HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017/06/26 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionAGENDA
JUNE 26, 2017
6:30 p.m. SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1.Call to Order
1a. Roll Call
2.Consent Items
2a. Bid Tabulation: Award Bid for 37th Street Bridge Replacement (4017-1700)
Recommended Action: Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the
amount of $2,869,606.20 for the W. 37th Street Bridge Replacement - (Project No.
4017-1700).
3.Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
3a. Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance raising the
legal age to purchase tobacco and tobacco products in St. Louis Park from 18 to 21 years
old, increasing Administrative Fines, and set second reading for July 17, 2017.
4.Adjournment
Immediately following Special City Council Meeting
STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1. 5 mins. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 10, 2017
2. 45 mins. Flavored Tobacco Products
3. 45 mins. 2018 Budget
5 mins. Communications/Updates (Verbal)
Written Reports
4. May 2017 Monthly Financial Report
5. Vision 3.0 Update
6. Walker-Lake Initiatives 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: Special City Council
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Consent Agenda Item: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bid Tabulation: Award Bid for 37th Street Bridge Replacement (4017-1700)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to designate C.S. McCrossan Construction, Inc. the
lowest responsible bidder and authorize execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of
$2,869,606.20 for the W. 37th Street Bridge Replacement - (Project No. 4017-1700).
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to continue to implement our
Pavement Management program?
SUMMARY: Due to condition and design, this bridge replacement is necessary. This project has
increased in cost from what was originally estimated due to factors relating to access for
construction and flood plain mitigation. In order to secure the Federal Funds and the Local Bridge
Replacement Program Funds, staff recommends the award of the project to the low bidder, C.S.
McCrossan.
A total of six (6) bids were received for this project. Please see bid results below.
CONTRACTOR BID AMOUNT
C.S. McCrossan Construction Inc. $2,869,606.20
Meyer Contracting, Inc. $2,897,539.09
Thomas & Sons, Inc. $3,115,825.88
S.M. Hentges & Sons, Inc.**$3,300,616.81
Redstone Construction, LLC $3,329,803.64
Eureka Construction **$3,373,794.30
Engineers Estimate $2,784,207.70
** Denotes corrected amount
A review of the bids indicates C.S. McCrossan submitted the lowest bid. C.S. McCrossan has
successfully completed work in our City (Hwy 100 project). Staff recommends that a contract be
awarded to the firm in the amount of $2,869,606.20.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This project was planned for and included in
the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for 2017. The low bid is higher than the
programmed cost. This project will be funded using a combination of Federal Aid, Local Bridge
Replacement Grant, Pavement Management Funds, Utility Funds, and General Obligation Bonds.
There are available General Obligation Bond funds to pay for this increased cost without
jeopardizing other projects.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Prepared by: Joseph Shamla, Senior Engineering Project Manager
Reviewed by: Debra Heiser, Engineering Director; Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Page 2 Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Bid Tabulation: Award Bid for 37th Street Bridge Replacement (4017-1700)
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: During the development of the final plans, the estimated project costs increased
from the Capital Improvement Program estimate due to factors relating to access for construction,
and flood plain mitigation.
One of the biggest changes that has increased costs is the need to construct the bridge from the
east side of Minnehaha Creek. Late in the design process, the City was informed by Target that we
would not be able to use the private road, Boone Avenue, to access the bridge for construction
purposes. Due to deadlines with the federal funds, we did not have sufficient time to go through
condemnation proceedings to secure a temporary construction easement for this purpose. In
addition, due to the condition of Boone Avenue, we would likely have had to pay to repave it due
to construction wear and tear. We estimate the additional cost of building the bridge from one side
is $210,000, which staff estimates is less than the cost to secure a temporary easement and repave
Boone Avenue.
The mitigation for fill within the Minnehaha Creek flood plain was originally going to be worked
into an agreement with Target as a part of their plans to turn the private road, Boone Avenue, over
to the City. Target decided not to proceed with the reconstruction of Boone Avenue in conjunction
with the project. Instead they believe they are around five years away from pursuing a project that
would reconstruct Boone Avenue to city standards. Having to proceed with flood mitigation
increased our costs approximately $30,000.
Bidding Details
Bids were received on June 15, 2017 for the W. 37th Street Bridge and Road Reconstruction
Project. This bridge was found to be in need of replacement based off an inspection in 2011. This
bridge is a channel span bridge design and is no longer recommended by MnDOT due to a history
of structural and maintenance issues. The plans include the removal of the existing vehicle and the
existing pedestrian bridge. The new bridge will have sidewalk on both sides.
The new bridge will be approximately 3 feet higher in elevation than the existing bridge. This is
required to meet Department of Natural Resource requirements for recreation on Minnehaha
Creek. The increase in height has caused additional work to acquire temporary easements in order
to construct the bridge. All temporary easements are secured.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on May 25, June 1, and
June 8, 2017 and the Finance and Commerce on May 26, June 1, and June 8, 2017. In addition,
plans and specifications are noticed on the City Website and are made available electronically via
the internet by our vendor QuestCDN.com. Email notification was provided to four minority
associations and final printed plans were available for viewing at Dodge Data, Construct Connect,
Minnesota Builders Exchange, The Blue Book Building & Construction Network, and at City Hall.
Fifty Three contractors/vendors purchased plan sets with ten Disadvantaged Business Enterprises
(DBE) identifying themselves as subcontractors.
Page 3 Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Bid Tabulation: Award Bid for 37th Street Bridge Replacement (4017-1700)
Financial Consideration:
Staff has analyzed the bids and determined that C.S. McCrossan Construction Inc. is a qualified
contractor that can complete this work during the 2017 construction season. Based on the low bid
received, cost details are as follows:
Costs CIP Estimate Low Bid
Construction Cost $2,785,076.00 $2,869,606.20
Contingencies (10%) NA $286,960.62
Engineering & Administration (25%) $846,269.00 $717,401.55
Total $3,631,345.00 $3,873,968.37
Funding Sources
Federal Aid $1,438,400.00 $1,438,400.00
Local Bridge Replacement Program Grant $233,419.00 $233,418.93
Pavement Management Fund $1,803,276.00 $1,803,276.00
General Obligation Bonds (sidewalk) $0 $266,775.94
Sanitary Utility Fund $125,000.00 $124,537.50
Water Utility Fund 31,250.00 $7,560.00
Total $3,631,345.00 $3,873,876.37
Construction Timeline:
Construction is expected to begin on July 5th and should be completed by November of 2017.
Meeting: Special City Council
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Action Agenda Item: 3a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the first reading of an ordinance raising the
legal age to purchase tobacco and tobacco products in St. Louis Park from 18 to 21 years old,
increasing Administrative Fines, and set second reading for July 17, 2017.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to amend the City Code raising the
legal age to purchase tobacco or tobacco products from 18 to 21 and increasing Administrative Fines?
SUMMARY: Raising the minimum age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21 is intended
to limit availability of tobacco products and help reduce the number of youth who begin using
tobacco. Nearly 9 out of 10 tobacco smokers started smoking by age 18 according to the Centers
for Disease Control Youth and Tobacco Use fact sheet.i In the 2016 Minnesota Student Survey,
Suburban Hennepin County data indicates that that 19% of 11th grade students reported having
used a tobacco product within 30 days.ii
Many tobacco products are now offered in a variety of enticing flavors, relatively inexpensive
single-use packages, and may be colorfully displayed. These types of tobacco products, along
with traditional cigarettes, are readily available in retail stores and may be tempting to an 18 year
old high school student.
Nationwide more than 210 cities have raised the minimum legal age for tobacco products to 21.
In Minnesota a city may establish regulations for tobacco sales which are more restrictive than the
State. Tobacco sale establishments require an annual business license from the City and receive
compliance checks by Inspections and Police to verify compliance with all applicable State and
City regulations for display and sales.
This proposed Ordinance amends City Code Chapter 12, Business Licensing, by changing the
minimum age for tobacco product sales to 21, repealing sections that contain language defaulting
tobacco possession and use to the minimum legal age for Minnesota, and increasing the fines to
license holders for violations. The Ordinance is proposed to go into effect October 1, 2017.
Attached to the report are letters from various organizations for your review regarding this
proposed amendment.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Draft Tobacco Licensing Ordinance
Letters/Emails
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
i Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth and Tobacco Use fact sheet
.http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use
ii Hennepin County Public Health City of St. Louis Park Tobacco environmental scan, 2016
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 2
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: During the March 6 and May 15, 2017 Study Sessions the City Council
discussed possible changes to the Tobacco Licensing Ordinance; raising the legal age to purchase
tobacco or tobacco products from 18 to 21 and limiting availability of flavored tobacco.
Information on youth smoking from Hennepin County Public Health was presented in the reports.
Staff invited all 23 tobacco license holders in St. Louis Park to two informational meetings - the
afternoon of May 24th and the evening of May 25th. Total attendance was seven. There were
representatives from Super America and Holiday Gas Stations, National Association of Tobacco
Outlets (NATO), Minnesota Service Station and Convenience Store Association (MSSA), and
Twin West Chamber of Commerce.
Concerns voiced at the informational meeting focused on the expected loss of revenue with raising
of the legal age to 21. Attendees stated that it will not be a fair playing field if St. Louis Park
raised the legal age to 21. The customer can just take their business to a neighboring city such as
Hopkins, Golden Valley or Minnetonka to not only purchase tobacco products, but also the other
items a customer normally purchases at the same time. It was also noted that some companies use
electronic cash register systems that require the birthdate to be entered in order for the sale to go
through, or software to read the license birthdate. The need for specialized software or procedures
in different cities was a concern. The stated preference would be for a uniform statewide age level.
Analysis
The federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) permits cities to
enact more stringent regulations “relating to prohibiting the sale, distribution, possession, exposure
to, access to, advertising and promotion of, or use of tobacco products by individuals of any age”
21 U.S.C. § 387p(a)(1). While most states have set the minimum age at 18, several states have
minimum ages of 19 and 21. Additionally, where not preempted by state law, some cities have
raised the minimum age within their jurisdiction.
The minimum age for purchase, sale, and use of tobacco products under Minnesota Statutes
Section 609.685 is 18. However, that Statute explicitly states that nothing shall preclude the
adoption of a local ordinance which provides for more stringent regulation of the purchase, sale,
and use of tobacco products. Presently, Sections 8-377 & 8-378 of the City Code prohibits
possession, use, or procurement of tobacco products by minors, and the sale of tobacco products
to people under age 18. The City has authority to raise the minimum age for purchase, sale, and
use of some or all tobacco products to anything above 18. Research suggests that raising the
minimum age to 21 for all tobacco products would have a marked impact on reducing youth
smoking.iii
Recently, the Edina City Council approved raising the minimum age for purchase of all tobacco
products to 21 taking effect July 1, 2017. State Senator Carla Nelson (Rochester) presented
legislation that would decrease youth smoking by raising the sales age for tobacco products to 21.
Regulating the purchase age is relatively easy to enforce consistently. Alternatively, raising the
legal age of possession and use could become very problematic for an individual city. For
example, a driver passing through town who is 19 would be technically violating the law by
smoking a cigarette in the car.
iiihttp://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2015/TobaccoMinAge/tobacco_minimum_age_report_brief.pdf ;
http://www.mnmed.org/MMA/media/Minnesota-Medicine-Magazine/Clinical-BOYLE.pdf
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 3
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
Raising Legal Age to Purchase
For the city to raise the minimum age for purchase of any tobacco product requires minimal text
changes in city code. The proposed ordinance maintains the Minnesota State minimum age of 18
for tobacco use through repealing Sec. 8-377. (1) and (2) Illegal acts. The ordinance will then be
consistent with current and any future changes in legal age established by the Legislature.
Violation Penalties
Five establishments failed their 2017 compliance check as administered by the Police Department
and were assessed a violation penalty per the city code. The compliance check took place in March
and notices to the five establishments that failed were sent out April 6, 2017. Each establishment
owner was contacted by phone as well to discuss the compliance failure and violation penalty.
Four of the five establishments that failed the compliance check were first time offenders. Their
violation penalty was $250. The other establishment failed the compliance check for the second
time within 36 months. The violation penalty for this establishment was $750 and one day
suspension of sales.
Below is a comparison in Administrative Fines and License Suspension and Revocation with other
cities. The proposed amendment to the Violation Penalty section includes an increase to the 1st
and 2nd Violation Administrative Fine, currently $250 and $750. These fines would be increased
to $500 and $1,000 as part of the proposed ordinance amendment. In the comparison there is only
one other city that would charge $500 for the first violation and St. Louis Park would be the only
city that charges $1,000 for the second violation within 36 months. Staff has not proposed changes
to the License Suspension or Revocation section of the code (see second table below)
When presented at the information meetings, there was no concern stated by the attendees of these
proposed increases.
