HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/02/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
February 7, 2005
7:30 p.m.
6:00 p.m. - Boxed lunches available
6:20 p.m. - Tentative time for Board and Commission Interviews
7:20 p.m. - Economic Development Authority Meeting
Study Session – Immediately Following Regular Meeting
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of January 18, 2005
b. Study Session Minutes of January 10, 2005
c. Study Session Minutes of January 18, 2005
d. OD Study Session Minutes of January 24, 2005
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
Action: Motion to approve the agenda as presented and to approve items listed on
the consent calendar
(Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, motion to move items
from consent calendar to regular agenda for discussion and to approve those items
remaining on the consent calendar).
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. First reading of Tree Ordinance Revisions.
The ordinance is being revised to reflect the changes in time allowed for tree
removal from the notification date and allowing ground stumps to remain on
private property.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance allowing
residents 40 days after notification to remove a diseased tree,
allowing ground stumps to remain, and set second reading
for February 22, 2005.
8b. 2nd Reading to Consider 2005 Utility Rates
Second reading of an ordinance setting 2005 rates charged for Water, Sanitary
Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the ordinance amending rates charged for
Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility
for 2005, approve the summary and authorize summary
publication.
8c. Consideration of an application by Nathan and Marcy Schultz for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential and a Rezoning from R-2 to R-3 on the property at 4022
Yosemite Avenue South
Recommended
Motion:
Motion to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of denial of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density
Residential to Medium Density Residential, and a Rezoning
from R-2 to R-3 for the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue
South.
8d. 1st Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 32: Utilities
Addition of new language to clarify responsibility for cost of repair and installation
of sewer lines
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
February 22, 2005.
9. Communications
10. Adjournment
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.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL
MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7, 2005
SECTION 4: CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a. Motion to approve Resolution for year 2005 liquor license renewals for license year to
run March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006.
4b. Motion to adopt Ordinances amending Ordinance #2044-03 relating to franchise fees
imposed on Centerpoint Energy Minnegasgo and amending Ordinance #2045-03 relating
to franchise fees imposed on Xcel Energy, and to authorize publication of the ordinances.
4c. Motion to Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase
rates paid from $130.00 to $135.00 per hour for attorney services
4d. Motion to approve 2nd reading and adopt Ordinance amending Section 26-158 of the
Subdivision Ordinance removing park dedication cash-in-lieu of land fee amounts from
the Subdivision Ordinance and including a cash-in-lieu of land contribution of park land
dedication in the amount of $1,500 per residential unit to Appendix A of the City Code,
approve summary and authorize publication.
4e. Motion to approve resolution authorizing the First Supplement to Bond Indenture related
to the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Park
Nicollet Health Services), Series 2003A
4f. Traffic Study No. 593: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing installation of
permit parking in front of 2847 Quentin Avenue South.
4g. Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8 - 191
implementing an Investigative Fee, setting a fee of $300 in Appendix A, approve the
ordinance summary and authorize summary publication
4h. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing final payment for Hardrives Brunswick RR
crossing
4i. Motion to adopt Resolution authorizing final payment for Thomas & Sons 36th St.
watermain
4j. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin County
grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program
4k. Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment of a fire
sprinkler system at 3424 Wooddale Avenue and directing the Mayor and City Manager to
execute a special assessment agreement with the property owner.
4l. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 8-3-04
4m. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 9-2-04
4n. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 10-26-04
4o. Minutes of Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting of 10-29-04
4p. Motion to accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement)
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
January 18, 2005
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Paul Omodt, Susan
Sanger, Sue Santa, and Sally Velick
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), City Clerk (Ms.
Reichert), Community Outreach Coordinator (Ms. McDonell), Finance Director (Ms. McGann),
Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and
Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
a. Annual Human Rights Award
Mayor Jacobs presented Human Rights Awards to: Jill Holte-Weldin, Officer Jon Parker,
Cynthia Mueller and Jan Johnson.
b. Recognition for Greg Knutsen
Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution to Greg Knutsen and thanked him for 34 years of
service to the City of St. Louis Park.
c. Governor’s Award for St. Louis Park NORC Project
Annette Sandler presented the Governor’s Award for St. Louis Park NORC Project to
Mayor Jacobs.
d. North Hennepin Mediation Program Inc. Annual Service Report
Beth Bailey-Allen presented a report about the North Hennepin Mediation Program. She
commended the City of St. Louis Park for encouraging people to use mediation rather than
go to court, with violence or putting up in silence. 133 St. Louis Park residents used the
services last year and 88 mediations were referred to the program. She reviewed a chart
showing the mediations. There is a new referral process for municipalities, and if someone
may benefit from mediation, they can provide contact information to the program. There
was a much better chance of getting people to mediation if they made the first contact.
Community volunteers provided mediation. Another training will begin on February 25th
and they were looking for volunteers. More information is available at
www.mediationprogram.com.
Councilmember Basill noted that he had referred people to the service and thanked them for
doing an excellent job. This is an excellent tool for the community and for councilmembers
to utilize when there were situations needing mediation.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 2
Mayor Jacobs added that mediation was a fabulous opportunity to allow people to find
their own resolution rather than having one imposed on them. He had also referred
people to mediation and he hoped more people would use the program.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of January 3, 2005
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no
discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a Approve Resolution No. 05-011 which authorizes the Mayor and City Manager
to execute applications to convey tax-forfeit parcels to the City for utility,
roadway, and noise wall purposes
4b Ratify Additional Members to Excess City Land Task Force
4c Adopt the following Resolutions Imposing Civil Penalties for Liquor License
Violations according to the recommendation of the City Manager.
Resolution No. 05-012 Rackner Inc., Bunny’s
Resolution No. 05-014 Byerly’s Inc., Byerly’s St. Louis Park
Resolution No. 05-015 Chili’s of MN Inc., Chili’s Southwest Grill & Bar
Resolution No. 05-016 Mojito, Inc.
Resolution No. 05-017 GMRI Inc., Olive Garden #1424
Resolution No. 03-018 VFW 5632
4d Accept for filing the Planning Commission Minutes of December 1, 2004
4e Accept for filing the Housing Authority Minutes of December 8, 2004
4f Accept for filing the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission Minutes of
November 17, 2004
4g Accept for filing the Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of November 30, 2004
4h Appoint Jim Brimeyer to the Southwest Corridor Policy Advisory Committee
4i Designate EnComm Midwest, Inc. as the lowest responsible bidder and authorize
execution of a contract with the firm in the amount of $188,188.00 for Water
Treatment Plant #4 Filter Rehabilitation, Project No. 20041301
4j Accept Vendor Claims for filing (Supplement)
4k Adopt Resolution No. 05-010 Recognizing the Contributions of and Expressing
Appreciation to Gregory Knutsen
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 3
The motion passed 7-0.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2005 Utility Rates
Ms. McGann presented the staff report. She noted within the water funds, the staff report
indicated that installed or purchased meters would be included within the fee ordinance as they
had not been included in the past. That was omitted from the original ordinance and would be
incorporated into the fee ordinance upon second reading.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. Mayor Jacobs closed the
public hearing.
Councilmember Santa noted that the sanitary sewer rates were dependent on who took
care of the waste water and they were charged a fee for the handling of that. Ms.
McGann replied that was correct. The majority of the sanitary sewer fund budget was for
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) charges and that was for the flow
of sewer going through the pipes.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there was a built-in increase for Waste Management
each year? Ms. McGann replied that was correct. Councilmember Omodt went on to ask
what the rate increases were. Mr. Rardin responded that there were standard increases
built in to the five-year negotiated contract between the city and Waste Management. He
did not have the figures with him at the meeting.
Mayor Jacobs asked if what was within the contract was what they were recommending
now? Mr. Rardin responded that was correct.
Councilmember Omodt asked if there was any provision in Waste Management’s contract
requiring them to justify annual increases. Mr. Rardin responded that the amounts of the
increases had been part of their bid and included as part of the contract.
Councilmember Omodt remarked that their bid was low and now he is getting calls from
residents complaining that garbage rates were going up. He suspected tipping charges had
gone up. He felt council should look at the service and make sure citizens were getting the
most for their money.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they could look into the contract provision before second reading.
Mr. Rardin responded staff could get them a one-page summary showing the different
services and the amounts that were bid for the five-year period. He had no reason to
believe the city was not getting exactly what they contracted for. They pay the County
tipping fees with a pass-through, and those did not affect the Waste Management fees.
Councilmember Omodt recalled a contentious debate and whether they should go to a
citywide service or hauler by hauler. They were trying to get the best price. If it was not
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 4
where they wanted it to be and they were paying more money for no reason, other than it
was contractual, they had the right to look back at it.
Mr. Scott indicated they could review the contract.
Mr. Harmening noted this would not be able to come before the next study session. This
discussion could be held at the meeting. Staff could provide the Council with the
information and a copy of the contract.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the $2 increase was due to increased costs the City was
being charged. Ms. McGann replied for the solid waste increase that would be true
because it was a contracted service. For the sanitary sewer it was also true to a certain
extent. MCES charges for the flow of the sanitary sewer. Those have a tendency to
increase throughout the years, however they were also looking at various structure
improvements that were necessary throughout the city.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated that they try to keep the four separate enterprise
funds as predominantly self-supporting as much as possible. Ms. McGann replied that
was true.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated sometimes if the rates didn’t increase and they were
replacing equipment or broken pipes, they needed to collect additional funding in order to
take care of that. Ms. McGann replied that was correct, the definition of an enterprise
fund meant it must be predominantly self supportive.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they could borrow from one fund to pay for the other
one. Ms. McGann replied they should be self supporting. If they needed to borrow from
another enterprise fund to make another one whole, that was fine, however it should be
repaid such that in the end they were self sustaining.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Velick to approve 1st
reading of an ordinance setting 2005 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and
Storm Water Utility and set second reading for February 7, 2005.
The motion passed 6-1 with Councilmember Omodt opposed.
6b. Public Hearing to Consider: 1st Reading of an ordinance amending
Ordinance #2044-03 relating to franchise fees imposed on Centerpoint
Energy Minnegasco; and, 1st Reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance
#2045-03 relating to franchise fees imposed on Xcel Energy.
Ms. Reichert presented the staff report. She noted that this ordinance was proposed to
correct an error made last year when franchise fees were adopted. This would reinstate
the city’s ability to collect permit frees as it has done in past years prior to the adoption of
the franchise fees ordinances in 2003. There was 60 days notice prior to this hearing and
would be another 60 days after it is adopted when it can go into affect.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 5
Al Swintek, representing Centerpoint Energy, requested that the City Council not approve
the changes to the existing franchise fee ordinances as suggested. If the franchise fee were
changed, Centerpoint Energy would be the only energy provider in the City that would pay
permit fees, franchise fees and personal property tax in the City. Secondly, the proposed
changes go contrary to the agreements that were in place with the City which were crafted
only recently. A year ago when the franchise fee ordinance was passed, there was language
that specified that in lieu of them collecting franchise fees on behalf of the City, that it
would be in lieu of permit fees that would otherwise be paid. They believed this ordinance
would be a violation of the level playing field requirement in the agreement. They agreed
that the City needed to have a sound street replacement program in place and a good right of
way management program and that cost money, but they also believed that the contributions
of the franchise fees themselves were adequate and permit fees should not be charged in
addition to those fees.
Councilmember Omodt recalled when this was discussed and drafted were two different
things and this was an oversight in the drafting of the language. What they were
proposing to do now was what they had intended to do. He did not understand Mr.
Swintek’s definition of a competitive disadvantage and didn’t know that gas competed
with electric. He did not understand the argument.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if Councilmember Omodt wanted to know what the
annual revenues were? Councilmember Omodt replied no, they said this would put them
at a competitive disadvantage and he wanted clarity with whom.
Mr. Swintek replied it was more of a fairness argument to the extent that they were very
similar in that they were both energy providers. They were both in the right of way and to
the extent that they had language in their contract that tried to create a level playing field.
They had that language in every city that they had franchises in because they wanted to be
treated fairly with regard to the other utility company. They were both publicly traded
companies, so to the extent that they were able to maintain the highest level of value to their
customers and shareholders, that was important.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated if there hadn’t been a drafting error last year, they
wouldn’t be here now. The anticipation of the Council was that both fees would be paid.
Mr. Swintek stated that wasn’t what he would recall as true. They had several franchise
fee ordinances throughout the system and many had specific language that offered the “in
lieu of” language in terms of permit fees. Why would that language be there? One of the
reasons might be because of a stacking argument, in order to receive or provide an
essential service like gas or electricity, they had personal property tax, franchise fees,
sales tax, permit fees, on and on.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated that they were passing the franchise fee on to the
customer. They were talking about the additional permit fees that Centerpoint would pay
to make sure that when they ripped up the streets, there were proper inspections and that
repairs were done accordingly.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 6
Mr. Swintek stated that all of the costs that they incurred were paid by the rate payers one
way or another.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if his argument was based on fairness. His
understanding is that the city cannot require Xcel to pay permit fees pursuant to the terms
of their current contract which had different start and end times than Center point’s.
Therefore the city could not charge permit fees even though that was the intent of the
ordinance last year.
Councilmember Sanger clarified how we were using the term franchise. The “franchise
fee” is a fee which the legislature did not want to identify as a tax, so they called it a
“franchise fee”. In reality, the franchise fee is not Center point’s money, and they are
merely acting as a collection agent taking their customers’ money and passing it along to
the city.
The term “franchise” refers to the contract agreement between St. Louis Park and
CenterPoint Energy. The terms of that contract allow the city to impose franchise fees
and also allow the city to collect permit fees. Though CenterPoint feels it is unfair to
collect the permit fees from CenterPoint and not from Xcel, the ordinances being
considered for adoption now apply equally to both utilities. The only issue is when it
went into effect for each of the utilities. In addition, the utilities were not the only
funders of road reconstruction. There was a pavement management program which all of
the taxpayers were paying into. It was reasonable that the utilities that cut up the roads
and contribute to deterioration should pay fees to help repair them and keep them in as
good of shape as possible.
Mr. Swintek agreed that utilities impact the rights of way and that they should be repaired
and restored by the utilities. Centerpoint’s position was that the franchise fee was intended
to cover that cost and that charging permit fees in addition to the franchise fee was
compartmentalizing city services and costs in a way that did not make sense.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it was their contention that they didn’t have the right to
change the ordinance to correct their mistake from last year? Mr. Swintek believed they
had the right to do it.
Councilmember Santa stated that it was clear to her why the city issued permits and
collected fees for those permits to pay for staff time and effort. She had recently received
numerous calls from residents along 35th Street wondering what Centerpoint was making
holes in the street for and if they were looking for gas leaks. At the same time it was
pointed out that there was no signage, no traffic control and, as of that afternoon, holes were
still in the street. As a Councilperson, she looked to City staff to make sure that work done
in the right of way was completed in a timely fashion and hoped it was also Centerpoint’s
expectation that the city would provide oversight through the permitting process. She
believed a permit fee was a user fee, and that was very different than the franchise fee
which was a more global approach to pavement management.
Mr. Swintek apologized if there was work that was done improperly. When that
happened, regardless of whatever the fee structure is, they had a responsibility outlined in
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 7
the franchise agreement and in the right of way management ordinances that should
prevent that.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Finkelstein, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to
approve first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance #2044-03 relating to
franchise fees and set second reading for February 7, 2005; and, to approve first reading
of an ordinance amending Ordinance #2045-03 relating to franchise fees and set second
reading for February 7, 2005.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. 2005 – 2009 Capital Improvement Program
Resolution No. 05-013
Ms. McGann presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger asked if in the event that they wanted to add or delete projects or the
project costs changed, would they have the ability at any time of the year to amend the CIP?
Ms. McGann replied yes, as each project came on board, they went through another process
to go through the sealed bids and determine the final costs of the project. The five-year CIP
was used as a planning document so they could project the various projects and costs that
may occur throughout the years.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
approve 2005 – 2009 Capital Improvement Program.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 05-013 approving an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Year 2000
to Year 2020 for the City per Minnesota Statutes, incorporating the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Year 2005 to Year 2009; approve summary resolution for publication
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. First Reading on Revised Subdivision Ordinance Regarding Park Dedication
Fees and Amending Appendix A of the City Code to Include the Park
Dedication Fee Amount
Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3a - Jan 18 CC minutes
Page 8
Councilmember Omodt indicated he didn’t see Minneapolis reflected in the comparisons,
was that due to the size? Ms. McMonigal replied another person did the survey and she
was unsure why they were not included.
