors and omissions on the part of Contractor without additional compensation. If the date or materials furnished by the City, and used in the conduct of this work are found to be in error, incorrect, or inappropriate, the City shall direct Contractor to modify, update, and/or correct the affected work product. All such corrective work performed by Contractor shall be considered to be additional services for which additional compensation shall be paid to Contractor on the basis of Contractor’s standard fees or actual costs incurred. 8. Project Manager and Staffing. The Contractor has designated Henry Camacho to serve on the Project. He shall be assisted by other staff members as necessary to facilitate the completion of the Project in accordance with the terms established herein. Contractor may not remove or replace Henry Camacho from the Project without the approval of the City. 9. Audit Disclosure. The Contractor shall allow the City or its duly authorized agents reasonable access to such of the Contractor’s books, premises, facilities, and records as are pertinent to all services provided under this Agreement. Any reports, information, data, etc. given to, or prepared or assembled by, the Contractor under this Agreement which the client requests to be kept confidential shall not be made available to any individual or organization without the City’s prior written approval. All finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, and reports prepared by the Contractor shall become the property of the City upon termination of this Agreement, but Contractor may retain copies of such documents as records of the services provided. 10. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from February 6, 2006 through June 30, 2006, the date of signature by the parties notwithstanding. This Agreement may be extended upon the written mutual consent of the parties for such additional period as they deem appropriate, and upon the terms and conditions as herein stated. The Contractor and the City agree to negotiate in good faith with the Contractor to provide these services to the City should a full scale implementation of the Retail Broadband Access And Public Safety & Service Applications Over a Meshed Wireless Broadband Network project be approved by the city. Both parties acknowledge that the City may use the Contractor or any other service provider in its subsequent projects. 11. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either party by seven (7) days’ written notice delivered to the other party at the address written above. Upon termination under this provision if there is no fault of the Contractor, the Contractor shall be paid for services rendered and reimbursable expenses until the effective date of termination. If however, the City terminates the Agreement because the Contractor has failed to perform in accordance with this Agreement, no further payment shall be made to the Contractor, St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 21 and the City may retain another contractor to undertake or complete the work identified in Paragraph 1. 12. Independent Contractor. At all times and for all purposes herein, the Contractor is an independent contractor and not an employee of the City. No statement herein shall be construed so as to find the Contractor an employee of the City. 13. Non-Discrimination. During the performance of this contract, the Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicants for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, disability, or age. The Contractor shall post in places available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this non-discrimination clause and stating that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment. The Contractor shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. 14. Assignment. Neither party shall assign this Agreement, nor any interest arising herein, without the written consent of the other party. 15. Services Not Provided For. No claim for services furnished by the Contractor not specifically provided for herein shall be honored by the City. 16. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are severable. If any portion hereof is, for any reason, held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be contrary to law, such decision shall not affect the remaining provisions of the Agreement. 17. Entire Agreement. The entire agreement of the parties is contained herein. This Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof as well as any previous agreements presently in effect between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Any alterations, amendments, deletions, or waivers of the provisions of this Agreement shall be valid only when expressed in writing and duly signed by the parties, unless otherwise provided herein. 18. Compliance with Laws and Regulations. In providing services hereunder, the Contractor shall abide by all statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations pertaining to the provisions of services to be provided. Any violation shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and entitle the City to immediately terminate this Agreement. 19. Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provisions of this Agreement shall not affect, in any respect, the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 20. Indemnification. Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officers, and employees harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgments, or expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from an act or omission (including without limitation professional errors or omissions) of the Contractor, its agents, employees, or subcontractors in the performance of the services St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 22 provided by this Agreement and against all losses by reason of the failure of said Contractor fully to perform, in any respect, all obligations under this Agreement. 