HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/11/15 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA
NOV. 15, 2021
The St. Louis Park City Council is meeting in person at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka
Blvd. in accordance with the most recent COVID-19 guidelines. Members of the public can
attend in person or watch via webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast
SD channel 17 and HD channel 859). Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports.
Special study session at 5:30 p.m.– council chambers
EDA meeting canceled; Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m. – council chambers
Members of the public who want to address the city council during the regular meeting about
items on the agenda should call the number noted below next to the corresponding item. Call
when the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and follow instructions provided. Comments will be taken
during each item in the order they are received and must relate to an item on the current city
council agenda.
•952.562.2886 – consent agenda items 4a-4f
•952.562.2887 – item 6a – First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022
•952.562.2888 – item 8a – Ordinance amending City Code re: liquor license prohibited conditions
•952.562.2886 – item 8b – Assessment of delinquent charges
•952.562.2887 – item 8c – Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
5:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – council chambers
Discussion item
1. Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service in
the parks
6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – council chambers
1.Call to order
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
2. Presentations
2a. Police officer oath of office
2b. 2021 Small Business Saturday proclamation
3.Approval of minutes
3a. Study session minutes of Oct. 11, 2021
3b. City council meeting minutes of Oct. 18, 2021
3b. Special study session minutes of Oct. 18, 2021
Meeting of Nov. 15, 2021
City council agenda
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
Recommended action: **Motion to approve the agenda as presented and items listed on the
consent calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to
add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from consent calendar to regular agenda for
discussion.)
4a. I. Approve recommended property owner budget and service charges for Special Service
District No. 1.
II. Approve recommended property owner budget and service charges for Special Service
District No. 2.
III. Approve recommended property owner budget and service charges for Special Service
District No. 3.
IV. Approve recommended property owner budget and service charges for Special Service
District No. 4.
V. Approve recommended property owner budget and service charges for Special Service
District No. 5.
VI. Approve recommended property owner budget and service charges for Special Service
District No. 6.
4b. Adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a contract with Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
(Summit) for 2022 consultant services related to the implementation of the amended
Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Reilly) Consent Decree/Remedial Action Plan (CD/RAP).
4c. Adopt Resolution providing preliminary approval for the issuance of multifamily housing
revenue bonds to finance the Beltline Station Housing project.
4d. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of
$12,781.95 for the Dakota Avenue Bikeway with S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc. – city
contract No. 91-20.
4e. Approve the memo of understanding for school resource officer services provided to
the St. Louis Park School District.
4f. Approve for filing fire civil service commission minutes of Sept. 13, 2021.
5. Boards and commissions – None
6. Public hearings
6a. First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022
Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take testimony, and close
hearing. Motion to approve first reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 and set
second reading for Dec. 6, 2021.
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. First reading of ordinance amending City Code Chapter 3 related to prohibited
conditions for liquor licenses
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending
St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3 related to prohibited conditions for liquor licenses.
Meeting of Nov. 15, 2021
City council agenda
8b. Assessment of delinquent charges
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer,
storm water, refuse, abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citation
charges against the benefiting property.
8c. Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Recommended action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Section
36 pertaining to parking requirements and set the second reading for Dec. 6, 2021.
(Four affirmative votes required.)
9. Communications – None
**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 public, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular city council meetings are carried live on civic TV cable channel 17
and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at
www.parktv.org, and saved for video on demand replays. During the COVID-19 pandemic, agendas will be posted on Fridays on
the entrance doors to city hall and on the text display on civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available after
noon on Friday on the city’s website.
If you need special accommodations or have questions about the meeting, please call 952.924.2525.
Meeting: Special study session
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Discussion item: 1
Executive summary
Title: Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service in
the parks
Recommended action: Staff understand the spirit and value with which this idea was
developed. Based on the needed investment (both financial and staff time) and in order to
continue supporting emerging businesses through a proven model, staff recommend
proactively working with food truck vendors to determine the appropriate length of time to
extend the maximum permit duration.
Policy consideration:
•Should city staff continue exploration of installing temporary structures in city parks for
the purposes of commercial activity?
•Should city staff work with vendors to proactively make changes to food truck
permitting to allow for longer-term permits in city parks?
Summary: In reviewing a proposed study session on August 23, 2021, Council asked staff to
research providing a pathway for long-term (i.e. six months or longer) commercial activity in
city parks. The commercial activity was to be limited to sale of food and beverage. Staff are
reporting back on the options reviewed along with considerations. The options reviewed are:
enhanced permits for food trucks, temporary structures, permanent structures. For ease of
comparison, staff have also outlined the current food truck permit.
Multiple codes apply and were reviewed against the options: the city’s zoning code, the
Minnesota State Building Code, the Minnesota Public Health Code and the Minnesota State Fire
Code. There are significant limitations to standing up temporary structures, both in terms of the
type of structure allowed and the length of time allowed. Permanent structures bring with
them tradeoffs in terms of enhanced city services and additional structures that need to be
managed and maintained.
Staff from operations and recreation, community development and building and energy will be
at the meeting and available to answer questions.
Financial or budget considerations: Depending on the direction from Council, staff will evaluate
the cost implications of any changes to our code.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Discussion
August 23, 2021 study session agenda and minutes
Prepared by: Jason West, recreation supt.; Gary Morrison, zoning administrator;
Sean Walther, planning mgr.; Michael Pivec, property maintenance & licensing mgr.
Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, interim deputy city manager/operations and recreation director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Special study session meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service in the parks
Discussion
Background: Food trucks are defined as a vehicle or cart used to prepare and serve food or
beverages. These mobile uses are currently allowed to operate throughout the city, including
in city parks, with a city-issued permit. The permit may be issued for a period of up to a full
year (when approved at a specific location), except in city parks which is at this time limited per
event. For ease of storage, City code allows the trucks to also be parked overnight.
Regulations around temporary structures are outlined in State building code, State Fire code,
State Health code and St. Louis Park zoning code. The building code allows for a temporary
structure to be in place for up to 180 days; however, the city’s zoning code is more restrictive
with a maximum of 14 days per calendar year. Therefore, the City of St. Louis Park allows a
temporary structure for no more than 14 days per calendar year, with limited exceptions; none
of which are applicable to this situation. The Fire and Health codes restrict the type of
structures that are considered temporary.
Permanent structures could be developed on city park land should the city wish to take on the
property development, management and leasing. There would also be zoning code changes
required as well as a site selection process.
When reviewing these three options, there are important regulations and tradeoffs to
consider, which have been summarized in the table on the next page and outlined in detail on
the following pages. It is also important to note that the review was done for food and
beverage establishments only – not those serving alcohol. An on-sale liquor or wine/beer
license brings with it an additional layer of regulation and limitation.
Special study session meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 3
Title: Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service in the parks
Current food truck
permit in parks
Expanded food truck
permit in parks
Temporary
structures in parks
Permanent
structures in parks
Regulation Permits are
currently issued
per event
Permit category and
schema exists and
can be modified to
meet city needs
State building and
city zoning code.
Carving out
exceptions in the
zoning code
requires ordinance
updates.
State building,
health and fire
codes and city
zoning code. Would
require zoning code
ordinance updates.
Benefits Food truck
rotation provides
opportunity to
many vendors and
options to the
public
Rotation also
provides for
variety and
dynamic interest
to the city
Increased flexibility
for food truck
vendors
Increased
consistency of
vendors at specific
locations with
increased ability to
build a customer
base
Additional service
added to city
Additional city
facility/ies and
service
Limitations Unsure of desire by
operators for an
extended permit
Unsure of desire by
park patrons for an
extended permit
Potential
competition
to local restaurants
and establishments
Unsure of desire by
operators for an
extended permit
Unsure of desire by
park patrons for a
temporary structure
Potential
competition
to local restaurants
and establishments
Unsure of desire by
operators for an
extended permit
Unsure of desire by
park patrons for a
permanent
structure
The great majority
of city-owned
buildings in parks
are subsidized by
the local
government
Potential
competition
to local restaurants
and establishments
Recommended
next steps if
selected
Continue our
practice of
listening to and
responding to
community and
business need
Engagement with
food truck vendors
about how city
permitting process
can support their
business
Engagement with
park users and
business community
about interest in the
option
Engagement with
park users and
business community
about interest in the
option
Special study session meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 4
Title: Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service in the parks
Food truck (summary in detail): Food truck permits exist within the city’s authority and staffing
structure. While final staffing needs are dependent upon any policy decision, it is likely that
changes to the permit issuance would not affect staffing levels. Food trucks fill an important
role in helping small food establishments prove their business model and build a client base
before investing in a permanent location. Food trucks also give the city flexibility as to how long
a particular vendor can be at the location. Rotating food trucks has advantages in that it
spreads the opportunity to many operators. The variety of food options throughout the year
allows for seasonal flexibility and relevance and adds to the character and interest to the park.
Food trucks are currently allowed up to one year in a single location (excepting parks). Most
permits are pulled for a weekend event though there are a limited number which are pulled for
a full calendar year (e.g. at specific businesses like Steel Toe Brewing or Methodist Hospital).
In parks, we have approximately 25 food truck permits pulled per year, eight of which are multi-
day permit. The average length of permit in the park is 1 day or a weekend if it is a special event.
As with any option, food trucks bring with them limitations. Due to the nature of the business,
their operating months are generally limited without options for customers in the off-season.
Most of them have generators which create noise. We have had complaints on the noise they
generate. Generators also give off emissions which generates an odor.
If the council would like to continue limiting food service in parks to food trucks, staff can either
continue our practice of listening to and responding to community and business need or
proactively reach out to food truck vendors about our city permitting process and how it can
support their business.
Temporary structures (summary in detail): As noted above, there are significant restrictions on
what types of structures can be classified as temporary and how long they can reside in a single
spot. Three codes apply to this situation, outlined below. These are all initial findings; any specific
project would need an individualized review against relevant codes.
Zoning code: The city’s zoning code is the easiest of the affected codes to modify. Under the
existing zoning code, a temporary structure must be removed within 14 calendar days. This
could be updated through ordinance. A shipping container is considered a temporary
structure in the city’s zoning code.
Building code: The State Building Code restricts a temporary structure to 180 days in a
location after which it would need to be stored until it could be put back in place. City
ordinance allows no more than 180 days within a 270-day period.
MN State Building Code: 3103 Temporary Structures
1) 3101.1 General. Temporary structures and uses shall apply to structures erected for a
period of less than 180 days.
2) 3103.1.1 Conformance. Temporary structures and uses shall conform to the structural
strength, fire safety, means of egress, accessibility, light, ventilation and sanitary
requirements of this code as necessary to ensure public health, safety and general welfare.
3) 3103.1.2 Permit required. Temporary structures that cover an area greater than 120
square feet, including connecting areas or spaces with a common means of egress or
entrance that are used or intended to be used for the gathering together of 10 or
Special study session meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 5
Title: Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service in the parks
more persons, shall not be erected, operated or maintained for any purpose without
obtaining a permit from the building official.
Health code: The State Health code is administered by the county and would also apply.
Were this option selected, staff would need to do increased engagement with the County
around a specific proposal.
Temporary structures in parks may provide increased vitality and options to residents and visitors
as well as small business opportunity. Based on the significant restrictions and limitations, should
council be interested in pursuing this option, staff suggests the city first engage with residents
and businesses to see if there is sufficient interest in this option.
Permanent structures (summary in detail): Given the limitation to temporary structures and to
provide a full review for council, staff also analyzed what it would entail to build and lease out
permanent structures in city parks. If shipping containers remain in place long term (more than
180 days) they would be considered permanent structures. The following would also be required
to allow a business to operate out of them in city parks.
• Build out considerations: As with any permanent structure, there would be significant
Building, Health and Fire code considerations. Architectural plans including engineering
specifications will need to be submitted along with Building permit application.
• Zoning code considerations: Amend the park and open space district to allow commercial
use including items such as:
a. Manner in which the use is approved, permitted, permitted with conditions or
conditional use permit.
b. Setbacks and height limitations.
c. Which parks they are allowed in. Should the city open the use to all parks and
open spaces, or to specific parks.
d. Hours of operation.
e. How to minimize impacts to neighboring properties.
f. Scale of operation. Should there be a limit to the number of businesses and size
of the structure?
• Amending the zoning code to recognize shipping containers as permanent structures
would also include amending the architectural section to address the following:
a. Determine which zoning districts they would be allowed in.
b. Determine if they are permitted as a principal or accessory structure, meaning,
can they be the only use of a property, or should they be allowed only as an
accessory use.
c. The steel finish currently does not meet the exterior materials requirements for
structures. Changes would have to be made to either allow the structure as is or
require a portion of the structure to be covered with additional materials.
• Management, leasing and maintenance considerations: A permanent structure would
require a lease, a formal process that takes into account land lease negotiations,
facility/contract management and maintenance, RFP/bidding process, and management
of financial escrows. There is not current staff capacity for this work.
• Operational and regulatory considerations: In assessing location of these facilities, staff
would need to undertake a process to determine the impact to adjacent residents and
Special study session meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 1) Page 6
Title: Use of shipping containers or other similar structures for the purpose of food service in the parks
accessibility of existing facilities, including proximity to restrooms, scheduled activities,
trails, lights, etc.
Staff recommendations: Staff understand the spirit and value with which this idea was
developed. Based on the needed investment (both financial and staff time) and in order to
continue supporting emerging businesses through a proven model, staff recommend
proactively working with food truck vendors to determine the appropriate length of time to
extend the maximum permit duration.
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Presentation: 2a
Executive summary
Title: Police officer oath of office
Recommended action: City Clerk Melissa Kennedy will administer a ceremonial police officer
oath of office to Officers Matthew McNeely, Caroline Bjorge, Madeline Turnquist, Christian
Howse, Bobby Brewer and Joseph LeFevere.
Policy consideration: Not applicable
Summary: Due to Covid-19 restrictions for in person city council meetings, the police department
has six new police officers to introduce to the community during a ceremonial oath of office.
Officer Matthew McNeely and Officer Caroline Bjorge were hired as a police officers on Nov. 19,
2019. Officer Madeline Turnquist and Officer Christian Howse were hired as a police officers on
Dec. 30, 2019. Officer Bobby Brewer was hired as a police officer on Jan. 11, 2021. Officer Joseph
LeFevere was hired as a police officer on Feb. 22, 2021.
All of the officers took their official oath of office on their start dates. All of the officers have
completed their field training and have meet all the requirements to work as police officers.
The ceremonial oath of office allows us to official introduce our new officers to the community
and for the officers to invite their family and friends to attend the oath of office ceremony.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: City of St. Louis Park police officer oath of office
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, police chief
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 2a) Page 2
Title: Police officer oath of office
State of Minnesota,
County of Hennepin ss.
City of St. Louis Park
I, (name), do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States
and of the State of Minnesota, and faithfully discharge the duties of Police Officer
for the City of St. Louis Park, in the County of Hennepin and the State of Minnesota,
to the best of my judgment and ability.
(name)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this (date) day of (month), 20(yr).
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
}
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Presentation: 2b
Executive summary
Title: 2021 Small Business Saturday proclamation
Recommended action: Mayor is asked to read the proclamation designating Saturday, Nov. 27,
2021 as Small Business Saturday.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: Small Business Saturday is a day dedicated to supporting local small businesses
nationwide. Founded by American Express, this day is celebrated annually on the Saturday after
Thanksgiving. This year’s Small Business Saturday is planned for Nov. 27, 2021. Last year,
American Express found that more than 50 percent of Americans reported that they shopped
small on Small Business Saturday, generating a record high of $19.8 billion in sales.
Small businesses play a vital role in the local community by creating jobs, boosting the local
economy, promoting diversity, supporting organizations, and enriching neighborhoods. For
every dollar spent at a small business, 67 cents stays within the local economy. By promoting
Small Business Saturday, St. Louis Park is helping raise awareness of the significant role small
businesses play in the city. It also encourages residents to continue supporting the small
businesses that help make St. Louis Park a vibrant community.
In addition to this proclamation, the initiative will be promoted on the city’s website and
through social media.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Proclamation
Prepared by: Julie Grove, community and economic development analyst
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, economic development manager
Karen Barton, community development director, EDA executive director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 2b) Page 2
Title: 2021 Small Business Saturday proclamation
Proclamation
Small Business Saturday
Nov. 27, 2021
Whereas, St. Louis Park celebrates its local small businesses and the many contributions
they make to the local economy and community; and
Whereas, according to the U.S. Small Business Administration, there are approximately
533,300 small businesses in Minnesota, representing 46.2 percent of the working population,
and employing 1.3 million people; and
Whereas, U.S. consumers reported spending an record $19.8 billion at independent
local businesses on Small Business Saturday in 2020; and
Whereas, on average for every dollar spent at local small businesses 67 cents stays in
the local community; and
Whereas, St. Louis Park supports its local businesses that create jobs, boost its local
economy, promote diversity and enrich neighborhoods; and
Whereas, the people of St. Louis Park are grateful to the small, locally-owned
businesses of the city for their generous contributions to the quality of life we all enjoy.
Now therefore, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park do hereby proclaim Nov. 27, 2021 to be Small Business Saturday in St. Louis Park.
Wherefore, I set my hand and cause the
Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be
affixed this 15th day of November 2021.
_________________________________
Jake Spano, Mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Minutes: 3a
Unofficial minutes
City council study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 11, 2021
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), CIO (Mr. Pires), Interim Deputy City Manager/Director
of Operations and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), CFO (Ms.
Schmitt), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Building and Engineering Director
(Mr. Hoffman), Sustainability Manager (Ms. Ziring), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith)
Guests: Members of the Environment and Sustainability Commission
Mayor Spano acknowledged today is Indigenous Peoples Day and recognized these people and
nations.
1. 2022 Capital Improvement Plan, utility rates and proposed budget
Ms. Schmitt presented the report.
Councilmember Harris asked if there was an extra $300,000 built into the budget for the EDA
levy. Ms. Schmitt stated this changed with health insurance coming in at a lower cost.
Councilmember Harris asked if the $300,000 is at 1%. Ms. Schmitt stated 1% is at about
$350,000.
Councilmember Rog asked for an update on the size of the ramp and the park and ride. Ms.
Barton stated staff is now in negotiations with Met Council on sharing the park and ride. She
stated the number of spaces is set and not flexible on reduction, but there is discussion about
reducing the ramp by one floor.
Councilmember Rog asked if $10 million is the city match. Ms. Barton stated no, adding there is
no firm cost yet on the ramp, but the assumption is approximately $10-14 million and will be
funded by the CMAP federal grant at $7 million, while council will contribute $2.5 million, and
the developer will also contribute some as well. Ms. Barton stated the developer is looking to
start construction on the ramp in 2022 and the ramp must be delivered by the time SWLRT is in
service.
Councilmember Rog asked if this cost is included in the 2022 levy. Ms. Schmitt clarified the
funding source shows up as TIF and is not in the levy.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
Councilmember Rog asked about the Minnetonka Boulevard improvements. Ms. Heiser stated
the costs listed is what the city is being asked to pay for engineering, signals, and the like. She
stated the total project is around $12 million.
Councilmember Rog asked about a new piece of playground equipment at Wolfe Park. Ms.
Walsh stated all the playground equipment will be replaced at Wolfe Park, and that funding
comes from the park improvement fund.
Councilmember Rog asked about the rec center rubber flooring and the high cost of $300,000.
Ms. Walsh stated this flooring is for when patrons at the ice arena are wearing skates and is in
the arena and locker room. Ms. Walsh agreed it is expensive and pointed out costs in supplies
and products are increasing. She noted this floor is changed out every 10-12 years.
Councilmember Rog asked about rec center signage for $200,000. Ms. Walsh stated there was a
sign on Beltline and Monterey, and that sign was taken down. This sign is changeable and can
advertise events and change out information about activities.
Councilmember Rog asked about rental fees at the Roc. Ms. Walsh stated the ice rental is $175-
185 and the turf is a $40-50 fee.
Councilmember Rog asked if the city owns any bus shelters. Ms. Walsh stated some are in the
special service district and when improvements or new shelters are needed, the city pays for
those items in the special service district. These bus shelters will be replaced as the old ones are
deteriorating and noted the costs have come down.
Councilmember Brausen asked if any police or fire vehicles are being replaced. Ms. Schmitt
stated it is a single line item for $1.9 million.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if this is the total cost of equipment in the capital report. Ms.
Schmitt stated that is correct and added there are multiple funding sources on a project,
because it is split into different categories. She added staff can run the report both ways for
council if that is more helpful.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if cost of inflation is included. Ms. Heiser stated all projects
included inflation projections at 3%. She noted 2022 is cost plus inflation costs.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if the SWLRT costs are from the previous year or estimates and
then projected for inflation. Ms. Heiser stated those costs are provided by SWLRT.
Councilmember Dumalag asked about state law related to mental health. Ms. Keller stated
there were some changes at the state around diverting mental health related 911 calls. To meet
that mandate, training and staffing will be needed. She noted this is the dispatcher supervisor
position included in the staff report.
Councilmember Rog stated it is unclear if this is a state mandate or an optional component. Ms.
Keller stated the diversion piece is a mandate, but she can get more clarity on that.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
Councilmember Kraft stated the service numbers are impressive and thanked staff for all they
do. He added it would be nice to see those numbers over time as well. He thanked staff for the
levy information.
Councilmember Kraft asked if in 2022 the levy will be shown as 5.58% or 6.97% which is the
impact of the EDA levy added in. Ms. Schmitt stated the chart shows the large general levy and
does not have the HRA or EDA added in. She stated she will check what other cities are doing,
so as not to show the city’s increase as more than it is.
Councilmember Kraft stated on the utility rates, he would like to see more encouragement of
conservation, where low users pay less, and high users pay more. He has concerns that the
rates are above the general rate of inflation at 6%, and this should be recognized and justified
over time.
Councilmember Kraft asked about the ramp and given that SWLRT service will be delayed one
year or more, and the ramp does not have to be ready until then, is there any benefit to holding
off on the ramp. Ms. Barton stated the developer needs the ramp for the project – the housing
and the commercial – so once they are ready to go, it needs to move forward.
Councilmember Kraft stated it is hard to digest this document and asked if there is a way to
present it in the future as a summary document or as reasons or themes, so it can be analyzed
at a higher level, which would be helpful.
Councilmember Mohamed asked about the projections on the median value apartments, and
with the levy at 5.58% a resident would pay $80 per month. Ms. Schmitt stated that cost is for
the full apartment building and not per unit.
Councilmember Mohamed asked if the city is hiring for mental health positions. Ms. Keller
stated the city currently partners with another city on this, but the goal is for St. Louis Park to
have a full-time person in this capacity. She stated the dispatch service takes in the calls and the
social worker follows up with referrals from police and fire.
Councilmember Mohamed asked if the race equity position will be Mr. Gray’s role. Ms. Keller
stated this will round out for full-time employment for 3 staff members.
Mayor Spano asked for clarification if the mental health position is for the public and not for
staff. He added a mental health position for staff should also be looked into further in the
future. He added each year the city’s priorities need to be reassessed. He asked how much
money flows through the city each year. Ms. Schmitt stated depending on construction, it is
typically around $90 million.
Mayor Spano thanked staff for their work on the budget and the report.
Councilmember Rog asked if the city pays cash for the rubber floors. Ms. Walsh stated yes.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
Councilmember Rog pointed out the cost for the new rubber floors at the ROC are a 1%-point
increase in the levy this year. She stated when the city invests in capital projects, and builds
new buildings, council needs to pay attention to the costs for maintaining those buildings going
forward.
Councilmember Rog added concerns about transparency include not hiding taxes or the full
cost of living in St. Louis Park. She asked about staff vacancies and if there has been a cost
savings this year. Ms. Schmitt stated the budget is calculated as if the city if fully staffed. She
added at the end of the year, the fund balance discussion becomes important.
Councilmember Rog noted she fully supports the police and pointed out the public safety costs
are 45% of the general fund budget. She would like to continue to look at ways to shift things
around and explore ways to reduce these costs without affecting public safety. She is
concerned seeing another $50,000 added to public safety costs and would have preferred
seeing ARPA funds being directed toward more creative mental health responses and projects.
She added she would like to see more creative responses for dispatch to have for the very real
mental health issues in the city and the number of calls received.
Councilmember Rog asked if other councilmembers recalled the discussion of using ARPA funds
for mental health expenses. Ms. Schmitt stated ARPA funds can be used for mental health
programs, but the 2 positions for fire and police are all that was budgeted for the year.
Councilmember Rog stated she supports the CIP presented with being thoughtful around
maintenance costs.
Councilmember Harris noted the rec center solar panels and energy savings over 12-14 years.
She asked about the 45% overages and if those could be applied to these one-time costs. Ms.
Schmitt stated one of the proposals that will be presented at the council meeting is the transfer
of $500,000 into the capital replacement fund for those solar panels.
Councilmember Harris stated this is a 2022 investment and asked if the money to pay for this
already exists or does it have to be included in the levy. Ms. Schmitt stated there is no levy for
that piece; the expenses are more than the levy in that fund, so the transfer and fund balance
will be used for that.
Councilmember Harris asked, related to class C apartments, about the purpose of using class C
for the average. Ms. Schmitt stated the city has mostly class C apartments, versus A and B, so
that is why it was used. Councilmember Harris asked for a review of how many apartments are
in the city’s A, B and C classes.