Councilmember Finkelstein thought it could be because the City of Minneapolis had an
independent park district, which had its own statutory authority to levy taxes and
therefore would not have this type of payment.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve 1st
reading of an ordinance amending Section 26-158 of the Subdivision Ordinance removing
park dedication cash-in-lieu of land fee amounts from the Subdivision Ordinance and
including a cash-in-lieu of land contribution of park land dedication in the amount of $1,500
per residential unit to Appendix A of the City Code.
Councilmember Finkelstein clarified that this was not for current homeowners and would
be for new planned divisions for increased park usage.
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications
Mayor Jacobs noted that Millie Johnson, long-time member of the League of Women Voters had
passed away. He extended his condolences on behalf of the Council. She was a very active
member of the community and would be missed.
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3b - Jan 10 SS minutes
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
January 10, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Sue Sanger, Sue
Santa, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Hunt), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), and City
Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Hoigaard Village Tax Increment Financing Assistance
Representatives from Union Land II, a LLC of Dunbar Development Corporation, were present
at the meeting. They explained the four stage project that would result in 338 housing units in a
project named “Hoigaard Village”.
Mr. Hunt outlined the benefits of the project as well as how it relates to the Elmwood study.
Mark Ruff from Ehler’s and Associates discussed the financial aspects of the developer’s
request.
Councilmember Basill felt that neighborhood meetings are important as we move forward. He
would like to encourage Hoigaard’s to stay in business in St. Louis Park. He would like the
older buildings on the site to be incorporated into the project. He stated that the neighborhood
had concerns about traffic at W. 36th St. and Wooddale Ave. Councilmember Basill would like
to see sidewalks separated from traffic in the neighborhood. He inquired if the Highway 100
project would impact this area.
Councilmember Sanger stated her concerns that Hwy. 100 is a bottleneck and that development
would bring added traffic. She also encouraged Hoigaard’s to stay in St. Louis Park. She would
like to see the smokestack stay but would like to see the small older buildings go.
Councilmember Sanger would like to see green space added to the project proposal. She wants
to see a “real” high rise condo building and use other land for single family homes. She had
concerns about the railroad and also felt that they needed a grade separated crossing.
Councilmember Finkelstein had concerns about Highway 100 and whether the land being
discussed would be needed for the Hwy 100 reconstruction project. The developers stated that
discussions had taken place with MnDot and they do not need any of the land that would be used
in the development.
The Council held discussion about the tax increment financing that was requested. All were
concerned and felt that more work needed to be done on the financing plan as the proposal
moved forward.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3b - Jan 10 SS minutes
Page 2
Councilmember Basill felt that large numbers of single family homes may not be right for this
development but he was concerned about the rental numbers. He thought there should be more
owner occupied housing in the development.
Councilmember Santa would like to see green space and a recreation area incorporated into the
development and she liked the idea of a high rise. In terms of traffic, she felt the timing was
poor because of the current development happening on the Quadion site. She wondered if W.
36th St would be able to handle all of the proposed development at once.
Mr. Hunt stated that stormwater issues still need to be addressed and added that the developer
would like to know if Council supported the project.
Councilmember Finkelstein commented that he wanted to be sure the density of the proposed
project was based on need and not on a formula based on the land price.
Based on discussion council directed staff to continue working with the developers and to come
back at a later date to Council.
2. 2005 Utility Rates
Ms. McGann reported on the five year forecast that was done and outlined the activity in each
fund.
Councilmember Sanger preferred to see small increases in taxes on a yearly basis rather than one
large increase once in awhile.
Ms. McGann stated that the increase was substantial for 2004 and generated a lot of calls. She
stated that the auditors were looking at the city’s reserves. Upon review of the reserves, the
auditors suggested that the city be cautious about how we manage enterprise funds.
Councilmember Finklestein stated that he trusted staff to make appropriate recommendations
about utility costs and fees and suggested we move forward with first reading as proposed by
staff.
Mr. Harmening informed council that this would be on the next regular council agenda for first
reading.
3. Franchise Fees/Permit Fees
Ms. Reichert informed the council that a public hearing had been scheduled for January 18th for
the ordinance allowing the city to collect permit fees in addition to franchise fees from the gas
and electric utilities. This ordinance would correct an error made when the franchise fee
ordinances were adopted in 2003.
Staff was expecting representatives of Centerpoint Energy and possibly Xcel Energy to be
present at the meeting to voice their opposition.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3b - Jan 10 SS minutes
Page 3
4. Public Process
Mr. Harmening presented to council the draft of “Guiding Principles for Public Process” which
would describe from a values and policy perspective the City’s expectations for good public
process and its role in the decision making. He explained that the principles outlined in the draft
were not intended describe the specific “how” and “when” of public process, but rather the
“why”. The draft, which had been prepared with the assistance of Mike Rardin and Lynn
Schwartz, had received a favorable response from the Department Directors.
Councilmember Santa commented that having guidelines prepared would be helpful in assisting
developers interested in working in St. Louis Park to understand our community culture.
Councilmember Sanger was concerned that different audiences would interpret the statements
differently. She wanted to ensure that the expectation was not that the city would run the same
public process every time an issue came forward, and also wanted to ensure that excessive public
process was not expected at times where it would be more logical for council to use their
authority and discretion to act.
Councilmember Finklestein suggested that each councilmember make comments and return
those comments to city staff to be studied and possibly incorporated into the document.
Mr. Harmening pointed out that many of the comments made by the council in the meeting
referred to language already included in the document and that staff is open to making changes
suggested by council in terms of both content and wording.
5. Tobacco Enforcement
Mr. Hoffman outlined issues that had been raised regarding enforcement of Hennepin County’s
smoking ban which affected all licensed food establishments in the county. In the event a patron
of an establishment refused to stop smoking at the request of the establishment’s manager, our
Police Officers would be dispatched to remove the patron from the establishment on the grounds
of a simple trespass. However, if complaints are received that the establishment is allowing
smoking to occur on the premises, staff would prefer than Hennepin County handle the matter
through the County Attorney and that the city not be responsible for enforcement in that event.
Council agreed with staff’s recommendation and directed staff to work with the City Attorney’s
office to reach an agreement with Hennepin County.
6. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
January 18, 2005
The meeting convened at 9:05 p.m.
Councilmembers present: John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Sally Velick
and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Housing Program Coordinator (Kathy Larsen), Housing Supervisor (Michelle Schnitker),
Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
1. Move Up in the Park Housing Program
Staff met with council to ask direction on proposed new housing initiatives designed to facilitate
and promote additional large single family homes in the City. This package of new housing
initiatives would complement existing home improvement and inspection strategies to address
the determined need for more large single family homes in St. Louis Park.
Regarding the small home acquisition/expansion program and the pilot they were considering which
would focus on seniors moving into Aquila Commons, Councilmember Finkelstein liked the concept
but thought it could appear as an improper business subsidy.
Councilmember Sanger felt it was improper. She believed small houses will continue to sell
without help from the City and is a function of the market.
Mr. Locke indicated that if the program was adopted, the city would pay market value for the
homes suitable for expansion. The program would apply only to those homes where the cost to
remodel and expand might be greater than a builder could recoup from the final sale.
Councilmember Sanger would rather subsidize buyers wanting help expanding their homes.
Mr. Locke indicated the basic concept was to find small homes that could be expanded.
Councilmember Sanger also felt the focus should be on people who had already bought their
homes and were looking for ways to help expand them.
Ms. Schniker didn’t believe this was a subsidy to the seller. The city would purchase the home
seniors at market value. Mr. Locke also suggested that the city could also look for houses that
were not selling, purchase them and expand to accomplish the move up housing desired by our
residents and the city council.
Ms. Schniker stated that many people would rather buy a larger home already finished than go
through the process of getting the transformation loan and facilitate construction. A pilot program
through Aquila Commons is a good option because there was an identified pool of small homes
being vacated by seniors. The program would also be offered to persons who were not seniors.
Councilmember Omodt liked the program and thought it fit with the housing goals. He didn’t
feel it was subsidizing the seller because the property would be purchased at market rate. This
was another way to get people to stay in St. Louis Park. Using the resource of people that might
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 2
be getting out of their small single-family house in that neighborhood was a great way to have a
ready pool and not spend a lot of time looking for it.
Councilmember Santa indicated most of the seniors she had talked to that were going to Aquila
Commons or Quadian, were living in small single-family homes that were to 1954 code and had
deferred maintenance because of finance and ability. Though these homes would sell, the price
may not be good and the properties would present many challenges to buyers. She would not
want the program limited to Aquila Commons because there may be an appearance of
impropriety. There are a number of available homes that need work.
Mayor Jacobs liked the idea of using some public money to subsidize expansion of homes. He
supported the idea of improving and expanding homes, but he wanted limitations to ensure the
city was not in competition with the private market.
Mr. Locke clarified that this program would provide the city with better control in terms of
standards and design.
Councilmember Santa noted single people were buying many smaller homes. When they chose
to start a family, they move someplace else. They were not encouraging people to stay in St.
Louis Park and they need to jump start the idea that they could turn these into bigger homes.
Councilmember Sanger asked the program would be limited to seniors’ homes. Mr. Locke
replied they those homes were easily identified.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated they should be required to spend a specific amount of money on
remodeling. Ms. Schniker clarified that the program was proposing that they sell it to a developer.
Councilmember Sanger asked why these homes would go through the already adopted home
renewal program. Ms. Larsen responded that these homes did not meet the test of being
substandard or blighted.
Councilmember Sanger suggested modifying the requirements of the home renewal program. Ms.
Schniker replied that the only difference was that with the newly proposed program , the homes
would need a lot of work, but weren’t teardowns. The focus of this program would be on homes
that didn’t require a great deal of work, but would be candidates for expansion.
Councilmember Basill agreed the program shouldn’t be limited to those homes vacated be persons
moving to Aquila Commons. He supported the program because so many people didn’t want to buy a
home and go through the loan and remodeling process, but wanted to live in St. Louis Park.
Councilmember Velick saw where this accomplished the housing goals and believed it should be
expanded because there were many homes where this could apply.
Councilmember Santa believed this had merit, but needed more work. She didn’t want to have
the City involved and then have the homes not sell.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 3
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the project would work if they started with a smaller number?
Mayor Jacobs stated that the worst case scenario would be that they get the house back or it doesn’t
sell, but the city would have already sold it to the developer.
Councilmember Sanger believed the worst case scenario would be that they get criticized for
spending $300,000 in competition with the private market and for people whose houses they
didn’t buy and wished they had.
Councilmember Basill thought the worst thing that could happen in his mind was that they paid
$200,000 for a home and ended up selling it for $160,000.
Mr. Locke asked if council was willing to commit resources to develop move-up housing in St.
Louis Park. Mayor Jacobs thought everyone agreed that they needed more move-up housing, but
the question was whether this program was the best and most cost efficient way to accomplish
that.
Councilmember Sanger understood the goal, but felt the money was going in the wrong place to
accomplish that goal because they were paying to buy a house and sell it to a developer. If there was
a $20,000 gap, she’d much rather put that toward a subsidy or a deferred loan to help underwrite the
cost of the expansion on the buyers side.
Councilmember Basill stated he wasn’t advocating over-paying for a house. They needed to
have a procedure in place and if an appraiser said it is worth $200,000, they may have a policy to
start negotiations at 85% of that. What he liked about this program was that the developer had
criteria of how it should be built. There were too many people moving out of the community
that were not willing to do this themselves with the other programs.
Councilmember Omodt indicated this was pre-1979 TIF money that needed to go somewhere
and met their goals. He did not believe staff would advocate paying higher than market value.
This program would allow our residents to get a larger homes. He supported the idea of
beginning this program in one neighborhood. He also believed developers would identify cost
efficiencies and work effectively with the City. There was a lot of good to this.
Councilmember Finkelstein thought they should start with a lesser amount of homes in the first
year, but felt it made sense to give it a try. Many people didn’t want to go through the loan and
remodeling process. This was a lot easier.
Mr. Locke indicated the goal would be to have three or four developers interested in each home
and sell to the one willing to pay the most.
Councilmember Sanger would much rather have the subsidies go straight to the buyer, possibly a
forgivable loan if they lived there for a certain number of years.
Councilmember Velick asked about the properties that were being bought by corporations and what
they were intending to do with them. Councilmember Basill believed this might help prevent that.
Mr. Harmening stated that this acquisition program was one more way of providing move-up
housing in St. Louis Park. They had heard through the housing summit process that they needed
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 4
to be more aggressive on providing move-up housing and this was one of a number of ways to do
that. They could begin with five homes.
Mayor Jacobs had the same concerns that the worst case scenario was that they sold the house
for less than they purchased it and then determined the cost of remodeling was more than they
would sell it for. If the worst case scenario was that the deal didn’t work economically, they
ended up with five house with four bedrooms.
Councilmember Sanger asked who the rehab advisors would be. Ms. Larsen replied they talked
to a couple of different companies, the Center for Energy and Environment and the Greater
Metropolitan Housing Corporation.
Councilmember Sanger asked if there was a potential for conflicts between the rehab advisors
and the Inspections staff. Ms. Larsen didn’t believe there would be a conflict because the rehab
advisor goes to the homes and meets with the owners to indicate the violations and work with the
residents and are aware of city codes.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the design services and if there were rate limitations if a
person hired that architect. Mr. Locke replied they didn’t want to create a situation where there
would be undue pressure for the resident to hire any specific architect.
Councilmember Sanger indicated a concern about only recruiting houses for the remodeling tour
from people who used this program, it may not be enough of a variety of housing types and the
scale may be too low.
Councilmember Santa added concerns about liability and security issues.
Ms. Larsen responded part of the reason they suggested a smaller number of homes was because
of staffing issues.
Councilmember Santa suggesting using before and after photos.
Ms. Larsen indicated that staff would bring this to the Home Remodeling Fair for a kick-off and
talk about the program.
2. Update on Proposed Development at Al’s Bar/Motel Site
Mr. Locke displayed two site plans for the proposed development at Al’s Bar/Motel site and
described their layout/designs. The mixed-use plan met the current zoning. In both plans, there
were 129 condo or housing units. On the mixed-use plan, there was about 6,000 sq. ft. of
neighborhood retail space and the cleaners would remain in place. The residential only plan did not
meet the zoning and would require variances. The neighbors seemed to prefer the residential plan
because of concerns over traffic and impact. There was no application in at this point and the
original application for MX zoning had been withdrawn. They talked with staff about the
residential only version. Staff indicated it didn’t meet the intent of the zoning or comp plan for that
area because mixed use was the plan, and also had not created a pedestrian environment. They had
talked about tax increment financing help for the project, although they hadn’t applied for anything.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 5
Mayor Jacobs stated he didn’t like either one of the plans.
Mr. Harmening stated that a process had taken place in the late 1990’s the Comp Plan was
updated and as part of that, they identified some future land use for specific sites, which included
this site. There were detailed conversations at Planning Commission, Council and the
neighborhood level about what was recommended for land use on this site. In this case, the Al’s
site (not the motel site) was studied and talked about and they deliberately guided it as mixed-
use. It is a signature corner in St. Louis Park and a gateway, and ultimately rezoned the property.
This particular project combined the motel site with Al’s. The motel site was guided RC,
residential. His concern was that the developer was working the City against the neighborhood.
Councilmember Basill noted that the neighborhood was not aware that the developer might
request TIF money. This could happen without TIF. The neighborhood didn’t like the
townhomes and he suggested they request that they be removed.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they could build the mixed-use project without additional city approvals?
Mr. Locke replied they would need a PUD approval.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they would need tax increment financing to build that project? Mr. Locke
believed so. He thought they might indicate they could build the residential only project without
tax increment assistance.
Mayor Jacobs stated this is the “front door” and wanted to see top of the line design. If they
wanted funds contributed, he wanted to see it done with mixed-use.
Mr. Locke indicated there were two other alternatives that weren’t being shown. If they needed
a lot of assistance for the mixed-use plan, they could make it smaller. On the residential only
plan, they couldn’t approve it because it didn’t meet the goals of the zoning and Comp Plan. The
other alternative was that nothing happened now.
Councilmember Sanger commented if there were to be any TIF dollars involved, the dry cleaners
needed to go. She had a concern about environmental problems associated with the site. She
didn’t want to deviate from mixed-use, but also thought it was important that this building have
classy architecture. They might consider making the building taller and move it closer to the
street and further from the neighbors with green space in the back. Those units would have great
views of Lake Calhoun and the golf course and have higher value condos.
Mayor Jacobs asked if there was a height limitation? Ms. McMonigal replied no.
Councilmember Basill stated that they went through a long process with neighbors to agree on
the height. This would throw out the process in the community. He wasn’t saying he agreed
with this plan, but wanted to be clear that the neighborhood had many meetings.
Councilmember Santa thought that this process started in the 1990’s with neighbors citywide
discussing this site.
Councilmember Basill believed at that time they agreed on three or four stories. Mr. Harmening
was unsure if they adopted any policies on the building height, but it had always been an issue.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 6
Councilmember Santa believed that the site should have mixed-use.
Mr. Harmening thought this was a classic case of the public process and the interests of a couple
of neighborhoods and the interests of the community as a whole. If you go back to the guiding
principals, it didn’t say that the neighborhoods dictated what the final decision was. The
stakeholders were allowed to participate in the process and express their views, but it was not to
be used to circumvent the authority or responsibility of elected officials to make decisions, even
difficult or unpopular decisions. What residents were saying at the meetings was that they
believed the Council had to do what they decided.
Councilmember Sanger clarified her comments were intended to say that the process was not done
and needed to continue. The developer was proposing things that were not consistent with the Comp
Plan and zoning and were being misleading. The neighbors needed education about what was and
wasn’t possible and what some other possibilities might be that the developer hadn’t talked about.
Councilmember Finkelstein believed they would request tax increment financing and use the
neighborhood to get it. He hadn’t studied the information from the previous planning and would
like to review that information.
Councilmember Velick noted she would want to see public art, although she was not sure if they
needed more coffee shops or flower shops.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted on the height limitation, they were creating precedence and
any time they went above four-stories. Councilmember Basill stated that had recently happened.
Mayor Jacobs thought the neighborhood was a stakeholder and an important voice, but a lot of
thought and other voices went into zoning and changing the Comp Plan.
Mr. Locke indicated the neighborhood was talking about a large group meeting. The developer
may try to push a different plan than they had already gotten neighborhood input on. He thought
they needed to get more control of how this went, including satisfying the neighborhood.
Councilmember Basill noted that the small group leadership indicated they didn’t want retail,
didn’t want it to be a gateway or to have public art. They wanted four-stories or less, a lot of
green space and less traffic.
Councilmember Basill suggested that he would like get the message to them that the City had no
obligation or interest of doing any TIF financing unless something really special happened. This
was not something they had planned. Secondly, he would recommend that they get staff, the
small group, himself and the Mayor to meet before the large group meeting.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested informing them of the “but/for” test and that they were
only supposed to use tax increment financing if the development would not otherwise take place.
If they didn’t find the project met the City’s goals, something else would come.
Councilmember Sanger also pointed out the city goal of move-up housing and they could have
really exclusive condos. They were thinking small and could have better use of the site and
possibly fewer units.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 7
Ms. McMonigal stated that the neighborhood needed to be aware that they could get a different,
much better project. It was not retail vs. non-retail; fewer units with some retail would work.
They could work on their issues and concerns with a different project.
Mr. Harmening thought rather than getting transfixed on these two plans, they should talk about
what the issues were with the neighborhood and what they were concerned about and start to
create a project that touched on those issues.
Mr. Locke believed the neighborhood thought they were going to decide what the Council would do.
They wanted to meet with the neighborhood leaders to be sure they understood the Comp Plan.
Councilmember Sanger stated that there was previously another plan proposed by the Lander
Group and asked if they could find that plan. It may help stimulate other ways of looking at this.
Mr. Harmening suggested it would have been better if they could do a “mini Elmwood” and look
at appropriate land use, traffic, development possibilities, include the neighborhood and
determine development principals for the corner and use that as guidance for a developer to do a
project. Now they were reacting to a couple of proposals. The neighborhood was fixated on
these site plans and not able to see other possibilities.
Councilmember Santa thought Councilmember Basill could indicate that they had gone through
this process in the past and that this was a key area where a study should have been done and
now they were being reactive and not proactive. They needed to have a broader vision.
Councilmember Basill thought they needed to be aware that the neighborhood had been meeting
seven months. In their mind, they had followed the process of neighborhood involvement and
worked with the developer. They needed to be made aware that the City had no plans to put
public money into this project.
Councilmember Santa stated they could discuss the Elmwood study and indicate that the
neighborhoods time and effort had gotten them closer to a project that they wanted.
Councilmember Basill thought they could have more meetings to decide exactly what they
wanted if another developer came along.
Councilmember Sanger understood the process, but they needed to recognize if they had the
principals and the neighborhood bought into them, they were in effect saying that they may be
willing to pay TIF to another developer to make these principals work. They needed to
recognize that was the path they may take.
Mayor Jacobs stated he was usually willing to put in some TIF money if they got what they wanted.
Councilmember Velick stated what they wanted as a city wasn’t the same thing as what the
neighborhood wanted.
Mayor Jacobs thought they could work with them within that process. He wasn’t sure if the
neighborhood knew what they wanted. They were confronted with limited choices and told that
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3c - Jan 18 SS minutes
Page 8
it was “either/or”. The neighborhood was choosing between the lesser of two evils. That was
not good public process. What should happen is the “Elmwood study” which would be a process
to incorporate those neighborhoods and other stakeholders.
Councilmember Basill suggested they meet with the small group and ask them to say what they
wanted and discuss other options.
Councilmember Sanger indicated one of her concerns was that they were learning about what
should and should not be public process for big projects. One of the things they should take
from this was a document about what might be considered appropriate public process for
developers to think about when they were meeting with neighborhoods and expectations about
what should and shouldn’t happen.
Councilmember Omodt added that they also needed to say what the City had guided this to and
what they thought was acceptable.
Councilmember Finkelstein thought they also needed to make it clear that the neighborhoods
didn’t have complete veto on these projects.
Councilmember Basill reiterated that the neighborhood leaders needed to be made aware that
they were asking for city dollars.
Mr. Locke agreed that they should meet with the small group. They could provide information and go
beyond the small group. They could put together information for everyone about what the zoning and
Comp Plan said and what the process would be and also clarify if the developer was requesting TIF.
3. Adjournment - The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 3d - Jan 24 SS minutes
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
January 24, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers John Basill, Phil Finkelstein, Sue Sanger, Paul
Omodt, Sue Santa, Sally Velick and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Organizational Development Coordinator (Ms.
Gothberg).
1. Organizational Development Session
Council met with Ms. Gothberg, the city’s Organizational Development Coordinator to discuss
learning styles and conflict, use of appreciative inquiry as a communication tool, and reviewed
draft city council goals.
The meeting adjourned at 9:15
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 4a - 2005 Liquor License Renewals
Page 1
4a. Motion to approve resolution for year 2005 liquor license renewals for license year to
run March 1, 2005 through February 28, 2006.
Background:
Renewal applications, liquor liability insurance certificates and license fees have been received
from all of the City’s 37 establishments.
City Ordinance requires property tax payments to be current prior to issuance of a liquor license
and all tax payments for establishments are current.
Attachments: List of establishments presented for approval
Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 4a - 2005 Liquor License Renewals
Page 2
2005 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
FOR APPROVAL FEBRUARY 7, 2005
Establishment Name Licensee Name Address Fee
Al's Al's Liquor Store Inc. 3912 Excelsior Blvd $ 7,500
Applebee's Grill Bar Apple American Ltd 8332 Hwy 7 $ 7,700
Bennigan's #2415 Den-Way Inc. 6475 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
Bunny's Rackner Inc. 5916 Excelsior Blvd $ 7,700
Byerly's St. Louis Park Byerly's Inc. 3777 Park Ctr Blvd $ 2,750
Byerl y's Wine & Spirits Byerly Beverages, Inc. 3785 Park Ctr Blvd $ 200
Chili's Southwest Grill & Bar Chili's of MN Inc. 5245 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
Chipotle Mexican Grill Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. 5480 Excelsior Blvd $ 2,750
Costco Wholesale #377 Costco Wholesale Corp. 5801 W 16th St $ 200
Cub Foods Knollwood Jerry's Enterprises, Inc. 3620 Texas Ave S $ 50
Doubletree Park Place Hotel DT Management Inc. 1500 Park Place Blvd $ 7,700
Europa ABG Restaurant Corporation 600 Highway 169 $ 7,700
Fuddruckers Fuddruckers Inc 6445 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
Great Bottle of Wine Great Bottle of Wine, Inc. 3947 Excelsior Blvd $ 200
Holiday Inn CSM Lodging Services, Inc. 9970 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
Jennings' Liquor Store Jennings Red Coach Inn Inc. 4631 Excelsior Blvd $ 200
Knollwood Liquor Knollwood Liquor Inc. 7924 State Hwy 7 $ 200
McCoy's Public House McCoy's of Minneapolis, Inc. 3801 Grand Way $ 7,700
Minneapolis Golf Club Mpls Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S $ 700
Mojito Mojito, inc. 4656 Excelsior Blvd $ 7,700
Olive Garden #1424 GMRI Inc. 5235 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
Park Tavern Lounge & Lanes Philips Investment Co. 3401 Louisiana Ave S $ 7,700
Sam's Club #6318 Sam's West Inc. 3745 Louisiana Ave S $ 250
Santorini's B & A Inc. 9920 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
Shelly's Woodroast Brinda-Heilicher/St. Louis Pk 6501 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
St. Louis Park Liquors Nguyen, Lua T.K. 6316 Minnetonka Blvd $ 200
Taste of India Taste of India/St. Louis Pk Inc. 5617 Wayzata Blvd $ 2,750
Texas-Tonka Liquors Texas-Tonka Liquors Inc. 8242 Minnetonka Blvd $ 200
Texa-Tonka Lanes H.J.K.S. Inc. 8200 Minnetonka Blvd $ 7,700
TGI Friday's TGI Friday's of MN Inc. 5875 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
Thanhdo Restaurant Thanhdo Inc. 3005 Utah Ave S $ 2,750
Timber Lodge Steakhouse Timber Lodge Steakhouse Inc. 5500 Excelsior Blvd $ 7,700
Vescio's Italian Restaurant Vescio's of St. Louis Park, Inc. 4001 State Hwy 7 $ 2,750
VFW VFW 5632 5605 36th St W $ 850
Westwood Liquors FC Liquors 2 Inc. 2304 Louisiana Ave S $ 200
WineStyles Chateau Louis, Inc. 3840 Grand Way $ 200
Yangtze River Rest. Yangtze Inc. 5625 Wayzata Blvd $ 7,700
TOTAL $ 163,500
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 4a - 2005 Liquor License Renewals
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-019
RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE OF
LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS
FOR YEAR 2005
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 340A and St. Louis Park Ordinance Code
Chapter 3, provide for liquor licensing in cooperation with the Alcohol and Gambling
Enforcement Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, and.
WHEREAS, no license may be issued or renewed if required criteria has not been met,
and
BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicants and
establishments listed in Exhibit A have met the criteria necessary for issuance of their respective
liquor licenses, and the applications are hereby approved for license year 2005 - March 1, 2005
to February 28, 2006.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
___________________________________
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 4a - 2005 Liquor License Renewals
Page 4
Resolution No. 05-_____
EXHIBIT A
2005 Liquor License Renewals
Establishment Name Address Type of License
Al’s 3912 Excelsior Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale
Applebee’s Grill Bar 8332 Hwy 7 Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Bennigan’s #2415 6475 Wayzata Blvd. Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Bunny’s 5916 Excelsior Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Byerly’s St. Louis Park 3777 Park Ctr Blvd 3-2 On Sale, Wine
Byerly’s Wine & Spirits 3785 Park Ctr Blvd Intoxicating Off-Sale
Chili’s Southwest Grill & Bar 5245 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Chipolte Mexican Grill 5480 Excelsior Blvd 3-2 On Sale, Wine
Costco Wholesale #377 5801 W 16th St Intoxicating Off-Sale
Cub Food Knollwood 3620 Texas Ave S 3-2 Off-Sale
Doubletree Park Place Hotel 1550 Park Place Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Europa 600 Highway 169 Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Fuddruckers 6445 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Great Bottle of Wine 3947 Excelsior Blvd Intoxicating Off-Sale
Holiday Inn 9970 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Jennings’ Liquor Store 4631 Excelsior Blvd Intoxicating Off-Sale
Knollwood Liquor 7924 State Hwy 7 Intoxicating Off-Sale
McCoy’s Public House 3801 Grand Way Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S Intoxicating Sunday and Club
Mojito 4656 Excelsior Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Olive Garden #1424 5245 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Park Tavern Lounge and Lanes 3401 Louisiana Ave S Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Sam’s Club #6318 3745 Louisiana Ave S Intoxicating Off-Sale and 3.2 Off-Sale
Santorini’s 9920 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Shelly's Woodroast 6501 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
St. Louis Park Liquors 6316 Mtka Blvd Intoxicating Off-Sale
Taste of India 5617 Wayzata Blvd 3-2 On-Sale, Wine
Texa-Tonka Lanes 8200 Mtka Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Texas-Tonka Liquors 8242 Mtka Blvd Intoxicating Off-Sale
TGI Friday's 5875 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Thanhdo Restaurant 3005 Utah Ave S 3-2 On-Sale, Wine
Timber Lodge Steakhouse 5500 Excelsior Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
Vescio's Italian Restaurant 4001 State Hwy 7 3-2 On-Sale, Wine
VFW 5605 36th St W Intoxicating Sunday, Club
Westwood Liquors 2304 Louisiana Ave S Intoxicating Off-Sale
WineStyles 3840 Grand Way Intoxicating Off-Sale
Yangtze River Rest. 5625 Wayzata Blvd Intoxicating On-Sale and Sunday
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 4b - Amend Franchise Fee Ordinances
Page 1
4b. Motion to adopt ordinances amending Ordinance #2044-03 relating to franchise
fees imposed on Centerpoint Energy Minnegasgo and amending Ordinance
#2045-03 relating to franchise fees imposed on Xcel Energy, and to authorize
publication of the ordinances.
Background:
At the meeting of January 18, 2005, Council moved to approve revisions to the franchise fee
ordinances for the cities gas and electric utilities to reinstate the city’s ability to collect permit
fees. The ordinances as they were originally adopted contained language stating that franchise
fees would be collected “in lieu of” other permit fees normally imposed on the company.
Unfortunately, the language should have read that franchise fees would be collected “in addition
to” other permit fees. This revision seeks to amend those ordinances to correct the error.
Terms of Franchise Agreements:
The City and Xcel Energy renegotiated a 20-year Electric Utility Franchise Agreement in 1997.
That agreement specifically states that if franchise fees are imposed, the city will not collect
additional permit fees. However, when the Gas Utility Franchise Agreement was renegotiated
in 2003, the city recognized the need to revise that language and the 10-year Gas Utility
Franchise Agreement does allow the city to collect permit fees.
Therefore, with the revision of these ordinances, the city again be able to collect permit fees from
Centerpoint Energy (as it did prior to the imposition of franchise fees), but will not be allowed to
collect permit fees from Xcel Energy until a new Electric Utility Franchise Agreement is
negotiated. Despite the fact that fees cannot be collected from Xcel Energy, both franchise fee
ordinances are being revised so that fees can be collected from Centerpoint starting in spring of
2005, and as notice of our intent to modify Xcel’s franchise agreement at a future date.
Process
The ordinances must be published in their entirety, and a copy must be delivered by certified
mail to the franchisees. The ordinance will become effective 60 days after the notice is served.
Attachments: Ordinances
Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 4b - Amend Franchise Fee Ordinances
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. 2284 - 05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2244-03
REGARDING FRANCHISE FEES
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNEGASGO
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. St. Louis Park City Ordinance No. 2244-03, paragraph four, is hereby
amended as follows:
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose a franchise fee in lieu of addition to any permit or
other fees imposed on the Company;
SECTION 2. All other provisions of Ordinance No. 2244-03 remain as stated upon
adoption.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective 60 days after service on the Company by
certified mail of written notice enclosing the ordinance as adopted.
ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2005, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council February 7, 2005
____________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 4b - Amend Franchise Fee Ordinances
Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. 2285 - 05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2245-03
REGARDING FRANCHISE FEES
XCEL ENERGY
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. St. Louis Park City Ordinance No. 2244-03, paragraph three, is hereby
amended as follows:
WHEREAS, the City desires to impose a franchise fee in lieu of addition to any permit or
other fees imposed on the Company;
SECTION 2. All other provisions of Ordinance No. 2244-03 remain as stated upon
adoption.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective 60 days after service on the Company by
certified mail of written notice enclosing the ordinance as adopted.
ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2005, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by City Council February 7, 2005
____________________________________ ____________________________________
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
____________________________________ ____________________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 020705 - 4c - Attorney Services
Page 1
4c. Motion to Amend Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to
increase rates paid from $130.00 to $135.00 per hour for attorney services
Background: The attorneys of Campbell Knutson have served the City since 1996. The firm’s
current rates are $130 per hour for attorney services and $70 per hour for services performed by
law clerks and paralegals. These rates have been in effect since January 1, 2003. This request is
for an increase in the attorney services fee to $135 per hour. Rates for Law Clerks and
Paralegals will remain at $70/hr. This increase is not expected to cause budget difficulties for
the City.
ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES
Effective January 1, 2005, City Contract # 4078 between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(“City”) and Campbell Knutson, P.A. (“Contractor”) is amended to provide for the following
hourly rates for legal services:
Attorney $135.00/hr
Law Clerks/Paralegals $70.00/hr
Approved by City Council February 7, 2005
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk City Manager
CONTRACTOR
Campbell Knutson, P.A.
By
Attachments: Letter from Campbell Knutson
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Reichert, City Clerk
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Agenda
Item: 020705 - 4c - Attorney Services
Page 2
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4d - 2nd Rdg Park Dedication Fees
Page 1
4d. Motion to approve 2nd reading of an ordinance amending Section 26-158 of the
Subdivision Ordinance removing park dedication cash-in-lieu of land fee amounts from
the Subdivision Ordinance and including a cash-in-lieu of land contribution of park
land dedication in the amount of $1,500 per residential unit to Appendix A of the City
Code, approve summary and authorize publication.
Background
Staff is proposing an amendment to move the park dedication fee amount from the Subdivision
Ordinance to Appendix A of the City Code (the fee schedule), and to increase the amount required
per residential unit. MN State Statute 462.358 grants cities the authority to require dedication of
land or a cash contribution in lieu of land to the city’s park fund and trail fund as part of the
subdivision of property. The amount required for cash-in-lieu of land is in the Subdivision
Ordinance. Staff is proposing amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance as outlined below.
Proposed Amendments
Move park dedication cash-in-lieu of lands out of the Subdivision Ordinance.
Staff is recommending that the cash-in-lieu amount be moved to the fee schedule. This would
facilitate the updating the fees annually, and is consistent with other fees that might be updated
on an annual basis. The Subdivision Ordinance would refer to Appendix A of the City Code for
the actual dollar amounts to be collected when the dedication is in cash-in-lieu of land.
Increase the cash-in-lieu of lands fees
By statute the City can require a “reasonable” portion of any proposed subdivision be dedicated
for parks or may choose to accept an equivalent amount in cash. Currently, the City charges a
cash contribution of $900.00 per dwelling unit for single-family and multi-family subdivisions.
Staff recently conducted a survey of metro area cities to determine what other cities are charging
for cash-in-lieu fees, and recommends an increase.
The following tables show neighboring and similar developed cities and their cash contribution
requirements.
Developed Areas Single-Family
(per lot)
Townhome
(per unit)
Multi-Family
(per unit)
Arden Hills 6% 7-8% 10%
Brooklyn Center No specific amt No specific amt No specific amt
Columbia Heights 10% 10% 10%
Crystal $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Edina 8% 8% 8%
Golden Valley $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Hopkins $1,000 $1,000 $800
Minnetonka $2,375 $2,375 $2,375
New Brighton $1,050 $1,050 $1,050
New Hope $1,500 $750 $500
Richfield No specific amt No specific amt No specific amt
Roseville $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Shoreview No specific amt No specific amt No specific amt
Spring Lake Park No specific amt No specific amt No specific amt
Average $1,275 or 8% $1,170 or 8% $1,105 0r 9%
Range $1,000 - $2,375
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4d - 2nd Rdg Park Dedication Fees
Page 2
Single-Family
(per lot)
Townhome
(per unit)
Multi-Family
(per unit)
Developing Areas
Brooklyn Park $3,200 $3,200 $3,200
Eden Prairie $2,800 $2,800 $2,800
Plymouth $2,800 $2,800 $2,800
Average $2,933 $2,933 $2,933
Range $2,800 - $3,200
As the table shows the City’s charge of $900 per unit for park dedication for residential
subdivisions is low compared to what other metro area cities are charging. Staff recommends the
fees be increased from $900 to $1500, which would not be unreasonable in the marketplace. The
trail fee is currently $225 and is not proposed to be increased at this time.
Recommendation
Staff recommends the second reading of the revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance and
Appendix A of the City Code be approved.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared by: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Cities surrounding
SLP
Single-Family
(per lot)
Townhome
(per unit)
Multi-Family
(per unit)
Crystal $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Edina* 8% 8% 8%
Golden Valley* $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Hopkins* $1,000 $1,000 $800
Minnetonka* $2,375 $2,375 $2,375
New Hope $1,500 $750 $500
Richfield No specific amt No specific amt No specific amt
Eden Prairie $2,800 $2,800 $2,800
Plymouth* $2,800 $2,800 $2,800
!Syntax Error, (
Average $1780 $1675 $1610
Range $1,000 - $2,800
*Cities that border SLP
St. Louis Park $900 $900 $900
Recommended $1500 $1500 $1500
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4d - 2nd Rdg Park Dedication Fees
Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. 2287 - 05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26, SEC. 26-158
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING MOVING
PARK DEDICATION CASH-IN-LIEU AMOUNTS
AND
INCREASE FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL CASH-IN-LIEU
OF PARK LAND DEDICATION
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1. Park land is dedicated or cash-in-lieu of land is collected with subdivisions
in the city as allowed by State law and the city’s Subdivision Ordinance.
Section 2. Section 26-158 is revised as follows:
Sec. 26-158. Park and trail dedication requirements.
(i) In lieu of a park land dedication, the city may require the following cash contribution:
Commercial/industrial 5 percent of current market value of the
unimproved land as determined by the city
assessor
Multifamily dwelling units $900.00 $900 per dwelling unitA fee which
shall be set from time to time by the city and a
schedule of such fees is listed in appendix A to
this Code
Single-family dwelling units $900 A fee which shall be set from time to time
by the city and a schedule of such fees is listed
in appendix A to this Codeer dwelling unit
Section 3. Cash in lieu of park land dedication shall be $1,500 per dwelling unit for
Multifamily dwelling units and $1,500 per dwelling unit for Single-family dwelling units; and
for Commercial/Industrial properties will be 5 percent of current market value of the unimproved
land as determined by the city assessor.
Section 4. The fees set in Section 3 above shall be included in Appendix A of the city
code with other fees and charges called for by ordinance.
Section 5. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Section.6. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
(Signature Block) Park dedication fee revisions: res-ord/2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4d - 2nd Rdg Park Dedication Fees
Page 4
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2287 - 05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26, SEC. 26-158
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGARDING PARK DEDICATION FEES
This ordinance states that park dedication cash-in-lieu of land fee amounts will be moved from
the subdivision ordinance and Appendix A of the City Code will be amended to include, and to
increase, the park dedication fee amount.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 17, 2005
Park dedication fee revisions:res-ord/2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4e - Park Nicollet Indenture Agreement
Page 1
4e. Motion to approve resolution authorizing the First Supplement to Bond Indenture
related to the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, Health Care Facilities Revenue
Bonds (Park Nicollet Health Services), Series 2003A
Background
On September 15, 2003, the City Council adopted a resolution approving a Bond Trust
Indenture, dated November 1, 2003, between the City and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association. As bond trustee, the City issued its Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Park
Nicollet Health Services), Series 2003A, Periodic Auction Reset Securities, in the original
aggregate principal amount of $231,525,000, dated November 1, 2003.
Request
On the date the Bonds were issued (November 13, 2003), a portion of the proceeds of the Bonds
was deposited in the Capitalized Interest Sub-account. Some of these funds have since been
disbursed by the Bond Trustee to pay interest due on the Bonds. The original intention was to
use these funds for payments due under a swap contract that Park Nicollet Health Services and
the other members of the Obligated Group entered into in conjunction with the issuance of the
Bonds.
The amendment to the Bond Trust Indenture modifies the way in which dollars are removed
from the capitalized interest account and allows for payment of project expenditures. This
modification does not impact the tax-exempt status of the bonds nor does it have any impact on
the City of St. Louis Park.
Attachments: Resolution
Legal opinion
Prepared by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4e - Park Nicollet Indenture Agreement
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-020
APPROVING THE FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO BOND TRUST
INDENTURE WITH RESPECT TO THE HEALTH CARE
FACILITIES REVENUE BONDS (PARK NICOLLET HEALTH
SERVICES), SERIES 2003A, ISSUED BY THE CITY ON
NOVEMBER 1, 2003; AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION AND
DELIVERY OF THE FIRST SUPPLEMENT TO BOND TRUST
INDENTURE
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Bond Trust Indenture, dated November 1, 2003 (the “Original
Indenture”), between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) and Wells Fargo Bank, National
Association (formerly known as Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, National Association), as trustee (the
“Bond Trustee”), the City issued its Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds (Park Nicollet Health
Services), Series 2003A, Periodic Auction Reset Securities, in the original aggregate principal amount of
$231,525,000 in five separate sub-series and dated as of November 1, 2003 (the “Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the City loaned the proceeds of the Bonds to Park Nicollet Health Services, a
Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Methodist Hospital, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Park Nicollet
Institute, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Park Nicollet Clinic, a Minnesota association that has elected
to be treated as a nonprofit corporation, PNMC Holdings, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, and Park
Nicollet Health Care Products, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (collectively, the “Obligated Group,”)
pursuant to a Loan Agreement, between the City and the Obligated Group, dated November 1, 2003, and
the Obligated Group used proceeds of the Sub-series 1 through 4 Bonds in the amount of $201,525,000 to
redeem and prepay the Prior Bonds (as defined in the Original Indenture), fund a debt service reserve
fund, and pay certain costs of issuance and the Obligated Group used proceeds of the Sub-series 5 Bonds
in the amount of $30,000,000 to finance various capital costs of improvements and pay certain costs of
issuance; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the issuance of the Bonds, the Obligated Group entered into
interest rate hedge agreements (the “Swap Contracts”) with Goldman Sachs Mitsui Marine Derivate
Products, L.P. (the “Swap Provider”) and pursuant to the Swap Contracts, the Obligated Group pays a
fixed rate of interest on the principal outstanding on the Bonds to the Swap Provider on a quarterly basis
(January 1, April 1, July 1, and October 1) and the Swap Provider pays a floating rate of interest on the
principal outstanding on the Bonds to the Obligated Group on a weekly or monthly basis for each Sub-
series of Bonds; and
WHEREAS, in order to cure any ambiguity regarding the disbursement of funds from the
Capitalized Interest Sub account (as defined in the Original Indenture), the Obligated Group has requested
that the Original Indenture be supplemented to include the definition of “Swap Contract” and “Swap
Provider” and the language of Section 5.05(f) of the Original Indenture related to disbursements from the
Capitalized Interest Sub account be clarified to specifically allow for the disbursement of amounts
necessary for payments due under the Swap Contract for interest on the Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AS
FOLLOWS:
1. That pursuant to the terms of Sections 15.01 and 15.05 of the Original Indenture, the City
hereby approves the First Supplement to Bond Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2005 (the
“Agreement”), between the City and the Bond Trustee, and consented to by the Obligated Group and
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4e - Park Nicollet Indenture Agreement
Page 3
Ambac Assurance Corporation, a Wisconsin-domiciled stock insurance company, as the Bond Insurer in
substantially the form on file with the City on the date hereof.
2. That the Mayor and City Manager of the City are hereby authorized and directed to
execute and deliver on behalf of the City the Agreement, with such necessary or appropriate variations,
omissions, and additions as do not adversely affect the City, as the Mayor in his discretion shall
determine. The execution thereof by the Mayor and the City Manager shall be conclusive evidence of
final approval of the terms of such documents. In the event that the Mayor and City Manager or either of
them is not available, such documents may be signed by any other member of the City Council on behalf
of the City.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby further authorized to execute and deliver, on
behalf of the City, such other documents and certificates as are required by Kennedy & Graven,
Chartered, as bond counsel, or as are necessary or appropriate in connection with the execution and
delivery of the documents described herein.
Date adopted: February 7, 2005.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk
257935(JAE)
SA140-78
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4e - Park Nicollet Indenture Agreement
Page 4
February __, 2005
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association
MAC N9303-110
Sixth Street and Marquette Avenue
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55479
Park Nicollet Health Services
6500 Excelsior Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55426
City of St. Louis Park
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416
Attention: City Manager
Ambac Assurance Corporation
One State Street Plaza
New York, NY 10004
$231,525,000
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Health Care Facilities Revenue Bonds
(Park Nicollet Health Services)
Series 2003A
Periodic Auction Reset Securities (PARS)
We have acted as bond counsel in connection with the issuance of the above-captioned bonds (the
“Bonds”), originally dated as of November 1, 2003. We have been requested by Park Nicollet Health
Services, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Methodist Hospital, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Park
Nicollet Institute, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, Park Nicollet Clinic, a Minnesota association that
has elected to be treated as a nonprofit corporation, PNMC Holding, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation,
and Park Nicollet Health Care Products, a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (collectively, the “Obligated
Group”), to deliver this opinion in accordance with the requirements of Section 15.05 of the Bond Trust
Indenture, dated as of November 1, 2003 (the “Original Indenture”), between the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the “Issuer”), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, formerly known as Wells Fargo
Bank Minnesota, National Association, as trustee, pursuant to which the Bonds were issued, as
supplemented by the First Supplement to Bond Trust Indenture, dated as of February 1, 2005.
We are of the opinion that the amendment of the Original Indenture by the First Supplement to
Bond Trust Indenture is authorized by Sections 15.01 and 15.05 of the Original Indenture and Minnesota
Statutes, Sections 469.152-469.165, as amended, complies with their respective terms, is valid and
binding upon the Issuer and the Obligated Group in accordance with its terms, and will not adversely
affect the exclusion from gross income for federal income tax purposes of interest on the Bonds.
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
258593(JAE)
SA140-78
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4f - T.S. 593 Permit Parking 2847 Quentin
Page 1
4f. Traffic Study No. 593: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing
installation of permit parking in front of 2847 Quentin Avenue South.
Background: The City has received a request from Robert R. and Charlotte A. Smith of 2847
Quentin Avenue South to restrict on-street parking in front of their house. There are two (2)
residents at this house who are disabled and who have disabled persons parking cars. The
Smiths have provided staff with a copy of their disabled persons parking identification placards.
Due to other on-street parking which occurs on their street, the Smiths have requested the City
install permit parking in front of their home. The Smiths state that “On average, 3 to 4 times a
week a truck is parked in front of our home for periods of 12 to 14 hours.”
Staff has discussed this request with the Smiths. Installation of handicapped parking signs is not
feasible, since the parking stall design requirements cannot be met on this local street. However,
the City’s Traffic Policy and past practice do allow for permit parking in this situation. It has
been the City’s practice to use permit parking, which can then be removed when the individual
needing the access no longer resides there or no longer needs the access. In this case, the Smiths
require the parking restrictions.
Staff considers the residents’ request to be valid and supports the installation of permit parking
for handicap access at 2847 Quentin Avenue South. This recommendation is based on the
following:
1. The residents of the household have limited mobility and have disabled person’s
parking permits.
2. Conflicting parking tendencies will be eliminated or mitigated.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the attached resolution authorizing installation
of permit parking restrictions as described.