License Holders Penalty Comparisons
Administrative Fines
City 1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation 4th Violation
Bloomington $250 $500 $600 Up to $2,000
Edina $75 $200 $250 $500
Golden Valley $500 $750 $1,000 -------------
Hopkins $75 $200 $250 -------------
Minneapolis $200 $400 $800 $1,600
Minnetonka $250 $500 $600 -------------
Richfield $200 $500 $700 $1,000
Current SLP $250 $750 $2,000 Revocation
Proposed SLP $500 $1,000 $2,000 Revocation
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 4
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
License Suspensions and Revocations
City 1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation 4th Violation
Bloomington ------------- ------------- Minimum 7 days Up to 60 day
license
suspension or
revocation
Edina ------------- ------------- Minimum 7 days Revocation
Golden Valley Minimum 5 days Minimum 15
days
Minimum 30
days
Revocation
Hopkins ------------- ------------- Minimum 7 days -------------
Minneapolis ------------- ------------- Minimum 30
days
Revocation
Minnetonka ------------- ------------- Minimum 7 days -------------
Richfield ------------- 2 days 7 days Up to 60 days or
license
revocation
St. Louis Park ------------- 1 day 3 days Revocation
Effective Date
If adopted by Council an effective date of October 1, 2017 is proposed in the Ordinance. This
allows sufficient time for providing reasonable notice and allowing business the time to make
procedural or equipment software changes to ensure compliance.
Next Steps: Assuming the first reading of the ordinance is approved, Staff will prepare for a second
reading of the ordinance on July 17, 2017.
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 5
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
ORDINANCE NO. 17-____
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE
RELATING TO TOBACCO
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 8-374(a) of the City Code shall be amended to read as follows:
(a)It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any person to sell or offer to sell any tobacco,
tobacco-related device or electronic delivery device:
(1)To any person under the age of 1821 years.
(2)By means of any type of vending machine.
(3)By means of self-service merchandising whereby the customer does not need to
make a verbal or written request to an employee of the licensed premises in order
to receive the tobacco, tobacco-related device or electronic delivery device. All
such products shall be stored behind a counter or other area not freely accessible
to customers.
(4)Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine,
marijuana or other type of deleterious, hallucinogenic or toxic or controlled
substance, except nicotine, and not naturally found in tobacco, tobacco-related
devices or electronic delivery devices.
(5)By any other means or to any other person prohibited by federal, state or other
local laws, ordinances or other regulations.
SECTION 2. Section 8-377 of the City Code shall be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 8-377. Illegal acts.
Unless otherwise provided in this subdivision, the following acts shall be a violation of this
subdivision:
(1)Illegal possession. It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any minor to possess
any tobacco, tobacco-related device or electronic delivery device. This subsection shall
not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check on behalf of the
city.Repealed
(2)Illegal use. It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any minor to smoke, chew,
sniff or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco-related device or electronic delivery
device.Repealed
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 6
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
(3) Illegal procurement. It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any minorperson to
purchase or attempt to purchase, or otherwise obtain, any tobacco, tobacco-related
device or electronic delivery device on behalf of a person under the age of 21 years.,
and it shall be a violation of this subdivision for any person to purchase or otherwise
obtain such items on behalf of a minor. It shall also be a violation of this subdivision
for any person to sell or otherwise provide such products to any minorperson under the
age of 21 years. It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any person to coerce or
attempt to coerce a minorperson under the age of 21 years to illegally purchase or
otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco-related device or electronic delivery
device. This subsection shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance
check on behalf of the city.
(4) Use of false identification. It shall be a violation of this subdivision for any minorperson
under the age of 21 years to attempt to disguise their true age by the use of a false form
of identification, whether the identification is that of another person or one in which
the age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than
the actual age of the minorperson.
SECTION 3. Section 8-378(b) of the City Code shall be amended to read as follows:
(b) Criminal penalty. As set forth in M.S.A. ch. 609, it shall be a:
(1) Misdemeanor for anyone to sell tobacco, a tobacco-related device or electronic delivery
device to a person under the age of 1821 years for the first violation. Whoever violates
this subdivision a subsequent time within five years of a previous conviction under this
subdivision is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(2) Misdemeanor to furnish tobacco, a tobacco-related device or electronic delivery device
to a person under the age of 1821 years. Whoever violates this paragraph a subsequent
time is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.
(3) Petty misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 18 years who possesses, smokes,
chews, or otherwise ingests, purchases, or attempts to purchase tobacco, a tobacco-
related device or electronic delivery device. Repealed
(4) Petty misdemeanor for anyone under the age of 1821 years to sell, furnish or give away
any tobacco, tobacco-related device or electronic delivery device. This subsection shall
not apply to an employee of the license holder under the age of 18 years while such
employee is stocking such products a person age 18-20 years while working as an
employee of a business holding a license granted pursuant to this Subdivision.
SECTION 4. Section 8-378(c) of the City Code shall be amended to read as follows:
(c) Presumed penalties for Violations: The presumed penalties for violations are as follows
(unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive business days’ suspension):
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 7
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
Type of Violation 1st
Violation
2nd
Violation
within
36 months
3rd
Violation
within
36 months
4th
Violation
within
36 months
1. Commission of a felony related to
the licensed activity. Revocation N/A N/A N/A
2. Sale of tobacco, tobacco-related
device or electronic delivery device
while license is under suspension.
Revocation N/A N/A N/A
3. Sale of tobacco, tobacco-related
device or electronic delivery device
to underage person.
$250500 $7501,000
and 1 day
$2,000
and 3 days Revocation
4. Refusal to allow government
inspectors or police admission to
inspect premises.
5 days 15 days Revocation N/A
5. Illegal gambling on premises. 3 days 6 days 18 days Revocation
6. Failure to attend mandatory
education training. $250 $750 and
1 day
$2,000 and
3 days Revocation
SECTION 5. Section 8-378(j) of the City Code shall be amended to read as follows:
(j) Exceptions and defenses. Nothing in this subdivision shall prevent the providing of
tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices to a minorperson under the age of 21
years as part of a bona fide religious, spiritual or cultural ceremony. It shall be an
affirmative defense to a violation of this subdivision for a person to have reasonably relied
upon proof of age as set forth by state law.
SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall take effect following its passage and publication on October
1, 2017.
ADOPTED this ______ day of _______________, 2017, by the City Council of the City
of St. Louis Park.
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Page 8
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales
First Reading June 26, 2017
Second Reading July 17, 2017
Date of Publication July 27, 2017
Date Ordinance takes effect October 1, 2017
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council July 17, 2017
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Thomas K. Harmening, City Manager Jake Spano, Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk Soren Mattick, City
HealthPartners
8170 33rd Avenue South
Bloomington, MN 55425
healthpartners.com
Mailing Address:
PO Box 1309
Minneapolis, MN 55440-1309
June 21, 2017
The Honorable Mayor Jake Spano and St. Louis Park City Councilmembers
St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Mayor Spano and St. Louis Park City Councilmembers:
On behalf of the 23,000 employees at HealthPartners, many of whom live or work in this city, we want to express
our strong support for the proposed ordinance to raise the age for tobacco sales to 21 in St. Louis Park. As you
may know, it is HealthPartners’ mission to improve health and well-being in partnership with our members,
patients and the community.
Approximately 95 percent of adult smokers started before they were 21. For years, tobacco use has been the
number one preventable cause of death in our country and our state. Smoking costs the state more than $3 billion
annually in excess health care costs and each year more than 6,000 Minnesotans die from tobacco-related
diseases.
18-21 is a critical time when young people move from intermittent smoking to daily use. In addition to the
countless long-term negative health effects of tobacco, nicotine itself is known to be particularly harmful to the
development of the adolescent brain. Research suggests that nicotine interferes with brain maturation and can
have long term effects on development and mental health. A recent report from the Institute of Medicine found
that increasing the tobacco sales age to 21 would also mean that smoking initiation among 15-17-year-olds would
be reduced by 25 percent.
The City of St. Louis Park has been a leader for other Minnesota communities in our shared desire to create a
smoke-free generation. Thank you for being a leader in our state and taking a positive step towards keeping
tobacco out of the hands of our children.
Sincerely,
Dr. Thomas Kottke, M.D.
HealthPartners Medical Director, Well-being
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 9
June 21, 2017
Members of the City Council
City of St Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St Louis Park, MN 55416
Dear Members of the St Louis Park City Council,
I am writing on behalf of the Twin Cities Medical Society in support of the ordinance to raise the legal age for
tobacco sales in St Louis Park from 18 to 21. The Twin Cities Medical Society is an organization that represents
approximately 4,500 physicians and medical students living and working in the seven-county Twin Cities
metropolitan area. One of our key missions is advocating for policies that promote public health.
Our physician members share all too often that tobacco is still a problem for their patients. E-cigarette use is also
on the rise among Minnesota youth. We know that exposure to nicotine while the adolescent brain is still
developing increases the risk of mood disorders, permanent lowering of impulse control and other addictions later
in life. This ordinance is a bold step toward protecting another generation from a lifetime of tobacco addiction, and
ultimately disease and premature death.
Restricting the sale of tobacco to those 21 and older is the next step in reducing Minnesota youth smoking
initiation rates. Almost 95% of adult smokers pick up the habit before age 21, and increasing the gap between
those who can legally purchase tobacco will limit high schooler’s access to these products. By increasing the
purchasing age for tobacco, St Louis Park will reduce the number of youth and young adults that are exposed to
these highly addictive products.
We stand behind this ordinance, and you. Thank you for protecting the public health of St Louis Park residents.
Sincerely,
Matt Hunt, MD
President of the Twin Cities Medical Society
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 10
From: Nancy Oliker <nancy_m_oliker@uhc.com>
Date: June 22, 2017 at 9:22:53 AM CDT
To: Anne Mavity <Anne@AnneMavity.org>
Subject: Let’s Stop the Start in St. Louis Park
Reply-To: nancy_m_oliker@uhc.com
Dear City Council Member, Ward 2 Anne Mavity,
As a resident of St. Louis Park and a volunteer for the American Heart Association, I am writing
to urge you to stop the start in St. Louis Park and vote YES on raising the minimum age to
purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21.
We can do more to prevent kids from becoming addicted to tobacco. A national consensus is
growing to prevent addictions and future health problems by ensuring that those who sell tobacco
products do so to adults who are 21 and older. Let’s make St. Louis Park the second city in
Minnesota to raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco from 18 to 21!
The National Academy of Medicine reports that there would be a 25 percent reduction in
smoking initiation among 15-to-17-year-olds if the age to purchase tobacco was raised to 21.
Preventing youth from starting to smoke is essential to reducing smoking prevalence,
considering that almost 95 percent of addicted adult smokers started before age 21. Increasing
the age gap between kids and those who can legally buy tobacco will help remove access to
tobacco products from the high-school environment and stop the start.
Several states and local governments throughout the country have already passed this life-saving
policy to protect youth. Hawaii and California were the first states to raise the age to purchase
tobacco to 21. And more than 230 municipalities, and growing, in the United States have raised
the age to purchase tobacco to 21 including the city of Chicago. In 2005, Needham, MA
increased the tobacco purchase age to 21 and saw the smoking rates among high school students
fell by nearly half!
That is why I urge you to protect our youth and pass this life-saving policy in St. Louis Park.
Let’s create a movement in our state to stop the start!
Thank you for your service to our community.
Regards,
Nancy Oliker
4200 Raleigh Ave
Minneapolis, MN 55416
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 11
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a) Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco SalesPage 12
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 13
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 14
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Elyse Less <elyse@mntobaccofreealliance.org>
Date: Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 2:45 PM
Subject: Thank you for supporting T21!
To: mayorjakespano@gmail.com, suesanger@comcast.net, Anne@annemavity.org,
glindberg@stlouispark.org, tpbrausen@gmail.com, hallfinslp@gmail.com, slp.thommiller@gmail.com
Dear Mayor Spano and Members of the St. Louis Park City Council:
I am writing on behalf of the Tobacco-Free Alliance to thank you for introducing an ordinance increasing the
tobacco age to 21. The Tobacco-Free Alliance is a nonprofit organization working to reduce the harms of
tobacco by engaging all segments of the community, particularly youth, through assessment, education and
advocacy.
Tobacco products are still hooking our youth. E-cigarettes are particularly appealing to kids. They come in bright
colors and an array of flavors like chocolate, cherry cola and fruit loops. In the 2016 Minnesota Student Survey,
more than 17% of Minnesota 11th graders reported using e-cigarettes in the last 30 days. Increasing the gap
between youth and those legally able to purchase tobacco products will help get e-cigarettes and other tobacco
products out of the hands of our children.
Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death and disease in Minnesota. In fact, tobacco causes
more than 6,000 deaths and costs more than $3 billion each year in health care and lost productivity in our
state. Increasing the tobacco age to 21 is a positive step towards ensuring St. Louis Park’s youth are healthy
and free of the burden of tobacco addiction.
Thank you for your leadership and ensuring St. Louis Park is a healthy place to live.
Sincerely,
Elyse Levine Less
Elyse Levine Less, JD, MPH
Executive Director
Tobacco-Free Alliance MN
www.mntobaccofreealliance.org
Office: 651-379-0196
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 15
On Jun 22, 2017, at 4:58 PM, julie zimmerman berg <juliezb@aol.com> wrote:
Dear Jake-
I have a friend who was very active in this recently passed Tobacco 21 Campaign in Edina and she has passed
the mantle to me to take on for making it happen in St. Louis Park.
We are known to be a health minded community in so many ways- Connecting the Park, Health in the Park,
Bike the Park etc... This effort makes sense to me.