Councilmember Harris stated she has been advocating for a 4.5% levy but does understand the
city’s basic minimum operating costs are a 3% increase annually and then capital costs and
added positions make up the additional cost. Ms. Schmitt agreed that is correct.
Councilmember Harris asked if staff could provide projections on future capital expenditures
and then future projected levies. Ms. Schmitt stated long-range financial planning will be done
in January, but staff can look at bringing information to council prior to that. Councilmember
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
Harris stated that would be helpful information to convey to constituents as to the why. She
pointed out in Ward 3 there are many students that receive free lunch. She is concerned about
being responsive to residents, the projections for 2023 and 2024, and if those projections
would be higher, then she would be more inclined to go with the 5.8% levy.
Councilmember Kraft noted the Eugene, or “Cahoots” program, as a potential model for the
mental health program for St. Louis Park public safety.
Councilmember Kraft referenced Councilmember Rog’s transparency comments, adding he
agrees. He stated property taxes will be going up due to valuation in residential homes, which
are going up in value more than commercial properties. He does support the proposed utility
rate increases for 2022 and is comfortable with the 5.58% final levy, especially when looking at
inflation and the projects currently going on within the city.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if the equipment figures point to yearly purchases. Mr. Pires
stated these are licensed software annual maintenance fees.
Councilmember Brausen stated he supports the 5.58% levy, the utility rate increases, and the
new EDA and existing HRA levies. He noted the impacts on the median value apartments and
commercial are driving the utility rates and stated the $18 per month increase for homeowners
seems tolerable. He would like to see a chart broken out by 20th percentiles, so the dollar
impact is shown for high and low-end homes. He stated he worries about the fixation around
the percent increase adding it is not an apples-to-apples comparison by city. He pointed out
these additional positions are added services for the city and police and fire seem to be doing
more every year, so the costs make sense. He stated he is supportive.
Councilmember Rog noted she is still very interested in outcomes-based budgeting. She asked
how adding the new positions will help with cost savings and outcomes. She stated the most
impact the city will have is in being a leader. She hopes the focus can be on modeling
leadership. She also added if the city can untangle itself from TIF a bit, this will impact future
levies.
Councilmember Rog stated she supports the utility rate increases, and added she understands
the debt service on large projects. She added she still does have concerns on the public safety
budget but will support the 5.58% levy but does not support the EDA levy, adding those should
be part of the general levy.
Councilmember Kraft stated he does not support the creation of the EDA levy either. He is
supportive of the dollar amount, but not the way it is structured.
Councilmember Harris stated she is not supportive of the 5.58% levy and would like to see it at
4.5%. She stated she supports the proposed utility rates. She noted a resident contacted her
and she will forward his creative idea to staff about water conservation. She is in support of the
HRA and EDA levies as proposed.
Councilmember Mohamed stated she understands why this is the best option for the levy, but
she does not agree with it. She likes the plan about mental health services and adding hours for
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
the racial equity position. She supports the CIP as presented but would appreciate some
planning around the racial equity department, with council input.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she agrees with the CIP as presented, the utility rate increases,
and the 5.58% levy increase as well. She also stated it is important to express to residents what
the levy pays for and is supportive of the additional positions which align with the city’s goals.
Mayor Spano supports everything across the board, except for concerns around the EDA levy.
Councilmembers Rog and Kraft would prefer the EDA levy be included in the general fund. They
pointed out from the residents’ perspective, it is a 6.9% increase with the EDA levy.
Mayor Spano stated in general he believes residents have been comfortable with the decisions
council has made related to levies over the years. Ms. Schmitt stated there are so many ways to
look at this. She stated it seems transparent to her, it can be done either way, but she is not
certain what is the most transparent way to explain this to the public.
Mayor Spano stated he understands all concerns but wants to make sure the best option is
utilized to make the funds available. He added he sees TIF as an investment with public dollars
that returns greater value money to the public down the road. He asked if staff is having
discussions with the school district about their plans for the next few years, and if they might be
doing a levy in the near future.
Councilmember Rog again noted she would like the EDA levy funds to be included in the
general fund, and just because the council votes on a levy amount does not mean it will stay
that amount depending on what might come up.
Councilmember Kraft agreed adding this is really a 6.9% increase but from the residents’
perspective this is not clear. He appreciates staff efforts, but noted council is talking about
5.58% when in reality it is 6.9%. He stated that some flexibility is lost in the EDA levy because
the climate funds must be used for commercial purposes. He stated if it were in the general
fund, there would be more flexibility, noting in the short term it may not be an issue, but it
could be at some point.
Councilmember Harris stated she had asked for the park improvement fund to be added to the
general ledger so council could see all the funds and fund options, as well as presenting more
transparency.
Mayor Spano thanked staff for their work on the 2022 budget, stating it is a big undertaking
each year.
2. Anti-idling research and recommendations
Ms. Ziring introduced Holly Johnson, environment and sustainability commission member, and
presented the report.
Councilmember Mohamed asked what the commission does not recommend. Ms. Ziring stated
the commission does not recommend an ordinance, a resolution, and a policy prohibiting idling
at city facilities specifically.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
Councilmember Mohamed agreed with this recommendation and noted there are policies in
place around this already and asked if public safety would be subject to this. Ms. Ziring stated
yes there would likely be exemptions for emergency vehicles, adding that would be policy
decision by council.
Councilmember Mohamed liked the idea of an education campaign around this, adding it is
important to understand the implications involved. She stated a resolution would not do much
as there is no action around it and as for enforcement, it would give some a tool to weaponize
this, noting there are some racial equity implications involved. For education, she would
suggest word of mouth messaging as well, which would go far, and be helpful for engagement.
Councilmember Kraft asked about extending the policy to commercial vehicles or those with
city contracts. He asked about thoughts on education. Mr. Ziring stated she is all for educating
as many as possible and that idling reduction is a practice the city wants to reduce.
Mr. Hoffman stated for people working for the city, there is some complication in that idling
restrictions would need to be written into a contract. For contractors hired by a resident, those
contractors idling would not be treated any differently than any other commercial vehicles, and
since it cannot be controlled through permits, it would have to be done as a blanket resolution
– which Ms. Ziring stated the ESC is not recommending.
Councilmember Kraft asked if education could be done when permitting. Mr. Hoffman stated
yes, this could be done via the website when applying for a permit.
Councilmember Kraft stated he is in support of this and added the carbon emissions reduction
potential was eye-opening to him. He added the idea of making this a regional approach might
help change this into something more like a resolution. He would also like to partner with
schools on this, especially with children and their parents who pick up at school and school
buses that pick up.
Ms. Ziring stated the youth member on the commission noted this program could be reinforced
at the high school as well.
Councilmember Rog thanked Ms. Ziring for the report. She appreciated the collaboration with
staff and the ESC, and she supports the recommendations in the report and of the ESC. She
noted involving youth in the idling effort with their parents could also be helpful, as
Councilmember Kraft mentioned.
Councilmember Rog stated she liked the idea of a coalition throughout the metro, and in terms
of education for contractors, she noted a truck under the Dakota Avenue bridge during the
construction project that idled all day long. She stated this would be a good example of where
education would help. She liked the idea of “idle-free zones” adding this would have an impact.
She noted the many children that wait for their buses along Highway 100 and that when
thinking about racial equity goals, she would like to include a targeted focus on particular areas.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
Councilmember Brausen stated he supports what the ESC is doing and the report but was
hoping something more could be done. He stated the school district needs to be incorporated
into this, especially for parents who wait for their children outside of school. He suggested
signage be included at schools.
Mayor Spano stated he is also supportive of staff recommendations. He suggested for
education, that staff think creatively about how to do this. He stated it is helpful to have ads
pop up on phones, and at gas stations, as well as postcards and social media.
Councilmember Dumalag stated the information on car theft and emissions was staggering. She
is in support of the recommendations and the education with school children would be helpful,
similar to the targeted campaign for seatbelts in the 80s. She liked the creative ideas and
appreciated the report.
Councilmember Harris also appreciated the report and counterpoints included. She is also in
support of the recommendations, and suggested ads on school buses if allowable. She stated
that school bus emissions are less polluting than in the past because of clean diesel initiatives.
She suggested staff check on that marketing to see what the city might do.
Mr. Hoffman stated there is a local singer-songwriter who wrote a song about the climate crisis
and doing something one step at a time to help. He noted the marketing campaign could
mention doing one thing, one day at a time, can have a great impact.
Ms. Ziring thanked council for their input and support for option 1 (Anti-idling policy for city
fleet vehicles) and option 2 (Education campaign).
3. Upcoming study session agenda items
Councilmember Kraft stated the climate urgency/emergency topic has significant interest now,
especially with other cities. He noted a sample resolution has been developed for cities to use
and webinars will be conducted later this month for implementation by the end of January
2022. He stated the goal is to have 10 cities do this, and this would fit into the council’s goal of
St. Louis Park being a leader regionally.
Ms. Keller stated that staff is continuing to discuss how to prioritize future agenda items while
keeping strategic priorities in mind and will bring back this item to council later in November.
Councilmember Harris asked if any further items on study session future agendas are on hold
now. Mr. Keller stated staff is working on which items are ready to discuss and which will be
held for the new approach.
Councilmember Brausen noted revisiting the sidewalk shoveling topic.
Mayor Spano noted the proposed amended and restated TIF policy report was helpful and he
looks forward to the discussion. Ms. Keller stated the discussion date is scheduled for Nov. 8.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she looks forward to the CIP discussion.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3a) Page 9
Title: Study session minutes of October 11, 2021
Councilmember Kraft stated the COVID local business relief report was great. He stated the
marketing business support was helpful and helping 50 small businesses was brilliant.
Councilmember Rog asked if staff is still doing outreach with the city’s small businesses, and
with loan opportunities and continued challenges. She added the sooner the city can help small
businesses, especially in the Walker Lake Historic District, the better.
Mayor Spano stated in talking to some small businesses, with all the tragedies that occurred
during COVID, there has been some energy and relationships that have come out of this, and
those relationships would be helpful to leverage, if possible.
Communications/meeting check-in (verbal)
Ms. Keller announced the city received another award related to the Westwood Nature Center.
The city is the only city receiving this award which is the Tommy Johnson award of excellence –
through the Minnesota Park and Recreation Association.
Councilmember Kraft stated it would be helpful to do some messaging around this as a net zero
building, which was completed in 2020 versus 2030, and is a model as well.
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
4 Proposed amended and restated TIF Policy
5. COVID-19 local business assistance update
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Minutes: 3b
Unofficial minutes
City council meeting
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 18, 2021
1. Call to order
Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1a. Pledge of allegiance
1b. Roll call
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, and Margaret Rog
Councilmember absent: Nadia Mohamed
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), CFO (Ms. Schmitt),
Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith)
Guests:
2. Presentations
2a. Recognition of donations
Mayor Spano noted donations for the fire department open house and community
health resource fair from Cub Foods, Nordic Ware, Liberty Packaging, and thanked them
for their donations.
3. Approval of minutes
3a. City council meeting of Sept. 20, 2021
Councilmember Kraft noted on page 6, it should read “…7.8%”; on page 7 it should read
“…levy”; and on page 11, it should read “…crash threshold for removing stop signs as it
should not be the same for when a stop sign is added.”
Councilmember Rog noted on page 6, it should read, “…added the county levy was a 0%
increase this year and it’s a 3.5% this year. “
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve the Sept. 20, 2021, council meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 2
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
3b. City council meeting of Oct. 4, 2021
Councilmember Rog noted on page 7, should read, “…continuity of city services to
residents.”
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve
the Oct. 4, 2021, council meeting minutes as amended.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
3c. City council workshop of Oct. 4, 2021
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve the
Oct. 4, 2021, workshop minutes as presented.
The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
It was noted that because Councilmember Harris is attending the meeting remotely, a
roll call vote is needed.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve the previous three sets of meeting minutes as amended and presented.
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar
4a. Adopt Resolution No. 21-119 establishing the employer contribution for benefits in
2022.
4b. Authorize mayor and city manager to execute local trail connection agreement w/
Three Rivers Park District. (Moved to regular agenda item 8d)
4c. Adopt resolution approving fund closure, creation, and budget amendment.
(Moved to regular agenda item 8e)
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 21-120 accepting donations for the fire department open
house and community health resource fair.
4e. Approve submission of a permit with Three Rivers Park District to clear and
remove snow from the LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of
St. Louis Park for the 2021-2023 winter seasons.
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 21-121 authorizing parking restrictions on Flag Avenue.
4g. Approve a subordinate funding agreement (Agreement) between the city and
Metropolitan Council for monitoring wells.
4h. Adopt Resolution No. 21-122 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of
the water service line at 8806 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D.
18-117-21-21-0019.
4i. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Aug. 18, 2021
4j. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Sept. 1, 2021
4k. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Sept. 22, 2021
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 3
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
Councilmembers Rog and Kraft requested that consent calendar items 4b and 4c be
removed and placed on the Regular Agenda to 8d and 8e.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move
consent calendar item 4b and 4c to the regular agenda as item 8d and 8e; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
5. Boards and commissions
5a. Appoint youth representatives to boards and commissions
Councilmember Kraft noted he would like to meet with those interested in serving on
boards and commissions.
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to appoint
youth representatives to the boards and commissions as listed in exhibit A.
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
5b. Appointment to Planning Commission
Councilmember Brausen noted Mr. Salzer was an alternate and he is happy he is willing
to serve.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
appoint Michael Salzer to the Planning Commission for the term ending May 31, 2023.
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
6. Public hearings
6a. Assessment of delinquent charges
Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Rog asked if there is relief for residents around storm water and
mowing and for those that cannot afford fees or fines. Ms. Schmitt stated this could be
put on property taxes and spread out for 12 months. She added utility assistance is
available through Hennepin County.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 4
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
Councilmember Rog asked if a resident demonstrates income challenges are fees
waived. Ms. Schmitt stated fees were waived during the pandemic. She added when the
emergency powers ended the city followed what the state was doing related to
reinstating the charging of fees.
No further action as approval of resolution will take place at the Nov. 15, 2021, city
council meeting.
6b. Public hearing for 9920 and 9808 Wayzata Blvd. vacation ordinances
Ms. Kramer presented the report.
Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano
closed the public hearing.
Action on this item took place under agenda item 8b.
7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none
8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items
8a. Amend city code regarding setting of fees
Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report.
Councilmember Rog stated she is pleased this information will be more readily available
on the website, and she thanked staff.
Councilmember Harris thanked staff for this improvement and enhancement.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to
update city code to reflect that utility fees and liquor license fees are adopted by
ordinance, rather than set by resolution.
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
8b. Proposed redevelopment of 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. Resolution No. 21-
123, Resolution No. 21-124
Ms. Kramer presented the staff report.
Councilmember Brausen stated this site has been empty for 15 years and he is very
happy with this proposal. He stated it is ideal for the proposed density, will create 233
new housing units, and include 46 new affordable housing units as well as green
features, adding he will support this project.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 5
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
Councilmember Dumalag asked the developer to discuss who they are and their history,
noting she has had inquiries from residents.
Mr. Edward and Mr. Neuman from Bigos Development explained they already own
property in the area and their headquarters are in Golden Valley. They have owned and
managed property in both Minneapolis and St. Paul for many years.
Councilmember Dumalag asked about their financing. Mr. Edward stated they will be
financing with TIF.
Councilmember Dumalag asked about racial equity programs within Bigos and target
hires. Mr. Edward stated they have discussed this with contractors as it relates to this
project. He stated subcontractors will seek out women and minority owned businesses
and look to do more of this.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if Bigos has ever had any targeted diverse hiring
practices in the past. Mr. Edward stated they have not and noted the last project they
built was 4 years ago, as they typically purchase properties.
Councilmember Dumalag asked if they have third party management or in-house
management. Mr. Edward stated in-house, adding they manage everything they own at
Bigos.
Councilmember Rog stated she has concerns about a property management company
whose actions have displaced hundreds in St. Louis Park, including rent increases at
Meadowbrook and lease terminations, as well as termination of Section 8 at Lou Park
Apartments. She stated this does not represent the attitude toward low-income
apartments and asked what they can say to this.
Mr. Edward stated the ERA apartments are still affordable and at the Lou Park
Apartments, they transferred the Section 8 housing with enhanced vouchers to
Common Bond.
Councilmember Rog stated she understood these measures, but added she felt
management was not very communicative or collaborative with residents when this all
happened, when the transfer of ownership happened. She asked why council should
support this developer and the project given these issues noted.
Mr. Edward stated Bigos maintains their properties exceptionally well. He added ERA is
a great, safe, and affordable place to live. He added no one was displaced at Lou Park
and no one left to go to Common Bond. He stated they worked with the city on this.
Councilmember Kraft asked what Bigos’ commitment is for affordable housing and how
it fits into their strategy. Mr. Edward noted they recently got a permit to build a Section
8 building in St. Paul.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 6
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
Councilmember Kraft asked about their strategy and commitment to sustainability. Mr.
Edward stated they are happy to have solar panels on the roof top on this building, and
hope to do more on other buildings, adding there is also a significant amount of green
space and efficiency. Mr. Neuman added they have signed up for the Xcel Energy
programs as well.
Councilmember Harris asked if the contractors or sub-contractors will hire people as
employees for this project or as independent contractors. Mr. Edward stated they have
not identified the contractor yet, and how they hire out their subs.
Councilmember Harris asked about plans for quality of life in the building with the on-
site property manager. Mr. Edward stated they are excited about the outside pool,
pickle ball court, theater, and a live-work area within the development.
Councilmember Harris asked if the units will have electric or gas appliances. Mr. Edward
stated they will be all high efficiency electric appliances. Councilmember Harris
encouraged them to hire employees versus sub-contractors so they can have benefits
and security.
Councilmember Dumalag asked what contractors they have used in the past. Mr.
Edward stated Stonebridge, Norsan, and added they own six Section 8 properties within
their portfolio as well.
Councilmember Rog asked what Bigos will do with the affordable units after 25 years.
Mr. Edward stated they have not had that conversation.
Councilmember Kraft asked why this is a housing TIF district. Ms. Kramer stated the past
project was a re-development TIF district which has since expired. The new project
cannot be the same, so it was determined it would be a housing TIF district.
Councilmember Kraft asked if the housing TIF district has higher affordability. Ms.
Kramer stated yes adding it requires 20% of the units at 50% AMI.
Councilmember Kraft asked how many buildings they own are Section 8. Mr. Edward
stated they own six that are fully affordable. Councilmember Kraft asked why they
moved away from project-based vouchers with the Lou Park Apartments. Mr. Edward
stated project-based vouchers require a different property manager than the market
rate units, so it was challenging to manage. He added when moving to the housing
choice vouchers, the HUD requirements went away, and it became easier to manage. He
added the Lou Park project expanded affordability.
Councilmember Kraft asked what they do to ensure the general contractor does things
the right way. Mr. Edward stated they work closely with their general contractors and
select the best.
Mayor Spano stated there has not always been a good relationship between St. Louis
Park and Bigos, adding the Lou Park project was not managed well. He added the council
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 7
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
has concerns about entering a relationship with them, while also noting this is a
different project. He stated Bigos needs to know he does not have a lot of patience for
problems or excuses coming out of the project, and he will keep a close eye on it. He
stated he sees this as an opportunity to move forward for the benefit of residents.
Councilmember Rog asked if they will be required to accept Section 8 vouchers for the
affordable units. Ms. Barton stated yes this is part of the city’s inclusionary housing
policy and Bigos will be required to do so. Mr. Edward stated having a project-based
Section 8 is very different from the Section 8 voucher, so this will be easier to handle.
Councilmember Rog stated this is a project many want for the empty lot. She stated she
is not happy that more than half of the units are studio or 1 bedroom, adding the real
need is for affordable family units. She did note this is a development appropriate for
the area and similar to other high density nearby, and they are required to accept
Section 8 vouchers.
Councilmember Rog stated she will not accept the future TIF request and added this
project does not support the long-range vision and broad goals of the community as to
what kind of community they want to be and what makes strong neighborhoods. She
stated while there are both positives and negatives to the project, the positives do
outweigh. She added she will be watching the developer’s hiring practices.
Councilmember Kraft stated he agrees with Councilmember Rog adding he will take a
harder look at the TIF request and make sure this is meeting the Comprehensive Plan
goals. He added if the developers come before council again, he will ask them to be
more prepared to explain their sustainability and affordability strategies and plans.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she will support this adding real estate is a relationship
business, so when they do come back for a TIF request, please know you do not leave
residents behind.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-123 approving the amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Plan Map, as well as related figures, tables and text and Resolution No.
21-124 approving the preliminary and final plat of Bereks Addition; and to approve first
reading of ordinance amending Section 36-268-11 and set the second reading for Nov.
1, 2021; first reading of ordinance vacating drainage and utility easement and set the
second reading for Nov. 1, 2021; and, first reading of ordinance amending right-of-way
vacation ordinance and set the second reading for Nov. 1, 2021.
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
8c. Traffic Study 750 – authorize truck parking restrictions on Oxford Street.
Resolution No. 21-125, Resolution No. 21-126
Mr. Sullivan presented the staff report.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 8
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
Councilmember Dumalag asked if the truckers reached out to were fine with the
overnight and weekend issue. Mr. Sullivan stated the responses from truckers stated
their schedules are very hard to manage and they did not see any restrictions as a
benefit. He noted they park their vehicles there for ease of accessibility, and because it
is more of a commercial, industrial area. He explained they were not in favor of this and
wanted more flexibility, but allowing some nights and weekends was what was agreed
upon, and they’ll see how it goes.
Mr. Sullivan stated the vehicles were over the road semis that travel down the highway
for days and weeks on end, and then pause for a few days and need to be parked.
Mayor Spano stated this less restrictive policy seems to be the best the city can do and
allow for a compromise.
Councilmember Harris stated she is supportive of this, adding it makes a great deal of
sense to not block the sight lines at the municipal center as well. She appreciates the
compromise reached by staff.
Councilmember Kraft asked how quickly this will go into effect, as well as those
approved along County Road 25. Mr. Sullivan stated they are hoping to install posts in
the next week or two and signs within 2-4 weeks, so by early December this should be in
place. Those along County Road 25 will have signs installed within the next few weeks
and then will be in place.
It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-125 to authorize truck parking restrictions on both sides of Oxford
Street from Powell Road to Louisiana Avenue, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday – Friday; and,
Resolution No. 21-126 to prohibit parking along the south side of Oxford Street between
the access driveways to the Municipal Service Center at 7305 Oxford Street
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
8d. Authorize mayor and city manager to execute local trail connection agreement
with Three Rivers Park District
Councilmember Rog stated she wants to protect the dignity of the Native American art
along the corridor. She stated this art located at the old entrance of the trail was chosen
for visibility and was intentional to hold student art and to design native plants and
names. She does not want this art relegated to the side and if moved will not be seen.
She wants more, not fewer, people to see it, noting a detour on the trail diminishes and
dilutes its power and relegates this to a side note. She stated let us elevate and
celebrate this art and not create a detour around it.
Councilmember Brausen asked where the artwork will continue to be and where the
pedestrian and bike entrance is. Mr. Sullivan stated this project developed over the
summer and was requested to consider leaving this trail as a permanent connection. He
stated it was needed when the bridge was installed, adding staff saw this as a cost-
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 9
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
savings measure as well. He noted it would be about 225 feet of additional trail and
repopulating of trees.
Councilmember Kraft asked about the costs related to this space. Mr. Sullivan stated the
$16,000 savings would be in removing the topsoil and putting in a temporary trail
connection, while planting trees where appropriate.
Councilmember Brausen asked if the $16,000 could be placed back into the city funds.
Ms. Keller stated yes. Councilmember Brausen asked if there is a second entrance. Mr.
Sullivan concurred.
Councilmember Harris asked if the access point to the bridge is in the same entrance
area and if there is any pedestrian/bike trail interaction that is of concern. Mr. Sullivan
stated there is a setback area between the two trails and they do not intersect.
Councilmember Harris agreed with Councilmember Rog’s comments on the artwork,
adding it makes sense the original access point should return to the original location.
She asked what the costs would be. Mr. Sullivan stated the $16,000 cost is to remove
the temporary trail connection and replace it with grass or tree cover. He noted the
green connection is also part of this cost and will be graded and paved in the next two
weeks.
Councilmember Dumalag stated this area is not in her ward and she has not been there.
She asked if there is a time constraint in deciding on this. Mr. Sullivan stated the grading
work is currently being done, so ideally a decision would need to be made within the
next two weeks.
Councilmember Kraft stated he would like to stick with the original plan and see the
green space be put back.
Mayor Spano stated this is a good faith decision by staff and he agrees with
Councilmember Rog and would want to lift-up the race equity work in this space. He
added maybe there is an opportunity to do more on this trail and possibly
Councilmember Rog should discuss this further with staff.
Mayor Spano stated this does not seem like a high priority, but he also would like
Councilmember Rog to have a discussion with staff on this as opposed to not doing
anything at all in the area.
Councilmember Brausen stated he will support Councilmember Rog’s position on this.
Ms. Keller stated staff is comfortable if council wants to stay with the current plan and
move forward.
It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to not
approve this project as presented, not enter into the agreement, and return to two
entrances on the trail.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 10
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
8e. Approve fund closure, creation, and budget amendment. Resolution No. 21-
127
Councilmember Kraft noted this is the using of surpluses from the general fund for
several purposes and to further the city’s strategic objectives. He stated the formal
creation of the climate investment fund will help spur investments, reach goals, and
provide returns for the community. He added there are many side benefits including
saving money by reducing energy and improving indoor air quality by transitioning off
fossil fuel gas. He added he is appreciative of the work of staff.
