Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017/11/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular
AGENDA NOVEMBER 6, 2017 (City Manager Tom Harmening Absent) 7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – SLP High School Board Room (C350) 1.Call to Order 2.Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes October 2, 2017 4. Approval of Agenda 5.Reports 5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements 6.Old Business – None 7.New Business 7a. First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement between the EDA and PLACE E-Generation One, LLC. 8.Communications – None 9.Adjournment 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – SLP High School Board Room (C350) 1.Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2.Presentations 2a. Small Business Saturday Proclamation 2b. Recognition of Donations 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017 3b. Study Session Meeting Minutes September 25, 2017 3c. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2017 3d. City Council Meeting Minutes October 2, 2017 3e. Study Session Meeting Minutes of October 9, 2017 3f. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes October 16, 2017 3g. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2017 3h. Study Session Meeting Minutes October 23, 2017 Meeting of November 6, 2017 City Council Agenda 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. 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.) 5. Boards and Commissions 5a. Approve Appointment of Youth Representative to Environment & Sustainability Commission Recommended Action: Motion to appoint Lukas Wrede to the Environment and Sustainability Commission for the current term ending August 31, 2018. 6. Public Hearings -- None 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Consulting Services for Fastpitch Softball Fields at Aquila Park Recommended Action: Motion to authorize entering into a contract with WSB & Associates to provide for design and construction administration services for two fastpitch softball fields at Aquila Park, also known as Option 1C. 8b. Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 91-50, and granting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with Variance for the construction of mechanical equipment and screening wall at Water Treatment Plant No. 4, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. 8c. Solid Waste Collection Contracts - Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals Recommended Action: Motion to authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals for 2018-2023 Solid Waste Collection Services. 8d. Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Recommended Action: Motion to Accept Vision 3.0 report: A Place for All People. 8e. 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing the 2018 employer benefits contribution. 9. Communications – Written Report 9a. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting of November 6, 2017 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Accept for filing EDA Disbursement Claims for the period of September 23, through October 27, 2017. 4b. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance establishing fees for 2018 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances; and to approve the summary ordinance for publication. 4c. Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of “2-hour parking between 6 a.m. – 7 p.m.” on the sides of the street directly adjacent to the 4800 Excelsior Boulevard development. 4d. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $14,786.23 for the annual Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project with Insituform Technologies USA, LLC - Project No. 4014-3000, City Contract No. 31-17. 4e. Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $17,200.61 for the annual Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company - Project No. 4017-1200, City Contract No. 62-17. 4f. Adopt Resolution authorizing the submission of a Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant application in the amount of $400,000 to help with funding the construction of two fastpitch softball fields at Aquila Park. 4g. Adopt Resolution approving entering into a contract with Redpath and Company, LTD for 2017 – 2021 audit services. 4h. Adopt Resolution accepting $250 donation from Park Coin for Fire Prevention Programs and Equipment. 4i. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3116 Salem Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 06-028-24-22-0054. 4j. Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution 17-080 adopted on May 1, 2017. 4k. Approve out-of-state travel to Washington D.C. for Mayor Spano on November 7th and 8th as part of a contingent of community and business leaders to advocate for transit development in the Twin Cities region. 4l. Approve out-of-state travel for Mayor Spano, Councilmember Brausen and Councilmember Hallfin for the National League of Cities (NLC) City Summit in Charlotte, SC. 4m. Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2017. 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. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 2, 2017 1. Call to Order President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:28 p.m. Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Thom Miller, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano. Commissioners absent: None. Staff present: Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Planning & Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Operations and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Communications Manager (Ms. Larson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes September 18, 2017 It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Miller, to approve the EDA minutes as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Approval of Agenda It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Hallfin, to approve the EDA agenda as presented. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Reports 5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements It was moved by Commissioner Brausen, seconded by Commissioner Lindberg, to approve the EDA Disbursements. The motion passed 7-0. 6. Old Business - None Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting of October 2, 2017 7. New Business - None 8. Communications - None 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, Secretary Anne Mavity, President Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 5a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approval of EDA Disbursements RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Disbursement Claims for the period of September 23, through October 27, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in accordance with Article V – Administration 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 CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information follows the EDA’s Bylaws and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Disbursements Prepared by: Kari Mahan, Accounting Clerk Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 500.00BREWER JANE BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 500.00BREWER PATRICK BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 500.00BROWN KENNETH BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 1,500.00CMDCDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,500.00 3,908.75EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC BRIDGEWATER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 107.50WOODDALE LRT STATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 61.574900 EXC BLVD TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29ELIOT PARK TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29WEST END TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29ELLIPSE ON EXC TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 61.61PARK CENTER HOUSING G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29CSM TIF DIST G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29MILL CITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29PARK COMMONS G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29EDGEWOOD TIF DIST G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 663.54ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 563.90WOLFE LAKE COMMERCIAL TIF G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.31AQUILA COMMONS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 502.29HWY 7 BUSINESS CENTER G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,887.50 360.00GREEN HORIZONS 7015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP LAND MAINTENANCE 306.004601 HWY 7 PROP ACQUISITION LAND MAINTENANCE 272.98MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE LAND MAINTENANCE 930.00HWY 7 & LOUISIANA LAND MAINTENANCE 1,868.98 500.00HIBEN JAMES BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 500.00HIBEN MICHELLE BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 2 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:27:57R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 5,602.83KENNEDY & GRAVEN BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT LEGAL SERVICES 765.00ELMWOOD VILLAGE G & A LEGAL SERVICES 810.00HARD COAT G & A LEGAL SERVICES 7,177.83 6,000.00LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A LEGAL SERVICES 6,000.00 300.00MNCAR EXCHANGE DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 300.00 505.00NAIOPDEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 505.00 55,988.78NEXT GENERATION CONSULTING DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55,988.78 77.68OFFICE DEPOT DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 77.68 500.00PRICE CELESTE BELTLINE SWLRT DEVELOPMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 Report Totals 86,305.77 Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 5a) Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements Page 3 Meeting: Economic Development Authority Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 7a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E- Generation One, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Agreement between the EDA and PLACE E- Generation One, LLC. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA wish to allow PLACE to purchase the Wooddale Station north and south side properties separately so as to allow it’s Via project to commence immediately on the north side site? SUMMARY: As discussed at the October 23rd Study Session, PLACE has requested that its acquisition of the EDA’s property for its mixed-use, mixed-income project (Via) occur through two separate property conveyances: one for the north side site and one for the south side site. Closing on the north side site would occur no later than November 30, 2017, thus allowing the project to commence on the north side site before the end of the year as required under its DEED cleanup grant. Conveyance of the south side site would occur no later than April 30, 2018. Authorization of two separate property closings does not change the required project commencement and completion dates outlined in the Contract and allows PLACE to complete construction on the total project earlier than the required December 31, 2019. PLACE’s request requires amending the Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with the EDA. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As outlined in the proposed First Amendment, PLACE would purchase the north side site for $4,084,250. This includes the previously negotiated cost of the land ($3,925,000), plus 65% of the EDA’s holding costs ($159,250). Additionally, all of the EDA’s administrative costs related to the project to date (approximately $50,000) will be due at closing for the north side site. The cost to purchase the south side site would be approximately $2,200,000. This includes the previously negotiated cost of the land ($2,075,000), plus 35% of the EDA’s holding costs ($85,750). The Contract allows PLACE to finance $1,500,000 of the Total Purchase Price for both north and south side sites (the “Financed Purchase Price”), in regular semiannual installments of principal and accrued interest of 4.0% per annum over a period of ten (10) years. The Financed Purchase Price will be allocated 65% to the north site purchase price and 35% to the south site purchase price. In the event that PLACE fails to make the scheduled payments for the Financed Purchase Price, the previously established Interfund Loan will be repaid from the available tax increment on a subordinate basis to the payments on the TIF Note. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and diverse housing stock. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Resolution First Amendment Prepared by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager & EDA Executive Director Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 2 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC EDA RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND PLACE E- GENERATION ONE LLC BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows: Recitals. Pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082, as amended, the Authority administers its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), for the purpose of facilitating the redevelopment of certain substandard property within the Project. The Authority owns certain property (the “Property”) within the Project, which the Authority proposes to convey to PLACE E-GENERATION ONE LLC (the “Redeveloper”) for purposes of constructing a mixed-use (multi-family residential and commercial), mixed-income development on the Property and related parking, incorporating renewable energy sources including an anaerobic digester (the “Development”), pursuant to a Purchase and Redevelopment Contract dated as of May 1, 2017 (the “Contract”). 1.03. The parties have negotiated and propose to execute a First Amendment to the Agreement (the “First Amendment”), pursuant to which the Authority will convey the Property to the Redeveloper in two separate phases, in order to meet certain requirements for the disbursement of grant proceeds related to the Development. Section 2. First Amendment Approved. 2.01. The First Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the First Amendment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval. 2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority the First Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution by the Authority, including without limitation any deed, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority, its obligations thereunder. 2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out the intent of this resolution. Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 3 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the Economic Development Authority November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, Executive Director Anne Mavity, President Attest: Melissa Kennedy, Secretary Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 4 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC FIRST AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AND REDEVELOPMENT CONTRACT This First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract (the “Amendment”) is dated as of _____________, 2017, by and between the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body corporate and politic (the “Authority”), and PLACE E-GENERATION ONE LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”). RECITALS A. The Authority and the Redeveloper executed a certain Purchase and Redevelopment Contract, dated as of May 1, 2017 (the “Agreement”), whereunder the Authority agreed to convey certain property described in the Agreement (the “Redevelopment Property”) to the Redeveloper and pledged Available Tax Increment (as defined in the Agreement) to pay or reimburse certain costs incurred by the Redeveloper in connection with the development of certain North Components, consisting of the North Apartments Component, the North Commercial Space Component, the E- Generation Facility Component, and associated parking; and certain South Components, consisting of the South Apartments Component, the South Commercial Space Component, the Hotel Component, and associated parking (all as defined in the Agreement) on the Redevelopment Property (collectively, the “Minimum Improvements”). B. The Agreement contemplates closing on conveyance of all of the Redevelopment Property by a date no later than April 30, 2018. C. In order to meet certain requirements for the disbursement of grant proceeds to pay Grant-Eligible Costs, the Redeveloper has requested and the Authority has agreed to convey the Redevelopment Property pursuant to two separate closings, and to amend certain provisions of the Agreement accordingly, as set forth herein. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows: 1. Amendment of Sections 3.1(a) and (b). Sections 3.1(a) and (b) of the Agreement are amended as follows: (a) The Redevelopment Property consists of the North Parcels and the South Parcels, as described in Schedule A attached hereto. Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 5 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC (b) The Authority owns all parcels of the Redevelopment Property and will convey title to and possession of the Redevelopment Property to the Redeveloper, or its successor in interest hereunder, subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Authority will convey the North Parcels and the South Parcels to the Redeveloper in two separate transactions (the “North Closing” and the “South Closing,” as defined in Section 3.3(b) hereof, and each a “Closing”). (c) The Redeveloper has prepared and obtained final City approval of a PUD and plat of the Redevelopment Property (the “Redevelopment Plat”). Park dedication fees attributable to the South Parcels and due and payable upon filing of the Redevelopment Plat may be deferred and paid on the date of the South Closing. 2. Amendment of Section 3.2. Section 3.2 of the Agreement is amended as follows: Section 3.2. Purchase Price; Provisions for Payment; Deferral. The purchase price to be paid to the Authority by the Redeveloper in exchange for the conveyance of the Redevelopment Property shall be $6,245,000 (the “Purchase Price”), to be paid as follows: Upon execution of this Agreement, the Redeveloper will place $20,000 as earnest money (the “Earnest Money”) into an escrow account administered by a title company mutually agreeable to the parties (the “Title Company”), to be held and applied to the Purchase Price on the date of the North Closing. At the North Closing, the Redeveloper shall pay $3,084,250 of the Purchase Price, less the escrowed Earnest Money. At the South Closing, the Redeveloper shall pay $1,660,750 of the Purchase Price. The Redeveloper will pay the remaining $1,500,000 of the Purchase Price, plus interest to accrue at the rate of 4.0% per annum (the “Financed Purchase Price”), in regular semiannual installments of principal and accrued interest, over a period of ten (10) years. The Financed Purchase Price shall be allocated 65% to the North Purchase Price and 35% to the South Purchase Price. Interest on the portion of the Financed Purchase Price attributable to the North Parcels shall accrue from the date of the North Closing, and interest on the portion of the Financed Purchase Price attributable to the South Parcels shall accrue from the date of the South Closing. To secure the full payment of the Financed Purchase Price, the Redeveloper will provide a mortgage lien on the Redevelopment Property in favor of the Authority in the principal amount of $975,000 on the date of the North Closing and in the amount of $525,000 on the date of the South Closing, which mortgage liens shall be subordinate to any mortgage provided under the terms of Section 7.3 hereof. Additionally, the Board of Commissioners of the Authority has adopted an interfund loan resolution providing for an interfund loan in the amount of $1,500,000 as permitted under Section 469.178, subd. 7 of the TIF Act (the “Interfund Loan”). In the event that the Redeveloper fails to make the scheduled payments for the Financed Purchase Price, the Interfund Loan shall be repaid from the Available Tax Increment on a subordinate basis to the payments on the TIF Note. 3. Amendment of Section 3.3. Section 3.3 of the Agreement is amended as follows: Section 3.3. Conditions of Conveyance. (a) The Authority shall convey title to and possession of the North Parcels and the South Parcels of the Redevelopment Property to the Redeveloper by quit claim deeds substantially in the form set forth on Schedule B to this Agreement (the “Deed”), modified as may be necessary to enable issuance of a suitable owner’s policy in a form acceptable to the Redeveloper and its successors and assigns. The Authority’s obligation to convey the Redevelopment Property to the Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 6 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC Redeveloper, and the Redeveloper’s obligation to acquire the Redevelopment Property, are subject to satisfaction of the following terms and conditions: (1) The Redeveloper having closed on permanent financing for the North Components or South Components, as applicable, at or before closing on transfer of title to the relevant parcels of the Redevelopment Property from the Authority to the Redeveloper, or having received a binding commitment from a lender to provide financing sufficient for construction of the North Components or South Components of the Minimum Improvements, as applicable, or having otherwise provided the Authority with proof of funds available to finance construction of the North Components or South Components of the Minimum Improvements, as applicable. (2) The City having approved the Redevelopment Plat and PUD in accordance with Section 3.1 hereof, and the Redeveloper having recorded or filed the Redevelopment Plat at or before the earlier of the North Closing or South Closing. (3) The City having approved all necessary zoning variances to the Redevelopment Property in accordance with Section 3.1 hereof. (4) The Authority having approved Construction Plans for the applicable Components of the Minimum Improvements in accordance with Section 4.2 hereof. (5) The Redeveloper having reviewed and approved (or waived objections to) title to the Redevelopment Property and having obtained a commitment from a title company acceptable to the Redeveloper (the “Title Company”) to issue a suitable owner’s policy, as set forth in Section 3.5 hereof. (6) The Redeveloper having remitted to the Authority all Administrative Costs (as defined in Section 3.11) that remain outstanding and payable at the time of the North Closing and South Closing, such Administrative Costs to be determined in accordance with Section 3.11. The Administrative Costs may be paid by the Redeveloper at each Closing in accordance with Section 3.4(b) hereof. (7) The Redeveloper being satisfied with the results of its due diligence inspections and testing with regard to the Redevelopment Property as further described in Section 3.3(b) hereof. (8) There existing no uncured Event of Default under this Agreement. Conditions (1) and (4), and (6) are solely for the benefit of the Authority and may be waived by the Authority. Conditions (5) and (7) are solely for the benefit of the Redeveloper and may be waived by the Redeveloper. Conditions (2), (3), and (8) are for the benefit of both parties and may be waived by both parties. In the event that this Agreement is terminated pursuant to failure to meet or waive any of conditions (1) through (7), the Earnest Money shall be returned to the Redeveloper and neither party shall have any further rights or obligations under this Agreement, except for the Redeveloper’s continuing obligation under Section 3.11 hereof. In the event that this Agreement is terminated pursuant to condition (8), the provisions of Article IX hereof shall apply. Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 7 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC (b) The closing on conveyance of the North Parcels of the Redevelopment Property from the Authority to the Redeveloper (the “North Closing”) shall occur within thirty (30) days of satisfaction or waiver of conditions (1) through (7) specified in Section 3.3(a) hereof, and subject to the continued satisfaction at the North Closing of condition (8), but no later than November 30, 2017 (the “North End Date”); and the closing on conveyance of the South Parcels of the Redevelopment Property from the Authority to the Redeveloper (the “South Closing”) shall occur within thirty (30) days of satisfaction or waiver of conditions (1) through (7) specified in Section 3.3(a) hereof, and subject to the continued satisfaction at the South Closing of condition (8), but no later than April 30, 2018 (the “South End Date”); provided that the North End Date and South End Date shall be subject to extension upon mutual agreement of the parties. 4. Amendment of Sections 3.4(b) and (c). Sections 3.4(b) and (c) are amended as follows: (b) The Deed for each of the North Parcels and South Parcels shall be in recordable form and shall be promptly recorded in the proper office for the recordation of deeds and other instruments pertaining to the Redevelopment Property. At each Closing, the Redeveloper shall pay all recording costs in connection with the conveyance of the North Parcels or South Parcels, as applicable; the Authority’s holding costs attributable to the North Parcels or South Parcels, as applicable; title insurance commitment fees and premiums, if any; Title Company closing fees, if any; and all outstanding Administrative Costs. The Authority shall pay costs of recording any instruments used to clear title encumbrances; State deed tax; and any special assessments outstanding or levied against the North Parcels as of the date of the North Closing and against the South Parcels as of the date of the South Closing. The parties agree and understand that the Redevelopment Property is exempt from property taxes for taxes payable in 2017, and is expected to be exempt from property taxes for taxes payable in 2018. (c) At each Closing, the Authority shall deliver to the Redeveloper: (1) The executed Deed; (2) All certificates, instruments and other documents necessary to permit the recording of the Deed; (3) A standard Seller’s Affidavit with respect to judgments, bankruptcies, tax liens, mechanics liens, parties in possession, unrecorded interests, encroachment or boundary line questions and related matters; (4) If applicable, the owner’s duplicate certificate of title (the Authority need not provide an abstract of title if the property is classified as abstract property); (5) An affidavit that the Authority is not a “foreign person” within the meaning of Section 1445 of the Internal Revenue Code; and (6) One or more Assessment Agreements. (d) At each Closing, the Redeveloper shall deliver to the Authority: Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 8 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC (1) The applicable portion of the Purchase Price as provided in Section 3.2 hereof, plus or minus pro rata costs between the Authority and Redeveloper as set forth in Section 3.4(b) hereof, less the applicable portion of the Financed Purchase Price; and (2) One or more Assessment Agreements. 5. Amendment of Schedule A. Schedule A is amended to replace the prior legal description with the platted legal description, as follows: North Parcels: Lot 1, Block 1, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Lot 1, Block 2, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Outlot A, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota South Parcels: Lot 1, Block 3, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota Outlots B and C, PLACE St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota 6. Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Upon execution of this Amendment, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this Amendment Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 9 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives. ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By Its President By Its Executive Director STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of _____________, 2017, by Anne Mavity and Thomas K Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a public body corporate and politic, on behalf of the Authority. Notary Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI) 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 7a) Page 10 Title: First Amendment to Purchase and Redevelopment Contract with PLACE E-Generation One, LLC PLACE E-GENERATION ONE LLC By ___________________________________ Its President STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of ______________, 2017, by Chris Velasco, the President of PLACE E-Generation One LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the company. Notary Public Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Presentation: 2a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Small Business Saturday Proclamation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor is asked to read the Proclamation designating Saturday, November 25, 2017 as Small Business Saturday. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUMMARY: Small Business Saturday is an annual initiative dedicated to supporting and promoting small businesses and encourage customers to patronize local businesses. Small Business Saturday is held annually on the Saturday after Thanksgiving. It has become a nationwide movement to celebrate, recognize and support small businesses and all they contribute to their communities. This year, Small Business Saturday falls on November 25th. It is proposed that the City Council once again approve a proclamation supporting the Small Business Saturday initiative to demonstrate St. Louis Park’s support for the local businesses that create jobs, boost the economy and enhance its neighborhoods. Small Business Saturday was launched in 2010 and involved 130 small businesses advocate groups, 1.2 million Facebook users, public and private organizations and local governments. Each year since Small Business Saturday has gained momentum. By 2016, 112 million people shopped at small businesses and spent more than $15.4 billion at independent retailers and restaurants across the U.S. Last year St. Louis Park was one of 651 cities nationwide that issued proclamation in support of Small Business Saturday. By spreading the word about Small Business Saturday, St. Louis Park is helping raise awareness of the critical role small businesses play in the city and encourage residents to celebrate and support the small businesses that makes their community thrive. The initiative will also be promoted on the city’s website and social media. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proclamation Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager & EDA Director City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 2a) Page 2 Title: Small Business Saturday Proclamation PROCLAMATION SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY NOVEMBER 25, 2017 WHEREAS, St. Louis Park celebrates our local small businesses and the contribution they make to our local economy and community; and WHEREAS, According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, there are currently 29.6 million small businesses in the United States, representing 48 percent of the working population, and employing 57.9 million people; and WHEREAS, eight million small businesses in the U.S. are minority owned; and WHEREAS, St. Louis Park supports our local businesses that create jobs, boost our local economy, promote diversity and preserve our neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, Advocacy groups and public and private organizations across the county have endorsed the Saturday following Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday; NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim November 25, 2017 to be Small Business Saturday in St. Louis Park. WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 6th day of November, 2017. _______________________________ Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Presentation: 2b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Recognition of Donations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to announce and express thanks and appreciation for the following donations being accepted at the meeting and listed on the Consent Agenda: From Amount For Park Coin $250 Fire Prevention Programs & Equipment Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 1. Call to Order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Gregg Lindberg. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Public Works Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), Environmental Coordinator (Mr. Vaughan), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Renee Beer, Joan Abbott, Karen Roehl, 2017 Evergreen Award winners. 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. 2017 Evergreen Awards Mr. Jim Vaughan stated this award has been given to residents since 1990, and this year there were eight nominations, with two winners. The winners were Renee Beer, 3025 Oregon Ave.; and Joan Abbott and Karen Roehl, 4383 Glen Place. 2b. Recognition of Donations Mayor Spano noted the donations and thanked each donor on behalf of the city. • MN Twins and Toro each donated $10,000 to help renovate the fields at Dakota Park. • Zita Zogg donated $2,200 for a bench at Westwood Hills Nature Center in honor of Willi Zogg. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Minutes August 21, 2017 Councilmember Brausen noted on page 2, it should read: Councilmember Brausen also noted, assuming the referendum is approved, this is a large amount of spending being given City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017 to the city’s and district’s interest in racial equity and minority businesses, and there should be provisions for minority hiring. Mr. Osai stated yes, and noted further the St. Louis Park population is changing. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve the August 21, 2017 Meeting Minutes as amended. The motion passed 6-0. 3b. City Council Study Session Minutes August 28, 2017 Mayor Spano stated on page 2 in the 3rd paragraph from bottom, it should read: “…yet there was one thing, there was a disparate response.” It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the August 28, 2017 Meeting Minutes as amended. The motion passed 6-0. 3c. City Council Special Study Session Minutes September 5, 2017 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve the September 5, 2017 Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion passed 6-0. 3d. City Council Minutes September 5, 2017 Councilmember Miller stated on the top of page 4, is should read: “….City of Minneapolis will reimburse St. Louis Park.” It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the September 5, 2017 Meeting Minutes as amended The motion passed 6-0. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar 4a. Adopt Resolution No. 17-136 Authorizing the 2018 Preliminary HRA Levy. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 17-137 approving issuance of a Premises Permit for lawful gambling to be conducted by Community Charities of Minnesota at the proposed new location of Frank Lundberg American Legion Post 282 - 6509 Walker Street conditioned on City Council approval of a CUP for the American Legion to operate at this location. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 17-138 authorizing the installation of east-west stop signs at the intersection of W. Franklin Avenue & W. 18th Street/ Edgewood Avenue and rescind a portion of Resolution 5319 (“on the Edgewood and Franklin Avenues approach to W. 18th Street”). City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 17-139 authorizing installation of “No Parking” restrictions along Virginia Avenue, W. 28th Street, and Texas Avenue in accordance with the 2017 Connect The Park Bikeways (City Project #4017-2000) as well as to rescind Resolution Nos. 02-070 and 4943. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 17-140 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the Minnesota Twins ($10,000) and The Toro Company ($10,000) to renovate the baseball and softball fields at Dakota Park. In addition to the monetary donation, the Minnesota Twins and Toro Company will provide volunteers for the renovation of the fields, scheduled for October 4, 2017. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 17-141 approving acceptance of a $2,200 donation from Zita Zogg for the purchase and installation of a memorial bench in Westwood Hills Nature Center ($2,200) honoring Willi Zogg. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 17-142 appointing additional election judges needed to staff the polls at the General Election to be held November 7, 2017. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0. 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. The Elmwood – Major Amendment to Section 36-268-PUD 8 Ms. Monson presented the staff report. She explained that the applicant requests a major amendment to the Elmwood Planned Unit Development to reduce the project size. The request is due to higher than anticipated final construction cost estimates. The proposed changes and reductions to the development include the following: 85 to 70 dwelling units; 6 to 5 stories; 20% to 24% of affordable units; 188 to 127 parking spaces; and 21.2% to 20.5% DORA. Ms. Monson stated that the Planning Commission voted 3 to 1 to recommend approval with conditions recommended by staff, including the addition of a parking management plan. Ms. Monson stated that staff recommends approval. Councilmember Miller noted that he has voted against this project in the last several months. While he appreciates that the development will be less dense, he has stated that all along this area is prime for walking with retail, which is complementary to PLACE. The Elmwood does not include that element. He continued that the retail spaces proposed do not seem to be for the public, and he thinks the developer could do better. He will vote against this proposal this evening. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017 Mayor Spano stated that this project has important pieces, including much needed affordable housing, as well as housing for seniors. He added that The Elmwood will be a good balance with the retail at Hoigaard Village. Mayor Spano stated that he will support the proposal. Councilmember Mavity agreed with Mayor Spano and also appreciated the developer retaining the affordable units. She stressed that she has spoken to many seniors in St. Louis Park who have lived here all of their lives. They want to stay in St. Louis Park and do not have many options, so this will be a great addition to the city’s housing stock. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve First Reading of an ordinance amending Section 36-268-PUD 8 of the Zoning Code relating to the Major Amendment for The Elmwood, and to set the Second Reading for October 2, 2017. The motion passed 5-1. (Councilmember Miller opposed). 8b. Conditional Use Permit – American Legion Post 282. Resolution No. 17-143 Mr. Morrison presented the staff report. He noted that the Masonic Center is in the process of remodeling their building as they reduce the size of their operation and will convert it from a single-use to a two-tenant building. The Masonic Center will operate as a one tenant space and the second tenant space is proposed to be leased to the American Legion Post 282. Mr. Morrison stated that a neighborhood meeting was conducted and comments were positive. Several comments expressed concerns about the proximity of the sale of alcohol to the Central Community Center, where children are present. Mr. Morrison noted that the City Code requires that the proposed use be at least 100 feet away from a parcel zoned residential, and the Central Community Center is over 400 feet away. Mr. Morrison stated that the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of the project. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he is a United States Army Veteran, and it is organizations such as the American Legion and VFW that support veterans in many ways. He added that the American Legion Post 282 has always been a great steward in the city and supported veterans in the community through charitable gaming and donations. Councilmember Hallfin stated that it is his honor to move approval on this project. Councilmember Miller added that he is very happy the project is moving forward, especially since this area will soon be developed into the historic Walker district. He added that the neighborhood is fully in favor of this project, as is the city of St. Louis Park. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 17-143, granting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow Places of Assembly at 6509 and 6515 Walker Street with conditions recommended by the planning commission. The motion passed 6-0. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017 8c. 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy Certification and Preliminary General Fund Budget Adoption. Resolution No. 17-144 Mr. Simon presented the report. He stated that the HRA levy was originally implemented in St. Louis Park due to legislative changes in 2001 which reduced future tax increment revenues. The city council elected at that time to use the levy proceeds for future infrastructure improvements in redevelopment areas. By law, these funds could also be used for other housing and redevelopment purposes. However, they are committed to repaying the development fund via an interfund loan for the Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue project until 2019 or 2020 based on the current Long Range Financial Management Plan. Given this obligation, staff recommends the HRA levy continue at the maximum allowed by law for the 2018 budget year. Mr. Simon added that the HRA Levy cannot exceed 0.0185% of the estimated market value of the city. Therefore, staff has calculated the maximum HRA levy for 2018 to be $1,172,786 based on valuation data from Hennepin County which is an increase of $86,325 or 7.95% from 2017. Mr. Simon stated that staff will provide a live Facebook chat on this topic to gain feedback and answer questions from citizens regarding the 2018 budget. Councilmember Hallfin asked for examples of what miscellaneous revenues include. Mr. Simon stated miscellaneous revenues would be items such as ice rental, rent revenues from the Housing Authority, and items that are more general in nature. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 17-144, approving 2018 Preliminary General Fund Budget, 2018 Preliminary Property Tax Levy, and Setting Budget Public Hearing date for December 4, 2017. The motion passed 6-0. 8d. First Reading of Right-of-Way Ordinance Ms. Heiser presented the staff report. She stated that Minnesota’s Telecommunications Right-of-Way User Law was updated in May of 2017. The amendments clear up confusion about whether wireless providers are treated the same under state law as other telecommunications right-of-way users. Additionally, it created a separate permit for placement of small wireless facilities in the right-of-way. Ms. Heiser said that staff has received inquiries regarding the process for installing small cell wireless facilities within the right-of-way. City Attorney Mattick advised that in order to regulate these facilities and have them located within the right-of-way, the city needs to incorporate the provisions of the new law into city code. Ms. Heiser noted that an updated ordinance has been written, which is based on the League of Minnesota Cities Model Right-of-Way Ordinance. Councilmember Brausen asked if utilities can come into the city at any time and put items in the right-of-way. Ms. Heiser answered yes, but the city can coordinate timing to prevent them from blocking roads during high traffic times. Councilmember Brausen asked with City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017 the high demand for wireless service increasing, especially in areas such as the West End, if the city has authority to deny utilities the access to do this. Ms. Heiser stated no, adding that the utilities are allowed by state law to be in the right- of- way. Councilmember Brausen stated he will support these changes. Councilmember Sanger agreed. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve First Reading of the Right-of-Way Ordinance and set Second Reading for October 2, 2017. The motion passed 6-0. 8e. Water Treatment Plan #4 Rehabilitation – Approve Plans & Specs and Authorize Advertisement for Bids. Resolution No. 17-145 Mr. Hanson presented the staff report. He stated that Water Treatment Plan #4 was removed from service on December 28, 2016. Staff has been working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on a retrofit of the treatment plant, and on July 17, 2017 the council approved the consultant contract to finalize plans for construction. The new treatment plant design will remove the current contaminants and is designed with the flexibility to add additional treatment processes in the future. Mr. Hanson stated that the estimated cost for this project is $4,715,300 and is included in the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Funding will be provided using General Obligation Revenue Bonds to be repaid by the water fund. Mr. Hanson added that project updates for residents will be available by email, and completion date is set for fall 2018. Councilmember Mavity stated that she appreciated the information on this needed improvement. She asked how long this facility has been in operation and if there any concerns of vapors or odors being released in the Susan Lindgren neighborhood during construction. Mr. Hanson stated that the treatment plant was built pre-1950, and the current design was upgraded in the mid-1990’s. He stated that there are safety measures in place, and there are no concerns with the project. Mr. Hanson added that he has been in contact with the principal at Susan Lindgren to update him on the project. He added that he has also forwarded the principal information for parents to sign up for email updates related to construction and parking. Councilmember Miller commended staff on their work, adding that drinking water safety is a #1 concern and responsibility of council members. He added this type of expenditure needs to occasionally be spent in order to make our water safe. Additionally, the ozone equipment being added to the project is very much needed and welcome. Councilmember Brausen agreed, adding that he supports this project and appreciates the much-needed improvements and proactive response relative to the ozone equipment. It was moved by Councilmember Miller, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 17-145, approving final plans and specifications, and authorizing advertisement for bids (Project No. 5318-5004). City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 7 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017 The motion passed 6-0. 9. Communications – None 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 25, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Thom Miller, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jake Spano. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Associate Planner (Ms. Kramer), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Police Chief (Mr. Harcey), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Kruelle), Police Sergeant (Mr. Balvin), Police Sergeant (Mr. Lewis), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple). Guest: Mr. Stoddard, Developer 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 2 & 9, 2017 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for October 2 and 9, 2017. He noted that discussion of the regulation of flavored tobacco products is scheduled for the October 2 special study session, and the budget will be the main topic of discussion for the study session on October 9. Councilmember Mavity asked for additional information on the written report on visioning that is slated for October 9. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that he spoke with staff prior to the meeting and also requested to move that item from a written update to a discussion item. Councilmember Mavity agreed that she would like to have a discussion, specifically about how visioning will guide the Comprehensive Plan process and how input can be given during that process. 2. NOAH Preservation Policies Mr. Harmening stated that the council has discussed this topic previously and emphasized that staff is looking for direction regarding the advanced notice of sale; whether it would be helpful to preserve NOAH; and whether there would be unintended consequences by preserving NOAH. He stated that staff has been talking with the multi-family property owners, and there seems to be interest in talking through the ideas from different sides of this topic. Ms. Schnitker stated that an advanced notice of sale policy would require the property owner to provide notice to the city before entering into a purchase agreement, which would allow the city the ability to determine if it would be appropriate to purchase the property for preservation. She reviewed the actions which would trigger the notice; the length of the notice period; whom the notice would apply to; the definition of NOAH properties; the identification of NOAH properties; and the enforcement penalty. She highlighted the discussion points the council should consider tonight. She stated that this policy would apply to a potential of 41 developments. Seven already have restricted rents, which would leave the potential of 36 additional developments that the City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 ordinance may apply to. She provided updates on other policies that staff is continuing to research on this topic, noting that the most discussion and opposition has been generated by the eviction for cause policy. She stated that two meetings were held with rental owners and landlords, noting that there was a lot of good input received from those who attended, as well as from email correspondence. Councilmember Sanger asked for additional information on the advance notice of sale policy and the limit to the number of units, specifically whether it would apply per parcel or per development. Ms. Schnitker replied that the policy could apply to developments with multiple parcels, using the example of three adjacent buildings with different owners but one potential buyer. She noted that some existing developments have more than one parcel. Councilmember Sanger asked if the policy would apply if the owner were to sell 50 percent interest in the development. Ms. Schnitker replied that the policy would not apply when there is ownership distribution transfer involving existing owners. Mr. Mattick stated that the ordinance would apply if there was a purchase agreement. Councilmember Mavity stated that her focus is on the renters and the impact on the tenants. She stated that it is the new buyer who would make that impact and asked for additional information on the ability or necessity to trigger the second phase. Ms. Schnitker stated that the second notice was not included in the draft ordinance. Councilmember Mavity asked for additional information on the potential conflict with the prohibition of rent control. Mr. Mattick stated that the city could not propose anything that could be construed as rent control. Councilmember Mavity referenced financial assistance, noting that a previous report mentioned 4.5 million in general obligation bonds to provide assistance in rehab acquisition. She asked if this pilot project would only apply to developments with 40 units and less and why it would not apply to larger developments. Ms. Schnitker replied that this is only in the early planning stages, but since there is limited funding, the pilot would be more feasible for small to medium size buildings. Councilmember Brausen stated that there are not any Minnesota cases related to rent control prohibition, noting that there has not been any litigation in the past 30 years since the state adopted the prohibition. He asked for information on the language regarding a rent control being approved through a referendum on the General Election ballot. Mr. Mattick acknowledged that the language can become confusing and stated that staff is attempting to determine if there were laws that previously allowed that action prior to adoption. Perhaps this element was left on the books in error. Councilmember Brausen asked for the number of rental developments with under four units. Ms. Schnitker replied that there are currently 1,326 single-family homes that are non-homesteaded, but she acknowledged that those may not all be rentals, as they could be snowbirds or a property owner that simply owns multiple properties. She stated that there are 297 duplexes and 1,160 condos and townhomes in St. Louis Park. Councilmember Brausen asked about the number of licensed rental properties in the city. Ms. Boettcher replied that there are 794 single-family homes, 167 duplexes, 147 townhomes, and 643 condos that are licensed as non-owner occupied. Councilmember Hallfin asked about the procedure for someone who purchases a property with existing renters. Ms. Mattick stated that it would depend upon the language in the lease. Unless the lease states that a change in ownership would nullify the lease, the renters would be able to remain for the term of the lease. He stated that if the language states that the lease would be City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 terminated with a change in ownership or there is no language reflecting those terms, the lease could then be terminated. Councilmember Hallfin asked how the city got in this position, noting that this potential action is reactive to something that happened at Meadowbrook. Mr. Harmening confirmed that the draft ordinance as written would not have applied to that situation. Councilmember Mavity stated that there are 5,000 other units in the community that could still be at risk. Councilmember Lindberg asked for more information on the prohibition on rent controls and how that would apply to the 90-day notice under the second phase. Mr. Mattick replied that staff drafted a requirement that if a property owner is selling the property, they would have to provide notice to the city 90 days in advance of the purchase agreement being signed. He stated that the second component is to determine if the change in ownership would interfere with the otherwise established contract with the tenant, thereby suppressing rents. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that there was a building in Richfield that recently sold to AEON and asked if similar notification took place. Ms. Barton stated that the ordinance was not in place at that time in Richfield. She stated that AEON learned of the pending sale through another avenue and made an offer. The seller chose to accept AEON’s offer over the offer they had previously received. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that a property owner could receive a purchase agreement on a property that they did not intend to sell and asked how the property owner would then give the sufficient notice. Ms. Schnitker replied that these properties are investment properties, and anyone can approach the property owner with a purchase offer at any time. She stated that the property owner would still need to give notice to the city prior to entering into a purchase agreement. Ms. Barton explained that the city would review the date on the purchase agreement and compare that to city records to ensure that a 90-day notice was provided. Mayor Pro Tem Miller referred to the rent control discussion and asked how that would apply to properties under the Inclusionary Housing Policy. Ms. Schnitker stated that if the city has provided the property owner with financial assistance, and if that assistance is accepted, the rents would need to be within the affordable range. She stated that a property owner does not have to accept the financial assistance and then would not be required to have units within the affordable range. Councilmember Hallfin asked for additional details on the 90-day notice. Ms. Schnitker stated that the property owner would not be able to enter into a purchase agreement until 90 days have passed from the date the property owner provided notice to the city of the intent to sell the property. She stated that the 90-day period was chosen because it would not overly encumber the seller but would still allow enough time for a preservation buyer to purchase the property. Councilmember Hallfin noted that it typically does not take 90 days to sell a property and stated that the city would then be prohibiting the sale from occurring prior to that length of time. Councilmember Mavity noted that a purchase agreement simply outlines the terms of the sale and is not the actual sale. She asked if links to past reports on the 90-day notice to the city policy could be provided for future discussions to avoid duplicating questions and comments. She referenced the length of the 90-day notification period and asked if this is based on models used elsewhere in the nation. Ms. Schnitker replied that all the discussion with housing advocates and agencies have focused on 90 days as the period that is not too long but also provides sufficient opportunity for a preservation buyer. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 Ms. Barton stated that she recently attended a national conference and the length of time was consistent at 90 days. She stated that Portland, Oregon, recently enacted a similar ordinance with a 90-day notification period. Councilmember Mavity stated that she believes it would be important for staff to reference if other municipalities have used this length of time and whether that timeframe has been successful. She stated that while she agrees that it is important to allow time for a preservation buyer, she also views it as a tool that can minimize disruption to residents in the community and tenants who could be displaced. She stated that she views this as a tenant protection tool. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked if Councilmember Mavity would want to see a notice provided to the tenants as well as the city. Councilmember Mavity stated that she was unsure of what should come next in terms of whom would be notified - whether that would be the tenants or an advocacy agency. She stated that it is an important element that the tenants be notified, referencing the drop of enrollment in local schools, which occurred after the recent development changed ownership and displaced tenants. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked whether it would skirt the law if the ordinance were put in place, and the tenants found out about the potential sale through a third party. Mr. Mattick stated that it would not be a legal issue for the city to provide notice to the tenants or a third party that advises the tenants. Councilmember Brausen asked and received confirmation that this ordinance would not preclude a property owner from entering into an option to buy during the notification period. Councilmember Sanger asked if Councilmember Mavity would like to have notification provided to the tenants. Councilmember Mavity stated that her first concern would be preservation of the property as affordable, while her second concern would be the notification of the tenants. Councilmember Sanger noted that the impact on the tenants would not occur during the first 90 days. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that the notification would provide the residents with additional time. Councilmember Lindberg stated that while he understands the intention, he asked how the city would actually enforce and track this information. He stated that he would imagine there would be a significant burden on staff and asked what it would actually take to do this well. He asked specifically what the cost for enforcement of this policy would be and if something else could perhaps be done to provide better results. Ms. Schnitker replied that staff would provide the NOAH rent thresholds, and if developments have rental units below that threshold, the property owner would be required to certify and comply with the ordinance. She stated that staff is aware of the sale of properties and therefore did not anticipate a lot of additional staff work. Mr. Harmening stated that estimation of staff time would be based on the proposal in the report, but the workload could broaden if the draft ordinance was broadened. Councilmember Sanger asked who would handle the calls from residents. Ms. Schnitker replied that staff would continue to field those calls, consistent with the current procedure. Councilmember Brausen stated that there is currently a crime-free ordinance in place, which does not require a lot of staff work, as the burden is placed on the property owner. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 Councilmember Mavity stated that as NOAH buildings are identified, the question would then be whether the reporting is done on good faith or whether staff is actually asking each rental unit to report the amount of their rent. She stated the latter option would be very burdensome and could be proprietary information. Ms. Schnitker replied that staff would simply be asking a property owner to reply yes or no as to whether there are units in their development that are under the NOAH threshold. Mr. Harmening explained that if there is one unit that meets the threshold, the property owner would then reply yes. Councilmember Sanger asked whether family size would be considered against the AMI. Ms. Schnitker replied that there are HUD published rents based on bedroom size. She stated that AMI is based on household income for each number of bedrooms, regardless of the number of people actually living in the unit. Ms. Barton explained that an assumption is made on the family size based on the number of bedrooms. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is an attorney and a certified real property law specialist. He believes that because staff has come forward with this policy, they must think that it is manageable. He stated that the city is simply talking about a proposal for notice, and he would recommend that a notice be required to be given to tenants, as well, which would allow renters the ability to plan for the future. He stated that this policy is basically a reporting regulation and believes that the city has the capacity to educate the rental licensees about it. He stated that notification would not impact the ability to sell or the price for which a property owner could sell their property. He stated that he would be in favor of extending this policy to all affordable rent properties and did not see the reason to exclude smaller developments and properties. He believed that the council should support this regulation and noted that he would support the regulation for all sized rental properties. Mr. Mattick stated that staff reviewed that option, but the underlying policy is not just so that the city knows when something is being sold. It is based on the preservation of affordability, and therefore extending the policy to non-affordable units would not make sense. Councilmember Brausen noted that there are going to be properties that flow above and below that threshold, and therefore including all properties would cover that aspect. Councilmember Mavity stated that affordable renters are challenged in finding an available unit, and the city needs to do something. She noted that there is an impact to the business community and schools when an affordable rental property is eliminated. She stated that if the city moves forward with this ordinance, she would want to ensure that renters are made aware of the policy and of a potential sale. She stated that there is a lack of affordable housing in the city and the community at large. She did not believe that there would be a benefit to notifying all sized properties at this time but would be open to expanding the parameters if the pilot is successful. She stated that if this policy can be implemented without rate impact, in terms of staff and market impact, she would support this. She stated that she is not committed to the 90 days for the length of the notification period. She would also be open to a 60-day period because it applies only to a purchase agreement and not to the actual sale of the property. She believed that the city should move forward thoughtfully and to the extent that all stakeholders are informed. Councilmember Sanger disagreed. She stated that she would support a rehab loan fund with discounted loans in exchange for keeping rents affordable for a specified amount of time, as that would protect the affordability of units. She stated that the job of the city is not to pick winners and losers among families but to ensure that there are a number of affordable units in the city. She City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 stated that the idea of providing 90 days of notice before signing a purchase agreement is meaningless and unnecessary. She stated that a developer of affordable housing has the same opportunities as other developers to check the properties that are listed for sale. She did not believe this ordinance is necessary and believed that it would instead infringe on the rights of property owners to sell their buildings. She stated that it is not the right of the city to require 90 days before a purchase agreement could be signed and added that a property owner would use the 90 days to set up financing so that on day 91 or 92, the sale could still go through. She stated that there would be unintended consequences as the policy would apply even if there is only one affordable unit. Therefore a landlord could simply raise the rent above the AMI limit. She stated that if there is a $1,000 fine, that is not prohibitive and would simply be considered as a cost of doing business to skip the 90-day notification period. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he wants to preserve affordable housing to the extent possible and appreciates the passion on the subject. He noted that what is considered reasonable by some, is not reasonable for others. He agreed with a program to help property owners update properties with the condition that units remain affordable. He stated that since the city can provide rehab loans for industries, he would support similar action for landlords of affordable housing properties. He explained that the majority of affordable housing exists in buildings that are not as nice as the higher rent buildings. Therefore, he would support the assistance for building rehab. He stated that if the companies purchasing larger properties are players in the market place, they have the same opportunities to purchase those buildings as any other developer. He said that he wants to retain affordable housing but believes that this ordinance is misguided. Councilmember Sanger stated that she does not want to be the test case and would rather leave that to another community rather than the City of St. Louis Park spending the time and money to defend itself. Councilmember Lindberg agreed that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. He agreed that the city should be proactive and well thought out in policy and practice, but he was unsure that this ordinance would be the correct tool. He stated that it seemed reactive, whereas he would prefer to find proactive ideas, such as the rehab loan project, to provide tangible results. He stated that the $1,000 administrative fine would be a measure of enforcement but noted that it would become a cost of doing business to simply pay the fine and move on with the sales transaction. He stated that an unintended consequence would be for the landlord to raise the rents above the AMI before the ordinance is enacted. He stated that he had been more supportive of this until he started thinking of applying it across the board, as it would prohibit a market transaction by enacting a 90 day waiting period, while property owners in every other city can move forward on a regular timeline. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that when this topic arises, he is always struck by how many units are affected. He stated that he is concerned with keeping the NOAH units in place. He thanked the property owners for providing their input and participating in the discussions thus far. He questioned if this policy would backfire to some degree with the NOAH property owners. He asked how it would be fair for NOAH property owners to be required to have a 90-day notification and $1,000 fine, while luxury rental owners would not be required to do the same. He stated that he wanted the city to be the first and would like to move this policy forward on a small scale. He stated that it is not a perfect policy and would like staff to investigate the assistance for property rehab. He said that he would also like the stakeholder and property owner work group to move forward. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 7 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 Ms. Schnitker replied that the work group would move forward to discuss all four policies that the city is considering. Councilmember Mavity expressed support for the rehab assistance fund and believed the council should be cognizant of what that program would cost when the budget discussions continue. She agreed that continuing the work group would make sense. She stated that if this topic is important to the city, we should put some “skin in the game” in terms of budgeting. She stated that in research that has been done, the loss of NOAH units is increasing immensely. There needs to be discussion to determine if loss in the city can be mitigated. Councilmember Sanger asked for clarification on whether funds should be put in the budget for planning purposes. She noted that the maximum property tax levy has already been set for 2018. Because the funds that would be necessary to help a landlord would be substantial, it would be unreasonable to expect budgeting for the program to occur in the next calendar year. Councilmember Mavity stated that the preliminary budget is often lowered by final adoption. Perhaps instead of reducing, those funds could be put into a rehab assistance fund. She noted that there are housing funds available, as well. Councilmember Hallfin stated that it would make perfect sense to earmark this in the 2019 budget, but it would be a little late to attempt to implement this in 2018. Mr. Harmening stated that if the city attempted to do something in terms of a pilot in 2018, the city could find a way to finance the program, but it would depend upon the dollar amount. He stated that if the city were to look at a broad scale program, it would most likely need to issue debt to do so. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is interested in continuing the work group and considering options that would preserve affordable housing. He stated that he is bothered that it has been implied that the notification would be onerous. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that it seems the group is split in their opinion of the notification policy. Mr. Harmening stated that the idea of bringing the work group together was to determine if there is common ground on any of the policies. He stated that staff can bring the comments of the council back to the work group and receive input from them on all of the policy items. He stated that staff needs to know if the council wants this policy separated from the other potential policies. Councilmember Sanger asked for additional information on the work group, specifically who would participate and the term of service. Mr. Harmening stated someone outside of the staff would facilitate the discussion with the idea of listening to the concerns on both the housing preservation side and the property owner side on all the policies to determine if there is common ground on one or all of the policies. If there is common ground, there could then be additional meetings of the work group. He stated that if there is not common ground, there would not be a purpose to have additional work group meetings. It was the consensus of the council to defer action on a potential policy until input is received from the work group on the four potential policies. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 8 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 3. SLP Policing Model / Critical Incident Planning (Session 2 of 4) Mr. Harmening stated that this is the second of four presentations on the policing model. Mr. Harcey introduced the members of the police force present including Mr. Kruelle, Mr. Balvin, and Mr. Lewis. He stated that this session will focus on the policies and procedures regarding biased policing, citizen contacts, use of force, vehicle pursuits, and current policing issues involving immigration and de-escalation. He explained how the department policies are developed. He used the example of body cameras, noting that if that element is used, the department will spend a lot of time researching the issue to ensure that the policy is the best fit for the community. He stated that policies are used as guidelines to ensure that the expectations of the community, residents and the city are met. Mr. Kruelle reviewed elements of professional conduct that make up the code, including courtesy, civil rights, and impartial and unbiased policing. He reviewed the guidelines for preventing perceptions of biased policing, explaining that if the wrong person is stopped and there is sufficient time, the officers should take the time to explain the process that led to the action. He stated that the department has been more restrictive than state law in terms of traffic stops, meaning that an officer must have a reason to run a license check on an individual. Councilmember Sanger referenced traffic stops, using the example of a roadway when multiple drivers are going over the posted speed and asked how the officer decides who to stop. Mr. Lewis replied that the decision is typically made out of convenience and safety, noting that it is not always safe to get to the person at the front of the pack. Mr. Harcey stated that it typically is the person who stands out, perhaps weaving in and out of traffic. Mr. Balvin noted that there is a lidar used to measure speed. Even though it appears everyone is going the same speed, sometimes a certain vehicle is pulling ahead in terms of increasing speed. Mr. Balvin noted that the lidar also must bounce off a license plate, and the vehicle that is pulled over may be the one that the officer was able to ping on lidar. Councilmember Hallfin referenced speed traps and a neighboring community to the south where speed traps are regularly set. Mr. Harcey noted that although the city does practice speed enforcement, the department focuses on targeted areas where complaints have been received. He stated that 20 years ago the department made the transition to community policing, focusing on the issues of the community. Mr. Lewis stated that the neighboring community to the south is self-funding, and therefore those actions fund that department. Mr. Harcey provided information on immigration protocols, noting that the department does not enforce federal immigration laws. Therefore, officers do not ask the immigration status of those they encounter. He stated that if officers arrest a person, fingerprinting is required, and the fingerprints are then provided to the state and FBI, noting that the FBI then shares that information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division. He stated that by federal law, the department then needs to comply with any requests from ICE. He recalled only twice in his experience that the department has been approached by an ICE agent, noting that the most recent City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 9 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 was perhaps in 2001. He stated that the department does not hold a person on a detainer, as that is a civil issue between the person and the government. He stated that the department would follow the normal procedure and would not hold someone on detainer for ICE. Councilmember Mavity referenced a letter that residents received from the Hennepin County Sherriff, referencing a statement about voluntarily disclosure. She asked and received confirmation that St. Louis Park’s Police force does not follow that policy. Mr. Harcey stated that if there is ever any question about the protocol, the officers are free to call him or the deputy chief at any time. Mr. Balvin noted that officers are required to ask a person being booked if they are a citizen. There is a mandatory list of questions that must be asked, and if requested could include calling the embassy of that person’s home country. Mr. Lewis used the example of a Moroccan citizen that was booked. He then had to ask the person if they wanted him to reach out to contact the Moroccan embassy on their behalf. Mr. Balvin noted that the majority of people do not wish for the department to contact the embassy of their home country. Mayor Pro Tem Miller asked for an example of an officer stopping someone perceived to be Hispanic and who may be worried about deportation issues and how an officer would handle that. Mr. Harcey noted the department recently conducted training on this issue. He stated that officers are prepared to let people know that they will not be asking their status as a citizen unless they are booked. Mr. Balvin discussed the “use of force” policies. He reviewed the definition of “use of force,” different levels of force, and reasons to use force. Mr. Harcey asked the council’s level of comfort for the Police Department to participate in protecting private property or disrupting unlawful protest activity. Councilmember Sanger asked if force would be used to protect the rights of someone else that may be nearby. Mr. Harcey stated that the police would only ensure public safety and would not infringe on someone else’s right for free speech. Councilmember Sanger used the example of someone camping out and blocking a roadway. Mr. Harcey stated that is a question for the council’s direction as to if the city can decide whether a gathering or protest is unlawful. Mr. Harmening stated that the Police Department is looking for input from the council on the police’s role where a line is crossed, using an example of protestors blocking Minnetonka Boulevard. Councilmember Sanger stated that inconvenience is one thing but counter protestors can be disruptive, as well. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 10 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 Councilmember Lindberg noted that there are situational issues. He stated that blocking Minnetonka Boulevard is one thing, while blocking the roadway and doing damage to private property is another. Mr. Lewis stated that the department is attempting to gain input on where to draw the line, using an example of Highway 100 being blocked and sending traffic down another roadway that is then blocked. Mr. Balvin stated that the Fourth Amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures, and there is a lot of discussion around what is reasonable and unreasonable. He provided additional input on court rulings regarding use of force and how the U.S. Supreme Court measures use of force cases. He noted that there are three key factors identified by the court in Graham vs. Conner that are based on the actions of the subject to determine the reasonableness of the use of force. He stated that there are also crucial facts to be considered for use of force, including the information known to the officer; how a reasonable officer would interpret the information; and how the officer actually responded based on that information. He stated that the court also set the standard for how a judge and jury should determine the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct. He then provided the Minnesota State Statute regarding use of force and standard of reasonable necessity. He then reviewed the department policy for the use of force. He reviewed the guidelines that are used to determine the totality of the situation, which includes elements regarding the subject, the officer, and any special circumstances. He reviewed the department’s policy on the use of non-deadly force, which mirrors that of the state, and the department’s consequences of unlawful or unreasonable use of force. He provided the state statute used to authorize the use of deadly force by peace officers and the department’s policy on when to initiate a vehicle pursuit. Mr. Harmening noted that the policy was built on research and the awareness of how deadly a vehicle pursuit can be. Mr. Harcey provided an example that occurred within the city where an officer did not have the ability to pursue a vehicle because there was not a known threat of deadly force from the person who would have been pursued. Councilmember Sanger asked the role of the dispatch person to solicit the necessary information that would warrant a pursuit. Mr. Harcey stated that in that case the dispatcher did have the information, and there was not a known weapon or threat of deadly force from the assailant. Councilmember Sanger asked if it would make a difference if the person violated an order of protection. Mr. Harcey stated that the department would still not pursue the vehicle because of the threat of safety to other people who may be driving or walking on the roadway. Mr. Balvin used the example of a pedestrian being struck by a vehicle involved in a chase and perhaps the assailant stole a television. He explained that an innocent bystander was then killed or injured over the stealing of a television. Mr. Harcey noted that a supervisor has the authority to stop the pursuit of a suspect at any time, as often an officer involved in a chase can become involved in the chase and not aware of how unsafe the activity is becoming. Councilmember Hallfin asked if word has spread and criminals know that the policy in St. Louis Park is that officers will not chase. Mr. Harcey noted that the department does charge people with a felony for fleeing a police officer. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 11 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 Mr. Balvin stated that people are becoming more aware of what can and cannot generally be done. He used the example of a suspect heckling an officer because the suspect knows that the officer will not take certain actions. Mr. Lewis agreed that criminals often do their homework and are aware of what the department may or may not do. Councilmember Mavity stated that the city has agreements for mutual aid and acknowledged that other municipalities have their own policies. She asked what the determination is for other municipalities to apply their own policies within the boundaries of our city. Mr. Harcey stated that the department would use their own criteria for determining if officers would become involved in an incident that passes across the boundaries of another city. He stated that if St. Louis Park had a situation that required the mutual aid of other municipalities, St. Louis Park would become the lead agency, and our department policies would prevail. He noted that if an incident from this city passes across to another municipality, that municipality may choose to take their own action. He used the example of pursuit, noting that perhaps St. Louis Park officers did not pursue a suspect, but that suspect crossed into a neighboring community and that community chose to enact their own pursuit of that vehicle. Mr. Balvin stated that no use of force looks pretty in action, noting that often the aftermath is caught on camera and not the entire incident. Mr. Lewis stated that de-escalation is a big focus of officer training in the current climate. He provided the definition of de-escalation and reviewed the de-escalation techniques used by law enforcement. He noted that body language and reading body language is a key component of active listening. He reviewed the five universal truths that all people want and noted that those align with the standards of the department. He reviewed the de-escalation training that the department participates in, including a 40-hour Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) training. He stated that the CIT training focuses on being objective rather than subjective, and he reviewed some aspects of the coaching. Councilmember Sanger used the example of someone acting violently and received confirmation that in that situation it would not matter if someone was mentally ill. Police officers would respond to the incident itself. Mr. Lewis stated that there have been times where he has been able to use de-escalation techniques to resolve a situation but noted that is not always the case. Mr. Harcey stated that the officers are instructed that if there is not a threat to safety, the officers have all the time they need to resolve the situation. Councilmember Sanger asked the role of the department if someone is suicidal. Mr. Harcey replied that it is the obligation of the department to protect the safety of the person. Mr. Lewis stated that officers use time to their advantage and instead of pushing the person they use time and resources to their benefit. Councilmember Mavity stated that she found tonight’s information helpful. She asked if there is a stated policy for transgender residents. Mr. Harcey replied that there is not a stated policy at this City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 12 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 time. He stated that in custody all people are held separately. There are not communal holding areas. Councilmember Mavity asked how all of this information is tracked and whether incidents are tracked by race, gender, or any measure for trend purposes. Mr. Harcey replied that the department currently does not track using those methods. He stated that there are difficulties in identifying race, and therefore the department does not track race or gender incidents. Councilmember Mavity asked if that has been included as a goal for race equity. Mr. Harcey replied that tracking is not included as a goal for race equity. He stated that they are in the early stages of discussions on tracking, but eventually they will come to a resolution on how information is tracked. Councilmember Mavity stated that it is important to have data to determine the baseline. Mr. Lewis stated that when people are booked, the officers ask people to identify their race rather than making assumptions. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he had an encounter with a resident who was approached by police for smoking a cigarette on the side of the road. Mr. Lewis replied that the department did receive a call about suspicious activity. He stated that dispatch has been trained to ask for further details when they receive a suspicious activity call. He noted that in the past, residents have been encouraged to report suspicious activity in their neighborhood, as residents often recognize suspicious activity in their neighborhood better than the officers do. He stated that it is a process of fine tuning the information that the department receives. Mr. Harcey noted that in the case of the smoker, the officer would simply explain that they were responding to a phone call and would thank the person for their time and wish them a good night. 4. Proposed Redevelopment – 9808 & 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini site) Mr. Walther introduced Ms. Kramer, a new member of the Community Development Department. Ms. Kramer provided information on a proposed redevelopment of the former Santorini restaurant site. She stated that the redevelopment would include two sites - one containing a 149-unit apartment building and the other containing a 112-room limited services hotel. She explained the upcoming schedule for review by the planning commission and by city council. Developer Bill Stoddard introduced himself and provided background information on his development experience in the area. He stated that he has been interested in this site for four years and was hopeful that the council would be interested in this project. He thanked the council for their time. He stated that he has been to a lot of neighborhood meetings and that he was impressed with the attendance of three staff members and a councilmember at the neighborhood meeting, noting that only two of the 200 plus invited residents actually attended the meeting. Mr. Walther stated that staff is looking for input from the council on the project before it moves forward through the review process. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 13 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 Councilmember Brausen asked about the number of affordable units that would be included in the apartment building. Mr. Walther stated that at the 50 percent threshold, 15 percent of the units would be required, while at the 60 percent threshold, 18 percent of the units would be required to be affordable. Mr. Stoddard stated that he intends to propose the 50 percent threshold, which would equate to 15 units of affordable housing. Councilmember Sanger asked and received confirmation that the billboards would be removed. She also asked for input on the number of parking stalls proposed, specifically asking why staff believed the lower rate of stalls would be appropriate. Mr. Walther replied that it would be a limited services hotel, which would not host conferences or large events on-site. He noted that some guests would also utilize transit options, such as hotel or airport shuttle. Mr. Harmening asked if a flag has been identified for the hotel. Mr. Stoddard stated that a brand has not yet been identified and hoped that would be done further into the planning process. Councilmember Brausen stated that he has spoken with the developer, and this seems to be an opportunity to gain the highest and best use of the parcel. He stated that he likes the landscaping and design proposed. He noted that this development is at an intersection where bolder colors could stand out to create uniqueness. He noted that he would support the current concept. Councilmember Lindberg stated that this seems to be a great fit for a hotel. He commented that he often drives past another beautiful and well-designed project that this developer has done. It was the consensus of the council to support the project continuing to move forward in the planning review process. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Councilmember Sanger provided an update on language for a resolution that she and Mayor Spano have been working on to be sent to the Charter Commission regarding ranked choice voting. She stated that Mayor Spano proposed that language be included in the resolution stating that if the Charter Commission recommended moving forward with ranked choice voting, that they also provide a recommendation as to whether the question should also be put on a ballot for voter consideration. She stated that it was her impression that the direction from the council was only to pose the question regarding ranked choice voting and not the methodology for implementing it Councilmember Mavity stated that there was specific discussion at the last meeting when this was discussed, and the decision was that a yes or no question would be put before the Charter Commission regarding ranked choice voting with no mention of asking their opinion on how the amendment should be made Mayor Pro Tem Miller agreed that it was the consensus of the council to only pose that one question to the Charter Commission. Mr. Harmening read aloud the email correspondence from Mayor Spano. Councilmember Lindberg asked for input on why the decision was made to simply ask the one question about ranked choice voting. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 14 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 Councilmember Sanger stated that historically the city has amended the charter by asking the Charter Commission whether the city should move forward, and if so, the change is made by unanimous vote of the Council. She stated that putting this on a ballot is expensive and requires a lot of work to even get residents to the point where an informed decision can be made. She stated that residents elect the members of the council to make these choices for them. Councilmember Mavity stated that it is also clear that if there was not the required unanimous vote to put the amendment into effect, the item could then move forward as a ballot question. She stated that the council had this same discussion last week and there were four very solid votes to move forward in this manner. Councilmember Hallfin acknowledged that Mayor Spano felt strongly on the topic. Therefore the council may be setting itself up for a council vote and still having to go to a referendum. He stated that the Charter Commission could make a decision based on both options. Councilmember Sanger stated that the question today is what will be asked of the Charter Commission and the decision was to ask the clear question of whether the council should amend the charter to provide for ranked choice voting. Councilmember Lindberg stated that comparing this to the discussion of eliminating the primary is an apples to oranges comparison. He stated that he views ranked choice voting as a significant change to how the council is elected. He did not believe that there would be harm in asking another question of the Charter Commission regarding making this significant change to the voting process. He stated that while he understands that he was elected to make decisions, there are things, such as voting, that the council needs to think long and hard about. He did not feel that the council has thoroughly done their homework on this issue. He stated that while the council has heard from advocacy groups, he has not heard from the residents of his own ward. Therefore at this time he would not vote in support. Mayor Pro Tem Miller stated that he would agree that ranked choice voting would be a large step, but it would be a step forward towards equality. He did not feel it would be any more difficult for the Charter Commission to consider than the issue of the primary election. He acknowledged that the process would become more difficult if it moves forward, but noted that is not the process the Charter Commission needs to vote on. Councilmember Sanger stated that it is her belief that it was a more weighted decision to eliminate the primary election. She stated that assuming the Charter Commission returns a recommendation to consider this topic, perhaps then a town hall meeting could be held to seek input from residents. She stated that she has not heard negative comments on the topic. Councilmember Brausen stated that asking the simplified question of the Charter Commission does not mean that the issue itself is simplified. He agreed that if the Charter Commission gives direction to move forward, public input should be solicited. It was the consensus of the council to draft the resolution requesting only a yes or no recommendation on moving forward with rank choice voting 5. Comprehensive Plan Update 6. 2018 Connect the Park Project 7. Update on Bass Lake Preserve Stormwater Improvement Projects City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3b) Page 15 Title: Study Session Minutes of September 25, 2017 8. Historic Walker Lake Design Study 9. Surface Water Management Plan Update 10. August 2017 Monthly Financial Report ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Thom Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 2, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Communications Manager (Ms. Larson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: St. Louis Park Residents 1. Flavored Tobacco Mr. Hoffman stated that staff requests direction from the council as to whether it wishes to pursue adoption of the draft ordinance amending the Tobacco Licensing sections of the City Code to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco products in St. Louis Park. Mr. Hoffman also noted that October 1, 2017, was the day the city’s new tobacco ordinance when into effect, raising the age from 18 to 21 for purchasing all tobacco products-- including flavored tobacco products. Mr. Hoffman noted that the council has previously discussed the possible regulation of various flavored tobacco products and has provided direction to staff to investigate and develop a proposed ordinance prohibiting the sale of flavored tobacco products by licensed tobacco establishments within the city. Council also inquired about possibly establishing both a license category and zoning requirements to restrict where a tobacco-only shop could be located. Mr. Hoffman noted that requirements could be established, setting a maximum number of tobacco shop licenses, along with location and other operational regulations for a business license. Staff from Inspections and Community Development discussed this with the City Attorney and are not recommending creation of a tobacco-only store category. Councilmember Miller asked if a tobacco shop could open in the city since there are no restrictions on retail. Mr. Hoffman stated that a tobacco shop could be licensed as a tobacco seller, as long as it met all requirements. Councilmember Miller asked if menthol products could be labeled and packaged to attract children. Mr. Hoffman stated that menthol can be sold, but all other flavored products would be prohibited. Councilmember Brausen asked if vape shops are licensed. Mr. Hoffman stated yes, any seller of tobacco products must be licensed. Mr. Harmening stated that if council were to pass this ordinance, tobacco-only shops would also be prohibited from selling flavored tobacco or tobacco products to those under 21, so they would be under the same restrictions as convenience stores. Councilmember Mavity stated that she supports the flavored tobacco restriction being part of the ordinance and would like to move forward with it. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of October 2, 2017 Councilmember Sanger stated that she is very supportive of moving forward and approves of the draft ordinance. She stated that if the council begins to look at zoning and neighborhoods related to the ordinance, it will be a question for the Planning Commission to study further and develop recommendations. Councilmember Miller stated that he supports the elimination of the sale of flavored tobacco but has concerns about the potential of tobacco companies turning allowed flavors into chews. He stated that he is concerned the ordinance may not go far enough. Mr. Mattick stated that the city can revisit the issue in the future and ban menthol flavoring, noting that this is a licensing ordinance, not zoning, so there would be no grandfathering in. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is supportive of the ordinance as written, adding that it is a good first step. He stated that he is not inclined to do a zoning change. Councilmember Lindberg and Mayor Spano agreed with the ordinance as drafted. Councilmember Lindberg added that he agrees with Councilmember Brausen and is not interested in discussing zoning regulations at this time. Councilmember Hallfin added that he, too, is in agreement with the draft ordinance. Mayor Spano directed staff to move forward. Mr. Hoffman stated that the first reading of the ordinance will be November 30; the second reading will be in December; and the ordinance would be effective on May 1, 2018. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 2, 2017 1. Call to Order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton), Operations & Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Solid Waste Program Specialist (Ms. Barker), Public Works Manager (Mr. Merkley), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guests: Residents 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. Retirement Recognition for Equipment Superintendent Dennis Millerbernd Mayor Spano read a resolution and presented a plaque to Dennis Millerbernd for 37 years of service to the City of St. Louis Park. Mayor Spano thanked Mr. Millerbernd for his excellent customer service, professionalism, and many contributions to the city over the years. Ms. Walsh commented on Mr. Millerbernd’s tireless service and fiscal responsibility to the city, noting it has been a pleasure working with him. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. City Council Study Session Minutes September 11, 2017 Councilmember Mavity noted on page 3, 2nd paragraph it should read “…plastic bag recycling program…” Councilmember Sanger noted on the bottom of page 3, 2nd sentence, it should read “…many of the people who complain about garbage prices are those who throw their recycling into the garbage carts, so staff will need to continue to educate residents who are resistant to recycling.” It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the Study Session Meeting Minutes of September 11, 2017, as corrected. The motion passed 7-0. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2017 3b. City Council Special Study Session Meeting Minutes September 18, 2017 It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the Special Study Session Meeting Minutes of September 18, 2017, as presented. 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 August 26, through September 22, 2017. 4b. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2522-17 amending Section 36- 268-PUD 8 of the Zoning Code relating to the Major Amendment for The Elmwood. 4c. Approve execution of the Hennepin County Memo of Understanding for Text to 911. 4d. Approve second reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2523-17 of the Right-of-Way and approve the Ordinance Summary for publication. 4e. Authorize execution of a professional services contract with SRF Consulting Group, Inc. in the amount of $121,491.50 for 2018 Connect the Park segments Project No. 4018-2000. 4f. Authorize execution of a professional services contract with SRF Consulting in the amount of $181,986 for the Historic Walker Lake District Design Study Project No. 4018-1050. 4g. Approve the 2018 Zero Waste Packaging Acceptable Materials and Exemptions lists, as presented. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 17-146 to recognize Equipment Superintendent Dennis Millerbernd for 37 years of service. 4i. Authorize execution of a professional services contract with RESPEC in the amount of $231,020.00 for the update of the City’s Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) 4018-4100. 4j. Designate Aqua Logic, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder authorizing execution of an agreement with the firm in the amount of $447,000 to replace the filters, replace feature pumps and relocate pumps at the Rec Center Aquatic Park. 4k. Approve a temporary extension of the licensed premises for a one-day event at Copperwing Distillery, located at 6409 Cambridge Street. 4l. Adopt Resolution No. 17-154 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 7813 Division Street, St. Louis Park, Minnesota. P.I.D. 20-117- 21-22-0094. 4m. Adopt Resolution No. 17-155 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Kauffman Foundation for all travel expenses of Mayor Jake Spano to attend the 2017 Mayor’s Conference on Entrepreneurship that will be held in Oakland, CA on October 25-27, 2017. 4n. Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes of June 12, 2017. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2017 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Consolidated Public Hearing. I. 2018 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1. Resolution No. 17-147 II. 2018 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2. Resolution No. 17-148 III. 2018 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3. Resolution No. 17-149 IV. 2018 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4. Resolution No. 17-150 V. 2018 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5. Resolution No. 17-151 VI. 2018 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6. Resolution No. 17-152 Mr. Merkley presented the staff report regarding service charges for each district. He noted that the 2018 proposed budgets and service charges are similar to that of past years, and added that staff has held meetings with property owners from each of the six districts and received their support for approving the 2018 budgets and service charges. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution Nos. 17-147, 17-148, 17-149, 17-150, 17-151, and 17-152 setting the 2018 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District Nos. 1-6 and directing staff to certify the annual service charges to Hennepin County. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Lakes Venture, LLC – 3.2 Off-Sale Liquor License for Fresh Thyme Farmer’s Market and Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for Fresh Thyme Liquor. Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report. She noted the property designated as Suite A will be the Fresh Thyme Farmer’s Market, an organic grocery store that will hold the on-sale 3.2% malt liquor license. Likewise, the property designated as Suite B will be a separate liquor store known as Fresh Thyme Liquor that will hold the off-sale intoxicating liquor license. A November 1 opening date is proposed for both locations. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2017 Councilmember Mavity welcomed Fresh Thyme to the neighborhood, adding that the design of the storefront was approved to ensure Excelsior Avenue would stay active. She encouraged Fresh Thyme to make sure that presentations in the windows comply with the zoning ordinance as intended. She encouraged the store not to put shelves in the windows, which would block the view into the store. Other than this concern, she stated that she approves of the license. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to approve applications from Lakes Venture, LLC, dba Fresh Thyme Farmer’s Market for a 3.2 Off- Sale liquor license for premises located at 4840 Excelsior Blvd, Suite A, and Lakes Venture, LLC dba Fresh Thyme Liquor for an Off-Sale Intoxicating liquor license for the premises located at 4840 Excelsior Blvd., Suite B, with license terms through March 1, 2018. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. First Reading of Ordinance Vacating Utility Easement at Shoppes of Knollwood. Mr. Morrison explained that Chick-fil-A is requesting the vacation of a utility easement that exists on the Shoppes at Knollwood property in order to replace it with a new utility easement located ten feet north of the vacated easement. He explained that the easement is currently located within the proposed drive-thru, so the vacation is being requested to avoid disruption to the drive-thru if the city has to work on the water main. Mr. Morrison stated staff recommends approval. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Sanger asked if Knollwood was in compliance related to storm water management. Mr. Morrison stated they will be in compliance by November, 2017. It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve First Reading of Ordinance vacating a utility easement and set the Second Reading of Ordinance for October 16, 2017. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Resolution Requesting the Charter Commission Provide Recommendations Regarding Charter Amendments. Resolution No. 17-153 Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. He noted that the council had discussed the required legal process to change current election practices and procedures to allow for the use of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) in municipal elections. He stated that council directed staff to prepare a resolution that requested the Charter Commission to make a recommendation as to whether the city’s charter should be amended to provide for the use of RCV in municipal elections. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2017 Mayor Spano stated that comments would be accepted from residents related to this topic. Diane Steen-Hinderlie, 2829 Yosemite Ave. So., quoted former Minnesota and U.S. Representative Don Fraser as saying, “The solution to anything wrong with democracy is more democracy.” She said that she came tonight to ask for more and better democracy by having more choices on the ballot through RCV. She asked the council to consider modernizing the ballot, stating it is primitive to have an either-or choice ballot. She noted that RCV will bring more diversity in elected office holders and more civility to elections, and will give a better framework for human behavior. Deb Brinkman, 4327 Alabama Ave. So., stated that the St. Louis Park League of Women Voters supports RCV and will continue to advocate for election process improvements. She added that RCV is not an item that needs to be a ballot referendum. The same process that was used to eliminate the municipal primary election in St. Louis Park should be used to approve RCV. Andrea Larson, 2831 Huntington Ave. So., stated she is a long-time resident of St. Louis Park, and she appreciates the two speaker’s comments prior to her. She quoted from a 2006 speech by Tom Freedman, where he said that RCV is on the top of his list for reform and to eliminate growing extremism. She hopes that the community will be supportive, adding that each vote matters. Bill Youmans, 2831 Huntington Ave. So., agreed with all that was said, adding that RCV encourages candidates to speak to common issues and not about division. Bruce Fisher, 4359 Browndale Ave. So., stated that he agrees with all previous comments, adding that civility is very important, and RCV enables a more civil conversation. He stated that both Minneapolis and St. Paul have implemented RCV and have a template for it. He added that it would be good for St. Louis Park be on the cutting edge of improving democracy. Denise Konen, 4228 Salem Ave. So., stated that she has lived in St. Louis Park since 1980 and loves the city. She stated that RCV is about bringing more equity and diversity to the city. She noted that Minneapolis now has a more ethnically balanced council, with their first Somali councilmember. Shawn Brown, 4228 Salem Ave. So., stated that he is supportive of RCV, noting that St. Louis Park has been a leader in other issues and can be a leader in RCV. He stated that this is an action the city can take to help the state and country move toward a better democracy. Margaret Rog, 2817 Zarthan Ave. So., a member of the Human Rights Commission, read a statement from the HRC, which stated that RCV will help greatly with voter participation. They support it and asked the council to move forward with it. Councilmember Sanger thanked the residents who came to speak. She stated that she is very much in favor of RCV in St. Louis Park and added that the residents who are present have outlined many favorable reasons to implement RCV. She noted that without RCV, there could be elections where candidates win without a majority vote, so it is essential to adopt this soon. Councilmember Sanger stated that RCV will increase the number of voters City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2017 who participate in the process. Additionally, elected officials will have to be accountable to more residents in the community. She added that RCV promotes higher voter turnout, and more people have a stake in the outcome of the election. She stated that she would rather have a system in place where more people are a part of the process. Councilmember Mavity added that she is also extraordinarily in favor of RCV and appreciates the residents who came in support. She confirmed with the City Attorney that implementing RCV would require a charter change. The Charter Commission will study the issue and come back to council with a recommendation. At that point and depending on the recommendation, the council can adopt RCV (by unanimous vote) or bring RCV as a referendum on the ballot. She stated that there are many steps in this process in order to have RCV in place for the 2019 municipal election. Councilmember Miller stated that he has a lot of reasons to support RCV. He stated that it has been clearly shown that RCV produces more diversity in candidates. He felt that the two-party system works well for legislation, but sometimes potential candidates feel they cannot penetrate the group of party insiders to be endorsed by a party. He urged the Charter Commission to move on this quickly. Councilmember Lindberg thanked residents for coming to speak in support of RCV. However, he stated that he will not be supporting this resolution. He said that the council should ask themselves if this is a necessary measure or not. He stated that he wants to be sure the process will be all encompassing, so he will vote against this resolution tonight. Mayor Spano stated that he will support this resolution but noted that the Charter Commission may decide that RCV should be voted on by residents as a referendum question on the ballot. Then, the council would not be involved in the final decision. He stated that he still has concerns about RCV, noting there are data points that support it, and data points that do not. He stated he has not seen information related to consistent, repeated outcomes. He added that the council wants to be fair and transparent, adding that he hopes the Charter Commission will also study the impact of money in elections as it relates to the RCV process. He further stated that when he is campaigning for office, he tries to appeal to voters across the board and not only to those voters who agree with his views. He added that having 2nd and 3rd choices on a ballot is needed more at the state and federal level than at the municipal level. Mayor Spano stated that he is hopeful the Charter Commission will come back with a recommendation, with the objective of helping everyone better understand voter turnout and municipal elections. He added that he agrees with Councilmember Lindberg, noting that RCV would be a big change. He looks forward to the Charter Commission’s input. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he is supportive of the resolution and is interested in hearing the recommendations of the Charter Commission, as well. Councilmember Brausen stated he agrees with the previous statements and there will more time for discussion and public input after the Charter Commission makes its recommendations. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to adopt Resolution No. 17-153, requesting St. Louis Park Charter Commission provide recommendations to the City Council regarding two possible Charter amendments. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3d) Page 7 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2017 The motion passed 6-1 (Councilmember Lindberg opposed). 8b. First Reading of Ordinance Amendment Related to the Businesses and Licenses Code. Ms. Barker presented the staff report. She noted that staff initiated a request to amend the Businesses and Licenses Code, and the proposed ordinance was reviewed by the City Attorney. After discussion with the council at the August 28 Study Session, council was supportive of the proposed amendments, which include updating definitions and adding requirements for licensed solid waste collectors to label collection containers for organics recycling at multi-family and commercial locations. She stated that if adopted, the proposed changes would take effect June 1, 2018. It was moved by Councilmember Hallfin, seconded by Councilmember Miller, to approve the First Reading of an Ordinance amending the Businesses and Licenses code, and to set the second reading for October 16, 2017. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Spano urged everyone to get flu shots. Councilmember Hallfin noted he has many friends who reside in Las Vegas, adding his concerns about the recent shootings there. He stated that he wanted to inform people that the Episcopal Church would be ringing bells at 11 a.m. Tuesday morning in memory of each person who had passed. Mayor Spano reflected on his concerns related to gun violence all over the country and especially in his hometown of Lawrence, Kansas. Councilmember Brausen echoed the Mayor’s sentiments. Councilmember Brausen commented on the Highway 169 Sustainability Study, stating that the most recent meeting went well, and each city will take back their portion of the project and support it. He added that most of the cities also supported the Highway 55 option and MN Pass Lane, as well. He stated that there will be more information forthcoming. Councilmember Mavity commented on the Blake Road project, planning for light rail station and walkability improvements, with connections from Knollwood. She stated that the council will continue to follow the progress of this project and report to the community. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3e UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 9, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, Thom Miller, and Susan Sanger. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Operations and Recreation Director (Ms. Walsh), Community Development Director (Ms. Barton Inspections Director (Mr. Hoffman), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Principal Planner (Ms. McMonigal), Communications Manager (Ms. Larson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guest: Elizabeth Griffin, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission; Charlie Gross and Amy Burns, Fastpitch Softball Association; Rebecca Ryan, Vision 3.0 consultant. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning –October 16 & 23, 2017 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed Study Session agenda for October 16 and 23, 2017. Councilmember Mavity asked about discussion of advanced notice of sale and if this would come to study session before it is put on a regular council meeting agenda. Mr. Harmening stated that the work group is meeting next Friday, and this topic will come back to a study session. 2. Review of Proposed 2018 CIP, LRFMP (Long Range Financial Management Plan) and Utility Rates Mr. Harmening noted that Mr. Simon would present a high-level explanation of the capital plan. He stated there is roughly $31 million in capital projects in 2018, adding that Mr. Simon will also present an exercise on the updated debt modeling and walk through the impacts of utility funds. Mr. Simon presented information on the process involved in creating the 2018–2027 CIP and how it is used in the Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP). Definitions for each LRFMP fund are provided, as well as some key items in the CIP. City staff directors who have a key role in the CIP will also discuss some significant proposed projects and answer any questions for council. Mr. Simon noted information on the Police and Fire Pension Fund; Housing Rehabilitation Fund; Development Fund; HRA Levy; Permanent Improvement Revolving Fund; Park Improvement Fund; Pavement Management Fund; Sidewalk and Trails Fund; Capital Replacement Fund; and Utility Funds, including water, sewer, storm water and solid waste. Ms. Walsh noted that the park improvement projects will be reviewed through the race equity lens, and in 2018 Shelard Park will be getting a new playground and community garden. She added that there will also be new playgrounds at Birchwood and Roxberry, as well as a new roof and a bathroom and kitchen remodels for the Rec Center. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 2 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2017 Councilmember Brausen asked if bonds would also fund the Westwood Nature Center. Mr. Simon stated yes. Ms. Heiser noted that the 2018 pavement management projects would include alley projects. She stated that residents have been extremely satisfied with these alley pavement projects, and the next project would be in the Sorenson neighborhood. Along with this, she noted that the Walker historic district will be reviewed and the planning process started. Other projects include living streets on Texas Avenue and partnering with Hopkins on Division and Texas. Councilmember Sanger asked when staff would start communicating with Sorenson residents about the alley projects. Ms. Heiser stated that staff has already begun talking with residents, and the response has been very positive. Councilmember Lindberg asked about the long-term plan for alleys. Ms. Heiser stated that staff has a 10-year plan that will cover all alleys in the city. Mr. Simon stated that the Sidewalks and Trails Fund is funded by federal grants and bond proceeds. Ms. Heiser noted that there will be a focus on Cedar Lake Road sidewalks and a bikeway off Louisiana Avenue near Meadowbrook to allow for safer connections to Louisiana. She added that the bridge near Methodist Hospital will be replaced and a roundabout added at Oxford and Louisiana Circle. Additionally, Ms. Heiser noted a couple of proposed projects - a bikeway at Excelsior and Monterey and a sidewalk on the west side of France in partnership with Edina. She added a bike pedestrian connection would also be added to connect to the West End. Mr. Pires noted upcoming technology projects, including Office 365, which will provide more functionality for staff and is less expensive to run. Also, he stated that body and dash cams will be reviewed further and a comprehensive program will be proposed to implement both on recommendation from the council. Mr. Pires also noted there will be a process to gain public input related to this project. He stated that the largest cost on this project is the storage of video from body cams and the time and money it will take for public data requests. Mr. Pires also noted that some of the current sewer and water systems SCADE system need to be updated. He added that the city will also make use of the fiber network, which will allow for a more robust system compared to the radio communication system currently used. Councilmember Sanger asked about a $50,000 expenditure for a patient management system for the fire department. She asked if this was in conjunction with Park Nicollet and why the city was paying for this system to manage Park Nicollet’s patients instead of Park Nicollet paying. Mr. Harmening stated that these patients are St. Louis Park residents, and the city is involved in order to help lower 911 calls. He added this is about taking care of the people who live here. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Harmening for the cost calculations on what types of costs the city has avoided on 911 calls with this arrangement with Park Nicollet. She also asked how much staff time was involved in the process; if the city has actually minimized 911 calls; and how much money has been saved. Mr. Harmening later responded that the $50,000 for a patient management system has nothing to do with Park Nicollet. It is related to improving the method of how the city transmits data to EMS. Mr. Simon noted the Solid Waste Fund and the uncertainty of new contracts at this time. He stated that staff will continue to monitor this fund. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 3 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2017 Councilmember Brausen agreed that council will need to review data on who is recycling and who is using organics recycling. Councilmember Sanger asked about the Walker Building, noting the recent purchase agreement had fallen through. She asked if the city were to purchase the Walker Building, if it would be included in the capital plan. Mr. Harmening stated that the purchase could be included in the city’s Development Fund or funds could be borrowed. He added that council would need to discuss it further. Councilmember Sanger also asked about the contributions the city makes to non-profit organizations and if the city has policies in place on how the decisions about contributions are made. She asked specifically about the Cornerstone, Move Forward, and Cornerhouse non-profits. Mr. Harmening stated that these are related to youth and to police assistance for child services. He added that these programs have been found to be very useful to the city. Mayor Spano added that these funds are given to the non-profits for services provided to the city and not for the non-profit to run their program. Additionally, Mr. Harmening stated these contributions are all reviewed by council and must be approved before they are given. Mayor Spano noted that under the Housing Rehab Fund, there is a line item for neighborhood art, and it is $0 at this time. He stated that he would be interested in the city adding something there. One idea was to do sidewalk poetry, which has been popular in St. Paul. He stated that this can be discussed with the council at a later date. Mayor Spano stated that in anticipation of the race equity coordinator coming on board soon, he would also like to see a place holder line item for race equity grants, in conjunction with the Human Rights Commission and/or the Multicultural Advisory Commission, to help support programs in the city. Mr. Simon proceeded to present the debt modeling exercise to the council. The model shows what happens over time when bonds are added or retired and also the impact of utility rates. All the information is tied into the 10 year CIP. Councilmember Lindberg stated that the model points to results of good long-range management. 3. Fastpitch Softball Facility Update Ms. Walsh introduced Elizabeth Griffin, Park and Recreation Advisory Commission, and Charlie Gross and Amy Burns, Fastpitch Softball Association. Ms. Walsh stated that at the August 14 council meeting, staff was directed to pursue three options for softball fields at Aquila Park. She stated that all three options involve converting one adult softball field to a girl’s fastpitch softball field. Layout and costs are noted in the staff report. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) reviewed the options at their October 2 meeting and recommended that option 1B be pursued. This option involved converting an adult softball field to a fastpitch softball field and keeping the fields in their current configuration. The Girl’s Fastpitch Association would like to see option 1C selected with a goal of future improvements. Councilmember Sanger asked if option 1B was implemented, if it would have to be redone if the City did 1A or 1C in the future. Ms. Walsh stated yes and also that more money would need to be spent at a later date to start over and upgrade it. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 4 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2017 Councilmember Miller stated that he supports 1C, and is in favor of spending the money now for the future versus having to go back at a later date and make improvements. Mr. Gross stated that 1C is a good compromise, and option 1B is a dead end, which prevents and does not fit the look of modern softball fields. He added that the association wants to set up a central home for girls’ softball, and Option 1C would allow for growth into a full park and central home for softball. He added that concessions can be included later, as well. Ms. Burns stated that Option 1C also helps with the association’s vision of building a stronger community for girls and fits nicely with the city’s Children First program. Councilmember Sanger stated that she is inclined to go with option 1C, but asked if the council decided on 1B, what the association would do. Ms. Burns stated that the association does not feel Option 1B is a good use of public funds. She added that for a slightly greater amount, Option 1C can be implemented and can expand over time. Councilmember Brausen stated he discussed this issue with parents in his ward and noted many seniors are worried about tax increases. He stated that Option 1B looks adequate, but added that adult softball has not been involved in these discussions. There are a lot more adult softball players than girl softball players. He stated it is the council’s responsibility to look at our tax dollars, and he is in favor of 1B. Councilmember Mavity thanked the group for their time spent on this issue. She noted that she is not an expert, but she is inclined to support 1C, adding that she wants to put girls’ softball in the position to grow. Mr. Gross added that if Option 1C were chosen, it would not disrupt adult softball. Ms. Walsh stated that the city would permanently lose one adult softball field either way, adding that hopefully they can keep the adult fields open during construction. Councilmember Lindberg stated that his initial response is more in line with the Park and Recreation Commission’s recommendation, adding that is why we have these commissions. They are the experts. He stated that he does not see this as a gender equity issue, adding it is more about wants and less about needs. He added that if all the averages for property tax increases are considered, it would total $133, and that’s real money to people. However, he also wants to see this come to a reasonable conclusion and see mutual responsibility with funding. He wants to make sure everyone takes a long, hard, realistic look at how to make these investment decisions and to be cautious. Councilmember Hallfin stated this is a good report, adding that he has much history with the fields in St. Louis Park. He agreed with the Park and Recreation Commission and was leaning towards Option 1B. He is frustrated that the association would not view 1B as positive addition to their program. He added, that he also knows what the association is trying to accomplish, and he can live with the decision of Option 1C, if that is the council’s decision. Mayor Spano added that he is in favor of option 1C, as well, as it lays all the groundwork for the association to build for the future, and to partner with the city on robust fundraising. He added that this is about the kids on the field, and he wants girls’ fastpitch to have top notch facilities. He added that the 1.2 million to create the fields is a lot of money, but when viewed over the long City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 5 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2017 term, it is money well-spent. He stated that there will be more fundraising as the program grows, and he also sees a role for the school district to support this, as well. Ms. Walsh stated that staff will need to have the site surveyed to gain additional information before starting. Mr. Harmening stated that construction would begin in the spring, and the earliest softball could be played there would be in the fall of 2019. Ms. Walsh asked if the council would like a cost estimate on LED lights at Dakota Park. They stated yes. Councilmember Sanger asked that staff ensure the light will not spill over into neighborhoods. Ms. Walsh stated that the lights are so advanced today that glare and spillover are almost non-existent. She added that all lights will be on a timer, as well. It was the consensus of the City Council to move ahead with option 1C. 4. Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Ms. Barton noted that in August the council reviewed the draft Vision 3.0 document and requested a number of revisions to be made to the document to better reflect the input received from the community. Consultant Rebecca Ryan subsequently revised the report and recommendations, based on council feedback. Any additional recommendations will also be incorporated and brought back for a final approval. The current draft report includes five recommendations for the city: • develop creative housing solutions • develop future focused transit and mobility • update the park plan for St. Louis Park’s future • prepare our next generation • commit to being a leader in racial equality and inclusion. Ms. Ryan was present via conference call. She noted the changes detailed in the report, and answered questions from the council. She pointed out one recommendation about climate change that was modified, as this did not come through strongly in resident’s feedback. Councilmember Mavity stated that while she has loved this process in general, she has questions about the resident’s values and overlay with trends in the consultant’s report. Councilmember Mavity stated there is a disconnect related to housing and environmental issues. She noted the city’s strong environmental concerns, and yet this is now missing from the report. She noted the city’s creation of the Environment and Sustainability Commission and the organics and recycling programs that have been so well-received in the community, and yet this value is missing in the vision report Councilmember Miller stated he appreciated the report but doesn’t understand the comments related to the park plan, preparing for our next generation, and how social connections fit. Councilmember Mavity added that in caring for the natural environment, she finds it very narrow to just mention parks, especially when the city is so committed to and involved with the concept of sustainability. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 6 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2017 Councilmember Lindberg stated he sees this differently. The plan for the environment related to parks is a critical concept. He added that possibly the city will need to change parks in the future, but it is the social connections that happen in parks which make parks improvement a more desired goal. Councilmember Mavity added that the city would be missing the mark if it only concentrated on parks and had no recycling program and no other sustainable policies. Councilmember Hallfin stated he looks at this differently, stating that this is what our community has said to us, and council needs to listen and not pick the report to pieces. He stated the council should be reading it and adding to it, but ultimately he would like to listen to the people of St. Louis Park. Councilmember Sanger stated she sees this as an accurate report of what residents said to the vision team. However, she added this is only one piece of what the council needs to address, adding that the report is a skewed sample of the city’s population, because older residents did not respond. She stated we need to remember that whatever the final document says will be the city’s guiding principles for moving forward. She added that she agrees that the environment and sustainability need to be an overarching recommendation. Councilmember Hallfin corrected Councilmember Sanger, noting that more older residents responded than younger residents. Councilmember Brausen stated that he is happy with the work done on the report but is uncomfortable that there is nothing in the report related to maintaining a strong community. He also agrees with Councilmember Mavity’s comments about sustainability and the environment, adding that these are primary aspects of the city’s vision that have been worked on for years and should be included in the report. He also agrees with preparing the next generation, recommitting to racial equity and inclusion, and the overall content of the report. Mayor Spano agreed that the report is great, adding that he agreed with Councilmember Hallfin that the report is what the community said. It also builds on the last visioning, and layers a series of recommendations from the council and staff on top of that. He added that sustainability should be included as a recommendation and that updating the park plan seemed like a task, while the other values were more aspirational. Councilmember Mavity asked how the goals will align with the work of city staff. Mr. Harmening stated that in Vision 2.0, eight recommendations came out of the process. Then at the council retreat, the 8 recommendations were distilled down to 4. From there the council defined action steps, which were then manifested in the Comprehensive Plan. This will be the process at the January 2018 council retreat. Ms. Ryan added that when looking at the former visioning, the community sees that the city is doing many great things. The new values that came out of this visioning process were about equity and inclusion – not just race and diversity. Ms. Ryan added that while she does not think the community is saying environment does not matter, it is not top of mind because it has been a core value of this community and something that has been worked on. She noted it wasn’t in the top 2, but was in the top 5 topics noted by residents. Councilmember Sanger added that this report is one piece of input, and there must be more overarching goals and recommendations as the community moves forward. Related to inclusiveness, she was surprised how many seniors had negative comments which translate into City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3e) Page 7 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 9, 2017 equity and inclusion for everyone in the community, not just racial equity. Councilmember Sanger asked how the wish lists were collected. Ms. Ryan stated that the wish lists came from neighborhood meetings which had very diverse participation and the greatest engagement. She added that the same themes were heard at all meetings, and people asked also for more places and programming to help residents connect. Mayor Spano asked the council if Ms. Ryan should review the sustainability piece and rewrite that into the report. Ms. Barton suggested a change in the title of recommendation three to include care for the natural environment. Councilmember Mavity noted again that sustainability is not just about parks and to say so is to look at it through a limited lens. Mayor Spano agreed. Mr. Harmening stated that Ms. Ryan is a very well-known and recommended futurist, and she has presented feedback from our community, which needs to be accepted. He added at some point, council and staff will need to direct her to either change the language in the report, or accept it. Then the January retreat will focus on the vision and priorities that will go into the comprehensive plan. Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciates Ms. Ryan’s desire to reflect what she heard from residents. Councilmember Miller added this may be one area where the future trend is more important than what residents have responded, and it will be important to be responsible to our city, when looking at it. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Mr. Harmening stated he hopes that the solar installation will be on the fire station next week and then the municipal service center after that. Councilmember Brausen noted he is glad to see late fees for construction delays, in the written report. Councilmember Sanger asked if there is a fee for residents whose home irrigation system never shuts off, adding she hopes so as this is a total waste of water. Mayor Spano stated he appreciated the upcoming modifications to be made on the Wooddale Bridge. Mr. Harmening stated that the goal on this project will be to do the work next summer. He also said that he will check on lights and that widening the bridge will be helpful. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. 2018 Fee Schedule 6. Modifications of Wooddale Bridge at Highway 7 7. 2040 Comprehensive Plan Consultant Contract 8. Perspectives- Resolution of Support for Brownfield Gap Financing Program Grant 9. Sidewalk Snow Removal Pilot Program ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3f UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 16, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:04 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger. Councilmember absent: Thom Miller Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Police Chief (Mr. Harcey), Police Lieutenant (Mr. Kruelle), Police Sergeant (Mr. Balvin), Police Sergeant (Mr. Lewis), Police Sergeant (Mr. Kampa), Police Sergeant (Mr. Barnes) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth). Guest: Police Advisory Commissioners. 1. SLP Policing Model / Critical Incident Planning (Session 3 of 4) Mr. Harcey welcomed the council to the Police Department, noting this location allows them to demonstrate their video training equipment. He stated this is the third of four presentations on the policing model. The first session was an overview of St. Louis Park’s policing model. The second dealt with policies and procedures, biased policing, and de-escalation. Tonight’s session will cover current issues facing policing; challenging citizen contacts; use-of-force decision making; and how the Police Department trains to deal with these situations. Mr. Harcey introduced Mr. Kampa and Mr. Barnes and described the professional background and training of each. Mr. Kampa explained the importance of safety and thanked the city council for attending this session to learn about situations they hope never happen, such as use of deadly force. He warned that some of the video information presented may be disturbing, as it will show people dying and include offensive language. Mr. Kampa stated that tonight’s session will build off the last presentation during which Mr. Balvin reviewed both federal and state deadly force guidelines. He reviewed how officers’ use voluntary contact, reasonable suspicion, and probable cause as guidelines and described each. Those are the ‘lanes’ that officers remain within, but the lanes may be fluid, depending on the information received. Mr. Kampa explained that action beats reaction, and the officers are always reacting based on what people are doing. If compliance is accomplished, then things shift for the officer. Mr. Kampa conducted an action versus reaction demonstration using a ‘finger gun,’ noting that action beats reaction every time. Mr. Kampa commented on the high rate of police officer resignation within five years of being involved in an officer involved shooting situation, noting that there is no positive outcome but many negative consequences, even when the officer’s actions were correct. He then addressed the science of human performance and the number of seconds required to perceive/interpret/act for unexpected complex visual stimuli (traffic). Mr. Kampa stated that it takes 1.75 seconds for an officer to draw and aim his weapon, once the officer has perceived a situation and decided to act on it. He then played a video presentation of a squad car in pursuit of another vehicle with multiple occupants, during which an officer was shot and killed in less than one second. Mr. Kampa stated that the Police Department conducts a variety of training, including live fire training, with safety being the number one concern. The Police Department has an on-site range, City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3f) Page 2 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of October 16, 2017 which provides great training, but there is a cost. In addition, they conduct role playing scenarios including the Multiple Interactive Learning Objectives (MILO) system that offers many scenarios, but this is the only room where it can be used. Officers also watch videos and use on-line training. Mr. Barnes demonstrated a MILO training scenario, where he responded to an office disturbance during which two people were arguing, and one shot the other. Mr. Kampa debriefed Mr. Barnes and explained in greater detail what occurred during this incident. Mayor Spano asked whether officers talk after the training about what could be done differently, such as standing in a different location. Mr. Kampa answered that each scenario is debriefed with the officer. Councilmember Brausen asked whether the MILO scenarios are unique each time. Mr. Kampa stated that they are. Mr. Harcey explained additional training features that can be used based on the officer’s response. Mr. Barnes stated that with scenario based training (paint balls) there is more room for movement and the use of cover. Police Advisory Commissioner Justin Grays participated in a MILO training demonstration where he responded to an office disturbance that was successfully de-escalated. Mr. Kampa debriefed Mr. Grays about the incident. Mr. Kampa conducted a spatial awareness training scenario where three members were given one set of instructions and the rest were given different instructions. Following the exercise, he pointed out that the participants came up with different answers, and some did not notice the ‘gorilla’ walking through the scene. Mr. Kampa conducted another spatial awareness training scenario where participants were to count the number of jumps made by jump ropers wearing a certain shirt color. While doing the counting, not every participant noticed other events, such as a ‘chicken’ walking through the back of the scene and the back wall changing color. He explained that this exercise shows why witnesses of the same event may have different perceptions of what actually occurred. Councilmember Mavity participated in a MILO training demonstration, during which she responded to a male acting suspiciously at a playground. Mr. Kampa debriefed Councilmember Mavity on the incident, noting at first there was reasonable suspicion, but it was quickly dispelled when Councilmember Mavity realized the man in question may have special needs. Mr. Kampa described how this situation would be concluded by reaching out to the man’s caregiver. Mr. Kampa stated that officers are defenders of the Constitution and are to protect people’s rights. While the department encourages people to call in suspicious activity, an officer needs to evaluate the circumstances and either prove or disprove the suspicion. An audience member asked whether officers receive perception training. Mr. Barnes commented on similar officer training relating to intent versus impact. Councilmember Miller commented on a recently posted YouTube video where an officer walks up to an autistic teenager and in his view, the situation was not well handled because the autistic teenager could not communicate well. Councilmember Mavity asked about the issue of escalation, using a scenario that someone calls about a car with suspicious persons. When the officer responds, it is determined there is someone City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3f) Page 3 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of October 16, 2017 in the car with their friends. She asked if the officer would require the people to get out of their car or get into the squad car. Mr. Kampa stated only if the officer is able to articulate a reason to do so. The officer would assess the situation, including whether the car is legally parked; whether the people are juveniles out past curfew; and whether there is suspicion of drug use. Councilmember Mavity asked if there are no obvious drugs, if it is protocol to pull them from the car while checking their license. Mr. Kampa stated that the officer would not ask them to get out of the car unless the officer sees suspicious activity. He stated if the officer sees suspicious movement inside the car, the officer can frisk the occupants and the vehicle for weapons. An audience member relayed a situation he experienced several weeks ago where someone was standing in his yard when he let his dog out. His dog growled, and the person standing in his yard made a threat about his dog. The audience member asked whether he would be liable if someone is hurt in his yard. Mr. Kampa stated anyone can sue for any reason. Councilmember Sanger referenced the first vignettes and asked why officers in a questionable situation shoot to kill. Mr. Kampa clarified that officers are not trained to shoot to kill but to shoot to stop the threat. He described the difference between the two shooting incidents. Councilmember Sanger stated that the officer could use a Taser instead of a gun. In response, Mr. Kampa conducted another MILO training demonstration with an audience member, during which he responded to a traffic accident, and one of the people involved in the accident ran into a building and had a knife. Following the demonstration, Mr. Kampa debriefed the audience member on the incident, noting that in this case the weapon was a knife. He explained the use of Tasers and stated that in his experience only one out of four Taser incidents is effective. Mr. Kampa described the abusive behavior he and officers are subjected to and a recent incident where a kid was sitting in a stairwell who did not respond to the officer’s instructions and placed his hands in his pockets. Finally the kid took his hands out of his pockets and complied with the officer’s instructions. Mr. Kampa stated in that case, the kid had a gun in his pocket, but the incident was de-escalated. Mr. Barnes relayed another incident where a man who was licensed to carry a gun had an alcohol level of .19. He noted that every officer probably has several incidents during which they could have reacted with force but decided not to do so. Councilmember Mavity stated that with officers having to make split second decisions, what it really reinforces is the trust the community and council put in all of the officers for their moral judgment. She noted that part is physical and tactical training, but it is also about the moral judgment officers make in these moments. She stated that she hopes all incidents end well, but carrying forward the values the community entrusts them with is harder to train for than the physical and technical skills. Mr. Kampa stated that is why they need to push the envelope of training, so they have that extra second to make a good decision. Councilmember Sanger asked how they train for an officer coming into a potentially dangerous situation, and how does it alter actions if the officer has some sense that the individual may be mentally ill. Using the last MILO scenario, Mr. Kampa explained how officers could de-escalate the situation if there was time, distance, and influence, and that the officer’s response is always based on actions. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3f) Page 4 Title: Special Study Session Minutes of October 16, 2017 Mr. Barnes described the extensive training that officers receive in de-escalation. Another officer added that officers and new hires also receive crisis intervention training. Mr. Kampa played a YouTube video of a traffic stop where the driver did not comply with the officer’s orders to take his hands out of his pockets, to get back, or put the gun down, which ended with the officer being shot nine times and killed. After viewing the video, Mr. Kampa noted that in this case, the officer did not react for 40 seconds after seeing the gun. He explained that with severity of reasonableness, the officer does not need to wait until being fired upon. Mr. Kampa stated that officers are told that ‘your body can’t take you where your mind hasn’t been.’ That is the reason training for these types of scenarios is vital. Mr. Barnes described an incident this past weekend where they dealt with a suicidal male. The officers were familiar with these people and the address because a mental health hold had been placed on the male just the day before when he was suicidal. Mr. Barnes explained how the incident unfolded, with the male making threats against the officers, being outside completely naked, cutting himself, and then moving into a dark wood line. The officers, at great peril to themselves, moved into the dark wood line and found the male up to his neck in the creek. They called for rescue. This incident unfolded in 3-4 minutes. The male did not respond to commands to show his hands (he had been seen with a knife), and he was bleeding from a self-inflicted cut. The officers were able to get the male on shore; cuff him for safety; place a tourniquet on his leg; apply direct pressure; and provide first aid. The man was then transported to the hospital with a mental health hold. Mr. Barnes stated that this man will eventually be released from the hospital, and most likely officers will be called again. Mr. Harcey stated that tonight they hoped to give the councilmembers an idea of the complex incidents and the difficult ‘use of deadly force’ situations which the Police Department is confronted with and the training they receive to handle these situations. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 7:26 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3g UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 16, 2017 1. Call to Order Mayor Spano called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger. Councilmember absent: Thom Miller. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Knutson), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Finance Manager (Mr. Ebensteiner), Planning and Zoning Supervisor (Mr. Walther), Associate Planner (Ms. Kramer), Communications Specialist (Ms. Pribbenow), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth). Guests: None. 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes - None 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar Mr. Harmening noted corrections as follows: 4j. Approve for filing Planning Commission minutes of July 29 August 16, 2017 4k. Approve for filing Planning Commission minutes of July 19 September 6, 2017 4a. Approve the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2524-17 amending the Businesses and Licenses code relating to solid waste hauler requirements and authorize publication. 4b. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2525-17 vacating a utility easement, and approve the Ordinance Summary for publication. 4c. Approve a contract with Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. to assist in updating the city’s Comprehensive Plan. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 17-156 affirming support for Perspectives’ grant application to the Brownfield Gap Financing Program. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 17-157 approving acceptance of a scholarship from the USGBC to cover the registration fee of $1,300.00, for Shannon Pinc, Environment & Sustainability Coordinator, to attend the 2017 International Greenbuild Conference in Boston, MA. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3g) Page 2 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2017 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 17-158 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3509 Aquila Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN. P.I.D. 18- 117-21-42-0031. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 17-159 setting the 2018 Utility Rates. 4h. Designate Veit & Company, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $126,366.63 for the 2017 Bass Lake Preserve Outlet Project - Project No. 4014-4000. 4i. Approve for filing Planning Commission minutes of July 19, 2017. 4j. Approve for filing Planning Commission minutes of August 16, 2017. 4k. Approve for filing Planning Commission minutes of September 6, 2017. 4l. Adopt Resolution No. 17-160 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from the National Association of Government Web Professionals in an amount not to exceed $3,000 for all related expenses for Jason Huber, Information Technology Manager, to attend the 2017 National Association of Government Web Professionals National Conference in San Diego, California. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve the Agenda as revised and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent). 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Consider First Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance. Mr. Ebensteiner presented the staff report regarding the 2018 fees that are reviewed annually by departments prior to renewal and as part of the budget process. He noted that some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with the city’s ordinance code, while other fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other metro cities, changes in regulations, and to make sure that the city’s business costs are covered for such services. It was noted that the council received a written report at its October 9, 2017, study session that included all proposed 2018 citywide fees. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. Councilmember Brausen confirmed that the new fees go into effect January 1, 2018, and encouraged developers to submit plats now. Councilmember Mavity confirmed that the city’s policy in raising fees is to reflect the cost of services provided, not to impose higher costs arbitrarily. So if a fee increases, it reflects an increase in costs. Mr. Ebensteiner confirmed that is correct. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve First Reading of an ordinance adopting fees for 2018 and set Second Reading for November 6, 2017. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3g) Page 3 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2017 Councilmember Brausen stated he had asked about increasing fees on tobacco licenses, pawn shops, adult related businesses, and billboards, and staff had explained that fees had to be commensurate with services rendered, even though activities at some establishments may have negative impact on the community. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent). 6b. Assessment of Delinquent Charges. Resolution No. 17-161 Mr. Ebensteiner presented the staff report regarding certification of delinquent charges to Hennepin County as a means to collect outstanding fees and charges through the special assessment process. These costs include delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees, and other miscellaneous charges. If approved, certification is done via the special assessment process and becomes a lien on the individual properties that is due over the next year or several years, depending upon the type of charge. Mr. Ebensteiner reported that there was $696,515 outstanding as of the close of business today, with 1,020 accounts and $663,000 related to utility billing fees and $32,000 related to miscellaneous items. He stated that staff will continue to collect payments and resolve outstanding issues through Friday, October 27, at 4:30. After October 27, a $30 administrative fee is charged to all remaining accounts and a $75 penalty for utility accounts being certified for the second consecutive year. Mayor Spano asked how many accounts have been delinquent in payments two consecutive years. Mr. Ebensteiner stated that in 2016 there were 415 customers who paid the additional fee, and in 2017 there are currently 504 customers, but that number will decrease significantly in the next two weeks. Mayor Spano opened the public hearing. Steve Hahn, 3036 Texas Avenue, stated that he or a family member have lived at that address for 55 years. He stated that the Texas Avenue project paved part of his driveway so he decided to have the city’s contractor pave the rest of his driveway, which was to be done by June 21-22 for approximately $1,500. Mr. Hahn stated it was not paved at that time, and instead in mid-August the contractor put down Class V, which was dusty, rocky, and causes trips. Then, about two weeks ago, the contractor finally put in his driveway - 14 weeks from when the work was supposed to be done. Because of the delay, Mr. Hahn stated that he had to park his car behind his property more often than in his driveway. Mr. Hahn provided several driveway photographs to the council. He stated that he was promised a lip for his garage door, but it was not installed, so now water pours into his garage and has damaged a supply of tile he had intended to use. In addition, the line from the garage to the house is wavy, not straight. By the fence it appears they threw in rock, so it looks horrible, and they did not tar an area behind his garage as promised. Mr. Hahn stated that he would like the contractor to come back and fix the project. Otherwise, he would like a good discount, which he will pay by Friday, and then he will fix the driveway himself. Mr. Hahn stated that he wants it to look nice so he gets the full value if he sells his house. Mayor Spano closed the public hearing. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3g) Page 4 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2017 Councilmember Lindberg stated that he will talk with the City Manager about the challenges with this project and get a response back to Mr. Hahn. Mayor Spano asked if there is an actionable item to take on this driveway cost pursuant to what Councilmember Lindberg is suggesting. Councilmember Lindberg stated that it is two separate issues, and he will be sure the engineering staff is involved. Mr. Harmening stated this is on the list of assessments because Mr. Hahn was sent a bill of approximately $1,500 for the driveway work, and it was not paid. If the council wants staff to look into it further to determine whether more work is needed, it can be certified next year. He stated that this item is unique as it does not involve utility bills. Councilmember Sanger asked if the list is certified with this amount and the issue is resolved before the October 27 deadline by the process Councilmember Lindberg outlined, will this amount be removed from the certification. Councilmember Lindberg stated that he was not aware that what Mr. Harmening proposed was an option, and he thinks it would be reasonable to take Mr. Hahn’s assessment off the list, hold that discussion, and try to work it out. Mr. Harmening asked if the request is to remove just this one item. Councilmember Lindberg answered in the affirmative. Mr. Harmening stated that the council could leave it in, work out the issues by October 27, and then either assess a reduced amount or delete it if paid. Mr. Knutson advised this is not an administrative decision, and if the assessment is adopted tonight with this amount included, only the council can change it. Councilmember Sanger asked whether there was a contractual agreement with Mr. Hahn that specifies the items like drainage and the garage lip. Mayor Spano stated his preference is to pull this one assessment from the certification list so it can be resolved. Councilmember Mavity stated support to remove this assessment, noting that the pictures show this is not a quality product. If the city is responsible for it, it needs to be made right. She felt this was not the first time a street contractor has left a bit of a mess and suggested that the city require more of its contractors and hold them accountable. It was moved by Councilmember Lindberg, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to adopt Resolution No. 17-161 to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and other miscellaneous charges, except the assessment pertaining Mr. Hahn, and to direct staff to meet with Councilmember Lindberg and Mr. Hahn to find a reasonable resolution. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Miller absent). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Proposed Redevelopment – 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Blvd. (former Santorini’s site). Resolution No. 17-162 and Resolution No. 17-163 Ms. Kramer presented the staff report regarding the proposal of William Stoddard, CEO of Stoddard Companies, to redevelop the former Santorini’s property into a 149-unit City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3g) Page 5 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2017 apartment building and a 112-key limited service hotel. The apartment building would be located on the west side of the property and the hotel on the east side, with surface parking lots located between the buildings and to the east of the hotel. It was noted that the council had discussed and favorably reviewed this proposal at its September 25, 2017, study session. Ms. Kramer stated that the property is guided and zoned Office, and the Planned Unit Development (PUD) application includes requests for reduced setbacks, increased residential density on the apartment lot, and reduced parking for the hotel. She described the mix of units and displayed slides of the floor plan, exterior elevations, proposed hotel, and hotel floor plans. The maximum residential density allowed for multiple-family residential use in the Office district is 50 units per acre, or more with a PUD. The PUD would be 3.13 acres, which would allow up to 156 units, and the requested 149-unit apartment building fits within this limit. The PUD would be split into two lots. The density of the residential lot alone would be 89 units per acre; however, the overall density of the site would be 47.9 units per acre, and the PUD would prohibit residential uses on the hotel lot. Ms. Kramer described the proposed building façade architectural materials, noting they meet code requirements, and a condition for final project approval would require submittal of those building material samples. She reviewed the zoning code requirements for building wall deviations. The north elevation exceeds the maximum height to width ratio in the code, but vertical privacy walls break up the façade, and this elevation is not visible from Wayzata Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the deviation requirement for the north wall only. Ms. Kramer presented staff’s preliminary plat analysis and displayed slides of the utility easements; calculation of park dedication; PUD analysis; existing zoning of Office with General Commercial to the west; and the proposed PUD zoning district to allow reduced setbacks and increased density. She then reviewed zoning compliance factors. Ms. Kramer reported that two neighbors attended the June 14, 2017, neighborhood meeting and both expressed strong support for the project. She reviewed the consideration by the Planning Commission’s two public hearing sessions and its recommendation for approval of the applications with conditions. Ms. Kramer reviewed additional details of the proposal, including relocation of utility lines; landscaping plans; shortage of designed outdoor recreation area (DORA); and staff findings. She advised of staff’s requests for additional details as follows: • Provide further revisions and details to the utility, drainage, grading, and stormwater plans. • Confirm that all mechanical equipment shall be screened per the zoning ordinance. • Submit plan for alternative landscaping to meet the shortfall in the required landscaping. • Provide a revised DORA plan that meets all requirements per the zoning code. • Provide details explaining how the development will address soil correction issues. • Provide details for meeting code requirements regarding collecting garbage, recycling, and organics. • Provide proof of parking for the remaining 12 bicycle parking spaces on the residential lot City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3g) Page 6 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2017 • Amend the trash rooms’ design to provide three chutes to accommodate garbage, organics recycling, and non-organic recycling. Ms. Kramer stated that staff recommends approval with conditions. Councilmember Sanger asked whether the applicant proposes to provide charging stations on site for electric vehicles. Ms. Kramer stated that the applicant is willing to provide them or lay the infrastructure so charging stations can be installed at a later date. Councilmember Sanger stated that she hopes it will happen and supports revising the City Code to make it a requirement for future projects. Councilmember Sanger asked about the unit mix of proposed apartments and how large the apartments are. Mr. Kramer stated that the unit square footage is included on the floor plans. She displayed a slide showing the mix of unit type, number of bedrooms, and unit count. Councilmember Sanger pointed out that one- bedrooms make up half of the count. She thinks this is too many because the city already has a lot of tiny apartments but not enough units for people who want to downsize. She stated that she is not comfortable with this apartment mix. Councilmember Brausen stated that he has had a lot of meetings with staff about this site, which has been undeveloped for several years. He also attended the community meeting where the residents who showed up were excited about the project. Councilmember Brausen felt this was the most ambitious proposal the council has seen for this site. In addition, the applicant has a reputation for constructing high-quality buildings, and this proposal strikes him as the highest and best use of the site, creating more housing, affordable housing, and hotel units at a highly visible location. Councilmember Brausen stated that the staff report noted parking requirements were slightly short of code, but this is a limited service hotel, geared towards the business traveler. There is no restaurant or services that draw traffic, so he believed it can easily handle parking needs. He noted that the proposal includes over 160 bicycle parking spaces, which is consistent with policy. While the landscaping is a few trees short, it still results in planting over 150 trees, over 1,200 shrubs, and 600 perennials. Councilmember Brausen stated that he agrees with staff recommendation related to landscaping. Councilmember Brausen stated that the proposal does not have the required dedicated DORA for a hotel, although 44% of the residential is DORA, and 26% of DORA on the site overall. He supported staff’s recommendation to increase hotel DORA with a possible rooftop feature, noting this site has close and easy access to Shelard Park. In addition, the applicant will pay over $289,000 in park dedication and $33,000 in trail dedication fees, including biking and walking access to Shelard Park and the trail system. Councilmember Brausen stated that with 149 housing units, including required affordable units, and 112 hotel beds, he fully supports this proposal. It was moved by Councilmember Brausen seconded by Councilmember Lindberg, to adopt Resolution No. 17-162 approving a Preliminary Plat and adopt Resolution No. 17-163 approving Preliminary Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions. Councilmember Mavity stated that she likes the mix of units, as some are two-bedrooms and townhomes, which are not often developed and a plus to provide more choices to our residents. She noted that the vacancy rate for three bedrooms is in the 2-4% range. Councilmember Mavity stated that this project will create up to 27 affordable units for hard-working families. The units are distributed evenly and proportional to the mix, which City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3g) Page 7 Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 16, 2017 is a win. She noted that the council has raised questions about the applicant not meeting requirements, such as DORA, even though the whole site meets the DORA requirement, so she support staff’s amendment. She agreed with the comment on car charging stations and wanted to make sure there is space for organics recycling, as well. Councilmember Mavity asked staff to make sure glass fronts are activated and interactive, not papered over. Councilmember Hallfin stated that he appreciates what the developer is doing as this site has been an eyesore for some time. He also appreciates staff’s suggestion on the DORA commitment and looks forward to seeing something better before second reading. Mayor Spano agreed it (the DORA plan) could be a bit better. The motion passed 5-1 (Councilmember Sanger opposed; Councilmember Miller absent). 9. Communications Mr. Harmening announced the following: • October 20-21, 2017, 34th annual Halloween Party at Eastwood Nature Center from 6:30-9 p.m. • October 24, 2017, Metropolitan Airports Commission open house at the Rec Center to listen to resident concerns. • October 28, 2017, Drug Take Back Day at the police station from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Councilmember Sanger welcomed the Benilde-St. Margaret’s civics class who attended the council meeting and asked for their observations. A Benilde-St. Margaret’s student asked what would happen should the council not approve the apartment plan. Mayor Spano explained that if it was not approved, concerns would have been articulated and staff directed to meet with the applicant to see if those concerns could be resolved. He noted that while the project may not include everything the council wants, there needs to be a balance. Councilmember Brausen stated that this property has been vacant for nine years. Other proposals were presented, like a parking lot, but the council wants the best use for this property. The student asked whether the council was confident the plan will work. Mayor Spano stated that the council is confident staff can work out the issues between tonight’s first reading and the second reading. If not, then the council may say no. Councilmember Brausen explained that this property is under private ownership, so it can be developed in the way it is zoned if it meets code. Mayor Spano asked students what constitutional right was exercised tonight. A student answered the first amendment. Mayor Spano stated that is correct, as well as a petition for redress of grievances, which was raised by the resident about his driveway assessment. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Minutes: 3h UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 23, 2017 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jake Spano, Tim Brausen, Gregg Lindberg, Anne Mavity, and Susan Sanger. Councilmembers absent: Thom Miller and Steve Hallfin. Staff present: Deputy City Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Simon), Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Director of Community Development (Ms. Barton), Financial Manager (Mr. Ebenstiner), Economic Development Specialist (Ms. Grove), Associate Planner (Ms. Monson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Pappas). Guest: Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers; Chris Velsco, Via/PLACE developer. 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning –November 13, 2017 Ms. Deno presented the proposed Study Session agenda for November 13, 2017. Ms. Deno noted that because both Councilmembers Sanger and Mavity will not be in attendance at the November 13 city council meeting, the policing debrief will be moved to another meeting. 2. Annual Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District Management Report Mr. Simon and Mr. Hunt, along with Ms. Kvilvang from Ehlers, discussed the Management Review & Analysis – TIF Districts report. Mr. Simon explained that the purpose of the report is to review the status, financial condition, debt management, and future value of the city’s tax increment districts. The report also describes the revenues generated from each TIF district and presents recommendations. Information contained in the report is obtained from the city, Hennepin County, State of Minnesota, Office of the State Auditor, and Ehlers. Portions of the information in the report are used by staff throughout the year to provide a quick reference guide when performing analyses and making recommendations to the council or EDA. Ms. Kvilvang stated that there are 20 TIF districts (19 active and 1 decertified) in St. Louis Park. She noted each district and also presented each on a map of the city. She stated that the captured TIF as a percentage of tax base in 2017 was 10.5%. Councilmember Brausen asked if that represents the entire market value of the city. Ms. Kvilvang explained that it measures TIF against the total value of the city. Councilmember Brausen asked her to distinguish between a rating of Aaa vs. AAA. Ms. Kvilvang stated that the Aaa rating is a Moody’s rating, while the AAA rating is a Standard and Poors rating. St. Louis Park has an AAA bond rating. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3h) Page 2 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 23, 2017 Mayor Spano asked where St. Louis Park falls with this 10.5%, since the average is at 6%. Ms. Kvilvang stated that most cities are between 5-10%, adding that it is really about what is being accomplished in the community. Councilmember Sanger noted that when TIF districts are completed and coming off 1-2 years earlier than expected, it shows that St. Louis Park is one of the leaders. Mr. Hunt commented that many of these projects are paying themselves off sooner rather than later. Ms. Kvilvang pointed out there is an over 900% increase in market value overall within St. Louis Park, noting this is the return on the city’s investment. Additionally, Ms. Kvilvang noted that 63% of the PAYGO obligations are within two TIF districts – those being Park Commons and the West End. She added that $5.4 million in bonds is outstanding. Ms. Kvilvang recommended that a pooling analysis be completed to develop a plan to utilize funds not needed for obligations for other eligible projects within the city. Additionally, she discussed the Year Six Rule, which requires that beginning in year six of the district, the city must utilize 75% of the TIF generated to pay obligations. She stated that the recommendation is to complete a year six rule analysis for the Zarthan, Park Commons, Ellipse and West End TIF districts, in order to determine if they should be decertified prior to the end of their legal term. Ms. Kvilvang stated that the city’s TIF districts are in overall good financial health, and the city has opportunities to utilize funds from several districts to augment its housing and redevelopment efforts and to assist in paying for other eligible redevelopment costs. Mayor Spano thanked staff and Ms. Kvilvang for the report and said it would be helpful if staff could provide a type of cheat sheet for the council with bullet points to help answer questions on TIF from residents. Councilmember Mavity added that in trying to get this story out to people, there is much to explain. She noted that a big part to the story of St. Louis Park is the over 900% return rate, which needs to be told clearly and possibly through a video on the website. Councilmember Lindberg added that there is a strong story to tell here, and if it were clear and concise, it would be helpful to all. Mr. Simon also pointed out that the 5-10 year projections are crucial in long-range planning on the city’s debt model and also helpful in making estimates on future tax capacity. Councilmember Brausen added that he is supportive of all the recommendations made by staff and the consultant. 3. Via (PLACE) Project Mr. Hunt explained that PLACE is preparing to begin site work and building construction on Via, a mixed-use redevelopment to be located on the north and south sides of the future Southwest Light Rail Transit (SWLRT) Wooddale Station. He noted that financing has been secured; demolition of the former McGarvey property is underway; and the building permit is pending for the 217-unit mixed-use, mixed-income apartment building to be constructed on the north side site. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3h) Page 3 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 23, 2017 Mr. Hunt added that financing, property closing, and construction of the hotel on the south side site is dependent upon Marriott’s approval of PLACE’s franchise application and building plans. Absent any significant design changes to the hotel’s interior or exterior, PLACE hopes to receive Marriott’s final approval in December or January; however, the exact timing is yet to be determined. Mr. Hunt added that this precludes PLACE from acquiring the south side property at this time. Additionally, PLACE must commence its project by December 31 or risk losing its $900,000 DEED cleanup grant. Mr. Hunt stated that given these circumstances, PLACE has requested that its acquisition of the EDA’s property occur through two separate property conveyances - one for the north side site and one for the south side site. He stated that closing on the north side site would occur no later than November 30, 2017, allowing the project to commence on the north side site before the end of 2017. Closing on the south side site would then occur no later than April 30, 2018. Additionally, authorization of two separate property closings would not change the required project commencement and completion dates outlined in the contract and would allow PLACE to complete construction on the total project earlier than the required December 31, 2019. Mr. Hunt explained that this request would require an amendment to the contract, and the contract would be brought back to the EDA for formal consideration on November 6. Councilmember Mavity asked if the north side would stand alone as a separate project if Marriot stepped out of the pending agreement. The developer stated that the property would be divided to make the project work, and each side would stand alone, and there would be two separate closings on the project. Councilmember Mavity asked if the remainder of the bonds will be available for the south side project. The developer stated yes. Councilmember Mavity asked if there is a Plan B if Marriot bows out of the agreement. The developer stated that there is no problem with Marriott’s commitment, but they take a long time to finalize their agreements. He added that PLACE is in regular conversations with Marriott and the management company, which the developer hired, has a good relationship with Marriott. The developer added, however, that the timing is out of their control. He would not like to lose the DEED grant, and so they are bringing this amendment to the EDA for consideration at the November 6 meeting. Councilmember Mavity asked if there are any other outstanding elements. The developer stated that everything had been identified and disclosed. Councilmember Brausen asked for clarification on the project name. The developer stated that the name of the development project is Via, as it represents different means of mobility, living, eating, and working. He added that his company is PLACE. Councilmember Brausen asked if the developer fails to close on the south site by April 31, 2018, if there is any default, or if they will be two separate transactions. Mr. Hunt answered that in that particular scenario, there would be would be a default, but he added that there would be a work-out period with the developer to cure the default. The EDA does not want the property back. Councilmember Brausen asked also, if the whole project is not completed and the apartment is not built, does the city have any rights to reclaim the property. Mr. Hunt stated in that situation the EDA could reclaim the property, but again, the EDA would want to find a solution with the developer as the EDA would not want to reclaim the property. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3h) Page 4 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 23, 2017 Councilmember Lindberg stated that he loves the name of the project and has always felt the risk was well worth the return on this project. He added that if successful, this project will be a flagship. Councilmember Lindberg asked if there is anything new the EDA should be concerned about. Mr. Hunt stated no, adding that the risk is being divided 65 – 35%. Councilmember Sanger asked a question related to the timing change and if this would set the city up for mass traffic problems with the upcoming redo of the Wooddale Bridge. Ms. Monson stated that PLACE is working to coordinate the timing of the project with the bridge work. Mayor Spano asked if anyone had asked DEED for an extension. The developer stated that the grant was recently received and was negotiated to the end of the year, so there is concern about going back to them now to ask for an additional extension. Mr. Hunt stated that DEED is reluctant to provide extensions to its grant agreements. He indicated that the proposed amendment will be brought to the EDA for formal consideration on November 6. 4. Proposed Property Acquisition: 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard (pulled up for discussion from written reports) Ms. Barton noted that in early October, staff became aware of a foreclosed, single-family property, located at 5639 Minnetonka Blvd. that would soon be listed for sale. The property has been vacant for several years and fallen into disrepair. The property is zoned R4, multi-family residential and is adjacent to three other single-family homes. Ms. Barton stated that all three neighboring properties are working with a realtor to sell and redevelop. Also, a realtor has met with staff and indicated an interest in constructing an apartment building at this location. Ms. Barton noted it was discovered today that a realtor has put the property on the market. She stated that the city sent a letter of intent today. If it is accepted, the city will move forward with a purchase agreement, which would then go back to the EDA for approval. Ms. Grove stated that the city hopes to hear back by tomorrow, adding this is a non-binding agreement. Councilmember Sanger stated that it makes sense for the city to acquire this property and keep control over what is constructed there, adding that the city does not need any more one-bedroom apartments. She noted that there is concern that the owners of the adjacent properties want the most money they can get for their property and will try to leverage the city in order to get bigger bids from others. Councilmember Mavity stated that she has negotiated many of these types of purchases, adding she has concerns. She stated that this property is one the city has a strong interest in and it may need to be discussed in a closed session so that negotiations can be successful. Councilmember Brausen stated he is supportive to move ahead on this. Councilmember Mavity asked that staff please discuss any updates with council. Ms. Deno stated that staff would keep the council apprised of the situation as it moves forward. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3h) Page 5 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 23, 2017 5. 2017 – 2021 Audit Proposals Presentations Mr. Simon stated that the council directed staff in July 2016 to request proposals for auditing services after the 2016 audit. This evening, three firms will be presenting to the council, highlighting their qualifications and services. Ms. Nancy Schulzenberg presented on behalf of BerganKDV. Mr. Aaron Neilsen presented on behalf of MMKR. Mr. Dave Mol presented on behalf of RedPath and Company. Questions asked by council of the three representatives from the firms are as follows: Councilmember Mavity noted that each firm is extraordinarily competent but asked each to speak about their work on race equity and increasing diversity, as well any green or sustainability policies, noting that these are items of strong focus by the city. All the firms reviewed their structure and staffing makeup. They discussed some of the challenges in recruiting new accountants. Each firm also discussed some of the green and sustainability practices in their offices. Mayor Spano asked each firm to discuss what differentiates one from the other. Ms. Schulzenberg stated that they are all very competent, but with her firm, they have expertise as a regional firm. She added they are experts in other areas, as well, such as payroll and technology. They have a large suite of services to provide for cities. Mr. Neilsen stated that his firm has been in St. Louis Park for the past 60 years and has a good understanding of the city. He stated that his partners have many years of experience. He added that they are a local and small firm with much to offer. Mr. Moll stated that in his firm everyone is licensed, and the company is employee owned. It is diverse, with female management and this makes them unique. Councilmember Sanger asked Mr. Neilsen if he feels being located in St. Louis Park is an asset or a drawback for their firm. Mr. Neilsen stated he feels strongly it is an asset. Their firm is able to see the city’s development, and he feels strongly about the services their firm can provide for the city and for the community. Ms. Deno reminded councilmembers that the decision about which firm to hire is up to the council. Councilmember Brausen asked if each firm was aware of the other proposals for services. Mr. Simon stated that the firms did not know the proposal amounts of each of the other firms. Councilmember Mavity asked how long cities typically stay with their auditor. Mr. Simon said that some communities do an RFP every 5 years as a best practice. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 3h) Page 6 Title: Study Session Minutes of October 23, 2017 Mayor Spano added that he appreciated Mr. Simon coming into the city finances with a fresh set of eyes. Councilmember Lindberg asked if there were any problems with RedPath as the city’s auditor. He added that he does not see any issues if the city continues with RedPath and would not want to change auditors every five years. He added that from his perspective, RedPath is most aligned with St. Louis Park, and he sees no purpose in changing firms. Councilmember Mavity agreed completely and stated that RedPath is competent, plus she liked the fact that they are employee owned and that 60% of the women on their staff are in leadership positions. She does not see a need to change but would like to continue to check in every five years. Councilmember Sanger agreed that there is no reason to move away from RedPath. However, she added that she was impressed also with BerganKDV and their value system. She added that MMKR is too small a firm. Councilmember Brausen stated that although he likes to buy local when he can, he is leaning toward RedPath, especially related to their corporate culture. Mayor Spano stated that staying with RedPath for another five years is fine, adding that his main objective was going through the RFP process to determine if Redpath was still the appropriate firm for St. Louis Park. He stated that he would also like to remain with RedPath, stating that they are competent, and the council seems to be in agreement. It was the consensus of the council to stay with RedPath as the city’s auditing firm. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Councilmember Brausen stated that he appreciated the annual EDA written report in the staff report, stating it is especially useful with TIF district discussion. Ms. Deno noted that the Charter Commission meeting is tomorrow night. This is a public meeting being held at 6 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 6. September 2017 Monthly Financial Report 7. Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September 2017) 8. Westwood Hills Nature Center Project 9. Annual EDA Redevelopment Contract Status Report 10. Walker Building and Historical Society Updates 11. SWLRT Update 12. Proposed Property Acquisition: 5639 Minnetonka Boulevard (moved to # 3 discussion item) ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Jake Spano, Mayor Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 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 September 23, through October 27, 2017. 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 CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information follows the City’s Charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal stewardship. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: City Disbursements Prepared by: Kari Mahan, Accounting Clerk Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 1Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 216.003SI SECURITY SYSTEMS INC POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 216.00 146.06ABERNATHY, LISA ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 146.06 2,711.59ABRA MN EDEN PRAIRIE UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 2,711.59 1,662.87ACCOUNTEMPSWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,662.86SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,662.86SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,662.86STORM WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,651.45 173.99ACME TOOLS FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 173.99 86,439.50ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE 43,230.60SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE 129,670.10 3,529.75ADVANCED ENG & ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 457.50WATER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,015.00WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,002.25 1,000.00AILEX LAURIE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 1,000.00 225.00ALBERTSSON HANSEN ARCHITECTURE LTD MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 494.00ALL CITY ELEVATOR INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 494.00 2,550.00ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 2,550.00 615.00ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 20,425.00MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 2 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 2Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 21,040.00 1,250.55ALLIED BLACKTOP PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,250.55 2,681.62ALLSTREAMIT G & A TELEPHONE 2,681.62 616.00ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO INC TV PRODUCTION REPAIRS 616.00 172.60AMERICAN STATE EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 172.60 782.56AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 782.56 50.00AMMUNITION DISPOSAL OF MN POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 517.90ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER OPERATIONS REPAIRS 517.90 263.31ANDERSON ALISSA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 263.31 86.02ANDERSON TROY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 86.02 606.00APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 728.04REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,334.04 470.00APPLE VALLEY, CITY OF TV PRODUCTION NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 470.00 1,900.97ARCTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,900.97 18,873.00ARENA WAREHOUSE LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 18,873.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 3 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 3Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 53.76ARMOR SECURITY INC INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL 53.76 392.00ARROW LIFT FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 392.00 213.94ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 213.94 13,726.00ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 3,226.30GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 16,952.30 5,536.33ASPEN LAWN SERVICE/SIPE'S ENTERPRISES IN UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 5,536.33 1,297.91ASPEN MILLS OPERATIONS UNIFORMS 675.86OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING 1,973.77 66.63ASSOCIATED BANK POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 66.63 81.12AT&T MOBILITY CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 81.12 600.00ATOMPOLICE G & A TRAINING 600.00 50.50ATOMIC RECYCLING FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 50.50PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 50.50WATER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 50.50VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 202.00 27.42AUSTIN HARDWARE & SUPPLY, INC.GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 27.42 204.40AUTO PLUS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 204.40 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 4 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 4Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,157.92BACHMANSPARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,569.37BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 2,727.29 14,609.71BADGER METER INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 14,609.71 30.81BAILEY MARIAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 30.81 67.41BARKER, EMILY SOLID WASTE G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 67.41 125.00BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 75.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 1,149.83BARTON, KAREN COMM DEV G & A TRAINING 1,149.83 11.96BATTERIES + BULBS ERU OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 229.51WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 241.47 1,595.00BEACON ATHLETICS PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,595.00 60.84BEAL GREG WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 60.84 86.92BECKER MATTHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 86.92 33.50BELETE AEBA INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS PROGRAM REVENUE 33.50 443.54BERSCHEID, GARY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 443.54 400.00BG CONSULTING INC HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 5 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 5Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 400.00 2,600.00BILL COPPIN SEWER & WATER SERVICES SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,600.00 450.00BIRNO BLAKE R.SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00 450.00BIRNO, GRANT SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00 280.36BITTNER JOE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 280.36 225.00BLACKWELL JEFFREY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 45.87BLUMER ROLAND WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 45.87 85.00BOBIER, HEIDI INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 25.00BOHN WELDING INC NETWORK SUPPORT SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 272.26PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 297.26 1,650.00BOLTON & MENK INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,650.00 766.29BOUND TREE MEDICAL, LLC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 766.29 136.59BOYER TRUCKS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 136.59 300.00BRADDISH KELSEY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 9,644.00BRAD'S LANDSCAPING LLC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 9,644.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 6 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 6Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,317.94BROCK WHITE CO LLC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,317.94 240.00BROOKLYN CENTER, CITY OF COMM & MARKETING G & A TRAINING 240.00 1,000.00BROOKSIDE MINNOCO PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,000.00 2,305.32BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,305.32 65.00BUDGET EXTERIORS INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING 65.00 32.50BUDGET SIGN & GRAPHICS POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.50 67.26BUFFINGTON, GILBERT REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 67.26 510.00BUREAU OF CRIM APPREHENSION CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 510.00 16.48BURR, SUSAN CLERICAL TRAVEL/MEETINGS 16.48 1,146.34BUSINESS ESSENTIALS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,146.34 41,072.57-C & L EXCAVATING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 821,451.27CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 780,378.70 50,000.00CALGON CARBON CORP REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 50,000.00 850.00-CALIFORNIA SKATEPARKS PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 17,000.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 16,150.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 7 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 7Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 8,571.66CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES 4,108.50ENGINEERING G & A LEGAL SERVICES 239.25STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A LEGAL SERVICES 333.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 577.50WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 214.50REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES 544.50SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES 14,588.91 8,379.30CAP- HC EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,379.30 86.45CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.98ADULTSGENERAL SUPPLIES 107.43 1,179.46CARIBOU COFFEE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 1,179.46 1,618.91CARLSON, AURTHUR J EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION 1,618.91 78.85CARLSON, DAVE REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 78.85 277.83CARLSON, JOEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 277.83 66.86CAVANAUGH MICHAEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 66.86 2,450.00CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,450.00 61.59CDW GOVERNMENT INC IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,292.13TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,353.72 400.00CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 8 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 8Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,300.00 77.09CENTERPOINT ENERGY ESCROWS PLACE 1,624.70FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS 766.80WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 29.50REILLY G & A HEATING GAS 160.35SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 237.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS 22.73WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS 43.34NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS 13,782.98REC CENTER BUILDING HEATING GAS 16,745.05 16,190.00CENTRAL PENSION FUND EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT 16,190.00 261.60CENTURY LINK CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE 261.60 52.00CHAMPION WINDOW INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING 52.00 229.50CHURCHILL, LEE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 229.50 553.75CHUXNATURAL RESOURCES G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 553.75 147.10CINTAS CORPORATION FACILITIES MCTE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 114.41FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,553.01WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 214.89REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 222.92VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 5,252.33 982.63CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 176.08GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT 47.41ADMINISTRATION G & A TRAINING 822.76ADMINISTRATION G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 172.21ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 68.98HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 9 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 9Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 525.10HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 65.61HUMAN RESOURCES CITE 99.00HUMAN RESOURCES TRAINING 187.92HUMAN RESOURCES MEETING EXPENSE 195.00COMM & MARKETING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.00COMM & MARKETING G & A TRAINING 900.32COMM & MARKETING G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 29.05IT G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 437.45IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 269.90ASSESSING G & A TRAINING 194.00ASSESSING G & A LICENSES 544.00FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 2,241.40COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 160.00GENERAL INFORMATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 304.15POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 101.01POLICE G & A JAIL SUPPLIES 71.69POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 1,087.00POLICE G & A TRAINING 606.17POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 371.31-POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 17.67POLICE G & A MEETING EXPENSE 135.22ERUOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,408.30POLICE GRANTS & E-911BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1.50COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 206.95OPERATIONSGENERAL SUPPLIES 133.64OPERATIONSOPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 319.95OPERATIONSUNIFORMS 185.00OPERATIONSSUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 955.93OPERATIONSTRAINING 350.74OPERATIONSSEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 59.14INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING 212.02ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,470.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 200.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TRAINING 28.00CABLE TV G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 60.40TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES 299.00TV PRODUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 40.00TV PRODUCTION TRAVEL/MEETINGS 18.78EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 796.03WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,275.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 10 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 10Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 218.83SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 200.00SEWER UTILITY G&A TRAINING 620.82TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 21.48CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 117.04ORGANIZED REC G & A TRAINING 792.00ORGANIZED REC G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 1,500.00ADULT PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.18SPECIAL EVENTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 444.99SPECIAL EVENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 350.00HOLIDAY PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00PERFORMING ARTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 417.92PLAYGROUNDSGENERAL SUPPLIES 508.00FABULOUS FRIDAYS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,515.56PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING 425.00PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 152.49WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.64REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.23REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 61.00REC CENTER BUILDING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 137.64AQUATIC PARK G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES 78.92PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 26,318.54 78.11CLARKE LISA ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 78.11 15,824.92COLICH & ASSOCIATES ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES 15,824.92 3,100.72COLLINS ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION CO DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,500.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,600.72 59.02COMCASTOPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 23.24OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 428.40WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33.72REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 544.38 14,800.00COMLINK MIDWEST TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 14,800.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 11 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 11Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 47,368.62COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,789.52PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 49,158.14 1,447.69COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,447.69 146.00COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 146.00 437.09CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP TEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 803.69REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,240.78 75.00CONZEMIUS ANDY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75.00 104.71COPELAND, PATRICK REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 104.71 527.70CORE & MAIN SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 527.70 91.00CORVAL CONSTRUCTORS INC INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING 91.00 60.00COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00 10,530.00COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,530.00 77.50CREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC - DARE DARE PROGRAM OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 77.50 214.55CRONIN PATRICK ICE RENTAL RENT REVENUE 214.55 214.55CRONIN PAUL ICE RENTAL RENT REVENUE 214.55 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 12 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 12Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 41.40CROWN MARKING INC COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 41.40 239.77CUB FOODS POLICE G & A JAIL SUPPLIES 239.77 3,631.73CUMMINS INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,609.38SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,241.11 1,030.82-CURB MASTERS, INC.PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 20,616.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 19,585.68 43.75CUSTOM HOME TITLE LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 43.75 8,590.50CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,171.00SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,919.00SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,143.50SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 89.65SSD #5 G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 5,119.00SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 268.09SSD #6 G&A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 3,143.00SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,992.06PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,568.02BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 42,003.82 215.72CUSTOM REFRIGERATION INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 215.72 1,235.19DALCO ENTERPRISES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 616.05REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,851.24 183.96DATAWORKS PLUS LLC IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 183.96 143.42DCA TITLE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 13 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 13Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 143.42 174.94DELEGARD TOOL CO PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 185.64VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 254.88VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS 615.46 120.25DEMO UNLIMITED INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING 120.25 81.34DISCOUNT STEEL INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 393.60ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 474.94 14,693.15DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 1,494.56PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 383.38REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,226.00REC CENTER BUILDING MAINTENANCE 225.00REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 18,022.09 1,966.73DO-GOOD.BIZ INC COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 396.91NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,363.64 50.00DR. ODEH A. MUHAWESH GENERAL FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.00 15.00DRENNEN, CASEY SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM REVENUE 15.00 35.00DRIVER AND VEHICLE SERVICES DIVISON GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 35.00 95.34DRYWALL SUPPLY INC MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 95.34 15.00EBENSTEINER MARK FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 112.35FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 127.35 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 14 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 14Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 12,472.54EBERT CONSTRUCTION PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 3,959.67-PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 8,512.87 1,809.54ECM PUBLISHERS INC ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES 710.00COMM & MARKETING G & A ADVERTISING 2,519.54 499.00EDUCATION & TRAINING SERVICES PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TRAINING 499.00WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING 499.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TRAINING 1,497.00 3,948.75EGANPARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 8,775.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 1,054.50WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 14,196.56SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 27,974.81 795.00EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC ESCROWS PLACE 3,701.25ESCROWS5605 W 36TH (AMER LEGION SITE) 1,722.50ESCROWSPLATIA PLACE 6,218.75 238.61EISOLD, JASON REC CENTER BUILDING MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 238.61 786.75ELECTRIC PUMP INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 786.75 3,693.51ELECTRICAL PRODUCTION SERVICES REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,693.51 200.00ELECTRO SIGN AND DESIGN ZONING ZONING 200.00 1,135.45EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,135.45 938.48EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 317.96UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 15 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 15Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,256.44 4,144.56ENTERPRISE FM TRUST EQUIP/VEHICLE REPLACEMENT RENTAL EQUIPMENT 4,144.56 10,000.00ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTETECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 10,000.00 330.00ERICKSEN SUSAN HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 330.00 659.93ERIK'S BIKE SHOP POLICE GRANTS & E-911BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 659.93 12.00ERSTAD MARGE SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM REVENUE 12.00 6,759.00ESS BROTHERS & SONS INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 6,759.00 15.00EVENSEN PAULA SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM REVENUE 15.00 880.00EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 880.00 1,221.53EXPRESSIMAGESOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,221.53 530.04FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 913.70VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 379.99PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,823.73 306.00FADDEN DEREK SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 306.00 62.55FASTENAL COMPANY ROUTINE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.93PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 80.28PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 31.67VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 16 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 16Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 204.43 111.75FEINBERG, FRANK REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 111.75 566.66FERGUSAN JANE WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 566.66 18,176.77FERGUSON WATERWORKS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 18,176.77 107.20FERRELLGASREC CENTER BUILDING MOTOR FUELS 107.20 430.00FIRE SAFETY USA INC OPERATIONS SMALL TOOLS 1,945.00OPERATIONSTRAINING 2,375.00 2,000.00FLAGSHIP RECREATION LLC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,000.00 209.00FLEX COMPENSATION INC EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 209.00 27.89FRATTALLONE'S/SAINT LOUIS PARK POLICE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 26.49PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5.70VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 60.08 11.71FREEDMAN, BREANNA HUMAN RIGHTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.71 244.06FRIEDMAN AVI ROC ICE RENTAL RENT REVENUE 244.06 1,242.00FRONTIER FIRE PROTECTION INC.PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 1,242.00 109.36FRYE CHERYL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 109.36 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 17 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 17Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 5,041.90GALLS, LLC - DBA UNIFORMS UNLIMITED POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 561.98POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 121.98-COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 5,481.90 25.00GANVITTE LINDSAY INSPECTIONS G & A DOGS 25.00 575.00GARY L FISCHLER & ASSOCIATES PA POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 575.00 2,343.00GELLERMAN CONSTRUCTION INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 36,194.59MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 38,537.59 937.50GIGA BAUER CONSULTING LLC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 937.50 16,589.01-GL CONTRACTING INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 331,780.14CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 315,191.13 1,300.00GOLIATH HYDRO-VAC INC CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,300.00 866.70GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 866.70 485.00GRAFIX SHOPPE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 485.00 200.00GRAGE, ANDREA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 36.71GRAINGER INC, WW GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 104.35FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 108.00WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 249.06 4,244.60GREAT NORTHERN LANDSCAPES INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 4,244.60 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 18 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 18Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 955.00GREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 955.00 1,168.60GREEN HORIZONS WEED CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,168.60 302.11GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING INC SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 302.11 250.00GREEN THOMAS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 33,500.00GRESSER COMPANIES INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 12,897.50PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 46,397.50 493.92GROUP HEALTH INC - WORKSITE EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A HEALTH INSURANCE 493.92 1,665.00GTS EDUCATIONAL EVENTS IT G & A TRAINING 1,665.00 85.00GULLIFER MEGAN INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 1,500.00GUNDERSON PAUL ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 1,500.00 571.20HAALA INDUSTRIES INC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 571.20 80.00HAGEN SCOTT OPERATIONS TRAINING 80.00 456.25HALL, JAY SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 456.25 714.00HAMILTON, MIKE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 714.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 19 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 19Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 10,038.59HAMMEL GREEN & ABRAHAMSON INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,038.59 105.00HANSEN THORP PELLINEN OLSON INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 105.00 6,691.38HAWKINS INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 6,691.38 480.00HEALTHETECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 480.00 783.74HEDBERG SUPPLY PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 783.74 69.99HEFFERNAN SAM POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 69.99 250.00HELLER JULIE GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 125.00HENNEPIN COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,465.00OPERATIONSTRAINING 3,590.00 75.50HENNEPIN COUNTY RESIDENT & REAL ESTATE ASSESSING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75.50 42.97HENNEPIN COUNTY RRA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 42.97 51.00HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES 2,496.86POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 9,878.78POLICE G & A JAIL/DETENTION SERVICES 2,134.72OPERATIONSRADIO COMMUNICATIONS 5,798.00WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,798.00SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.00SOLID WASTE G&A TRAINING 11,596.00STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23,192.00PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 305.20PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 20 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 20Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 61,280.56 500.00HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE OPERATIONS TRAINING 500.00 6,363.26HENRICKSENFACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER 6,640.86MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 13,004.12 186.33HERMANSON, ERIC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 186.33 214.55HESTER GORDON ICE RENTAL RENT REVENUE 214.55 670.00HEYERDAHL NORDIS GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 670.00 4,135.17HIGH FIVE ERECTORS II, INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 4,135.17 4,295.00HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 4,295.00 85.00HINZ, EMILY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 87.04HIPP EARL REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 87.04 950.40HIRSHFIELD"S PAINT MFG INC PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 950.40 34.78HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 352.37FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.70SSD 2 G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 514.18WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 228.74PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 57.63PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 237.93PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 34.60BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 21 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 21Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 386.72REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,850.65 4,318.00HOPKINS, CITY OF WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 4,318.00 85.60HOPPE, MARK ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 85.60 1,147.50HORDYK, EVAN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,147.50 12,761.46HORWITZ INC PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 12,761.46 100.89HOUTS, BRIAN REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.89 2,117.50HTPO INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 2,117.50 4,000.00HUNG LLC ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 4,000.00 1,743.90I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES 1,743.90 19.00IATNVEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 19.00 2,040.00ICE SKATING INST INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 2,040.00 720.65IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 720.64SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 720.64SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE 720.64STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 2,882.57 33.25INDELCOWATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 33.25 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 22 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 22Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 310.00INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 310.00 118.15INTL SECURITY PRODUCTS PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 118.15 66.85INTOXIMETERS INC POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 66.85 307.36INVER GROVE FORD GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 433.94GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 741.30 50.00ISLAMIC RESOURCE GROUP GENERAL FUND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.00 357.05I-STATE TRUCK CENTER GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 357.05 56.25J & F REDDY RENTS WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 56.25 219.05J. H. LARSON CO.MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 219.05 290.00JACKIE ADELMANN PHOTOGRAPHY HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 290.00 3,600.00JACOBSON ENVIRONMENTAL PLLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,600.00 85.00JECHORT KILE AMY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 73.46JERRY'S HARDWARE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 3.86WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 6.82SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 28.78PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 17.02PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 40.52PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 23 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 23Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 12.58TREE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 183.04 3,500.00JMC INVESTMENTS LLC ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 3,500.00 663.00JOHANSEN, MICHAEL SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 663.00 997.62JOHN A. DALSIN & SONS INC REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 997.62 210.00JOHNSON III JAMES SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 106.04JOHNSON NEIL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 106.04 125.00JOHNSON, LAUREN INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 125.00 300.00JOHNSON, SUSAN KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 247.32JP COOKE CO INSPECTIONS G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 247.32 618.59KATE-LOTILE & STONE MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 618.59 754.62KELLER, JASMINE Z EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS 754.62 4,544.11KENNEDY & GRAVEN ESCROWS PLACE 722.00ESCROWS5605 W 36TH (AMER LEGION SITE) 5,266.11 6,500.00KIEFER CHARLES & DEBRA ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 6,500.00 275.00KIEHNE JESSICA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 24 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 24Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 275.00 102.00KIELTY MIKE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 102.00 40.00KILE AMY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 40.00 122,825.92KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 122,825.92 17,220.15KLEIN UNDERGROUND LLC STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 17,220.15 17,502.00KLM ENGINEERING INC.WATER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES 17,502.00 87.68KMETZ JAMES WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 87.68 459.00KNUTSON BRAD SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 459.00 250.00KOHL JEFFREY GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 275.00KOMAR J GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 275.00 575.00KONECRANES INC.BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 575.00 1,834.06KREMER SERVICES LLC GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,834.06 1,065.25KRISS PREMIUM PRODUCTS INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,065.25 122.00KUSTOM SIGNALS INC POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 122.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 25 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 25Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,500.00LAKE SUPERIOR COLLEGE ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING 1,500.00 106.43LAKES GAS CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 195.00PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 301.43 1,500.00LAMBERT ANNA MAE ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 1,500.00 715.00LANDMARK FENCE & DECK INC STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 715.00 36.51LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES INC POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.51 2,646.00LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES 2,646.00 172.69LAWSON PRODUCTS INC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 172.69 330.00LAZARRE GRAPHICS & APPAREL LLC ERU OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 330.00 217,289.00LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE TRUST UNINSURED LOSS B/S PREPAID EXPENSES 217,289.00 75.98LEBENS ANN REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75.98 875.00LEGACY CREATIVE IMAGES HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 875.00 1,130.84LIBERTY ENVELOPE COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,130.84 65.00LIGHTING PLASTICS OF MN INC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 65.00 95.65LINAADMINISTRATION G & A LIFE INSURANCE City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 26 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 26Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 70.35ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 115.07HUMAN RESOURCES LIFE INSURANCE 81.59HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY 62.90COMM & MARKETING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 42.91COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 18.69COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A LIFE INSURANCE 12.75COMMUNITY OUTREACH G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 146.34IT G & A LIFE INSURANCE 100.70IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 142.45ASSESSING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 97.29ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 160.58FINANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 109.45FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 386.65COMM DEV G & A LIFE INSURANCE 254.96COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 85.10FACILITIES MCTE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 57.90FACILITIES MCTE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 1,377.88POLICE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 941.00POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 126.36COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL LIFE INSURANCE 85.77COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL LONG TERM DISABILITY 657.68OPERATIONSLIFE INSURANCE 449.90OPERATIONSLONG TERM DISABILITY 392.39INSPECTIONS G & A LIFE INSURANCE 292.95INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 139.68PUBLIC WORKS G & A LIFE INSURANCE 81.18PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 307.84ENGINEERING G & A LIFE INSURANCE 215.90ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 266.03PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LIFE INSURANCE 192.36PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 75.48CABLE TV G & A LIFE INSURANCE 45.71CABLE TV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 27.38HOUSING REHAB G & A LIFE INSURANCE 18.64HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 135.05WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 92.05WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 83.25SEWER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 67.78SEWER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 33.49SOLID WASTE G&A LIFE INSURANCE 22.79SOLID WASTE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 27 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 27Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 22.02ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY LIFE INSURANCE 14.96ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY LONG TERM DISABILITY 85.84STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LIFE INSURANCE 47.65STORM WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 8,313.81EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LIFE INSURANCE 171.13ORGANIZED REC G & A LIFE INSURANCE 120.17ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 200.91PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LIFE INSURANCE 125.76PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 27.75NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LIFE INSURANCE 18.96NATURAL RESOURCES G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 86.21WESTWOOD G & A LIFE INSURANCE 52.18WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 132.28REC CTR DIV NON DPT BUDGET LIFE INSURANCE 90.09REC CENTER SALARIES LONG TERM DISABILITY 107.12VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LIFE INSURANCE 80.17VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 17,866.88 122.60LITIN PAPER, PACKAGING & CONVERTING POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 239.99SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 204.68ORGANIZED REC G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES 567.27 21,373.27LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP REILLY G & A LEGAL SERVICES 21,373.27 249.40LOFFLER COMPANIES IT G & A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 4,368.00E-911 PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,617.40 10,030.75LOGISTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 10,030.75 106.50LOVAN SAM POLICE G & A TRAINING 106.50 2,701.50LUBE-TECH & PARTNERS LLC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 134.55WATER UTILITY G&A LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 2,836.05 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 28 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 28Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,210.77M G INCENTIVES CABLE TV G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,210.77 85.00MACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 1,334.07MACQUEEN EQUIP CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,334.07 160.00MAGCCOMM & MARKETING G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 160.00 411.00MANAGED SERVICES INC WATER UTILITY G&A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 411.00 15.00MANION JAQUE SPECIAL EVENTS PROGRAM REVENUE 15.00 17,751.15MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 17,751.15 45.32MAROSTICA MEGHAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 45.32 305.00MARTENS, AFTON POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 133.06JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP MEETING EXPENSE 438.06 122.00MASTER TECHNOLOGY GROUP TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 122.00 26.97MCCHESNEY, CHARLIE SOLID WASTE G&A MEETING EXPENSE 26.97 118.62MCCHESNEY, WAYNE REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 118.62 47,186.95-MCCROSSAN INC, C S STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 943,738.90CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 896,551.95 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 29 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 29Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 275.00MCELROY MICHAEL WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 275.00 135.69MCHUGH, JOHN T CABLE TV G & A NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 135.69 425.00MCKIM SEAN & ANNA GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 425.00 301.82MCMONIGAL, MEG COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 9.50COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE 218.82COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 530.14 80.27MDH PROPERTIES LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 80.27 MENARDS SSD 2 G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 181.45WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 814.76MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 49.98PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 671.57PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 31.13WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.06WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS 7.98WESTWOOD G & A LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 1,829.93 154.62MERKLEY, SCOTT PUBLIC WORKS G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 154.62 268.00METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS ASSOC. VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 268.00 14,760.90METROPOLITAN COUNCIL INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 355,300.85OPERATIONSCLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 370,061.75 3,515.50MIDWEST AQUA CARE INVASIVE PLANT MGMT/RESTORATIO CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,515.50 87.00MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO POLICE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 30 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 30Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 87.00 2,060.00MIDWEST GROUNDCOVER PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 3,540.00PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,600.00 15,262.00MILLENIUM AT WEST END LLC ESCROWS GENERAL 15,262.00 3,500.00MILLER JONATHAN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 3,500.00 514.82MINIKAHDA VISTA NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 514.82 449.10MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 449.10 716.01MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS 716.01 1,250.00MINNESOTA CIT OFFICER'S ASSN POLICE G & A TRAINING 1,250.00 17.50MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCENATURAL RESOURCES G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 17.50 190.00MINNESOTA PARK AND SPORTSTURF MANAGERSPARK MAINTENANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 190.00 1,877.76MINNESOTA PIPE & EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,877.76 260.00MINNESOTA SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 130.00NATURAL RESOURCES G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 390.00 60,000.00MINNESOTA/WISCONSIN PLAYGROUND PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 60,000.00 200.00MINUTEMAN PRESS COMM & MARKETING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 31 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 31Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 200.00 289.00MINVALCO INC WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 289.00 500.00MN AWWA WATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING 500.00 200.00MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY FACILITIES MCTE G & A LICENSES 4,782.32INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 4,982.32 7,012.11MODERN PIPING INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 7,012.11 3,324.30MOLIN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 1,000.00-PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 2,324.30 9.00MONSON JENNIFER COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE 96.30COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 105.30 5,000.00MOVEFWDPOLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,000.00 264.00MRPA NON-SCHOOL ROUNDTABLE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 264.00 1,620.70MTI DISTRIBUTING CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 165.00GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,785.70 24.02MUKOMELA MATTHEW WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 24.02 772.50MULATA INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 772.50 866.77MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING LLC PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 866.77 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 32 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 32Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,400.00MVTL LABORATORIES REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 879.30NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 156.70PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.99PARK MAINTENANCE G & A BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,077.65VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 657.12VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS 2,784.76 81.85NATHANSON, BRIDGET ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 81.85 569.10ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS 569.10 85.56NEP CORP PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 85.56 5,000.00NESTINGEN SAMUEL ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 5,000.00 1,351.50NEUMANN, NEAL SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,351.50 171.76NICHOLES DONALD WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 171.76 1,125.00NIMNAUTH OMADAI RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,125.00 1,980.48NORTH AMERICAN SAFETY INC INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.19PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 2,012.67 368.88NORTHERN SAFETY TECHNOLOGY INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 368.88 41.90NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC SSD 1 G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 534.25SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 33 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 33Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 8,535.40MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 9,111.55 1,750.00NORTHLAND PAVING PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 1,750.00 1,628.00NORTHLAND SECURITIES INC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,628.00SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,256.00 200.00NPELRAHUMAN RESOURCES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 200.00 31.38NUNGESSER BARBARA WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 31.38 707.17OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 707.17 75.00OAKWAYS PROPERTIES LLC INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 2,194.50INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING 2,269.50 507.19OESTREICH, MARK WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 507.19 13.69OFFICE DEPOT ADMINISTRATION G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 197.80ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 142.10COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE 150.52COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 37.87ASSESSING G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 117.16FINANCE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 209.04GENERAL INFORMATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 362.70POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 128.88POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 68.20POLICE G & A COMPUTER SUPPLIES 38.61NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 55.45INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 448.20PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 173.75WATER UTILITY G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES 232.58ORGANIZED REC G & A CONCESSION SUPPLIES City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 34 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 34Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 12.99NATURAL RESOURCES G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 114.02WESTWOOD G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,503.56 1,454.73OFFICE TEAM HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,885.00COMM & MARKETING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 8,787.73INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,664.18PUBLIC WORKS G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,791.64 97.67OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 99.61WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 197.28 424.00ON SITE SANITATION NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,703.00FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 159.00PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 207.00ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 8,493.00 450.00ON TARGET SOLUTIONS GROUP INC POLICE G & A TRAINING 450.00 102.00OPOKU, MICHAEL SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 102.00 173.75OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 173.75 945.00PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC REILLY BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 945.00 36,352.29-PARK CONSTRUCTION CO STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 727,045.73CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 690,693.44 76,300.00PARK RIDGE REAL ESTATE LLC RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 76,300.00 847.17PARK TAVERN PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 847.17 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 35 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 35Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 43.31PARKER-RYAN AMY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 43.31 179.50PATRICK, MICHEAL HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES 179.50 125.00PAULING SYDNEY INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 125.00 45,744.25-PETERSON COMPANIES INC STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 914,884.77STORM WATER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 869,140.52 17.94PETTY CASH POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 13.97ENGINEERING G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 60.94ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING 5.25STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 72.15CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21.40STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 191.65 7.29PETTY CASH - WWNC WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.87WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 10.97BABIES AND TOTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.11SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.39HOME SCHOOL GENERAL SUPPLIES 56.63 3,576.34PFM ASSET MANAGEMENT CITY POOLED INVESTMENTS BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 3,576.34 275.00PHILIP'S TREE CARE INC WEED CONTROL OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 275.00 422.55-PINNACLE WALL SYSTEMS CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE 28,522.12MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 28,099.57 177.64PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 177.64 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 36 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 36Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 65.00PIVEC, MICHAEL INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES 65.00 210.00PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 210.00 60,000.00PLAYPOWER LT FARMINGTON INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 309.00PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 60,309.00 477.56POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 477.56 211.52PRECISE MRM LLC PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 211.52WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 211.52SEWER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 211.52STORM WATER UTILITY G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 846.08 62.49PREMIUM WATERS INC OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 62.49 400.00PRINTERS SERVICE INC ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 400.00 690.86PUMP & METER SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SMALL TOOLS 690.86 20.57QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES 165.26FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 197.86VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE 383.69 3,578.55R & R SPECIALTIES GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT 1,127.53AQUATIC PARK BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,706.08 320.00RAINBOW PARTY ARTS HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 320.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 37 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 37Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 298.25RAINBOW TREECARE TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 298.25 4,994.45RAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES OF MINNESOTA PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 2,045.00PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 7,039.45 560.00RAMIC, ALMIN SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 560.00 3,175.87RANDY'S ENVIORMENTAL SERVICES FACILITIES MCTE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 749.88PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT MAINTENAN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,638.03REC CENTER BUILDING GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 5,563.78 119.38RAY JACOB WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 119.38 3,260.00REACHTECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT 3,260.00 1,635.00RECARLSONMUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 1,635.00 226.28REGENCY BUSINESS SOLUTIONS POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 226.28 320.00REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA ENGINEERING G & A TRAINING 1,395.00ENGINEERING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 150.00PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TRAINING 1,865.00 1,464.00REINDERS INC PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,464.00 85.47RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 85.47 215.07RICH, TED WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 215.07 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 38 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 38Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 5,021.95RICOH USA INC IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,021.95 157.97RIGID HITCH INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 157.97 3,999.00RIVER CITY SUPPLY LLC OPERATIONS FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 3,999.00 11,110.41RJM CONSTRUCTION LLC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 11,110.41 1,594.99RMS RENTALS GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 1,594.99 2,785.00ROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 2,785.00 618.00ROBERTS JOHN COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 232.50WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 232.50SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 232.50SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE 232.50STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 1,548.00 405.55ROCKET SOFTWARE INC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 405.55 408.00ROGERS, KYLE SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 408.00 67.29ROONEY CHRIS WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 67.29 239.68ROSHOLT, PAUL OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 239.68 246.00ROTARY CLUB OF SLP ADMINISTRATION G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 90.00POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 170.00POLICE G & A TRAVEL/MEETINGS 506.00 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 39 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 39Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 607.92RSP ARCHITECTS LTD PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 607.92 15.91RUNQUIST LUINE A WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 15.91 65.00SALA, GRANT INSPECTIONS G & A LICENSES 65.00 38.92SAM'S CLUB GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT 186.23NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 231.94POLICE GRANTS & E-911BUDGET OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 59.76SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES 516.85 83.81SAURER, MARTI INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 85.00INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 168.81 813.40SCAN AIR FILTER INC REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 813.40 163.00SCHAAKE COMPANY, AJ HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 163.00 325.00SCHATZ BRITTANY ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 325.00 1,949.40SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO.SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 305.34STORM CLEAN UP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,254.74 85.00SCHMITZ AMBER INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 252.87SCHWAB, SARAH NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 252.87 600.00SCOTT NELSON COACHING INC POLICE G & A TRAINING City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 40 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 40Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 6,000.00OPERATIONSGENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,600.00 11,590.40SEHSTREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,590.40 282.00SETS DESIGN INC.POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 282.00 31.68SETTINGSGARD, JARED WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 31.68 7,920.00SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSON, INC.STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,920.00 46.82SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12.95FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 70.58POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14.12INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14.12WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14.12ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 172.71 46.60SILVER CATHRYN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 46.60 55.40SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC SSD 2 G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 792.17IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 847.57 1,889.40SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES 1,889.40 85.00SMITH HANNAH INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 106.50SMITH MAURICE JR PATROL TRAINING 106.50 43.79SMITH SARAH WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 43.79 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 41 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 41Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 35.57SMITH, LAURA HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 74.66HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION 110.23 194.12SMITH, TIM OPERATIONS PROTECTIVE CLOTHING 194.12 92.00SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL GENERAL REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 92.00 324.08SNYDER ELECTRIC PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 324.08 51.41SONNEK ERIC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 51.41 44.00SOUTH SIDE ELECTRIC INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL 44.00 425.00SPACK CONSULTING ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10,700.00STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,125.00 625.00SPARKLE WASH INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 625.00 3,426.50SPRINTCELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 3,426.50 258.48SPS COMPANIES INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,207.23WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,465.71 7,585.22SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC ESCROWS GENERAL 4,049.22STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,634.44 77,715.70ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB 77,715.70 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 42 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 42Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 56.15ST PAUL CITY OF PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 56.15 54.08STAFFORD HOME SERVICE INSPECTIONS G & A ELECTRICAL 54.08 73.86STANLEY SANDRA & KAY RONNGREN REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 73.86 37.90STAR TRIBUNE SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 37.90 41.82STEGE SUSAN WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 41.82 45,900.00STEPHOUSING REHAB G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45,900.00 574.71STEVENS JEFF TRAINING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 574.71 158.10STEWART TITLE CO.WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 158.10 406.00STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 406.00 1,490.00STORM WIND LLC TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,490.00 1,179.40STREICHER'S POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 1,443.17POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT 154.99OPERATIONSPROTECTIVE CLOTHING 2,777.56 22.46STREMEL FAMILY INVESTMENTS LLC WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 22.46 277.17SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 277.17 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 43 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 43Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 555.00SUMMIT COMPANIES FACILITIES MCTE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 555.00 20,846.71SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20,846.71 450.00SUSAWATER UTILITY G&A TRAINING 450.00 105.00SYKES ROGER SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 105.00 225.00TEA2MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 81.27TELELANGUAGE INC ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 81.27 276.11TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO.VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 702.28GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 978.39 50.69TERMINAL SUPPLY CO GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.69 30.00TEXA TONKA TAILORING OPERATIONS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 30.00 30,340.00THAI BUDDHIST OF MN & FIREFLY FCU RIGHT-OF-WAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30,340.00 290.00THE FIRST IMPRESSION GROUP ORGANIZED REC G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 290.00 244.15THE JOHN ROBERTS COMPANY WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 244.14SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 244.14SOLID WASTE G&A POSTAGE 244.14STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 976.57 185.59THE SHERWINN WILLIAMS CO MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 44 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 44Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 1,423.60PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,609.19 44.66THIE, AMY WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 44.66 276.41THOMSON REUTERS WEST PAYMENT CENTER POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 276.41 864.41THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR REC CENTER BUILDING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 864.41 2,118.25TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,118.25 11.65TIMIAN C WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 11.65 51.00TIMM, KEVIN SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 51.00 51.06TITLE SMART WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 51.06 1,185.13TKDAWATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,253.25WATER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES 6,438.38 196.03TOWMASTERGENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 196.03 1,157.50TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 835.00SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,992.50 27.50TRANSPORT GRAPHICS OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 27.50 13,113.05TREE TRUST PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 7,583.07UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS 2,380.00TREE MAINTENANCE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 45 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 45Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 23,076.12 512.64TRI STATE BOBCAT GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 512.64 75.00TRI-COUNTY LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSOC. POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 75.00 3,107.00TRUGREEN - MTKA 5640 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,107.00 593.50TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO FACILITIES MCTE G & A BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 593.50 350.00TWIN CITY SCALE CO INC SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER 350.00 1,878.00TWIN CITY SEED CO PARK MAINTENANCE G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,878.00 555.50UHL CO INC FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 555.50 150.00ULI-THE URBRAN LAND INSTITUTE COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 150.00 159.00UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY 159.00 55.00UPTOWN PLUMBING HEATING & COOLING INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING 55.00 35.85VAUGHAN, JIM NATURAL RESOURCES G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 35.85 40.00VERIFIED CREDENTIALS HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT 40.00 50.04VERIZON WIRELESS SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 12,985.04CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.OFFICE EQUIPMENT 70.12CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.TELEPHONE City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 46 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 46Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 13,105.20 23.67VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 23.67 615.13VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 615.13 6,750.00WACHS COMPANY, E H WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 6,750.00 21.48WALSER CHRYSLER JEEP GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET INVENTORY 21.48 538.00WARNING LITES OF MN INC SEALCOAT PREPARATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 384.00ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 16,046.46PAINTINGOTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,422.21CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,390.67 33,259.57-WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN SOLID WASTE G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 206,341.06SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 102,512.16SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE 99,913.55SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 375,507.20 502.14WESTWOOD HILLS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC.HOUSING REHAB BALANCE SHEET CONTRACTS PAYABLE 746.02NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,248.16 1,250.89WHITE, PERRY PUBLIC WORKS G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 502.20WATER UTILITY G&A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 177.62WATER UTILITY G&A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 1,930.71 30.00WILLIAMS REBECCA FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 297.46FINANCE G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 327.46 2,804.48WINSUPPLY OF EDEN PRAIRIE SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 2,804.48 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 47 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 47Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 2,000.00WOOLSEY BRIAN ESCROWS PMC ESCROW 2,000.00 212.50WRAP CITY GRAPHICS WESTWOOD G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 30.00HALLOWEEN PARTY PRINTING & PUBLISHING 242.50 152.00WS & D PERMIT SERVICE INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING 152.00 1,036.00WSB ASSOC INC PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 111,942.96STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 112,978.96 17,608.20XCEL ENERGY FACILITIES MCTE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 24.21OPERATIONSEMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 38,386.59PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 32,644.55WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,116.49REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE 8,243.87SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,889.39STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 12,473.45PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 27.17BRICK HOUSE (1324)ELECTRIC SERVICE 63.33WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)ELECTRIC SERVICE 691.93WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 18,459.33REC CENTER BUILDING ELECTRIC SERVICE 133,628.51 12,756.00YTS COMPANIES LLC TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 21,539.00TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 34,295.00 22.10ZANDER, LOIS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 22.10 46.70ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 70.05PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 53.85VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 170.60 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 48 10/30/2017CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:25:39R55CKS2 LOGIS400V 48Page -Council Check SummaryNote: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection. 10/27/20179/23/2017 - Amount ObjectVendorBU Description 45.00ZESZUTEK JAMES INSPECTIONS G & A 1&2 SINGLE FAM. RENTAL 45.00 160.66ZIP PRINTING PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 160.66 250.00ZUERCHER TECHNOLOGIES LLC POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 7,275.00E-911 PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,975.00POLICE & FIRE PENSION G&A MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 20,500.00 Report Totals 6,832,199.57 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4a) Title: Approval of City Disbursements Page 49 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve second reading and adopt ordinance establishing fees for 2018 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances; and to approve the summary ordinance for publication. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the proposed revisions to the fee schedule to reflect fee adjustments for programs and services called for by ordinance? SUMMARY: Each year our fees are reviewed by departments prior to renewal and as part of our budget process. Some fees must be set and adjusted in accordance with our ordinance; other fees are allowed to be set administratively. All fees are reviewed each year based on comparison to other cities in the metro area, changes in regulations and to make sure our business costs are covered for such service. On October 16, 2017, Council held a public hearing and approved the first reading of the ordinance setting fees. Fee changes will be effective January 1, 2018. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed fee adjustments have been incorporated into the proposed 2018 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Ordinance and Summary Prepared by: Mark Ebensteiner, Finance Manager Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____-17 ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2018 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS: Section 1. Fees called for within individual provisions of the City Code are hereby set by this ordinance for calendar year 2018. Section 2. The Fee Schedule as listed below shall be included as Appendix A of the City Code and shall replace those fees adopted November 7, 2016 by Ordinance No. 2511-16 for the calendar year 2017 which is hereby rescinded. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES Chapter 4 – Animal Regulations $50 Chapter 6 – Buildings & Building Regulations Chapter 6, Article V – Property Maintenance Code $100 Chapter 8 – Business and Business Licenses $100 Chapter 12 – Environment $50 Chapter 12, Section 1 – Environment & Public Health Regulations Adopted by Reference $100 Chapter 12, Section 157 – Illicit Discharge and Connection $100 Chapter 12, Section 159 – Wetland Protection $100 Chapter 14 – Fire and Fire Prevention $50 $100 Chapter 14, Section 75 – Open burning without permit $100 Chapter 20 – Parks and Recreation $50 Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management $50 Chapter 22 – Solid Waste Management – Multifamily & Commercial $100 Chapter 22, Section 35b – Contagious Disease Refuse $200 Chapter 24 – Streets, Sidewalks & Public Places $50 Chapter 24, Section 24-43 – Household Trash & Recycling Containers blocking public way $50 Chapter 24, Section 50 – Public Property: Defacing or injuring $150 Chapter 24, Section 51 – Sweeping leaves or snow into street prohibited $100 Chapter 24, Section 151 – Work in public right-of-way without a permit $100 Chapter 24-342 – Snow, ice and rubbish a public nuisance on sidewalks; removal by owner Residential $25 first time, plus $10 each subsequent offense Commercial $25 first time, Fee shall double for each subsequent violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners. Chapter 26 – Subdivision $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Subdivision approval. $750 Chapter 32 – Utilities $50 Violation of sprinkling ban. $50 first time, Fee shall double for each subsequ violation, with a maximum fee of $200 for SFR and $400 for all others. Doesn't reset annually. Does reset for new owners City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 3 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Chapter 36 – Zoning $50 Chapter 36, Section 37 – Conducting a Land Use not permitted in the zoning district $100 Violation of a condition associated with a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development, or Special Permit approval $750 Repeat Violations within 24 Months up to a maximum of $2,000 Double the amount of the fine imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example, if there were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $50 fine, the fine for the fourth occurrence would be $400 (first: $50; second: $100; third: $200; fourth: $400). Fines in addition to abatement and licensing inspections Fines listed above may be in addition to fees associated with abatement and licensing inspections. CITY CLERK’S OFFICE Domestic Partnership Registration Application Fee $50 Amendment to Application Fee $25 Termination of Registration Fee $25 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Comprehensive Plan Amendments $2,100 $2,150 Conditional Use Permit $2,100 $2,150 Major Amendment $2,100 $2,120 Minor Amendment $1,100 $1,150 Fence Permit Installation $15 $20 Numbering of Buildings (New Addresses) $50 Official Map Amendment $550 $600 Parking Lot Permit Installation/Reconstruction $75 Driveway Permit $25 Planned Unit Development Preliminary PUD $2,100 $2,150 Final PUD $2,100 $2,150 Prelim/Final PUD Combined $3,000 $3,200 PUD - Major Amendment $2,100 $2,150 PUD - Minor Amendment $1,100 $1,150 Recording Filing Fee Single Family $50 Other Uses $120 Registration of Land Use $50 Sign Permit Erection of Temporary Sign $30 Erection of Real Estate, Construction Sign 40+ ft $75 $100 Installation of Permanent Sign without footings $75 $100 Installation of Permanent Sign with footings $100 $150 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 4 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Special Permits Major Amendment $2,100 $2,150 Minor Amendment $1,100 $1,150 Street, Alley, Utility Vacations $850 $900 Subdivision Dedication Park Dedication (in lieu of land) Commercial/Industrial Properties 5% of current market value of the unimproved land as determined by city assessor Multi-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Single-family Dwelling Units $1,500 per dwelling unit Trails $225 per residential dwelling unit Subdivisions/Replats Preliminary Plat $900 $1,000 plus $100 $150 per lot Final Plat $550 $600 Combined Process and Replats $1,100 $1,200 plus $100 $150 per lot Exempt and Administrative Subdivisions $350 $375 Temporary Use Carnival & Festival over 14 days $1,500 Mobile Use Vehicle Zoning Permit (Food or Medical) $50 Time Extension $150 $200 Traffic Management Plan Administrative Fee $0.10 per sq ft of gross floor Tree Replacement Cash in lieu of replacement trees $135 per caliper inch Variances Commercial $500 $550 Residential $300 Zoning Appeal $300 Zoning Letter $50 Zoning Map Amendments $2,100 $2,150 Zoning Permit Accessory Structures, 120 ft or less $25 Zoning Text Amendments $2,100 $2,150 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT Installation/repair of Sidewalk, Curb Cut or Curb and Gutter Permit $12 per 10 linear feet Base Fee $60 Permit Parking- High School and Medical Need No Charge Right-Of-Way Permits Excavation or Obstruction Permit Base Fee $60 Hole in Road/Blvd (larger than 10" diameter) $60 per hole Trenching in Boulevard $200 per 100 linear feet (minimum $200) Trenching in Roadway $400 per 100 linear feet (minimum $400) Delay Penalty 2 times total permit fee Small Cell Wireless Facility Permit Permit Fee $1,500 per antenna Rent to occupy space on a city-owned wireless support Structure $150 per year per antenna Maintenance associated with space on a city-owned wireless support structure $25 per year per antenna City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 5 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Electricity to operate small wireless facility, if not purchased directly from utility (i) $73 per radio node less than or equal to 100 max watts; (ii) $182 per radio node over 100 max watts; actual costs of electricity, if the actual costs exceed the amount in item (i) or (ii) Delay Penalty 2 times total permit fee Temporary No Parking Signs (for ROW permit work) Deposit of $25/sign (minimum $100 per permit) Temporary Private Use of Public Property $350 Dewatering Permit Administrative Fee (all permits) $250 Discharge to Sanitary Sewer Charge based on duration/volume of discharge Erosion Control Permit Application and Review – single family $200 Application and Review – other applicants $450 Deposit – single family $1,500 Deposit – other applicants $3,000 per acre (min. $1,500) FIRE DEPARTMENT False Fire Alarm Residential Commercial 1st offense $0 $0 2nd offense in same year $100 $100 3rd offense in same year $150 $200 4th offense in same year $200 $300 5th offense in same year $200 $400 Each subsequent in same year $200 $100 increase Fireworks Display Permit Actual costs incurred Service Fees Service Fee for fully-equipped & staffed vehicles $500 per hour for a ladder truck $325 per hour for a full-size fire truck $255 per hour for a rescue unit Service Fee of a Chief Officer $100 per hour After Hours Inspections $65 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Tent Permit Tent over 200 sq. ft. $75 Canopy over 400 sq. ft. $75 INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT Building Demolition Deposit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $2,500 All Other Buildings $5,000 Building Demolition Permit 1 & 2 Family Residential & Accessory Structures $170 $180 All Other Buildings $280 $300 Building Moving Permit $500 Business Licenses Billboards $160 $165 per billboard Commercial Entertainment $285 Courtesy Bench $57 $60 Dog Kennel $160 $165 Environmental Emissions $320 $330 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 6 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Massage Therapy Massage Therapy Establishment $360 $370 Massage Therapy License $115 $120 Therapists holding a Massage Therapy Establishment License $35 Pawnbroker License Fee $2,000 Per Transaction Fee $2 Investigation Fee $1,000 Penalty $50 per day Sexually Oriented Business Investigation Fee (High Impact) $500 High Impact $4,500 Limited Impact $125 Tobacco Products & Related Device Sales $575 $590 Vehicle Parking Facilities Enclosed Parking $235 $245 Parking Ramp $185 $195 Certificate of Occupancy For each condominium unit completed after building occupancy $100 Change of Use (does not apply to 1 & 2 family dwellings) Up to 5,000 sq ft $450 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $750 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,000 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,400 100,000 to 200,000 sq ft $1,700 above 200,000 sq ft $2,200 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $85 Certificate of Property Maintenance Certificate of Property Maintenance Extension $60 Change in Ownership Condominium Unit $150 Duplex (2 Family dwellings) $325 Multi-Family (apartment) Buildings $255 per building + $15 per unit Single Family Dwellings $235 All Other Buildings: Up to 5,000 sq ft $450 5,001 to 25,000 sq ft $750 25,001 to 75,000 sq ft $1,000 75,001 to 100,000 sq ft $1,400 100,000 to 200,000 sq. ft $1,700 above 200,000 sq. ft $2,200 Temporary Certificate of Property Maintenance Residential $85 All others $200 Construction Permits (building, electrical, fire protection, mechanical, plumbing, pools, utilities) Building and Fire Protection Permits Valuation Up to $500 Base Fee $55 $65 $500.01 to $2,000.00 Base Fee $55 $65 + $2 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $100 over $500.01 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 7 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Construction Permits (cont.) $2,000.01 to $25,000.00 Base Fee $85 $95 + $15 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $2,000.01 $25,000.01 to $50,000.00 Base Fee $430 $440 + $10 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $25,000.01 $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 Base Fee $680 $690 + $7 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $50,000.01 $100,000.01 to $500,000.00 Base Fee $1,030 $1,040 + $6 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $100.000.01 $500,000.01 to $1,000,000.00 Base Fee $3,430 $3,440 + $5 for each Additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $500,000.01 $1,000,000.01 and up Base Fee $5,930 $5,940 + $4.80 for each additional (or fraction thereof) $1,000 over $1,000,000.01 Single Family Residential Exceptions: Reroofing – asphalt shingled, sloped roofs only House or House and Garage $140 Garage Only $70 Residing House or House and Garage $140 Garage Only $70 Building Mounted Photovoltaic Panels $250 Electrical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $50 $60 + 1.75% of job valuation Installation of traffic signals per location $150 Single family, one appliance $50 $60 ISTS Permit (sewage treatment system install or repair) $125 Mechanical Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $55 $60 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace furnace, boiler or furnace/AC $65 $70 Install single fuel burning appliance with piping $65 $70 Install, replace or repair single mechanical appliance $55 $60 Plumbing Permit Installation, Replacement, Repair $55 $60 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Repair/replace single plumbing fixture $55 $60 Private Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Public Swimming Pool Permit Building permit fees apply Sewer & Water Permit (all underground private utilities) Installation, Replacement, Repair $55 $60 + 1.75% of job valuation Single Family Exceptions: Replace/repair sewer or water service $90 $95 Water Access Charge $750 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 8 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Competency Exams Fees Mechanical per test $30 Renewal - 3 year Mechanical $30 Contractor Licenses Mechanical $100 $105 Solid Waste $200 $210 Tree Maintenance $95 $100 Dog Licenses 1 year $25 2 year $40 3 year $50 Potentially Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $100 Dangerous Dog License – 1 year $250 Interim License $15 Off-Leash Dog Area Permit (non-resident) $55 Penalty for no license $40 Inspections After Hours Inspections $75 per hour (minimum 2 hrs.) Installation of permanent sign w/footing inspection Based on valuation using building permit table Re-Inspection Fee (after correction notice issued and has not been corrected within 2 subsequent inspections) $130 Insurance Requirements A minimum of: Circus $1,000,000 General Liability Commercial Entertainment $1,000,000 General Liability Mechanical Contractors $1,000,000 General Liability Solid Waste $1,000,000 General Liability Tree Maintenance & Removal $1,000,000 General Liability Vehicle Parking Facility $1,000,000 General Liability ISTS Permit Sewage treatment system install or repair $125 License Fees - Other Investigation Fee $300 per establishment requiring a business licen Late Fee 25% of license fee (minimum $50) License Reinstatement Fee $250 Transfer of License (new ownership) $75 Plan Review - 50% of amount due at time of application. Exception: Single Family Residential additions, accessory structures and remodels. Building Permits 65% of Permit Fee Repetitive Building 25% of Permit Fee for Duplicate Structure Electrical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Mechanical Permits 35% of Permit Fee Plumbing Permits 35% of Permit Fee Sewer & Water Permits 35% of Permit Fee Single Family Interior Remodel Permits 35% of Permit Fee Rental Housing License Condominium/Townhouse/Cooperative $90 $95 per unit Duplex both sides non-owner occupied $175 $180 per duplex Housing Authority owned single family dwelling units $15 per unit Multiple Family Per Building $230 $240 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 9 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Per Unit $15 $16 Single Family Unit $125 $130 per dwelling unit Temporary Noise Permit $70 Temporary Use Permits Amusement Rides, Carnivals & Circuses $260 Commercial Film Production Application $100 Petting Zoos $60 Temporary Outdoor Retail Sales $110 Vehicle Decals Solid Waste $25 Tree Maintenance & Removal $10 OPERATIONS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT Permit to Exceed Vehicle Weight Limitations (MSC) $50 each Winter Parking Permit Caregiver parking $25 No off-street parking available No Charge Off-street parking available $125 POLICE DEPARTMENT Animals Animal Impound Initial impoundment $35 $40 2nd offense w/in year $60 3rd offense w/in year $85 4th offense w/in year $110 Boarding Per Day $25 $30 Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $250 Potentially Dangerous Dog Annual Review Hearing $100 $250 Criminal Background Investigation Volunteers & Employees $5 False Alarm (Police) Residential Commercial 1st offense $0 $0 2nd offense in same year $100 $100 3rd offense in same year $100 $125 4th offense in same year $100 $150 5th offense in same year $100 $175 Each subsequent in same year $100 $25 increase Late payment fee 10% Solicitor/Peddler Registration $150 Lost ID Replacement Fee $25 Vehicle Forfeiture Administrative fee in certain vehicle forfeiture cases $250 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 10 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2018. Public Hearing October 16, 2017 Second Reading November 6, 2017 Date of Publication November 16, 2017 Date Ordinance takes effect January 1, 2018 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City Attorney City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4b) Page 11 Title: Second Reading of 2018 Fee Ordinance SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION ORDINANCE NO. _____-17 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING FEES CALLED FOR BY ORDINANCE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2018 This ordinance sets 2018 fees as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances. The fee ordinance is modified to reflect the cost of providing services and is completed each year to determine what, if any, fees require adjustment. This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2018. Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Jake Spano /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 16, 2017 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Traffic Study No. 685: Parking Restrictions Around the 4800 Excelsior Boulevard Redevelopment Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing installation of “2-hour parking between 6 a.m. – 7 p.m.” on the sides of the street directly adjacent to the 4800 Excelsior Boulevard development. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The authorization of parking restrictions is allowed per the City’s established regulatory authority. SUMMARY: The development at 4800 Excelsior Boulevard is nearing completion and the Fresh Thyme grocery is expected to begin operations in early November. As a result of this project, on- street parking will become available on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard, west side of Princeton Avenue, south side of Park Commons Drive, and east side of Quentin Avenue on this block. Parking restrictions by resolution did not exist on the west side of Princeton Avenue, south side of Park Commons Drive, and east side of Quentin Avenue at this location. Previously there was a parking restriction to accommodate a Metro Transit bus stop on westbound Excelsior Avenue & Quentin Avenue. Westbound Excelsior Boulevard will continue to accommodate the bus stop at Quentin Avenue without the parking bay away from the traffic lane. In collaboration with the owners of 4800 Excelsior Boulevard, a parking restriction of 2-hours between 6 a.m. and 7 p.m., seven days a week is proposed. This allows for any customer to freely shop at retail establishments in the area. In addition, this prevents spill-over employee parking from surrounding businesses as well as discourage long-term parking from residents of 4800 Excelsior Boulevard. Additional ADA accessible parking as well as resident parking will be available in the building’s parking ramp. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of enacting these controls is minimal and will come out of the general operating budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Signing Plan Provided by BKV Group Prepared by: Ben Manibog, Transportation Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Title: Traffic Study No. 685: Parking Restrictions Around the 4800 Excelsior Boulevard Redevelopment Project RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ RESOLUTION RESTRICTING PARKING AROUND THE 4800 EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 685 WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has studied and has determined that it is appropriate to enact parking restrictions on the streets surrounding 4800 Excelsior Boulevard. WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has contacted and worked with the building owners of 4800 Excelsior Boulevard regarding the implementation of such parking restrictions. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the Engineering Director is hereby authorized to: 1. Install “2-hour parking between 6 a.m. – 7 p.m.” restrictions on the east side of Quentin Avenue from 35 feet north of the north right-of-way line of Excelsior Boulevard to 135 feet north of the north right-of-way line of Excelsior Boulevard. 2. Install “2-hour parking between 6 a.m. – 7 p.m.” restrictions on the west side of Princeton Avenue from 80 feet north of the north right-of-way line of Excelsior Boulevard to 15 feet south of the south right-of-way line of Park Commons Drive. 3. Install “2-hour parking between 6 a.m. – 7 p.m.” restrictions on the south side of Park Commons Drive from 15 feet east of the east right-of-way line of Quentin Avenue to 90 feet west of the west right-of-way line of Princeton Avenue. 4. The City of St. Louis Park requests Hennepin County to place “2-hour parking between 6 a.m. – 7 p.m.” restrictions along the north side of Excelsior Boulevard from 20 feet west of the west right-of-way line of Princeton Avenue to 60 feet east of the east right-of-way line of Quentin Avenue. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk PARK COMMONS DR IVE EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD (CR 3 - 4 LANE D IV IDED )PRINCETON AVENUE SOUTHQUENTIN AVENUEJ11778EXISTING EXCELSIOR AND GRANDMIXED USERESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIALRESIDENTIAL LOBBYGROCERYRESIDENTIALPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY L INE PROPERTY L INE COMPACTR-C H IGH DENS ITY MULT IPLE FAM ILY RES IDENCEO - OFFICEC-1 NE IGHBORHOOD COMMERC IAL EXISTINGSTOP SIGNTO BERELOCATEDEXISTING STOPLIGHT TOREMAINBCC A B BACBACSIGNING PLANC6.0NORTH%.9*URXS,QF(2(SHEET NUMBERSHEET TITLEDATEDRAWN BYCHECKED BYCOMMISSION NUMBERKEY PLANPROJECT TITLECONSULTANTSKVG R O U PArchitectureInterior DesignLandscape ArchitectureEngineeringBoarmanKroosVogelGroupInc.222 NorthMinneapolis,Telephone:Facsimilie:w w w. b k v g r o u p. c o mEOEBSecond StreetMN 55401612.339.3752612.339.6212CERTIFICATION4900 ExcelsiorISSUE # DATE DESCRIPTION0 3/8/16ISSUED FORFOOTING & FDTN. 2016 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.2550 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST, SUITE 238N, ST. PAUL, MN 55114PHONE: 651-645-4197WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM©3/24/16ADDENDUM-115/10/16ADDENDUM-227/20/17GRADING UPDATE3ABCCity Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4c) Title: Traffic Study No. 685: Parking Restrictions Around the 4800 Excelsior Boulevard Redevelopment ProjectPage 3 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approve Final Payment for Project No. 4017-3000 Sanitary – Mainline Rehabilitation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $14,786.23 for the annual Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project with Insituform Technologies USA, LLC - Project No. 4014-3000, City Contract No. 31- 17. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable SUMMARY: On February 21, 2017, the City Council awarded the bid for the Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project – City Project No. 4017-3000. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Insituform Technologies USA, LLC in the amount of $315,642.40. The project consisted of lining 12,248 feet of the sanitary sewer mains in various locations throughout the city. The relining process rehabilitates or renews these sections of aging pipe and is expected to extend their service life another fifty plus years. The Contractor completed the work within the contract time allowed according to approved plans and specifications. Despite the need for one change order, the final contract cost of $295,724.50 is less than the original contract amount of $315,642.40. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The final contract cost of the work performed by the contractor under Contract No. 36-15 has been calculated as follows: Original Contract Price $ 315,642.40 Change Order 1 +$ 2,332.50 Final Contract Amount $ 317,974.90 Underruns -$ 22,250.40 Actual Amount Due $ 295,724.50 Previous Payments $ 280,938.27 Balance Due $ 14,786.23 This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The work was funded by the Sanitary Sewer Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Consent Agenda Item: 4d City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Title: Approve Final Payment for Project No. 4017-3000 Sanitary - Main Rehabilitation RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTING WORK FOR THE SANITARY SEWER – MAINLINE REHABILITATION PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 4017-3000 CONTRACT NO. 31-17 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 February 21, 2017, Insituform Technologies USA, LLC has satisfactorily completed the annual Sanitary Sewer Mainline Rehabilitation Project, as per Contract No. 31-17. 2.The Engineering Director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract cost is $295,724.50. 4.The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approve Final Payment for Project No. 4017-1200 Sealcoat Project RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting work and authorizing final payment in the amount of $17,200.61 for the annual Sealcoat Project with Allied Blacktop Company - Project No. 4017-1200, City Contract No. 62-17. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not Applicable SUMMARY: On April 17, 2017, the City Council awarded the bid for the Sealcoat Project - City Project No. 4017-1200. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Allied Blacktop Company in the amount of $288,163.87. This project included sealcoating selected streets in Pavement Management Areas 2 and 3 which are comprised of Browndale, Minikahda Vista, Minikahda Oaks, Triangle, Wolfe Park, Cedar Manor, Kilmer, and Westwood Hills Neighborhoods. The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed (10 days) at a final contract cost of $344,012.20, with additional work totaling $55,848.33. The additional work was the result of adding more streets to the project to take advantage of pricing. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost of the work performed by the contractor under Contract No. 62-17 has been calculated as follows: This project was included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The work on local streets will be paid for using the Pavement Management Fund. Municipal State Aid streets that were sealcoated are funded by the Public Works Operations budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Phillip Elkin, Senior Engineering Project Engineer Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Original Contract Price $288,163.87 Additional Work +$ 55,848.33 Revised Contract Amount $344,012.20 Previous Payments -$326,811.59 Balance Due $ 17,200.61 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Approve Final Payment for Project No. 4017-1200 Sealcoat Project RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT AND ACCEPTING WORK FOR THE SEALCOAT PROJECT CITY PROJECT NO. 4017-1200 CONTRACT NO. 62-17 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 April 17, 2017, Allied Blacktop Company has satisfactorily completed the annual Sealcoat Project, as per Contract No. 62-17. 2.The Engineering Director has filed her recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The final contract cost is $344,012.20. 4.The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4f EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approve Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Application for Fastpitch Softball Fields at Aquila Park RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the submission of a Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant application in the amount of $400,000 to help with funding the construction of two fastpitch softball fields at Aquila Park. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the city apply for a Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant to assist with funding the fastpitch softball field improvement project at Aquila Park? SUMMARY: The Hennepin County Youth Sports Program provides grants to local governments to improve youth athletics and recreational facilities. The State of Minnesota law authorizing the construction of Target Field allows Hennepin County to use proceeds from the 0.15% sales tax surcharge to award over $2 million each year for sports facilities and equipment. If awarded funding, grant funds must be matched dollar for dollar by the City. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The grant request would be for the maximum allowed of $400,000. Grants may be awarded at the amount requested or at a lesser amount. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Jason T. West, Recreation Superintendent Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Page 2 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4f) Title: Approve Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Application for Fastpitch Softball Fields at Aquila Park RESOLUTION NO. 17 - __ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $400,000 FOR THE ADDITION OF FASTPITCH FIELDS Resolution of LGU Hennepin County Youth Sports Facility Grant Application Required form of resolution authorizing filing of application and execution of agreement to develop sports or recreation facilities under the provisions of the Hennepin County Youth Sports Program. WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners, via the Hennepin County Youth Sports Program, provides for capital funds to assist local government units of Hennepin County for the development of sports or recreational facilities, and WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park (hereinafter LGU) desires to develop two fastpitch softball fields at Aquila Park (hereinafter PROJECT). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL of the LGU: I.The estimate of the total cost of the PROJECT is $1.2 Million. The LGU is requesting $400,000 from the Hennepin County Youth Sports Program and will assume responsibility for a matching funds requirement of $400,000. II.LGU is the owner of the property where the PROJECT is located. LGU will own the property where PROJECT is located for at least the functional life of the facility, which is estimated to be 25 years. The PROJECT may not be converted to a non-public or non-recreational use within this time period without the approval of Hennepin County. III.LGU agrees to assume one hundred (100) percent of operational and maintenance costs for PROJECT. LGU will operate PROJECT for its intended purpose as stated in the PROJECT application for the functional life of the facility. IV.LGU agrees to enter into necessary and required agreements with Hennepin County for the specific purpose of developing PROJECT and managing its long-term operation. V.That Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager, is authorized and directed to execute the application for the Hennepin Youth Sports Program grant. VI.CERTIFICATION. I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is a true and correct copy of the resolution presented to and adopted by the City of St. Louis Park at a duly authorized meeting thereof held on the 6th day of November, 2017, as shown by the minutes of said meeting in my possession. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4g EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Auditing Services Contract (2017 – 2021) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving entering into a contract with Redpath and Company, LTD for 2017 – 2021 audit services. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to proceed with the contract for auditing services with Redpath and Company, LTD for 2017 - 2021? SUMMARY: As directed by the Council, staff distributed a Request for Proposals (RFP) for auditing services. Eight proposals were received and five firms were invited to interview with staff on October 6, 2017. Upon completion of the initial interviews, BerganKDV, Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. (MMKR), and Redpath and Company were invited to present to City Council at a study session on October 23, 2017. At the study session each firm’s representatives gave a presentation, provided executive summaries, and City Council asked questions of each firm. Upon completion of the presentations, questions and discussion, City Council directed staff to proceed with a contract for auditing services with Redpath and Company, LTD. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Costs for 2017 – 2021 services by Redpath and Company, LTD are shown below: Service 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Total Financial Audit 44,000$ 45,100$ 46,200$ 47,300$ 48,500$ 231,100$ Report Preparation (CAFR)6,000 6,150 6,300 6,450 6,600 31,500 Single Audit*4,500 4,600 4,700 4,800 4,900 23,500 Total 54,500$ 55,850$ 57,200$ 58,550$ 60,000$ 286,100$ *The single audit fee assumes one major program and will only be assessed if the City is required to have a single audit for that year. A single audit is required if the City expends $750,000 or more of Federal assistance. Audit fees are budgeted in the 2018 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Mark Ebensteiner, Finance Manager Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Title: Auditing Services Contract (2017-2021) RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTRACT WITH REDPATH AND COMPANY, LTD FOR AUDITING SERVICES FOR 2017 - 2021 WHEREAS, the City Council originally contracted with Redpath and Company, LTD for auditing services from 2010 through 2016; and WHEREAS, the Council directed staff in July 2016 to obtain proposals for auditing services, eight firms submitted proposals and three were brought forward for further review by Council; and WHEREAS, after review of information and interviews by Council on October 23, 2017, direction was given to staff to prepare a contract with Redpath and Company, LTD to continue auditing services for 2017-2021; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that a contract for auditing services with Redpath and Company, LTD is approved. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4h EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department from Park Coin RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting $250 donation from Park Coin 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. Park Coin is graciously donating to the Fire Department an amount of $250.00. The donation is given with restriction that it be used for Fire Prevention Programs and Equipment. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: These donations will assist us in Fire Prevention Programs and Equipment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Cary Smith, Assistant Chief Reviewed by: Steve Koering, Fire Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Title: Acceptance of Donation to Fire Department from Park Coin RESOLUTION NO. 17-_____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF $250 DONATION TO FIRE DEPARTMENT FROM PARK COIN WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donation; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donations by the donors; and WHEREAS, the donation from Park Coin is directed to Fire Prevention Programs and Equipment; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that this donation is hereby accepted with thanks and appreciation. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3116 Salem Avenue South RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3116 Salem Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 06-028-24-22-0054. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. SUMMARY: Robert Jess Ford, owner of the single family residence at 3116 Salem Avenue South, has requested the City to 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 repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are 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 $2,600. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Jay Hall, Utility Superintendent Reviewed by: Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Darla Monson, Senior Accountant Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4i) Page 2 Title: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3116 Salem Avenue South RESOLUTION NO. 17 - ____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 3116 SALEM AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 06-028-24-22-0054 WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3116 Salem 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 3116 Salem 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 Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3.The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $2,600. 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 4.00%. 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 November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4j EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution amending and restating Resolution 17-080 adopted on May 1, 2017. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Various conditions were established in the adopted resolution for PLACE’s final plat approval, including the payment of $532,738 in park and trail dedications fees. The approved resolution requires these park and trail dedication fees be paid prior to recording the plat with Hennepin County. Staff is recommending an amendment to the final plat resolution to require the park and trail dedications fees be paid to the city at time of closing for each property, replacing the current requirement of payment at time of the recording of the plat with Hennepin County. Based on fee calculations for each property, $393,013 would be collected at time of closing for the north side parcels and $139,725 would be collected at time of closing for the south parcels. The total amount of Park and Trail dedication fees would not change. The Economic Development Authority (EDA) is intending to convey the property to PLACE in two separate transactions. Given this situation, it is more appropriate for the city to collect the park and trail dedication fees upon the EDA transferring ownership of the property to the developer. Additionally, the amendment to the conditions allows the plat to be recorded as soon as possible. The recording legally establishes the correct property lines, easements, and right-of-ways. The plat needs to be recorded regardless of who owns the property, and will allow the use of the new legal descriptions in the transfer of the properties from the EDA to PLACE. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution Prepared by: Jennifer Monson, Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ Amends and Restates Resolution No. 17-080 A RESOLUTION AMENDING AND RESTATING RESOLUTION NO. 17-080 ADOPTED ON MAY 1, 2017 GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF PLACE WHEREAS, Resolution No. 17-080 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated May 1, 2017 approved a Preliminary and Final Plat, and said Resolution included conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of Resolution 17-080; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 17-080, to amend one of the conditions, and add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions related to the plat and applicable to the subject property in this resolution. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1.PLACE E-Generation One, LLC, subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as PLACE has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2.The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3.The proposed plat is situated upon the lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Conclusion 1.That Resolution No. 17-080 filed as Document Nos. A10448032 and T05450136 is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends the preliminary and final plat of PLACE 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 subject to the following conditions: a.The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the conditions of this ordinance, approved Official Exhibits, and City Code. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 3 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment b. All utility service structures shall be buried. If any utility service structure cannot be buried (i.e. electric transformer), it shall be integrated into the building design and 100% screened from off-site with materials consistent with the primary façade materials. c. Prior to the City signing and releasing the final plat to the developer for filing with Hennepin County: 1) The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $448,500 and trail dedication fee of $67,275 for residential uses and $16,963 for commercial uses. 2) 1) A financial security in the form of a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $1,000 shall be submitted to the City to insure that a signed Mylar copy of the final plat is provided to the City. 3) 2) A Planning Development Contract shall be executed between the City and Developer that addresses, at a minimum: 4) 3) The installation of all public improvements including, but not limited to: sidewalks, boulevards, and the execution of necessary easements related to such improvements. 5) 4) A performance guarantee for 1.25 times the estimated costs for the installation of all public and site improvements including public sidewalks, landscaping and lighting, on-street parking, placement of iron monuments at property corners, and the private site landscaping and irrigation, artwork, and Outdoor Recreation Areas. 6) 5) The applicant shall reimburse City Attorney’s fees in drafting/reviewing such documents as required in the final plat approval. 7) 6) The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the Planning Development Contract. d. Upon conveyance of property to the developer, the developer shall pay to the city the park dedication and trail dedication fees that are applicable to the property being conveyed. The fees are listed below: 1) The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $327,000 and trail dedication fee of $49,050 for the residential uses, and $16,963 park dedication fee for the commercial uses, associated with Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 1, Block 2, PLACE. 2) The developer shall pay to the city the park dedication fee of $121,500 and trail dedication fee of $18,225 for residential uses associated with Lot 1, Block 3, PLACE. 2. Prior to starting any land disturbing activities, the following conditions shall be met: a. Proof of recording the final plat shall be submitted to the City. b. Assent Form and Official Exhibits shall be signed by the applicant and property owner. c. A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the appropriate development, construction, private utility, and City representatives. d. All necessary permits shall be obtained. e. A performance guarantee in the form of cash escrow or irrevocable letter of credit shall be provided to the City of St. Louis Park for all public improvements (street, sidewalks, boulevards, utility, street lights, City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 4 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment landscaping, etc.) and the private site stormwater management system and landscaping. Prior to issuance of a building permit or building demolition: 1. The developer and contractor shall follow the procedures and requirements for this development as required for Demolition and New Construction or Major Additions to single- family homes are required to do under City Code 6-71 Construction Management Plan. 2. The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any condition of this approval. 3. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 4. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 5. 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 November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 5 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment EXHIBIT “A” LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS Parcel 1: That part of Lot 6, Block 23, St. Louis Park; also of Lots 11 to 15 inclusive, Block 23, Lots 19 to 28 inclusive, Block 23, Lot 5, Block 24 and of Block 20 vacated in "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" and also of Zarthan Avenue (formerly Earle Street), Walker Street (formerly Broadway), St. Louis Avenue and of alley in Block 23, said Rearrangement and of any vacated portion of said Rearrangement included in the following described lines: Beginning at a point on Northerly right of way line of The Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company (which right of way line is parallel with and distant 50 feet at right angles from the center line of the Southbound main track of said Railway Company as there now located), said point being 600 feet Southwesterly from intersection of said right of way with Southwesterly boundary line of Auditor's Subdivision No. 249, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence Northwesterly at right angles to said right of way 29 feet to a Judicial Landmark established in Torrens Case No. 7986; thence continuing Northwesterly on the last described course a distance of 166.5 feet to a Judicial Landmark established in Torrens Case No. 7986, the point of beginning of Line A to be described, thence Southwesterly on an extension of a line drawn between the last described Judicial Landmark and another Judicial Landmark to an intersection of said extended line with the Westerly line of Lot 6, Block 23, St. Louis Park, the termination of said Line A, the second Judicial Landmark above described being located as follows: Commencing at a point in the Southwesterly boundary line of Auditor's Subdivision No. 249, Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being distant Northwesterly 29 feet, measured at right angles from the Northerly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (which right of way line is parallel with and distant 50 feet at right angles from the center line of the South-bound main track of said Railway Company as there now located), thence Northwesterly along said Southwesterly line and the same extended 168.4 feet to the Judicial Landmark being described; thence Southerly along said Westerly line of Lot 6, Block 23, St. Louis Park to the Southwest corner of said Lot; thence Southerly to the most Westerly corner of Block 20 vacated, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park"; thence Southeasterly along Southwesterly line of said vacated Block 20 to the Northwesterly line of said right of way; thence Northeasterly along said right of way line to point of beginning; Except that part of Lot 6, Block 23, St. Louis Park and that part of Lots 19 to 25 inclusive, Block 23, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park" which lies Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point in the West line of said Lot 6 distant 35 feet South of the termination of said Line "A" to a point in said Line "A" distant 194 feet Northeasterly of the West line of said Lot 6. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1132767. Parcel 2: Those parts of Government Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 in Section 16, Township 117 North, Range 21 West of the Fifth Principal Meridian, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Northeasterly line of Wood Dale (or Pleasant Avenue), distant 50 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 6 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment Company (now the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company), as said main track center line was originally located and established across said Section 16; thence Northeasterly parallel with said original main track center line to a point distant 14 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (formerly Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company) spur track ICC No. 253, as said spur track is now located; thence Southwesterly parallel with said spur track center line to a point distant 30 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the center line of the main track of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company (formerly the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company, as said main track is now located; thence Southwesterly parallel with said last described main track center line to a point on the Northeasterly line, or the Southeasterly extension thereof, of said Wood Dale Avenue; thence Northwesterly along said Northeasterly line, or the Southeasterly extension thereof, of Wood Dale Avenue, to the point of beginning. Hennepin County, Minnesota (Abstract Property) Parcel 3: That part of Government Lot 5, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County , Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the Southwesterly boundary line of Auditor's Subdivision Two Hundred Forty Nine (249) of Government Lot 5, Section 16, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, according to the duly recorded plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being distant Northwestwardly 29 feet measured at right angles thereto from the Northerly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (which right of way line is parallel with and distant 50 feet at right angles from the center line of the southbound main track of said railway company as there now located), which point of beginning is marked by a judicial landmark marking the Southeasterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Southwestwardly parallel with said right of way line 600 feet to a judicial landmark marking the Southwesterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Northwestwardly at right angles 166.5 feet to a judicial landmark marking the Northwesterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Northeastwardly at approximately right angles, 600 feet to a point on the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly boundary line of said Auditor's Subdivision Two Hundred Forty Nine (249) to said Government Lot 5, which point is marked with a judicial landmark marking the Northeasterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Southeastwardly upon and along said Southwesterly boundary line, as extended, 168.4 feet to the point of beginning. Which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most northerly corner of the above described property; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly line of said described property a distance of 273.44 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly deflecting to the left 10 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds, 131.79 feet; thence southerly 122.40 feet along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 58 degrees 26 minutes 30 seconds; thence southerly, tangent to said curve, 30.99 feet; thence southwesterly 218.40 feet along a tangential curve concave to the west having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 69 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds and said line there terminating. Hennepin County, Minnesota. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 7 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1355392. Parcel 4: That part of Government Lot 5, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21, Hennepin County , Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the Southwesterly boundary line of Auditor's Subdivision Two Hundred Forty Nine (249) of Government Lot 5, Section 16, Township 117 North, Range 21 West, according to the duly recorded plat thereof and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota, said point being distant Northwestwardly 29 feet measured at right angles thereto from the Northerly right of way line of the Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company (which right of way line is parallel with and distant 50 feet at right angles from the center line of the southbound main track of said railway company as there now located), which point of beginning is marked by a judicial landmark marking the Southeasterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Southwestwardly parallel with said right of way line 600 feet to a judicial landmark marking the Southwesterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Northwestwardly at right angles 166.5 feet to a judicial landmark marking the Northwesterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Northeastwardly at approximately right angles, 600 feet to a point on the Northwesterly extension of the Southwesterly boundary line of said Auditor's Subdivision Two Hundred Forty Nine (249) to said Government Lot 5, which point is marked with a judicial landmark marking the Northeasterly corner of the tract herein described; thence Southeastwardly upon and along said Southwesterly boundary line, as extended, 168.4 feet to the point of beginning. Except that part which lies westerly of the following described line: Commencing at the most northerly corner of the above described property; thence southwesterly along the northwesterly line of said described property a distance of 273.44 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southwesterly deflecting to the left 10 degrees 51 minutes 16 seconds, 131.79 feet; thence southerly 122.40 feet along a tangential curve concave to the east having a radius of 120.00 feet and a central angle of 58 degrees 26 minutes 30 seconds; thence southerly, tangent to said curve, 30.99 feet; thence southwesterly 218.40 feet along a tangential curve concave to the west having a radius of 180.00 feet and a central angle of 69 degrees 31 minutes 00 seconds and said line there terminating. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1355391. Parcel 5: That part of Government Lot 5, Section 16, Township 117, Range 21, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of Auditor's Subdivision 249, distant 50 feet Northwesterly, measured at right angles, from the original main track center line of the Chicago and North Western Transportation Company as said main track center line was originally located and established across said Section 16; thence Southwesterly parallel with said center line a distance of 600 feet; thence Northwesterly at right angles to the last described course a distance of 29 feet; thence Northeasterly parallel with said original main track center line a distance of 600 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles a distance of 29 feet to the point of beginning. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 8 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment Hennepin County, Minnesota. (Abstract Property) Parcel 6: Tract A: That part of the following described property: That part of Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" and that part of the adjoining vacated alleys, all described as commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continuing Northeasterly along the last described course a distance of 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at a right angle 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at a right angle 86.47 feet to the actual point of beginning; thence continuing Northeasterly along the last described course to the center line of the vacated alley adjoining the East line of said Lots 20, 21, 22 and 23; thence South along said center line and its extension to the center line of the vacated alley adjoining the South line of said Lot 20, thence West along the last described center line to its intersection with the extension South of a line drawn from the actual point of beginning to a point on the South line of said Lot 20 distant 79 feet East from the Southwest corner of said Lot 20; thence North to the actual point of beginning; Which lies Westerly of the East line of Lot 7 of said Block 29, extended Northerly. Tract B: Lots 3, 4, 9, 10 and part of Lots 2 and 11, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", and part of Lots 20 to 23, both inclusive, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", and that part of vacated Zarthan Avenue, all being described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line, from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continue Northeasterly along said last described course 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at right angles 86.47 feet; thence Southerly a distance of 89.59 feet, more or less, to the North line of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park", said point being 79 feet East of the Southwest corner of Lot 20 in said Block 29; thence Westerly along the North line of said alley and the same extended to the West line of Zarthan Avenue; thence South along the West line of Zarthan Avenue to the Southerly corner of Lot 4, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park"; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Lot 4 to the Southeasterly corner of Lot 9 in said Block 30; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said Lot 9 to the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 9; thence Northwesterly along the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 to the place of beginning; Except that part of said Lot 4, Block 30, lying South of a line described as: Commencing at a point in the Southwest line of said Lot 4, distant 26 feet Northwest of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4, thence Northeast to a point in the East line of said Lot 4, distant 29 feet North of the most City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 9 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment Southerly corner. That part of Zarthan Avenue and that part of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" lying South of the North line of the alley in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" and the same extended West to the West line of said Zarthan Avenue, and Northwesterly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of Lot 4, Block 30, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 38.72 feet Northerly from the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4 to a point on the South line of Lot 20, Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" distant 6.7 feet East of the Southwest corner of said Lot 20. That part of the vacated East-West alley dedicated in Block 29, "Rearrangement Of St. Louis Park" which lies North of the center line of said alley and between the Southerly extensions of the West line of Lot 20, said Block and Addition, and the following described line: Commencing at a point on the Southwesterly line of said Block 30 distant 2.4 feet Southerly, measured along said Southwesterly line, from the Northwesterly corner of said Block 30; thence Northeasterly in a straight line to a point on the East line of said Block 30 distant 6.67 feet South, measured along said East line, from the Northeasterly corner of said Block 30; thence continue Northeasterly along said last described course 56.97 feet; thence Southeasterly at right angles 20.57 feet; thence Northeasterly at a right angle 86.47 feet to the actual point of beginning of the line to be described; thence South to a point on the South line of said Lot 20 distant 79 feet East from Southwest corner of said Lot 20. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 1124712. Parcel 7: Tract A: Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, Block 30, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 517068. Together with that part of the West 1/2 of all that part of vacated Earle St., aka Zarthan Ave., dedicated by the "Plat of St. Louis Park", lying northerly of Highland Ave., aka 36th St., and southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of the alley situated in Block 29, "Plat of St. Louis Park", which would accrue thereto by reason of the vacation thereof. Tract B: Parcel 1: That part of Lot 4, Block 30, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park", lying South of the following described line: Commencing at a point in the Southwest line of said Lot 4, 26 feet Northwest of the most Southerly corner of said Lot 4, thence Northeast to a point in the East line of said Lot 4, 29 feet North of the most Southerly corner. Together with that part of the West 1/2 of all that part of vacated Earle St., aka Zarthan City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 10 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment Ave., dedicated by the "Plat of St. Louis Park", lying northerly of Highland Ave., aka 36th St., and southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of the alley situated in Block 29, "Plat of St. Louis Park", which would accrue thereto by reason of the vacation thereof. Parcel 2: Lots 6 and 7, including that part of the adjoining vacated alley lying South of the center line thereof and between the extensions North to said center line of the West line of Lot 6 and the East line of Lot 7, all in Block 29, "St. Louis Park". Together with that part of the East 1/2 of all that part of vacated Earle St., aka Zarthan Ave., dedicated by the "Plat of St. Louis Park", lying northerly of Highland Ave., aka 36th St., and southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of the alley situated in Block 29, "Plat of St. Louis Park", which would accrue thereto by reason of the vacation thereof. Hennepin County, Minnesota. Being Registered land as is evidenced by Certificate of Title No. 525746. Parcel 8: Tract A: Lot 11; those parts of Lots 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 23, Block 29; those parts of Lots 2 and 11, Block 30; that part of the adjoining vacated north-south alley lying in Block 29, and vacated Zarthan Avenue, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park" described as follows: Commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence South 00 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East, assumed bearing, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6 a distance of 492.57 feet to the southerly right of way line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad, shown as the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway on said plat of "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park"; thence continuing South 00 degrees 14 minutes 49 seconds East along said west line 80.00 feet; thence South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West, 955.17 feet to the east line of said Lot 12 and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described: thence continuing South 65 degrees 52 minutes 15 seconds West, 162.71 feet to the southerly line of said Lot 14; thence North 88 degrees 58 minutes 35 seconds West, 18.23 feet along said southerly line and its westerly extension to the centerline of said alley; thence N0°57'33"E 4.17 feet along said centerline; thence S65°21'14"W 183.14 feet; thence N24°38'46"W 20.57 feet; thence S65°21'14"W 252.73 feet to the southwesterly line of said Lot 11, Block 30; thence N39°00'57"W 2.40 feet along said southwesterly line to the said southerly right of way line; thence N64°17'59"E 451.50 feet along said southerly right of way line; thence N64°21'45"E 185.28 feet along said southerly right of way line to the east line of said Lot 11, Block 29; thence southerly along the east line of said Lots 11 and 12 to the point of beginning. Tract B: Lot 6 and those parts of Lots 7, 8, and 11 thru 21, Block 25, "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park" described as follows: City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4j) Page 11 Title: PLACE Final Plat Resolution Amendment Commencing at the west quarter corner of Section 6, Township 28 North, Range 24 West of the 4th Principal Meridian, Hennepin County, Minnesota; thence S0°14'49"E, assumed bearing, along the west line of the Southwest Quarter of said Section 6 a distance of 492.57 feet to the southerly right of way line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad shown as the Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway in the plat of "Rearrangement of St. Louis Park"; thence continuing S0°14'49"E along said west line 80.00 feet; thence S65°52'15"W 526.90 feet to the east line of said Lot 7 and the point of beginning of the parcel to be described; thence continuing S65°52'15"W 361.97 feet to the west line of said Lot 21; thence N01°03'00"E 54.70 feet along said west lot line to said southerly railroad right of way line; thence N64°21'45"E 366.58 feet along said southerly right of way line to the east line of said Lot 6; thence southerly along the east line of said Lots 6 and 7 to the point of beginning. (Abstract Property) Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4k EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approve Out-of-State Travel for Mayor Jake Spano, November 7-8, 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve out-of-state travel to Washington D.C. for Mayor Spano on November 7th and 8th as part of a contingent of community and business leaders to advocate for transit development in the Twin Cities region. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Pursuant to MN Statute 471.661 and Resolution No. 06-007, City of St. Louis Park Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Policy, the Council is required to approve any travel outside the State of Minnesota for elected officials. On November 7-8th Mayor Jake Spano is traveling to Washington D.C. along with other elected and appointed officials and business leaders from the Twin Cities area to meet with the Acting Administrator of the FTA, and members of Congress and Senators from the MN delegation (and staff). The purpose of this trip is to advocate for the advancement of transit development, including SWLRT, in the Twin Cities region. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Travel expenses such as this are included in the city’s budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4l EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approve Out-of-State Travel for Mayor Jake Spano, Councilmember Tim Brausen and Councilmember Steve Hallfin, November 15 – 19, 2017 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve out-of-state travel for Mayor Spano, Councilmember Brausen and Councilmember Hallfin for the National League of Cities (NLC) City Summit in Charlotte, SC. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: Pursuant to MN Statute 471.661 and Resolution No. 06-007, City of St. Louis Park Elected Official Out-of-State Travel Policy, the Council is required to approve any travel outside the State of Minnesota for elected officials. Mayor Jake Spano, Councilmember Tim Brausen and Councilmember Steve Hallfin are traveling to Charlotte, SC to attend the NLC City Summit on November 15 – 19, 2017. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This is a 2017 budgeted item. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Consent Agenda Item: 4m OFFICIAL MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 4, 2017 – 6:00 p.m. COMMUNITY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich, MEMBERS ABSENT: Ethan Rickert (youth member) STAFF PRESENT: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Jennifer Monson 1. Call to Order 2. Approval of Minutes A. July 19, 2017 Commissioner Carper moved approval of the July 19, 2017 minutes. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-2 (Tatalovich and Kanne abstained). B. August 16, 2017 Commissioner Johnston-Madison moved approval of the August 16, 2017 minutes. Commissioner Carper seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-2 (Person and Robertson abstained). C. September 6, 2017 Commissioner Robertson moved approval of the September 6, 2017 minutes. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0-2 (Tatalovich and Person abstained). 3. Public Hearings A. Platia Place – Preliminary Plat; Preliminary PUD Location: 9808 and 9920 Wayzata Boulevard Applicant: SLP Venture Properties Case No.: 17-19-S and 17-20-PUD Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. She stated the application was previously presented on June 21, 2017, at which time the City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4 m) Page 2 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2017 Commission moved to table the application pending additional information needed from the applicant. Ms. Kramer explained that previously the application was short on parking but now both lots meet the city’s minimum parking requirements. Ms. Kramer reviewed building materials. For approval of the Final PUD staff suggests requiring submittal of material samples for review. Ms. Kramer noted that at the June 21st presentation the application had planting shortfalls. These have improved significantly since last time but there are still some shortfalls on the apartment site. She said there is a shortfall of 65 trees and 303 shrubs. There are also alternative landscaping features including 396 perennial plantings on the south side of the residential lot. She said that alternative landscaping requirements are features that are not necessarily plantings but also contribute to the design of the site. Other features that could be used here include green roofs, roof top gardens and public art. Ms. Kramer said staff found a shortfall in DORA on the hotel site. Staff suggests a revised DORA plan showing at least 12% DORA on the hotel lot as a condition of approval. Ms. Kramer reviewed zoning compliance factors. Ms. Kramer reviewed all conditions to be met before approval of the Final Plat and Final PUD by the City Council. Chair Peilen said at the first presentation there was a shortfall of landscaping materials. She asked now that it has come up again is there something about the lot that makes it more difficult to meet requirements. Ms. Kramer said the green spaces available on site are fully landscaped and the building footprint takes up a large part of the site. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she isn’t pleased with the privacy screening wall between adjacent buildings being considered as an articulation element. She said she hasn’t seen this in an y other projects. Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said he wasn’t aware of any time that particular method has been used. He explained that the requirement is related to building elevations that are visible from off-site. There is limited public visibility to this particular elevation because of trees along that side as well as the adjacent parking ramp. For that reason staff was willing to put that forward to the Commission for comment. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said we’re still looking at the same engineering comments that need to be met. She asked if that is normal to still be looking at the same items. She said she’s also concerned about the look of the building even though it’s a view not necessarily seen by the public. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4 m) Page 3 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2017 Commissioner Carper asked if the buildings will include electric car charging ports. Ms. Kramer said she wasn’t aware of any charge stations on the site. Commissioner Kanne asked if is there a reason why exterior materials need some discussion and why they need further review or approval by staff. Ms. Kramer stated that the applicant has provided an extensive table showing breakdown of materials on each façade with a label. The request for samples is just to confirm, for example, the stucco and other elements are correct. She said the city has received samples for other projects and this is something we’ve done in the past. Bill Stoddard, applicant, said regarding exterior façade, they tried to differentiate in a number of ways including green planting on facades, green roof tray planting systems, masonry to the pool deck, addition of stucco and removal of some siding. He said electric charge stations are a good idea. Mr. Stoddard said they’ve put a lot of plantings on the site and they request some consideration for plantings at the apartment site. The north side façade faces a parking ramp. He stated they are building an expensive building with a lot of good materials. If they differentiate more that affects the size of the building and unit counts. He said they’d like some consideration on the plantings and DORA for the hotel. Commissioner Robertson had questions about accessible parking spaces on the opposite side of drive aisles. Mr. Stoddard said they would look at changing those. Commissioner Carper recommended putting in channels for electric charging stations to accommodate future need. Commissioner Robertson said it’s a nice project and looks very good. Chair Peilen re-opened the public hearing. Jerry Kern, 1155 Ford Road, #316, said he also spoke at the June 21, 2017 meeting. His building is right next to the development. He spoke about his support for the development. The vacant lot looks terrible and has become a dumping site. He said the developer is willing to put two beautiful buildings and landscaping on the property. He asked the Commission for their approval. He said he is tired of the delay and hopes the Commission will work with the developer to move forward. He commented that the remaining concerns are very small and he has confidence the developer will meet those concerns. As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Kanne said she likes the project and it makes a lot of sense. She said the details in these projects are important and we need to make sure we get those details City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4 m) Page 4 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2017 right. She said there needs to be more discussion on the planting situation. She stated that St. Louis Park has always had a standard of mature trees, lots of shrubs, and a beautiful environment for a first ring suburb and we need to stay on that path. Chair Peilen said the project looks good but she wishes the list of things that need to be done wasn’t quite so long. She said she would support the project provided the conditions are met. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she knows the property has long been in need of development and she is glad someone has come forward to do that. She said she appreciates that it is a difficult lot. She added that she has never been totally comfortable with the application and she will have to abstain from voting. Commissioner Person and Mr. Walther spoke about the city’s green building policy. Mr. Walther discussed the climate action plan of the city. Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary PUD with conditions as recommended by staff. Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1 (Johnston- Madison abstained). 4. Other Business 5. Communications 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 4, 2017 6:00 P.M. 1. Mixed-Use Zoning District Concept Review – Façade Details and Screening Jennifer Monson, Planner, asked the Commission for their feedback on façade details and screening options for new mixed-use buildings within proposed amendments to the mixed-use zoning ordinance. Commissioners commented that all the new mixed-use buildings are looking the same. Commissioner Kanne asked if there has ever been a conversation about what makes a classic look. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4 m) Page 5 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2017 Commissioner Robertson commented that he understands the desire to have good looking buildings. He said sometimes being too prescriptive makes things start to look the same. He commented that transparency for ground floor commercial does give pedestrians a sense of safety. He doesn’t know if it’s necessary to zone for it. Ms. Monson spoke about the ability in the PUD process to negotiate on the amount of fenestration on the ground floor and making sure that fenestration is transparent. Ms. Monson spoke about the responsibility of planners and the Commission to make sure the public realm is what it should be. Commissioner Robertson said basically it goes back to form-based zoning. How does the building relate to the street? Not just the height but the building envelope. Commissioner Carper discussed commonly designed flat street level entrys differentiated by color. He discussed the use of in-set doorways which are seen in older buildings. He noted that design does take away from square footage, however. Chair Peilen spoke about balance. She said a development needs guidelines but they shouldn’t be too prescriptive as ideas of beauty change. Buildings should have character. Commissioner Robertson stated we don’t need zoning to do good design. A client wants unique, good design. Chair Peilen spoke about building materials and commented that building materials over the years change what we get. Ms. Monson said the city’s current architectural standards are pretty basic and pretty easy to apply. They require 60% of the building to be Class I materials. They don’t specify transparency of ground floor currently but she suggested a certain percentage should be included as a minimum. Commissioner Robertson said maybe at corners or around the entry we want a bit of transparency. He said he doesn’t know of any architect who thinks the 60% requirement is restrictive. There are so many materials which can be used. He suggested not specifying what architects have to do; but making it clear what they can’t do. Ms. Monson commented that we are trying to make the best projects for the city and the long term. Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner, discussed façade planes, which allows flexibility through ratios and divisions that are offset from the rest of the facade. That can provide consideration of the overall area, breaks up building mass, creates visual interest and improves interaction with the street. We want our focus to always consider the pedestrian and public realm. Ms. Kramer discussed higher standards for prominent building corners. Commissioner Robertson asked if that is done through setbacks. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 4 m) Page 6 Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2017 Ms. Kramer spoke about corner features, pedestrian plazas, special roof forms and more visibility at prominent building corners. Commissioners said they were interested in seeing corner standards included in an M-X amendment. Ms. Monson discussed side and rear screening so that landscaping and screening can benefit adjacent residential buildings as well as the mixed use buildings, sometimes creating a special neighborhood space. She also spoke about the Guidelines for the South Side of Excelsior Blvd. which included creating a 10 ft. wide zone that includes a fence and landscaping buffer to separate the more intense uses in M-X or commercial from the residential buildings. Commissioner Kanne said she liked the idea of special areas as discussed, adding that it seemed very area-specific. Ms. Monson suggested the next study session could include more on building design, as well as site design, circulation access and loading docks. Commissioner Robertson commented that loading dock areas are changing by becoming smaller and more efficient. The study session was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Recording Secretary Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 5a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Approve Appointment of Youth Representative to Environment & Sustainability Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to appoint Lukas Wrede to the Environment and Sustainability Commission for the current term ending August 31, 2018. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to appoint Lukas Wrede to serve on the Environment and Sustainability Commission as a youth member? SUMMARY: The City received an application from Lukas Wrede to serve as a youth member on the Environment and Sustainability Commission. Mr. Wrede has already been actively participating in activities with the Environment and Sustainability Commission, including participating in the Energy Action Plan and Climate Action Plan initiatives. Youth members are appointed to one-year terms, beginning on August 31 of each year. Following appointment by council, Mr. Wrede will go through an orientation program with the staff liaison prior to the start of his term. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None Prepared by: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Consulting Services for Fastpitch Softball Fields at Aquila Park RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to authorize entering into a contract with WSB & Associates to provide for design and construction administration services for two fastpitch softball fields at Aquila Park, also known as Option 1C. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to proceed with this project? SUMMARY: At the October 9, 2017 Study Session, Council directed staff to pursue Option 1C at Aquila Park which would reorient and create two fastpitch softball fields. Staff has been working with Candace Amberg, Landscape Architect from WSB, on field layouts and cost estimates. In Option 1C, fields four and one would be unavailable throughout construction. The high school girl’s fastpitch team, as well as the girl’s fastpitch association, will have to find alternative sites for their 2018/19 seasons. As with the other options, the City’s adult softball program would also be permanently impacted. NEXT STEPS: The demolition of the lights and removal of fences could begin this fall, provided we do not have a lot of snow before the end of the year. Staff would work with WSB to prepare plans and specifications with the hope of bidding in early 2018. Staff would like construction to begin in spring of 2018 (weather permitting) with a goal of seeding the site in August or early September of 2018. To allow the grass adequate time to take root, experts recommend that new fields not be played on until the following fall of 2019. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Contract with WSB & Associates is for $115,800. The contract includes design, permitting, geotechnical, Phase 1 Environmental Assessment, bidding documents, construction administration, inspections and survey of the site. At this time the estimate for the fastpitch softball improvements at Aquila Park is $1.2 million (includes costs of contract with WSB; does not include cost for lights as this work was planned to be done with our without this project). The current Park Improvement Fund Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) will be adjusted to include this project After taking into consideration the projects already included in the CIP, and assuming no other outside funding would be provided or available, the following funding options are suggested at this time: $1,200,000 = G.O. Bonds $400,000 / Park Improvement Fund $800,000. We are also applying for a $400,000 grant from the Hennepin Youth Sports Grant. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Professional Services Proposal from WSB & Associates Reviewed by: Cynthia S. Walsh, Operations and Recreation Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Consulting Services for Fastpitch Softball Fields at Aquila ParkPage 2 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Consulting Services for Fastpitch Softball Fields at Aquila ParkPage 3 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8a) Title: Consulting Services for Fastpitch Softball Fields at Aquila ParkPage 4 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution rescinding Resolution No. 91-50, and granting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with Variance for the construction of mechanical equipment and screening wall at Water Treatment Plant No. 4, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the CUP and variance requests meet the criteria of the zoning ordinance? SUMMARY: The city-owned well house at 4701 West 41st Street has been off-line pending improvements to the plant since December, 2016. The St. Louis Park Engineering Department requests approval of a conditional use permit and variance to make exterior improvements to the water treatment facility. These improvements will include the installation of a remote radiator and screening wall on the east side of the building, in order to re-open the facility and improve water treatment capacity. The city previously approved a Special Use Permit and two setback variances for this facility in 1991. A conditional use permit is required for a public services facility in an R-1 district. A variance is requested to reduce the front setback from 30 feet to 15 feet to allow construction of mechanical equipment and a screening wall on the east side of the building. A neighborhood meeting was held regarding the project and applications on October 19, 2017. Five neighboring residents attended. Overall, residents expressed support of the project and the improvements to the water treatment plant. The Planning Commission conducted the public hearing, at which point no one testified. The Planning Commission recommended approval on a 6-0 vote (see attached minutes) FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Draft Resolution Resolution 91-50 Planning Commission Minutes Development Plans Prepared by: Jacquelyn Kramer, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance DISCUSSION REQUEST: St. Louis Park Engineering Department requests a conditional use permit and variance application to make exterior improvements to Water Treatment Plant No. 4 on the parcel located at 4701 West 41st Street. The improvements to Water Treatment Plant No. 4, including the installation of a remote radiator and screening wall on the east side of the building, will allow the city to re-open the facility and improve water treatment capacity. A conditional use permit is required for a public services facility in an R-1 district. A variance is requested to reduce the front setback from 30 feet to 15 feet to allow construction of the radiator and screening wall on the east side of the building. The city previously approved a Special Use Permit and two setback variances in 1991. The recommended action would grant an additional setback variance, and rescind and replace the previous Special Use Permit with a Conditional Use Permit. LOCATION: Comprehensive Plan: RL Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The parcel is located on the border with the city of Edina. Adjacent uses include single family residential homes to the north and east and the Susan Lindgren Elementary School to the south and west. ZONING ORDINANCE ANALYSIS: Conditional Use Permit Analysis: Water Treatment No. 4 falls under the “Public Services Structures” land use category, which is a use permitted by conditional use permit in the R-1 district. The application meets all the general conditions and R-1 zoning district conditionals use requirements for Public Service Structures. The specific findings are listed in the attached draft resolution. Variance Analysis: A variance is requested for the outdoor remote radiator enclosure proposed along the east wall of the existing building. The proposed variance would reduce the front setback of the parcel from 30 feet to 15 feet to accommodate the radiator and screening wall. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance For all appearances, the front yard of the site is the north side of the site along 41st Street West. However, technically, the shortest lot line on this corner lot is on the east side, along Natchez Avenue. Because of the unique characteristics of the site, the east yard is the optimal location for the radiator and screening wall. The application meets all criteria for granting a variance, as listed in the findings of fact in the attached draft resolution. Public Process: A neighborhood meeting was held regarding the project and applications on October 19, 2017. Five neighboring residents attended. Overall, residents expressed support of the project and the improvements to the water treatment plant. The planning commission conducted the public hearing, at which no one testified. The planning commission recommended approval on a 6-0 vote. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 4 Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 17-____ A RESOLUTION RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 91-50 AND GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCE UNDER SECTIONS 36-33 AND 36- 34 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO REDUCE FRONT SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4701 41ST STREET WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has made application to the City Council for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with Variance for Water Treatment Plant No. 4, located at 4701 41st Street, having the following legal description: That part of the north 150 feet of said Lot 7, Yale Land Company’s Garden Lots, lying east of a line drawn southerly at right angles from the north line of said Lot 7, from a point therein 200 feet southwesterly of the northeasterly corner thereof along the line of said Lot 7. Said north 150 feet to be measured at right angles to the Northwest line of said Lot 7. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park hereby makes the following findings of fact: FINDINGS 1. The City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case No. 17-26-CUP and 17-27-VAR and the effect of the proposed Public Services Structure and variance on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the variance on the Comprehensive Plan; and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Water Treatment Plant No. 4 is a Public Services Structure and is permitted by conditional use permit in the R-1 zoning district. 3. The proposal meets all the general standards and conditions for a CUP: a. The proposal is consistent with and supportive of principles, goals, and implementation strategies of the comprehensive plan. b. The proposal is not detrimental to the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. There are no undue adverse impacts on properties in close proximity to the site. c. The proposal is compliant with all relevant city codes. d. The proposal will have no undue adverse impacts on governmental facilities or services, and will in fact improve water treatment services in the city. e. The proposal is consistent with all site design and landscape plan requirements, and the plans will be adopted as part of the conditions imposed on the use by the Council. f. The proposal is consistent with the City’s stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water plans. g. The proposal complies with all conditions imposed by the Council and listed within the conditional use permit. 4. The proposal meets the following specific standards and conditions for a Public Services Structure located in the R-1 zoning district: a. All exterior faces of the building meets the city’s architectural material standards. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 5 Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance b. All structures are located a minimum of 15 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential and used or subdivided for residential use, or has an occupied institutional building. c. All service drives are paved. 5. The proposal meets the following criteria necessary to grant a variance: a. The proposal will improve the overall health, safety and welfare of the community by allowing Water Treatment Plant No. 4 to operate at optimal conditions. b. The proposal places an accessory structure in what is functionally a side yard. The variance will decrease the setback of this yard to allow the structure to conform to the zoning ordinance. This request is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. c. The proposed variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it enhances the ability of the Utilities Department to fulfill its mission of providing an uninterrupted supply of safe, high quality water to its customers. d. The proposal establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. i. The proposed use of a remote radiator for an emergency generator is permitted in the zoning district. ii. The variance is needed due to circumstances unique to the Water Treatment Plant No. 4 property. Steep slopes preclude placing the radiator on the south side of the site, and an underground tank north of the existing building cannot support the weight of the radiator. iii. The screening wall location minimizes the visual impact of the facility from adjacent parcels. The material of the screening wall will match the materials used in the existing building, and thus will not alter the essential character of the locality. iv. The choice of radiator and location of the facility were made to maximize efficiency and service to residents while also minimizing the impact to adjacent parcels. The practical difficulties of the site do not merely include economic considerations. e. The unique orientation of the property created a need for the variance. The technical front yard is on the east side along Natchez Avenue, while the functional front yard is on the north side along 41st Street West. f. The variance is necessary for the optimal operation of the water treatment plant. g. The variance will create no undue adverse impacts on nearby properties. h. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty. The remote radiator must be located near the emergency generator it will serve; this generator will be located in the northeast corner of the existing building. 6. The contents of Case No. 17-26-CUP and 17-27-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 91-50 is hereby rescinded, and the Conditional Use Permit with Variance to allow the Public Services Structure and a reduction in front setback from 30 feet to 15 feet is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Page 6 Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance 1. The property shall be used and developed in accordance with the attached Exhibit A: Site Plan, Exhibit B: Grading Plan, Exhibit C: Landscaping Plan, Exhibit D: First Floor Plan, and Exhibit E: Building Elevations. 2.All required permits shall be obtained prior to starting construction, including but not limited to City of St. Louis Park Erosion Control and Building Permits. 3.Under the Zoning Ordinance, this permit shall be revoked and cancelled if the use for which the conditional use permit and variance ceases. 4.Assent form and official exhibits shall be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk IIRESOLUTION NO. 91-50 A RESOLUTION GRANTING SPECIAL (CONDITIONAL USE) PERMIT UNDER SECTIONS 14-131(1) AND 14-126(1) OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MUNICIPAL WELL HOUSE AND WATER TREATMENT FACILITY FOR PROPERTY ZONED R-2, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT LOCATED AT 4701 WEST 41ST STREET. BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. The City of St. Louis Park has made application to the City Council for a special permit under Sections 14-131(1) and 14-126(1) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code for the purpose of permitting the construction of a municipal well house and water treatment facility within a R-2, Single Family Residence District, located at 4701 West 41st Street for the legal description as follows, to-wit: That part of the north 150 feet of said Lot 7, Yale Land Company's Garden Lots, lying east of a line drawn southerly at right angles form the north line of said Lot 7, from a point therein 200 feet southwesterly of the northeasterly corner thereof along the line of said Lot 7. Said north 150 feet to be measured at right angles to the Northwest line of said Lot 7 (Abstract) 2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 91-1-SP) and the effect of the proposed municipal well house and water treatment facility on the health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The Council has determined that the municipal well house and water treatment facility will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed well house and water treatment facility is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 91-1-SP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Conclusion The special permit to permit construction of a municipal well house and water treatment facility at the location described is granted based on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions: City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance Page 7 1.The site shall be developed,used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A Demolition and Site Preparation Plan, Exhibit B - Grading and Drainage Plan, Exhibit C - Landscape Plan and Exhibit D - Building Elevations, such IIIdocumentsincorporatedbyreferenceherein. 2.Erosion control measures specified on the plan shall be maintained until such time as the southerly slope is permanently stabilized through vegetative means or other measures. 3. All improvements shall be completed prior to issuance of an Occupancy Permit. Adopted by the City Council March 4, 1991 G-) I Mayo A6TTEST: mgdri... qty Reviewed for administration: Approved as to form and execution: i M4 ea-4ICityManagertyAttorney 91-1-SP:RES3 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance Page 8 Excerpts – Unofficial Minutes Planning Commission October 18, 2017 Members Present: Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Torrey Kanne, Richard Person, Carl Robertson, Joe Tatalovich Members Absent: Lisa Peilen, Ethan Rickert (youth member) Staff Present: Sean Walther, Jacquelyn Kramer, Gary Morrison 3.Public Hearings A.Water Treatment Plant 4 – Amendment to Conditional Use Permit with Variance Location: 4701 West 41st Street Applicant: City of St. Louis Park Case No.: 17-26-CUP, 17-27-VAR Jacquelyn Kramer, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. She explained that the city Engineering Department has requested the applications to make exterior improvements to a stormwater treatment facility on the property. The amendment to the conditional use permit is required for a public services facility in an R-1 district. The variance is required to reduce the front setback from 30 ft. to 15 ft. to allow construction of mechanical equipment and a screening wall on the east side of the building. Ms. Kramer provided an analysis of the conditional use permit. The application meets all requirements. Ms. Kramer discussed the request for variance needed for the remote radiator enclosure along the outside east wall of the existing building. She explained how the variance request meets all criteria for granting a variance. Ms. Kramer noted a neighborhood meeting was held with five residents in attendance. She said overall residents expressed support of the project and the improvements. She said current and future landscaping was discussed. Vice Chair Robertson and Ms. Kramer discussed the side yard setback. Ms. Kramer noted that because of the unique characteristics of the site, the east yard is the optimal location for the radiator and screening wall. Vice Chair Robertson opened the public hearing. As no one was present wishing to speak, the Vice Chair closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tatalovich made a motion recommending approval of the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and Variance for decreasing the front setback from 30 feet to 15 feet. Commissioner Johnston-Madison seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance Page 9 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance Page 10 NATCHEZ AVE.41st S T R E E T WELL 4 WATER TREATMENT FACILITY N = 1032033.707 E = 2795607.419 N = 1031951.130 E = 2795791.109 N = 1032114.822 E = 2795790.211 SERVWELL 4 WATER TREATMENT FACILITY Printed on ___% Post-Consumer Recycled Content Paper KEY PLAN CONSULTANT AECOM 800 LASALLE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 612.376.2000 tel 612.376.2271 fax www.aecom.com PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER 60513153ANSI D 22" x 34"Last saved by: ARMITAGED(2017-09-29) Last Plotted: 2017-09-30Filename: P:\60489570\900_WORK\910-CAD\SLP4\20-SHEETS\C\60489570_SITE-PLAN-WTP-04_02-C-02.DWGREGISTRATIONREGISTRATIONREGISTRATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTEREDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DATE: ____________ REG. NO. _____________PAUL HERUBINSEPT. 201745243Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: DMA AMG JFLLast saved by: ARMITAGED(2017-09-29) Last Plotted: 2017-09-30Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved:_______________Filename: P:\60489570\900_WORK\910-CAD\SLP4\20-SHEETS\C\60489570_SITE-PLAN-WTP-04_02-C-02.DWGI/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION SHEET TITLE UTILITY PLAN/GRADING PLAN DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 02-C-02 00 10'20' 1" = 10' N SITE PLAN CATCH BASIN (ROUND) MANHOLE STORM GAS METER GUARD POST/BOLLARD SIGN POST MANHOLE SANITARY FIRE HYDRANT U.G. WATER VALVE ELECTICAL PEDESTAL GUY ANCHOR POWER POLE TELEPHONE PEDESTAL DECIDUOUS TREE CONIFEROUS TREE LEGEND LANDSCAPE 1' CONTOUR 5' CONTOUR U.G. STORM SEWER U.G. GAS LINE U.G. ELECTRIC LINE U.G. TELEPHONE LINE U.G. SANITARY SEWER ROAD CENTERLINE BUILDING PROPERTY LINE CONSTRUCTION GRADING AND SEEDING LIMITS CONTACT TANK VENT PLAN NOTES 4 CONSTRUCTION GRADING AND SEEDING LIMITS 1 3 2 NEW 6" WATER LINE.1 NEW 6" TAPPING GATE VALVE.2 EXISTING 10" WATER MAINS.3 4 PROVIDE 36" CLEAR SPACE AROUND PERIMETER OF REMOTE RADIATOR. 5 NEW SIDEWALK, SEE ST. LOUIS PARK SIDEWALK DETAIL PLATE NO. ST-9, SHOWN ABOVE. 5 ADJACENT TO BUILDING 02-002 TYPICAL GRADING 6 6 GRADING NEAR STRUCTURES, SEE DETAIL 02-002. 6 SIDEWALK DETAIL PLATE NO. ST-9 7 8 7 EXISTING NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO BE ABANDONED IN-PLACE BY OTHERS. 8 NEW NATURAL GAS SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 11 OF 83 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance Page 11 N = 1032033.707 E = 2795607.419 N = 1032114.822 E = 2795790.211 N = 1031951.130 E = 2795791.109 WELL 4 WATER TREATMENT FACILITY Printed on ___% Post-Consumer Recycled Content Paper KEY PLAN CONSULTANT AECOM 800 LASALLE AVENUE MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 612.376.2000 tel 612.376.2271 fax www.aecom.com PROJECT PROJECT NUMBER 60513153ANSI D 22" x 34"Last saved by: ARMITAGED(2017-10-18) Last Plotted: 2017-10-18Filename: P:\60489570\900_WORK\910-CAD\SLP4\20-SHEETS\C\60489570_SITE-PLAN-WTP-04_02-C-03.DWGREGISTRATIONREGISTRATIONREGISTRATION I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN,SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDBY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISIONAND THAT I AM A DULY REGISTEREDPROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.DATE: ____________ REG. NO. _____________PAUL HERUBINOCT. 201745243Project Management Initials: Designer: Checked: Approved: DMA AMG JFLLast saved by: ARMITAGED(2017-10-18) Last Plotted: 2017-10-18Filename: P:\60489570\900_WORK\910-CAD\SLP4\20-SHEETS\C\60489570_SITE-PLAN-WTP-04_02-C-03.DWGI/R DATE DESCRIPTION ISSUE/REVISION SHEET TITLE CIVIL LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN DRAWING NUMBER SHEET NUMBER 02-C-03 00 10'20' 1" = 10' N SITE PLAN 1 PLAN NOTES REMOVE EXISTING TREE 2 2 NO P A R KI N G NO P A R KI N G 41st S T R E E T NATCHEZ AVE.PARKING PERMISSIBLE WITH CITY'S PERMISSION.3 BOXELDER BLUE SPRUCE CRABAPPLE AMERICAN ELM AMUR MAPLE AUSTRIAN PINE GREEN ASH SIBERIAN ELM MULBERRY LANDSCAPE LEGEND WHITE CEDAR SHRUB PLANTING EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING TREE PLANTING REMOVE EXISTING SHRUBS 1 4 SAVE SHRUB IF POSSIBLE, IF NOT REMOVE SHRUB PER PLAN NOTE 1. REMOVE SHRUBS. REMOVE TREE, REPLACEMENT TREE TO BE PLANTED AT ALTERNATIVE SITE IN CITY. (SEE GENERAL NOTES) 1. SLP UTILITIES WILL WORK WITH THE SLP FORESTRY DEPT. TO PLANT TREES AND SHRUBS IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. 2. LANDSCAPING IS DONE BY OTHERS. GENERAL NOTES 4 SAVE TREE IF POSSIBLE, IF NOT REMOVE TREE PER PLAN NOTE 2. 3 SHRUBS 14 11 12 13 9 10 8 15 16 17 18 22 21 19 20 23 24 25 26 31 30 32 29 28 27 33 34 3 35 5 4 6 7 2 1 LEGEND OF TREES LEGEND OF TREES TREE NO.NAME DIAMETER TREE NO.NAME DIAMETER 1 AMUR MAPLE 11 21 SIBERIAN ELM 7 2 CRABAPPLE 10 22 SIBERIAN ELM 21 3 AUSTRIAN PINE 13 23 BOXELDER 11 4 AUSTRIAN PINE 15 24 BOXELDER 22 5 AMUR MAPLE 14 25 BOXELDER 15 6 AMUR MAPLE 9 26 BOXELDER 14 7 AUSTRIAN PINE 15 27 AMERICAN ELM 18 8 AUSTRIAN PINE 11 28 BOXELDER 12 9 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 11 29 BOXELDER 16 10 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 10 30 BOXELDER 8 11 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 8 31 BOXELDER 8 12 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 13 32 AMERICAN ELM 13 13 COLORADO BLUE SPRUCE 13 33 MULBERRY 8 14 BOXELDER 7 34 AUSTRIAN PINE 10 15 AMERICAN ELM 15 35 WHITE CEDAR 5 16 BOXELDER 8 17 AMERICAN ELM 7 18 AMERICAN ELM 9 19 GREEN ASH 6 20 SIBERIAN ELM 20 SHRUB PLANTING AREAS 5 PLANT APPROXIMATELY (35) SHRUBS OF SPIREA AND LOW GROWTH SUMAC IN THIS AREA. 6 PLANT APPROXIMATELY (55) SHRUBS OF KARL FOERSTER GRASS AND VIBURNUM IN THIS AREA. 5 6 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with Variance Page 12 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with VariancePage 13 32 OF 83City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8b) Title: Water Treatment Plant No. 4 – Conditional Use Permit with VariancePage 14 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Solid Waste Collection Contracts - Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to authorize staff to issue a Request for Proposals for 2018-2023 Solid Waste Collection Services. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council agree with the program changes included in the Request for Proposals (RFP)? SUMMARY: The current 2013 - 2018 solid waste collection contracts expire September 30, 2018. Staff is preparing the Request for Proposals (RFP) document for the upcoming five years based on input received from the City Council during the May 22 and September 11, 2017 study session discussions and feedback obtained from residents through a survey conducted July 2017. As discussed with Council during study sessions, the new significant items or major program changes that are being proposed in the RFP include: General – Encouraging alternate bids for alternate methods of collection, allowing 5-plex to 8- plex multi-family buildings with similar collection needs into city collection program; requiring hauler participation in city pilot projects and coordination of educational tours. Recycling – Requesting price quotes for both every week and every other week recycling collection; allowing options for revenue sharing. Garbage – Requesting price quotes for every week and every other week garbage collection for 20-gallon and 30-gallon service levels; eliminating the 450-gallon and 540-gallon service levels. Organics Recycling – Requesting price quotes for both organics co-collected with yard waste and organics collected separately; adding more multi-family drop-sites (pilot successfully completed); allowing alternative transfer and processing locations. Yard Waste – Eliminating “no grass clippings” yard waste credit. Staff is finalizing the RFP to incorporate items from Council study sessions, as well as best practices found in recent contracts from other cities in the metro area. A detailed summary of the new significant items or major program changes and an updated timeline for next steps are provided in the “Discussion” section of this report. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Prepared by: Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent Cynthia S. Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Title: Solid Waste Collection Contracts - Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals DISCUSSION Background At the May 22, 2017 study session, staff provided information about the solid waste program’s history, current program makeup, program goals, and proposed program changes for consideration by Council. In July 2017 staff completed a survey to gauge resident’s satisfaction with the solid waste program and asked what changes they would like to see. The pertinent data from the survey was shared with Council during the September 11, 2017 study session. At the September 11, 2017 study session, staff checked-in with Council on the items of significance that will be added into the RFP as a result of the May study session discussion and resident survey. Staff also provided updates on how the organics recycling program, every-other- week garbage and multi-family organics drop-site pilot projects will be incorporated into the RFP. Request for Proposal (RFP) new significant items or major program changes As a result of the discussion with Council and staff research, the following items are being incorporated or removed from the RFP. One change to note since the September 11 study session is the organics recycling collection methods. The RFP will request quotes on both co-collected with yard waste and organics only collection. General •Collection methods: The RFP will request price quotes for the current methods of collection, but also encourage quotes for alternate methods of collection for any of the material streams collected through the city’s residential collection program. •Multi-family: Expand multifamily collection by allowing 5-plex to 8-plex multi-family buildings and other buildings, with individual unit collection, that have similar collection needs, on existing collection routes, to opt-in to city collection program for all material streams. This would require collection in carts and the capability to be invoiced through the city’s utility billing system. •Pilot projects: Past RFPs have not addressed pilot projects. The RFP language would require the haulers to provide services outlined by the city for pilot projects during the contract period. •Education: Require haulers to provide educational tours for residents, either at their own facilities, or by coordinating tours at other facilities that accept the city’s material or local recycling facilities that manufacture new products from recycled material. Recycling •Collection frequency: Require price quotes for both every week and every other week recycling collection. •Revenue sharing: Allow options for revenue sharing to include either pricing by market indexes or by blended value; both are typical revenue share options and have been used previously by the city. Garbage •Collection frequency: Request price quotes for both every week garbage collection for all service levels (20-gallon through 360-gallon service levels) and every other week garbage collection for the 20-gallon and 30-gallon service levels. •450-gallon and 540-gallon service levels: Eliminate these service levels in order to encourage waste reduction. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Title: Solid Waste Collection Contracts - Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals Organics Recycling & Yard Waste • Collection methods: Request price quotes for both organics co-collected with yard waste, and source-separated organics where organics are collected separate from other materials. Also allow alternate collection options. • Drop-sites: Add multi-family drop-site collection, with more than the three sites used in the pilot program. • Alternate locations: Remove site specific language to allow delivery of the materials to alternate transfer sites and processing locations as determined by the city without requiring contract changes. • Credit: Eliminate the “no grass clippings” yard waste credit due to inability to track use and shift the savings to support future program initiatives. Proposed Process for Solid Waste Collection Contracts / Timeline New contracts for garbage, recycling, organics recycling and yard waste collection should be awarded before the end of March, 2018 to allow contractors time to adequately prepare for staffing and equipment needs to provide the services. If this deadline cannot be met, extensions of the current contracts may need to be negotiated. Listed below is a schedule showing major steps to develop and award new collection contracts. Item Completion Date Council authorizes solicitation for proposals Nov. 2017 Staff sends out RFPs to selected vendors Nov. 2017 Staff receives and evaluates proposals Nov. – Dec. 2017 Proposals and staff recommendations reviewed with Council Jan. 2018 Staff negotiates collection contracts with vendors Jan. – Feb. 2018 Council approves new collection contracts March 2018 Staff conducts public education outreach with residents April – Sept. 2018 New collection contracts begin Oct. 1, 2018 Next steps for the RFP listed above are based on the timeline outlined in this report and will be adjusted, if needed, based on Council’s input. Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8d EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Accept Vision 3.0 report: A Place for All People. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Vision 3.0 report accurately reflect community input and trends? SUMMARY: On August 28 and October 9, 2017, the city council reviewed drafts of the Vision 3.0 report, providing input and feedback. Consultant Rebecca Ryan (Consultant) subsequently revised the report to reflect the comments and finalized the document. The Vision 3.0 report includes five recommendations for the city. Recommendation number three has been revised based on council comments received at the October 9th meeting. The recommendations are as follows: 1. Develop Creative Housing Solutions 2. Develop Future-focused Transit and Mobility 3. Continue to Lead in Environmental Stewardship and Ensure Access to Green space for Future Generations 4. Prepare our Next Generation 5. Commit to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion NEXT STEPS: The recommendations in the Vision 3.0 report will subsequently be used to inform the city’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update, reflecting specific goals, strategies and implementation of the Vision 3.0 recommendations. The city council will also be reviewing and discussing the recommendations in more detail at the council workshop in January. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Expenses for the activities being undertaken are accounted for in the Development Fund budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Vision 3.0 Report “SLP 3.0 A Place for All People” Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Page 2 Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations DISCUSSION Vision 3.0 and Comprehensive Plan Update As we move forward with the Comprehensive Plan Update, the input, trends and recommendations in the final Vision 3.0 report, as approved by city council, will be utilized to inform the goals, strategies, and implementation of the 2040 comprehensive plan. Vision 3.0 will be actualized in the comprehensive plan through land-use planning, housing goals and strategies, environmental stewardship, transportation/mobility planning, parks and trail planning and implementation, equity, economic development, and resilience. For example: Transit and Mobility was noted an important value to residents, was one of the 5 recommendations provided by the Consultant, and addresses the top 4 trends facing the city. To reflect this in the comprehensive plan (Plan), the current “Transportation” section of the Plan will become the “Mobility” section, emphasizing how people get around in the community– regardless of the mode of movement one uses. The respective Vision 3.0 recommendations will be highlighted at the beginning of each chapter and again throughout the various sections of the Plan as appropriate, as shown in the example below. Vision 3.0 and Comprehensive Plan EXAMPLE: Vision Recommendation Comprehensive Plan Chapters and Sections Develop Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions. Will be integrated into: Mobility – Getting Around Town •Bicycles and Pedestrians •Transit •Streets •Highways Plan by Neighborhood Livable Community •Land Use •Economic Development and Redevelopment Next Steps Staff has begun updating the city’s comprehensive plan and will be incorporating the Vision 3.0 recommendations into the Plan update, reflecting specific goals, strategies and implementation. The City Council will also review and discuss the recommendations in more detail at the council workshop in January. A Place for All People City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 3 VISION 3.0 CONTENTS An Open Letter to City Council 2 A Vision for All 4 Part 1: What Do Residents Value? 1.Equity and Inclusion 2.Social Connections 3.Housing – Affordability and Character 4.Transit & Mobility 5.Care & Enjoyment of the Natural Environment 10 12 15 18 19 19 Part 2: Top Four Trends Facing St. Louis Park 1.Declining Federal Government Effectiveness 2.Elder Expense 3.Climate Change 4.The Changing Middle Class 20 21 22 23 24 Part 3: Five Recommendations for St. Louis Park’s Future 1.Develop Creative Housing Solutions 2.Develop Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions 3. Continue to Lead in Environmental Stewardship and Ensure Access to Green Space for Future Generations 4.Prepare our Next Generation 5.Commit to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion 25 26 27 28 29 31 Thank Yous 33 Appendix Tables of Themes by Participation A Best Day in the Park The History of Visioning in St. Louis Park 37 39 42 43 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 4 VISION 3.0 AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL, October 2017 DEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS, When we started Vision 3.0 earlier this spring, your challenge to us was clear: to engage residents who may not typically participate in a project like this, to make sure every voice was heard. We are pleased to present you with the Vision 3.0 results – insights generated from 4,999 comments from over 800 residents about how people feel about St. Louis Park and what their hopes are for the future. As you’ll read in the coming pages, they represent a broad cross-section of ages, life stages, ethnicities, and opinions. In August, you asked what we learned from Vision 3.0 that can be used to improve inclusivity in future community engagements. The Vision 3.0 Steering Committee and my team agree that the following initiatives made a difference in reaching a broad cross section of St. Louis Park residents: Neighbors asking neighbors – The most diverse, in-depth, and informative conversations came from the over 30 neighborhood meetings that took place during Vision 3.0. Candor emerges from trust. And trust exists between neighbors. Go where people gather – The city staff and steering committee took chalkboards and sandwich boards to places where people gathered – libraries, festivals, grocery stores, etc. The boards displayed a simple question, “What is your one wish for St. Louis Park?” and passersby were encouraged to write their ideas. Although this was a low impact form of engagement, i.e. it didn’t require a lot of time or extensive conversations, it showed the city’s willingness to go to places where residents gather, widening the input for a process like Vision 3.0. Direct, specific outreach – To reach very specific populations, i.e. renters, people working multiple jobs, etc., we had to find people who could and would help us, and then make it easy for them to say “Yes”. This was dogged work, but increased input from populations that may have otherwise been left out. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 5 VISION 3.0 And now a few closing thoughts as Vision 3.0 is passed on to you: Hardware and software – Cities are sustainable when their “hardware” (physical assets like the buildings, parks, and paths) and its “software” (residents’ emotional and social connections) work together. Looking back on the previous two visioning initiatives in St. Louis Park, Vision 1.0 reflected the community’s desire for “hardware” – a city center or “downtown” type of mixed-use development where people could gather, and then Vision 2.0 reflected residents’ desire for infrastructure to connect those physical places. Now in Vision 3.0, residents emphasize the community’s “software”, brainstorming ways that they can be more engaged with and connected to each other. This is a healthy progression and also part of St. Louis Park’s history, of being open and inclusive to all. Increasing costs and complexity – The Steering Comittee and my team foresee futures where federal government investment in basic services (education, elder care, health and social issues) will continue to decrease, leaving states and cities with the difficult of job of addressing more complex and diverse issues with less funding. One example: Americans are living longer, which is expected to increase demands on cities with aging populations, like St. Louis Park. Forward-looking cities will have to anticipate how they will address these trends. We expect that resilient cities will create more partnerships, feature more cross-sector collaboration, and work less in silos. Overall, we feel that St. Louis Park has clearly demonstrated – through Vision 1.0, 2.0, and now 3.0 – that it is open to residents’ input, and their input is put to good use. Thank you for the opportunity to assist with this important project. Rebecca Ryan Lisa Loniello Stephanie Ricketts NEXT Generation Consulting, Inc. Madison, WI City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 6 VISION 3.0 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS1,938 FB LIVETOWN HALLMEETINGS232 FB WEEKLYQUESTIONS54 CHALKBOARDS/POST-ITS377 NEXTDOOR.COM304 TWITTER18 ONLINE SURVEY1,201 TOWN HALL MEETINGSAT CITY HALL299 A VISION FOR ALL Every ten years or so, the city of St. Louis Park launches an ambitious grassroots effort to ask residents about their hopes and dreams for the future of St. Louis Park. The city’s intention is to create a place so special that people want to make it their lifelong home. You can read more about Visions 1.0 and 2.0 and their successes in “The History of Visioning in St. Louis Park” on pages 43-45. In 2017, the City Council launched its third effort, Vision 3.0, with a special challenge – to hear from those who may not normally engage with the city – specifically people of color. Vision 3.0 staff, volunteers and consultants gathered 4,999 responses through a variety of methods as shown in the figure below. FIGURE 1: VISION 3.0 ENGAGEMENT MEASURED BY RESPONSES PER METHOD City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 7 VISION 3.0 PARTICIPANTS’ DIVERSITY Residents contributed ideas through a variety of channels, but Neighborhood Meetings –facilitated by community volunteers – generated the largest number of responses (1,938) and the highest levels of diversity among participants (32.26%) as Table 1 below shows. Table 1: Residents’ Reported Race at Neighborhood Meetings Compared to St. Louis Park’s Overall Population Race Vision 3.0 Participants St. Louis Park Census 1 White or Caucasian 67.74%83.3% Black or African American 15.05%7.5% Hispanic or Latino 7.80%4.3% Two or more races 3.76%3.1% Asian 3.23%3.8% Other Race 1.34%N/A American Indian or Alaska Native 0.81%0.5% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 0.27%0.1% Table 1 also demonstrates an under-sampling of White or Caucasians compared to census data and an oversampling of Black or African Americans and Hispanic or Latinos. There was a modest oversampling of those of two or more races, American Indian or Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. 1 July 2016 census data retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/stlouisparkcityminnesota,US/PST045216 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 8 VISION 3.0 FIGURE 2: PARTICIPATION IN NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS BY AGE 13.9% 12-17 years 3.9% 18-24 years 12.0% 25-34 years 14.1% 35-44 years 14.1% 45-54 years 19.9% 55-64 years 12.3% 65-74 years 9.2% 75 years and over No Age Given 2 Demographic cards were optional and were completed by nearly half of all Vision 3.0 participants. Vision 3.0 reached across the age spectrum and achieved relatively balanced participation among all age cohorts as Figure 2 shows2. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 9 VISION 3.0 Although there was balanced participation among most age brackets, compared to 2010 census data there was over-representation among those aged 45-64 and those over age 65, as Table 2 below shows. Table 2: Residents’ Reported Age at Neighborhood Meetings Compared to St. Louis Park’s Overall Population Age Vision 3.0 Participants St. Louis Park Census 3 Under 18 years 13.9%18.8% 18-24 years 3.9%8.7% 25-44 26.1%37.7% 45-64 34.0%20.2% 65 years +21.5%14.7% Table 3 shows a slight oversampling of women and undersampling of men compared to 2010 census results. Table 3: Residents’ Reported Gender at Neighborhood Meetings Compared to St. Louis Park’s Overall Population Gender Vision 3.0 Participants St. Louis Park Census 3 Female 56.56%52.2% Male 36.61%47.8% Other 1.09%N/A None indicated 5.74%N/A 3 2010 Census data is the most up to date information that can be collected on the age of St. Louis Park Residents. Available at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/stlouisparkcityminnesota,US/PST045216 and also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Louis_Park,_Minnesota, retrieved Sept. 20, 2017. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 10 VISION 3.0 In addition, those who completed demographic cards – whether at neighborhood meetings or town hall meetings – represented nearly every neighborhood in the city as Figure 3 demonstrates. FIGURE 3: RESIDENTS’ REPORTED NEIGHBORHOODS. THE DARKER THE BLUE IS, THE GREATER THE CONCENTRATION OF RESPONDENTS. Number of Participants PARTICIPANTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD PROVIDING DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION Total: 371 Participants 0-4 5-12 13-19 20-29 Over 30 Kilmer Pond1 Westdale0 Minikahda Vista15 Browndale15 Brookside 4 Creekside4 Brooklawns9Meadowbrook7 South Oak Hill1 Elmwood16 Wolfe Park12 Minikahda Oaks8 Triangle6 Sorensen12 Lenox22 Oak Hill19 Aquila34 Amhurst0 Minne- haha 1 Cobblecrest14 Birchwood22 Bronx Park4 Texa Tonka19 Eliot View1 Willow Park29 Cedar Manor7 Fern Hill49 Lake Forest11 Cedarhurst5 Blackstone4 Eliot9 PennsylvaniaPark3 Westwood Hills6 Crest-view1 Shelard Park1 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 11 VISION 3.0 HOW TO READ THIS DOCUMENT Neighborhood meetings generated the largest number of comments (1,931) from the most diverse groups (32.26% of participants were people of color) and therefore drive most of the insights in this document unless noted. A summary of insight from all sources of engagement is in the Appendix. This document has three major sections: ˃Part 1 is a summary of the five values residents expressed during Vision 3.0. ˃Part 2 is a summary of four trends likely to impact St. Louis Park in the future, as determined by the Steering Committee, City Council and city department leaders. ˃Part 3 includes a series of recommendations that can guide St. Louis Park in the future, built from a combination of residents’ values and future trends, as the graphic below indicates. RESIDENTS’ INPUT CRITICAL TRENDSRECOMMENDATIONS City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 12 VISION 3.0 PART 1: WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? Overall, residents enjoy living in St. Louis Park and want to remain in the city. This reflects well on St. Louis Park’s first visioning process in 1995, which was launched to create a “community of choice for a lifetime.”4 Residents who participated in Vision 3.0 in 2017 understand that St. Louis Park is changing – and for the most part, they welcome those changes, e.g. light rail, ongoing development, and progressive investments in sustainability, parks, and trails. What’s more, they trust the City and feel proud of how it is managed. They want to see St. Louis Park continue to be a leader among its peers. ”WHEN I THINK ABOUT MY COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD, I FEEL…” When asked, “When I think about my community/ neighborhood, I feel….” 85% of respondents offered positive or affirming words like “grateful” and “safe.” In the online survey, when asked the same question, the most popular words were: safe, happy, proud, and good as Figure 4 shows. 4 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams 2006, accessed on August 20, 2017: http://www.mobiusmodel.com/downloads/1SLPBookDreams.pdf FIGURE 4: WORD CLOUD OF RESPONSES GENERATED BY ONLINE SURVEY. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 13 VISION 3.0 FIVE VALUES Neighborhood meetings generated the most responses from the most diverse participants. The top themes from neighborhood meetings (shown in Table 4 below) were also reflected across the continuum of other inputs, e.g. online survey, town hall meetings, etc. A summary of input from each method of engagement is included in the Appendix. Table 4: Major Themes from Neighborhood Meetings5 Major Themes – What Do Residents Value?Percent of Meeting Mentions Equity and inclusion for all, e.g. race, age, etc.68.42% Social connections to each other and to the community 39.47% Housing – affordability and character 34.22% Transit and mobility 28.95% Care for the natural environment 28.95% 5 “Major themes” were determined at the conclusion of each Neighborhood Meeting, after residents talked with each other about what they valued in their community and what they’d like the community to stop doing, start doing, or keep doing in the future. A total of 38 neighborhood meetings were conducted during Vision 3.0. Looking at Table 4, “Equity and Inclusion” was a theme at over 68% of neighborhood meetings; “Social Connections” was a theme at over 39% of meetings, and so forth. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 14 VISION 3.0 VALUE #1: Equity and Inclusion Over two-thirds of all Neighborhood Meetings valued ongoing efforts towards equity and inclusion for all – this includes race, age, economic class, life stage, and more. Responses and ideas ranged from the general to the specific as the following quotes demonstrate: “[We want more] intentional conversations about racial equity and diversity.” “Racial equity – a forum for learning in the community… city and school should do this together (and) bring in our faith groups to help their groups with racial equity.” “Add a teen center.” “Senior Center.” “More programs for kids (all kids including immigrant/people of color) – summer sports and afterschool/homework help.” Many participants noted St. Louis Park’s historical strength in welcoming all people. One Neighborhood Meeting group noted: “The history or SLP, the inclusivity – our city welcomed Jewish residents when many other areas did not.” City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 15 VISION 3.0 RESIDENTS HAVE DIFFERENT EXPERIENCES OF ST. LOUIS PARK, DEPENDING ON THEIR RACE AND AGE Overall, people are happy living in St. Louis Park. But there are two groups – people of color and senior citizens – who have concerns about their place and their future in St. Louis Park. People of color feel differently than whites do about their community. For example, when asked, “When I think about my neighborhood/community, I feel…” 42% of people of color attending Neighborhood Meetings were more likely to use words including disconnected, sad, lonely or isolated, cold, frustrated, secluded, nervous, depressed, neglected or unsupported as Figure 5 shows. By comparison, 79% of white survey respondents used positive words when responding to the same question (see Figure 4 on page 10). FIGURE 5: WORD CLOUD OF RESPONSES GENERATED BY PEOPLE OF COLOR AT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS WHEN ASKED, “WHEN I THINK ABOUT MY NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY I FEEL…” City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 16 VISION 3.0 Many older residents are also concerned about the future. At Town Hall meetings and in online surveys, they indicate that they would like to stay in St. Louis Park, but affordability is a concern. Increasing property taxes on fixed incomes may be difficult. They also report a preference for intergenerational activities. The growth in St. Louis Park – among people of color (Figure 6) and among older citizens – are two trends that the entire Minneapolis-St. Paul metro is facing: “The region’s population is projected to grow by 824,000 in coming decades. By 2040, people of color will comprise 40% of the region; senior citizens, 21 percent.”6 Added fewer than 2,000 residents of color between 2000 and 2013 2,000 to 3,999 4,000 to 7,999 8,000 or more No data available FIGURE 6: NET INCREASE IN RESIDENTS OF COLOR FROM 2000 TO 2013 BY CITY. Source: Metropolitan Council staff calculations based on Council’s 2013 Annual Population Estimates and U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, and 2011-2013 American Community Survey. Accessed July 11, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/ getattachment/bfc72287-2b88-49e0- 96ea-2fa2ee2eb0d2/.aspx 6 A Growing and Changing Twin Cities Region: Regional Forecast to 2040, Metropolitan Council, February 2014. Accessed August 20, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/METC/files/6a/6a8c417a-4a85-4216-99e1-43016bef725c.pdf City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 17 VISION 3.0 VALUE #2: Social Connections Looking back, the first visioning project in the mid-1990s was focused on creating gathering places. As a result of that first visioning process, places including the Rec Center/Aquatic Center, Wolfe Park, the Amphitheatre, and Excelsior & Grand were built. Now over 20 years later, residents in 2017 are asking for activities and events that will bring them together and help them connect to each other. At almost 40% of Neighborhood Meetings, residents said things like: “Farmers market. Do more. We love it!” “(We are) proud that (the city) is willing to spend money on community. Could there be volunteer opportunities to leverage talents of community members?” “Continue neighborhood groups.” “More activities – movie nights, exercise classes, community gardens, programs that help to include different cultural groups in the area. Adopt an adult.” “[I wish] that we had more ‘accidental’ gathering spaces.” “(Our major theme is) Connectedness – both socially and physically – to the city, to our neighbors and to amenities.” City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 18 VISION 3.0 Specifically, residents want more places where they can connect, e.g. farmers markets and indoor walking areas, and they want more events where they can meet and engage with each other. WHAT ONE WISH DO YOU HAVE FOR ST. LOUIS PARK? Throughout the Vision 3.0 project, “One Wish” chalkboards and sandwich boards were distributed throughout the community so that residents could write their “one wish” for the future of St. Louis Park. Of all 377 ideas contributed, one out of four related to “public amenities” – places and ways that residents could connect to the city and to each other, as Table 5 on the following page shows. FIGURE 7: A “ONE WISH” CHALKBOARD AT A CHILDREN FIRST EVENT. PHOTO COURTESY OF VISION 3.0 STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBER RACHEL HARRIS. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 19 VISION 3.0 Table 5: Residents’ responses (n=375) to “What One Wish Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?” as recorded on chalkboards and sandwich boards “What One Wish Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?”Percent of Responses Public amenities that can be enjoyed by all residents, e.g. parks, open spaces, events, markets, pools, public recreation facilities 25.94% Transit and mobility, e.g. pedestrian safety, traffic, light rail 15.51% Retail, e.g. restaurants, unique shops, farmers markets 12.57% Housing, e.g. affordability, apartments, development 12.57% City services and policies, e.g. energy, leadership, parks 11.49% Other ideas 5.88% Race, ethnicity and inclusion 5.35% City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 20 VISION 3.0 VALUE #3: Housing – Affordability and Character Almost two-thirds of all neighborhood meetings developed major themes about housing and transportation, addressed by the next two values. “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” MEANS DIFFERENT THINGS TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE Although the term “affordable housing” was mentioned often, its meaning is different depending on one’s perspective: ˃Seniors – or those nearing retirement – worry that they won’t be able to pay the city’s property taxes on a fixed income and therefore may not be able to afford to stay in St. Louis Park. They could sell their homes, but perceive a lack of affordable housing suited for seniors in St. Louis Park. ˃Residents who moved into small bungalows in St. Louis Park are ready to “move up” into larger homes, but don’t feel they can afford a larger house in St. Louis Park. ˃The working poor – especially those who have their children in St. Louis Park schools and don’t want to disrupt their education – are getting priced out of once-affordable housing. ˃Longtime residents express concern that their children – who’ve grown up and moved away to other cities and now want to come back to St. Louis Park – can’t afford starter homes in St. Louis Park. Although there is consensus that more affordable housing is needed, there is also vocal opposition by some residents to multi-story “high density” development. Many residents also expressed concern about teardowns and “McMansions”. Overall, residents want to preserve the character of St. Louis Park’s traditional single-family homes and ensure that housing continues to be affordable for many people. The issue of affordable housing is not unique to St. Louis Park. City Councils in Minneapolis, St. Paul, and other first and second-ring suburbs are studying the issue and the working together to devise strategies. For its part, St. Louis Park is gaining affordable units in some of the new development projects and working with other communities on a regional approach. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 21 VISION 3.0 VALUE #4: Transit & Mobility Residents value getting around town easily and safely. This was the fourth most popular value stated by residents during Vision 3.0. Residents focused on the following: 1.Bike safety, especially the ability to ride safely in traffic. 2.Pedestrian safety and walkability on sidewalks, in crosswalks, and in parks at dusk or nighttime. 3.Bus routes and frequency. This issue was more prevalent among people of color, who noted that public transportation feels inadequate to those who don’t work typical 9-5 jobs (and may have several jobs), or those who shop outside of St. Louis Park. VALUE #5: Care & Enjoyment of the Natural Environment Beginning in 2007 with Vision 2.0, St. Louis Park set an ambitious target: “To be a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business.”7 Today, ten years later the city has dedicated staff focused solely on this effort. Nearly thiry percent (29.85%) of all neighborhood meetings generated a major theme about protecting and preserving the city’s natural habitat. Town Hall meetings, online surveys, and One Wish chalkboards reinforced this value, citing parks, green spaces, and environmental stewardship in their Top 5. From taking care of the water in their lakes to supporting community gardens, residents of St. Louis Park are committed to green space. 7 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 22 VISION 3.0 PART 2: TOP FOUR TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK This section is based on a trends sorting exercise completed by two groups independently: the Vision 3.0 Steering Committee (in March 2017) and the City Council and city department leaders (in May 2017). HOW WERE THESE TRENDS IDENTIFIED? Both groups completed the following activity, independently of each other. 1.Groups broke into four teams, each team addressing one of the following four trend categories: (1) resource trends; (2) technology trends; (3) demographic trends; and (4) governance trends. 2.Each trend team was asked to review the trends associated with their team, as published in the Alliance for Innovation’s report, “The Next Big Things: the Future of Local Government.”8 3.Teams then played a tabletop game where they sorted each trend in their category based on two questions: ˃How much impact (low, medium, high) will this trend have on St. Louis Park in the future? ˃How certain are we (uncertain, moderately certain, completely certain) that this trend will impact St. Louis Park in the future? 4.After identifying which trends were both “high certainty” and “high impact”, teams then ranked them on a scale from zero (not ready) to ten (totally ready), based on their understanding St. Louis Park’s readiness. 5.After both groups completed the trend sorting exercise independently, the consultant reviewed both groups’ responses. The four trends outlined in this section were identified by both groups to be high impact, high certainty, and low (zero to four) readiness. 8 Learn more and download a copy of the full report at: http://transformgov.org/en/Page/101074/The_Next_Big_Things City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 23 VISION 3.0 TREND #1: Declining Federal Government Effectiveness “The main political challenge of the next decade will be fixing government.” – John Micklewait and Adrian Wooldridge, The Fourth Revolution The “layer cake” of government that most city leaders and residents grew up in – where the federal government has money, states have power, and cities have problems – has been cut into pieces. Our federal government is facing critical long-term budget shortfalls, many states have become ideological battlegrounds, and cities…well, cities still have challenges. As one member of the Vision 3.0 Steering Committee summarized: “As the federal government ends funding for programs, it doesn’t eliminate the federal requirements, so the city has to absorb more costs to meet legal requirements.” In the future, St. Louis Park should not look to the federal government for policy leadership or funding for critical local issues. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 24 VISION 3.0 TREND #2: Elder Expense Many countries and states are facing a “Baby Boomer bulge,” when the share of citizens over age 65 begins to increase. St. Louis Park is also facing this trend, as shown on page 14. This creates three spinoff effects: 1.It puts immediate and direct pressure on local governments, which are expected to pay pension benefits to retiring public employees. 2.It creates additional federal and local budget pressure. In the U.S. for example, if there are no significant changes to entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), those entitlements will consume the entire federal budget by 2030. 3.Generational conflict – When social security was invented in the U.S., there were 14 employees supporting every retiree. Back then, people lived fewer years post-retirement, so the total amount of benefits paid was manageable. Fast forward to today when there are only two workers in the U.S. supporting every retiree…and retirees live longer. It adds up. The expense of supporting a large, retired population could spell generational conflict, more dramatic changes to retirement ages, and/or restructuring of entitlements. Between 2005 and 2035, the population of Minnesotans over age 65 will more than double due to greater longevity. By contrast, the population under age 65 will grow by only 10%. As a result, the age composition of all parts of the state, including St. Louis Park, will be much older in 2035. Between 2005 and 2009, the median age in St. Louis Park was estimated at 35.5 years, compared to 36.5 years for the United States as a whole, with 13.6% of St. Louis Park residents over age 65 and 7.1% under age 5.9 9 Source: STRATIS HEALTH – WWW.CULTURECARECONNECTION.ORG 2 CITY REPORT: ST. LOUIS PARK Sources: Metropolitan Council Community Profiles, http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/profile/Default.aspx; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 25 VISION 3.0 TREND #3: Climate Change Climate change is expected to be a pernicious and unpredictable threat to all cities, including St. Louis Park. In St. Louis Park and the Midwest overall, increasing volumes of rain and higher temperatures are predicted. More stormwater is will create demands on St. Louis Park’s infrastructure and higher overall temperatures may impact our people, parks, and our city in unexpected ways. Climate change is a trend that St. Louis Park has historically taken very seriously, including its commitment to sustainability and zero waste. But it’s also a trend that is unpredictable in its impact, requiring the city to remain vigilant and proactive. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 26 VISION 3.0 TREND #4: The Changing Middle Class America’s middle class has been getting squeezed since the 1970s.10 The U.S. Commerce Department defines “middle-class families” as: “…defined by their aspirations more than their income […] middle-class families aspire to home ownership, a car, college education for their children, health and retirement security and occasional family vacations.11 Because the costs of these middle class aspirations have outpaced wage growth12, many Americans are getting squeezed out of the middle class and falling into poverty. Although St. Louis Park does not have the same levels of poverty as some of its peers in the Twin Cities metro, some neighboring communities are experiencing higher concentrations of poverty. This trend on the middle class should be carefully monitored for two reasons: 1.In their book, The Spirit Level, public health researchers Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett documented a series of correlations between a strong middle class and public health. Greater income equality (in other words, a strong middle class) is correlated to better health and social outcomes, e.g. lower rates of drug abuse, higher rates of education, lower rates of imprisonment, and greater social mobility. On the other hand, when there is less equality, e.g. more poverty or greater wealth disparities, social and health outcomes are negatively impacted. 2.The Met Council reports “Research on concentrated poverty suggests it may have an overarching impact on residents – even those who are not themselves low-income – such as reducing potential economic mobility.”13 Maintaining St. Louis Park’s strong middle class will correlate to better economic and public health outcomes for the city. 10 Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, 2010, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://obamawhitehouse.archives. gov/sites/default/files/microsites/100226-annual-report-middle-class.pdf and “Most Americans are no longer middle class”, Minnesota Public Radio, December 10, 2015, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2015/12/09/npr-middle-class 11 Annual Report of the White House Task Force on the Middle Class, p. 10 12 Ibid, p. 11 13 POVERTY ENDURES: POVERTY RATE FELL SLIGHTLY, BUT AREAS OF CONCENTRATED POVERTY EXPANDS , March 1, 2017, accessed on August 23, 2017: https://metrocouncil.org/News-Events/Communities/News-Articles/Poverty-endures-poverty-rate-fell-slightly,-but-a.aspx City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 27 VISION 3.0 PART 3: FIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ST. LOUIS PARK’S FUTURE In parts one and two, we summarized resident input during Vision 3.0 and identified four trends that community leaders feel will be important to the city’s future. In this section, we blend residents’ input and the trends to form a series of recommendations. RECOMMENDATION TREND STRENGTH TREND RESIDENT VALUE The following recommendations meet these criteria: ˃They respond to residents’ wishes for the future of St. Louis Park. ˃They are proactive about addressing critical trends facing the city. ˃They build on St. Louis Park’s strengths and current initiatives. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 28 VISION 3.0 DEVELOP CREATIVE HOUSING SOLUTIONS ELDER EXPENSE TRADITION OF BEING OPEN AND INCLUSIVE TO ALL CHANGING MIDDLE CLASS EQUITY AND INCLUSION FOR ALL, E.G. RACE, AGE, ETC. HOUSING – AFFORDABILITY AND CHARACTER MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS AND CURRENT INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATION TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK RECOMMENDATION #1: Develop Creative Housing Solutions Now and in the near future, St. Louis Park and the entire Twin Cities area will have more demand for housing – especially “affordable housing” – because of how the region’s demographics are growing and changing. In simple economic terms, the demand for housing is greater than the supply – because the region is growing, because St. Louis Park has a reputation as a good community to live in and therefore attracts new residents, and because residents are living longer. As the city moves forward, it should note that the Vision 3.0 process showed that “affordable housing” means different things – and will require different solutions – for the following groups: ˃Seniors who want to stay in their current single family homes past retirement but worry about being able to afford taxes on fixed incomes. This group also expressed concern during Town Hall meetings that even if they sell their current home at a profit, there are few affordable, age-appropriate options for them to buy or rent. National and Minnesota trends show that America’s elderly are living longer which will extend their years of retirement and create different housing demands. ˃Those who can’t afford market rate housing. ˃First-time homebuyers – usually young people or young couples – experience a limited supply of single family homes that are “affordable” compared to similar (or newer) homes in other areas. ˃Current residents of traditional 1940s and 1950s-era homes who want to “move up” into larger homes, but feel that there are limited (and therefore expensive) options. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 29 VISION 3.0 DEVELOP FUTURE-FOCUSED TRANSIT AND MOBILITY SOLUTIONS CLIMATE CHANGE ELDER EXPENSE OPENING OF THE LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT STATIONS IN 2021 CHANGING MIDDLE CLASS EQUITY AND INCLUSION FOR ALL, E.G. RACE, AGE, ETC. TRANSIT AND MOBILITY CARE FOR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS AND CURRENT INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATION TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK RECOMMENDATION #2: Develop Future-Focused Transit and Mobility Solutions St. Louis Park’s older population is living longer, its younger population is becoming more diverse, its residents care about the natural environment, and technology like car sharing services and soon, autonomous cars, are on the rise. The traditional transportation system – and mindset – that relies primarily on single owner-occupied vehicles will change in the coming years. The city is already in the process of planning for light rail stations, and connections from those stations to other parts of town. The following resident-driven ideas can help the city expand that planning and address its changing demographics: 1.Increasing safety in crosswalks, especially in areas with a lot of traffic. 2.Increased park lighting to make parks feel safer after dark. 3.More north-south and east-west mass transit options, e.g. circulator buses that run between the west part of town (where kids live) and the Rec Center. 4.Consider bike sharing, e.g. extending Nice Ride to St. Louis Park. Residents made dozens of recommendations related to specific intersections or streets that city staff could sort by those in process or in queue. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 30 VISION 3.0 CONTINUE TO LEAD IN ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP AND ENSURE ACCESS TO GREEN SPACE FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS INCREASING DENSITY14 SOCIAL CONNECTIONS TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT PARKS CLIMATE ACTION AND SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES CLIMATE CHANGE MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS AND CURRENT INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATION TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK RECOMMENDATION #3: Continue to Lead in Environmental Stewardship and Ensure Access to Green Space for Future Generations 14 Although this was not listed as a trend that the city staff or steering committee are concerned about, it is nonetheless a trend which has implications for the city’s future residents. In neighborhood meetings, residents expressed Value #5 – care and enjoyment of the natural environment – with two equally mentioned but distinct messages: 1.To continue St. Louis Park’s commitment to sustainability and climate change mitigation and adaptation. For example, neighbors shared their wishes for continued reduction in CO2 emissions, maintaining bee gardens (natural pollinators that maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems), and support for the city’s sustainability efforts. 2.To maintain and preserve residents’ access to green space, parks, and the natural environment. The Vision 3.0 Steering Committee recommends that the St. Louis Park Plan be reviewed to account for the increased density currently under development, to ensure that future residents – especially those who don’t live in single family homes but choose to live in multi-family or more dense housing developments – have the same access to parks that current residents do. The Vision 3.0 Steering Committee also brainstormed ideas about how to use the parks for more community gatherings (to respond to residents #2 value, more connections to each other) and/or how to showcase the parks to expose all residents to their proximity to public parks. As one steering committee member noted, “Most people have no idea how close they are to a park!” City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 31 VISION 3.0 PREPARE OUR NEXT GENERATION REPUTATION FOR STRONG SCHOOLS CHANGING STRUCTURE OF THE ECONOMY (SEE BELOW) CHANGING MIDDLE CLASS EQUITY AND INCLUSION FOR ALL, E.G. RACE, AGE, ETC. SOCIAL CONNECTIONS TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE COMMUNITY MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS AND CURRENT INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATION TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK RECOMMENDATION #4: Prepare our Next Generation The economy is undergoing a profound economic shift: future generations will require more than a high school education to reach the middle class. Consider that: ˃By 2020 two thirds of all jobs will require some sort of postsecondary education – that is not a four-year liberal arts education, but some amount of postsecondary education. ˃Seventy percent of all jobs in Minnesota will require postsecondary education. That’s 7 percentage points higher than the national average. St. Louis Park prides itself on the percentage of students who complete high school, and while this is a noble outcome, students competing for future jobs and opportunities must also attain a post secondary degree or credential. Skeptics may wonder, “Why are we talking about schools when Vision 3.0 is a city initiative? Aren’t schools and cities separate?” The answer is Yes, and No. Yes, cities have no jurisdiction over schools. Public and private schools are independent of the city council, the city budget, or any city oversight. On the other hand, cities are strongly impacted by the reputation of their schools. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 32 VISION 3.0 Although the St. Louis Park schools are currently helping the city’s reputation as a desirable place to live, residents who participated in Vision 3.0 expressed concern that the community’s youth feel included and valued (Value 1: Equity and Inclusion for all) and trends show that the city’s changing demographics (a growing older population without children in schools) must be addressed. The following ideas address residents’ values and also recognize that St. Louis Park’s “brand” as a city is based in part on the strength of its schools and educational attainment: ˃Support St. Louis Park’s public schools in committing to and preparing all students to obtain a post secondary degree or credential, and communicate the importance of this goal to city residents and businesses. ˃Address bus service to and from Normandale and other two-year colleges. ˃Work with Twin West, Rotary, St. Louis Park High School internship advisory committee, and/or other partners to provide internships and work experience to high school students throughout the year, to expose them to careers and local government. ˃Support the civic mission of schools to prepare informed and involved citizens. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 33 VISION 3.0 COMMIT TO BEING A LEADER IN RACIAL EQUITY AND INCLUSION CHANGING MIDDLE CLASS EQUITY AND INCLUSION FOR ALL, E.G. RACE, AGE, ETC. SOCIAL CONNECTIONS TO EACH OTHER AND TO THE COMMUNITY EFFORTS TO IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY AND RESPONSIVENESS TO ALL MAJOR THEMES – WHAT DO RESIDENTS VALUE? ST. LOUIS PARK’S STRENGTHS AND CURRENT INITIATIVES RECOMMENDATION TRENDS FACING ST. LOUIS PARK RECOMMENDATION #5: Commit to Being a Leader in Racial Equity and Inclusion “The best thing going on right now, in my view, is the renewed, increased focus on racial justice: Increased opportunities for both dialogue and action through the Human Rights Commission and the new Allies group, and – especially – articulated support for this priority from Mayor Spano and other community leaders.” – Vision 3.0 participant The intention of this recommendation is to create an ecosystem in St. Louis Park where diversity is expected and inclusion and equity are a way of life. St. Louis Park has proven that it can take on large, systemic issues. In 2007, when “sustainability” was still a buzzword among a small niche of eco-warriors, St. Louis Park accepted residents’ challenge and became a leader in sustainability practices and outcomes. In 2017, residents make a similar challenge: to graduate the city’s discussion about racial equity and inclusion to measureable, systemic outcomes. The City Council and city staff are already working to address the city’s equity and inclusion, e.g. the City Council and staff are completing a one-year curriculum designed to help city officials understand race, equity and privilege. Additionally, the City is in the process of hiring a Racial Equity Coordinator to further the City’s commitment to equity and inclusion. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 34 VISION 3.0 The following recommendations extend that momentum outward to the community, inward to staffing and committee structures, and throughout the city’s day-to-day business: ˃Offer equity and inclusion training to city committees and boards; neighborhood leaders, i.e. block captains or others; nonprofit organizations, i.e. Friends of the Arts; business leaders; and other key stakeholders. The goal is for a broad cross-section of community leaders and influencers to experience similar training and awareness, so they can support and encourage each other and work together to make St. Louis Park more inclusive. ˃Support the work of the Multicultural Advisory Commission and the city’s Human Resources team’s efforts at citywide equity and inclusion. ˃Work with community partners, including the Multicultural Advisory Commission, to make diversity and inclusion a priority in all components of city business. Vision 3.0 was an excellent example of the City Council intentionally appointing diverse representatives from a broad cross- section of the community, which greatly increased participation and input. ˃Hire a Racial Equity Coordinator, to assist the city in making this a community-wide value. ˃Create community festivals that celebrate the community’s diversity, from food to dance to music. This will help make the city’s implicit diversity visible and it also responds to residents’ desires for more opportunities to connect with each other. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 35 VISION 3.0 THANK YOUS So much energy and so many hours went into this project. We are most grateful to residents of St. Louis Park who participated in Vision 3.0. In addition, the following folks made this project possible. Our thanks to: THE VISION 3.0 STEERING COMMITTEE was selected by the City Council to make sure the project was responsive to community needs and resulted in future-focused and actionable recommendations. In addition to providing guidance, steering committee members hosted and facilitated community meetings, attended town hall meetings, and/or hosted One Wish Chalkboards in the community. FIGURE 9: VISION 3.0 STEERING COMMITTEE (L TO R): LARRY NORTH, RACHEL HARRIS, JULIE SWEITZER, LISA GENIS, MATT FLORY, GEORGE HAGEMANN, JUSTIN GRAYS. NOT PICTURED: LYNETTE DUMALAG, AMAYA FOKUO. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 36 VISION 3.0 THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL invested resources and pushed the consultants and staff to reach farther and deeper into the community to ensure all residents – especially those who may not normally participate in a process like this – were engaged. Their support and consistent encouragement helped make this process the most inclusive and widespread visioning process to date. Thanks to: ˃Jake Spano, Mayor ˃Steve Hallfin, At Large A ˃Thom Miller, At Large B ˃Susan Sanger, Ward 1 ˃Anne Mavity, Ward 2 ˃Gregg Lindberg, Ward 3 ˃Tim Brausen, Ward 4 FIGURE 10: ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 37 VISION 3.0 OUR VISION 3.0 FACILITATORS attended trainings, convened meetings, reported their results and were ambassadors for this ambitious effort. Many, many thanks to: Sagal Abdirahman; John Wheeler; Bruce Browning; Carol Bungert; Gabriel Rios; Sara Maaske; Nene Matey Keke; Jonathan Shaver; Dale Tatarek; Fatuma Irshat; Dan Olson; Sue Grey; Meta Webb; Terry Ruttger; Jennifer Chenoweth; Anna Mae; John Wheeler; Katie Walechka; Claudia Johnston-Madison; Jamie Marshall; Christina Woodlee; Curtis Wilson; Julie Rappaport; Noelle Racette; Susan Niz; Bridget Rathsack; Marcy Joseph; Terry Gips; Rhoda Quick; Jim Beneke; Julie Sweitzer; Lisa Greene; Lisa Genis; Tiffany Hoffmann; Catherine Johnson; Lisa Peilen; Amy Beilke; Juli Rasmussen; Lisa Pannell; Meg McCormick; David Pacheco; Hannah Sekaran; Jeanne Wolfe; Alex Draeger; Marty Lee; Carrie Jennissen; Steven Hansen; Bob Chatfield; Jennie Edstrom; Shannon Farrell; Tom Green; Azzahya Williams; John Shevlin; Seka Kovacevic; Catherine Doyle-Burris; Angelica Lee; Olaf Jorgenson; Judith Moore; Liz Feeney; Amy McTavish; Suzanne Stang; Dustin DeBoer; Matt Flory; John McHugh; Brian Shekleton; Elizabeth Stroder. FIGURE 11: VISION 3.0 FACILITATOR TRAINING, FEBRUARY 2017. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 38 VISION 3.0 Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner for the City of St. Louis Park, was the city’s project manager for Vision 3.0 effort. Meg coordinated dozens of meetings, answered hundreds of citizen and committee emails, organized all steering committee meetings, and was the main contact for the consultants, City Council and city staff. Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager for the City of St. Louis Park, managed all of the communications and outreach for the Vision 3.0 project. She and her staff created the title and logo and conducted the outreach for the process. This included notifications on the city’s website; posts on Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor; a ParkAlert Citizen Notification; ParkTV announcements; Park Perspective Newsletter articles; producing a Peachjar flyer for the school electronic backpacks; creating a Constant Contact list for email blasts and much, much more. COMMUNICATIONS & OUTREACH COMMITTEE The following city staff worked with Jacqueline’s group, Meg McMonigal, and local volunteers on communications and outreach: ˃Afton Martens, JCPP Coordinator ˃Breanna Freedman, Community Liaison ˃Jack Sullivan, Senior Engineering Project Manager ˃Jason Bredenberg, Property Maintenance Inspector ˃Jason West, Recreation Superintendent ˃Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist ˃Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator ˃Laura Smith, Wellness & Volunteer Coordinator ˃Nate Rosa, Recreation Supervisor ˃Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor Tom Harmening is St. Louis Park’s City Manager. At the direction of the City Council, Tom provides leadership, direction, and guidance to all city departments. Tom was appointed City Manger in 2004 and has helped execute all of the city’s previous visioning projects. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 39 VISION 3.0 APPENDIX Table 6: Resident Contributions by Format and Number of Responses How Did Residents Contribute?Responses Neighborhood Meetings 1,938 Online Survey 1,201 “One Wish” Chalkboards and Sandwich Boards 375 NextDoor.com 304 Town Hall Meetings at City Hall 299 Facebook Live Town Hall Meetings 232 Facebook and Twitter Questions 72 Business Community Meetings 68 Total 4,999 City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 40 VISION 3.0 HOW DID RESIDENTS PARTICIPATE – MORE DETAIL Residents had many options to offer their perspective to Vision 3.0: 1.Neighborhood meetings – 39715 residents attended 38 neighborhood meetings hosted by 65 trained volunteers. These meeting generated 1,938 comments and ideas. 2.Facebook Live meetings were attended by 63 people, generated 353 comments, had 2,800 views, and reached 8,193 people. 3.The city distributed a “Question of the Week” on Facebook, Twitter and NextDoor.com. “Questions of the week” generated 304 responses on NextDoor, 54 Facebook responses and 18 Twitter comments. 4.Town hall meetings at city hall included 75 participants and generated 299 ideas and comments. 5.“One Wish Chalkboards” – chalkboards or sandwich boards that asked, “What one with do you for the future of St. Louis Park?” – visited 20 community locations and events, from the Mayor’s State of the City meeting to Parktacular, and generated 377 comments. 6.Several special meetings with the business community, the Meadowbrook Collaborative, and others were hosted, to ensure the broadest possible reach. 7.A community survey – both electronic and hard copy – was completed by 180 residents and generated 1,201 comments. 15 More people may have attended these meetings, but 397 people completed optional demographic cards. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 41 VISION 3.0 TABLES OF THEMES BY PARTICIPATION Table 7: Town Hall Meetings (February and March 2017) Community Input Themes # of comments % of total comments Future-focused housing, e.g. affordability, housing types, character 61 20.40% Building community through events and locations, e.g. green space, parks, lakes, restaurants, retail, splash pad, etc.53 17.73% Being open and inclusive, e.g. children, senior citizens, religious differences, etc.50 16.72% Safe transit, e.g. streets, streetlights, traffic, trails, walkability, light rail 33 11.04% Other (uncategorized)45 10.70% City services, e.g. water, police, fire, safety, energy, city staff 30 10.03% Racial equity 27 9.03% Table 8: Facebook Live Town Hall Meetings (March and April 2017) Community Input Themes # of comments % of total comments Building community through events and locations, e.g. green space, parks, lakes, restaurants, retail, splash pad, etc.77 33.19% Other (uncategorized, including responses to warm-up questions, i.e. “How long have you lived in St. Louis Park,” “What brought you here?” “What do people say when they hear you live in St. Louis Park?”) 74 31.90% Safe transit, e.g. streets, streetlights, traffic, trails, walkability, light rail 31 13.36% Housing, e.g. affordability, multi-family housing (pro and con), single-family homes, residential character 22 9.48% Being open and inclusive, e.g. children, senior citizens, religious differences, etc.17 7.33% City services, e.g. water, police, fire, safety, energy, city staff 7 3.02% Racial equity 4 1.72% City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 42 VISION 3.0 Table 9: Weekly Question Facebook & Next Door Community Input Themes # of comments % of total comments Building community through events and locations, e.g. green space, parks, lakes, restaurants, retail, splash pad, etc.84 23.46% General comments (including responses to questions like “What is your ideal day in St. Louis Park?” See page 42 “A Best Day in the Park” for a compilation of residents’ responses.) 72 20.11% Other (uncategorized)58 16.20% Housing, e.g. affordability, multi-family housing (pro and con), single-family homes, residential character, cuub-side appeal 51 14.25% Being open and inclusive, e.g. children, senior citizens, religious differences, etc.37 10.34% Safe transit, e.g. streets, streetlights, traffic, trails, walkability, light rail 35 9.78% City services, e.g. water, police, fire, safety, energy, city staff 13 3.63% Racial equity 8 2.23% Table 10: Major Themes from Neighborhood Meetings16 Major Themes – What Do Residents Value?Percent of Meeting Mentions Equity and inclusion for all, e.g. race, age, etc.68.42% Social connections to each other and to the community 39.47% Housing – affordability and character 34.22% Transit and mobility 28.95% Care for the natural environment 28.95% 16 “Major themes” were determined at the conclusion of each Neighborhood Meeting, after residents talked with each other about what they valued in their community and what they’d like the community to stop doing, start doing, or keep doing in the future. A total of 38 neighborhood meetings were conducted during Vision 3.0. Looking at Table 4, “Equity and Inclusion” was a theme at over 68% of neighborhood meetings; “Social Connections” was a theme at over 39% of meetings, and so forth. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 43 VISION 3.0 Table 11: Residents’ responses (n=375) to “What One Wish Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?” as recorded on chalkboards and sandwich boards “What One Wish Do You Have for the Future of St. Louis Park?”Percent of Responses Public amenities that can be enjoyed by all residents, e.g. parks, open spaces, events, markets, pools, public recreation facilities 25.94% Transit and mobility, e.g. pedestrian safety, traffic, light rail 15.51% Retail, e.g. restaurants, unique shops, farmers markets 12.57% Housing, e.g. affordability, apartments, development 12.57% City services and policies, e.g. energy, leadership, parks 11.49% Other ideas 5.88% Race, ethnicity and inclusion 5.35% City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 44 VISION 3.0 A BEST DAY IN THE PARK START the day with something tasty from Honey and Rye Bakehouse Hop on a bike or stroll over to Bass Lake Park and enjoy it’s beautiful walking and biking trails Cool off in the pool at the Rec Center Bike over the Wok in the Park or Best of India for a tasty lunch Burn off that lunch by biking over to the Westwood Hills Nature Center for some hiking and nature programming Switch gears by heading to Excelsior and Grand for some late afternoon shopping Enjoy a happy hour brew over at Steel Toe Brewing Wander over to McCoy’s Public House for dinner END the night at Park Tavern for bowling and merriment Residents crowdsourced response to a question posted on social media, “Imagine you had a guest visiting from out of town and you could share your favorite things? What would be your best day in St. Louis Park?” City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 45 VISION 3.0 THE HISTORY OF VISIONING IN ST. LOUIS PARK Since 1995, residents’ input has been the inspiration for many projects implemented by the city, school district and chamber of commerce. VISION 1.0 – 1994/1995 In the mid-1990s, St. Louis Park undertook its first visioning process.17 The original vision – “A Community of Choice for a Lifetime” – was based on the premise that the city of St. Louis Park had two choices: wait for things to happen, or make things happen. At the time, citizens were concerned about a lack of a “downtown” and wanted more sidewalks and bike paths, among other things. Over the next ten years, the city went to work building the Rec Center/Aquatic Center, Wolfe Park, the Amphitheatre, Excelsior & Grand, St. Louis Park parks and trails plan, housing opportunities, stronger neighborhoods and made a decisive move toward determining its own destiny. VISION 2.0 – 2006/2007 A decade later St. Louis Park launched its second community visioning initiative and used the Appreciative Inquiry process to interview over 1,000 residents. Vision 2.0’s goal was to position St. Louis Park for the opportunities of the 21st century. After the community interviews were completed, eight themes emerged and action teams were formed to address them: the environment; transportation; sidewalks and trails; gathering places; community events; housing; arts and culture; and diversity. 17 Vision St. Louis Park Book of Dreams 2006 and Report to the Community on Vision St. Louis Park accessed on July 10, 2017: https://www.stlouispark.org/home/showdocument?id=1102 and http://www.mobiusmodel.com/downloads/1SLPBookDreams.pdf City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 46 VISION 3.0 The Vision 2.0 action teams included participants from throughout the community who worked for six months to put together goals, action steps, timelines and suggestions for additional partnerships. The city council adopted these four strategic directions at the action teams’ suggestion: 1.St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. 2.St. Louis Park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. 3.St. Louis Park is committed to providing well-maintained and diverse housing options. 4.St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all city initiatives, including implementation where appropriate. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 47 VISION 3.0 VISION 3.0 – 2017 Building on the legacy of the city’s first two visioning projects, Vision 3.0 was launched in early 2017 to focus on St. Louis Park’s next 20 years. The City Council was clear: Vision 3.0 must engage as many citizens as possible, especially those who may feel marginalized or might not normally attend city meetings. As a result, hundreds of St. Louis Park residents – from school-aged children to seniors, from renters to business owners to immigrants – shared their ideas for St. Louis Park’s future. A sustained publicity effort – through social media, cable TV and even yard signs! – encouraged involvement. FIGURE 8: VISION 3.0 YARD SIGNS: “WE BELIEVE: CITIES ARE FOR PEOPLE, CONVERSATIONS MATTER, THE FUTURE IS OURS TO CREATE.” City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 48 VISION 3.0 What is YOUR vision for St. Louis Park? City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 49 slpmn.us/vision THE NEXT GENERATION CONSULTING TEAM WAS PRIVILEGED TO SERVE AS VISION 3.0 CONSULTANTS AND WORK WITH THE CITIZENS, STEERING COMMITTEE, COUNCIL, AND STAFF OF ST. LOUIS PARK. YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD THING GOING IN THE PARK, AND YOUR CITIZENS’ WILLINGNESS TO COME TOGETHER TO CONTINUE TO BE A GREAT PLACE FOR ALL PEOPLE IS INSPIRING. PLEASE REACH OUT ANYTIME: NEXT GENERATION CONSULTING, LLC 1882 E. MAIN STREET, SUITE 204 MADISON, WI 53704 888.922.9595 REBECCARYAN.COM PHOTO, L TO R: STEPHANIE RICKETTS, LISA LONIELLO, AND REBECCA RYAN City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8d) Title: Vision 3.0 Report and Recommendations Page 50 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Action Agenda Item: 8e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing the 2018 employer benefits contribution. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the recommended amount for the 2018 employer benefits contribution? SUMMARY: This report details the City’s benefits planned for 2018, and staff’s recommendation for setting the employer contribution for 2018. The recommendation continues the philosophy started in 2015 for a tiered contribution structure based on coverage selected: 2018 PLAN OPTIONS Premium Employer Contribution Employer VEBA Contribution Total Employer Contribution Employee Cost $2500 Employee $ 745.00 $ 900.00 $ 208.34 $1,108.34 $ +155.00 Deductible Emp+Child $ 1,563.50 $1,095.00 $ 291.67 $1,386.67 $ (468.50) Emp+Spouse $ 1,639.00 $1,150.00 $ 291.67 $1,441.67 $ (489.00) Family $ 2,085.00 $1,460.00 $ 291.67 $1,751.67 $ (625.00) $4500 Employee $ 605.00 $ 900.00 $ 208.34 $1,108.34 $ +295.00 Deductible Emp+Child $ 1,270.50 $1,095.00 $ 291.67 $1,386.67 $ (175.50) Emp+Spouse $ 1,331.50 $1,150.00 $ 291.67 $1,441.67 $ (181.50) Family $ 1,694.00 $1,460.00 $ 291.67 $1,751.67 $ (234.00) $30 Employee $ 923.50 $ 900.00 -- $ 900.00 $ (23.50) Co-Pay Emp+Child $ 1,938.50 $1,095.00 -- $1,095.00 $ (843.50) Emp+Spouse $ 2,032.00 $1,150.00 -- $1,150.00 $ (882.00) Family $ 2,585.00 $1,460.00 -- $1,460.00 $ (1,125.00) Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be eligible to receive a pro-rated (50%) employer contribution, and full 100% employer VEBA contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced employer contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of $155 (pro- rated for part-time employees). FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The additional cost of this recommendation is estimated to be $195,600 (over 2017 amounts). This is slightly less than what has been budgeted for 2018. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Resolution Prepared by: Ali Timpone, HR Manager Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 2 Title: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution DISCUSSION Benefit Overview The City has a Benefits Committee that consists of employees represented by all departments and all union groups. The purpose of the committee is to educate staff on benefits and to get feedback on what staff is interested in seeing in our benefits design. The Benefits Committee assists with gathering information on potential benefit designs; they do not provide input on specific funding amounts for employer contribution. Medical Insurance (no plan changes; 9% aggregate premium increase) The City has been insured through HealthPartners since 2012. We went out for a formal bid for 2014 which is required every five years in accordance with state statute (we will do another formal bid no later than 2018 for 2019 plans). For 2018, we had a second year rate cap of 9% from HealthPartners. We were fortunate to have the rate cap as our claims experience showed a larger increase would have been warranted. Council approved the two year agreement with HealthPartners via consent item on October 17, 2016. 2018 Medical Insurance Monthly Premiums (9% aggregate increase for 2018) $30-Copay Employee $ 923.50 Emp+Child $ 1,938.50 Emp+Spouse $ 2,032.00 Family $ 2,585.00 $2500 High Deductible (with VEBA) Employee $ 745.00 Emp+Child $ 1,563.50 Emp+Spouse $ 1,639.00 Family $ 2,085.00 $4500 High Deductible (with VEBA) Employee $ 605.00 Emp+Child $ 1,270.50 Emp+Spouse $ 1,331.50 Family $ 1,694.00 VEBA Refresher The City continues to offer a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) with a VEBA funding mechanism in coordination with the High Deductible Health Plans. The VEBA is funded with employer contributions. Employer VEBA contributions will be placed in a trust in an individual’s name and funds will be available for reimbursement of eligible medical expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with the individual and roll over each year for future expenses. VEBA funds are set aside tax-free, earn tax-free interest, and are reimbursed tax-free. The VEBA account stays with the individual after they leave employment and can be used for reimbursement of qualified medical expenses. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 3 Title: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution Dental Insurance (8% increase in premiums) Our benefits consultant worked closely with Delta Dental to secure the most favorable rates for our group in 2018. Previously, we had banded together with several other cities in an alliance to purchase dental insurance to achieve discounted rates. Unfortunately, the group experience of other cities in our alliance negatively affected our rates and the alliance dissolved in 2017. We were able to secure the 8% premium increase, which is better than what we would have received in the alliance. There are no changes to the plan design. This is a voluntary plan for our employees. Dental Insurance Monthly Premiums (8% increase for 2018) 2017 Employee $ 48.90 Employee + Spouse $ 98.32 Employee + Child(ren) $ 92.44 Family $118.54 Long Term Disability (LTD) (no premium change for 2017, 2018, 2019) We are pleased to continue to offer LTD to all staff at no cost to the employee. This benefit provides income continuation at 60% of pre-disability earnings for anyone who becomes ill or injured and unable to resume work after a six month waiting period. 2018 is the second year of a three year rate guarantee with our vendor, Cigna. Life Insurance (no change for 2017, 2018, 2019) Our life insurance benefit was equalized for all employees in 2017. A basic life insurance benefit is provided to all benefit-earning employees at 1.5 times their salary. Employees also have the option to purchase additional supplemental insurance (up to $500,000), and spouse and dependent life insurance as well. There is no change to the supplemental insurance rates or plan design, and 2018 is the second year of a three year rate guarantee with our vendor, Cigna. Deferred Compensation (continue with current program; no change recommended) The City offers several deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is a program that allows employees to invest today for retirement. This is a voluntary program for employees, with an employer match of $10 per pay period to non-union staff with a minimum employee contribution of $50 per pay period (Resolution 12-044). This has also been negotiated into union contracts. 2018 Employer Contribution Recommendation An extensive employee task force was convened in the summer of 2014 to review employee input on employee benefit programs. The result of those meetings was a recommendation to provide tiered employer contribution funding which provided more funding to those who need to insure dependents. The following explains how the funding is developed. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 4 Title: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution How is the “Employee Only” employer contribution calculated? The funding structure that was implemented based on employee input provides for 100% coverage of the $2500 high deductible premium with leftover funds available so employees could purchase voluntary benefits. The monthly calculation for 2018 is as follows: 100% premium for $2500 HDHP $745.00 100% premium for dental insurance $ 48.90 $50/pay period in deferred compensation $108.33 TOTAL EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION: $902.23 ROUNDED TO NEAREST $5: $900.00 $900 is the recommended employer contribution for all employees who choose “employee only” coverage for health insurance. How is the “Employee Only” VEBA contribution calculated? The VEBA contribution only applies to employees who choose to participate in a high deductible health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 100% of the employee only deductible in the $2500 high deductible plan. This is $2500 per year, or $208.34 per month. Why are there leftover funds recommended for “Employee Only” coverage? “Employee Only” coverage is the choice of a majority of our employees; over 70% of employees choose this level of coverage. In order to encourage this group to voluntarily purchase a comprehensive benefits package, the contribution level provides enough funds to do so. Employees may choose to not use leftover funds to purchase dental insurance or make a deferred compensation contribution if their needs in these areas are already met. In those circumstances, employees may choose to use these funds to pay for deductibles, co-insurance payments, flexible spending accounts, or other needs. How is the employer contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents? The funding structure that was implemented provides for 70% funding for the $2500 high deductible plan premium as an employer contribution. The 2018 recommendation continues the 70% employer funding level. Employer Employer Paid % of Tier of Coverage Contribution $2500 Deductible Plan Premium Employee + Child(ren) $1,095/month 70% Employee + Spouse $1,150/month 70% Family $1,460/month 70% How is the VEBA contribution calculated for those who choose to cover dependents? The VEBA contribution only applies to employees who choose to participate in a high deductible health plan. The employer contribution to the VEBA is recommended to be 70% of the “employee plus dependent” deductible in the $2500 high deductible plan, which is $5,000. 70% of $5000 is $3500 per year, or $291.67 per month. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 5 Title: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution What is the big picture for 2018 employer contribution recommendation? The chart below shows total employee and employer cost of the plan options offered. The “Employee Cost” noted on the right is the difference between the “Employer Contribution” and the “Premium”. The VEBA contribution cannot be used to offset premium costs. 2018 PLAN OPTIONS Premium Employer Contribution Employer VEBA Contribution Total Employer Contribution Employee Cost $2500 Employee $ 745.00 $ 900.00 $ 208.34 $1,108.34 $ +155.00 Deductible Emp+Child $ 1,563.50 $1,095.00 $ 291.67 $1,386.67 $ (468.50) Emp+Spouse $ 1,639.00 $1,150.00 $ 291.67 $1,441.67 $ (489.00) Family $ 2,085.00 $1,460.00 $ 291.67 $1,751.67 $ (625.00) $4500 Employee $ 605.00 $ 900.00 $ 208.34 $1,108.34 $ +295.00 Deductible Emp+Child $ 1,270.50 $1,095.00 $ 291.67 $1,386.67 $ (175.50) Emp+Spouse $ 1,331.50 $1,150.00 $ 291.67 $1,441.67 $ (181.50) Family $ 1,694.00 $1,460.00 $ 291.67 $1,751.67 $ (234.00) $30 Employee $ 923.50 $ 900.00 -- $ 900.00 $ (23.50) Co-Pay Emp+Child $ 1,938.50 $1,095.00 -- $1,095.00 $ (843.50) Emp+Spouse $ 2,032.00 $1,150.00 -- $1,150.00 $ (882.00) Family $ 2,585.00 $1,460.00 -- $1,460.00 $ (1,125.00) Benefit-earning part-time employees regularly scheduled to work 20-29 hours per week will be eligible to receive a pro-rated (50%) employer contribution, and full 100% employer VEBA contribution. Employees who choose to waive coverage will be eligible for a reduced employer contribution that may be used to purchase other supplemental benefits in the amount of $155 (pro- rated for part-time employees). How does the 2018 employer contribution differ from 2017? The chart below shows 2017 premiums and employer contributions: 2017 PLAN OPTIONS Premium Employer Contribution Employer VEBA Contribution Total Employer Contribution Employee Cost $2500 Employee $ 692.50 $ 845.00 $ 208.34 $1,053.34 $ +152.50 HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,453.50 $1,015.00 $ 291.67 $1,306.67 $ (438.50) Emp+Spouse $ 1,523.50 $1,065.00 $ 291.67 $1,356.67 $ (458.50) Family $ 1,938.00 $1,355.00 $ 291.67 $1,646.67 $ (583.00) $4500 Employee $ 534.50 $ 845.00 $ 208.34 $1,053.34 $ +310.50 HDHP Emp+Child $ 1,122.00 $1,015.00 $ 291.67 $1,306.67 $ (107.00) Emp+Spouse $ 1,176.50 $1,065.00 $ 291.67 $1,356.67 $ (111.50) Family $ 1,496.50 $1,355.00 $ 291.67 $1,646.67 $ (141.50) $30 Employee $ 859.50 $ 885.00 -- $ 885.00 $ +25.50 Co-Pay Emp+Child $ 1,804.00 $1,015.00 -- $1,015.00 $ (789.00) Emp+Spouse $ 1,891.00 $1,065.00 -- $1,065.00 $ (826.00) Family $ 2,405.50 $1,355.00 -- $1,355.00 $ (1,050.50) City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 6 Title: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution What is the latest on the Affordable Care Act? Human Resources, the Benefits Committee, and our benefits consultant are staying current on legislative issues surrounding the Affordable Care Act and its impact on the City of St. Louis Park’s benefit programs. We will continue to monitor requirements in this area and develop long term strategies to balance employee benefit needs with governmental regulations. Budget Considerations Cost for this recommendation is estimated based on current enrollment in plans. The estimated increased cost over 2017 is $195,600. We included slightly more than this amount in our 2018 budget projections. Conclusion Staff is pleased with the benefit programs we have been able to develop and offer. Staff feel that the plans as outlined above will provide satisfactory and affordable options for coverage based on individual needs. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 7 Title: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution RESOLUTION NO. 17-_____ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2018 EMPLOYER BENEFITS CONTRIBUTION WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective means for providing employee group benefits; and WHEREAS, the City Council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year; and WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level classification and administration of plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: 1. Effective January 1, 2018, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for non- union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage be set at $900 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 2. Effective January 1, 2018, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for non- union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE + CHILD(REN) coverage be set at $1,095 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 3. Effective January 1, 2018, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for non- union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose EMPLOYEE + SPOUSE coverage be set at $1,150 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 4. Effective January 1, 2018, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for non- union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who choose FAMILY coverage be set at $1,460 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 5. Effective January 1, 2018, employees who choose EMPLOYEE ONLY coverage on the HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of $208.34 per month ($2500/year). 6. Effective January 1, 2018, employees who choose EMPLOYEE+CHILD(REN), EMPLOYEE+SPOUSE, or FAMILY coverage on the HIGH DEDUCTIBLE PLANS will be eligible for an employer VEBA contribution of $291.67 per month ($3500/year). 7. Effective January 1, 2018, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for non- union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, and who WAIVE COVERAGE will be set at $155 per month, pro-rated for regular part-time employees who work 20-29 hours per week. 8. The City will continue to administer other benefit programs. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 8e) Page 8 Title: 2018 Employer Benefits Contribution 9. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit the employee’s or officer’s share of any such premium to the insurer under an approved contract. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 6, 2017 Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor Attest: Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 6, 2017 Written Report: 9a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is to inform the City Council of upcoming activities related to the city’s Comprehensive Plan update. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions. SUMMARY: Staff has begun the process of updating the city’s comprehensive plan for 2040 (Plan). Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi) has been hired to assist staff in updating the Plan. The update process will include two primary community engagement opportunities consisting of neighborhood planning workshops conducted this fall and again in the spring of 2018. The fall workshop will present information regarding the city’s current comprehensive plan and the Vision 3.0 report and recommendations, as well as providing residents with the opportunity to provide input relating to the future direction of their neighborhoods and the city as a whole. At the spring meetings, residents will have the opportunity to review the draft Plan and provide further input and feedback. A map with the schedule and locations for each meeting is attached for reference. Notification for the meetings will be mailed to property owners and residents in advance of each meeting. Additionally, emails will be sent to neighborhood leaders and city contact lists, posted on Next Door, the city’s website and city social media sites, and sent to local media. Although these workshops will be the primary community engagement opportunities, residents will also have numerous other ways in which to provide input including via an on-line survey, written survey/comments, email, verbally, and through various social media outlets. A dedicated web page for the city’s comprehensive plan update has been established on the city’s website: www.stlouispark.org/SLP2040. This page will be updated regularly and will contain information relating to the update process, future activities/events, contact information, and ways in which to participate. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The contract for the planning consultant has been executed and funding for this has been allocated in the 2017 and 2018 community development budgets. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Invitation Postcard for Mailing Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Principal Planner Reviewed by: Karen Barton, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 9a) Page 2 Title: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update DISCUSSION City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 9a) Page 3 Title: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Background on Comprehensive Planning Every 10 years the city is required to update its long range plan. The coming update is due at the end of 2018. The Metropolitan Council is the agency charged with reviewing comprehensive plans for conformance with Metropolitan Systems Plans and regional plans. Comprehensive plans must address areas of regional importance, including Land Use, Transportation, Water Resources, Parks and Trails, and Housing. Schedule and Process Planning staff has begun assembling information and collecting data for the Comprehensive Plan update (Plan), and has begun outlining the structure for the plan. Staff has met with city staff, the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the Environment and Sustainability Commission to present the current plan elements and discuss possible changes for this update. The 2040 comprehensive plan update is due to the Metropolitan Council no later than December 31, 2018. Over the coming months, planning staff, along with a planning consultation (HKGi) will be working with city departments, city council, commissions, committees, residents and consultants in the coming months to complete a final draft by June 2018 to allow for the required 6-month review by the surrounding jurisdictions. Consultants City staff has begun hiring consultants for various elements of the comprehensive plan update (Plan), including the water supply plan and the surface water management plan. Engineering staff will also be hiring a transportation planning firm to address the mobility section of the plan. For general planning oversight, public process, and composition and finalization of the Plan, the city has hired the planning firm of Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. (HKGi). Public Engagement Process The Plan update will build upon the public input garnered through the Vision 3.0 process. Neighborhood community engagement and resident input will be a significant part of the Plan update. The first neighborhood meetings will be held this fall, and will focus on Vision 3.0 outcomes, how they relate to the overall direction of the community and how they will be used to inform the comprehensive plan. The workshops will provide an interactive process that will be supplemented by an on-line survey, written and verbal comments for input as well. This process will be led and facilitated by the planning consultant. A second set of neighborhood meetings will be held in the spring and will center on presentation of the draft plan. Staff and the consultant will explore and create additional opportunities for feedback and input on the plan over the course of the next several months. Next Steps The fall community engagement meetings will be held November 14th, 16th, 28th and 30th. Staff will update the Council on these meetings in December. PRSRT STD U.S. Postage PAID Twin Cities, MN Permit No. 603 5005 MinnetonkaBlvd., St. Louis Park, MN 5516Tuesday, November 14 6 – 8 p.m. The Rec Center Banquet Room 3700 Monterey Drive St. Louis Park Join us! St. Louis Park 2040 Neighborhood Planning Workshop City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 9a) Title: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Page 4 Join us! St. Louis Park 2040 Neighborhood Planning Workshop For city events, activities and news, visit stlouispark.org. Make service requests or receive city information via the app or visit mystlouispark.org nextdoor.com @stlouispark For city events, activities and news, visit stlouispark.org. Make service requests or receive city information via the app or visit mystlouispark.org For city events, activities and news, visit stlouispark.org. Make service requests or receive city information via the app or visit mystlouispark.org For city events, activities and news, visit stlouispark.org. Make service requests or receive city information via the app or visit mystlouispark.org Join us in planning your neighborhood’s future! The city is beginning to update its Comprehensive Plan and wants to hear from you! The Comprehensive Plan is an official document that guides the future of the City of St. Louis Park. It sets forth policies and programs that govern land use, transportation, public facilities, economic development and housing. It also includes plans for each of the city’s 35 neighborhoods. Tuesday, November 14 The Rec Center Banquet Room 3700 Monterey Drive 6 – 6:30 p.m. Free light supper 6:30 – 8 p.m. Neighborhood Planning Workshop Free childcare provided. We want your participation, so if you have a barrier to attending (hearing, language, mobility, date conflict, etc.) please call the city at 952.924.2525 (TDD 952.924.2518) at least three days in advance of the meeting to request assistance. For more information contact Meg McMonigal, principal planner, at mmcmonigal@stlouispark.org or 952.924.2573 or visit www.stlouispark.org/SLP2040. City Council Meeting of November 6, 2017 (Item No. 9a) Title: 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update Page 5