Attachments: Map (supplement)
Resolution
Prepared by: Laura Adler, Engineering Program Coordinator
Reviewed by: Maria A. Hagen, City Engineer
Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4f - T.S. 593 Permit Parking 2847 Quentin
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-021
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION OF PERMIT
PARKING IN FRONT OF 2847 QUENTIN AVENUE SOUTH
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 593
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota that it
is in the best interest of the City to establish a parking restriction based upon permit issuance in
front of 2847 Quentin Avenue South.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that parking shall not be permitted at any time unless
the vehicle prominently displays a City-issued parking permit on the left rear windshield.
Emergency vehicles, governmental vehicles and commercial vehicles parked at curbside while
work is conducted are exempt from these restrictions.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the parking restriction enacted herein shall remain
in effect until the resident no longer needs the restriction or has moved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. Permit parking at 2847 Quentin Avenue South
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Investigative Fee Ordinance
Page 1
4g. Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 8 - 191
implementing an Investigative Fee, setting a fee of $300 in Appendix A, approve
the ordinance summary and authorize summary publication.
Purpose of Ordinance:
To provide for recovery of City incurred expenses when a business required to be licensed
begins operating without first obtaining such license and to encourage compliance with standard
licensing procedures.
Background:
First reading of the proposed ordinance was approved December 20, 2004.
Staff met with TwinWest Chamber of Commerce representatives to provide information on the
proposal and discuss the potential effect on businesses that would begin operating when a license
was first required. The Chamber has not responded with any position on the proposed
investigative fee.
Analysis:
Need - When a regulated business activity is discovered operating without a business license and
the business owner is unknown or uncooperative, staff must begin an investigation. The process
may include identifying and locating the owner or officers of a business, sending out
applications, fee schedules and requirements to the responsible parties, and guiding the business
through the correct processes. This investigation must be done quickly and decisively to protect
public health and safety but takes time away from staffs regular duties. In some situations a
significant amount of staff time may be utilized, creating additional costs that should not be
absorbed by other businesses or the general tax base.
Application – The investigation fee could potentially be applied when necessary to any
businesses licensed by the provisions of Chapter 8, Division 3. The following identifies the type
and number of annual licenses currently issued:
• Tobacco Sales 39
• Lodging 9
• Courtesy Benches 1 - business with 35 bench locations
• Commercial Entertainment 2
• Billboards 3 - businesses with a total of 34 billboards
• Environmental Emissions 19
• Vehicle Parking Facilities 29
• Sexually Orientated Retail 3
• Public Sanitary Facilities 45
• Dog Kennels 2
• Massage Establishment 11
• Food & Beverage 204
• Rental Housing
Multi Family - 300 buildings 6900 units
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Investigative Fee Ordinance
Page 2
1 & 2 Family - 653 estimated new licenses for 2005
1130 Total Licenses
Currently the code has provisions for a late fee on annual renewals. The proposed amendment
would not apply during annual license renewals or for any of the temporary license types issued
under Division 4 of the chapter.
Fee – The fee should not be considered a revenue source for the general fund. Ideally, business
owners will continue to work with staff and the investigation fee will not be utilized.
Establishing the proposed administrative fee of $300 is designed to accomplish two goals:
1. Recovery of costs and expense of conducting an investigation, and
2. Serve as a disincentive for business owners to bypass licensing requirements.
The fee is intended as another tool, to be used on occasion and with good judgment. Our main
goal is to protect the health and welfare of the community. The $300 amount was selected as a
realistic value for cost recovery based on past experiences. Most annual business license fees
vary from $75 to about $875 depending on the license type.
Prepared By: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Summary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Investigative Fee Ordinance
Page 3
ORDINANCE NO. 2288-05
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESSES OPERATING
WITHOUT A LICENSE, PROVIDING FOR AN INVESTIGATIVE
FEE AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 8-191
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Section 8-191 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code is amended by adding the
following:
(d) Any person who commences operation of a business without a license may be
charged an additional investigative fee at the time the license is initially issued in an amount
established in the City’s fee ordinance. Whether the person will be charged an investigative fee
will be determined administratively by the City Manager or designee based upon the amount of
investigative time and effort expended by the City in generally policing the City for unlicensed
businesses and in bringing the particular offending business into compliance.
SECTION 2. Section 8-33 of the city code states that all fess for licensing shall be
set by City Council. Investigative fee shall be $300 per establishment requiring a
business license.
SECTION 3. The fees set in Section 2 above shall be included in Appendix A of the
city code with other fees and charges called for by ordinance.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
______________________________ _______________________________________
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
_______________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4g - 2nd Rdg Investigative Fee Ordinance
Page 4
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2288-05
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO BUSINESSES OPERATING
WITHOUT A LICENSE, PROVIDING FOR AN INVESTIGATIVE
FEE AND AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 8-191
This ordinance establishes an investigative fee for new businesses that operate without the
required business license. The proposed ordinance amendment is intended to recover City
incurred expenses when a business required to be licensed begins operating without first
obtaining such license and to encourage compliance with standard licensing procedures.
This ordinance shall take effect March 15, 2005.
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4h - Final Payment Hardrives 101-04
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 05-022
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
BRUNSWICK AVENUE RAILROAD CROSSING
CITY PROJECT NO. 04-129
CONTRACT NO. 101-04
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated October 8, 2004, Hardrives, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the Brunswick Avenue railroad crossing, as per Contract No. 101-04.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $19,806.20
Overrun $ 1,869.00
Final Contract Price $21,675.20
Previous Payments ($ 0)
Balance Due $21,675.20
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4i - Final Payment Thomas 68-04
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 05-023
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
W. 36TH STREET WATERMAIN PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 04-14
CONTRACT NO. 68-04
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as
follows:
1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated July 20, 2004, Thomas & Sons
Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the W. 36th Street watermain improvement
project, as per Contract No. 68-04.
2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the
work.
3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is
directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full.
Original Contract Price $318,707.39
Change Order $23,368.11
Under run ($1,890.04)
Final Contract Price $340,185.46
Previous Payments ($271,322.16)
Balance Due $68,863.30
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4j - Hennepin County Recycling Grant
Page 1
4j. Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing application for a Hennepin
County grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
Background: Since 1988 the City has received annual grants from Hennepin County as an aid
in supporting the residential curbside recycling program that serves all single family through
four-plex residential structures. From the beginning through 1992, the County’s recycling grant
program provided reimbursement of 50% to 80% of eligible costs based on the amount of
recyclable material diverted from the waste stream (otherwise known as “source separated
recyclables”). In 1993 and again in 1994, the county changed its program to provide an
entitlement of $1.75 per household per month regardless of the amount of recyclable material
diverted from the waste stream.
The County’s current funding policy (grant program) covers the period from January 1, 2005
through December 31, 2007, and provides for the proportional distribution of SCORE funds,
which the County receives from the State of Minnesota. Although the County has established a
funding policy through 2007, the State of Minnesota may alter its SCORE funding. SCORE
(Select Committee On Recycling and the Environment) was established by Governor Perpich to
provide a funding source for solid waste programs throughout Minnesota. SCORE funds are
derived from a 6.5% tax on garbage collection and disposal fees. The State has $2.58 million in
SCORE funds for 2005, compared to $2.6 million in 2004. These funds are distributed to
Counties for solid waste programs, particularly recycling collection. In 2004 Hennepin County
added money to the SCORE funds to keep the funding to cities at a 2003 level.
The County’s share of SCORE funds is divided evenly between cities on a proportional basis by
the number of households. In the past, St. Louis Park’s share has been about $90,000 depending
upon the final County budget.
In 1995 the City authorized a grant application and agreement for the duration of this program.
Since that time, staff has prepared grant applications and agreements for the Mayor’s signature
annually. In December of 1997, Hennepin County informed staff that a Council Resolution
authorizing each application and agreement would be necessary. This report and request is based
on that Hennepin County requirement. This particular resolution covers this grant program from
January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2007.
Summary: Attached to this report is a resolution authorizing the application to Hennepin
County for a grant to fund the City’s curbside recycling program. The grant application is
attached for Council for information purposes only. The Hennepin County Residential
Recycling Funding Policy is on file in the Clerk’s office.
Attachments: Resolution
2004 Municipal Recycling Final Report/2005 Grant Application
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Funding Policy (on file in Clerk’s office)
Prepared by: Sarah Hellekson / Scott Merkley
Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4j - Hennepin County Recycling Grant
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-024
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR A GRANT AND EXECUTION
OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN
COUNTY FOR FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL CURBSIDE
RECYCLING PROGRAM
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that
residents have an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires each City to implement a
recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and
WHEREAS, the County has adopted a funding assistance policy for source separated
recyclables to distribute funds to Cities for the development and implementation of waste
reduction and recycling programs; and
WHEREAS, to be eligible to receive these County funds, Cities must meet the
conditions set forth in the funding policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 2005 Hennepin County
grant application for municipal source separated recyclables and that the Mayor, City Manager
and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota an agreement in its entirety which covers the furnishing of a recycling program
during 2005 through 2007.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition to receive funds under the Hennepin
County funding assistance policy, the City agrees to implement a waste reduction and recycling
program as committed to by its submission of the 2005 Hennepin County recycling grant
application and that the City will use such County funds for the limited purpose of implementing
the City’s waste reduction and recycling program and that the City Clerk is hereby directed to
file a certified copy of this resolution with the agreement with the Hennepin County Contract
Compliance Officer.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4j - Hennepin County Recycling Grant
Page 3
2004 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING FINAL REPORT
2005 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT APPLICATION
Hennepin County Residential Recycling Program
January 1 – December 31, 2004
_St. Louis Park_
Municipality
Part I. 2004 EXPENDITURES
A. Program Administration $79,750
B. Recycling Promotional Activities $28,780
C. Waste Reduction Promotional Activities $28,780
D. Collection Curbside $318,485
Drop-Off $ 0
E. Curbside Collection Containers $14,314
Numbers highlighted in blue are 2003 #s. Total Expenditures $470,114
Revenues from Sale of Recyclables $ 0
Part II. 2004 TONNAGES (Check all that apply. Provide individual tonnages where available.)
A. Residential Source-Separated Collections Curbside Drop-Off Multi-Housing Total Tons
Mixed Fibers Newspaper
1931.41 0 0 1931.41
Corrugated Cardboard
141.89 0 0 141.89
Office Paper
0 0 0 0
Mixed Paper/Junk Mail
689.82 0 0 689.82
Magazines
23.64 0 0 23.64
Boxboard
19.70 0 0 19.70
Phone Books
19.73 0 0 19.73
Metal Alum. Cans & Foil
82.97 0 0 82.97
Steel & Tin Cns
126.12 0 0 126.12
Commingled Cans
0 0 0 0
Scrap Metal
0 0 0 0
Glass Food & Beverage
662.77 0 0 662.77
Other Glass
0 0 0 0
Plastic PET
67.00 0 0 67.00
HDPE
98.53 0 0 98.53
Commingled Bottles
0 0 0 0
Other Vehicle Batteries 0 0 0 0
Recyclables Textiles 0 0 0 0
Carpet 0 0 0 0
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4j - Hennepin County Recycling Grant
Page 4
Household Goods (bulk items) 143.64 0 0 143.64
Appliances 38.00 0 0 38.00
Totally Commingled (One Sort) 0 0 0 0
Other_________________ 0 0 0 0
Other_________________ 0 0 0 0
Total Tons 4019.10 0 0 4057.10
B. Number (#) of Households (HH) with Curbside Recycling Service Available as of January 1, 2005:
Single family (1-4 units) 12,220
Multi-family (5 units and above) + 0
Total households with curbside recycling service available 12,220
C. Methods Used to Determine Number of Households with Service Available (check all that apply):
Property Tax Records ___ Utility Bill Records _X__ Building Permits ___ Other (specify) __________
D. Average Pounds of Recyclables per Household (HH):
Avg. lbs./HH = (Total Tons / Total # of HH)*2000 632
Part III. PARTICIPATION IN OCTOBER 2004
Week Number Of HH With Curbside
Recycling Service Available
Number Of HH Setting Out
Recyclables Participation Rate
10/04-10/09 12,218 8,776 71%
10/11-10/16 12,218 8,823 72%
10/18-10/23 12,218 8,726 71%
10/25-10/30 12,218 9,460 77%
Totals 48,872 35,785 73%
Part IV. DESCRIPTION OF RECYCLING PROGRAM (2004 Actual / 2005 Planned)
Please attach a brief description of your city’s recycling and waste reduction program, including materials collected for
recycling. Include information on promotional activities done in 2004 and planned in 2005. Note any major program changes
from previous years.
Part V. RECYCLING PROGRAM INFORMATION 2004
A. Method City Uses to Fund its Portion of the Recycling Expenses:
General Fund: Yes ___ No _X__ Utility Bill: Yes _X__ No ___ Monthly charge on resident’s bill only: $ _0______
B. Curbside Collection Contractors: Organized Open Collection
Method*
1. Waste Management Yes Two Stream
2.
3.
4.
5.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4j - Hennepin County Recycling Grant
Page 5
* 1 = Single Stream (commingling all recyclables together in one container)
2 = Two Stream (collecting metal cans, glass, and plastic in one container and all papers in the other)
3 = Source Separated (segregating recyclables into 3 or more categories)
C. Contract Dates / Term: October 1, 2003 – September 30, 2008
D. Contractor's Recycling Collection Cost /HH/Month: $_2.37_____
E. Collection Frequency: Weekly _X__ Bi-weekly ___ Twice Monthly ___
F. Refuse and Recycling Collected Same Day: Yes _X__ No ___
G. Contractors that Collect MSW at Municipal Owned Facilities:
1. Randy’s Sanitation
2.
H. MSW Disposal Facilities that are Being Used by Contractors Listed in Item G:
1. HERC
2.
I. Municipal Ordinance Requiring Recycling by:
Single Family Residents: Yes ___ No _X__ Multi-family Residents: Yes _X__ No ___ Businesses: Yes ___ No _X__
Part VI. SIGNATURES
Mayor or City Manager / Administrator / Clerk Date
Recycling Coordinator Date
FINAL REPORT AND GRANT APPLICATION DUE FEBRUARY 15, 2005
Hennepin County 2004-2005 Municipal Recycling Grant Report & Application
City of St. Louis Park
Part IV. Description of Recycling Program
St. Louis Park has an organized citywide municipal recycling program. All single family
through four-plex households have weekly recycling collection of two categories:
1. Mixed Fibers: newspaper, junk mail, mixed paper, magazines, corrugated cardboard,
boxboard/chipboard, catalogs, phone books, and soft cover books; and
2. Commingled containers: food & beverage glass, aluminum cans & foil, bimetal, steel &
tin cans, and PET & HDPE plastic bottles with “necks”.
Appliances are collected curbside upon request of homeowner and payment to contractor.
The City Council developed a purpose, goals and objectives for the Solid Waste Program in
2001, to better serve the residents of St. Louis Park. The purpose of the program is to provide a
solid waste service responsive to citizens’ needs to ensure a vital community. The Solid Waste
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4j - Hennepin County Recycling Grant
Page 6
Program Goals include high quality service, environmental stewardship, cost effective services,
effective communication and a continual evaluation of our program and the industry.
In keeping with these goals and objectives established by staff, the City of St. Louis Park has
developed a solid waste public education campaign that focuses on waste reduction, recycling
and environmental awareness. City staff work with residents, the solid waste contractor, the St.
Louis Park schools, and other organizations in the community to promote waste reduction and
recycling. One of our objectives under the goal of environmental stewardship is to encourage
citizens to take responsibility for the environmentally sound management of their solid waste.
We strive to do this by educating residents about recycling through various media.
In November 2003, the City of St Louis Park moved closer to a pay-as-you -throw (PAYT)
system when city-owned garbage carts were distributed to residents. Residents pay a fee based
upon the gallon service they requested. Any garbage, which does not fit into the cart, must have
a sticker that residents purchase from the City. Other items that do not fit into the cart are
charged at a bulk rate. Residents may request as many recycling bins as they need from the City
at no extra charge. Since this program began, recycling participation has greatly increased. This
is probably due in part to the increase in education that was distributed with the new garbage
carts, as well as an effort by residents to decrease their garbage service level resulting in more
recycling. Recycling tonnage increased by 22.5% overall in 2004 compared to 2003 and
previous years. Trash collected in 2004 is reduced by 9% from 2003.
The Solid Waste Ordinance was revised in 2003 to include the new PAYT program with garbage
carts and corresponding rate structure (separate resolution). New rates were added in 2004 for
higher levels of service to encourage reduction of waste. The program has been well-received in
general and was a result of two years of public involvement and participation in updating the
solid waste program. The City of St Louis Park remains firmly committed to environmental
stewardship and the reduction of solid waste.
Item 4. Consent Agenda Approval wording for Minutes
If this was a separate motion by Sue Sanger before the actual agenda was
approved then the following wording can be used for approval of agenda:
It was moved by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember , to approve
the Agenda and the Consent Calendar as amended.
If there was not a separate motion then the following wording will work:
It was moved by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember , to approve
the Agenda and to approve the Consent Calendar with a point of clarification to Item 4j
amending the Resolution to include expected contribution of $1,000 to be used for the
program’s newsletter.
We just need to make sure the actual amendment wording is included somewhere.
Resolution wording:
WHEREAS, the City’s total monetary contribution to the program, if fully
funded by the DHS, is expected to be $1,000 to be used for the program’s newsletter.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4k - 3424 Wooddale Sprinkler Assessment
Page 1
4k Motion to adopt a resolution authorizing installation and special assessment
of a fire sprinkler system at 3424 Wooddale Avenue and directing the Mayor
and City Manager to execute a special assessment agreement with the
property owner.
Background:
George S. Rea Sr., owner of the commercial building at 3424 Wooddale Avenue has requested
that the City authorize the installation of an automatic fire suppression sprinkler system for the
building and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment
policy.
Analysis:
The special assessment policy for installation of automatic fire sprinkler systems in existing
buildings was adopted by the City Council in 1995. The City promotes the installation of fire
suppression sprinkler systems and facilitates their installation to promote the general public
health, safety and welfare within the community.
The Building Code requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system in this building because of
major remodeling project in the building. The property owner will be hiring a contractor to
install the sprinkler system throughout the building and bring it up to compliance with the
current code. Based on the proposed work the system qualifies for the City’s special assessment
program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the installation of the fire
sprinkler system and specially assess the cost of the installation. Sprinkler plans have been
submitted and approved by City staff. The total eligible cost of the installation has been
determined to be $58,583.00. An Administrative Fee of $293.00 will be added to the special
assessment.
Staff has determined that adequate funds are available to finance this project through the Special
Assessment Construction Fund.
Prepared by: Cary Smith, Fire Marshal
Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4k - 3424 Wooddale Sprinkler Assessment
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-025
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING INSTALLATION
AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AT
3424 Wooddale Avenue, St. Louis Park, MN 55426
WHEREAS, , the Property Owners at 3424 Wooddale Avenue have petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the installation of a fire sprinkler system
in the office building at 3424 Wooddale Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive their right to a public hearing, right
of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the
Fire Marshal related to the installation of the fire sprinkler system.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that:
1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special
assessment for the fire sprinkler system is hereby accepted.
2. The installation of the fire sprinkler system in conformance with the plans and
specifications approved by the Fire Department and Department of Inspections is
hereby authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the design and complete installation of the fire
sprinkler system is accepted at $58,583.00.
4. An administrative fee of $293.00 for processing shall be added to the special
assessment.
5. The total special assessment against the property will be $58,876.00.
6. The Property Owners have agreed to waive their rights to a public hearing, notice
and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution,
or common law.
7. The Property Owners agree to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements through special assessment over a ten (10) year period at five point
six five percent (5.65%) interest.
8. The Property Owners agree to execute an agreement with the City and any other
documents necessary to implement the installation of the fire sprinkler system and
the special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4k - 3424 Wooddale Sprinkler Assessment
Page 3
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4l - FCSC Minutes of 8-3-04
Page 1
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
August 3, 2004, 2:00 p.m.
FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 2:02 p.m. by President Lee.
2) In attendance were Commissioners David Lee and William MacMillan. Also present were Luke
Stemmer, Fire Chief, John Lindstrom, Battalion Fire Chief, Ali Fosse, Human Resources
Coordinator/Staff Liaison, and Dale Antonson, Union President.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by President Lee to approve the
minutes from the last meeting, held May 6, 2004. The motion carried.
4) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by President Lee to accept the Fire
Captain Eligibility List. Certification of names is pending completion of the Battalion Chief
recruitment process. The motion carried.
5) The Commissioners and Fire Chief discussed the process and opening for Battalion Chief.
President Lee requested that the minimum qualifications be clarified. Staff Liaison Ali Fosse
agreed to make a change to the job description and get the necessary signatures to change the
minimum qualifications to read “at least four (4) years as a current fulltime employee of the St.
Louis Park Fire Department.” A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by
President Lee to approve the process for Battalion Chief with the revised job description. The
motion carried.
6) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by President Lee to adjourn the
meeting. The Commission adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
1
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4m - FCSC Minutes of 9-2-04
Page 1
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
September 2, 2004, 2:00 p.m.
FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 2:02 p.m. by President Lee.
2) In attendance were Commissioners David Lee and Marjorie Douville. Also present were
Battalion Chief John Lindstrom, Firefighters Cary Smith, and Mike Dobesh; Ali Fosse, Human
Resources Coordinator/Staff Liaison; Dale Antonson, Union President; and Luke Stemmer, Fire
Chief.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by President Lee to approve the
minutes from the last meeting, held August 16, 2004. The motion carried.
4) Fire Chief Stemmer addressed the Commission to announce the selection of Cary Smith and
Mike Dobesh as Battalion Chiefs, effective September 4, 2004. President Lee congratulated the
new Battalion Chiefs, who will be sworn in on Tuesday, September 7, 2004 at 8:30 a.m.
5) President Lee explained he had received a letter from City Manager Tom Harmening requesting
the top 5 names from the Fire Captain eligibility list be certified for the 3 current openings. The
names certified are: Paul Rosholt, Mark Nelson, Deane Wallick, Eva Schlegel, and Mark
Windschitl. President Lee clarified that the first choice for Captain must come from the first
three names, so as to comply with statutory regulations. A motion was made by Commissioner
Douville, seconded by President Lee to certify the top 5 names on the Fire Captain Eligibility
List. The motion carried.
6) A motion was made by Commissioner Douville, seconded by President Lee to adjourn the
meeting. The Commission adjourned at 2:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
1
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4n - FCSC Minutes of 10-26-04
Page 1
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
October 26, 2004, 7:30 a.m.
FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 7:35 a.m. by President Lee.
2) In attendance were Commissioners David Lee, William MacMillan, and Marjorie Douville. Also
present were Battalion Chief John Lindstrom; Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator/Staff
Liaison; and Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Douville to
approve the minutes from the last meeting, held September 2, 2004. The motion carried.
4) Ali explained the reason for amending the Firefighter process. Only one of the Commissioners
were able to attend the interviews scheduled for 10/27/04. The process should be changed to
allow the Fire Chief to select alternate panelists. A motion was made by Commissioner
MacMIllan, seconded by Commissioner Douville to accept the change to the Firefighter
recruitment process. The motion carried.
5) Other business: President Lee reminded the Commission of Firefighter Mark Winiecki’s
retirement after 27 years of service. A reception will be held for him on Friday, October 29,
2004 from 1-3 p.m. at Fire Station One.
6) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Douville to
adjourn the meeting. The Commission adjourned at 7:43 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
1
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 4o - FCSC Minutes of 10-29-04
Page 1
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
October 29, 2004, 9:00 a.m.
FIRE CONFERENCE ROOM, 1ST FLOOR CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m. by President Lee.
2) In attendance were Commissioners David Lee, William MacMillan, and Marjorie Douville. Also
present were Battalion Chiefs John Lindstrom and Michael Dobesh; Ali Fosse, Human
Resources Coordinator/Staff Liaison; Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief; Dale Antonson, Union
President; and Rosealee Lee, Visitor.
3) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Douville to
approve the minutes from the last meeting, held October 26, 2004. The motion carried
unanimously.
4) Ali distributed the Firefighter Eligibility Roster. Thirteen candidates completed the process and
are recommended to the Commission for acceptance. A motion was made by Commissioner
MacMIllan, seconded by Commissioner Douville to accept the Firefighter Eligibility Roster.
The motion carried unanimously.
5) President Lee discussed the request he received from the Appointing Authority to certify the top
three names for each vacant Firefighter position. Since there are three vacancies, the first hire
must be made from the first three names on the list. A motion was made by Commissioner
MacMillan to certify the top five names on the Firefighter Eligibility Roster, with the
understanding that the Appointing Authority will adhere to statues in filling vacancies. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Douville. The motion carried unanimously. The top 5
names certified are: Hugo Searle, Eric Tate, Adam Lockrem, Tammy Nielsen, and James
Glover.
6) The Commissioners and guests discussed the procedure for certifying the names on the Fire
Lieutenant Eligibility Roster. Firefighter Winiecki currently stands highest on the list, however,
he has submitted his notice of retirement in writing effective November 1, 2004. The
Commission will consider this notice as a withdrawal from the Lieutenant Eligibility Roster.
Chief Stemmer discussed his desire to have the names certified to fill a vacant Lieutenant
position that was caused by the promotion of Mark Windschitl to Captain. Therefore,
Commissioner MacMillan made a motion to certify the next three names standing highest on the
Lieutenant Eligibility Roster, seconded by Commissioner Douville. The motion carried
unanimously. The top 3 names certified are: William Ryan, Mark Nelson, and Robert Hampton.
7) Other business: President Lee reminded the Commission of Firefighter Mark Winiecki’s
retirement after 27 years of service. A reception will be held for him on Friday, October 29,
2004 from 1-3 p.m. at Fire Station One.
8) A motion was made by Commissioner MacMillan, seconded by Commissioner Douville to
adjourn the meeting. The Commission adjourned at 9:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali Fosse
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
1
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8a - 1st Rdg Tree Ordinance
Page 1
8a. First reading of Tree Ordinance Revisions.
The ordinance is being revised to reflect the changes in time allowed for tree removal
from the notification date and allowing ground stumps to remain on private property.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading of an ordinance allowing
residents 40 days after notification to remove a diseased tree,
allowing ground stumps to remain, and set second reading for
February 22, 2005.
Background: Since the inception of the statewide Dutch elm disease (DED) and Oak Wilt (OW)
sanitation program in the early 1970’s, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, under state
statute, defines and regulates removal procedures for diseased tree control throughout Minnesota.
The City of St. Louis Park’s diseased tree removal ordinance was initially written and based
upon the legal authority of the Department of Agriculture statute governing diseased tree
removal procedures. Effective April, 2003, the statute defining diseased tree removal procedure
has been rescinded.
The original state statute and City ordinance called for a 20 day period for diseased tree removal,
effective from the date of the official notice by the local government. The 20 days was based
upon two things: the life cycle of the vector (beetle) for DED and expediency to remove the
tree(s) for potential infection to other nearby healthy trees.
The 20 day removal statute has been difficult to enforce in the City and the state no longer
dictates the time frame for removal of diseased trees. Financing of tree removal in the specified
time is a major concern for property owners; there are few tree contractors that are able to
remove the large trees located on small lots; and it is difficult to schedule tree contractors to
remove diseased trees within the specified time.
Proposed ordinance changes: Staff recommends allowing property owners 40 days to remove a
diseased tree. They would have 20 days to advise staff of their course of action to remove the
tree, along with another 20 days to actually remove the diseased tree.
Additionally, staff would like to change the removal specifications within this same ordinance
section to allow a stump, no larger than 6” above the ground with all bark removed, to remain on
private property after the tree has been removed.
Attachment: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared By: Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Cynthia Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8a - 1st Rdg Tree Ordinance
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. ______ - 05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 34 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
ORDINANCE CODE CHAPTER 34: VEGETATION
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 34 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended as
follows:
DIVISION 2. CONTROL OF DISEASED, HAZARDOUS AND FALLEN TREES
Sec. 34-55. Procedure for removal of tree nuisances
When it appears with reasonable certainty that any nuisance defined in section 34-52 exists,
the owner shall be notified and ordered to remove the nuisance in a manner approved by the city
manager. The owner has 20 days to advise staff of their course of action to remove the tree,
along with an additional 20 days to actually remove the diseased tree. If the owner fails to
comply with the order, the city manager may act to abate the nuisance. If the owner cannot be
contacted, the city shall send notice by certified mail to the last known address of the owner of
record and shall then proceed forthwith to abate the nuisance. Removal of any tree includes
removal of all tree debris. The stump that remains must be cut no more than 6” above the ground
with all bark removed. the stump to eight (8) inches below grade and surface roots
(Code 1976, § 6-205, Ord. No. 2257-03, § 1, 11-17-2003)
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 1
8b. 2nd Reading to Consider 2005 Utility Rates
Second reading of an ordinance setting 2005 rates charged for Water, Sanitary Sewer,
Solid Waste, and Storm Water Utility.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the ordinance amending rates charged for
Water, Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, and Storm Water
Utility for 2005, approve the summary and authorize
summary publication.
Update on January 18, 2005 Public Hearing:
On January 18, 2005, a Public Hearing was held to consider 2005 utility rates. During the
discussion, Council indicated they would like additional information related to the Solid Waste
contract.
Council requested information:
1 – Copy of our Contract with WMI (2003 Solid Waste Contract)
2 – Summary of contract costs for the term of the contract, 2004 – 2008
Staff transmitted the above information to the City Council via e-mail. In addition, Council was
provided with a copy of the July 14, 2003 study session report that outlined projected rate
increases for the next several years. That projection is consistent with the staff recommendation
for future rate adjustments.
Article 7 below describes contractor compensation and describes how annual WMI increases are
determined.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 2
Background on Utility Funds
The City of St. Louis Park operates four (4) utility funds. These funds are classified as
Enterprise Funds and were established to account for the acquisition and operation of water,
sanitary sewer, solid waste, and storm water utilities which are either entirely or predominantly
self-supporting from user charges to the general public.
In 2004, rates for Enterprise (Utility) Funds were increased based on a five-year analysis of
projected revenues, expenses, and infrastructure improvements. The five-year analysis has been
reviewed, analyzed, and updated based on current projections. When projecting five years of
operations, the use of estimates is required. Information for these estimates was obtained from
the five-year Capital Improvement Program, the Metropolitan Council, the fee study conducted
in 2004 (calculation of administrative and overhead fee charges), and staff estimates. As part of
the five-year forecast, a three-month reserve of revenues has been set aside in each Utility to
ensure sufficient cash flows are available.
Each Utility Fund will be discussed below indicating if staff is recommending a rate increase, if
the rates should remain stable, and the reasoning behind each of the recommendations. In
addition, a Customer Impact analysis based on implementing the recommended rate increases is
shown. The impact analysis is based on different levels of service for residential households.
Water:
Staff is recommending no increase for 2005. This is a change from the 2004 five-year forecast.
The 2004 five-year forecast indicated that a 2.1% increase would be necessary. Based on new
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 3
estimates, it is recommended that no increase be implemented in 2005 and that the following
increases be implemented in 2006 – 2009.
2006 2007 2008 2009
3.00%2.50%2.50%2.50%
During 2004 and 2005, the Water Fund did and will transfer money to the Pavement
Management Program. The transfer of these funds is a reserve reduction and was part of the
implementation plan of the Pavement Management Program. Beginning in 2006, the Water
Fund will no longer transfer funds to the Pavement Management Program. During the 2004
budget process, Council indicated that the Pavement Management Program would be supported
by both the Water and Sanitary Sewer Fund for a period of two years and then the support would
be replaced by an additional charge to the end user.
The Water Utility long term capital improvement is under development. Once this program is
fully developed, long-term projections will be modified. Mike Rardin, Public Works Director,
has indicated that the Water Utility shows the highest risk for future repairs/replacements and
therefore the long-term capital program is extremely critical. Staff will continue to update
Council on the progress of the Capital Program.
Sanitary Sewer:
Staff is recommending a rate increase of 5%. This increase is to account for the rising costs of
sewer disposal, capital needs, and the depletion of reserves. For many years, this fund has
operated at a deficit in order to deplete the reserves to an appropriate amount. At this time, a
capital program is in place and a forecast of liquidity has been completed through the year 2011.
Reserves will continue to be reduced each year through the year 2010. Based on the forecast, the
fund will begin to break-even beginning in 2011. The operations forecast as well as the rate
increases are indicated below.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Revenues 4,291,077$ 4,496,957$ 4,702,609$ 4,927,128$ 5,166,004$ 5,394,387$ 5,635,889$
Expenses 5,102,322 5,307,791 5,124,828 5,213,883 5,304,673 5,397,232 5,491,599
Net Income (Loss)(811,245)$ (810,834)$ (422,219)$ (286,755)$ (138,669)$ (2,845)$ 144,290$
Projected Rate Increase 5.00%5.00%5.00%5.00%5.00%4.50%4.50%
Retained Earnings:
Reserved for Cash flow 1,072,769$ 1,124,239$ 1,175,652$ 1,231,782$ 1,291,501$ 1,348,597$ 1,408,972$
Reserved for Capital
Improvements 1,906,018 1,043,714 570,082 227,197 28,809 (31,132) 52,783
Total Reserves 2,978,787$ 2,167,953$ 1,745,734$ 1,458,979$ 1,320,310$ 1,317,465$ 1,461,755$
The sanitary sewer fund has also been responsible during 2004 and again in 2005 for providing
funds to the Pavement Management Program. Like the Water fund, this transfer of funds will
end at the end of 2005.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 4
Storm Water Utility:
The Storm Water Utility fund was established in May of 2000 to fund the Storm Water
Management Program. In order to charge landowners for their use of the storm water system
and surface water management, it was necessary to develop a formula that would fairly equate
the property based upon its’ impervious surface. A higher impervious surface, such as
commercial property, generates more run off and would use the storm water system more than
less impervious surfaces such as a residential property. Therefore, the formula used to calculate
commercial property includes a residential equivalency factor (REF) based upon the type of
property. The current rate of this program is $7.20 per quarter for a single family home, which
is assumed to be 1/5th of an acre. Commercial property would be at the same rate but based upon
the formula mentioned above.
Staff is recommending no increase in 2005. This recommendation is based on operational as
well as project costs that have been projected. When the five-year forecast was presented to
Council in 2003, it was indicated that the $7.20 per quarter should be sufficient through the year
2008. Given the number of additional flood proofing and capital projects that have since been
identified, the forecast no longer indicates this to be true. At this time, staff is recommending the
following increases for the years 2006 – 2008.
2006 2007 2008 2009
3.50%3.00%3.00%3.00%
As we move forward with the Storm Water Utility Fund, maintenance costs will increase and we
anticipate that once the major capital projects are completed, capital costs will decrease. We will
need to monitor this fund closely to ensure that adequate funds are available.
Solid Waste:
Late in 2003, the new Solid Waste contract was approved and a new structure for rates was
established. Since that time, the rate structure has been modified to include different levels
service that exceeds the 90 gallon barrel. The new rates for the extra services were implemented
in October, 2004.
For 2005, staff is recommending a rate increase equal to $2.00 per quarter plus applicable taxes.
As part of the contract discussions, the status of the Solid Waste Fund was reviewed.
Historically, the Solid Waste Fund has been intentionally drawing down on reserves.
At some point during contact discussions, it was indicated that this fund should break even by
the end of the new contract period. Staff has analyzed this fund to determine if this is feasible
when considering the impact on users.
The chart below outlines the net losses of the Solid Waste fund for 2002 and 2003, as well as
projects the amount of loss for 2004 – 2008. The projections are based on rate increases listed
below the net loss numbers.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 5
2002 Actual 2003 Actual 2004 Projected 2005 Projected 2006 Projected 2007 Projected 2008 Projected
Revenues 1,861,061$ 2,022,656$ 1,969,604$ 2,067,396$ 2,167,467$ 2,282,303$ 2,397,967$
Expenses 2,272,680 2,753,832 2,410,489 2,466,232 2,537,638 2,611,121 2,686,743
Net Loss (411,619)$ (731,176)$ (440,885)$ (398,836)$ (370,171)$ (328,818)$ (288,776)$
Rate Increase 0.00%0.00%
Change in Rate
Structure 5.30%5.10%6.00%5.70%
Retained Earnings:
Reserved for Cash
Flow -$ 475,000$ 492,401$ 506,849$ 531,297$ 561,857$ 592,417$
Unreserved 3,684,827 2,478,651 2,020,365 1,607,081 1,212,462 853,084 533,747
Total Reserves 3,684,827$ 2,953,651$ 2,512,766$ 2,113,930$ 1,743,759$ 1,414,941$ 1,126,164$
Solid Waste
As indicated in the spreadsheet, by increasing the rates, the amount of loss beginning in 2005 is
reduced. Staff has projected rate increases and net gains (losses) out to 2012. If Council
increases rates again in the years 2009 – 2012 by approximately 6.5% per year, the fund will
break even in the year 2012.
Other:
In order to see the entire picture of the recommended rate increases, staff has prepared an outline
identifying individual utility rates and total billings. The rates included below include applicable
taxes.
2004 2005 Change
Percent
Change
Water 43.36$ 43.36$ -$ 0.00%
Sewer 35.35 37.12 1.77 5.01%
Solid Waste 43.35 45.47 2.12 4.89%
Storm Water 7.20 7.20 - 0.00%
Total 129.26$ 133.15$ 3.89$ 3.01%
2004 2005 Change
Percent
Change
Water 20.42$ 20.42$ -$ 0.00%
Sewer 27.63 29.01 1.38 4.99%
Solid Waste 43.35 45.47 2.12 4.89%
Storm Water 7.20 7.20 - 0.00%
Total 98.60$ 102.10$ 3.50$ 3.55%
Average Individual Quarterly Utility Bill
Average Family of 4 Quarterly Utility Bill
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 6
Conclusion:
Staff recommends increasing the Sanitary Sewer Utility rates by 5% and the Solid Waste rates by
$2.00 barrel plus applicable taxes. Staff recommends no increase for the Storm Water Utility
and Water Utility. Staff has tried to keep utility increases to a minimum and still maintain a
conservative fiscal approach, recognizing it is better to prepare in advance for financing of
improvements that are needed in the future.
Attachments: Ordinance
Summary Ordinance
Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 7
ORDINANCE NO. 2286 - 05
AN ORDINANCE SETTING 2005 RATES FOR
WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE AND STORMWATER UTILITIES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Sec. 1. Section 32-31 of the Municipal Code states that rates due and payable to the city
by each water user for billings on or after February 26, 2001, for water taken from the city water
supply system shall be set from time to time by the city. The 2005 Water and Service Charge is
hereby set as follows:
Meter Size Code Meter Size
(in inches)
Monthly Quarterly
1 5/8 $ 3.63 $ 5.60
2 3/4 4.08 6.80
3 1 5.27 9.96
4 1 1/2 7.77 16.82
5 2 11.27 26.04
6 3 19.82 49.03
7 4 33.42 79.38
9 6 64.58 155.56
$0.71688 per 100 cubic feet
100 cubic feet = 750 gallons = 1 unit
Sec. 2. Section 32-98 of the City Code states that charges for sewer service to residential
and nonresidential users within the city provided in section 32-97 for billings on or after
February 26, 2001, shall be an amount per 100 cubic feet of water consumption set by the city
from time to time. The 2005 Sewer and Service Charge Rates are hereby set as follows:
$1.6212 per 100 cubic feet of water consumption during the winter quarter
$3.55 Monthly and $10.65 Quarterly – Service Charge
Sec. 3. Section 32-142 of the City Code states that fees for the use and availability of the
storm sewer system shall be determined through the use of a Residential Equivalent Factor
(REF). The 2004 Stormwater Utility Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) is hereby set as
follows:
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 8
2004 = $7.20 REF
Sec. 4. Section 22-32 through section 22-27 of the City Code address Garbage Collection.
The 2005 Garbage rates are hereby set as follows:
22-33 Special pickup (refuse/recycling/yard
waste)
$15 each
22-34 Extra Cart
30 Gallon $40 each
60 Gallon $44 each
90 Gallon $48 each
22-35 Extra refuse stickers $2.25 quarterly
22-37 Refuse/Garbage Service Rate (includes
tax)
30 Gallon $34.89 quarterly
60 Gallon $45.47 quarterly
90 Gallon $56.04 quarterly
90P (120 - 180 Gallon) $66.62 quarterly
270 Gallon $86.61 quarterly
360 Gallon $106.61 quarterly
450 Gallon $126.61 quarterly
540 Gallon $146.62 quarterly
22-37 Yard Waste Credit $3.00 Quarterly
22-37 Extended absence 31% credit for the # of weeks absent (per table below)
Number of
Weeks Absent
30 Gallon 60 Gallon 90 Gallon 90+ Gallon
1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
3 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
4 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
5 $3.90 $5.20 $6.40 $7.70
6 $4.70 $6.20 $7.70 $9.20
7 $5.50 $7.20 $9.00 $10.80
8 $6.30 $8.30 $10.30 $12.30
9 $7.00 $9.30 $11.60 $13.80
10 $7.80 $10.30 $12.90 $15.40
11 $8.60 $11.40 $14.10 $16.90
12 $9.40 $12.40 $15.40 $18.50
13 $10.20 $13.40 $16.70 $20.00
14 $10.90 $14.50 $18.00 $21.50
15 $11.70 $15.50 $19.30 $23.10
16 $12.50 $16.50 $20.60 $24.60
17 $13.30 $17.60 $21.90 $26.10
18 $14.10 $18.60 $23.10 $27.70
19 $14.90 $19.60 $24.40 $29.20
20 $15.60 $20.70 $25.70 $30.80
21 $16.40 $21.70 $27.00 $32.30
22 $17.20 $22.70 $28.30 $33.80
23 $18.00 $23.80 $29.60 $35.40
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 9
24 $18.80 $24.80 $30.90 $36.90
25 $19.50 $25.80 $32.20 $38.50
26 $20.30 $26.90 $33.40 $40.00
22-37 Late payment penalty 10% of amount due (quarterly)
Sec 5. The Rates set in section 1, section 2, section 3, and section 4 above shall be included in
Appendix A of the City Code with other fees and charges called for by ordinance.
Sec 5. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its publication
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
Reviewed for Administration
City Manager Mayor
Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 10
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO._____________
AN ORDINANCE SETTING 2005 RATES FOR
WATER, SEWER AND STORMWATER UTILITIES
This ordinance sets 2005 rates for water, sewer, stormwater, and solid waste utilities at the
following amounts:
The 2005 Water and Service Charge is set at:
Meter Size Code Meter Size
(in inches)
Monthly Quarterly
1 5/8 $ 3.63 $ 5.60
2 3/4 4.08 6.80
3 1 5.27 9.96
4 1 1/2 7.77 16.82
5 2 11.27 26.04
6 3 19.82 49.03
7 4 33.42 79.38
9 6 64.58 155.56
$0.71688 per 100 cubic feet
100 cubic feet = 750 gallons = 1 unit
The 2005 Sewer and Service Charge Rates are set at $1.6212 per 100 cubic feet of water
consumption during the winter quarter; and $3.55 Monthly and $10.65 Quarterly for the Service
Charge.
The 2005 Stormwater Utility Residential Equivalent Factor (REF) is set at $7.20
The 2005 Solid Waster Utility Rates are set at:
Refuse/Garbage Service Rate (includes tax)
30 Gallon $34.89 quarterly
60 Gallon $45.47 quarterly
90 Gallon $56.04 quarterly
90P (120 - 180 Gallon) $66.62 quarterly
270 Gallon $86.61 quarterly
360 Gallon $106.61 quarterly
450 Gallon $126.61 quarterly
540 Gallon $146.62 quarterly
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
020705 - 8b - 2nd Rdg Utility Rates
Page 11
Adopted by the City Council February 7, 2005
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: February 17, 2005
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 1
8c. Consideration of an application by Nathan and Marcy Schultz for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential and a Rezoning from R-2 to R-3 on the property at 4022
Yosemite Avenue South
Recommended
Motion:
Motion to direct Staff to prepare a resolution of denial of a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential
to Medium Density Residential, and a Rezoning from R-2 to R-3
for the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South.
Zoning: R2, Single Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Parcel Size 14,000 sq. ft. (100 x 140)
Current Land Use: Vacant Home (to be torn down)
Proposed Land Use Twin Home
Request:
Nathan and Marcy Schultz are requesting an amendment to the City’s Comprehensive Plan to
change the Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential, and amend the
Zoning Ordinance to change this property from R-2 Single Family Residential, to R-3 Two-
family Residential, to allow a twin home to be constructed on the property at 4022 Yosemite
Avenue South.
In order to allow a twin home, the Comprehensive Plan land use designation would have to be
changed to Medium Density Residential, which allows for a variety of housing types, including
single family, twin homes, townhomes and apartments. The Zoning district on this site would
also have to be changed to R-3, which allows single family and two family residences.
On January 5 the Planning Commission considered this matter and recommended approval of the
applicants request (more information on the recommendation is provided later in this report)
Background:
A single family home is on the property that was built in 1912. It is vacant, in disrepair, and has
not been occupied for some time. The property owners expect to tear it down, but have not yet
done so as they may re-use the foundation (depending on whether a twin home or single family
home is allowed). The home sits in the center of a double lot, which is 100 feet wide.
A change to the Comprehensive Plan land use is a discretionary action by the City, as is rezoning
property. There are not any set standards that dictate a change should or must be made, rather it
is a choice of the city to determine the appropriate land use for any particular property.
Surrounding Uses and Zoning:
The lot is the northernmost single family property on its block. It is adjacent to commercial
properties on Excelsior Boulevard. To the north is a retail building that fronts on Excelsior
Boulevard. It contains four businesses, a building and parking directly adjacent to Yosemite
Avenue.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 2
To the rear (west) of the property is a large office warehouse building (William J. Business
Interiors) that stretches along the 4000 block of Zarthan Avenue. A portion of its parking lot on
the Excelsior Boulevard side is adjacent to the subject property. The office warehouse building
extends behind 9 homes on Yosemite, and is set approximately 30 feet from the 4022 Yosemite
property.
To the south on both sides of Yosemite Avenue are single family homes. Directly across from
4022 Yosemite is a single family home that also directly abuts a commercial zoning district.
Existing Use Zoning
North Retail C2, General Commercial
West Office-warehouse C2, General Commercial
East Single Family Residential R2, Single Family
South Single Family Residential R2, Single Family
Analysis:
The property at 4022 Yosemite is currently zoned R-2, which primarily allows single family
uses. The applicant is requesting a change to R-3, which allows single and two family uses, in
4022 Yosemite
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 3
order to build a twin home. The corresponding change required in the Comprehensive Plan
would be from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential..
The applicant suggests that a twin home on this lot would “create a buffer between commercial
and residential properties already existing” on either side of this property. The office-warehouse
building to the west does provide an effective buffer from the commercial uses, as the building
itself backs up to this lot (and other lots on the block), there is not a drive aisle, parking, doors or
much other commercial activity occurring to the rear.
To the north is a parking lot and a building wall. The building wall functions as a buffer to the
commercial activity as well, while the parking spaces cause some commercial activity next to the
property.
Transitions between commercial uses and the adjacent residential neighborhoods occur all up
and down Excelsior Boulevard. Most often it is the case that single family homes are directly
adjacent to the commercial uses that face Excelsior Boulevard. The interface among the sites
vary: in some cases there are trees and shrubs that provide screening, in some cases there is an
alley or a parking lot and in some cases a building backs up to a single family home. Typically it
is a side yard that is adjacent to the commercial use.
In this case, the twin home as proposed would introduce a new use, creating two transitions
rather than one: one from commercial to residential land uses and one from a two-family home to
single family homes. Retaining the existing zoning and Comprehensive Plan for a single family
home would be more compatible and consistent with the existing character of the neighborhood,
and would keep the transitions to a minimum. In addition, this lot has ample area to create a
large landscape buffer between the new home and the adjacent commercial uses.
Zoning -
The major difference between the two zoning districts is that R3 allows two family homes in
additional to single family homes. A comparison of the R-2 and R-3 zoning districts are as
follows:
Zoning Requirement R-2 R-3
Permitted uses
Single family Single Family
Two Family
(Multi-family if in
existence on 12-31-92)
Conditional uses
None More than 1 principle
building
Height 3 stories or 30’ 3 stories or 35’
Ground Floor Area .3 .25
Lot Area – single family
two family
7,200 s.f.
Not allowed
7,200 s.f.
8,000 s.f.
Setbacks
Front
Side
Side corner
Rear
25
7/5
15/9
25
25
7/5
15/9
25
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 4
Planning Commission Consideration and Summary: (Draft minutes attached)
On January 5, 2005, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the request. Some neighbors
were present and spoke at the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the applicant contacted the
neighborhood president, who advised a neighborhood meeting was not necessary; the applicant
did however send out materials about the requested Comp Plan and zoning change to the
neighbors who were on the hearing notification list.
At the hearing the applicants distributed additional materials (attached) that included information
on their request and showed an alternate design for the twin home proposed for the site. The
Schultz’ indicated they would like to live in one side of the twin home and sell the other.
Planning Commissioners inquired about the ownership options. It was noted that the parcel
would have to remain as one lot, however the units could become separately owned via a
condominium platting process. An arrangement for land ownership and maintenance would
have to be determined by the owners.
Following is a summary of the comments at the public hearing:
Linda Sandbo, president of the Brookside Neighborhood Association, indicated she agreed
with the staff analysis and thought that a nice, large single family home could fit here. She
noted she had received several emails from residents against the proposal. She read an
email sent to her from resident Mary Anderson, indicating it was a good summary of what
4022 Yosemite
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 5
she had heard from other residents. Ms. Anderson commented that the zoning change
would be a bad precedent, the neighborhood doesn’t need multi-family units, the proposed
construction doesn’t fit into the neighborhood, and she doesn’t want to see garages in front.
Richard Holitz, Midwest Mailing Systems, 5801 Exc. Blvd., owner of the commercial
property directly adjacent to (north of) the proposed site, said he agrees with the staff
analysis regarding transition zones. He stated that he is deeply concerned about the plan
and how it might affect the value of his property. He commented on issues such as
aesthetics, buffer zones, height, and the general look and feel of the neighborhood.
Peg Adams and Helen Eisel of 4030 Yosemite own the adjoining the property, indicated
they are not in favor of the proposal and their preference is that the neighborhood remains
zoned for single family dwellings. Twenty years ago when they moved in they wanted a
single family dwelling area. They knew the Fred G. Anderson building was behind their
property. They said they would feel boxed in on both sides if the applicant’s proposal was
approved.
Summary of Analysis:
Along the 4000 block of Yosemite, the look and feel is that of a traditional St. Louis Park
neighborhood. Although transitions or buffers among uses are often desirable, a compelling
argument has not been made to show that a transition is needed, nor that the proposed twin home
would accomplish a desirable buffer between uses. A compelling argument should be present to
make a land use and zoning change; a better determination in this case would be to keep it as a
single family home site, with the transition remaining as it is, at the north end of this property.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment to change the land use
designation from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the Rezoning
request from R-2 to R-3 to allow a twin home on the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South,
based on the lack of a compelling reason to make the change; the existing single family zoning
and Plan designation is more compatible and consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
It has not been shown that a transitional use is needed, or that the proposed twin home would
accomplish a desirable buffer between uses.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Planning Commissioners discussed the proposal and made comments on the following: that it
may be desirable to put two affordable homes in the community; that there is potential for the
units to become rental property; that the size of a single family home might be out of character
with the neighborhood; that the proposed alternate twin home was a more desirable design; and
that the City cannot dictate the design of the home so any new home might not fit the character
of the neighborhood.
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the Rezoning request from R-2 to
R-3 to allow a twin home on the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South (4-1). The primary
reason given was that the change would allow the opportunity for two affordable homes into the
community versus one.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 6
Attachments:
Draft Planning Commission minutes
Location Map
Proposed building elevations
Photos of existing site
Submittal booklet by Applicant
Prepared By: Meg J. McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 7
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF 1-5-05
3. Hearings
A. Case Nos. 04-68-CP and 04-69-Z——Request by Nathan and Marcy Schultz for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium
Density Residential and a Rezoning from R-2 to R-3 to allow a twin home on the
property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South
Planning and Zoning Supervisor Meg McMonigal presented the staff report. Ms. McMonigal
said the applicant proposes to create a buffer between existing uses by allowing the transition of
a twin home. She explained that in doing an analysis, staff looked at the idea of a buffer or
transition of uses, and believes the proposal would create two transitions instead of one—one
from the commercial to the two-family and one from the two-family to the single family. She
said it is not unusual for single family homes to abut commercial uses on Excelsior Blvd. Ms.
McMonigal added that the twin home design which was proposed doesn’t seem to match the
single family character of the area nor relate to the commercial uses. As a result, staff has a hard
time seeing that it actually would provide a transition between the uses.
Ms. McMonigal said the staff recommendation is that the request to change the land use and the
zoning be denied.
Nathan and Marcy Schultz, applicants, distributed a proposal for 4022 Yosemite Ave. S. to
Commissioners and staff. Mr. Schultz discussed the proposal and pointed out photos of similar
homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Schultz stated that the association neighborhood president has
indicated her concerns about height. He discussed an alternate proposal for a shorter structure
which would put side loading garages on the front and drop the structure down significantly.
The downside would be the depth of the driveway at 7 feet. He explained if it was a front
loading garage, the driveway would be a little easier to maneuver through. He said if the City
feels it would be in the best interest to have a twin home designed in a single family home style,
it would be a great opportunity to a allow a 3-bedroom home which would still be roughly 1300
square feet.
Commissioner Morris asked if the applicant had considered building a single family home.
Mr. Schultz responded that they did look at doing a single family home. Their goal is for
Marcy Schultz to be a stay-at-home mother. The only way they can accomplish that with the
budget and constraints they have is to live in one of the twin home units.
Commissioner Carper said it appears that the current structure is occupying two platted lots. He
asked if the applicant could develop two single family homes on the two lots and sell one of
them.
Ms. Schultz said they are trying to put themselves in a position where they can meet their goals
in a cost effective way and the twin home proposal provides this.
There was a discussion between Commissioner Morris, Mr. Schultz, and Ms. McMonigal about
frontage requirements and subdividing the lot.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 8
Ms. McMonigal said the two lots have been made into one lot for tax purposes and they are
considered one lot for zoning purposes.
Commissioner Timian asked the applicants if they planned on selling one of the units.
Mr. Schultz responded that they plan on selling one side of the twin home.
Commissioner Morris opened the public hearing.
Peg Adams, 4030 Yosemite, said she and Helen Eisel own the adjoining the property. Twenty
years ago when they moved in they wanted a single family dwelling area. They knew the Fred
G. Anderson building was behind their property. They would feel boxed in on both sides if the
applicant’s proposal was approved. Ms. Adams is not in favor of the proposal and her preference
is that the neighborhood remains zoned for single family dwellings. Ms. Adams said that
currently there aren’t very many neighbors who can speak about the proposal. She explained
that two of the houses on the block will be for sale shortly.
Commissioner Timian asked if Ms. Adams had seen the alternative drawing showing reduced
height.
Ms. Adams said she has seen it and she prefers that alternative, but she would still rather see a
single family dwelling constructed.
Helen Eisel, 4030 Yosemite, said she commends the applicant for wanting to be a stay at home
parent. She commented that the applicant’s building plans in Ham Lake became financially
unworkable. She asked if the current proposal would also become unworkable. Ms. Eisel
asked about tax issues if the applicant sells the second unit. Ms. Eisel said there are changes in
the neighborhood with two homes up for sale. She said she would like to see the site remain
single family with a large yard.
Linda Sandbo, president of the Brookside neighborhood association, read reactions to the
proposal sent to her by e-mail from resident Mary Anderson. Ms. Anderson commented that
the zoning change would be a bad precedent, the neighborhood doesn’t need multi-family units,
the proposed construction doesn’t fit into the neighborhood, and she doesn’t want to see garages
in front.
Ms. Sandbo said she agrees with the staff analysis. She mentioned a nice, large single family
home in the Creekside neighborhood which was built abutting a print shop on Excelsior Blvd.
Richard Holitz, Midwest Mailing Systems, 5801 Exc. Blvd., owner of the commercial property
directly adjacent to the proposed site, said he agrees with the staff analysis regarding transition
zones. He stated that he is deeply concerned about the plan and how it might affect the value of
his property. He commented on issues such as aesthetics, buffer zones, height, and the general
look and feel of the neighborhood.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, Commissioner Morris closed the public hearing.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 9
Commissioner Morris commented that the matter before the Commission is land use. It is not to
decide whether or not the proposed building is acceptable. He added that the Commission’s job
is to focus on what is best for the community and this particular lot, rather than the specific plan.
Commissioner Carper said the materials provided by the applicant were good but he wishes he
could have seen the materials earlier. He remarked that there are other homes in the
neighborhood that either originally were constructed with two stories or have added two stories.
He said the City is trying to encourage move-up housing and second stories will be added to
homes. He said a transition is likely to occur in the neighborhood. Commissioner Carper said
the first proposal didn’t fit into the neighborhood. The second proposal does seem to fit into the
neighborhood. He said he thinks it would be advantageous to the area to have this type of home.
Commissioner Kramer asked about ownership, maintenance and management issues because of
the shared common walls of the twin home. He asked if new issues would be created if the
applicant’s request is approved.
Ms. McMonigal explained that these issues are up to the owner. She said that the property
would have to remain one lot and would have to be condominiumized. The owner could put
some restrictive covenants on the condominium which might include some maintenance. Ms.
McMonigal added that the City is starting up a one and two family rental maintenance/inspection
program.
Mr. Schultz said he has had conversations with Ms. Sandbo who had concerns about ownership
and maintenance. Ms. Sandbo is concerned that property is maintained only as well as an
association is maintained. If the neighborhood is not comfortable with an association, Mr.
Schultz said bylaws could be put in place. Basically the owner would own the inside contents as
stated wall to wall. The home owner would be responsible for the exterior, sodding, roofing,
and front yard and/or use an association for that maintenance. Mr. Schultz said he thinks it
would be best to have bylaws in place which would allow the homeowner to be responsible for
inside and outside, though they wouldn’t own the land necessarily, but would have control of the
yard.
Commissioner Kramer asked Ms. McMonigal if this proposition would be legal.
Ms. McMonigal responded that it would be legal. The property could be owned in common or
one of the owners could own all of the property and the other party could own just a unit.
Commissioner Morris noted the following statistic from the Comprehensive Plan: 13% of the
single family housing stock in St. Louis Park are twin homes. Of the 13%, 37% are owner
occupied twin homes. He added that there are only two alternatives for the Schultz’s lot. The
lot can support one family in residence or it can be designed to support two families in residence.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she appreciates the Schultz’ goals. She said she believes
the best, highest use of the lot is for a single family home. She commented that as discussed at
the City’s Housing Summit, the City does need move-up housing. She said she would, however,
be against recommending this Comp Plan and zoning change for this particular area.
Commissioner Timian said the Housing Summit has addressed options for people to stay and
move into St. Louis Park. He stated that younger people continue to be priced out of the
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 10
community. He said the proposal seems like a very interesting way to put two nice affordable
homes into the community. He suggested another ownership possibility would be a land trust
option. He went on to say that one of the goals and strengths of St. Louis Park over the years
was that families could move into an affordable community and a parent could stay home with
children, or a single parent wouldn’t have to work two jobs.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she would caution Commissioners to take a very hard
look at this particular plan. She commented that the nature of the set-up could produce rental
housing in the future. It could be a difficult unit to sell under the circumstances, leaving the
neighborhood exposed to having one side rented or eventually both sides becoming rental
property. She said the neighborhood doesn’t need more rental housing. She added that if
this kind of housing is going to be promoted in the City, she doesn’t believe this is the area for it.
Commissioner Timian said the land trust option would be good for younger people, especially,
who have been priced out of the community.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said if the City makes the Comp Plan and rezoning change
now, there is no way to guarantee the outcome.
Commissioner Kramer said he can see both sides. He said the lot clearly has challenges, but
there is an opportunity to do something innovative. He said he doesn’t have a problem with two
homes, but is perplexed about the ownership options. Commissioner Kramer said that the
proposal is the first step in making a low-risk innovation. He said he is in favor of the request
but would like to see some better solutions about ownership and would like answers to some of
the questions that have been raised.
Mr. Holitz, Midwest Mailing Systems, said he fully respected the intentions of the applicants.
He appreciates that the City is trying to accommodate new families coming into the area. Mr.
Holitz said that businesses and homeowners have been paying taxes for many years and
supporting the neighborhood by maintaining their properties. Their concerns regarding the
property need to be heard as changes will affect their property and livelihoods.
Commissioner Morris said initially he agreed with the staff recommendation. He toured the
neighborhood and looked at the housing stock. Now he feels more split in his opinion. The lot
has been sitting there, unused with a dilapidated building and ultimately it’s a buildable lot. No
one has come forward to build a single family home on it. He asked in considering the size of
the lot, is it realistic to expect that a single family home built on that lot would fit into the
neighborhood. The site can support a much larger home which is out of character with the
homes on the street. He suggested that whether there is a twin home or a larger single family
home, it will still be out of character with the neighborhood. Commissioner Morris said he is
inclined to say that the proposal is not a detriment to the neighborhood because it isn’t likely that
a single family home is going to be built into the fabric of the existing neighborhood.
Commissioner Carper said he assumed that if the request is approved, the Commission can’t
make any conditions regarding the structure to be built.
Ms. McMonigal said under Minnesota state law, rezoning a property cannot have conditions
attached to it. The applicant can work out a variety of ownership options. The City has no
control over that.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
020705 - 8c - Comp Plan Rezoning 4022 Yosemite
Page 11
There was a discussion about how long the site was vacant. Mr. Schultz said he had reports that
the house was vacant anywhere from 2-4 years. It went on the market in the summer of 2004
for two weeks. Mr. Holitz, Midwest Mailing Systems, said he inquired about the property
shortly after the Schultz’ inquired about it. He said he would build a single family home on the
property to save the neighborhood and the value of his building.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison made a motion to recommend denial of the request for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential
and a rezoning from R-2 to R-3 to allow a twin home on the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue
South. The motion failed 1-4 with Commissioner Johnston-Madison voting to recommend
denial and Commissioners Carper, Kramer, Morris and Timian voting opposed to the motion.
Lars Wallin, 6012 Hamilton Street, stated that he has lived in St. Louis Park for over 40 years.
He said he owns a duplex on the north side of Yosemite across Excelsior Blvd. He stated that
he can’t see any more perfect property for the proposal. He suggested tuck under garages from
the back of the property would be the best design.
Commissioner Timian made a motion to recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive
Plan Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a rezoning
from R-2 to R-3 to allow a twin home on the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked Commissioners to keep in mind that there is absolutely
no control over what happens, whether it even gets built, and if it doesn’t get built the
recommendation for the change to the Comp Plan and the zoning for the property remains.
The motion to recommend approval of the request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from
Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and a rezoning from R-2 to R-3 to
allow a twin home on the property at 4022 Yosemite Avenue South passed on a vote of 4-1
(Johnston-Madison opposed).
Ms. McMonigal said the request would go before the City Council on February 7.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 8d - 1st Rdg sewer ordinance
Page 1
8d. 1st Reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 32: Utilities
Addition of new language to clarify responsibility for cost of repair and installation of
sewer lines
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
February 22, 2005.
Background:
Chapter 32 of the city code contains separate articles regulating water service and sewer service.
Section 32-41 regarding water service outlines responsibility for installation and repair of water
service lines and specifies at what physical location that responsibility shifts from the city to the
property owner. The article regulating sewer service does not contain corresponding language,
but historical practice is that the same provision applies to sewer lines as well as water lines.
This amendment adds that corresponding language to the sewer section of our code.
The proposed language states that the property owner is responsible for the cost of the
installation and repair of the sewer service line from the building to the sewer main. This
language is consistent with our statutory authority and common in other Minnesota cities. In
past years claims regarding sewer repair have been made against the city and our practice has
been upheld in every instance. This revision will assist staff in communicating with property
owners and strengthen our position should future claims be made against the city.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Prepared By: Cindy Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 020705 - 8d - 1st Rdg sewer ordinance
Page 2
ORDINANCE NO. ________-05
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 32: UTILITIES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
SECTION 1. Chapter 32 of the St. Louis Park Municipal Code is hereby amended to
add:
Sec. 32-101. Cost of installation and repair borne by consumer.
The cost of original installation or repair of all service lines up to and including the
connection to the city’s main sewer line shall be borne entirely by the consumer. Any repairs
found to be necessary shall be made promptly or the city will discontinue water service.
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council February 22, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk City Attorney