Councilmember Harris stated she agrees the climate investment fund is geared toward
the commercial and industrial businesses, along with transportation.
Councilmember Rog asked if the $800,000 for the fund will not be solely for commercial.
Ms. Schmitt stated it will not be restricted to commercial, noting the EDA funds will be
used for both commercial and residential.
Councilmember Kraft stated he thought the $300,000 coming from EDA was for
commercial use only. Ms. Schmitt stated technically the EDA levy will be used for
salaries, but the funds will be used for climate.
It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt
Resolution No. 21-127 approving fund closure, creation, and budget amendment.
The motion passed by roll call vote 6-0 (Councilmember Mohamed absent).
9. Communications
Mayor Spano announced the Lenox Foundation is holding a fundraiser for the Senior Program
on Oct. 19, 2021, at Parkway Pizza.
Councilmember Kraft stated the Louisiana Avenue bridge is opening Oct. 21, 2021, over
Minnehaha Creek and artwork will be installed later.
Councilmember Rog noted there is a catalytic converter event on Oct. 26, 2021, from 3-7 p.m.
and registration is available on the city website.
Ms. Keller noted next week’s study session has only one topic for discussion.
The council decided to add this topic onto a regular meeting in the future and not meet on
Mon., Oct. 25, 2021.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3b) Page 11
Title: City council meeting minutes of October 18, 2021
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Minutes: 3c
Unofficial minutes
City council special study session
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Oct. 18, 2021
The meeting convened at 5:45 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris,
Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Margaret Rog
Councilmembers absent: none
Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), Interim Deputy City Manager/Director of Operations
and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser)
Guests: none
1. Neighborhood and community sidewalk snow removal options
Ms. Walsh presented the report. She stated the city plows about 50% of the community
sidewalks, with trackless machines.
Councilmember Kraft asked for more information about how snow was removed. Ms. Walsh
stated a shovel blade can get down to the bottom of the sidewalk. The trackless machines have
blowers that blow snow up and over, but they do not have blades that go down to the bare
pavement. She added the equipment is the best that is available; A pick-up with a plow is too
wide for the sidewalk space.
Councilmember Kraft stated it costs the city $40-80,000 per year to clear half the miles of the
sidewalk. Ms. Walsh stated that is staff time. Councilmember Kraft stated the proposal for
cleaning all the sidewalks would cost about twice this much because it would require 5 new
pieces and equipment and 5 new hires to do this. Ms. Walsh stated that is correct.
Councilmember Kraft stated the city prioritizes pedestrians, but this feels like we are not
approaching this in the right way. He would like to see the city start this next winter and take
time to fully implement it, adding outliers do not have to be done, relax some of the time
assumptions, and add a linear cost approach versus an exponential cost approach. He asked for
staff to look at how people are hired for these positions and check how to do a linear cost
approach.
Councilmember Brausen stated he asked for this to be discussed in a study session when
sidewalks were added on Cedar Lake Road. His concern continues to be having sidewalks
cleared for multi-family housing properties, especially NOAH properties to access transit. He
stated the sidewalk on Hampshire Avenue that goes south should have been designated a
community sidewalk as two NOAH multi-family housing buildings are there and connected to
transit. He added at this point, he does not see a need to clear snow from all sidewalks in the
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 2
Title: Special study session minutes of October 18, 2021
city, but he does want to refine the definition community sidewalks, so that sidewalks
connected to multi-family housing and transit are cleared.
Councilmember Brausen added he is interested in community listening sessions to see if there
is public desire for the city to remove snow from all sidewalks, given the cost estimates. He
agrees with Councilmember Kraft’s comments on economizing and adding enough staff to clear
sidewalks. He noted at this time he does not want to add additional staff or equipment for the
upcoming year, but again would like more data on multi-family housing needs. He stated given
the city’s priorities on making it a more walkable community, council needs to continue to look
at how all sidewalks are cleared.
Councilmember Rog agreed with the comments made by Councilmembers Brausen and Kraft.
She noted the question she continues to have is what we mean when we prioritize pedestrians,
when being a pedestrian in the winter in St. Louis Park is quite treacherous. She stated when
council prioritized walking over driving in 2018, this was a commitment to keeping sidewalks
safe year-round for pedestrians, just as streets are for cars. She added if we cannot get there
this year, we need to think about the most vulnerable residents, who walk, cannot afford a car,
or use wheelchairs. She stated it is a complicated problem and Minnetonka Boulevard is not
very safe with how snow is removed there. She does not understand the equipment piece, does
not feel it is the right equipment, and is not sure what the solution is, but creative solutions
should be found. She agrees on moving the timeline out and starting with what the city can do
for the most vulnerable, those living in low-income or group homes.
Councilmember Harris stated she lives in a neighborhood with a community sidewalk, with over
4,000 cars traveling the road per day and many multi-family housing units. She agrees with the
staff report, comments related to the plows, and with the idea of listening sessions. She noted
the city’s strategic priorities including mobility, connected community, and race equity, adding
it is imperative to clear sidewalks in the densest neighborhoods and in areas of adjacent
neighborhood commerce. She does not have a solution to the equipment challenges but noted
it might still be required of some property owners to clear down to the pavement.
Councilmember Dumalag stated she lives on a resident-maintained sidewalk and does use
transit, so she understands this issue of prioritization of pedestrians and making sidewalks
safer. She agreed with the prioritization of multi-family housing areas, and those with mobility
issues and ADA. She asked if there is liability to the city on ADA issues. Ms. Heiser stated the
city attorney has addressed this as it relates to sidewalks, and unless the property owner or the
city does something intentional, there is no liability.
Councilmember Mohamed stated she agrees with the idea of shoveling sidewalks for the city’s
most vulnerable but shoveling 100% of the city’s sidewalks is costly. She added shoveling so
people can get to the bus, especially in high density areas, would be important to do.
Mayor Spano stated that the current budget for staff doing this work is just for their time to
remove snow. He added the cost in the report reflects snow removal and other tasks as well.
He stated it does not feel like these two are comparable and he would like staff to look at this
again, so the criteria is the same. He added if that staff would be employed year-round, what
would they be doing.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 3
Title: Special study session minutes of October 18, 2021
Mayor Spano stated he reached out to other cities that do this work and asked how it is
working. He noted one city was fine with the program and two others were not happy with the
program because they were not able to get sidewalks cleared for many days, so it was not
helpful. He stated residents are frustrated and sidewalks can be frozen or packed down by the
time the city gets to it. He is not interested in taking this on if the city cannot meet
expectations.
Ms. Walsh stated every snowstorm is different and equipment can break down if there is frozen
slush or it starts with rain. She added sometimes the city can do a better job, and sometimes
they can go back and re-do. She noted the bus companies need to get on the streets first, as
well as public safety and fire vehicles. Ms. Walsh also noted they work to create curb cuts so
pedestrians can get onto the bus and pavement is cleared at certain stops.
Mayor Spano stated he would like from staff a better, clearer comparable cost analysis, and a
better assessment on if the city can deliver on this.
Ms. Keller stated there are three areas to review including: extending the timelines, physical
impact on staff, increasing funding for staff, and increasing funding for sidewalk improvements.
Councilmember Kraft stated council needs the mindset that we need to do this. He agreed with
the areas Ms. Keller noted and added there needs to be a plan to get there over time, including
prioritization and realizes that it won’t be this snow season.
Councilmember Rog agreed and noted the process can be slow and take time. She appreciated
Ms. Keller’s comments, improving what we are doing already, and continue working on issues
to get to solutions.
Mayor Spano stated he appreciates having staff look further at this, but he is not comfortable
saying the city is going to do this.
Councilmember Kraft stated if the city prioritizes pedestrians, we should have the mindset to
figure this out.
Councilmember Brausen stated he agrees with Mayor Spano on this, adding the city does
prioritize pedestrians, but clearing all sidewalks is not something he wants to pursue at this
time.
Councilmember Dumalag stated we are now aware of the challenges and she agrees with
looking further into this but is not prepared to say the city is going to do all the shoveling at this
point. She agrees with prioritizing some areas.
Councilmember Harris asked if the city could create a reciprocal model like the Three Rivers
agreement for cleaning the county trails. She asked if staff could analyze if there are sidewalks
adjacent to businesses where they are not plowed, and if they could be added. She added
another priority area would be bus stops and future infrastructure and transit areas. She stated
she does not see value at this time in clearing the whole city.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 3c) Page 4
Title: Special study session minutes of October 18, 2021
Councilmember Mohamed stated she agrees with focusing on the 50% the city clears at this
point, adding she is hesitant on clearing all 100%, but is interested in prioritizing clearing. She
added she wants more community input and more options.
Councilmember Mohamed left the meeting at 6:35 p.m. stating she would not be in attendance
for the city council meeting.
Ms. Keller stated staff will review this further, discuss options, and look at doing the best with
what the city has with equipment and staff. She added they will also look at the cost
breakdown further, including connecting the sidewalk grid.
The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4a - I
Executive summary
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 1
Recommended action: Motion to approve recommended property owner budget and service
charges for Special Service District No. 1.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve Special Service District No. 1 budget
and property owner service charges?
Summary: The 2022 proposed budget and service charges are similar to that of past years. Staff
held meetings and reached out to the property owners in Special Service District No. 1 and
received support for approving the 2022 budget and service charges.
Financial or budget considerations: The parks maintenance budget will incur a service charge
for the city-owned property located within this district at 3700 Monterey Drive (Rec Center/
Wolfe Park). The proposed service charge for 2022 is $25,308.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment “A” Proposed 2022 Budget
Attachment “B” Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Attachment “C” Map
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a - I) Page 2
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 1
Discussion
Background: On Oct. 17, 2016, the city council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year
service charge for Special Service District No. 1 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard
from Quentin Avenue to Highway 100 and along Park Center Boulevard and Monterey Drive).
Annually, the city council must set a service charge for the district following a public hearing on
the proposed charge. The Special Service District property owners approved the proposed 2022
budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published on the city’s website
and in the Sun Sailor on Oct. 7 and Oct. 21, 2021; a public hearing notice was sent to all
property owners within the district. The public hearing was held on Nov. 1, 2021.
Special Service District No. 1 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 1 has an anticipated 2021 year-end fund balance of approximately
$54,845.
Proposed 2021 Budget and Service Charges
The property owners recommended approval of the following:
•2022 budget amount of $106,672; no change from 2021.
•2022 service charge amount of $96,672; no change from 2021.
•In general, expenses do not typically reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount, along with the service charges, is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 75% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
Present considerations: The Special Service Districts are a benefit to the businesses and city as
they help maintain the improvements made in the district, promote a positive image of the
business corridor and attract customers to the area.
Next steps: In late November, the city certifies the 2022 assessments (service charges) to
Hennepin County.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a - I) Page 3
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 1
Attachment A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #1
Account Subsidiary
Proposed Budget
2022
Adopted Budget
2021
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES $238 $240
6221 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 715 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS $500 $500
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS $5,900 $5,900
6303 - OTHER $300 $300
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 680 - SSD -Banner replacements $2,500 $2,500
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 678 - SSD Mgmt Services $4,500 $4,500
6550 - Civil 750 - Civil $150 $150
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD - snow removal 772 - SSD - snow removal $43,000 $43,000
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 774 - SSD - Banner install/removal $1,000 $1,000
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 775 - SSD - Irrigation services $3,000 $3,000
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 776 - SSD decorative install/maint $8,000 $8,000
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 777 - SSD - Landscape services $31,000 $31,000
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES $100 $100
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE $134 $132
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 880 - Infrastructure Repair-Internal $4,000 $4,000
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE $2,350 $2,350
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $106,672 $106,672
SSD#1 Budget
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a - I) Page 4
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 1
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment B
Special Service District #1
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2022 Service Charges
PROPOSED PROPOSED
2022 2021
LINE PID SERVICE SERVICE
NO. NO.OWNER BUSINESS CHARGE CHARGE
1 06-028-24-33-0019 3601 Park Center Boulevard 36 Park LLC 36 Park LLC $3,389 $3,389
2 06-028-24-33-0015 3601 State Hwy No 100 South Target Corporation t-0260 Target Corporation $10,537 $10,537
3 06-028-24-34-0022 3700 Monterey Drive City of St. Louis Park Rec Center $25,308 $25,308
4 06-028-24-33-0014 3777 Park Center Boulevard Lund Food Holdings Lund Food Holdings $10,693 $10,693
6 07-028-24-22-0031 3800 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $6,811 $6,811
7 07-028-24-22-0035 3900 Park Nicollet Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $5,533 $5,533
8 07-028-24-21-0004 4916 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $1,698 $1,698
9 07-028-24-21-0005 4920 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $476 $476
10 07-028-24-21-0006 4950 Excelsior Boulevard Zip Printing Zip Printing $561 $561
11 07-028-24-21-0512 4951 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $1,504 $1,504
12 07-028-24-21-0513 4959 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Companies Frauenshuh Co.$1,295 $1,295
13 07-028-24-22-0023 4961 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.Miracle Mile $611 $611
14 07-028-24-22-0024 4995 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.Miracle Mile $804 $804
15 07-028-24-22-0032 5000 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $588 $588
16 07-028-24-22-0025 5001 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.Miracle Mile $577 $577
17 07-028-24-22-0033 5050 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $3,394 $3,394
18 07-028-24-22-0034 5100 Excelsior Boulevard Park Nicollet Health Services PNHS $1,437 $1,437
19 07-028-24-22-0037 5200 Excelsior Boulevard Tower Place Ltd Liability Co. Frauenshuh Co.$1,658 $1,658
20 07-028-24-22-0026 5201 Excelsior Boulevard Intercity Investments, Inc.Miracle Mile $8,425 $8,425
21 07-028-24-22-0036 5300 Excelsior Boulevard Frauenshuh Companies Frauenshuh Co.$5,979 $5,979
22 07-028-24-22-0004 5400 Auto Club Way AAA Minneapolis AAA $5,394 $5,394
$96,672 $96,672
Notes:
1)The proposed 2022 budget is $106,672, but the service charge is only $96,672 because $10,000 was transferred from reserves
to maintain the proper fund balance.
2)For 2022, the proposed budget and service charges remain the same as in 2021.
3)The proposed 2022 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
a) Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are on a front footage basis.
b) All other services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
ADDRESS
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a - I) Page 5
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 1
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4a-II
Executive summary
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 2
Recommended action: Motion to approve recommended property owner budget and service
charges for Special Service District No. 2.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve Special Service District No. 2 budget
and property owner service charges?
Summary: The 2022 proposed budget and service charges are similar to that of past years. Staff
has held meetings and reached out to the property owners in Special Service District No. 2 and
received support for approving the 2022 budget and service charges.
Financial or budget considerations: The public works operations division budget will incur a
service charge for the city-owned property located within this district at 3929 Excelsior
Boulevard (bus shelter). The proposed service charge for 2022 is $37.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment “A” Proposed 2022 Budget
Attachment “B” Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Attachment “C” Map
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-II) Page 2
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 2
Discussion
Background:On Oct. 1, 2018, the city council approved a resolution imposing a multi-year
service charge for Special Service District No. 2 (this district is located along Excelsior Boulevard
from Monterey Drive/38th Street to France Avenue). Annually, the city council must set a
service charge for the district following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special
Service District property owners approved the proposed 2022 budget and service charges. The
notice of public hearing was published on the city’s website and in the Sun Sailor on Oct. 7 and
Oct. 21, 2021. The public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the district. The
public hearing was held on Nov. 1, 2021.
Special Service District No. 2 Financial Position
Special Service District No. 2 has an anticipated 2021 year-end fund balance of approximately
$50,757.
Proposed 2022 Budget and Service Charges
The property owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2022 budget amount of $47,462; no change from 2021.
• 2022 service charge amount of $33,462; no change from 2021.
• In general, expenses do not typically reach 100% of budget. The expected unused
budget amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to
achieve the goal of a 75% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be
maintained.
Present considerations: The Special Service Districts are a benefit to the city as they promote a
positive image of the business corridor and to attract customers to the area.
Next steps: In late-November, the city certifies the 2022 assessments (service charges) to
Hennepin County.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-II) Page 3
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 2
Attachment A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #2
Account Subsidiary Proposed Budget
2022
Adopted Budget
2021
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 204.00 210.00
6221 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 715 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 200.00 200.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,000.00 3,000.00
6303 - OTHER 1,000.00 1,000.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 680 - SSD -Banner replacements 500.00 500.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 678 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,000.00 2,000.00
6550 - Civil 750 - Civil
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 773 - SSD Site Maintenance 0.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 774 - SSD - Banner install/removal 800.00 800.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 775 - SSD - Irrigation services 4,000.00 4,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 776 - SSD decorative install/maint 9,400.00 9,400.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 777 - SSD - Landscape services 23,000.00 23,000.00
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 58.00 52.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 880 - Infrastructure Repair-Internal 1,000.00 1,000.00
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,300.00 2,300.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 47,462.00 47,462.00
SSD#2 Budget
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-II) Page 4
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 2
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment B
Special Service District #2
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2021 Service Charges
PROPOSED ACTUAL
2022 2021
LINE SERVICE SERVICE
NO.PID NO.OWNER CHARGE CHARGE
1 06-028-24-41-0075 3900 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse on Excelsior LLC $5,353 $5,353
2 06-028-24-41-0077 3901 Excelsior Blvd Alberto Properties LLP $1,581 $1,581
3 06-028-24-41-0076 3924 Excelsior Blvd Ellipse II LLC $1,924 $1,924
4 06-028-24-41-0068 3925 Excelsior Blvd A & A Agency Inc.$620 $620
6 06-028-24-41-0067 3929 Excelsior Blvd City of St. Louis Park $37 $37
7 06-028-24-41-0014 3939 Excelsior Blvd Sara Son LLC $900 $900
8 06-028-24-41-0070 3947 Excelsior Blvd Wallack Properties LLC $1,514 $1,514
9 06-028-24-41-0008 4100 Excelsior Blvd Sela Roofing & Remodeling $1,096 $1,096
10 06-028-24-41-0009 4120 Excelsior Blvd Altus Business Development Properties $1,071 $1,071
11 06-028-24-44-0001 4140 Excelsior Blvd Larson Enterprises/Slumberland $1,853 $1,853
12 06-028-24-44-0176 4170 Excelsior Blvd 4150 Excelsior Blvd. Partnership $1,407 $1,407
13 06-028-24-44-0175 4200 Excelsior Blvd Stranik Brothers R/E LLC $1,199 $1,199
14 06-028-24-44-0173 4201 Excelsior Blvd AMF Properties LLC/Life Medical $1,799 $1,799
15 06-028-24-44-0088 4221 Excelsior Blvd Prima Investments LLC $253 $253
16 06-028-24-43-0017 4300 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc $525 $525
17 06-028-24-43-0020 4301 Excelsior Blvd S & S Investments $1,106 $1,106
18 06-028-24-43-0018 4306 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc $403 $403
19 06-028-24-43-0019 4308 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc $537 $537
20 06-028-24-43-0021 4317 Excelsior Blvd Habitation Furnishing & Design $668 $668
21 06-028-24-43-0186 4320 Excelsior Blvd Lyndly F Opitz & Assoc $1,650 $1,650
22 06-028-24-43-0091 4331 Excelsior Blvd Bell Nelson Furniture $909 $909
23 06-028-24-43-0392 4400 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bancshares Inc $3,796 $3,796
24 06-028-24-43-0040 4409 Excelsior Blvd Samfar Real Estate Inc $633 $633
25 06-028-24-43-0041 4415 Excelsior Blvd Automotive Accessories LLC $522 $522
26 06-028-24-43-0042 4419 Excelsior Blvd Celine Properties LLC $1,149 $1,149
27 06-028-24-43-0391 4424 Excelsior Blvd Bridgewater Bank $957 $957
$33,462 $33,462
Notes:
1)The proposed 2022 budget is $47,462, but the service charge is only $33,462 because $14,000 was transferred from reserves
to maintain the proper fund balance.
2)For 2022, the proposed budget and service charges remain the same.
3)The proposed 2022 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
4)All services charges are based on the parcel's square foot area basis.
ADDRESS
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-II) Page 5
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 2
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4a-III
Executive summary
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 3
Recommended action: Motion to approve recommended property owner budget and service
charges for Special Service District No. 3.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve Special Service District No. 3 budget
and property owner service charges?
Summary: The 2022 proposed budget and service charges are similar to that of past years. Staff
held meetings and reached out to the property owners in Special Service District No. 3 and
received support for approving the 2022 budget and service charges.
Financial or budget considerations: None. There are no city owned properties within this
district.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment “A” Proposed 2022 Budget
Attachment “B” Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Attachment “C” Map
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-III) Page 2
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 3
Discussion
Background: On Oct. 15, 2012, the city council approved a resolution imposing a service charge
for Special Service District No. 3 (located along Excelsior Boulevard from Quentin Avenue to
Monterey Drive/W. 38th Street). Annually, the city council must set a service charge for the
district following a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District property
owners approved the proposed 2022 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing
was published on the city’s website and in the Sun Sailor on Oct. 7 and Oct. 21, 2021. The public
hearing notice was sent to all property owners within the district. The public hearing was held
on Nov. 1, 2021.
Special Service District No. 3 financial position
Special Service District No. 3 has an anticipated 2021 year-end fund balance of approximately
$24,337.
Proposed 2022 budget and service charges
The property owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2022 budget amount of $51,597; no change from 2021.
• 2022 service charge amount of $41,597; no increase from 2021.
• In general, expenses do not typically reach 100% of budget. The expected unused
budget amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to
achieve the goal of a 75% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be
maintained.
Present considerations: The Special Service Districts are a benefit to the city as they promote a
positive image of the business corridor and to attract customers to the area.
Next steps: In late-November, the city certifies the 2022 assessments (service charges) to
Hennepin County.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-III) Page 3
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 3
Attachment A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #3
Account Subsidiary Proposed Budget
2022
Adopted Budget
2021
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 430.00 430.00
6221 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 715 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 200.00 200.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,500.00 3,500.00
6303 - OTHER 1,500.00 1,500.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 680 - SSD -Banner replacements 500.00 500.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 678 - SSD Mgmt Services 2,500.00 2,500.00
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD - snow removal 772 - SSD - snow removal 18,000.00 18,000.00
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 774 - SSD - Banner install/removal 600.00 600.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 775 - SSD - Irrigation services 2,500.00 2,500.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 776 - SSD decorative install/maint 7,000.00 7,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 777 - SSD - Landscape services 12,000.00 12,000.00
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 67.00 67.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 880 - Infrastructure Repair-Internal 1,700.00 1,700.00
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,100.00 1,100.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 51,597.00 51,597.00
SSD #3 Budget
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-III) Page 4
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 3
Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Proposed Actual
2022 2021
LINE
NO.PID No.Address Business Owner Service Charge Service Charge
1 06-028-24-43-0191 4500 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Blakeley Props & Chalen LP ET AL $3,638 $3,638
2 07-028-24-12-0047 4501 Exc Blvd S & D Cleaners Laurel Properties $952 $952
3 07-028-24-12-0048 4509 Exc Blvd Lang Nelson Office Park Blvd LLP $1,694 $1,694
4 06-028-24-43-0192 4590 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Blakeley Props & Chalen LP ET AL $747 $747
6 07-028-24-12-0049 4601 Exc Blvd Park Blvd Office Bldg Park Blvd LLP $2,392 $2,392
7 07-028-24-12-0050 4611 Exc Blvd Dilly Lilly Diamond Group LLC $1,154 $1,154
8 07-028-24-12-0051 4615 Exc Blvd Judith McGrann & Friends Judith McGrann $996 $996
9 07-028-24-12-0052 4617 Exc Blvd Flower Fair 4617 Excelsior Blvd LLC $1,298 $1,298
10 07-028-24-12-0175 4630 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand LLC $5,885 $5,885
11 07-028-24-21-0009 4631 Exc Blvd Jennings Liquor 4617 Excelsior Blvd LLC $1,325 $1,325
12 07-028-24-21-0011 4701 Exc Blvd Steve's Park Amoco J & J Wolfe Properties LLC $2,111 $2,111
13 07-028-24-21-0012 4725 Exc Blvd Excelsior Office Bldg Excelsior Investments LLC $2,766 $2,766
14 07-028-24-21-0256 4730 Exc Blvd Retail/housing Excelsior & Grand LLC $6,874 $6,874
15 07-028-24-21-0514 4800 Exc Blvd Fresh Thyme Grocery 4900 Excelsior Apts $4,139 $4,139
16 07-028-24-21-0252 4801 Exc Blvd Loffhagen Insurance Gregory Loffhagen $1,312 $1,312
17 07-028-24-21-0015 4811 Exc Blvd Latitudes/Laundramat Fine Brothers $1,187 $1,187
18 07-028-24-21-0016 4821 Exc Blvd German Autoworks Eastwood Properties LLC $649 $649
19 07-028-24-21-0017 4825 Exc Blvd German Autoworks Eastwood Properties LLC $646 $646
20 07-028-24-21-0031 4901 Exc Blvd Checks II DMM Holdings $669 $669
21 07-028-24-21-0032 4907 Exc Blvd Vogue Furniture Tique, Inc.$580 $580
22 07-028-24-21-0033 4911 Exc Blvd Old World Antiques J & F Reddy Rents Inc $583 $583
Total $41,597 $41,597
Notes:
1)The proposed 2022 budget is $51,597, but the service charge is only $41,597 because $10,000 was transferred from reserves
to maintain the proper fund balance.