21. Insurance. A. General Liability. During the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall maintain a general liability insurance policy with limits of at least $600,000 for each person, and each occurrence, for both personal injury and property damage. This policy shall name the City as an additional insured for the services provided under this Agreement and shall provide that the Contractor’s coverage shall be the primary coverage in the event of a loss. The policy shall also insure the indemnification obligation contained in Paragraph No. 21. A certificate of insurance on the City’s approved form which verifies the existence of this insurance coverage must be provided to the City before work under this Agreement is begun. B. Worker’s Compensation. The Contractor shall secure and maintain such insurance as will protect Contractor from claims under the Worker’s Compensation Acts and from claims for bodily injury, death, or property damage which may arise from the performance of Contractor’s services under this Agreement. C. Professional Liability Insurance: The Contractor agrees to provide to the City a certificate evidencing that they have in effect, with an insurance company in good standing and authorized to do business in Minnesota, a professional liability insurance policy. Said policy shall insure payment of damage for legal liability arising out of the performance of professional services for the City, in the insured’s capacity as the Contractor, if such legal liability is caused by an error, omission, or negligent act of the insured or any person or organization for whom the insured is legally liable. Said policy shall provide an aggregate limit of $1,000,000. 22. Records Access. The Contractor shall provide the City access to any books, documents, papers, and records which are directly pertinent to the specific contract, for the purpose of making audit, examination, excerpts, and transcriptions, for three years after final payments and all other pending matters related to this contract are closed. 23. Ownership of Documents. All plans, diagrams, analyses, reports, and information generated in connection with performance of the agreement shall become the property of the City. The City may use the information for it purposes. Such use by the City shall not relieve any liability on the part of the Contractor. 24. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be controlled by the laws of the State of Minnesota. Executed as of the day and year first written above. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - 8c - Agreement With Unplugged Cities For Wireless Mngmnt Partner Services Page 23 ______________________________ Attest: Mayor ___________________________________ ______________________________ City Clerk City Manager OWNER(S)/CORPORATION By____________________________ Its____________________________ St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - Report - Legislative Priorities For 2007 Page 1 Report - Legislative Issues and Priorities for 2007 Administrative Services PURPOSE OF REPORT: To advise Council in advance of legislative issues the City should make our legislators aware of in preparation for the 2007 legislative session. BACKGROUND: Hennepin County Commissioner Gail Dorfman, Steve Simon, State Rep. District 44A, Ryan Winkler, State Rep-Elect District 44B and Senator-Elect Ron Latz, District 44 will be attending the December 11, 2006 study session to discuss the upcoming 2007 Legislative session. Staff has prepared the attached preliminary list of issues and concerns that we feel should be made known to the City Council and our legislators. As a result of this discussion, and as we near the start of the session, additional issues may come to light. Attachments: 2007 Legislative Issues and Priorities Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - Report - Legislative Priorities For 2007 Page 2 City of St. Louis Park DRAFT 2007 Legislative Issues and Priorities 1. Glencoe Switching Yard Purpose: To secure the remaining $2 million in funding ($3 million project) from Federal, state, local and private entities to relocate the Twin Cities & Western Railroad’s train blocking operations to a new facility outside of the cities of Minnetonka, Hopkins and St. Louis Park. Status: A 2006 capital budget request in the amount of $700,000 was approved during the last legislative session, and $300,000 in local matches are secured. Senators Norm Coleman and Mark Dayton have set aside $1 million for this project in the Senate’s transportation bill. The request is not in the House’s version of the bill but staff is hopeful that it will be included in the final version, which will be reconciled after January 4, 2007. Assuming that the Federal request is approved, the project still needs an additional $1 million to proceed. Background: In 2001, the St. Louis Park Railroad Advisory Task Force recommended that the Twin Cities and Western Railroad’s (TC&W) blocking operations be eliminated in St. Louis Park, Hopkins and Minnetonka and relocated to a new switch yard west of the three cities. The TC&W blocking operations generate noise levels that exceed the state of Minnesota nighttime noise standards. In addition, the switching operations cause vibrations and they often disrupt local transportation systems because at-grade crossings are temporarily blocked by trains conducting switching operations. The Glencoe Railroad Congestion Mitigation Project, located in the City of Glencoe, involves constructing four siding tracks to accommodate the anticipated amount of rail car maneuvering/switching operations at this new facility. It is a nine acre site and the City of Glencoe was selected as the preferred site for a switch yard because it would consolidate operations, it would provide for noise mitigation for residents in Glencoe (existing rail car maneuvers would be relocated to the west or east side of town), and it would provide opportunities for economic development. Anticipated project costs of $2,962,000 to $3,000,000 for the yard include the land acquisition and design costs. Proposed funding sources include $2.7 million of federal and state funds, and $300,000 from a local match e.g. cities, railroad etc. The site will be owned by the McLeod County Rail Authority and be operated by TC&W. Construction start date, assuming funding is secured, is planned for September 2008; the yard is expected to be fully operational by the fall of 2009. 