HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/10/18 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular7:25 p.m. - Economic Development Authority
AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 18, 1999
7:30 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Presentation
a. Recognize Roger Israel – Fire Civil Service Commission
3. Roll Call
4. Approval of Minutes
a. City Council meeting of October 4, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
b. City Council study session meeting of September 27, 1999
Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented
5. Approval of agenda
a. Consent agenda
Note: All matters on consent (starred items) are considered to be routine and will be enacted by
one motion approving all. There is no separate discussion of these items. If discussion is
desired, the starred item will be moved to the regular agenda.
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to delete item(s)
b. Agenda
Action: Motion to approve - Motion to add item(s)
*c. Resolutions and Ordinances
Action: By consent, waive reading of resolutions and ordinances
6. Public Hearing
2
6a. Business Subsidy Policy
This report considers the adoption by the St. Louis Park City Council of a Business
Subsidy Policy
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close public hearing and adopt a Business Subsidy
Policy for the City of St. Louis Park.
6b. Park Commons Phase I Tax Increment Financing District
This report considers a resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishing the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment
district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close public hearing. Motion to continue action on the
resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishing the Park Commons Phase I Tax Increment
Financing District until such time as a development agreement
with Avalon Bay is presented to the City Council/EDA for
approval.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Establishing employer contributions for employer-provider cafeteria style
benefit programs for 2000 covering non-union positions.
Each year, the City Council is asked to approve an amount for Employer
contribution to the Employee Cafeteria Plan for non-union employees. The amount
is based, on part, on market, internal comparables and on the increased cost in
health insurance premiums.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution establishing city contribution toward
employees’ cafeteria benefits plan for non-union, supervisory,
and non-supervisory employees for 2000
8b. Compensation - 2000
A Compensation Plan document was approved by the City Council in November of
1997. In accordance with such document, the City Manager requests confirmation
of a 3% standard adjustment to the plan effective January 1, 2000.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution confirming the City Manager’s
decision to set the general increase for non-union salaries for
2000.
3
8c. Resolution designating the Office of Finance Director to be City Treasurer
This action will assign the duties of City Treasurer to a position within the City
structure rather than to a specific employee.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution designating the Office of Director
of Finance as City Treasurer
8d. Minnesota Department of Transportation Noise Wall Along The East Side of
Trunk Highway 100
This report is in response to a Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
request that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of the proposed noise
wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100 from W. 41st Street to W. 44th
Street.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Mn/DOT’s
proposal to construct a noise wall along the east side of Trunk
Highway 100 from W. 41st Street to W. 44th Street.
8e.* Traffic Study No. 546: 3300 On The Park Condominiums Request for
Parking Restrictions on Oak Leaf Court at its southerly Driveway
Exit/entrance.
This report considers a request from 3300 On The Park Condominiums to restrict
parking 10 feet on the east and west sides of the southerly driveway/entrance to
Oak Leaf Court.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the change in
parking restrictions on Oak Leaf Court to no parking within 10
feet on the east and west sides of 3300 On The Park
Condominiums southerly exit/entrance.
8f*. City Land Sale at Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
This report considers the adoption of an ordinance which authorizes the sale of City
property to the Economic Development Authority to facilitate the development of
the site located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue second reading of an ordinance authorizing
the sale of City owned property located at the southwest corner
of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue to the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority until such time title and legal
description issues related to the parcel have been resolved.
4
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
*a. Cable Televsion Commission minutes of August 12, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*b. Housing Authority Minutes of September 8, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*c. Housing Authority minutes of September 22, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*d. Planning Commission minutes of September 15, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*e. Fire Civil Service Minutes of February 5, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*f. Police Civil Service Minutes of May 20, 1999
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
*g. Vendor Claims
Action: By consent, accept report for filing
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s)
Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s)
11. New Business
11a* Compensation of the City’s Prosecuting Attorney
Recommended
Action:
1) Motion to adopt resolution increasing the hourly fee paid to the
City’s prosecuting attorney from $67.50 to $75.00.
5
11b* Bid Tabulation: One (1) Street Flusher Truck
This report considers rejecting all bids received for the purchase of one (1) new 1999
Street Flusher Truck.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to reject all bids and re-advertise for this equipment.
11c* School District #283 request for funding from Cable TV franchise fees
School District #283 requested an increase from past operating funding grants of
$25,000 for 1999 at the April 18, 1999 Cable TV Commission meeting.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to authorize payment to the School District of an operating
grant of $25,000 for 1999
12. Miscellaneous
13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments – None
14. Communications
15. Adjournment
6
Item # 4a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
October 4, 1999
1. Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
2. Presentations
a. Karen Elg Recognition
Mayor Jacobs presented a plaque to Karen Elg in recognition of her excellent and dedicated
service to the City of St. Louis Park from August 31, 1965 to April 16, 1999.
b. Fred Stimson Proclamation
Mayor Jacobs read a proclamation thanking Fred Stimson for his 32 years of service to the St.
Louis Park Police Department and declared October 7, 1999 Fred Stimson Day.
3. Roll Call
The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Jim Brimeyer, Ron Latz, Chris Nelson,
Sue 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); City Planner (Ms. Erickson); Planning Associate (Ms.
Peterson) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson).
4. Approval of Minutes
4a. City Council Meeting of September 21, 1999 With a minor change to Item 8d
the minutes were approved as presented.
Councilmember Latz asked that motion in Item 8d be changed to state “It was moved by
Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Latz, to direct staff to reconsider the
language and defer second reading until the City Council meeting of October 4, 1999”.
5. Approval of Agendas
5a. Consent Agenda
7
Councilmember Latz asked to remove Item 8f from the consent agenda.
It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Nelson, to approve the
consent agenda with the removal of Item 8f. The motion passed 7-0.
b. Agenda
It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the
agenda with addition of Item 8f. The motion passed 7-0.
c. Resolutions and Ordinances
By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances.
6. Public Hearings
6a. Amendment to Special Permit for Groves Academy to permit a major
building expansion 3200 Highway 100 99-23-CUP
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate presented a brief staff report and stated that staff was
proposing an additional condition that the elevations would be revised so that no more than 10%
of Class III materials would be used on any facade per the ordinance requirements and also that
building material samples would be submitted and approved by staff prior to any site work. Ms.
Peterson recommended approval subject to conditions outlined in the staff report.
Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future
date.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt a
resolution approving a Special Permit Amendment subject to the conditions in the resolution and
the new condition identified by staff. The motion passed 7-0.
Councilmember Latz was encouraged the Groves Academy was in favor of making the proposed
gymnasium available for public use.
7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None
8. Resolutions and Ordinances
8a. Miscellaneous Zoning Ordinance Amendments - CASE NO. 99-12-ZA
Judie Erickson, City Planner presented a staff report.
Councilmember Nelson questioned what the proper procedure was to handle the provisions that
were deleted from the staff report.
8
The Council discussed the procedural options with the City Attorney.
It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to approve second
reading as presented and adopt Zoning Ordinance Amendments, adopt Subdivision Ordinance
Amendments, approve summaries, and authorize publication of summary ordinances.
Councilmember Nelson made a friendly amendment to the motion to defer the provisions that
were deleted from the staff report indefinitely.
The motion passed 7-0.
8b. City Land Sale at Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
It was moved by Commissioner Santa, seconded by Commissioner Young, to continue second
reading of an ordinance authorizing the sale of City owned property to the Economic
Development Authority to facilitate the development of the site located at the southwest corner
of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue. The motion passed 7-0.
8c. Application for the 1999 Livable Communities Demonstration Account
(LCDA) of the Metropolitan Livable Communities Fund
Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director presented a staff report.
Councilmember Young questioned the component outlined in the staff report to pay off
assessments for previous sidewalk improvements for PPL properties.
Mr. Harmening indicated that some of the property owners in Louisiana Court requested that the
City install sidewalk and street lighting and the City pay for part of the cost using block grant
funds and the other portion was paid using special assessments. PPL properties has made an
assumption that as a part of any acquisition the land owners may not agree to include the
payment of special assessment in the sale of their properties and as such in order to keep the cost
of the project down in terms of taxes and special assessments due on the property in the future,
they are hoping that the LCDA funds could be used to pay off those assessments.
Councilmember Young believed that the current landlords have this obligation and he would not
like to see that the City was bailing them out through the PPL partnership and this along with a
risk of default was further evidence to oppose the project.
Councilmember Latz asked for clarification that this would only apply to those owners that
agreed to sell their property to PPL. He questioned if the City would want to continue to allow
properties to deteriorate and become a greater blight on the St. Louis Park Community or
whether this Council desired to take affirmative action steps to try to deal with this situation. He
believed that given the structure of this particular proposal and designs for this location that this
would be a tremendous gain for the St. Louis Park community and area around Louisiana Court
far in excess to any detriment to the City.
9
Councilmember Latz noted that at an extensive study session with advisors and consultants it
was determined that there was no real risk of default, but rather a good step for the City to take to
accomplish its goals.
Councilmember Nelson agreed and indicated that the financial advisor had found that the project
stretches feasibility, but without grant there was no feasibility. He was in support of the grant
application.
Mr. Harmening explained that this was an important piece because part of the funding was
proposed to be used for a debt service reserve that would be one of the safeguards for the project.
Councilmember Sanger was in support project. She believed the area clearly needed help and
risk of a default was low.
Councilmember Brimeyer had a few concerns, but believed that when this works it would
represent a model for the broader metropolitan community that this was what livable
communities was all about and truly public private partnerships would be leveraged to make
improvements.
Mayor Jacobs supported the project because the risks of this program were minimized by the risk
of the City not doing anything.
It was moved by Commissioner Latz, seconded by Commissioner Santa, to adopt a Resolution
authorizing application for the Livable Communities Demonstration Account Program for the
PPL Louisiana Court Redevelopment Project . The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Young
opposed.
8d. Resolution approving the City of St. Louis Park’s participation in the
relocation of railroad switches on the Canadian Pacific (CP) rail line in
Minnetonka
Mr. Meyer, City Manager presented a brief background on the issue of railroad noise in the
South Oak Hill neighborhood due to blocking operations by Twin City and Western Railroad
which took place on Canadian Pacific (CP) rail line trackage.
Councilmember Sanger asked what percentage of the blocking would actually be reduced and if
the number of cars per train would be reduced.
Mr. Meyer indicated that this agreement essentially required them to change their operations to
keep the size of the trains under 60 cars.
Councilmember Nelson stated that although this solves one problem it doesn’t solve the problem
of switching in the Elmwood neighborhood.
Councilmember Latz asked that hours of night time operations (8:00 p.m.) be clarified and
referenced consistently in the resolution. He commended the members of the Railroad Task
10
Force for their work in developing solutions to address this issue and indicated that the City of
Hopkins continues to be willing to work with St. Louis Park to accomplish this project.
Councilmember Brimeyer believed that the City of St. Louis Park has an obligation to the other
cities and asked what was the next step to get the operations out to Glencoe.
Mr. Meyer indicated that the core issue for the long term solution was who was going to pay and
negotiations with Mndot would continue.
It was moved by Commissioner Latz, seconded by Commissioner Brimeyer, to adopt the
resolution approving the City of St. Louis Park’s participation in the relocation of railroad
switches on the CP rail. The motion passed 7-0.
8e. Livable Communities Resolution to participate in the Metropolitan Council
Local Housing Incentives Account Program in 2000
By consent, Council adopted a Resolution electing to participate in he Local Housing Incentives
Program during 2000.
8f. Resolution Designating Polling Places and Appointing Election Judges for
the General Municipal/School District Election on November 2, 1999
Councilmember Latz was concerned that in two of the precincts not all of the major political
parties were represented among the election judges that were listed and asked for clarification.
The Council discussed the issue of appropriate party balance in the polling places as required by
State statute.
Mr. Meyer, City Manager indicated that he assumed the City had the ability of shuffle judges
around, but would research this issue and report back to Council.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer to adopt the
attached resolution designating polling places and appointing election judges for the General
Municipal/School District Election on November 2, 1999 with the additional provision that prior
to the election, the staff achieve the appropriate party balance as required by statute in the polling
places. The motion passed 7-0.