2)For 2022, the proposed budget and service charges remain the same.
3)The proposed 2022 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
a) Commercial sidewalk snow removal charges are based on the square foot of sidewalk in front of the property.
b) All other services charges are based on the property's front footage.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4a-III) Page 5
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 3
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b-IV
Executive summary
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 4
Recommended action: Motion the city council approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 4.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve Special Service District No. 4 budget
and property owner service charges?
w
Summary: The 2022 proposed budget and service charges are similar to that of past years. Staff
held meetings and reached out to the property owners in Special Service District No. 4 and
received support for approving the 2022 budget and service charges.
Financial or budget considerations: None. There are no city owned properties within this
district.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment “A” Proposed 2022 Budget
Attachment “B” Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Attachment “C” Map
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-IV) Page 2
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 4
Discussion
Background: On Oct. 5, 2015, the city council approved a resolution imposing a service charge
for Special Service District No. 4 (located along Excelsior Boulevard west of Highway 100 to
Louisiana Avenue). Annually, the city council must set a service charge for the district following
a public hearing on the proposed charge. The Special Service District property owners approved
the proposed 2022 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published on
the city’s website and in the Sun Sailor on Oct. 7 and Oct. 21, 2021. The public hearing notice
was sent to all property owners within the district. The public hearing was held on Nov. 1, 2021.
Special Service District No. 4 financial position
Special Service District No. 4 has an anticipated 2021 year-end fund balance of approximately
$7,046.
Proposed 2022 budget and service charges
The property owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2022 budget amount of $26,935; no change from 2021.
• 2022 service charge amount of $24,935; a $2,000 increase from 2021 to reflect a $2,000
reduction in transfer from reserves.
• In general, expenses do not typically reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 75% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
Present considerations: The Special Service Districts are a benefit to the city as they promote a
positive image of the business corridor and to attract customers to the area.
Next steps: In late-November, the city certifies the 2022 assessments (service charges) to
Hennepin County.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-IV) Page 3
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 4
Attachment A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #4
Account Subsidiary Proposed Budget
2022
Adopted Budget
2021
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 152.00 152.00
6221 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 715 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 200.00 200.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,000.00 2,000.00
6303 - OTHER 500.00 500.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 680 - SSD -Banner replacements 500.00 500.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 678 - SSD Mgmt Services 1,250.00 1,250.00
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 774 - SSD - Banner install/removal 500.00 500.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 775 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,500.00 3,500.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 776 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 777 - SSD - Landscape services 11,000.00 11,000.00
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 100.00 100.00
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 33.00 33.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 880 - Infrastructure Repair-Internal 1,800.00 1,800.00
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,400.00 2,400.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 26,935.00 26,935.00
SSD #4 Budget
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-IV) Page 4
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 4
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment B
Special Service District #4
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Business Proposed Actual
2022 2021
PAR Service Service
NO.PID #Owner Charge Charge
1 21-117-21-24-0019 5600 Excelsior Blvd Finished Basement Company $933 $858
2 21-117-21-24-0202 5608 Excelsior Blvd Helmut Mauer $707 $650
3 21-117-21-24-0141 5707 Excelsior Blvd New Concepts Mgt Group $949 $873
4 21-117-21-24-0193 5717 Excelsior Blvd LMC, Inc $820 $754
5 21-117-21-24-0040 5720 Excelsior Blvd Holiday Stationstores Inc.$1,023 $941
6 21-117-21-24-0161 5801 Excelsior Blvd Premier RE LLC $472 $434
7 21-117-21-24-0066 5804 Excelsior Blvd 5804 Excelsior Blvd., LLC $579 $533
8 21-117-21-24-0210 5809 Excelsior Blvd C.B.S. Real Est Prtnr II LLP $464 $426
9 21-117-21-24-0067 5810 Excelsior Blvd 5812 Excelsior Blvd. Co $665 $611
11 21-117-21-24-0185 5825 Excelsior Blvd Kil-Ben Excelsior, LLC $1,220 $1,122
12 21-117-21-24-0083 5900 Excelsior Blvd Realty Income Props 3 LLC $828 $762
13 21-117-21-23-0156 5916 Excelsior Blvd Rackner & Rackner $926 $851
14 21-117-21-23-0010 5922 Excelsior Blvd Muriel B. Frederick $170 $157
15 21-117-21-24-0195 5925 Excelsior Blvd Suntide Commercial Realty $1,265 $1,164
16 21-117-21-23-0011 5930 Excelsior Blvd Leonard C Riley $318 $293
17 21-117-21-23-0097 6001 Excelsior Blvd Sew What Corporation The Wicker Shop $451 $415
18 21-117-21-23-0127 6002 Excelsior Blvd Fitrz Inc $508 $468
19 21-117-21-23-0128 6006 Excelsior Blvd RRK LLC $262 $241
20 21-117-21-23-0100 6011 Excelsior Blvd Ward Properties $1,000 $920
21 21-117-21-23-0155 6100 Excelsior Blvd Moose Properties II, LLC $352 $324
22 21-117-21-32-0006 6111 Excelsior Blvd Excelsior 6111, LLC $963 $886
23 21-117-21-23-0130 6112 Excelsior Blvd Snyder Electric Co.$525 $483
24 21-117-21-32-0021 6121 Excelsior Blvd Hung LLC $565 $519
25 21-117-21-32-0022 6127 Excelsior Blvd Gregory White $380 $350
26 6200 6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd $2,672 $2,457
27 20-117-21-14-0026 6500 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital $1,844 $1,696
28 20-117-21-41-0009 6600 Excelsior Blvd Methodist Hospital Methodist Hospital $3,339 $3,071
29 City Municipal Parking Lot City of St. Louis Park $735 $676
$24,935 $22,935
**6200 & 6250 Excelsior Blvd Charges 2022 2021
21-117-21-32-0133 6200 Excelsior Blvd 101 Ward Law Offices LTD $156 $143
21-117-21-32-0134 6200 Excelsior Blvd 102 Charles and Janice Woodson $162 $149
21-117-21-32-0135 6200 Excelsior Blvd 103 Laurie G Holasek $158 $144
21-117-21-32-0136 6200 Excelsior Blvd 104 Laurie G Holasek $177 $163
21-117-21-32-0137 6200 Excelsior Blvd 201 Dennis Schlutter $150 $138
21-117-21-32-0138 6200 Excelsior Blvd 202 Lois Schlutter $158 $146
21-117-21-32-0139 6200 Excelsior Blvd 203 Lois Schlutter $207 $190
21-117-21-32-0140 6200 Excelsior Blvd 204 Lois Schlutter $183 $168
21-117-21-32-0141 6250 Excelsior Blvd 101 Nemer Fieger & Assoc Inc $166 $153
21-117-21-32-0142 6250 Excelsior Blvd 102 LGH Properties LLC $155 $142
21-117-21-32-0143 6250 Excelsior Blvd 103 Mary Kenyon $169 $156
21-117-21-32-0144 6250 Excelsior Blvd 104 LGH Properties LLC $153 $141
21-117-21-32-0145 6250 Excelsior Blvd 201 James D Fieger $162 $149
21-117-21-32-0146 6250 Excelsior Blvd 202 Skads Travel Service Inc $148 $136
21-117-21-32-0147 6250 Excelsior Blvd 203 LGH Properties LLC $215 $198
21-117-21-32-0148 6250 Excelsior Blvd 204 Deborah Urista $153 $141
$2,672 $2,457
Notes
*Denotes properties with a single street address but have sub-units that are independently owned.
1)The proposed 2022 budget is $26,935, but the service charge is only $24,935 because $2,000 was transferred from reserves
to maintain the proper fund balance.
2)For 2022, the proposed budget remains the same but service charge increases because the transfer from reserves was reduced by $2,000.
3)The proposed 2022 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
Address
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-IV) Page 5
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 4
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b-V
Executive summary
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 5
Recommended action: Motion the city council approve recommended property owner budget
and service charges for Special Service District No. 5.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve Special Service District No. 5 budget
and property owner service charges?
Summary: The 2022 proposed budget and service charges are similar to that of past years. Staff
held meetings and reached out to the property owners in Special Service District No. 5 and
received support for approving the 2022 budget.
Financial or budget considerations: None. There are no city-owned properties within this
district.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment “A” Proposed 2022 Budget
Attachment “B” Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Attachment “C” Map
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-V) Page 2
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 5
Discussion
Background: On Feb. 2, 2009, the city council approved a resolution imposing a service charge
for Special Service District No. 5 (located along Park Place Boulevard between I-394 and Cedar
Lake Road). Annually, the city council must set a service charge for the district following a public
hearing on the proposed charges. The special service district property owners approved the
proposed 2022 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published on the
city’s website and in the Sun Sailor on Oct. 7 and Oct. 21, 2021. The public hearing notice was
sent to all property owners within the District. The public hearing was held on Nov. 1, 2021.
Special Service District No. 5 financial position
Special Service District No. 5 has an anticipated 2021 year-end fund balance of approximately
$16,490.
Proposed 2022 budget and service charges
The property owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2022 budget amount of $32,655; no change from 2021.
• 2022 service charge amount of $32,655; a $2,000 increase from 2021 to reflect a $2,000
reduction in transfer from reserves.
• In general, expenses do not typically reach 100% of budget. The expected unused
budget amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to
achieve the goal of a 75% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be
maintained.
Present considerations: The special service districts are a benefit to the city as they promote a
positive image of the business corridor and to attract customers to the area.
Next steps: In late-November, the city certifies the 2022 assessments (service charges) to
Hennepin County.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-V) Page 3
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 5
Attachment A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #5
Account Subsidiary Proposed Budget
2022
Adopted Budget
2021
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 222.00 222.00
6221 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 715 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 200.00 200.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 4,000.00 4,000.00
6303 - SSD -Banner replacements 680 - SSD -Banner replacements 1,000.00 1,000.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 678 - SSD Mgmt Services 1,500.00 1,500.00
6630 - OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
6630 - SSD - Banner install/removal 774 - SSD - Banner install/removal 1,600.00 1,600.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 775 - SSD - Irrigation services 3,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD decorative install/maint 776 - SSD decorative install/maint 3,000.00 3,000.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 777 - SSD - Landscape services 15,100.00 15,100.00
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 33.00 33.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 880 - Infrastructure Repair-Internal 1,500.00 1,500.00
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,500.00 1,500.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 32,655.00 32,655.00
SSD #5 Budget
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-V) Page 4
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 5
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment B
Special Service District #5
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2022 Service Charges
% of Proposed Actual
Footage 2022 2021
PID Address Owner Business Service
Charge
Service
Charge
04-117-21-31-0019 1500 Park Place Blvd Doubletree Hotel Doubletree Hotel 17.5%$5,721 $5,371
30-029-24-33-0031 1600 West End Blvd Shops at West End Shops at West End 17.3%$5,652 $5,306
04-117-21-34-0046 1620 Park Place Blvd IRC Retail Centers Roti & Leeann Chin 4.0%$1,299 $1,220
04-117-21-34-0045 1650 Park Place Blvd IRC Retail Centers Inland Commerical 4.7%$1,530 $1,437
04-117-21-34-0044 1690 Park Place Blvd James & Patricia Oslund Arby's 3.5%$1,152 $1,081
04-117-21-34-0049 1700 Park Place Blvd Costco Wholesale Fueling Station only 3.1%$1,019 $956
30-029-24-32-0022 5320 16th St W Shops at West End Cub 7.0%$2,281 $2,141
30-029-24-32-0026 5353 Wayzata Blvd Northco Commercial Real Estate Park National Bank 7.2%$2,350 $2,206
30-029-24-33-0011 5401 Gamble Dr The Excelsior Group Parkdale I - MEPC 12.6%$4,108 $3,856
30-029-24-33-0015 5402 Parkdale Dr The Excelsior Group Parkdale II - MEPC 4.2%$1,388 $1,303
04-117-21-34-0043 5600 Cedar Lake Rd IRC Retail Centers Office/Copy Max & Petsm 8.1%$2,644 $2,482
04-117-21-34-0050 5601 16th St W IRC Retail Centers Stormwater Pond 3.0%$991 $930
04-117-21-31-0018 5657 Wayzata Blvd KK Corporation Park Place Restaurants 3.7%$1,220 $1,145
04-117-21-34-0047 5699 16th St W IRC Retail Centers Lakeshore Learning Cente 4.0%$1,301 $1,221
Total:100.0%$32,655 $30,655
Notes:
1)The proposed 2022 budget and service charges are $32,655.
2)The propoposed budget remains the same but the service charges increased because the transfer from reserves was reduced by $2,000.
3)The proposed 2022 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-V) Page 5
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 5
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b-VI
Executive summary
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 6
Recommended action: Motion to approve recommended property owner budget and service
charges for Special Service District No. 6.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to approve Special Service District No. 6 budget
and property owner service charges?
Summary: The 2022 proposed budget and service charges are similar to that of past years. Staff
held meetings and reached out to the property owners in Special Service District No. 6 and
received support for approving the 2022 budget and service charges.
Financial or budget considerations: The TIF / Admin budget will incur a service charge for the
city-owned undeveloped property located within this district. The proposed service charge for
2022 is $1,869.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Attachment “A” Proposed 2022 Budget
Attachment “B” Proposed 2022 Service Charges
Attachment “C” Map
Prepared by: Mike Okey, public works services manager
Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent
Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager/director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-VI) Page 2
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 6
Discussion
Background: On June 15, 2009, the city council approved a resolution imposing a service charge
for Special Service District No. 6 (located along 36th Street W. from Wooddale Avenue to
Highway 100). Annually, the city council must set a service charge for the district following a
public hearing on the proposed charge. The special service district property owners approved
the proposed 2022 budget and service charges. The notice of public hearing was published on
the city’s website and in the Sun Sailor on Oct. 7 and Oct. 21, 2021. The public hearing notice
was sent to all property owners within the District. The public hearing was held on Nov. 1, 2021.
Special Service District No. 6 financial position
Special Service District No. 6 has an anticipated 2021 year-end fund balance of approximately
$42,910.
Proposed 2022 budget and service charges
The property owners recommended approval of the following:
• 2022 budget amount of $27,400; no change from 2021.
• 2022 service charge amount of $20,400; no change from 2021.
• In general, expenses do not typically reach 100% of budget. The expected unused budget
amount along with the service charges is anticipated to allow the district to achieve the
goal of a 75% fund balance which staff and board agreed should be maintained.
Present considerations: The Special Service Districts are a benefit to the city as they promote a
positive image of the business corridor and to attract customers to the area.
Next steps: In late-November, the city certifies the 2022 assessments (service charges) to
Hennepin County.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-VI) Page 3
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 6
Attachment A
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Special Service District #6
Account Subsidiary Proposed Budget
2022
Adopted Budget
2021
6212 - GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.00 217.00
6221 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 715 - SSD'S - IRRIGATION MATERIALS 500.00 500.00
6224 - LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 5,000.00 5,000.00
6303 - OTHER 1,000.00 1,000.00
6410 - SSD Mgmt Services 678 - SSD Mgmt Services 1,250.00 1,250.00
6630 - SSD Site Maintenance 773 - SSD Site Maintenance 500.00 500.00
6630 - SSD - Irrigation services 775 - SSD - Irrigation services 2,500.00 2,500.00
6630 - SSD - Landscape services 777 - SSD - Landscape services 12,250.00 12,250.00
6950 - LEGAL NOTICES 150.00 150.00
7106 - PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE 33.00 33.00
7207 - SSD infrastructure repair 880 - Infrastructure Repair-Internal 3,000.00 3,000.00
7301 - ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,000.00 1,000.00
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 27,400.00 27,400.00
SSD #6 Budget
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-VI) Page 4
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 6
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Attachment B
Special Service District #6
Estimated Annual Cost Per Parcel
Proposed 2022 Service Charges
LINE Proposed Actual
NO.2022 2021
PID Address Owner Service Charge Service Charge
1 16-117-21-34-0607 3601 Wooddale Ave TowerLight Senior Living $3,531 $3,531
2 16-117-21-34-0015 5500 36th St. W.SLMB LLC $453 $453
3 16-117-21-34-0355 5600 36th St W Tammy Medina c/o KAMI Inc $3,304 $3,304
4 16-117-21-34-0611 5605 36th St W 36th Street LLC $3,144 $3,144
6 16-117-21-34-0072 5701 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $1,180 $1,180
7 16-117-21-34-0040 5708 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,869 $1,869
8 16-117-21-34-0071 5718 36th St W M A Lerner & S O Lerner $623 $623
9 16-117-21-34-0077 5721 36th St W Evan Johnson c/o Thermetic Products $1,312 $1,312
10 16-117-21-34-0038 5724 36th St W LRJ of Minnesota Ltd Partnership $623 $623
11 16-117-21-34-0046 5727 36th St W R & SA Investment LLC $623 $623
12 16-117-21-34-0068 5802 36th St W Standal Properties Inc $1,869 $1,869
13 16-117-21-31-0610 5950 36th St W City of St. Louis Park $1,869 $1,869
Total $20,400 $20,400
Notes:
1)The proposed 2022 budget is $27,400, but the service charge is only $22,400 because $5,000 was transferred from reserves
to maintain the proper fund balance.
2)For 2022, the proposed budget and service charges remained the same.
3)The proposed 2022 service charge calculations are based upon the same methodology used for the initial service charge collection.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b-VI) Page 5
Title: 2022 budget and property owner service charges for Special Service District No. 6
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4b
Executive summary
Title: Authorize contract for 2022 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing execution of a contract with
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) for 2022 consultant services related to the
implementation of the amended Reilly Tar & Chemical Corp. (Reilly) Consent Decree/Remedial
Action Plan (CD/RAP).
Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to continue with Summit as the city’s
consultant for the Reilly Tar and Chemical RAP?
Summary: In September 1986, the Reilly Tar Superfund site became effective, and the city
accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks. Over the last 35 years
the city has retained the services of consulting firms for the design and implementation of RAP
activities such as groundwater sampling/analysis, drafting annual reports for review, and
project administration. As we approached the 30-year anniversary of the CD/RAP, staff asked
the agencies to review when, where, and why we are sampling. At that time, a technical team
of city staff, our consultants, and agency (MPCA/EPA/MDH) representatives reviewed current
regulatory requirements and recommended appropriate revisions for the next 30 years. A legal
team comprised of our legal counsel, agency attorneys, and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
finalized an amended CD/RAP. It was approved by the federal court on July 23, 2020. Judge
Magnuson offered the following summary:
“The proposed amended consent decree continues the obligations and responsibilities
of the original while updating the language and the science, both of which are
imminently necessary after more than three decades. The court therefore finds that the
proposed amended consent decree is fair, reasonable, and adequate. In addition, it is
consistent with the environmental laws and with the public interest. The court therefore
will grant the government’s request to enter the proposed amended consent decree.”
The proposal received from Summit estimates costs for the 2022 work tasks at $250,000. This
amount reflects a $69K reduction from last year’s professional services because our sampling
costs continue to decrease. This is in addition to the roughly $120K savings already achieved.
The city’s standard consulting services agreement will be used for this contract.
Financial or budget considerations: The 2022 Reilly budget contains funding for these Reilly
related consultant activities.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in
environmental stewardship.
Supporting documents: Resolution; Summit Envirosolutions 2022 Reilly Services Proposal
Prepared by: Mark Hanson, superintendent of public works
Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, interim deputy city manager / director of operations and recreation
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b) Page 2
Title: Authorize contract for 2022 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site
Resolution No. 21 - ____
Resolution authorizing execution of agreement
with summit Envirosolutions, Inc. for
2022 professional services related to implementation of
the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation remedial action plan
This agreement is made on Nov. 15, 2021, by and between the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “City"), and Summit
Envirosolutions, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Summit").
Whereas, pursuant to the execution of a Consent Decree in the case of the United
States of America, et al versus Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation, et al, the City of St. Louis Park
has assumed certain responsibilities in the implementation of a Remedial Action Plan related
thereto; and
Whereas, the City has determined that it will be necessary to retain the services of a
professional consultant to implement various activities for which it is responsible under the
terms of the Consent Decree and Remedial Action Plan.
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
that:
The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Summit
Envirosolutions, Inc. in the amount of $250,000 for 2022 consultant activities related to
the implementation of the amended Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Remedial Action
Plan.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. ∙ 5608 International Pkwy, Minneapolis, MN 55428
October 20, 2021
Mr. Mark Hanson
Director of Public Works
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Subject: 2022 CD-RAP Implementation Estimated Costs
Reilly Site, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Hanson:
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. (Summit) has prepared the following proposal for environmental services to
assist the City of St. Louis Park (City) address the requirements of the amended CD-RAP in 2022.
Scope of Work
The scope of work identified below uses the same task structure that has been established in the past for a
variety of CD-RAP activities.
Task 100 – Annual Monitoring Report:
Summit will draft text and prepare figures and tables as necessary to assist the City in completing the 2021
Annual Monitoring Report to be submitted to the Agencies on March 15, 2022. In accordance with the amended
RAP, the Annual Monitoring Report will evaluate aquifer pumping and target areas, comparison of results to
the new drinking water standards, long-term stewardship of soil cover at the Site, site redevelopment activities,
institutional controls, and evaluation of the Monitored Natural Attenuation. Section 5.3 of the amended RAP
also calls for the submittal of a water level database as a new requirement for future Annual Monitoring
Reports. The budget has been increased slightly as Summit anticipates continued evaluation of the Monitored
Natural Attenuation.
Task 400 – Groundwater Monitoring:
Table 1 provides cost estimates for two subtasks as summarized below:
1.Summit will collect the groundwater samples from monitoring wells and municipal wells identified in
the 2021 Reilly Site sampling plan. This includes two semi-annual monitoring rounds associated with
the Drift, Platteville, and St. Peter Aquifers, quarterly monitoring of up to seven new Drift and
Platteville wells requested by the MPCA, and yearly sampling of the Prairie du Chien, Mount Simon,
Page 3 City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Authorize contract for 2022 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site
Mr. Mark Hanson
October 20, 2021
Page 2
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. ∙ 5608 International Pkwy, Minneapolis, MN 55428
and Wonewoc wells. Table 1 shows the estimated costs for this subtask based on the numbers of
samples and analytical test identified in the approved Sampling Plan
Summit will also monitor water levels using a combination of transducers and manual measurements
in Reilly Site wells. The cost for transducer maintenance and annual calibration is included.
2.Along with the ongoing groundwater monitoring, Summit has included the estimated costs for the well
drilling, installation, and oversight of the new Platteville well W443. The costs shown in Table 1 were
estimated based on the well being drilled using rotosonic methodologies.
Task 480 – Sampling Plan and QAPP:
In accordance with the amended CD-RAP, it will not be necessary to submit new plans each year unless the
City or the Agencies propose changes. Table 1 shows a $5,000 estimated cost as a contingency for modifying
the approved SAP or QAPP.
Task 600 – Laboratory Coordination:
Table 1 provides cost estimates for three subtasks as summarized below:
1.Coordinating sampling events and updating and maintaining the database s for water quality and water
levels. This task also includes water level and water quality data exchanges with the Agencies.
2.Providing data quality review and/or data validation for the laboratory testing. The data validation and
data quality review will be documented in the Annual Monitoring Report.
3.Subcontracting Pace Laboratories for all 2022 analyses as defined by the approved 2021 SAP. The
proposed budget also includes some contingencies for the uncertain status of the CPAH extended list
test, possible resampling, and/or other agency requested samples.
Task 810 - Program Management and Miscellaneous:
This task includes overall planning, directing, and controlling Summit’s resources to perform this project. The
task also includes miscellaneous project activities throughout the year, such as utility repairs, reviewing
Agency contractor reports, preparing correspondence, and participating in project meetings. The estimated cost
shown in Table 1 matches the actual amounts spent for the past several years.
Project Budget
Table 1 summarizes the estimated costs for the tasks described above. Summit proposes to conduct this work
on a time and materials basis for an estimated cost of $250,000 in accordance with the same contract terms
used on this project in the past (i.e., contract no. 130-20).
Page 4 City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Authorize contract for 2022 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site
Mr. Mark Hanson
October 20, 2021
Page 3
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc. ∙ 5608 International Pkwy, Minneapolis, MN 55428
Project Team
As we move into the year 2022, the Summit Reilly team will look a bit different. Bill Gregg will be retiring
at the end of the year but will be available for consulting/historical continuity. John Dustman will be taking
over as the Principal Project Manager with Kyle Romens as the Project Lead. Keenen Francois -King will be
Summit’s Lead Field Technician. If you have questions regarding this proposal or the project in general,
please contact me at 612.750.4024. We look forward to continued collaboration with you on this project.
Sincerely,
Summit Envirosolutions, Inc.
