Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022/02/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA FEB. 7, 2022 The St. Louis Park City Council will hold its meeting on Feb. 7, 2022 via interactive technology/ videoconferencing. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.021, subd. 1, and Resolution No. 22-018, the city manager and the city council have determined that an in-person meeting of the St. Louis Park City Council is not practical or prudent because of the COVID-19 health pandemic, and the surge of the Omicron variant. Due to the measures necessary to contain and mitigate the impacts of the pandemic, it has been determined that attendance at the regular meeting location by members of the public is not feasible and that the physical presence at the regular meeting location by at least one member of the body, chief legal counsel, or chief administrative officer is not feasible. All members of the St. Louis Park City Council will participate in the Feb. 7, 2022 city council meeting by electronic device or telephone rather than by being personally present at the city council's regular meeting place at 5005 Minnetonka Blvd. Cisco Webex will be used to conduct videoconference meetings of the city council, with council members and staff participating from multiple locations. Special study session at 5:20 p.m. Economic development authority at 6:20 p.m. | Regular city council meeting at 6:30 p.m . The St. Louis Park City Council will meet by videoconference on Feb. 7, 2022 starting at 5:20 p.m. Members of the public can monitor the meeting via webstream at bit.ly/watchslpcouncil and on local cable (Comcast SD channel 17 and HD channel 859), or by calling +1-312-535-8110 meeting number (access code): 372 106 61 for audio only. Visit bit.ly/slpccagendas to view the agenda and reports. Members of the public who want to address the city council during the regular city council mee ting about items on the agenda can 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 – 4m •952.562.288 8 – item 6a – Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association HIA •952.562.288 7 – item 6b – 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) •952.562.2886 – item 8a – Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit 5:20 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION Discussion item 1. Encouraging vaccine and booster use in St. Louis Park 6:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – council chambers 1.Roll call 2.Approval of agenda 3.Approval of consent agenda and items on EDA consent calendar 3a. Approval of EDA disbursements Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 24, 2021 through Jan. 28, 2022. Meeting of Feb. 7 , 2022 City c ouncil agenda 4. Approval of EDA minutes 4a. Special EDA meeting minutes of Dec. 13, 2021 4b. EDA meeting minutes of Jan. 3, 2022 4c. EDA meeting minutes of Jan. 18, 2022 5. Unfinished business – None 6. New business – None 7. Communications – None 6:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – council chambers 1. Call to order 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 2. Presentations 2a. Recognition of donations 3. Approval of minutes 3a. City council meeting minutes of Dec. 6, 2021 3b. Special city council meeting minutes of Dec. 13, 2021 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. A ccept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 24, 2021 through Jan. 28, 2022. 4b. A dopt Resolution accepting donation to the fire department from Lucille Tellett for fire prevention programs and equipment. 4c . A dopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Minnesota American Water Works Association (MN AWWA) in an amount not to exceed $1,500 for all related expenses for Austin Holm, Lead Plant Operator, to attend and compete in the 2022 Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE) training in San Antonio, Texas. 4d . Adopt Resolution authorizing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3105 Idaho Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 17-117-21-12-0209. 4e . Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 16-117-21-23-0021. 4f . Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $131,287.46 for project no. 4018-1050, which is the Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 improvement project with Eureka Construction Inc., Contract No. 67-20. Meeting of Feb. 7 , 2022 City c ouncil agenda 4g . A dopt Resolution approving labor agreement between the city and the police sergeant employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions of employment for three years, from Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2024. 4h . Adopt Resolution approving the acceptance of a monetary donation from Lunds & Byerlys dedicated to the police reserve program. 4i . Adopt Resolution authorizing the Hennepin County Grant Agreement to partially fund the city’s residential waste reduction, curbside recycling and organics programs and multifamily waste reduction and recycling programs. 4j . Adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat ofCentral Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition. 4k. Direct staff to submit a letter of interest to acquire land that Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has deemed to be excess right-of-way. 4l . Approve for filing fire civil service commission minutes of Nov. 8, 2021. 4m . Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Dec. 8, 2021. 5. Boards and commissions -- None 6. Public hearings 6a. Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take testimony, and then close the public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance establishing the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota statutes, sections 428A.11 to 428A. 21 and to set second reading date for Feb. 22, 2022. 6b . 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public hearing. Council will be asked to act on this project at its Feb. 22 meeting. 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – None 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions and discussion items 8a. Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving a conditional use permit to operate a liquor store at 8016 Minnetonka Blvd. (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: February 7, 2022 Discussion item: 1 Executive summary Title: Encouraging vaccine and booster use in St. Louis Park Re commended action: No formal action is required at this time. The city council requested additional information on this topic and directed staff to prepare policy options for further discussion. Staff recommends development of a programmatic approach in partnership with the community to boost the rate of vaccination in the city. Policy consideration: •Should staff and local partners pursue programmatic approaches to encourage vaccine and booster use? •Should staff pursue a regulatory approach to encourage vaccine and booster use? Summary: Residents and local businesses are all experie ncing burdens and hardships because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Regional and national policy solutions have focused primarily on emergency measures in the form of mandates related to proven preventative protections like masking, social distancing, and vaccine use. Recently, Minneapolis and St. Paul adopted emergency measures limiting entrance to bars and restaurants to encourage the use of vaccines. While approaches of this type have been effective at a regional level, the local considerations such as costs to local businesses, burdens for families with young children, and complex administrative implementation do not exceed the stated benefit. Emergency regulations of this type do not conform to the long-term strategy required to abate the ongoing situation. For these reasons, staff does not recommend that St. Louis Park adopt a similar measure. Instead, staff recommends a programmatic approach in partnership with the community to achieve the goal of encouraging vaccine and booster use as the pandemic enters a new phase . St. Louis Park is uniquely positioned as an active and engaged community, with a strong public health infrastructure and existing community ties to be successful with this approach. Bonds formed during this process could also serve long term goals of the city to increase social capital. Financial or budget considerations: Financial re sources from the American Recovery Plan Act and staff capacity are an allowable use to augment or support a programmatic approach. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in racial equity and inclusion in order to create a more just and inclusive community for all. Supporting documents: Discussion Memo from city attorney’s office [CONFIDENTIAL] Prepared by: Michae l Sund, elections specialist Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh , deputy city manager Karen Barton, community development director Brian Hoffman, director of buildin g & energy Steve Koering, fire chief /emergency management coordinator Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager Special study session meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No.1) Page 2 Title: Encouraging vaccine and booster use in St. Louis Park Discussion Background: Residents of the City of St. Louis Park are entering a third year of enduring the COVID-19 pandemic. Many measures that we re once emergency precautions are now routine and protective measures are available to the public. Data that was not available at the start of the event are now widely available. As the pandemic enters this new phase , new policy measures are under consideration . The council may consider the adoption of various rules or programs designed to avoid and alleviate harm . Proven protective measures include masking, social distancing, and administration of an mRNA or adenoviral vaccine and booster. Measures to encourage masking have been implemented from time to time as appropriate in the city. Currently, an emergency ordinance requires masking in most public places in the city. In addition, social distancing is strongly encouraged. Vaccination rates for residents are difficult to localize, however, data is available by zip code tabulation area. For the western portion of the city (55426), the one-shot vaccination rate among adults is 76% and the completed series rate is 72%. The eastern portion of the city (55416) has a one -shot rate of 83% and a completed series rate of 78% (as of Jan. 19). This is largely in line with rates county-wide. Many communities saw an initial surge of vaccination followed by a drop-off in the daily rate , even as new populations became e ligible to receive it. Booster adoption in Hennepin County stands at roughly 55% among adults. Vaccine hesitancy measured through surveys from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) measures the regional area (P ublic Use Microdata Area – Golde n Valley -Edina-St. Louis Park) as 8% hesitant, and 2% strongly hesitant to be vaccinated. ZCTA5 55416 ZCTA5 55426 Vaccine use Population Percent of total Population Percent of total Total: 33036 26339 Total one shot 27419 (est.) 83% 20017 (est.) 76% Total completed series 21387 (est.) 78% 14412 (est.) 72% Demographic breakdown within zip code Population Percent of total Population Percent of total White alone 28509 86% 21468 82% Black or African American alone 1683 5% 1967 7% American Indian and Alaska Nativ e alone 151 0% 83 0% Asian alone 1193 4% 1452 6% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 21 0% 20 0% Some other race alone 613 2% 378 1% Two or more races: 866 3% 971 4% Two races including Some other race 83 0% 114 0% Two race s excluding Some other race, and three or more races 783 2% 857 3% Special study session meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No.1) Page 3 Title: Encouraging vaccine and booster use in St. Louis Park At the request of council, staff began to research policies that could potentially boost vaccination uptake . Recently, the mayors in St. Paul and Minneapolis issued new emergency orde rs which require patrons of various establishments to show proof of vaccination to enter or receive service. These policies, while similar in intent, differ greatly between the two communities. Each makes exceptions for populations for which it would be difficult to comply and in settings where it would be inappropriate or burdensome to demonstrate proof. The expiration, enforcement mechanisms, and exact nature of the rules also differ. Staff began to research the nature of these and other policies which could be used to increase vaccination and booster rates in the community. In accordance with that research and following on consultations with the business community, health care community, city manager and e mergency management coordinator, staff does not recommend impleme nting a similar policy at this time in the City of St. Louis Park . The goal of increasing vaccination and booster rates is well supported, however, a mandate as it would be implemented in St. Louis Park may not have the desired effect and cou ld adversely affect businesses as well as community ties. To encourage vaccination and booster use in the city, staff is instead recommending a programmatic approach in partnership with community members and partners. The unique powers granted to the city council, organizational advantages of the city, and relatively high vaccination rates in the community ensure a program-based approach has a higher likelihood of success. Policy analysis framework: The continuing and changing nature of the situation requires an approach to policy and program evaluation that is consistent. To develop a systematic approach to evaluating these policies, staff considered several aspects of how policies related to COVID- 19 have worked. Data and research Where possible, staff worked to fin d and evaluate scientific research to understand the potential effects of a given policy. Research can typically take years to develop, and so all information found was evaluated with that as a consideration. Most research on COVID-19 policy effects is not yet peer-reviewed and many seemingly conclusive papers have since been revoked. This is a normal process for the scientific community; however, the uncertainty underpinning rapid work of this type means all research and data need careful evaluation. Motivational and psychological considerations There is also a need to evaluate what motivates a particular individual to adopt a protective measure. In Protection Motivation Theory researchers examine how a person evaluates their personal threat appraisal (the likelihood they would be at risk of harm) compared to their coping appraisal (the likelihood they could cope if the harm took place). This is a helpful way to think through the potential reaction of various constituencies in response to a program or policy. Political and ideological considerations Since the beginning of the pandemic, COVID-19 has been politicized. In research on the use of vaccines, many individuals hold political and id eological positions which impact their participation in vaccination programs. Importantly, however, these convictions are not always held strongly, and many individuals weigh risks and facts when deciding to participate in each mitigation measure. For this reason, outreach has proven effective in a one-on-one setting where a health care professional (ostensibly politically agnostic) could offer facts about vaccination. Special study session meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No.1) Page 4 Title: Encouraging vaccine and booster use in St. Louis Park Legality and e thical considerations Additional considerations include the legality of mandates, both to implement and enforce ordinances or orders . The City Attorney has provided an analysis of the legal issues, via privileged communication. Equity considerations Policies or programs which may have an uneven impact on various communities require a difference in implementation to mitigate dis parities . Economic and related racial and ethnic disparities h ave arisen as an area of primary concern. The virus is more likely to harm communities of color and more likely to impact jobs that are held in higher proportion in those communities. In addition, several cultural communities in St. Louis Park have the potential to be disparately impacted by policies that mandate the use of vaccines, or which require proof of vaccination to utilize services. Access to vaccination for communities in lower economic classes or for individuals with disabilities is also an area of primary concern. Individuals with unclear immigration status for whom interacting with a government office or official reporting in a medical situation may result in danger also mu st be considered. Dis cussion: Policy solutions to-date have been primarily motivated by emergency outbreaks and taken the form of vaccination or testing mandates or other preventative measures like masking. Programmatic solutions h ave frequently taken the form of incentives, events to encourage vaccination , or reminders to seek a vaccine. Staff researched recently adopted mandates implemented in Minneapolis and St. Paul which require a patron to display proof of vaccination or a recent negative test. In the case of St. Paul, the y must also present identification. Following the systematic approach laid out above, staff reviewed current research on this type of policy. Most articles relating to implem entation focused on the feelings of patrons and business owners. Businesses reported being significantly impacted by policies of these types, requiring in some cases temporary closure to patrons entering their facility . Others reported a significant financial burden on top of already strained finances to enforce the policy or from res ulting fines. Mandates of all types are unpopular with survey respondents, because of the restriction on freedom in daily life like extra complications when a f amily goes out to eat, or extra staff needed at a local business. Strongly held id eological position s also hardened following the announcement and implementation of mandates. In addition, reports of a feeling of lost autonomy increased in nations that implement policies like vaccine passports. One important consideration mentioned by both the city’s e mergency management coordinator and other health officials was the regional nature of mandate policies. Research in Canada and Europe focused on provincewide or nationwide policies rather than local municipalities taking on mandates. Anecdotal reports from American cities suggest that in regions where a reluctant person could easily patronize a location outside the jurisdiction , they instead choose to do that. This could be considered a desirable outcome depending on the goal of the policy ; however, impacted businesses had strongly negative comments on the further loss of business at a time when finances were already strained. Special study session meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No.1) Page 5 Title: Encouraging vaccine and booster use in St. Louis Park Major stakeholders affected by a policy of this type have all reported concerns that outweigh, in their estimation , the potential benefits. Staff expressed concern over enforcement, the potential impact on businesses and the lack of regional partnership. The wane in infections has likely also lowered the threat appraisal for individuals. Partners outside the city including health and business organizations have also questioned implementation and effect. Program-based approach: Upon completion of a review of a potential mandate policy and the resulting recommendation to not take that approach, the city manager directe d the formation of a work group to develop alternative programmatic approaches to achieve the goal of increasing vaccine use long term. That group developed several ideas and is work ing to systematize the city ’s approach to already-occurring events, like v accine pop-up clinics. Following the direction of the council, the group will reconvene to refine ideas and work to remove barriers to the options below . St. Louis Park is unique in having many strongly -connected community members, businesses, and institutions that allow for community-based approaches to work. Working together to achieve a goal of increasing vaccination and booster use could provide for several opportunities to accomplish multiple goals at the same time. Collaboration, incentives , and engagement are all long-term goals of the city , and this approach could aid in strengthening and augmenting those bonds. The existing sense of community identity could be tied to an approach for living with the presence of the virus without detracting from community connections. Ex ternal partners who atte nded the group found the partnership ideas exciting, and they stand ready to participate in developing programmatic solutions. The working group developed several ideas which could be used to boost vaccine use. Among them: 1.Pop-up vaccine clinics a.Incentives could be offered through local businesses. b.Partnerships between the Fire department vaccinators, Park Nicollet and local businesses could utilize experience and expertise. c.Provides opportunities for positive programming that brings in an element of fun. d.Provides more easily accessible options for residents. e.Contingency factors : Clinics rely on a partnership between the business/organization, city, medical personne l, and vaccine provider. Outside forces in any of these entities can impact the ability to host a clinic. 2.Vaccine or booster-based discounts a.Partnering to offer reduced cost coupons at businesses or free entrance to city facilities in exchange for proof of vaccination or b ooster. b.Doubles as a program to boost patronage at local businesses. c.Allows for collection of regionalized data on which neighborhoods have highe r vaccine uptake. d.Contingency factor: Partnerships with local community businesses and organiz ations would need to be established around this issue along with parameters around discounts. Special study session meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No.1) Page 6 Title: Encouraging vaccine and booster use in St. Louis Park 3.Communication strategies a.Tying a shared sense of community and identity to beneficial health decisions . b.Allowing for trusted partners like firefighters or nurses to explain the facts about vaccination . c.Outreach to residents who are less mobile or have less access to clinics . d.Contingency factor: Messaging from the city impacts different people in different ways and efforts need to be made to coordinate with other people and organizatio ns of influence. Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 3a Executive summary Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing EDA disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 24, 2021 through Jan . 28, 2022. Policy consideration: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in accordance with Article V – Administ ration of Finances, of the EDA bylaws? Summary: The finance division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to review and approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable. Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information follows the EDA ’s charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: EDA disbursements Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt , chief financial officer Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manage r 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:52:36R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 307,260.884800 EXCELSIOR APARTMENTS LLC 4900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 307,260.88 475.00BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP HOIGAARD 2010A DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 475.00 578.16CARLSON SHADEE DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MISC EXPENSE 578.16 651.04CARVER MATTHEW DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MISC EXPENSE 651.04 662,683.63DUKE REALTY WEST END TIF DIST G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 662,683.63 827.50EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC 4900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 475.31ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 827.50WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 475.31ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 827.50CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 592.50DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 827.50MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 827.50PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 475.31WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 475.32SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 827.50HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,538.75 3,000.00FORECAST PUBLIC ART DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,000.00 270,144.14GOTTMAR II LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 270,144.14 1,084,205.29GOTTMAR LLC PARK COMMONS G&A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 1,084,205.29 625.08HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER BRIDGEWATER BK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 2 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:52:36R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,297.77WOODDALE STATION TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 851.63ELMWOOD APTS TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,584.804900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,254.18ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,016.13WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,604.99ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 807.63PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,838.25CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,682.09DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,454.44MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,321.07PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,575.89ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 772.51WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,365.37SHOREHAM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,489.69AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 758.67HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 39,300.19 70,247.07HIGHWAY 7 BUSINESS CENTER LLC HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A DEVELOPER TAX INCREMNT PYMT 70,247.07 2,580.00HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A PLANNING 2,580.00 1,404.90LINDSKOG ERIC DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MISC EXPENSE 1,404.90 891.02LINDSTROM RESTORATION 6211 CEDAR LK RD (DAHL PROP)OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 891.02 815.04LUND KRISTIAN DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MISC EXPENSE 815.04 1,145.47NICKELSON MARK DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A MISC EXPENSE 1,145.47 27.44QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE DELIVERY 27.44 51,886.83ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB 51,886.83 Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 3 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:52:36R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description Report Totals 2,505,834.85 Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Title: Approval of EDA disbursements Page 4 Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Minutes: 4a Unofficial minutes Special EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 13, 2021 1.Call to order Vice President Rog called the special meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2.Roll call Commissioners present: President Tim Brausen (arrived 6:30 p.m.), Lynette Dumalag, Rachel Harris, Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, Vice President Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano Commissioners absent: none Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), CFO (Ms. Schmitt), Interim Deputy City Manager/Park and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), EDA Executive Director (Ms. Barton), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith) 3.Approval of EDA minutes - none 4.Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar 4a. Elmwood Village Tax Increment District interfund loan. EDA Resolution No. 21- 39 Commissioner Spano made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar. The motion passed 6-0 (President Brausen absent). 5.Reports - none 6.Old business – none 7.New business 7a. 2022 final HRA levy certification and budget adoption. EDA Resolution No. 21- 40 Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report. Commissioner Spano noted that the print version of item 7b indicated that it was the preliminary EDA levy and not the final version. Ms. Schmitt confirmed item 7b relates to the final EDA levy certification. Page 2 Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special EDA meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Commissioner Kraft stated he will support this action. He explained affordable housing is one of the most important and challenging issues the city faces, and the HRA levy is targeted to address that issue. He applauded this council and prior councils for their commitment to this issue, including the inclusionary housing policy that has had a real impact on significantly increasing affordable apartments in the city. He stated he does not think the city can relax their efforts on this front, noting affordable home ownership opportunities could use more attention. He added there is a balancing act with property taxes, made even more precarious due to home value trends. Especially this year, more affordable homes are increasing in value substantially faster than other parts of the market, resulting in comparatively large increases in property tax bills that are likely hitting homeowners less able to afford it. Commissioner Kraft stated going forward for next years’ budget process, he would like the council to consider how much the city should be spending on affordable housing. Clearly there is no limit to the need, but there is some limit to what the city can spend. Given the substantial sums that are being generated by the city’s pooled TIF, around $900,000 to $1.5 million annually for the next several years, he suggested the council should look at the total amount being spent and determine if there are other ways of focusing the money and economizing a bit. He stated given that he just realized the way the HRA levy is applied on straight market value versus tax capacity, puts the burden more on lower value homes than if it was part of the general levy. He noted it may not be a substantial amount, but there is some impact. He would like the council to investigate folding the HRA levy into the general levy. He added he wished he understood these two dynamics better earlier in this year’s budget process. Given how long the HRA levy has been in place, he thinks it is important that changes be carefully considered to ensure they don’t create unintended consequences. It was moved by Commissioner Kraft, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 21-40, authorizing the 2022 final HRA levy. Vice President Rog concurred with most of Commissioner Kraft’s comments. She stated as of now, despite her concerns about the new EDA levy, she continues to support the use of the HRA levy to collect tax dollars. Primarily because it has been integrated into the budget process at this point and she does not want to lose access to the significant affordable housing dollars it generates, as well as potential for a trust fund match from the legislature someday. Vice President Rog stated she is open to discussing what to do about this levy in the future with staff and colleagues. She noted the revenues from this levy will make possible wealth building programs to address historical injustices and access to home ownership. She added it will also provide the opportunity to hopefully create a new multi-family homeownership development on Minnetonka Boulevard, and support the ability to provide rental assistance, grant, and transformation loan programs. Commissioner Spano thanked staff who put this money to good use on behalf of the city’s residents. He stated he will be participating in a discussion on homeownership, racial equity impacts, and the wealth divide and he asked staff for information on the Page 3 programs the city funds for housing, and there are many. He stated he will support adoption of the HRA levy as well. The motion passed 6-0 (President Brausen absent). 7b. 2022 final EDA levy certification Commissioner Mohamed stated there was some conversation at the last meeting regarding the EDA levy being a regressive tax. She requested that Ms. Schmitt clarify the impact of how the EDA levy is applied. Ms. Schmitt stated she reviewed the $500,000 EDA levy and calculated the levy with both market value tax capacity and the net tax capacity formula. For a $200,000 home the difference was $1.02/year. For a $300,000 home, the difference is $.54/year and for a $400,000 home it is $.07/year. She noted the difference is so small because of the dollar amount of the levy. A greater impact would be seen if you were to compare based on the city’s entire levy. Commissioner Mohamed thanked staff for their work to provide data that clarified the impact and stated she is supportive of the EDA levy as proposed. Commissioner Kraft stated he is not against the money the city is spending, but he is against the EDA levy. He encouraged council to vote against creation of the EDA levy and instead absorb as much as possible into the general fund levy. He is convinced creation of the EDA levy is not a good idea and there is no good reason for the city to do this with a separate levy. He stated one of the arguments he has heard in favor of the action are it’s a sustainable funding source, but he feels it is no more or less sustainable than the general levy. The council can make changes to any levy at any time. He stated he has also heard it is less likely to be cut in the future, and that also does not make sense to him because the council can cut or change any levy during the budget process. It is only less likely to be cut if they depend on a future council not realizing that they can adjust it. The rationale that other cities do this, does not make it right. Commissioner Kraft stated one of the biggest reasons he is advocating for this change is transparency. He noted throughout this process, the discussion has been about the increase in the general levy, and staff has done a good job of trying to incorporate the other two levies to show the total impact, but when the council discussed it, they talked about the 6.5% increase when it was preliminary and now the number discussed is 5.58%. He stated the 5.58% is not relevant to residents. The number that is relevant is the 6.9% increase in total levy that the city is doing year over year. He added when someone receives their truth in taxation notice, it is not a 5.58% increase. It is really 6.9% that is applied across their property’s value. He stated whether it is intended or not, having separate levies is obscuring what is being done and anytime that happens, from a government perspective, is not good. He noted they did just learn that doing it this way falls a little bit more on the lower end of the value spectrum, versus if the money was in the general fund levy. He recognized it is a small amount this year, but if the levy increases in the future the impact would be greater and compound over time. He questioned why the council would do it if they don’t have to. He added including the money in the general fund levy would also reduce complexity. He feels it is very difficult Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special EDA meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Page 4 to explain to residents what the EDA levy is, what it is for, and why it is separate. Climate investment in this was originally going to be corporate only because the money was coming from the EDA levy. He noted staff was able to figure out how to structure this so the climate investment money would not be restricted to corporate only. He stated while he appreciates the creativity used to solve this issue, these are machinations that are not necessary. Commissioner Kraft stated he believes the council can make a change with minimal impact and proposed rejecting the EDA levy and adopting general levy of 6.5%. This would absorb approximately $330,000 of the $500,000 EDA levy. He proposed this would be $300,000 for the climate investment fund and the balance for the development fund, leaving a gap of $170,000 from the amount originally planned. He suggested directing staff to look at making up this difference with any end of year fund balance that the city may have. He stated his understanding is that there may be some fund surpluses at the end of the year. Even if that is not possible, he stated the city could do without the $170,000 for 2022 because it is not urgent that it happen this year and the city will not run out of money in the development fund without it. One of the reasons to do it was to begin to establish a sustainable funding source for the development fund, and they would still be doing that. He stated this proposal would result in a small reduction in taxes for residents and would move the total levy increase from 6.9% to just under 6.5%. He reiterated he will not support the EDA levy. Commissioner Harris asked staff to review how the creation of the EDA levy came to be proposed. Ms. Schmitt explained earlier this year staff and council had discussions about finding funding sources for programs like climate. Staff discussed with council establishing an EDA levy for the climate programs because they felt it was a more transparent way to do the levy because it would stand out and be separate from the general levy. For years staff has discussed with council the fact that the development fund has no sustainable funding source and that a portion of that fund was being used for salaries. Commissioner Harris recalled that last spring there was a request that the city find a dedicated funding source for climate change initiatives and programs. She stated there are always different ways to look at the same issue. The proposed funding source is transparent in that it is indicated as a line item. She noted one of the things she has found helpful is to have the tax impact numbers articulated as early in the process as possible because it helps convey to residents what the impact is on them. She asked for staff to review the EDA levy impact on median-value homes. Ms. Schmitt stated the anticipated average increase, for all three levies combined, is $160.48. The impact of the proposed EDA levy alone, was approximately $18/year for a median-value home. Commissioner Harris stated one of the benefits of having a separate line-item budget for climate investment initiatives is residents being able to see immediately what that money is intended for and the impact on their tax bill. She noted she supports the EDA levy and appreciates staff looking for solutions based on what council has requested. Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special EDA meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Page 5 President Brausen apologized for being late to the meeting. He stated he supports the EDA levy, which is a new tax that will fund development activities in the upcoming years, including staff salaries. He noted there has been and will continue to be a great deal of redevelopment activity in the city. He stated these funds will help to manage this important and detailed process. He added the city also plans to use the additional new revenue to make significant investments in response to climate change, which is the singular existential crisis facing us as a people. He stated it is important to begin to robustly fund the process to change our self-destructive consumption habits to save the planet. He stated the world’s leaders, including our own, have been slow to make these changes and we cannot afford to not ignore these needs. President Brausen stated in the future he would support adding this type of levy to the full extent of the law, which would allow taxing at 0.01813% of the estimated market value of all properties in St. Louis Park because the sooner these investments are made, the sooner they can take transformative action. He added, however, staff and the council has preferred to tax only a one-third portion of the levy that the state allows to be collected, to reduce the immediate tax impacts on residents and business owners. President Brausen continued that pushing action and costs down the road in the face of this crisis is irresponsible. He stated until the city pays the true costs of “business as usual”, they will not make the transformative investments needed. This includes the lifestyle changes needed to reduce and end carbon emissions. He stated we are leaving our grandchildren in a severely damaged world in exchange for cushioning the impact on consumers and taxpayers. He added the proposed levy will be a start to pay the tab, but still is too little in his estimation. He stated he supports the creation of this new levy for these reasons and feels the process has been very transparent and the proposed EDA levy was specifically discussed repeatedly at many meetings. He noted he had not heard any objection to the proposed levy, other than those who spoke at the public hearing. He reiterated he supports the EDA levy and believes it is essential for the community and society in general to be making these types of investments. Commissioner Dumalag stated she is also supportive of all the investments being made in climate initiatives, but noted the devil is in the details. She asked Ms. Schmitt to explain the market rate value versus tax capacity and the calculation difference between creating an EDA levy versus having all of the money in the general fund. Ms. Schmitt stated for properties that are homestead, when net tax capacity is calculated, a market value exclusion is applied based on the homes value. The lower the home value, the higher the market value exclusion. She explained for a $250,000 home, you could subtract almost $15,000 off the initial market value. When that is then divided by 100, you get the net tax capacity which would be $2,353. Levies that are not calculated using net tax capacity would result in the market value of the same property being $2,500. A levy, such as the EDA levy, is applied against a higher amount. She noted this becomes more noticeable with a larger levy. If they used a market value calculation rather than a net tax capacity for the entire levy, such as $38 million dollars, the impact would be more noticeable because the property values would be higher without the market value exclusion applied. Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special EDA meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Page 6 Commissioner Dumalag stated she appreciated the work staff did to show the difference between the impact in real dollars of creating the EDA levy or including that amount in the general fund levy. She added the creation of the EDA levy was discussed by council and it is known that staff salaries are included, but it is specifically for an initiative that the council has determined to be very important. She stated she will support the EDA levy. Commissioner Spano stated he will also support the proposed EDA levy because the impacts are minimal to the more moderately valued homes in the community. He appreciated Commissioner Kraft’s commitment on the issue but will not support his proposal at this time. He added certainly the council will be discussing this again in future years, but he does not want to short a fund by $170,000 recognizing that would not have been Commissioner Kraft’s first choice either. He stated his experience has been that folks are not so worried about the percentage and are more concerned about the real dollar amount. He added the dollar amounts can fluctuate quickly depending on an individual’s property value. He noted in his conversations only two people have objected to the EDA levy, because of what the money was going to be spent on. He stated he is less concerned about the percentage than about the dollar and is fine with the way staff has structured this, and it feels very transparent to him. Commissioner Kraft stated his proposal is not to bury this in the general fund and would suggest this be called out very clearly similar to the way other funds in the general levy are highlighted. He noted he wants to echo President Brausen’s comments and is in full agreement regarding the crisis we all face and the importance of it, especially leaving a world for their kids and grandkids that is at least as good as the one that was given to them. He supports the funding but disagrees with the way it is being done and feels it is unnecessary and overly complex. Vice President Rog stated as much as she does not want to overcomplicate things, she cannot deny the logic Commissioner Kraft presented. She stated she is not supportive of a new levy but is fully supportive of investing in climate initiatives. She is in favor of being as transparent as possible and adding a new levy does not align with that goal. She stated she supports these investments but will vote against the EDA levy. It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to recommend adoption of the 2022 EDA levy by the city council. The motion passed 5-2 (Commissioners Rog and Kraft opposed). 8. Communications – none. Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special EDA meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Page 7 9. Adjournment The special meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Tim Brausen, president Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Special EDA meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Minutes: 4b Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Jan. 3, 2022 1.Call to order President Brausen called the meeting to order at 7:43 p.m. 2.Roll call Commissioners present: President Brausen, Sue Budd, Lynette Dumalag, Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, Margaret Rog, and Jake Spano Commissioners absent: none Staff present: Interim Deputy City Manager/Park and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), EDA Executive Director/Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Planning Manager (Mr. Walther), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith) 3.Approval of minutes - none 4.Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar 4a. Approval of EDA disbursements It was moved by Commissioner Kraft, seconded by Commissioner Dumalag, to approve the EDA disbursements as presented for the period of Nov. 27 – Dec. 23, 2021. The motion passed 7-0. 5.Reports - none 6.Old business - none 7.New business 7a. Electing 2022 Economic Development Authority officers It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Dumalag, to elect Commissioner Rog as President, Commissioner Mohamed as Vice-President, and Commissioner Kraft as Treasurer to the Economic Development Authority for the 2022 term. The motion passed 7-0. Page 2 Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4b) Title: EDA meeting minutes of January 3, 2022 Commissioner Rog assumed the role of president and presided over the remainder of the EDA meeting. 7b. Sub-Grantee Agreement between the EDA and CommonBond for Rise on 7. EDA Resolution No 22-01 Ms. Grove presented the report. Commissioner Spano confirmed there is no financial obligations for the EDA with this agreement. Ms. Grove stated that is correct and the EDA serves only as a pass thru. Commissioner Budd expressed her excitement about this project and the daycare included within it, adding she is supportive. It was moved by Commissioner Mohamed, seconded by Commissioner Kraft, to adopt EDA Resolution No. 22-01 approving a Sub-Grantee Agreement between the EDA and CommonBond. The motion passed 7-0. 8.Communications Commissioner Brausen stated, on behalf of the EDA, Happy New Year to all constituents. 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:53 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Margaret Rog, president Meeting: Economic development authority Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Minutes: 4c Unofficial minutes EDA meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Jan. 18, 2022 1.Call to order President Rog called the meeting to order at 6:20 p.m. 2.Roll call Commissioners present: President Rog, Tim Brausen, Sue Budd, Lynette Dumalag, Larry Kraft, Nadia Mohamed, and Jake Spano Commissioners absent: none Staff present: City Manager (Ms. Keller), City Attorney (Mr. Shepherd), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith) 3. Approval of agenda and items on EDA consent calendar 3a. Subordination of mortgage – Mary Jo Rochel loan It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Dumalag, to approve the EDA agenda and items on EDA consent calendar as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4.Approval of EDA minutes 4a. EDA meeting minutes of Dec. 6, 2021 It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Mohamed, to approve the EDA minutes of Dec. 6, 2021. The motion passed 7-0. 5.Reports - none 6.Old business - none 7.New business - none 8. Communications - none 9. Adjournment Page 2 Economic development authority meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4c) Title: EDA meeting minutes of January 18, 2022 The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, secretary Margaret Rog, president Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Presentation: 2 a Executive summary Title: Recognition of donations Recommended action: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the following donation being accepted at the meeting and listed on the consent agenda: From Donation For Lucille Tellett $300 Fire department for fire prevention programs and equipment Minnesota American Water Works Association Up to $1,500 Lead Plant Operator Austin Holm to attend and compete in the 2022 Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE) training in San Antonio, Texas Lunds & Byerlys $300 Police reserve program Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, administrative services office assistant Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Minutes: 3a Unofficial minutes City council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 6, 2021 1. Call to order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 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), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), CFO (Ms. Schmitt), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Solid Waste Manager (Ms. Fisher), Solid Waste Specialist (Ms. Stelzner). 2. Presentations - none 3. Approval of minutes 3a. City council meeting minutes of Nov. 1, 2021 It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve the Nov. 1, 2021, city council meeting minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 3b. Special study session minutes of Nov. 1, 2021 Councilmember Kraft noted on page 2 it should read, “…in our parks and outdoor patios and restaurants, but it appears the city does not have the right levers to enforce it.” It was moved by Councilmember Mohamed, seconded by Councilmember Kraft, to approve the Nov. 1, 2021, special study session minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar 4a. Accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Oct. 23 through Nov. 26, 2021. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 4b. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2637-21 amending Section 36 pertaining to parking requirements and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication. 4c. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2638-21 establishing fees for 2022 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. 4d. Approve second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2639-21 amending St. Louis Park City Code Chapter 3 related to prohibited conditions for liquor licenses and summary ordinance for publication. 4e. Adopt resolution authorizing the award of the 2022 arts and culture grants. (This item was removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8b) 4f. Adopt resolution providing preliminary approval for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the 3801 Wooddale Avenue South housing project. (This item was removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8d) 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 21-142 providing preliminary approval for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the 8115 State Highway No. 7 housing project. 4h. Approve release of agreement pertaining to the property at 3440 Beltline Boulevard (Document No. 1716134). 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 21-143 approving amended and restated TIF Policy. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 21-144 authorizing the mayor and city manager to execute the West Metro Home Remodeling Fair Joint Powers Agreement. 4k. Adopt Resolution No. 21-145 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3253 Webster Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN.P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0021. 4l. Adopt resolution rescinding Resolution Nos. 3050 and 5979; and adopt Resolution approving the conditional use permit for 6639 Wayzata Boulevard. (This item was removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8f) 4m. Adopt Resolution No. 21-146 accepting the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Funds established under the American Rescue Plan Act. 4n. Authorize a comment letter to be submitted to the Public Utilities Commission regarding the proposed Tariffed On-Bill financing pilot program. (This item was removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8c) 4o. Adopt Resolution No. 21-147 authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions in front of 1457 Idaho Avenue. 4p. Adopt Resolution No. 21-148 authorizing installation of permit parking restrictions in front of 3053 Florida Avenue. 4q. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Oct. 6, 2021. 4r. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Nov. 3, 2021. (This item was removed from the consent calendar and considered as regular agenda as item 8e) It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to approve the agenda and items listed on the consent calendar as amended to move consent calendar item 4 e, n, f, r, l to the regular agenda as item 8 b, c, d, e, f respectively; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and commissions 5a. Reappoint representative to Fire Civil Service Commission It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to reappoint Stuart Williams to the Fire Civil Service Commission for a 3-year term, expiring on Dec. 31, 2024. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Public hearings 6a. Modifications to housing revenue bonds (PLACE Via Sol development), series 2018 (green bonds). Resolution No. 21-149 Mr. Hunt presented the staff report. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. Kimberly Anderson, 3248 Yosemite Ave. S., stated they just heard the EDA conversation on this issue and thanked Mayor Spano for being the only one to have the courage to oppose this project. Kimberly has followed this project with optimism and skepticism, is astounded by the lack of transparency on finances and bondholders, is very disappointed, and will continue to watch this, hoping everyone will be wrong. Chris Valesco stated he works for the PLACE project. He noted this project will be exceptional when completed and thanked the EDA for approving this. He stated financing will be approved for this so the project can be completed. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Kraft stated he is rooting for the project to be successful. He will support this and the way he looks at it, this provides the best chance to complete the project. Councilmember Brausen noted the 2018 bondholders agree to these modifications and will be subordinating their debt and they will have more risk than the city in doing so. Councilmember Rog stated she is also disappointed the project has not yet been completed, but with the advice of the bond attorney and stating this is necessary for the project to be completed, she will support this action. Councilmember Dumalag stated she will also support this, adding the priority is to complete the project. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 Councilmember Harris stated while there were risks with this project, it has been exciting to pursue, adding it will be a tremendous advantage to the community with live/work features. She will support this and hopes it will be successful. Mayor Spano stated he will not support this action but is still rooting for the project. He stated being asked to work around these financial issues of the project has been difficult and he is concerned about the capacity of the development team. He noted the council has looked at the same information but come to different conclusions and he thanked staff for their work on this. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to adopt Resolution No. 21-149 approving the modifications to the housing revenue bonds, (PLACE Via Sol development), series 2018 (green bonds). The motion passed 6-1 (Mayor Spano opposed). 6b. 2022 proposed budget, tax levies and truth in taxation public hearing Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. Dave Larson, 4210 Yosemite Ave., stated he got his tax statement and noted when he first purchased his home in 1992, his taxes were $1,250 per year and $100 per quarter on sewer and water. This year, his proposed tax is over $7,667 with another $500 per month on sewer and water. He added he also had an 11% increase in home value and on top of this, there is the 6.5% levy so his taxes are going up 19% this year. He stated he understands some of the base was lost in commercial property; however, he cannot stomach this increase. He does not want to argue about the value of home but noted they must find the $2 million from somewhere else, and not just through the levy. He feels there is an insatiable want of money from government, adding the important thing is police, fire, and water, and this is too much. Eric Judge, 2824 Xenwood Ave., stated he has lived in St. Louis Park for 18 years and as far as he can remember, there has never not been a tax increase. He stated this is an unsustainable trajectory and he does not understand how the city can continue to raise taxes 5-6% each year. He stated we are trying to keep St. Louis Park affordable, noting the city is spending 14% to service city debt. He asked how taxpayers know if they are getting bang for their buck. He also asked if bicycle lanes are being used, about the 20- mph speed limit, and how does the city know if the money being spent on these programs is making these programs work. He stated the city is spending money, but how can we be sure it is coming back to residents. He stated before the council approves this, he wants them to think about return on investment. Kevin Mattson, 4860 Park Commons Drive, stated he has lived in the city for 3 years and owns a condominium. He stated they look forward to living here for the rest of their City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 lives and he appreciates the investment the council is making. He stated he is a taxpayer, and no one likes to pay taxes, but he appreciates the discussion. Stan Jurgenson, 2309 Westridge Ln., stated he appreciated the help he received from staff. He stated the 2021 budget included funds in case there is no assistance for COVID from federal or county, but he understands $6.5 million was received in 2021. He stated he is not sure how much of these funds went out. He stated social security has a cost-of- living increase, but not private pensions so many residents are cost burdened, and many must make tough decisions. He stated he appreciates the council’s work on this. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Rog clarified the council is discussing a 5.58% increase at this time. Councilmember Kraft asked about the differences between a market value levy versus a tax capacity levy, noting the EDA and HRA are market value levies. Ms. Schmitt stated the market value levy takes the total market value of the property and applies the tax rate. The tax capacity levy takes the market value and pulls it down to a tax capacity rate and then applies it. Ultimately, the difference is how they are calculated by the county. Councilmember Kraft asked if the formula is applied equally across all property classifications. Ms. Schmitt stated it is not. Councilmember Kraft asked which classifications are better off in a market value levy and which are better in a tax capacity levy. Ms. Schmitt stated the legislature created the tax capacity levy to benefit lower value homes. As home values increase, the homestead exemption decreases. Councilmember Kraft stated the tax capacity levy is more progressive and less burdensome on lower value homes. He explained this means the decision to have an EDA levy instead of putting this in the general levy further impacts lower valued homes. If the same amount was in the general levy versus the EDA levy, it would be more progressive. Ms. Schmitt clarified that market value is taxed evenly across the board. He pointed out the 5.58% tax levy is the general levy, but the actual increase in the amount of levy being collected from people is not 5.58%, it is 6.9%. The council is choosing to put $500,000 in an EDA levy and not including it in the general levy. Mayor Spano stated the council is not deciding on the final levy tonight and will have the opportunity to discuss this further at the next meeting. The purpose of the item on the agenda was to conduct a public hearing and take public comment on the proposed levy before a final decision is made. He stated if Councilmember Kraft had a question of fact or point of clarification for staff, that is ok, but a question of policy is different and not what council was prepared to discuss tonight, noting council has been discussing the budget and the specific concerns around the EDA levy for months. Councilmember Kraft stated he would like to make a request of staff for the next meeting and propose that another alternative be evaluated. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 Mayor Spano stated that seemed inappropriate given that there would not be another opportunity before the final vote for the council to discuss at a study session and dig deeper into the details of the new alternative. Councilmember Kraft stated the council was just given new information that the levies are calculated differently and where they choose to put the funds has an impact. If council chooses to put those funds into the general levy instead of the EDA levy it will fall less hard on lower value homes. Councilmember Kraft made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to ask staff to develop an alternative 2022 budget without an EDA levy and to absorb those funds into the general levy, to the extent possible, consistent with city values. Councilmember Mohamed stated the information discussed tonight about how the different levies are calculated was also new to her and knowing this, she would have thought differently about the EDA levy. While taxes are necessary, if we are asking our lowest-income residents to pay, that is an equity issue. She would like to see the additional information from staff so she fully understands the impact of the levy and can explain it to anyone who asks her about it. She noted she does not want to tax people in a way that results in low-income or fixed income communities being disproportionately impacted. Ultimately, she wants to have all the information to be able to make the best decision possible. Councilmember Harris also noted the HRA levy, which also does not appear to be taxed as progressively. Councilmember Kraft agreed and stated because the HRA levy has been in place for years, he felt that at this time it was best to focus on the new levy being proposed, the EDA levy. He noted he would be open to looking at the HRA levy as well in the future. He clarified he was only asking for the opportunity to see what it would look like if the EDA levy was not established and instead those funds were put into the general levy, to the extent possible. Councilmember Rog stated while she supports the expenditures that are recommended to be a part of the EDA levy, she still does not support the creation of a new levy. She explained she would like to see the expenditures currently included in the EDA levy be folded into the general levy. Ms. Keller stated she appreciated that there was some additional clarity in how the information was presented today. She noted this is the reason why Ms. Schmitt has been saying that this is the reason why we can’t just add everything together into one number, because of the different valuation practices behind it. She clarified that from staff’s perspective the information presented tonight is not new information, it perhaps was clearer about why there are differences. She asked Ms. Schmitt to clarify what could be included if the EDA levy was wrapped into the general fund levy with a maximum increase of 6.5%. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 Ms. Schmitt stated if the EDA levy were eliminated, they would be able to absorb an additional $330,000 in the general fund levy to keep it at the 6.5% maximum increase that was set. Councilmember Brausen stated he understood all along how the EDA and HRA levies were calculated and applied based on market value capacity. He added the information presented tonight was not new information to him and noted this was how it was presented in staff reports throughout the budget process as well. He stated development of the alternative budget will require staff to jump through many hoops to figure out how to redistribute the funds and stay within the maximum levy target. He added when spread out across the billions of dollars of property value in the city, the burden of the EDA levy would result in minimal impacts, so he will not support this motion. Councilmember Dumalag stated she was not aware of this difference either and appreciated the clarification from staff. She noted she would like to see the alternative options so she can better understand the impacts of the levy. Councilmember Harris stated the policy itself and how it is explained to the taxpayers may warrant further conversation; however, given the scope of the conversation, it does not feel like the council would be able to give it the attention and time it deserves within the next 7 days. She reiterated that she would like to discuss in the future in terms of the council’s governance policies overall. Councilmember Kraft stated he appreciated the additional clarity from staff and found it to be very helpful. Mayor Spano asked what percentage of the budget was represented by the funds in the proposed EDA levy. Ms. Schmitt stated she can run the calculations for council, but she does know it is 1% or less. The maximum EDA levy allowed this year is $1.48 million, a little bit less than the HRA. If staff was going to look at it, they would want to compare the difference between tax capacity and market value at $1.4 million to be able to see more than roughly a one-dollar difference. Mayor Spano questioned if a substantially different budget proposal was brought forward, would the city have to do anything else from a legal standpoint given that the truth in taxation hearing had already been conducted. Mr. Mattick stated the maximum tax levy set in September cannot go up. Mayor Spano stated he does not take issue with discussing the question, he takes issue with the way it is being proposed. He will not support this as he does not feel it is fair to people or to council to try to push through a substantive shift in the way we fund our work at this point in the process. Councilmember Rog stated while she does agree with the proposal in principle, she will not support this motion given the burden on staff and the likelihood that this isn’t going City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 8 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 to go forward at this time. She noted she does look forward to future discussions about the EDA and HRA levies and looking at how they are funded. The motion failed 3-4 (Brausen, Harris, Rog, and Spano, opposed). 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none. 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions, and discussion items 8a. 2022 zero waste packaging acceptable materials and exemptions list administrative rules report Ms. Fisher presented the report. Councilmember Brausen asked if any substitutes have been found for coffee cup lids. Ms. Fisher stated yes, there are certified compostable lids available now. Councilmember Kraft stated he is supportive of the changes and asked if there has been compliance with the policies. Ms. Fisher stated the last couple of years have been difficult in dealing with businesses, due to the difficult circumstances of the pandemic. She stated generally there has been compliance, but there is always room for improvement. She added there is ongoing work to educate on this topic. Councilmember Rog asked how the city engages in the disposal end, with compost and recycling, and if there will be more signage on this. Ms. Fisher stated this is a challenge, and while staff has not done any studies on signage, they do work one on one with businesses and help them get the right services. She added certainly composting and recycling are available and affected businesses should be contracting with them for recycling and organics collection. Councilmember Rog stated work on these ordinances will benefit everything the city is working on regarding this. Councilmember Brausen stated this has been in effect 4 years. He noted he is ecstatic with the results he has seen in St. Louis Park and thanked staff and the council for work done on this. Mayor Spano added this has been a priority in the city and he noted positive county results were due to changes made in St. Louis Park, adding he is in support of the proposals related to zero waste packaging. He asked if the exemption list had changed over time. Ms. Fisher stated in addition to the two exemptions recommended to be removed for 2022, one other exemption has been removed in previous years. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve the zero waste packaging acceptable materials and exemptions list and administrative rules for 2022. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 9 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 The motion passed 7-0. 8b. Authorize the award of the 2022 arts and culture grants. Resolution No. 21-150 Councilmember Kraft said a small amount of money is spent here and he loves the items presented, including a pop-up pick-up truck opera, a community story telling forum, the Minnesota Thai cultural council, Semilla Center winter solstice lantern walk, and a fall sound garden park. He appreciates the creativity and confirmation of the city’s values with these projects. Councilmember Brausen noted the lantern walk is for mental health initiatives and is a good cause to support. It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Brausen to adopt Resolution No. 21-150 authorizing the award of the 2022 arts and culture grants. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Authorize a comment letter to be submitted to the public utilities commission regarding the proposed tariffed on-bill financing pilot program Councilmember Kraft noted this letter to the public utilities commission (PUC). He stated this is the city investing time and influence to get a pilot program put in place by the utility, to create cost savings, make homes healthier, and meet the city’s climate goals. It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to authorize a comment letter to be submitted to the PUC regarding proposed tariffed on- bill financing pilot program. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Provide preliminary approval for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the 3801 Wooddale Avenue South housing project. Resolution No. 21-151 Councilmember Dumalag noted this has not reached city approval, but all the applications are due next month. She asked about the status of the project. Ms. Barton stated the developer has not submitted the application yet but has established an escrow to perform a traffic study, which will be available to council in a few weeks. It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 21-151 providing preliminary approval for the issuance of multifamily housing revenue bonds to finance the 3801 Wooddale Ave. S. housing project. The motion passed 7-0. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 10 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 8e. Approve for filing planning commission minutes of Nov. 3, 2021 Councilmember Dumalag stated the minutes should read “Commissioner Kraft” and not “Councilmember Kraft.” It was moved by Councilmember Dumalag, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the amended planning commission minutes of Nov. 3, 2021 for filing. The motion passed 7-0. 8f. Rescind Resolution Nos. 3050 and 5979; and adopt Resolution approving the conditional use permit for 6639 Wayzata Blvd. Resolution No. 21-152 and Resolution No. 21-153 Councilmember Brausen stated this is the Morries Hyundai dealership, adding he is excited to see they are moving to all LED light on the car lot and dimming them later in the evening. He added there is no requirement under a CUP for solar installation, and he would like to consider in the future that commercial partners be looked for to do solar farm installation. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to adopt Resolution No. 21-152 to rescind Resolution Nos. 3050 and 5979 and adopt Resolution No. 21-153 approving the conditional use permit for 6639 Wayzata Blvd. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Ms. Keller stated the police department is accepting donations for Toys for Tots. Donations can be dropped off in the lobby of the police department by Dec. 15, 2021. She added the vaccine program is at 77% with a goal of 80%. Ms. Keller also noted all council business for the year will be wrapped up on Dec. 13, 2021, and the meetings for Dec. 20 and 27, 2021, will be canceled. Councilmember Rog noted the Be the Light winter solstice walk, which has the theme of mental health, will be held on Dec. 21, 2021, 6:30 – 8 p.m. and preregistration on the city website for the free event. She added the Holiday Train is online again this year, on Saturday, Dec. 18, 2021, and donations to STEP are encouraged. Councilmember Brausen stated the Exchange Medical Arts building had its grand opening this week with new office space in the community. Mayor Spano wished a happy last day of Hanukkah to those celebrating. He thanked Councilmember Mohamed for representing him at a ribbon cutting for the Loffler grand opening. Mayor Spano added he was at the tree lighting at the West End and thanked Councilmember Rog for her idea related to acknowledging folks for their acts of kindness. He stated Maggie City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3a) Page 11 Title: City council meeting minutes of December 6, 2021 Myers and Tammy McKanna are at all city events, and they are at community, arts, and all types of events. He thanked them for being such great ambassadors for the city. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Minutes: 3b Unofficial minutes Special city council meeting St. Louis Park, Minnesota Dec. 13, 2021 1. Call to order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 6:50 p.m. 1a. Pledge of allegiance 1b. Roll call 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), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Interim Deputy City Manager/Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), CFO (Ms. Schmitt), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Communications Manager (Ms. Smith) Guests: 2. Presentations – none. 3. Approval of minutes 3a. Special city council meeting minutes of Nov. 8, 2021 Councilmember Brausen stated there was no public hearing at this meeting, and he wants to strike the detailed comments of a caller and amend the comments to “Mr. Warner called in to share comments about the election.” Mayor Spano stated he did not think there was any issue with the minutes here and did not think this comment should be excluded, even though it was not a public hearing. Councilmember Rog agreed with Mayor Spano’s comments. Councilmember Kraft asked if there was a policy on this type of item. Mr. Mattick stated no, the council can take public comment on any item that is on the agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to amend the minutes as noted above. The motion failed 2-5 (Mayor Spano, Councilmembers Kraft, Dumalag, Rog, Mohamed opposed). City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Councilmember Harris noted councilmember-elect Sue Budd’s name should be changed to Sue versus Susan. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve the Nov. 8, 2021, special city council meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 3b. Study session minutes of Nov.8, 2021 Councilmember Kraft stated on page 2 it should read, “…related to race and traffic stops…to our climate investment fund like we are requesting for our housing investment fund.” He stated the 3rd sentence should be removed. Councilmember Kraft noted on page 3 it should read, “…aim to make it much easier to for residents to understand and look to summarize this show how much we are investing the total amount of tax dollars being captured, how much goes to the city and where are dollars going and also what TIF gets the city, noting…” Councilmember Kraft noted also on page 3 it should read, “…but the report does likely overstate the impact of it as the valuation increase does not consider inflation nor does it consider if another development would happen.” It was moved by Councilmember Rog, seconded by Councilmember Mohamed, to approve the Nov. 8, 2021, study session minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 3c. City council meeting minutes of Nov. 15, 2021 Councilmember Rog noted on page 8, it should read, “She stated that while she trusts the superintendent, she wants to be sure the student voice is being heard on this.” Councilmember Kraft noted on page 4, it should read, “…supportive of the utility fees…the stormwater fees will be higher.” It was moved by Councilmember Kraft, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to approve the Nov. 15, 2021, meeting minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 3d. Special study session minutes of Nov. 15, 2021 Councilmember Rog noted on page 1, it should read, “…the Bronx Park Neighborhood.” City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to approve the Nov. 15, 2021, special study session minutes as amended. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of agenda and items on consent calendar 4a. Approve the 2022 neighborhood grants. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 21-154 designating polling places for the 2022 election cycle. 4c. Adopt resolution approving the memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the State of Minnesota and local governments and authorizing participation in national opioid settlements. (This item was removed from the consent agenda and considered as regular agenda item 8d.) Councilmember Mohamed requested that consent calendar item 4c be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda to 8d. 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 4c to the regular agenda as item 8d; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and commissions – none. 6. Public hearings – none. 7. Requests, petitions, and communications from the public – none. 8. Resolutions, ordinances, motions, and discussion items 8a. 2022 budget, final city, HRA and EDA property tax levies, and 2022-2031 capital improvement plan (CIP). Resolution No. 21-155, Resolution No. 21-156, Resolution No. 21-157, and Resolution No. 21-158 Ms. Schmitt presented the staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to adopt Resolution No. 21-157, authorizing the 2022 final EDA levy. Councilmember Kraft stated if this item has been considered after the other proposed budget actions, he would not have been able to vote against it because it could have potentially resulted in not having the Climate Investment Fund, which was not rational. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Mayor Spano stated he wants the public to know that the council has been working on and discussing the budget for most of the year. He added the council takes this decision very seriously and have had many conversations to get to this point. The motion passed 5-2 (Kraft and Rog opposed). It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Dumalag, to adopt Resolution No. 21-155, approving 2022 budgets and authorizing 2022 final property tax levy, Resolution No. 21-156 authorizing the 2022 final HRA levy, and Resolution No. 21-158 approving the 2022-2031 capital improvement plan as presented. Councilmember Brausen noted that during his eight years on council he has always stated that the adoption of the tax levies to pay for the budget is the single most important thing the group does as city council. He stated the council takes this responsibility very seriously and has worked on this since April 2021, and staff since before that. He also noted there have been multiple study sessions held discussing these issues at great length, as well as at a public meeting. He stated a former councilmember had stated, “a city’s budget reflects its values,” and he agrees with this statement. He added the budget adopted will continue to help fund essential city services, and the drink, drive, and flush services all have come to expect. He stated by paying staff commensurate with their value including a general 3% pay increase, this level of service is being maintained. Councilmember Brausen noted the general fund levy mostly pays for the 270 city employees and municipal services, public safety and fire protection, seasonal workers, equipment, supplies, vehicles, and machinery, as well as the city’s facilities, 56 parks, the Westwood Hills Nature Center, Rec and Aquatic Center and the ROC, as well as transportation and utility infrastructure. He stated the EDA and HRA levies allow the city to address climate crisis and creating and maintaining affordable housing in St. Louis Park. He stated he is confident the city and staff are working hard to deliver a fair return on residents’ tax dollars, and city staff does an incredible job. Councilmember Brausen stated no one likes tax increases, adding he relies on 2 part- time jobs and is a senior who notices his property tax increases as well, at 32.6%. He explained this is more a function of market value, noting buyers are willing to pay a premium to live in this desirable area. He stated in some ways the city is a victim of its own success. He added he was happy to learn about the assistance programs in Ms. Schmitt’s presentation. He and his wife continue to live in St. Louis Park because it is a great city to live in. It has a good economy, good schools, a good and improving transportation system, nice public amenities and good neighbors who continue to be willing to invest in their city in the form of property taxes to pay for services and programs they view as essential to a good quality of life. He stated he will support budget and levies as proposed. Councilmember Mohamed stated she has heard and received input from residents and their concerns about tax increases. She agreed this is the most important decision the council makes; they discuss it in depth all year and do not take it lightly. She noted last week she had some hesitation related to the EDA levy but is comfortable now and will support the levies and budget for all the reasons noted by Councilmember Brausen. She City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 added that St. Louis Park is a great city that offers many very ambitious services and programs. She stated as next year comes, she will continue to be mindful of allocations and if anyone finds these taxes to be a burden, please contact the council or staff to ask for information on assistance programs or resources. Councilmember Kraft thanked Councilmember Brausen for his comments, adding he will support these three levies and capital improvement plan. He noted most of this goes to fund staff and with COVID, staff continues to do an excellent job under trying circumstances. He stated there are many examples, including one most recently when streets were cleared in the middle of the night after a snowstorm. Councilmember Kraft stated he previously thought the baseline for budget growth should be the rate of inflation, plus population and business growth in the city which he thought was in the 3-4% range this year. He noted without the increase in levy for debt, that is about where they landed because the debt accounts for approximately 2.25% of the increase and relative to the debt increase, these are for projects that he supported so he also needs to support this level of spending. He added he heard the people who spoke last week with concerns about their tax levels, but added council knew from the beginning because of home valuations that taxes would be going up percentagewise for properties at the low end of the range. He stated there is a good chance that this trend will continue next year, so it behooves the city in 2022 to look closely at underlying assumptions going forward. He added this reinforces the need to increase the council’s attention on affordable home ownership in St. Louis Park and what kinds of things can be done policy-wise to encourage more availability of homes to keep prices from going up as much as they are. Councilmember Rog stated she will support the proposed levies and capital improvement plan as well. She stated the budget includes many items that will improve services and programs in the community including a new climbing wall at Wolfe Park, new rubber mats for skaters at the Rec Center, exercise equipment upgrades for first responders, significant software investments at city hall for improving efficiencies, new dispatch supervisor for police and fire, increased mental health professional services, new sustainability specialist to facilitate the incentives programs to save residents and businesses money, raises for high performing staff, infrastructure improvements to keep roads and trails safe and in good condition, and debt service for projects that she has supported. She noted she has heard from residents who feel city spending is out of control and from residents who love everything the city is doing and are happy to pay for it. She heard from those who worry about being priced out of their home and referenced the assistance programs that are available. She heard from folks who want a good return on investment, listened to and read every comment from residents, and reviewed the materials to make the best decisions. She stated her individual position if she opposed this, would not make a difference as there is majority support for this increase and there has been majority support for increases each year she has been on council. She stated voting against past proposed levies did not change anything and only sent an unintended message that she does not support the great work being done in the city or staff’s efforts to respond effectively to council direction, which she does support. Going forward she is committed to working toward more precision budgeting in the City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 future and with new city leadership there is interest in and support for doing that. She explained every year she does what she can to understand where tax dollars are going and how it benefits residents in order to make the most informed decision possible. In the past two years, and this year, she has not voted against the proposed levy increases in part because she has sought out and been provided with information that helps her understand how the budget reflects the city’s strategic priorities and how difficult it is to find areas where cuts could be made and still meet resident expectations. She stated this year’s increase is in large part due to the Dakota-Edgewood bridge, a long planned and much wanted connecting point across the city, which she supported. She added this budget is complex and has many interconnected parts. She stated under the new city manager she looks forward to a more outcomes-based budgeting approach and evaluating and communicating the return on investment of tax dollars spent. She noted like Councilmember Kraft she does not believe the current rate of increase year after year is desirable or sustainable and she is committed to working with council and staff to develop a more precise approach to taxing and spending in the coming years. Councilmember Dumalag stated she will also support the budget and levies presented this evening and thanked staff for their work on this over the past year. She stated these investments are worthwhile and noted the budget reflects the priorities of the city. She added when she was campaigning, she spoke with residents who appreciate the services and amenities of the city, but others did worry about being priced out of their homes. She is happy to see there are assistance programs available for some folks to help pay their taxes, and the council should be mindful of this, especially when the city has made it a priority to offer programs that facilitate entry into homeownership and wealth creation, and she would not want to leave a segment of neighbors behind. Councilmember Harris thanked staff for their work over the months on a budget that absolutely demonstrates shared commitments and priorities. She had advocated for a 4.5% levy increase versus the 5.58% and acknowledged it is difficult to articulate where specifically the budget should be cut given the service level expected in the community. She stated there has been an uptick in the need for public safety services, and the inclusion of the new dispatch supervisor position will help maintain the high level of public safety services provided in the city. She noted she has also heard from many residents how much they appreciate the high level of day-to-day operational services provided by the city and the quality-of-life indicators the city supports and facilitates. She explained for all these reasons and more she is in support of the proposed budget and levies as she believes they reflect the city’s strategic priorities and maintaining service levels. Mayor Spano stated he will also support this budget and levies as presented. He highlighted the work of the staff members who all do a fine job of trying to deliver the services that residents have come to expect. He agreed with Councilmember Brausen’s comments and added the city’s infrastructure must be upgraded to maintain basic core services and the people who work on and implement those services. He noted one of the main things the proposed increase will do is moderate future increases. A lower levy now would require double digit increases in subsequent years to maintain current service levels and programs. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 7 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 Councilmember Mohamed commented on the issue of equity and the way the council talks about it as a group. She stated in the last couple of years, there has been a practice of weaponizing equity among the council. She noted she is happy the council talks about equity and is willing to evaluate their decisions through that lens, but at times there have been claims of inequity that were not backed by data or a lived experience and it scares people. She explained every time she makes a decision, she fears that it will negatively affect people who look like her and she puts this responsibility on herself willingly. She stated as elected officials the council needs to be careful about what is said, especially when talking about equity, because it affects real people. Equity is not a buzz word. She hopes the council will reflect on this and consider new ways to discuss equity and apply that lens to decisions going forward. She stated it is everyone’s right to look at things in an equitable manner, but added the council needs to be sure before they claim an issue of equity that they have data or lived experience to back those claims. She stated people of color are not the council’s weapons or shields, and the council should not be weaponizing equity, because it is too important of an issue. She understands with the murder of George Floyd, the council has wanted to look at equity in a new way, talk about it, and they all want to make sure they are doing it right, but weaponizing it is not the way. She recognized this is a new journey for the council, including herself, and everyone is learning but she wanted to bring it to council’s attention that this is something she has noticed at times in council discussions. Councilmember Dumalag thanked Councilmember Mohamed for her comments. She stated when the council is making decisions and using phrases such as “we have to make sure this is equitable” or “we have to make sure that our BIPOC residents aren’t left behind”, such as when there was a pause at the last meeting with respect to a budget decision, it felt like an instance where the two people of color on the council were used to support the effort to change course or take a pause. She encouraged the council to be mindful of bringing up topics like that because it does impact how people make policy decisions. The motion passed 7-0. 8b. 2022 non-union employee compensation. Resolution No. 21-159 Ms. Timpone presented the staff report. Councilmember Brausen clarified the pay increase is dependent upon supervisor recommendation and asked if exemplary employees may get double that increase, if they are moving up in their pay grade towards the maximum, and unsatisfactory performance will get no increase. Ms. Timpone stated that is correct. Councilmember Mohamed stated she is supportive of this increase and is happy the city is staying competitive in the market, especially considering the high level of resignations across the country. Councilmember Rog thanked staff for their work. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 8 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Rog, to adopt Resolution No. 21-159 confirming a 3% general increase for non-union employees effective Jan. 1, 2022. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Recognition of Councilmember Rachel Harris On behalf of the city council and city manager, Mayor Spano recognized Rachel Harris for her years of service as a Councilmember of Ward 3 for St. Louis Park from Jan. 2, 2018 to Jan. 3, 2022. Mayor Spano stated Councilmember Harris is one of the most pleasant and earnest people he has served with, adding she listens and is an incredibly compassionate person who cares for others, and in this world, we need more of that. He stated the council values and appreciates her and her work and the people of Ward 3 were in great hands for four years. Councilmember Mohamed said Councilmember Harris was her representative for a while and the first person she met when she was getting active in the community. She stated it has been an honor to work beside Councilmember Harris, who is a caring person. She added the Ward 3 residents have appreciated Councilmember Harris’ work and will miss her. Councilmember Dumalag said she remembered volunteering on Councilmember Harris’ campaign and participating with her on Vision 3.0. She stated she has known Councilmember Harris personally and as a colleague and is impressed by her leadership and service. Councilmember Kraft stated Councilmember Harris encouraged him while on the ESC and gave valuable advice when he decided to run for city council. He added he admires that Councilmember Harris is relentlessly positive, noting it is a real talent, and she takes care to highlight the good work that comes before council. He stated Councilmember Harris’ steadfast support of the real West End is admirable, especially as TexaTonka continues to revitalize, adding it is something Councilmember Harris should have great pride in. Councilmember Kraft wished Councilmember Harris the best and stated he will miss her and looks forward to her joining the future Transportation Commission. Councilmember Rog added she admires Councilmember Harris’ compassion and caring attitude towards her colleagues, staff, and residents, adding she is deeply thoughtful, responsive, and engaged. She noted Councilmember Harris has accomplished much in the last 4 years, especially the revitalization of TexaTonka, and many will miss her. She wished Councilmember Harris all the best. Councilmember Brausen stated he is disappointed and personally sad as he will miss working with Councilmember Harris. He found her combination of compassion, passion City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 9 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 and intelligence to be a gift to the council and the city. He added Councilmember Harris brought a systems approach, is a strategic thinker, and looks at the details in depth. He stated Councilmember Harris cares deeply about the transportation system and helped improve it with pedestrian and biking systems. He noted residents in Ward 3 and the rest of the city are much better off because of Councilmember Harris’ service and he thanked Councilmember Harris for her work. Ms. Keller stated in the short time they have worked together she has admired Councilmember Harris’ openness to new ways of thinking about the world, her collaboration and welcoming nature. She stated she and staff have benefitted from this and Councilmember Harris’ responsiveness to constituents and balancing their needs with staff needs has been appreciated. She added Councilmember Harris’ work on transportation, pedestrian, and bike-friendliness within the city, as well as advocacy on health, mental health and wellness, teamwork and how thoughtful Councilmember Harris is in researching decisions are all things that will be missed. She stated on behalf of herself and staff, they wish Councilmember Harris all the best. Councilmember Harris reflected on her time on council and areas she is proud of as well as some areas for change. She stated on the council she learned a lot about teamwork and during her campaign, she and her team walked through Ward 3 twice and together did 220,000 steps. She stated during her campaign time, it was the longest job interview she ever had. After coming on council, she worked on some tough projects and made tough decisions. Councilmember Harris stated she is very proud of the Westwood Hills Nature Center, where she had also worked during high school and college. She referenced her work on the TexaTonka retail area that had laid dormant for 30 years. She added the TexaTonka neighborhood association was developed, as well as the TexaTonka small area plan committee, which were both efforts to help engage the public on projects within the area. Councilmember Harris stated the Dakota-Edgewood Bridge was another area she worked on with colleagues from Wards 1 and 4. She also referenced the sidewalk poetry program, first generation homeownership, and the Just Deeds program. She appreciated Oak Park residents welcoming her in and to all staff, she is appreciative for ride-alongs with both police and fire. She stated in the future, she would like to see changes related to having additional staff support for city council, who can assist councilmembers in managing engagements and public appearances. She stated with a full-time job and now being married, she no longer has the bandwidth to give time to city council. She asked the council to look at having more support so people will be able to serve, which could also lead to further equitable representation on council as well. Councilmember Harris stated there has been a growing need for public health response and urged the council to explore a Health for All policy, for mental health, physical health and wellbeing, access to nature, mental health for staff, and transportation. She stated she owes a debt of gratitude to the councilmembers and staff, all the teams, and her husband Dan. She also thanked her parents for their help on the campaign and continued support of her ambitions and political interests, adding that being a councilmember does take a village. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 3b) Page 10 Title: Special city council meeting minutes of December 13, 2021 8d. Memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the State of Minnesota and local governments and authorizing participation in national opioid settlements. Resolution No. 21-160 Councilmember Mohamed stated she has some personal attachments to this topic, noting the epidemic does not have boundaries. She stated she has had mothers come to her about their child’s addiction and asking what they can do to address this. She stated the city’s response to this is amazing and noted the epidemic is affecting the BIPOC community disproportionately. She hopes the city continues to collaborate with other cities including Minneapolis. She looks forward to addressing this issue with community members, including the Somali, Black, and Native American communities. It was moved by Councilmember Mohamed, seconded by Councilmember Harris, to adopt Resolution No. 21-160 approving the MOA between the State of Minnesota and local governments and authorizing participation in national opioid settlements. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Ms. Keller encouraged everyone to sign up for snow emergency alerts at WWW.SLPsnow.org. Mayor Spano stated last week there was news about car jackings in the city. He noted the police are working diligently and offering rewards and collaborating with neighboring cities to try to solve this problem. He noted police and staff are also putting out many messages about how to avoid being a victim of crime and how to stay safe. He asked everyone to take all the precautions they can. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Jake Spano, mayor Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4a Executive summary Title: Approval of city disbursements Recommended action: Motion to accept for filing city disbursement claims for the period of Dec. 24, 2021 through Jan . 28, 2022. Policy consideration: Does the city council desire to approve city disbursements in accordance with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter? Summary: The Finance Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the city council to review and approve. The attached reports show both City disbursements paid by physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable. Financial or budget considerations: Review and approval of the information follows the city’s charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: City d isbursements Prepared by: Kari Mahan, accounting clerk Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt , chief f inancial officer Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 144.35 EARL F ANDERSEN INC INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 144.35 400.00 ROBERT BEALKE INDUSTRIES HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 79.004 FRONT ENERGY SOLUTIONS BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 79.00 584.20A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 197.98TREE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 782.18 32.85ABERNATHY SEAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 32.85 60.48ABERNATHY, LISA ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 60.48 2,615.66ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,615.66 225.00ACACIA ARCHITECTS LLC MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 97.86ACME TOOLS ROUTINE MAINTENANCE SMALL TOOLS 698.99PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS 796.85 937.50ACTIVE 911 INC FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 937.50 80.80ADDISON, CHRISTOPHER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 80.80 1,518.67ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,397.00WATER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,518.66SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,518.67STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,953.00 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 2 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 825.28ALADTEC INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES 825.28 579.00ALL CITY ELEVATOR INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 579.00 10,640.00ALL TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS, INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 10,640.00 3,952.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,952.00 660.00ALLIANT INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 660.00 2,636.17ALLSTREAMIT G & A TELEPHONE 2,636.17 2,520.24ALTEC INDUSTRIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,520.24 37.94AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 800.65FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 974.99FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 156.08POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 204.88POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES 36.21POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,299.99POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 233.70E-911 PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 28.91FIRE OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS 220.90FIRE OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 32.95CABLE TV G & A OTHER 492.48TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 74.99CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 5,594.67 244.65AMERICAN SOLUTIONS FOR BUSINESS POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 244.65 43.30AMHED ALI WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 43.30 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 3 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 151.00ANCOM COMMUNICATIONS POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 151.00 24.05ANDERSON MICHAEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 24.05 85.37ANDREWS SAM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 85.37 2,000.00APPARATUSFIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,000.00 627.90ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 627.90 112.78ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 112.78 91.80ASPEN MILLS FIRE OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS 2,354.69FIRE OPERATIONS UNIFORMS 2,446.49 350.00ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA COUNTIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 350.00 245.00AUTO ELECTRIC OF BLOOMINGTON INC GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 245.00 4,450.24AVI SYSTEMS INC CABLE TV G & A REPAIRS 4,450.24 546.00AXON ENTERPRISE, INC.POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 546.00 12.57BACON MATHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 12.57 1,790.00BADGER STATE INSPECTION LLC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET GENERAL 1,790.00 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 4 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 287.99BARBOTIKO MARGARITA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 287.99 390.00BARNA, GUZY & STEFFEN LTD HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 390.00 172.00BARNES CARE HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 172.00 282.50BARNUM COMPANIES, INC.FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 282.50 130.00BARTHOLOW RUTH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 130.00 22,105.00BASSETT CREEK WMC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 22,105.00 203.11BATTERIES + BULBS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.32PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 321.43 120.00BAYSINGER CARMEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 120.00 3,630.00BCD CONSULTING GROUP HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 3,630.00 61.04BCMD 1 TRUST WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 61.04 11.21BELL JOHANNA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 11.21 .02BELT LINE PROPERTIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS .02 206.68BERGGREN DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 206.68 200.00BERGSTROM, KATHLEEN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 5 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 200.00 425.00BERTOSSI JOHN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 425.00 280.00BETHEL ELECTRIC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 280.00 1,630.36BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,630.36 495.00BLACKFIRE CREATIVE POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 495.00 391.00BMIREC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES 391.00 2,185.33BOLTON & MENK INC SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,945.35STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 28,409.21WOODDALE REHAB PROJ (TIF) G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,965.74PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,938.70WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,882.45SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,348.72STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56,675.50 475.00BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 2021A GO DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 475.002019A GO DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 109.002018A GO DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 475.002010A/2019C HIA DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 100.002012A GO HIA DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 165.002017A GO DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 475.002016A GO DEBT SERV G&A FISCAL AGENT FEES 48.002010B/2017A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 394.002013A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 193.002017A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 304.002018A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 7.002010B/2017A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 46.002017A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 62.002018A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 16.002010B/2017A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 6 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 81.002013A UTIL REV BONDS FISCAL AGENT FEES 3,425.00 1,823.47BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 975.60FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 2,799.07 26.76BOYD PATRICK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 26.76 9.80BRECKLE WILLIAM FIRE OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 9.80 43.07BREDESON, ERIK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 43.07 207.12BREIDENBACH, JENIFER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 207.12 40.00BRUUN KRIS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 40.00 985.47BTR OF MINNESOTA LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 985.47 130.00BUDGET SIGN POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 130.00 510.00BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHENSION COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH TELEPHONE 510.00 666.45BUSINESS ESSENTIALS REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 666.45 535.48BUSTLE HOLLY HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 535.48 16.33CALLAHAN JOHN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 16.33 7,307.34CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 7 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 49.50PUBLIC HOUSING LEGAL SERVICES 217.30SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 66.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,640.14 2,267.20CANON FINANCIAL IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,267.20 5,000.00CARE RESOURCE CONNECTION FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,000.00 964.45CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 964.45 214.69CDW GOVERNMENT INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,097.50TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,312.19 316.87CEDAR TOWING & AUCTION POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 316.87 1,385.00CENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 750.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 35,425.00DOWN PYMT ASSISTANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,000.00FIRST GENERATION HOMEOWNERSHIP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 38,560.00 60.00CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT DOWN PYMT ASSISTANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00 5,670.01CENTERPOINT ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A HEATING GAS 4,162.06FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS 7,850.56WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 559.18REILLY G & A HEATING GAS SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 711.76SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 10,689.09PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS 29,642.66 12.75CENTRAL MCGOWAN CONCESSIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 12.75 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 8 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 15,869.41CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT OTHER RETIREMENT 15,869.41 66.65CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 66.65 150.00CHEF MARSHALL O'BRIEN LLC FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING 150.00 192.94CHET'S SHOES, LLC.FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 412.17PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 605.11 283.21CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 202.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,813.53REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 78.24REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19.56AQUATIC PARK G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 414.95VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 3,811.49 206.02CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 5.35ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 548.86ADMINISTRATION G & A RECOGNITION 349.00ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 140.92ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 189.56ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 17.18HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES 62.50HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 400.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 74.72HUMAN RESOURCES POSTAGE 62.28HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 420.00COMM & MARKETING G & A ADVERTISING 319.40COMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.18IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 576.18ASSESSING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 250.00COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 503.21COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 105.86POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 122.73POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 9 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 10.74POLICE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,390.16POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 2,500.00POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10.30POLICE G & A POSTAGE 190.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 4,141.61POLICE G & A TRAINING 288.39POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 940.66POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 6.62COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 15.27FIRE OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.11FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 406.74FIRE OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 761.04FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,127.43FIRE OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS 522.17FIRE OPERATIONS UNIFORMS 140.05FIRE OPERATIONS REPAIRS 13.97FIRE OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 765.00FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING 2,521.88BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,345.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING 264.08SUSTAINABILITY G&A MEETING EXPENSE 300.00ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 750.00ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING 1,620.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 161.81PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 49.17PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A POSTAGE 630.00CABLE TV G & A OTHER 494.73WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 437.50WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 55.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 3,023.07TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 136.89ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 26.98ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 283.87ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 44.73ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING 86.00BASKETBALLGENERAL SUPPLIES 161.94BROOMBALLOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 213.55SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.94PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.97PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 10 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 960.00PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 319.06NATURAL RESOURCES G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 716.96WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 248.66FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 247.03WINTER BREAK GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.64REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00REC CENTER BUILDING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.96INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,287.85INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 700.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TRAINING 39,046.48 254.24CLARKE LISA ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 254.24 357.22CLASEMAN PAUL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 357.22 301.71CLUTTER SARAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 301.71 16,663.89COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES 16,663.89 41,341.00COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,648.00INSTALLATIONOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 58,777.00SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 898.71INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS 119,664.71 154.12COMCASTFIRE OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 115.33CABLE TV G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 43.31OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 29.94REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 342.70 77.34COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 687.34WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 764.68 983.15COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION SYSTEMS INC REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 11 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 983.15 293.64COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 293.64 610.69CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 610.69 29,080.97CORE & MAIN LP WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 29,080.97 1,143.24CORPORATE MECHANICAL REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,143.24 442.87CREEKSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 442.87 79.75CROWN MARKING INC.COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 79.75 317.97CROWN RENTAL - BURNSVILLE TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 317.97 448.66CRUZE ROGER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 448.66 228.24CTM SERVICES, INC.REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT PARTS 228.24 7,500.00CTW GROUP, INC.ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 7,500.00 100.00CULLIGAN BOTTLED WATER FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 100.00 594.81CUMMINS SALES AND SERVICE FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 594.81 78.14CUSHING CHARLES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 78.14 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 12 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 669.45CUSHMAN MOTOR CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 669.45 210.00CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 600.64DALCO ENTERPRISES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 426.62FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 246.70WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 151.85WESTWOOD G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,425.81 103.08DAUGHERTY MAURA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 103.08 45.00DEMPSEY KERRWIN ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING 45.00 3,609.40DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 3,609.40 4.19DESANCTIS ALEX WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 4.19 95.81DESHANE JAMES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 95.81 75.67DIOR CONSULTING LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 75.67 947.00DIXON RALFORD BASKETBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 947.00 282.06DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 282.06 2,634.44DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE 800.21PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 3,434.65 54.06DOUVILLE MARJORIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 13 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 54.06 475.00DTN, LLC.PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 475.00 179.67EAVES BYRON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 179.67 230.40ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES 230.40 3,000.00EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 3,000.00 1,275.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ESCROWS SATURDAY PROP (S WOOD STATION) 825.00ESCROWSSEMBLE EXCAVATING 5,700.00ESCROWSBigos Management-1351-1361 Ham 945.00BRIDGWALK HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,745.00 153.02EIMERS NATE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 153.02 60.40ELECTRICAL LIGHTING SOLUTIONS BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 60.40 195.42ELECTRO STATIC CORP WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 195.42 23.79ELLEFSON MELISSA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 23.79 151.20EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 151.20 1,000.00ENGELS BILL ESCROWS ROTLUND HOMES/QUADION SITE 1,000.00 17,732.47ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT 17,732.47 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 14 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 15,742.00ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 15,742.00 37.43ESTATE OF ROBERT QUENTIN KENYON WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 37.43 755.16FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 755.16 730.00FARBER SOUND LLC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 730.00 213.43FASTENAL COMPANY FIRE OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 213.43 55.44FEINBERG, GREG WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 55.44 326.41FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,259.85WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,586.26 1,341.07FERGUSON WATERWORKS LOCATES/GOPHER ONE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 3,946.67WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 5,287.74 327.07FERRELLGASREC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS 24.14VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A MOTOR FUELS 351.21 1,692.37FILTRATION SYSTEMS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,692.37 823.00FIRE SAFETY USA INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 823.00 96.53FISHMAN STEWART REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 96.53 922.24FORCE AMERICA DISTRIBUTING LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 922.24 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 15 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 49.23FRATTALLONE'S/SAINT LOUIS PARK WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 509.59REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 558.82 24.93FREEMAN, WILL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 24.93 305.94FREEWHEEL BIKE MINNETONKA FIRE OPERATIONS REPAIRS 305.94 225.00FREY LORI & KEVIN GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 9,940.73GALLS, LLC - DBA UNIFORMS UNLIMITED POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 9,940.73 59.47GAME TIME PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 59.47 77.30GEWIRTZ JONATHAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 77.30 25,628.88GL CONTRACTING INC PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINAGE PAYABLE 1,835.62PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 27,464.50 80.46GLOVER SCOTT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 80.46 7,879.40GMH ASPHALT CORPORATION SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 49,358.73PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINAGE PAYABLE 9,851.96PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,116.27WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80,206.36 508.80GOLDEN VALLEY, CITY OF FITNESS PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 508.80 326.75GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 326.75 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 16 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 7.02-GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY .31FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 88.69WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 81.98 164.70GRAMLING JOSEPH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 164.70 422.00GRAPHIC SOURCE INC CABLE TV G & A OTHER 422.00 5,800.00GREAT RIVER GREENING PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,800.00 23,849.08GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY 4,765.13EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT 28,614.21 82.25GUILFOIL DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 82.25 175.00GUTKNECHT, MARY ELLEN WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 175.00 539.00GYM WORKS INC FIRE OPERATIONS REPAIRS 539.00 84.94HAAS DAVID WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 84.94 332.25HAGEN JENNIFER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 332.25 61.46HALLER DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 61.46 430.00HAUGH MICHAEL GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 430.00 12,361.00HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 17 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 12,361.00 114.00HEALTHPARTNERSHUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,456.00HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 13,578.00FIRE OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS 17,148.00 65.00HECHTMAN NOELLE BASKETBALL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 65.00 175.00HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENT & REAL ESTATE ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 175.00 8,431.20HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER ADMINISTRATION G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,289.70POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,567.64POLICE G & A JAIL/DETENTION SERVICES 2,602.30FIRE OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 18.00HIA ADMIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6.00SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,914.84 2,050.00HENNEPIN HEALTHCARE POLICE G & A TRAINING 2,670.00FIRE OPERATIONS HEALTH & WELLNESS 4,720.00 360.30HENRICKSEN PSG FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,953.39FACILITIES MCTE G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 5,313.69 23.76HENSON CASSY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 23.76 289.69HERDES MARJORIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 289.69 243.46HILLMAN JEFF WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 243.46 5.64HILTUNEN AMBER WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 5.64 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 18 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 185.23HIRSHFIELDSWATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 185.23 1,032.00HOLM AUSTIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A TUITION 1,032.00 43.01HOLM, DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 43.01 54.31HOLTE, ARLENE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 54.31 423.54HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.83PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 85.47ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 577.97WIRING REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 40.72WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 710.59WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 197.86PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 345.97-PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 477.46PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 29.88SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,228.35 448.80HOTSY MINNESOTA BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 448.80 113.59HOVDE PAUL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 113.59 75.86HUISMAN PAUL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 75.86 1,715.00I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES 1,715.00 190.00IACPPOLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 190.00 505.00IAFC MEMBERSHIP FIRE OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 19 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 505.00 36.00ICE SPORTS INDUSTRY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.00 6,938.93IDEAL SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 6,938.93 701.00IDENTISYSTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 701.00 650.00IMA GROUP MANAGEMENT CO.HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 650.00 2,731.82IMAGETREND, INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,731.82 338.46INDELCOWATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 338.46 8,700.00INTECH SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,700.00 3,000.00INTERNATIONAL LIVING FUTURE INSTITUTE MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 3,000.00 417.96INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTION AND MANUFACTURINGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 417.96 14.38INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 2,004.64GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,019.02 366.11I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 366.11 59.00J. BECHER & ASSOC.BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 59.00 180.40J. H. LARSON CO.FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 805.97WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 20 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 986.37 4,909.00J.P SCHMITZ CONSTRUCTION CO LLC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 4,909.00 84.30JACOBSON WILLIAM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 84.30 40.32JERRY'S HARDWARE FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.20WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 3.14WATER UTILITY G&A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 170.48WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 324.27PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.48PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 6.72WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 587.61 208.36JOHN HENRY FOSTER WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 208.36 106.11JOHNSON KYLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 106.11 3,000.00JOHNSTON TERRY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 3,000.00 216.70JOKINEN THOMAS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 216.70 274.07JURHS TAYLORGRACE INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 274.07 19.10KEIMIG CHASE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 19.10 926.40KENNEDY & GRAVEN ESCROWS KNOLLWOOD - INDIRECT SOURCE PR 925.00ESCROWSCSM TRAFFIC STUDY/PLANNING 142.50ESCROWSPLACE 126.00BRIDGWALK HIA LEGAL SERVICES 2,119.90 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 21 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 250.00KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 250.00 334.21KHISTE MANDAR WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 334.21 2,000.00KHUTORESKY ZAKHARY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 2,000.00 257.99KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 37,876.49STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 400.12PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,471.93WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 13.58SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,349.72STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 41,369.83 259.96KIRSHBAUM, MITCHEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 259.96 135.88KORTON MARIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 135.88 962.00KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 962.00 721.48KURITA AMERICA, INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 721.48 38.17LANGLOIS JAMIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 38.17 3,898.28LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES 3,898.28 179.52LAWSON PRODUCTS INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS 214.63GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 394.15 62,167.50LDV, INC.POLICE POLICE EQUIPMENT 62,167.50 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 22 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 5,267.42LEADS ONLINE POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,267.42 5,490.00LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES POLICE G & A TRAINING 5,490.00 125.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 125.00 194,804.67LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT PREPAID EXPENSES 97,402.33EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp 814.33INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS 293,021.33 705.00LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 705.00 287.41LIESER AMANDA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 287.41 2,291.50LIFE SAFETY SYSTEMS FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,138.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,429.50 596.71LIFESAVER FIRE PROTECTION INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS 1,991.32PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,588.03 1.00LILYA MOLLY BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 65.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 66.00 1,500.00LIR CULTURAL COACHING SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING 501.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING 1,000.