2. Grade Separated Crossing at Hwy 7 and Wooddale Purpose: To secure an additional $9 million to construct an $18 million grade separated intersection (interchange) at Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - Report - Legislative Priorities For 2007 Page 3 Status: Previous state capital budget requests in the amount of $1 million were not funded. However, $5.8 million in Federal aid was secured through the Metropolitan Council’s TAB process in March 2006. More than $3 million in right-of-way purchases have been completed by the city at its cost and initiative in anticipation of this project. Background: This project will require a combination of local, county, state and Federal dollars to finance the reconstruction of the at-grade intersection of Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue in St. Louis Park to a grade separated intersection. Currently the capacity and safety of this at-grade signalized intersection could be characterized as poor at best. Based on a recent traffic analysis, the intersection is currently operating at a level of service D, and is projected to decrease to a level of service F by 2007. MnDOT staff have identified significant safety (crash) concerns in this corridor (Hwy 7 from Hwy 169 to Hwy 100) with the east half of the corridor of particular concern. Pedestrians and bicyclists currently use this intersection to access mass transit, the regional trail system, the community center, and the High School. In addition, significant traffic as a result of redevelopment and from an adjacent industrial/commercial complex to the south also uses this intersection as a major access point. This project is of both local and regional significance. This project will allow for the separation of regional and local traffic which will vastly improve the regional transportation systems. The regional systems alluded to are Hwy 7, the Southwest LRT Regional Trail immediately to the south, and the proposed future dedicated bus way or LRT system. Currently, as part of Hennepin County’s Southwest Corridor transit study, a transit station is proposed adjacent to the intersection of Hwy 7 and Wooddale. Without this intersection improvement project, these other regional systems will likely not be possible or the operation of existing ones will continue to worsen due to congestion and safety concerns. In addition, future anticipated renewal and redevelopment in the area will be stifled. Reconstruction of this intersection to a grade separated intersection is the only practical long term solution to this infrastructure problem. 3. TH 100 Full Build Project Purpose: To keep the TH 100 Full Build Project on track for its’ proposed 2014 build date (or sooner via MVST monies) and to identify future funding sources for the city’s expected significant financial contribution to the project. Status: MnDOT completed construction of the TH 100 interim project this fall, which provided a third lane in each direction through St. Louis Park. MnDOT is in final design phase of the project and the full build is scheduled for bid letting in 2014. The full build project is on MnDOT’s advanced design list, so with the passage of the MVST amendment, it could be let as early as 2009. The project will cost approximately $150 million, of which St. Louis Park may be expected to contribute to significantly (specific amount uncertain – could amount to millions of dollars). The city will need assistance to fund this expected share of this project of regional significance. St. Louis Park Council Meeting Item: 120406 - Report - Legislative Priorities For 2007 Page 4 Background: MnDOT spoke to the Council in March 2006 and while they would not make a written commitment, MnDOT reassured the city that the construction of the interim project would not delay the full build project. The interim project added a third lane in each direction by decreasing lane widths from 12 feet to 11 feet and eliminating or severely reducing shoulders along that stretch of highway. The third lane is required for the full build project so that MnDOT can keep a minimum of one lane open in each direction during construction. Improvements not included as a part of the interim project include construction of the noise walls, which MnDOT agreed to construct no later than 2015, width expansion of lanes, construction of on/off ramps, and bridge and storm water improvements. Bridges spanning TH 100 at Hwy. 7 and Hwy 5, and storm sewers conveyance systems have no more than 10-15 years of useful life left and are deteriorating. In addition, there are approximately 20 residents who live in uncertainty because their homes are within the future right-of-way of the new project. 4. Levy Limits Background: Any move to mandate levy limits is a concern. If the legislative session outcomes contain levy limits, then the formula used to calculate the limits needs to be reviewed. The formula used in the past results in St. Louis Park having an extremely limited ability to even account for inflationary increases.