John Dustman
Principal
cc. Jay Hall, SLP
Page 5 City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Authorize contract for 2022 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site
Table 1. Estimated Project Costs
2022 Reilly Site
Task Description
Estimated 2022
Budget Total
Task 100 - Annual Monitoring Report $35,000
Task 400 - Groundwater Monitoring
Subtask 1: Groundwater Sampling $50,000
Subtask 2: Well W443 Installation $15,000
Task 480 - Sampling Plan and QAPP $5,000
Task 600 - Laboratory Coordination
Subtask 1: Lab coordination $20,000
Subtask 2: Data validation and review $20,000
Subtask 3: Pace subcontract (all testing)$35,000
Task 810 - Project Management and Miscellaneous $70,000
Total 2022 estimated project cost $250,000
Page 6 City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4b)
Title: Authorize contract for 2022 Consultant Services Related to the Reilly Tar Site
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4c
Executive summary
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution providing preliminary approval for the
issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the Beltline Station Housing project.
Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to consider the issuance of multifamily revenue
bonds to finance a portion of Beltline Station Limited Partnership affordable housing project in
an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $14,450,000?
Summary: Beltline Station Limited Partnership has requested multifamily housing revenue
bonds to finance a portion of its affordable housing project proposed to be constructed at the
intersection of County Road 25 and Monterey Avenue. The bonds would help finance
construction of an 82-unit multifamily rental housing building and facilities functionally related,
to be located in the city for occupancy by individuals and families of low and moderate income.
Award of these bonds in 2022 would allow the construction to begin on the affordable housing
building in conjunction with the larger project.
The multifamily housing revenue bonds would be issued in a maximum amount not to exceed
$14,450,000. This is the first step of the process for Beltline Station Limited Partnership to
secure an allocation of Housing bonds from Minnesota Mangement and Budget (MMB). If the
council approves to serve as the conduit for these bonds, Beltline Station Limited Partnership
will submit an application to MMB by January 1st, 2022. If MMB awards housing bonds to
Beltline Station Limited Partnership’s project, the City Council will hold a public hearing in April
or May, and consider a resolution giving final approval to the bonds and related documents.
Financial or budget considerations: Issuance of these bonds would not impact the city’s debt
capacity, would not constitute a general or moral obligation of the city, and would not be
secured by the taxing powers of the city or any assets or property of the city. In addition, if the
financing goes forward, Beltline Station LP will pay an administration fee in the amount of 1/8th
of 1% (.125%) of the outstanding principal of the bonds.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of
housing and neighborhood oriented development.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 2
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution providing preliminary approval to the issuance of
multifamily housing revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes,
chapters 462C and 474A, as amended, and taking other actions in
connection therewith
Be it resolved by the City Council (the “City Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 462C, as amended (the “Housing Act”),
the City is authorized to carry out the public purposes described in the Housing Act by providing
for the issuance of revenue bonds to provide funds to finance multifamily housing
developments.
1.02. Beltline Station Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, or an
affiliate (the “Borrower”), has proposed to acquire, construct, and equip an approximately
82-unit multifamily rental housing facility and facilities functionally related and subordinate
thereto to be located at the intersection of County Road 25 and Monterey Avenue in the City
(the “Project”) for occupancy by individuals and families of low and moderate income.
1.03. The Borrower is requesting that the City issue one or more series of tax-exempt
or taxable conduit revenue obligations (the “Bonds”) in the approximate maximum principal
amount of $14,450,000 in order to finance all or a portion of (i) the costs of the acquisition,
construction, and equipping of the Project; (ii) required reserve funds, if any; (iii) capitalized
interest during the construction of the Project; and (iv) the costs of issuing the Bonds.
1.04. As a condition to the issuance of such revenue bonds, the City must prepare and
adopt a housing program providing the information required by Section 462C.03, subdivision 1a
of the Housing Act (the “Housing Program”). The City Council must also grant preliminary
approval of the issuance of revenue bonds to finance the multifamily rental housing
development referred to in the Housing Program.
1.05. Under Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the
“Code”), prior to the issuance of the Bonds, the City Council must conduct a public hearing after
providing notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the City or on the City’s website at
least seven (7) days before the hearing. Under Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Housing
Act, a public hearing must be held on the Housing Program after one publication of notice in a
newspaper circulating generally in the City at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing.
1.06. Pursuant to Section 146 of the Code, the Bonds must receive an allocation of the
bonding authority of the State of Minnesota. An application for such an allocation must be
made pursuant to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 474A, as amended (the
“Allocation Act”). The City Council must grant preliminary approval to the issuance of the
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 3
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Bonds to finance the Project and authorize the submission of an application to the office of
Minnesota Management and Budget for an allocation of bonding authority with respect to the
Bonds to finance the Project.
Section 2. Preliminary Findings. Based on representations made by the Borrower to
the City to date, the City Council hereby makes the following preliminary findings,
determinations, and declarations:
(a) The Bonds will finance a multifamily housing development designed and
intended to be used for rental occupancy.
(b) The proceeds of the Bonds will be loaned to the Borrower and the
proceeds thereof, along with other available funds, will be used to finance all or a
portion of the costs of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of the Project,
capitalized interest during the construction of the Project, required reserve funds (if
any), and costs of issuance of the Bonds. The City will enter into a loan agreement (or
other revenue agreement) with the Borrower requiring loan repayments from the
Borrower in amounts sufficient to repay the loan of the proceeds of the Bonds when
due and requiring the Borrower to pay all costs of maintaining and insuring the Project,
including taxes thereon.
(c) In preliminarily authorizing the issuance of the Bonds, the City’s purpose
is and the effect thereof will be to promote the public welfare of the City and its
residents by retaining and improving multifamily housing developments and otherwise
furthering the purposes and policies of the Housing Act.
(d) The Bonds will be special, limited obligations of the City payable solely
from the revenues pledged to the payment thereof, will not be a general or moral
obligation of the City, and will not be secured by or payable from revenues derived from
any exercise of the taxing powers of the City.
Section 3. Submission of an Application for an Allocation of Bonding Authority. The
City Council hereby authorizes the submission of an application for allocation of bonding
authority with respect to the Bonds in the approximate principal amount of up to $14,450,000
pursuant to Section 146 of the Code and the Allocation Act in accordance with the
requirements of the Allocation Act. City staff and Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, acting as bond
counsel to the City (“Bond Counsel”), shall take all actions, in cooperation with the Borrower, as
are necessary to submit an application for an allocation of bonding authority to the office of
Minnesota Management and Budget.
Section 4. Public Hearing. The City Council shall meet at a date to be determined by
City staff to conduct a public hearing on the Housing Program, the Project, and the issuance of
the Bonds by the City. Notice of such hearing (the “Public Notice”) will be published and/or
posted as required by Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Housing Act and Section 147(f) of
the Code. Bond Counsel is hereby authorized and directed to publish the Public Notice, in
substantially the form attached hereto as EXHIBIT A, in the Sun Sailor, a newspaper of general
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 4
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
circulation in the City. At the public hearing reasonable opportunity will be provided for
interested individuals to express their views, both orally and in writing, on the Project, the
Housing Program, and the proposed issuance of the Bonds.
Section 5. Housing Program. Bond Counsel shall prepare and submit to the City a
draft Housing Program to authorize the issuance by the City of the Bonds in a principal amount
of up to $14,450,000 to finance all or portion of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of
the Project by the Borrower. Bond Counsel is authorized and directed to submit, on behalf of
the City, the Housing Program to Metropolitan Council for review and comment pursuant to
Section 462C.04, subdivision 2 of the Housing Act.
Section 6. Preliminary Approval. The City Council hereby provides preliminary
approval to the issuance of the Bonds in the estimated principal amount not to exceed
$14,450,000, subject to: (i) a public hearing as required by the Housing Act and Section 147(f)
of the Code; (ii) final approval following the preparation of bond documents; (iii) receipt of an
allocation of bonding authority from the office of Minnesota Management and Budget; and
(iv) final determination by the City Council that the financing of the Project and the issuance of
the Bonds are in the best interests of the City.
Section 7. Reimbursement of Costs under the Code.
7.01. The United States Department of the Treasury has promulgated regulations
governing the use of the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds, all or a portion of which are to be used
to reimburse the City or the Borrower for project expenditures paid prior to the date of
issuance of such bonds. Those regulations (Treasury Regulations, Section 1.150-2) (the
“Regulations”) require that the City adopt a statement of official intent to reimburse an original
expenditure not later than sixty (60) days after payment of the original expenditure. The
Regulations also generally require that the bonds be issued and the reimbursement allocation
made from the proceeds of the bonds occur within eighteen (18) months after the later of:
(i) the date the expenditure is paid; or (ii) the date the project is placed in service or
abandoned, but in no event more than three (3) years after the date the expenditure is paid.
The Regulations generally permit reimbursement of capital expenditures and costs of issuance
of the Bonds.
7.02. To the extent any portion of the proceeds of the Bonds will be applied to
expenditures with respect to the Project, the City reasonably expects to reimburse the
Borrower for the expenditures made for costs of the Project from the proceeds of the Bonds
after the date of payment of all or a portion of such expenditures. All reimbursed expenditures
shall be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of the Bonds, or other expenditures eligible for
reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3) of the Regulations and also qualifying expenditures
under the Housing Act.
Based on representations by the Borrower, other than (i) expenditures to be paid or
reimbursed from sources other than the Bonds, (ii) expenditures permitted to be reimbursed
under prior regulations pursuant to the transitional provision contained in Section 1.150-
2(j)(2)(i)(B) of the Regulations, (iii) expenditures constituting preliminary expenditures within
the meaning of Section 1.150-2(f)(2) of the Regulations, or (iv) expenditures in a “de minimis”
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 5
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
amount (as defined in Section 1.150-2(f)(1) of the Regulations), no expenditures with respect to
the Project to be reimbursed with the proceeds of the Bonds have been made by the Borrower
more than sixty (60) days before the date of adoption of this resolution of the City.
7.03. Based on representations by the Borrower, as of the date hereof, there are no
funds of the Borrower reserved, allocated on a long term-basis or otherwise set aside (or
reasonably expected to be reserved, allocated on a long-term basis or otherwise set aside) to
provide permanent financing for the expenditures related to the Project to be financed from
proceeds of the Bonds, other than pursuant to the issuance of the Bonds. This resolution,
therefore, is determined to be consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the
Borrower as they exist or are reasonably foreseeable on the date hereof.
Section 8. Costs. The Borrower will pay the administrative fees of the City and pay,
or, upon demand, reimburse the City for payment of, any and all costs incurred by the City in
connection with the Project and the issuance of the Bonds, whether or not the Bonds are
issued.
Section 9. Commitment Conditional. The adoption of this resolution does not
constitute a guaranty or firm commitment that the City will issue the Bonds as requested by the
Borrower. The City retains the right in its sole discretion to withdraw from participation and
accordingly not to issue the Bonds, or issue the Bonds in an amount less than the amount
referred to herein, should the City at any time prior to issuance thereof determine that it is in
the best interest of the City not to issue the Bonds, or to issue the Bonds in an amount less than
the amount referred to in Section 6 hereof, or should the parties to the transaction be unable
to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of any of the documents required for the
transaction.
Section 10. Effective Date. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and
after its passage.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 6
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Exhibit A
Notice of public hearing
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Notice of public hearing on the approval of a housing program for
a multifamily housing development and the issuance of multifamily housing
revenue bonds under Minnesota Statutes,
Chapters 462C and 474A, as amended
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(the “City”) will hold a public hearing on Monday, _______________, 2022, at or after 6:30 p.m.
at City Hall, located at 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard in the City, to consider a proposal that the
City approve and authorize the issuance of one or more series of tax-exempt or taxable revenue
obligations (the “Bonds”) pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 462C and 474A, as
amended (the “Act”), for the purposes of providing financing for all or a portion of (i) the costs
of the acquisition, construction, and equipping of an approximately 82-unit multifamily rental
housing facility and facilities functionally related and subordinate thereto to be located at the
intersection of County Road 25 and Monterey Avenue in the City (the “Project”) for occupancy
by individuals and families of low and moderate income; (ii) any required reserve funds;
(iii) capitalized interest during the construction of the Project; and (iv) costs of issuing the Bonds
Beltline Station Limited Partnership, a Minnesota limited partnership, or an affiliate
(collectively, the “Borrower”), will own the Project. The aggregate principal amount of the
proposed Bonds is estimated not to exceed $14,450,000.
Following the public hearing, the City Council will consider a resolution approving a
housing program prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Act and granting
approval to the issuance of the Bonds.
The Bonds if and when issued will be special, limited obligations of the City, and the
Bonds and interest thereon will be payable solely from the revenues and assets pledged to the
payment thereof. No holder of any Bond will have the right to compel any exercise of the
taxing power of the City to pay the Bonds or the interest thereon, nor to enforce payment
against any property of the City except money payable by the Borrower to the City and pledged
to the payment of the Bonds. Before issuing the Bonds, the City will enter into an agreement
with the Borrower, whereby the Borrower will be obligated to make payments at least
sufficient at all times to pay the principal of and interest on the Bonds when due.
At the time and place fixed for the public hearing, the City Council will give all persons
who appear at the hearing an opportunity to express their views with respect to the proposal.
In addition, interested persons may direct any questions or file written comments respecting
the proposal with the City Manager, at or prior to said public hearing.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4c) Page 7
Title: Request to preliminarily approve multifamily housing revenue bonds
Dated: [Date of Publication]
BY ORDER OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
/s/ Melissa Kennedy
City Clerk
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4d
Executive summary
Title: Final payment resolution –Dakota Avenue Bikeway – project No. 4019-2000
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final
payment in the amount of $12,781.95 for the Dakota Avenue Bikeway with S.M. Hentges &
Sons, Inc. – city contract No. 91-20.
Policy consideration: Not applicable.
Summary: On Aug. 17, 2020, the city council awarded a contract for the Dakota Avenue
Bikeway project. This project was advertised, bid, and awarded to S.M. Hentges, Inc. in the
amount of $876,696.10. The project consisted of on-street buffered bike lanes on Dakota
Avenue from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard and a share the road facility from
Minnetonka Boulevard to 26th Street.
The contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed according to approved
plans and specifications. The final contract cost of $737,506.05 is $139,190.05 (16%) less than
the contract as awarded.
Most of this cost savings came from revising the construction plans to limit the curb extension
and storm sewer at the intersections of Dakota Avenue/27th Street and Dakota Avenue/29th
Street. The value engineering of these intersections was approved by council as part of the
authorization of the contract with S.M. Hentges, Inc. on Aug. 17, 2020.
Financial or budget considerations: The final contract cost of the work performed by the
contractor under contract No. 91-20 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract amount (based on estimated quantities) $ 876,696.10
Change orders +$ 43,208.84
Cost reductions -$ 182,398.89
Final contract amount $ 737,506.05
Previous payments $ 724,724.10
Balance due $ 12,781.95
This project was included in the city’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2020 and 2021.
General Obligation Bonds funded this project.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Resolution
Prepared by: Jack Sullivan, Sr. engineering project engineer
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4d) Page 2
Title: Final payment resolution –Dakota Avenue Bikeway – project No. 4019-2000
Discussion
Background: The Dakota Avenue corridor was first identified as a part of the Active Living:
Sidewalk and Trails Plan in 2007 and was then integrated into the Connect the Park capital
improvement plan (CIP) in 2012. The Dakota Avenue corridor is centrally located and is key to
enhancing walking and biking in the city by connecting destinations such as parks, schools,
businesses, regional trails, and the future Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT).
The Dakota Avenue Bikeway is an on-road bike facility on Dakota Avenue that includes:
• Share the road facility from 26th Street to Minnetonka Boulevard
• On-street buffered bike lanes from Minnetonka Boulevard to Lake Street
• Two rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), installed at the crosswalks near 26th
Street and at 33rd Street
This bikeway connects with the Dakota-Edgewood Bridge over the BNSF railroad linking pedestrian
and bicycle improvements on Cedar Lake Road to the facilities south of the railroad. The Dakota-
Edgewood Bridge project was bid out separately from the on-road facility south of 26th Street.
The bridge project is still under construction and is expected to be completed later this fall.
Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor
under Contract No. 91-20 has been calculated as follows:
Original contract amount (based on estimated quantities) $ 876,696.10
Change orders + $ 43,208.84
Cost reductions - $ 182,398.89
Final contract amount $ 737,506.05
Previous payments $ 724,724.10
Balance due $ 12,781.95
This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding was provided by
General Obligation Bonds. The final contract cost of $737,506.05 is $139,190.05 (16%) less than
the contract as awarded. In addition, the project funding also included a $43,834.81 (5%)
contingency for unexpected costs, resulting in total cost savings for this project of $183,024.86.
The cost savings from this project can be applied to other transportation projects that may
incur unexpected costs or be used for future transportation projects.
Demonstration project: During the preliminary layout approval council requested that staff
expand this project to include a demonstration project to transform the buffered bike lanes on
Dakota Avenue from Lake Street to Minnetonka Boulevard to protected bike lanes for a trial
period. The design has a two-foot space between the edge of the travel lane and the bike lane.
This space allows for a buffer between the vehicles and the bikes. Temporary white flexible
bollards were installed in this space in April of 2021 and removed in mid-October of 2021.
Staff will bring a report back to Council in early 2022 summarizing the data collected during the
demonstration project and the feedback from the community. In addition, the report will
include staff time necessary to perform maintenance and identify future equipment needed to
maintain this type of bicycle facility. This information will be helpful in informing future bikeway
design alternatives.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4d) Page 3
Title: Final payment resolution –Dakota Avenue Bikeway – project No. 4019-2000
Resolution No. 21-____
Resolution authorizing final payment and accepting work
for the Dakota Avenue Bikeway project
City project No. 4019-2000
Contract No. 91-20
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota,
as follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the city dated August 17, 2020, S.M. Hentges &
Sons, Inc., has satisfactorily completed the Dakota Avenue Bikeway as per contract No.
91-20.
2. The Engineering Director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract
cost is $737,506.05.
4. The City Manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $12,781.95 on the
contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager
Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4e
Executive summary
Title: School resource officer memo of understanding with the St. Louis Park School District
Recommended action: Staff recommends that council approve the memo of understanding for
school resource officer services provided to the St. Louis Park School District.
Policy consideration: Does council wish to approve the memo of understanding for the police
department to provide school resource officer services to assist the St. Louis Park School District?
Summary: The police department has provided school resource officers to the St. Louis Park
School District for over 30 years. Previous administrations had contracts for the service when
there was a cost associated with the service. At the direction of council, the police department
no longer charges a fee to the school district for the service. The police department currently
provides a school resource officer to the St. Louis Park Middle School and the St. Louis Park
High School at no cost.
Since there is no current contract for the service, Superintendent Osei and Chief Harcey have
agreed that there should be a memorandum of understanding defining each entity’s
responsibility in supporting students by providing a safe and nurturing environment that
energizes and enhances the spirit of St. Louis Park. The memo of understanding has been
reviewed and approved by Superintendent Osei, Chief Harcey and the St. Louis Park Civil
Attorney Soren Mattick. Mr. Mattick has indicated that the memo of understanding should be
approved by council.
Financial or budget considerations: No change in current budget considerations. The city
continues to provide the service to the school district at no cost.
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build
social capital through community engagement.
Supporting documents: School Resource Officer Memorandum of Understanding
Prepared by: Mike Harcey, police chief
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4e) Page 2
Title: School resource officer memo of understanding with the St. Louis Park School District
School Resource Officer Memorandum of Understanding
THIS AGREEMENT, dated this ______ day of ________________, 2021, is between
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 283 ("ISD 283") and the CITY OF ST. LOUIS
PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City").
WHEREAS, ISD 283 and the City is dedicated to promoting safety, education, training, and
leadership skills. It is our mission to support students by providing a safe and nurturing
environment that energizes and enhances the spirit of St. Louis Park. We are committed to
actively interrupting systemic racism and eliminating inequities in our school district and city; and
WHEREAS, ISD 283 and the City understand that the School Resource Officer (“SRO”) first
duty is that of a sworn law enforcement officer, while simultaneously striving to promote a
positive interaction with students, parents, faculty and administrators; and
WHEREAS, ISD 283 and the City desire the SRO to take a proactive approach with students to
identify and support those at risk, and if necessary, intervene with appropriate action to build
healthy and trusting relationships.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings herein, the parties agree as
follows:
1. TERM OF AGREEMENT;TERMINATION. This Agreement shall commence on
January 1, 2022 and end on June 30, 2023, unless otherwise renewed or extended by the
parties. Any party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by notifying the
other part no earlier than ninety (90) days prior to the date of termination.
2. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED.
A. The City will assign an SRO for the St. Louis Park High School and Middle
School. The assigned SRO will be available to provide service at the school on
all days that school is in session. In the event that the assigned SRO is not
available due to illness, vacation or training the school administrator will be
provided information on the backup SRO for that time period.
B. The SRO will be available to staff and students for support with issues related to
school and outside of school.
C. The SRO will develop positive rapport between students and law enforcement
officials for friendly and personal contact opportunities.
D. Provide a positive and safe education environment for students and staff via
increased peace of mind as a result of officer’s presence.
E. Network with other community agencies to assist with the level of service
provided to the students and staff.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4e) Page 3
Title: School resource officer memo of understanding with the St. Louis Park School District
F. SROs are critical partners in all stages of safety/security planning and should be
included in district planning teams, building assessments, and the delivery of
building security, prevention, and response programs. SROs will advise school
administrators with emergency operations plans, school safety drills, physical
design and features.
G. The SRO will advise with development and delivery of student and staff
curriculum related to school safety, personal safety, chemical health and internet
safety.
H. The SRO will actively participate with the school district and city’s efforts to
enhance further understanding of racial equity, anti-racist practices and inclusion
within the schools, police department and community. All SROs will attend
Beyond Diversity through the school district.
I. Provide other services consistent with the City's current job description for SRO
and the City will provide a job description to ISD 283.
J. SROs will consider, advise and assist with conducting investigations as requested
by the district. As appropriate, SROs will partner with school officials in
parent/guardian meetings.
K. SROs are not school disciplinarians and violations of the student code of conduct
or school rules that are not criminal matters should always be handled by school
faculty and staff, not SROs. SROs should not directly intervene unless the
situation directly affects an imminent threat to the health, safety, and security of
the student or another person in the school and will employ de-escalation
techniques as appropriate. School discipline is the responsibility of the
appropriate school administrator and clear guidelines on SRO involvement should
be developed and distributed to school staff.
3. DATA PRACTICES. All data collected, created, received, maintained, or disseminated
or used for any purposes in the course of this Agreement by each party is governed by the
Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, as amended,
the Minnesota Rules implementing such act now in force or as adopted, as well as federal
regulations on data privacy. The parties will share information as necessary for the
administration and performance of this Agreement, consistent with local, state and
federal law relating to confidentiality and disclosure of government data, including but
not limited to education records created or maintained by educational institutions and law
enforcement agencies. For the purposes of access to student records by an SRO, the SRO
is considered a “school official” as provided in the Federal Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (“FERPA”) 20 U.S.C. 1232g. A SRO may be provided access to student
information only as needed by the SRO to perform his duties related to educational or
school administration activities when the SRO’s use of such student information remains
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4e) Page 4
Title: School resource officer memo of understanding with the St. Louis Park School District
under the direct control of the School District A SRO may also be granted access to
education records in the event of an emergency situation threatening the health or safety
of a student or other individual. The SRO may only re-disclose such student information
consistent with FERPA and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.
A. Body Worn Cameras - the St. Louis Park Police Department recognizes that the
duties and working environment for SRO are unique within policing. It recognizes
the SROs are required to maintain school safety while keeping the sanctity of the
learning environment that the school provides. SROs are expected to continuously
build trusting relationships with students and staff. SROs often have impromptu
interventions with students to de-escalate arguments and/or conflicts. It is with
this understanding that the St. Louis Park Police Department provides special
guidelines for SROs and their BWC.
The BWC should be activated in any of the following situations:
(a) When summoned by any individual to respond to an incident where it is likely
that law enforcement action will occur when you arrive.
(b) Any self-initiated activity where it is previously known that you will make a
custodial arrest.
(c) Any self-initiated activity where it is previously known that your questioning /
investigation will be used later in a criminal charge.
(d) When feasible an SRO shall activate the BWC when the contact becomes
adversarial or the subject exhibits unusual behaviors.
Nothing in the policy undermines the fact that in many instances SROs are suddenly
forced to take law enforcement action and have no opportunity to activate the BWC. It is
also recognized that SROs have private (confidential) conversations with juveniles. It is
not always appropriate to record these conversations as it diminishes the trust between
the individual and the SRO.
4. INDEMNIFICATION. Each party agrees that it will be responsible for its own acts and
the results thereof to the extent authorized by law and shall not be responsible for the acts
of the other party and the results thereof. Each party's liability shall be governed by the
provisions of Minnesota Statute Chapter 466 and other applicable law as modified hereby.
5. INSURANCE. The City shall at all times during the term of this Agreement keep in
force adequate insurance for:
A. General Liability
B. Professional Liability
C. Automobile Liability
D. Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by Minnesota Statute
6. MERGER AND MODIFICATION.
A. It is understood and agreed that the entire Agreement between the parties is
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4e) Page 5
Title: School resource officer memo of understanding with the St. Louis Park School District
contained herein and that this Agreement supersedes all oral agreements and
negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items referred
to in this Agreement are incorporated or attached and are deemed to be part of this
Agreement.
B. Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of
this Agreement shall be valid only when they have been reduced to writing as an
amendment and signed by the parties.
7. SUBCONTRACTING. The City shall not enter into any subcontract for performance of
any services contemplated under this Agreement without the prior written approval of
ISD 283 and subject to such conditions and provisions as they may deem necessary.
8. NO COMPENSATION. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that the services
provided by the City under this Agreement shall be at no cost to ISD 283.
9. NONDISCRIMINATION. During the performance of this Agreement, the parties agree
to the following: No person shall, on the grounds of race, color, religion, age, sex,
disability, marital status, public assistance status, criminal record, creed or national origin
be excluded from full employment rights in, participation in, be denied the benefits of or
be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any and all applicable federal and state
laws against Discrimination,
10. NOTICES. All notices, requests, demands, and other communications hereunder shall be
in writing and shall be deemed given if personally delivered or mailed, certified mail,
return receipt requested, to the following addresses:
If to City: City Manager
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
If to ISD 283: Superintendent
Independent School District 283
St. Louis Park Schools
6311 Wayzata Blvd St. Louis Park, MN 55426
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 4e) Page 6
Title: School resource officer memo of understanding with the St. Louis Park School District
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Dated: __________________ By: __________________________
By: __________________________
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT 283
Dated: __________________ By: ___________________________
By: ___________________________
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Consent agenda item: 4f
Official minutes
Fire civil service commission
September 13, 2021 – 8:30 a.m.
Members present: Commissioners William MacMillan, Bob Tift and Stuart Williams
Members absent: None
Staff present: Fire Chief (Mr. Koering), Deputy Fire Chief (Mr. Wolff), Assistant Fire Chief
(Mr. Smith), HR Officer (Ms. Timpone), Firefighter/Union Representative
(Mr. Oberschmid)
Guests: None
1. Call to order
President Williams called the commission to order at 8:33 am.
2. Approval of minutes – Fire Civil Service Commission of May 18, 2021
Minutes were approved as distributed.
3. Firefighter Recruitment Process
Mr. Wolff presented the recruitment process for the firefighter position. There are currently
no vacancies for this position, but the current eligibility roster expires in Sept., 2021. The
chiefs were pleased with the process and recommend that the eligibility roster be approved
with 28 names. Efforts to diversify candidates based on race, gender and other qualities were
considered successful and applauded by the commissioners. Mr. Oberschmid stated that
although the union does not wish to see any vacancies, they are excited with the candidates
on the eligibility roster and would be happy for any of them to join the department.
It was moved by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tift, to approve the
eligibility roster for firefighter as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
4. Other Business
Chief Koering told the commission that there is a vacancy since Chief Searle left the
department and that he is reviewing his busines needs to determine if a replacement is
needed or if a restructuring is more appropriate. If needed, the chief will bring any hiring
recommendations to the commission for approval. The chiefs will also soon be presenting a
recommended promotional process for the position of captain, in accordance with the
typical two-year schedule for such processes.
5. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:58 am.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Ali Timpone, liaison Stuart Williams, president
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Public hearing: 6a
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022
Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take testimony, and close hearing. Motion to
approve first reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 and set second reading for Dec. 6, 2021.
Policy consideration: Is council supportive of the proposed fees staff believes are commensurate
with the cost of the various services the city provides? Is council supportive of the modifications
to the utility rates to ensure long term sustainability of the city’s utility operations and capital
plans?
Summary: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments as part of the budget process. All
fees are reviewed based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations,
and to make sure our business costs are covered for corresponding services. When possible,
staff tries to stay in line with inflation which for 2021 is 5%. Most of our fee increases are at or
below inflation. Council requested that staff examine the solar installation fees. Staff has done
that and is proposing a flat fee for commercial and single-family installations. Council is asked to
approve the Appendix A items since those are within our city code. The other city fees are set
administratively.
Utility rates were analyzed by the city’s municipal advisor, Ehlers, via review of our utility rate
study. The rate study was presented to council on Sept. 27, 2021 and included recommended
utility rate increases for 2022. The utility rate study allows us to make recommendations for
utility rate increases to ensure fund balances are adequate to cover appropriate operating
expenses and capital improvement projects related to utility funds. Recommendations for rate
increases include a 4.5% increase for water, a 3.5% increase for sanitary sewer, a 6% increase
for storm water, and 5.25% increase for solid waste.
Next steps: The second reading and adoption of this ordinance is scheduled for Dec. 6, 2021. If
approved, the fee changes will be effective Jan. 1, 2022.
Financial or budget considerations: The proposed fee changes have been incorporated into the
preliminary 2022 budget. Water, sewer, storm water and solid waste are enterprise funds and
are anticipated to have rates that cover the fund for all the related costs incurred by debt
service, operations, and capital improvement plans. The utility rates will support necessary city
services and capital improvements during 2022 and beyond.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Proposed ordinance with fees
Ehlers utility rate study presentation
Prepared by: Sharae Sledge, finance manager
Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Cindy S. Walsh interim deputy city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 2
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022
Discussion
Background: City code Sec. 1-19 references how fees are set. Fees included in the attached
ordinance are listed as Appendix A of the city code. Other fees are set administratively and
reviewed annually by department. Department directors have authority to set fees for
programs and services. Each department director has reviewed fees listed in Appendix A of the
city code. Recommendations are included in the attached ordinance.
Present considerations: The administrative services, information resources, community
development, engineering, fire, building and energy, operations and recreation, and police
departments have each reviewed and analyzed the proposed fee adjustments, additions, and/or
removals that are the shown in Appendix A (attached). The 2022 proposed fee adjustments
reflect administrative costs of providing services and to remain comparable with neighboring
cities. Utility rates and liquor license fees were not previously included in the fee schedule but
an ordinance to update the way these types of fees are set has been recently adopted.
To give perspective on the utility rate increases for 2022, the approximate cumulative effect on
a typical residential property for all the utility rate adjustments would be an increase of $14.60
per quarter, or $4.87 per month. The calculation is based on a household using 30 units of
water per quarter (22,500 gallons) and 60-gallon solid waste service. Solid waste rates continue
to support pay as you throw, and encourages recycling and organics use. Water and sewer
rates are structured to encourage water conservation.
The intent of utility funds is to maintain sufficient revenue to cover costs incurred by the funds
including operations, capital projects, and debt.
Things to note for each fund:
Water Fund – 4.5% recommended increase
•Base fee covers fixed costs. Varies by meter size.
•750 gallons = one unit of water
•Rates increase as residents use more water, to promote conservation
•Capital projects in 2022 include local street rehab, and water well rehab
•Suggested increase of 4.5% annually through 2031
Sanitary Sewer Fund – 3.5% recommended increase
•Base charge covers fixed cost
•Rates are the same for residential and commercial properties
•Capital projects in 2022 include 36th & Wooddale street rehab, and sanitary sewer lining
•Suggested increase of 3.5% annually through 2031
Storm Drainage/Stormwater Fund – 6% recommended increase
•Billed by residential equivalent factor, per city code
•Residential equivalent factors adjust stormwater runoff for non-single-family properties
to the appropriate share of water runoff that goes into the storm sewer system.
•Capital projects in 2022 include local street rehab, and rainwater rewards
•Suggested increase of 6% annually through 2031
Solid Waste Fund – 5.25% recommended increase
•Rates include garbage, recycling, organics, and yard waste
•Phasing out smallest garbage cart size (20 gallon) by September 2023
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 3
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022
o Cost to provide 20-gallon garbage carts exceeds the fee that is being collected
from customers
o Customers who generate a small amount of garbage can utilize the every-other-
week collection service
• Capital projects in 2022 include asset management software
• Suggested increase of 5.25% annually through 2031
To highlight some fee changes by department:
Accounting: Basset Creek Watershed Management District fee is a passthrough fee that only
applies to 902 properties within the watershed district. The fee is included in utility bills for
applicable properties. The city collects the fee and then pays it to the Bassett Creek Watershed
Management Commission. St. Louis Park is a member of the Bassett Creek Watershed District
along with eight other cities. The organization manages water resources, improves the quality
of stormwater runoff, and reduces flooding along the Bassett Creek trunk to name a few
responsibilities. Member cities pay allocated fees for operations of the commission.
Administrative Penalties: Animal regulation fees have been established and charged at
department discretion, as specified in city code chapter 4. Previously they were not on the fee
schedule. Per staff research, the fees need to be on the fee schedule.
Energy benchmarking fee is for a new ordinance and program that commenced last year. The
penalty is applied to businesses that do not report energy benchmarking data to the city
annually, as required in city code 6-302.
Zero waste packaging penalty applied to businesses that do not comply with zero waste
packaging requirements specified in city code section 12-203. This fee was established in 2019,
it was not previously put on the fee schedule, you will see it as a regular item moving forward.
Chapter 24, Section 274 Work done without permit – base fee is $65. The amount of the fee
should be double the base fee. This is not increasing, just making it accurate on the fee schedule.
Community Development: Registered Land Survey fee is an existing fee that was not previously
listed on the fee schedule. A registered land survey is a survey performed to identify registered
lands in accordance with the requirements of Minnesota Statute chapter 508. This is an existing
fee that was not previously on the fee schedule.
Fire: Inspections after hours fee increase to uphold consistency between departments. The
inspections after hours fee is now consistent with the Building and Energy department.
Building and Energy: St. Louis Park is a SolSmart city. This means the city is recognized for making
it faster, easier, and affordable to go solar. Staff has been working implement regulations for
solar installations to be consistent with best practices. Fee increases are necessary to effectively
remove roadblocks and streamline solar development. They are intended to cover administrative
costs including inspections, processing cost share incentives, promoting solar, developing fees, etc.
Some of the fee increase percentages are odd amounts due to rounding.
Next steps: The second reading of this ordinance is scheduled for Dec. 6, 2021. If approved, the
fee changes will be effective Jan. 1, 2022.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Page 4
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022
Ordinance No. ____-21
Ordinance adopting fees for calendar year 2022
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby set by
this ordinance for calendar year 2022.
Section 2. The attached Fee Schedule shall be included as Appendix A of the City Code
and shall replace those fees adopted Nov. 2, 2020 by Ordinance No. 2597-20 for the calendar
year 2021 which is hereby rescinded.
*See attached PDF for full fee schedule*
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect Jan. 1, 2022.
First Reading November 15, 2021
Second Reading December 6, 2021
Date of Publication November 4, 2021
Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2022
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGEACCOUNTINGBassett Creek Watershed Management District(property pass‐through charge)Residential monthly $0.64 per residential equivalent unit$0.77 per residential equivalent unit20%Residential quarterly $1.93 per residential equivalent unit$2.31 per residential equivalent unit20%Land uses other than residential (Acreage * REF * 1.93 * 5) = quarterly rate(Acreage * REF * 2.31 * 5) = quarterly rate20%Sanitary Sewer Base ChargeResidential and multi‐family$20.09 per quarter$20.79 per quarter3.48%Commercial$6.70 per month$6.94 per month3.58%Sewer and Service Charges Sanitary Sewer Usage Rate$3.92 per unit$4.06 per unit3.57%Solid Waste Service ‐ Collection Cost per Quarter(Includes tax when applicable)(Includes tax when applicable)20 gallon EOW service (Every Other Week)$31.82$33.495.25%30 gallon EOW service (Every Other Week)$42.30$44.525.25%20 gallon service$44.16$46.485.25%30 gallon service$60.36$63.535.25%60 gallon service$85.92$90.435.25%90 gallon service$131.69$138.605.25%120 gallon service$209.21$220.195.25%150 gallon service$261.49$275.225.25%180 gallon service$313.79$330.265.25%270 gallon service$470.68$495.395.25%360 gallon service$627.60$660.555.25%Solid Waste Service (Residential) Additional 30 gallon cart$60$635.25%Additional 60 gallon cart$60$635.25%Additional 90 gallon cart$60$635.25%Cart Changes ‐ over 1 per cart type per 12 month period $20$200%Solid Waste Service (Commercial) ‐ Collection Cost30 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly)$15.75$16.585.25%Garbage (quarterly)$47.25$49.735.25%60 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly)$27.11$28.535.25%Garbage (quarterly)$81.33$85.605.25%Organics (monthly)$12.20$12.845.25%City of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESCity council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 5
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESOrganics (quarterly)$36.60$38.525.25%90 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly)$40.67$42.805.25%Garbage (quarterly)$122.01$128.415.25%Recycling (monthly)$14.20$14.955.25%Recycling (quarterly)$42.60$44.845.25%Organics (monthly)N/AN/AOrganics (quarterly)N/AN/A120 gallon serviceOrganics (monthly)$23.42$24.655.25%Organics (quarterly)$70.26$73.955.25%180 gallon serviceGarbage (monthly)$83.96$88.375.25%Garbage (quarterly)$251.88$265.105.25%Recycling (monthly)$25.44$26.785.25%Recycling (quarterly)$76.32$80.335.25%Organics (monthly)$35.13$36.975.25%Organics (quarterly)$105.39$110.925.25%270 gallon serviceRecycling (monthly)$35.13$36.975.25%Recycling (quarterly)$105.39$110.925.25%Storm Water RateSingle family quarterly$26.27 per residential equivalent unit$27.85 per residential equivalent unit6.0%Basic system rate monthly$43.80 per residential equivalent unit$46.43 per residential equivalent unit6.0%Basic system rate quarterly$131.37 per residential equivalent unit$139.25 per residential equivalent unit6.0%Land uses other than residential(Acreage * REF * 26.27 * 5) = quarterly rate(Acreage * REF * 27.85 * 5) = quarterly rate6.0%Water Meter ChargesMonthly Fee 5/8" meter$12.69$13.264.50%3/4"$12.69$13.264.50%1"$17.75$18.554.50%1.5"$22.82$23.854.50%2"$36.76$38.414.50%3"$139.47$145.754.50%4"$177.51$185.504.50%6"$266.25$278.234.50%Quarterly FeeCity council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 6
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEES5/8" meter$38.07$39.784.50%3/4"$38.07$39.784.50%1"$53.25$55.654.50%1.5"$68.46$71.554.51%2"$110.28$115.234.49%3"$418.41$437.254.50%4"$532.53$556.504.50%6"$798.75$834.694.50%2" compound$109.33$115.235.40%3" compound$414.80$437.255.41%Water Rates per unit (1 unit = 100 cu ft or 750 gallons)ResidentialTier 1 0 ‐ 13.333 units (0 ‐ 10,000 gallons)$2.07$2.164.5%Tier 2 13.333 ‐ 20 units (10,000 ‐ 15,000 gallons) $2.51$2.624.5%Tier 3 > 20 units (>15,000 gallons)$3.01$3.154.5%Multi Family All units$2.51$2.624.5%CommercialTier 1 0 ‐ 100 units (0 ‐ 75,000 galllons)$2.29$2.394.5%Tier 2 100 ‐ 300 units (75,000 ‐ 225,000 galllons) $2.52$2.634.5%Tier 3 > 300 units (>225,000 galllons)$2.79$2.924.5%IndustrialTier 1 0 ‐ 1,000 units (0 ‐ 750,000 galllons)$2.29$2.394.5%Tier 2 1,000 ‐ 3,000 units (750,000 ‐ 2,225,000 galllons) $2.52$2.634.5%Tier 3 > 3,000 units (>2,225,000 galllons)$2.79$2.924.5%Irrigation All units$4.11$4.294.5%Water Shut Off/Turn OnNormal business hours (6:00 a.m. ‐ 3:00 p.m.)$50.00$5510.0%After hours (After 3:00 p.m., Weekends)$150.00$16510.0%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 7
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIESChapter 4 – Animal RegulationsChapter 4, Animal Impound Fee (w/in 1 year period)$40 first, $60 second, $85 third, $110 fourthChapter 4, Boarding Fee$40 per dayChapter 4, No License Penalty$35Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building RegulationsChapter 6, Section 5 – Energy Benchmarking$1000%Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100 $1000%Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses$100 $1000%Chapter 12 – Environment$50 $500%Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference$100 $1000%Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection$100 $1000%Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 $1000%Chapter 12, Article VI. Zero Waste Packaging$100Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention$100 $1000%Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100 $1000%Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation$50 $500%Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management ‐ Residential$50 $500%Chapter 22 ‐ Solid Waste Management ‐ Multifamily & Commercial$100 $1000%Chapter 22, Section 21 ‐ Extra Garbage Stickers $3/sticker $3/sticker0%Chapter 22, Section 22‐5b Hazardous and Infectious materials$200 $2000%Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places$50 $500%Chapter 24, Section 24‐43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way$50 $500%Chapter 24, Section 47 – Visual obstructions at intersections$100 $1000%Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring$150 $1500%Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping/blowing leaves/grass clippings or pushing snow into/across any street or alley is prohibited$100 $1000%Chapter 24, Section 274 – Work done without a permit $100$13030%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 8
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESChapter 24, Section 24‐342 ‐ Snow, ice and rubbish a public nuisance on sidewalks; removal by owner.$25 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.$25 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.Chapter 26 – Subdivision$100 $1000%Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval.$750 $7500%Chapter 32 – Utilities$50 $500%Violation of sprinkling ban $50 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.$50 first time. Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners.Chapter 36 – Zoning$50 $500%Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100 $1000%Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval$750 $7500%Public tree removal per diameter inch $145 per inch $145 per inchRepeat Violations within 24 MonthsPrevious fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000 Previous fine doubled up to a maximum of $2,000Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). *Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspectionsFines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections.City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 9
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESCITY CLERK'S OFFICEDomestic PartnershipRegistration Application Fee $50 $500%Amendment to Application Fee $25 $250%Termination of Registration Fee $25 $250%Liquor LicensesClub (per # members)1 ‐ 200 $300 $3000%201 ‐ 500 $500 $5000%501 ‐ 1000 $650 $6500%1001 ‐ 2000 $800 $8000%2001 ‐ 4000 $1,000 $1,0000%4001 ‐ 6000 $2,000 $2,0000%6000+ $3,000 $3,0000%Off‐sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $200 $2000%Off‐sale Intoxicating Liquor $380 $3800%Off‐sale Intoxicating Liquor fee, per M.S. 340A.480‐3(c ) $280 $2800%On‐sale 3.2 Malt Liquor $750 $7500%On‐sale Culinary Class Limited $100 $1000%On‐sale Intoxicating Liquor $8,750 $8,7500%On‐sale Sunday Liquor $200 $2000%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 10
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENTComprehensive Plan Amendments$2,150 $2,150 0%Conditional Use Permit$2,150 $2,150 0%Major Amendment $2,150 $2,150 0%Minor Amendment $1,150 $1,150 0%Fence PermitInstallation $20 $20 0%Grant Technical Assistance (DEED, Met Council, Hennepin County, etc.) $3,000 ($2,000 non‐refundable) $3,000 ($2,000 non‐refundable)0%Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses)$50 $50 0%Official Map Amendment$600 $600 0%Parking Lot PermitInstallation/Reconstruction $75 $75 0%Driveway Permit $25 $25 0%Planned Unit DevelopmentPreliminary PUD $3,000 $3,000 0%Final PUD $3,000 $3,000 0%Prelim/Final PUD Combined $5,000 $5,000 0%PUD ‐ Major Amendment $2,150 $2,150 0%PUD ‐ Minor Amendment $1,150 $1,150 0%Recording Filing Fee Single Family $50 $50 0%Other Uses $120 $120 0%Registration of Land Use$50 $50 0%Sign PermitErection of Temporary Sign $30 $30 0%Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $100 $100 0%Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $100 $100 0%Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $150 $150 0%Super graphic (mural) $30 $30 0%Special PermitsMajor Amendment $2,150 $2,150 0%Minor Amendment $1,150 $1,150 0%Street, Alley, Utility Vacations$900 $900 0%Subdivision Dedication FeeCity council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 11
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESPark Dedication Fee (in lieu of land)Commercial/Industrial Properties5% of current market value of unimproved land as determined by City Assessor5% of current market value of unimproved land as determined by City Assessor0%Multi‐family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit $1,500 per dwelling unit0%Single‐family Dwelling Units$1,500 per dwelling unit$1,500 per dwelling unit0%Trails$225 per residential dwelling unit$225 per residential dwelling unit0%Subdivisions/ReplatsPreliminary Plat$1,000 plus $150 per lot$1,000 plus $150 per lotFinal Plat$600 $600 0%Combined Process and Replats$1,200 plus $150 per lot$1,200 plus $150 per lot0%Exempt & Administrative Subdivisions$375 $375 0%Registered Land Survey$1,200 plus $150 per parcelTemporary Use Carnival & Festival over 14 days$1,500 $1,500 0% Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50 $50 0%Time Extension$200 $200 0%Traffic Management PlanAdministrative Fee$0.10 per sq ft gross floor$0.10 per sq ft gross floor0%Tree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees$140 per caliper inch$140 per caliper inch0%VariancesCommercial$550 $550 0%Residential$300 $300 0%Zoning Appeal$300 $300 0%Zoning Letter$50 $50 0%Zoning Map Amendments$2,150 $2,150 0%Zoning PermitAccessory Structures, 200 sq ft or less$25 $25 0%Zoning Text Amendments$3,000 $3,000 0%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 12
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESENGINEERING DEPARTMENTPermit Parking‐ High School & Medical needNo Charge No ChargeRight‐of‐Way PermitsBase Fee $65 $650%Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit$130 $1300%ExcavationHole in Boulevard (larger than 10" diameter) $65 per hole $65 per hole0%Hole in Road (larger than 10" diameter) $130 per hole $130 per hole0%Trenching in Boulevard0‐100 ft = $200 Over 100 ft = $200 + $1 per ft over 100 ft0‐100 ft = $200 Over 100 ft = $200 + $1 per ft over 100 ft0%Trenching in Roadway0‐100 ft = $400 Over 100 ft = $400 + $1 per ft over 100 ft0‐100 ft = $400 Over 100 ft = $400 + $1 per ft over 100 ft0%Delay penalty2 times total permit fee2 times total permit feeObstruction (road, lane, sidewalk, or bikeway closure)$100 per week$100 per week0%Small Cell Wireless Facility PermitPermit fee$1,500 per antenna$1,500 per antennaRent to occupy space on a city‐owned wireless support structure$150 per year per antenna$150 per year per antenna0%Maintenance associated with space on a city‐owned wireless support structure$25 per year per antenna$25 per year per antenna0%Electricity to operate small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from utility(i) $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts; (ii) $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii).(i) $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts; (ii) $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii).0%Delay penalty2 times total permit fee2 times total permit fee0%Temporary No Parking signs (for right‐of‐way permit work)Deposit of $25/ sign ($100 minimum per permit) Deposit of $25/ sign ($100 minimum per permit)0%Temporary Private Use of Public Property$750 $800 7%Dewatering PermitAdministrative Fee (all permits)$250 $350 40%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 13
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESDischarge to Sanitary SewerCharge based on duration/volume of discharge Charge based on duration/volume of dischargeErosion Control Permit Application and Review ‐ single family $350 $350 0%Application and Review ‐ other applicants $750 $750 0%Deposit ‐ single family $1,500 $1,500 0%Deposit ‐ other applicants $3,000 per acre (min. $1,500) $3,000 per acre (min. $1,500)City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 14
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESFIRE DEPARTMENTFire Alarms (False) Residential/CommercialResidential/Commercial0%1st offense w/in year$0/$0$0/$00%2nd offense w/in year$100/$100$100/$1000%3rd offense w/in year$150/$200$150/$2000%4th offense w/in year$200/$300$200/$3000%5th offense w/in year$200/$400$200/$4000%Each subsequent in same year$200/$100 increase$200/$100 increase0%Fire Protection Permits (sprinkler systems, etc.)See Inspections Dept ‐ Construction Permits See Inspections Dept ‐ Construction Permits Operational permits ‐ including commercial kitchen hoods$70 per hour (minimum 1 hour)Fireworks Display PermitActual costs incurredActual costs incurredRecreational Fire Lifetime Permit$25 $25 0%Service FeesService Fee for fully‐equipped and staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck$500 per hour for a ladder truck0%$325 per hour for a full‐size fire truck$325 per hour for a full‐size fire truck0%$255 per hour for a rescue unit $255 per hour for a rescue unit 0%Service Fee of a Chief Officer$100 per hour $100 per hour 0%Inspections After Hours$65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.)$250 plus $90 per hour after the first hour285%Tents and Membrane PermitTents/Membrane Structures over 400 sq. ft.$100$100Tent over 200 sq. ft.N/AN/ACanopy over 400 sq. ft.N/AN/ACity council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 15
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESBUILDING AND ENERGYBuilding Demolition Deposit1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures$2,500 $2,5000.00%All Other Buildings$5,000 $5,0000.00%Building Demolition Permit1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $180 $180 0.00%All Other Buildings $300 $300 0.00%Building Moving Permit$500 $500 0.00%Business LicensesBillboards $170 per billboard$175 per billboard2.94%Commercial Entertainment$290$2951.72%Courtesy Bench $70 $75 7.14%Designated Outdoor Dog Area$50 Dog Kennel $165 $170 3.03%Environmental Emissions $340 $345 1.47%Massage Therapy Massage Therapy Establishment $385 $390 1.30%Massage Therapy License $125 $130 4.00%Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License$35$4014.29%PawnbrokerLicense Fee$2,000 $2,0000.00%Per Transaction Fee$2 $20.00%Investigation Fee$1,000 $1,0000.00%Penalty$50 per day $50 per day0.00%Sexually Oriented BusinessInvestigation Fee (High Impact)$500 $5000.00%High Impact$4,500 $4,5000.00%Limited Impact$125 $1250.00% Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales$610 $630 3.28%Vehicle Parking FacilitiesEnclosed Parking $245 $250 2.04%Parking Ramp $195 $200 2.56%Tanning Bed Facility$300 $3000.00%Certificate of OccupancyFor each condominium unit completed after building occupancy$100 $1000.00%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 16