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING 750.00REC CENTER BUILDING TRAINING 3,751.00 1,321.70LITTLE FALLS MACHINE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,321.70 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 23 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 258.24LOFFLERIT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 258.24 2,205.53LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,205.53 403.29LUBE-TECH & PARTNERS LLC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 403.29 425.69MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 3,219.75SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 3,645.44 112.60MALKE STEVE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 112.60 671.80MANAGED SERVICES INC WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 671.80 30,536.08MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY OF GAINSVILLE, INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 30,536.08 1,820.00MARIE RIDGEWAY LICSW LLC POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,820.00 2,016.00MARTINEZ THOMAS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A TUITION 2,016.00 69.56MASLYN, ALEX WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 69.56 267.95MASON -MOORE DEBORAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 267.95 37.67MATHEWS BRETT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 37.67 150.00MAXIMS SNOW REMOVAL SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.00 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 24 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 51.95MCEACHRAN VICKIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 51.95 162.62MENARDSFACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 97.87FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 47.52GRAFFITI CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 99.96WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.99WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 103.96PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.84BRICK HOUSE (1324)OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 147.71WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.95WESTWOOD G & A OTHER 838.42 78.56MERTZ TOMMY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 78.56 3,400.00METRO WATERSHED PARTNERS STORM WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 3,400.00 361,200.27METROPOLITAN COUNCIL OPERATIONS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 760.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 361,960.27 825.00MHSRC/RANGE POLICE G & A TRAINING 825.00 250.00MID-STATES ORGANIZED CRIME INFO CENTER POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 250.00 140.49MILESKI MARY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 140.49 105.34MILLER RALEIGH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 105.34 180.00MINNESOTA CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES 626.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 806.00 1,272.24MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT WAGE GARNISHMENTS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 25 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,272.24 4,500.00MINNESOTA CIT POLICE G & A TRAINING 4,500.00 987.81MINNESOTA DEPT PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT 987.81 37.77MINNESOTA ECO HOMES, LLC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 37.77 39.40MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 39.40 245.00MINNESOTA PARK AND SPORTS TURF MANAGERSPARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING 245.00 125.00MINNESOTA RECREATION & PARK ASSOC HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 125.00 4.99MINNESOTA RUSCO, INC.BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 220.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 224.99 285.00MINNESOTA STATE FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC. FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING 285.00 455.00MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 455.00 75.00MN FIRE SERVICE CERTIFICATION BOARD FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING 75.00 1.00MN PLUMBING AND HOME SERVICES BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 70.00BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING 71.00 14,617.50MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS INC E-911 PROGRAM EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 14,617.50 145.00MPLS/ST PAUL BUSINESS JOURNAL COMM DEV PLANNING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 26 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 145.00 351.00MR CUTTING EDGE REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 351.00 500.00MURPHY TIM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 500.00 1,701.50MVTL LABORATORIES REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,701.50 188.31MYERS MITCHELL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 188.31 851.12NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 197.98FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 44.99WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2.99VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS 156.26GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,253.34 8,001.00NEARMAP US INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 8,001.00 39.74NELSON BRAD WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 39.74 21.45NELSON JEFF WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 21.45 59.50NELSON JOHN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 59.50 44.15NELSON MABEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 44.15 17.07NELSON RACHEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 17.07 49.29N-E-P CORPORATION VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.29 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 27 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 649.85NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 500.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 199.95VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,349.80 3,463.67NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 3,463.67 15,000.00NORTHDALE CONSTRUCTION CO INC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 51,900.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 66,900.00 90.30NORTHERN AIRE POOLS INC SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIES 90.30 600.00OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 182.00OELICH JETHRO ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 182.00 64.73OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 113.19HUMAN RESOURCES OFFICE SUPPLIES 46.55COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.02ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 55.04FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 64.27COMM DEV PLANNING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 230.23POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 702.26BLDG & ENERGY G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 78.04PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 131.28ENGINEERING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 88.52ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 445.74WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,137.87 185.00OHD LLLP POLICE G & A POSTAGE 185.00 50.34O'LEARY DARBY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 50.34 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 28 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 462.00OLMSTEAD MEDICAL CENTER SPORTS MEDICINEFIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING 462.00 320.00OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A EQUIPMENT PARTS 320.00 14.26OLSON JONATHAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 14.26 250.00OMEARA MARY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 455.00ON SITE SANITATION FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 110.00OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 565.00 35.00OSVOG, LOWELL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 35.00 120.36OWENS MICHELE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 120.36 610.66OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 610.66 561.00PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC REILLY G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 561.00 75.44PALADIN PLUMBING BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING 75.44 105.31PANNELL, LISA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 105.31 464.31PARK CHRYSLER JEEP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 464.31 300.00PARKTACULARSPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 29 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 115.70PARTSTREE.COM GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 115.70 10,165.00PEARSON BROTHERS INC SWEEPING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,165.00 55.24PENNY BUILDING LLC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 55.24 152.50PER MAR SECURITY SERVICES WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 152.50 20.33PETERSON CHRIS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 20.33 206.47PETERSON NATHAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 206.47 88.82PETERSON, JOHN IT G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 88.82 15.00PETTY CASH POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 19.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 4.80WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.00CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S INVENTORY 19.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING 2.23VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.00VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 185.03 80.21PETTY CASH - WWNC WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.12WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 9.64SUMMER CAMP GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.15WINTER BREAK GENERAL SUPPLIES 125.12 107.10PIERCE CHRIS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 107.10 76.79PRAIRIE LAWN & GARDEN GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 76.79 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 30 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 687.21PRECISE MRM, LLC.PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28.77SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS 667.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 667.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 667.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,716.98 229.46PREMIUM WATERS INC FIRE OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 229.46 334.00PREVOST JILL ROC ICE RENTAL REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 334.00 1,995.00PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ACADEMY, LLC. POLICE G & A TRAINING 1,995.00 4,379.00PROGRESSIVE BUILDING SYSTEMS LTD INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS 4,379.00 21.68PUISSANT JAMES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 21.68 660.92RANDY'S ENVIROMENTAL SERVICES GRANTS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 660.92 35.95RASMUSSEN DEREK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 35.95 51.52RASMUSSEN JORDAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 51.52 600.00REACH MEDIA NETWORK REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 409.48RED WING BUSINESS ADVANTAGE ACCOUNT PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 250.00WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 659.48 197.99RED WING STORE PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 197.99 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 31 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 661.37REDLINE PROPERTY PARTNERS LP WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 661.37 7,208.38-REDSTONE CONSTRUCTION, LLC.SIDEWALK & TRAILS BAL SHT RETAINAGE PAYABLE 144,167.74SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 136,959.36 3,465.93REFERRAL COLLISION INSURANCE FUND G&A UNINSURED LOSS 3,465.93 156.94REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS, LLC.POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 156.94 4,970.00REILING CONSTRUCTION CO BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 4,970.00 4,359.05REPUBLIC SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,832.20REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 8,191.25 170.00RICHMOND, JULIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 170.00 350.52ROBERT B HILL CO REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 350.52 9,674.04ROBERT HALF TECHNOLOGY HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,456.13FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,130.17 110.00ROBERTS JEAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 110.00 32.00RODRIGUEZ ANTONIO FIRE OPERATIONS TRAINING 32.00 213.53ROHLFING BEN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 213.53 751.95ROOT-O-MATIC REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 32 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 751.95 156.78SABA JASON FIRE OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 156.78 2,534.20SAMBATEK, INC.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,534.20 41.98SAMPSON, RISA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 41.98 3,915.00SAVATREETREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,915.00 30.91SAYRE DAVID WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 30.91 124.00SCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 138.09HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 262.09 438.37SCHELEN GRAY AUTO ELECTRIC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 438.37 28.13SCHLAIS NICOLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 28.13 116.15SCHWALBACH, TRAVIS BLDG & ENERGY G & A PLUMBING 116.15 300.00SCOTT COUNTY TREASURER POLICE G & A TRAINING 300.00 32.04SERPOSS ALAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 32.04 1,025.00SESACREC CENTER BUILDING LICENSES 1,025.00 50.00SETS DESIGN INC.POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 472.00POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 33 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 522.00 341.61SEVERSON PRODUCTS CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 341.61 810.00SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS & LANDSCAPING TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,085.50TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,895.50 1,235.58SHARBONO, MATTHEW EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A TUITION 1,235.58 140.80SHITECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 140.80 140.80SHI INTERNATIONAL CORP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 140.80 2,587.29SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,096.07SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,683.36 164.52SHRADER HANNAH INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 164.52 2,278.92SIGN SOLUTIONS USA INSTALLATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,278.92 714.00SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 714.00 155.00SKADSBERG WILL BLDG & ENERGY G & A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 155.00 442.20SKALLET, DAVID BLDG & ENERGY G & A TRAINING 442.20 1,858.14SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND BAL SHT UNION DUES 1,858.14 464.86SMEDSTAD, KRISTA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 34 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 464.86 57.66SMITH ANTHONY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 57.66 39.42SMITH SHAWN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 39.42 192.90SOYKA, JAMES & JULIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 192.90 89.48SPRAU, JULIE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 89.48 39.17SPS COMPANIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 101.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 140.17 10,320.62SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 648.88CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29.05WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 75.81SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 66.73STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,141.09 334.65ST PAUL CITY OF PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 334.65 8,551.00ST. LOUIS PARK HOUSING AUTHORITY KIDS IN THE PARK RENT ASSIST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,551.00 190.00ST. LOUIS PARK ROTARY POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 190.00 1,226.81STANLEY ACCESS TECH LLC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,226.81 24.16STARRETT JAMES NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24.16 35.17STELZNER KATIE SOLID WASTE G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 35 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 35.17 108.08STEPHENS DANIEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 108.08 37.94STERICYCLE, INC.ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 38.29ASSESSING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 57.45FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,238.81POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 56.37BLDG & ENERGY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 370.30WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 56.62ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,855.78 3,275.00STEVE LUCAS PHOTOGRAPHY FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,275.00 114.59STOKMAN SARA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 114.59 1,237.75STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,237.75 20.76STUMPNER, DIANE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 20.76 93.50SUMMIT COMPANIES FIRE OPERATIONS REPAIRS 93.50 50,153.23SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES 11,306.28WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,075.64REILLY G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 81,535.15 250.00SUSA TREASURER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES 250.00WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES 125.00WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 125.00SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET PREPAID EXPENSES 750.00 84.12SUTTON JEFFREY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 36 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 84.12 10.08SWENSON SARA WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 10.08 8,207.00TARGETSOLUTIONS LEARNING, LLC POLICE G & A TRAINING 8,207.00 195.00TEE JAY NORTH, INC.REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 195.00 15.00TEXA TONKA TAILORING FIRE OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15.00 119.17THE BAINEY GROUP BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 2,323.20BLDG & ENERGY G & A BUILDING 2,442.37 890.00THE MN TRANSPORTATION ALLIANCE, INC. ENGINEERING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 890.00 658.61THE MPX GROUP COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 658.61 141.16THE SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 141.16 146.73THE SHERWINN WILLIAMS CO PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 146.73 263.00THE SIGN PRODUCERS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 263.00 87.76THE STANDARD ADMINISTRATION G & A LIFE INSURANCE 91.23ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 22.23RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A LIFE INSURANCE 21.71RACE EQUITY & INCLUSION G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 66.51HUMAN RESOURCES LIFE INSURANCE 65.09HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY 78.49COMM & MARKETING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 76.91COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 37 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 37Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 103.12IT G & A LIFE INSURANCE 114.87IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 109.47ASSESSING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 108.19ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 135.76FINANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 135.05FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 285.11COMM DEV G & A LIFE INSURANCE 283.69COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 100.58FACILITIES MCTE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 98.21FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 1,138.30POLICE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 1,122.71POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 116.84COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH LIFE INSURANCE 114.50COMMUNICATIONS/DISPATCH LONG TERM DISABILITY 542.42FIRE OPERATIONS LIFE INSURANCE 538.01FIRE OPERATIONS LONG TERM DISABILITY 315.73BLDG & ENERGY G & A LIFE INSURANCE 319.10BLDG & ENERGY G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 34.16SUSTAINABILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 33.43SUSTAINABILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 82.42PUBLIC WORKS G & A LIFE INSURANCE 80.67PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 225.09ENGINEERING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 232.06ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 213.61PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LIFE INSURANCE 211.15PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 40.13CABLE TV G & A LIFE INSURANCE 39.28CABLE TV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 21.21HOUSING REHAB G & A LIFE INSURANCE 20.86HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 118.75WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 117.04WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 46.48SEWER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 45.59SEWER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 44.83SOLID WASTE G&A LIFE INSURANCE 43.47SOLID WASTE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 90.17STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 88.34STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 7,242.20EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A LIFE INSURANCE 132.08ORGANIZED REC G & A LIFE INSURANCE 134.53ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 38 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 38Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 171.58PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 167.83PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17.91NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LIFE INSURANCE 17.63NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 73.53WESTWOOD G & A LIFE INSURANCE 71.99WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 90.93REC CENTER SALARIES LIFE INSURANCE 89.11REC CENTER SALARIES LONG TERM DISABILITY 87.50VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LIFE INSURANCE 85.78VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 16,402.93 21.63THE UPS STORE PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A POSTAGE 17.87WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 17.26GENERAL REPAIR POSTAGE 56.76 293,552.21THOMAS AND SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC. SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 25,597.99-STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 213,297.62CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 160.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 130.00SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,820.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 486,361.84 335.98THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 335.98 515.35THRIVEPASSEMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 515.35 1,002.09THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,002.09 29.37TIMBERMAN IV LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 29.37 15,000.00TIMCO CONSTRUCTION ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC 15,000.00 648.88TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 39 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 39Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 648.88 12.03TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.03 12,724.00TOOLE DESIGN GROUP, LLC.ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,959.20SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 25,683.20 275.47TOWMASTERGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 275.47 160.63TRACK INC. EAST GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 160.63 1,000.00TRANSPORTATION COLLABORATIVE & CONSULT. ESCROWS GENERAL 1,000.00 41,240.70TREE TRUST TREE REPLACEMENT TREE REPLACEMENT 41,240.70 299.50TRUE COLORS INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 299.50 6,563.41TWIN CITY OUTDOOR SERVICES INC SNOW PLOWING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,309.50SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,872.91 195.75TWIN CITY SAW CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 195.75 360.00UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,071.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,371.00FACILITIES MCTE G & A WATER SERVICE 1,260.74PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,062.74 655.47ULINEREC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 655.47 54.70ULMER STEPHANIE & MATTHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 40 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 40Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 54.70 148.17UNIVERSAL SPECIALTIES WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 148.17 1,700.00USDNSUSTAINABILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,700.00 20,265.00USPSCOMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE 20,265.00 2.04VAIR JAMES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 2.04 4,477.70VALLEY-RICH CO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 9,804.83SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 14,282.53 7.87VAN HON SAMUEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 7.87 34.07VELIN MEGHAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 34.07 444.95VERITECH INDUSTRIES, INC.SNOW PLOWING EQUIPMENT PARTS 444.95 100.08VERIZONSEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 72.60CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 172.68 3,791.26VESSCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 3,791.26 4,500.00VETERAN ELECTRIC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,675.00RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,209.59RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 4,000.00RECREATION OUTDOOR CENTER OTHER 11,384.59 20,127.50-VIKING PAINTING LLC WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 41 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 41Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 402,550.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 382,422.50 11,789.67VIKING PRODUCTS GROUP INC.WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 11,789.67 5,580.00VITAL WORKLIFE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE 5,580.00 7,034.24WALKER DESIGN STUDIO STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.32PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 257.72WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 257.72STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,580.00 80.42WALKER SEAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 80.42 37.16WALSER CHRYSLER JEEP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 37.16 233.79WANGSNESS, LUKE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 233.79 1,001.10-WARNING LITES OF MN INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINAGE PAYABLE 58,455.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 57,453.90 3,567.22WASTE MANAGEMENT OF MN, INC.SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,567.22 19,954.10-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 119,581.86SOLID WASTE G&A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 39,877.92SOLID WASTE G&A RECYCLING SERVICE 25,477.56SOLID WASTE G&A YARD WASTE SERVICE 38,964.07SOLID WASTE G&A ORGANICS 203,947.31 482.23WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 482.23 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 42 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 42Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 228.85WEBB RICHARD WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 228.85 920.05WEINBERG MICHOEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 920.05 960.62WELLER APRIL EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND G&A TUITION 960.62 248.64WEST, JASON ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 248.64 .63WESTERN ELECTRIC BLDG & ENERGY G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 91.88BLDG & ENERGY G & A ELECTRICAL 92.51 33.17WHITTET BRIAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 33.17 206.11WILKINSON, KEVIN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 206.11 26,500.00WILLIAM E. REGAN, LLC AND LELAND J. FRAN RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 26,500.00 53.37WILSON LEE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 53.37 585.32WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP INC FIRE OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 585.32 87.15WOLFE JILL AND YARDEN SIDEWALK & TRAILS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 672.32PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 298.81WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 62.25SEWER CAPITAL PROJ G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 124.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,245.03 15.00WRAP CITY GRAPHICS REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.00 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 43 2/1/2022CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 9:57:35R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 43Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 1/28/202212/24/2021 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 3,087.25WSB ASSOC INC ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,087.25 21,171.94XCEL ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 40,825.06PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 33,957.24WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,596.65REILLY G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 4,983.05SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,216.47STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 5,161.75PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 48.68BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE 67.35WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE 29,123.53REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE 138,151.72 3,810.50YOUNG ENV. CONSULTING GROUP, LLC. STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,810.50 95.40YOUNG MARK WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 95.40 3,540.00ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS INC SWEEPING EQUIPMENT PARTS 3,540.00 295.20ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 295.20 1,103.25ZIEGLER INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,103.25 549.22ZIP PRINTING WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 549.22 Report Totals 3,619,219.12 City council meeting of February 2, 2022 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of city disbursements Page 44 Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4b Executive summary Title: Acceptance of donation to fire department from Lucille Tellett Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting donation to the fire department from Lucille Tellett for fire prevention programs and equipment. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept this donation with restrictions on the use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. Lucille Tellett is graciously donating to t he f ire department an amount of $300.00. The donation is giv en w ith restrictions. Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used for fire prevention programs and equipment. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Cary Smith, fire marshal Reviewed by: Steve Koering, fire chief Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4b ) Page 2 Title: Acceptance of donation to Fire Department from Lucille Tellett Resolution No. 22-___ Resolution approving acceptance of donation to fire department Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of any donation; and Whereas, the city council must ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donors; and Whereas, the donations from Lucille Tellett is directed toward fire prevention programs and equipment. Now therefore be it resolved by the city council of St. Louis Park that this donation is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4c Executive summary Title: Accept donation to operations and recreation department Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Minnesota American Water Works Association (M N AWWA ) in an amount not to exceed $1,500 for all related expenses for Austin Holm, Lead Plant Operator, to attend and compete in the 2022 Annual Conference and Exposition (ACE) training in San Antonio, Texas. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The City of St. Louis Park’s Lead Plant Operator, Austin Holm, will be competing in the 2022 A CE Conference Meter Madness Competition and training sessions. Austin will be representing Minnesota as the state’s meter madness champion to be held in San Antonio, Texas on June 12 - 15, 2022. This competition and training in San Antonio are for professionals in the water industry worldwide with topics to include filtration systems, best management practices, new water treatment technology, locating, changing workforce, watermain replacement, etc. There will also be timed competition s for fire hydrant and water meter rebuilding. MN AWWA has offered to pay all relat ed workshop expenses in an amount not to exceed $1,500. State law permits the payment of such expenses by this organization, regardless of whether the funds come from primary or secondary sources. It is treated as a gift to the city and needs to be a resolution adopted by the city council determining that attendance at this event serves a public purpose and accepting the gift. The City of St. Louis Park will pay for travel, the conference and hotel accommodations up front and submit receipts to MN AWWA for reimbursement. Financial or budget considerations: This donation will be used toward the expenses incurred by Austin Holm’s attendance to the 2022 ACE conference and training in San Antonio, Texas. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Jay Hall, utilities superintendent Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, deputy city manager / director of operations and recreation Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4c ) Page 2 Title: Accept donation to operations and recreation department Resolution No. 22 - ____ Resolution accepting donation from MN AWWA for expenses for Austin Holm to attend the 2022 ACE Conference in San Antonio, Texas Whereas, the City of St. Louis Park is required by state statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and Whereas, MN AWWA will compensate all related costs, in an amount not to exceed $1,500 for the city’s Lead Plant Operator, Austin Holm, to attend this workshop held on June 12-15, 2022, in San Antonio, Texas; and Now therefore be it resolved, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to MN AWWA with the understanding that it must be used for expenses incurred by Austin Holm to attend the 2022 Ace Conference training in San Antonio, Texas. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Mellissa Kennedy , city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4d Executive summary Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3105 Idaho Avenue South Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3105 Idaho Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 17-117-21-12-0209. Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the city council. Summary: Kelly Finnerty , owner of the single -family residence at 3105 Idaho Avenue South, has requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his/her home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy. The city requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this is unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $8,965.00. Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Emily Carr, assessing technician Cynthia S. Walsh, deputy city manager / director of operations and recreation Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4d ) Page 2 Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3105 Idaho Avenue South Resolution No. 22 - ____ Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3105 Idaho Avenue South , St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 17-117-21-12-0209 Whereas, the property owner at 3105 Idaho Avenue South, has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 3105 Idaho Avenue South; and Whereas, the property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the utility superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Operations and Recreation Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $8,965.00. 4. The property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The property owner has agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 3%. 6. The property owner has executed an agreement with the city and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4e Executive summary Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South , St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 16-117-21-23-0021. Policy consideration: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the city council. Summary: Christopher Bushaw, owner of the single -family residence at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South, has requested the city authorize the repair of the sewer service line for his home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the city’s special assessment policy. The city requires the re pair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and/or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the city council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this is unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by city staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the city’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the city to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $8,355.00. Financial or budget considerations: The city has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Jay Hall, utility superintendent Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Emily Carr, assessing technician Cynthia S. Walsh, deputy city manager / director of operations and recreation Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4e ) Page 2 Title: Special assessment – sewer service line repair at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South Resolution No. 22 - ____ Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 16-117-21-23-0021 Whereas, the property owner at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South, has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 3267 Blackstone Avenue South ; and Whereas, the property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and Whereas, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the utility superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1.The petition from the property owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2.The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Operations and Recreation Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $8,355.00. 4.The property owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment, whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5.The property owner has agreed to pay the city for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 3%. 6.The property owner has executed an agreement with the city and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4f Executive summary Title: Final payment resolution – Historic Walker Lake Phase 2– Project No. 4018-1050 Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $131,287.46 for project no. 4018-1050, which is the Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 improvement project with Eureka Construction Inc., Contract No. 67-20. Policy consideration: Not applicable Summary: On June 1, 2020, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of $2,437,712.90 to Eureka Construction Inc. for the Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 improvement project, project 4018-1050. Th e second phase of this project was constructed in 2020 and included street rehabilitation, streetlight and watermain replacement, storm sewer, landscaping, sidewalk, and ADA improvements. The final contract amount for this project is $2,495,229.42, which was $57,516.53 (2.4%) more than the original contract price. This is within the planned contingency and there are adequate funds to cover these costs. Details on the contract changes and quantity ove rruns are included in the discussion section of this report. Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor under Contract No. 67-20 has been calculated as follows: Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 2,437,712.90 Change orders/ extra work +$ 34,515.91 Cost increases +$ 23,000.61 Final contract cost $ 2,495,229.42 Previous payments -$ 2,363,941.96 Balance due $ 131,287.46 This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding was provided by the following sources: pavement management, water utility, storm utility, sanitary sewer utility and general obligation bonds (sidewalk and bikeway). 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: Joseph Shamla, engineering project manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Title: Final payment resolution – Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 – Project No. 4018-1050 Discussion Background: Annually, the city rehabilitates several miles of local streets as part of the pavement management program. The Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 improvement project included street rehabilitation, streetlight and watermain replacement, storm sewer, landscaping, sidewalk, and ADA improvements. On June 1, 2020, the city council awarded a contract in the amount of $2,437,712.90 to Eureka Construction Inc. for the Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 improvement project, project 4018-1050. The final contract amount, $2,495,229.42, is 2.4% more than the contract amount. During construction, some unexpected items came up that added to the cost of the project. The additional work that was completed increased the cost of the contract by $34,515.91, resulting in a final contract amount for this project of $2,472,228.81. There were also quantity ove rruns resulting in a cost increase of $23,000.61, which brought the total cost of the project to $2,495,229.42. The contract changes are attributed to the need to modify a storm sewer system that conflicted with a 16" gas line, relocation of a light pole, contractor delay caused by an underground duct vault in the same location as our proposed conduit, and the additional cost for the contractor to come back in the summer of 2021 to finish the project as they were unable to finalize until CP Rail completed their railroad crossings. This additional work was necessary to ensure quality street, sidewalk, and utility infrastructure for years to come. Financial or budget considerations: The final cost of the work performed by the contractor under Contract No. 67-20 has been calculated as follows: Original contract (based on estimated quantities) $ 2,437,712.90 Change orders/ extra work + $ 34,515.91 Cost increases + $ 23,000.61 Final contract cost $ 2,495,229.42 Previous payments -$ 2,363,941.96 Balance due $ 131,287.46 This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Funding was provided by the following sources: pavement management, water utility, storm utility, s anitary sewer utility and general obligation bonds (sidewalk and bikeway). Due to the nature of our construction projects, unforeseen circumstances, and resident feedback, it is not unusual to have additional work added to our projects. To address this, when the bid is awarded, we assume a 5% contingency for all aspects of the project. The costs detailed above represent a 2.4% increase to this project. This is within the planned contingency and there are adequate funds to cover these costs. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Title: Final payment resolution – Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 – Project No. 4018-1050 Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution authorizing final payment and accepting work for the Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 improvement project City Project No. 4018-1050 Contract No. 67-20 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 June 1, 2020, Eureka Construction Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Historic Walker Lake Phase 2 improvement project, as per Contract No. 67-20. 2.The e ngineering 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 $2,495,229.42. 