I am writing as a constituent to express my support for increasing the tobacco sale age in St. Louis Park to
21.For years tobacco use has been the number one preventable cause of death in our country and our
state. Smoking kills over 6,300 Minnesotans each year. Despite this, we continue to let the tobacco industry
addict our children to their deadly products. We need to take action to stop the tobacco industry.
Thank you for your efforts in making St. Louis Park a healthy place to live.
More information for you to consider if you’d like:
I have been working with the Minnesotans for a Smoke-Free Generation Coalition on this issue. There is so
much evidence to prove that changing the tobacco purchase age to 21 helps reduce teenage smoking, and
therefore lifelong smoking! Without a doubt, tobacco companies target our young people. They know that if
they don’t get young people addicted by age 21, they probably never will. 95% of smokers started before they
turned 21. As you know nicotine isn’t good for anyone but it’s especially harmful for the developing adolescent
brain. Smoking's negative effects are so well documented that I don't need to go into detail about them.
•We would be the very first city in Minnesota to raise the age to 21. I would love St. Louis Park to lead the way
when it comes to this health issue! (2 states have raised the age – CA and HI – and 210 cities including NYC, Chicago, and
St. Louis.) I consider Minnesota to be on the forefront of health related issues and am surprised not one city has passed this
yet. Several are considering it.
•Currently underage smokers are able to buy from 18 year olds – and they are! 90% of underage smokers get
their tobacco from 18 -20 year olds. 18 year olds are at the high school so this is not difficult. 18 year olds and 16 year olds
might know one another through classes, teams, clubs, etc. It’s harder for a 16 year old to buy from a 21 year old because
they are simply not in the same social circles.
•One of my initial thoughts was this – if an 18 year old cannot buy in Edina, wouldn’t they just go next door to
Minneapolis, Bloomington, etc.? If no other cities follow us, would it make an impact? YES it would! The evidence is
found in Needham, MA (Boston suburb with demographics very similar to ours). The age was raised to 21 and no other
cities followed suit. And yet the amount of smoking among high schoolers in Needham decreased dramatically!! It dropped
in half in 5 years!
•This change would apply to ALL tobacco products, including e-cigarettes which are definitely on the rise in Edina.
Here’s a quote from a Philip Morris Report (1986) – they do an enormous amount of research as you might
imagine. “Raising the legal minimum age for cigarette purchases to 21 could gut our young adult market
where we sell about 25 billion cigarettes and enjoy a 70% market share.”
Lastly, I’m sharing my favorite quote from Helen Keller (who was blind and deaf as you know). “I cannot do
everything but I can do SOMETHING. I will not fail to do the something I can do.”
Sincerely,
julie zimmerman berg
juliezb@aol.com
952.926.9311 h
612.532.1734 c
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 16
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Thomas Briant <info@natocentral.org>
Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:24 PM
Subject: St. Louis Park (Age 21 Ordinance)
To: mayorjakespano@gmail.com, hallfinslp@gmail.com, slp.thommiller@gmail.com,
suesanger@comcast.net, Anne@annemavity.org, glindberg@stlouispark.org, tpbrausen@gmail.com
Coalition
of Neighborhood
Retailers
TO: Mayor Jack Spano and St. Louis Park City Council Members
FROM: Coalition of Neighborhood Retailers
DATE: June 23, 2017
The Coalition of Neighborhood Retailers is a group of retail trade organizations
whose member retail stores include convenience stores, grocery stores, service
stations and tobacco stores, some of which are located in St. Louis Park. On
behalf of our member stores, we are submitting the attached letter outlining our
concerns with the proposed ordinance that would increase the legal age to
purchase tobacco to 21. Especially enlightening are the public’s comments posted
in response to the City of Edina adopting an age 21 ordinance, a sampling of
which are included with our letter. We would appreciate your consideration of
our concerns as outlined in the letter.
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 17
Coalition of
Neighborhood
Retailers
June 23, 2017
Mayor Jack Spano
Council Member Steve Hallfin
Council Member Thom Miller
Council Member Susan Sanger
Council Member Anne Mavity
Council Member Gregg Lindberg
Council Member Tim Brausen
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Blvd
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Re: Issue of Raising the Legal Age to Purchase Tobacco
Dear Mayor Spano and City Council Members:
The retail trade associations that comprise the Coalition of Neighborhood Retailers and our
respective retail store members located in the City of St. Louis Park have serious concerns with
the proposed ordinance that would raise the legal age to purchase tobacco products from 18 to 21.
The reasons to not adopt this proposed increase in the legal age are numerous and we ask for
your consideration of the following facts and realities:
Possession and Used Remain Legal: The proposed ordinance prohibits the sale of tobacco
products to anyone under the age of 21, but the ordinance does not prohibit the use and
possession of tobacco products by 18, 19 and 20 year olds. If the main purposes of the ordinance
are to reduce tobacco use by adults that are 18, 19 and 20 and/or reduce the ability of these adults
to serve as a source of tobacco to underage youth, the lack of a prohibition on the use and
possession of tobacco products undermines both of these purposes. These adults will simply
drive a short distance to a neighboring suburb to purchase tobacco products for their own use or
to serve as a social source for friends or siblings that are younger than 18. In either case, the
adoption of this ordinance will have little, if any, impact on tobacco use by 18, 19 and 20 year
old adults. Since the ordinance itself undermines its goals, there is no reasonable justification for
adopting the ordinance.
Significant Reduction in Youth Tobacco Use Without an Age 21 Ordinance: The annual
Minnesota Student Survey conducted by the Minnesota Department of Health reports that
smoking among 9th graders declined from 19.6% in 2001 to 4.3% in 2016, an 80% decline. In
addition, the smoking rate among 11th graders declined 75% over this same time period. These
declines were achieved by retailers preventing sales to minors, better health education in our
schools, and all in the absence of raising the age to 21. You may have been provided
information that the town of Needham, Massachusetts had smoking rates drop by 50% among
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 18
high school students after an age 21 ordinance was adopted in that city. However, Minnesota has
seen even more significant declines in youth smoking than Needham, Massachusetts without the
adoption of an age 21 law.
Overwhelming Negative Public Reaction to Edina Age 21 Ordinance: The adoption of an
age 21 ordinance is not necessarily an accurate reflection of the public’s opinion about raising
the legal age. Accompanying this letter are actual on-line comments posted in response to a
Minneapolis Star Tribune newspaper story about Edina’s adoption of an age 21 ordinance. The
overwhelming majority of posted comments did not support the action of the Edina City Council.
We urge you to read this sample of comments as they are a barometer of this strong negative
public opinion toward an age 21 ordinance.
No Longitudinal Study Exists to Support Age 21: There has been no empirical, broad-based,
long term (i.e., longitudinal) study conducted to determine whether raising the legal age to 21
actually results in decreasing youth tobacco use. Why? Because the age 21 issue is too new to
have had a study conducted. While advocates may quote a study that attempts to predict what
might occur if the legal age to purchase tobacco is raised to 21, the lack of a scientific study
based in reality should give local lawmakers pause before voting in favor of such an ordinance.
Personal Rights Still Matter: The personal rights of 18, 19 and 20 year old adults to decide for
themselves whether to purchase tobacco products will be curtailed even though these same
young adults can vote, serve in the military, get married, take out loans for college, and make
their own health care decisions. The protection of personal rights is still important in our society.
We appreciate you considering our concerns and not supporting the adoption of this age 21
ordinance.
Sincerely,
Lance Klatt, Executive Director Jamie Pfuhl, President
Minnesota Service Station Association Minnesota Grocers Association
Kevin Thoma, Executive Director Thomas Briant, Executive Director
Minnesota Petroleum Marketers Association National Association of Tobacco Outlets
Bruce Nustad, President
Minnesota Retailers Association
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 19
Sample of Comments in Response to Edina Age 21 Ordinance Passage
Source: Minneapolis Star Tribune (www.startribune.com), May 2-3, 2017
“All Edina has done is make cigarettes more of a ‘forbidden fruit’ to their teenagers and won’t do much,
if anything to do with reducing smoking rates. It’s already proven that education, not prohibition, is the
best way to reduce smoking (and drinking).”
“Since Edina doesn’t seem to believe 18 year olds can make a good decision when it comes to tobacco
use, I assume they’ll want to raise the age of legal majority to 21 along with the voting age and the age for
military service?”
“When are the citizens going to say enough is enough? A City Council enacting a law prohibiting the
sale of a legal product seems like overreach. Hopefully these 18-20 year olds will vote against these folks
for infringing on their rights.”
“I would not have voted for the 2 new members of the city council had I known they would bring to life
and vote for this. It’s a waste of my city tax dollars and a loss of more tax dollars.”
“This is a no brainer…just go elsewhere…how dumb are the council people of Edina?”
“What principle does this establish? That they don’t trust 18 year olds to make decisions about their own
personal consumption choices?”
“Do you trust them enough to allow them to march into battle overseas with a machine-gun in their
hands?”
“I’m a non-smoker and well over 21 so I have no dog in [t]his fight. But I don’t think it’s a good idea to
make cigarettes illegal to purchase for young adults. They’re legal adults. They can make their own
decisions.”
“What an amazingly superficial and useless action. Military personnel aside, is there any true reason to
be a legal adult when others are making your personal decisions for you?”
“Self-righteous do-nothingness. And no, I do not smoke-I just don’t believe in arbitrarily taking away the
rights of legal adults.”
“Brilliant! Leave it up to Edina to lead the way to show the rest of us how another symbolic, do nothing
law will only hurt local businesses and effectively lower tax revenues for their city.”
“Nanny state.”
“I loathe smoking, but the only thing more insufferable than smokers is people on their high horse telling
adults what they can’t do.”
“Each day we are getting closer to living in a totalitarian society. This is supposed to be a free country.
We are losing more and more of our freedoms with each legislative session, with each city council
meeting and each new law that is put on the books. Tragic and sad.”
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 20
From: J Becker <JHB1011@outlook.com>
Date: June 26, 2017 at 4:21:22 AM CDT
To: "mayorjakespano@gmail.com" <mayorjakespano@gmail.com>, "hallfinslp@gmail.com"
<hallfinslp@gmail.com>, "slp.thommiller@gmail.com" <slp.thommiller@gmail.com>,
"suesanger@comcast.net" <suesanger@comcast.net>, "anne@annemavity.org"
<anne@annemavity.org>, "glindberg@stlouispark.org" <glindberg@stlouispark.org>,
"tpbrausen@gmail.com" <tpbrausen@gmail.com>
Subject: Urgent: Please OPPOSE Tobacco 21!
Please see attached letter. (pdf)
Please watch this short 8 minute video regarding Tobacco
21: https://spark.adobe.com/video/4hPYBmpz9nqL4
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 21
Dear Mayor Spano & St. Louis Park City Council,
It has come to my attention that the CIty of St. Louis Park is entertaining a proposal to
raise the legal age to purchase tobacco and vapor products to 21+. I understand the
concern in maintaining Minnesota’s steadily declining smoking rates, I too share concern
in this matter, which is why I am writing you to encourage the city to OPPOSE a Tobacco
21 policy for the following reasons:
1) Tobacco 21 conflicts with Minnesota Age of Majority and infringes on the rights of
legal adults.
At age 18, Minnesota adults can make their own medical decisions, get married, buy guns, own
credit cards, vote, and join the military. If an 18-year-old commits a crime in Minnesota, they'll
be charged as an adult and could even face the death penalty. Restricting an 18-year-old adult
from buying tobacco products conflicts with the Age of Majority rule as defined in Minnesota
Statute 645.451. Restricting any legal adult from access to smoke-free vapor products, which
have been proven to be 95% safer than smoking, infringes on rights protected under Article IX
and the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
2) Tobacco 21 has potential to actually increase smoking
Smoking rates among U.S. high school students have declined by 78% over the past two
decades and are currently at 8%, the lowest they've been since the National Youth Risk
Behavior Survey began in 1991, according to the CDC. The prevalence of youth use of
e-cigarettes has also declined, dropping from 16.0% in 2015 to 11.3% in 2016. Smoking rates
among adults in the U.S. have also steadily declined and are at their historical lowest since the
CDC's National Health Interview Survey began keeping such records in 1965. Minnesota in
particular has seen an unprecedented 56% decline in youth smoking rates over the past 5
years. Clearly, progress is being made. Smoking and vaping are rapidly losing popularity among
youth.
Creating new restrictions will draw more attention to smoking, potentially making it more
appealing through a reverse psychology effect. Furthermore, as young adults realize their
freedom to chose has been removed, they may enter into reactance motivational state and act
to regain control by not complying, resulting in increased smoking rates. Psychological
reactance is an aversive affective reaction in response to regulations or impositions that impinge
on freedom and autonomy.
3) Tobacco 21 sets the stage for increased tobacco access in schools
Under Tobacco 21 laws, the city will lose revenue to neighboring cities and states while
simultaneously setting the stage for a bolstered black market for cigarettes in our schools.