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESChange of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings)Up to 5,000 sq ft$500 $5000.00%5,001 to 25,000 sq ft$800 $8000.00%25,001 to 75,000 sq ft$1,200 $1,2000.00%75,001 to 100,000 sq ft$1,600 $1,6000.00%100,000 to 200,000 sq ft$2,000 $2,0000.00%above 200,000 sq ft$2,500 $2,5000.00%Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ‐ Single Family$90$15066.67%Temporary Certificate of Occupancy ‐ All other occupancies$150$300100.00%Certificate of Property MaintenanceChange in OwnershipCondominium Unit $155 $160 3.23%Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $335 $345 2.99%Multi‐Family (apartment) Buildings$300 per building + $17 per unit$310 per building + $18 per unit9.22%Single Family Dwellings$235$2454.26%All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft$500$5153.00%5,001 – 25,000 sq ft$800$8253.13%25,001 to 75,000 sq ft$1,200$1,2403.33%75,001 to 100,000 sq ft$1,600$1,6503.13%100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft$2,000$2,0603.00%above 200,000 sq. ft$2,500$2,5753.00%Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance ‐ SF Residential$95$11015.79%Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance ‐ All others$255 $270 5.88%Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension$65$707.69%Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities)Building and Fire Protection Permits ValuationUp to $500Base Fee $65Base Fee $70 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.010.93%$500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $65 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01Base Fee $70 plus $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.010.93%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 17
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEES$2,000.01 to $25,000.00Base Fee $95 plus $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01Base Fee $100 plus $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.010.95%$25,000.01 to $50,000.00Base Fee $440 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01Base Fee $445 plus $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.010.99%$50,000.01 to $100,000.00Base Fee $690 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01Base Fee $695 plus $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.010.99%$100,000.01 to $500,000.00Base Fee $1,040 plus $6.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01Base Fee $1,045 plus $6.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.011.00%$500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00Base Fee $3,440 plus $5.50 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01Base Fee $3,445 plus $5.50 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.011.00%$1,000,000.01 and upBase Fee $6,190 plus $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01Base Fee $6,195 plus $5.00 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.011.00%Single Family Building Permit Exceptions:Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs onlyHouse or House and Garage$145$1503.45%Garage Only$75$806.67%ResidingHouse or House and Garage$145$1503.45%Garage Only$75$806.67%SolarBuilding Mounted Photovoltaic Panels$250$2500.00%Commercial Building Permit Exceptions:SolarBuilding Mounted Photovoltaic Panels$400 (flat fee)Electrical PermitInstallation, Replacement, Repair$65 + 1.75% of job valuation$70 + 1.75% of job valuation7.69%Installation of traffic signals per location$150 $155 3.33%Installation, Single Family Photovoltaic Panels$150 (flat fee) Single family, one appliance$65 $70 7.69%ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair$125$1250.00%Mechanical PermitInstallation, Replacement, Repair$65 + 1.75% of job valuation$70 + 1.75% of job valuation7.69%Single Family Exceptions:Replace furnance, boiler or furnance/AC$75 $80 6.67%Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $75 $80 6.67%Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $65 $70 7.69%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 18
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESPlumbing PermitInstallation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation$70 + 1.75% of job valuation7.69%Single Family Exceptions:Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $65 $70 7.69%Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees applyPublic Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Building permit fees applySewer and Water Permit (all underground private utilities)Installation, Replacement, Repair $65 + 1.75% of job valuation$70 + 1.75% of job valuation7.69%Single Family Exceptions:Replace/repair sewer or water service $100 $105 5.00%Water Access Charge ‐ per SAC unit charged on new or enlarged water services.$800 per SAC unit charged on new or enlarged water services.$800 per SAC unit charged on new or enlarged water services.Competency Exams Fees Certificate of CompetencyMechanical per test /Gas Piping$30 $30 0.00%Annual Renewal ‐ 3 year Mechanical$30 $15 ‐50.00%Contractor LicensesMechanical $110 $115 4.55%Solid Waste $215 $215 0.00%Tree Maintenance $105 $105 0.00%Dog Licenses1 year $25 $250.00%2 year $40 $400.00%3 year $50 $500.00%Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 $1000.00%Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 $2500.00%Interim License $15 $150.00%Off‐Leash Dog Area Permit (non‐resident) $55 $550.00%Penalty for no license $40 $400.00%InspectionsAfter Hours Inspections $250 plus $90 per hour after the first hour$250 plus $90 per hour after the first hour0.00%Installation of permenant sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit table Based on valuation using building permit tableCity council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 19
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESRe‐Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections)$130 $130 0.00%Insurance RequirementsA minimum of: A minimum of:Circus $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability0.00%Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability0.00%Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability0.00%Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability0.00%Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability0.00%Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability $1,000,000 General Liability0.00%ISTS PermitSewage treatment system install or repair $125 $125 0.00%License Fees ‐ OtherInvestigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business license $300 per establishment requiring a business license0.00%Late Fee25% of license fee (minimum $50)25% of license fee (minimum $50)0.00%License Reinstatement Fee$250 $250 0.00%Transfer of License (new ownership)$75$750.00%Plan Review ‐ 50% of amount due at time of application. Exception: Single Family Residential additions, accessory structures and remodels.Building Permits65% of Permit Fee65% of Permit Fee0.00%Repetitive Building25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure0.00%Electrical Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit Fee0.00%Mechanical Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit Fee0.00%Plumbing Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit Fee0.00%Sewer & Water Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit Fee0.00%Single Family Interior Remodel Permits35% of Permit Fee35% of Permit Fee0.00%Rental Housing LicenseCondominium/Townhouse/ Cooperative$100 per unit$105 per unit0.00%Duplex both sides non‐owner occupied$185 per duplex$190 per duplex2.70%Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit$15 per unit0.00%Multiple FamilyPer Building$250 $260 4.00%Per Unit$18 $19 5.56%Single Family Unit$135 per unit$140 per unit3.70%Temporary Noise Permit$70$757.14%Temporary Use PermitsAmusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses$260$2651.92%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 20
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESCommercial Film Production Application$100$1055.00%Petting Zoos$60$600.00%Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales$110$1154.55%Vehicle DecalsSolid Waste $26$287.69%Tree Maintenance & Removal$10$1220.00%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 21
NEW CHANGESERVICE2021 Adopted FEEPROPOSED 2022 FEE% CHANGECity of St. Louis Park ‐ FEESOPERATIONS & RECREATIONOperations Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC)$50 each $50 each0.00%Winter Parking PermitCaregiver parking $25 $25 0.00%No off‐street parking available No Charge No ChargeOff‐street parking available $125 $125 0.00%Special event ‐ garbage/recycle/organics collection stations No ChargeCollection container deposit (refundable)$100 per containerPOLICE DEPARTMENTAnimalsAnimal ImpoundInitial impoundment $40 $40 0.00%2nd offense w/in year $60 $600.00%3rd offense w/in year $85 $850.00%4th offense w/in year $110 $1100.00%Boarding Per Day $30 $30 0.00%Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 $2500.00%Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 $250 0.00%Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees $5 $50.00%False Alarm (Police)Residential/Commercial Residential/Commercial1st offense w/in year $0/$0 $0/$00.00%2nd offense w/in year $100/$100 $100/$1000.00%3rd offense w/in year $100/$125 $100/$1250.00%4th offense w/in year $100/$150 $100/$1500.00%5th offense w/in year $100/$175 $100/$1750.00%Each subsequent in same year $100/$25 increase $100/$25 increase0.00%Late Payment Fee 10% 10%0.00%Solicitor/Peddler Registration$150 $150 0.00% Lost ID replacement fee $25 $25 0.00%Vehicle ForfeitureAdministrative fee in certain cases $250 $2500.00%City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a) Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022Page 22
City of St Louis Park
Utility Rate Study Update
September 27, 2021
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 23
•What are enterprise funds
•What we did in 2018 study
•Purpose of the study
•Approach to study update
•Recommendations
Overview
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 24
3
•Enterprise Funds
Water
•Costs related to providing clean water for drinking, indoor and outdoor use
Sanitary Sewer
•Costs related to treating water for indoor uses
–St Louis Park is part of the Metropolitan Council wastewater services
Storm Sewer
•Costs related to dealing with storm water runoff
Sanitation
•Costs related to garbage collection and recycling and organic services
Utility Funds
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 25
4
•Meant to operate like a business
•Should have sufficient cash for
Capital Outlays
Operations
•Staff, supplies and maintenance and repair
•Cost incurred regardless of usage by end user
Replacement Reserves
Debt
Utility Funds
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 26
5
•Have a minimum of:
3 months of operating expenses including depreciation
Following year’s bond/debt payments, if any
Funding for capital equipment
Flexibility to accommodate unforeseen repairs
Utility Funds
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 27
6
•Revised tiers to match usage of single-family use
•Created flat rate for multi-family
•Created tiers for commercial (was flat rate prior)
•Created new industrial category and corresponding tiers
What We Did Last Time (2018 Study) - Water
Percent of Single-Family Users
After Realigning Tiers
2018 2021
Tier 1 53%55%
Tier 2 28%27%
Tier 3 19%18%
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 28
7
What We Did Last Time
Take Away:Balance between water used and revenue generated
Water Usage Usage Rev
Residential 41.22% 38.02%
Commercial 21.72% 21.68%
Industrial 8.61% 8.53%
Multi Family 24.09% 24.53%
Irrigation 4.36% 7.24%
2018
Percent OfWater Fund
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 29
8
What We Did Last Time (2018 Study) -Sanitation
•Phase out 20-gallon every week over 5 years (by 2024) –total of 802 users
These users would become 30-gallon users
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 30
9
•Last comprehensive study completed in 2018
Determine if revised tiers are working as designed
Ensure that operations, capital and debt continue to be funded with
appropriate cash balances
Continue phase out 20-gallon sanitation service levels
•Consider cost to the utility for providing the materials necessary to provide that level of service
Purpose of the Update
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 31
10
•Water fund
Comprehensive analysis of user data to determine how usage aligned with
revised rates and tiers
•All funds
All existing obligations
Updated capital improvement plans
Compliance with previously iterated council policies
Approach to Study Update
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 32
11
Precipitation vs Water Sold
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 33
12
2018 Water Usage Tiers-Before Realignment
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 34
13
Revised Water Usage Tiers
Result: Tiers are working as designed
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 35
14
Water Usage and Revenue
Take Away:Balance between water used and revenue generated
Water Usage Usage Rev
Residential 40.67% 37.7%
Commercial 20.70% 20.9%
Industrial 7.51% 7.2%
Multi Family 26.07% 26.0%
Irrigation 5.04% 8.2%
2021
Percent OfWater Fund
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 36
15
Water Fund:
Ensure Adequate Cash Balances
Bonding years
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 37
16
Sanitary Sewer Fund:
Ensure Adequate Cash Balances
Cash fluctuates based on
capital needs
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 38
17
Storm Sewer Fund:
Ensure Adequate Cash Balances
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 39
18
Sanitation
Fund:
Ensure Adequate Cash Balances
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 40
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Single Family Residential Property (Low User)
Water (13.33 units; 10,000 gallons) 3/4" meter 65.66$ 68.62$ 71.71$ 74.93$ 78.30$ 81.83$
Sewer (10.67 units; 8,000 gallons)61.92$ 64.08$ 66.33$ 68.65$ 71.05$ 73.54$
Sanitation-20 gal switch to 30 Gal in 2024*44.16 50.78 58.40 70.36 74.05 77.94
Storm 26.27 27.85 29.52 31.29 33.17 35.16
Total Quarterly Utility Bill 198.01$ 211.33$ 225.95$ 245.22$ 256.57$ 268.46$
$ Increase 13.32 14.62 19.27 11.35 11.89
% Increase 6.7% 6.9% 8.5%4.6% 4.6%
Single Family Residential Property (Median User)
Water (32 units, 24,000 gallons) 1" meter 133.70$ 139.72$ 146.01$ 152.58$ 159.45$ 166.62$
Sewer (16 units; 12,000 gallons)82.81$ 85.71$ 88.71$ 91.81$ 95.03$ 98.35$
Sanitation-60 gal 85.91 90.43 95.17 100.16 105.42 110.96
Storm 26.27 27.85 29.52 31.29 33.17 35.16
Total Quarterly Utility Bill 328.69$ 343.71$ 359.40$ 375.84$ 393.06$ 411.08$
$ Increase 15.01 15.70 16.44 17.22 18.03
% Increase 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6% 4.6%
Single Family Residential Property (High User)
Water (47 units; 35,000 gallons) 1" meter 177.85$ 185.85$ 194.22$ 202.96$ 212.09$ 221.64$
Sewer (24 units; 18,000 gallons)114.17$ 118.17$ 122.30$ 126.58$ 131.01$ 135.60$
Sanitation-60 gal 85.91 90.43 95.17 100.16 105.42 110.96
Storm 26.27 27.85 29.52 31.29 33.17 35.16
Total Quarterly Utility Bill 404.20$ 422.30$ 441.20$ 460.99$ 481.69$ 503.35$
$ Increase 18.10 18.91 19.79 20.70 21.65
% Increase 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5%
19
User Impacts - Residential
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 41
20
User Impacts – Multi Family
Current
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Multi-Family-23 Rental Units
Water (487 units; 365,250 gallons) 2" meter 1,332.65$ 1,392.62$ 1,455.29$ 1,520.78$ 1,589.21$ 1,660.72$
Sewer (487 units; 365,200 gallons)2,371.11$ 2,454.10$ 2,539.99$ 2,628.89$ 2,720.90$ 2,816.13$
Storm (REF of 1.9)451.53 478.62 478.62 478.62 478.62 478.62
Total Quarterly Utility Bill 4,155.29$ 4,325.34$ 4,473.90$ 4,628.29$ 4,788.74$ 4,955.48$
$ Increase 170.05 148.56 154.39 160.45 166.75
% Increase 4.1% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5%
Multi-Family-105 Rental Units
Water (929 units; 696,750 gallons) 3" meter 2,750.20$ 2,873.96$ 3,003.29$ 3,138.44$ 3,279.66$ 3,427.25$
Sewer (929 units; 696,750 gallons)5,751.13$ 5,952.42$ 6,160.75$ 6,376.38$ 6,599.55$ 6,830.54$
Storm (REF of 1.9)971.18 1,029.45 1,029.45 1,029.45 1,029.45 1,029.45
Total Quarterly Utility Bill 9,472.51$ 9,855.83$ 10,193.49$ 10,544.26$ 10,908.67$ 11,287.24$
$ Increase 383.32 337.66 350.77 364.40 378.57
% Increase 4.0% 3.4% 3.4% 3.5% 3.5%
Multi-Family-206 Rental Units
Water (2,602, units; 1,951,500 gallons) 4" meter 7,063.55$ 7,381.41$ 7,713.57$ 8,060.68$ 8,423.41$ 8,802.47$
Sewer (2602 units; 1,951,500 gallons)14,338.38$ 14,840.22$ 15,359.63$ 15,897.22$ 16,453.62$ 17,029.50$
Storm (REF of 1.9)641.63 680.12 680.12 680.12 680.12 680.12
Total Quarterly Utility Bill 22,043.56$ 22,901.76$ 23,753.33$ 24,638.03$ 25,557.16$ 26,512.09$
$ Increase 858.20 851.57 884.70 919.13 954.93
% Increase 3.9% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.7%
Proposed Bills, Usage and Fixed Fee
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 42
21
User Impacts - Commercial
Current
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Commercial Property (Low User) - Midas
Water (4 units; 3,000 gallons) 1" meter 26.91$ 28.12$ 29.39$ 30.71$ 32.09$ 33.53$
Sewer (4 units; 3,000 gallons)22.38$ 23.16$ 23.97$ 24.81$ 25.68$ 26.58$
Storm 63.13 66.92 66.92 66.92 66.92 66.92
Total Monthly Utility Bill 112.42$ 118.20$ 120.28$ 122.44$ 124.69$ 127.03$
$ Increase 5.78 2.08 2.16 2.25 2.34
% Increase 5.1% 1.8% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9%
Commercial Property - Car Dealership
Water (372 units, 279,000 gallons) 2" meter 970.64$ 1,014.32$ 1,059.96$ 1,107.66$ 1,157.51$ 1,209.59$
Sewer (372 units; 279,000 gallons)1,464.94$ 1,516.21$ 1,569.28$ 1,624.21$ 1,681.05$ 1,739.89$
Storm 642.21 680.75 680.75 680.75 680.75 680.75
Total Monthly Utility Bill 3,077.79$ 3,211.28$ 3,309.99$ 3,412.61$ 3,519.30$ 3,630.23$
$ Increase 133.48 98.71 102.62 106.69 110.92
% Increase 4.3% 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 3.2%
Commercial Property (Very High User) - Manufacturer
Water (2,011 units, 1,508,250 gallons) 3" meter 4,977.19$ 5,201.16$ 5,435.22$ 5,679.80$ 5,935.39$ 6,202.48$
Sewer (2,011 units, 1,508,250 gallons) 3" meter 7,889.82$ 8,165.96$ 8,451.77$ 8,747.58$ 9,053.75$ 9,370.63$
Storm 152.42 161.57 161.57 161.57 161.57 161.57
Total Monthly Utility Bill 13,019.43$ 13,528.70$ 14,048.56$ 14,588.95$ 15,150.71$ 15,734.68$
$ Increase 509.26 519.86 540.40 561.76 583.97
% Increase 3.9% 3.8% 3.8% 3.9% 3.9%
Proposed Bills, Usage and Fixed Fee
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 43
•Rate increases as noted
Water 4.5%annually
Sanitary sewer 3.5%annually
Storm sewer 6.0%annually
Sanitation 5.25%annually
•Continue phase out of 20-gallon container
Recommendations
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 44
A
Let’s Talk!
Q
&
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 6a)
Title: First reading of ordinance adopting fees for 2022 Page 45
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Action agenda item: 8a
Executive summary
Title: First reading of ordinance amending City Code Chapter 3 related to prohibited conditions
for liquor licenses
Recommended action: Motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance amending St. Louis
Park City Code Chapter 3 related to prohibited conditions for liquor licenses.
Policy consideration: Does the city council want to amend chapter 3 of the city code to make
the prohibited conditions for issuance of on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses consistent with
zoning code regulations?
Summary: Section 3-110 of the city code currently prohibits the issuance of a license to sell
intoxicating liquor within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the
property lines. This regulation is inconsistent with current zoning code requirements which
permits restaurants with an intoxicating liquor license to be in the C-1, and C-2 zoning districts
provided the building is located a minimum of 100 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential
or has an occupied institutional building including but not limited to a school, religious
institution, or community center. This inconsistency has resulted in (1) existing restaurant in the
Walker-Lake district being ineligible for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license. The business
owner has requested that the council consider an amendment that would allow issuance of an
on-sale intoxicating liquor license to their restaurant. Staff’s recommendation is to correct the
inconsistency and defer to zoning code regulations. This ensures that if zoning code regulations
change in the future no new inconsistencies will be inadvertently created. The proposed
amendment would apply only to on-sale intoxicating liquor licenses which by law may only be
issued to hotels, clubs, and restaurants (see statutory definitions of each linked below). Staff is
not proposing changes to the current regulations for off-sale intoxicating liquor licenses.
Currently, the zoning code limits liquor stores to the C-2 district. The zoning code does not
currently contain provisions that prohibit location of a liquor store near school, religious
institutions, or community centers.
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Draft ordinance
M.S. 340A.101 Definitions
Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8a) Page 2
Title: First reading of ordinance amending City Code Chapter 3 related to prohibited conditions for liquor licenses
Ordinance No. -____21
An ordinance amending St. Louis Park
City Code Chapter 3, Section 110
related to prohibited conditions for liquor licenses
The City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota does ordain:
Section 1. Chapter 3 is amended as follows:
Article II. Sale, Consumption, and Display
Division 3. Operation of Retail Establishment
***
Sec. 3-110. Prohibited conditions.
***
(f)
(i) On-sale intoxicating liquor licenses. No initial license to sell intoxicating liquor at on-
sale may be issued where restricted against commercial use through zoning ordinances.
ii) Off-sale intoxicating liquor license. No initial license to sell intoxicating liquor at off-
sale may be issued where restricted against commercial use through zoning ordinances
or within 300 feet of a school or place of worship as measured from the property line of
the site to receive the proposed license to the property line of the school or place of
worship.
Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication
according to law.
First reading November 15, 2021
Second reading December 6, 2021
Date of publication of adopted ordinance December 16, 2021
Date ordinance takes effect December 31, 2021
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the city council December 6, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Action agenda item: 8b
Executive summary
Title: Assessment of delinquent charges
Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm
water, refuse, abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citation charges against
the benefiting property.
Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to collect outstanding fees and charges
through the special assessment process?
Summary: The city certifies delinquent balances to Hennepin County as a means to collect on
these accounts. The certification is done via the special assessment process and becomes a lien
on the individual properties that is due over the next year or several years, depending upon the
type of charge. Delinquent accounts relate to charges for water, sewer, storm water, refuse,
abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations against the benefiting property.
To help mitigate the number of accounts that get certified, city staff work with residents and
businesses during the certification process and throughout the year to resolve their outstanding
balances by sending notices, answering questions outstanding account balances, and providing
information to residents on where they can find energy assistance payment programs to help
reduce the balance of their delinquent account.
On Oct. 18, 2021, city council held a public hearing to solicit public comments regarding special
assessment balances. No residents or businesses contested their delinquent charges during meeting.
As of Oct. 29, 2021, the total delinquent balance was $495,775.13, which included 585
accounts/invoices. Here is a comparison of the final certification amounts for the past five years:
Year Final Number of Accounts Final Certification Amounts
2021 585 $495,775
2020 614 $520,566
2019 593 $509,116
2018 654 $558,765
2017 836 $591,918
* Final certification balances include administrative fees and penalties
Next steps: If approved, any charges and fees outstanding after the Oct. 29, 2021 deadline will
be certified to Hennepin County for collection as part of the owner’s property tax bill.
Financial or budget considerations: Collection of these charges is vital to the financial stability of
the City’s utility systems and to reimburse the City for expenses incurred in providing services.
Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable.
Supporting documents: Resolution
Prepared by: April Weller, billing supervisor
Reviewed by: Sharae Sledge, finance manager; Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
Page 2 City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8b)
Title: Assessment of delinquent charges
Resolution No. 21-____
Levying assessment for delinquent utility accounts, tree removals,
false alarms, mowing, and citations
Whereas, the City Council has heretofore determined by resolution or ordinance the rates and
charge for water, sewer, storm water and refuse services of the city and has provided for the
abatement of tree removals, false alarms, mowing, and citations to a home or business shall be at
the expense of the owners of the premises involved; and
Whereas, all such sums become delinquent and assessable against the property served under
Section 18-153, Section 18-154, Section 22-37, Section 32-34, Section 34-52, Section 34-56, Section 32-
97, Section 32-153, Section 34-111, and Section 34-112, of the St. Louis Park City Code and Minnesota
Statutes Sections 415.01, 366.011, 366.012, 429.061, 429.101, 443.015, 410.33, and 444.075; and
Whereas, Finance has prepared a list of unpaid charges to be certified against each tract or
parcel of land served by utilities, or against which tree removals, false alarms, mowing and citations
remain unpaid at the close of business on Oct. 29, 2021; and
Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that said
assessment rolls are hereby adopted and approved, there is hereby levied and assessed against
each and every tract of land described therein an assessment in the amounts respectively
therein, and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to deliver said assessment roll for amounts unpaid at
the close of business on Oct. 29, 2021, to the Auditor of Hennepin County for collection of the
assessment in the same manner as other municipal taxes are collected and payment thereof
enforced with interest from the date of this resolution at the rate of 2.5 percent per annum; and
It is further resolved that said unpaid charges are hereby certified to the Auditor of
Hennepin County, and the Chief Financial Officer is hereby authorized to deliver said list of unpaid
charges to the Auditor of Hennepin County, for collection in the same manner as other municipal
taxes are collected and payment thereof enforced with interest from the date of this resolution.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council November 15, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk
Meeting: City council
Meeting date: November 15, 2021
Action agenda item: 8c
Executive summary
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Recommended action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Section 36
pertaining to parking requirements and set the second reading for Dec. 6, 2021.
(Four affirmative votes required.)
Policy consideration: Does council support the proposed changes to parking requirements in
the zoning ordinance?
Summary: Section 36-361 regulates off-street parking, paved areas and loading spaces. The
purpose of the parking requirements, as stated in the code, is to prevent congestion on public
rights-of-way for the safety and welfare of the public. The regulations are created through
analysis of the associated land use intensity, duration, time and style and result in design
requirements and standards for such facilities.
The purpose of this set of amendments is to recalibrate the city’s minimum parking requirements
for certain uses. Essentially, we are reviewing areas where we can reduce parking requirements
to support efficient, sustainable, and affordable growth. Parking is expensive and has many
indirect costs. These regulations can help reduce costs for housing and business, reduce
environmental impacts and make better use of land. It is one component of implementing the
goals expressed in the St. Louis Park 2040 comprehensive plan, including climate action,
inclusionary housing, race equity, livability, health, and mobility. Recommended changes to the
ordinance were based off of parking data gathered from various land uses in the metro area,
specifically around light rail stations, and existing land use and business operations within the City
of St. Louis Park.
