HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/11/07 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA SUMMARY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 7, 2005
7:30 p.m.
7:15 p.m. Economic Development Authority Meeting
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Recognition Cindy Reichert
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Minutes of October 10, 2005
b. City Council Minutes of October 17, 2005
c. City Council Study Session Minutes of October 17, 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
6. Public Hearings
6a Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal Public hearing to discuss the status of the franchise renewal process with Time Warner Cable, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to November 21, 2005.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System
Proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and
cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution approving the
transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise
Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner
Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
with conditions including completion of current
franchise renewal process and settlement of
franchise fee review findings.
8b Gateway Lofts Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Preliminary and Final Plat, and Variance from the Subdivision
Ordinance
Case No. 05-52-PUD and 05-53-S
Mr. Parrish Hemmeke
1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue
Recommended
Action:
Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary
and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to
conditions
Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary
and Final Plat and Variance to the Subdivision
Ordinance
8c Establishing 2006 employer contribution for City sponsored benefits
program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing
the employer contribution levels for City sponsored
benefit programs effective January 1, 2006.
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 NOVEMBER 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 designate Claude M. Anderson Electric Company as the lowest
responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the installation of
a generator at the Recreation Center.
4b Motion to adopt a resolution approving benefits for Paid-on-Call Firefighters
through Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota
4c Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with
Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1,
2006, through December 31, 2007
4d Motion to adopt the attached resolution for hardship special assessment deferral
for senior citizens & disabled citizens
4e Motion to adopt a resolution approving continued participation in the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for Workers Compensation
Coverage, effective December 1, 2005.
4f Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm
Diseased Trees
4g Motion to adopt resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of
$12,867.41 for completion of 2004 Annual Sidewalk Maintenance – Ti-Zack
Concrete, Inc. for the City Contract No. 86-04
4h Motion to adopt resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $7,188.73
for completion of 2004 Trail Improvement Project – Hardrives, Inc. for City
Contract No. 93-04
4i Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Hennepin County
Municipal Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Agreement to fund the City’s parks
recycling project.
4j Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Sewer and Water
Service Line Repair/Replacement
4k Motion to accept Housing Authority Minutes of August 10, 2005 for filing
4l Motion to accept vendor claims for filing (supplement)
AGENDA SUPPLEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
***11-07-05***
Items contained in this section are those items
which are not yet available in electronic format
and which are identified in the individual
reports by inclusion of the word “Supplement”.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 10, 2005
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa
Staff present: Assistant City Clerk (Ms. Stroth), Associate Planner (Mr. Fulton), City Manager
(Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Jamnik), Community Development Director (Mr. Locke),
Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Director of Parks & Rec. (Ms. Walsh), Director of
Technology and Support Services (Mr. Pires), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), Human
Resources Director (Ms. Gohman), Fire Chief (Mr. Stemmer), Public Works Coordinator (Mr.
Merkley), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal),
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations
2a. Resolution Recognizing Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force Members
Mayor Jacobs presented a resolution recognizing members of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District Task Force and thanked them for their work.
Councilmember Santa commented on the amount of time the task force spent on the task
force and believes they have done a great job.
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Minutes of September 19, 2005
Councilmember Sanger indicated on page ten, “Dey” should be “Day”.
Councilmember Basill stated on page eight (item 8d), the final paragraph before the
motion should be “clarified what the Council was…”
The minutes were approved as corrected.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 2
3b. Study Session Minutes of August 8, 2005
Councilmember Basill indicated on page one (item 1), paragraph five, should read “above
grade crossing”.
Councilmember Sanger stated on page three (item 4), after the fourth paragraph insert,
“Councilmember’s also expressed concerns and disagreements with US Bank’s request
that the City promise not to foreclose prior to 2015.”
The minutes were approved as corrected.
3c. Study Session Minutes of August 22, 2005
The minutes were approved as presented.
3d. Study Session Minutes of September 12, 2005
Councilmember Basil indicated on page one, paragraph four, “if” should be replaced with
“can”. On page three (item 3), paragraph four, insert “be” after “…site would” in the
first sentence.
Councilmember Sanger indicated on page two, at the end of the sentence in the second
paragraph, “especially for recreational usage” should be inserted. On page five, in the
first paragraph, insert “and” after “if they had bigger units”. In the 12th paragraph delete,
“believed smaller units may attract seniors.” She didn’t believe she said that.
Mayor Jacobs indicated on page five, paragraph nine, replace “cultural” with “age”.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated on page three, third paragraph of item 3, insert
“been” after “had not”.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
3e. Study Session Minutes of September 19, 2005
Councilmember Sanger indicated on page one, paragraph four, insert “temporary” before
“dog park”. On page two, third paragraph from the bottom, replace “decide” with “review”.
Mayor Jacobs noted on page two, fourth paragraph from the end, replace “Major” with “Mayor”.
The minutes were approved as corrected.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 3
3f. Study Session Minutes of September 26, 2005
Councilmember Sanger indicated on page two, insert at the end of item one,
“Commissioner Carpenter suggested that staff research and identify the lots that could be
impacted by this proposal and bring back that information for further review. Staff
agreed.” On page three, insert at the end of paragraph two, “They were not planning to
install barriers.” After the sixth paragraph, insert “They didn’t want to put money into
improvements.” Insert after the eighth paragraph, “Several Councilmember’s also
expressed concern that if temporary improvements were made, MnDot might not return
to do the final plan.” After the eleventh paragraph, insert “, but not in the interim plan.”
Councilmember Finkelstein added in the discussion with MnDot, “Council authorized
staff and the Mayor to meet with MnDot to discuss what they could do to alleviate the
concerns.” On page five, paragraph five, it should be “Council” instead of “staff”. In the
same discussion insert, “They talked about the fact that they had conducted a study as to
how much industrial property was left in the City.”
The minutes were approved as corrected.
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 Adopt Resolution No. 05-138 accepting the Vision for Minnehaha Creek.
4b Bid Tabulation: Purchase of Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) Supply Contract.
Authorize execution of a contract with Calgon Carbon Corporation for the
purchase of GAC in the amount of $69,568.00
4c Designate Frattalone Paving as the lowest responsible bidder and to authorize
execution of a contract for the reconstruction of the parking lot at Cedar Knoll
Park / Carlson Field in an amount not to exceed $87,518.00.
4d Adopt Resolution No. 05-139 that accepts this report and authorizes the purchase
of equipment scheduled and budgeted for 2006.
4e Moved to item 8g
4f Approve purchase of up to thirty four 800 MHz portable radios for Emergency
Management purposes
4g Resolution No. 05-140 of the St. Louis Park City Council in recognition of
dedicated service toward planning the future of the City of St. Louis Park as
members of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Task Force
4h Accept Vendor Claim report for filing (supplement)
4i Accept PRAC minutes of 5/18/05 for filing.
4j Accept Planning Commission minutes of 9/21/05 for filing.
Mr. Harmening indicated information for items 6e and 8a had been distributed and the public
agenda had been amended to reflect those changes. Item 4e was being moved from the consent
agenda to item 8g on the regular agenda.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 4
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve the
Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 1
Mr. Merkley presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
Resolution No. 05-128 setting the 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for
Special Service District No. 1 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to
Hennepin County.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 2
Mr. Merkley presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
David Payne commended the Council and staff for a job well done. The City should be
proud to have one of the nicest streets in the Upper Midwest.
Mayor Jacobs thanked business owners for helping make the Special Service District work.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Omodt asked if the Best Western on Excelsior had shut down, he didn’t
see them on the list in the staff report. Mr. Merkley replied they were shut down, but had
been working with the City to make payments.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
Resolution No. 05-129 setting the 2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge
for Special Service District No. 2 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to
Hennepin County.
The motion passed 7-0.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 5
6c. 2006 Budget and Property Owner Service Charge for Special Service District No. 3
Mr. Merkley presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Basill stated they were excited to have this come to the West side of
Hwy 100 on Excelsior Blvd.
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve
Resolution No. 05-130 setting the 2006 Operating Budget and Property Owner Service Charge
for Special Service District No. 3 and directing staff to certify the annual service charge to
Hennepin County.
The motion passed 7-0.
6d. Public Hearing to Consider Ordinance modifying Compensation of the
Mayor and City Councilmembers and Resolution No. 05-131 revising salaries for
the Economic Development Authority President and Commissioners
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
approve the first reading of the ordinance modifying Mayor and City Councilmember
compensation, and set second reading for October 17, 2005.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated he wasn’t comfortable with this, but felt the Mayor
spent many hours and was underpaid and preferred to address each position separately.
Councilmember Sanger indicated she was not in support of the motion. Their salaries
were consistent with salaries of Councilmember’s in other similarly sized suburbs. She
didn’t do this for the money, but for the value she placed on serving the community.
Councilmember Basill realized they put in a lot of time for the community and agreed
with Councilmember Sanger and does it because he wanted to do it, not because of the
pay. He also heard the other side of the argument with the amount of time they put in.
People in the community may want to serve on the Council and may need those dollars
because of no paydays at work and time off. He understood why some Councilmembers
would support this, but he could not support the increase. He agreed with
Councilmember Finkelstein about the Mayor’s salary.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated they could have tabled this at the study session instead
of putting it on the agenda.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 6
Councilmember Omodt indicated this was a cost of living increase for people who work
really hard and take a lot of time away from their family to serve the community. People
who may want to run for office may need the money. For the amount of time most of them
put in including driving across town (and gas going up), he didn’t believe a 3% increase
was bad.
Councilmember Santa agreed if they did this for the money, they wouldn’t be doing it.
They do it because they love it and want to be involved in the community. While for one
person that may not be an issue, it may prevent someone from even considering running
for office. They do it for future Councils. It made sense and she supported it.
Councilmember Finkelstein respected the opinions of other Councilmembers. They put
in many hours responding to calls and Emails, going to neighborhood meetings, etc. He
would be more comfortable if they did the Mayor’s salary separately.
Mayor Jacobs thanked Councilmember Finkelstein for the commentary, but they needed
to separate the salaries from the individuals who held the jobs. They represent the office,
but they aren’t the office. It was for the future Council. He would hate to think someone
thinking about running for an office would decide against it because the cost was
prohibitively high. They do it for many reasons.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated he served on the Council prior to now and it cost him
money because he was not hired in his consulting role to do searches by Metro cities and
he was told that because of his position on the Council. It can be expensive.
Councilmember Finkelstein added that the other Councils weren’t meeting as often or for
as many hours, but looking at where this raise fit, it didn’t fit for him.
Councilmember Basill also added for his ward, he spent many hours meeting with developers.
The arguments had validity. He would like to separate the positions in the motion.
The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember’s Basill, Finkelstein and Sanger opposed.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
Resolution No. 05-131 to modify Economic Development Authority Commissioner
compensation.
The motion passed 4-3, with Councilmember’s Basill, Finkelstein and Sanger opposed.
6e. Public Hearing to Consider 2006 Fees
Ms. McGann presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Sanger clarified that fees were set to reflect the actual cost of providing a
service, not to make a profit. Ms. McGann replied that was correct. By State Statute,
they were not allowed to collect more dollars than what it costs to provide the service.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 7
Councilmember Sanger asked how variance fees were calculated for those with more
than one variance? Ms. McGonigal replied a single fee is charged because the staff
analysis doesn’t take more time. The fee essentially had gone down.
Councilmember Omodt asked about the snowfall parking permit fee? Mr. Rardin
responded it was for residents to park on-street. They can purchase up to two permits.
Councilmember Omodt asked about the fee for caregiver’s permits? Mr. Rardin replied
that was for a caregiver where off-street parking was unavailable, which was added by
the Council a few years ago. Prior to that they were paying the $125 permit fee.
Councilmember Basill asked if the restaurant smoking area surcharge needed to be included?
Mr. Hoffman replied the ordinance was still on the books. The fee did not apply because the
restaurants were smoke free. That ordinance provision could eventually be removed.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve 1st
reading of an ordinance adopting fees for 2006 and set second reading for October 17, 2005.
The motion passed 6-1, with Councilmember Omodt opposed.
6f. Time Warner Franchise Renewal
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed.
Mr. Pires indicated they were waiting to hear from Time Warner headquarters on the
counter offer. The state of negotiations was getting the City and Time Warner closer to
what they were aiming for in terms of local origination programming.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if the Council could do anything to make the process
simpler? Mr. Pires replied this was not unusual and asked for the Council’s patience.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa to continue
the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to November 7, 2005.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a. Comcast Transfer
Mr. Pires stated the two key items were the fee review analysis recently submitted to
Time Warner who owes the City $60-73,000 in franchise fees which is under review, and
the technical and financial capability report that the City has yet to receive on Comcast
and their ability to run the cable system.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to extend
the date to consider transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and
cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC to
the November 7, 2005 Council meeting.
The motion passed 7-0.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 8
8b. Resolution No. 05-132 confirming appointment of Nancy J. Stroth to the position of
City Clerk.
Ms. Gohman presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs indicated that Cindy Reichert did a wonderful job and put into place the process
and people to make the transition seamless and Ms. Stroth will be an excellent replacement.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Finkelstein, to
adopt Resolution No. 05-132 confirming the appointment of Nancy J. Stroth to the
position of City Clerk, effective October 10, 2005.
Councilmember Basill recalled meeting Ms. Stroth and stated it was good to have staff
that cared about the residents and community.
Ms. Stroth thanked the Council for their consideration and she was honored to serve as City
Clerk.
The motion passed 7-0.
8c. 1st Reading of an ordinance authorizing payment of claims by the Finance
Director and adoption of Resolution No. 05-133 allowing the use of facsimile
signatures on orders for payment.
Ms. McGann presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to adopt
first reading of an ordinance adding Article V to Chapter 2 of the City Code delegating
authority to the Finance Director to pay all proper obligations of the city without prior
council approval, and to set second reading for June 6, 2005; and, to adopt Resolution
No. 05-133 allowing the use of facsimile signatures on orders for payment.
The motion passed 7-0.
8d. Resolution No. 05-134 approving the updated City Emergency Preparedness
Plan
Chief Stemmer presented the staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 05-134 approving the revised Emergency Preparedness Plan.
Councilmember Omodt asked if they learned from recent hurricanes about interacting
with FEMA, Federal, State and County agencies? Chief Stemmer replied emergency
preparedness ultimately starts with the idea of local autonomy. A local community is
asked to use its resources to take care of itself. The Federal government can’t come in to
help until they are asked to. He went on to add that they coordinate with State and
County emergency management officials on a weekly or monthly basis and he didn’t
believe that happened in Louisiana would happen in St. Louis Park.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 9
Councilmember Finkelstein believed they could learn and include in a future emergency
plan an evacuation plan. They should consider basic ground rules for units of over 100.
Chief Stemmer replied that was an area they planned to look at.
The motion passed 7-0.
8e. Request by SilverCrest Properties for a Major Amendment to a Planned Unit
Development. Location: 3601 Park Center Boulevard Case No: Case No. 05-33-PUD
Ms. McGonigal presented the staff report and noted the enhancements to the campus
since this was last discussed.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated if this project was approved, they would be adding
1,000 more units. It was their role in a major amendment to determine what affect this
development would have and whether it met their goals. He didn’t believe this plan did.
This was a different project from what was approved over two years ago. Traffic had
only gotten worse. He didn’t think they were under obligation to approve this plan. This
was approved as part of a senior project. He encouraged the Council to vote no.
Councilmember Omodt understood traffic concerns, but if they were killing this project,
they might as well say no to all new development, including Hoigaard’s. He didn’t think
this change of use would change the traffic. The change of 55+ would not change what
was initially approved that much. The developer has come back with a comprehensive
plan including: improving safety, sidewalks, and the parking situation, helping with the
bus shelter and public art. The Council was saying no to an opportunity for people who
live in the Park to move up into a different area and housing style. A high proportion of
the people moving into these projects come from the Park from single-family houses,
which frees up the housing stock for families. A project like this tied into the campus
whether 50+ or 55+ really added to the community. He was in favor of this. The
developer did a nice job and he was proud to have him in the community.
Councilmember Basill stated he initially voted against the project because of height and
struggled with concerns about a 14-story building and shadowing. He had a tough time
picturing a 14-story building with market rate condos and how it would fit the character
of the community. When this was initially approved with senior housing, they had a
need. They need diversity of housing stock and this was more of what they were getting
in that area. The consultant said not to give too much density of any one type to any one
developer and to keep it spread out geographically. They hadn’t done that. They also
made the recommendation to spread developments out over time and they weren’t doing
that. He preferred senior housing and was not supporting this.
Councilmember Sanger was OK with a 14-story building because it was an age-restricted
building and would generate less traffic. There is already a major traffic problem. She
would not support changing the age-restriction. It made more sense to have it as part of a
senior campus. She had heard many comments from residents who wanted this to be an
age restricted building, which provided them an alternative.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 10
Councilmember Brimeyer asked about the increase in traffic for age-restricted versus non age-
restricted? Ms. McGonigal replied the difference was 15 trips versus a high-rise condo with
57 trips (peak). Daily trips went from 522 for senior condos to 627 for high-rise condos.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated the Council asked them to solve the parking problem
and they did. They had already agreed on 14-stories. The numbers were not that
significant. He was against this originally, but the last time the developer met with them,
they asked him to make additional changes and said if he solved the problems, he might
have a chance. He had solved the problems and they were saying it still didn’t have a
chance. The percentage of buyers who came from St. Louis Park was significant. They
had created a climate where people wanted to stay here and were the victims of their own
well-planned success and now they were saying the door was shut.
Councilmember Basill responded he thought they told the developer to show them that
seniors would not work there and to consider doing a percentage. He would feel better
with 14-stories if it were 50% age-restricted and they hadn’t done that. His objection to
the height was the number of market rate condominiums they put in. On second reading
of the 14-story senior building, he supported it because it was senior housing.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated they shouldn’t tie density to height, they could tie it to
traffic. You could have 14-stories and have 20 units.
Councilmember Finkelstein indicated it was never marketed as a senior building. He
might feel differently if they had tried and the market wasn’t buying.
Mayor Jacobs noted this took five votes because it was a major amendment. If this were
voted down, what would happen? Ms. McGonigal replied the previous PUD was still in tact.
Mayor Jacobs asked if there would be an opportunity to amend this at some point? Ms.
McGonigal replied they could ask for a modification from a PUD for something else.
Councilmember Brimeyer stated they needed to separate the density issue from the
height. The issue was the number of units and the traffic they thought was caused. If the
developer says they can do less units with 14-stories, is that fine?
Councilmember Basill noted he hadn’t seen any adjustments in the units or square
footage, it was simply a change from senior housing to market rate condominium. An
extra floor meant more units.
Councilmember Santa clarified it had been approved as a 14-story building, the issue was
not the height or the density, it was whether it was senior or not senior. They were
talking about and how it affected traffic and parking. They addressed those issues and
pedestrian transit improvements. Those were the questions they discussed at study
session. She felt they had made an effort to address those issues and the concerns she
had. She was prepared to support this.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 11
Mike Gould, SilverCrest Properties, stated that their market is seniors and those are the
people they would see in this building. They cannot finance it as an age restricted
building. They were not going to be generating more traffic than what they were as an
office building. It was a little more than if it were an age restricted building. If density
was an issue, was there something they could support in terms of fewer units and fewer
stories? They needed to determine if it made economic sense to do that.
Mayor Jacobs indicated based upon the last study session, he was not concerned about the
height, he was a little concerned about traffic, but compared the numbers for what was
proposed to what was currently there and didn’t see much of an increase. He thought the
developer made a good faith effort to address concerns the Council raised. It needed five
votes and they didn’t have them. The concern was density, which translated to traffic.
Mr. Harmening asked where they fell for the 60/120 day requirement? Ms. McGonigal
replied the 120th day was October 18th. The developer could agree to extend it.
Mr. Harmening suggested if the developer agreed to extend the 120-day period, to
continue the matter to November 7th and allow staff to work further with the developer.
Councilmember Omodt asked what the goal Council was trying to achieve? The
developer wanted to invest $50 million into the community. Excelsior and Grand was
supposed to be an economic engine to build condos and they gave it a lot of TIF and it was
supporting things like this and Hoigaard's, etc. There were no tax dollars involved. If they
lowered the restriction, they would probably get the same result. The message they were
sending to the development community was, “go away”. This was not good for their
reputation with the development community. If they want this community to redevelop
they need to work with developer and not send them away to come back with public art,
etc, and then argue about the height, etc. Sixty percent of people buying would be St.
Louis Park residents. This is within walking distance to Excelsior on Grand, shopping,
Target, Byerly’s the Post Office, the Rec. Center. If they send him away, they should put
the brakes on all development. They need to determine the end result they were looking
for.
Councilmember Sanger stated that the underlying premise of Councilmember Omodt’s
statements did not reflect her perspective. He was saying if they didn’t approve this as
requested, all development was going to stop. The goal she was looking for was a
diversity of housing stock in the community serving different populations. They have
plenty of market-rate, non age-restricted condos. Some of the approvals they had given
in the past reflect the fact they thought this proposal was going to be age-restricted. She
would like to see the original approved proposal developed.
Councilmember Finkelstein agreed they needed to sit down and do soul searching
because they had approved almost 1,000 units, the vast majority of which were in a two-
mile area. They needed to decide if they were growing too fast. Secondly, in regard to
the traffic, West 36th St. is a disaster and they were only going to make it worse.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 12
Councilmember Basill commented in Ward Two there was no shortage of developers.
They need to make sure developers bring in something that fits the character of the
community and the housing needs they were looking for. He was not going to
rubberstamp anything a developer brought forward. They would live with the project and
had to ask tough questions, be cautious and be good stewards.
Mayor Jacobs agreed he didn’t think the development community would go away, but
was disappointed in the message they were sending this one. It was 150 unit building, but
they might be OK with a fewer units, they were nitpicking. He heard the same concern
expressed about the number of condominium units, but he was not sure that was their
call. The private market wouldn’t be building it unless they had a market for it.
Mr. Gould stated they had been in the community for almost 20 years and had been good
stewards. Park Shores’ reputation is Twin City wide and because of that, diversity of
housing comes into play. People would know where the Park Shore location is and they
would get a disproportionate amount of seniors moving in. Seniors would be the target
market. That was their business. They could not finance this as age restricted. He agreed
to write a letter to extend the time another 30 days.
Mr. Harmening asked the Council what area they should focus on? Councilmember
Sanger responded her question was if they could reconfigure a senior project? Her
concern was losing the senior designation, not changing the number of units. Mr. Gould
replied short of going to rental, they couldn’t. It will be a feeder for Park Shores and
Parkwood Shores. The vast majority of buyers will probably be over 55.
Mayor Jacobs clarified that the private financial market will not finance a senior
designated building.
Councilmember Sanger asked how Rottlund could build a senior building (the Bernard
project)? Mr. Gould replied that was a much smaller scale project and dollar figure.
When you get into the $40-50 million range, the lenders won’t do it.
Mayor Jacobs asked what result they were looking for? Councilmember Brimeyer stated
they tried to create the success and succeeded, now they were not prepared to deal with it.
The bank says that they won’t allow age restricted, it was an economic fact. The issues
are the number of units, height and traffic. They need to look at traffic issues. Too many
units produced too much traffic, but the counter was they were not creating any more
traffic based on uses there today. This has been zoned high density residential since 1992.
They were not changing the zoning or the comprehensive plan. He came in with age
restricted and they thought it was a good idea. When he sells it, it will end up that way.
Councilmember Finkelstein stated at some point they will have to start saying where they want
to be as a community, how many units they want and what it does do to traffic?
Councilmember Brimeyer replied they had as a part of the Housing Summit study, they said
2,500 units.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 13
Councilmember Omodt stated that West 36th St. backed up, but if they look at traffic,
they need to tell Hoigaard’s to go away. Traffic is always an issue and can be worked on.
MnDOT came forward with Hwy 100 changes, which would relieve traffic over time.
Look at what’s there now and what it would be. The change was incremental. This
developer would not be the problem on West 36th St. What diversity did they want? The
campus idea made sense. People would go from the high-rise to the other buildings. No
one has rubber stamped any project that has come through. They have no clear goals, it
was getting to the point of just saying no.
It was moved by Councilmember Brimeyer, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to
continue the discussion to the November 7, 2005 Council meeting.
Councilmember Basill stated Councilmember Brimeyer’s comment was fair that he was
concerned about 14-stories and about it fitting the character of the community. He also
agreed with Councilmember Sanger about diversity. He would like the guarantee that it
would be a senior building. That was the diversity they were looking for. Can the motion
have a contingency that all marketing material will be geared toward senior housing?
That may end up with the results they were looking for. He requested a letter stating that
it cannot be financed with an age-restriction.
The motion passed 7-0.
Councilmember Brimeyer noted that some businesses were leaving Excelsior and Grand
because there was not enough traffic. Part of having success was creating critical mass
and one of the results was some traffic congestion. If you create a desirable product,
people will come, in spite of the traffic. If they don’t create a little more chaos at
Excelsior and Grand, they will have more business turn over than they care to live with.
They should think about that.
8f. Holiday Station - Conditional Use Permit for Rebuilding Convenience Store
and a Variance for Off-Street Parking. Case Nos. 05-41-CUP and 05-42-VAR
Mr. Fulton presented the staff report.
Councilmember Sanger stated this building would be an improvement. How did they give a
reduction for transit? Her biggest concern was closing the most Southwest driveway.
When they get the Hwy 100 project and lose the Eastern most access on Minnetonka Blvd,
it left one access point. She was concerned with traffic going in and out of one driveway
and potential confusion and traffic not flowing properly on the site. Her other concern was
people coming off of the Hwy 100 ramp and going the wrong way on Vernon Avenue to
access the gas station. They should think about no access on Vernon Avenue to preclude
potential crashes. Mr. Fulton responded that the applicant indicated customers use transit.
There is transit on Minnetonka Blvd and therefore they qualify. There is room at the access
on Minnetonka Blvd to change it by moving it and they could make it a right in, right out.
As to the entrance on Vernon Avenue, by narrowing it, they hoped to improve the traffic
circumstances. With the site improvements, they could also provide additional signage to
alleviate concerns.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 14
Councilmember Sanger didn’t believe signage would resolve that issue. Why do they
need to have any access on Vernon? Mr. Fulton responded that the applicant has
indicated it is an important access to the business. Ms. McGonigal added for the overall
site circulation, they needed that access point.
Councilmember Finkelstein noted if they close it, traffic might back up on Minnetonka.
Councilmember Santa stated she goes past this site every day on transit and sees people
getting off and going into the store. She had a concern with landscaping at the corner and
pedestrian visibility. Mr. Fulton replied there is an extensive landscaping ordinance and
to meet that, applicants are required to put in a lot of vegetation. Ms. McGonigal
indicated they would make sure that the plants were low enough to allow visibility.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 05-136 of approval for a parking space variance, reducing the required
number of parking spaces by 10 spaces, for a total of 16 available parking spaces.
The motion passed 7-0.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 05-137 of approval of the Conditional Use permit to reconstruct the
convenience store at the Holiday Station located at 5430 Minnetonka Boulevard, subject
to conditions.
The motion passed 7-0.
8g. 2nd Reading of Ordinance No. 2300-05 Amending the Local Tax on Lawful
Gambling, approve the summary and authorize summary publication
It was moved by Councilmember Basill, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve
2nd Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling, approve the
summary and authorize summary publication.
The motion passed 6-0-1, with Councilmember Omodt abstaining.
9. Communications
Councilmember Santa reported on the kickoff event for Bookmark in the Park and reading of
Tale of Despereaux. It was a great event. The next event is October 17th.
Mayor Jacobs encouraged people to read the book and for more information to go to,
www.bookmark-in-the-park.org.
Councilmember Santa indicated that the Westwood Hills Nature Center Halloween Party was the
upcoming weekend.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3a - City Council Minutes For October 10, 2005
Page 15
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 17, 2005
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:31 pm.
Council members present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer, Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Susan Sanger and Sue Santa
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Jamnik), Community
Development Director (Mr. Locke), Engineering Development Manager (Jim Olson), Housing
Program Coordinator (Kathy Larsen), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin) and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Stegora-Peterson).
2. Presentations - None
3. Approval of Minutes - None
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 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 2301-05 setting 2006 fees called for by
ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication
4b. Approve second reading of Ordinance No. 2302-05 authorizing payment of
claims by the Finance Director, approve the summary and authorize summary
publication.
4c. Adopt Resolution No. 05-143 to enter into a Preliminary Agreement with the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for the replacement of a traffic control
system on Trunk Highway 7 at Aquila Avenue.
4d. Adopt Resolution No. 05-144 appointing a responsible authority and data practices
compliance officer.
4e. Adopt Resolution No. 05-145 authorizing final payment in the amount of
$15,659.16 for completion of contract sealcoating – Allied Blacktop Company
(City Contract No. 82-05)
4f. Adopt Resolution No. 05-146 authorizing a Hennepin County Grant Agreement
to fund the City’s curbside recycling program.
4g. Approve 2nd reading of Ordinance No. 2303-05 increasing the Mayor and
Councilmembers salaries, effective January 1, 2006.
4h. Accept Vendor Claim report for filing (supplement)
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Omodt, to approve
the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar.
The motion passed 7-0.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 2
5. Boards and Commissions - None
6. Public Hearings
6a Public Hearing on the Levying of Assessments for Delinquent Fees and Charges
Ms. McGann presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers present. The public hearing was closed.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger adopt
Resolution No. 05-141 to assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and
charges.
The motion passed 7-0.
6b Public Hearing and Assessment Hearing: Alley Paving – 2900 block of
Ottawa and Princeton Avenue
Mr. Olson presented the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing.
Mark Brandon, 4806 Minnetonka Blvd, indicated his building had 40-45 feet of frontage
and felt he shouldn’t be assessed for 65 feet. He only used the garage for winter storage
and didn’t have daily access. He argued he had no greater use than the other properties
that had 40-45 feet of assessed value and would like the fees reduced comparably.
Mr. Olson stated the policy was to assess properties based on abutting footage. He had an
irregular property line along the alley. Staff used 65 feet to determine the assessment.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they changed the assessment for this parcel, would it change
assessments for everyone? Mr. Olson replied yes.
Councilmember Omodt asked what Mr. Brandon felt was fair. Mr. Brandon replied he
felt he had a 40-45 foot area fronting the alley.
Councilmember Sanger indicated she was familiar with the garage. She requested staff
review this and make sure the policy was applied in a consistent way, given the unusual
nature of the garage and where it was situated.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Basill to adopt
Resolution No. 05-142 ordering the construction of a concrete alley in the 2900 block of
Ottawa and Princeton Avenue, Project No. 2005-1800, approving plans and
specifications and authorizing receipt of bids.
The motion passed 7-0.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 3
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to adopt the
attached resolution establishing the assessment, with potential modification of the
assessment for Mr. Brandon’s property, should it be determined a change was necessary,
for Project No. 2005-1800.
Councilmember Finkelstein didn’t believe that could be done. It needed to be a set assessment.
Mr. Jamnik stated that the resolution established the assessments. If they change one of
the assessments, all of them changed. The preferred method would be to table the item.
Councilmember Sanger withdrew the motion.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Omodt to table the
item for two weeks, pending review of the assessments for the project.
The motion passed 7-0.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
8a Consideration of the use of excess public land to address the need for “move
up” homes for families
Mr. Locke presented the staff report.
Ms. Larsen discussed technical analysis of each parcel. She indicated the studies for the
parcels cost just under $27,000.
Mayor Jacobs thanked people for attending and reviewed expectations for public comment.
Richard Kelber, 2600 Monterey, stated environmental concerns about building on some
of the parcels with wetlands (2600 Natchez) and felt aesthetic and environmental
considerations were not given enough weight.
Deborah Fowler, 2605 Natchez, wanted to know when a vote would be taken, and how
Councilmembers and candidates would be voting on the issue. She was opposed to the
sale of 2600 Natchez because of green space, woodlands and wildlife concerns and didn’t
make economic sense.
Billy Ellis, 4253 Browndale Av, indicated kids utilized the Browndale property frequently
and neighbors interact there. This decision is irreversible. If they build 17 homes, they
don’t make much of a footprint out of 12,000 homes. The green space is critical.
Shane Ellis, 4253 Browndale Av, stated that he plays with friends at Browndale Park and
has developed memories there. It would negatively affect many in the community.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 4
Bridgid O’Hara Hoppman, 4324 Coolidge Av, represented Browndale and commented that
she was not sure the issue of move-up housing was still pressing. Three houses on her
block had been on the market for 60 days or longer. She believed this lot should be tabled.
Malcolm Chatfield, 4252 Toledo Av S, stated he was opposed to the sale of the parcel on
Morningside because it was unique and integral to the park. This decision cannot be
reversed. This was a legacy decision and hoped they would retain the parkland for the City.
Mike Foley, 5100 Morningside, opposed sale of Morningside parcel because he didn’t
want parkland diminished to make a few extra dollars in taxes.
Peter Lenzen, 4300 Browndale Av, indicated he was opposed to the sale of Morningside
parcel because they didn’t have a lot of parkland. Browndale had a higher amount of
children than other neighborhoods. He asked if affordability had been taken into
consideration with this.
Jeff Fisher, 4068 Toledo Av S, stated he used this parcel (4525 Morningside) as a part of
the park and believed it was important because of the trees and shade. 200 people signed a
petition. Only one family would benefit if this were sold, all residents benefit if it was kept
as a park.
Maureen Febel, 4312 Browndale Av, suggested that the four lots be taken off the table.
A realtor indicated 46 homes were for sale in St. Louis Park that fit the task force
parameters for move-up housing and ¾ were affordable. People were also doing
renovations on homes. That didn’t affect green space.
Gloria Niehans, 4331 Browndale Av, indicated she agreed with previous speakers
regarding 4525 Morningside. This lot was distinctive because it was grassy and shaded
and used by the neighborhood. It was an integral part of the park. There are other ways
of providing move-up housing, including remodeling. She proposed this be formally
added to the park.
Patsy Monson, 4240 Browndale Av, stated she would like to know the position of
Councilmembers before the election. She asked Ms. Larsen if her totals of residents
opposed included those who had signed the petition from Browndale neighborhood? Ms.
Larsen replied the total was of calls, Emails and letters she had received. She noted in
the summary of public comments which petitions had been received.
Ms. Monson believed the petitioners should have been included in the percentages.
When they indicate they had numerous parties interested in buying parcels, was that
different people for each parcel? Ms. Larsen replied some individuals were interested in
one parcel and others were interested in more than one.
Glen Sorenson, 4340 Browndale Av, agreed with previous comments regarding
Morningside parcel. It is a great place and hundreds of kids use the park. No other
neighborhood has a higher population with a lower percentage of parks and open space
and commercial land than Browndale. He also had concerns about safety.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 5
John Lawson, 4320 Browndale Av, agreed with previous comments regarding
Morningside parcel and added he considered this parcel part of the park and was shocked
it was not. He recalled history of the street and parcel. He urged the Council to make the
land part of the park.
Susan Cantor, 4249 Utica Av S, stated she was opposed to the sale of the Morningside
parcel. The shade on the lot was important. Selling this land penalized those who were
already committed to St. Louis Park and staying in the neighborhood.
Mari Salveson, 4309 Browndale Av, is opposed to the sale. She would like to know what
the money was going toward. The lot will sell for $300-350,000, if the money goes back
to benefit the park, the neighborhood would like to use the money to buy the parcel and
keep it vacant. She questioned if there was demand for a new home or move-up homes?
They need to help middle-class residents stay without developing these properties. When
they change the compositions of the parcels, they can never get them back. They are
environment assets to the community. In 2006 they are going to be reviewing the seven
visions. One is whether or not to include health and environment in the visions. They
should talk about health and environment before they vote and take the controversial
parcels off the list.
Ruth Steege, 2530 Flag Av, presented a petition from Cedar Manor. She was pleased the
recommendation was to pull that parcel.
David Hinze, 2550 Pennsylvania, stated he moved from South Minneapolis because of
the wooded area behind his house. He asked that the Council look at the property and
aesthetic considerations before selling them. Mayor Jacobs responded they had.
Gary McGurgan, 4164 Xenwood Av S, stated support for selling the parcels because many
families with children on his block had moved out. He agreed with the initiative to look for
move-up housing, and thought these were great places to do that. The task force did a good
job and pointed out clearly that the lots were acquired for reasons that were no longer valid.
Stuart Brodsky, 2811 Huntington Av, stated he was not sure they had excess green space
and play space, which was different from excess land. Fern Hill was important to him
and he’d hate to see it go away (2600 Natchez).
JC Beckstrand, 4386 Wooddale Av, indicated he was opposed to the sale of Morningside
parcel because the communities were dying by “overdevelopment disease” and this would
be losing a little of what they had. The area had been left for the use of the community.
What he did not see in the Task Force report was criteria for removing space that shouldn’t
be there. He asked they consider a criteria, such as if it was adjacent to parkland. Hennepin
County considered this Park district area. They should consider other options for people to
move out of existing homes.
John Madole, 5617 Wood Lane, stated he supported keeping the Wood Lane site open
space. The philosophy of in-fill development was good. There are a number of sites that
need to be removed from the list. There needs to be balance between development and
open space. The Watershed District wants to purchase the land, which was reason enough
for this to be removed from the sale list.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 6
Kate Sage, 5617 Wood Lane, acknowledged the City for initiating a legacy of creating
the Wood Lane lot as open space. It was something to be honored and continued. The
Watershed wants to buy the lot, which would honor the original intent of the City and
keep it open space. Everyone would win.
Betty Hanson, 4359 Brook Av S, indicated she had used the lot in Browndale for many
years. They needed the green space and children use it. She wondered if they needed to
sell the lot with all of the condos being built and people putting additions on. The lot was
important to the neighborhood.
George Petros, 5637 Wood Lane, stated he shared the environmental concerns previously
stated. None of these sites were sites he would want to put housing on, by railroad tracks,
building on a slab and restricting the footprint of the properties. They should be left as-is
and kids can use them. The economics were not there to build houses on these sites and
the homes would be similar to what people already had. He also hoped they asked if the
sites met the criteria of move-up housing and the economics of providing housing for
people to move-up to. He never saw reasons why people move out of St. Louis Park, and
they should focus on keeping people in St. Louis Park.
Adam Ruggiero, 3244 Webster Av S, indicated he was a journalist at the University of
Minnesota covering this issue. He grew up in St. Louis Park and took a lot of pride in being
a citizen. What amount of public opposition, if any, is sufficient to block the development?
Mayor Jacobs replied they did not know, and that he and the Council had been given a lot to
think about when trying to make this decision. If a decision had been made, they wouldn’t
have had this meeting and they needed to hear from people before making a decision.
Dan Breyak, 4306 Browndale Av, stated that the potential sale of this parcel
(Morningside) was based on Park and Rec. Board findings that were over ten years old,
saying that this was not an integral part of the park. The neighborhood vehemently
disagreed with those findings. They should take usage stats. 56 kids live on Browndale
Avenue from Morningside to 43rd. You will find many community events in that park.
Neighborhood parks are planned and built for the enrichment and betterment of the
neighborhood they are placed in. The neighborhood had spoken loud and clear that they
want to keep the park as it is.
John Heitzinger, 3828 Joppa Av, believed this had been an open process with a lot of
opportunity for people to get information and express opinions and the task force did a
wonderful job. He was looking for move-up housing. He reviewed each parcel and
concurred with task force recommendations and technical funding, although he felt in
some instances they should construct fewer homes. Regarding the Browndale site, many
people were vocal about opposition. He viewed that site about 30 times over the last few
months and there was a lot of activity in the neighborhood, but he had never seen a single
person on that lot. He knew people in that neighborhood that didn’t want to speak
because of the vocal group in the neighborhood and they were intimidated. The sales
process made sense with design guidelines and objective criteria. Price didn’t indicate if
a house was a move-up house, it indicated demand. He hoped they looked at the
community in its entirety.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 7
John Ullmann, 5622 Wood Lane, stated he and his wife were opposed to selling the lot at
Wood Lane. He was disappointed with staff’s inability of being a neutral broker on this
issue. The property on Wood Lane was not surplus or excess property because it had a
purpose. The people who determined this said that there was an urgency to buy that
property because there was such a demand to overdevelop along the creek. He believed
the public policy issue had been mis-framed throughout this process. The process was
not to find some land to sell that somebody would want to buy. When they put that piece
of property into a public sector, the City Council they should honor that. If five residents
oppose the sale of the lot, it shouldn’t be sold.
Nancy Gibson, 2712 Glenhurst Av, indicated she was proud of the residents for wanting
to save open space and green space. She looked at the 2600 Natchez site and was
disgusted by the amount garbage at that site and invited homeowners to help clean up.
She asked that they reframe the issue and think of some of the parcels as opportunities for
green space and open space.
Amy Dvorak, 6019 Minnetonka Blvd, stated she didn’t have the luxury of having green
space and was thankful to have a sidewalk. She thought the excess land was a good thing
for people who wanted to build larger homes and stay in St. Louis Park. She saw the
opposition and decided she wouldn’t want to go there. There were probably a lot of
people that would love to build a home, but were afraid because of so many people
opposed to it. There are many parks in this City and she thought this was a wonderful
opportunity. She has children and drives to or walks to parks. The neighborhood was
upset, but for the people that got one of the lots it would also be very special and they
would build a beautiful home and possibly plants trees and flowers. She hoped they
would be neighborly to the new neighbors. She encouraged the council to sell the
parcels.
John Schenk, 2605 Natchez Av, indicated he had been to the meetings about the
proposals and found out new things along the way. They didn’t know what the money
would go for. It went into the general coffers. One of the sites had two 100-year old oak
trees on it. It was not about development versus the tree huggers. He thought they could
hold competing concepts and develop intelligently. He used Browndale Park and canoed
on Minnehaha Creek. The whole community was their back yard.
Claudia Johnston-Madison, 3931 Joppa Av, stated she was on the Excess Land Task
Force. Minikahda Vista didn’t have a really nice park like Browndale did. They had two
lots in their neighborhood. For years residents had been asking City Council and staff
about move-up housing. Residents have an opportunity to offer lots in their
neighborhoods so families can move in. This was an emotional issue. Please consider
selling all of the lots identified on the list to be sold. The task force noticed there were a
lot of people at the meetings interested in purchasing lots to build move-up housing. As
time went on those people that expressed their opinions didn’t go to another meeting.
They were waiting for the decision. There were a lot of people organizing opposition.
She didn’t have a problem with people having an opinion, but agreed that they should
keep in mind that the comments tonight opposing the sale represent a vocal minority of
people. There are people that had expressed an interest.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3b - City Council Minutes For October 17, 2005
Page 8
Mayor Jacobs thanked people for coming to the meeting.
Amy Ellis, 4253 Browndale Av, asked if these all needed to be voted on as one package?
Mayor Jacobs replied they hadn’t made a decision how they would do that. He didn’t believe
there was anything set in stone that they needed to be voted on individually or as a package.
Ms. Ellis asked when the New Vision feasibility study results come out? Mr. Harmening
replied they were undertaking the process of getting public input through a series of
interviews. That work should be done by the end of the year. They hoped to have
community forums in January or February.
Ms. Ellis asked if there would be a decision on this before then? Mr. Harmening responded
the schedule would be on November 14th the Council will hold a study session to discuss it
and prepare to take action at a subsequent meeting. The tentative schedule is to bring this
back to Council on December 5th, at which time they could chose to take action.
Ms. Ellis asked if one of the Councilmember’s could make an amendment to wait until
they hear the end of the feasibility and if one of those is more green space or health and
environment? Mr. Harmening responded there was no mandate that this had to be acted
on in December. It was up to the discretion of the Council.
Ms. Ellis commented that she respected the people that came out and spoke up in support of
selling the parcels.
9. Communications - None
10. Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3c - City Council Study Session Minute October 17, 2005
Page 1
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
October 17, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, John Basill, Jim Brimeyer Phil Finkelstein, Paul
Omodt, Susan Sanger, and Sue Santa.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Technology and Support Services (Mr.
Pires), Finance Director (Ms. McGann), Park Superintendent (Mr. Beane), Park Recreation
Superintendent (Mr. Birno), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), and Recording Secretary (Ms.
Stegora-Peterson).
1. 2006-2010 Capital Improvement Program
Ms. McGann introduced the Capital Improvement Plan and indicated they would discuss
utility rates at the next meeting. She noted that the overall budget is balanced.
Technology
Mr. Pires indicated the Technology fund included items such as computers, hardware and software,
network replacement, the telephone system, the radio system (which is being replaced this year)
and cable television. The wireless program was a separate project, with separate financing.
Mr. Harmening asked what the methodology was used for technology replacement? Mr.
Pires replied the program is for replacement every three years. The network infrastructure
has a 20 year lifespan. Cable television was somewhere in between. Phones had a five year
life. The radio system can last “forever” and was moving to the 800 MHz system. The FCC
is requiring stations to go digital before 2009, which would require a change in equipment.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it was in the budget to make the website more interactive?
Will the wireless program require funding for new equipment and was that in the budget?
Mr. Pires replied they had funding for website improvements. They will come before the
Council with ideas such as web casting Council meetings. They are always replacing
wireless equipment. Going WiFi would require different kids of equipment to be compatible.
There would be no net cost because they were all programmed.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if funding would come from the Enterprise fund? Ms.
McGann replied if it goes forward, there would be internal loans, and the logical place would
be from the Development fund.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if revenue had been lost from the fund and if it affected the
Capital Improvement Program? Mr. Pires replied replacement of equipment was the same. If
they went to a formal process, they would end up with more money on the capital side.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3c - City Council Study Session Minute October 17, 2005
Page 2
Parks and Recreation
Ms. McGann indicated that the Park and Rec. replacement of equipment information was in
the staff report.
Mr. Beane stated that playgrounds with high-use probably won’t last 13 years, which is the
manufacturer recommendation. They check structures one or two times a year. This plan
was put into place when they did major park inventory five years ago.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked if they used the market value homestead credit or fund out
of the general fund? Ms. McGann replied yes, or the general obligation fund.
Councilmember Santa asked if this reflected enhancement to the Rec. Center? Mr. Beane
replied next year was the first step. There has been significant damage from skateboards.
Another piece will be an aquatic park done in 2007 or 2008.
Mayor Jacobs asked if they would have drop slides? Mr. Beane replied that was fluid. They
were working with consultants on concepts and were getting ready to do upgrades.
Mayor Jacobs stated he had talked with kids who expressed interest in having exercise bikes
or a running track.
Councilmember Santa asked about the Minnehaha Creek Visioning Process city-owned land,
if there was a budget to use that property? Mr. Beane replied they had not been made aware
of anything. Mr. Harmening added nothing had been programmed. They were unsure what
would be done with the property.
Public Works
Ms. McGann moved along to the Public Works presentation.
Mr. Rardin discussed asset management planning and reviewed several handouts. They were
determining the use life cycle on the assets. An investigation will be done on sewers using
cameras. This would affect maintenance if there were significant problems. They do not have
their asset plans fully developed, which was the goal. He discussed the software programs used
for tracking inventory and reviewed asset management plans including: guardrails, sanitary
sewers, sanitary lift stations and sewer project main line rehabilitation. He reviewed the sanitary
system plans and discussed the risk and how it was coordinated with pavement management.
Councilmember Brimeyer asked if inflation was factored in? Mr. Rardin replied to a small degree.
Councilmember Finkelstein asked about Novartis? Mr. Rardin responded that would be
discussed at the next meeting.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3c - City Council Study Session Minute October 17, 2005
Page 3
Councilmember Santa asked if warranties were tracked for equipment? Mr. Rardin replied it
was tracked through their software.
Mr. Rardin reviewed the filter rehabs done on six plants.
Councilmember Sanger asked if they planned to paint the water tower at Louisiana and Cedar
Lake Road? Mr. Rardin responded it was planned for 2007. They do inspections prior to
that time to look for structural problems.
Councilmember Finkelstein suggested they use the tower as a public art project.
Mr. Rardin reviewed the storm water plan, which was still in the inventory process.
Councilmember Santa asked if that included outlets to the creek? Mr. Rardin responded
when it was done, it would have catch basins, ponds, lift station and storm ponds.
Councilmember Sanger noted they often receive complaints about flooding and staff has
indicated that they were working, but there was not enough capacity. Should there be funds
in the budget to expand the capacity? Mr. Rardin replied that the Council needed to discuss
that and determine if they wanted more funding there.
Councilmember Sanger suggested that be considered in the long term.
Ms. McGann stated they would be presenting options at the next meeting to pay for what was listed.
Mr. Rardin stated there was not enough funding to handle the flood program. There were too
many unknowns to get it done in 2006.
Mr. Rardin discussed City Hall inventory and pavement management. There are eight areas
of the city and the first project was completed in 2005. They inspected pavements and rated
them to come up with a plan (maintenance, renewal and reconstruction). $150-200,000 was
budgeted for chip sealing. The balance of the budget was on renewal and reconstruction.
Councilmember Santa commented that the pavement management project completed went
well and staff did a great job working with residents.
Mr. Rardin indicated there would be some fine-tuning done on the program.
Councilmember Sanger asked how they prioritized the projects? Mr. Rardin replied they split
each ward into two areas, to touch everyone routinely and get around the city quickly. They
balanced mileage in each section, then ran the street value ratings and came up with averages
and started in the worst area. Chip seals and rehabilitation would be done four years apart.
Mr. Rardin indicated that 20% of the city streets are a higher level (MSA). They program
city projects driven by redevelopment or Council request. They have a list of possible sites
for pedestrian improvements or intersection improvements. Some were in the capital
improvement program. The total price of the interchange at Highway 7 and Wooddale is $18
million. He hoped they could access from the Development fund.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 3c - City Council Study Session Minute October 17, 2005
Page 4
Mr. Rardin discussed a handout on MnDOT interchange programs, approximately $5.6 million.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the $18 million included separate crossings for the trail?
Mr. Rardin replied no, Three Rivers Park District had a separate application in for those.
The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4a - Recreation Center Generator
Page 1
4a Motion to designate Claude M. Anderson Electric Company as the lowest
responsible bidder and to authorize execution of a contract for the installation of
a generator at the Recreation Center.
Background: Installing a generator at the Recreation Center would provide a back-up source of
power in the event of an emergency power outage. It would also provide the opportunity to
maximize savings as an energy source for the Xcel Energy Electric Reduction Savings program.
The addition of a generator would bring the Recreation Center in line with other major City
facilities with regards to being able to operate without being dependent on Xcel Energy.
Benefits: The major benefits a generator would provide include:
1. Provide continued operation in emergency power outage situations throughout the year.
This would eliminate inconvenience for facility users and improve customer service.
There have been power outages during hockey games on one or both of our ice arenas, an
event in the Banquet Room, a meeting in the Gallery Room, and when the pool has been
full of kids and parents. This is both inconvenient to users and costly since we then must
evacuate the buildings and provide refunds for all users.
2. The Recreation Center could switch to generator power during peak control periods in the
summer months. This would maximize the savings guarantee from Xcel Energy since
they benefit from the facility not using approximately 700 KW of power during their
highest demand times. Xcel Energy would reward the City by guaranteed electrical cost
savings. This cost savings is anticipated to be $25,000 to $30,000 annually.
3. The City Emergency Plan calls for the Recreation Center to be used as a shelter and
dining facility in case of a community disaster. Back-up generation would make this type
of operation much more effective and beneficial to the community.
4. In case of power outages, the immediate transfer to generator power would greatly reduce
the potential of equipment and electric motor damage caused by power surges and
voltage irregularities.
5. With a secondary source of power, the Recreation Center could serve as a back-up site
for the City’s information technology operation. Since a fiber optic cable has been
installed, this is more of a possibility than in the past.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4a - Recreation Center Generator
Page 2
Bid Analysis: Bids were opened on October 20, 2005 in the City Hall Council Chambers.
There were seven companies that submitted bids, with the amounts shown as follows:
Company Bid Amount
Claude M. Anderson Electric Co. $350,250
Premier Electrical Corp. $352,100
Systems by Design, Inc. $356,643
Egan $357,000
Phasor Electric Company $365,870
Merit Electric Company $413,300
Honda Electric, Inc. $424,580
The apparent low bid was received from Claude M. Anderson Company. They have successfully
completed similar generator installations.
Cost and Funding: The original cost estimate was $280,000. The bids we received were higher
than the estimate. Our consultant, TKDA, believes that this is due to the high demand for
generators after Hurricane Katrina. The revised estimate for the project is $385,150, which
includes consultant fees and the cost to move the condenser unit from the roof of the Rec Center.
The annual estimated energy savings from Xcel Energy ranges from $25,000 to $30,000. This
would give us a 13-15 year pay back with an approximate 25 year life span.
We’ve asked the question: If we delay this purchase, will the bids be more in line with our
original cost estimate? Experts have advised that the cost for the generators will more than likely
remain at a heightened level for at least two years. Therefore, delaying this purchase is not a
good option for our City.
Recommendation: Staff recommends authorizing Claude M. Anderson Company to execute the
contract and complete the generator project. It would be paid for from the cost savings
anticipated from Excel during peak times. It would be ideal to have this operational by mid-
summer when we could capture the greatest savings by using the generator; however, the
manufacturers are not guaranteeing delivery times based on the orders from FEMA to provide
generators to hurricane victims. Financing for this purchase is covered in the Park Improvement
Fund.
Prepared By: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation
Craig Panning, Manager of Buildings and Structures
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4b - Paid-on-Call Firefighters Life Insurance Benefit
Page 1
4b Motion to adopt a resolution approving benefits for Paid-on-Call Firefighters
through Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota.
Background: Our paid-on-call firefighters receive a life insurance benefit through the Volunteer
Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota. Our personnel policy requires Council approval for
conditions of employment relating to performance bonuses or insurance. We have been paying for
this insurance program for our paid-on-call firefighters over the past several years and need to
formally obtain Council approval.
This program is very affordable and costs $368 annually and covers one career firefighter eligible
due to a continuation clause, 18 paid-on-call firefighters and 12 new paid-on-call firefighters. This
covers life insurance up to $19,000 and also provides some disability coverage. This program is a
typical benefit offered to other paid-on-call firefighters in municipalities in the metro area. Since
paid-on-call firefighters are not eligible for the benefits of other employees, it is important that we
provide some type of life insurance coverage for this group.
A copy of the by-laws for this program is on file with the City Clerk.
Recommendation: The attached resolution formally approves participation in the benefit program
offered through the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit Association of Minnesota for our paid-on-call
firefighters and one career firefighter.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared and approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4b - Paid-on-Call Firefighters Life Insurance Benefit
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-150
RESOLUTION APPROVING PARTICIPATION IN THE
VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS’ BENEFIT ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA
BENEFIT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt programs that provide an effective means for
providing group benefits for paid-on-call firefighters consistent with other similar municipalities,
and
WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as
approved by the City Manager.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
1. The Council approves continuation of the membership in the Volunteer Firefighters’ Benefit
Association of Minnesota.
2. Membership is limited to paid-on-call firefighters and one career firefighter who had
previously held membership in this program.
3. If the program is continued in future years, the City Manager will have the membership
approved by Council annually in approximately the same timeframe as other benefits are
approved for other employee groups.
4. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to pay for such premium
with City funds in accordance with adopted budget.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4c - Police Uniform Contract
Page 1
4c Motion to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with
Uniforms Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1,
2006, through December 31, 2007
Background:
The current Police Uniform Contract with Uniforms Unlimited expires on December 31, 2005.
It is the opinion of staff that a two-year contract would result in lower bid prices, as the vendor
would have two years to sell items to the department, and the overall two-year average would be
lower. The vendor would also have continuity in items purchased by the department and would
be able to keep a larger inventory on hand. A two-year contract also reduces contract
preparation by both staff and the vendor. Because of these benefits, a two-year contract has
again been prepared for the years 2006-2007.
Bids:
Advertisements for bids were published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on September 22 and
29, 2005. The bid opening was at 2:00 p.m. on October 17, 2005. Only one bid was submitted
by Uniforms Unlimited, and it was completed as required. Uniforms Unlimited has held the
contract for the past 20 years.
Budget:
The amount budgeted for uniforms in the year 2006 is $42,500.00 which includes uniform items
for officers, staff, CSO’s, Dispatchers, Reserves, Explorers and the Emergency Response Unit.
Increased prices in the bid are within the budgeted amount.
Recommended action:
We are pleased with the service provided in the past by Uniforms unlimited. It is recommended
that the Council authorize the Mayo r and City Manager to execute a contract with Uniforms
Unlimited for police uniforms for a two-year period from January 1, 2006, through December
31, 2007.
Attachments: Bidding documents are available for review in the City Clerk’s office.
Prepared by: John D. Luse, Chief of Police
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4d - Special Assessment Hardship
Page 1
4d Motion to adopt the Resolution for hardship special assessment deferral for
senior citizens & disabled citizens
Background:
Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provides for the deferment of special assessment
and specifies the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a voluntary basis, to
defer such assessments.
The City of St Louis Park determined that the deferral of special assessments for certain persons
under hardship guidelines was in the public interest’s and passed resolution number 5376 in
1975. This resolution was amended in 1980 to update the income level guidelines for which the
hardship would be determined.
This deferral program is included as an option to our delinquent customers as part of the
certification letter that is distributed in October of each year notifying customers of the intent to
certify the delinquent amount outstanding to their property taxes. Although the city has had
recent inquiries about the deferral program, actual requests to participate in the program have
been very minimal, if any, over the past 20+ years.
The Process:
To be considered for a deferral, the customer must complete a City of St Louis Park application.
Once the application is received and eligibility is approved, a form that Hennepin County
requires will be sent to the customer for signature. This form must be notarized and sent back to
the City of St Louis Park. This form will then be sent to Hennepin County and serve as official
record of the deferment.
The deferment, which will include interest, will remain on the property until the following:
1. The owner dies and the spouse is not otherwise eligible
2. The property or any part thereof is sold, transferred, or subdivided
3. The property should lose its homestead status or
4. If for any reason the city determines that there would be no hardship to require
immediate or partial payment
Summary:
Attached is the resolution amending resolution 6595. Previous resolutions have only identified
persons 65 years of age or older as qualified applicants. It is recommended that the provision is
extended to persons with permanent or total disability as stated in the State Statute 435.193. In
addition, staff recommends that the income guidelines included within the resolution are based
on section 8 income limits & poverty guidelines. It is further recommended that it is stated in the
resolution these guidelines are 80% of the median household income by household size. By
establishing these income guidelines, it will eliminate the need to amend this resolution due to
inflationary factors from year to year.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4d - Special Assessment Hardship
Page 2
For year 2005, the following table indicates the guidelines for 80% of the median household
income.
Household size Income
1 person $40,600
2 person $46,400
3 person $52,200
4 person $58,000
5 person $62,650
6 person $67,300
7 person $71,900
8 person $76,550
Recommendation:
This action will update statute references, modify the qualification parameters of the stated
income levels, and extend the provision to persons with permanent and total disability. It is
recommended that Council adopt resolution to amend resolution number 6595 to update statute
references, modify qualification parameters, and extend the provision to persons with permanent
and total disability within the hardship special assessment deferral program
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Jodi Bursheim, Assistant Finance Director
Reviewed by: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4d - Special Assessment Hardship
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO: 05-151
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6595
RELATING TO DEFERMENT OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
SENIOR CITIZENS & DISABLED CITIZENS
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 435.193 through 435.195 provide for the deferment of
special assessments and specify the conditions under which municipalities are authorized, on a
voluntary basis, to defer such assessments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of St Louis Park adopted Resolution Number 5376 on
October 6, 1975 and under that provision applicants were deemed eligible for deferment when
total household income was $8,000.00 or less, the person was 65 years of age or older, and
owned homestead property and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution Number 6595 on July 7, 1980
establishing the new eligibility requirement for income to be at $10,500.00 or less.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St Louis
Park that the eligibility requirement for income is 80% of the median household income by
household size as indicated on the Section 8 income and poverty guidelines; and
BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED that the provision for eligibility is extended to persons
with permanent and total disability as stated in State Statute 435.193.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 4e - Workers Compensation Renewal
Page 1
4e Motion to adopt a resolution approving continued participation in the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) for Workers Compensation
Coverage, effective December 1, 2005.
Background: In 2003, the Council approved participation in the LMCIT for workers
compensation coverage. The policy year on our workers compensation coverage runs from
December 1 – November 30 each year.
From 1993 to 2003, the City was self-insured for worker’s compensation. We continue to be
responsible for work comp activity, including reactivated claims during this timeframe.
Unfortunately, we are not able to close several older cases at this time and we have had some
new claim activity from this timeframe. In order to handle self insurance claims, we must also
continue with an administrator. We are hopeful that we will be able to continue with Sedgwick
for administration of claims and activity from 1993 – 2003.
Costs: The renewal quote with LMCIT for workers compensation, including managed care, is:
12/1/04 – 11/30/05 12/1/05 – 11/30/06 Increase
$325,018 $340,318 4.7%
The increase is based on actual estimated payroll. It also is based on our experience
modification factor (review of claims activity) of .92. The lower the experience modification
number, the higher the discount we could receive on premium. Our experience of .92 shows that
we have a higher level of claims activity and minimal discount. We do receive a $56,208
discount on our premium rates by participating in managed care.
We are in the process of obtaining a 2006 quote from Sedgwick to administer our old claims.
Budget: Funds to cover a fully insured workers compensation program through the LMCIT are
included in the budget. Funds for coverage for “tail claims” during the timeframe we were self-
insured have also been reserved in our budget and the uninsured loss fund.
Recommendation: We are pleased with how the workers compensation claims are being
handled through LMCIT. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution,
approving continued participation in the League of Minnesota Workers Compensation Program,
effective December 1, 2005.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, Human Resources Coordinator
Reviewed and approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 4e - Workers Compensation Renewal
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-152
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION
IN THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST (LMCIT)
WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to adopt workers compensation coverage and
programs to limit liability to the City of St. Louis Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park that:
1. The City continues coverage with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for
Workers Compensation coverage, effective December 1, 2005.
2. The City Manager shall continue to secure coverage for management of claims made
between the period of 1993 through 2003 when the City was self-insured for workers
compensation and also has the authority to continue to approve payment for necessary
administration, processing and settlement of such open claims.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4f - DED Tree Assessments
Page 1
4f Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Dutch Elm Diseased
Trees
Background:
At the July 26, 2004 Study Session, Council discussed the large volume of trees that are required
to be removed due to Dutch Elm Disease (DED). At that time, a program was introduced which
allows home owners to have the cost of removal of these trees assessed to their property.
This program allows an assessment to be placed on the property and repaid over a specific
number of years based on the dollar amount of the assessment.
Since October of 2004, twelve (12) assessments have been approved for this program. At this
time, the City has received an additional four (4) petitions for special assessments. These
petitions indicate that the property owners waive their right to a public hearing and wish to have
the cost of the removal of the DED tree placed as a special assessment against their property.
The total dollar amount that will be assessed to the six properties is $7,057.36 at an interest rate
of 5.84%. The individual assessment amounts range from $644.33 to $3,414.50. The actual
property addresses, assessment amounts and terms are shown on Exhibit A.
Diseased trees continue to be removed and staff anticipates there will be additional residents that
want to take advantage of the special assessment program. Any additional requests for this
program that come in before mid-November will be placed as an assessment on the 2006
property taxes. After that date, the assessment will be on the 2007 property taxes.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4f - DED Tree Assessments
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-153
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF
DUTCH ELM DISEASED TREE(S) AT (SEE ADDENDUM A)
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) at see Addendum A (“Benefited Property”) have
petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the removal of Dutch
Elm Diseased tree(s) on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) have 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
Forester related to the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s).
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(s) requesting the approval and special
assessment for the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is hereby accepted.
2. The removal of the Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) in conformance with the
specifications on file in the office of Park & Recreation, Environmental Division
is hereby authorized.
3. The total estimated cost for the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased tree(s) is accepted
at $7,057.36 and itemized on Addendum A.
4. The Property Owner(s) have agreed to waive their rights to public hearing, notice
and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution,
or common law.
5. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to pay the City for the cost of the above
improvements through special assessment over a specified number of years as
itemized on Addendum A at 5.84% interest.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4f - DED Tree Assessments
Page 3
6. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any
other documents necessary to implement the removal of Dutch Elm Diseased
tree(s) and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4f - DED Tree Assessments
Page 4
RESOLUTION 05-153
ADDENDUM A
BENEFITTED PROPERTY
NAME ADDRESS PID AMOUNT YEARS INTEREST
Harold Kanter 3020 Cavell Ave S 18-117-21-21-003 644.33$ 2 5.84%
Claudia Corrigan 4313 Alabama Ave S 21-117-21-33-002 1,581.53$ 3 5.84%
Hestia Abeyesekera 3505 Sumter Ave S 17-117-21-32-013 1,417.00$ 2 5.84%
Timothy Miller 3937 Xenwood Ave S 21-114-21-24-001 3,414.50$ 5 5.84%
TOTAL 7,057.36$
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4g - FP 86-04 Ti-Zack
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 05-154
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
2004 ANNUAL SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE
CITY PROJECT NO. 2004-0003
CONTRACT NO. 86-04
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 September 7, 2004, Ti-Zack Concrete, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the 2004 Annual Sidewalk Maintenance, as per Contract No. 86-04.
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 $58,851.50
Change Order 00
Extra Work 2,163.00
Final Contract Price $61,014.50
Previous Payments ($48,147.09)
Balance Due $12,867.41
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4h - FP 93-04 Hardrives
Page 1
RESOLUTION NO. 05-155
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
2004 TRAIL IMPROVEMENT
CITY PROJECT NO. 2004-0300
CONTRACT NO. 93-04
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 16, 2004, Hardrives, Inc. has
satisfactorily completed the 2004 Trail Improvements, as per Contract No. 93-04.
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 $105,623.55
Change Order 2,674.37
Extra Work 4,478.25
Final Contract Price $112,776.17
Previous Payments ($105,587.44)
Balance Due $7,188.73
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4i - Parks Recycling Project Resolution
Page 1
4i Motion to adopt resolution authorizing the Hennepin County Municipal
Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Agreement to fund the City’s parks
recycling project.
Background: The Parks & Recreation and Public Works departments are working
together to determine the best way to implement a recycling program in our parks. The
Parks & Recreation Department has been awarded a Hennepin County Municipal
Abatement Incentive Grant, in the amount of $14,000, to test and determine the best
containers to use to collect the maximum amount of recycling with the least
contamination from city parks.
The parks selected for this project include a variety of parks including those with ball
fields frequented by organized associations like Little League, regional parks with special
programs or picnicking areas and small neighborhood parks. Park users and staff have
requested recycling in the parks. It has been attempted a few times, but without success
due to high amount of contamination. This project will use education through association
users and volunteers to reduce contamination. Education will include recycling,
consumer awareness of product purchases and food/drink vendor participation.
We will conduct this project in nine ball field parks and three other neighborhood parks.
Each ball field park will have a different type of recycling container. The three
neighborhood parks will have different types of recycling containers as well, depending
upon the containers that are available (yet to be determined). The variables will be 1) the
types of recycling containers available and used in each park; the users of the park(s) and
the location of the containers.
Waste Management will collect the recycling from the Parks on a regular basis during
this project. During the project, the material will be collected, sorted and weighed by city
staff, seasonal staff, and STS crews for each location to determine changes in amount of
material recycled and contamination during phases of the project. These sorts will be
conducted in May, July and September of 2006. The material will be collected by Waste
Management after the sort for recycling or disposal.
Special events will be stocked with recycling collection containers in all parks and will be
reinforced by the education that will be distributed by user groups.
Education will include the signage within the parks and on the containers, publications
sent to the organizations that use the park, information given to vendors, information
provided by the Parks & Recreation program staff, and distribution of information to the
neighborhood associations by the city’s Outreach Coordinator. Parks & Recreation staff
will meet with the user organizations and vendors and will discuss and educate them on
recycling as part of the routine meetings.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4i - Parks Recycling Project Resolution
Page 2
The goal is to increase recycling by reducing the amount of garbage produced in parks
and the amount of litter found in parks and ponds. We would like to get vendors to
provide drinks in recyclable containers rather than paper cups and reduce the amount of
waste they produce in providing food and drink. We intend to use garbage carts rather
than the current 55 gallon metal drums with plastic liners. The recycling and reducing
waste education should prompt the users to rethink and potentially modify their habits
(purchasing decisions and waste reduction). Copy of the Hennepin County Municipal
Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Agreement is on file with the City Clerk.
Summary and recommendation: Attached to this report is a resolution authorizing the
Hennepin County Municipal Waste Abatement Fund Agreement to fund the City’s parks
recycling project. Staff recommends approval.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Sarah Hellekson, Public Works Administrative Specialist
Jim Vaughan, Environmental Coordinator
Reviewed by: Scott Merkley, Public Works Administrative Coordinator
Mike Rardin, Public Works Director
Rick Beane, Park Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Parks & Recreation Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4i - Parks Recycling Project Resolution
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_____
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AND HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR A
GRANT FUNDING THE PARKS RECYCLING PROJECT
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that
residents have an opportunity to recycle; and
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Board, by Resolution No. 99-8-532,
established a Municipal Waste Abatement Incentive Fund to provide matching assistance
(“Incentive Funds”) to selected municipal residential waste abatement projects; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has made an application for a public
entity waste abatement project and has been selected for partial funding of the parks
recycling project in accordance with the terms of the Hennepin County Municipal Waste
Abatement Incentive Fund Agreement;
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park currently has an active office paper and
newsprint recycling program in all city buildings and offices and will continue to
promote paper recycling.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that the City Council authorizes the execution of the Hennepin
County Municipal Waste Abatement Fund Agreement for a recycling project in the city
parks 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 parks recycling project through 2007.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as a condition to receive funds under the
Hennepin County Municipal Waste Abatement Incentive Fund Agreement, the City
agrees to implement and continue its active office paper and newsprint recycling program
for curbside collection and in city offices as encouraged in the Agreement and agrees to
use such County funds for the limited purpose of implementing the parks recycling
project described in the aforementioned Agreement, and that Public Works staff is hereby
directed to send a certified copy of this resolution with the signed Agreement to the
Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4j - Water Sewer Repair Assessments
Page 1
4j Motion to Adopt Resolution Authorizing Special Assessment of Sewer and Water
Service Line Repair/Replacement
Background:
City Council Resolution No. 00-078 established an assessment program to assist homeowners
with the cost of the repair and/or replacement of their sewer and/or water service lines. This
program allows home owners of single and two family homes to have the cost of repairs and/or
replacement of the utility service lines assessed to their property. The cost is assessed over a ten
year period with the interest rate determined based on the 20-year Treasury bill rate.
The City has received eight (8) petitions to have the cost of repairs and/or replacements of the
utility service lines assessed to the individual’s property taxes. These petitions indicate that the
property owners waive their right to a public hearing and wish to have the cost of the service line
repair/replacement placed as a special assessment against their property.
The total dollar amount to be assessed to the six properties is $20,966.52. The individual
assessment amounts range from $825.00 to $5,685.00. A listing of the properties to be assessed
is shown on Exhibit A.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared By: Scott Anderson, Utilities Superintendent
Reviewed By: Jean McGann, Director of Finance
Approved By: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4j - Water Sewer Repair Assessments
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-157
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF SEWER AND WATER
SERVICE LINE REPAIR/REPLACEMENTS AT (SEE ADDENDUM A)
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) at see Addendum A (“Benefited Property”) have
petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair/replacement
of the utility service line on the Benefited Property; and
WHEREAS, the Property Owner(s) have 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
Superintendent of Utilities related to the repair/replacement of the utility service line(s).
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(s) requesting the approval and special
assessment for the repair/replacement of the utility service line(s) is hereby
accepted.
2. The repair/replacement of the utility service line(s) in conformance with the City
code requirements is hereby authorized.
3. The total cost for the repair/replacement of the utility service line(s) is accepted at
$20,966.52 and itemized on Addendum A.
4. The Property Owner(s) have agreed to waive their rights to public hearing, notice
and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution,
or common law.
5. The Property Owner(s) agree(s) to execute an agreement with the City and any
other documents necessary to implement the repair/replacement of the utility
service line(s) and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith.
Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4j - Water Sewer Repair Assessments
Page 3
RESOLUTION 05-157
ADDENDUM A
BENEFITTED PROPERTY
Moe
Jason and
Ingrid 2620 Inglewood Ave. 1/28/2005 $ 4,020.50 08-05 2/25/2005
Fox
Mike and
Manisha 3321 Utah Ave. 6/5/2005 $ 1,309.63 76-05 6/24/2005
Hughes Hiedi 3801 Woodland Dr. 7/13/2005 $ 5,685.00 87-05 8/12/2005
Lavold/Cook
Scott and
Carolyn 7716 Division St. 7/18/2005 $ 3,674.47 89-05 8/23/2005
Abeln Deborah 3250 Webster Ave. 8/3/2005 $ 825.00 113-05 10/10/05
Egeberg Herman 1621 Nevada Ave. 12/7/04 $ 1,761.92 124-04 01/03/05
Maurer
Scott and
Deborah 3245 Hampshire Ave 11/11/04 $ 1,600.00 04-05 01/18/05
Freund Gabe and Amy 2519 Joppa Ave 11/30/04 $ 2,090.00 01-05 01/04/05
TOTAL $20,966.52
Work
Name Address Completed Amount Contract/Date
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4k - HA Board Minutes 081005
Page 1
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park City Hall, Westwood Room
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
August 10, 2005
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Andria Daniel, Steve Fillbrandt
and Anne Mavity. Commissioner Judith Moore arrived at 5:09 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Judie Erickson, Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke and
Michele Schnitker
1. Call to Order
Commissioner Courtney called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for June, 2005
The June 8, 2005 minutes were unanimously approved.
3. Hearings – None
4. Reports and Committees – None
5. Unfinished Business – None
6. New Business
a. Election of Officers
After discussion, Commissioner Daniel moved that for the next year the officers
remain the same as the current slate of officers:
Chair Catherine Courtney
Vice-Chair Judith Moore
Secretary Anne Mavity
Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion, and the motion passed 5-0, with
Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4k - HA Board Minutes 081005
Page 2
b. Development Update
Ms. Erickson presented an update of current development projects with emphasis on
those developments that include a housing component. Ms. Erickson also updated the
Board and answered questions on other projects that were of interest.
c. Approval of Amended Housing Authority Mission Statement, Resolution No. 539
Ms. Anderson explained the background of the revised HA mission statement.
Commissioner Fillbrandt moved to approve Resolution No. 539 of the Housing
Authority of St. Louis Park Approving its Revised Mission Statement, and
Commission Mavity seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0, with
Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt and Mavity voting in favor.
d. Louisiana Court Update
Ms. Schnitker reported that there have not been significant changes in the status of
Louisiana Court’s operational and financial condition. Vacancies are still extremely
high. As part of their stabilization plan, PPL will begin capital improvements to help
decrease maintenance costs and improve the vacancy rate. All of the funders are
committed to providing the funding and grants they originally agreed to, however,
U.S. Bank has recently indicated that they would require assurance from the City that
it will not foreclose on the property prior to 2015. Council has indicated that this
could create a potential financial risk to the City. Staff will further advise the Board
of U.S. Bank’s final decision at the next meeting. Additionally, several means of
stabilizing the occupancy issues at Louisiana Court were discussed.
7. Communications from Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 8–2005
Commissioner Moore moved for ratification of Claims List No. 8–2005, and
Commissioner Fillbrandt seconded the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with
Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
b. Communications
1. National and State NAHRO Conferences
2. Update – Excess Public Land Task Force
Information will be presented to the City Council on August 22, 2005.
Council requested that another Open House be held, which has been
scheduled for September 20, 2005. Council will then accept public comments
at the formal meeting.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 4k - HA Board Minutes 081005
Page 3
3. Strategic Plan Follow-Up – Date for Addressing 2nd Board Goal
Will address at October, 2005 meeting.
4. 2005 Capital Fund Award
The HA has received a $220,000 Capital Fund Award.
5. Monthly Report for July & August, 2005
6. Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House (verbal report)
7. Draft Financial Statements – Report
8. Other
9. Adjournment
Commissioner Mavity moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Moore seconded
the motion. The motion passed 5-0, with Commissioners Courtney, Daniel, Fillbrandt,
Mavity and Moore voting in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Mavity, Secretary
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 6a - Time Warner Franchise Renewal
Page 1
6a. Time Warner Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Public hearing to discuss the status of the franchise renewal process with Time Warner Cable, Inc. Recommended Action: Motion to continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to November 21, 2005. Background: Council was last updated on the status of the franchise renewal process at its October 10, 2005 meeting. At that meeting, Council continued the public hearing and extended the term of the franchise agreement to November 7, 2005. The current franchise agreement extension with Time Warner (TW) is due to expire on November 7 unless extended by Council. As indicated at all meetings, progress on the 2+ year franchise renewal process has been slow. At the October 10 meeting, City staff indicated that enough progress had been made to warrant continuation of the public hearing and extension of the franchise, and that staff would continue to prepare for the formal process in the event the City and TW cannot resolve renewal issues in principle. Authorization regarding the formal process had been given by Council previously. Latest Negotiations: City and TW negotiations teams last met on Monday, October 3 to discuss the latest proposal from TW, received that morning. City staff indicated that with a couple of changes, the proposal was something staff would feel comfortable presenting to Council for its consideration. City staff’s focus continues to be building a package of several major business points, in large measure, to meet the Council’s major concerns related to continuation of local programming and costs. It must also be made clear that there are several other operational business points in the interest of the community in this package. While City and TW staff move towards agreement on these other operational business points, the respective staffs must also agree to specific enabling franchise language. Latest Developments: Since the October 10 Council meeting City staff and the City Attorney have been in regular communications with TW in an attempt to come to agreement on a franchise in principle. Significant progress has been made in the last week. Offers and counteroffers have been traded and it now appears that the City and TW are very close to reaching an agreement in principle on major business points. Staff has been keeping Council informed of this progress and it was hoped an agreement in principle could be reported at this meeting. However, end of week changes in the course of negotiations have not resulted in such agreement. Based on City and TW staff continuing to work on reaching agreement in principle on major business points, it is now critical and fair to both parties that TW and City staff have the opportunity to continue discussions and agree on remaining detailed franchise agreement language. In order to do that, be ready for the alternative formal process (which all hope is unnecessary), and protect the interests of the community, staff recommends that Council continue this franchise renewal process to its November 21 meeting with the action below. Staff will also continue preparations for the formal process per Council action on September 19.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 6a - Time Warner Franchise Renewal
Page 2 Recommendation: Consistent with the current status of negotiations, it is recommended that Council continue the public hearing and extend the term of the franchise agreement to November 21, 2005, with the hope of seeing principles of an agreement on that date. Staff will be present at the Council meeting to answer questions. Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 1
8a. Proposed Transfer of Cable Television System
Proposed transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable
system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt attached resolution approving the transfer of the
Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and cable system
from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC with conditions including completion of
current franchise renewal process and settlement of franchise fee
review findings.
Background:
On June 15, 2005, Comcast notified the City about an agreement to purchase all of Time Warner
Cable’s Minnesota cable TV systems, including St. Louis Park’s franchise. Time Warner and
Comcast are purchasing the bankrupt Adelphia cable systems for about $12.7 billion in cash.
Adelphia has about 5 million subscribers, and the systems will be geographically divided
between Comcast and Time Warner so the systems can be clustered together. As part of the
clustering, Time Warner’s Minnesota, Florida and Louisiana franchises would be swapped for
Comcast’s Dallas, Los Angeles and Cleveland area franchises.
Some Minnesota cities have already granted Comcast’s request for franchise transfers, including
Helena, Jackson, Jordan, Lanesboro, Lewisville, Madelia, New Ulm, Sand Creek and Waverly.
Bloomington recently approved the transfer with the condition that the Time Warner franchise
fee review be settled to the satisfaction of the City.
The City has retained Brian Grogan of Moss & Barnett to assist with the franchise transfer
process. A report from Mr. Grogan is designed to comment on Comcast’s legal, technical and
financial ability to operate the franchise, the parameters set by federal law. In addition, a
franchise fee review has also been in process.
Comcast and Time Warner Cable are the two largest cable operators in the United States, and
offer similar services, including video, high speed data, and telephone.
Regarding St. Louis Park’s specific franchise, which was originally set to expire on October 10,
2005, Comcast’s Director of Government Relations, Kathi Donnelly-Cohen told the
Telecommunications Advisory Commission on August 4, 2005 that until a new franchise
agreement is in effect, Comcast would meet all terms of the existing franchise after the transfer.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 2
Area of Concern:
There is one customer benefit Time Warner offers that probably will not continue if the system is
transferred to Comcast: a choice of high speed data internet service providers (ISP’s). When
America Online purchased Time Warner in 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required
that customers have a choice of ISP’s, a unique arrangement in the cable television industry. As
a result, Time Warner high speed data customers can choose between these ISP’s: Road Runner,
AOL Broadband and EarthLink. Comcast customers do not have a choice of ISP’s.
Traditional “common carrier” telephone companies like Qwest and Verizon must allow
competing ISP’s on their systems. However, a recent Federal Communications Commission
ruling may remove this requirement within a year, thereby removing the requirement for ISP
competition for both the cable and telephone industry. Cable systems lead in the competition for
residential high speed data customers with 18.7 million customers compared to the telephone
companies’ 11.8 million customers (December 31, 2004 figures reported by Pike & Fischer).
The City has no direct authority over the high speed data or telephone services offered by Time
Warner due to Federal Communications Commission rulings or Federal law. However, City
staff has been contacted by several EarthLink customers that would like to continue with that
service after the system is transferred to Comcast. Other subscribers have addressed the City
Council on this item as well. Customers may well be forced to change domain names for their e-
mail addresses after the transfer, a disruptive process for both residents and business people.
Comcast has been notified of this concern multiple times and is aware of it. They have been
asked to address the City Council on its plans to assist subscribers make whatever domain name
transition may be necessary should the transfer actually be completed. As of this writing, staff
has not received any additional information or response from Comcast on this issue. The
attached information describes customer responses and how Comcast has handled this customer
transition in the past. This may shed some light on what to expect should a transfer be
completed.
Process and Recommendation:
At its September 19, 2005 meeting, Council closed the public hearing related to this issue. On
October 10, staff reported that while the City awaits Brian Grogan’s Comcast report, a final
Time Warner franchise fee review had been completed. Findings from the franchise fee review
of 2002-2004 reveal that TW may have underpaid the City “between $60,000 to $73,500 based
on the limited information available to estimate the underpayments,” according to Front Range
Consulting. Front Range conducted a fee review, which is less intensive than a fee audit and
results in more rounded numbers than an audit. This report has been shared with Time Warner
and City staff expects to work toward a settlement. St. Louis Park partnered with Bloomington,
Minneapolis and Shakopee on the fee review, and Shakopee has already received a settlement
check. Bloomington expects settlement in the next six months.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 3
The City has also received Brian Grogan’s Comcast report (available for review at the City
Clerk’s Office). Mr. Grogan’s report concludes that Comcast has the legal, technical, and
financial capability to operate the St. Louis Park franchise. This leaves the franchise fee audit
findings remaining to be settled. City and TW staff are working on this. Once the franchise fee
audit questions are resolved and franchise renewal proceedings completed, there will then exist
an intact and clean franchise that can be approved for transfer to Comcast. Until that time, the
current franchise remains in a precarious state of uncertainty with the regular action of City
Council required to extend it.
In order to facilitate all proceeding, including the transfer process, staff recommends that
Council adopt the attached resolution approving the transfer of the Cable Communications
Franchise Ordinance and cable system from Time Warner Cable, Inc. to Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC upon completion of current franchise renewal process and settlement of
franchise fee review findings.
It should also be noted that some Council action is required by November 7, 2005 or the transfer
is deemed approved without conditions unless both parties agree to an extension.
Prepared by: Clint Pires, Director of Technology and Support Services
Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 4
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DIZ/is_6_15/ai_97384378/print
FindArticles > Cable World > Feb 10, 2003 > Article > Print friendly
AT&T Addresses Given Reprieve
Byline: SHIRLEY BRADY
Don't mess with the address.
That was driven home to Comcast during its attempt to transition former AT&T
Broadband high-speed Internet subscribers from their attbi.com addresses to
comcast.net addresses.
AT&T Broadband subscribers will start sending e-mail with the Comcast domain
name this spring, but will continue to receive e-mail sent to their old
attbi.com address until December 2004 - instead of a previously announced 60-
day window for e-mail forwarding.
The migration is happening in a market-by-market basis, with subscribers
being contacted in coming weeks with details.
The extension follows complaints by customers and media outlets in areas such
as California's Bay Area (which starts switching in April), Seattle, Denver
and Portland, Ore.
The outcry grew particularly fierce in the Northeast, where Comcast
executives took matters in hand last week.
Comcast Cable president Stephen Burke and Kevin Casey, who runs the company's
New England market (which has almost 500,000 high-speed subs in six states),
met with Boston Globe staff last Wednesday to announce the companywide e-mail
extension.
The extension comes as the company prepares to rebrand the former AT&T
Broadband systems. The Bay Area switches to the Comcast name on Feb. 14,
followed by Portland next month, according to company officials quoted in
local press reports.
=============================================================
http://networkingsmallbusiness.com/compendium/2003/002288.html
attbi.com stays on for awhile
By Adam Gaffin
Networking for Small Business, 02/05/03
The Boston Globe reports that Comcast, taking over from AT&T Broadband, will
let its users keep their attbi.com addresses at least through the end of
2004.
Comcast had originally threatened to drop attbi.com as early as this spring,
which for some users would have meant the third domain change in about a
year.
Moving to soothe outraged customers, Comcast Corp. said yesterday it has
reached a deal with AT&T to let millions of cable broadband Internet
subscribers across the United States -- including more than 200,000 in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire -- keep using their attbi.com e-mail
addresses through at least December 2004.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 5
RESOLUTION NO. 05-________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED CHANGE OF
CONTROL OF TIME WARNER
WHEREAS, on or about February 13, 1989, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
(“City”) passed and adopted a Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance (“Franchise”),
currently held by Time Warner Cable Inc. (“Franchisee”).
WHEREAS, on or about June 15, 2005, Franchisee submitted to the City FCC Form
394, Application for Franchise Authority Consent to Assignment or Transfer of Control of Cable
Television Franchise (“Form 394”).
WHEREAS, Form 394 constitutes Franchisee’s application to transfer the system to
MOC Holdco II, Inc. which will wholly own Cable Holdco II Inc. (“Proposed Franchisee”).
WHEREAS, pursuant to a Redemption Agreement, dated April 20, 2005, by and among
Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc.; MOC Holdco II, Inc.; TWE Holdings I Trust,
TWE Holdings II Trust; Cable Holdco II Inc., Time Warner Cable Inc. and other related parties:
(a) the Franchisee cable system and Franchise will be assigned to a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Franchisee, Cable Holdco II Inc. and (b) immediately thereafter, pursuant to the same
Redemption Agreement, all of the stock of Cable Holdco II Inc. will be acquired by MOC
Holdco II, Inc., an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Comcast Cable Communications
Holdings, Inc. The assignment and change of control described herein shall collectively be
referred to as the “Transaction.”
WHEREAS, under the City’s Franchise and applicable law, the Transaction requires
consent from the City.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 6
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Transaction and the legal, technical, and financial
qualifications of MOC Holdco II, Inc. and its corporate parent entities.
WHEREAS, the City has retained Front Range Consulting, Inc. (“FRC”) to review the
franchise fee payments made by the Franchisee for the period January 2002 through December
2004 (“Accounting Period”).
WHEREAS, the City received a report from FRC alleging that the Franchisee has
underpaid the City for Franchisee’s franchise fee obligations during the Accounting Period.
WHEREAS, the City desires to reach mutually acceptable resolution of the alleged
underpaid franchise fees with Franchisee.
WHEREAS, the City has also been engaged in informal renewal negotiations with
Franchisee and the City has extended the term of the Franchise on several occasions in an
attempt to provide additional time for the parties to reach mutually acceptable language for the
renewal of the Franchise.
WHEREAS, both the City and Franchisee have retained all rights each may have under
federal law to conduct the renewal via the formal renewal process found at 47 U.S.C. 546 should
the parties be unable to reach an informal agreement.
WHEREAS, the City has expressed concerns that the Transaction may adversely impact
the City’s ability to properly conduct a formal renewal proceeding, if necessary, in a timely
manner.
WHEREAS, based on information obtained and on the reports and information received
by the City, the City has elected to consent to the Transaction with certain conditions imposed
upon the approval.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 7
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota hereby
resolves as follows:
1. The Franchise is in full force and effect, and Franchisee is the lawful holder of the
Franchise.
2. Each of the foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference.
3. The City hereby consents and approves of the Transaction as contemplated under the
Redemption Agreement, subject to:
a. Closing of the Transaction described in information provided to the City by
Franchisee and MOC Holdco II, Inc.
b. MOC Holdco II, Inc., within thirty (30) days of the date of closing, notifying the
City in writing of the completion of the Transaction.
c. Cable Holdco II Inc., within thirty (30) days of the date of closing, providing the
City with a signed acceptance of this Resolution in the form attached hereto and
incorporated by reference.
d. Cable Holdco II Inc., within thirty (30) days of the date of closing, providing the
City with a Certificate of Authority to conduct business in the State of Minnesota.
e. Prior to the closing of the Transaction, the City and Franchisee resolving to the
City’s satisfaction the alleged underpayment of franchise fees during the Accounting
Period, as presented in a report prepared by FRC, or, in any event, Cable Holdco II, Inc.
assuming responsibility for resolution of any issues asserted by the City based upon the
FRC report.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 8
f. The City and Franchisee completing the renewal process prior to the close of the
Transaction either by reaching mutually acceptable terms via informal renewal
negotiations or via the formal renewal procedures set forth in federal law at 47 U.S.C.
546.
g. The Franchisee or MOC Holdco II, Inc., within thirty (30) days of the date of
adoption of this Resolution, reimbursing the City for all costs, expenses and professional
fees incurred by the City related to the City’s review and consent of the Transaction,
including costs, expenses and professional fees incurred by the City. Said reimbursement
of fees and costs shall not be itemized on subscribers’ bills or in any way deducted from
past, present or future franchise fees owed to the City.
4. The City hereby waives any right of first refusal which the City may have to purchase the
Franchise, or the cable system serving the City, but only as such right of first refusal
applies to the request for approval of the Transaction now before the City.
5. By this consent the City does not make any representation that Franchisee is in
compliance with its obligations under the Franchise.
6. By this consent the City does not waive any of Franchisee’s commitments, duties and
obligations under the Franchise, including any accrued and unfulfilled obligation of the
Franchisee, whether known or unknown, relating to the Franchise.
7. In the event the Transaction contemplated under the Redemption Agreement is not
completed, for any reason, or is modified in any material manner, the City’s consent
provided hereunder shall not be effective.
8. This Resolution shall take effect and continue and remain in effect from and after the date
of its passage, approval, and adoption.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8a - Comcast Transfer
Page 9
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
ACCEPTANCE AND AGREEMENT
Cable Holdco II Inc., hereby accepts this Resolution No. (“Resolution”) and agrees to
be bound by the terms and conditions of this Resolution and the lawful terms and conditions of
the Franchise referenced within the Resolution.
Dated this day of , 20
CABLE HOLDCO II INC.
By:
Its:
STATE OF )
) ss.
COUNTY OF )
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this day of
200 , by , the
of Cable Holdco II Inc.
SEAL Notary Public
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 1
Site Area: 0.37 Acres
Zoning: RC – Multi-Family Residential
Comprehensive Plan Designation: High Density Residential
Current Use: Parking and Low-Density Residential
Proposed Use: High-Density Residential
Description of Request:
Requested is approval of the Gateway Lofts Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development
(PUD), and the Preliminary and Final Plat with a Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for
easements for a redevelopment site at the southwest corner of Kentucky Avenue and Wayzata
Boulevard.
Development Proposal:
Gateway Lofts is proposed for development at Kentucky Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard. The
proposal calls for the removal of an existing parking lot and one single-family home. In their
place, Mr. Parrish Hemmeke plans to build a 3-story, 12-unit condominium building. The final
plans for the site include the construction of a stormwater pond to the south of the proposed
building, 21 underground parking spaces, and a sidewalk connection between Wayzata
Boulevard and the neighborhood to the south. The units will range in size from 1,149 to 1,422
square feet. The largest units will feature 2 bedrooms plus a den.
8b Gateway Lofts Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development (PUD),
Preliminary and Final Plat, and Variance from the Subdivision Ordinance
Case No. 05-52-PUD and 05-53-S
Mr. Parrish Hemmeke
1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue
Recommended
Action:
• Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final
Planned Unit Development, subject to conditions
• Motion to recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat
and Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 2
Site Context:
The City Council approved Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map amendments for the Gateway
Lofts site in August of 2005. Both parcels are now zoned RC – Multi-Family Residential and are
designated in the Comprehensive Plan as high density residential.
In the Comprehensive Plan, the RH – High Density Residential land use category “is intended to
be for higher density, compact urban residential developments” at a density not to exceed 75
units per acre. The Comprehensive plan states, “pedestrian-scale three and four story buildings
will be appropriate in some areas…depending on the specific guidelines found in the Plan by
Neighborhood section.”
The Plan by Neighborhood section for the subject property calls for dense commercial
development along the south I-394 frontage road, subject to an adequate buffer between
commercial and residential uses. The proposed low-rise condominium project will provide such
a buffer. The inclusion of improved neighborhood sidewalks in the proposal also meets a goal of
the Eliot neighborhood’s Plan by Neighborhood.
The Gateway Lofts maintain a similar character to existing uses. The proposal indicates a
residential use which will differ from the low-density character of the neighborhood to the south
and the commercial character of the properties to the east. However, the proposal provides a
transition between the two uses and due to topography does not dramatically differ in height in
comparison to the single family homes to the south.
The Zoning Code describes the commercial uses to the east (predominately retail stores) as
characterized by high parking demand and high off-peak traffic generation. In contrast, single
family residential uses are often characterized by a comparatively low parking demand and few
off-peak trips. The proposed use will be characterized by an intermediate parking demand and
relatively low off-peak traffic generation. As such, it will act as a transitional use between the
more intense commercial uses and the less intense single family homes.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 3
Surrounding Connections:
Automobile:
The City Council requested that Staff retain SRF Consulting to complete a traffic study of the
area affected by the proposed condominiums. The traffic study notes that the proposal would
have a negligible effect upon the surrounding traffic patterns. In addition, it notes and that either
with or without the proposal, the intersection of Louisiana Avenue and Wayzata Boulevard
operates at a low level of efficiency. While there is nothing specific that the applicant can do to
improve the operating efficiency of the intersection, the study indicates steps that can be taken by
Staff to work with the Minnesota Department of Transportation to improve the operation of the
intersection. Such steps will primarily involve altering (and improving) the timing of the
existing traffic signals in the proximity of I-394 and Louisiana Avenue.
The location of Gateway Lofts provides a high degree of access through the use of a personal
automobile. The development is located in close proximity to I-394 and associated frontage
roads, providing easy access to the regional freeway system and most points east and west in St.
Louis Park. Convenient access to Louisiana Avenue and Highway 100 makes available most
destinations to the north and south.
Transit:
The Louisiana Avenue Transit Center (LATC), which is located immediately east and west of
Louisiana Avenue along Wayzata Boulevard, is directly across the street from the proposed
Gateway Lofts. The transit center provides easy, frequent access to downtown Minneapolis as
well as many other destinations throughout the western portion of the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area. The LATC typically serves park-and-ride patrons; however, the facility is accessible
through sidewalks and features other pedestrian amenities to improve the safety and comfort
level of those persons choosing to access the facility by foot. The LATC serves as a hub location
for several circulator routes, including those serving St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Crystal, New
Hope, Brooklyn Park, and Minnetonka.
Pedestrian:
As part of the Gateway Lofts development, a sidewalk is planned along the west side of
Kentucky Avenue. This sidewalk will connect the neighborhood to the south to the pedestrian
facilities along Wayzata Boulevard. At the present time, the area does not feature a great deal of
pedestrian activity. However, with the construction of the new sidewalk, it is expected that
easier access to the businesses along Wayzata Boulevard may result in new pedestrian trips.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 4
Zoning Analysis:
Factor Required Proposed Is
Standard
Met?
1. Use Multi-Family Dwelling Multi-Family Dwelling Yes
2. Density Max. of 75 units/acre
(PUD)
32 units/acre Yes
3. Lot Area Min.: 15,000 sq. ft. 16,434 sq. ft. Yes
4. Height No max. (PUD) 40’ 9” Yes
5. Building Materials 60% Class I Materials Exceeds 60% Class I materials,
using brick, stucco, and glass
Yes
6. Off-Street Parking 20.4 Spaces 21 Spaces Yes
7. Setbacks –
Front/Rear
30 / 25 (RC)
0 / 25 (PUD)
17’ / 25’ 2” PUD
Setbacks – Side /
Side
15 / 15 (RC)
0 / 0 (PUD)
6’ 7” / 28’ PUD
8. Floor Area Ratio 1.2 1.2 Yes
9. Ground Floor Area
Ratio
0.25 0.19
Yes
10. Open Area / DORA 12% 21%; 3,430 square feet Yes
11. Bufferyards – Front
/ Rear
F / E F / E Yes
Bufferyards – Side /
Side
C / F & E C / F & E Yes
12. Landscaping 1,478 Units 1,522 Units Yes
13. Trees Must replace 115 inches Planting 120 inches Yes
14. Lot Width/Depth 80’ / 0’ 159’ / 160’ Yes
15. Outdoor Storage None allowed None proposed Yes
16. Fences / Walls May use to meet
bufferyard requirements
Used only as retaining walls Yes
17. Mechanical
Equipment
Must be fully screened Underground / Interior Yes
18. Sidewalks Minimum of 5’ wide 5’ wide Yes
19. Refuse handling Adequate size and
accessibility
Underground with trash and
recycling chutes on each floor
Yes
20. Transit service None required Regular service provided
within 1 block
Yes
21. Bicycle Parking None required Bicycle parking provided on
east side of building
Yes
22. Stormwater Required Retention pond provided Yes
23. Lighting No more than 1 foot
candle at property line
No more than 1 foot candle at
property line
Yes
24. Signage Maximum of 40 sq. ft. None proposed Yes
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 5
Summary of Zoning Analysis:
The applicant is able to meet all requirements of the Zoning Code using the PUD. The PUD is
required due to the site’s size, and is applied in relation to the ground floor area ratio, side yard
setback and front yard setback. PUD modifications are discussed below.
The applicant has requested a 15% zoning reduction in required off-street parking. This
reduction is allowed because of proximity to transit (10%) and the provision of bicycle parking
(5%). Staff has determined that the proposed off-street parking is sufficient for guest parking.
Should overflow parking be required, there are 4 on-street spaces available in the adjacent cul-
de-sac.
Mechanical equipment and refuse handling will be located in the underground parking area. By
intensively using this area, the applicant has ensured that a majority of the site area outside of the
building envelope can be used to meet the DORA requirements.
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Objectives:
The Zoning Code requires that applicants for a Planned Unit Development demonstrate how the
proposal will “enhance, support, and further the following objectives”:
1. Provide for integrated pedestrian facilities to and within the project:
A sidewalk will be constructed along the east side of the project, linking the sidewalk
along Wayzata Boulevard to the neighborhood south on Kentucky Avenue. At this time,
no pedestrian linkages exist between the two areas.
2. Enhance linkages to mass transit facilities:
The proposal is located less than 1 block from a transit station serving the entire western
portion of the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Louisiana Transit Station features
regular transit service and will enable residents of the proposed development easy access
to Minneapolis and many points to the west. It is likely that future residents of Gateway
Lofts may not require the use of a personal automobile for the majority of their work-
related trips.
3. Increase the supply of low-income and moderate-income housing:
The applicant has indicated that the proposed units will sell for between $200,000 and
$350,000. Units within that price range often serve moderate-income households in the
region.
4. Incorporate implementation of travel demand management strategies as part of the PUD
plan: The applicant has indicated an intention of marketing to persons interested in using
transit to complete their daily commute. The site plan also includes bicycle parking for
those residents who may choose to commute by bicycle. Additional travel demand
management strategies would be inappropriate given the small size of the project.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 6
5. Provide public plazas and designed outdoor recreation area which exceeds minimum
chapter requirements: The applicant has proposed providing 3,430 square feet of
Designed Outdoor Recreation Area and open space. The requirement for DORA in this
district is 12% of a site; the applicant is proposing to use 21% of the site for such
purposes.
6. Provide a high degree of aesthetics through overall design and display of public art:
The proposal exceeds the Zoning Code requirements for architectural building materials
including brick, concrete stucco, and glass. The use of those materials indicates a high
degree of aesthetics through overall design.
PUD Modifications:
§ Side Yard Setback: PUDs allow for a modified side yard setback, reducing the
requirement from 15’ to 0’. The modification will be used on the east side of the site,
which has a side yard setback of 6’ 7”. The decreased setback enables the construction of
underground parking on a site of this size.
§ Front Yard Setback: PUDs allow for a modified front yard setback, reducing the
requirement from 30’ to 0’. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback of 15’. By
moving the building closer to Wayzata Boulevard, a larger setback than would otherwise
be possible is included between the proposed building and the single family
neighborhood to the south. The location of the building in relation to the street is
appropriate given the commercial nature of Wayzata Boulevard and the uses across the
street from the project site.
The most limiting factor for the applicant is the lot size. The applicant has worked within the
lot’s size by placing parking underground and designing a building with only four condominium
units per floor. The site’s size of 0.37 acres results in a density of 32 units per acre, far below the
maximum of 75 units per acre permitted through the use of a PUD. Without the use of a PUD,
the applicant would still be below the requirements, as 50 units per acre are permitted in the RC
Zoning District.
Preliminary and Final Plat:
The Plat for Gateway Lofts will involve replatting several existing lots into a single lot with
condominium ownership. Drainage and utility easements will be provided for utilities and the
stormwater pond as required by the City Engineer. A variance for easements around the property
lines is addressed below. Prior to filing the final plat, the applicant shall submit a maintenance
plan for the stormwater pond, a maintenance agreement for the sidewalk, and condominium
association papers to be reviewed by the City Attorney. Park and trail dedication fees are
required and will be collected with the final plats for the development.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 7
Subdivision Variance:
The Gateway Lofts proposal requires a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance for a reduction
in Section 26-154, “Easements”. Such variances are held to a different standard than variances
from the Zoning Ordinance. Staff has completed an analysis of the Gateway Lofts project and
determined that sufficient drainage and utility easements are provided. The Ordinance states “A
variance shall only be recommended when the Planning Commission finds that all of the
following exist”:
1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property such that the
strict application of the provisions of this chapter would deprive the applicant/owner
of the reasonable use of the land.
The property in question consists of four lots. Since the time of the original development,
a large triangular portion of the northern two lots was taken by the Minnesota Department
of Transportation for the construction of Interstate 394 and associated frontage roads.
Due to this taking, resultant shape of the property makes redevelopment and productive
use of all lots difficult.
2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and
welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is
situated.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or injurious to any surrounding properties. The granting of the variance (from the
requirement to provide drainage and utility easements) is necessary partly because the
applicant has taken extra steps to provide stormwater treatment on-site. The provision of
stormwater on-site will be beneficial to surrounding properties.
3. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical hardship
such as topography, etc.
The requested variance will correct the inequities resulting partly from the taking which
occurred during the construction of I-394 and partly resulting from the construction of an
on-site stormwater treatment pond.
4. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan designates this site for High Density Residential. The proposed
project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this site.
As a result of staff findings in regard to the criteria governing variances from the Subdivision
Ordinance, staff recommends approval of the variance from Section 26-154, “Easements”.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 8
Public Process:
Mr. Hemmeke, the applicant, held a neighborhood meeting in July, 2005. Mr. Hemmeke
presented his development proposal to the neighborhood, and sought their input on the building
and site design. Approximately 10 neighbors attended the meeting; the largest concern from the
neighbors was in regard to the construction period. After the neighborhood meeting, Mr.
Hemmeke applied for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Map. A public
hearing was held at a regular Planning Commission meeting, and the Planning Commission
recommended approval of the amendments. The City Council approved the amendments.
On September 21, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for Mr. Hemmeke’s proposed
PUD, Plat, his request for a Variance to the Subdivision Ordinance. Four neighboring residents
attended the hearing. One resident spoke in regard to concerns about construction noise and
parking. Additionally, a letter was received from an adjacent business owner regarding parking
concerns during the construction period. The Planning Commission recommended approval of
Mr. Hemmeke’s requests, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Mr. Hemmeke has indicated a willingness to work with the neighborhood and adjacent property
owners to ensure that noise and parking problems during the construction process are minimized.
Mr. Hemmeke responded to the concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting by stating
that off-site parking would be utilized during the initial phase of construction, and that as
permitted, on-site parking would be utilized as construction progresses. A construction parking
schedule provided by Mr. Hemmeke is attached. Mr. Hemmeke has stated that he intends to
begin construction during late fall to increase the likelihood that neighboring residents have their
windows closed, reducing noise from the construction process.
Construction Process:
The applicant has proposed to begin construction on the project late in the fall of 2005. Site
preparation involves the removal of an existing home and an unused parking lot. Upon
completion of the site’s basement and first floor, the applicant intends to ensure that all
construction employees park in the underground parking ramp provided for the building. All
construction staging will be completed on-site and the exterior site work, including the
construction of the sidewalk along Kentucky Avenue and the stormwater pond, will be
completed after the exterior of the building is complete.
During the construction period, site work may occur only between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:00
pm on weekdays, and from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on weekends. In addition, the applicant will take
steps to ensure that there are no negative side effects to the construction impacting the
neighborhood to the south; including the prevention of dust migration, soil erosion, and parking
in the neighborhood.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 9
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development, subject to
those conditions contained in the resolution.
Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat and a Variance from the
Subdivision Ordinance for a reduction in the required drainage and utility easements surrounding
the proposed subdivision.
Attachments: Resolutions
Location map
Site plan and related documents
Traffic study prepared by SRF Consulting
Construction Parking Schedule
St. Louis Park Area Transit System Map
Prepared by: Adam Fulton, Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
Kevin Locke, Community Development Director
Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 10
RESOLUTION NO. 05-147
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) UNDER SECTION 36-367 OF
THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING
FOR PROPERTY ZONED RC-MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOCATED AT 1324 AND 1332 KENTUCKY AVENUE
WHEREAS, an application for approval of a Preliminary and Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) was received on August 22, 2005 from the applicant, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary and Final PUD at the
meeting of September 21, 2005, and moved to continue review, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Preliminary and
Final PUD at the meeting of October 19, 2005 on a 5-0 vote with all members present voting in
the affirmative, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the staff reports, Planning Commission
minutes and testimony of those appearing at the public hearing or otherwise including comments
in the record of decision.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
Findings
1. Parrish Hemmeke has made application to the City Council for a Planned Unit Development
under Section 36-367 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code within the RC-Multi-Family
Residential district located at 1324 and 1332 Kentucky Avenue for the legal description as
follows, to-wit:
That part of Lots 355 through 358 inclusive, RICHMOND, according to the plat
on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 358 in said RICHMOND; thence North
89 degrees 37 minutes 37 seconds East assumed bearing along the south line of
said lot 358 for a distance of 133.01 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 358;
thence North 02 degrees 05 minutes 44 seconds East for a distance of 160.00 feet
to the northeast corner of said lot 355; thence South 60 degrees 07 minutes 28
seconds West for a distance of 156.58 feet; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes
04 seconds West for a distance of 82.82 feet to the point of beginning and there
terminating.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 11
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission
(Case No. 05-52-PUD) and the effect of the proposed PUD on the health, safety and welfare of
the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on
values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan, and
compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The City Council has determined that the PUD will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or
general welfare of the community nor with certain contemplated traffic improvements will it
cause serious traffic congestion or hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property
values. The Council has also determined that the proposed PUD is in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and that the requested
modifications comply with the requirements of Section 36-367(b)(5).
4. The contents of Planning Case File 05-52-PUD are hereby entered into and made part of the
public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development at the location described is approved based
on the findings set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the Preliminary
and Final PUD official exhibits.
2. PUD Modifications. Setback modifications are approved as follows:
a. A side yard setback modification allowing a side yard setback of 6’ 7” on the east
side of the site.
b. A front yard setback modification allowing a front yard setback of 0’ on the
north side of the site.
3. Prior to signing the Final Plat, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Condominium association papers and other Final Plat documents shall be received
and approved by the City Attorney.
b. The developer, on behalf of the future homeowners association, shall submit an
approved and signed maintenance agreement for the sidewalk along Kentucky
Avenue.
c. The developer shall submit a maintenance plan for the stormwater pond.
4. Prior to starting any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. A Development Contract shall be signed that addresses construction staging and
duration, required completion of improvements prior to occupancy, allowable
administrative amendments, prevention of garage space sales to non-residents,
and consistency between documents as required by the City Attorney.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 12
b. The developer shall provide a construction staging plan that shall include
information regarding the off-site location of parking during the construction
process.
5. The hours of construction shall be limited as follows: All outdoor activity and loud
equipment operation shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 am and 6:00 pm
weekdays and 9:00 am and 6:00 pm on weekends. Indoor construction activity that does
not involve loud equipment shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 am and 10:00 pm
on weekdays and 9:00 am and 10:00 pm on weekends and holidays.
6. Prior to issuance of any building permits, which may impose additional conditions, the
following conditions shall be met:
a. Color samples of all materials, shall be submitted and approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
b. A Lighting Plan, including light fixture details shall be submitted and approved by
the Zoning Administrator.
c. The developer shall obtain all required permits from the City and other affected
government agencies, including but not limited to Erosion Control Permits and
Right-of-Way permits.
In addition to any other remedies, the developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750
per violation of any condition of this approval.
Pursuant to Section 36-367(e)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance, the City will require execution of a
development agreement as a condition of approval of the Final P.U.D. The development
agreement shall address those issues which the City Council deems appropriate and necessary.
The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the development agreement.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 13
RESOLUTION NO. 05-148
RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF
GATEWAY LOFTS
WITH VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR
DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St.. Louis
Park:
Findings
1. Parrish Hemmeke, owner and subdivider of the land proposed to be platted as
Gateway Lofts, Lot 1, Block 1, has submitted an application for approval of preliminary and final
plat of said subdivision with a variance from the subdivision ordinance for drainage and utility
easements (Section 26-154) in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park
Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder.
2. The proposed preliminary and final plat has been found to be in all respects
consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park.
3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin
County, Minnesota, to-wit:
That part of Lots 355 through 358 inclusive, RICHMOND, according to the plat
on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 358 in said RICHMOND; thence North
89 degrees 37 minutes 37 seconds East assumed bearing along the south line of
said lot 358 for a distance of 133.01 feet to the southeast corner of said lot 358;
thence North 02 degrees 05 minutes 44 seconds East for a distance of 160.00 feet
to the northeast corner of said lot 355; thence South 60 degrees 07 minutes 28
seconds West for a distance of 156.58 feet; thence South 02 degrees 08 minutes
04 seconds West for a distance of 82.82 feet to the point of beginning and there
terminating.
4. There are special circumstances affecting the property such that the strict
application of the provisions of the subdivision ordinance would deprive the
applicant/owner of the reasonable use of the land. Such circumstances arise due to the
taking of portions of the property for the construction of Interstate Highway 394.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 14
5. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, and welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is
situated. The granting of the variance will enable a larger building setback from the south
property line and the construction of a stormwater pond on the 0.37 acre site.
6. The variance is to correct inequities resulting from an extreme physical
hardship. The current northerly parcel is shaped in such a way that that its productive use
would be extraordinarily difficult.
7. The variance is not contrary to the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. The
Comprehensive Plan calls for such lands to be redeveloped and to include certain
elements, such as stormwater, underground parking, and sidewalks. Such redevelopment
could not occur without a variance.
Conclusion
1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Gateway Lofts is hereby
approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances,
City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of
Minnesota, subject to the following conditions:
a. Variance is approved from the subdivision ordinance for a reduction
from the required 10’ drainage and utility easements, required by City
Code, Section 26-154, “Easements”, provided, however, that this approval
is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the
City Clerk.
2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this
Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein.
3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all
contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate
of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set
forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been
fulfilled.
St. Louis Park Council Meeting
Item: 110705 - 8b - Gateway Lofts
Page 15
4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as
required under Section 26-123(1)j of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, shall be
conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials
charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record
forthwith without further formality.
The developer or owner shall pay an administrative fee of $750 per violation of any
condition of this approval.
The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this resolution in the Office of the
Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 8c - 2006 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 1
8c Establishing 2006 employer contribution for City sponsored benefits program.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution establishing the
employer contribution levels for City sponsored benefit
programs effective January 1, 2006.
Background
Each fall, the Council determines the contribution level that St. Louis Park employees can use in
the selection of benefits. The City holds “open enrollment” information sessions in mid-
November, allowing employees to select benefits for the upcoming plan year. Our benefit plan
offers choices in the following areas:
• Four health insurance plans offered through Medica: High, Elect/Essential and High
Deductible Plan with VEBA savings account for eligible health expenses
• Dental insurance through Delta Dental
• Basic life coverage offered through Prudential Life
• Supplemental life insurance
• Dependent life insurance
• Long-term disability
• Flexible spending accounts allowing employees to set aside funds pre-tax for qualified
medical expenses up to $2,400, or daycare up to $5,000
• Deferred compensation - four plan options (457 plan for retirement savings pre-tax)
Medical Insurance
The City of St. Louis Park continues to participate with a group of cities to purchase health
insurance (LOGIS Healthcare Group, 5000+ members). 2006 will be the second year in a three
year rate guarantee that was the result of negotiations with our carrier in late 2004.
• 2005 0% increase
• 2006 12% increase maximum on our premiums
• 2007 16% increase maximum on our premiums
The LOGIS group’s experience in 2005 warranted more than a 30% increase for 2006.
However, due to our three-year rate guarantee, we will receive the maximum increase of 12%.
We will continue to offer health insurance to our employees as follows:
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 8c - 2006 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 2
2006 Medical Insurance Monthly Premiums
(12% increase for 2006)
Medica Medica
High 2005 2006
Single $374.75 $419.72
Emp & Spouse $800.37 $896.41
Emp & Child(ren) $756.10 $846.83
Family $987.70 $1,106.22
Elect & Essential 2005 2006
Single $342.33 $383.41
Emp & Spouse $731.11 $818.84
Emp & Child(ren) $690.66 $773.54
Family $ 902.67 $1,010.99
High Deductible 2005 2006 Deductible
Single $246.66 $276.26 $2500
Emp & Spouse $526.81 $590.03 $5000
Emp & Child(ren) $497.67 $557.39 $5000
Family $650.11 $728.12 $5000
A Refresher on VEBAs
The IRS created VEBA products to allow plans to set aside tax free dollars to fund medical
expenses, usually coordinated with a high deductible health plan. A VEBA is a Voluntary
Employee Beneficiar y Association, a tax exempt trust 501(c)(9) and MN Statutes 352.98, which
is a funding mechanism used with a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). Funds placed
in a VEBA can be used by the employee for qualified medical expenses.
Funds will be placed in a VEBA trust in an individual’s name to use to cover the deductible
expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with the individual and roll over each year for future
expenses. The advantage to a VEBA is that funds are set aside and used tax free for qualified
medical expenses. The VEBA stays with an individual even after they leave employment and
can be used to continue to pay for qualified medical expenses.
Changes to the VEBA Funding
This high deductible health plan is designed with a requirement that the employer must fund
50% of the deductible. The deductible for single coverage is $2,500 and for other groups the
deductible is $5,000. In 2005, we funded all groups equally at $2,500 per year. For 2006,
Medica has mandated that we cannot fund more or less than 50% of the deductible. Therefore,
to continue to offer this benefit, we must fund $1,250 for single, and $2,500 for other groups.
The amount of the employer contribution offered to employees would not differ due to
single/family status, just the amount deposited into the employee’s VEBA account. Funding
would be provided via the benefit contribution we provide to our employees.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 8c - 2006 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 3
Other Benefits and Changes for 2006
Below is a summary of other changes in benefits for the 2006 plan year.
Dental
We are a member of an alliance of four cities who bid dental rates together. We requested bids
this year to get competitive rates. We were pleased that Delta provided the best rates and offered
us a 1.5% decrease in premiums, with no changes in plan design. Dental is a voluntary
program for our employees.
2006 Monthly Dental Rates with Delta Dental
(1.5% decrease)
2004 2005
Single $36.83 $36.27
Family $83.72 $82.46
Life
Our life insurance is provided to us through the LOGIS Healthcare consortium. 2006 will be the
second year of a 5 year rate freeze with no increases. There are no other changes to the life
insurance (basic, supplemental, and dependent) plans for 2006.
Long Term Disability (LTD)
LTD is a voluntary selection for our non-exempt employees and is provided to our exempt
employees. Again, we have banded together with other metro area cities to form an alliance to
find premium savings in a group bid. Several carriers responded and the alliance of cities
decided to switch carriers to The Standard. This switch has guaranteed us an exact match to our
current plan design, a 10% decrease in premiums, and a three year rate freeze.
Deferred Compensation
The City offers four deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is a
program that allows employees to save and invest today for retirement. Federal and (in most
cases) state income taxes are deferred until your assets are withdrawn, usually during retirement
when you may be in a lower tax bracket. This is a voluntary program for employees. There is
no change for 2006.
Benefits Study Completed
In St. Louis Park, our non-exempt employees have historically received a lower benefit
contribution than exempt employees. During the summer of 2005, St. Louis Park’s Human
Resources Department worked with consultants, CBIZ, Inc., and Employer’s Association on a
comprehensive study of benefit plans for other metro area cities in our market. Findings of this
study were presented to Department Heads in August.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 8c - 2006 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 4
The results of the study show that:
• Our non-exempt employees cafeteria benefit contribution by the employer has fallen
behind market.
• Our exempt employees cafeteria benefit contribution is in line with the market on benefit
contributions as compared to what other public sector employers offer to all of their
employees.
• We did not find any other public sector employer in our market that provided a different
amount in the cafeteria benefit contributions to exempt and non-exempt employees.
• In recent hires, some new non-exempt employees received a reduction in benefits as
compared to other cities or employers in our market where they had previously worked.
• Keeping our benefit programs and contributions in line with market is important to
recruitment and retention of all of our employees.
After review of the data, Department Heads have agreed that the best way to address this
problem is to gradually eliminate the difference in cafeteria benefit levels between exempt and
non-exempt employees. Our recommendation for 2006 is to start to close the gap in employer
benefit contribution for exempt and non-exempt employees and to phase this in over several
years due to budget limitations. We will use methodology similar to when we eliminated the
difference between the single and family contribution. This means we plan to increase both
groups and bring up the non-exempt to meet the exempt level and keep contributions in line with
our market comparables.
It is also recommended to continue the study and review of City benefits as compared to market.
Recommendation for 2006 Employer Contribution
We are recommending a $10 increase (from $705 to $715/month) to the monthly employer
contribution for exempt employees. This amount is to help cover the cost of some of the
increase in health insurance premiums, and keep our benefit levels for exempt employees
consistent with the market.
For non-exempt employees, we recommend a $55 increase (from $605 to $660/month). This is
to help cover the cost of the health insurance increase, and to start the process of equalizing
benefit contributions for exempt and non-exempt employees.
For non-exempt employees who elect to participate in the High Deductible Plan, we recommend
a $40 increase (from $675 to $715/month). This additional amount allows non-exempts to fund
the VEBA. This amount also will result in no difference in benefit levels for exempts and non-
exempts who participate in the High Deductible Plan. We started the equalization process for
this group in 2005 by giving non-exempts who chose the High Deductible Plan additional dollars
to encourage use of the new plan and help fund the VEBA.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 8c - 2006 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 5
2006 Recommended Monthly Employer Contribution
2005
Recommended
2006
Exempt employees (not eligible for overtime)
All Plans
$705
$715
Non-exempt employees (overtime eligible)
High and Elect/Essential Plan
$605
$660
Non-exempt employees selecting the
High Deductible with a VEBA
$675
$715
Budget
Funding for the program described above is included in the 2006 proposed budget.
Recommendation
We are pleased with the rates we’ve received and the decrease in rates for some of our programs.
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution setting benefit levels effective January 1,
2006.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator
Reviewed and Approved by: Nancy Gohman, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 8c - 2006 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 05-149
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2006 EMPLOYER
CONTRIBUTION FOR BENEFITS
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective
means for providing employee group benefits, and
WHEREAS, the City Council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year, and,
WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents
as approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level
classification and administration of plans.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park:
1. Effective January 1, 2006, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City
for non-union non-exempt employees working at least 30 hours per week, be set at
$660 per month.
2. Effective January 1, 2006, non-union non-exempt employees working at least 30
hours per week who elect to participate in the High Deductible Plan will receive an
additional $55 per month (for a total of $715 per month). The additional funds are to
assist non-exempt employees in funding the VEBA account for the high deductible
plan.
3. Effective January 1, 2006, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City
for non-union exempt employees working at least 30 hours per week, be set at $715
per month.
4. Effective January 1, 2006, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City
for non-union employees (classified as .5 FTE) working 20 through 29 hours per
week shall be set at 50% of the exempt or non-exempt full time employee monthly
contribution level, and for non-exempt this shall also include 50% of #2 above.
5. The City will continue to provide, at no cost to exempt employees, term-life
insurance at one and one-half times the annual salary and a long-term disability plan
or cost equivalent as plan allows.
St. Louis Park City Council Meeting
110705 - 8c - 2006 Employer Benefits Contribution
Page 7
6. Effective January 1, 2006, the City will change carriers for long-term disability to
The Standard.
7. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the
balance of any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and
remit to the insurer under an approved contract, the employee or officer the share of
any such premium.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 7, 2005
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk