Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006/07/17 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Study SessionCity Council Study Session July 17, 2006 6:00 PM Council Chambers 5:30 p.m. Box Lunch Discussion Items Approximate Times 1. 6:00 p.m. Off-Sale Liquor Licenses 2. 6:45 p.m. City Wireless Project Update (7:30 p.m. City Council Meeting) Reconvened Study Session 3. 45 Min. Flame Metals 4. 15 Min. Future Study Session Agenda Planning 9:00 p.m. Adjourn Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administrative Services Department at (952) 924-2525 (TDD (952) 924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 1 1. Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Administrative Services, Police & Comm. Dev. PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: Staff is returning to Council to discuss potential changes to the City’s regulations relating to off- sale liquor stores. Based on the May 8 study session discussion, items for Council’s consideration include signage (50% maximum coverage for windows), minimum setbacks from schools and daycares, proposed changes to the administrative penalties ordinance, frequency of compliance checks, and strategies for employers to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors. BACKGROUND: Council has expressed concern over recent months about the number and location of new off-sale liquor stores within St. Louis Park, image issues associated with this, and the sale of alcohol to minors. Staff discussed a menu of options that would meet the needs of Council, the community and the business owners. The challenge for staff was to identify possible options that would not require an increase in staffing or make it overly burdensome for the license holders, yet still hold owners accountable for their operations. Staff believes that the following will meet this test and looks forward to having a discussion with Council about these strategies. 1. Signage: Limiting window signage is a regulation that does not appear to have a uniform standard among communities. Many communities do not regulate it, and those that do vary in the degree and method of regulation. Like any other regulation, restricting window signage has pros and cons. The challenge is finding the balance that promotes a healthy and successful environment for the business, but also respects the neighborhood in which the business is a part of. In addition to this, the regulation must be enforceable, meaning it is clearly defined, and the city has the resources to take on the additional regulation. Recommendation: If the city chooses to regulate window signage for liquor stores (which would affect all businesses within the city), staff recommends simplifying the regulation by requiring the views into and out of the store to remain unobstructed at eye level. (The term “eye level” would be defined for clarification.) This has the effect of limiting all types of obstructions, not just signage. Staff also recommends not regulating the type or style of signage. 2. Limiting number of liquor establishments: Currently, City Code does not contain provisions limiting the number of liquor establishments in St. Louis Park, although statutory, the Council has the power to limit the number of licenses. Staff presented research at the May 8 study session regarding limitations in surrounding communities. Many cities do not impose restrictions because they restrict free market activity and limit innovation by stores that wish to target specialty markets. The police department does not feel there is any direct relationship between the number of and/or location of off-sale establishments and any particular outcomes, either positive or negative. Recommendation: At the May 8, 2006 study session, Council did not come to consensus on the concept of limiting the number of off-sale liquor establishments in the city. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 2 3. Minimum Distances: MN Statutes 340A.509 states a local authority may impose further restrictions and regulations. Many cities prohibit liquor establishments from being located within a certain distance of schools or churches or in non-commercially zoned areas of the city. If the Council wanted to pursue distance restrictions, they should be clearly defined as to how they would be measured (ex. property line to property line). Staff has attached the City of New Brighton’s liquor ordinance, Section 4-9 Ineligible Locations, for your information and discussion. Recommendation: Staff is not recommending any changes to the zoning ordinance with respect to minimum distances. However, Council could consider establishing a minimum distance as a part of Chapter 3 of the City Code. 4. Administrative Penalties: Chapter 3, Sections 3-73, 3-74, 3-75 (attached) of the St. Louis Park City Code provides for the option of attending an administrative hearing before the City Manager if the license holder has failed a compliance check. The ordinance allows the city manager to set the administrative penalty (revocation, suspension of up to 60 days and/or up to $2,000 civil fine, which is set by state law). There is no mention of penalties for additional violations nor does the ordinance set a timeframe for which this is to be considered. The current recommended administrative penalty set by the City Manager to be completed within 30 days. Current practice is as follows: 1st Violation $1,000 fine 2nd Violation $2,000 fine 3rd Violation 3 - day suspension (business days) Recommendation: Staff recommends the violations, penalties, and time frame be clearly spelled out in the ordinance, and that Council administer public hearings for any license holder with more than three violations within three calendar years. Attached, City Attorney Roger Knutson has drafted language for your consideration and discussion that includes stringent penalties currently in place with the City of Lakeville. In addition, staff is working with Finance to study the City Code’s Appendix A, Fee Schedule for Liquor Licenses, to ensure that existing and proposed changes to procedures are accurately and fairly captured. Wine, Club, Intoxicating Off-Sale, and Sunday License fees are set by the State. 3.2 Malt Liquor and Intoxicating On-Sale are set by the City. 5. Compliance Checks: The police department conducts compliance checks annually for each business that holds a valid liquor license. Checks were completed in mid-2006 because of grant dollars that helped offset the costs of the checks. For each compliance check, the police department uses a young person who is under 21, looks young and is trained to truthfully answer when asked about his or her own age. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 3 Recommendation: Staff recommends conducting follow-up compliance checks for establishments with two or more violations within 36 months to ensure that the businesses are not selling alcohol to minors. 6. Education: The police department offers voluntary education training for liquor license holders and their employees. Trainings are geared toward to help establishments comply with state law and prevent the sale of alcohol to minors. Trainings are offered free to the owner. Recommendation: Staff recommends continuing with the voluntary education training as currently provided by the police department. 7. Public Process Before the City Council would impose any changes to our current procedures or ordinance, staff would recommend we meet with the license holders to discuss the proposed changes and gather their feedback. Attachments: Sections from City Code Chapter 3 Alcohol Beverages: 3-34 Liquor Violation; 3-73, 3-74, 3-75 Administrative penalties 3-102, 3-103 Compliance checks, right of inspection 3-107 restrictions underage persons Attorney’s draft ordinance amending liquor violation penalties City of New Brighton’s Ordinance, Section 4-9 Ineligible Locations Excerpts from May 8, 2006 Study Session minutes Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Sergeant Chad Kraayenbrink, Police Department Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 4 City Code Chapter 3 ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES Administrative Penalties Sections 3-73 through 3-75 Sec. 3-73. Revocation, suspension and/or civil fine. The city council may suspend for up to 60 days or revoke any liquor license or permit, or impose a civil fine of up to $2,000.00 for each violation, or impose any combination of these sanctions, as provided in M.S.A. § 340A.415, for violation of any provision or condition of this article, or any other city ordinance or state law relating to alcoholic beverages. Sec. 3-74. Notice of hearing. Revocation or suspension of a license under this division by the city council shall be preceded by a public hearing conducted in accordance with M.S.A. §§ 14.57--14.70. The city council may appoint a hearing examiner or may conduct a hearing itself. A notice of such hearing shall be given to the violator at least 20 days prior to the hearing, and shall include the following: (1) Notice of the time and place of the hearing; (2) The nature of the charges against the licensee; and (3) The penalty that the city may impose for the violation. (Ord. No. 2184-00, § 1(13-323), 12-16-2000) Sec. 3-75. Administrative penalty. Prior to expiration of the 20-day notice period as set forth in section 3-74, the licensee may stipulate to both the violation identified in the notice and an administrative penalty (revocation, suspension of up to 60 days and/or up to $2,000.00 civil fine) set by the city manager, in lieu of a hearing before the city council. The stipulation must be approved by the city council. If such stipulation is approved by the city council, the administrative penalty proposed by the stipulation must be completed within 30 days. If the city council does not approve the stipulation, the city council may impose penalties as provided in section 3-73, following a hearing as set forth in section 3-74. Violations, Compliance Checks, and Underage persons Sections 3-34, 3-102, 3-103, 3-107 Sec. 3-34. Violations. The following actions by an applicant or a licensee under this article shall constitute a violation of this section: City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 5 (1) Providing false or misleading statements made on a license application or renewal application, or failure to abide by the commitments, promises or representations made to the city council on a license application. (2) Violation of any special conditions under which a license was granted under this article, including, but not limited to, the timely payment of real estate taxes and all other charges. (3) Violation of any federal, state or local law regulating the sale of intoxicating liquor, 3.2 percent malt liquor or a controlled substance. (4) Creation of a nuisance on a premises licensed under this article or in the surrounding area of such premises. (5) The licensee suffered or permitted illegal acts upon the licensed premises or on property owned or controlled by the licensee adjacent to the licensed premises, unrelated to the sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor. (6) The licensee had knowledge of illegal acts upon or attributable to the licensed premises, but failed to report such illegal acts to the police. (7) Expiration or cancellation of any required insurance under this article, or failure to notify the city within a reasonable time of changes in the term of such insurance or the carriers of such insurance. (Ord. No. 2184-00, 12-16-2000) Sec. 3-102. Compliance checks. (a) From time to time, the city shall conduct compliance checks on established licensed premises under this article. Such compliance checks may involve, but are not limited to, engaging underage persons to enter the licensed premises to attempt to purchase alcohol and alcohol-related products. (b) If underage persons are used for compliance checks as set forth in subsection (a) of this section, they shall not be guilty of unlawful possession of alcohol when such items are obtained as a part of a compliance check. No underage person used in compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting such person's age, and all underage persons lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all questions about the person's age asked by the licensee or his employees, and shall produce any identification for which such underage person is asked. (Ord. No. 2184-00, § 1(13-321), 12-16-2000) Sec. 3-103. Right of inspection. (a) Any city-designated police officer, firefighter or health officer displaying proper identification shall have the unqualified right to enter, inspect and search the premises of any licensee under this article without a warrant, during business hours or when owners, managers or other employees are located on the licensed premises. (b) The business records of the licensee, including federal and state tax returns, shall be available for inspection by the city, at all reasonable times, upon written request. (Ord. No. 2184-00, § 1(13-327), 12-16-2000) City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 6 Sec. 3-107. Restrictions involving underage persons. (a) No licensee under this article or such licensee's agent or employee shall: (1) Serve or dispense upon the licensed premises any intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor to a person under the legal drinking age; (2) Permit any person under the legal drinking age to be furnished or allowed to consume any intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor on the licensed premises; or (3) Permit any person under the legal drinking age to be delivered any intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor. (b) No person under the legal drinking age shall enter a licensed premises for the purpose of purchasing or consuming any alcoholic beverage. It is not unlawful for any person who has attained the age of 18 years to enter licensed premises to: (1) Perform work for the establishment, including the serving of alcoholic beverages, unless otherwise prohibited by statute; (2) Consume meals; and (3) Attend social functions that are held in a portion of the establishment where liquor is not sold. (c) No person under the legal drinking age shall possess any intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor. Possession of an alcoholic beverage by a person under the legal drinking age at a place other than the household of such person's parent or guardian is prima facie evidence of intent to consume such alcoholic beverage at a place other than the household of the person's parent or guardian. (d) No underage person shall misrepresent their age for the purpose of obtaining intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor; nor shall such person enter any premises licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor for the purpose of purchasing or being served or delivered any alcoholic beverage; nor shall any such person purchase, attempt to purchase, consume or have another person purchase for the underage person any intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor. (e) Any person shall, upon demand of the licensee, the licensee's employee or agent, produce and permit to be examined one form of identification as provided under M.S.A. § 340A.503, subd. 6. In every prosecution for a violation of the provisions of this section relating to the sale or furnishing of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor to underage persons, and in every proceeding before the city council with respect thereto, the fact that the underage person involved has obtained and presented to the licensee, the licensee's employee or agent a driver's license, passport or identification card from which it appears that such person was not an underage person and was regularly issued such identification card shall be prima facie evidence that the licensee, the licensee's agent or employee is not guilty of a violation of such a provision and shall be conclusive evidence that a violation, if one has occurred, was not willful or intentional. (Ord. No. 2184-00, 12-16-2000) City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 7 (Sample DRAFT Ordinance) ORDINANCE NO. _________-06 CITY OF St. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE CONCERNING THE REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION OF LICENSES FOR THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR OR 3.2 PERCENT MALT LIQUOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 3-75 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to read: Sec. 3-75. Administrative penalty. Prior to expiration of the 20-day notice period as set forth in section 3-74, the licensee may stipulate to both the violation identified in the notice and an administrative penalty as set forth in section 3-78, in lieu of a hearing before the city council. The stipulation must be approved by the city council. If such stipulation is approved by the city council, the administrative penalty proposed by the stipulation must be completed within 30 days. If the city council does not approve the stipulation, the city council may impose penalties as provided in section 3-73, following a hearing as set forth in section 3-74. SECTION 2. Chapter 3 of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended by adding Section 3-78 to provide: Sec. 3-78. Presumptive civil penalties. A. Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to establish a standard by which the City Council determines the length of license suspensions and the propriety of revocations, and shall apply to all premises licensed under this Chapter. These penalties are presumed to be appropriate. The Council may deviate from the presumptive penalty where the Council finds that there exist substantial reasons making it appropriate to deviate, such as, but not limited to, a licensee’s efforts in combination with the State or City to prevent the sale of alcohol to minors. When deviating from these standards, the Council will provide written findings that support the penalty selected. B. Presumed penalties for Violations: The presumed penalties for violations are as follows (unless specified, numbers below indicate consecutive days’ suspension): City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 8 Type of Violation 1st Violation 2nd Violation 3rd Violation 4th Violation 1. Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity. Revocation N/A N/A N/A 2. Sale of alcoholic beverages while license is under suspension. Revocation N/A N/A N/A 3. Sale of alcoholic beverages to underage person: - on sale intoxicating liquor - on sale beer and wine - off-sale intoxicating liquor - off sale 3.2 beer - club liquor licenses $500.00 3 6 Revocation 4. Sale of alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated person. 3 6 18 Revocation 5. After hours sale of alcoholic beverages. 3 6 18 Revocation 6. After hours display or consumption of alcoholic beverages. 2 4 12 Revocation 7. Refusal to allow govern- ment inspectors or Police admission to inspect premises. 5 15 Revocation N/A 8. Illegal gambling on premises. 3 6 18 Revocation 9. Failure to take reasonable steps to stop person from leaving premises with alcoholic beverages. 2 4 12 Revocation 10. Sale of intoxicating liquor where only license for 3.2 percent malt liquor 3 6 18 Revocation The penalty for violations without a presumptive penalty shall be determined by the City Council. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 9 C. Multiple Violations: At a licensee’s first appearance before the Council, the Council must act upon all of the violations that have been alleged in the notice sent to the licensee. The Council in that case must consider the presumptive penalty for each violation under the first appearance column in subsection (B) above. The occurrence of multiple violations is grounds for deviation from the presumed penalties in the Council’s discretion. D. Subsequent Violations: Violations occurring after the notice of hearing has been mailed, but prior to the hearing, must be treated as a separate violation and dealt with as a second appearance before the Council, unless the City Administrator and licensee agree in writing to add the violation to the first appearance. The same procedure applies to the second, third, or fourth appearance before the Council. E. Subsequent Appearances: Upon a second, third, or fourth appearance before the Council by the same licensee, the Council must impose the presumptive penalty for the violation or violations giving rise to the subsequent appearance without regard to the particular violation or violations that were the subject of the first or prior appearance. However, the Council may consider the amount of time elapsed between appearances as a basis for deviating from the presumptive penalty imposed by this Section. F. Computation of Violations: Multiple violations are computed by checking the time period of the three (3) years immediately prior to the date of the most current violation. G. Other Penalties: Nothing in this Section shall restrict or limit the authority of the Council to suspend up to sixty (60) days, revoke the license, impose a civil fee not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), to impose conditions, or take any other action in accordance with law; provided, that the license holder has been afforded an opportunity for a hearing in the manner provided in this Chapter. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. Adopted by the City Council , 2006 City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 10 City of New Brighton Liquor License Requirements Sec. 4-9. Ineligible Locations (1) No license nor any special use permit required by this Chapter shall be granted to premises with a property line within 400 feet of the property line of any public or parochial school or church in the City. (2) At its sole discretion, the City Council may allow a lesser distance upon making a finding that the location of the licensed operation is not unduly detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety of the citizens. (3) At its sole discretion, the City Council may require a greater distance upon making a finding that the location of the licensed operation is unduly detrimental to the public health, welfare, and safety of the citizens. (4) The findings shall be made by the City Council after considering the effect of natural barriers, highway thoroughfares, proximity to park areas and other areas of public assembly, the activities conducted in any such church or school, the nature of the licensed operation, and the orientation of and access to the building and property. (Ord. No. 463, 9-25-79; Code of 1988, Code of 2001). City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 1 - Off-Sale Liquor Licenses Page 11 Excerpts from Study Session Meeting Minutes of May 8, 2006 2. Off-Sale Liquor Licenses City Clerk Nancy Stroth presented a staff report. Ms. Stroth said two representatives from Napa Jacks are present. Ms. Stroth asked Council what their concerns are regarding off-sale liquor licensing. Councilmember Carver said he doesn’t perceive a problem but he is not specifically in favor of a blanket number of liquor stores. Councilmember Omodt was concerned whether the police can effectively continue to enforce. Councilmember Finkelstein said off-sale stores have gone from 9 to 14 within the last year. Councilmember Finkelstein said there is no limitation as to where the liquor stores are located. Like Councilmember Carver, Councilmember Sanger doesn’t want to limit the number of liquor stores unless she hears some police concern about it. She would like to know why more liquor stores want to locate in St. Louis Park. Mayor Jacobs said he would be concerned about overtaxing the police department’s ability to enforce and the city clerk’s department to enforce the periodic background checks and the continuing licensing. Councilmember Paprocki thinks it is an appearance issue. Councilmember Paprocki said St. Louis Park currently has enough liquor stores to service St. Louis Park residents. He said appearance is reality and St. Louis Park has enough liquor stores. Besides appearance, Councilmember Basill’s concern is as the number of liquor stores increase, the more desperate they are to sell. Mayor Jacobs said he doesn’t think St. Louis Park should limit the number of liquor stores, however, have staff look at increasing fines for violations. Mr. Harmening said the police department has not been able to point to or suggest a nexus between the number of liquor licenses and crime and disorder for off-sale liquor sales. Like Councilmembers Basill and Paprocki, Councilmember Finkelstein thinks it is an appearance issue and the number of new off-sale establishments is too big of an increase for one year. Councilmember Sanger would like to know if it is possible to criminally charge the owner and not just the server. Management Assistant Marcia Honold said staff can return with best practices information. Mr. Harmening said he is not hearing agreement on limiting the number of liquor stores, not hearing distance requirements but he does hear requests to require mandatory training, look at penalties for violation and perhaps make those more stringent, he hears aesthetics and the need for best practices. Councilmember Basill said image and liquor store names do matter. Councilmember Omodt would like to consider proximity to schools. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 1 2. Wireless Pilot Update TSS PURPOSE OF REPORT: As indicated in a July 10 study session report, staff desires to discuss with Council the current status of the pilot wireless project and options for next steps. Project background and several details on results-to-date, projections for a citywide wireless project implementation, and related topics of interest, including updates on other local cities implementing or considering implementation of wireless technologies, were included in the July 10 report. The goal of this report is to supplement (not repeat) information provided on July 10, in part in response to additional information needs and questions provided by Council. Staff also presents some optional next steps for Council. The following section provides the summary findings thus far and recommended next steps, each conditioned on Council’s view of the pilot project. The subsequent Exhibits section provides many of the supporting details and responses to questions. FOUNDATION PILOT FINDINGS: Interest in the pilot project has been significant. For example, over 350 people signed up out of 1,400 parcels. That translates into 25.1% of potential households signing up within about the first 8 weeks. That seems significant in light of these factors: 1. The pilot is not guaranteed to continue. This factor was cited by many folks in the pilot areas for not signing up and, for some, for canceling their subscription. Understandably, some people did not want to pay for two Internet subscriptions or risk reconnection fees upon cancellation of the pilot wireless program. 2. The pilot is just that – a pilot, a trial, a test of the relatively recent outdoor application of wireless technologies. Pilot subscribers have been sharing the growing pains of a new service, in many ways akin to cellular phone service. The wireless pilot with all its experimentation and inevitable challenges is reminiscent of the early days of predecessor technologies such as dial-up and DSL Internet access. 3. Subscribers are paying a fee – between $20 and $35 per month to experience the growing pains for a service that may not continue. The reward: they get to try this new service first. And for some, for the first time, they now have Internet service they can afford that frees up their phone line. Considering that the on-going citywide wireless service business model calls for subscribing 36% of households within the first 12 months of operation, capturing over 25% in the first 2 months of a temporary wireless service feels hopeful. This service is not for everyone, nor does the business model anticipate that. To be sure, some people in the community have taken the legitimate position that this service should not be provided to anyone with City involvement. Having said that, the pilot project has provided more information on the potential costs and performance of a citywide service. For example: City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 2 1. Most of the pilot wireless subscribers have previously been dial-up or non-Internet users. This is the primary market and purpose for the wireless service – to make high-speed Internet service both available and affordable to more people. The pilot experience also suggests additional support requirements to ensure a positive experience for subscribers. Improved pre-installation instructions and a setup CD, including expanded Mac support, are a couple of investments necessary for a citywide implementation. 2. The help desk has not met the expectations of the City and many subscribers. Unplugged Cities sub-contracted the help desk. While the help desk has improved somewhat, any citywide implementation would include the private partner hiring help desk staff. 3. The bridges subscribers use to connect their PC’s or laptops to the wireless network (referred to as the CPE) have shown mixed results. We tried two types – EnGenius and PepLink. Both work; however, the EnGenius is prone to “hopping” between wireless access points (AP’s) when it should not, causing less than optimal performance. The PepLink has performed well. Both require a stronger than standard antenna. We have been able to “lock” the EnGenius to prevent hopping. This is not a viable bridge long- term as many people will want mobility options. The downside with the PepLink is cost. Its cost are estimated to be 30% - 50% higher than the $100 bridge called for in the business plan. 4. The Tropos wireless access points (AP’s) have provided reliable service to the pilot areas. They have experienced very little downtime. However, there are some outstanding issues which were communicated to Tropos, and we believe need to be resolved in a citywide implementation. Specific ways in which Tropos can help meet more of our expectations include addressing the following items: • Users can apparently initiate unauthorized PC-to-PC (peer-to-peer) communication which can have significant impact on performance for all subscribers on the network. Although this traffic can be detected it cannot be controlled with current network system tools. Tropos (network vendor) has acknowledged these problems as has indicated it has potential solutions. However, these solutions have not been demonstrated, and Tropos has not provided a firm schedule of solution availability or a complete description of how it will address this issue. • The AP to AP communication uses the same frequency as the AP to CPE communication. o The more AP to AP links reach a given customer, the poorer performance seen by customer (speed, reliability). o The AP to AP link is susceptible to interference, thus AP spacing needs to be closer. • We have experienced intermittent drops and Quality of Service (QOS) issues. o Have been identified as a Tropos issue, waiting resolution. • We have had to make multiple visits to the AP’s in the pilot. Several AP’s have required re-booting, firmware upgrades, or other procedures. While some of these activities are par for the course when it comes to technology, it raises more general concerns about wireless maintenance costs and network availability. Our specific experience in the pilot has generated questions from us to Tropos regarding network functionality. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 3 To be fair, these are concerns that could be experienced with other network vendors. And each vendor will have its own unique issues. Having said that, one result of the pilot is that any citywide implementation will require additional due diligence on the City’s part to identify the strengths, weaknesses, and plans of current wireless network vendors, including Tropos. And Tropos has indicated they intend to address these issues. Both private partners – First Mile Wireless and Unplugged Cities – have worked tirelessly to address these issues to maximize the positive experience for subscribers. Some service interruptions are inevitable. Also, some of the issues appear to simply be limitations of the technology, design challenges, and cost alternatives available at the time the pilot was approved. CURRENT STATUS: Our best information now suggests that there continues to be strong interest in wireless high- speed Internet service. To be fair, this service is not for everyone, nor does the business model call for everyone to subscribe. Those with need for up to 5 – 6 Mbps download speeds without mobility will likely want cable modem service. Those uncomfortable with newer wireless technologies may continue to find legacy Internet connection methods more attractive, at least in the short-term. And others will want options such as wireless Internet with mobility at various price points. The pilot information also suggests that the technology and support necessary to provide a competitively priced service with solid subscriber support is greater than originally anticipated. Those reasons are articulated above. Given this new information and including all costs, this service is not projected to pay for itself based on retail sales alone. Our best estimate is that this service would most likely result in a cumulative 5-year loss of $273,000, or just under an average of $55,000 per year (In the first 2 years, cumulative losses of $400,000 are projected, with years 3,4, and 5 showing positive cash flow). This assumes meeting the subscriber goal of 36% of households and 15% of businesses at the end of year 1. A couple of worst case subscriber take rate scenarios suggests that the cumulative 5-year loss could be as great as $1.4 or $2.4 million. While we believe that a citywide project could result in better outcome than a $273,000 loss, we also need to be as honest and forthright with Council as possible regarding risks. MITIGATING RISKS / MAXIMIZING OPPORTUNITY: Several potential risk mitigating steps present themselves to cushion or help reduce a projected $55,000 retail subscriber deficit: • Sponsorship / Advertising: The approach to wireless in St. Louis Park has been primarily for retail services. Consistent with that approach is consideration of further private-public partnerships in the form of sponsorship and advertising to defray some of the costs of this service. This could take the form of focusing especially on businesses and other organizations that interact with their clients primarily through Internet based transactions. In addition, sponsorship and advertising to defray costs is consistent with approaches taken to other services such as recreation and the community handbook. City staff have in fact already been approached by some businesses, both in and beyond St. Louis Park, interested in partnering in this way. • Municipal Benefits: Out of pocket cost reductions from the current $20,000 per year expenditures for public safety mobile computing. Wireless public safety and public City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 4 services applications are restricted by the bandwidth currently available with CDMA and EVDO technologies. Text may be transmitted productively; however, larger files such as high resolution maps, photos, videos, fingerprints, and other images are effectively unusable with these wireless technologies. Wi-Fi speed technologies make these increasingly vital data sources available on a mobile basis. In-building wireless Internet service creates locational flexibility for everyone from constituents at City Hall to visitors to the Recreation Center. • Educational Support -- From an educational perspective, creating the opportunity for parents, students, and teachers to communicate and collaborate in the learning process has always been important. To enable more people to communicate and collaborate through provision of an affordable high-speed Internet service is clearly one of the most important long-term goals of this project and consistent with St. Louis Park’s Children First initiative. • Economic Development and Community Enabling Technology: Less clear is exactly how communities and individuals will use technology to improve their quality of life. People are creative and businesses grow with innovative uses of enabling technologies. For many, especially newer generations, a technology-enabled community is attractive in general. • Phased Build Out Commitment: This approach phases the wireless implementation. In Year 1, wireless service would be provided to residential (including multi-family) areas and parks. Business areas could be fully served in Year 2 based on the success levels shown in Year 1. This option would cover the major retail segment for the program – residential – and also provide service to many home based businesses. In addition, access would be available to park areas, and to some businesses and other institutions bordering residential areas. This assumes 36% of households subscribe by the end of Year 1. If Year 1 is successful, Council could consider expansion to remaining business areas in Year 2. While managing risks, it would delay or make unavailable mobile wireless access for public safety and public services and result in lost initial subscriber revenues from business. There are other ways to mitigate risks that may also be worth considering. What is interesting is that to go beyond residential areas and cover the entire city is turning out to be about a $300,000 net cost over 5 years. One way to view this is as the value of public safety and other public and educational benefits that accrue from citywide wireless coverage, benefits that would be unavailable in the foreseeable future without this project. Put another way, Council members may wish to ask whether they could support up to $55,000 per year for these public, educational, and communitywide enabling technology benefits. What good, for whom, at what cost? These are challenging questions to answer; yet, they are critical to ask if Council is to make wise and informed decisions. OVERALL CONCLUSIONS: While it appears much has been successful about the pilot wireless project, it is also the case that we have faced some challenges and learned much throughout the pilot. Summary conclusions suggest: City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 5 • There are indicators of strong interest in citywide wireless Internet service, arguably sufficient to meet subscriber projections. • The pilot project suggests the need for strong and frequent subscriber support -- some based on the technology, some based on the subscriber learning curve. The current network vendor, Tropos, is attempting to address concerns raised throughout the pilot. • Projected cost of and number wireless access points have increased, and may vary across vendors. • The cost of the most successful subscriber bridge in the pilot is higher than the current business model supports. • The wireless network industry has matured even since the pilot was approved last November. Tropos is a leading vendor of wireless networks. And more vendors have come to market and communitywide installations put in place. There are more alternatives to explore to compare performance and costs of wireless access points and bridges. • Completion of the fiber optic backbone is a significant portion of the capital investment, projected at over $1 million. RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on findings to date, the City Council has several options. Council may direct that the pilot wireless service be shut down, with appropriate notice to subscribers and the community. Council may continue the pilot without additional action while waiting for changes in the wireless environment (this has on-going pilot service operational costs). The City Council could direct staff to move forward on implementation of a citywide wireless service. Given the above described project conclusions, staff recommends that Council take the prudent step of gathering information on current costs and options for wireless networks. Thus, it is recommended Council authorize staff to develop and issue a Request for Bids for a citywide wireless network to determine if currently projected costs are real. Significant cost and performance factors include wireless access points, wireless bridges, on-going support, and the fiber optic network. Bid specifications and alternates would be even more stringent than for the pilot based on the both the pilot experience and industry advancements. If the cost projections are not real, Council always has the right to reject bids. While acquiring 36% of households and 15% of business subscribers will require significant effort, that effort is accounted for in the business model and still seems achievable based on survey results, experience in other cities, and pilot data. This would require an extension of the pilot through October. Financing the continued operation of the pilot as well as developing citywide bid specifications and pre-bid qualifications, conducting site visits, and developing final recommendations to Council is anticipated to cost just under $50,000. This continued due diligence both keeps us moving forward and mitigates some risks by creating more known factors in the business and technical model. Attachments: Pre-Registrations Notes on Wireless Industry Developments Responses to Various Council and Community Questions Pilot Subscriber Survey II Prepared By: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 6 PRE-REGISTRATIONS: Pre-registrations are one way to start gauging initial interest in this service on a citywide basis. The pre-registration form sent with the Park Perspective newsletter, mailed to businesses, and made available on-line allows people the opportunity to indicate their interest in this service if it goes citywide, without an obligation to subscribe. As of this writing on Wednesday, July 12, over 2,200 households and businesses had pre-registered for this service. NOTES ON WIRELESS INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENTS: The Wi-Fi industry is early in development status, which magnifies the importance of product development assessment and vendor selection. The Wi-Fi vendor products, capabilities, and development status have evolved since we issued the RFB for equipment in late 2005. In the past 6 months we have seen release of 2nd and 3rd generation products from Sky Pilot and other vendors, have seen vendors such as Cisco enter the marketplace, and vendors such as Motorola struggle. For example: • Sky Pilot has refined its product offering and supports one of the largest Wi-Fi installations in the United States. o MetroFi uses Sky Pilot equipment in their network covering portions of Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, and Cupertino CA. o MetroFi plans to use Sky Pilot in Portland OR and Aurora IL. o MobilePro plans to use Sky Pilot in Brookline MA. • US Internet dropped Motorola in favor of BelAir networks for the pilot in Minneapolis. o US Internet also considered Strix networks. BelAir was selected since they were willing to provide equipment for free during the pilot. • Strix networks supports what appears to be the largest Wi-Fi deployment in the United States in Tempe AZ. o MobilePro serves over 180 square miles in Tempe and surrounding communities. In addition, it appears that network pricing has declined and additional Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) options are available. Given the increase in required access points and our understanding of what it takes for the customer to have a successful experience, the pricing extended in the original RFB responses are too high for the business plan. We have also learned from the pilot and are better equipped to ask more detailed and pointed questions while understanding the impact of selected specifications. Given the above and if St. Louis Park desires to pursue a Wi-Fi offering, we feel it is prudent to refine and reissue the RFB. The first step in the RFB is to pre-qualify potential vendors. Our initial assessment indicates that consideration is given to at least: • BelAir • Cisco • Proxim • Sky Pilot • Strix • Tropos City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 7 Other potential vendors include Firetide, RoamAD, and Nortel. The pre-qualification is based upon past experiences with communities similar to St. Louis Park, product development status, support of key requirements, and other parameters. While it is tempting to propose another pilot test before a citywide vendor selection, it is a potential trap of endless pilots. We feel that a fair analysis can be done via the pre-qualification phase, RFB, site visits to communities using recommended equipment. In addition, risk mitigation would be enhanced by tying certain performance requirements to vendor payment schedules. RESPONSES TO VARIOUS COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY QUESTIONS: Staff has received a number of comments and questions from Council and the community. Here are some of them, along with responses where appropriate: Where is WiMAX and Why Not Wait?: Intel and Clearwire just announced a WiMAX association. It should push the CPE prices downward. The indoor CPE’s are projected to drop to the $250 -- $300 range. Clearwire is targeting the service to be in the $30 to $35 per month range. WiMAX is a clear choice when starting an ISP to serve a region that has limited high- speed options. For providing low-cost universal access, it’s not a great fit for more dense suburban and urban areas. WiMAX type technology might be a better fit for areas with low population density and large lot sizes. Despite its claims, WiMAX is a point-to-multipoint technology, and is based on a given access point covering a large footprint (the larger the footprint, the more coverage holes). A challenge with WiMAX in St. Louis Park is getting through the tree canopy, how many users will be supported from a given access point, and what percentage of residents will be covered. I-29 in Fargo deployed a WiMAX type Internet service in Fargo/Moorhead for $20 per month. They are serving the area with 3 access points and are seeing around 60% to 70% coverage. If a person cannot get a signal, they are asked to return the CPE. No attempts are made to get it working. In other words, if we accept that 30% -- 40% of residents will not be able to access this service, then it’s an alternative. Exit Strategies: Exit strategies are a bit more muddied, especially prior to having real costs in place. On the negative scenario side, if costs are higher than expected or take rates lower, selling or leasing the equipment/network to an ISP is one exit, but will likely require some portion of the investment to be written off. Another strategy is to be willing to write off the capital, and have the business model cover non-sunk operating costs. Without electric utility or other revenues, St. Louis Park’s exposure is greater than Moorhead or Chaska. On the positive side, a successful service can be seen to have value and be attractive to the private sector. This could result in recouping or exceeding project costs. Intergovernmental Cooperation: Cooperation from Minneapolis depends upon EarthLink and US Internet, if one of those providers will be awarded the project and, if awarded, completing the build out. If that occurs, we may see some opportunities to collaborate by providing mutual roaming services so Minneapolis or St. Louis Park subscribers could access WiFi networks while in either city. Beyond that, other suburbs are observing this pilot project and have indicated potential interest in collaboration should St. Louis Park move forward with a citywide implementation. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 8 Covering Increased Costs: Should we should give some additional thought to whether we could slightly increase some or all tiers of the monthly fees as a way to bridge the funding gap. Here's why: - Survey data which shows the relationship between pricing and customer acceptance is now about a year out of date. Most everything else has gone up since then; people wouldn't necessarily be put off by a raise of $3 - 5 per month. - More importantly, since our survey was done, there has been a lot of resident enthusiasm based on actual experience. - your summary doesn't take into account the inevitable price increase for cable internet service we will get when Comcast takes over Time Warner, Wifi will look like an even bigger bargain, even if it is a few $ more than today - this is a pilot, after all. I think the public can understand that Comments: Dial-up users are the “core” target market. Dial-up prices have not increased over the past year; some have actually declined. The price tiers were intended to address the range of users. That said, prices could be raised, slightly. We are already at the “magic-price ceiling” for dial-up users to switch to high-speed of $25 per month, that has stayed constant over the past 3-5 years. Pre-Registration Feedback: Since the door-hangers and other recent communications went out I have had a lot of comments from neighbors about WiFi. They have been 100% positive toward wanting to sign up for this service if it is approved citywide. - I asked several people if they would pay even $30 or $35 per month. Reactions have all been variations on "are you kidding? of course ! right now I pay even more, and I'd rather support the city than Comcast or AOL, etc." - Many said they refused to sign up for the pilot only because they didn't know if it would be permanent, and they didn't want to have to change email addresses more than once. - I've asked many of these folks if they have responded to your door-hanger request to send in an "expression of interest" and all have said "no". When I asked why, all told me that they didn't want to sign up until it was permanent. I explained that this wasn't asking for a firm commitment at this time, which surprised them. (Maybe we should put something right on the website's home page and/or on cable TV to get people to understand and respond to this survey). It is obvious to me that there is great confusion over this request. I have asked them all to please send in an email of support. But this suggests to me that whatever response you get to the door-hangers will not be a full assessment of community interest. Comments: Agree that pre-signup is not a full assessment. This is a good reminder. We can try to clarify the commitment concern on the web site. The interest seems significant. However, the citizens of most interest are the silent majority. Are they supportive enough to signup? This is key. Sign-Up: Several folks have told me that they city needs to make it easier to sign up and get set up for wi-fi. As one person said to me, "why can't I sign up, and get clear instructions how to set up the equipment, with just a few clicks off the city's website?" Comments: Agree that we need to refine the sign-up process, especially for Mac users. Perhaps an interactive CD which goes through the set-up, executes spyware and virus protection (program on CD and executed before the setup) would help. Ease of e-mail conversion will also be critical. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 2 - Wireless Pilot Update Page 9 PILOT SUBSCRIBER SURVEY II: Another data point is survey results from current subscribers on their perception of the pilot program. Phase 1 subscribers were surveyed after the first 2 – 3 weeks of service. A second survey of all subscribers was initiated last week. Results from pilot subscribers surveyed during the last 7 days are available separately by project Phase 1 (subscribers closest to the wireless access points), Phase 2 (subscribers on the edge of the design coverage area), and Phase 3 (subscribers living outside the design coverage area, but close enough to receive a signal). Results from each Phase are attached. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 3 - Flame Metals Page 1 3. Flame Metals Update Inspections PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To provide information for discussion on the continuing emission concerns from the Flame Metals facility located at 7304 W. Lake St. and to consider the progress Flame Metals is making to reduce the emissions effect on the neighborhood. Staff also desires to discuss alternatives available to the City to address this matter. City Attorney Tom Scott will be in attendance to assist with this discussion. BACKGROUND: General The Flame Metals facility is located in the South Oak Hill neighborhood directly across a street from residential homes. The operation essentially consists of large natural gas furnaces and petroleum-based oil quenching tanks used for the heat treating of metallic parts. Flame Metals has operated the plant since 1986. However, the building has been in use as a heat treating facility since about 1960. (Attached location map) Emissions occur from the millions of BTU’s of natural gas constantly being burned to generate heat in the furnaces, quenching oil being burned, burning of solvent cleaners, and other possible products which may be on the metallic parts. Discharge from the building occurs through numerous furnace vents, room exhaust fans, building vents, and door openings (which get opened to relieve the heat build-up in the facility). The facility does not appear to have been designed with an integrated ventilation and exhaust system to control the interior atmosphere and discharge of emissions. Most of the roof-top vents discharge within a couple of feet of the roof surface. Neighbors continue to be concerned about the air-born emissions discharging from the Flame Metals facility. Roof elevation discharge vents combined with the area topography and wind direction/speed result in continuous noticeable emissions around neighboring homes. Residents have expressed repeated concern about the smoke, odor, and possible pollutants that are emitted affecting their health, and negatively affecting their quality of life. Complaints There have been 147 registered complaints about odor and/or smoke emitting from Flame Metals since Jan 1, 2003. Approximately 63% of the complaints have been reported by one source. The total represents only those complaints registered with the City and may not include all or identical complaints filed with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) or the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to date. (Complaint log attached). City staff has responded over the years by meeting with MPCA and MDH staff on several occasions at the site to inspect and discuss the issues. MDH initially conducted a Health Consultation in 1997, resulting in the elimination of tetrachloroethene (PCE) being used as a degreasing solvent. Since the elimination of PCE, the MPCA no longer required Flame Metals to be permitted. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 3 - Flame Metals Page 2 Meetings While the Inspections Department has responded to many calls, emails and site visits, a number of key meetings and events also occurred since 2004: November 9, 2004 - The city hosted a neighborhood meeting between Flame Metals and the affected South Oak Hill Neighborhood. In attendance were representatives from the MPCA, MDH, State Senator Steve Kelly’s office, State Representative then-elect Steve Simon, and various St. Louis Park staff members. (Meeting summary attached) The main results from that meeting included: 1. The neighborhood would continue to notify the MPCA of smoke/odor complaints 2. Flame would investigate combining 8 large rooftop openings through a hood to a tall stack 3. City of St. Louis Park could pursue a nuisance case 4. Neighbors could pursue a Good Neighbor Agreement 5. MDH would look into conducting another Health Consultation June 7, 2005 - City staff, Councilmember Sue Santa, City Attorney Tom Scott and City Manager Tom Harmening met with the neighborhood to discuss their concerns and what options could be taken. MPCA determined emission levels to be below State Rules for regulation even though MDH, neighborhood residents, and the City still had concerns. June 2005 - City received a formal petition from many residents of the South Oak Hill Neighborhood, objecting to the smoke and odors, and the potential adverse health effects that could be affecting their families. July 8, 2005 – A meeting was held with Flame Metals, City Manager Tom Harmening, City Attorney Tom Scott and staff. The City Attorney stated that smoke and odor emissions could constitute a nuisance under local ordinance code. City staff agreed to conduct further air sampling testing of the neighborhood. Dennis Stevermer, CFO of Flame Metals said they would look into hiring a consultant to look into possible solutions for controlling their effluent. The City offered our business financial assistance loan programs for installing improved equipment. July 2005 – MDH published a second Health Consultation on Flame Metals (Attached copy). July 2006 - James Kelly (MDH) met with the MPCA management staff following a number of recent complaints. MPCA stated they cannot take any enforcement on a facility that does not meet the threshold requirements for registration or permitting. Instead, they will continue to help us by “supporting any action the local authority might consider”. Testing The City has conducted some air tests with the help of MPCA who supplied vacuum canisters to measure short term concentrations of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s). VOC’s are considered the most likely emission from the burning of petroleum based oil. Samples were collected by City staff on May 23, 2005, February 27, 2006 and March 7, 2006 and delivered to the MPCA lab for analysis. For the two samplings done in 2006, canisters were simultaneously placed both upwind and downwind of the facility. While the concentrations were considered by the MPCA to be within general background levels, City staff noted that some downwind compounds levels were several time the concentration of the upwind levels. MDH has agreed to further evaluate these results. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 3 - Flame Metals Page 3 The City additionally used handheld meters to check for elevated CO and NO2 levels around the facility. City staff tested twice for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide in June and July of 2005 by doing a sample grid throughout the adjacent neighborhood. These harmful compounds are released when burning large quantities of natural gas and may cause some of the physical conditions reported. During the few days of random sampling, no appreciable levels of either compound were identified. The only other testing/monitoring that was conducted at Flame Metals was done by OSHA in early 2004 as a result of a complaint within the plant, reportedly for smoke and odor. The official result was no apparent violations of OSHA were observed during on-site monitoring and inspection. Actual stack testing is very involved and expensive, even more so at this facility as there are many stacks on their building. The MPCA has the authority to require testing of this facility only when an analysis of the production process justifies that significant discharge of certain compounds may be occurring, typically measured in tons per year. During the 2005 evaluation of Flame Metals following the Health Consultation, MPCA saw no large measure of discharge and determined that there was no justification to require the stack testing. They currently maintain that position. Licensing The City issues Environmental Emission (Air Pollution) licenses for approximately 15 businesses. Our 2002 Code revisions adopted the State Air Quality Rules by reference as the performance standard for the license. Also required is compliance with other City Code provisions including prevention of a public nuisance. Flame Metals applied for renewal of the annual license but the license has not been issued based on City Attorney recommendation. Flame Metals Wenck Engineering was hired by Flame Metals earlier this year to complete an assessment of the facilities venting and exhaust. They are now reportedly developing a design and cost proposal for improvements to potentially reduce the emissions impact on the neighborhood. Dennis Stevermer has related that they are considering a fan-forced central exhaust stack for the center bay, 5 feet in Diameter and raising 20 feet above the roof. City Manager Tom Harmening and Inspections Director Brian Hoffman met with Flame Metals on June 23rd, 2006 to request a progress update and communicate the need for Flame Metals to continue working on a solution. The City is still awaiting the design proposal and a requested time schedule that Dennis Stevermer said he would provide. CONSIDERATIONS: The significant history and general incompatibility of this industrial use located very closely to residential homes has created significant frustration for the neighborhood. Resolution may involve pursuing several of the following considerations: • Continue to encourage and assist Flame Metals in making voluntary modifications to reduce the effect of their emissions on the neighborhood, possibly including elevating exhaust venting for improved dispersion and reduction of ground level nuisances. City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 3 - Flame Metals Page 4 • Evaluate and consider modifying City Environmental Emissions license performance requirements. Currently, code only requires compliance with state rules. Proposing changes would require us to significantly study the options and possible implications. For example, performance standards could include developing more restrictive opacity requirements, minimum vent heights, odor, or particulate levels. However, any proposed standard changes would need to apply to all licensed Environmental Emission facilities. • Determine if the Flame Metal facility smoke and odor emissions are a public nuisance under current City C ode Chapter 12, Article II and pursue compliance. • Pursue a resolution between the neighborhood and Flame Metals through a mediation program. Phillip Muessig from the Prevention and Assistance Division of the MPCA has offered the City a $1350 grant to enter into a contract with a “Good Neighbor Agreement” program mediator. Trained mediators in this relatively new program helps businesses and neighbors work out solutions and avoid governmental enforcement actions. A City contribution of $650 would be needed to make up the total $2000 cost to pay for a projected 40-50 hours worth of consultation and meetings toward crafting a non-binding agreement. This MPCA division is separate from the regulatory Air Quality Division which we have been working with on testing and permitting. • Encourage Flame Metals to consider the MNTAP grant program from the University of Minnesota, offered to various businesses for “pollution prevention” (New construction) and loans for “pollution control” which would capture and control pollution (Existing equipment). In the last grant cycle, $400,000 in grants was available. Grants are available for joint projects, for example, the neighborhood and Flame Metals. The next grant cycle is in July. Attachments: Location Map (Supplement) Documented Complaint Log November 9, 2004 Meeting Summary June 7, 2005 Meeting Summary July 8, 2005 Meeting Summary MDH Health Consultation, 2005 & 1997 Prepared by: Manny Camilon, Environmental Health Official Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 4 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 1 4. Future Study Session Agenda Planning Administrative Services PURPOSE OF DISCUSSION: To assist the City Council and the City Manager in setting the next Study Session agenda. BACKGROUND: At each study session, approximately 15 minutes is set aside to discuss the next study session agenda. For this purpose, attached please find the tentative agenda and proposed discussion items for the study session on July 24, 2006. Attachments: Future Study Session Agenda Planning Prepared By: Marcia Honold, Management Assistant Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Study Session Discussion Item: 071706 - 4 - Future Study Session Agenda Page 2 Future Study Session Agenda Planning Monday, July 17, 2006 6:00 p.m. Light Dinner with the Hopkins City Council 6:30 p.m. Special Study Session/Joint Meeting with the Hopkins City Council Study session resumes at the conclusion of the Joint Council meeting – approximately 8:00 p.m. A. Crime Free Rental Licensing - Inspections/Police (30 minutes) Staff to propose a concept to expand rental licensing requirements, which will include a behavior component. Council to provide direction to staff about next steps. B. Problem Properties – Inspections/Police (30 minutes) General information discussion on what is a “problem property” and do we have a significant problem? Council to provide feedback on this issue and to provide direction about next steps, if any. C. Budget Discussion – Finance (15 minutes) Finance department to lead Council in a discussion about the 2007 budget. D. Future Agenda Planning – Administrative Services (15 minutes) Flood Mitigation Report – Public Works 9:30 p.m. End of Meeting