4.The city manager is directed to make final payment in the amount of $131,287.46 on this contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4g Executive summary Title: 2022-2024 LELS #218 Police Sergeants Labor Agreement Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving labor agreement between the city and the police sergeant employee bargaining group, establishing terms and conditions of employment for three years, from Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2024. Policy consideration: Does council approve the labor agreement between the city and the union? Summary: Staff is pleased to bring this three -year contract with our police sergeant bargaining group to council for approval. Items listed follow the approved compensation plans, budget discussions and are effective Jan.1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2024. Our discussions in negotiation were productive and resulted in this agreement. Of our six bargaining groups, this is the fourth group (after police lieutenants, dispatchers and local 49 maintenance employees) settled for 2022 and beyond . We are in active negotiations with our remaining two groups (patrol, fire). Financial or budget considerations: The amount recommended has been included in the 2022 budget and will be used to develop 2023-2024 budgets. Strategic priority consideration: Not applicable. Supporting documents: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, human resources officer Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: 2022-2024 LELS #218 Police Sergeants Labor Agreement Discussion Background: The city and the police sergeant union group have negotiated and come to agreement on the following changes to the contract: • Duration of three years (Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2024). • Wage increase s of 3% for 2022 and 2023. Wage re -opener for 2024. − Comment: A wage -reopener means the city and union will meet to re -open the contract to negotiate wages only for 2024. • Hourly market adjustments each year of $45/biweekly , consistent with our compensation program regarding 85th percentile . − Comment: The 2022 general wage increase is consistent with nonunion employees. Prior to negotiations, HR conducted a review of our approved market. In accordance with our compensation plan, market adjustments were added to ensure that our group remains at our target pay of the 85th percentile . • Adding language that allows the union or employer to re-open the contract to negotiate terms and conditions of employment if state statute is amended regarding indemnification of officers during the term of the contract. • Addition of an “equity statement” confirming the city and union’s agreement to work together to advance the strategic priorities of the city for racial equity. Next steps: Staff recommends approval. All items noted above are and will be included in the 2022 and beyond budgets. The proposed contract is on file with the city clerk. More detail is available upon request. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4g) Page 3 Title: 2022-2024 LELS #218 Police Sergeants Labor Agreement Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution approving labor agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS ) Local #218 Police Sergeants Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec . 31, 2024 Whereas, the city and the union have reached a negotiated settlement covering the terms and conditions of a labor agreement as permitted by the State of Minnesota Public Employees Labor Relations Act, and Whereas, the city council may enter into such agreements as authorized by its charter; Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the mayor and city m anager are authorized to execute a collective bargaining agreement, city contract #______ between the City of St. Louis Park and LELS #218 (Sergeants), effective Jan. 1, 2022 – Dec. 31, 2024. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4h Executive summary Title: Accept donation from Lunds & Byerlys Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving the acceptance of a monetary donation from Lunds & Byerlys dedicated to the police reserve program. Policy consideration: Does the St. Louis Park City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? Summary: State statute requires city council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the city council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. On Dec. 6, 2021, an armed robbery occurred at the Lunds & Byerlys stores in St. Louis Park and Edina. Following these incidents management requested a police presence at the St. Louis Park location until they could secure additional security. Police Reserve Officer John Litecky volunteered 8 hours of time assisting with a police presence until management was able to secure additional security. In recognitio n of the volunteer assistance, Lunds & Byerlys would like to make a $300 donation to the police reserve program. The city attorney has reviewed this matter. His opinion is that state law permits the payment of such expenses by this organization, regardless of whether the funds come from primary or secondary sources. It is treated as a gift to the city and there needs to be a resolution adopted by the city council determining the gift serves a public purpose and acceptance of the gift. Financial or budget considerations: None Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to creating opportunities to build social capital through community engagement. Supporting documents: Resolution Prepared by: Mike Harcey , police chief Approved by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4h ) Page 2 Title: Accept donation from Lunds & Byerlys Resolution No. 22-____ Accept monetary donation from Lunds & Byerlys to the St. Louis Park Police Department Whereas, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and Whereas, the city council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and Whereas, the donation serves the public purpose by providing financial assistance to the police reserve program; and Now therefore be it resolved, The Lunds & Byerlys has graciously provided a donation in the amount of $300 dedicated to the police reserve program. It is further resolved, by the city council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Lunds & Byerlys for their generosity and support of the police reserve program. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4i Executive summary Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing the Hennepin County Grant Agreement to partially fund the city’s residential waste reduction, curbside recycling and organics programs and multifamily waste reduction and recycling programs. Policy consideration: Does the council wis h to receive funding from the county to help pay for our residential and multifamily waste reduction, recycling and organics programs? Summary: Each year the city submits a grant report and application for SCORE funding for residential curbside waste reduction and recycling. SCORE (Select Committee On Recycling and the Environment) provides funding for waste reduction and recycling programs in Minnesota. SCORE funds are derived from the State of Minnesota’s solid waste manage ment tax on garbage services. The funds are distributed to counties for these programs. Since 1988 the city has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid in supporting our programs. The county’s share of SCORE funds is divided between cities on a proportional basis by the number of households for residential recycling and multifamily recycling. Funds for residential organics are now provided based on a participation target of 50% set by the county. The county’s funding policy (grant program) covers the period from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025. The agreement provides for the distribution of SCORE funds that the county receives from the state . The grant program splits funds between residential recycling (40%), multifamily recycling (10%) and organics recycling (50%). This report and request are based on a Hennepin County requirement to provide a council resolution authorizing each agreement. This particular resolution covers the Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement which will terminate on December 31, 2025. The amounts for 2022 are not yet known, though it’s expected to be similar to the previous agreement, which was $62,868.76 for recycling and $110,740 for organics in 2021. Financial or budget consideration: The funding from this ongoing grant program is used to help pay for the city’s waste reduction, recycling and organics programs. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to continue to lead in environmental stewardship. Supporting documents: Resolution Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 2022-2025 Funding Policy (Attachment A) Prepared by: Kala Fisher, solid waste manager Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, public works superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, deputy city manager / director of operations and recreation Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Resolution No. 22 - ____ Resolution to approve the 2022-2025 Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement with Hennepin County Whereas, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 115A.552, counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and Whereas, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each city implement and maintain a recycling and organics recycling program; and Whereas, the Hennepin County Board at its October 26, 2021 meeting adopted a funding policy to continue to fund cities within Hennepin County for the contract period of January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025; and Whereas, in order to receive grant funds, the city must sign the agreement; and Whereas, the city wishes to receive these grant funds each year. Now therefore be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the proposed agreement is accepted. It is further resolved that the city council authorizes the mayor, city administrator or his designee to execute such Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement with the County. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council on February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk 1 Contract No: _________ RESIDENTIAL WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT This Agreement is between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF MINNESOTA, A-2300 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, on behalf of the Hennepin County Environment and Energy Department, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415-1600 (“COUNTY”), and CITY OF ____, ADDRESS, (“GRANTEE”), a Minnesota government entity. The parties agree as follows: 1.TERM AND AMOUNT OF GRANT GRANTEE shall complete all grant requirements (“Grant Requirements”), if any, commencing upon execution and expiring December 31, 2025, unless cancelled or terminated earlier in accordance with the provisions herein. Annual grant payments (“Grant Funds”) shall be calculated as set forth in Section 3. 2.GRANT REQUIREMENTS GRANTEE shall apply for annual grant funds and operate its Waste Reduction and Recycling Programs as more fully described in Attachment A, the Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy. 3.GRANT DISBURSEMENT The COUNTY will distribute SCORE funds that the COUNTY receives from the state to Hennepin County municipalities. SCORE funds will be dedicated to the following different purposes: 1) general funding for waste reduction and recycling programs, 2) curbside organics recycling programs, 3) organics drop-off sites, 4) multifamily waste reduction and recycling. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management tax (SWMT) on garbage services and are subject to change based on the SWMT revenue received by the state and funds allocated by the legislature. Funds distributed to municipalities for the current calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the COUNTY in the state’s corresponding fiscal year. A. Waste reduction and recycling programs COUNTY will dedicate 40% of SCORE funds to provide funding for city waste reduction and recycling programs. The following formula will be used to calculate GRANTEE’s waste reduction and recycling grant amount. Page 3 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 2 Number of eligible households with curbside recycling in city -------------------------------------- Total number of eligible households with curbside recycling in county x 40% of SCORE funds available = Waste reduction and recycling grant amount available to the city Eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings or other residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection and receives recycling collection service through the city. In cities with open recycling collection, eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. GRANTEE will report the number in its application for funding. B. Curbside organics recycling programs COUNTY will dedicate 50% of SCORE funds to provide funding for curbside organics recycling programs. Funds will be allocated using participation targets for each city. Funding is not contingent upon meeting the participation target. The following formula will be used to calculate GRANTEE’s curbside organics recycling grant amount. Target number of households with curbside organics recycling in city -------------------------------------- Total number of households with curbside organics recycling in county x 50% of SCORE funds available = Curbside organics recycling grant amount available to the city Initial participation targets (as a percent of households with curbside recycling service): •50% for cities that contract for organics recycling service •10% for cities that require haulers to offer organics recycling service C. Organics drop-off sites COUNTY will dedicate up to $3,300 per eligible city to provide funding for organics drop-off site expenses. Cities with a population of less than 10,000 are eligible. D. Multifamily waste reduction and recycling Page 4 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 3 COUNTY will take 10% of SCORE funds, subtract the amount allocated to organics drop-off sites, and dedicate the remainder to provide funding for multifamily waste reduction and recycling programs. For the purposes of this policy, city waste reduction and recycling programs include organics recycling. Funds will be allocated based on the number of multifamily households. The following formula will be used to calculate GRANTEE’s multifamily waste reduction and recycling grant amount. Number of multifamily households in city -------------------------------------- Total number of multifamily households in county x 10% of SCORE funds available minus organics drop-off funds = Multifamily waste reduction and recycling grant amount available to the city Multifamily households in cities with organized recycling collection are defined as 1) households in buildings where each household does not have its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection, or 2) households in buildings that do not receive recycling collection service through the city, including apartment buildings, condominiums, townhomes, and cooperative housing units where a property manager or association coordinates collection service. Multifamily households in cities with open recycling collection are defined as households in residential buildings larger than a fourplex. The COUNTY will make two equal payments to the GRANTEE. Those two payments will provide the sum of each city’s total grant amount for general waste reduction and recycling programs, curbside organics recycling programs, organics drop-off sites, and multifamily waste reduction and recycling. One payment will be made after COUNTY receives the applications for funding from GRANTEE. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and outreach requirements, and performance have been confirmed and approved. If GRANTEE meets the requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. 4.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR GRANTEE shall select the means, method, and manner of performing Grant Requirements, if any. Nothing is intended nor should be construed as creating or establishing the relationship of a partnership or a joint venture between the parties or as constituting GRANTEE as the agent, representative, or employee of COUNTY for any purpose. GRANTEE is and shall remain an independent contractor under this Agreement. GRANTEE shall secure at its own expense all personnel required in completing Grant Requirements, if any, under this Agreement. GRANTEE’s personnel and/or subcontractors engaged to perform any work required by this Agreement will have no contractual relationship with COUNTY and will not be considered employees of COUNTY. COUNTY shall not be responsible for any claims related to or on behalf of any of GRANTEE’s personnel, including without limitation, claims that arise out of employment or alleged employment under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 268) or the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act Page 5 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 4 (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 176) or claims of discrimination arising out of state, local or federal law, against GRANTEE, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees. Such personnel or other persons shall neither accrue nor be entitled to any compensation, rights, or benefits of any kind from COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, and retirement benefits. 5.NON-DISCRIMINATION In accordance with COUNTY’s policies against discrimination, GRANTEE shall not exclude any person from full employment rights nor prohibit participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of any protected status or class including but not limited to race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, public assistance status, or national origin. No person who is protected by applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be subjected to discrimination. 6.INTENTIONALLY OMITTED 7.INDEMNIFICATION GRANTEE shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless COUNTY, its present and former officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including attorney’s fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of GRANTEE, a subcontractor, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of this Agreement, and against all loss by reason of the failure of GRANTEE to perform any obligation under this Agreement. For clarification and not limitation, this obligation to defend, indemnify and hold harmless includes but is not limited to any liability, claims or actions resulting directly or indirectly from alleged infringement of any copyright or any property right of another, the employment or alleged employment of GRANTEE personnel, the unlawful disclosure and/or use of protected data, or other noncompliance with the requirements of these provisions. 8.INSURANCE GRANTEE shall purchase insurance or utilize a self-insurance program sufficient to cover the maximum level of Minnesota tort liability limits under Minnesota Statute, Chapter 466. 9.DUTY TO NOTIFY GRANTEE shall promptly notify COUNTY of any demand, claim, action, cause of action or litigation brought against GRANTEE, its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, which arises out of this Agreement. GRANTEE shall also notify Page 6 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 5 COUNTY whenever GRANTEE has a reasonable basis for believing that GRANTEE and/or its employees, officers, agents or subcontractors, and/or COUNTY, might become the subject of a demand, claim, action, cause of action, administrative action, criminal arrest, criminal charge or litigation arising out of this Agreement. 10.DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY A.GRANTEE, its officers, agents, owners, partners, employees, volunteers and subcontractors shall, to the extent applicable, abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, chapter 13 (MGDPA) and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, regulations and orders relating to data or the privacy, confidentiality or security of data, which may include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its implementing regulations (HIPAA). For clarification and not limitation, COUNTY hereby notifies GRANTEE that the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 13.05, subd. 11, apply to this Agreement. GRANTEE shall promptly notify COUNTY if GRANTEE becomes aware of any potential claims, or facts giving rise to such claims, under the MGDPA or other data, data security, privacy or confidentiality laws, and shall also comply with the other requirements of this Section. Classification of data, including trade secret data, will be determined pursuant to applicable law and, accordingly, merely labeling data as “trade secret” by GRANTEE does not necessarily make the data protected as such under any applicable law. B.In addition to the foregoing MGDPA and other applicable law obligations, GRANTEE shall comply with the following duties and obligations regarding County Data and County Systems (as each term is defined herein). As used herein, “County Data” means any data or information, and any copies thereof, created by GRANTEE or acquired by GRANTEE from or through COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to handwriting, typewriting, printing, photocopying, photographing, facsimile transmitting, and every other means of recording any form of communication or representation, including electronic media, email, letters, works, pictures, drawings, sounds, videos, or symbols, or combinations thereof. If GRANTEE has access to or possession/control of County Data, GRANTEE shall safeguard and protect the County Data in accordance with generally accepted industry standards, all laws, and all then applicable COUNTY policies, procedures, rules and directions. To the extent of any inconsistency between accepted industry standards and such COUNTY policies, procedures, rules and directions, GRANTEE shall notify COUNTY of the inconsistency and follow COUNTY direction. GRANTEE shall immediately notify COUNTY of any known or suspected security breach or unauthorized access to County Data, then comply with all responsive directions provided by COUNTY. The foregoing Page 7 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 6 shall not be construed as eliminating, limiting or otherwise modifying GRANTEE’s indemnification obligations herein. C.Upon expiration, cancellation or termination of this Agreement: (1)At the discretion of COUNTY and as specified in writing by the Contract Administrator, GRANTEE shall deliver to the Contract Administrator all County Data so specified by COUNTY. (2)COUNTY shall have full ownership and control of all such County Data. If COUNTY permits GRANTEE to retain copies of the County Data, GRANTEE shall not, without the prior written consent of COUNTY or unless required by law, use any of the County Data for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever; shall not assign, license, loan, sell, copyright, patent and/or transfer any or all of such County Data; and shall not do anything which in the opinion of COUNTY would affect COUNTY’s ownership and/or control of such County Data. (3)Except to the extent required by law or as agreed to by COUNTY, GRANTEE shall not retain any County Data that are confidential, protected, privileged, not public, nonpublic, or private, as those classifications are determined pursuant to applicable law. In addition, GRANTEE shall, upon COUNTY’s request, certify destruction of any County Data so specified by COUNTY. 11.RECORDS – AVAILABILITY/ACCESS Subject to the requirements of Minnesota Statutes section 16C.05, subd. 5, COUNTY, the State Auditor, or any of their authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours, and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt, and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent to the accounting practices and procedures of GRANTEE and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. GRANTEE shall maintain these materials and allow access during the period of this Agreement and for six (6) years after its expiration, cancellation or termination. 12.SUCCESSORS, SUBCONTRACTING AND ASSIGNMENTS A.GRANTEE binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to COUNTY for all covenants, agreements and obligations herein. B.GRANTEE shall not assign, transfer or pledge this Agreement whether in whole or in part, nor assign any monies due or to become due to it without the prior written consent of COUNTY. A consent to assign shall be subject to such conditions and provisions as COUNTY may deem necessary, accomplished by execution of a form prepared by COUNTY and signed by GRANTEE, the assignee and COUNTY. Permission to assign, however, shall under no Page 8 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 7 circumstances relieve GRANTEE of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. C.GRANTEE shall not subcontract this Agreement whether in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of COUNTY. Permission to subcontract, however, shall under no circumstances relieve GRANTEE of its liabilities and obligations under the Agreement. Further, GRANTEE shall be fully responsible for the acts, omissions, and failure of its subcontractors in the performance of any specified contractual services, and of person(s) directly or indirectly employed by subcontractors. Contracts between GRANTEE and each subcontractor shall require that the subcontractor’s services be performed in accordance with this Agreement. GRANTEE shall make contracts between GRANTEE and subcontractors available upon request. For clarification and not limitation of the provisions herein, none of the following constitutes assent by COUNTY to a contract between GRANTEE and a subcontractor, or a waiver or release by COUNTY of GRANTEE’s full compliance with the requirements of this Section: (1) COUNTY’s request or lack of request for contracts between GRANTEE and subcontractors; (2) COUNTY’s review, extent of review or lack of review of any such contracts; or (3) COUNTY’s statements or actions or omissions regarding such contracts. D.As required by Minnesota Statutes section 471.425, subd. 4a, GRANTEE shall pay any subcontractor within ten (10) days of GRANTEE’s receipt of payment from COUNTY for undisputed services provided by the subcontractor, and GRANTEE shall comply with all other provisions of that statute. 13.MERGER, MODIFICATION AND SEVERABILITY A.The entire Agreement between the parties is contained herein and supersedes all oral agreements and negotiations between the parties relating to the subject matter. All items that are referenced or that are attached are incorporated and made a part of this Agreement. If there is any conflict between the terms of this Agreement and referenced or attached items, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. GRANTEE and/or COUNTY are each bound by its own electronic signature(s) on this Agreement, and each agrees and accepts the electronic signature of the other party. B.Any alterations, variations or modifications of the provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties. Except as expressly provided, the substantive legal terms contained in this Agreement including but not limited to Indemnification, Insurance, Merger, Modification and Severability, Default and Cancellation/Termination or Minnesota Law Governs may not be altered, varied, Page 9 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 8 modified or waived by any change order, implementation plan, scope of work, development specification or other development process or document. C.If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. 14.DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION A.If GRANTEE fails to perform any of the provisions of this Agreement, fails to administer the work so as to endanger the performance of the Agreement or otherwise breaches or fails to comply with any of the terms of this Agreement, it shall be in default. Unless GRANTEE’s default is excused in writing by COUNTY, COUNTY may upon written notice immediately cancel or terminate this Agreement in its entirety. Additionally, failure to comply with the terms of this Agreement shall be just cause for COUNTY to delay payment until GRANTEE’s compliance. In the event of a decision to withhold payment, COUNTY shall furnish prior written notice to GRANTEE. B.Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, GRANTEE shall remain liable to COUNTY for damages sustained by COUNTY by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by GRANTEE. Upon notice to GRANTEE of the claimed breach and the amount of the claimed damage, COUNTY may withhold any payments to GRANTEE for the purpose of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due COUNTY from GRANTEE is determined. Following notice from COUNTY of the claimed breach and damage, GRANTEE and COUNTY shall attempt to resolve the dispute in good faith. C.The above remedies shall be in addition to any other right or remedy available to COUNTY under this Agreement, law, statute, rule, and/or equity. D.COUNTY’s failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or waiver of the same, unless consented to in writing. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement. E.This Agreement may be canceled/terminated with or without cause by COUNTY upon thirty (30) days’ written notice. F.If this Agreement expires or is cancelled or terminated, with or without cause, by either party, at any time, GRANTEE shall not be entitled to any payment, fees or other monies except for payments duly invoiced for then-delivered and accepted deliverables/milestones pursuant to this Agreement. In the event GRANTEE has performed work toward a deliverable that COUNTY has not accepted at the time of expiration, cancellation or termination, GRANTEE shall not be entitled to any payment for said work including but not limited to incurred costs of performance, Page 10 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 9 termination expenses, profit on the work performed, other costs founded on termination for convenience theories or any other payments, fees, costs or expenses not expressly set forth in this Agreement. G.Upon written notice, COUNTY may immediately suspend or cancel/terminate this Agreement in the event any of the following occur: (i) COUNTY does not obtain anticipated funding from an outside source for this project; (ii) funding for this project from an outside source is withdrawn, frozen, shut down, is otherwise made unavailable or COUNTY loses the outside funding for any other reason; or (iii) COUNTY determines, in its sole discretion, that funding is, or has become, insufficient. COUNTY is not obligated to pay for any costs or expenses or obligations incurred or encumbered after the notice and effective date of the suspension or cancellation/termination. In the event COUNTY suspends, cancels or terminates this Agreement pursuant to this paragraph, COUNTY shall pay any amount due and payable prior to the notice of suspension or cancellation/termination except that COUNTY shall not be obligated to pay any amount as or for penalties, early termination fees, charges, time and materials for costs, expenses or profits on work done. H.GRANTEE has an affirmative obligation, upon written notice by COUNTY that this Agreement may be suspended or cancelled/terminated, to follow reasonable directions by COUNTY, or absent directions by COUNTY, to exercise a fiduciary obligation to COUNTY, before incurring or making further costs, expenses, obligations or encumbrances arising out of or related to this Agreement. 15.SURVIVAL OF PROVISIONS Provisions that by their nature are intended to survive the term, cancellation or termination of this Agreement do survive such term, cancellation or termination. Such provisions include but are not limited to: GRANT REQUIREMENTS; INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR; INDEMNIFICATION; INSURANCE; DUTY TO NOTIFY; DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY; RECORDS-AVAILABILITY/ACCESS; DEFAULT AND CANCELLATION/TERMINATION; MEDIA OUTREACH; and MINNESOTA LAW GOVERNS. 16.GRANT ADMINISTRATION Kaitlin Steinberg/Kira Berglund, Waste Reduction and Recycling Specialist, or their successor (“Grant Administrator”), shall manage this Agreement on behalf of COUNTY and serve as liaison between COUNTY and GRANTEE. [NAME AND PHONE NUMBER (EMAIL OR FAX NUMBER IS HELPFUL IF AVAILABLE) shall manage the agreement on behalf of GRANTEE. GRANTEE may replace such person but shall immediately give written notice to COUNTY of the name, phone number and email/fax number (if available) of such substitute person and of any other subsequent substitute person.] Page 11 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 10 17.COMPLIANCE AND NON-DEBARMENT CERTIFICATION A.GRANTEE shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local statutes, funding sources, regulations, rules and ordinances currently in force or later enacted. B.GRANTEE certifies that it is not prohibited from doing business with either the federal government or the state of Minnesota as a result of debarment or suspension proceedings. C.If the source or partial source of funds for payment under this Agreement is from federal or state monies or from a federal, state or other grant source, GRANTEE is bound by and shall comply with applicable law, rules, regulations, applicable documentation or other COUNTY directives relating to the source and utilization of such funds. 18.RECYCLING COUNTY encourages GRANTEE to establish a recycling program for at least three materials, such as newsprint, office paper, glass, plastic, and metal. 19.NOTICES Unless the parties otherwise agree in writing, any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party under this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notices to COUNTY shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the originating COUNTY department at the address given in the opening paragraph of this Agreement. Notice to GRANTEE shall be sent to the address stated in the opening paragraph of this Agreement or to the address stated in GRANTEE’s Form W-9 provided to COUNTY. 20.CONFLICT OF INTEREST GRANTEE affirms that to the best of GRANTEE’s knowledge, GRANTEE’s involvement in this Agreement does not result in a conflict of interest with any party or entity which may be affected by the terms of this Agreement. Should any conflict or potential conflict of interest become known to GRANTEE, GRANTEE shall immediately notify COUNTY of the conflict or potential conflict, specifying the part of this Agreement giving rise to the conflict or potential conflict, and advise COUNTY whether GRANTEE will or will not resign from the other engagement or representation. Unless waived by COUNTY, a conflict or potential conflict may, in COUNTY’s discretion, be cause for cancellation or termination of this Agreement. Page 12 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 11 21.MEDIA OUTREACH GRANTEE shall notify COUNTY, prior to publication, release or occurrence of any Outreach (as defined below). The parties shall coordinate to produce collaborative and mutually acceptable Outreach. For clarification and not limitation, all Outreach shall be approved by COUNTY, by and through the Public Relations Officer or his/her designee(s), prior to publication or release. As used herein, the term “Outreach” shall mean all media, social media, news releases, external facing communications, advertising, marketing, promotions, client lists, civic/community events or opportunities and/or other forms of outreach created by, or on behalf of, GRANTEE (i) that reference or otherwise use the term “Hennepin County,” or any derivative thereof; or (ii) that directly or indirectly relate to, reference or concern the County of Hennepin, this Agreement, the Grant Requirements performed hereunder or COUNTY personnel, including but not limited to COUNTY employees and elected officials. 22.MINNESOTA LAWS GOVERN The laws of the state of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the parties and their performance. The appropriate venue and jurisdiction for any litigation will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, state of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the state of Minnesota. 23.HENNEPIN COUNTY PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX AND PROPERTY TAX GRANTEE affirms that it and its officers have paid all Hennepin County personal property taxes and property taxes due on all of its Hennepin County properties for taxes owed on or before the date of the execution of this contract. If the County finds that property taxes have not been paid by GRANTEE, GRANTEE’s owner and GRANTEE’s board of directors (if any), County may refuse to disburse funds or require the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed. THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 13 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 12 COUNTY BOARD AUTHORIZATION Reviewed for COUNTY by the County Attorney's Office: {{Sig_es_:signer3:signature}} {{userstamp3_es_:signer3:stamp}} Reviewed for COUNTY by: {{Sig_es_:signer4:signature}} {{userstamp4_es_:signer4:stamp}} Board Resolution No: {{*BoardResolution_es_:signer4:brs}} Document Assembled by: {{Sig_es_:signer1:signature}} {{userstamp1_es_:signer1:stamp}} {{Exh_es_:signer1:attachment:label("Attachments")}} COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA By: {{Sig_es_:signer6:signature}} {{userstamp6_es_:signer6:stamp}} ATTEST: {{Sig_es_:signer7:signature}} {{userstamp7_es_:signer7:stamp}} By: {{Sig_es_:signer5:signature}} {{userstamp5_es_:signer5:stamp}} Page 14 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement 13 GRANTEE GRANTEE warrants that the person who executed this Agreement is authorized to do so on behalf of GRANTEE as required by applicable articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances.* By: {{Sig_es_:signer2:signature}} {{userstamp2_es_:signer2:stamp}} {{ ttl_es_:signer2:title}} *GRANTEE represents and warrants that it has submitted to COUNTY all applicable documentation (articles, bylaws, resolutions or ordinances) that confirms the signatory's delegation of authority. Documentation is not required for a sole proprietorship. Page 15 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy January 1, 2022 – December 31, 2025 Department communication to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners on October 5, 2021 Page 16 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Communicated October 5, 2021 1 I. Policy Overview A.Background The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners has determined that residential waste reduction and recycling programs support county goals to make progress toward zero waste, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce disparities associated with waste disposal. The county has adopted the goals established in State Statute and by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in its Metropolitan Solid Waste Management Policy Plan and developed a Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy to help reach a 75% recycling rate by 2030. B.SCORE funds The county receives funding from the state’s Select Committee on Recycling and the Environment (SCORE) for the development and implementation of waste reduction and recycling programs. SCORE funds are based on revenue received by the State of Minnesota from the solid waste management tax (SWMT) on garbage services and are subject to change based on the SWMT revenue received by the state and funds allocated by the legislature. C.Support for city programs City recycling programs play an important role in the solid waste management system. The county has funded city programs for over 30 years and will use this policy to make available all SCORE funds to cities for residential waste reduction and recycling programs. SCORE funds will be dedicated to four different purposes: 1) general funding for waste reduction and recycling programs, 2) curbside organics recycling programs, 3) organics drop-off sites, and 4) multifamily waste reduction and recycling. Funds distributed to cities for a calendar year will be based on SCORE funds received by the county in the state’s corresponding fiscal year. D.Term of the policy Hennepin County is committed to implementing this policy from January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2025. The county may revise this policy to align with strategic priorities developed in the zero waste plan or solid waste management master plan. In addition, the county may revise this policy if it determines changes are needed to assure compliance with state law and MPCA goals established for metropolitan counties. If SCORE funds are eliminated from the state budget or significantly reduced, the county will consult with cities at that time and develop a recommendation to the board on future funding for residential waste reduction and recycling programs. Page 17 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Communicated October 5, 2021 2 E.Grant agreements Each city seeking funding under the terms of the Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy must enter into a grant agreement with the county for a term concurrent with the expiration of this policy, December 31, 2025. The grant agreement must be accompanied by a resolution authorizing the city to enter into such an agreement. If cities form a joint powers organization responsible for waste reduction and recycling programs, the county will enter into a grant agreement with that entity and distribute funds to that organization. II.Allocation of Funds SCORE funds will be dedicated to the following purposes: General funding for waste reduction and recycling programs Curbside organics recycling programs Organics drop-off sites Multifamily waste reduction and recycling A.Waste reduction and recycling programs The county will dedicate 40% of SCORE funds to provide funding for city waste reduction and recycling programs. For the purposes of this policy, city waste reduction and recycling programs include organics recycling. Funds will be allocated based on number of eligible households with curbside recycling service. The following formula will be used to calculate a city’s grant amount. Number of eligible households with curbside recycling in city ------------------------------- Total number of eligible households with curbside recycling in county x 40% of SCORE funds available = Waste reduction and recycling grant amount available to the city Eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings or other residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection and receives recycling collection service through the city. In cities with open recycling collection, eligible households are defined as households in single family through fourplex residential buildings where each household has its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection. The number of eligible households will be determined by counting the number of eligible households on January 1 of each funding year. The city will report the number in its application for funding. Page 18 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Communicated October 5, 2021 3 B.Curbside organics recycling programs The county will dedicate 50% of SCORE funds to provide funding for curbside organics recycling programs. Funds will be allocated using participation targets for each city. Funding is not contingent upon meeting the participation target. The following formula will be used to calculate a city’s grant amount. Target number of households with curbside organics recycling in city ------------------------------- Total target number of households with curbside organics recycling in county x 50% of SCORE funds available = Curbside organics recycling amount available to the city Initial participation targets (as a percent of households with curbside recycling service): 50% for cities that contract for organics recycling service 10% for cities that require haulers to offer organics recycling service C.Organics drop-off sites The county will dedicate up to $3,300 per eligible city to provide funding for organics drop-off site expenses. Cities with a population of less than 10,000 are eligible. E.Multifamily waste reduction and recycling The county will take 10% of SCORE funds, subtract the amount allocated to organics drop-off sites, and dedicate the remainder to provide funding for multifamily waste reduction and recycling programs. For the purposes of this policy, city waste reduction and recycling programs include organics recycling. Funds will be allocated based on the number of multifamily households. The following formula will be used to calculate a city’s grant amount. Number of multifamily households in city ------------------------------- Total number of multifamily households in county x 10% of SCORE funds available minus organics drop-off funds = Multifamily waste reduction and recycling amount available to the city Page 19 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Communicated October 5, 2021 4 Multifamily households in cities with organized recycling collection are defined as 1) households in buildings where each household does not have its own recycling collection container to set out for curbside collection, or 2) households in buildings that do not receive recycling collection service through the city, including apartment buildings, condominiums, townhomes, and cooperative housing units where a property manager or association coordinates collection service. Multifamily households in cities with open recycling collection are defined as households in residential buildings larger than a fourplex. III.Application for Funding A. General program and curbside organics application To receive funding for waste reduction and recycling programs and curbside organics recycling, each city must complete an annual grant application by February 15 of that year. The application consists of a web-based report that requests the following: contract, program, tonnage, and financial information. The participation rate for the curbside recycling program must also be included in the web-based report. The city must calculate its participation rate during the month of October. The methodology for measuring participation must be provided to the county upon request. The county may request additional information, such as a planning document with a description of activities the city will implement to increase recycling and make progress toward county objectives. B. Organics drop-off sites and multifamily supplementary application To receive funding for organics drop-off sites and multifamily waste reduction and recycling, each city must submit a supplementary grant application form annually. The county will provide this form by February 15 and the city must complete it by March 15 of that year. IV.Use of Funds A.Conditions applying to all funds The following requirements apply to the use of all funds: 1.Funds must be expended on eligible activities per Minnesota Statutes §115A.557. 