Nothing is stopping a motivated 18-year-old from simply driving to neighboring cities or states,
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 22
picking up cigarettes, and driving back to capitalize on the new business opportunity. This idea
is nothing new. Many Minnesota smokers make the trek to North Dakota and Wisconsin for
tax-free smokes since Minnesota raised the sin tax on cigarettes. Furthermore, cigarettes can
easily be purchased online, duty-free. Keep in mind, these young “entrepreneurs” will not be
requiring age verification for sales. And just like that, we have more cigarettes in our schools
than ever before.
4) Tobacco 21 prevents adult access to tobacco harm reduction methods
Tobacco 21 prevents adults age 18-20 from access to smoke-free vapor products, which the
Royal College of Physicians has concluded to be at least 95 percent less harmful than smoking.
This measure is poised to keep the 90 percent of people who start smoking before the age of
18, bound to cigarettes for three additional years, hardening an addiction to smoking.
In a recently published National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper titled "The
Effects of E-cigarette Minimum Legal Sale Age Laws on Youth Substance Use", research
supported by the National Institutes of Health concluded that laws banning sales of e-cigarettes
to young adults actually pushes youth toward traditional cigarettes. Strict enforcement of these
laws is linked to an increase in youth smoking participation of 0.7 to 1.4 percentage points. The
study concludes that the unintended consequences of these laws is concerning and may have a
negative impact on public health.
5) Prohibitive measures are a proven failed strategy
Since raising the drinking age to 21, there's been an increase in college binge drinking (ages
18-24). According to the CDC, "people aged 12 to 20 years drink 11 percent of all alcohol
consumed in the United States. More than 90 percent of this alcohol is consumed in the form of
binge drinks. On average, underage drinkers consume more drinks per drinking occasion than
adult drinkers." Alcohol is responsible for the deaths over 1,000 people in the U.S. between the
age of 18-24 every year. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism says that even
though the "21 year-old drinking age has been in place for nearly 25 years, we are still facing an
environment where drinking by people under 21 is the norm."
Similarly, the war on drugs has done nothing to decrease drug use. All it’s done is create a
violent black market, the highest incarceration rate on the planet, and has cost the U.S. over $1
trillion since Nixon initiated it. History has taught us that prohibition doesn't work.
6) Tobacco 21 has no conclusive evidence of being effective
T21 proponents often cite Needham, Mass. as their golden example of the policy's success.
Unfortunately, their claims are misleading, as they fall short of telling the whole story. The
Boston suburb did see an impressive 48% reduction in teen smoking rates from 2006 to 2012
after implementing the policy, however, as Needham's director of public health points out, the
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 23
city had enacted multiple other tobacco control efforts at the same time. "I wouldn't say it's all
because of this [Tobacco 21]," she told WNYC. Additionally, 'the study analyzed data starting in
2006, a year after the purchasing age hike. Kessel Schneider, study co-author, acknowledged
this as a possible limitation to the research as it's unclear exactly how teen smoking was
trending in Needham during the years leading up to the policy change'.
As mentioned above, the entire nation's smoking rates have been steadily declining for
decades, reaching historic lows; Needham is hardly an exception. For example, from 2011 to
2016, Minnesota’s youth smoking rates declined by 56% despite having no Tobacco 21 laws in
place.
Out of the 2 states and 200 plus communities that have passed this policy, this out of context
and inconclusive example of Needham, Mass. remains the only statistical claim of Tobacco 21
success.
7) Majority of Minnesotans oppose Tobacco 21 laws
An average taken of nine 2017 Minnesota public polls show 71% of respondents oppose
‘raising the smoking age’ to 21.
On May 2, Edina hastily passed Tobacco 21, making them the first in the state to adopt the
measure. Shortly following on May 9, the Hutchinson City Council wisely voted not to entertain
the dangerous policy.
At the root, this kind of legislation represents the gradual erosion of autonomy, etched away
through the passage of more and more behavioral restrictions into law. To suggest that the
government should regulate outside of the guidelines established by our Constitution and
remove the people's right to make decisions for themselves, is a very slippery slope and the
implications aren't good for anyone.
Tobacco 21 carries more risk than benefit. Please protect our schools from black market
cigarettes, keep our smoking rates on a downtrend, protect adult access to smoke-free vapor
products, and protect the rights of legal adults to make their own choices by opposing Tobacco
21.
Respectfully,
Jen Hoban
Tobacco Harm Reduction Advocate
Becker County
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 24
Supporting studies:
*Vaping has potential to eliminate virtually all tobacco related disease:
https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/news/promote-e-cigarettes-widely-substitute-smoking-says-new-rcp-report
Toxicology and Pharmacology Report:
*Vapor aerosols as benign as ambient air:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230014002505
Public Health England:
*Vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/e-cigarettes-around-95-less-harmful-than-tobacco-estimates-landmark-review
American Council on Science and Health:
*Tobacco Harm Reduction:
http://www.acsh.org/sites/default/files/Helping-Smokers-Quit-The-Science-Behind-Tobacco-Harm-Reduction.pdf
University at Buffalo and the University of Michigan:
*Vaping is not a gateway to smoking:
http://www.wkbw.com/news/e-cigarettes-are-not-a-gateway-to-smoking-according-to-new-research
Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis:
*E-cigarettes do not promote cancer growth:
http://newsroom.wiley.com/press-release/environmental-and-molecular-mutagenesis/e-cigarettes-do-not-promote-cancer-growth-lab
-
Annals of Internal Medicine
*Long-term vaping 'far safer than smoking':
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2017-02-07-long-term-vaping-far-safer-than-smoking-says-lan
dmark-study/
Articles of interest:
Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public
Health:
*Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' Lying Has Got to Stop:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/03/in-my-view-campaign-for-tobacco-free.html
*Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Admits that Its Secret Campaign Promoted Youth Cigarette Addiction:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/03/campaign-for-tobacco-free-kids-admits.html
*Tobacco Companies Aren't the Only Ones Who Tried to Block Graphic Cigarette Warning Labels
https://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/08/
*New CDC Data Should Put to Rest the Contention that E-Cigarettes are a Gateway to Youth Smoking
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2017/06/new-cdc-data-should-put-to-rest.html
Los Angeles Times
*Why a ‘smoking age’ of 21 is a bad idea:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0313-males-teen-smoking-20160313-story.html
Detroit Lakes Tribune
*'Raising the smoking age' is a bad idea, may backfire
http://www.dl-online.com/opinion/4278036-letter-raising-smoking-age-bad-idea-may-backfire
Business Insider
*Why People Often Do The Exact Opposite Of What They're Told
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-people-dont-follow-directions-2013-8
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 25
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Skip Murray <grandmaskip@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 1:51 PM
Subject: Tobacco 21 - Special Meeting June 26th.
To: mayorjakespano@gmail.com, hallfinslp@gmail.com, slp.thommiller@gmail.com,
suesanger@comcast.net, anne@annemavity.org, glindberg@stlouispark.org, tpbrausen@gmail.com,
aboettcher@stlouispark.org
Dear City of St. Louis Park,
I am against the passage of an ordinance to raise the legal age to purchase Vapor products and
tobacco products to the age of 21. I do not believe it makes sense to pretend we are helping our youth
by a meaningless law when our young adults can drive down the road and purchase what they want
outside of city limits. The anti-tobacco folks make it sound like a race who can be first, second, third,
etc., to pass a law that takes away the rights of some adults to purchase a legal product. What those
folks don't tell you is that Hutchinson also looked at Tobacco 21 and they voted AGAINST it. I believe
adults have the right to make decisions, even if it's a poor one. I don't believe in taking away the rights
of ALL for what SOME might do. I think of the person who was speeding the other day and almost hit
my truck. We don't take away cars because some people drive like they have no brains!!!!
After watching Tobacco Control laws implemented across the nation for the last 4 years I feel
compelled to share what I have learned. This should be sent to or read by every lawmaker in the country.
The term Tobacco Harm Reduction (THR) is a public health strategy to lower the health risks to
individuals and wider society associated with using tobacco products. Having established what THR is,
let’s dispel the following misconceptions about the most successful THR method in history, vaping. The
Royal College of Physicians (RCP) in the UK reported that vaping is AT LEAST 95% LESS HARMFUL
than smoking cigarettes (Nicotine without Smoke, 2016). So why are we seeing these Health
Organizations denying vaping its proper place in THR? Keep reading to find out why.
We often hear that ‘Big Tobacco’ has a new way to addict the youth with vaping. This could not be
further from the truth! I personally have never worked for Big Tobacco unless you count the 31 years I
smoked destroying my lungs and quality of life. The same can be said for so many others that just want
the truth to be told. They have been able to QUIT smoking using vaping, plain and simple. However, the
industry is under constant attack by ‘Health Organizations’ as being the same as tobacco. Why?
The ultimate goal of the ‘Health Organizations’ is to create regulation and government control. They
do it with a method that was used first in the oil industry. Distract and deny any factual debate and move
on with their rhetoric to keep the perceived reality in their favor. With the advent of vaping, we have seen
a direct correlation of a reduction in smoking with the same increase in vaping (Worstall, 2014).
Coincidence? I think not but the ‘Health Organizations’ will not admit that, ever. Instead, they will pull
the ‘Save the Children’ mantra and skew the data to suit their needs for continued existence. Oh, did I
forget to tell you that the majority of funding for these organizations comes from Big Pharmaceutical
industry players? You see the pharmaceutical industry stands to lose billions of dollars in revenue
because of vaping. Think about that for a minute; could we all be seeing their own greed being played out
on a world stage as if they are actually interested in Public Health? Now we will look at some of their
‘Health Organization’ tactics to prove my point:
Save the Children- A commonly used phrase that pulls at the very fiber of every elected official in the
country. It works so they always use this one. Keep in mind that NOBODY wants kids to start smoking
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 26
especially those that vape because we had to overcome that addiction and we finally found a way to do it
successfully, without the high failure rates of the Big Pharmaceutical companies Nicotine Replacement
Therapy via patches and gum, etc. (Barbeau et al, 2013). Does this mean we don’t like children? No,
many of us are parents too. We want nothing more than our children’s health and safety.
Flavors are attracting children to start vaping- Another intentionally misguiding statement. As a
former smoker, I cannot stand the smell of cigarettes and simply cannot quit smoking with anything that
even remotely smells the same. The flavors are not for children, they are for the adult smokers that have
the same repulsion to tobacco as I do. The ‘Health Organizations’ will continue to use this as a means to
ban vaping anywhere they can to accomplish the first bullet point (see above). The shills will proclaim
that flavors are only for the children. I am not aware that flavors are meaningless to adults and this seems
to be a stretch of the imagination. The vast majority of vapers quit tobacco using flavored e-liquids
(CASAA, 2016)
We must raise the age to buy tobacco to 21- This is not only a bad idea, is has been proven that kids
start smoking at an average age of 13 (IDPH, 2016). The claims of a 12% decrease are coming from
sales statistics. In fact, the uptake of new smokers is most commonly formed from illegally obtaining
tobacco products from friends or family. How will any government enforce this? We also must think
about why we are taking away an adults right to choose a basic freedom of choice. Where do we draw
the line?
Vaping contains toxic chemicals- This is actually a true statement but we must look at the data to see
what’s really being conveyed. ‘The poison is in the dose’ applies here. The amount of toxins in vaping
are so minimal that they will NOT harm the user nor any bystanders. Even our exhaled breath contains
toxins but we don’t expect everyone to stop breathing around each other because there is no harm based
on the concentrations (Farsalinos, et al, 2015). The studies actually found ONLY trace amounts in the
vapor. This misconception is used widely to ban vaping indoors, in public places, and to keep the
conversation going the way that the ‘Health Organizations’ want it to.
Teens that never would have smoked are using vapor products- This is coming from the CDC report that
surveyed teens and INCLUDED anyone who experimented with vaping once as a regular user (CDC.gov,
2013). The survey clearly indicates that they included teens that experimented with vaping as ‘regular
users’. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that point much more because it is obviously skewed
information just like the ‘toxic chemical’ claims.
Nicotine Addiction- Here is the long term scare tactic. Nicotine addiction is also false. Here is a report
on just how ‘addictive’ nicotine really is without the smoke and KNOWN toxins found in combustible
cigarettes (Satel, 2015). Nicotine by itself is a stimulant but you would not hear this fact from any of the
‘Health Organizations’ or Tobacco Control ‘experts’. The vaping industry does NOT want teens or
children with developing brains to use nicotine but we DO want adults to have the chance to reduce the
harm of tobacco use.
Vaping is a ‘Gateway’ to Tobacco use- There is also much research on this subject that the uptake from
vaping to tobacco is miniscule and hardly an epidemic for public health (Farsalinos, 2017). At a rate of
.2%, we can hardly use this claim as anything but sensationalism at best.
I can go on and on with these points to prove they are absolutely untrue and deceptive and prove it with
facts. Given the opportunity to cross-examine ANY of these ‘Health Organizations’ or Tobacco Control
‘experts’ would reveal that I stand with the truth while they simply do not. It is unfortunate that they
refuse to have an open and public discussion with any of us that disagree with them because they will be
exposed.
So back to my original point of government regulation; As I have mentioned before, Tobacco Control
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 27
Groups and Health Organizations funding comes from the pharmaceutical industry so if they want it to
continue, they need a new ‘bad guy’ and vaping is it! They are very aware that over 11 million American
adults have quit smoking using vapor products. That success rate is higher than any other NRT on the
market combined as presented in many of the studies provided in this statement. It is obvious that they
know their revenue streams from dying smokers is threatened and they will even risk the health of the
public to secure said revenue. That can only be accomplished by changing the perception of vaping to
being as bad as smoking and to regulate it. This may seem far-fetched but you cannot deny how well it all
comes together because it is the truth. Nicotine and tobacco are not one and the same. It is time we start
allowing the discussion to be fact-based instead of rhetoric filled scare-tactics.
I am not paid by any tobacco companies nor have I ever been affiliated with the tobacco industry. I am an
ex-smoker.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Murray
8807 Gwynn Ln
Brainerd, MN 56401
References
Barbeau, A. M., Burda, J., & Siegel, M. (2013). Perceived efficacy of e-cigarettes versus nicotine
replacement therapy among successful e-cigarette users: a qualitative approach. Retrieved April 18,
2017, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599549/
CASAA (2016). Large Survey Finds E-Cigarettes Do Help Smokers Quit. Retrieved April 18, 2017,
from http://vaperanks.com/large-survey-finds-e-cigarettes-do-help-smokers-quit/
CDC.gov Tobacco Product Use Among Middle and High School Students — United States, 2011 and
2012. (2013, November 15). Retrieved April 18, 2017, from
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6245a2.htm
Farsalinos, K. E., Gillman, I. G., Melvin, M. S., Paolantonio, A. R., Gardow, W. J., Humphries, K. E., .
. . Voudris, V. (2015, March 24). Nicotine levels and presence of selected tobacco-derived toxins in
tobacco flavoured electronic cigarette refill liquids. Retrieved April 18, 2017, from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25811768
Farsalinos KE, Poulas K, Voudris V, Le Houezec J. Intern Emerg Med. (2017 Mar 4). doi:
10.1007/s11739-017-1643-7. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 28260221
Nicotine without smoke: Tobacco harm reduction. (2016, November 01). Retrieved April 18, 2017,
from https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/projects/outputs/nicotine-without-smoke-tobacco-harm-reduction-0
Satel, S. (2015, June 23). Nicotine itself isn’t the real villain. Retrieved April 18, 2017, from
https://www.aei.org/publication/nicotine-itself-isnt-the-real-villain/
Worstall, T. (2014, December 16). Excellent News As E-Cigarette, Or Vaping, Use Rises. Retrieved
April 18, 2017, from https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2014/12/16/excellent-news-as-e-
cigarette-or-vaping-use-rises/#742d0f7c2698
(IDPH, 2016). Illinois Department of Public Health: Smoking. Retrieved April 18, 2017, from
http://www.idph.state.il.us/public/hb/hbsmoke.htm
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 28
On Fri, Jun 23, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Skip Murray <imaracingmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Mayor and members of the St. Louis Park City Council,
I have some thoughts I'd like to share with you about Tobacco 21 laws. People in favor of this law keep saying
how many cities / counties / states have already done this like it's some type of high school peer pressure for
other government bodies to do the same. They fail to mention all the bodies of government who protected the
rights of adults and voted AGAINST tobacco 21 (Like Hutchinson, MN). I do not see anything in the way of proof
that Tobacco 21 works. With all the places that has passed it, where's the data on success stories? The anti-
tobacco / public health folks feed us full of PROJECTIONS of what MIGHT happen if these laws are passed. I
can't find myself endorsing anything that takes away peoples right to choose, based on what COULD happen.
The only success story I ever see mentioned is ONE TOWN, Needham, MA. They saw a huge drop in teen
smokers. BUT is there a "rest of the story" that the anti-tobacco folks fail to mention? Yes, yes there is. There is
no info on what the trend was before the law passed, because it wasn't being tracked, so a very real possibility
is that youth use of tobacco products was already on a downward spiral. The public health official there even
admitted that all the credit can't be given to Tobacco 21 because they initiated a bunch of anti-smoking
programs and educational media at the same time. Out of over 200 places that have passed T21, I find it odd
that Needham is the only claim to fame that Tobacco 21 works.
Has anyone looked into Minnesota's Age of Majority laws? Tobacco 21 was just ruled in violation of Age of
Majority laws in Michigan. I am concerned that if communities in MN pass tobacco 21, will they be violating any
MN laws?
I'll refer you to these 3 links for more information:
Genesee County Circuit Court Judge Judith Fullerton ruled against “Tobacco 21.”
Ann Arbor tobacco purchase age increase conflicts with state law, Schuette says
I oppose a tobacco 21 ordinance for several reasons...
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 29
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has snuffed out the city of Ann Arbor's ban on tobacco sales to people
under 21.
I oppose the passage of a Tobacco 21 ordinance for the following reasons...
1)An adult is an adult. If they are old enough to go to war, vote, serve on a jury, get a sex change operation,
sign contracts, be sentenced to life in prison, buy a home, and consent to major surgery, they are old enough to
choose what to do with their bodies.
2)I do not believe that changing the age will stop those who choose to make the bad decision to smoke from
smoking. Binge drinking by under age students is a huge problem in the USA. And changing the legal age to
drink has driven UP the number of drunk driving offenses in the 21-24 age group. Minnesota is already rated
FIFTH in the nation for the number of smuggled cigarettes brought into the state and I'm sure those who choose
to break the law won't mind buying illegal products in order to smoke. They can also get cigarettes online or just
drive across the city border to purchase legally in another community.
3)I believe that those who break the law should be held responsible for their actions, so I do not believe it is
correct to only hold retails stores responsible for selling tobacco products to anyone under age. I believe that
those who GIVE or SELL on a street corner tobacco products to kids should also be responsible AND I believe if
the kids are going to break the law, there should be a fitting sentence to discourage them from breaking it again.
I believe that we are making a huge mistake not to hold people RESPONSIBLE for their own actions. I'm sure
you do not want to make a bunch of 18-21 yearolds have a police record for breaking a law for something that is
legal anywhere else in MN.
4)I oppose this ordinance because it also includes vapor technology (e-cigs), which contains NO TOBACCO.
The Royal College of Physicians have proven that vapor products are 95% safer than combustible tobacco
products and the United Kingdom is now using vaping technology in it's arsenal of Tobacco Harm Reduction
programs to help people quit smoking. I don't want to see a 19 year old who is already addicted to cigarettes
have to wait until they are 21 to use this life saving technology to help them quit smoking. Would you wish
anyone to do additional harm to themselves for 1-3 years before they can have access to the method that just
might help them quit smoking? It's important to remember, vaping is NOT smoking and has no tobacco in it. It's
the tar in cigarettes that kill people and the thousands of chemicals. It is not the nicotine that kills or causes
cancer.
According to a paper recently published by Dhaval Dave, an economics professor at Bentley University, Bo
Feng, a doctoral student at Georgia State University, and Michael Pesko, a health economist and assistant
professor of health-care policy and research at Weill Cornell Medical College, stricter laws on e-cigs (vapor
technology) is actually pushing MORE young people to smoking, because it is easier and cheaper for minors to
get their hands on combustible cigarettes. So, by including vapor technology in this ordinance, you will actually
be hurting what you are trying to accomplish, and that is less young people smoking!
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 30
E-cigarette laws make more young people smoke actual cigarettes
3 years ago, my youngest son almost died when he had a heart attack at the age of 29. He was completely
healthy with no family history of heart disease. He had 3 clogged arteries in his heart. The doctor said it was
caused from smoking. I am fully aware that smoking kills. Even after being airlifted to another town and having
stents put in his heart, he could not quit smoking. Then he tried vapor technology and hasn't had a cigarette
since. His cardiologist is thrilled that he vapes instead of smokes. For this reason, I firmly believe that vapor
technology saves lives!
5)It simply isn't true that people under the age of 18 don't know people who are 21 and older. If you're going to
break the law at 18-21 and buy for a minor, you're going to break the law at 21 or older and still do it. Before you
tell me that people over 21 don't break the law, I invite you to take a trip down any Highway and count the number
of people who are breaking the law and speeding. Lots of young people have jobs and they work with and make
friends with adults of many different ages. We live in an electronic world and young people get to know people of
all ages and walks of life via social media. Our modern society is no longer tied to a group of "peers" who are only
our age. We now get to know people of many ages, races, etc. It is the way of modern society.
6) We are ALREADY doing something right. The rates of teenagers smoking has dropped drastically. Educating
them and encouraging a healthier lifestyle is already working. Smoking rates of ALL ages has dropped. I do not
believe that we should single out a few adults and treat them like second class citizens and say they aren't yet
capable of making choices about their own life. If they aren't capable, then the legal age for everything should
be 21. There are more adults 18+ who DO NOT PROVIDE tobacco products for minors and I don't believe they
should have their FREEDOM of choice removed from them because some break the law and buy for minors.
Let's go back to our driving analogy. Some people speed or drive drunk. People are hurt and killed everyday in
MN traffic accidents. Because some people break the law in cars, should we all be banned from driving? Just
think, if no one drove, my oldest son wouldn't have been killed by a drunk driver in 1997. How about alcohol,
prescription drugs, guns, baseball bats and any of the other things people can use to break the law? Should we
deny everyone those things? Where is the line before government takes too much control of our lives?
I request this letter to be submitted as part of the commentary for Monday's meeting.I can't get away from work
to come down. I would have preferred to speak to you in person.
Thank-you for your time,
Kim Murray age 58 (proud great-grandma!)
Former resident St. Louis Park (grew up at 3238 Sumter Ave)
Currently residing at:
8807 Gwynn Ln
Brainerd, MN 56401
218-232-1345
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 31
June 26, 2017
Members of the St. Louis Park City Council
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
RE: St. Louis Park Ordinance to Raise Tobacco Sales Age to 21
Dear Mayor Spano and Members of the St. Louis Park City Council,
On behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, I want to express our strong support for the
proposed ordinance to raise the tobacco sales age to 21. For years, tobacco use has been the number one
preventable cause of death in our country and our state. Smoking kills over 6,300 Minnesotans each year and
costs the state more than $3 billion annually in excess health care costs. Despite this, we continue to let the
tobacco industry addict young people to their deadly products.
Roughly 95% of adults who smoke started smoking before the age of 21. Increasing the sale age may prevent
more youth from starting to use tobacco products. The tobacco industry has designed products such as cherry
chewing tobacco, strawberry kiwi cigarillos, and cotton candy e-juice to get children addicted and keep them as
customers throughout their life. The addictive properties of nicotine can lead adolescents to heavier daily
tobacco use and a difficult time quitting later in life.
A national consensus is growing to protect young people from a lifetime of addiction and health problems
caused by tobacco. A 2014 national survey shows that 75 percent of adult’s favor increasing the age of sale for
tobacco products to 21. In fact, 70 percent of current smokers and 65 percent of those ages 18-24 support
raising the tobacco sales age. By implementing this ordinance, St. Louis Park will lead the way for other
communities in Minnesota.
Thank you for your leadership in moving forward with this bold tobacco prevention policy. Strong and effective
tobacco prevention and cessation policies contribute to a reduction in nicotine addiction, tobacco use rates,
and therefore a reduction in cancer cases and deaths. Thank you for serving as an excellent example for other
Minnesota communities in our shared desire to reduce tobacco related cancers.
Sincerely,
Ellie Beaver
Minnesota Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
950 Blue Gentian Rd. Ste. 100 Eagan, MN 55121
651-255-8100
Special City Council Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Minimum Age for Tobacco Sales Page 32
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 10, 2017
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City Council and the City Manager to set the agenda for the
regular Study Session on July 10.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council agree with the agenda as proposed?
SUMMARY: At each study session approximately five minutes are set aside to discuss the next
study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the proposed discussion items for the
regular Study Session on July 10 .
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Tentative Agenda – July 10, 2017
Prepared by: Debbie Fischer, Administrative Services Office Assistant
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 1) Page 2
Title: Future Study Session Agenda Planning – July 10, 2017
JULY 10, 2017
6:30 p.m. –Study Session – Community Room
Tentative Discussion Items
1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
2.National Night Out Ride Along Practices– Administrative Services (10 minutes)
The City Manager desires policy direction from the Council regarding potential ride-along
requests made to PD from candidates for public office for National Night Out.
3.Fastpitch Softball Facility Update – Operations & Recreation (45 minutes)
Continued discussion related to the recommendation from the Parks & Recreation Advisory
Commission to explore constructing fastpitch softball fields at the St. Louis Park Middle
School Site.
Communications/Meeting Check-In – Administrative Services (5 minutes)
Time for communications between staff and Council will be set aside on every study session
agenda for the purposes of information sharing.
Written Reports
4.PLACE Development Early Start Agreement
Future Council Requested Study Session Discussion Items – Dates TBD
(NOTE – the following are in no priority order)
•Living Streets Policy
•Walker Building
•Bird Friendly Glass
•Streetlight Pollution/Dark Skies
•Youth Advisory Committee
•Election Process Discussion (Continued)
•Recap of Vision Engagement Process
•The Nest
•SLP Policing Model/Critical Incident Planning (4 Sessions)
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Flavored Tobacco Products
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff as to whether it should draft an
ordinance amending the Tobacco Licensing sections of city code to regulate the sale of flavored
tobacco products and, if so, the manner in which it should be regulated.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council believe further restriction on the sale of flavored
tobacco products to be of benefit to the community’s public health?
SUMMARY: Many tobacco products are now offered in a variety of enticing flavors, relatively
inexpensive single-use packages, and may be colorfully displayed. These types of tobacco
products, along with traditional cigarettes, are readily available in retail stores. Over half of the
retail establishments in St. Louis Park are offering flavored tobacco products. Single product
packaging of little cigars/cigarillos, large cigars and e-cigarettes are also offered with pricing
beginning at $.99 each.
The city is already considering raising the age for the sale of all tobacco products, including
flavored tobacco products, from 18 to 21. This action may serve as a sufficient deterrent for
reducing the availability of flavored tobacco products to youth. Other actions the City Council may
want to consider is to only allow the sale of flavored tobacco products in a newly created license
category for tobacco shops. Requirements could be established by setting maximum number of
tobacco shop licenses, location and other operational regulations for a business license. Another
approach would be to ban the sale of all flavored tobacco products in the community. The City
Attorney has confirmed that the city can adopt an ordinance using this approach (see attached).
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Memorandum from City Attorney
Prepared by: Ann Boettcher Inspection Services Manager
Reviewed by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 2
Title: Flavored Tobacco Products
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The City Council discussed options for tobacco sales at the March 6 and May
15, 2017 Study Sessions. Included was information from Hennepin County Public Health on the
concerns of youth beginning to consume tobacco products.
During informational meetings with tobacco license holders on May 24 and 25, 2017, staff
discussed not only raising the legal age to purchase tobacco, but also the topic of flavored tobacco
and options the City Council was considering. Much like their reaction to raising the legal age to
21, similar concerns were raised - loss in revenue and customers taking their business to other
neighboring cities.
The city currently licenses 23 tobacco establishments. As part of the annual Tobacco
Establishment license inspection to verify compliance with ordinance requirements, inspectors
included a survey for each of the 23 establishments to identify the type of tobacco products being
sold and pricing for each. Also noted in the survey results is one large discount store that sells
tobacco products in bulk only and was not used in determining the average costs for tobacco
products with pricing listed with an *. Below is the summary of the 2017 survey:
Product # of Establishments Lowest price/packaging
Cigarettes
Menthol and regular
23 $7.00/pack
*$86.64/box
Little Cigars/Cigarillos
Menthol, fruit and regular
19 $.99/single and $.99/2-pack
*$67.81/box
Large Cigars
Menthol and regular
7 $7.99/single and $1.99/2-pack
Chew/snuff/dip/snus 17 $5.44/tin
*$27.81/roll=5 tins
E-cigarettes
Menthol, fruit and regular
9 $1.16/digital single, $12.99
tank
Analysis
Three alternatives to consider include:
1.Restrict the sale of flavored tobacco in the form of cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos, chew/snuff
and e-cigarettes to tobacco shops only as part of the licensing regulations. Menthol,
wintergreen and mint flavors would be exempt.
2. Prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco in its entirety.
3. Maintain current ordinance options.
Alternate #1 - Tobacco Only Shops
Currently the city does not have any tobacco only shops. The current ordinance sections related
to prohibiting tobacco sampling and drug paraphernalia sales has probably acted as a deterrent for
stand-alone tobacco shops.
If the Council directs staff to amend the business licensing code and allow flavored tobacco to be
sold only at tobacco only shops, the Zoning Code will also need to be amended to create a land
use for tobacco only shops. The tobacco only shop would be proposed only in C-2 General
Commercial District and would include similar requirements that are currently in the Zoning Code
for pawnshops:
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 3
Title: Flavored Tobacco Products
•The lot must be at least 1,000 feet from the property line of a site containing another
pawnshops, current exchange, payday loan agency, firearms sales, liquor store or
sexually-oriented business. In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance
shall be measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the pawnshop.
•The lot shall be located a minimum of 350 feet from any parcel that is zoned residential,
or has an educational (academic) use, religious institution, park, library or community
center. In the case of a shopping center or multi-use building, the distance shall be
measured from the portion of the center or building occupied by the pawnshop.
The number of tobacco only shops in the city could be limited to a maximum of two licenses,
similar to pawnshop licensing.
It should be noted that for any developer who is requesting financial assistance from the city,
tobacco shops are listed as one of the types of businesses the developer cannot lease to per the contract.
Other cities have adopted ordinances regulating flavored tobacco. These include:
•Minneapolis adopted an ordinance that became effective January of 2016 restricting the
sale of flavored tobacco products (excluding menthol, mint and wintergreen) to tobacco
products shops and excludes those under 18 years of age from entering the establishment.
The ordinance also sets minimum pricing of cigars - single and multi-packs.
•St. Paul adopted an ordinance effective January 2016 that states no person shall sell, offer
for sale, or otherwise distribute any flavored tobacco. This restriction does not apply to
retail stores that derive at least 90% of their revenue from the sale of tobacco products,
tobacco related devices, electronic delivery devices, or nicotine or lobelia delivery process
and where the retailer ensures that no person under 18 years of age is permitted to enter at
any time. The ordinance also sets minimum pricing of cigars - single and multi-packs.
Additional cities including Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Maplewood, and Richfield have
implemented various regulations on packaging and minimum pricing.
Alternate #2 - Prohibiting the Sale of Flavored Tobacco
If the Council wishes to prohibit the sale of flavored tobacco, staff would work with the City
Attorney to amend the Tobacco Licensing code to reflect this. At that time, the City Attorney will
also review the document provided by Hennepin County Public Health from Public Health Law
Center. The Public Health Law Center examined the city’s current code as it relates to tobacco
products and tobacco related devices and provided analysis/options for our current code. The City
Attorney has confirmed that the City Council can adopt such an ordinance. (see attached memo
from the City Attorney)
Alternate #3 – Maintain Current Ordinance
Assuming the Council were to increase the age of tobacco sales to 21, continue to allow flavored
tobacco products to be sold in licensed establishments
Next Steps
1.If the Council proposes amending the code, staff will notify all license holders at least 30
days before the meeting of possible upcoming changes to the ordinance, as required by
State Statute.
2.Hold an informational meeting with all license holders to discuss the proposed changes to
the ordinance.
3.Review entire ordinance for accuracy and effectiveness, draft proposed changes, and return
later this year for first reading.
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 4
Title: Flavored Tobacco Products
MEMORANDUM
From: Soren M. Mattick
To: Tom Harmening
Date: May 18, 2017
Re: Banning Sales of Flavored Tobacco
______________________________________________________________________________
Question Presented
Can a Minnesota charter city ban the sale of flavored tobacco?
Short Answer
Minnesota charter cities can ban the sale of flavored tobacco pursuant to the general welfare
clause in the city charter.
Analysis
I.Federal law permits cities to ban the sale of flavored tobacco.
The federal Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (FSPTCA) already
prohibits flavored cigarettes other than tobacco or menthol. 21 U.S.C. § 387g. It does not
prohibit other types of flavored tobacco products. However, it permits cities to enact more
stringent regulations “relating to prohibiting the sale, distribution, possession, exposure to,
access to, advertising and promotion of, or use of tobacco products by individuals of any age.”
21 U.S.C. § 387p(a)(1).
Local regulations banning sales of flavored tobacco products have generally been upheld.
See U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co., LLC v. City of New York, 708 F.3d 428 (2nd
Cir. 2013) (ordinance banning sales of flavored tobacco except at tobacco bars upheld);
Independents Gas & Service Stations Associations, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 112 F.Supp.3d 749
(2015) (ordinance banning sales of flavored tobacco within 500 feet of school upheld); National
Association of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence, 2012 WL 6128707 (D. R.I.)
(ordinance banning sales of flavored tobacco products with the exception of tobacco bars
upheld).
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 2) Page 5
Title: Flavored Tobacco Products
The FSPTCA prohibits the Secretary of the Food and Drug Administration from adopting
a regulation “banning all cigarettes, all smokeless tobacco products, all little cigars, all cigars
other than little cigars, all pipe tobacco, or all roll-your-own tobacco products.” 21 U.S.C. §
387g(d)(3). An argument was raised in the above-cited cases that a total ban on flavored tobacco
might conflict with this language. However, the prohibition by its terms only applies to the FDA
and none of the ordinances affected a total ban on flavored tobacco. Even a complete ban on
flavored tobacco products would not be a ban on “all” of any of the classes of items listed in the
FSPTCA, so there would be no conflict.
II. State law permits cities to ban sales of flavored tobacco.
Minn. Stat. § 461.12 subd. authorizes cities to license and regulate retail sales of tobacco.
Under Minn. Stat. § 461.19, cities may provide for
more restrictive regulation of sales of tobacco, tobacco-related devices, electronic
delivery devices, and nicotine and lobelia products. A governing body shall give
notice of its intention to consider adoption or substantial amendment of any local
ordinance required under section 461.12 or permitted under this section. The
governing body shall take reasonable steps to send notice by mail at least 30 days
prior to the meeting to the last known address of each licensee or person required
to hold a license under section 461.12. The notice shall state the time, place, and
date of the meeting and the subject matter of the proposed ordinance.
In addition to the authority to regulate retail sales of tobacco granted by state statute, it is
also well-established that a city has the authority under the general welfare clause of its charter to
regulate the sale of tobacco. State v. Crabtree, 218 Minn. 36, 15 N.W.2d 98 (1944). “Cigarettes
being a proper field of regulation under the police power, a city or village may operate in that
field under the general welfare clause of its charter unless excluded therefrom by express
legislative enactment.” Id. at 100. “Municipalities may differ among themselves as to the
necessity and scope of [tobacco sales] regulations, but so long as the regulations are adopted in
good faith, with an eye single to the public welfare, courts will not interfere.” Id.
The cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Shoreview all have ordinances that restrict sales
of flavored tobacco to tobacco shops.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2018 Budget
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action required. This report is to assist with the Study
Session discussion to share information and gain understanding regarding the preparation of the
2018 Budget.
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
•Does the 2018 Budget process and timeline meet Council expectations?
•Is the general direction outlined for 2018 Budget recommendations in line with Council
expectations?
•Does Council have any changes on the budget production guidelines?
•Is there other information that Council would like to review in more detail in the upcoming
process?
•Are there any other service delivery changes Council would like to have considered?
•Are there other discussion areas Council would like to add or change?
•Does Council want staff to consider/research any specific capital project, particularly for
the 2018 capital plan?
SUMMARY: Staff is working on preparing budget recommendations for 2018. During the Study
Session, staff wants to make sure Council is comfortable with the attached budget guidelines. As
listed above, staff also would like direction on any major changes, programs, or policy
considerations that should be deliberated as part of preparing the 2018 Budget. As in the past, the
guidelines will be used to give direction to staff when preparing the 2018 recommendations.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Details regarding financials are provided in
this report.
VISION CONSIDERATION: All vision areas are taken into consideration and are an important
part of our budgeting process.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
2018 Budget Production Guidelines
Prepared by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 2
Title: 2018 Budget
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the discussion is to make sure staff is in line with Council
expectations in preparing 2018 Budget recommendations. Staff is planning to continue to use
budget guiding principles as well as Vision and Council goals, and the key organizational cultural
behaviors of Collaboration, Quality and Responsiveness. This Study Session discussion is
intended to be at the higher level and, based on the direction provided, will allow staff to then
prepare more detailed budgetary information for Council to consider with which to assist in setting
property tax levies, fees and utility rates for 2018.
2018 Budget Preparation: In upcoming sessions, the City Council will be provided with more
detail on budget recommendations, with time allowed for review of materials and questions.
Directors or their designees will also be present for questions or sharing information as needed or
requested. All budgets, Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), Long Range Financial Management Plan
(LRFMP), debt model, fee schedules, utility rates and relevant information will be included in
future materials.
Budget Webpage and E-mail: As Council is aware, in an effort to provide a more transparent
budget process, staff has created a webpage on the City’s website and an e-mail address for any
questions that arise. The link is: https://www.stlouispark.org/government/departments-
divisions/finance/city-budget and the e-mail address is: budget@stlouispark.org. Following
tonight’s budget kickoff meeting, staff will start updating the webpage and activate the e-mail
address again. We are also planning to do a Facebook live budget presentation in the fall.
Legislative directives:
•There are no levy limits in place for 2018.
•Local Government Aid has not been certified yet, but distribution estimates from the tax
bill show St. Louis Park will receive $566,617, which is $21,147 more than the $545,470
certified for 2017. These dollars go into the Capital Replacement Fund.
Staffing Costs wages: Funds for staffing are the largest expenditure of the City’s operating
budget. In building the 2018 budget recommendations, a wage adjustment of 3% is being used as
an assumption. As a reminder, Local 49 Maintenance contract is settled for 2018 with a 3% wage
adjustment, the other contracts will expire on December 31, 2017.
PERA Coordinated Plan: Employee contribution of 6.50% of salary and employer contribution
of 7.50% of salary in 2017 will remain the same at this point in 2018.
PERA Police and Fire: Employee contribution of 10.8% and employer contribution of 16.2% in
2016 will remain the same at this point in 2018.
Benefits: For 2018, we are fortunate to have a rate cap with HealthPartners for an increase not to
exceed 9% in health insurance premiums. We expect a modest increase in dental insurance
premiums as well. Staff continues to work with the City’s benefits consultant and internal benefits
committee on cost containment on claims. The wellness benefit for 2017 was set at $40 per
employee per month and is recommended to remain the same in 2018. Using this data, a general
employer benefit contribution increase has been estimated.
Operational Costs: Staff is being asked to look at how operational costs have been changing with
the ever changing market conditions, as well as planning ahead for operational needs with focus
areas relating to the environment, trails and sidewalks, transportation, ongoing redevelopment,
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 3
Title: 2018 Budget
continued strength in public safety, fire prevention, neighborhoods and housing. Energy costs will
continue to be monitored closely given the potential for volatility in this sector of the economy.
Program Support:
•SWLRT: Staff resources have been reallocated to meet increased demand for this plan
and staffing needs are being analyzed to meet other on-going projects within the City.
Increases in consultant costs from SWLRT have been and will continue to be paid from
the Development Fund when appropriate.
•Vision/Comprehensive Plan Update: Work continues with the community visioning
process which will help with the required update of our comprehensive plan by December
2018. Staff will be working with consultants and many departments on various pieces of
this plan.
•Race and Equity work: Building organizational awareness and advancements in this area
started in 2016 with both staff and elected officials participation in the GARE program
with the League of MN Cities and consultants from the Center for Social Inclusion. This
work continues in 2017 and beyond and is incorporated in the work we do each day. In
2017, a second group of staff is participating in this program and the group from 2016
continues in the advanced track. The objective is to understand the role of government in
relation to racial equity and develop tools to help us better address race and equity issues
in our organization and in the programs and services we provide. Also in 2017 each
department developed race equity action plans based on council strategic direction earlier
in 2017. For 2017, council approved funding for race equity work and support. For 2018
a new budget section will be developed for Race Equity programs, staff, consulting costs
and meetings.
•Maintenance and Service Delivery: Department Heads may be making recommendations
as needed on service delivery that may include additional personnel or consulting. The
focus is to continue providing a high level of quality and responsive service to our
constituents
•Environmental: Staff will continue to support the environment and sustainability
initiatives. One focus area will be continued work on climate resilience and planning. At
the time of writing this report, the Climate Action Plan has been drafted and is under review
by staff and the Environment and Sustainability Commission prior to moving to Council
for formal adoption. Items in the climate action plan will be reviewed and included in future
budget and capital programs.
Utility Funds: All utility funds will be presented during the budget process as in previous years
with a review of rates in accordance with the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan
(LRFMP). As in previous years, all utility rates are analyzed, adjusted as needed to meet
operational and capital needs, while also working to meet appropriate cash position guidelines.
Over the next several months staff from various departments will gather to review the utility funds,
to review rate structures in conjunction with short term and longer term program needs.
•Water: For 2018, the City will be in the eighth year of the ten year plan for increasing the
fixed rate charges to reduce volatility in the fund due to seasonal usage fluctuations. Usage
rates will also be increased to meet more aggressive demands for infrastructure
replacement within the City’s aging system. Significant expenses for this fund are capital,
staffing, the Reilly Superfund site and debt service. As directed by Council, staff will
further study water conservation, irrigation and rates in 2017 to prepare for future
recommendations.
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 4
Title: 2018 Budget
•Sewer: Rates are also expected to increase due to the City’s more aggressive infrastructure
replacement plan. Sewer costs are mainly to support the Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services charge (MCES), staffing and capital costs.
•Solid Waste: Rates for this fund are expected to continue to support more of a pay as you
throw type rate structure. Rates may also vary depending on any enhanced or new
initiatives the Council would like to pursue. As a reminder our hauler contract will expire
in 2018. The major expenses for this fund are the contract charges, supplies and staffing.
•Storm Water: With the interest Council and then community has in surface water, staff will
continue to develop, modify, connect and communicate programs to both the City Council
and the community. Based on Council direction to place more emphasis on storm water
management, along with increasing regulations, rates will need to continue to be adjusted
over the next few years. These increases will help meet the increased capital needs.
Significant expenses for this fund currently are capital and staffing.
Franchise Fees: In the past, Council has directed staff to consider franchise fee adjustments every
odd numbered year. For the 2018 Budget, there will be no adjustment as that will be part of the
2019 budget processes.
Fees, Charges and Other Revenues: Staff will continue to review current fee data based on cost
analyses and other communities before making recommendations for the 2018 Fee Schedules for
the Council to consider later this year.
LRFMP (Long Range Financial Management Plan): This document will be presented at future
meetings with Council to assist in setting property tax levies, debt management, fees, utility rates
and budgets.
CIP (Capital Improvement Plan): Staff has completed the first round work on the CIP (2018-
2027). This information has been programmed into the LRFMP and Finance is analyzing the
results in an effort to create long-term sustainability in funds and also looking at where changes in
funding or expenditures/expenses need to occur for the City Council and City Manager to consider.
The Council will see a draft of the plan on August 21st and again in the fall. Council is asked to let
staff know if there is any specific capital project we should consider/research for the 2018 CIP or
beyond as staff is currently working on updating the 10-year plan.
Trends in Valuations and Possible Property Tax Implications:
For the 2017 assessment, St. Louis Park’s taxable market value increased by 6.6% with all of the
dominant property types increasing in value. Composition of the change is summarized as +5.8%
for single-family homes, +7.0 for condos, +4.8 for townhomes, +9.5% for apartments, and the
commercial-industrial sectors at +6.9%. As can be surmised by the above figures, there will be a
slight shift of the property tax burden to commercial, condos, and apartment properties for the
Payable 2018 tax period. This shift will be mitigated somewhat when considering all taxing
jurisdictions that make up the typical property tax bill (in the aggregate, other County jurisdictions
increased at higher rates for single-family homes but at lower rates for apartments and commercial
properties).
City Property Tax Levy: As a point of reference, the City’s 10 year average property tax levy
increase is 4.51%. As the year progresses, and more firm information becomes available, staff
will bring property tax levy recommendations and the potential impact on property owners for
Council to consider. Before this occurs though, and in preparation to bring budget and property
tax levy recommendations to the Council, staff would like to have Council consider the following
questions:
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 5
Title: 2018 Budget
1)What is the Council’s propensity to consider setting the Preliminary Property Tax Levy
above the 10 year average levy increase of 4.51% due to various factors impacting the
City’s budget in 2018? These factors relate to staffing costs associated with Program
Support items noted earlier, growth in the demand for services, and debt service, among
other items.
HRA Property Tax Levy: Based on current and future infrastructure needs, the HRA Levy is
recommended to be set at the maximum allowed of 0.0185% of estimated market value, which is
consistent with previous years. This levy is committed to pay back a loan from the Development
Fund that helped cash flow the City’s obligation for Highway 7 and Louisiana and is expected to
be paid off in 2021 or earlier.
City and HRA Tax Levies: The Council and EDA will meet to adopt preliminary 2018 levies on
September 18 for the City and September 5 for the HRA. After adoption of the preliminary
property tax levies, the levies may be reduced, but not increased. The preliminary property tax
levies that are adopted will then be used to determine the preliminary property taxes on the
statements that Hennepin County mails out in November to all property owners.
NEXT STEPS: As the 2018 budget process continues, the following preliminary schedule
snapshot has been developed for Council:
July 24 (If necessary) Review and discussion of 2018 budget
August 21 Review and discussion of 2018 budget and draft 2018-2027 CIP.
Department Directors or their designees will also be in attendance.
September 5 (Tues) High level 2018 Budget, CIP, fees, utility rates discussion, and adopt HRA
levy. This meeting will be more of a proposed preliminary levy discussion
with direction provided to staff to prepare information for the September
18th meeting adopting preliminary levies.
September 18 Council establish 2018 preliminary property tax levy.
(Levies can be reduced, but not increased for final property tax levies.)
October 9 Review and discussion of 2018 budget, CIP, utility rates and LRFMP.
Directors or their designees in attendance as needed.
October 16 Public Hearing - 1st Reading of Fees, and adoption of 2018 Utility Rates
November 6 (If necessary) Budget and CIP discussion prior to Truth in Taxation Public
Hearing and budget presentation. 2nd Reading of Fee on Consent.
November 18 (Tentative date) – Live facebook chat on 2018 budget and CIP.
December 4 Truth in Taxation Public Hearing and budget presentation
December 11 (If necessary) Continuation of Public Hearing and any budget discussion.
December 18 Council adopts 2017 Revised Budget, 2018 Budgets, final tax levies (City
and HRA), and 2018 - 2027 CIP.
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 3) Page 6
Title: 2018 Budget
2018 Budget Production Guidelines
For the 2018 Budget cycle, please follow the assumptions or use the forms discussed below:
1.Review Past Expenditures and Revenues: Historical information is available in Hubble,
the City’s budgeting software; transaction detail can be viewed by double clicking in a cell.
As in past years, staff is again being asked to prepare budgets that are close to anticipated
expenditures. Line items should not be over budgeted to prepare for some excessive or
unexpected emergency. This is why the City maintains fund balance in many funds when
possible. The same review should happen if you find that you are continually under
budgeting expenditures, please increase accordingly to cover anticipated expenditures.
2.Fees and Charges for Services: These should all be reviewed, with the goal to cover the
City’s costs where appropriate. Please use 0-2% as a minimum guide for 2018 fee increases
being aware of the City’s fees and charges for services when compared to neighboring
communities. Also, consider if we should have a difference (or larger spread with non-
resident picking up a larger share and possibly lowering for residents, this is done in some
other communities our size) between resident and non-resident where it makes sense.
Important note: What new services do you have that should have fees? Or what fees are
no longer applicable? Now is the time to make changes for 2018.
3.All budget requests are due June 30, 2017.
a.Changes in Staffing Requests Forms - Due June 30, 2017 to HR: Changes in
staffing, including recommendations to add, increase or decrease hours, shifts, etc.,
should be included in the budget request and a detailed justification is required by
June 30th. Staffing request forms should be used for regular, seasonal, temporary,
intern, volunteer and contract type positions. Please discuss estimates on salary
levels and benefits with the HR Coordinator. Incomplete forms will be sent back
to departments for completion. When making staffing requests, remember to
include any costs for equipment, tools, uniforms, etc., based on the type of work
along with your statement of business need and anticipated services delivery.
b.Changes to Line Items Budget Form Exceeding $5,000 - Due June 30, 2017 to
Finance: Provide an explanation for changes in business operations on the form
when you are adding, deleting, modifying or updating your business operation.
This helps in understanding the requested change in the budget and in
recommending a preliminary property tax levy to the City Council. If you have a
program change, addition or deletion that increases or decreases a line item by
$5,000 or more, this form must also be submitted to Finance by June 30, 2017.
4.Collaboration, Quality, and Responsiveness: The budgeting process is a great time to
incorporate changes and it will allow for continued conversation with the City Manager on
service delivery. Please take the time to think progressively while anticipating community
needs on programs, processes, and customer service to align budgets that will allow you to
bring your ideas to life. As always, keep Vision in consideration during budget and long
range planning.
5.Advancing Race Equity: As discussed, we need to make sure consideration is made on
advancing race equity and inclusion is a part of all the work, programs, projects and
business we do for our customers. Make sure you are budgeting through the lens of advancing
race equity. Asking how communities have been engaged, are you looking at demographic
data, do you have an opportunity to make shifts or changes to operationalize equality.
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Written Report: 4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: May 2017 Monthly Financial Report
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action required at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The Monthly Financial Report provides a summary of General Fund revenues
and departmental expenditures and a comparison of budget to actual throughout the year. A
budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included in this report.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: At the end of May, General Fund
expenditures total approximately 37% of the adopted annual budget, which is about 5% under
budget. The attached analysis explains variances.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures – General Fund
Budget to Actual – Enterprise Funds
Prepared by: Darla Monson, Accountant
Reviewed by: Tim Simon, Chief Financial Officer
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 4) Page 2
Title: May 2017 Monthly Financial Report
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: This report is designed to provide summary information of the overall level
of revenues and departmental expenditures in the General Fund and a comparison of budget to
actual throughout the year. A budget to actual summary for the four utility funds is also included
in this report.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
General Fund
Actual expenditures should generally run at about 42% of the annual budget at the end of May.
General Fund expenditures are under budget at approximately 37% of the adopted budget in
May. Revenues are harder to measure in this same way due to the timing of when they are
received, examples of which include property taxes, State aid payments and seasonal revenues
for recreation programs. A few comments on variances are noted below.
Revenues:
License and permit revenues are at just under 65% of budget through May. This is due in part
because the majority or 93% of the 2017 business and liquor license revenue has already been
received. Permit revenue is at 57% of budget through May.
Expenditures:
Communications & Marketing is at 47.4% of budget through May. This is a temporary variance
due to some large expenditures for prepayment of postage, the Park Perspective, and the Park &
Recreation brochure.
Organized Recreation also has a small temporary variance of 43.5% because the full annual
community education contribution in the amount of $187,400 was paid to the school district in
January.
Utility Funds
Revenues:
Utility revenues typically appear low until end of year because they lag one month behind for
commercial accounts and up to a full quarter behind for some residential accounts depending on
the billing cycle. Much of the revenue billed in the first quarter of 2017 actually applied to 2016.
Other revenue is exceeding budget in the Water Fund due to additional antenna lease revenue.
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Actual $2,742 $5,447 $8,263 $10,741 $13,326
Budget $2,984 $5,969 $8,953 $11,937 $14,921 $17,906 $20,890 $23,874 $26,858 $29,843 $32,827 $35,811
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$ THOUSANDS Monthly Expenditures -General Fund
Summary of Revenues & Expenditures - General Fund As of May 31, 201720172017201520152016201620172017 Balance YTD Budget Budget Audited Budget Audited Budget May YTD Remaining to Actual %General Fund Revenues: General Property Taxes22,364,509$ 22,653,095$ 23,597,282$ 24,193,360$ 24,748,436$ -$ 24,748,436$ 0.00% Licenses and Permits3,248,158 4,312,700 3,496,177 4,320,078 3,745,736 2,432,219 1,313,517 64.93% Fines & Forfeits320,200 263,951 341,200 299,808 254,200 115,200 139,000 45.32% Intergovernmental1,292,277 1,669,395 1,419,017 1,656,072 1,631,669 448,426 1,183,243 27.48% Charges for Services1,907,292 2,116,313 1,956,593 2,063,241 2,027,637 524,706 1,502,931 25.88% Miscellaneous Revenue1,196,018 1,357,373 977,546 1,131,632 1,274,415 498,506 775,909 39.12% Transfers In1,851,759 1,867,398 1,872,581 1,881,274 1,899,927 787,470 1,112,457 41.45% Investment Earnings 140,000 68,908 140,000 114,957 140,000 140,000 0.00% Other Income17,900 61,025 27,450 20,440 30,450 10,900 19,550 35.80% Use of Fund Balance286,325 - 254,891 - 58,541 - 58,541 0.00%Total General Fund Revenues32,624,438$ 34,370,158$ 34,082,737$ 35,680,861$ 35,811,011$ 4,817,427$ 30,993,584$ 13.45%General Fund Expenditures: General Government: Administration979,183$ 1,012,841$ 1,037,235$ 1,118,873$ 1,049,123$ 381,984$ 667,139$ 36.41% Finance912,685 902,901 933,624 869,759 957,275 343,973 613,302 35.93% Assessing602,299 601,687 641,038 607,443 707,139 242,930 464,209 34.35% Human Resources805,929 857,950 748,718 801,958 754,699 270,506 484,193 35.84% Community Development1,245,613 1,253,687 1,385,036 1,281,000 1,366,055 514,203 851,852 37.64% Facilities Maintenance1,094,836 1,072,749 1,115,877 1,099,973 1,132,774 435,945 696,829 38.48% Information Resources1,468,552 1,374,074 1,564,128 1,492,734 1,570,712 524,450 1,046,262 33.39% Communications & Marketing635,150 571,815 608,228 657,758 646,841 306,500 340,341 47.38% Community Outreach24,677 22,380 25,587 22,718 26,553 7,092 19,461 26.71% Engineering492,838 381,148 549,251 436,228 376,601 69,862 306,739 18.55%Total General Government8,261,762$ 8,051,233$ 8,608,722$ 8,388,443$ 8,587,772$ 3,097,446$ 5,490,326$ 36.07% Public Safety: Police8,511,557$ 8,248,745$ 8,698,661$ 8,754,092$ 9,217,988$ 3,731,188$ 5,486,800$ 40.48% Fire Protection3,722,396 3,759,386 4,030,153 3,939,435 4,407,656 1,660,866 2,746,790 37.68% Inspectional Services2,139,325 2,002,445 2,216,075 2,082,694 2,419,073 903,829 1,515,244 37.36%Total Public Safety14,373,278$ 14,010,577$ 14,944,889$ 14,776,220$ 16,044,717$ 6,295,882$ 9,748,835$ 39.24% Operations & Recreation: Public Works Administration232,437$ 213,383$ 241,304$ 240,497$ 266,249$ 93,747$ 172,502$ 35.21% Public Works Operations2,763,735 2,388,560 2,907,781 2,699,375 3,019,017 1,148,936 1,870,081 38.06% Organized Recreation1,304,470 1,360,454 1,431,260 1,396,737 1,472,996 641,163 831,833 43.53% Recreation Center1,591,115 1,575,042 1,602,935 1,687,724 1,744,651 554,203 1,190,448 31.77% Park Maintenance1,550,033 1,513,700 1,634,249 1,627,700 1,721,732 634,930 1,086,802 36.88% Westwood Nature Center564,055 560,744 576,173 555,887 602,400 223,504 378,896 37.10% Natural Resources472,049 377,617 479,408 362,094 550,235 127,120 423,115 23.10% Vehicle Maintenance1,333,520 1,118,048 1,358,946 1,130,622 1,384,038 475,051 908,987 34.32%Total Operations & Recreation9,811,414$ 9,107,547$ 10,232,056$ 9,700,637$ 10,761,318$ 3,898,653$ 6,862,665$ 36.23% Non-Departmental: General -$ 123,720$ 30,351$ 63,648$ 31,909$ 13,275$ 18,634$ 41.60% Transfers Out- 2,194,245 - 1,873,000 - - - 0.00% Contingency177,984 14,438 266,719 104,224 385,295 20,683 364,612 5.37%Total Non-Departmental177,984$ 2,332,403$ 297,070$ 2,040,871$ 417,204$ 33,958$ 383,246$ 8.14%Total General Fund Expenditures32,624,438$ 33,501,760$ 34,082,737$ 34,906,172$ 35,811,011$ 13,325,939$ 22,485,072$ 37.21%Study Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: May 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 3
Budget to Actual - Enterprise FundsAs of May 31, 2017Current BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetCurrent BudgetMay Year To DateBudget Variance% of BudgetOperating revenues: User charges 6,420,438$ 1,498,355$ 4,922,083$ 23.34% 6,915,804$ 2,106,907$ 4,808,897$ 30.47% 3,319,001$ 906,565$ 2,412,436$ 27.31% 2,853,520$ 938,981$ 1,914,539$ 32.91% Other 375,000 420,047 (45,047) 112.01% 30,000 3,336 26,664 11.12% 148,000 564 147,436 0.38% - - - Total operating revenues6,795,438 1,918,402 4,877,036 28.23% 6,945,804 2,110,243 4,835,561 30.38% 3,467,001 907,129 2,559,872 26.16% 2,853,520 938,981 1,914,539 32.91%Operating expenses: Personal services1,322,998 572,531 750,467 43.28% 613,321 327,357 285,964 53.37% 590,172 216,802 373,370 36.74% 705,221 209,840 495,381 29.76% Supplies & non-capital544,800 66,171 478,629 12.15% 65,050 20,685 44,365 31.80% 153,350 66,456 86,894 43.34% 30,800 352 30,448 1.14% Services & other charges1,688,398 546,916 1,141,482 32.39%4,764,546 2,322,984 2,441,562 48.76% 2,692,499 728,473 1,964,026 27.06% 597,828 65,804 532,024 11.01% Depreciation * Total operating expenses3,556,196 1,185,618 2,370,578 33.34% 5,442,917 2,671,026 2,771,891 49.07% 3,436,021 1,011,731 2,424,290 29.44% 1,333,849 275,996 1,057,853 20.69%Operating income (loss)3,239,242 732,784 2,506,458 22.62% 1,502,887 (560,783) 2,063,670 -37.31% 30,980 (104,602) 135,582 -337.64% 1,519,671 662,985 856,686 43.63%Nonoperating revenues (expenses): Interest income 3,408 - 3,408 1,953 - 1,953 0.00% 30,849 - 30,849 0.00% 2,875 - 2,875 0.00% Other misc income- - - - - -2,500 - 2,500 0.00%- - - Interest expense/bank charges(182,037) (94,459) (87,578) 51.89% (16,016) (7,732) (8,284) 48.28% (11,000) (5,903) (5,097) 53.66% (30,604) (15,284) (15,320) 49.94% Total nonoperating rev (exp)(178,629) (94,459) (84,170) 52.88% (14,063) (7,732) (6,331) 54.98% 22,349 (5,903) 28,252 -26.41% (27,729) (15,284) (12,445) 55.12%Income (loss) before transfers3,060,613 638,325 2,422,288 20.86% 1,488,824 (568,515) 2,057,339 -38.19% 53,329 (110,505) 163,834 -207.21% 1,491,942 647,701 844,241 43.41%Transfers inTransfers out(584,451) (243,521) (340,930) 41.67% (799,648) (333,187) (466,461) 41.67% (227,229) (94,679) (132,550) 41.67% (313,067) (130,445) (182,622) 41.67%NET INCOME (LOSS)2,476,162 394,804 2,081,358 15.94% 689,176 (901,702) 1,590,878 -130.84% (173,900) (205,184) 31,284 117.99% 1,178,875 517,256 661,619 43.88%Items reclassified to bal sht at year end: Capital Outlay(3,163,298) (919) (3,162,379) 0.03% (785,983) (919) (785,064) 0.12%- - - (2,191,667) (919) (2,190,748) 0.04%Revenues over/(under) expenditures(687,136) 393,885 (1,081,021) (96,807) (902,621) 805,814 (173,900) (205,184) 31,284 (1,012,792) 516,337 (1,529,129) *Depreciation is recorded at end of year (non-cash item).Water SewerSolid WasteStorm WaterStudy Session Meeting of June 26, 2017 (Item No. 4) Title: May 2017 Monthly Financial ReportPage 4
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Written Report: 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Vision 3.0 Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. This report is an update on Vision 3.0.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please inform staff of any questions.
SUMMARY: Vision 3.0 community engagement activities have concluded. The preliminary
numbers for engagement are:
•Two Town Hall meetings: 75 total attendees
•Two Facebook Live Town Hall meetings:
o 307 comments on two Facebook Live Town Hall Meetings; with 33 likes.
o March 2, 2017 Facebook Live: 1,700 views, 5,135 people reached, 320
reactions/comments/shares, 37 viewers at peak of live broadcast
o April 14, 2017 Facebook Live: 1,100 views, 3,058 people reached, 141
reactions/comments/shares, 26 viewers at peak of live broadcast
•Trained more than 65 people to facilitate community conversations in their neighborhood,
places of worship, clubs or other groups about the future of St. Louis Park.
o More than 34 meetings were held with nearly 400 respondents
o Over 2,000 comments/ideas have been submitted
o A strong percentage of those who filled out demographic cards are people of color
•Survey (on-line and on paper): 180 surveys have been returned with over 1,200 comments
•Chalkboards/sandwich boards staffed by Steering Committee members and city staff
o 377 responses from 20 places and events
•Questions of the week: 16 weeks (March 1-June 14, 2017)
o 304 Nextdoor responses
o 54 Facebook comments
o 18 Twitter comments
NEXT STEPS: On July 18 Consultant Rebecca Ryan will provide preliminary findings and
recommendations to the Vision 3.0 Steering Committee. On July 24, a report on the
recommendations will be sent to the City Council. After review and refinement, Ryan will present
and discuss the recommendations with the City Council on August 28.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Any expense 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.
Prepared by: Meg McMonigal, Principal Planner
Jacqueline Larson, Communications and Marketing Manager
Reviewed by: Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Meeting: Study Session
Meeting Date: June 26, 2017
Written Report: 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Walker-Lake Initiatives Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Do the Walker-Lake activities identified in this report meet with
Council’s expectations and does the Council support staff’s continued work in this business area?
SUMMARY: For the past two years staff has been working with the businesses, high school and
community members in the Walker-Lake Street area to promote and rejuvenate the area
neighborhood and businesses. In November 2016 the city received a $35,000 Moving the Market
Grant from Hennepin County. Work under the grant began this past February. Since that time staff
and Nemer Fieger (the branding consultant) have been working with a Walker-Lake area focus
group to develop a brand identity. Based on focus group discussion and subsequent survey
feedback from area stakeholders it was determined that Historic Walker-Lake is the most
compelling name for this area. Work continues on developing a logo/brand platform.
In addition, the Musicant Group has drafted an Activation Plan which provides strategic
recommendations on potential area enhancements, and a prioritized list of actionable
improvements and activities that would enliven the area. Staff is working with the Musicant Group
to finalize this document. Both the branding logo/platform and Activation Plan are expected to be
presented at a study session in August.
In April, 2017, Council directed staff to contact the broker representing the seller of the Walker
Building (6524 Walker St.) and express the city’s interest in seeing the building preserved and
potentially restored in some manner. The building is currently under contract to be purchased. The
prospective buyer is a St. Louis Park woman who currently owns and operates a physical therapy
business in St. Paul and would open a similar business in the Walker Building. Staff has met with
the prospective buyer who has a shared interest in seeing the buildings historic character preserved.
Upon conducting due diligence of the property, the buyer will be working with an architect to draw
up plans to renovate the building. Inquiries on available financial assistance were made. Staff
provided information on the city’s revolving loan fund and potential grant opportunities. The
prospective buyer was asked to remain in contact with staff as prospective renovation plans evolve.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable at this time
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None
Prepared by: Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Gary Morrison, Assisted Zoning Administrator
Reviewed by: Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager