HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001/11/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1
7:25 Economic Development Authority – Council Chambers
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
November 5, 2001
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
a. Pledge of Allegiance
b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
a. Introduction of St. Louis Park Ambassadors
b. League of Women Voters New Neighbor’s Guide
3. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2001
b. Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2001
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are 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.
a. Approval of Agenda
Action: Motion to approve (Alternatively, motion to add or remove items from
the agenda, motion to move items from consent to regular agenda for
discussion).
b. Approval of Consent Items
1. Motion to adopt an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling,
approve the summary and authorize its publication
2. Adopt the attached resolution that supports requesting state funding for the grade
separation of the pedestrian/trail crossing at Hennepin County State Aid
2
Highway No. 25 and Belt Line Boulevard.
3. Motion to accept the following reports for filing.
a. Housing Authority Minutes September 12
b. Planning Commission minutes October 3
c. Monthly Crime report
d. Human Rights Commision Minutes of September 12, 2001
e. Vendor Claim Report
4. Motion to adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 2200-01
Vacating Certain Streets, an Alley, and a Sidewalk Easement East of Quentin
Avenue, North of Excelsior Boulevard to the Southern Portion of Wolfe Park,
and West of Monterey Drive and set second reading for November 13, 2001.
5. Resolution accepting work on concrete alley paving 2700 block Brunswick
Avenue So – City Project 01-18 - Contract No. 89-01
6. Approval to modify the Home Renewal Program to include a major remodeling
component and authorize the Housing Authority (HA) Board to administer the
program within budgetary and programmatic limits and guidelines set by the
City Council.
Action: Motion to approve Consent Items
5. Public Hearings
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public - None
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. 1st Reading of an ordinance adopting administrative penalties procedures for
certain violations of city code.
Ordinance establishing procedures for achieving compliance with certain code
provisions allowing for citations and fines separate from those imposed by the
county court system.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
November 19, 2001.
7b. Non Union Compensation – 2002
3
A Compensation Plan document was approved by the City Council in November of
1997. The compensation plan allows the City Manager to set the standard
adjustment each year. The City Manager requests Council confirmation of a 3.5%
standard adjustment effective January 1, 2002. Secondly, a request is made to
increase the performance bonus and rates of pay for Paid-On-Call Firefighters by
3.5%. Also, to approve an increase for the City Manager.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution confirming the City Manager’s
decision to set a 3.5% standard adjustment for non-union salaries
for 2002, increase the performance bonus and rate of pay for
paid-on-call firefighters by 3.5% and approve an adjustment to
the City Manager’s salary.
7c. Establishing employer contributions for employer-provider cafeteria style
benefit programs for 2002 for non-union positions and the City Manager.
Each year, the City Council is asked to approve an amount for Employer
contribution to the Cafeteria Benefit Plan for non-union employees and the City
Manager. The amount is based on market and increased insurance premiums.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution establishing city contribution toward
employees’ cafeteria benefits plan for non-union, non-exempt
(eligible for overtime) and exempt (not eligible for overtime)
employees including the City Manager for 2002.
7d. The request of Xcel Energy for a Conditional Use Permit for the excavation of
2,500 cubic yards of soil and replacement of 2,640 cubic yards of fill and a
variance from the landscape bufferyard requirements along the south
property boundary at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South. (Cedar Lake Road and
Edgewood Avenue)
Case No. 01-46-CUP and 01-50-VAR
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and included in the resolution.
2. Motion to adopt a resolution denying the bufferyard variance
based upon the Planning Commission’s findings that the seven
criteria have not been met.
8. Boards and Committees
8a. Reappointment of William MacMillan to the Fire Civil Service Commission
4
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.
5
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 15, 2001
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris
Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert Young, and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Also present were the City Manager (Mr. Meyer); City Attorney (Mr. Scott); Community
Development Director (Mr. Harmening); Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin); Director of
Inspections (Mr. Hoffman); City Clerk (Ms. Reichert); Planner (Mr. Smith); and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Samson).
2. Presentations--None
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. City Council Special Meeting Minutes of October 3, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented with the following change: Councilmember
Sanger asked that about traffic accidents be added at the end of the last sentence of
Paragraph 4 on Page 9.
3b. Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2001
The minutes were approved as presented.
4. Approval of Agenda and Consent Items
NOTE: Consent items are 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. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
agenda. The motion passed 7-0.
6
4b. Consent Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
following Consent Agenda Items.
The motion passed 7-0.
1. Approve the contract with Hennepin Parks to clear and remove snow from the
LRT and Cedar Lake Extension Trails through the City of St. Louis Park.
2. Approve Resolution No. 01-112 considering major equipment replacement
scheduled and budgeted for 2002 and authorizes staff to acquire equipment as
allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance.
3. Terminate the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the St. Louis Park
EDA, the City of St. Louis Park, and DRF L-7 LLC dated July 30, 1999.
4. Authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a contract with WSB &
Associates, Inc. for construction surveying and inspection for three (3) flood
problem areas in the amount of $143,000. Consultant for Assistance in
Construction Surveying and Inspection for three (3) Flood Problem Areas,
Projects #00-07, 01-08, & 01-09
5. Approve Resolution No. 01-113 accepting work on Park Commons demolition/
site restoration, city project no. 01-15, contract no. 19-01, Kevitt Excavating.
6. Approve Resolution No. 01-114 accepting work on city-wide random curb &
gutter, city project no. 01-0, contract no. 74-01, Ron Kassa
7. Motion to accept the following reports for filing.
a. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of June 28, 2001
b. Planing Commission Minutes of September 19, 2001
c. Vendor Claim Report
8. Approve Resolution No. 01-115 designating specified streets as MSA routes
and approve Resolution No. 01-116 revoking specified streets as MSA routes.
Public Hearings
5a. Year 2001 Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
The Local Law Enforcement Block Grant is tied to crime reporting in St. Louis Park, and
the Police Department is asking the Council to approve the grant fund award to be used for
personal development.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve grant fund award.
The motion passed 7-0.
7
5b. 2002 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 1
Resolution No. 01-117
Councilmember Nelson asked Ms. Wasly how the Special Service District is doing, and
she responded all is going smoothly. Special Service District No. 1 is primarily the area
around Park Nicollet, AAA, and Target.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to
approve Resolution No. 01-117 setting the 2002 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.
5c. 2002 Budget Proposal for Special Service District No. 2.
Resolution No. 01-118
Mr. David Payne addressed the Council regarding Special Service District No. 2. Mr.
Payne recognized Mr. Scott Berkley for his exceptional work efficiency in the District
No. 2 area. Special Service District No. 2 is primarily the stretch of Excelsior Blvd. from
France Avenue to Monterey Drive.
It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger to approve
Resolution 01-118 setting the 2002 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.
6. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public
7. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions
7a. 1st Reading of an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling
City Clerk, Cindy Reichert, reported that in January of 2000, the City Council enacted a tax
on lawful gambling of 2% on gross receipts of a licensed organization from lawful gambling
less the prizes paid out. Staff would like to reduce the amount of local tax on lawful
gambling from 2% to .75%.
Councilmember Latz asked if there have been any spikes in the need for funding. Ms.
Reichert responded, there has been no cause to conduct any major investigations, however,
investigations are done for renewals, which are on a two-year cycle. Ms. Reichert said it is
at the Council’s discretion to raise or lower the local tax on lawful gambling.
8
Councilmember Nelson asked if refunds are done on a pro rata basis or on the amount of
police activity or lack of police activity. Ms. Reichert said refunds are on a pro rata basis,
and are based on the actual direct costs incurred by the City, e.g., the police officer
conducting an investigation charges his or her time to the fund, a small portion of Ms.
Reichert’s time is charged to the fund, and so are supplies. The fund is anticipated to be
$10,000-13,000 per year.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve first
reading and set second reading for November 5th, 2001.
The motion passed 7-0.
(Note: Item 7c was discussed prior to item 7b)
7c. Resolution Adopting Railroad Task Force Recommendations
Resolution No. 01-120
City Manager, Mr. Meyer, presented the six-page St. Louis Park Railroad Advisory Task Force
Position Statement Summary, dated May 23, 2001, on railroad issues. Mr. Meyer presented
background information stating that in the spring of 2000, the City Council asked Staff to
assemble a Railroad Advisory Task Force to study a variety of rail-related issues in St. Louis
Park. The task force was operational from May 2000 to May 2001. Councilmembers Sanger
and Santa served on the committee, and Councilmember Nelson attended several meetings. The
purpose of the task force was to develop strategies around which St. Louis Park could plan for
land use planning, dealing with State or local agencies in rail-related issues, and how best to
structure future plans to maximize opportunities and minimize threats.
The task force recommended that rail traffic in St. Louis Park should be through traffic and
should not involve storage, switching, or blocking. Blocking should be moved out of St. Louis
Park, Minnetonka, and Hopkins; and a southerly connection should be built on the south side of
the City. It was mentioned that mitigation funds should accompany the recommendations due to
the dynamics of the rail issues.
Mr. Meyer said no one has presented a minority report in terms of dissention except the
railroads, and they stated they do not want to be tied to acknowledging the recommendations.
Ms. Jan Loftus, 3341 Zarthan Avenue South, President of the Sorensen neighborhood
Association, presented a joint petition signed by 38 individuals of the Sorensen and Lenox
neighborhoods, stating they support all of the recommendations of the task force; specifically,
the petitioners are opposed to any additional rail traffic caused by re-routing, and if re-routing
occurs, they insist that all environmental mitigation be completed before the re-routing occurs.
Mr. Chris Kiely, 4221 Webster Avenue South, President of the Brookside neighborhood, is
concerned about rail traffic passing south and then through his neighborhood.
9
Mr. Jess Ford, 6215 Oxford Street, the Elmwood neighborhood, addressed the Council regarding
constructing a southern connection and switching, and his perceived contradiction regarding
recommendations made by the task force. Mr. Ford stated there is no rail traffic going south,
only switching, and he wants the switching to stop. Mr. Meyer responded that the intent is to
move toward a point in time when all traffic is through traffic, however, it is not feasible to do all
at once, therefore, the Position Statement Summary is describing a staging process.
Mr. John Basill, 6208 Oxford Street, served on the task force, and he would like
Councilmembers to know, in their review of the Position Statement Summary, that switching
will not be eliminated. Mr. Basill said the best case scenario would be for all trains to go to the
south.
Mr. Mike Hindin, 7708 West 13 ½, addressed the Council regarding locks and barges.
Councilmember Sanger moved to adopt Resolution No. 01-120 adopting the railroad task force
recommendations. Motion seconded by Councilmember Santa.
Councilmember Nelson referred to a Study Session of about 1 ½ months ago when he
commented he was in favor of the task force report the Council had. However, he wanted one
sentence added to it stating that if any of the underpinnings or assumptions were incorrect or
changed, Council would review it again. Councilmember Nelson said the Position Statement
Summary does not contain that sentence; he would like to have it added. He felt the City
Council should re-evaluate the strategy if significant changes in rail traffic patterns occur.
Councilmember Nelson wanted the sentence changed to the following: “The City Council
should re-evaluate this strategy if significant changes in rail traffic or the assumptions regarding
those traffic patterns occur”. He also felt the blocking operations need to be addressed and stated
his support for the State of Minnesota Capital Appropriation for Railroad Switching Yard in
Glencoe, Minnesota (Item 7b. of tonight’s agenda). He wanted to address the north-south
connection or junction. Councilmember Nelson suggested Council adopt the task force
recommendations with the additional sentence he talked about. He felt Council must predict the
future and Council needs every bit of information at its disposal. Councilmember Nelson
suggested sending the Position Statement Summary back to their consultant to gather additional
information.
Councilmember Sanger believed the Position Statement Summary should be accepted as a
starting point. Councilmember Nelson pointed out, from the Position Statement Summary,
immediate actions and future actions to be taken and the north connection is in the future action
category. Councilmember Sanger called Councilmember Nelson’s attention to Page 2 of 6,
Paragraphs 5 and 6 to the words if and when.
Mayor Jacobs said much of what Councilmember Nelson is suggesting is in the document, the
Position Statement Summary, and all the action that is taken on this page or Page 2 presupposes
certain assumptions coming true, and if they do not come true, we don’t do them.
Councilmember Latz believed the debate appeared to regard what the task force
recommendations include, e.g., how are the priorities set forth? He believed Councilmembers
10
are interpreting it differently. Councilmember Latz stated Councilmember Nelson’s concerns are
well grounded, however, it is probably worthwhile to insert a reminder into the adopting
resolution language stating that a future government body ought to revisit the underlying
assumptions. Councilmember Latz would like to broaden the last paragraph of Page 1 of 1 of the
Position Statement Summary to include “or are anticipated to occur.”
Councilmember Nelson moved that the last sentence on Page 1 of 1 of the Position Statement
Summary, which reads “The City Council should re-evaluate this strategy if significant changes
in rail traffic patters occur” be amended to read “The City Council will re-evaluate these
strategies should significant changes in rail traffic, or assumptions regarding rail traffic
patterns, occur.”
Motion seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer.
Mr. Meyer said the Position Statement Summary was very much a part of the task force
recommendations and every word of it was discussed and debated. While there is no problem
adding something to the resolution to be adopted, Mr. Meyer strongly suggested that no changes
be made to the Position Statement Summary itself, rather, the change should be made to the
resolution.
Councilmember Nelson responded that he was concerned that changing the resolution may not
be enough. Councilmember Latz suggested that if Council wanted to modify the Position
Statement Summary, that change should be part of the resolution, and should reflect Council’s
desire to re-evaluate the assumptions in order to make certain they are valid before concrete steps
are pursued.
Mayor Jacobs summarized the motions and amendments pending stating that a motion was made
on the main resolution by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa; and
Councilmember Nelson had made a motion to amend the position summary statement, which
was seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer.
Councilmember Sanger asked Mayor Jacobs what the specific language of the resolution would
be if Councilmember Nelson’s amendment was incorporated into the resolution rather than into
the position summary statement. The response was that a sentence could be added to the resolve
paragraph stating the amendment as suggested by Councilmember Nelson.
Councilmember Nelson was agreeable to adding his amendment to the language of the
resolution rather than to the position summary statement itself.
Mayor Jacobs requested a vote on the amendment to the main motion.
Motion to amend the main motion by incorporating Councilmember Nelson’s suggestion into the
resolution passed 7-0.
Mayor Jacobs then requested a vote on the main motion.
11
Motion to adopt Resolution No. 01-120 adopting the railroad task force recommendations as
amended passed 7-0.
Councilmember Nelson believed that the Position Statement Summary should go back to the
consultant to review the central assumption which he believed to be whether the rail traffic
would continue to go to the north, as it currently does, or whether that traffic will be redirected to
the south.
Councilmember Brimeyer responded that he agreed that questioning the central assumption may
be a good idea, but felt it may be too soon to return to the consultant. He felt that it would be
more logical to ask the consultant to review the assumption after the first of the year.
(Note: Item 7c was discussed prior to item 7b)
7b. Resolution of support for State of MN Capital Appropriation for Railroad Switching
Yard in Glencoe, Minnesota
Resolution No. 01-119
City Manager, Mr. Meyer, said adoption of this resolution would be for the purpose of
seeking state capital funding to build a switching yard in Glencoe, Minnesota; and the
Glencoe City Council has indicated they would be supportive, however, according to their
resolution, they do not intend to financially participate to invite the traffic into Glencoe.
Councilmember Santa asked about the timing of the switching yard. Mr. Meyer said a
meeting with South Oak Hill residents will take place in about two weeks, and he will
anticipate an answer to timing. Mr. Meyer summarily added, no funding is guaranteed but it
is anticipated something will happen in 2-3 years, however, not all logistical issues have
been nailed down, and there is still the issue of passing track.
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-119 support for State of Minnesota capital appropriation for railroad
switching yard in Glencoe, Minnesota.
The motion passed 7-0.
Councilmember Latz asked Mr. Meyer if passage of this resolution would become part of
their legislative agenda for the 2002 Session, which will largely focus on the bonding bill,
and Mr. Meyer responded, yes.
7d. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing 2002 Construction Permit, Business and
Contractor Licensing Fees. Resolution No. 01-121
Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections, addressed the Council regarding fees. Mr.
Hoffman said, beginning about one year ago, total revision of the licensing ordinance meant
12
all fees were taken out of the ordinance form and put into a fee appendix, and this will be
the format to be used for the entire City Code as recodification occurs later this year.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-121 establishing construction permit, business and contractor licensing
fees for the year 2002.
The motion passed 7-0.
7e. The request of Jewish Community Center for Final Plat of Jewish Community
Center Addition (formerly Cedar Lake Woods Addition). Case No. 01-35-S
Resolution No. 01-122
Patrick Smith, Planner, stated the applicant, Jewish Community Center, has modified the
parking lot on the south side of the Jewish Community Center Addition; has reconfigured
the turnaround to provide a greater buffer between the drive through and residents to the
north; eliminated one entrance into the site; and additional landscaping has been added.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt
Resolution No. 01-122 approving the Final Plat subject to the conditions and stipulations
listed in the resolution.
The motion passed 6-0. (Councilmember Nelson was absent).
8. Boards and Committees
Councilmember Young reported the City Council makes the following recommendations on
three Board vacancies: Mr. Ryan Burt, Board of Zoning Appeals (BOZA); Mr. Bruce
Cornwall, Parks and Recreation; and Mr. Paul Pyykkonen, Human Rights Commission.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the
recommendations
The motion passed 7-0.
9. Communications--None
11. Adjournment
Mayor Jacobs adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
____________________________________ __________________________________
City Clerk Mayor
13
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
October 22, 2001
The meeting convened at 7:00 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Ron Latz, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Jim
Brimeyer, and Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Meyer), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Public Works
Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), Director of Community Development (Mr. Harmening); Economic
Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); Finance Director (Ms. McGann); Community Outreach
Coordinator (Ms. McDonell); Housing Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker); Housing Coordinator (Ms.
Larsen); and City Clerk (Ms. Reichert).
1. Home Renewal Program Modifications
Staff met with Council to discuss proposed modification to the Home Renewal Program whereby
the program would expand to include acquisition by the city of lower-valued, structurally sound
homes, which would be remodeled by private remodeling firms as move-up homes.
Discussion focused around the purchase of an already identified property and the applicability of
this program to the City’s goals in housing development.
Councilmember Brimeyer emphasized the benefits of program as it related to this particular as a
model for others which may follow.
Councilmember Sanger asked what criteria would be used for choosing homes to participate in
this program.
Mr. Harmening responded that acquisition would be done on a case by case basis considering the
price of the home, repairs needed, and special situations related to the property. He did not
expect that great numbers of sellers would want their home to go through this process.
Councilmember Nelson inquired about funding the acquisition, use of CDBG funds and if there
were other programs available more appropriate for rehabilitation this property.
Mr. Harmening stated that though this property was in need of repair and renovation, it did not
meet federal guidelines containing a definition of “blighted property”.
Councilmember Brimeyer suggested that this program be undertaken not as a profit making
venture, but to improve housing opportunity in the City. He felt this illustrated a creative use of
city funding to produce better housing.
14
Councilmember Sanger agreed with the program conceptually but wasn’t sure about this
particular acquisition. She asked if there were other ways to do a demonstration of the program.
Councilmember Latz was concerned about long term viability of the program and wanted to
ensure that homes were not renovated to the point of being removed from the affordable housing
market.
Councilmember Sanger requested that any contractor hired to do the renovation of the homes in
the program keep improvements compatible with the architectural style of the properties
involved.
Councilmember Nelson felt the City should be able to come out as well as possible financially
and suggested that language be included so that the city could be a partner with the contractor in
enjoying profits that may come from the renovation and subsequent sales.
Mr. Harmening agreed that with the concept and suggested that the contract could be structured
to ensure the city enjoyed a favorable financial position should profits be realized.
Mr. Harmening suggested that the Housing Authority manage the program with parameters as set
by Council policy.
Council directed staff to bring forward a formal proposal for Council action.
2. League of Women Voters New Neighbor Handbook
Members of the SLP League of Women Voters were at the meeting to present to the council
copies of their newly published new neighbor handbook. The handbook has been designed to
meet the needs of immigrants new to our community to help them to adjust to society.
Information in the handbook is very basic and covers those things most important such as where
to buy food, find housing assistance, and other basic needs.
The book is currently printed in English, but translations are being done to Spanish, Somali and
Russian.
The Council and the LOWV discussed the future of the publication, and on-going financial and
upkeep issues.
3. EDA Budget and HRA Levy
Jean McGann, Finance Director presented the proposed EDA and HRA budgets to the council
for their consideration. The council discussed the restructure of the budget in response to
legislative changes made in the last session. Ms. McGann also informed the Council that the
city’s reporting format will be presented differently in 2003 as a result of changes in GASB
(Government Accounting Standards Board) requirements.
15
4. Solid Waste Contract
Public Works staff met with Council to discuss a process to evaluate contracting for residential
solid waste collection in the city.
Discussion ensued as to how performance can be measured and what mechanisms other than
customer complaints can and should be used.
Mr. Meyer said that there are several options available for measuring a contractor’s performance
such as customer complaints, information about missed pickups, community surveys (such as the
survey) done by Decision Resources) and comparative performance measurements.
Councilmember Brimeyer said that he favored establishing criteria for evaluating contractor
performance, but did not feel taking this current contract out to bid would be in the best interest
of the community. Councilmember Nelson agreed.
Councilmember Sanger felt very strongly that the service provided by the city’s current
contractor is unacceptable and felt going out to bid is absolutely essential.
Mr. Meyer said that prior to either renewing or going out to bid, criteria must be developed to
evaluate contractors and to serve as a basis for designing services that best meet the needs of our
residents.
Mr. Merkley proposed that in order to ensure we are moving forward appropriately, Council and
Staff should work together to more specifically define the following:
• Purpose, Goals and Objectives of the City’s Solid Waste Program
• Services desired as part of the program
• Performance indicators that can measure and monitor service delivery and contractor
performance
• Specific contract provisions to specify minimum levels of service delivery and
performance
• Options for delivery of services (by contract, in-house, subscription, etc. )
He also said that customer service calls are being tracked and statistics are being kept that can
help to evaluate the current contractor’s performance.
Mr. Meyer pointed out that the 2000 Decision Resources survey had indicated a “high” level of
satisfaction with the solid waste collection program and that our records show that the incidence
of reported missed pickups were low considering the number of pickups that regularly occur.
Mayor Jacobs was comfortable with setting quality standards for contractor performance
regardless of whether council directed that the city go out to bid or renew the existing contract.
Councilmember Latz asked if there were industry standards established that the city could use as
a comparison. Mr. Meyer responded that we had just received a document from ICMA
16
regarding performance measurement that had been compiled from data submitted by cities across
the country. There may be other methods for determining industry standards as well.
Councilmember Latz questioned the reliability of complaint data submitted to the City by Waste
Management. Mr. Merkley responded that staff had recently started following up on complaints
and calls for service entered into the database by the contractor. He has found no reason to
believe that the current contractor has not been logging entries into the system.
Mayor Jacobs suggested that complaints and calls for service should be taken in-house by city
staff to ensure that they were properly handled.
Mr. Rardin did not believe that to be feasible due to logistical and communications limitations.
Customer service is currently structured so that when a caller contacts the contractor that call is
immediately dispatched to the provider in the field. If calls were to come in to the city, that
direct communication link would be lost which would undoubtedly result in a reduction in
service and/or slower response times.
Councilmember Latz suggested there may be three reasons why we may want to go to bid rather
than renew the existing contract: as a price check; to send a message to the current contractor
that we are open to evaluating other options; and to improve tracking of customer service
complaints.
Mr. Merkley suggested that in order to fully address the issue of can treatment, blowing and
spilled garbage, the Council should consider going to a city-wide cart system which would allow
for an automated system for pickup. The current conditions are such that the quality of the
containers used by the homeowners is not regulated, which increases opportunity for scattering
of refuse by animals, blowing cans, etc.
Councilmember Brimeyer repeated his position that going out to bid would be disruptive and
counterproductive. He favored working with the current contractor to improve services.
Councilmember Nelson agreed saying that there is no proof that the current contractor is not
doing a good job.
Council directed staff to refine the steps to be used in the evaluation process and to present
concrete indicators to assist the Council in focusing their discussion.
5. Recodification Ms. Reichert presented the Council with a timeline for adoption of the
newly codified municipal code which is proposed to be effective January 2, 2002, the first
business day of the new year.
6. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
17
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 7a
Meeting of November 5, 2001
7a. 1st Reading of an ordinance adopting administrative penalties procedures for
certain violations of city code.
Ordinance establishing procedures for achieving compliance with certain code
provisions allowing for citations and fines separate from those imposed by the
county court system.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to approve first reading and set second reading for
November 19, 2001.
Background:
The Administrative Penalty procedure is designed as an alternative to the county court system in
enforcing violations of the city’s ordinance code. The City currently issues county citations or
files formal complaints which require the violator’s appearance in court. The administrative
penalty procedure allows for another tool for enforcement administered at the City level. Rather
than issuing citations and processing through the county court system, a city citation will be
issued and an administrative fee imposed. The intent of this process is to provide a cost effective
and efficient method for charging persons with code violations.
The Ordinance
The ordinance establishes the administrative penalty procedure as an alternative to county court
proceedings and the associated misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charges. The process is
voluntary on the part of the City and we may choose to move directly to the county court process
for repeat or flagrant violators of any code provision. Should a violator choose to ignore the
citation or fail to comply, the offense is referred to the county court system and is prosecuted.
Failure to pay a fine is not a separate criminal offense.
The citation is issued as a notice to the violator and can be made by any employee authorized by
the City Manager. Within 7 days of receiving the notice the violator must choose to either pay
the fine, request that the violation be taken through the county court process, or request a hearing
from the City Manager (or designee) who is designated to be the City’s Hearing Officer.
The ordinance calls for the Council to adopt a resolution listing offenses appropriate for this
process and applicable fines. All fines are paid to general fund. Fines can increase by a
predetermined amount if there are second or subsequent offenses during a one year period,
however, additional fines cannot be charged for each day a particular nuisance is allowed to
exist.
18
Current policy and practice of abatement of nuisances and assessment of associated costs to the
city remains in effect and can be used in conjunction with this system.
Administration
Administration of the program will entail:
• Issuance of a notice or citation to the violator
• Fee collection
• Scheduling appeals and hearings
• Maintenance of a system to track history of penalties
• Reporting to other appropriate agencies
• Maintaining close communication with appropriate city staff and council
Staff recommends that the process be centrally administered to ensure consistent application and
oversight. It is our intent that administration of the process (citation, fine collection, hearings,
etc.) be handled by the Clerk’s Office as a ministerial function and that enforcement and
abatement activities related to the offense remain a departmental responsibility.
Offenses
Staff is recommending that this process be applied to only certain violations of the code at this
time. Additional penalties to which this process can be applied may be forwarded to Council in
the future. The resolution identifying those penalties is limited to enforcing snow removal from
sidewalks, failure to allow access to water meters and other utilities, and violations of sprinkling
restrictions.
Notice
At the study session of October 8, 2001, Council had asked staff to provide them with
information regarding notice to violators prior to implementing the program. Staff is
recommending the following notice procedures for the violations included in the resolution:
Failure to allow access to water meters and other utilities; Failure to make utility repair as
ordered by City; Failure to comply with sprinkling restrictions
For each of these violations, the property owner will be informed of the penalty prior to
its imposition through direct interaction with staff in the form of a meeting, phone
conversation or through written correspondence. Should the violator refuse to comply a
citation will be served.
19
Failure to comply with sidewalk snow removal requirements
The City’s general sidewalk snow removal provisions have been well-publicized in the
past, but the City’s intent to more strictly enforce sidewalk snow removal through
imposition of a city fine is new information. Information about the penalty is to be
included in several public information mediums including:
• Park Perspective article October
• Website October
• First class direct mailing to all
homes in SLP
Early November
• Cable TV interview Early November
• Park Perspective article Late November/Early December
• Sun Sailor news release Late November/Early December
• Community Handbook Early 2002
The ordinance will not be in effect until fifteen days following publication, making
December 5th the earliest date the administrative fine can actually be imposed. There is
no way of knowing whether we will experience any (or multiple ) snow events prior to
that date. We also want to allow adequate time for the general public to become
informed through the various public information mediums referenced above.
Therefore, staff proposes that a notice informing violators of the ordinance and its
effective date be served on all violators for the first two snow events which occur this
season. Beginning with the third event following the effective date of December 5th, an
immediate citation will be served on all violators.
Attachments: Proposed Ordinance
Resolution of Penalties and Associated Fees (to be adopted with 2nd
reading on November 19, 2001)
Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
20
ORDINANCE NO. _______-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
PART II, CHAPTER 1: GENERAL PENALTIES
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING SECTION 1-14: ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 1-14. Administrative Penalties
(a) Purpose: Administrative offense procedures established pursuant to this Section
are intended to provide the public and the City with an informal, cost effective and expeditious
alternative to traditional criminal charges for violations of certain ordinance provisions.
The procedures are intended to be voluntary on the part of those who have been charged with
administrative offenses. At any time prior to the payment of the administrative penalty as is
provided for hereafter, the individual may withdraw from participation in the procedures in
which event the City may bring criminal charges in accordance with law. Likewise, the City, in
its discretion, may choose not to initiate an administrative offense and may bring criminal
charges in the first instance.
In the event a party participates in the administrative offense procedures but does not pay the
monetary penalty which may be imposed, the City will seek to collect the costs of the
administrative offense procedures as part of a subsequent criminal sentence in the event the party
is charged and is adjudicated guilty of the criminal violation.
(b) Administrative Offense Defined: An administrative offense is a violation of a
provision of this Code and is subject to the administrative penalties set forth in the schedule of
offenses and penalties referred to in subsection (h), hereafter
(c) Notice: Any person employed by the City, authorized in writing by the City
Manager, and having authority to enforce this Code, shall, upon determining that there has been
a violation, notify the violator, or in the case of a vehicular violation, attach to the vehicle a
notice of the violation. Said notice shall set forth the nature, date and time of violation, the name
of the official issuing the notice and the amount of the scheduled penalty.
(d) Payment: Once such notice is given, the alleged violator may, within seven (7)
days of the time of issuance of the notice, pay the amount set forth on the schedule of penalties
for the violation. The penalty may be paid in person or by mail and payment shall be deemed to
be an admission of the violation.
(e) Appeal: Any person who is required by the City to pay an administrative penalty
may make a written appeal of the penalty to the City Manager, or designee, within 7 days of
21
notice by the City of the penalty. The City Manager, or designee, will have authority to make a
final determination as to whether the appellant is to be charged with a penalty.
(f) Failure to Pay: In the event a party charged with an administrative offense fails
to pay the penalty, a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor charge may be brought against the
alleged violator in accordance with applicable statutes.
(g) Disposition of Penalties: All penalties collected pursuant to this Section shall be
paid to the City and may be deposited in the City's general fund.
(h) Offenses and Penalties: Offenses which may be charged as administrative
offenses and the penalties for such offenses may be established by resolution of the City Council
from time to time.
(i) Subsequent Offenses: In the event a party is charged with a subsequent
administrative offense within a twelve (12) month period of paying a penalty for the same or
substantially similar offense, the subsequent administrative penalty shall be increased by $10
above the previous administrative penalty.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council ______________
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration: Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Manager City Attorney
22
RESOLUTION NO. _________
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VIOLATIONS
SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY PROCESS
AND ESTABLISHING ASSOCIATED FEES
FOR THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as follows:
WHEREAS, Chapter 1, Section 1-14 (h) of the municipal code of ordinances states that
offenses which may be charged as administrative offenses and the penalties for such offenses
may be established by resolution of the City Council from time to time; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has established procedures for administration of the
provisions of the ordinance:
NOW THEREFORE LET IT BE RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St.
Louis Park hereby designates the following Municipal Code violations to be subject to the
provisions of the Administrative Penalty process and establishes associated fees:
VIOLATION AND FEE SCHEDULE
Type Section Description Fee *
SNOW REMOVAL 24-342 Failure to remove snow from sidewalk $25
UTILITIES 32-37 Failure to allow access by City for inspection or meter reading
32-43 Failure to comply with water restrictions
32-98 Failure to make utility repair as ordered by City $25
* Chapter 1, Section 1-14 (i): Subsequent Offenses states that: In the event a party is
charged with a subsequent administrative offense within a twelve (12) month period of paying a
penalty for the same or substantially similar offense, the subsequent administrative penalty shall
be increased by $10 above the previous administrative penalty.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
23
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #7b
Meeting of November 5, 2001
7b. Non Union Compensation – 2002
A Compensation Plan document was approved by the City Council in November of
1997. The compensation plan allows the City Manager to set the standard
adjustment each year. The City Manager requests Council confirmation of a 3.5%
standard adjustment effective January 1, 2002. Secondly, a request is made to
increase the performance bonus and rates of pay for Paid-On-Call Firefighters by
3.5%. Also, to approve an increase for the City Manager.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution confirming the City Manager’s
decision to set a 3.5% standard adjustment for non-union salaries
for 2002, increase the performance bonus and rate of pay for
paid-on-call firefighters by 3.5% and approve an adjustment to
the City Manager’s salary.
Non-Union Employee Compensation:
In November 1997, the City Council, by Resolution, adopted a Classification and Compensation
Plan for non-union employees. The plan allows for the City Manager to approve the standard
adjustment by considering market data for public sector positions, and general financial
conditions of the City. The other factor we look at is internal patterns. We have one union
group, Local 49 Maintenance, with a 3.5% wage increase effective January 1, 2002.
Upon review of market data and one contract settlement for 2002, the City Manager has
approved a standard adjustment of 3.5% for 2002. Funds to apply the standard adjustment in
accordance with our compensation plan are included in the proposed 2002 budget. The City
Manager requests that Council confirm this general increase.
Paid-On-Call Firefighter Performance Bonus
Our Paid-On-Call Firefighter performance bonus system was established in 1996. At that time,
we designed a performance bonus system to be competitive with our volunteer neighbors, and to
avoid creation of a Fire Department Relief Association.
In 2001, the Council approved a 10% increase to the performance bonus plan for Paid-On-Call
Firefighters. The increase was the first since the plan was approved in 1996 and 10% was
applied to catch up with general market increases issued to other employee groups. We would
prefer to review pay and performance bonuses annually, and set adjustments accordingly. For
2002, we recommend a 3.5% increase to wage and the performance bonus plan for our Paid-On-
Call Firefighters as shown below:
24
Performance Bonus
Paid-On-Call Firefighters
For 0-23 months of service, POC Firefighters receive a monthly bonus.
After 23 months, POC Firefighters receive an annual bonus.
2001 Proposed 2002
0-23 mos. 110/month 114/month
2 1430/year 1480/year
3 1540/year 1594/year
4 1650/year 1708/year
5 1760/year 1822/year
6 1870/year 1935/year
7 1980/year 2049/year
8 2090/year 2163/year
9 2200/year 2277/year
10 2310/year 2391/year
11 2420/year 2505/year
12 2530/year 2619/year
13 2640/year 2732/year
14 2750/year 2846/year
15 2860/year 2960/year
16 2970/year 3074/year
17 3080/year 3188/year
18 3190/year 3302/year
19 3300/year 3416/year
20 3410/year 3529/year
City Manager’s Contract
Since the City Manager’s contract is separate from that of the Compensation Plan, we want to
make sure the Council also approves his increase for 2002. It is recommended that the City
Manager receive a salary increase consistent with non-union exempt staff, and applied in
compliance with the compensation plan. The Council will need to discuss at a subsequent
meeting the Minnesota salary cap exemption.
Financial Consideration: Funds for the standard adjustment of 3.5% for non-union employees
and City Manager which will be applied according to our compensation plan are included in the
2002 proposed budget. The Fire Department budget for 2002 will be able to support the increase
to the wage and performance bonus for Paid-On-Call Firefighters.
Recommendation: Although the Compensation Plan allows for the City Manager to implement
a standard increase, we ask Council to confirm this action for year 2002 salaries. We further
recommend Council approve a 3.5% increase for Paid-On-Call Firefighter wage and
25
performance bonus, and to approve the increase for the City Manager consistent with other non-
union employees and the compensation plan.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
26
RESOLUTION NO. 01-125
A RESOLUTION EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2002 CONFIRMING A
GENERAL INCREASE FOR NON-UNION EMPLOYEES; INCREASING
WAGE AND PERFORMANCE BONUS PAY FOR PAID-ON-CALL
FIREFIGHTERS AND ADJUSTING COMPENSATION FOR CITY
MANAGER.
WHEREAS, the City Council established and approved, by Resolution, the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan for the City of St. Louis Park, and
WHEREAS, Section VIII-C of such Plan directs the City Manager to approve the standard
adjustment to the Plan;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that:
1. The Council confirms the City Manager’s decision to implement a standard adjustment of
3.5% for non-union employees effective January 1, 2002 in accordance with the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan and also a 3.5% increase to the Paid-on-Call
Firefighters wage schedule.
2. The Council approves a 3.5% increase in the Paid-On-Call Firefighters performance bonus
effective 1/1/02:
Paid on call Firefighter performance bonus
2002
0-23 mos. 114/month
2 1480/year
3 1594/year
4 1708/year
5 1822/year
6 1935/year
7 2049/year
8 2163/year
9 2277/year
10 2391/year
11 2505/year
12 2619/year
13 2732/year
14 2846/year
15 2960/year
27
16 3074/year
17 3188/year
18 3302/year
19 3416/year
20 3529/year
3. The Council approves a wage increase for the City Manager consistent with increases
granted to non-union exempt staff for 2002 and in accordance with the compensation plan.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
28
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item 7c
Meeting of November 5, 2001
7c. Establishing employer contributions for employer-provider cafeteria style
benefit programs for 2002 for non-union positions and the City Manager.
Each year, the City Council is asked to approve an amount for Employer
contribution to the Cafeteria Benefit Plan for non-union employees and the City
Manager. The amount is based on market and increased insurance premiums.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution establishing city contribution toward
employees’ cafeteria benefits plan for non-union, non-exempt
(eligible for overtime) and exempt (not eligible for overtime)
employees including the City Manager for 2002.
Background:
At the City of St. Louis Park, we recognize that employees have unique and personal health care,
insurance and financial needs. Since no two employees are exactly alike, we’ve made choice
and flexibility the cornerstones of our Cafeteria Benefit Plan. The plan gives the employee an
opportunity to design a benefits package that more closely fits his/her personal needs and goals.
Each fall, the Council sets the benefit contribution for St. Louis Park employees to use in our
Cafeteria Benefit Plan. The City holds “open enrollment” information sessions in mid-
November, allowing employees to select benefits for the upcoming plan year. Our Cafeteria
Benefit Plan offers choices in the areas of health, life, dental, long-term disability, flexible
spending accounts (medical or daycare) and deferred compensation.
Analysis:
Over the past several years, there have been significant increases in the cost of Health Insurance.
In reviewing health insurance contributions it appears that the City’s 2001 contribution for
benefits for non-exempt employees (non-supervisory) is falling behind when compared to our
market. The average employer contribution for cities over 25,000 employees in 2001 was
$479/mo, compared to $440/mo. for St. Louis Park non-exempt employees.
Exempt employees (those not eligible for overtime) receive an employer contribution of
$540/month in 2001.
We have one contract settled for 2002, our Local 49 maintenance union, with the employer
benefit contribution set at $510/mo (+$70). Our 4 other union contracts expire year end and
negotiations will begin soon.
29
2002 benefit programs
Health: For 2002 we will continue with Medica as our health insurance provider, purchasing
health and life benefits through the LOGIS Healthcare consortium. This year, by participating in
the consortium, our increase in health premiums is limited to 9.4%, which is well below
increases to other groups in our market and much lower compared to past premium increases.
New rates are as follows:
Medica
High 2001 2002
Single $274.84 $300.66
Emp & Spouse $586.98 $642.13
Emp & Child(ren) $554.50 $606.60
Family $724.72 $792.82
Elect 2001 2002
Single $ 251.05 $274.64
Emp & Spouse $ 536.18 $586.56
Emp & Child(ren) $ 506.50 $554.09
Family $ 661.99 $724.19
Low 2001 2002
Single $ 256.09 $252.56
Emp & Spouse $ 546.93 $539.39
Emp & Child(ren) $ 516.66 $509.55
Family $ 675.28 $665.96
The “Low” option has reduced rates for 2002 compared to 2001 due to a change in plan design
that will require employees to pay more “out of pocket” costs. In 2001, the out of pocket for the
low option was $750 per person. In 2002, the low option out of pocket increases to $2,500 per
individual or $5,000 per family.
Dental: In January 2000, the city changed to HealthPartners dental with substantial savings in
premium. At that time, HealthPartners offered us a second year rate cap for 2001. If we did not
have that rate cap, our dental renewal for 2001 would have required a 60% increase based on
claims. Since we had the rate cap our 2001 increase for dental premiums was limited to 7%.
The benefits committee realized that they needed to review dental and obtain bids for 2002
renewal. After review of bids, the decision was made to join the Cities of Burnsville &
Plymouth in a joint dental bid to obtain better dental options.
30
Delta Dental offered the best two-year package. New Dental Rates 2002 & 2003
1/1/01 1/1/02 1/1/03
Single $25.60 $32.45 $35.05
Family $55.27 $72.65 $78.55
The 2002 Delta dental rate is 27% percent increase for single and 31% for family, significantly
lower than our initial estimated increase of 60%.
Recommendation
Based on information above, we recommend approval of the following benefit levels for non-
union employees and the City Manager effective 1/1/2002.
A) Full-time, non-union non-exempt $510/month
B) Full-time, non-union, exempt including the City
Manager
$610/month, City to continue to
provide LTD as policy allows and
term life insurance at 1 ½ the
employee’s annual salary.
C) Part-time, benefit earning, non-union employees to receive 50% of full-time employees
(Qualifications for benefit eligibility as determined by City Manager.)
Please let me know if additional information is needed regarding this matter.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
RESOLUTION NO. 01-126
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY CONTRIBUTION FOR THE CAFETERIA
BENEFIT PLAN FOR NON-UNION NON-EXEMPT AND EXEMPT EMPLOYEES
INCLUDING THE CITY MANAGER FOR 2002
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a cafeteria-style employee group benefit plan that
provides an effective means for providing employee group benefits, and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes an increase in benefit premiums for 2002 and desires to
increase the contribution levels for 2002.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
1. The City Manager shall continue to administer a cafeteria-style employee group benefits
program in accordance with benefit plan documents.
2. Effective January 1, 2002, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars contributed by the
employer for non-union non-exempt employees, working at least 30 hours per week, be set at
$510/month.
3. Effective January 1, 2002, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars for non-union
employees working 20 through 29 hours per week be set at 50% of the exempt or non-
exempt employee monthly contribution level, based on status of position as determined by
the City Manager.
4. The monthly City contribution of benefit dollars for non-union exempt employees including
the City Manager shall be set at $610/month. Additionally, the City will continue to provide,
at no cost to such 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.
5. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of any
sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit the insurer under
an approved contract the employee or officer and share of any such premium.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
32
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item 7d
Meeting of November 5, 2001
7d. The request of Xcel Energy for a Conditional Use Permit for the excavation of
2,500 cubic yards of soil and replacement of 2,640 cubic yards of fill and a
variance from the landscape bufferyard requirements along the south
property boundary at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South. (Cedar Lake Road and
Edgewood Avenue)
Case No. 01-46-CUP and 01-50-VAR
Recommended
Action:
1. Motion to adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use
Permit subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission and included in the resolution.
2. Motion to adopt a resolution denying the bufferyard variance
based upon the Planning Commission’s findings that the seven
criteria have not been met.
Alternate 2. Motion to adopt a resolution granting the bufferyard variance
Action: based upon staff’s findings that the seven criteria have been met.
Background:
In August, the City Council approved a Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning of the
northern portion of the property so that the entire property is now guided Industrial and zoned
Industrial Park. Utility substations are Permitted with Conditions in the Industrial Park District.
The proposed substation meets all of the conditions for approval other than a required bufferyard
between the substation site and the St. Louis Park Bus Company site to the south. Since both
sites are Industrial, a bufferyard would not ordinarily be required. However, substations are
subject to higher bufferyard requirements than most Industrial uses. Xcel has applied for a
variance to eliminate the need for a bufferyard along the southern boundary adjacent to the bus
company.
A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is also required due to the excavation/filling of more than 400
cubic yards of material. Xcel is excavating 2,500 cubic yards of soil from their site and
replacing it with 2,640 cubic yards of fill. The soil excavation/filling is needed for soil
correction. The applicant plans to remove one foot of topsoil from the entire pad area, fill a low
area along the north edge with select fill, and remove the excess soil. The applicant then plans to
surface the entire pad area with 12 inches of class 5 and four inches of crushed rock.
33
On October 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the CUP and
variance requests. Staff recommended approval of both requests subject to conditions. Staff also
recommended approval of an allowable reduction in the Class I building material requirements
for the control building from 60% to 35%. The recommendation was based in part on a
determination that the proposal would achieve a higher level of site design if a decorative fence
were installed rather than the typical chain link fence with barbed wire (see attached Staff Report
to the Planning Commission).
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP but removed the condition
requiring the decorative fence. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the
bufferyard variance. The Commission indicated that they did not believe the findings were met
for the variance. They also expressed an interest in providing more screening between the Xcel
property and the Bus Company, in part as a means of helping screen the Bus Company from
public view (see attached Excerpts from the Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes). No
one from the public spoke at the Planning Commission meeting.
Xcel has explored the possibility of including landscaping on the south side of the property.
However, they have indicated that there is not enough space to do the planting without moving
the substation further north. That option would require a variance from the required setback
from residential uses. In addition, it should be noted that the Bus Company is required to install
plantings on their property adjacent to the substation site and along the Edgewood right-of-way.
This would help screen the Bus Company from public view. Staff has been working with the
Bus Company to ensure that the required landscaping and paving of the bus parking lot is
completed by next Spring/early Summer. The Bus Company has submitted a Letter of Credit as
a financial surety for completion of the work.
Analysis of Issues:
A complete analysis of issues is included in the attached October 17th Report to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission’s rationale for changes to the staff’s recommendation is
included in the attached Excerpts from the Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the CUP subject to conditions included in
the attached resolution (the requirement for a decorative fence has been eliminated).
The Planning Commission recommends denial of the variance based upon the findings included
in the attached resolution of denial.
34
Alternate Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the bufferyard variance based upon findings that the seven criteria
have been met as analyzed in the attached Report to the Planning Commission. An alternate
resolution of approval has been attached for the Council’s consideration.
Attachments:
October 17, 2001 Staff Report to the Planning Commission
Excerpts from the Unapproved Minutes of the October 17, 2001 Planning Commission
Meeting
Proposed resolution approving the CUP
Proposed resolution denying the variance
Alternate resolution approving the variance
Proposed Development Plans
Decorative Fence Detail (provided for informational purposes only; not required)
Prepared By: Janet Jeremiah, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
35
City of St. Louis Park
Planning Commission Agenda Item #3A
Meeting of October 17, 2001
#3A. The request of Xcel Energy for a Conditional Use Permit for the excavation of
2,500 cubic yards of soil and replacement of 2,640 cubic yards of fill and a
variance from the landscape bufferyard requirements along the south
property boundary at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South. (Cedar Lake Road and
Edgewood Avenue)
Case No. 01-46-CUP and 01-50-VAR
Recommended
Action:
Chair to close the public hearing. Motion to recommend
approval of the Conditional Use Permit and variance subject to
conditions listed in the staff report.
Background:
On July 11, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests to make the entire property Industrial.
No one other than the applicant’s representative was present from the public, and no one spoke at
the public hearing. However, a resident did write a letter stating his objection of the project. The
Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the rezoning and amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan.
On August 6, 2001, the City Council voted 7-0 to approve the Comprehensive Plan amendment
and the first reading of the rezoning of the southern portion of the property at 2201 Edgewood
Avenue from R2 – Single Family Residential to IP – Industrial Park. On August 20, 2001, the
City Council voted 7-0 to approve the second reading of the rezoning of the subject property to
Industrial Park subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment by the Metropolitan
Council. The Metropolitan Council has reviewed the amendment and has approved the request.
Besides the bufferyard variance request, the impetus for this Planning Commission review is the
excavation/import of fill. The excavation or filling of more than 400 cubic yards requires a
Conditional Use Permit in all zoning districts. Xcel is excavating 2,500 cubic yards of soil from
their site and replacing it with 2,640 cubic yards of fill. The soil excavation/filling is needed for
soil correction. The applicant plans to strip one foot of topsoil from the entire pad area, filling a
low area along the north edge with select fill and removing the excess soil. The applicant then
plans to surface the entire pad area with 12 inches of class 5 and four inches of crushed rock.
36
Utility substations are permitted uses in the Industrial Park zoning districts with conditions. A
list of these four conditions and the applicant’s compliance with these conditions is analyzed
below.
The advantage of the proposed site for the substation is the proximate existing transmission line
that runs along the easterly property line with the railroad. The proposed 115Kv substation will
tap this existing transmission line. Along with the transmission towers and lightening protectors,
a 20’x40’ control building is proposed. The applicant is proposing a decorative fence on the
north, west and south sides of the site as opposed to Xcel’s standard chain-linked fence with barb
wire. (Please see attached fence detail.) A chain-linked fence would be used along the east side
of the site, parallel with the rail road tracks.
Existing Conditions
The subject site is a vacant property south of Cedar Lake Road between the CP Rail north/south
railroad and Edgewood Avenue. Industrial development is located to the south, and single family
housing exists to the north and west beyond a small neighborhood park area. The subject
property is approximately 10 feet lower than Cedar Lake Road. A number of mature oak and
boxelder trees are located on the slope with understory shrubs. A grove of mature cottonwood
trees grows at the bottom of the hill along the northwestern portion of the site.
Issues:
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
Are the findings met for the requested variance?
How does the development impact the proximate residential properties?
What route is being used to haul the fill, and how long will the hauling take place?
Is the property located in the flood plain?
Issues Analysis:
Are the Zoning Ordinance requirements being satisfied?
Utility substations are permitted in the IP – Industrial Park Zoning District with the following
conditions:
1. Structures shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any property line.
2. Structures shall be located a minimum of 200 feet from any residential use.
3. A Bufferyard “E” shall be installed and maintained along all public ways.
4. This use shall be considered an intensity classification 7 for the purpose of establishing
adjacent bufferyard requirements.
The proposed substation is 200 feet from the residential properties north of Cedar Lake Road and
310 feet from the residential property west of Edgewood Avenue, and the substation meets the
25-foot setback from all property lines. Furthermore, the landscaping plans exceeds the
Bufferyard “E” requirements along Cedar Lake Road and Edgewood Avenue.
37
The proposed height of the transmission towers is 76 feet as measured from the grade at the base
of the towers. The maximum permitted height of structures in the IP zoning district is 75 feet.
However, the measured height per ordinance is from the mean curb level along the front lot line
or from the finished grade level, whichever is higher. The mean curb level along Edgewood
Avenue is 890 feet, while the finished grade level is 884 feet. Therefore, the towers are five feet
below the maximum permitted height.
Landscaping
The landscaping plan exceeds the bufferyard requirements along the west and north property
boundaries. The west bufferyard consists of overstory trees, evergreens, and Tartanan maple
shrubs lining the entryway. The north bufferyard, along Cedar Lake Road, is primarily evergreen
trees and shrubs to augment the existing overstory trees. The applicant is requesting a variance
from the bufferyard requirement for the south bufferyard between the Xcel site and the school
bus company to the south. An analysis of the variance request is discussed below.
It should be noted that the proposed landscaping located on the school bus company’s site was
not included in calculating the required amount of landscaping for the west bufferyard. In
addition, evergreen trees constitute 47% of the landscaping plan.
Tree Preservation
The applicant is removing roughly 18% of the existing trees on site for this development. Under
the recently approved Tree Preservation Ordinance amendment, any tree removal that constitutes
less than 20% of the trees on site does not require any tree replacement. It should be noted that
the only trees planned to be removed include cottonwoods and elms. All of the Bur Oak trees
will be preserved.
Building Materials
Xcel Energy’s prototypical control building is designed with metal siding. The applicant is
working with staff to comply with the City’s building material requirements. A provision of the
ordinance allows the required amount of Class I building material on industrial buildings that are
located on major streets to be reduced to 25% if the architectural and site plans meet the
following three criteria:
1. The exposed height of the building wall shall not exceed 15 feet.
2. The number of required plant units shall be increased by 20% or the size of 20%
of the overstory trees installed shall be increased to 3 ½ caliper inches.
3. A minimum of 10% of the building façade must be windows or glass spandrels.
The building and site plans do meet the first two conditions. However, because of security, the
control house cannot have any windows. Therefore, staff is recommending allowing the amount
of Class I building material on the control building to be reduced to 35% because windows are a
38
Class I building material, meeting the intent of the ordinance. Moreover, a reduction in the Class
I building material requirement is allowed if other site design elements are superior to ordinance
requirements. Staff believes that the decorative fence will be a significant improvement over the
standard chain linked fence with barbwire.
The applicant has not submitted a building elevation showing the final building materials. Xcel
Energy is in the process of finalizing the building elevation. Staff will present a building
elevation to the Planning Commission at the meeting if one is completed by Wednesday. If not,
staff is recommending a condition of approval that the exterior façade of the control building
consist of at least 35% brick or other Class I building material as approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
Are the findings met for the requested variance?
The applicant is requesting a variance to the Bufferyard E requirement along the south side of the
property adjacent to another industrial use (the bus company). Section 14:8-3.3 (E) of the Zoning
Ordinance states that the Board of Zoning Appeals may grant variances from the strict
application of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and impose conditions and safeguards
provided that:
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of the lot, or where by reason of
exceptional topographic or water conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
conditions of such lot, the strict applications of the terms of this ordinance would result
in a peculiar and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the owner
of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner customary and legally permissible
within the zoning district in which said lot is located.
The applicant states the hardship lies in the fact that a utility substation is a unique use for this
area. Because of its uniqueness, vegetation cannot be placed near the fence that would assist
rodents in jumping over the fence and short circuiting the substation. In addition, by placing the
substation as far south on the site as possible, a superior site plan design is achieved; the
applicant saves the greatest amount of the existing trees and increases the space between the
substation and residential activity to the greatest extent possible.
To improve the overall aesthetics and as a substitute for the required landscaping on the south
side, the applicant is proposing a decorative fence around three sides of the substation as opposed
to a chain-linked fence with barbwire, which is the standard fencing for Xcel Energy. In addition,
the applicant is proposing to plant evergreen trees and deciduous shrubs on the property south of
the substation to help screen the south side of the site. This landscaping is close to the road and
helps screen the south side of the substation site from the public street, but does not screen the
substation site from the bus company site. The lot depth from Cedar Lake Road to the bus
company property is not great enough to meet the 200-foot setback from residential and also
meet the bufferyard requirement on the south side in a manner that is appropriate for the use.
This results in practical difficulties in using the lot in a manner that is legally permissible in the
zoning district. Therefore, staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
39
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property and so not apply generally to other land or structures in
the district in which said land is located.
Again, staff agrees with the applicant. The utility substation is a unique use to this property and
is not the typical use in the industrial district. Conditions applying to utility substations
(extraordinary setbacks from residential and higher bufferyard requirements) are peculiar to the
property in question. It is hard to accommodate all of the zoning restrictions and performance
standards, and still meet the site design standards for a utility station. The need to limit
vegetation near the security fence does not apply to other properties or uses in this industrial
district. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
3. The granting of the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
A utility substation is a permitted use with conditions in the industrial zoning district. NSP (now
Xcel) has owned the site for many years and previously gained approval for a substation on the
site under a prior zoning ordinance. As explained above, the proposed substation meets the four
conditions listed in the zoning ordinance except for the bufferyard on the south side. Keeping
rodents away from the substation is a necessity for optimal use of the substation. The variance is
necessary to preserve the applicant’s right to use the property for its intended purpose. Staff
believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
4. The granting of the variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the
adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public streets, increase
the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety.
Staff agrees with the applicant that the request will not impair the light or air to the surrounding
areas. If the required landscaping is not installed, it cannot reduce light and air. Furthermore, the
request will help maintain the facility in working order and may actually improve public safety
as a result. Therefore, staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
5. The granting of the variance will not unreasonably impact the character and
development of the neighborhood, unreasonably diminish or impair the established
property values in the surrounding area, or in any other way impair the health, safety,
comfort, or morals of the area.
The applicant states that installing a decorative fence instead of a chain-linked fence with barb
wire will enhance the neighboring properties. Staff agrees that the proposed plan with no
landscaping between the two industrial-zoned properties would not unreasonably impact the
character of the neighborhood, nor would it diminish the established property values in the area.
Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
40
6. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Ordinance
or Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant states the proposed utility substation is consistent with Comprehensive Plan. As
well, they state that because the bufferyard that they are proposing to not landscape separates two
industrial uses, they do not believe the request would be contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
Staff agrees that the applicant has met the intent of the landscaping ordinance by heavily
buffering the substation to the residents north and west of the site and not requiring a bufferyard
between two similarly intensified uses. Staff believes that this criterion has been satisfied.
7. The granting of the variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable undue hardship or difficulty.
The applicant reiterates that the hardship is the fact that any type of vegetation that would assist
rodents going over the fence cannot be placed near the fence. This is not a convenience but a
design standard for all substations. Moreover, the applicant is upgrading the quality of the fence,
adding landscaping off-site to screen the south side of the substation from traffic on Edgewood,
and preserving as many mature trees as possible.
As stated above, staff believes that the proposed variance will not serve as a convenience to the
applicant but is necessary for the operation of the substation. Staff believes that this criterion has
been satisfied.
How does the development impact the proximate residential properties?
The location of the actual substation on the site is at the southeast corner, which is the most
removed from residential activity and closest to the existing Xcel overhead line and the railroad
facility and other industrial development.
As mentioned above, Xcel Energy is proposing towers that are 76 feet in height (70 feet by
Code). The elevation of the substation is between 17 to 20 feet below Cedar Lake Road. The
existing cottonwood and Bur Oak trees along Cedar Lake Road are approximately 50 feet in
height, which means they will be approximately the same height as the tallest structures for the
substation. Staff believes that because of the combination of the substation being located far
from Cedar Lake Road, a significant amount of the existing overstory trees planning to remain,
the proposed landscaping plan exceeding the bufferyard requirement by more than 20%, and the
site elevation being 20 feet below Cedar Lake Road, the substation will have negligible impact to
the proximate residential properties.
What route is being used to haul the fill, and how long will the hauling take place?
Because the applicant is unsure where the fill will come from, hauling routes have not been
analyzed. However, staff does not have concerns about truck traffic through the residential
neighborhood south of Cedar Lake Road because the most direct route from any location is via
41
Cedar Lake Road. As a precaution, though, staff is recommending adding a condition that
construction traffic be restricted from using Eliot View Road.
The applicant anticipates site work to commence in spring and the excavation/filling process to
take a month. Staff is recommending adding a condition of hours of operation consistent with
other excavation projects such as Park Commons.
Is the property located in the flood plain?
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) shows a portion of the subject property
being in the flood plain on their 1986 flood insurance map. However, the City has since
completed a utility project that constructed a small dike that effectively removed the subject
property from the flood plain. The applicant has completed a review of the final grade elevations
compared to the proximate flood plain elevation and has determined that the site is higher than
the flood plain. Staff is still recommending a condition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit
that the applicant receives a letter from FEMA recognizing that the property is out of the flood
plain.
Recommendation:
Given that all of the seven findings are met for the variance and for the reasons outlined in the
staff report, staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit and a variance for no
bufferyard along the south property line, subject to the following conditions:
1. The site shall be used, developed and maintained in accordance with the official exhibits,
which shall be amended to include elevations of the control building with each façade
constructed out of at least 35% brick or other Class I material as approved by the Zoning
Administrator.
2. The hours of excavation/reclamation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays
and 9:00 am and 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from
using Eliot View Road.
3. Prior to any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Required erosion control permits, utility permits, and other required permits shall be
obtained from the City, Watershed District and any other required agencies.
b. The applicant submits to the City a letter from FEMA recognizing that the property is out
of the flood plain.
c. The applicant shall sign the assent form and amended official exhibits.
d. Tree protection fencing shall be installed per ordinance.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional restrictions, the
applicant shall submit a Letter of Credit in the amount of 125% of the cost of the
landscaping, repair/cleaning of public streets, and repair of utilities.
5. A fence permit shall be required prior to the installation of the proposed fence and the final
design of the fence to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development
Department staff. A building permit is also required for fences over six feet in height.
6. Violation of any regulation of the Zoning Ordinance or any of these conditions shall
result in a fine of $750 per day.
42
Attachments:
• Development Plans
• Fence Detail
Prepared by: Patrick Smith, Planner
952-928-2841; psmith@stlouispark.org
Approved by: Janet Jeremiah, Planning and Zoning Supervisor
952-924-2573; jjeremiah@stlouispark.org
43
Excerpts
Planning Commission Minutes – Unofficial
October 17, 2001
3. Hearings
A. Case Nos. 01-46-CUP and 01-50-VAR
Request of Xcel Energy for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the placement of
fill and a bufferyard variance for property located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue
South (Case 01-46-CUP continued from 9/19/01)
Mr. Smith presented a staff report.
Chair Velick noted that the public hearing for the conditional use permit was
continued from September 19. Chair Velick opened the public hearing for the
variance request.
Commissioner Robertson commented on the open design of the decorative fence,
which would enable rodents to pass through into the substation site.
Mr. Smith responded that the applicant has proposed the use of a very thin steel
material between the decorative fence elements.
Commissioner Garelick asked the height of the fence. He also asked about the
City’s experience with children and similar fencing.
Mr. Smith said the fence would be 7 to 8 feet high.
Ms. Erickson said an existing substation in the City is surrounded by a chain link
fence and she has not heard of any injuries related to the fence.
Greg Schneider, agent for Xcel Energy, responded that staff encouraged Xcel to
look at alternative fence designs. Typically the standard is a regular galvanized
chain link fence with small weave which deters any climbing of the fence. He
added that the chain link fence tends to blend better with the substation
equipment. Mr. Schneider said that expanded steel material would need to go
on the wrought iron fence and a squirrel shield would also have to be added.
Commissioner Garelick asked why a decorative fence has been encouraged rather
than a chain link fence.
Mr. Smith responded that staff believes the fence will be on site for 70 – 80 years
and typical chain link fences with barbed wire deteriorate much faster than a
wrought iron fence. It was also suggested for aesthetic reasons.
44
Commissioner Robertson said he had difficulty picturing the proposed fence. He
said that the primary issue is that the fence functions properly for Xcel. He went
on to say that he’s not sure if aesthetics would be improved given the additions
that need to be made to a wrought iron fence to make it functional. Commissioner
Robertson stated that perhaps a traditional fence would be a better choice as it
blends in with Xcel’s equipment. He suggested that the City should examine the
squirrel-proof design carefully before a decision is made.
Commissioner Morris said he favored a decorative fence and the south side being
squirrel-proof. He asked about the west and north being open to rodents.
Regarding the variance, Commissioner Morris commented that the proposed use
is not unique. He said vegetation should not be omitted because of the concern
about rodents and stated that he does not agree with that analysis.
Chair Velick asked about fencing at the City’s other substation. She asked also if
the other substation had any problems with rodents.
Mr. Schneider and Ms. Peterson, Xcel Engineering, said the other substation near
Highway 7 has a chain link fence.
Chair Velick asked about the other substation’s proximity to residential
properties.
Ms. Erickson replied that the substation is south of Highway 7, next to the north-
south CP rail line, and is bordered by an industrial use. Ms. Erickson said that
the substation is not immediately adjacent to residential property, except for the
Elmwood neighborhood across the railroad track.
Mr. Schneider and Ms. Peterson stated that they were not aware of any problems
with rodents at that substation.
Commissioner Gothberg stated that the standard for substations is a chain link
fence with barbed wire on top which is very effective in preventing rodent
problems. He said he supports the use of a chain link fence rather than an
ornamental fence. He said the existing and additional plantings would definitely
provide screening to the neighborhood. Commissioner Gothberg said he didn’t
see why plantings would be needed for the industrial neighbors.
Chair Velick agreed that the chain link fence might be more appropriate to secure
the substation, as long as it was screened appropriately with plantings.
Commissioner Morris commented that bufferyards in Industrial districts do soften
the impact for the various uses, including new uses such as daycare, teaching and
45
mixed uses. He said for purposes of the current zoning code, he is in favor of
retaining the bufferyard to the south of the Xcel property.
Chair Velick asked Commissioner Morris if in addition to retaining the bufferyard
he would also want to see plantings in that area.
Commissioner Morris replied that was correct.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if Xcel was required to have a planted bufferyard
on the south property line would the layout then have to be shifted to the north.
Mr. Schneider responded that Xcel would have to assess whether or not there was
adequate room along the south property line to do some plantings. He said the
adjoining land owner to the south is encouraged by Xcel’s plans and desires to
look at the two properties as one larger site. Mr. Schneider explained that the
land owner is considering doing some improvements on his property. Discussions
have been held regarding Xcel’s planting along the property line on Edgewood
Ave. to try to screen it from a residential use as opposed to buffering between the
two industrial properties. Mr. Schneider noted that those plantings weren’t added
up in the total landscaping preservation plan, so Xcel is above the planting
requirements. He added that Xcel wants to work with their neighbor as well, and
it will help the neighborhoods if Xcel can remain down in the corner.
Commissioner Morris responded that is encouraging, as bufferyards on adjoining
industrial property can be shared, creating a joint buffer between the uses.
Commissioner Robertson agreed that is a good potential solution, especially
looking at some lower shrubs nearer the fence. He said lower shrubs alone would
soften the line between the two properties.
Ms. Erickson remarked that a neighborhood meeting was held by Xcel. She
reported that most neighbors looked at the Xcel addition as helping the
neighborhood, as currently buses are parked in the lot to the south of the property.
The proposal would not only screen Xcel’s property but would also screen off the
buses from the neighborhood. Ms. Erickson said the neighborhood concern was
more about buses being visible than Xcel’s proposal. She added that Xcel’s
desire was to screen as much as possible from those residential uses.
Chair Velick asked if the changes that commissioners are suggesting would
prevent bus screening.
Ms. Erickson said she believed the bus company was required to do some
landscaping. She said as the site drops off from the street, the view is downward
onto the industrial use and the buses were in good view from the neighborhood
46
and the street. Xcel’s proposal would screen much of that, which pleased the
neighborhood.
Chair Velick asked if the Planning Commission could have a preliminary drawing
of the suggestions made before making a motion.
Commissioner Morris suggested that the Planning Commission vote on the
conditional use permit, and then discuss the variance request as a separate item.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Morris moved approval of the conditional use permit subject to
conditions and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Garelick,
Gothberg, Morris, Robertson and Velick voting in favor.
Commissioner Robertson suggested that the variance could be denied. The
applicant would then need to provide the bufferyard or bring the request to the
City Council. He added that the applicant does not seem to meet the seven
criteria necessary to grant a variance and, as a way to provide the bufferyard does
exist, the Commission is almost obligated to deny the variance.
Further discussion was held about procedure.
Commissioner Robertson moved that the variance be denied as it does not satisfy
all seven criteria.
Discussion was held about fence design. Chair Velick stated that the Commission
was in agreement that a chain link fence would be acceptable if screened properly.
Commissioner Morris said he was in favor of the decorative fence but he wanted
vegetation to be included.
Ms. Erickson suggested that the Commission make an amendment to the motion
regarding the conditional use permit, eliminating the need for a decorative fence.
Commissioner Gothberg said he’d like the Commission to go on record in support
of a bufferyard on the south if it can be worked out with the southern neighbor.
Commissioners noted their agreement. Commissioner Gothberg said that he
prefers no bufferyard landscaping to moving the layout to the north.
Commissioner Robertson stated that if something cannot be worked out with the
neighbor to the south, he suggests the applicant return to the City Council
requesting the variance.
The motion to deny the variance was approved 5-0 with Commissioners Garelick,
Gothberg, Morris, Robertson and Velick voting in favor of denial.
47
Mr. Smith and Ms. Erickson said condition No. 1 would have to be amended for
the motion regarding approval of the conditional use permit.
Commissioner Morris amended the motion approving the conditional use permit
by omitting portions of conditions No. 1 and No. 5 pertaining to the decorative
fence. The motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Garelick,
Gothberg, Morris, Robertson and Velick voting in favor of the amendment.
48
RESOLUTION NO. 01-127
A RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER
SECTION 14:4-9 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
RELATING TO ZONING TO PERMIT THE PLACEMENT OF FILL FOR
PROPERTY ZONED I-P INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT LOCATED AT
2201 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park:
Findings
1. Northern States Power Company, d/b/a/ Xcel Energy, has made application to the City
Council for a Conditional Use Permit under Section 14:4-9 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance
Code for the purpose of excavating 2,500 cubic yards of fill and placement of 2,640 cubic yards
of fill within an I-P Industrial Park District located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South for the
legal description as follows, to-wit:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 916, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County
of Hennepin, except that part thereof which lies south of a line parallel with and
451.51 feet north of the south line of said Tract A (Cedar Lake Road and
Edgewood Avenue)
2. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning
Commission (Case No. 01-46-CUP) and the effect of the proposed placement of fill on the
health, safety and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area, the effect of the use
on the Comprehensive Plan, and compliance with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The Council has determined that the placement of fill will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or general welfare of the community nor will it cause serious traffic congestion nor
hazards, nor will it seriously depreciate surrounding property values, and the proposed
placement of fill is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-46-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Conclusion
The Conditional Use Permit to permit the excavation of 2,500 cubic yards of fill and
placement of 2,640 cubic yards of fill at the location described is granted based on the findings
set forth above and subject to the following conditions:
49
1. The site shall be used, developed and maintained in accordance with the following official
exhibits: A-Location Plan, B-Elevations as amended to include elevations of the control
building with each façade constructed out of at least 35% brick or other Class I material as
approved by the Zoning Administrator, C- Grading Layout, D- Grading Sections, E-
Landscape Plan, F- Landscape Schedule incorporated by reference herein.
2. The hours of excavation/reclamation shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on weekdays
and 9:00 am and 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Construction vehicles shall be prohibited from
using Eliot View Road.
3. Prior to any site work, the following conditions shall be met:
a. Required erosion control permits, utility permits, and other required permits shall
be obtained from the City, Watershed District and any other required agencies.
b. The applicant submits to the City a letter from FEMA recognizing that the
property is out of the flood plain.
c. The applicant shall sign the assent form and amended official exhibits.
d. Tree protection fencing shall be installed per ordinance.
4. Prior to issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional restrictions, the
applicant shall submit a Letter of Credit in the amount of 125% of the cost of the
landscaping, repair/cleaning of public streets, and repair of utilities.
5. A fence permit shall be required prior to the installation of the chain link fence. A
building permit is also required for fences over six feet in height.
6. Violation of any regulation of the Zoning Ordinance or any of these conditions shall
result in a fine of $750 per day.
7. Assent form and official exhibits must be signed by applicant (or applicant and owner if
applicant is different from owner) prior to issuance of a building permit.
8. Approval of a Building Permit, which may impose additional requirements.
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 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
01-46-CUP:n/res-ord
50
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF FINDING REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF NORTHERN
STATES POWER COMPANY, d/b/a XCEL ENERGY FOR A VARIANCE UNDER
SECTION 14:6-4.6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO
ZONING TO ELIMINATE A LANDSCAPE BUFFERYARD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE I-P INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT, AT 2201
EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
FINDINGS
1. On September 26, 2001, Northern States Power Company, d/b/a/ Xcel Energy, filed an
application seeking a variance to eliminate a required landscape bufferyard E on the
south side of property located in the I-P District, at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South for the
following legal description, to wit:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 916, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County
of Hennepin, except that part thereof which lies south of a line parallel with and
451.51 feet north of the south line of said Tract A (Cedar Lake Road and
Edgewood Avenue)
2. On October 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and approved a motion
recommending denial of the variance request based upon a finding that the request did
not meet the requirements of Section 14:8-3.3E of the Zoning Ordinance necessary for
granting variances.
3. Based on the testimony, evidence presented, and files and records, the City Council
makes the following findings:
a. The requested variance does not meet the requirements of Section 14:8-3.3(E) of
the Zoning Ordinance necessary to be met for the City Council acting as the Board of
Zoning Appeals to grant variances. There are no factors related to the shape, size or other
extraordinary conditions on the lot which prevent a reasonable use.
b. Granting of the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right. The property has had a reasonable use in the
past.
51
c. Granting of the requested variance would be contrary to the intent and provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance since, if granted it would permit the elimination of a landscape
bufferyard between two uses of differing intensity.
d. There are no demonstrable or undue hardships under the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance or Minnesota Statue, and therefore, conditions necessary for granting the
requested variance do not exist.
4. The contents of Planning Case File 01-50-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
CONCLUSION
The applicant’s request for a variance to eliminate a landscape bufferyard E on the south side of
the property is hereby denied based on the findings set forth above.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
01-50-VAR-den:n\res-ord
52
VARIANCE
RESOLUTION NO. 01-128
(This resolution was revised at council meeting, see Resolution 01-128)
A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 14:6-4.6 OF THE
ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ELIMINATE A LANDSCAPE
BUFFERYARD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE I-P
INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT AT 2201 EDGEWOOD AVENUE SOUTH
BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park, Minnesota:
FINDINGS
1. Northern States Power Company, d/b/a Xcel Energy, has applied for a variance from
Section 14:6-4.6 of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to eliminate a required
landscape bufferyard E on the south side of property located in the I-P District, at 2201
Edgewood Avenue South at the following location, to-wit:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 916, Files of the Registrar of Titles, County
of Hennepin, except that part thereof which lies south of a line parallel with and
451.51 feet north of the south line of said Tract A (Cedar Lake Road and
Edgewood Avenue)
2. On October 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, received
testimony from the public, discussed the application and upon finding that the request did
not satisfy the Ordinance necessary for granting a variance, approved a motion
recommending denial of the variance request.
3. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,
safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and
air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, the effect on values of property in the
surrounding area, and the effect of the proposed variance upon the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Because of conditions on the subject property and surrounding property, it is possible to
use the property in such a way that the proposed variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in
the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, unreasonably
diminish or impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to
the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
5. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property and do not apply generally to other land or
structures in the district in which such land is located.
53
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. It will not merely serve as a convenience to
the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable hardship or difficulty.
7. The contents of Planning Case File 01-50-VAR are hereby entered into and made part of
the public hearing record and the record of decision of this case.
8. Under the Zoning Ordinance, this variance shall be deemed to be abandoned, revoked, or
canceled if the holder shall fail to complete the work on or before one year after the
variance is granted.
CONCLUSION
The application for the variance to eliminate a landscape bufferyard E on the south side of the
property is granted based upon the finding(s) set forth above.
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 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
01-50-VAR:n-res/ord
54
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
November 5, 2001
ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON BY CONSENT
Consent items are 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.
1. Motion to adopt an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling, approve the
summary and authorize its publication
2. Adopt the resolution supporting a request of state funding for the grade separation of the
pedestrian/trail crossing at Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 25 and Belt Line
Boulevard.
3. Motion to accept the following reports for filing.
a. Housing Authority Minutes September 12
b. Planning Commission minutes October 3
c. Monthly Crime report
d. Human Rights Commision Minutes of September 12, 2001
e. Vendor Claim Report
4. Motion to adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 2200-01 Vacating
Certain Streets, an Alley, and a Sidewalk Easement East of Quentin Avenue, North of
Excelsior Boulevard to the Southern Portion of Wolfe Park, and West of Monterey Drive
and set second reading for November 13, 2001.
5. Resolution accepting work on concrete alley paving 2700 block Brunswick Avenue So -
City Project 01-18 - Contract No. 89-01
6. Approval to modify the Home Renewal Program to include a major remodeling component
and authorize the Housing Authority (HA) Board to administer the program within
budgetary and programmatic limits and guidelines set by the City Council.
55
City of St. Louis Park
CONSENT ITEM # 1
Meeting of October 15, 2001
1. Motion to adopt an Ordinance Amending the Local Tax on Lawful Gambling,
approve the summary and authorize its publication
Background: At its meeting of October 15, 2001 Council passed first reading of an ordinance
reducing the amount of tax on lawful gambling in the city to 3/4 of 1%, or .75% of the gross
receipts of all licensed organizations less prizes actually paid out by the organizations.
Staff estimates that reducing the amount of tax to .75% will net between $10,000 and $13,000
per year which should adequately cover City costs related to administration and enforcement and
allow the City to maintain a positive, but not excessive, balance in the fund.
Attachments: Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Prepared By: Cynthia Reichert, City Clerk
Approved By:
ORDINANCE NO. 2213-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK
MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTIONS 13-1608 & 13-1613 CONCERNING
LOCAL TAX ON LAWFUL GAMBLING IN THE CITY
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
Section 13-1608. Local Tax.
Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a monthly basis
a local gambling tax in the amount of .75% of the gross receipts of a licensed organization from
all lawful gambling less prizes actually paid out by the organization. Payment shall be made no
later than twenty-five (25) days after the end of the preceding month and shall be accompanied
by a copy of the monthly return filed with the State Gambling Control Board.
Section 13-1613. Effective Date
Effective date of the ordinance shall be January 1, 2002.
Adopted by City Council November 5, 2001
(Insert Signature Block Here)
56
SUMMARY
ORDINANCE NO. 2213-01
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE
CONCERNING LAWFUL GAMBLING IN THE CITY
This ordinance states that the amount of tax collected by the city from lawful gambling
organizations will be reduced from 2% to .75% of the gross receipts of a licensed organization
from all lawful gambling less prizes actually paid out by the organization.
This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2002.
Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2001
Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/
Mayor
A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk.
Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 14, 2001
57
CONSENT ITEM #2
St. Louis Park City Council
November 5, 2001
2. Adopt the attached resolution that supports requesting state funding for the grade
separation of the pedestrian/trail crossing at Hennepin County State Aid Highway
No. 25 and Belt Line Boulevard.
Background: Earlier this year staff submitted an application to the Minnesota Department of
Finance for State Capital Budget Funds to aid in the construction of a grade separated
pedestrian/trail crossing of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 25 at Belt Line Boulevard.
Our desire is for this project to be included in the Governor’s Capital Budget request to be sent to
the Legislature for consideration in 2002. One of the last requirements in this application
process is to provide a resolution of support by the governing body submitting the request. A
resolution for that purpose is attached for Council consideration.
Project Description and Rationale: The City’s request is for $492,000 in state funding (50%
of the total cost of the project) to aid in financing project development, design, construction, and
construction administration/inspection of a grade separated pedestrian/trail crossing over
Hennepin CSAH No. 25 at Belt Line Boulevard in St. Louis Park, Minnesota. Currently, there is
an at-grade pedestrian/trail crossing on the east side of this signalized intersection. The vehicle
traffic on CSAH 25 averages about 24,000 vehicles per day at a posted speed limit of 45 MPH.
The intersecting city street, Belt Line Boulevard, carries about 13,000 vehicles per day at a
posted speed limit of 30 MPH. Pedestrians/bicyclists currently use this crossing to access mass
transit both north and south of CSAH 25, to access the recently constructed regional trail just
south of CSAH 25, to access an industrial/commercial complex south of CSAH 25, and to access
the city’s regional park and recreational center (hockey, swimming, and waterslide) as well as
the developing Park Commons complex.
This project has both local and regional significance. The city recently adopted a citywide
sidewalk and trail plan of which this crossing is of significant importance. This crossing not
only reconnects portions of the city severed by CSAH 25, but also provides a trail link between
two (2) county regional trails (the SWLRT Trail and the Cedar Lake Trail). This crossing and
trail link will provide for more effective regional connections not only for commuting, but it will
also provide access to a major recreational facility and industrial/commercial areas. The need for
this crossing was strongly expressed during the public process and during the adoption of the
citywide system of sidewalks and trails. During the early 1990’s a young boy was killed at this
intersection while crossing CSAH 25 on his way to the recreation complex.
Considerations: Will this project fit with the possible reconstruction of Highway 100 in the
near future? Yes, this project will not only fit the current situation but will also fit possible
future reconstruction scenarios so there will be no “mistake” by advancing this project now.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
58
RESOLUTION NO. 01-123
RESOLUTION REQUESTING SUPPORTING STATE FUNDING
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GRADE SEPARATED
PEDESTRIAN/TRAIL CROSSING OF HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 25 AT BELT LINE BOULEVARD
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as
follows:
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a citywide system of walks, trails, and
bikeways to be built and maintained by the City for a variety of reasons; and
WHEREAS, this citywide plan identifies the need for the grade separation of the
pedestrian/trail crossing at Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 25 at Belt Line Boulevard;
and
WHEREAS, this facility appears to not only serve local but regional needs; and
WHEREAS, the state provides grant funds for projects such as this from time to time.
NOW, THEREFORE, LET IT BE RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of
St. Louis Park hereby supports requesting state funding for the construction of a grade separated
pedestrian/trail crossing of Hennepin County State Aid Highway No. 25 at Belt Line Boulevard.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
59
Item 3a
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
OCTOBER 3, 2001--6:00 P.M.
COMMUNITY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg,
Carl Robertson, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Patrick Smith, Nancy Sells
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Velick called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.
2. Approval of Minutes of September 19, 2001
Commissioner Gothberg stated that the following two corrections should be made to the
minutes. The sentence in Item 3A which states that Commissioner Gothberg closed the
public hearing should be deleted. Item 6 should include reference to the City of Golden
Valley in the last sentence. Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of the minutes as
amended and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette,
Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson, and Velick voting in favor.
3. Hearings
A. Case No. 01-46-CUP – Xcel Energy - Request of Xcel Energy for a Conditional
Use Permit for the placement of fill in excess of 400 cubic yards for property
located at 2201 Edgewood Avenue South (continued from 9/19/01)
Mr. Smith reported that staff recommends continuing the public hearing until
October 17 in order to publish a public hearing notice for a landscape bufferyard
variance request for the site.
Commissioner Bissonnette remarked that the site appears to be surrounded by
vegetation and it appears that there isn’t much room for landscaping.
Mr. Smith responded that the landscape bufferyard variance is between Xcel’s site
and the bordering bus company’s site. There is very little space to do landscaping
60
on that side and any trees would have to be planted immediately adjacent to Xcel’s
fence. Xcel is concerned that the trees would allow squirrels to enter the fenced
area. The variance is being requested to prevent damage by squirrels to Xcel’s
equipment.
Commissioner Gothberg moved to continue the public hearing until October 17,
2001 and the motion passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette,
Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson, and Velick voting in favor.
4. Unfinished Business
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda
B. Other New Business
i. Case No. 01-35-S – Request of Jewish Community Center for Final Plat of
Cedar Woods Addition
Mr. Smith presented a staff report. He distributed revised conditions of
approval. He commented on landscaping on the north side of the site
where undergrowth trees need to removed so that evergreens can grow
there. Mr. Smith went on to say that there are some boxelder trees in that
area, though typically not desirable, they should remain for screening.
Herb Margolis, consultant, suggested that once the scrub growth is cleaned
up in the way Mr. Smith discussed, the JCC will ask staff to look at the
area so issues can be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction. Mr. Margolis
stated that he didn’t see any problems with the revised conditions.
Commissioner Garelick asked for clarification of access license.
Ms. Jeremiah responded that it allows the City to access the outlot for any
kind of maintenance purposes.
Commissioner Gothberg commented that he was pleased with the efforts
made by the JCC in working with the communities of St. Louis Park and
Golden Valley.
Commissioner Garelick moved approval of the Final Plat of Cedar Woods
Addition subject to the revised conditions. The motion passed on a vote
of 5-0 with Commissioners Bissonnette, Garelick, Gothberg, Robertson,
and Velick voting in favor.
61
6. Communications
In response to Commissioner Garelick’s question regarding the City’s emergency plan,
Ms. Jeremiah responded that she believes the City’s Fire Marshall is the contact for the
plan. She said that information could be provided to the Planning Commission at a future
meeting. Ms. Jeremiah reported on an effort currently underway by staff to reach out to
New York City staff dealing with challenges from September 11th. She added that there
is also an effort underway to provide support to St. Louis Park families affected by Army
Reserve calls.
7. Miscellaneous
8. Adjournment
Chair Velick adjourned the meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Administrative Secretary
62
Item 3b
MINUTES
Housing Authority
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
Wednesday, September 12, 2001
Westwood Room
5:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, William Gavzy, Judith Moore, Anne Mavity
(5:15 p.m.)
MEMBERS ABSENT: Shone Row
STAFF PRESENT: Sharon Anderson, Tamra Bokal, Michele Schnitker
OTHERS PRESENT: League of Women Voters representative
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:13 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes for August 8, 2001
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the amended minutes of August 8th, 2001.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
3. Hearings: None
4. Reports and Committees: None
5. Unfinished Business: None
6. New Business
a. Housing Authority Bylaws
Ms. Schnitker explained that in looking at changing the language to gender
neutral, she had a discussion with Cindy Reichert, the City Clerk. Ms. Reichert
maintains the Bylaws and Policies for the City Council and other Boards and has
been updating these for language and to provide some consistency.
63
Ms Reichert indicated she would be willing to look at updating the HA Bylaws
and Policies in conjunction with current Statutes, regulations and City policies.
She indicated she could have the suggested changes ready for the October or
November meeting. Commissioner Gavzy asked if any major changes had ever
been made to the Bylaws. Ms. Schnitker responded that the Bylaws were written
in 1974 and no significant changes had been made since that time.
The Commissioners agreed to allow Ms. Reichert to proceed with rewiewing the
Bylaws and Policies and bring the suggested changes before the Board in
October or November.
b. Capital Fund Program
Ms. Anderson explained the CFP award amount for this year is $232,924. The
HA's proposal for the use of these funds includes $60,000 to cover the budget
deficit (which would likely be reduced to $40,000), modernization of $147,700
and architectural fees of $25,224. She explained the architectural fees are an
estimate only, and the final amount will be determined when the bids come in
from the firms. Ms. Anderson referred to the attached charts detailing the known
work items that would be performed. Ms. Anderson also indicated that these
charts show an additional $40,000 in work that could be completed now but are
not included in the $147,700 modernization estimate.
Ms. Anderson also discussed the reserve balances of $431,847 in the operating
fund and the general reserve fund of $478,420.
Commissioner Moore asked how HUD calculates the formula for determining the
amount of CFP to be awarded. Ms. Schnitker commented that she could get that
information from HUD for the Commissioners. Commissioner Moore said that
she would like to see this information.
Ms. Anderson mentioned that bid packages were sent out to eight architectural
firms including Studio Five, the firm under contract for the current project. She
indicated the staff has been very happy with Studio Five's work but felt it was
prudent to solicit new proposals from Studio Five as well as other firms for the
next project. Commissioner Mavity asked if the contract would be for four years.
Ms. Anderson answered that the contract term would be one year, and if the work
performance is satisfactory, the contract could be renewed without getting new
proposals every year.
Ms. Schnitker talked briefly about the budget and explained that the numbers
shown are preliminary and she would bring the final budget for Board approval to
64
the October meeting. She said the operating deficit should be lower than
originally anticipated and that she is currently anticipating $40,000, which would
mean more money from the CFP could be used for repairs and improvements.
She also said that no contingency for cost overruns was included and any
overruns would likely be funded through operating reserves.
Commissioner Mavity asked how many points were deducted for the high
balances in the reserve accounts. Ms. Schnitker explained that one and a half
points were deducted by HUD for this reason. Commissioner Mavity stated that
she would like to have some historical information on the reserve accounts and
what kinds of items they have been used to fund. Ms. Schnitker responded during
the last two years about $120,000 of the operating reserve was used to fund higher
than anticipated contractual and materials costs. Ms. Schnitker also said the
general reserve fund had been used very sparingly.
Commissioner Gavzy expressed his thoughts were to be prudent with spending
the reserves since they are not replenished. Commissioner Mavity stated that her
opinion is that there is a housing crisis and maintenance needs to be met, and that
the Board should be willing to use the reserves to cover these expenses if needed.
Commissioner Gavzy asked what the additional $40,000 in maintenance items
would be used for. Ms. Schnitker responded that the attachments showing those
items were behind the first year's projections.
Ms. Schnitker explained that the HA needs a decision on the amount of work to
be completed this year so that this could be included in the architects' bids.
Commissioner Gavzy suggested proposing the lower amount of work to be done
and then possibly adding more work at a later date. He felt the architects would
prefer this rather than going in the opposite direction.
Commissioner Mavity asked the HA to bring information back with regard to the
proper amount of reserves that a housing authority should have.
The consensus of the commissioners is to bid the lower amount of work at this
time.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No. 09-2001
65
Commissioner Gavzy asked that descriptions of expenditures be listed on the
claims list.
Commissioner Courtney moved ratification of Claims List No. 09-2001.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-
0 with Commissioners Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
b. Communications
Ms. Anderson talked about a termination and two vacates at Hamilton House.
Commissioner Mavity asked if anyone would be going to the NAHRO
conferences. Ms. Schnitker responded that Cindy Stromberg would be attending
the national conference and that she and Tamra Bokal would be attending the
state conference. She also stated that no commissioners were able to attend the
national or state conference.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Mavity
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners
Courtney, Gavzy, Mavity and Moore voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Shone Row, Secretary
66
Item 3c
Monthly Crime and Incident Statistics - September
Part I Crime: Homicide, Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, Burglary,
Larceny/Theft, Auto Theft, and Arson
Part I crime was 9.7% lower in September than in August with 140 part I crimes reported in
September compared to 155 in August. Through September of 2001, a total of 1,140 part I
crimes were reported to the St. Louis Park Police Department, compared to 1,185 for the same
time period in 2000. This is a 3.8% decrease. Rape, aggravated assault, and arson are higher
this year than in 2000. Homicide, robbery, burglary, larceny, and auto theft are lower.
CRIME 2001 THRU 9/30 2000 THRU 9/30 % CHANGE
Homicide 0 1 -100.0%
Rape 10 5 100.0%
Robbery 8 17 -52.9%
Aggravated Assault 22 18 22.2%
Burglary 116 117 -0.9%
Residential 45 47 -4.3%
Business 71 70 1.4%
Larceny/Theft 897 945 -5.1%
Auto Theft 71 76 -6.6%
Arson 16 6 166.7%
TOTAL 1,140 1,185 -3.8%
The clearance rate for part I crime reported in September is 20.7%.
Part II Crimes: Simple Assault, Other Sex Offenses, Gambling, Stolen Property,
Vandalism, DWI, Narcotics, Weapons, Crimes Against Administration,
Crimes Against the Family, Public Peace, Forgery, Fraud, etc.
The number of Part II crimes reported in September was 24.2% higher than the number reported
in August with 164 reported in September compared to 132 in August. Through September of
2001, a total of 1,447 part II crimes were reported, compared to 1,546 for the same time period in
2000. This is a 6.4% decrease. Forgery and narcotics crimes are higher this year than in 2000.
Vandalism and DWI’s are lower. It should be noted that the increase in narcotics crimes is
primarily the result of an increased emphasis on proactive initiatives which are being done
cooperatively by support services and patrol operations.
CRIME 2001 THRU 9/30 2000 THRU 9/30 % CHANGE
Forgery 60 60 0.0%
Vandalism 365 390 -6.4%
Narcotics 57 42 35.7%
DWI 226 326 -30.7%
All 1,447 1,546 -6.4%
67
The clearance rate for Part II crime reported in September is 54.9%.
CALLS FOR SERVICE: Calls for service were 5.6% lower in September than in August with
2,349 received in September compared to 2,488 in August. Through September of 2001, police
responded to a total of 20,479 calls for service, compared to 19,490 for the same time period in
2000. This is a 5.1% increase.
The following is a summary of the calls for service received by the police department in
September of 2001:
Number of Number of
Type of Call Calls Type of Call Calls
Traffic Stops ** 217 Public Works 17
Alarm Calls 203 Terroristic Threats 17
Medical 201 Harassment 16
Suspicious Incident 173 Forgery 15
Theft 143 Assault 14
Welfare Check 128 Civil Matter 14
Animal Complaints 103 Missing Person 14
Other-Miscellaneous 99 Warrant Service 12
Parking Violation 94 Assist Persons with Disabilities 11
Noise Complaint 78 Gun Call 10
Property Damage Accident 70 Fireworks 8
Driving Complaint 65 Tow 8
Motorist Assist 59 Narcotics 7
Follow-up 57 Order/Protection Viol. 7
Damage to Property 55 Traffic Detail 7
Disturbance 49 Road Hazard 6
Hit and Run Accident 42 Neighborhood Dispute 5
Extra Patrol 37 Unsecured Area 5
Assist Other Agency 36 Child Abuse 4
Community Policing Project 34 Criminal Sexual Conduct 3
Fire 32 Fight 3
Unwanted Person 25 Checks - Stolen/NSF 2
Found/Lost Property 24 Hazmat Incident 2
Domestic Dispute 23 Status Offense (Juvenile) 2
Loud Music/Party 20 Exposer 1
Auto Theft 18 Kidnapping 1
Burglary 17 Recovered Stolen Property 1
Citizen Assist 17 Suicide Attempt 1
Personal Injury Accident 17
TOTAL 2,349
** Includes only those traffic stops for which a police report was written.
68
Item 3d
City of St. Louis Park
Human Rights Commission
Meeting Minutes – September 12, 2001
Council Chambers - City Hall
______________________________________________________________________________
Present
Commission Members: Marc Berg, Cassandra Boddy, Jake Feldman, Herb Isbin, Kristi
Rudelius-Palmer, Kristin Siegesmund, Emily Wallace-Jackson and Maya Winoker
Staff: Martha McDonell, Commission Liaison and Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary
Call to Order
Chairperson Kristin Siegesmund called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
August Minutes: Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded by Marc Berg to approve the August
minutes. Motion passed unanimously.
September Agenda: Members agreed to postpone the discussion about its assistance to the
Vision St. Louis Park Outcomes Committee until the October meeting when Patrick Rogers can
be in attendance.
Reports
Commissioner Reports: Jake Feldman mentioned the upcoming play, “And Then They Came
For Me: Remembering the World of Anne Frank” which is being produced by the Youth
Performance Company.
Maya Winoker reported that the High School’s Human Mosaic program has increased
membership and programming is underway.
Herb Isbin urged members to attend the League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions’
annual conference on September 22.
Kristi Rudelius-Palmer reported that next week is Human Rights Week at the University of
Minnesota, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being painted on the inside of the
Washington Avenue Bridge.
Staff Report: Martha McDonell reported that one application for the Human Rights
Commission has been received; however, the individual has not yet been interviewed by the City
Council. She also said she would be sending information about the commission to a member of
the Golden Valley Human Rights Commission who is moving to St. Louis Park.
McDonell also reported on Lorin Kramer’s efforts to inform St. Louis Park police officers about
the procedure to follow when responding to possible hate crimes. Herb Isbin asked whether the
69
City’s Organizational Development Coordinator, Bridget Gothberg, has made any effort to offer
training on hate crime response. Isbin added that Mort Ryweck, League of Minnesota Human
Rights Commissions, has offered to participate in training for St. Louis Park Police Department.
Old Business
Human Rights Award: Commissioners discussed whether to amend the award guidelines and
delete the requirement that efforts should be voluntary or “above and beyond” an agency’s
mission. Members felt that last year’s winner—the Spanish Immersion Program—deserved to
receive the award because it is a great example for community and encourages individuals to
become bilingual. Members agreed that the award criteria would state that efforts can be either
voluntary or part of the job: the key is whether the effort improved the community. Kristi
Rudelius-Palmer suggested that the commission make an effort to give an award to an individual
and an organization to broaden participation and visibility. Moved by Herb Isbin and seconded
by Jake Feldman to incorporate these suggestions into the guidelines. Motion passed
unanimously. Martha McDonell offered to edit the award guidelines, and Rudelius-Palmer
offered to draft a cover letter to accompany the guidelines.
Commissioners then discussed how to reach out to organizations and raise awareness about the
award. Emily Wallace-Jackson suggested that each commissioner select two or three
organizations to partner with as a way to publicize the award and raise awareness about the
commission. Herb Isbin wanted to wait to volunteer until after the award information had been
mailed to see how much of a response is received. Commissioners disagreed saying the
commission has had a poor response for several years, and the outreach effort would have other
benefits beyond publicizing the award. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer added that the outreach effort
would help the commission to assess community needs and set better commission goals for the
coming year.
Below are the partnerships which commissioners volunteered for:
Cassandra Boddy –
Westwood Lutheran Church and day care
High School Human Mosaic
Maya Winoker –
Bais Yisroel
Human Mosaic
Kennesseth Israel
Bet Shalom
Jake Feldman –
High School administrators/teachers
Jewish Family and Children’s Service
B’nai Emet
Beth El
Junior High School
Marc Berg –
STEP
League of Women Voters
Perspectives
Other members were asked to call Martha McDonell to tell her which organizations they’d like
to partner with.
70
National Night Out Follow-Up: Martha McDonell reported that she looked into the concerns
raised by a former block captain and gay man who reported that he felt discriminated against
when he was not invited to the block’s National Night Out gathering. Debra Strege and Sergeant
Lori Dreier met with the block captain and reported their findings to McDonell. They learned
that the block party was really on the next block and fliers were simply distributed to adjacent
blocks. If the individual didn’t receive a flier it was solely an accident and there was no
intention to leave anyone out. Chris Smith will phone the individual and report what has been
learned and determine if he feels comfortable with this response.
Herb Isbin suggested asking Police Services Liaison Debra Strege to include the Human Rights
pledge in the next month’s block captain newsletter.
Commission Recruitment: Members provided some suggestions for the recruitment flier’s
wording to encourage people to apply to the commission.
Cultural Competency Forums: Emily Wallace-Jackson told commissioners that she sent a
letter to School Superintendent Dr. Barbara Pulliam highlighting the commission’s ideas for
topics for the cultural competency forums. Marc Berg reported that Pulliam called to thank the
commission for its suggestions but was seeking more people of color for the second and third
forums.
Martha McDonell and Linda Savareid, Community Education Director, are planning the first
forum which will feature a speaker from the state demographer’s office.
New Business
Hate Crime Response: Herb Isbin played a recorded phone message from Mort Ryweck,
League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions, with his suggestions about how the
commission can respond to the victims of hate crimes. Ryweck felt letters to victims must be
timely and supportive. Isbin felt that the commission needs to look at its practices so it can
respond in a more timely manner rather than wait until the next commission meeting. Isbin felt
the response plan—which states that the commission cannot contact the victim unless the victim
first contacts the commission—is too limiting. Isbin also felt the Police Department doesn’t
always tell the victim about the Human Rights Commission. Isbin also wondered how fast the
police responded to a hate crime. He noted, while out on a walk, that he saw graffiti on a
synagogue and two individuals waiting for the police. However, no police car arrived within the
10 minutes that Isbin was at the scene.
Marc Berg said he doesn’t believe the plan is working as envisioned and it’s time to revisit the
issue. He felt the commission needs to clarify the purpose of responding to the victim.
Kristen Siegesmund noted that the revised plan must maintain the anonymity of the victim. Isbin
felt crimes published in the paper or graffiti visible to passersby is “public” and can be
denounced by the commission. Siegesmund said if the commission wants to respond publicly, it
should put a letter in the newspaper. Kristi Rudelius-Palmer asked about the possibility of
71
holding a news conference or issuing a news release. Commissioners felt this could be done
without identifying the person/victim.
Isbin added that he felt the commission is too silent. As an example, Isbin said the commission
did not speak out against the KKK rally in St. Paul. Isbin felt the commission should decry hate
crimes and wants to see statements as a joint effort of the commission and City council.
Siegesmund moved that the commission revise the response plan so the commission can contact
the victim either on its own or with the police. McDonell suggested that the commission meet
with the police department first to draft a joint plan.
After a discussion, members agreed that McDonell, Rudelius-Palmer, Feldman and Berg would
meet with Lorin Kramer to discuss the issue. Isbin suggested that the Police Chief also be
included in this meeting.
Commissioners then discussed Kristen Siegesmund's letter to the editor entitled “responding to
hate.” Members were asked to send comments to her so Siegesmund could edit the letter and
send it to the Sun-Sailor.
Set Agenda For Next Meeting
Members agreed to add the following items to the October agenda:
International Conference Report – Kristi Rudelius-Palmer
Hate Crime Response Plan
Vision St. Louis Park Outcomes Committee
Adjournment
Moved by Cassandra Boddy and seconded by Maya Winoker to adjourn. Motion passed
unanimously. With no further business, the commission adjourned at 9:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynn Schwartz
Recording Secretary
72
Item #3e
October 19, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 205.26
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,531.00
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.51
AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 160.90
ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,197.06
ANN'S TOOL SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 225.67
ANOKA-HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 500.00
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA GENERAL SUPPLIES 329.51
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 789.12
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
AUDIOVISUAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 157.25
BIRNO, RICK MEETING EXPENSE 18.70
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,536.53
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 319.44
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,863.75
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROOKVIEW GOLF COURSE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,680.00
BUSINESS & LEGAL REPTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 320.08
CAHNERS BUSINESS INFORMATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 247.76
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES 7,364.15
CAMPBELL, MARY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 16.65
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 106.93
CITY OF BURNSVILLE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 15.00
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 10,483.59
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
COUNTRY FLAGS GENERAL SUPPLIES 644.00
DAMON FARBER ASSOC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 695.00
DYPWICK, HELEN CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
E & S ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 86.20
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (2.57)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOPHER SPORT GENERAL SUPPLIES 189.47
GRAFIX SHOPPE MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 1,099.00
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 318.44
GRIMSRUD, TOM CONCESSION SUPPLIES 187.00
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,597.64
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,479.81
HIRSHFIELDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 100.64
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 173.03
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 204.34
IDENTITY SOLUTIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 910.96
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 54.00
IND SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50,000.00
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT #2 GENERAL SUPPLIES 67.50
INSPEC INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,200.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41
73
IRON MOUNTAIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.00
J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 617.22
JAK TREES INC. CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 11,621.14
JERRY STAMM GENERAL SUPPLIES 3.83
JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,766.52
KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 3,942.09
KEVITT EXCAVATING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 37,394.91
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 789.59
KRUGE-AIR INC. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 563.32
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
LEASE FINANCE GROUP INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 315.24
LOGIS COMPUTER SERVICES 30,512.28
LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 6,884.66
M RETRIEVER ENTERPRISES GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.30
MACTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 996.00
MANZ, CAROLINE STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 1,968.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,480.50
MEDSOFT CORPORATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 388.50
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 15.30
METROCALL TELEPHONE 53.19
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 245,168.60
MIDWEST GREASE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 40.00
MINN DEPT OF HEALTH & FAMILY S OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 49.00
MINNCOR CENTRAL MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 4,196.62
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 929.00
MN DEPT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION 2,900.96
MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 30.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 675.00
MRPA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 130.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 106.30
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE LUBRICANTS/ADDITIVES 679.13
NELSON, JACOB PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 50.00
NORTH STATE WELDING & REPAIR EQUIPMENT PARTS 303.84
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 78,333.31
NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 2,685.00
OFFICE DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 449.00
OFFICE MAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 17.82
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 83.07
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES (15.89)
PEWAG INCORPORATED GENERAL SUPPLIES 499.46
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 119.96
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,370.22
PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 168.60
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUEST ENGINEERING INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 274.27
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 447.50
RARDIN, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,114.55
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 106.62
74
REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.14
SAFETY-KLEEN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 235.76
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,052.00
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SEDGWICK CMS PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 896.50
SHADYWOOD TREE EXPERTS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 298.20
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 16.96
ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 7,482.82
ST JOSEPH'S EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 10.33
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 1,244.65
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 275.36
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 361.07
SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 3,610.00
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (138.42)
SWENSON, JON CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 50.00
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 116.33
TOMAR ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT PARTS (175.98)
TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 879.34
TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.80
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 487.21
USTA/NORTHERN SECTION GENERAL SUPPLIES 60.00
VEIT & COMPANY GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 985.00
VIEAU, DURELL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 43.13
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,790.41
VOSS LIGHTING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,027.32
WALDOR PUMP & EQUIPMENT CO. EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 497.70
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 251.84
WASTE MANAGEMENT GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 118.59
WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 150,386.82
WELLBRIDGE CO REC CENTER RENTAL-TAXABLE 150.00
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 980.43
WEST HENNEPIN COMM SVCS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,951.25
WHIRLEY INDUSTRIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 513.12
WOODARD, MATTHEW PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.00
YIM, LOUIS F YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 75.00
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,071.19
ZIMMERMAN, JEAN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 179.35
ZIP SORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 438.73
719,255.59
October 26, 2001
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
ACTION STUMP REMOVAL CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 523.98
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIAT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 141.25
APCO, INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 45.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 336.72
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
75
BAN-KOE SYSTEMS OFFICE SUPPLIES 46.45
BEEKS PIZZA MEETING EXPENSE 47.40
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 237.12
BOWERS, BRIDGET CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 187.41
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BURNLEY, PATRICIA YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 45.00
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 877.29
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 526.16
CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 15.13
CENTER FOR ENERGY & ENVIRONMEN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,817.83
CHEYENNE LAND COMPANY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
CITY OF PLYMOUTH TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 96.00
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 40.50
COMM ACTION FOR SUBURBAN HENNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,941.00
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CRILEY, KATHI L OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 117.39
CROWN MARKING INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 14.30
CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 53.62
CUB FOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.72
DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 429.05
DELTA MEDICAL SUPPLY GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 195.30
DISCOVER CARD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 913.93
EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 156.04
ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 31.95
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
G & K SERVICES CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 112.66
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (2.57)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GRAINGER INC, W W GENERAL SUPPLIES 16.85
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 631.64
HARCEY, MICHAEL L OFFICE SUPPLIES 165.45
HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 447.21
HENNEPIN COUNTY SURVEY DIV PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 100.14
HIRSHFIELDS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 13.09
HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 671.54
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.70
ICI DULUX PAINT CENTERS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 32.14
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 350.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 516.53
J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 2,122.88
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 256.67
JAK TREES INC. CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 3,826.53
JEWISH FAMILY/CHILDREN SVC OF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,954.00
JOHNSON, STEVEN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 10.00
KAR PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 159.61
KELLY, BRIAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 41.00
KRUMMEN, AMY SPECIAL PROGRAMS 80.00
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LOWELLS AUTOMOTIVE/PAINT PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.95
76
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 267.26
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,089.60
MATTHEW'S LAWN SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,437.75
MCCONNELL, BECKY GENERAL SUPPLIES 58.37
MEDTRONIC PHYSIO-CONTROL CORP GENERAL SUPPLIES 92.34
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 132.00
METRO WATER CONDITIONING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 265.03
METROCALL TELEPHONE 7.23
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 91,797.31
MIDWEST BADGE & NOVELTY CO FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES 1,774.95
MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MOORE, DON UNREALIZED REVENUE 337.50
MVTL LABORATORIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 179.00
NAFA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 390.00
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 937.61
NATL WILDLIFE FEDERATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 48.85
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 507.35
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 567.40
OLSON, BETH HALLOWEEN PARTY 24.75
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PACKHAM, TERRE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 82.08
PANNING, CRAIG GENERAL SUPPLIES 54.35
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES (15.89)
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 64.49
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 851.18
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 20.23
RADIO SHACK GENERAL SUPPLIES 9.57
RELIABLE HIGH PERFORMANCE PROD OFFICE SUPPLIES 44.21
ROSAAEN, LINDA SUMMER CAMPS 12.00
ROTARY CLUB OF SLP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 164.00
SA-AG INC LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 123.24
SAE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 90.00
SAM'S CLUB GENERAL SUPPLIES 850.22
SAVIN CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 409.23
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHOELL & MADSON INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,796.10
SCOTT COUNTY TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 20.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
ST. LOUIS PARK TRANSPORTATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00
STANDARD SPRING OF MPLS EQUIPMENT PARTS 340.58
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 158.00
SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.55
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 115.94
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (138.42)
TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 81.00
TIME WARNER CABLE TELEPHONE 147.41
TOMAR ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT PARTS (175.98)
TRANSMISSION SHOP INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,077.13
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 57.78
77
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE 208.82
VOPAK USA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,203.76
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 317.12
WALSH, CINDY S TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 197.46
WARD, RICHARD CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
WASHINGTON COUNTY PUBLIC HEEAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 240.70
WEIDEMA, S.R. MISC RECEIPTS 40.00
WEST WELD GENERAL SUPPLIES 208.04
WHEELER HARDWARE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 344.43
WIGFIELD, TOM TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 67.80
WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14,035.00
ZIP SORT POSTAGE 836.56
159,690.93
5 AND 10 GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.38
AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 150.16
AGUILAR, REBECCA REC CENTER RENTAL-TAXABLE 10.00
ALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 678.50
AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 8.00
APCO, INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 554.73
ARMADILLO TRUCKVAULT INC. MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT (150.00)
ATI TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 51.84
AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR CO BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 10,800.00
BEARCOM RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 224.00
BETH HOLIDA GENERAL SUPPLIES 98.91
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 76.58
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 65.43
BRITISH LANDSCAPES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,303.20
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 121.41
BUSKEY, JENNIFER MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 150.77
C.S. MCCROSSAN CONSTRUCTION IN OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 199.08
CAIRN, SUSAN HALLOWEEN PARTY 17.55
CAMILON, MANNY MEETING EXPENSE 67.80
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 740.87
CARLSON, SHEILA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 121.24
CDW GOVERNMENT INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 121.52
COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,619.75
CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (180.00)
CONERY, NANCY OFFICE SUPPLIES 21.60
COUNTRY FLAGS GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,436.20
DELI DOUBLE CONCESSION SUPPLIES 635.58
DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 510.00
DOYLE, BRIAN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-exempt 9.00
E GROUP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 507.60
EDINA REALTY TITLE GENERAL CUSTOMERS 341.54
ENGH, BRADY CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 17,623.10
78
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (30.67)
FELTON, GRETCHEN SKATING LESSONS-tax exempt 53.10
FERNELIUS, GRANT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 316.00
GARELICK STEEL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES (2.57)
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (27.83)
GOODYEAR BRAD RAGAN TIRE & SER EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 256.26
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 554.90
GRIMSRUD, TOM CONCESSION SUPPLIES 49.90
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 101.32
HAUGEN, DOUG OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 589.72
HENEFIELD, KRISTINE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE SEED EXC GENERAL SUPPLIES 188.10
HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 101.91
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.82
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 4,162.56
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 304.00
INST FOR FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,050.00
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 381.33
J H LARSON COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 177.85
JOHNSON, DICK GENERAL SUPPLIES 131.12
KAHKONEN, MARIANNA SPECIAL PROGRAMS 40.00
KAPAK CORPORATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 152.24
KATH, JESSE CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
KATHLEEN HARNEY MEETING EXPENSE 455.18
KLUND, ERIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 148.38
LACAL EQUIPMENT INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (235.63)
LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES 6.34
LOFTUS, JANICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 165.00
LUMA SALES ASSOCIATES OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 70.29
M A C T A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00
MACKUBIN GROUP GENERAL SUPPLIES 496.43
MARQUARDT, DAVID TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 106.26
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,000.00
MCCONNELL, BECKY GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.80
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 771.50
METRO VOLLEYBALL OFFICIALS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 66.00
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 621.06
MINION, AARON BUILDING PERMIT 31.00
MINN BLUE DIGITAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 389.19
MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 55.00
MINVALCO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 153.83
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00)
MN/S C I A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 160.00
MSTMA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 60.00
MVTL LABORATORIES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 260.00
NAPA GENUINE PARTS CO/FINANCE SMALL TOOLS (166.28)
NATL RECREATION & PARKS ASSOC SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 215.00
NEENAH FOUNDREY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 894.60
NIELSEN, SHELLEY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00
NORTHERN BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 742.17
79
NORTHERN WATER TREATING CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 134.19
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,956.06
OESTREICH, MARK CONCESSION SUPPLIES 45.84
OETTMEIER CONSULTING SERVICES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,810.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,119.92
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 104.72
OLSEN, MICHAEL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 25.00
OTTO PACKAGING MIDWEST LLC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES (72.00)
PEPSI-COLA COMPANY CONCESSION SUPPLIES (15.89)
POSTMASTER POSTAGE 3,072.60
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 186.97
PRO PRODUCTS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES (92.32)
QUANTERRA INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,500.00
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 53.60
RAINBOW TREE CARE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 5,403.38
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 2,138.95
RELIANT ENERGY HEATING GAS 3,454.72
SALAMZADEH, JULIE HALLOWEEN PARTY 20.00
SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES, DONALD TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 3,088.82
SCHARBER & SONS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS (3.51)
SCHMIDT, WENDY HALLOWEEN PARTY 14.85
SCHWAAB INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.40
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.18
SHMIKLER, SANDRA SPECIAL PROGRAMS 24.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND UNREALIZED REV-SAFETY CAMP 0.00
SMARTER SAFER KIDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00
SMITH, FOREST GENERAL CUSTOMERS 32.36
SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75
SPECTRASITE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 12,782.10
ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 581.38
STANDARD SIDEWALK INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 109,034.54
STELLING, TOM GENERAL CUSTOMERS 54.66
STERLING FENCE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 615.00
STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,653.72
STS CONSULTANTS LTD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,594.97
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 46.70
SUBURBAN TIRE CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,261.87
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (82.78)
SYMPHONY INFORMATION SERVICES OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,100.00
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.48
TOMAR ELECTRONICS EQUIPMENT PARTS (175.98)
TRUGREEN-CHEMLAWN LANDSCAPING SERVICE 1,920.15
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 36.16
UNIVERSITY OF MINN TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 735.00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 1,225.00
VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 5,094.87
VEIT & COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 10,365.14
VERTICAL ENDEAVORS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 133.64
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 565.13
WATER ENVIRONMENT FEDERATION SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 93.00
80
WELLS FARGO REMITTANCE CTR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOLS 4,633.16
WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 22,096.14
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE GENERAL SUPPLIES 235.90
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 35.15
ZIEGLER INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,496.42
284,177.97
81
CONSENT ITEM #4
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of November 5, 2001
4. Motion to adopt the first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 2200-
01 Vacating Certain Streets, an Alley, and a Sidewalk Easement East of
Quentin Avenue, North of Excelsior Boulevard to the Southern Portion of
Wolfe Park, and West of Monterey Drive and set second reading for
November 13, 2001.
Background:
In late October, the City was notified by its legal counsel that the original vacation ordinance
related to Park Commons East was not acceptable to the County Examiner of Titles. The revised
ordinance will require two readings and it is anticipated that a brief special City Council meeting
will have to be held on November 13 to approve the second reading. Attached is a memo from
Matthew Foli explaining the situation.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends adoption of the first reading of an ordinance amending Ordinance 2200-01
Vacating Certain Streets, an Alley, and a Sidewalk Easement East of Quentin Avenue, North of
Excelsior Boulevard to the Southern Portion of Wolfe Park, and West of Monterey Drive.
Attachments: Memo from Matthew Foli
Ordinance
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
82
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2200-01
VACATING CERTAIN STREETS,
AN ALLEY AND A SIDEWALK EASEMENT
East of Quentin Avenue, North of Excelsior Boulevard to the
Southern Portion of Wolfe Park, and West of Monterey Drive
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
That Ordinance No. 2200-01, adopted at the St. Louis Park City Council meeting held on
June 18, 2001, entitled
“AN ORDINANCE VACATING CERTAIN STREETS,
AN ALLEY AND A SIDEWALK EASEMENT IN PARK COMMONS EAST
East of Quentin Avenue, North of Excelsior Boulevard to the
Southern Portion of Wolfe Park, and West of Monterey Drive”
is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
Section 1. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all
property abutting upon both sides of the streets, alley and sidewalk easement proposed to be
vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the streets, alley and
sidewalk easement and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager
who has required notice of a public hearing to be published in the newspaper, the St. Louis Park
Sailor, on May 23, 2001, and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has
determined that the streets, alley and sidewalk easement are not needed for public purposes, and
that it is for the best interest of the public that said streets, alley and sidewalk easement be
vacated.
Section 2. The following described streets, alley and sidewalk easement, as now
dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, are vacated:
See Attached Legal Description
Section 3. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in
the Office of the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Titles as the case may be.
Section 4. This Ordinance shall take effect upon evidence of recording the final plat
for Park Commons East.
(Insert Signature Block Here)
83
CONSENT ITEM #5
RESOLUTION NO. 01-124
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING WORK ON
CONCRETE ALLEY PAVING
2700 BLOCK BRUNSWICK AVENUE SO
CITY PROJECT NO. 01-18
CONTRACT NO. 89-01
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 August 20, 2001, Ron Kassa
Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the concrete alley paving (2700 block
Brunswick Avenue South) as per Contract No. 89-01.
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.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2001
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
84
CONSENT ITEM #6
St. Louis Park City Council
Meeting of November 5, 2001
6. Approval to modify the Home Renewal Program to include a major remodeling
component and authorize the Housing Authority (HA) Board to administer the
program within budgetary and programmatic limits and guidelines set by the
City Council.
Background:
The Council discussed modifications to the Home Renewal Program at the October 22, 2001
Study Session. The expanded program would include acquisition by the City/Housing Authority
of lower-valued, structurally sound homes, which would be remodeled by private remodeling
firms as move-up homes. The initial project of the modified program is proposed to demonstrate
and display the application of the Cape Cods and Ramblers: A Remodeling Planbook for Post-
WWII Houses, thereby encouraging residents to make improvements on their own.
The Home Renewal Program evolved from needs identified in Vision St. Louis Park and the
City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan. One of the two major housing goals identified in
the Strategic Plan is to provide a balanced and sustainable housing stock to meet diverse needs
both today and in the future. Strategies to accomplish this goal include: create more move up
housing; encourage quality remodeling; develop public/private partnerships to create incentives
for development of a variety of new housing stock; and strengthen neighborhoods. The current
Home Renewal Program addresses most of these strategies.
There are two primary limitations to the current Home Renewal Program. First, there are very
few homes in the City that meet HUD's qualification of blighted properties. Secondly, the
escalating real estate values over the past two years makes teardowns and rebuilds cost
prohibitive for prudent use of public dollars. While the current program still has merit and
would continue to be used in certain circumstances, the expansion to include major remodeling
would address the limitations.
During the discussions of October 22, 200l the Council directed staff to ensure that the City’s
subsidy of the remodeling component be minimized while still providing the developer an
incentive to participate in the program. Upon program implementation, staff will update the
Council on progress, costs and response from neighboring residents. It is anticipated that 2-4
homes could be renovated annually with existing staff and Housing Rehabilitation Funds have
been budgeted for this activity. The average City subsidy for the renovated homes is anticipated
to be comparable to the average CDBG subsidy of Home Renewal teardowns, which is
approximately $25,000 per home.
85
The Housing Authority Board administers and oversees the current Home Renewal Program.
Again, at the Study Session, the Council discussed continuing the HA administration and
oversight of the modified home renewal program. Under the proposed program modification the
HA Board would approve purchase agreements single family properties as well as development
agreements with the private remodeling firms. Both these agreements would be executed by the
HA Chairperson and the HA Executive Director.
Attached is the modified program description which outlines the program in greater detail.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the Home Renewal Program modification to include
a major remodeling component and authorize the Housing Authority Board to administer the
program. Staff will update Council on the progress of the first project, before proceeding with
additional homes.
Attachments:
Home Renewal Program; Remodeling Modification
Approved: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
86
Home Renewal Program - Remodeling Modification
Purpose and Objectives
1. Remodel smaller, lower valued homes in the City to produce larger, higher valued homes
(i.e. move-up housing).
2. Eliminate blighting influence of substandard, marginal, and dilapidated housing thereby
improving residential neighborhoods.
3. Provide another tool to promote and provide incentives to the private development
community to produce tangible move up housing opportunities for current or future
residents.
4. Demonstrate to current homeowners how they could remodel their own homes in a way
that meets their needs (rather than moving to another community) and expand our move
up housing stock for future homeowners.
Procedure
1. The seller indicates intent to sell to the City.
2. Staff evaluates the property condition to determine remodeling potential, and
negotiates a purchase price.
3. The HA executes a purchase agreement with the owner.
4. The City solicits bids and plans from private remodeling developers and builders.
5. The design review committee selects the qualifying builder, which most closely
meets the program’s design guidelines for remodeling projects.
6. The HA enters into a Development Agreement with the developer.
7. The developer purchases property from the City, remodels the home and sells to the end
buyer.
Property Selection
Inspections and Community Development staff will ensure that potential homes are inspected
and evaluated based on property condition, location, suitability of lot, potential to spur further
neighborhood redevelopment, and potential purchase price. Homes will be evaluated for their
remodeling potential.
Design Guidelines
Guidelines have been developed to ensure that the renovated homes will be architecturally
compatible with the surrounding area and fit the urban streetscape by using details such as front
porches and defined front entrances. The remodeling design guidelines are intended to preserve
the architectural style of remodeled homes. The guidelines further ensure that move up housing
is created by mandating a minimum of 3 bedrooms, 1 /12 baths, living space amenities, and
quality finish products. The remodeling projects will in fact demonstrate designs outlined in the
Remodeling Planbook. Finally, the estimated sale value of the renovated homes should be a
minimum of 125% value of neighboring homes.
87
Developer Selection
The staff design review committee will select developers based on preliminary plans that meet
Housing Design and Site Development criteria, demonstrated financial capability, and
willingness to agree to terms of Development Agreement. Finally, the accepted offering price
will minimize the City’s financial subsidy while still ensuring developers are provided an
incentive to participate in the program.
Promotion
Marketing activities of the program will include articles in the Park Perspective, notices to
residents, visibility at the Home Remodeling Fair and staff attendance at neighborhood
association meetings. Open houses for the remodeled homes will be publicized.