2.All grant funds accepted from the county must be used in the year granted unless the county agrees to an exception. The county will not provide any funds in excess of actual expenses. Funds not spent must be returned to the county. Page 20 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Communicated October 5, 2021 5 3.A city or joint powers organization may not charge its residents through property tax, utility fees, waste fees, environmental fees, or any other method for the portion of its waste reduction and recycling program costs that are funded by county grant funds. 4.Cities must track expenditures for waste reduction and recycling programs, curbside organics recycling, organics drop-off sites, and multifamily waste reduction and recycling and establish accounting mechanisms to provide the information requested in the financial section of the annual grant application. 5.Waste reduction and recycling activities, revenues, and expenditures are subject to audit. B. Curbside organics use of funds Curbside organics grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following: •Incentives for participation (service discounts, countertop pails, compostable bags) •City contract costs •Education and outreach •Carts •Other expenses approved by the county Yard waste expenses are not eligible. If organics are co-collected with other waste, the organics expenses must be tracked separately. If a city passes funds through to a hauler, 100% of those funds must be credited to residents’ bills. C.Organics drop-off sites use of funds Organics drop-off site grant funds may be used for program expenses, including the following: •Hauling and disposal •Dumpsters or carts •Site construction •Education and outreach •Incentives for participation (countertop pails, compostable bags) •Other expenses approved by the county D.Multifamily waste reduction and recycling use of funds Cities that choose to apply for multifamily waste reduction and recycling funding will work with the county to identify eligible activities that are customized to the city’s goals and needs. These activities will be determined through the supplementary grant application process. Page 21 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Communicated October 5, 2021 6 Unused funds will be used by the county to provide multifamily waste reduction and recycling program services. Multifamily resources provided by the county, including reusable tote bags/baskets and multifamily specific signs and labels, are not eligible expenses. V.City Requirements A.Materials accepted A city’s curbside collection program must accept a list of mixed recyclables as selected by the county in consultation with haulers, local material recovery facilities, and end markets. The county will update the list of materials as needed, distribute the list to city recycling coordinators, and post the list on the county’s website. B.Education and outreach The partnership between the county and municipalities has been highly effective in educating residents and motivating behavior change. To continue this partnership and increase these efforts, city waste reduction, recycling and organics recycling activities must be coordinated with county and regional efforts. Municipalities must adhere to the following requirements: 1.Use county terminology on promotional and educational materials when describing recycling and organics recycling guidelines, including the description of materials accepted and not accepted, as well as when describing preparation guidelines. 2.Use images approved by the county if using images of mixed recyclables and organic materials. 3.Provide the following information on the city’s website; Recycling and organics recycling materials accepted and not accepted Curbside collection calendar Organics drop-off site(s) information Links to county resources and programs 4.Provide a guide on recycling and organics recycling to residents each year. The guide shall contain information on curbside collection, materials accepted and not accepted, organics drop off site information (if applicable), and a curbside collection calendar. 5.Complete two or more waste reduction, recycling and organics recycling educational activities annually that include the promotion of curbside collection. The county will provide a list of activities to city recycling coordinators. These activities are in addition to the provision of an annual guide. Page 22 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Communicated October 5, 2021 7 6.If a city develops its own educational materials, does not use a template produced by the county, does not utilize design services offered by the county, or relies on a hauler to provide an annual guide, then the city must submit the materials to the county for approval. C. Waste reduction and recycling performance On an annual basis, cities must demonstrate that a reasonable effort has been made to improve waste reduction and recycling programs. If a city does not demonstrate measurable progress, a waste reduction and recycling improvement plan must be submitted by the city within 90 days of being notified by the county. The waste reduction and recycling improvement plan must be negotiated with the county and specify the efforts that will be undertaken by the municipality to improve its program to yield the results necessary to achieve county objectives. In cooperation with the county, the city may be required to participate in waste sorts and community engagement to identify strategies to improve waste reduction and recycling outcomes. VI.Grant Payments The county will make two equal payments to the city. Those two payments will provide the sum of each city’s total grant amount for general waste reduction and recycling programs, curbside organics recycling programs, organics drop-off sites, and multifamily waste reduction and recycling. One payment will be made after the county receives the applications for funding. A second payment will be made after basic program requirements, education and outreach requirements, and performance have been confirmed and approved. If the city meets the county requirements, both payments will be made during the same calendar year. Cities are expected to fulfill the conditions of this policy and the requirements of Ordinance 13. It is the responsibility of each city to meet the requirements of Ordinance 13. The implementation of the county requirements for cities shall be the responsibility of each respective city. If any city fails to establish or implement any or all of the city requirements in Ordinance 13, all SCORE funding will be withheld until the city meets the requirements or a waste reduction and recycling improvement plan is negotiated with the county. Page 23 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4i) Title: Hennepin County Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Grant Agreement Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4j Executive summary Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution approving the preliminary and final plat of Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition. Policy consideration: Does the application meet city requirements for a preliminary and final plat? Summary: Sambatek, on behalf of OP4 SLP , applied for a preliminary and final plat for the property located at 1651 and 1653 Utica Avenue. The applicant will also apply for a planned unit development (PUD) amendment from the City of Golden Valley, where part of this property is located. The PUD changes may be handled administratively for the City of St. Louis Park, as no new buildings or construction are proposed at this time. The preliminary and final plat will create a new ou tlot containing a Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) lift station previously provided for through an easement. Planning commission held a public hearing on the application on Jan. 19, 2022. No one spoke at the public hearing, and the commission recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat 6-0. 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: Discussion Resolution Preliminary plat Final plat Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, associate planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager Karen Barton, community development director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Discussion Background: On December 15, 2014, city council approved a preliminary plat and preliminary planned unit development for a multi-phase project called Central Park West. The site is part of the larger West End Redevelopment area, and the plans include two six -story multiple -family residential buildings, a six -story limited-service hotel, two 11-story office buildings, a 2,534-stall parking ramp, and a privately maintained gathering space. Please see the site plan below. At the time of this staff report, only one 11-story office building (20 West End) and additional parking structure remain to be built. Shared services agreements: The cities of St. Louis Park and Golden Valley have shared services agreements to address certain issues that arise from having buildings and other improvements that cross the municipal boundary of the two cities. This will be updated when 20 West End is built, but no changes are needed at this time. Present considerations: The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, seeks approval for a preliminary and final plat to create a new outlot containing the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) lift station, separating it from the rest of the existing outlot, and for MCES to obtain fee title to the land that the lift station occupies. The overall boundary of the plat will remain the same. The lift station is entirely within Golden Valley. The city councils of both St. Louis Park and Golden Valley must approve the final plat for it to be recorded with Hennepin County. Remaining phase 11-story office building, parking structure MCES lift station City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4j) Page 3 Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Site information: Site area (acres): 3.39; 2.05 in St. Louis Park and 1.34 in Golden Valley Current use: vacant land, lift station Surrounding land uses: North: office East: Hwy 100 South: office West: Utica Avenue, office Current 2040 land use guidance Current zoning OFC- office O office Zoning analysis: The applicant seeks preliminary and final plat approval to create two outlots from one existing outlot. Description: Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition will have an area of 147,613 square feet or 3.389 acres and consist of two outlots: • Outlot A will have an area of 144,841 square feet or 3.325 acres • Outlot B will have an area of 2,772 square feet or 0.064 acres City of St. Louis Park City of Golden Valley 1651 Utica Avenue 10 West End office development 1653 Utica Avenue MCES lift station City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4j) Page 4 Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Right-of-way dedication: No right -of-way will be dedicated by the plat. Easements: Drainage and utility easements are proposed along all rights-of-way. When applications for redevelopment are submitted to the city, additional easements may be required depending upon the details of the project. The previously approved plat received a subdivision variance that allows interior lot lines to not contain drainage and utility easements. Park and trail dedication fees: No construction is proposed as part of this plat request, and no park and trail dedication fees are due at this time. When the property is platted again to create a lot and block description the fees will be determined based on the details of the development at that time . Staff find the preliminary and final plat meets city requirements. Public outreach: All properties within 500 feet of the proposed development were notified by mail of the public hearing. A legal notice was published in the official newspaper regarding the public hearing. A “proposed development” sign was also posted on the site. Project and meeting information was shared through the city website. No comments were received. Planning commission held a public hearing on the application on January 19, 2022. No one spoke at the public hearing. Recommendation: The planning commission recommended approval of the preliminary and final plat 6-0. Staff recommend approval of the Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Preliminary and Final Plat subject to the conditions listed in the resolution of approval. Next steps: The applicant will seek similar approvals from the City of Golden Valley. Any future development of the property will require additional land use applications, including a preliminary and final plat and a final PUD. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4j) Page 5 Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution approving preliminary and final plat of Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition 1651 and 1653 Utica Avenue Whereas, Sambatek on behalf of OP4 SLP, owner of land proposed to be platted as Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition, has submitted an application for preliminary and final plat in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have bee n duly had thereunder. Whereas, the proposed plat is situated upon lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally d escrib ed as f ollows: Outlot A, Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Second Addition Whereas, legal notice was published in the official newspaper and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the subject property at least 10 days prior to the scheduled public hearing regarding the application. Whereas, the planning commission held a public hearing on Jan. 19, 2022, and t he commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the preliminary and final plat with conditions. Whereas, the propose d preliminary and final plat has bee n found to be in all respects consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. Now therefore be it resolved the preliminary and final plat of Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition are hereby approved and accepted by the city as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, city plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the city attorney and certification by the city clerk and subject to the following conditions: 1.Prior to the city signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: a.A financial security in the form of a cas h escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the city to ensure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the city. b.The City of Golden Valley’s city council approves the final plat. It is further resolved the city clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named subdivider, who is the applicant herein. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4j) Page 6 Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition The mayor and city manage r are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the city cle rk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the city cou ncil upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth have been fulfilled. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the city clerk, as required under Section 26- 123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and city officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. The city clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk OUTLOT A OUTLOT B Line Table Line # L1 L2 L3 Length 34.41 54.74 26.31 Direction N2°09'53"E S76°41'24"E S11°42'52"W Curve Table Curve # C1 C2 Length L=21.18 L=12.34 Radius R=12.00 R=8.00 Delta Δ=101°08'43" Δ=88°24'16" 0 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 40 80 1. The bearing system is based on the Hennepin County coordinate system, NAD83 (1986 Adjust). With an assumed bearing of South 88 degrees 13 minutes 33 seconds East for the most southerly line of Outlot A, CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 SECOND ADDITION. 2. The vertical datum is based on NAVD88. The originating bench marks are 2789 AY and 2789 AZ, both referenced from the MnDOT Geodetic Database. 3. Subject property's addresses and property identification numbers are: St. Louis Park Parcel:1651 Utica Avenue S 30-029-24-32-0033 Golden Valley Parcel: 1653 Utica Avenue S 30-029-24-31-0057 LEGEND SURVEY NOTES Outlot A, CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 SECOND ADDITION, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Project Location Date Submittal / RevisionNo. Certification Sheet Title Summary Revision History Sheet No.Revision Project No. By Designed:Drawn: Approved: Book / Page: Phase:Initial Issue: Client FOTH INFRASTRUCTURE CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 THIRD ADDITON ST. LOUIS PARK & GOLDEN VALLEY, MN DL KED 1276/50 PPLAT 06/04/2020 22079.01 FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE MONUMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED SET MONUMENT MARKED LS 18418 SANITARY MANHOLE UTILITY MANHOLE SANITARY FORCE MAIN CHAIN LINK FENCE CONCRETE CURB BOUNDARY LINE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE UNDERLYING / ADJACENT LOT SECTION LINE EASEMENT LINE RESTRICTED ACCESS VICINITY MAP SITE 100 N.T.S.GAMBLE DR W 16T H UTICA AVE SPARK PL BLVDWAYZATA BLVD ST 394 TOTAL SITE AREA: PROPOSED OUTLOT A: PROPOSED OUTLOT B: 3.389 Acres or 147,613 Square Feet 3.325 Acres or 144,841 Square Feet 0.064 Acres or 2,772 Square Feet LOT SUMMARY Aug 28, 2020 - 11:20am - User:ariecken L:\PROJECTS\22079\CAD\Survey\22079-PPLAT.dwg 1/1 PRELIMINARY PLAT Registration No.Date: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed LAND SURVEYOR under the laws of the State of Minnesota. If applicable, contact us for a wet signed copy of this survey which is available upon request at Sambatek's, Minnetonka, MN office. 06/04/202018418 Keith E. Dahl SANITARY SEWER BITUMINOUS EDGE A 6/09/2020 BAA EDITED OUTLOT B EASEMENT LINES/ARCS City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4j) Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Page 7 OUTLOT A OUTLOT B Line Table Line # L1 L2 L3 Length 34.41 54.74 26.31 Direction N2°09'53"E S76°41'24"E S11°42'52"W Curve Table Curve # C1 C2 Length L=21.18 L=12.34 Radius R=12.00 R=8.00 Delta Δ=101°08'43" Δ=88°24'16"0 NORTH SCALE IN FEET 40 80 DENOTES 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT SET AND MARKED BY LICENSE NO. 47092. DENOTES 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT FOUND UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN. THE SOUTH LINE OF THE MOST SOUTHERLY LINE, OUTLOT A, CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 SECOND ADDITION IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF SOUTH 88 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 33 SECONDS EAST. ENGINEERING, PLANNING AND LAND SURVEYING R.T. DOC. NO. CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 THIRD ADDITION SAMBATEK, INC. KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That OP4, SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, fee owner of the following described property situated in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, to wit: Outlot A, CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 SECOND ADDITION Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 THIRD ADDITION. In witness whereof said OP4,SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____. SIGNED: OP4, SLP, LLC By: Its: By: STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____, by _________________, the ______________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________________________of OP4, SLP, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Signature Notary Printed Name Notary Public, County, My Commission Expires I Jason J. Howard do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20_____. Jason J. Howard, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 47092 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____, by Jason J. Howard. Signature Notary Printed Name Notary Public, County, Minnesota My Commission Expires CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SAINT LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA This plat of CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 THIRD ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of ____________________, 20_____ , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. City Council, City of Saint Louis Park, Minnesota By: Mayor By: Clerk CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY, MINNESOTA This plat of CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 THIRD ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Golden Valley, Minnesota, at a regular meeting thereof held this ______ day of ____________________, 20_____ , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subdivision 2. City Council, City of Golden Valley, Minnesota By: Mayor By: Clerk RESIDENT AND REAL ESTATE SERVICES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20_____ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____. Mark V. Chapin, County Auditor By: , Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____. Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By: REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of CENTRAL PARK WEST P.U.D. NO. 121 THIRD ADDITION was filed in this office this _______ day of ____________________, 20_____, at ______ o'clock ____ .M. Amber Bougie , Hennepin County Registrar of Titles By: , Deputy City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4j) Title: Preliminary and final plat – Central Park West P.U.D. No. 121 Third Addition Page 8 Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4k Executive summary Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Recommended action: Motion to direct staff to submit a letter of interest to acquire land that Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has deemed to be excess right-of-way. Policy consideration: Does council want to submit a letter of interest to MNDOT to acquire the land (two “conv eyance p arcels”) near Toledo Avenue and 28th Street? Summary: On Nov. 22, 2021, city council reciev e d a written report providing background. A link to the previous report is provided in the supporting documents. In January 2022, city staff met with M NDOT Metro District staff. We received updated information on MnDOT’s position, process and timeline. Of interest to this requeste d consent agenda action, is that MnDOT indicated the city could submit a letter of interest to acquire the property without de fining the proposed use of the land. MnDOT has not formally offere d the land to the city at this time. They have only notified the city that they intend to release the land and aske d if the city is interested in acquiring property. Staff recommends submitting a letter of interest. This preserve s the full range of the city’s options in MnDOT’s process. It also does not obligate the city to any f uture actions. Next Steps: Staff will prepare and send a letter of interest to MnDOT. MnDOT indicated they would likely prepare appraisals for the conveyance parcels. Within a few months, MnDOT would send the city an official offer letter. The city would have six months from the date of the offer letter to formally respond. Financial or budget considerations: In this latest meeting, MnDOT indicat ed if the south conv eyance parcel is obtain ed for a public purpose, MnDOT would convey the land to the city for no cost. If the city obtains the south parcel for a private purpose or acquires the north parcel f or either public or private purpose, MnDOT indicated the city could purchase the land for fair market valu e. This was a change in th eir position that was not explained. There may be other costs to conduct any additional due diligence the city deemed necessary, potentially public process to determine the appropriate use of the land, and costs to develop the land for a specific use . Strategic priori ty consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion; Location map; MnDOT Office of Environmental Stewardship memorandums; Nov. 22, 2021 study session written report and minutes Prepared by: Sean Walther, planning manager Reviewed by: Karen Barton, community development director; Deb Heiser, engineering director; Brian Hoffman, building and energy director, Cindy Walsh, deputy city manager/ operations and recreation director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Discussion Background: MnDOT Metro District determined right of way along Highway 100 that is west of Toledo Avenue and south of 28th Street no longer serves a transportation purpose, so it is essentially excess right of way. This is the first step in MnDOT’s decision -making process for land release. MnDOT has not formally offered the land to the city at this time. They have only notified the city that they intend to release the land and have asked us if we are interested in obtaining the property. Land characteristics Area: MnDOT right of way – 73,612 square feet (1.7 acres) City right of way – 28,888 square feet (0.66 acres) Zoning: R2 – single -family residence Comprehensive plan future land use guidance: right of way Other: Located inside the boundaries of the St. Louis Park Minneapolis Eruv. Community interest: Since the completion of the TH100 project, there has been community intere st regarding this right of way and the rock garden. Recently, staff has received emails from 40+ residents asking the city to take over ownership of this land and restore the rock garden. Present considerations: At a January 2022 meeting with city staff, MnDOT provided updates on their position, process and timeline related to the two conveyance parcels in this area. A brief summary of the updates is provided below. Environmental review: MnDOT’s o ffice of e nvironmental stewardship completed their environmental review. MnDOT’s environmental findings were prepared for their internal decision making and are not to be relied upon by any prospective owners as environmental due diligence. Based on the information available their assessmen t of the risk of environmental impacts on the conveyance parcels is low. The ir office of e nvironmental stewardship recommends that MnDOT proceed with conveyance of the parcels. The memorandums are attached for information. Cost: MnDOT indicated they viewe d the north conveyance parcel differently than the south conveyance parcel. The south parcel could be transferred to the city at no cost if the city and MnDOT agreed upon a public use of the property by the city. The north parcel, however, they now indicate the city could purchase at fair market value whether the use was for a public use or private use. However, even if the city purchased it for a private use, the land may carry restrictions, because the property was not offered to all parties for bid. Staff will continue to discuss this with MnDOT, as we are unclear about why this has changed and what limitations the land would carry if it were not public use. Appraisal: MnDOT indicated their next step for the conveyance parcels is to obtain or conduct and appraisal of the fair market value which will likely take several months . This step was not identified in earlier conversations . Staff is unclear if this step was added because of the north parcel, or it is a standard part of their process that wasn’t previously mentioned. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Page 3 Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Timeline: MnDOT would like to receive a letter of interest soon, so they can begin the appraisal process. The exact timeline was unclear, but it may take several months. Following the appraisal, and when the MnDOT extends a formal offer to the city, we have six months to respond. His torical review : MnDOT indicated that the property is not designated historical and there is no remaining federal or state obligation due to the rock garden. The work completed in 2009 at Lilac Park satisfied the historic preservation obligations. Next steps: •Staff will prepare and send a letter of interest when directed without defining the purpose of the acquisition. •Staff will contact MnDOT for additional clarifications. •Staff will review city council study session calendar to schedule a discussion on this item. The scope of the discussion may include: o city council direction on acquiring the parcel(s). o purpose of the city acquisition (potential public purposes). o city due diligence (phase I and phase II environmental review) and timing. o council expectations/staff recommendations regarding public process to determine the appropriate land uses. SALEM AVE SSALEM AVE SHIGHWAY 100 SHIGHWAY 100 SVERNON AVE SVERNON AVE STOLEDO AVE STOLEDO AVE SUTICA AVE SUTICA AVE SMINNETONKA BLVDMINNETONKA BLVD 29TH ST W29TH ST W 28TH ST W28TH ST W UTICA AVE SUTICA AVE S28TH ST W28TH ST W 0 200 400100 Feet MnDOT Excess Land- Toledo and 28th Street Legend MnDOT right of way City right of way Page 4 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - Office of Environmental Stewardship STATE OF MINNESOTA 395 John Ireland Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone (651) 366-3600 FAX (651) 366-3603 Office Memorandum DATE: December 13, 2021 TO: Michelle Waters Environmental Investigation Unit FROM: Alyssa Boock Environmental Investigation Unit PHONE: 612-257-2875 SUBJECT: Conveyance 2021-0066 C.S. 2735 (100=130) 315 Parcel 28 East of TH 100 between 28th Street West and 29th Street West St. Louis Park, Hennepin County (the Conveyance Parcel) Introduction It is important to know if a property is contaminated prior to selling or leasing a property, so that the condition of the property at the time of sale or lease is documented, and this information can be disclosed to a purchaser/lessee. In November 2021, MnDOT’s consultant reviewed the following information to determine if there are any contamination concerns for the Conveyance Parcel: -Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) database regarding known contaminated sites. -Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) database regarding known contaminated sites. -Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Minnesota Well Index (MWI) database regarding known water wells. -MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File Information -MnDOT Environmental Files -Aerial Photographs - Topographic maps -MnDOT Right of Way maps Location The Conveyance Parcel consists of one undeveloped parcel measuring approximately 35,281 square feet and located in the southwest quadrant of West 28th Street and Toledo Avenue South, east of Trunk Highway (TH) 100, in St. Louis Park, Hennepin County. The Conveyance Parcel is bounded to the north by West 28th Street, to the east by Toledo Avenue South, to the south by a MnDOT parcel that contains a rock structure and to the west by TH 100 with predominately residential development located beyond. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and commercial development. MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File A review of the MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File was completed. Parcel 28 (approximately 12.9 acres) was acquired in 1933 for the construction of TH 100. At the time of acquisition, Parcel 28 was developed with buildings that were allowed to be occupied by the grantors for a period of two years. Based on the information, it appears that the buildings consisted of a dwelling, barn, and pump house that were located south of 29th Street West; therefore, not located on the Conveyance Parcel. Currently, there are no structures on the Conveyance Parcel (the northern portion of Parcel 28). No evidence of wells associated with the Conveyance Parcel were included in the file. No information included in the MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File indicates soil or groundwater impacts to the Conveyance Page 5 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Parcel. Historical Maps and Photographs A review of topographic maps covering the Conveyance Parcel and surrounding area was completed for the years 1896, 1905, 1912, 1928, 1949, 1954, 1969, 1973, 1984, 1993, 2013, 2016 and 2019. No structures are depicted at the Conveyance Parcel through 1949. By 1954 and through 2016, an entrance ramp to northbound TH 100 bisects the Conveyance Parcel. No structures are depicted on the Conveyance Parcel in 2019. The existing adjoining street grid is depicted on the maps by 1954. A review of aerial photographs of the Conveyance Parcel and surrounding area was completed for the years 1947, 1957, 1966, 1972, 1979, 1991, 2000, 2009, 2015, 2018 and 2020. An entrance ramp to northbound TH 100 bisects the Conveyance Parcel from 1947 through 2015 with the remainder of the Conveyance Parcel being undeveloped and covered with vegetation. By 2018, the Conveyance Parcel is undeveloped and completely covered with vegetation. The existing adjoining street grid is apparent on all of the photographs and adjoining properties to the north and east are developed for residential use. A review of MnDOT right of way (ROW) maps for the Conveyance Parcel and surrounding area was completed. The ROW maps are generally undated. An “old gravel pit” is depicted on the east end of the Conveyance Parcel on one map that appears to have been originally prepared in 1932. MnDOT Environmental Files A search of MnDOT Office of Environmental Stewardship files was completed. The following environmental documents were reviewed: -Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, T.H. 100, Excelsior Blvd to I-394, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by DPRA Incorporated, dated March 28, 2002 (2002 Phase I ESA) -Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, S.P. 2734-33, TH 100 – West 26th Street to West 36th Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by Peer Engineering, Inc., (PEER), dated August 14, 2012 (2012 Phase I ESA) -Phase II Drilling Investigation Results, S.P. 2734-33, Trunk Highway 100, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by PEER, dated November 12, 2013 (2013 Phase II) -Construction Monitoring Report, Trunk Highway 100 Construction Project, State Project #2734- 33, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, dated November 30, 2017 (2017 Construction Monitoring) 2002 Phase I ESA The 2002 Phase I ESA was prepared for MnDOT in preparation for the reconstruction of TH 100. The assessment was prepared using MnDOT’s modified version of the Phase I ESA standard practice for environmental site assessments. Based on the results, the Conveyance Parcel was not listed as a site with potential to impact subsurface conditions. No ranked sites were identified within 500 feet of the Conveyance Parcel. 2012 Phase I ESA The 2012 Phase I ESA was prepared for MnDOT in preparation for the reconstruction of TH 100. The assessment was prepared using MnDOT’s modified version of the Phase I ESA standard practice for environmental site assessments. Based on the results, the Conveyance Parcel was not listed as a Site of Environmental Concern and was bound by residential Low Ranking sites to the north and east. 2013 Phase II The 2013 Phase II was prepared in preparation for the TH 100 reconstruction project. A total of 28 soil borings were advanced within the proposed TH 100 construction limits near sites identified as High or Page 6 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Medium risk for contamination in the Phase 2013 Phase II ESA. No borings were advanced on the Conveyance Parcel during the investigation; however, two soil borings (PB-5 and PB-6) and one test trench (TT-3) were advanced just south of the Conveyance Parcel on Parcel 28 in the locations of proposed storm water ponds. Groundwater was not encountered in PB-5 or PB-6, which were completed to depths of 12 feet and 32 feet, respectively. No soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis from borings PB-5 or PB-6. Soil samples were collected from test trench TT-3 (0.5-1.5’ and 4-5’) for laboratory analysis. Diesel range organics (DRO) detected at 9.2 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg) in soil sample TT-3 (0.5-1.5’). 2017 Construction Monitoring No construction monitoring activities were conducted on the Conveyance Parcel. MPCA and MDA Regulatory Database Review A review of the MPCA and MDA databases of known contaminated sites was completed. No MPCA or MDA sites were mapped on or within 500 feet of the Conveyance Parcel. MDH MWI Database Review A review of the MWI did not identify any wells registered to, or plotted at, the Conveyance Parcel. Findings These findings are prepared for internal MnDOT decision making and are not to be relied upon by any prospective purchasers as environmental due diligence. Based on this information it appears that the risk of environmental impacts on the Conveyance Parcel is low. The Office of Environmental Stewardship recommends that MnDOT proceed with conveyance of the Conveyance Parcel. Please let me know if you have questions or would like additional information. cc: File Page 7 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - Office of Environmental Stewardship 395 John Ireland Blvd., St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone (651) 366-3600 FAX (651) 366-3603 Office Memorandum DATE: December 13, 2021 TO: Michelle Waters Environmental Investigation Unit FROM: Alyssa Boock Environmental Investigation Unit PHONE: 612-257-2875 SUBJECT: Conveyance 2021-0067 C.S. 2735 (100=130) 315 Parcel 28 East of TH 100 between 28th Street West and 29th Street West St. Louis Park, Hennepin County (the Conveyance Parcel) Introduction It is important to know if a property is contaminated prior to selling or leasing a property, so that the condition of the property at the time of sale or lease is documented, and this information can be disclosed to a purchaser/lessee. In November 2021, MnDOT’s consultant reviewed the following information to determine if there are any contamination concerns for the Conveyance Parcel: -Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) database regarding known contaminated sites. -Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) database regarding known contaminated sites. -Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Minnesota Well Index (MWI) database regarding known water wells. -MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File Information -MnDOT Environmental Files -Aerial Photographs - Topographic maps -MnDOT Right of Way maps Location The Conveyance Parcel consists of one parcel containing a rock structure but is otherwise undeveloped. The Conveyance Parcel measures approximately 38,331 square feet and is located in the southwest quadrant of West 28th Street and Toledo Avenue South, east of Trunk Highway (TH) 100, in St. Louis Park, Hennepin County. The Conveyance Parcel is bounded to the north by a vacant MnDOT Parcel, to the east by Toledo Avenue South, to the south by greenspace and TH 100 right of way, and to the west by TH 100 with predominately residential development located beyond. The surrounding area is a mixture of residential and commercial development. MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File A review of the MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File was completed. Parcel 28 (approximately 12.9 acres) was acquired in 1933 for the construction of TH 100. At the time of acquisition, Parcel 28 was developed with buildings that were allowed to be occupied by the grantors for a period of two years. Based on the information, it appears that the buildings consisted of a dwelling, barn, and pump house that were located south of 29th Street West; therefore, not located on the Conveyance Parcel. Currently, a former Civilian Conservation Corp rock structure is located on the Conveyance Parcel. No evidence of wells associated with the Conveyance Parcel were included in the file. No information Page 8 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street included in the MnDOT Conveyance Parcel File indicates soil or groundwater impacts to the Conveyance Parcel. Historical Maps and Photographs A review of topographic maps covering the Conveyance Parcel and surrounding area was completed for the years 1896, 1905, 1912, 1928, 1949, 1954, 1969, 1973, 1984, 1993, 2013, 2016 and 2019. No structures are depicted at the Conveyance Parcel through 1949. By 1954 and through 2016, an entrance ramp to northbound TH 100 bisects the Conveyance Parcel. No structures are depicted on the Conveyance Parcel in 2019. The existing adjoining street grid is depicted on the maps by 1954. A review of aerial photographs of the Conveyance Parcel and surrounding area was completed for the years 1947, 1957, 1966, 1972, 1979, 1991, 2000, 2009, 2015, 2018 and 2020. An entrance ramp to northbound TH 100 bisects the Conveyance parcel from 1947 through 2015. The existing former Civilian Conservation Corp rock structure appears to be present on all of the photographs. The remainder of the Conveyance Parcel is undeveloped and covered with vegetation. The existing adjoining street grid is apparent on all of the photographs and adjoining properties to the east are developed for residential use. A review of MnDOT right of way (ROW) maps for the Conveyance Parcel and surrounding area was completed. The ROW maps are generally undated. An “old gravel pit” is depicted on the east end of the Conveyance Parcel on one map that appears to have been originally prepared in 1932 and the existing former Civilian Conservation Corp rock structure is depicted on another map that appears to have been originally prepared in 2017. MnDOT Environmental Files A search of MnDOT Office of Environmental Stewardship files was completed. The following environmental documents were reviewed: -Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, T.H. 100, Excelsior Blvd to I-394, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by DPRA Incorporated, dated March 28, 2002 (2002 Phase I ESA) -Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, S.P. 2734-33, TH 100 – West 26th Street to West 36th Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by Peer Engineering, Inc., (PEER), dated August 14, 2012 (2012 Phase I ESA) -Phase II Drilling Investigation Results, S.P. 2734-33, Trunk Highway 100, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by PEER, dated November 12, 2013 (2013 Phase II) -Construction Monitoring Report, Trunk Highway 100 Construction Project, State Project #2734- 33, St. Louis Park, Minnesota, prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, dated November 30, 2017 (2017 Construction Monitoring) 2002 Phase I ESA The 2002 Phase I ESA was prepared for MnDOT in preparation for the reconstruction of TH 100. The assessment was prepared using MnDOT’s modified version of the Phase I ESA standard practice for environmental site assessments. Based on the results, the Conveyance Parcel was not listed as a site with potential to impact subsurface conditions. No ranked sites were identified within 500 feet of the Conveyance Parcel. 2012 Phase I ESA The 2012 Phase I ESA was prepared for MnDOT in preparation for the reconstruction of TH 100. The assessment was prepared using MnDOT’s modified version of the Phase I ESA standard practice for environmental site assessments. Based on the results, the Conveyance Parcel was not listed as a Site of Environmental Concern and was bound by residential Low Ranking sites to the north and east. 2013 Phase II Page 9 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street The 2013 Phase II was prepared in preparation for the TH 100 reconstruction project. A total of 28 soil borings were advanced within the proposed TH 100 construction limits near sites identified as High or Medium risk for contamination in the Phase 2013 Phase II ESA. No borings were advanced on the Conveyance Parcel during the investigation; however, two soil borings (PB-5 and PB-6) and one test trench (TT-3) were advanced just south of the Conveyance Parcel on Parcel 28 in the locations of proposed storm water ponds. Groundwater was not encountered in PB-5 or PB-6, which were completed to depths of 12 feet and 32 feet, respectively. No soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis from borings PB-5 or PB-6. Soil samples were collected from test trench TT-3 (0.5-1.5’ and 4-5’) for laboratory analysis. Diesel range organics (DRO) detected at 9.2 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg) in soil sample TT-3 (0.5-1.5’). 2017 Construction Monitoring No construction monitoring activities were conducted on the Conveyance Parcel. MPCA and MDA Regulatory Database Review A review of the MPCA and MDA databases of known contaminated sites was completed. No MPCA or MDA sites were mapped on or within 500 feet of the Conveyance Parcel. MDH MWI Database Review A review of the MWI did not identify any wells registered to, or plotted at, the Conveyance Parcel. Other Review A MnDOT Historic Roadside Development Structures Inventory indicate that the rock garden on the Conveyance Parcel was constructed in 1939. Findings These findings are prepared for internal MnDOT decision making and are not to be relied upon by any prospective purchasers as environmental due diligence. Based on this information it appears that the risk of environmental impacts on the Conveyance Parcel is low. The Office of Environmental Stewardship recommends that MnDOT proceed with conveyance of the Conveyance Parcel. Please let me know if you have questions or would like additional information. cc: File Page 10 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4k) Title: Letter of interest regarding MnDOT excess land – Toledo Avenue and 28th Street Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4l Official minutes Fire civil service commission November 8, 2021 – 11: 00 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. Bolinger) Guests: None 1. Call to order President Williams called the commission to order at 11:03 am. 2. Approval of minutes – Fire Civil Service Commission of September 13, 2021 Minutes were approved as distributed. 3. Bylaws Update Staff explained that the commission bylaws (Rule One, Section 2) reference an obsolete title (“chief of training and EMS”) and staff requests the commission to update the title to the accurate title (“assistant chief of training and EMS”). It was moved by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tift, to approve the change to the commission bylaws as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Fire Captain Promotional Process Mr. Wolff explained the recommended process for this internal promotional position, which is unchanged from 2 years ago. The process will include essay questions, simulation, promotability index, in -basket exercise and oral interview. The chiefs keep this list current every two years to fill vacancies. It was moved by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Tift, to approve the fire captain promotional process as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 5. Assistant Chief of Training and EMS Promotional Process Mr. Wolff explained the recommended process for this internal promotional position, which will include essay questions, simulation, lesson plan development and presentation, and promotability index, along with an oral interview and leadership/management assessment. This list will stand for 2 years or until exhausted, the chiefs do not plan to keep the list current since vacancies are not common. It was moved by Commissioner Tift, seconded by Commissioner MacMillan, to approve the assistant chie f of training and EMS promotional process as presented. Motion passed unanimously. 6. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:27 a.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Ali Timpone , liaison Stuart Williams , chair member Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Consent agenda item: 4m Official minutes Planning commission December 8, 2021 – 6:00 p.m. Members present: Jim Beneke, Jessica Kraft, Michael Salzer, Sam Tift, Tom Weber, Joffrey Wilson Members absent: Matt Eckholm Staff present: Gary Morrison, Sean Walther 1. Call to order – roll call 2. Approval of minutes – November 17, 2021 Commissioner Weber made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Salze r, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 3. Hearings 3a. Zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to daycares Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No: 21-41-ZA Mr. Morrison presented the report. Commissioner Weber asked if the focus of this is based on conforming to state law or to look at other cities ’ changes, and/or if the city saw more daycares moving in. Mr. Morrison stated it is a combination of all three of these ; adding daycare s is becoming more of a valuable asset to the city. He added that this change will look to ease conditions for daycares to make more properties eligible to host commercial group daycares without affecting safety. Commissioner Salzer asked about the city requirement of playgrounds sized 40 square feet per child and if the state requirements require more space at 75 feet per child. Mr. Morrison stated the city requires 40 feet per child based on the capacity of the daycare building and results in a greater play area requirement than the state. The state requires at least 1,500 square feet of play area no matter how many children the daycare hosts and limits the capacity of the play area to one child per 75 square feet to prevent overcrowding in the play area. Commissioner Salzer asked if improved trails is a defined term . Mr. Morrison stated the trail is improved with asphalt. Vice Chair Beneke asked about removing daycares from the industrial areas. Mr. Morrison stated staff finds that industrial properties and areas are generally unsuitable for daycare uses. These areas are allowed to have outdoor storage of materials, include s truck traffic, and potentially odors or impacts that could cause nuisances. The intent is to further limit daycare centers from industrial areas. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4m) Page 2 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes December 8, 2021 Mr. Morrison stated there are currently no daycares operating in industrial areas of the city. Vice Chair Beneke opened the public hearing. There were no callers or speakers. Vice Chair Beneke closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kraft stated this was a good compromise on the outdoor space and she was happy to see there is some space provided on-site at the daycares, while also allowing for play time at nearby parks as well. She thanked staff for those measures. Commissioner Weber made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Salze r, to approve the zoning ordinance amendment pertaining to daycares as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 3b . Zoning ordinance amendment – solar energy systems Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No: 21-40-ZA Mr. Morrison presented the report. Commissioner Wilson asked if this solar proposal brings the city more in line with the state ordinances. Mr. Morrison stated it does ; staff reviewed the regulations of neighboring cities including Minneapolis . Commissioner Weber asked if staff is aware of projects coming on that would lead to solar energy systems because of the changes. Mr. Morrison stated there are systems already underway because they have not been prevented in the code and the city’s policies encourage them. He stated he does not have a sense anyone is waiting for the ordinance amendment to be able to proceed and noted most permits are for rooftop systems. Mr. Walther stated the city is aware of two industrial properties that are pursuing free- standing systems. One of them would not be allowed currently as a principal use of the land but would be with the ordinance amendment. Vice Chair Beneke opened the public hearing. There were no callers or speakers. Vice Chair Beneke closed the public hearing. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 4m) Page 3 Title: Planning commission meeting minutes December 8, 2021 Commissioner Wilson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Salzer, to approve the zoning ordinance amendment related to solar energy systems as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 4. Other Business - none 5. Communications Mr. Walther stated the December 15 planning commission meeting is cancelled . He stated the next meeting will be January 5. There may be regular business as w ell as a study session related to the 2022 workplan. Mr. Walther stated the commission will be asked also to elect officers per the policy set by council, which requires the planning commission chair to change annually. He noted that the Morrie ’s Hyundai conditional use permit application was approved by city council on Dec. 6, 2021. 6. Adjournment – 6:31 p.m. Sean Walther Matt Eckholm ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Sean Walther, liaison Matt Eckholm, chair member Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Public hearing: 6a Executive summary Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Recommended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take testimony, and then close the public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance establishing the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota statutes, sections 428A.11 to 428A. 21 and to set second reading date for Feb . 22, 2022. Policy consideration: Does the city council support the creation of a Housing Improvement Area for the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association? Summary: The city is authorized by state statute to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. The city adopted an HIA policy in 2001 and has previously established eight HIAs. The Bridgewalk HIA proposal meets the intent of the city policy. The Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association (Association) submitted an application Oct. 5, 2021 for $5.77 million dollars to create a Housing Improvement Area. With city fees and soft costs the total request is $5.97 million. The association submitted signed petitions Jan. 5, 2022 from a majority of owners requesting the city council schedule a public hearing to establish the HIA and impose fees. Per state statue, cities may only establish an HIA when 50% or more of the association owners petition the city to do so. The city has imposed a 70% threshold for this HIA due to the size of the funding request and fees. Petitions were received and certified from over 70% of the owners at Bridgewalk. Financial or budget considerations: If approved the HIA would be funded with a combination of bonds and an EDA internal loan. The maximum HIA amount would be $5.97 million. Strategic priority consideration: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a broad range of housing and neighborhood oriented development. Supporting documents: Discussion Ordinance Resolution Prepared by: Marney Olson, housing supervisor Reviewed by: Melanie Schmitt, chief financial officer Michele Schnitker, housing manager/deputy CD director Karen Barton, CD director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Discussion Background: The city is authorized by state statute to establish HIAs as a finance tool for private housing improvements. An HIA is a defined area within a city where housing improvements are made and the cost of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed on the properties within the area. HIAs are typically utilize d by multifamily ownership housing associations, such as townhome and condominium associations. The city adopted an HIA policy in 2001 and has previously established eight HIAs. The Bridgewalk HIA proposal meets the intent of the city policy. The association hired a consultant, Doug Strandness of Dunbar Strandness, Inc., to work with them on establishing the HIA. Mr. Strandness initially contacted the city in 2019 regarding the city’s HIA policy. City staff did a walkthrough of the property in March 2020 with Mr. Strandness and a board member to see the necessary improvements. The association submitted an application May 27, 2020 with a $6.9 million dollar request, not including the city’s fees and soft costs. Based on the unknown impact of the COVID-19 pan demic on the city’s budget the city was not in a position to consider the HIA at that time. In addition, the HIA was complex with fees significantly higher than any other HIA in the past, and the timeline being requested was not feasible. Staff informed Mr. Strandness that the city was not able to move forward with the HIA request at that time but stated the request could be revisited in the future. The association used the time to evaluate the scope of work and budget. Present considerations: The association submitted an application October 5, 2021 for $5.77 million dollars to create a Housing Improvement Area. With city fees and soft costs the total request is $5.97 million. Bridgewalk is a 92-unit condominium building with one, two and three bedroom units. Bridgewalk was built in 1972 and is in need of improvements to the exterior, interior, mechanical and electrical system, pool, and garage. The association hired Encompass to evaluate the repairs needed at Bridgewalk along with a budget estimate. The application also included a reserve plan, financial plan and reserve study conducted by Reserve Advisors. The reserve and financial plan demonstrate how the association will ensure that they adequately plan for future improvements and ongoing maintenance. The association does not have the reserve funds to make the necessary improvements and has been turned down by two financial institutions for financing. The HIA is a last resort financing tool when associations have no other viable option for raising money for improvements. State law requires at least 50% of the owners sign petitions requesting the city council hold public hearings to establish the HIA and impose the fee. The city has imposed a 70% threshold for this HIA due to the size of the funding reque st and fees. The association undertook extensive outreach to educate and inform homeowners about the HIA project. The city has been working with the association’s consultant since 2019 and hosted two informational meetings in December 2021 to meet with residents and review the HIA process, petition, and fees. 82% of owners (75 of 92 owners) submitted petitions to the city. As of February 1, 2022, the city clerk has certified petitions from 78% of the owners, or 72 of the 75 petitions submitted. The deadline to submit petitions was January 5. Petitions submitted after January 5 or petitions without all owners signing the petition are not able to be certified but do show additional support for the HIA. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Eleven homeowners are interested in seeking a hardship deferral of the HIA fees. Homeowners apply for a hardship deferral and if they meet the requirements, the principal and interest payments are deferred. The deferred payment (principal and interest) becomes due and payable upon sale or transfer of ownership. Qualifications for hardship deferral include: • Applicant must be 65 years of age or older OR retired because of permanent and total disability, and • Prope rty must be homesteaded; and • Income must be at or below 50% of Area Median Income Proposed Scope of Work: There is extensive work needed at Bridgewalk identified in the reserve study and the comprehensive assessment completed by Encompass. In addition to being 50 years old the building has not been well maintained. Major building components have not been replaced when they should have been. Some of the components of the HIA project will significantly reduce utility consumption for both the association and the individual homeowners. The following work would be scheduled to begin in 2022: Exterior buil ding elements, including flat roofs over portion of pool area, north and south buildings; main entry improvements; balconies; exterior siding. Interior building elements, including lobby vestibule; elevator improvements; common area carpeting and paint; unit hallway doors; locker rooms renovation; party/community room renovation. Building service elements, including electrical panel in boiler room; security systems upgrade; common area air handling units; hot water boilers and storage tank; boiler room upgrades; life safety system. Pool elements, including west wall replacement; pool refurbishment (pool & hot tub interiors plus deck); pool equipment; pool HVAC. Garage elements, including lighting, waterproofing; wall paint; ceiling cleaning; exhaust and heating systems. Property site elements, including asphalt (mill & overlay); concrete bridge at southwest corner of building; concrete ramps and aprons; privacy fences between unit patios; courtyard/patio improvements. Unit elements, including unit windows and patio doors (low-E glass) Funding: The HIA will be funded using a combination of an internal EDA loan and general obligation special assessment debt for HIAs. The EDA loan will cover the amount of anticipated hardship deferrals and the balance will be bonds. The association plans to use a construction loan and has requested the city issue a construction loan commitment letter. The city has agreed to Bridgewalk’s use of a construction loan and there are no drawbacks to the city. The primary benefit to the city is that the construction loan will handle all draw requests. The city is protected from financial risk in several ways: • Repayment of the loan is made through owner’s real estate tax payments. • In foreclosure events, tax liabilities including special assessments, must be paid by any party that purchases the unit. In cases of foreclosure, HIA fees have been treated the same as special assessments. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 4 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) • There is a 105% debt coverage as shown on the fee table attached to the resolution. • A development agreement is required which will provide additional contractual conditions to ensure financial stability of the association. Association information: Bridgewalk is located at 450 Ford Rd. • The association is comprised of 92 condominium units built in 1972 • There are 35 units with one bedroom, 50 units with two bedrooms, and seven units with three bedrooms • The 2021 median estimated market value (EMV) is $131,900 and the range of EMV is $95,600 to 183,900 • 73 of the 92 units (79%) are homesteaded Affordable homeownership All units at Bridgewalk, even with the HIA fees, will be affordable to households at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) based on the affordable homeownership limit of $316,000 set by the Metropolitan Council. The majority of the units will be below the 60% AMI ($256,300) or 50% AMI ($201,500) affordable homeownership limit. All homes are well below the maximum home purchase price for existing homes under the state’s first-time home buyer program which is currently $352,300. The creation of the Bridgewalk HIA will preserve affordable homeownership in St. Louis Park. Total Loan Amount The total loan amount is $5,970,000: $5,770,000 primary purpose fund for construction and soft costs, $145,400 for costs associated with bond issuance, and $54,600 for city administrative, legal, financial costs , and rounding. Bridgewalk HIA Sources & Uses 20 Years Sources of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $5,200,000 EDA Cash Contribution $770,000 Total Sources $5,9970,000 Uses of Funds Total Underwriter’s Discount (1.200%) $62,400 Costs of Issuance $83,000 City Admin Fee (0.5%) $28,850 Primary Purpose Fund (Construction loan) $5,770,000 EDA Soft Costs $25,000 Rounding Amount $750 Total project costs $5,970,000 The term of the loan and imposed fees would be 20 years. The loan will be repaid by a fee attached to each property unit. The county will receive the payments through the property tax system and pass back to the city. This is a low risk way for the city to assist with bringing the property up to date to ensure many years of continued use for current and future owners. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 5 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Preliminary estimates of the fees to be imposed on housing units in the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowner’s Association are based on an interest rate of approximately 4.83%. This interest rate is subject to change based on market conditions. Amount to be charged against each housing unit: Estimates of the Housing Improvement Fee to be imposed on housing units in the Bridgewalk HIA range from $41,253 to $112,833, as shown in the attached table . Fees per unit are based on square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) as prescribed in Exhibit A to the Bridgewalk Condominium Declaration. Unless prepaid by August 1, 2022, interest on the per-unit fees will be charged at a rate of 4.83% per annum. Final Housing Improvement Fees may not be more than the amounts described in this paragraph. Payments in full are allowed in future years by November 15 of each year. No partial payments are allowed. At the time of sale , the HIA fee can remain with the unit or be paid off. Filing an objection and veto period: Before the ordinance is adopted or at the hearing in which it is to be adopted, the owner of a housing unit in the proposed HIA may file a written objection with the city clerk asserting that the owners’ property should not be included in the HIA or should not be subjected to a housing improvement fee and objecting to the inclusion of the housing unit in the HIA, for the reason that the property would not benefit from the proposed improvements If residents of 45 percent or more of the housing units in the HIA file an objection to the ordinance with the city clerk before the effective date of the ordinance, the ordinance will not become effective. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Bridgewalk HIA: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within the Bridgewalk HIA file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance ; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Next steps: The next step in the HIA process is the public hearing and first reading of the ordinance and resolution scheduled for February 7. Bridgewalk proposed HIA timeline: Feb. 22, 2022 Second reading/adoption of ordinance and resolution By Feb. 27, 2022 Mail summary of ordinance to unit owners By March 22, 2022 Mail ordinance to Commissioner of Revenue April 9, 2022 Veto period ends April 18, 2022 Development agreement and construction loan commitment letter Aug. 1, 2022 Prepayments due Sept./Oct. 2022 EDA loan approved and issue bonds City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 6 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Ordinance No. ____-22 Ordinance establishing the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 The City of St. Louis Park does hereby ordain: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park (the "city") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The City Council of the city (the “council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2001 (the “HIA Policy”). 1.03. The city has determined a need to establish the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (Bridgewalk HIA) as further defined herein, in order to facilitate certain improvements to property known as Bridgewalk Condominium, all in accordance with the HIA Policy. 1.04. The city has consulted with the Bridgewalk Condominium Owners’ Association (the “Association”) and with residents in the proposed Bridgewalk HIA regarding the establishment of the Bridgewalk HIA and the housing improvements to be constructed and financed under this ordinance. Section 2. Findings. 2.01. The council finds that, in accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act and with the city’s HIA Policy, owners of at least 70 percent of the housing units within the proposed Bridgewalk HIA have filed a petition with the City Clerk requesting a public hearing regarding the establishment of the Bridgewalk HIA. 2.02. In accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, the council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 7, 2022 regarding adoption of this ordinance, at which all persons, including owners of property within the proposed Bridgewalk HIA, were given an opportunity to be heard. 2.03. The council finds that, without establishment of the Bridgewalk HIA, the Housing Improvements (as hereinafter defined) could not be made by the Association or the owners of housing units within the Bridgewalk Condominium. 2.04. The council further finds that designation of the Bridgewalk HIA is needed to maintain and preserve the housing units within such area. 2.05. The council further finds that by Resolution No. 22-____ adopted on the date hereof (the “Fee Resolution”), the city has provided full disclosure of public expenditures, loans, or City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 7 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) other financing arrangements in connection with the Bridgewalk HIA, and has determined that the Association will contract for the Housing Impro vements. 2.06. The city will be the implementing entity for the Bridgewalk HIA and the Housing Improvement Fee (as set forth in the Fee Resolution and Section 5 below). 2.07. The council finds that the Bridgewalk HIA meets each of the approval criteria con tained in the HIA Policy (listed as 4.01A - 4.01N), including the criterion that a majority of the association owners support the project and the financing thereof. The Association presented evidence to the council adequate to demonstrate that these criteria were met, including presentation to the council of the petitions described in 2.01 above. Section 3. Housing Improvement Area Defined. 3.01. The Bridgewalk HIA is hereby defined as the area of the city legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto. 3.02. The Bridgewalk HIA contains 92 housing units as of the date of adoption of this ordinance, along with underground garage and common areas. Section 4. Housing Improvements Defined. 4.01. For the purposes of this ordinance, the Fee Resolution, and the Bridgewalk HIA, the term "Housing Improvements" shall mean the following improvements to housing units and common areas within the Bridgewalk HIA: Exterior building elements, including flat roofs over portion of pool area, north and south buildings; main entry improvements; balconies; exterior siding. Interior building elements, including lobby vestibule; elevator improvements; common area carpeting and paint; unit hallway doors; locker rooms renovation; party/community room renovation. Building service elements, including electrical panel in boiler room; security systems upgrade; common area air handling units; hot water boilers and storage tank; boiler room upgrades; life safety system. Pool elements, including west wall replacement; pool refurbishment (pool & hot tub interiors plus deck); pool equipment; pool HVAC. Garage elements, including lighting, waterproofing; wall paint; ceiling cleaning; exhaust and heating systems. Property site elements, including asphalt (mill & overlay); concrete bridge at southwest corner of building; concrete ramps and aprons; privacy fences between unit patios; courtyard/patio improvements. Unit elements constituting Limited Common Elements, including unit windows and patio doors (low-E glass) 4.02. The Housing Improvements shall also be deemed to include: (a) all administration, legal and consultant costs in connection with the Bridgewalk HIA; City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 8 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) (b) costs of arranging financing for the Housing Improvements under the Act; and (c) interest on the internal loan as described in Section 6.01. Section 5. Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. The city may, by resolution adopted in accordance with the petitions, hearing and notice procedures required under Section 428A.14 of the Act, impose a fee on the housing units within the Bridgewalk HIA, at a rate, term or amount sufficient to produce revenues required to finance the construction of the Housing Improvements (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Improvement Fee"), subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Section. 5.02. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed on housing units in the Bridgewalk HIA based on square footage (percentage of undivided ownership) as prescribed in Exhibit A to the Bridgewalk Condominium Declaration. 5.03. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed and payable for a period no greater than 20 years after the first installment is due and payable. 5.04. Housing unit owners shall be permitted to prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in accordance with the terms specified in the Fee Resolution. 5.05. The Housing Improvement Fee shall not exceed the amount specified in the notice of public hearing regarding the approval of such fee; provided, however, that the Housing Improvement Fee may be reduced after approval of the Fee Resolution setting the Housing Improvement Fee, in the manner specified in such resolution. Section 6. Housing Improvement Area Loan and Bonds. 6.01. At any time after a contract with the Association for construction of all or part of the Housing Improvements has been entered into or the work has been ordered, and the period for prepayment without interest of the Housing Improvement Fee has begun as described in Section 5.04 hereof, the council may begin disbursement to the Association of the proceeds of an internal loan (the “Loan”) of available city funds in the principal amounts necessary to finance all or a portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements that have not been prepaid, together with administrative costs. 6.02. In addition to the Loan, at any time after the period for prepayment without interest of the Housing Improvement Fee has ended, the City may issue its bonds secured by Housing Improvement Fees, as authorized pursuant to Section 428A.16 of the Act, in a principal amount necessary to finance the portion of the cost of the Housing Improvements not financed through the Loan. Section 7. Annual Reports. 7.01. No later than August 15, 2023, and each August 15 thereafter until there are no longer any outstanding obligations issued under the Act in connection with the Bridgewalk HIA, the Association (and any successor in interest) shall submit to the City Clerk a copy of the Association’s audited financial statements. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 9 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 7.02. The Association (and any successor in interest) shall also submit to the city any other reports or information at the times and as required by any contract entered into between the Association and the city, or as the city may request. Section 8. Notice of Right to File Objections. 8.01. Within five days after the adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Bridgewalk HIA: a summary of this ordinance; notice that owners subject to the proposed Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this ordinance if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within the Bridgewalk HIA file a written object ion with the City Clerk before the effective date of this ordinance; and notice that a copy of this ordinance is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 9. Amendment. 9.01. This ordinance may be amended by the council upon compliance with the public hearing and notice requirements set forth in Section 428A.13 of the Act. Section 10. This ordinance shall take effect 45 days after adoption hereof. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Soren Mattick, city attorney First reading February 7, 2022 Second reading February 22, 2022 Date of publication March 3, 2022 Date ordinance takes effect April 9, 2022 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 10 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Exhibit A to Ordinance No. ____-22 Legal description That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, Shelard Park, lying westerly of a line drawn from a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 1, distant 32.5 feet easterly of the most Westerly corner thereof, to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 2, distant 32.5 feet westerly of the most Easterly corner thereof; and lying easterly of a line drawn from a point on the Northerly line of said Lot2, distant 153.75 feet easterly of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot 2, to a point on the curved Southeasterly line of said Lot 2, an arc distance of 72.47 feet northeasterly from the most Southerly corner thereof. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 11 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution approving a housing improvement fee for the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 Be it resolved by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City of St. Louis Park (the "city") is authorized under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 428A.11 to 428A.21 (the "Act") to establish by ordinance a housing improvement area within which housing improvements are made or constructed and the costs of the improvements are paid in whole or in part from fees imposed within the area. 1.02. The City Council of the city (the “council”) adopted a Housing Improvement Area policy on July 16, 2001 (the “HIA Policy”). 1.03. By Ordinance No. _________ adopted on February 22, 2022 (the "Enabling Ordinance"), the council has established the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (the “Bridgewalk HIA”) in order to facilitate certain improvements requested by the Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association, Inc. (the “Association”) to property known as the Bridgewalk Condominium and constituting the Bridgewalk HIA, all in accordance with the HIA Policy and the Act. 1.04. In accordance with Section 428A.12 of the Act and with the HIA Policy, owners of at least 70 percent of the housing units within the Bridgewalk HIA have filed petitions with the City Clerk of the city requesting a public hearing regarding imposition of a housing improvement fee for the Bridgewalk HIA. 1.05. In accordance with Section 428A.13 of the Act, the council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 7, 2022 regarding adoption of this resolution, at which all persons, including owners of property within the Bridgewalk HIA, were given an opportunity to be heard. 1.06. The council finds that the Bridgewalk HIA meets each of the approval criteria contained in the HIA Policy (listed as 5.01A - 5.01M), including the criterion that a majority of the Association owners support the project and the financing thereof. 1.07. Prior to the date hereof, the Association has submitted to the city a financial plan prepared by Reserve Advisors, an independent third party, that provides for the Association to finance maintenance and operation of the Common Elements (as defined in the Association’s bylaws) in the Bridgewalk HIA, and a long-range plan to conduct and finance capital improvements therein, all in accordance with Section 428A.14 of the Act. 1.08. For the purposes of this resolution, the terms "Bridgewalk HIA" and "Housing Improvements" have the meanings provided in the Enabling Ordinance. Section 2. Housing Improvement Fee Imposed. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 12 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 2.01. The city hereby imposes a fee on each housing unit within the Bridgewalk HIA (the "Housing Improvement Fee"), in the maximum amount specified in Exhibit A attached hereto, which is imposed for Housing Improve ments as a percentage of undivided ownership interest of each unit, all as prescribed in the Amended and Restated Declaration of Bridgewalk Association. 2.02. The council hereby finds that the Housing Improvement Fee for units in the Bridgewalk HIA is being imposed based on square footage (percentage of undivided ownership interest) as prescribed in Exhibit A to the Bridgewalk Condominium Declaration. 2.03. Housing unit owners may prepay the Housing Improvement Fee in total and without interest thereon between the effective date of this resolution and August 1, 2022. The amount of the prepayment is shown under the heading “Total Cost (Prepayment Amount)” in Exhibit A attached hereto. Partial prepayment of the Housing Improvement Fee shall not be permitted. Prepayment must be made to the City Treasurer. Housing unit owners may also fully prepay the unpaid portion of their Housing Improvement Fee in any subsequent year. If a prepayment is made by November 15 of any year, the amount must include interest at the rate of 4.83% through the end of that calendar year. If the prepayment is made after November 15, the amount must include interest through the end of the following calendar year. 2.04. If the total Housing Improvement Fee is not prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and August 1, 2022, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed as an annual fee, in an amount not to exceed the amount shown under the heading “Annual Fee” in Exhibit A, subject to adjustment as provided in Section 5 hereof. The Housing Improvement Fee shall be imposed to pay principal and interest on certain bonds to be issued by the city to finance a portion of the Housing Improvements (the “Bonds”) and on an internal loan to be made by the City to the Association to finance a portion of the Housing Improvements, in accordance with the Enabling Ordinance and the Act. The Annual Fee shall be imposed in equal installments, beginning in 2023, for a period no greater than 20 years after the first installment is due and payable. The Annual Fee shall be deemed to include interest on the unpaid portion of the total Housing Improvement Fee. Interest at an annual interest rate of 4.83 percent per annum shall begin to accrue on the Housing Improvement Fee from the date of closing on the Bonds. Upon issuance of the Bonds, the City Clerk shall cause to be prepared a schedule indicating the finalized Annual Fee for each Housing Unit for which the Housing Improvement Fee has not been prepaid, which schedule shall be attached as Exhibit B to this Resolution in the city’s official records. The Annual Fee shall be structured such that estimated collection of the Annual Fee will produce at least five percent in excess of the amount needed to meet, when due, the principal and interest payments on the Bonds and internal loan. 2.05. Unless prepaid between the effective date of this resolution and August 1, 2022, the Housing Improvement Fee shall be payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes, as provided in Sections 428A.15 and 428A.05 of the Act. As set forth therein, the Housing Improvement Fee is not included in the calculation of levies or limits on levies imposed under any law or charter. 2.06. The Housing Improvement Fe e imposed against each housing unit shall not exceed the amount specified in Exhibit A hereto; provided, however, that the Housing Improvement Fee may be reduced at any time before issuance of the Bonds, which reduction shall be applied pro rata to each housing unit's Housing Improvement Fee on the basis described in Section 2.01 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 13 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) hereof; and further provided that if any housing unit owners have prepaid the Housing Improvement Fee prior to any reduction in that fee, the City shall promptly reimburse such housing unit owner in the amount of the pro rata share of any reduction in the fee amount. Upon any reduction in the Housing Improvement Fee, the City Clerk shall cause to be prepared a revised copy of Exhibit A hereto, which shall be attached to this Resolution in the City's official records and shall be promptly mailed to all housing unit owners within the Housing Improvement Area. Within 30 days after issuance of the Bonds the City Clerk shall mail to each housing unit owner a copy of Exhibit B to this Re solution showing the final annual fee imposed against each housing unit for which the Housing Improvement Fee has not been prepaid. 2.07. A de minimis fee may be imposed by Hennepin County for services in connection to administration required in order for the fee to be made payable at the same time and in the same manner as provided for payment and collection of ad valorem taxes. Section 3. Notice of Right to File Objections. 3.01. Within five days after the adoption of this resolution, the City Clerk is authorized and directed to mail to the owner of each housing unit in the Bridgewalk HIA: a summary of this resolution, notice that owners subject to the Housing Improvement Fee have a right to veto this resolution if owners of at least 45 percent of the housing units within the Bridgewalk HIA file a written objection with the City Clerk before the effective date of this resolution, and notice that a copy of this resolution is on file with the City Clerk for public inspection. Section 4. Effective Date. 4.01. This Resolution shall be effective 45 days after adoption hereof, subject to (a) the veto rights of housing unit owners under Section 428A.18 of the Act; and (b) execution in full of a development agreement between the City and the Association, providing for construction of the Housing Improvements. Section 5. Filing of Housing Improvement Fee. 5.01. Upon issuance of the Bonds, the City Clerk shall file a certified copy of this resolution together with a final update of Exhibits A and B hereto to the Hennepin County Director of Taxation to be recorded on the property tax lists of the county for taxes payable in 2023 and thereafter. Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk Exhibit A to Resolution No. 22-____ City of St. Louis Park Housing Improvement Area - Bridgewalk HIA Assessment Allocation Unit No. Percentage Interest Total Common Area Construction Cost Total Financing & Soft Costs TOTAL COSTS (PREPAYMENT AMOUNT) * Annual Fee(105% of Total Costs) Total P & I Paid Per Unit (105%) - Non prepaid only 101 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 102 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 103 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 104 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 105 0.01678 $96,821 $3,356 $100,177 $8,318.34 $166,366.72 106 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 107 0.01102 $63,585 $2,204 $65,789 $5,462.94 $109,258.72 108 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 109 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 110 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 111 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 112 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 113 0.01412 $81,472 $2,824 $84,296 $6,999.70 $139,993.93 114 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43 115 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 116 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43 117 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 118 0.01678 $96,821 $3,356 $100,177 $8,318.34 $166,366.72 119 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 14 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 120 0.01371 $79,107 $2,742 $81,849 $6,796.45 $135,928.95 121 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 122 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 123 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 124 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 125 0.01106 $63,816 $2,212 $66,028 $5,482.77 $109,655.30 126 0.01412 $81,472 $2,824 $84,296 $6,999.70 $139,993.93 127 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 128 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43 129 0.00850 $49,045 $1,700 $50,745 $4,213.70 $84,273.97 130 0.01100 $63,470 $2,200 $65,670 $5,453.02 $109,060.43 201 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 202 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 203 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 204 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 205 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 206 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45 207 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 208 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 209 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 210 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 211 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 212 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 213 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 214 0.01454 $83,896 $2,908 $86,804 $7,207.90 $144,158.05 215 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 216 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22 217 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 218 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22 219 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 15 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 220 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 221 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 222 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 223 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 224 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 225 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 226 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 227 0.01454 $83,896 $2,908 $86,804 $7,207.90 $144,158.05 228 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22 229 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 230 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22 231 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 301 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 302 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 303 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 304 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 305 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 306 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45 307 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 308 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 309 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 310 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 311 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 312 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 313 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 314 0.01454 $83,896 $2,908 $86,804 $7,207.90 $144,158.05 315 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 316 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22 317 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 318 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 16 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) 319 0.01731 $99,879 $3,462 $103,341 $8,581.07 $171,621.45 320 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 321 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 322 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 323 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 324 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 325 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 326 0.01133 $65,374 $2,266 $67,640 $5,616.61 $112,332.24 327 0.01890 $109,053 $3,780 $112,833 $9,369.28 $187,385.64 328 0.00691 $39,871 $1,382 $41,253 $3,425.49 $68,509.78 329 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 330 0.01126 $64,970 $2,252 $67,222 $5,581.91 $111,638.22 331 0.00863 $49,795 $1,726 $51,521 $4,278.14 $85,562.86 GRAND TOTAL 100.00% $5,770,000.00 $200,000.00 $5,970,000.00 $495,729.21 $9,914,584.14 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6a) Page 17 Title: Public hearing on Bridgewalk Condominium Homeowners’ Association Housing Improvement Area (HIA) Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Public hearing: 6b Executive summary Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Re commended action: Mayor to open public hearing, take public testimony, and close public hearing. Council will be asked to act on this project at its Feb. 22 meeting. Policy consideration: Does the city council wish to pursue the pavement rehabilitation, sidewalk installation, bikeway installation and impervious reductions recommended as a part of this project? Summary: The annual Pavement Management Project rehabilitates several miles of local residential streets. In 2022, the streets to be rehabilitated are in Pavement Management Area 8 (Fern Hill Neighborhood). Street rehabilitation work consists of replacing the existing bituminous pavement, replacing the concrete curb and gutter as needed. Other work includes sidewalk repairs, sewer repairs and watermain replacement. There are Connect the Park sidewalk and bikeway segments in this project. Consistent with the Living Streets policy, staff identified gaps in the existing sidewalk network. This resulted in consideration of sidewalk gap segments as a part of this project. These sidewalk segments are identified as "gap sidewalks " in this report. In addition to the Connect the Park and gap sidewalks, several neighborhood residents asked the city to explore the construction of additional sidewalks to provide more north-south pedestrian connections. These sidewalk segments are identified as "resident feedback sidewalks " in this report. Financial or budget considerations: This project is included in the city's 2022 capital improvement plan (CIP) and will be paid for using franchise fees, utility funds, and general fund balance. The total cost estimate for the project is $7,336,940.51. Additional information on the breakdown of the funding can be found later in this report. 