Review of the city’s parking ordinance was part of the Planning Commissions 2021 work plan.
Planning commissioners have reviewed the proposed changes at their study sessions and the
commission held a public hearing on the ordinance on Nov. 3, 2021, at which time no one
testified. The commission recommended approval of the amendment 6 to 0 (with one
commissioner absent).
Financial or budget considerations: Not applicable
Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a variety of options for
people to make their way around the city comfortably, safely and reliably.
Supporting documents: Discussion
Ordinance
Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner
Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager
Karen Barton, community development director
Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 2
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Discussion
Summary of proposed changes (in the order they appear in the ordinance):
1.Clarify language regarding the zoning administrator in the zoning code.
2.Amend certain land use descriptions
a. Rename elderly housing to age-restricted housing and change the age from 60 to
55 and over.
b. Add coffee shop to the descriptions list.
c.Remove the additional parking requirement from accessory outdoor seating uses
in the C-1, C-2, O, BP, MX-1, MX-2, and PUD 10 zoning district.
d.Add two subcategories of restaurants: sit-down and fast food. Revise the general
restaurant description to allow outdoor seating as part of the principal use.
3.Amend Table 36-361(a)
a.Revise the table format.
b.Revise the required quantity of parking stalls for multi-family residential uses.
c.Change elderly housing to age-restricted housing; no change to the parking
requirement.
d.Add outdoor seating as an accessory use and reduce the amount of parking
required for outdoor seating.
e.Divide restaurant uses into two subcategories: sit-down restaurants have the
same parking requirement as the current code; fast food restaurants have a
reduced parking requirement.
f.Add taproom or microdistillery cocktail room parking requirements to the table.
4.Amend Table 36-361(b): Remove “proposed” from the headings and correct typos.
5.Add language allowing revisions to parking requirements granted by city council as part
of applications for conditional use permits or planned unit developments.
6.Add four new categories of transit parking reductions and revised existing language of
parking reductions section.
7.Electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) requirements
a.Increase the number and level of required EVSE for all uses.
b.Clarify general requirements.
8.Clarify language regarding when bicycle parking requirements must be met.
9.Clarify language regarding shared parking requirements.
Next steps: If approved, city council will hold a second reading of the zoning ordinance
amendment on Dec. 6, 2021.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 3
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Ordinance No. ____-21
Ordinance regarding parking requirements
The City of St. Louis Park does ordain:
Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on November 3, 2021 on
the ordinance, and
Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the planning
commission (case no. 21-31-ZA), and
Now, therefore be it resolved that the following amendments shall be made to Chapter
36 of the City Code by adding underscored text and deleting strikethrough text (renumber
accordingly). Section breaks are represented by ***.
Section 1. Section 36-38 Enforcement.
***
(b) Enforcing officer. The planning and zoning supervisor is appointed the zoning
administrator who shall enforce this chapter under the direction and control of the
community development zoning administrator’s supervisor, department director and city
manager.
(a)Residential uses. The following are typical of the residential uses referred to in this
chapter.
***
(5)Elderly Age-restricted housing means multiple-family dwellings where a minimum of
60 percent of the units are occupied by single persons at least 6055 years of age or by
couples with one or both being at least 6055 years of age.
***
(d) Commercial uses. The following are typical of the commercial uses referred to in this
chapter.
***
(9)Coffee shop means an establishment that primarily sells coffee and coffee-related
accessories. They may also sell other refreshment items such as donuts, bagels, muffins,
cakes, sandwiches, wraps, salads, and other hot and cold beverages. Limited indoor
seating is generally provided for patrons, but table service is not provided.
***
(3335) Restaurant means an establishment whose principal business is the sale of food
and beverages which are prepared and served in individual portions in a ready-to-
consume state for consumption on site. This use is often found in conjunction with bars,
hotels and food service. It is preferably located on major thoroughfares with no access
to residential streets. Characteristics include late hours of operation, refuse, high car
and truck traffic generation, and cooking odors. Outdoor seating for restaurants is
considered part of the principal use and does not require additional parking. A food
service or deli is not considered to be a restaurant if seating is provided for ten or fewer
persons. Restaurant uses are divided into the following subcategories:
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 4
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
a. Restaurant, sit-down: Sit-down eating establishments that may allow or require
reservations. Patrons commonly wait to be seated, are served by wait staff,
order from a menu, and pay after the meal. Lounge or bar facilities may be
accessory uses.
b. Restaurant, fast-food with or without drive-through window: This restaurant
type features large carry-out clientele, long hours of service, and high turnover
rate for eat-in customers (around 30 minutes). There is no or limited table
service, and customers typically order from a menu board and pay before
receiving the meal.
***
Section 36-166 (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any
R-4 district shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These
uses shall comply with the requirements of all the general conditions provided in section
36-33 regarding conditional use permits, and with the specific conditions imposed in this
subsection.
***
(3) Age-restricted Elderly housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Property shall meet all of the conditions for multiple-family dwelling/cluster
housing.
b. Age-restricted Elderly housing shall provide a minimum of 1,000 square feet of lot
area for each dwelling unit.
c. The property owner shall record a covenant to run with the land executed in a form
approved by the city which restricts the use of the property to occupancy by age. the
elderly.
d. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community rooms equal in
aggregate size to a minimum of 15 square feet for each unit.
***
Section 36-167 (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in any
R-C district shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit. These
uses shall comply with the residential restrictions and performance standards of section
36-162, the general conditions of section 36-33 regarding conditional use permits, and
with the specific conditions imposed in this subsection as follows:
(1) Age-restricted Elderly housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. Property shall meet all of the requirements of multiple-family dwellings.
b. Age-restricted Elderly housing shall provide a minimum of 900 square feet of lot
area for each dwelling unit.
c. The property owner shall record a covenant to run with the land executed in a form
approved by the city which restricts the use of the property to occupancy by age the
elderly.
d. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community rooms equal in
aggregate size to a minimum of 15 square feet for each unit.
***
Section 36-193 (e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses
in a C-1 district:
***
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 5
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory
use with the following conditions:
***
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not
exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principle use for
that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of
the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
Section 36-194 (d) Uses permitted by conditional use permit. No structure or land in a C-
2 district shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit.
***
(8) Age-restricted Elderly housing. The conditions are as follows:
a. The property meets all of the conditional use requirements of multiple-family
dwellings in subsection (d)(7) of this section.
b. Covenants running with the land in a form approved by the city attorney have
been recorded which restrict the use of the property for occupancy by age the
elderly.
c. The development shall provide a lounge or other inside community rooms
amounting to a minimum of 15 feet for each unit.
d. The use is in conformance with the comprehensive plan including any provisions of
the redevelopment chapter and the plan by neighborhood policies for the
neighborhood in which it is located, and conditions of approval may be added as a
means of satisfying this requirement.
***
Section 36-194(e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in
any C-2 district:
***
(7) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory
use if:
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not
exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for
that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of
the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
Section 36-223(e) Accessory uses. Within any O district, the following uses shall be
permitted accessory uses:
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory
use if:
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not
exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principle use for
that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of
the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 6
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Section 36-233(e) Accessory uses. Within any BP district, the following shall be permitted
accessory uses, subject to any required conditions:
***
(4) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages is permitted as an accessory
use with the following conditions:
***
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not
exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for
that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of
the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
Section 36-264(f) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in
any MX-1 district.
***
(3) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverage, subject to the following
conditions:
***
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does
not exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the
principal use, whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate
as the principal use for that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of
500 square feet or ten percent of the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
Section 36-265(f) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in
the MX-2 district when meeting the standards below:
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages.
***
d. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not
exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for
that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of
the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
Section 36-268-PUD 10 (c) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted
accessory uses in PUD 10:
***
(5) Outdoor seating and service of food and beverages with the following conditions:
***
c. Additional parking will not be required if the outdoor seating area does not
exceed 500 square feet or ten percent of the gross floor area of the principal use,
whichever is less. Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for
that portion of outdoor seating area in excess of 500 square feet or ten percent of
the gross building area, whichever is less.
***
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 7
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Table 36-361 (a)
Use Number of Parking Spaces
Residential
Single family dwelling Two spaces per dwelling unit. Additional spaces are not required for
a boarder or an accessory dwelling unit.
Cluster housing Two spaces per dwelling unit. 10% of the required parking shall be
permitted for use as guest parking.
Two family Two spaces per dwelling unit. Additional spaces are not required for
a boarder or an accessory dwelling unit.
Multi-family One space per bedroom. Per unit:
Studio 1 space
One bedroom 1 space
Two bedroom 1.5 spaces
Three bedroom 2 spaces
Four bedroom 2 spaces
An additional 5% of the required parking shall be permitted
provided for use as guest parking. Multi-family residential
developments shall not be eligible for a transit or Planned Unit
Development reduction in required parking.
Elderly Age-restricted
housing
One space per dwelling unit, except where verifiable information
indicates a reduced long-term parking demand.
Human Care Uses
Adult day care Two spaces per each five program participants licensed by state.
Funeral home One space per each 250 square feet. s.f. floor area, plus one space
for every five seats.
Group day care,
nursery school
One space per each two employees, plus one per each 10 program
participants based on total participant capacity of the facility.
Group homes Two spaces per each five beds.
Hospitals One space per each 350 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Medical or dental
office
For structures less than 2,500 square feet sq ft. floor area, one space
per each 250 square feet sq ft. floor area.
For structures greater than 2,500 square feet sq ft. floor area, one
space per each 200 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Nursing home Five spaces, plus one space per each five beds.
Institutional Uses
Community center Parking requirement shall be based upon uses within the building.
Libraries, museums,
art
One space per each 300 square feet sq ft. floor area in principal
structure.
Golf Two spaces per golf hole.
Archery or golf range One space per each target or tee.
Mini golf One and one-half spaces per hole.
Police stations One space per each 1000 square feet sq ft. floor area.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 8
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Places of public
assembly or religious
institutions
One space per each three seats, plus one space per each 25 square
feet sq ft. of dining or bar area.
A single seat on a bench is equal to 28” inches. 50% of the
requirement may be provided off site at another property within
750’ feet of entrance.
Elementary and junior
high schools
Two spaces per each classroom.
High school and post-
secondary schools
One space per each four students based on building capacity, plus
one space for each two classrooms.
Commercial Uses
Animal hospitals and
kennels
One space per each 200 square feet sq ft. floor area, but not fewer
than five spaces.
Bank One space per each 250 square feet sq ft. floor area
Bed and breakfast Two spaces, plus one space per each room for rent.
Catering One space per each 500 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Coffee shop One space per each 200 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Convention or exhibit
halls
One space per each three seats based on design capacity. A single
seat on a bench is equal to 28” inches.
Food service or
bakeries
One space per 25 square feet sq ft. customer floor area.
Hotel / Motel /
Rooming house
One and one-half spaces per each dwelling unit, guestroom, or hotel
room.
Motor fuel station Three spaces. Multiple uses shall be calculated separately.
Motor vehicle service Four spaces per each service bay.
Offices or medical and
dental labs
Less than 50,000 square feet sq ft. floor area: one space per each
250 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Between 50,000 square feet sq ft. floor area and 200,000 square
feet sq ft. floor area: one space per each 275 square feet sq ft. floor
area.
Between 200,000 square feet sq ft. floor area and 400,000 square
feet sq ft. floor area: one space per each 300 square feet sq ft. floor
area.
Greater than 400,000 square feet sq ft. floor area: one space per
each 325 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Open sales or rental
lots
One space per each 2,500 square feet sq ft. customer service area.
Outdoor seating as an
accessory use
Parking will be required at the same rate as the principal use for
that portion of the outdoor seating area that exceeds the lesser of
the total number of provided indoor seats or 25% of total gross floor
area of the principal use.
Bowling alley One space per each bowling lane.
Pool hall or video
arcade
One space per each 25 square feet sq ft. customer area.
Skating rink or auction
house
50 spaces, plus one space for each 100 square feet sq ft. of floor
area in excess of 2,000 square feet sq ft.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 9
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Sport/health club,
studio, pool
One space per each 200 square feet sq ft. non-court area.
Two spaces per tennis/racquetball court.
One space per each 50 square feet sq ft. deck area for a swimming
pool.
Theatre, auditorium,
assembly halls
One space per each four seats. A single seat on a bench is equal to
28” inches.
Restaurants, sit-down One space per each 60 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Restaurants, fast food One space per each 100 square feet floor area.
Taproom or
microdistillery cocktail
room
One space per each 100 square feet floor area.
Retail store, grocery,
and service
establishment where >
25% gross floor area is
customer area
Minimum: One space per each 250 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Maximum: One space per each 150 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Large Mmerchandise
Rretail
One space per each 500 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Retail where < 25%
gross floor area is
customer area
One space per each 100 square feet sq ft. of customer service area.
Shopping centers One space per each 250 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Grocery stores and theaters shall be calculated separately.
Restaurants and food service shall be calculated separately unless
the shopping center exceeds 20,000 square feet sq ft. in size and no
wait-staff is present, and the use constitutes less than 25% of the
shopping center’s floor area.
Maximum: One space per each 150 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Studios One space per each 400 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Post office customer
service
One space per each 25 square feet sq ft. customer service area for
the first 600 square feet, sq ft. plus one per each 180 square feet sq
ft. thereafter.
Industrial Uses
Manufacturing,
fabrication, or
processing
Five spaces plus one per each 500 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Outdoor storage One space per each 20,000 square feet sq ft. of area devoted to
outdoor storage.
Post office or parcel
delivery service
10 spaces, plus one space per each 500 square feet sq ft. floor area
devoted to office, processing, or service, plus one space for each
vehicle kept on the premises.
Self-storage facility One space per each fifty storage compartments.
Showrooms One space per each 500 square feet sq ft. floor area.
Warehouse One space per each 1,500 square feet sq ft. floor area.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 10
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
***
Table 36-361(b)
Land Use Category Proposed Required Off-Street
Minimum
Proposed Required Off-
Street Maximum
Residential
Multifamily 1 space/dwelling unit 2 spaces/dwelling unit
Elderly Housing Age-
restricted housing
1 space/dwelling unit 2 spaces/dwelling unit
Human Care Uses
Adult day care 1 space/employee on largest shift
OR 1 space/500 square feet sq ft. of
gross floor area GFA, whichever is
largest
1 space/employee on
largest shift OR 1 space/200
square feet sq ft. of gross
floor area GFA, whichever is
largest
Group day care, nursery
school
1 space/employee on largest shift
OR 1 space per 500 square feet sq
ft. of gross floor area GFA,
whichever is largest
1 space/employee on
largest shift OR 1 space per
200 square feet sq ft. of
gross floor area GFA,
whichever is largest
Group homes 1 space/4 beds 1 space per 2 beds
Medical or dental office 1 space/500 square feet sq ft. floor
area FA in excess of 4,000 square
feet sq ft. (min. 4 spaces)
1 space/200 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Nursing home 1 space/employee on largest shift
+1 space/6 beds
1 space/employee on
largest shift plus 1 space/ 3
beds
Institutional Uses
Community center Parking requirement based on uses
within the building.
Parking requirement based
on uses within the building
Libraries, museums, art 1 space/450 square feet sq ft. floor
area in principal structure.
1 space/ each 300 square
feet sq ft. floor area in
principal structure.
High school and post-
secondary schools
1 space/classroom + 1 space per 5
students of legal driving age based
on the maximum number of
students attending classes at any
one time
2 spaces/ classroom + 1
space per 3 students of
legal driving age based on
the maximum number of
students attending classes
at any one (1) time
Commercial Uses
Bank 1 space/250 square feet sq ft. floor
area
1 space/200 square feet sq
ft. floor area
Catering 1 space/500 square feet sq ft. floor
area.
1 space/500 square feet sq
ft. floor area.
Coffee Shop 1 space/200 square feet sq ft. floor
area.
1 space/100 square feet sq
ft. floor area.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 11
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Food Service or Bakeries 1 space/300 square feet sq ft. floor
area.
1 space /150 square feet sq
ft. floor area
Hotel 1 space/3 guest rooms + parking
equal to 10% of the capacity of
persons for an affiliated use on site
(i.e., dining or meeting rooms)
1 space/guest room +
parking equal to 30% of the
capacity of persons for an
affiliated use on site (i.e.,
dining or meeting rooms)
Offices or medical and
dental labs
1 space/500 square feet sq ft. FA in
excess of 4,000 square feet sq ft..
1 space/250 square feet sq
ft. FA
Bowling alley 1 space/250 square feet floor area
sq ft. FA
1 space/100 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Pool hall or video arcade 1 space/250 square feet floor area
sq ft. FA
1 space/100 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Sport/health club, studio,
pool
1 space/500 square feet floor area
sq ft. FA in excess of 4,000 square
feet sq ft. (minimum of 4 spaces)
1 space/ 200 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Theatre, auditorium,
assembly halls
1 space/4 attendees 1.5 spaces/4 attendees
Restaurants - fast food
casual
1 space/300 square feet floor area
sq ft. FA
1 space/75 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Restaurants - standard sit
down
1 space/300 square feet floor area
sq ft. FA
1 space/75 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Brewery/Ffood Hhall 1 space/150 square feet floor area
sq ft. FA
1 space/75 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Retail store, grocery, and
service establishment
where > 25% gross floor
area is customer area
1 space/400 square feet sq ft. floor
area.
1 space/400 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Retail where < 25% gross
floor area is customer area
1 space/250 square feet sq ft. floor
area.
1 space/150 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
Studios 1 space per 400 square feet floor
area sq ft. FA
1 sapce space per 200
square feet floor area sq ft.
FA
Industrial Uses
Manufacturing,
fabrication, or processing
1 space/ employee on largest shift
or 1 space/1,200 square feet floor
area sq ft. FA whichever is greater
+1 space/vehicle normally stored or
parked on the site
1 space/500 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA +1
space/ vehicle normally
stored or parked on the site
Showrooms 1 space/500 square feet sq ft. 1 space/200 square feet sq
ft.
Warehouse 1 space/2 employees on largest
shift or 1 space/ 1, square feet floor
area sq ft. FA whichever is greater
1 space/500 square feet
floor area sq ft. FA
(d) The requirements may be revised upward or downward by the City Council as part of an
application for a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development based on verifiable
information pertaining to parking.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 12
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
(d)(e) Reductions. The following off-street parking reductions may be utilized jointly or
separately except as indicated otherwise:
(1) Transit deductions. Only one of the following deductions may apply:
a. Parking requirements may be reduced based on the proximity to a light
rail station (LRT). Distance shall be measured from the station platform
to the property line by walking distance via sidewalk, trail, and/or city
centerlines.
1. 30 percent reduction when the use is located up to ¼ mile from
the LRT station.
2. 20 percent reduction when the use is located up to ½ mile from
the LRT station.
b. High frequency bus service. Parking may be reduced by up to 15
percent for any parcel located within one-quarter mile of high-bus
transit with service at least every 15 minutes. The service must operate
between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. on
Saturdays.
c. Regular bus service. Parking may be reduced by up to 10 percent for
any parcel located within one-quarter of a mile of a transit stop. To
qualify, the transit stop must be served by regular bus transit service on
all days of the week and adequate pedestrian access must be available
between the transit stop and the parcel. Regular transit service shall
operate at least twice hourly between 7:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on
weekdays and once hourly after 6:30 p.m. Regular transit service shall
operate on Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays.
***
Section 36-361(e)(f)(2) Number of Required Electric Vehicle Charging Stations
a. All new or reconstructed parking structures or lots with 14 or fewer parking
spaces shall be allowed, but not required, to install EVSE.
b. All new or reconstructed parking structures or lots with at least 15 but no more
than 49 spaces, or expanded parking structures or lots that result in a parking lot
with 15 to 49 parking spaces, shall install EVSE as required below.
1. Multiple-family residential land uses shall have 510% of required residential
parking as Level 1 stations for resident parking served by EVCSs with at least
5% as Level 2 stations. At least one handicapped accessible parking space
shall have access to an EVCS.
2. Non-residential land uses with parking spaces available for use by the
general public shall have one two Level 2 stations. At least one handicapped
accessible parking space shall have access to an EVCS.
c. All new or reconstructed parking structures or lots with at least 50 parking spaces,
or expanded parking structures or lots that result in a parking lot with 50 or more
parking spaces, shall install EVSE as required below.
1. Multiple-family residential land uses shall have 10% of required residential
parking as Level 12 stations for resident parking, and one Level 2 station for
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 13
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
guest parking. At least one handicapped accessible parking space shall have
access to an EVCS.
2. Non-residential land uses with parking spaces available for use by the
general public shall have at least 15% of required parking as Level 2 stations
with a minimum of two spaces served by Level 2 charging, with at least one
station adjacent to an accessible parking space. In non-residential zoned
districts, DC charging stations may be installed to satisfy the EVCS
requirements described above on a one-for-one basis.
d. Notwithstanding the requirements of subsections a above, all All new or
reconstructed motor fuel stations as defined in Section 36-142(d)(20) shall be
required to install at least one additional Level 2 charging station. A DC charging
station may be installed to meet this requirement.
e. In addition to the number of required EVCSs, the following accommodations shall
be required for the anticipated future growth in market demand for electric
vehicles:
1. Multiple-Family Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed
parking areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to
accommodate the future hardwire installation of Level 2 EVCSs for a
minimum of 1050% of required parking spaces.
2. Non-Residential Land Uses: all new, expanded and reconstructed parking
areas shall provide the electrical capacity necessary to accommodate the
future hardwire installation of Level 2 or DC EVCSs for a minimum of 1050%
of required parking spaces.
f. These requirements may be revised upward or downward by the City Council as
part of an application for a conditional use permit or planned unit development
based on verifiable information pertaining to parking.
***
Section 36-361(e)(f)(6) General Requirements for Multi-Family Residential and Non-
Residential Development Parking.
a. Accessible Spaces. A charging station will be considered accessible if it is located
adjacent to, and can serve, an accessible parking space as defined and required by
the ADA It is not necessary to designate the EVSE exclusively for the use of vehicles
parked in the accessible space.
b. EVSE – public use shall be subject to the following requirements:
1. The EVCSs shall be located in a manner that will be easily seen by the public for
informational and security purposes.
2. The EVCSs shall be located in desirable and convenient parking locations that
will serve as an incentive for the use of electric vehicles.
23. The EVCS must be operational during the normal business hours of the use(s)
that it serves. EVCS may be de-energized or otherwise restricted after normal
business hours of the use(s) it serves.
c. Lighting. Site lighting shall be provided where EVSE is installed, unless charging is
for daytime purposes only.
d. Equipment Design Standards.
1. Battery charging station outlets and connector devices shall be mounted to
comply with state code and must comply with all relevant Americans with
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 14
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Equipment mounted on pedestals,
lighting posts, bollards, or other devices shall be designed and located as to not
impede pedestrian travel or create trip hazards on sidewalks.
2. Electric vehicle charging devices may be located adjacent to designated parking
spaces in a garage or parking lot as long as provided the devices do not
encroach into the required dimensions of the parking space (length, width, and
height clearances).
3. The design should be appropriate to the location and use. Facilities should be
able to be readily identified by electric vehicle users and blend into the
surrounding landscape/architecture for compatibility with the character and
use of the site.
4. EVCS pedestals shall be designed to minimize potential damage by accidents,
vandalism and to be safe for use in inclement weather.
e Usage Fees. The property owner may collect a service fee for the use of EVSE.
f. Maintenance. EVSE shall be maintained in all respects, including the functioning of
the equipment. A phone number or other contact information shall be provided
on the equipment for reporting problems with the equipment or access to it.
***
(f) Bicycle Parking. Bicycle parking is required to provide adequate and safe facilities for the
storage of bicycles, to encourage the use of bicycles as an alternative to motor vehicles, and to
provide bicycle access to employment, commercial and other destinations. All new, expanded,
or reconstructed parking structures or lots shall install bicycle parking as required below.
***
g. Shared Parking. Shared off-street parking facilities are allowed to can collectively provide
parking in any district for more than one structure or use, subject to the following conditions:
1. The uses must shall have their highest peak demand for parking at substantially
different times of the day or week, or an adequate amount of parking shall be
available for both uses during shared hours of peak demand. A parking plan shall
address the hours, size and mode of operation of the respective uses.
2. The minimum spaces required under a shared parking agreement shall be based on
the number of spaces required for the use that requires the most parking.
3. A shared parking agreement shall be filed with the city. The terms of the shared
parking agreement shall include, at a minimum:
a. The hours, size and a description of the operation of each of the tenants.
b. A dimensioned site plan showing the location and number of parking spaces.
c. A plan for remediating conflicts between tenants. The plan shall identify the
property owner or designee as being responsible for administering and enforcing
the agreement.
d. A statement acknowledging that the city may deny a proposed use or expansion
of an existing use if it deems the site does not have sufficient parking.
e. The plan shall be signed by the property owner.
Shared parking facilities shall be protected by an irrevocable covenant running with the
land and recorded with the county in a form approved by the city attorney. A certified
copy of the recorded document shall be provided to the Zoning Administrator within 60
days after approval of the agreement by the city council.
City council meeting of November 15, 2021 (Item No. 8c) Page 15
Title: Zoning text amendment - parking requirements
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 2021
Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor
Attest: Approved as to form and execution:
Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney
First reading November 15, 2021
Second reading December 6, 2021
Date of publication December 16, 2021
Date ordinance takes effect December 31, 2021