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 Overall 2022 financial summary Attachment #1 - additional resident feedback Jan. 24, 2022 Study Session Report Prepared by: Aaron Wiesen, project engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, engineering director; Jack Sullivan, engineering project manager Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Discussion Background: This year's project will be performed in Area 8 of the city 's eight pavement management areas. It includes work in the Fern Hill neighborhood. Information regarding this project was shared with the city council in a written report at the Jan. 24 study session. The study session report, which includes recommendations for the elements to include in this project, is attached. A summary of the information in the report: •Description of the project scope •Sidewalk and bikeway feasibility review •Proposed street widths •Traffic management pilot •Resident f eedback Below are staff responses to council questions from the study session report: 1)Are there permanent neighborhood traffic circles (NTCs) installed elsewhere in the city? a)There were 2 NTCS installed as part of the 2018 Pavement Management project at Brunswick Avenue/Oxford Street and Brunswick Ave nue /Goodrich Ave nue. 2)Are the previously installed NTCs working well? If yes, what are the differences with them that have made them work well? a)Yes, the NTCs on Brunswick Avenue have been working well since installation. b)The concerns on Brunswick Avenue were heavy truck traffic that was using Brunswick Avenue, a local street, as a route to get to and from the business and industrial area to the west of the railroad tracks (on Cambridge/ Edgewood/ Oxford). The trucks should have been using Alabama Avenue and Cambridge Street, municipal state aid streets, which are designated as the truck route . c)There are sidewalks on all the adjacent streets, so pedestrians have a designated location to walk that is not in the street. d)During the pilot project, the data showed that the truck traffic decreased. In addition, there were reductions in speed between 5 and 12%, therefore the NTCs were recommended and approved for construction. 3)Were the temporary NTCs the same size as they would be if installed permanently? Yes , during the pilot project for the 2018 Pavement Manage ment project, staff did adjust the size of the center islands of the NTCs after initial installation and found an optimal size that balanced the need to slow down traffic while still having enough room for delivery trucks, buses, and snowplows. This optimal island size is what we used for the pilot on this year's project. If they would have been installed permanently, there would have been some modifications to the curb on each corner of the intersection to make it easier for snow removal and sweeping. 4)We re the NTCs on intersections where there were sidewalks on both sides of the intersecting road s? a)Due to gaps in the existing sidewalk network, each of the NTCs had a different number of adjacent sidewalks. i)Two (2) of the NTCs had zero sidewalks ii)Three (3) of the NTCs had sidewalk on only one (1) adjacent street Page 2 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) iii)Four (4) of the NTCs had sidewalk on two (2) adjacent streets iv)One (1) of the NTCs had sidewalk on all four (4) adjacent streets b)The absence of sidewalks (or pedestrians not using existing sidewalks) along with drivers failing to yield to pedestrians led to uncomfortable pedestrian/ vehicle interactions. 5)Any thoughts as to the reason that drivers apparently did not slow down? Intersection traffic management on local streets , such as NTCs, is context-sensitive . Due to this, they may not address the concerns brought forward and may even create new ones, which is why we recommend testing them prior to permanent installation . Our data collection did not include driver attitude surveys ; any thoughts we would have regarding the observed driver behavior would be speculation. The behavior observed was not consistent with what was observed on the previous NTC pilot project. 6)There wasn't much discussion of the curb extensions. What caused them to be rejected? a)Staff included the curb extensions to narrow the entrance to the neighborhood to try to raise driver awareness as they entered the neighborhood and to slow down while traveling. We did not see a noticeable change in behavior. Additionally, we heard concerns from the neighborhood regarding vehicle turning maneuvers at certain times of the day. Specifically, the narrower entrances made it difficult to make the turn off 26th Street if there was another car waiting at the stop sign. The curb extensions were as small as they could be while still having a visual effect on the traveling public. While curb extensions can be effective, they did n't produce the desired effect in this situation. b)If sidewalk is approved for Quentin Avenue, staff are planning to install a curb extension on 26th Street to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians trying to cross 26th Street to get to the sidewalk on the north side of the street at this location. Due to the traffic volumes on 26th Street, we believe this is an important safety improvement. 7)Is there a benefit to having a sidewalk stay on the same side of the street from block to block? While having continuous sidewalk on one side of the street is one item we consider when making our recommendations, past council direction has not made it the primary consideration. To develop our staff recommendations, we evaluated the impacts of sidewalk construction on both sides of the street block by block. Staff 's recommendation for each block is based on the side of the street with fewer impacts and lower cost. Staff looked at driveway grades/lengths, proximity to structures, available right of way, impacts to trees, landscaping, fences, boulevards, and retaining wall construction . Consistent with past council direction, special consideration was given to minimizing impacts to private properties and preserving more mature trees when all other impacts were similar. At times, this results in the recommended sidewalk switching sides of the street. When this is necessary, it is usually done at an all-way stop to provide controlled pe destrian crossings. Page 3 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) 8)I see staff prefer 6 feet wide sidewalks for community sidewalks where the city does snow removal. How strong a preference is this? Do we clear sidewalks today that are 5 feet wide. We recommend a 6 foot wide sidewalk for community sidewalks (city snow removal). The recommendation for a 6 foot sidewalk is consistent with our maintenance needs for city snow removal equipment. The city does remove snow on 5 ft wide sidewalks. These are typically existing sidewalks or new sidewalks where 6 ft wide sidewalk is not feasible (i.e., limited right of way , tree preservation). A 5 ft wide sidewalk provides minimal clearance for snow equipment, leaving little room for error and resulting in a higher likelihood for damage to grass or any other landscaping near the sidewalk. 9)Is there a way we can slow car traffic even more on share the road bikeways? The average speeds on the share the road bikeway streets is less than 26 MPH. As a part of our speed limit modifications, the speed limit throughout the neighborhood has been reduced from 30 mph to 20 mph. To promote additional speed reduction, the project includes reducing the width of the roadway on most of the share the road bikeway segments. In addition, we will work with the city’s natural resource coordinator on planting additional street trees; this will further narrow the feel of the corridor to influence speeds. 10) There seems to be a potential problem area at 26th Street and Barry Street. This is supposed to be a share the road area but that seems concerning. This one-block section of 26th Street, between Barry Street and Quentin Avenue is anticipated to have a higher level of stress than the remainder of the bikeway network due to the confluence of roadways. However, the share the road designation on this segment is an important link in the network. There is an alternate route along Toledo Avenue that leads to 28th Street that is available for bicyclists who feel more comfortable with a lower level of stress route . 11) Do we need a share the road on Quentin Avenue between 28th Street and 26th Street at all? Are there other alternatives? The connect the park plan laid out bikeways at approximately half -mile intervals. Quentin Avenue between 28th Street and 26th Street was included in the bikeway network because it is the furthest east street that provides a continuous north-south connection between Toledo and France Avenue s. It also terminates at the intersection of 26th Street and Barry Street, allowing connection to Benilde -St Margaret's, Beth El synagogue , and locations to the north. 12) I believe we were contemplating some method of tracking bicycle usage data- are we able to do that? It would be helpful to have before and after usage data. Staff collected bike count data prior to the project and has committed to completing regular bike counts for all the Connect the Park bikeways starting in 2022. 13) Is there industry guidance in regards to car traffic for LTS1 streets? The level of traffic stress (LTS) is a way to evaluate the stress a bike rider will experience while riding. Whether or not people will bicycle is heavily influenced by the stresses they encounter on their trip. Motor vehicle speed and volume increase the LTS for bicyclists. It is used to categorize roads by the types of riders who will be Page 4 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) willing to use them based on traffic speed, volume, and the type of bike facility. In general, the user served is dependent on the LTS, and the LTS can be reduced by the type of facility constructed. Leve l of traffic stress is directly related to street characteristics. The streets within the Fern Hill neighborhood are two-lane, low - volume and low -speed streets that fall within the LTS 1 definition of generally less than 1500 vehicles and an average speed of less than 25 MPH. Feedback received from residents not able to attend the public hearing is attached. Financial or budget considerations: The following table outlines the estimated project cost and anticipated funding sources for this project. CIP Engineer's Estimate Construction cost $6,427,293.00 $6,455,466.84 Engineering and administration $964,094.00 $881,473.67 Total $7,391,387.00 $7,336,940.51 Funding Sources Pavement management $3,404,000.00 $3,382,149.84 Watermain $1,984,662.00 $1,983,606.04 Stormwater $580,750.00 $578,448.87 Sanitary sewer $290,375.00 $326,211.80 General obligation bonds (Connect the park - sidewalks and bikeways) $621,000 $0 General obligation bonds (sidewalks) $510,600 $0 General fund balance (Connect the Park - Sidewalks and bikeways) $0 $481,322.64 General fund balance (Sidewalk) $ $585,201.32 Total $7,391,387.00 $7,336,940.51 The engineer's estimate is greater than the CIP. This is primarily due to additional sanitary sewer replacement being added to the project. During routine televising, utility staff identif ied the need to replace a sanitary sewer line on Quentin Avenue during project development. The additional work is necessary to ensure that this line will continue to serve our customers and we will not need to dig up the new pavement in the near future . It should be noted that we have reduced the budget for the Sanitary sewer lining project (4022-3000) to make up for this difference , resulting in no increase in the overall funding for the 2022 transportation and maintenance project CIP. The CIP designated general obligation bonds to fund the bikeway and sidewalk segments for this project. Last fall, the council designated general fund balance overages to pay for all bikeway and sidewalk improvements in the 2022 CIP. For this project, the cost is broken out by Connect the Park and other sidewalk to easier track the overall cost to construct the Connect the Park plan vs. sidewalk construction added to the system based on other council policy. Page 5 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Attached is the overall financial summary for the transportation and maintenance projects included in the 2022 CIP. As each project is brought to the council for final approval and for bid award, this summary will be updated to reflect the bids received. Final numbers will depend on bids received. Ne xt steps: The proposed schedule for the project to facilitate construction completion in 2022 is as follows: Council public hearing Feb. 7, 2022 Council project approval Feb. 22, 2022 Council awards construction bids Early April 2022 Construction May to November 2022 Page 6 Overall financial summary 2022 Budget Pavement management (Area 8) Fern Hill Concrete replacement Alley construction Sanitary sewer lining W 36th/ Wooddale street rehabiliation 4021-1000 4022-0003 4022-1500 4022-3000 4022-6000 Fund balance-Connect the Park 926,000 621,000 - - - 305,000 Fund balance-New sidewalk construction 510,600 510,600 - - - - Pavement management fund 3,955,150 3,404,000 82,500 468,650 - - Tax Increment 4,325,000 - - - - 4,325,000 Stormwater 1,128,725 580,750 110,000 252,350 - 185,625 Water 2,084,037 1,984,662 - - - 99,375 Sanitary sewer 2,574,000 290,375 - - 540,000 1,743,625 Operations budget 95,000 - 95,000 - - - Total funding 15,598,512 7,391,387 287,500 721,000 540,000 6,658,625 Table 1: 2022 Transportation and maintence projects funding -CIP 2022 Budget Pavement management (Area 8) Fern Hill Concrete replacement Alley construction Sanitary sewer lining W 36th/ Wooddale street rehabiliation 2022 project balance 4021-1000 4022-0003 4022-1500 4022-3000 4022-6000 Fund Balance-Connect the Park 926,000 481,323 - - - - 444,677 Fund Balance-New sidewalk construction 510,600 585,201 - - - - (74,601) Pavement management fund 3,955,150 3,382,150 - - - - 573,000 Tax Increment 4,325,000 - - - - - 4,325,000 Stormwater 1,128,725 578,448.87 - - - - 550,276 Water 2,084,037 1,983,606.04 - - - - 100,431 Sanitary sewer 2,574,000 326,211.80 - - - - 2,247,788 Operations budget 95,000 - - - - - 95,000 Total funding 15,598,512 7,336,941 - - - - 8,261,571 Table 2: 2022 Transportation and maintence projects funding - actual City council meeting of Februa ry 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 P avement Management P roject – Fern Hill (4021-1000) Page 7 ATTACHMENT #1 ADDITIONAL RESIDENT FEEDBACK Page 8 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) SIDEWALK #3 & #4 2600 BLOCK SALEM AVENUE Page 9 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021-1000) 1 Aaron Wiesen From: Sent:Monday, January 24, 2022 3:17 PM To:Aaron Wiesen Subject:Sidewalk Conversation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the  sender and know the content is safe.  Hi Aaron, Thank you again for taking the time to explain the sidewalk and construction plan to me today. If it is possible, it would be very helpful to me to have a sidewalk on my side of the street(2625 Salem) since I have a toddler and another baby on the way. We like to ride bikes and go for walks and it would be much safer for us if we didn't have to worry about crossing the street every time we play. I am also wondering if we can please put all of the sidewalks on Salem onto one side of the street. That way we don't have to cross many streets when going up and down Salem, or have to deal with a lot of jay-walkers(which is dangerous to both drivers and pedestrians). Since we are a through-street to the highway and two schools, I think it would be safer to us all if we can stay on one side of the street (there are a lot of children and dog walkers on Salem). Thank you again for taking the time to listen to our requests and recommendations to make this a safer neighborhood, Page 10 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 6b ) Title: 2022 Pavement Management Project – Fern Hill (4021 -1000) Meeting: City council Meeting date: February 7, 2022 Action agenda item: 8a Executive summary Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Recommended action: Motion to adopt Resolution ap proving a conditional use permit to operate a liquor store at 8016 Minnetonka Blvd. (Four affirmative votes required ) Policy consideration: Does the proposed liquor store meet city code requirements? Summary: St. Louis Park resident Thomas Schoenberger requests city approval for a conditional use permit to operate a liquor store at 8016 Minnetonka Blvd. The liquor store, to be called Westside Wine & Spirits, will occupy one typical sized tenant space in the Texa-Tonka mall. The store is proposed to be 3,400 square feet. Background: The applicant proposes to open an off-sale liquor store and a small food market in Texa-Tonka mall. The liquor store and market are two separate stores that will be located adjacent to one-another. Each store will have a separate access to the outside. The easterly entrance includes an internal vestibule that allows patrons to access each store without fully stepping outside. The market does not need a conditional use permit, so the application for the conditional use permit is for the liquor store only. The planning commission conducted a public hearing on Jan. 19, 2021. One comment was received from the owner of the Texa-Tonka liquor store located approximately 800 feet west of the proposed store. He presented a petition to the planning commission requesting the application be denied. Additionally, one email was received in favor of the application and one email was received in opposition to the application. The petition and emails are attached. The planning commission recommended approval. 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: Discussion Resolution Floor plans Petition Emails Prepared by: Gary Morrison, zoning administrator Reviewed by: Sean Walther, planning manager Karen Barton, community development director Approve d by: Kim Keller, city manager City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Discussion Site location: Site area: Property: 3.25 acres Mall: 49,000 square feet Liquor store: 3,400 square feet Current use: Surrounding land uses: Shopping center Vacant tenant space North: single -family residential and office East: multi-family residential South: commercial and multi-family residential West: commercial Current 2040 land use guidance: Current zoning: MX - mixed use MX-1 vertical mixed use Background: The applicant proposes to open an off-sale liquor store and a small food market in Texa-Tonka mall. The liquor store and market are two separate stores that will be located adjacent to one-another. Each store will have a separate access to the outside. The easterly entrance includes an internal vestibule that allows patrons to access each store without fully stepping outside. The market does not need a conditional use permit, so the application for the conditional use permit is for the liquor store only. Zoning analysis: The liquor store would be located within the shopping center; therefore, conditions applicable to the Texa-Tonka mall apply. Special approvals applicable to Texa-Tonka mall. The board of zoning appeals approved variances on November 27, 2018. The variances allowed a 12-foot setback for restaurants with intoxicating liquor licenses from properties zoned residential. The variances also allowed 160 parking spaces for the mall instead of the required 251 parking spaces with the conditions that restaurants are limited to 5,500 square feet in floor area, outdoor seating is limited to 1,280 square feet in area, and coffee shop uses are limited to 3,000 square feet in floor area. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Parking. Texa-Tonka mall complies with the city code and its variances, and the proposed use does not alter its compliance with city code. Façade transparency. City code requires the store front to maintain visibility at least three feet into the store. Based on the plans, the proposed store meets the façade transparency requirements. Signs. The applicant proposes to install a wall sign above the store entrance similar to other uses in the shopping center. Conditional use permit standards. The proposal meets the following general conditions required for approval of a conditional use permit: 1.Consistency with city plans. The proposed liquor store meets community plans, goals, and objectives. It is a commercial use located within a neighborhood commercial node. It provides a retail use within walking distance of people that live in the Texa-Tonka neighborhood, and adjacent Cobblecrest, Aquila and Oak Hill neighborhoods. The proposed use is supportive of principles, goals, objectives, land use designations, redevelopment plans, neighborhood objectives, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. The property is guided “Mixed-Use” which allows commercial uses and allows the liquor store use with a conditional use permit. Also, the city promotes locally owned small business. 2.Nuisance. The proposed liquor store use will not have undue adverse impacts on the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, or parking facilities on the Texa-Tonka mall property or on adjacent streets. 3.Compliance with code. The liquor store use is allowed in the MX-1 vertical mixed-use district by conditional use permit, provided it meets the condition of the district that it is at least 1,000 feet from a property containing a pawnshop, currency exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales or sexually -oriented business. The proposed liquor store is more than 1,000 feet from these uses; therefore, it meets this condition. Additionally, the liquor store requires a liquor license issued by the city council. The city council will consider the application for a liquor license at the same mee ting the conditional use permit is scheduled to be presented to the city council. Both are tentatively scheduled for the February 7, 2022 city council meeting. 4.Consistency with service capacity. The use will not have undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities, services or improvements which are either existing or proposed. 5.Site design. The plans for the proposed use are consistent with city code and the design of the Texa-Tonka mall. 6.Consistency with utilities. The use is consistent with all city s tormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. 7.Conditions specific to site. The use complies with all conditions imposed by the city council on this site, including the variances granted by the city previously. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Resolution No. 22-____ Resolution approving a conditional use permit to operate a liquor store at 8016 Minnetonka Blvd . in the Texa-Tonka Mall Whereas, the city received an application from Thomas Schoenberger for a conditional use permit to operate a liquor store at 8016 Minnetonka Blvd. in the Texa-Tonka Mall; and Whereas, The Texa-Tonka mall is legally described as: P arcel 1: Lots 14, 16, 1 7, 1 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and Lot 15, except that part thereof lying Southeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the South line of said Lot distant 18 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Lot 15 to a point on the East line of said Lot distant 18 feet North of said Southeast corner, All in Block 2, Texa-Tonka Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. P arcel 2: That part of Lot 1 lying West of a line drawn from a point on the Northwesterly line of said Lot 1 distant 76.85 feet Northeasterly from the most Westerly corner thereof to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 1 distant 61.8 feet Easterly from the most Westerly corner thereof, Rearrangement in Part of Block 2, Texa-Tonka Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Torrens Property Whereas, the planning commission conducted a public hearing on January 19, 2022; and Whereas, the planning commission and city council find that the application meets the requirements for granting a conditional use permit. It is consistent with city plans, will not result in an unreasonable noise, odor, traffic, or other nuisance impacting the neighborhood, it meets city code requirements, and it can be serviced by public and private utilities . Now therefore be it resolved that the city council hereby approves the application to operate a liquor store at 8016 Minnetonka Blvd in the Texa-Tonka Mall with the following conditions: 1.The liquor store is limited to the tenant space defined for the liquor store in the approved floor plan (Exhibit A). 2.A city off -sale liquor license be obtained and maintained. 3.In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 4.The conditional use permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the building or structure for which the conditional use permit is granted is removed. City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Reviewed for administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2022 Kim Keller, city manager Jake Spano, mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk EXISTING CONSTRUCTION AND STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO REMAIN. PATCH AND REPAIR SURFACES AFFECTED BY DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR NEW FINISHES. NEW WALL. SEE WALL LEGEND. CONSTRUCTION LEGEND EXISTING DOOR AND FRAME TO REMAIN. NEW DOOR AND FRAME. 1.THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL ALL BLOCKING AND GROUNDS AS REQUIRED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOW BLINDS, DRAPERIES, CURTAINS, MILLWORK AND ANY HANGING OBJECTS AS REQUIRED. 2.ALL EXISTING CONSTRUCTION TO REMAIN SHALL BE PATCHED AND REPAIRED AS REQUIRED AND PREPARED TO RECEIVE NEW FINISHES PER FINISH PLAN. 3.ALL SURFACES OR FINISHES TO REMAIN, IF DAMAGED DURING DEMOLITION OR ANY STAGE OF THE WORK, SHALL BE REPAIRED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT THEIR OWN EXPENSE TO "LIKE NEW" CONDITION. IT SHALL BE THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DOCUMENT ANY PREEXISTING DAMAGE AND NOTIFY THE TENANT AND ARCHITECT OF ANY SUCH DAMAGE PRIOR TO PRICING OR BIDDING. 4.AT ALL LOCATIONS WHERE NEW ELECTRICAL AND VOICE/DATA OUTLETS OR ANY OTHER TYPE OF DEVICE IS TO BE INSTALLED AT EITHER CORE WALL, COLUMNS AND/OR PERIMETER WALLS, THE CONTRACTOR AND THEIR DRYWALL SUBCONTRACTOR ARE TO INCLUDE FURRING OUT THOSE CORE WALLS AND COLUMNS AS NEEDED USING 2-1/2" METAL STUDS WITH 5/8" GYPSUM BOARD FROM SLAB TO STRUCTURE ABOVE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE ANY AND ALL CONDUITS AND BACK BOXES. G.C. TO COORDINATE WITH ALL OTHER TRADES. 5.MOUNTING HEIGHTS: ALL STROBES, PULL BOXES, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, SIGNAGE, ETC. TO REMAIN ARE TO BE RAISED OR LOWERED TO SPECIFI ED MOUNTING HEIGHTS IN AREAS OF WORK, AS PER CODE. 6.DIMENSIONS ARE FROM FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD TO FACE OF GYPSUM BOARD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. DO NOT SCALE OFF OF PLANS. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH DIMENSION QUESTIONS. 7.CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF BID. 8.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE OUT ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, INSURANCE, LICENSEES AND CERTIFICATES AND PAY ALL FEES CONNECTED THEREWI TH. 9.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE DUST PROOF, RIGID, BARRIERS, AS APPROPRIATE TO DEFINE VARIOUS SEGMENTS. BARRIERS TO MAINTAIN EXITING, SECURITY, MECHANICAL, FIRE-LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING OCCUPANTS. 10.THE CONTRACTOR AT ALL TIMES SHALL KEEP PREMISES FREE FROM WASTE MATERIALS AND RUBBISH CAUSED BY THE WORK. 11.ALL DOORS AND HARDWARE SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE ACCESSIBILITY CODES AND ORDINANCES. ALL WORK TO BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LATEST LOCAL AND STATE BUILDING CODES AND ORDINANCES. 12.REFER TO ENGINEERING DESIGN BUILD M.E.P. FOR MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING AND SPRINKLER LAYOUTS. 13.LOCATE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS THROUGHOUT AS REQUIRED BY CODE. 14.ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, CONTRACTOR SHALL WASH CLEAN ALL SURFACES AND LEAVE THE WORK IN A CLEAN CONDITION. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES ADJACENT TENANT SPACE IS VACANT, NOT IN SCOPE. ADJACENT TENANT SPACE IS VACANT, NOT IN SCOPE. STORAGE 107 OFFICE 106 +/- 4'-4"8'-9"10'-0" 15'-7 3/8" +/-7'-0"62'-4 5/8" +/-7'-5" +/-50'-5 5/8" +/-11'-11"19'-2 1/8" +/- 35'-4 3/8" +/-3'-4"19'-7 1/2" +/-79'-10 1/8" +/-38'-8 3/8" +/- 38'-8 3/8" +/- R/R EXTG R/R EXTG SHARED LOBBY EXTG JANITOR EXTG VESTIBULE 100 MARKET 112 EXPO 111 HALL 109 BOH 110 POS 101 PROMO BAR 103 RETAIL 102 A9.1 5 6 7 8 A9.1 1 3 4 2 7'-3"16'-8"4'-0"16'-5"4'-0"18'-10 1/4" +/-7'-6"4'-5 1/4"A3A3106 107A3 A3 A3 5'-3" 4'-0" 4'-6" 13'-9" +/- 5'-5 1/8" 10'-0" ALIGN ALIGN 1'-9" R.O. 6'-4" 8" 3'-8" 3'-0" 3'-4" 3'-0"3'-0"1'-3"9'-0" G.O. 5'-8 3/8" 11" ALIGN A3 A3 100C 100B100A BEER COOLER 104 1'-8"M.O.3'-4"5'-9" 3'-8"8'-3"8'-8 1/8"--- - A10.1 1 A10.2 10 12 13 11 L1 STORAGE 107 OFFICE 106 BEER COOLER 104 R/R EXTG R/R EXTG SHARED LOBBY EXTG JANITOR EXTG VESTIBULE 100 MARKET 112 EXPO 111 HALL 109 BOH 110 POS 101 PROMO BAR 103 RETAIL 102 ADJACENT TENANT SPACE IS VACANT, NOT IN SCOPE. ADJACENT TENANT SPACE IS VACANT, NOT IN SCOPE. L1 L1 3'-0" 4'-0" 4'-6" 5'-6" 4'-6" 4'-6" 4'-0" 4'-2" 4'-6 3/8" L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1L1 L1L1 L1 L1 L116'-0"3'-0"16'-0"4'-0"16'-0"1'-6 1/4"L1 L1 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L3 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L1L1 L1 L1 L1 L1 L2 8'-6" 2'-5" 8'-0"8'-9 5/8"L2 L2 L2 L3 L3L3 L3 L3 A.F.F. ACT-01 9'-0" A.F.F. ACT-01 9'-0" A.F.F. GYP. BD. 10'-0" EQ EQ 4'-0"12'-0"9'-0"16'-0"4'-0" 4'-0" 5'-7" 8'-0" 5'-7 1/8"3'-0"L4 L4 EQ 4'-0" EQ EQEQA.F.F. GYP. BD. 10'-0" 13'-5 5/8"17'-11 1/2"7'-3 5/8" 6'-2"6'-2"16'-0"3'-0" L5 A10.1 5 1.DO NOT SCALE OFF OF PLANS. CONTACT ARCHITECT WITH DIMENSION QUESTIONS. 2.SEE M.E.P. DESIGN BUILD FOR SPECIFICATIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL & PLUMBING ITEMS. 3.MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH LANDLORD REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING AS REQUIRED. 4.VERIFY ALL REQUIRED ACCESS PANEL SIZES AND LOCATIONS AT GYP. BD. CEILINGS. PROVIDE FLUSH ACCESS PANELS AT ALL EQUIPMENT, VALVES, DAMPERS, CONTROLS, CLEAN OUTS, ETC.. PAINT TO MATCH CEILING FINISH. 5.ALL CEILING MATERIAL MUST HAVE CLASS "A" FIRE RATING. 6.SUPPORT WIRES FOR CEILING SUSPENSION SHALL BE ANCHORED TO STRUCTURE ABOVE AND AS REQUIRED BY LANDLORD. SUPPORT WIRES SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO ANY MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING OR FIRE PROTECTION PIPING OR EQUIPMENT. 7.SPRINKLER HEADS AT GYPSUM BOARD CEILINGS MUST BE FULLY RECESSED AND COVERED WITH METAL PLATES FINISHED TO MATCH ADJACENT SURFACE. 8.CENTER SPRINKLER HEADS, DIFFUSERS, LIGHT FIXTURES, AND OTHER RECESSED OR SURFACE MOUNTED ITEMS IN CEILING TILES. 9.PAINT OUT ALL DIFFUSERS, SPEAKERS, TRIM RINGS, AND EXPOSED DUCTS TO MATCH CEILING FINISH. 10.ALL GYP. BD. CEILINGS & SOFFITS SHALL HAVE LEVEL 5 FINISH & SHALL BE PAINTED. 11.WHERE PORTION OF EXISTING CEILING HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY DEMOLITION, PATCH, REFINISH OR REPLACE EXISTING CEILING AS REQUIRED TO MATCH EXISTING CONDITION, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 12.SEE FINISH PLAN FOR FINISH SPECIFICATIONS. 13.FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING DURING THE PROJECT. WHEN TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE FOR TENANT WORK, A FIRE WATCH IS REQUIRED IN AREAS OF THE BUILDING AFFECTED BY THE SHUTDOWN. GENERAL RCP NOTES Sheet Number Drawn by: Checked by: Date: Scale: Project #: Revisons: Sheet Title ANDERSON 612-203-1815 Consultants: Project: BA GH DESIGN INC As indicated A1.1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN AND REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 21-121 12/13/21 WESTSIDE WINE & SPIRITS TEXA-TONKA MALL ST. LOUIS PARK MN 55426 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.1 1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN # Description Date 1/8" = 1'-0"A1.1 2 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 1 1 1 1 CONSTRUCTION PLAN KEY NOTES 1 EXISTING STEEL COLUMN TO REMAIN, PAINT. 2 EXISTING STOREFRONT SYSTEM TO REMAIN. 3 EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL WITH BRICK FINISH TO REMAIN. 4 EXISTING STOREFRONT SYSTEM DOR AND HARDWARE TO REMAIN. 5 EXISTING DEMISING WALL TO REMAIN. 6 EXISTING CONCRETE FLOOR TO REMAIN. GC TO PREPARE FLOOR SLA B FOR NEW FINISH. REMOVE ALL ADHESIVES FROM PREVIOUS FINISHES AND FILL CRACKS. ANY FRAMING CONNECTORS SHALL BE CUT OFF AND GROUND SMOOTH. 7 EXISTING WOOD FRAMED FLOOR SYSTEM WITH PLYWOOD SHEATHING TO REMAIN. PREPAIR FLOOR SHEATHING FOR NEW FINISH. 8 EXISTING TRANSITION OF CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE TO WOOD FLOOR SYSTEM. 9 EXISTING WOOD JOISTS TO REMAIN. EXISTING ABANDONDED UTILITIES OR FRAMING TO BE REMOVED. CLEAN WOOD JOISTS AND UNDERSIDE OF ROOF DECKTO RECEIVE NEW FINISHES. 10 EXISTING MASONRY BEARING WALL TO REMAIN. 11 BRANDING WALL. GC TO SKIM COAT AS REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE LEVEL 5 FINISH. NO UTILITIES THIS WALL, INCLUDNG BUT NOT LIMITED T LIGHT SWITCHES, THERMOSTATS, EMERGENCY LIGHTS AND THE LIKE. 12 WALL TYPE A3 WITH ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM TO MATCH BUILDING STANDARD SYSTEM. 13 POS AREA, SEE ENLARGED PLAN ANS DETAILS. 14 EDUCATIONAL BAR, SEE ENLARGED PLAN AND DETAILS. 15 DELI EXPO COUNTER, SEE ENLARGED PLAN AND DETAILS. 16 OFFICE WORK SURFACE WITH SHELVES ABOVE. SEE ELEVATION AND DETAILS. 17 12" DEEP WOOD SHELVES WITH HARDWOOD EDGE, MOUNTED ON STANDARDS AND BRACKETS. SEE ELEVATION AND DETAILS. 22 32 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 6 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 LIGHTING SCHEDULE MARK DESCRIPTION MNFR MODEL LAMP FINISH SIZE MOUNTING COMMENTS L1 TRACK LIGHTING LUMENPULSE GESA120-1C-TRACK SYSTEM.2700K, 11 AMP BLACK 10'-0" L2 DRUM LIGHT TBD TBD TBD TBD 4'-0" DIA 7'-6" B.O. FIXTURE PROVIDE $500 PER FIXTURE ALLOWANCE FOR PRICING. L3 TROFFER LITHONIA LIGHTING CPANL-2X4-50LM-35K-M2-CI-250CSL-2X4 CFMK 3500K, 42W WHITE 2X4 CEILING L4 RECESSED CAN TBD TBD TBD WHITE 4" CEILING L5 PENDANT TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD PROVIDE $1,500 PRICING ALLOWANCE. 1 1 1 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN KEYNOTES 1 EXISTING STRUCTURE ABOVE TO BE PAINTED PT-01. 2 GC TO PROVIDE POWER AND BLOCKING AT EXISTING CANOPY FOR EXTERIOR SIGN. COORDINATE WITH LANDLORD AND SIGN VENDOR. 3 GYPSUM BOARD AND STEEL STUD CEILING AT 10'-0". SUPPORT BACK TO STRUTURE ABOVE WITH STEEL CABLE. 4 EXPOSED UTILITIES TO BE PAINTED TO MATCH UNDERSIDE OF ROOF STRUCTURE. 2 3 3 4 4 4 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 6 Petition to reject perm it for Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19,2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned,are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. 2703 U;TA Cr 17-20- -322 1-13-2 5/> 1 13-322 1.1.22 l.11 I-) 1-3-22 /-13-22 )DJ 1-13-03 Sa •I d-tr }Lo Fu 35/z G 3630 Qel or 56 5 62al u 31MK 'l 3 3 0z7 241+\()G)AVE 33\0 'dahhvs$,551a¢ 3ol/3o'/st.A1>$ -/am -'lto- Ali3rR6lb ns w4a.ww Ada_AimO90 ).2 /'» 70a &l!Mat4 s«kl Gle Gld 6es»s e City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 7 •%d 0 [t) G>ta 8 6 0O%0o a o G > ~ NJ ~s ~--~J -U -e30 O'-s 0 ~ c 73 O <c ,Ji __c.(E11,--2 O o ("a 3 3-~-=r>"d o7$re,>c W D>»('"a>..--,-1 ,£±(•?·--:::7 p O I >>F Oo <g__,c ~e•;ro0 1'.°G 0 V)€e 7\./)2 . ~ 0:Q -.J::&90-T ------e s ,-')I 'I ~1-....._,--..-~-I-4 -c --->i---r £-c ~-f'±)?/-.....[,t -t}%/i ~ I ~%1 l ,;::::;v M):/ ~)t3 ~r f \-..I Ny City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permitPage 8 £).v\>g -·E 5 T ~z 1;eo.-?2 >2--&»,,.,,-'-S'"2 3 <7"S:i,a E U .5 -\03§z0<g2r£s 1 3--U 0 0 9 T 83 ,#8 °G «)~G -,88 c-O O .-4 3 )p-8 DweQ>-r -· (,-£..c,:)r-o 3 z 1l e ~<3u p Ee pp9;5 v-,c $s ~~ z -l 2c$5 -"-o f !5;"~$g >o 03 n r 2·--t--..e D k >5 0 ~~-o a ii""$.,-->-»y (,-M 3 {_±o -"se T ~00 £4 ¢r r ¢S +-S<~o A z >-.t ~V\It)a 9a~\'.>O >(3\.../\S'-1 t "i ~/0 D O -~c->>os!)Z-\./\----·--"---·-a '---..--------w »--0 N C))08 -----3>¥--~0 p :-A9»0 p f %N'City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permitPage 9 Petition to oppose Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19,2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned,are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. //1o A l Ee.Ls Ba 1 o l/el,lA s da veg Ht, ''tel // /Tea, 355 f- 12<<Te, 3(Decker 23 ,0 -, I/14/2z l// /-/4-1 )-/22 1/1/ 1// /rt 1//9l2 (-(4-2 //5-.2- City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 10 »~co oQ (9 %h ,,_.t>ao>>{)'±p)2>ri )')3 0 C>€°0 -)u>g €>±00 \>=1 £: ~~c D 3o ~$O)±±3»(o M9°1 >p -·/V\€c ~-~J t ,....., ±a A'.p)i>'i~V\-·A f 42--o O ~ ~v'3NV):'3 bc- _.s:.\J\r scI /fa-.---""..R ,._, c-:<7 >------...[~-c.?-..s.:C's <ea 73 R ..D ±5'i 13 ~NJps)or)p $>%p (¢City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permitPage 11 t -~•:-,....---.,'-'-;---~"-•-....__$'<• ~ ("°"<~ ~.~5 ~ ~(t ~ I AN ~DJNy City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permitPage 12 oQ ~w)~_S)$% Cr _J <'"" ~\"f ~ !o --O r\ ~.-?,)---> 6"-oO a o trc=?~~r -59-7 i-s (?·,c. d)2 2 Sf1f'\,A ~ ~ s 2 %6 5 $%('I}CJ ±3-->s ~y i c,,...,7 ±Or,...-o 3£<o-m.V\°0 3-·2°z-L•v1 £2 -a..-t-'<n#\£+I <f> h»5 >-3z2J I l -·•-=e <--~----O,--------.--...J_"2 ±:l .....o@ ~t -<P >p e-8 •!':9-E (U ~'())Ny 9 r[[Ny )Ny City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permitPage 13 Petition to oppose Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19, 2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. 70s W#era C,5r 22 blroh h #srs '//2 //s/2? z 202 1/2gz -12z /I/2pz2 152 //>22 75-22 rue \[ 2 Sh e#/) 32 0in 308 7 0 21\4 2 @300 PM)%0%6l 3%5 272G 361 $4k/feS 38s(Lcosa«/Ave fa 7@b k C[ks,pa/gs. 0' ala &or L.Tea LC City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 14 Petition to oppose Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19,2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned,are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. £ f/1/J ,5 £)9. .N•- Ave SP l (\,,(o Ht-_>- 2 SPaura(5> [7 MA,edoko e u7 w 3i5 D)4$0 4et}6go Ave $D R Gv0st City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 15 Petition to oppose Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall /) ~~ Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19,2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned,are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. ///1/2zdi6tu4 k tu]2co /a,te e /Ya S cz tw o"/$l 2342let Ne....~~- 6p+7,79Y (ex?-tot ereNVRMADEN Al.mdlll.al- /t1A Po J ades ~- Kor-/vs.{ 2 20 s «et«dt/(53h City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 16 Petition to oppose Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19,2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned, are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to ,Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. Ts9 /50(Fe7 -fa St L..Al.totol el.a /7o 11,~H 5/7,ee (Jorn i -z t tu g al\a <2 93/U oo t,yf I 11 /22 I 0ah.II/(8D2 "(IV2DzC deli n ual 32l7 Covell n 53 /2 /1-2a ush 6 la (3 11 Covel(n 502 //1 @oh 6«Ml let \ll 5 ¥/I 02... sitII1"..)/8/22 /\2112 Tc«Tool Av€.G42 I//a- 2 2 3tu Pe s t ower 4 t/rlzz City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 17 Petition to oppose Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19,2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned,are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to pa ]Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. 4,22 /10/22 -le I-I-22 /-32 [(&, 1-KR-3 hr%et.o ls 9 //w9}05 /2le lhlu@_ /4 (wa«foe 27w 0 Joel (la 8295-3040 She, S23s 36 '{59%et A Shn U-tz Jrdie Kalb-f-.....,.S eo ;lahno MW(hie City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 18 Petition to oppose Liquor store in Texas Tonka Shopping Mall Texas Tonka Shopping Mall (8016 and 8020 Minnetonka Blvd)has applied for a Liquor store permit.The City of St.Louis Park Planning Commission will meet in council chambers at City Hall (5005 Minnetonka Blvd)to conduct a public hearing on Wednesday,January 19, 2022 at 6:00 pm regarding the application. We,the undersigned,are concerned citizens who urge our leaders to reject the request for another liquor store so close to Texas Tonka Liquor store.We do not need yet another liquor store in our neighborhood. /[2 ye s \//BIZ2 elk bid 55j6$l(/22 o.54tu,o"%s }//8,/ (0 /6 30( 3 City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 19 From:Matt Hozza To:Gary Morrison Cc:Jessica Huebner Subject:Notice of Hearing - Deli / Liquor Store - Texa-Tonka Shopping Center Date:Thursday, January 6, 2022 10:09:35 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Gary, Jessica and I are Portfolio Managers with Kleinman Realty Co. We are agents for the owner of the 300-unit Aquila and Royal Park properties just to the south the Texa-Tonka shopping Center. We are in receipt of your notice of hearing regarding a proposed deli / liquor Store at the Texa- Tonka Shopping Center. I spoke with Paster Properties and he said this concept will be a high end “wine and cheese” shop like “Club 44” on 44th and France in Edina. https://www.france44.com/ We discussed this with the owner. We see this addition to the center as a benefit to the neighborhood and the Aquila and Royal properties. Thank you. Sincerely, Matt Hozza, CPM® Portfolio Manager 5201 East River Rd. Suite 308 Fridley, MN 55421 O-763-951-8462, F-763-951-8487 Looking for a great place to live? Click Here City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 20 From:dnaas3@gmail.com To:Gary Morrison Subject:Public Comment for Schoenberger building permit Hearing - Jan19, 2022 Date:Friday, January 14, 2022 8:18:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Saint Louis Park City Council - I am a resident of Saint Louis Park (3200 Virginia Ave South, #116).I am submitting this public comment in opposition to building permit for a liquorstore at 8016/8020 Minnetonka Blvd. As a resident of this neighborhood, I do not feel it is good for this area to add anadditional liquor store.This area is already served by 3 liquor stores (1 on Minnetonka Blvd on the West side ofTexa-tonka bowling alley, and 2 on Texas Avenue, north of hwy 7),There is a significant lack of restaurants and bars, but plenty of liquor stores.There does not seem to be a benefit to area residents (a lack of liquor store competition oravailability).Therefore, the proposal to add an additional liquor store does not seem to be borne of adesire to capture un-met demand - but instead seems to be borne of alternative,predatory goals. Daniel Naas 612.910.9460 dnaas3@gmail.com City council meeting of February 7, 2022 (Item No. 8a) Title: Westside Wine and Spirits – conditional use permit Page 21