9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees
b. Vendor Claim Report
By consent, Council accepted report for filing.
10. Unfinished Business
a. Board and Commission Appointment(s) - None
11
11. New Business
11a. Notice for Consideration of the 2000 Budget for Excelsior Boulevard Special
Service District No. 1 and No. 2
Mr. Meyer, City Manager presented a brief staff report.
It was moved by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to set two (2)
public hearings the date of November 1, 1999. The first to consider the 2000 budget and
property owner service charge for Special Service District No. 1. The second to consider the
2000 budget and property owner service charge for Special Service District No. 2. The motion
passed 7-0.
12. Miscellaneous - None
13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments
a. Contract Payments
Partial
Valley Paving $ 23,320.64
Watermain replacement, pavement milling, curb & gutter
Contract No. 19-99
Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 20,874.25
Entry signage and site improvements
Contract No. 54-99
By consent, Council approved and authorized payments.
14. Communications
From the Mayor - None
From the City Manager - Mr. Meyer commented on the following items:
• The retirement of Sergeant John Fitzgerald from the Police Department
• Upcoming Neighborhood Forum on Wednesday, October 6th at the Rec Center. -
Upcoming block captain training at the Jr. High School cafeteria on Thursday, October
7th and Saturday, October 9th. –
• Upcoming City Council joint meeting with the School Board on October 11th at 5:30
p.m. prior to Study Session.
12
Councilmember Nelson commended the Fire Chief, Bob Gill and the entire Fire Department for
hosting a successful Open House at Fire Station No. 1 on Sunday, October 3rd.
15. Adjournment
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:36 p.m. The motion passed 7-0.
City Clerk Mayor
13
Item #4b
OFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
September 27, 1999
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m.
Present at the meeting were Councilmembers Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert
Young, Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: Deputy City Manager (Mr. Pires), Director of Community Development (Mr.
Harmening), Public Works Director (Mr. Rardin), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley);
Operations Superintendent (Mr. Backlund); Cable Television Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap); and
City Clerk (Ms. Cindy Larsen).
1. Amending or renewing the paragon Cable Franchise to upgrade to 750 MHz
Kim Roden and Matt Haviland of paragon Cable were in attendance at the meeting to address
concerns about the need for an amendment to the existing cable television franchise. Ms. Roden
first gave a brief summary of paragon’s proposed extension/renewal. Mr. Haviland then gave an
overview of services provided in St. Louis Park, current bandwidth capability, system
architecture, construction plans for the proposed upgrade and services that would be available in
the future.
Councilmember Sanger asked for assurance that future needs could be addressed and current
problems with reception would be alleviated. She also asked how costs would be distributed to
pay for an upgrade. Ms. Roden responded that an expanded system would be better able to
handle demand for services and that rates would be established to cover the cost of the upgrade.
Councilmember Latz asked what the annual gross revenue from St. Louis Park was. Mr. Dunlap
estimated that to be approximately $4 million annually.
Councilmember Latz did not feel an extension to the current franchise agreement was necessary.
He believed that language in the current agreement already required paragon to complete the
system upgrade.
Ms. Roden disagreed with Councilmember Latz’s interpretation of the language contained in the
franchise agreement.
After discussion it was agreed that the City’s Attorney should be consulted about the language
and terms of the existing franchise agreement and that the item should be discussed again
following receipt of that information.
14
2. CSM Project – Blackstone Neighborhood
Staff asked Council to address several items related to the proposed from CSM Corporation for a
proposed hotel and residential redevelopment project at 5901 Wazata Boulevard. Several
representatives of the developer were also present to answer council’s questions. Specific issues
raised were:
• Project economics/Amount of TIF assistance
• Local contribution requirements
• Acquisition dynamics
• Fiscal disparity impact
• Planning/Zoning process
• Impact on the Neighborhood
Councilmember Latz asked about the disposition of the billboard on the site. He was not in favor
of a city contribution that would go toward removal of the billboard. Mr. Carlin stated that
Naegele would find relocation an acceptable alternative. Councilmember Latz pointed out that
if the billboard were moved rather than removed, the cost of the fiscal disparity would be offset.
Councilmember Nelson asked how acquisition of existing structures and properties was going.
Mr. Palmatier stated that homeowners were waiting for assurances that this project would indeed
be completed and did not feel there would be significant opposition.
Mayor Jacobs was supportive of the proposal and felt that staff should move forward with
negotiation of a development agreement.
Councilmember Nelson stated that he did not want condemnation to be part of the acquisition
process. He also requested more information on the billboard and how it’s disposition would
affect the project’s feasibilit6y.
Mr. Harmening summarized the discussion saying that council:
• Was generally in support of the project
• Wanted fiscal disparities taken from the district
• Did not want condemnation to be part of the process
• Wanted projects to service the local contribution
• Wanted to see options for billboard disposition.
He informed council that he would initiate the rezoning of the property.
Councilmember Santa wanted the neighborhood to know that if this project did not go through,
another one would.
Councilmember Sanger asked that no improvements be made to 16th street that would encourage
traffic to use that street to access the development.
15
3. Towing Contract
Chief John Luse and Captain Rod Walker discussed options for renewing the city’s towing
contract. They presented a comparison survey and discussed response time, chain of evidence,
length of the contract and a cancellation clause.
A representative of All Hours Towing, the city’s current contractor stated that a longer contract
would give them the ability to purchase of property rather than utilize their current lease
agreement. He also pointed out that in practice, other cities generally renew rather than request
bids as contracts expire.
4. Lawful Gambling
Andrea Poehlor, Attorney with Campbell Knutson, was present to answer Council questions
regarding the City’s authority to conduct financial audits of gambling organizations in the city.
It was her opinion that because the State is the licensing authority, the city had very little
authority to require additional investigation beyond the background check provided for by
statute.
Following discussion, council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which imposed a trade area
restriction for distribution of proceeds from lawful gambling conducted in the city, and to also
provide an option to establish a city-administered fund of up to 10% of the net profits to be used
for administration and regulation of gambling activity in the city.
Council also directed staff to prepare materials in advance of first reading informing gambling
organizations about the proposed ordinance.
5. Storm Water Utility
Scott Merkley, Public Works Coordinator, presented to council guidelines for dealing with flood
problem areas, the draft flood proofing grant program, the policies for the city’s stormwater
utility and the draft stormwater ordinance. He pointed out changes to the policies which had
been incorporated as a result of previous discussions with Council.
Mr. Merkley also outlined a plan for the public information process which would include articles
in the Park Perspective and the St. Louis Park Business Line, a presentation to the Business
Council and utility bill stuffers. He offered to present public feedback to the council at a future
study session meeting.
16
6. Snow and Ice Policy
Harlan Backlund, Public Works Operations Superintendent, presented Council with a draft
policy for “Snow Plowing, Clearing, and Ice Control” reflecting the current practice of the City.
Staff noted that at times it is impossible to clear snow from designated sidewalks in conformance
with Ordinance requirements. In addition, staff identified several sidewalks and trails now being
cleared by the City which have not been authorized for clearing by the Council.
Council questioned the current practice regarding overall City maintenance of sidewalks and
requested staff to bring back relevant information to a future Study Session.
8. Executive Session
A motion to move to executive session for discussion of threatened litigation by Christianson
(3212 Coolidge Ave S) was made by Councilmember Latz, seconded by Councilmember Sanger.
Motion passed unanimously.
Present at the discussion were Councilmembers Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, Robert
Young, Ron Latz and Mayor Jeff Jacobs. Also present were Deputy City Manager, Mr. Pires;
Director of Inspections, Mr. Hoffman; city Attorney, Mr. Scott and City Clerk, Ms. Larsen.
Motion to reconvene the study session was made at 10:25 p.m.by Councilmember Nelson,
seconded by Councilmember Sanger. Motion passed unanimously.
9. Adjournment
The study session adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
17
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6a
Meeting of October 18, 1999
6a. Business Subsidy Policy..
This report considers the adoption by the St. Louis Park City Council of a Business
Subsidy Policy
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close public hearing and adopt a Business Subsidy
Policy for the City of St. Louis Park.
Background:
During the last legislative session, a bill was passed which requires cities/EDAs to adopt a
Business Subsidy Policy if these agencies were to provide public financing for certain private
development projects after August 1, 1999. The intent of the legislation was to ensure that job
and wage goals were established for certain projects which receive public assistance. By statute,
certain projects are exempt from a Business Subsidy Policy. These include housing projects,
projects which receive assistance of less than $25,000, projects which involve pollution
abatement, and certain types of redevelopment projects.
In August, the City Council authorized the scheduling of a public hearing regarding adoption of a
Business Subsidy Policy. On September 13th staff reviewed a draft Business Subsidy Policy with
the City Council. Generally, the Council was comfortable with the draft policy but asked that
staff specifically note that this policy would be administered in conjunction with other economic
development policies which the City/EDA already had, e.g. Development Fund Policy and Tax
Increment Financing Policy. Since the September study session staff has amended the policy to
take into consideration the Council’s wishes. (See the fifth bulleted paragraph in the proposed
policy.)
Since September 13th, staff also asked Steve Bubul, the EDA’s attorney, to review the policy in
the context of State law. Based on this review Mr. Bubul is recommending we delete the 2nd
bulleted paragraph. Mr. Bubul feels this paragraph contains language which is contradictory and
inconsistent with the intent of State law and could cause the city difficulties in the future.
The EDA also is required to conduct a hearing on the adoption of a Business Subsidy Policy.
This hearing is scheduled for November 1st.
Attachments: Business Subsidy Policy
Prepared by: Thomas K. Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
1525/N
18
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
BUSINESS SUBSIDY POLICY
This Policy is adopted for purposes of the business subsidies act (the “Act”), Minnesota Statutes,
Sections 116J.993 through 116J.995. Terms used in this Policy are intended to have the same
meanings as if used in the Act, and this Policy shall apply only with respect to subsidies granted
under the Act if and to the extent required thereby.
The City of St. Louis Park and St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority maintain
several policy documents which speak to the general goals and objectives for the provision of
public assistance for private development or redevelopment activities. These documents include,
but are not limited to: The Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business, the
Development Fund Policy, and the Tax Increment Financing Policy. While it is recognized that
the creation of good paying jobs is a desirable goal which benefits the community, the City of St.
Louis Park recognizes that the redevelopment of polluted, blighted and/or underutilized property
and the provision of access to goods, services and housing options are equally important public
purposes.
With respect to subsidies, the determination of the number of jobs to be created and the wage
levels thereof shall be guided by the following principles and criteria:
• Each project shall be evaluated on a case by case basis, recognizing its importance
and benefit to the community from all perspectives, including created or retained
employment positions and other policy objectives of the City of St. Louis Park.
• If a particular project does not involve the creation of jobs, but is nonetheless found to
be worthy of support and subsidy, it may be approved without any specific job or
wage goals, as may be permitted by applicable law.
• In cases where the objective is the retention of existing jobs, the recipient of the
subsidy shall be required to provide reasonably demonstrable evidence that the loss of
those jobs is imminent.
• The setting of wage and job goals must be sensitive to prevailing wage rates, local
economic conditions, external economic forces over which neither the grantor nor the
recipient of the subsidy has control, the individual financial resources of the recipient
and the competitive environment in which the recipient’s business exists.
• Each project shall not only be evaluated against the Business Subsidy Policy but also
against other applicable City or Economic Development Authority policies. These
policies are the Tax Increment Financing Policy, Development Fund Policy and the
Economic Development Strategic Plan for Housing and Business.
19
• Because it is not possible to anticipate every type of project which may in its context
and time present desirable community building or preservation goals and objectives,
the governing body must retain the right in its discretion to approve projects and
subsidies which may vary from the principles and criteria of this Policy.
Adopted by:__________________________
Date of Adoption:________________________
Date of Public Hearing:____________________
20
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 6b
Meeting of October 18, 1999
6b. Park Commons Phase I Tax Increment Financing District
This report considers a resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishing the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District (a redevelopment
district) within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to close public hearing. Motion to continue action on the
resolution modifying Redevelopment Project No. 1 and
establishing the Park Commons Phase I Tax Increment
Financing District until such time as a development agreement
with Avalon Bay is presented to the City Council/EDA for
approval.
Background:
On July 12, 1999, staff presented preliminary scenarios/options relating to the use of tax
increment financing for the Phase I Park Commons project. During the discussion with the
Council/EDA various issues relating to the use of the existing Excelsior Boulevard district vs.
the creation of a new tax increment district were explored (primarily in the context of the
estimated amount of public financial participation needed to advance the current project plan).
The option of creating a new district to maximize the duration of collecting increment and to
avoid local aid penalties presented the most feasible option for meeting the financing
requirement.
On August 16, 1999 the City Council adopted a resolution calling for a public hearing to
consider the adoption of a resolution establishing the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
District. The city entered into an amended preliminary development agreement with Avalon Bay
on August 30, 1999.
The Planning Commission Reviewed the Tax Increment Financing Plan on October 6, 1999 and
found that it was in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. On October 11, 1999 staff
presented an update of the Park Commons Financial Analysis to the City Council at its study
session.
Attached is a copy of the Tax Increment Financing Plan for the establishment of Park Commons
Tax Increment Financing District within Redevelopment Project No. 1.
21
Synopsis of the proposed TIF:
The Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District consists of 38 parcels of land and the
adjacent and internal rights-of-way. The total project cost for Park Commons Phase I is
estimated to be $128,390,329. The city has acquired all but 4 of the 38 parcels included in the
district.
The developer of the project is Avalon Bay. The developer is proposing to construct 60,000 sq.
ft. of office space with a minimum of 200 associated parking spaces; 185,000 sq. ft. of
retail/service/restaurant/civic uses; 467 residential rental units including rental townhomes and
market rate apartments located primarily over retail; and 40 for-sale residential townhome units
on one of the parcels adjacent to Wolfe Park. The for-sale townhomes will be developed by
another party yet to be determined.
Other Issues:
The new Park Commons Tax Increment District will involve removing some parcels from the
existing Excelsior Boulevard TIF district. This means that fewer parcels will be available to
finance the existing bonds. However, it has been determined that there will be enough increment
generated by the remaining parcels within the applicable tax increment districts to pay off the
existing obligations.
YHR, the city’s consultant, has reviewed the parcels and buildings that are proposed to be
included in the Park Commons TIF district. The results of the review confirm that this area does
qualify as a Redevelopment TIF District.
Fiscal disparities are an issue with the Park Commons project and it is anticipated that they will
be paid from outside the district. The city will be obligated to provide a local contribution that is
estimated at $2.74 million over the life of the district. The city has received a $1.2 million LCDA
grant and this can go towards the city’s local contribution obligation.
Staff is recommending that the EDA/Council not take action on the formal adoption of the Tax
Increment Financing plan until such time when a final development agreement with Avalon Bay
is approved. This will allow the city to continue to collect increment from the subject parcels in
the Excelsior Boulevard District if for some reason the proposed project does not take place
within the timeline currently anticipated. It will also give staff time to finalize more of the details
with Avalon Bay.
Attachments: Tax Increment Financing Plan (on file in City Clerk’s Office)
Resolution
Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator
Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
22
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. ______
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE PARK COMMONS TAX
INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT WITHIN REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT NO. 1 AND ADOPTING THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
PLAN THEREFOR AND REMOVING PARCELS FROM THE
EXCELSIOR BOULEVARD TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT.
BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council (the "Council") of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota (the "City"), as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The City has heretofore established Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopted the
Redevelopment Plan therefor. It has been proposed that the City establish Park Commons Tax
Increment Financing District ("Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District") within
Redevelopment Project No. 1 and adopt the Tax Increment Financing Plan therefor (the ''Plan");
all pursuant to and in conformity with applicable law, including Minnesota Statutes, Sections
469.090 through 469.1081 and 469.174 through 469.179, all inclusive, as amended, (the "Act")
all as reflected in the Plan, and presented for the Council's consideration.
1.02. The Council has investigated the facts relating to the Plan and has caused the Plan
to be prepared..
1.03. The City has performed all actions required by law to be performed prior to the
adoption and approval of the proposed Plan, including, but not limited to, notification of
Hennepin County and School District No. 283 having taxing jurisdiction over the property to be
included in Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, notice of a potential
redevelopment district to the local county commissioner, a review of and written comment on the
Plan by the City Planning Commission, and the holding of a public hearing upon published
notice as required by law.
Section 2. Findings for the Adoption and Approval of the Plan.
2.01 The City is not modifying the boundaries of redevelopment Project No. 1 nor
modifying the Redevelopment Plan.
2.02. The City has deemed it necessary to remove parcels from the Excelsior Boulevard
Tax Increment Financing District to be placed in the Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
23
District as outlined in the Modification to the Excelsior Boulevard District and described in the
Plan for the Park Commons District.
2.03. The Council hereby finds that the Plan, is intended and, in the judgment of this
Council, the effect of such actions will be, to provide an impetus for redevelopment in the public
purpose and accomplish certain objectives as specified in the Plan, which is hereby incorporated
herein.
Section 3. Findings for the Establishment of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing
District.
3.01. The Council hereby finds that Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District is
in the public interest and is a "redevelopment district" under Minnesota Statutes, Section
469.174, subd. 10 (a)(1).
3.02. The Council further finds that the proposed redevelopment would not occur solely
through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future and that the increased
market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without the use of tax
increment financing would be less than the increase in the market value estimated to result from
the proposed development after subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for
the maximum duration of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Tax
Increment Financing Plan, that the Plan conforms to the general plan for the development or
redevelopment of the City as a whole; and that the Plan will afford maximum opportunity
consistent with the sound needs of the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of
Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District by private enterprise.
3.03. The City elects to make a qualifying local contribution in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.1399, subd. 6(d), in order to qualify Park Commons Tax
Increment Financing District for exemption from state aid losses set forth in Section 273.1399.
3.04. The Council further finds, declares and determines that the City made the above
findings stated in this Section and has set forth the reasons and supporting facts for each
determination in writing, attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Section 4. Public Purpose
4.01. The adoption of the Plan conforms in all respects to the requirements of the Act
and will help fulfill a need to develop an area of the City which is already built up, to provide
employment opportunities, to improve the tax base and to improve the general economy of the
State and thereby serves a public purpose.
Section 5. Approval and Adoption of the Plan.
5.01. The Plan, as presented to the Council on this date, including without limitation the
findings and statements of objectives contained therein, are hereby approved, ratified,
24
established, and adopted and shall be placed on file in the office of the Economic Development
Director.
5.02. The staff of the City, the City’s advisors and legal counsel are authorized and
directed to proceed with the implementation of the Plan and to negotiate, draft, prepare and
present to this Council for its consideration all further plans, resolutions, documents and
contracts necessary for this purpose.
5.03 The Auditor of Hennepin County is requested to certify the original net tax
capacity of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, as described in the Plan, and to
certify in each year thereafter the amount by which the original net tax capacity has increased or
decreased; and the City of St. Louis Park is authorized and directed to forthwith transmit this
request to the County Auditor in such form and content as the Auditor may specify, together with
a list of all properties within Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, for which
building permits have been issued during the 18 months immediately preceding the adoption of
this resolution.
5.04. The City Manager is further authorized and directed to file a copy of the Plan with
the Commissioner of Revenue.
Approved by the St. Louis Park City Council October 18, 1999
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
1527/N/res/ord
25
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION #___________
The reasons and facts supporting the findings for the adoption of the Tax Increment
Financing Plan for Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District as required pursuant to
M.S., Section 469.175, Subd. 3 are as follows:
1. Finding that Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District is a redevelopment
district as defined in M.S., Section 469.174, Subd. 10(a)(1).
Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District consists of 38 parcels, with plans to
redevelop the area for mixed use purposes. At least 70 percent of the area in the parcels
in Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District are occupied by buildings, streets,
utilities, or other improvements and more than 50 percent of the buildings in Park
Commons Tax Increment Financing District, not including outbuildings, are structurally
substandard to a degree requiring substantial renovation or clearance. The information is
on file at the City with the Community Development Director.
2. Finding that the proposed development, in the opinion of the City Council, would not
reasonably be expected to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably
foreseeable future and that the increased market value of the site that could reasonably
be expected to occur without the use of tax increment financing would be less than the
increase in the market value estimated to result from the proposed development after
subtracting the present value of the projected tax increments for the maximum duration
of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District permitted by the Plan.
The proposed development, in the opinion of the City, would not reasonably be expected
to occur solely through private investment within the reasonably foreseeable future: This
finding is supported by the fact that the redevelopment proposed in this plan meets the
City’s objectives for redevelopment. Due to the high cost of redevelopment on the
parcels currently occupied by substandard buildings, the limited amount of commercial,
retail and residential property for expansion adjacent to the existing project, the
incompatible land uses at close proximity, and the cost of financing the proposed
improvements, this project is feasible only through assistance, in part, from tax increment
financing. The developer was asked for and provided a proforma as justification that the
developer would not have gone forward without tax increment assistance.
The increased market value of the site that could reasonably be expected to occur without
the use of tax increment financing would be less than the increase in market value
estimated to result from the proposed development after subtracting the present value of
the projected tax increments for the maximum duration of the TIF District permitted by
the Plan: The City supported this finding on the grounds that the cost of site and public
improvements, parking facilities, sidewalks and utilities add to the total redevelopment
cost. Historically, site and public improvements costs in this area have made
redevelopment infeasible without tax increment assistance. Therefore, the City
26
reasonably determines that no other redevelopment of any kind is anticipated on this site
without substantially similar assistance being provided to the development. Accordingly,
the increased market value anticipated without tax increment assistance is $0.
A comparative analysis of estimated market values both with and without establishment
of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District and the use of tax increments has
been performed as described above. If all development which is proposed to be assisted
with tax increment were to occur in Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District, the
total increase in market value would be up to $87,375,000. The present value of tax
increments from Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District is estimated to be
$22,800,000. It is the Council’s finding that no development with a market value of
greater than $55,582,000 would occur without tax increment assistance in this district
within 25 years. This finding is based upon evidence from general past experience with
the high cost of acquisition, site and public improvements, parking facilities and
sidewalks in the general area of Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District (see
Cashflow in Appendix D).
3. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District conforms to the general plan for the development or redevelopment of
the municipality as a whole.
The Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on October 6, 1999. The Planning
Commission found that the Plan conforms to the general development plan of the City.
4. Finding that the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Park Commons Tax Increment
Financing District will afford maximum opportunity, consistent with the sound needs of
the City as a whole, for the development or redevelopment of Redevelopment Project No.
1 by private enterprise.
The project to be assisted by Park Commons Tax Increment Financing District will result
in increased employment in the City and the State of Minnesota, the renovation of
substandard properties, increased tax base of the State and add a high quality
development to the City.
27
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8a
Meeting of October 18, 1999
8a. Establishing employer contributions for employer-provider cafeteria style
benefit programs for 2000 covering non-union positions.
Each year, the City Council is asked to approve an amount for Employer
contribution to the Employee Cafeteria Plan for non-union employees. The amount
is based, on part, on market, internal comparables and on the increased cost in
health insurance premiums.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt resolution establishing city contribution toward
employees’ cafeteria benefits plan for non-union, supervisory,
and non-supervisory employees for 2000
Background:
Each fall, the council sets benefit dollar levels for St. Louis Park employees to use in our
cafeteria benefits plan. Over the recent years, questions arose regarding equalization of benefit
levels regardless of selection of single or family health insurance. In 1999, the council approved
three union contracts that provided equal level benefit contributions regardless of selection of
single or family health insurance. Since we recently received renewal premiums for 2000, we
need to continue discussions regarding setting benefit levels for year 2000 for non-union as well
as two union contracts currently in negotiations.
Analysis
In the past, setting benefit dollars was based on providing an amount to employees for purchase
of single and family health insurance. In 1995, in order to be more responsive to individual
needs, St. Louis Park implemented a cafeteria plan allowing flexibility in use of benefit dollars.
Benefit dollars given to each employee by the employer can now be used to purchase a variety of
benefits such as health, life, dental, long-term disability, flexible spending accounts (medical or
daycare) and deferred compensation. With implementation of a cafeteria plan, we no longer
restrict use of benefit dollars for health insurance use only.
Over the past several years the city provided different levels of benefit dollars to employees,
dependent on each of the five union contracts, non-union, supervisory level and single/family
health insurance. For example, an employee who is a Police Officer would have a different
benefit dollar amount to use to purchase benefits than a Firefighter, Dispatcher, Local 49
Maintenance or Non-Union employee. As we move to year 2000 benefits, we recommend that
the city provide an equal distribution of benefit dollars for use in the cafeteria plan regardless of
union contract or family/single health insurance selection.
28
Employer benefit contributions
All Family Single All Family Single Family Single
2001 2000 2000 2000 1999 1999 1998 1998
Police Officer open $385 $320 $375 $315
Dispatch $410 $390 $365 $375 $310
Local 49 Maintenance $410 $390 $365 $370 $320
Firefighter open $400 $315 $375 $315
Police Sergeant $525 $510 $470 $495 $430 $450 $385
Non-Supervisory * $410 $395 $335 $375 $315
Supervisor-Non Union * $510 $470 $410 $455 $390
*(recommended)
Equalization has begun
Equalization in distribution of benefit dollars regardless of selection of single/family health
insurance began in 1999 with the approval of three union contracts for year 2000. The union
contracts for Police Sergeants, Local 49 Maintenance and Police Dispatch were approved with a
2-year phase in of equalization of benefit dollar contributions regardless of selection of single or
family health benefits. In addition, the benefit dollar level for Police Dispatch and Local 49
Maintenance will also be equal at $410/month in 2000. Police Sergeants will receive the same
benefit dollar regardless of single/family health selection at a higher benefit level based on their
classification as supervisory at $525/month in 2001 (three year phase in of equalization of
benefit dollars).
One variance that is expected to remain is for employees classified as exempt from overtime
(supervisory employees not eligible for overtime). This group receives a higher overall benefit
contribution as compared to non-exempt (overtime eligible) as part of overall compensation for
responsibilities and work over 40 hours.
Market impact
In today’s market, we must be concerned with record low unemployment rates and our ability to
recruit and/or retain existing staff. Analysts predict that Minnesota will need about 1 million
new workers by 2006 and the current population growth will not provide employers with enough
workers to meet our needs. In the past, Minnesota worried most about finding jobs for people.
Now we have a need to find people for jobs. In order to attract and retain good skilled workers,
we must be competitive in our overall compensation which includes benefits.
The move to provide equal dollars for benefit use regardless of selection of single or family
health insurance is also found in other cities such as: Brooklyn Park, Coon Rapids, Burnsville,
Edina, Maple Grove, Blaine, Apple Valley, Roseville, Brooklyn Center, Cottage Grove,
Shoreview, Inver Grove Heights, Golden Valley, Columbia Heights, Anoka, Hopkins and
Robbinsdale. This list demonstrates that we would not be alone if we chose to continue to move
in the direction of equal distribution of benefit dollars regardless of selection of single or family
health insurance.
29
Benefits and Compensation plan design
First, and foremost, the components of a benefits plan should complement the remainder of the
compensation program. The purpose of our compensation plan is: “to establish a fair and
equitable method of determining and maintaining base compensation is such a way which,
overtime, will allow the city to attract and retain a competent work force”. Since benefit levels
are part of the overall employee compensation package, it is important we continue to provide a
benefit plan design to fit both individual needs and at the same time maintain a comparable level
in our market. When a current or potential employee of St. Louis Park reviews their
compensation, wage and benefits are looked at together making the full compensation package.
Second, the benefits plan should be competitive, adequate, and cost effective. We have
addressed this issue by implementing a benefits committee that currently works with a consultant
in review of our overall benefits packages offered to employees. We will continue research and
review of overall benefits by this committee and use of the consultant in 2000.
Cafeteria benefits plan new options for 2000
Employee preferences for various benefit options are determined by individual needs. Those
benefits perceived to best satisfy individual needs are most highly desired. In part, these needs
arise out of feeling of perceived equity or inequity. Our cafeteria plan allows employees to
select insurance options based on their own individual needs. For 2000 our options for selection
become more complex. In addition to our 2 existing plans Medica High Option and Medica Low
Option, a new third plan, Medica Elect, has been added for 2000. The Elect option uses a
primary care limited network of physicians which results in lower premiums if this plan is
selected by the individual. Employees will also be allowed to select from the following plan
options:
-Single
-Family
-Employee & Spouse - new
-Employee & Child(ren) – new
These two new options are more affordable than the family health insurance plan. For example,
an employee, who in the past chose family, can now choose a plan that more affordably meets
their needs such as employee plus children (at a lower premium level). Any dollars remaining
from this cost saving could be used, in theory, by selecting other benefits in our cafeteria plan to
best fit their individual needs. The down side is by adding the two new plan options we
complicate selection of benefits and dollars to use when each individual employee enrolls in our
benefits cafeteria plan. Listed below are the charts showing year 2000 health insurance
premiums as compared to 1999 premiums and plan design.
30
Year 2000 Medica premiums: 3 plan options and 4 tiers
High Option Low Option Elect Option
Single $225.53 $206.36 $202.23
Employee & Child(ren) $495.00 $469.87 $443.87
Employee & Spouse $524.00 $479.46 $469.87
Family $646.96 $580.13 $580.13
1999 Medica premiums
High Option Low Option
Single $195.16 $178.56
Family $524.91 $480.31
Recommendation
St. Louis Park has started moving toward internal consistencies between various employee
groups. It is recommended that we continue in this direction, by looking at benefits contribution
as part of overall compensation and setting equal level of benefits regardless of union, employee
group or family/single health selection. Equalization of benefits regardless, of family or single
health insurance selection allowing for a separate level for exempt/supervisory employees,
appears to be in line with and will complement overall in our compensation plan design.
Based on this report and discussion from Council Study Session, it is recommended that the
following benefit levels for non-union employees be adopted for 1/1/2000.
A) Full-time, non-union-non-exempt/non-supervisory $410.00/month
B) Full-time, non-union, exempt/supervisory $510.00/month, City to provide LTD
as approved by City Manager
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. I look forward to
our continued discussion and setting benefit contribution levels for 2000.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
31
RESOLUTION NO. 99-117
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY CONTRIBUTION TOWARD EMPLOYEES’
CAFETERIA BENEFITS PLAN FOR NON-UNION, SUPERVISORY, AND NON-
SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES FOR 2000
WHEREAS, the City Council has established a cafeteria-style employee group benefit plan that
provides the most effective means for providing employee group benefits, and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes an increase in benefit premiums for 2000 and desires to
adjust the contribution levels to share increased costs for 2000 and provide benefit levels
consistent with our other employee groups.
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, 2000, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars for non-union/non-
supervisory employees, working at least 30 hours per week, be set at $410/month.
3. Effective January 1, 2000, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars for non-union/non-
supervisory employees working between 20 and 29 hours per week be set at 50% of non-
union, non-supervisory monthly contribution level.
4. The monthly City contribution of benefit dollars for non-union supervisory/exempt
employees shall be set at $510/month. Additionally, the City shall 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.
Adopted by the City Council October 18, 1999
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
32
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #8b
Meeting of October 18, 1999
8b. Compensation - 2000
A Compensation Plan document was approved by the City Council in November of
1997. In accordance with such document, the City Manager requests confirmation
of a 3% standard adjustment to the plan effective January 1, 2000.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the resolution confirming the City Manager’s
decision to set the general increase for non-union salaries for
2000.
Background: 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 updated
market value data from the Stanton Survey, changes in job values and also such information as
the CPI and general financial conditions of the City.
Three union groups have contracts settled for 2000, Police Sergeants, Police Dispatchers, and
Local 49 Maintenance all have contracts with a 3% wage increase effective January 1, 2000.
1. Compensation
Upon review of market data and our three employee groups settled for 2000, the City Manager
has approved a standard adjustment of 3% for 2000. The City Manager is asking Council to
confirm this general increase.
2. City Manager’s Salary
The City Manager’s contract is separate from that of the Compensation Plan. It is also
recommended that the City Manager receive a salary and benefit level increase consistent with
non-union supervisory staff.
Financial Consideration: The standard adjustment of 3% for non-union employees is included
in the 2000 budget.
Recommendation: Although the Compensation Plan allows for the City Manager to implement
a standard increase, we ask Council to confirm this action for year 2000 salaries. Item #2 would
allow for the City Manager’s compensation and benefits to be adjusted consistent with other
employee groups. All items fall within the 2000 budget constraints and approval is
recommended.
Attachments: Resolution
Prepared by: Nancy Gohman, Human Resources Manager
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
33
RESOLUTION NO. 99-118
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING A GENERAL INCREASE FOR NON-
UNION EMPLOYEES EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2000.
WHEREAS, as authorized by Section 3-301 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, 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% for non-union employees effective January 1, 2000 in accordance with the Position
Classification and Compensation Plan.
2. The City Council approves an increase in wage and benefits for the City Manager to be
consistent with increases granted to non-union supervisory staff for 2000.
Adopted by the City Council October 18, 1999.
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
34
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8c
Meeting of October 18, 1999
8c. Resolution designating the Office of Finance Director to be City Treasurer
This action will assign the duties of City Treasurer to a position within the City
structure rather than to a specific employee.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt a resolution designating the Office of Director
of Finance as City Treasurer
Background:
City Charter provides that there shall be a City Treasurer accountable to the City Manager. The
appointment of City Treasurer as an officer of the City is subject to the consent of the City
Council. With the resignation last May of long-time City Treasurer Karen Elg, Council
considered the appointment of Kathleen McBride, then Finance Director, to the position of City
Treasurer. The report submitted to Council at that time stated that, in the opinion of the City’s
Auditor, no conflicts of internal control existed as a result of combining the two offices and Ms.
McBride was appointed as City Treasurer.
Since that time Ms. McBride has also left the City, Ms. Jean McGann has been appointed
Finance Director and that appointment has been ratified by Council. In order to comply with
City Charter requirements, Council is once again being asked to appoint a City Treasurer.
Requirements of Charter and Municipal Code:
City Charter, section 5.04 (a) currently states “There shall be a City Clerk, City Treasurer and
such other officers accountable to the City Manager as the Council may designate by ordinance.”
Charter Section 5.02 (b) calls for Council ratification of appointment for City Clerk, City
Treasurer, City Attorney, Secretary to Council and all Department Head positions.
In addition to the officers required by charter, state statute also requires some positions such as
City Engineer and Emergency Preparedness Director. Recodification of the City’s Municipal
Code is currently underway and changes to the language outlining organizational structure will
be incorporated. Where duties of Officers are stated, reference to other positions they may hold
will be made as follows:
Dir of Public Works …may also serve as… City Engineer
Dir of Finance “ City Treasurer
City Clerk “ Secretary to Council
City Manager “ Emergency Preparedness Director
35
The proposed language allows Council and the City Manager to combine these positions when
feasible, but does not preclude the creation of another position to hold the additional office
should the need arise.
Staff Recommendation:
In light of Council’s action last May and recommended revisions to the City’s Municipal Code,
staff recommends that Council designate the Office of Finance Director to be City Treasurer
rather than appointing a specific person to that position. Council may at any time designate
another position or person to be City Treasurer should the needs of the City or the Finance
Department change.
Attachment: Resolution
Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
36
RESOLUTION NO. 99-119
RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICE OF
FINANCE DIRECTOR TO SERVE AS THE CITY TREASURER
WHEREAS, City Charter section 5.04 (a) states that there shall be a City Treasurer who will be
accountable to the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, The City Council has determined that the duties of the City Treasurer are performed
by the Director of Finance; and
WHEREAS, the Council has recently ratified the appointment of Jean McGann to the office of
Director of Finance,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the St. Louis Park City Council that Director of
Finance Jean McGann is hereby appointed City Treasurer; and
LET IT FURTHER BE RESOLVED that any future person holding the Office of Director of
Finance shall also serve as City Treasurer unless Council acts to appoint a different person or
office to act in that capacity.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
37
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8d
Meeting of October 18, 1999
8d. Minnesota Department of Transportation Noise Wall Along The East Side of
Trunk Highway 100
This report is in response to a Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
request that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of the proposed noise
wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100 from W. 41st Street to W. 44th
Street.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution approving Mn/DOT’s
proposal to construct a noise wall along the east side of Trunk
Highway 100 from W. 41st Street to W. 44th Street.
Background: On September 28, 1999 Mn/DOT sponsored a neighborhood meeting for area
residents regarding the proposed noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100.
Residents from both Edina and St. Louis Park were invited to the meeting. Mn/DOT presented
the proposed project and responded to residents’ questions.
At the conclusion of the meeting staff asked for consensus on the proposal and received
unanimous support for all of the following:
1. The noise wall will be constructed from W. 41st Street to W. 44th Street along the east
side of Trunk Highway 100 only.
2. The noise wall will be constructed with concrete posts and wooden planks. The posts
will be located on the highway side.
3. Wall height will be 20 feet above the mainline.
4. Post and planks will be the same color. The color selected by the residents at the meeting
will be used.
Construction Timetable: Mn/DOT anticipates having the survey work completed this fall,
design work completed this winter, and a February bid letting. Construction would begin in
April-May depending on weather and be completed in about 60 to 90 days.
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Mike Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
38
RESOLUTION NO. 99-120
APPROVING MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONS
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A NOISE WALL
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St Louis Park has received a report from the
City Engineer related to the proposed noise wall along the east side of Trunk Highway 100 from
W. 41st Street to W. 44th Street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota that:
1. The noise wall will be constructed from W. 41st Street to W. 44th Street along the
east side of Trunk Highway 100 only.
2. The noise wall will be constructed with concrete posts and wooden planks. The
posts will be located on the highway side.
3. Wall height will be 20 feet above the mainline.
4. Post and planks will be the same color. The color selected by the residents at the
meeting will be used.
Attest: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 1999
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed for Administration:
City Manager
39
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8e*
Meeting of October 18, 1999
8e.* Traffic Study No. 546: 3300 On The Park Condominiums Request for
Parking Restrictions on Oak Leaf Court at its southerly Driveway
Exit/entrance.
This report considers a request from 3300 On The Park Condominiums to restrict
parking 10 feet on the east and west sides of the southerly driveway/entrance to
Oak Leaf Court.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the change in
parking restrictions on Oak Leaf Court to no parking within 10
feet on the east and west sides of 3300 On The Park
Condominiums southerly exit/entrance.
Background: The City received a request from 3300 On The Park Condominiums asking that
the City consider restricting parking on Oak Leaf Court on both the east and west sides of their
southerly exit/entrance. The request is to provide improved access due to park users parking into
and partially blocking their driveway access. This request has no impact on area residents.
Options: Staff has identified the following options available to the Council at this time:
* 1. Approve the request. If so, the attached resolution authorizing the
removal of the existing parking restrictions and rescinding Resolution No. 84-110
may be utilized.
2. Deny the request.
3. Defer pending additional study.
* Staff recommendation
Attachments: Map
Resolution
Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Michael Rardin, Public Works
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
40
RESOLUTION NO. 99-121
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING “NO PARKING”
WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY DRIVEWAY EXIT/ENTRANCE
OF 3300 ON THE PARK CONDOMINIUMS
TRAFFIC STUDY NO. 546
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has been requested, has studied, and
has determined that traffic controls are necessary at this location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota, that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to install the following
controls:
1. “No Parking” within 10 feet of the east and west sides of 3300 On The Park Condominiums
southerly exit/entrance.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 18, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
41
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 8f*
Meeting of October 18, 1999
8f*. City Land Sale at Southwest Corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue
This report considers the adoption of an ordinance which authorizes the sale of
City property to the Economic Development Authority to facilitate the
development of the site located at the southwest corner of Highway 7 and
Louisiana Avenue.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to continue second reading of an ordinance
authorizing the sale of City owned property located at the
southwest corner of Highway 7 and Louisiana Avenue to the
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority until such
time title and legal description issues related to the parcel
have been resolved.
Background:
On September 7, 1999 the City Council approved the first reading of the ordinance authorizing
the land sale with the understanding that title and legal description issues associated with a tax
forfeited parcel on the property needed to be addressed.
The second reading needs to be continued since the tax forfeited land issue has not been
completely resolved. The required Final Plat and PUD approval for this project is also affected
by this issue.
Prepared by: Tom Harmening, Community Development Director
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
1526/N
42
Item 9a*
APPROVED MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 1999 --7:00 P.M.
AT PARAGON CABLE EDEN PRAIRIE OFFICE
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras,
Robert Jacobsonand Mary Jean Overend
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh,
Community TV Coordinator; and Shirley Olson, Recording
Secretary
PARAGON STAFF PRESENT: Arlen Mattern, Public Affairs Administrator and
Bernie Doffing, Director of Network Operations.
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
All current members of the Commission were present.
3. Approval of Minutes:
It was moved by Bruce Browning, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to approve the minutes of
May 13, 1999 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission with the correction noted
below. Motion carried unanimously.
Page 2, 1st Paragraph, change “emphasized” to “empathized”.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
Chair Huiras recommended that Agenda Item 7: New Business be discussed before Item 5:
Old Business. The Commission concurred.
5. Tour of Eden Prairie Head End
Bernie Doffing, Director of Network Operations of Cable directed the Commission on a tour
of the Eden Prairie Head End facility highlighting Paragon’s various equipment and
operations. Commissioners asked questions of clarification and inquired about the
upcoming unveiling of
Roadrunner, Time Warner’s cable Internet access service.
43
6. Old Business
A. School District funding for 2000; review School District response to Commission
queries
Reg Dunlap indicated that he had received a letter from Carolyn Charles on 6/18/99 in
response to his letter to Barbara Pulliam of 5/18/99 with a list of questions about the School
District’s future plans before considering a funding increase of 2000. The letter indicated
that the Video Tech position had been filled by Charlie Fiss who was assessing the needs of
the School District this summer and would compile a written report addressing the issues of
concern.
Robert Jacobson recommended that the Commission not move forward with a decision
about whether or not to increase the Council’s annual grant from $25,000 until receiving a
report from Charlie Fiss answering present need questions.
Bruce Browning concurred.
Mary Jean Overend suggested that only a written report be accepted for the record.
The consensus of the Commission was to wait on a discussion regarding this issue until a
report was received and then make a final recommendation to the City Council.
Reg Dunlap noted that in September the City Council will address the Cable TV
Commission recommendation that 1/3 of the $86,000 Paragon Cable franchise equipment
grant ($28,667.00) be distributed to the School District for capital purchases for cable
TV/video production.
B. Needs assessment background and discussion
John McHugh provided a copy of the latest version of the needs assessment survey to the
Commission. He indicated that a professional poll taking company would help formulate
assessment questions and complete via both a telephone survey and returned mail survey.
The consensus of the Commission was that the content of the Needs Assessment was
adequate.
Robert Jacobson recommended that there be an enhanced appreciation and incentive for
those who are being asked to provide feedback.
Mary Jean Overend recommended extending the opening description to include reason for
needs assessment.
John McHugh asked the Commission to e-mail him recommended verbiage for revised
opening description.
44
7. New Business
A. Review Paragon Annual Filings
Mary Jean Overend asked if Paragon was tracking any trend as to what percentage of users
subscribed to a standard cable package vs. a basic cable package. Bernie Doffing, Director
of Network Operations indicated that no tracking has been done to define a trend.
Robert Jacobson asked what role the Annual Filings had in Paragon’s annual review and
asked for clarification of how they relate.
Mary Jean Overend asked how residents were notifying Paragon of their desire to
disconnect.
Arlen Mattern, Public Affairs Administrator of Paragon indicated that most people call
directly. He indicated that the Prevue channel listings were still an unresolved issue.
Dale Hartman asked if Internet access would be available through Paragon in the future.
Mr. Doffing said that money was budgeted for St. Louis Park to be upgraded early next year
if all franchise issues are worked out, and showed a fiber optic sample for the Commission.
He stated that he was in charge of the new upgrade which would be tested this year for
Internet access being provided by Paragon and that there was a separate department for
Roadrunner which Time Warner is testing and getting feedback.
B. Review Social Contract required annual report
Bernie Doffing, Director of Network Operations of Paragon indicated that the details to
upgrade St. Louis Park to 750 MHz were being completed. It was noted that many smaller
systems can’t afford to upgrade to provide digital services, telephoning and cable modems
to users.
C. Update on Paragon Y2K status
Arlen Mattern, Public Affairs Administrator indicated that Paragon was Y2K compliant and
that this was not going to be an issue, although the company relies on various outside
vendors whose services could be affected.
D. Update on digital services offered in neighboring cities
Bernie Doffing, Director of Network Operations of Paragon stated that digital services were
in the early stages and this would be possible after update to 750 MHz occurred. The
upgrade is in progress in Eden Prairie and Bloomington, and completed in Richfield,
Hopkins and Edina.
E. Update on St. Louis Park upgrade to 750 MHz
45
See Item 7B
F. MACTA Special Funds
The Commission discussed Senator Kelley’s proposed bill to deregulate
telecommunications and cable and change how franchise fees are collected. Of specific
concern are the problems that may occur because the bill would require using a grant
process to get funds back that currently are paid directly to the City. The Commission
discussed the possibility of a resolution to approve $5,000 for a expenditure for lobbying to
protect this.
It was moved by Robert Jacobson, seconded by Rick Dworsky, to table this item until the
October meeting in order to attain additional information. The motion passed unanimously.
8. Reports - None
9. Communications from the Chair - None
10. Communications from City Staff
Reg Dunlap provided information about the 19th Annual Local Government
Telecommunications Conference to be held in Atlanta on September 14th-18th. He noted
that he would be attending, and asked Commissioners who had an interest in attending to
contact him.
Reg Dunlap provided information about the upcoming City organized Y2K meetings and
encouraged Commissioners to attend. He also noted that the a recent Institutional Network
meeting with Paragon engineering staff and Arlen Mattern had been very productive,
opening the way for the City to add two-way interactive capacity to the St. Louis Park
Recreation Center.
11. Adjournment
With no other business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Robert Jacobson,
seconded by Rick Dworsky to adjourn at 9:24 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
46
Item #9b*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 8th, 1999
COMMUNITY ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Catherine Courtney, Bridget Gothberg, Shone Row
Judith Moore and William Gavzy.
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson and Paula Jordan
1. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
Commissioner Courtney moved approval of the minutes of August 11, 1999.
Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote
of 4-0 with Commissioners Row, Moore, Courtney and Gothberg in favor.
2. Hearings: None
3. Reports and Committees: None
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business:
a. Resolution No. 463 - Recognition of Appreciation of Walter Hartman.
Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of the Resolution No. 463.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion.
Michele Schnitker commented that Cindy Larson had indicated, that since
several Commissioners have resigned from various commissions; the City
Council tentatively plans to show recognition to outgoing commissioners in
either November or December.
Ms. Schnitker reported that there would possibly be a reception before the
City Council Meeting. At that time there would be a presentation of
appreciation. The Commissioners will be notified of the time and date so
they may attend if they wish.
47
Sharon Anderson added, that she would like to extend her appreciation to
Mr. Hartman. Ms. Anderson would like to acknowledge the fact that he
was always very supportive of staff and very involved in NAHRO and
other housing activities.
Commissioner Courtney added that she appreciated serving with Mr. Hartman
for their two years together on the Board, as well as outside this position.
Commissioner Courtney noted that the motion was on the table to approve
Resolution No. 463. The motion was passed on a vote of 4-0 with
Commissioners Gothberg, Courtney, Moore and Row voting in favor.
b. Project for Pride in Living (PPL) Development Proposal at Louisiana Court.
Michele Schnitker reported that staff wanted to come back to the Housing
Authority Board and update them on recent developments with the project
at Louisiana Court. Since the last report in March development has been
advancing and there have been some changes on this project. Staff attended a
City Council Study Session August 23 and discussed with the Council the
progress that is being made, along with the proposed financing and acquisition
issues. The proposed financing does include a substantial role for the City.
The City will be looking at possibly issuing Bonds for half the cost of the
project, approximately $4.5 Million. The Council is considering that option,
as well as other options, such as a grant coupled with the assurance of
Revenue Bonds.
The Council asked the staff to further develop the financing plan and come
back to another study session with more details along with risk to the City. It
is the staffs' hope that once that is completed, the City will give further
direction if they wish to continue to advance this project.
Ms. Schnitker introduced Barb McCormick, the Director of Housing and
Development for Project for Pride in Living. Ron Price Project Manager for
Project for Pride in Living and Lisa Kugler, a consultant working with
Project for Pride in Living. They presented brief overview projects status and
the changes that have occurred in the last few months.
Staff will be returning to the Council Study Session next Monday
Mark Ruff, Ehlers and Associates, has done some further development on
financial plans, that will be presented to the Council. Staff is working with
Project for Pride in Living to put a Liveable Community Demonstration
Grant together, which has a due date of October 1st. It is critical that the City
makes a determination at this time whether they want to move ahead with
this project. Staff hopes to receive direction from the Council at the next
48
Council Study Session
Ms. Schnitker indicated that $300,000 in Home funds and $140,000 in CDBG
funds are already committed to this project.
Commissioner Gavzy asked whether using Bonds was unusual for
this type of project.
Ms. Schnitker answered that it is unusual for St. Louis Park for this
type of project, but that other communities have successfully used this tool to
develop housing.
Commissioner Courtney commented that she felt it was unusual with
this type of project but has not had the opportunity to read through
Mr. Ruff's entire report. She felt that it was not our concern but the
the City's. Commissioner Courtney felt if she were on the Council,
she would want the Bond Council's perspective.
Commissioner Gavzy stated that of everything that has been mentioned,
the Bond issue is the one thing that is out of the ordinary.
Ms. Schnitker stated that it is a controversial issue and that the Council is
trying to make a determination regarding their position. The Council
was generally supportive and sees this as a positive project to do.
They have some reservations about funding and want to be sure
what the risks to the City are going to be before moving ahead with
this project.
Barb McCormick, Director PPL, commented that after the project has been
operational for two years and doing well, the GO bonds would not affect the
City's ability to borrow, because the project is supported by the revenue from
the project and does not count against the City's debt load. The Counties of
Woodbury, Washington and Dakota along with the City of Champlin have all
issued GO Bonds for Housing Projects.
Ms. Schnitker asked Ms. McCormick to further explain the details of the
project.
Ms. McCormick indicated that they had spoken with the Housing Authority
Board several months ago and since then there have been some changes. In
order to move on with this project, the ownership of he buildings must be
consolidated. As they began to explore willing sellers, the scale of the project,
and the condition of the buildings, they have uncovered that this project consists
of more than seven buildings they have uncovered that this project of more than
seven buildings. They are now looking at an acquisition of eleven buildings at
49
Louisiana Court. Most of the buildings are in very good structural condition.
Many have evidence of deferred maintenance, which is of primary concern.
There is no uniform scope of work because of the varied work required in each
of the buildings, but they will seek to bring them to the same level.
Commissioner Moore asked why some of the owners would not be interested
in selling.
Ms. McCormick replied that the rental market at this point in time is so positive
that the owners have raised the rents $100 per month in a relatively short
amount of time. They are making more money by continuing renting. The
negotiating is still continuing.
Commissioner Gothberg asked if they are looking at eleven of the thirteen
buildings, which would be the other two?
Ms. McCormick reported that Perspectives own three of the buildings.
Tower Management owns two buildings at the end of Louisiana Court and is not
interested in selling. Perspectives would continue ownership of their buildings
and coordinate their activities with PPL. PPL's focus at this time is the willing
seller.
Ms. McCormick stated that by increasing the number of units in the project
under one owner, PPL would have a property manager, maintenance person and
caretaker, all of whom would have full-time responsibilities located on site at
Louisiana Court.
In pursuing financing options, PPL had some encouraging conversations with
the Met Council; there are some things that need to be built into the project
and how it is structured to safeguard the City of St. Louis Park in the issuing of
GO Bonds.
The one issue of interest to the Housing Authority is PPL's continued inclusion
of the Hollman Units. PPL had initially talked to the Housing Authority about
including twelve to fourteen units. PPL is now anticipating twelve units, which
hits the 10% mark in terms of total of number of units, and feels the number is
very manageable. PPL feels that this is a nice mix in terms of being able to
serve a variety of incomes at that site. PPL will be doing a conversion of some
of the one-bedroom units, combining two-one bedrooms to make three
bedrooms, PPL will combine twenty-eight units into fourteen three-bedroom
units which will change the ability to serve large families at that site.
Ms. Schnitker indicated that if approval is received from the City Council to
move forward with the project, staff will be returning to the Council with
additional project- related activities. Approval of the Livable Communities
50
Grant submission needs to happen prior to October 15th, the Cooperation
Agreement with the City will need to be amended to include the Hollman units
and a preliminary development agreement will need to be executed with PPL
Commissioner Gothberg replied that there was a Visioning Task Force
which she facilitated as a community member, with residents and homeowners.
They did not know that PPL was the solution but knew that they needed better
living conditions, property improvements, a safer place, place that could be a
community not just sixteen buildings with a variety of management styles.
While searching for that solution, PPL offered the perfect solution for their
project.
Commissioner Gavzy asked how many residents were thought to remain
after this renovation.
Ms. McCormick responded that PPL did not anticipate the rents to change. The
only units that will be displaced are the twenty-eight units that will
be reconfigured. It is in the interest of PPL to relocate the good tenants to other
units within the development.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if there were any existing tenants that will not meet
the rent requirements because of income.
Ms. McCormick did not anticipate that problem as the existing tenants have low
to moderate income, with low-income families the majority. Fifty to sixty
percent of the median for a family of two is $34,000, so it is reasonable that the
majority of the existing tenants would meet that requirement.
PPL is in the process of obtaining more solid demographic data of who is
living at Louisiana Court. Perspectives has done a tremendous amount of work
with families with children but have not had a great deal of connection with any
of the other households so getting good information about the ( non-children or
families without children ) at Louisiana Court has been a bit elusive. PPL has
been asked to select an intern to canvas the area to obtain a better picture of who
is actually living there.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if the proposed renovations would be to the exterior
of the buildings or if here interior improvements are planned as well.
Ms. McCormick stated that there are interior improvements, but that they
would not require a tenant to vacate for more than one day. Most of the
improvements will be done on turnovers, but there will be some interruption to
the existing tenants.
51
Ms. McCormick expressed gratitude to the St. Louis Park staff who worked
with PPL on this project. Very critical, but earnest, dialog was presented to
PPL concerning what they could actually accomplish.
Several inquires by the Commissioners were addressed by Ms. McCormick
about Louisiana Court being a troubled area and the large turnover in the
buildings since this development is in decline.
Commissioner Courtney's comment was on the timeline of the closing date
of June 30th. If there were bond allocations, the closing would have to be early
May.
Commissioner Gavzy asked how many of the tenants have Certificates or
Vouchers and would this change their usefulness. He thought there were
restrictions about using Certificates and Vouchers in certain projects.
Ms. Schnitker stated that there would be restrictions if the Authority were
the owner but because PPL is the owner, there would not be any restrictions and
Section 8 participants would be able to remain in place.
c. Home Renewal Program - Authorization of Execution of a Purchase Agreement
for 2929 Ottawa Avenue South.
Ms. Schnitker stated that staff was requesting that the Housing Authority
authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Richard W. Paulson for the
purchase of 2929 Ottawa Avenue South under the Home Renewal Program.
The purchase price is $40,000.00.
Kathy Larson reported on the project. The house is currently vacant and has come
into some extensive damage. The Authority had the property appraised at
$46,000.00. Tom Wigfield, the City Inspector wrote an extensive report that the
house was in such a state of disrepair that rehabilitation would be impossible.
To complicate things even more, the house is only two feet from the alley.
City zoning does not allow any addition to the house that close to the alley.
The house is 800 square feet with one bathroom. The lot is 50 by 133 feet.
The owner verbally agreed to the purchase agreement pending the Authority's
authorization to execute it.
Staff is working with Hennepin County to get the CDGB reimbursement. The
Environmental Review has been ordered and staff has completed the rent
determination. Staff hopes that the excavation could be done this fall so that the
house could be constructed this winter.
Commissioner Courtney moved to authorize the purchase agreement.
Commissioner Gavzy made a motion to accept and Commissioner
Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 5-0 with
52
Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Moore, Gothberg and Courtney voting in favor.
d. Schedule Housing Authority Tour
Ms. Schnitker presented the idea of a tour a of housing development and
public housing. It has been two years since the last tour. The Board Members
discussed the idea and decided to let Ms.Schnitker know what dates will be
workable for the Board.
7. Communications from the Executive Director
a. Claims List No 99-9
Commissioner Gavzy moved approval of Claims List No. 99-9 in the amount of
$65,099.42. Commissioner Courtney seconded the motion. The vote was
passed on a vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Row, Courtney, Gothberg
and Moore voting in favor.
b. Communications
(1) Monthly Report for September 1999
Sharon Anderson gave the monthly report.
The report was accepted and filed.
(2) Home Renewal Program and Habitat Program Update
Ms. Schnitker reported that the deadline for development proposals for the
Jersey property was today.
8. Adjournment
Commissioner Courtney moved to adjourn the meeting at 6:17 P.M.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion and the motion passed on a vote of
of 5-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Courtney, Row, Gothberg and Moore voting
in favor.
Respectfully submitted
____________________________
Shone Row
Secretary
53
Item #9c*
MINUTES
HOUSING AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
September 22, 1999
Community Room
MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Judith Moore,
and Shone Row.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Courtney and Bridget Gothberg
STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Cindy Stromberg and Paula Jordan
.
6. Call to Order
The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m.
2. Hearings: None
3. Reports and Committees: None
4. Unfinished Business: None
5. New Business:
a. Housing Choice Voucher Program Payment Standards
Ms. Schnitker reported that this was a timing issue because the Certificate and
Voucher Programs are going to be merged effective October 1st, 1999. By
bringing this issue in at this time, staff can make the rent changes based on the
new Payment Standards effective at the same time as the new FMRs. This
would save administratively by not having to issue rent changes at two
different times.
Cindy Stromberg gave the analysis on why the staff wants to raise the
Payment Standards which could not exceed the published FMRs. Anything
higher would have to be approved by HUD.
54
Housing Authority Minutes
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
September 22, 1999
Page 2
In the past it was a complicated process to increase Payment Standards ,but
now you can use your own discretion based on what you determine the needs
in your community. Looking at the chart submitted in the report, it shows
that the majority of current Voucher holders are paying more than 30% of
their income for rent. In most cases, participants were unable to find rental
units within the limits of the Low Payment standards. We also know from the
Certificate Program is that people could not find rental units in St.Louis Park
because of the low vacancy rate and of how high the rents are. Now that we
have the ability to change the Payment Standards, we hope to bring our
program utilization up and have fewer people paying more than 30% of their
income for rent.
Ms. Schnitker reviewed the FMRs for the Board. The chart submitted shows
that most of the participants on the Voucher Program were paying well over
30% of their income for rent. The staff is proposing an initial increase of the
Payment Standard, which would be 10% above what the new FMRs will be,
effective October 1st. This allows the rents to be moved up to 110% without
requesting HUD's permission. This will actually help tenants to avoid a large
rent burden and make it possible to rent-up in St. Louis Park. Staff has noted
a decrease in the utilization rate of the Certificate Program so this merger of
the Voucher and Certificate programs is positive. The subsidy will be larger,
and the budget can incur this increase.
Ms. Stromberg stated that the more subsidies the Authority pays, the fewer
people can be assisted out of the same fund of money. If funds reached a
point that was extremely low, we would need to limit issuing to new
participants and utilization goes down.
Commissioner Gavzy asked if the monies were coming out of the Housing
Authority's budget in this fiscal year.
Ms. Schnitker replied that the current budget contains adequate subsidies to
pay for this upgrade.
Ms. Stromberg noted that if HUD reviews the rent burdens and finds that too
many people are paying too high a rent burden, HUD would force you to raise
your payment standards.
55
Housing Authority Minutes
St.Louis Park, Minnesota
September 22, 1999
Page 3
Ms. Schnitker reported that we will be monitoring the rent burdens and may
be asking for an exception for up to 120%. As is noted on the chart with one
bedrooms, even with the change, most of the participants are paying over the
new Payment Standards.
Ms. Stromberg noted that 40% for rent burden cap only allows for new move-
ins when choosing a unit. The participants will be held to the percentage,
therefore, forcing them to be more careful in renting a unit that is as
affordable.
Commissioner Moore asked what would happened if the St. Louis Park
Housing Authority chose not to approve the increase to the Payment
Standards.
Ms. Schnitker answered that the Authority would just maintain it's Payment
Standards at the FMRS. The FMRs and Payment Standards would be
implemented on October 1st without the 110%. The Authority could not
change the Payment Standards without the approval of the Housing Authority
Board. It is a policy decision that must be authorized by the Board. Most of
the surrounding communities already have the exception rents under the old
program, such as Hopkins and Plymouth. St. Louis Park was unable to
increase its rents because of HUD's limit on allowing exception rents.
Commissioner Gavzy moved to approve the recommendation to approve the
Payment Standards for the Housing Choice Voucher Program at 110% of the
FMR effective October 1st, 1999. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion,
and it was approved by a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Row, Moore and
Gavzy in approval.
b. Home Renewal Program - 1454 Jersey Avenue South - Development
Agreement with Al Stobbe Homes, Inc.
Kathy Larson gave the report on the Home Renewal Program indicating that
only two development proposals were received. One proposal was from
Angelique Ellis and one from Stobbe Homes, Inc. Angelique Ellis, an
individual, who is trying to develop some property in St. Louis Park, did not
meet submission requirements.
Ms. Schnitker noted that Al Stobbe Homes, Inc. was the contractor who built
the Blackstone property, is the builder for the Maryland property, is also
building a property on Rhode Island.
56
Housing Authority Minutes
St. Louis Park, Minnesota
September 22, 1999
Page 4
Commissioner Gavzy inquired if staff felt if Al Stobbe's work was acceptable.
Kathy Larson indicated, along with Ms. Schnitker, that the entire staff was
pleased with the end results. They feel that the home design Stobbe submitted
will fit in well with the existing homes in the area.
Commissioner Moore had a question about the issue of hazardous waste upon
demolition. Ms.Larson assured Commissioner Moore, that the Authority
receives certification from the contractor along with an environmental review.
This gives assurance that the Housing Authority is not liable for selling
contaminated property.
Commissioner Row moved that the Housing Authority Board authorize
execution of the development agreement with Al Stobbe Homes, Inc.
Commissioner Moore seconded the motion, and it was passed on a vote of 3-0
with Commissioners, Gavzy, Moore and Row voting in favor.
6. Adjournment.
Commissioner Gavzy moved to adjourn the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Commissioner
Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with
Commissioners Moore, Row and Gavzy voting in favor.
Respectfully submitted
_________________________
Shone Row
Secretary
57
Item 9d*
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 15, 1999 --7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver, Michael Garelick (arrived
at 7:40 p.m.), Dennis Morris, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ken Gothberg
STAFF PRESENT: Janet Jeremiah, Tom Kleve, Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson
CONSULTANTS PRESENT: Greg Ingraham and Dave Anderson
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
2. Approval of Minutes of September 1, 1999
Ms. Velick moved approval of Minutes of September 1, 1999 and the motion passed on a
vote of 3-0-1 with Carver, Morris, and Velick voting in favor and Bissonnette abstaining.
3. Public Hearings
A. Case No. 99-21-PUD - Request of General Growth for Preliminary and Final
Planned Unit Development Approval - Knollwood theater proposal
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, stated that on August 18th, the Planning
Commission considered the PUD request and a recommendation by staff to continue the
request until September 15th. During the public hearing, a number of residents expressed
their concerns about the existing mall and the proposed theater. The Planning
Commission voted 4-0 to continue the public hearing and PUD request until September
15, and directed staff to follow up on the residents’ concerns including height of theater,
security issues, the crosswalk on 36th Street, Cub Foods, flooding, noise and traffic
circulation.
Ms. Peterson reviewed the staff report, including a brief update on how the residents’
concerns have been addressed.
Ms. Peterson stated that as part of the PUD request, the applicant is being required by the
City to address storm water issues on the mall site and to bring stormwater management
into compliance with City standards. A stormwater management plan has been reviewed
by the Public Works Department as well as an outside consultant who is working with the
58
City to address flooding problems in the general area. The plan is considered acceptable
at this stage of the approval process. More detailed plans and possibly some minor
modifications will be required by the Public Works Department prior to construction.
The area at 36th Street and Wyoming has been identified as one of several key flooding
problem areas in the City, and the City is working to address these areas over time. The
Public Works Department states that the flooding problem is only partially originating
from the mall. Addressing the storm water issues at the mall is only part of what is
needed to correct the problem, and other strategies are being determined to correct the
problem fully.
Ms. Peterson indicated that Staff met with Cub Foods on August 10th to identify the
outstanding issues and determine how they would be resolved. Staff received a letter of
response from Cub on September 14th as to how the issues would be resolved and when
completed. During the meeting with CUB, Ms. Peterson suggested that a CUB
representative be present after the Planning Commission meeting to discuss remaining
resident concerns.
Ms. Peterson stated that the St. Louis Park police department does not anticipate an
increase in neighborhood crime as a result of the proposed theater. The police experience
is that the primary type of crime increase associated with this type of use is on-site auto
theft/vandalism, simply because the use draws a larger number of cars. The Knollwood
Cop Shop has been underutilized and not regularly staffed recently and the future of the
Cop Shop is uncertain. She said that a representative from the security division of
General Growth would be present to describe the proposed security strategy.
Ms. Peterson noted that the Public Works Department is willing and has agreed to install
updated pedestrian crossing signage on both sides of 36th Street this fall.
Ms. Peterson briefly reviewed some additional key changes being requested to meet the
Zoning Ordinance requirements as outlined in the staff report and recommended approval
of the preliminary and final PUD, subject to eight conditions listed in the staff report.
Charleen Zimmer, SRF Consulting, indicated that a 2,990-seat stadium seating, multi-
screen moving theater and 645-stall parking structure are proposed north of TH 7
between Texas Avenue and Aquila Avenue in the Knollwood Mall. The redevelopment
is proposed on the north side of the existing mall. A 53,000-square foot section of the
mall will be redeveloped, which includes an existing 18,000-square-foot theater and
35,000 square feet of various retail space, some of which is vacant.
Ms. Zimmer stated that traffic forecasts were developed for the year 2001 using a 1-
percent yearly growth rate for background traffic. Trip generation estimates for the p.m.
peak hour of the adjacent street traffic, the peak hour of theater traffic, and on a daily
basis were calculated for the proposed development. The trip estimates are based on land
use type and size, and average trip generation rates from the 1997 ITE Trip Generation
Reports (see staff report). The data collected showed that 4,473 daily trips per day would
59
be generated. During the street peak hours between 4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m., 356 daily trips
on average would be generated and 686 daily trips at p.m. peak hours from 8:30 p.m. to
10:00 p.m. on a Friday or Saturday night. She indicated that the parking ramp for the
theater would include 787 parking spaces for the theater and for all mall spaces including
the theater there would be 2,705 parking spaces.
Ms. Zimmer briefly commented on traffic circulation and indicated that approximately
35% of all of the trips that go to and from the mall are destined to the west. She
presented traffic impacts and traffic operations analysis. In order to determine how well
existing and proposed roadways would accommodate the proposed development, a traffic
operations analysis was conducted for one year after opening, 2001 using SYNCH for the
key intersections. The future level of service results are shown in Table 3. As shown,
no change in level of service is expected with the proposed development for the key
intersections previously identified.
Ms. Zimmer stated that the traffic noise analysis was performed to assess noise impacts
to the adjacent residential neighborhoods caused by the proposed site-generated traffic.
Existing traffic noise was modeled and compared to current noise monitoring data to
validate modeling results. Year 2001 traffic noise was also modeled to show the effect of
the development on traffic noise levels at surrounding residential noise receptors. Based
on the results, noise levels on adjacent streets are generally unaffected by the proposed
redevelopment, with the exception of West 36th Street between Virginia Avenue and
Texas Avenue. Traffic noise levels on this segment are expected to increase in the range
of one to two decibels from existing conditions during the peak hour of the theater. Since
traffic noise changes of three decibels are considered barely perceptible to the human ear,
the effects of noise due to the increase in traffic is expected to be minimal. Noise levels
on all other adjacent streets would increase by one decibel or less which is considered
insignificant.
Chair Morris asked what local theater was used to determine the baseline.
Ms. Zimmer indicated that she could not disclose the location, but indicated that it is
another multi screen theater that is similar to the one proposed.
Ms. Bissonnette asked if the only receptors that are over the State standard are over the
standard today, as indicated in the traffic study, would there be any noise mitigation.
Ms. Zimmer stated that you are required to mitigate if mitigation is cost effective and
rates are not as applicable to developments as they are to roadway improvements. In
addition, the State standards do not apply to local roads but were given for comparison
purposes.
Bill Moston, General Growth Properties, was present and available for questions.
Mr. Timian recommended that a site plan of the proposed theater be available for
reference during the discussion.
60
Mr. Moston, General Growth Properties, presented a rendering of the proposed theater
and reviewed the various elements of the redevelopment which include changes to the
food court area, remodeling the space east of Applebee’s for a national retail tenant, and
adding a community room. Existing retail tenants are anticipated to be consolidated into
the remaining retail space. Some facade improvements are proposed to the south side of
the mall, including newly faced entrances; and the parking lot circulation, pedestrian
assess and signage are proposed to be improved.
Chair Morris asked Mr. Moston to comment on the security plans to handle potential
heightened problems outside the mall.
Mr. Moston indicated that it would be General Growth Properties’ desire to have the Cop
Shop remain on the site and believes it is a great asset to the community.
Steve Menne of General Growth indicated that he has been in the security business for 17
years. He indicated that General Growth takes a proactive approach to security. It is the
company’s policy to not disclose any details on security plans, but security is planned to
be increased including exterior patrols.
Chair Morris asked by what percentage would staff increase?
Mr. Menne stated that it would be a 50% increase.
Ms. Bissonnette asked what the number of security staff is at the mall at present.
Mr. Menne indicated that he could not disclose specific numbers.
Ms. Velick asked if the dispute with Cub Foods over closure of the entrance off 36th
street was resolved.
Mr. Moston indicated that the concerns of Cub Foods were resolved and they are happy
with the solution that is in place.
A resident (did not give name or address) asked if Knollwood security would have the
authority to go to the bus stop to handle any problems, and referenced the problems
related to the Mall of America.
Mr. Menne indicated that his security staff did not have absolute authority to do anything
at the bus stop, but had the responsibility to work with police so that it does not become
an issue.
Mr. Moston indicated that the customer mix is different than at the Mall of America.
General Growth Properties is trying to make this more of a neighborhood center for
people who live in the area. The Mall of America problems are a result of size and scope
and this is a different property.
61
Chair Morris opened the continued public hearing at 8:10 p.m.
Marcia McDermaid, 3545 Wyoming Avenue South, stated “I have a few questions about
some of the things that were brought up. I am trying to understand why the traffic study
only indicates that there will be a 15% flow out of the back of the mall when the parking
ramp has space for around 600 cars. It does not seem like that was a good number with
10% one way and 15% the other way. It seems like it would be divided about equally.
What type of signage is going to be used for the crosswalk? Is it actually going to be an
actual automatic crosswalk sign where you push the button and it allows you to walk and
requires the traffic to stop?”
Ms. Peterson stated “The signage that the public works department would typically install
there would be a warning sign that would be installed on the boulevard on either side of
the crosswalk. Their policy is not to install flashing lights. It would basically be a
symbol of a pedestrian with arrows pointing down toward the crosswalk.”
Ms. McDermaid stated “We do have that already and my understanding is that crosswalk
rules are to be enforced and cars are to allow pedestrians to cross.”
Chair Morris indicated that it is State law to stop if there is a pedestrian in the sidewalk.
Ms. McDermaid asked “Why then is this not enforceable?”
Ms. Peterson stated “The flashing lights do not make it more or less enforceable”.
Chair Morris stated “It’s just the generic symbol sign and they are going to increase that
type of signage”.
Ms. McDermaid asked “Has the mall thought of, rather than having a 4 foot masonry
buffer wall, putting in some sort of residential wall on the north side of 36th that would
block the noise and traffic. I don’t know if a 4 foot wall is going to do the neighborhood
much good as far as limiting noise, etc.”
Ms. Jeremiah stated “Publics works addressed this issue and they were not in favor of this
type of wall because the breaks for the street entrances in such a wall would funnel
noise”.
Ms. McDermaid stated “Some of the concerns are with the property values in the area
and having something more beneficial than the four feet wall. I think a lot of us would be
interested in knowing if any of the eight conditions in the staff report apply to the north
side of the mall so we could have more of a comfort level with this”.
Ms. Peterson stated “The conditions that would apply to the north side are that the
developer work with staff to attempt to increase the landscaping along the south side of
36th so that the maximum amount of screening and buffering would be provided there.
62
Another requirement is that some of the pine trees would be right up against the edge of
the sidewalk that would be installed so some of the lower branches would need to be cut.
There is a requirement that a minimum number of branches be cut and additional
landscaping be installed to fill in any gaps. Related to the Cub Foods issue, there is a
requirement that the City will not issue a building permit for the theater until all of the
Cub Foods issues are resolved. Also, a sidewalk is to be installed on the south side of
36th Street”.
Ms. McDermaid said “There was a concern about a resident who talked to a realtor about
the decrease in property values for the neighborhood north of the mall”.
Chair Morris stated “I don’t know if that is something that either the Planning
Commission or Staff can address. Was there any discussion made of that?”
Ms. Jeremiah asked for clarification of the concern.
Ms. McDermaid said “Realtors have indicated that there is a possibility of a $10,000 to
$25,000 decrease in the property values in that area”.
Ms. Jeremiah stated “I don’t know if we have any evidence of that. We have not heard
that directly from a realtor. and I don’t know if there has been any discussion with our
City Assessor”.
Mr. Garelick stated “I think that is ridiculous, that is the only way I can sum it up. It will
actually increase the value of a lot of the homes down there because people want to be
near a shopping center that is viable. They don’t know what Knollwood is at this point.
It’s not going to show a decrease in value. You have to look at what has happened in
other areas. The homes are going up in price. Will it go up as much because there is a
theater there, that I can’t answer”.
Ms. McDermaid stated “If I were out looking for a home and I looked at my home with
all the traffic and all the litter and all of the other things that have occurred just since Cub
went into the mall, I would not buy there”.
Chair Morris stated “I think the issue of real-estate values is an intangible that the
Planning Commission cannot address”.
Ms. Jeremiah stated “We’ll try to get more information prior to the Council meeting.
Maybe there are some comparables where other theaters went in where the development
backed up to a residential area”.
Ms. Zimmer stated “Related to the interpretation of 10% and 15% traffic increase on 36th,
SRF assumed that 50% of the traffic would park in the back of the mall and 50% would
park in the front. Proportionate to parking as traffic comes in and out of that parking lot,
some of them will turn on Texas and go up to Highway 7 and others will turn on Aquila
and go up to Highway 7. This is an over simplification, but essentially if you look at it
63
this way, 10% would come out of the parking lot and go over to Hwy 169, 5% would go
to the east and stay on Walker, 10% would come out of the parking lot, go north on
Texas, and 5% would come out of the parking lot and go north on Aquila. The remaining
would come out of the back parking lot and go south to Hwy 7”.
Kevin Westrop, 3640 Rhode Island Avenue South, asked “With the increased security at
the mall, is there going to be more increase with the police force around Knollwood
Mall?”
Ms. Peterson stated “My understanding, after talking with the police, is that because they
don’t expect an increase in crime as a result of the theater, they wouldn’t anticipate
increasing the police presence around the mall. I can confirm this related to
distinguishing between the mall property and area around the mall property”.
Mr. Westrop stated “With the increase in traffic, I can drive the speed limit down Hwy 7,
36th Street and Texas and it seems like cars are passing me. There are two stop lights on
Walker Street that cross over 36th to Texas to Walker. I can stand there in the morning
and see dozens of cars drive straight through those stop lights. The crosswalk on 36th
and Texas, I could stand there all day and it says do not walk. Will that light be fixed?”
Chair Morris asked staff to bring responses to those questions to the City Council
meeting.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that if the police are aware of a problem, then they will monitor
the area for a time.
Chair Morris asked Mr. Menne if the St. Louis Park police routinely come into the mall
lot and patrol.
Mr. Menne indicated that they do come into the lot.
Christopher Erickson, 3533 Virginia Avenue South, asked “Could the 4 foot wall on the
south side that the General Growth Properties is talking about be increased to 6 feet to
block off the line of sight from the people in the parking lot. The other issue is on the
north side where we talked about a wall to basically wall off the sound from the north
side of the mall. Thirty fifth and 1/2 street dead-ends and is not a through way onto 36th
Street, so if a wall could be put along there on the north side with what ever aesthetics
that the City would find reasonable and you had a 4 foot wall that General Growth Wall
and a 6 foot wall on the north side, I think it would keep sound reasonable and bounce it
back toward the mall. I would like to propose just a solid wall on the north side of 36th
Street. The issue of security from my observations is that they only have 1-2 people
working at a time. I have issues with what security company they are using. They are
saying it is a contract security company as opposed to proprietary. Not all security
companies are created equal and I have a fair amount of experience in this area. I would
like to know their actual security process, perhaps in a closed door session. I would not
like us to hide under the issue of national security”.
64
Chair Morris encouraged General Growth Properties to deal with the neighborhood issues
outside of the Planning Commission and City Council meeting.
Janine Novack, 7409 Minnetonka Boulevard, stated “I was a resident in St. Louis Park in
1969. I remember Knollwood Mall being a wonderful place that was very viable. We
could go as teenagers and not cause trouble and not have to worry about the police and go
shopping with our friends. I have seen that mall go down hill and I would love to see
something come into that mall that will revitalize it. I want a place where my teenage
children can go and not have to worry that people think that because teenagers are going
someplace there is going to be a problem. Teenagers need a place to go. Adults like to
go to movies too. I think it would be a wonderful asset to St. Louis Park. I love the
revitalization of St. Louis Park and I want to stay in St. Louis Park because of that. I
thank you for coming up with this idea to do this and I am very much in favor of it”.
Ken Ninde, 3532 Utah Avenue South, stated “I live 4 houses away from the mall. I am
wondering as far as property value studies, I think that Ms. McDermaid brought up a
good point. I am also concerned about property values and studies that have been done at
some point of time. Did anybody do any crime studies as far as malls are concerned.
The lighting levels have increased. I can see Cub Foods from my backyard which is a
concern. A 6 foot wall on the north side of 36th Street would be a good idea I think. As
far as SRF Consulting, who are they and when did they do the counts? When Cub Foods
moved in, I noticed a lot more traffic on my street. I picked the street because it was
quiet and not a lot of traffic. Now I come home on Texas at about 5:30 p.m. and there are
4-5 blocks of traffic going north on Texas from the mall right now, from Cub. When you
are going down from 35th Street and get on to Texas, sometimes if you are going to go
north on Texas, it takes you 5 minutes to wait for traffic. Now, the other lady here said
about 10% or 15% going out 36th Street is going out to Hwy 169, well that is fine and
dandy, but what about the folks that are going out 36th and going up and down Texas. I
noticed in the last couple months, when you get down to Texas and Hwy 7 they put
another turn lane in so you can go left and you can have two lanes of traffic to east bound
Highway 7. You can’t even get to the dry cleaners. Coming from seven and coming up
Texas, traffic backs up. There is a pizza joint, dry cleaner, liquor store. Well to get into
that parking lot is almost impossible. The cars just keep coming. I don’t know what can
be done there. If they are going to cut off the middle part of 36th and people are going to
have to go to Aquila or up Texas or down Texas that is going to be a lot of traffic in those
intersections. How are they going to compensate for that? Increase in noise, I think there
is probably going to be a lot more than 3 decibels. If they have done a study that rates 3
decibels, you would think they would be doing other studies as far as property values
where they put multiplex theaters in 15-20 feet from a neighborhood. One gentlemen
made the comment that he was excited about the increased traffic to the center. The folks
that are in the neighborhood around there on the north side of the mall aren’t really
excited about it. The lady that lives on Minnetonka Boulevard is not by it. Do any of
you live in the neighborhood? I noticed a lot more people walking through the
neighborhood, which really doesn’t bother me too much, but the cars coming up and
down the street are a concern. I have a young daughter who I want to have safe in the
65
front yard. One of the reasons I picked this community to live in is that is was kind of
quiet, laid back. The traffic, the lighting and the noise pollution are what kind of gets to
me I guess. Have there been any other studies on property values?”
Ms. Jeremiah stated “We will try to see if there have been any studies of property values
around the theater or if our City Assessor can find out from other cities whether the
property values changed near theaters. Generally, this was not thought to be a concern
because there are problems with property values if commercial areas go dormant or
vacant and are not viable. If it is deemed to be more viable, it is seen as a plus in a
neighborhood”.
Mark Roberts, 3532 Xylon Avenue South, stated “I have some concerns about property
values. I bought a house that was in pretty bad shape and I did a lot or work on it and really
brought it up to par. I have a very heavy duty background in security, B.S. from a large
university and a Master’s in social work. I can tell you from observations that Knollwood
currently has about 5-6 security staff on duty and that is throughout a given 24 hour period. So
we are not talking about large security. It appears that the security personnel’s training is
extremely limited, I don’t say that despairingly to the organization that brings on security. I say
this from experience working with some of the nations largest security companies in the country.
As a consultant myself, I am concerned about the traffic and the safety of neighborhood children.
I don’t have children myself, but I can tell you in seeing the memorial on 36th where a young
person was killed there, we are talking about traffic. This is a serious concern of the
neighborhood. I am not a parent, but a lot of these folks have kids and we are talking about
people going down the wrong streets and cruising on over to Cub or to Knollwood Mall in a
hurry and we have already had a fatality in our neighborhood. I think that is just a down right
shame. I am for progress and growth. I think it adds vitalization to a community. If the
gentlemen is in real-estate and says my property values will go up, I am all for that, but again my
fellow neighbor that just came up and spoke about the walls and stuff, I think he brought up
some valid point. I hope that the commissioners and the people who are heading up this agenda
really think of the neighbors and the people of this community. Put yourself in our shoes and our
positions in our homes in our neighborhood and look out for our well being, the people who put
you into the places you are at today”.
Joanne Howe, 3556 Rhode Island Avenue South, stated “I am by one of the stop signs
where no one stops, and I stand out and get license plate numbers. I have a question.
How is it determined that there is enough capacity of movie goers to support 16 screen?
Maybe because I rent videos, it is a separate issue. What happens if that theater is put in
and 5-10 years down the road, we can’t support all of those screens? How can that
movie theater be renovated into something else?”
Bill Moston stated “They have a fairly complex research process that has to do with
population, household incomes, film product, and competing theaters. Basically the
theater industry is very competitive and there are a large number of operators in the Twin
Cities. They have identified this as a zone that has enough households and there is the
kind of customers and incomes that they want. They feel very strongly that this market
needs a theater of this type. They have done extensive research into what is the optimum
66
number of screens. They don’t make imprudent decisions with their capital. We have
every confidence that this theater will be very successful here. If the audience decreases
and the number of screens are not needed, the building could be taken down and replaced
with something else at a later time with retail tenants. The problem now is that retail
tenants have not succeeded at the property. We have every indication that the theater is
going to be prosperous for a very long time”.
Dave Johnson, 3224 Gettysburg Avenue South, stated “I am relatively new to the area. I
am wondering if any other proposals or ideas came up to as how to redevelop this area. I
was also wondering about the necessity of having 16 screens rather than 8 screens.”
Bill Moston stated “One thing I didn’t talk about. The reason they want critical mass of
16 screens is that if they don’t build enough screens, the market is open and a competitive
theater will come in and build across the street or nearby and steal the product”.
Chair Morris stated “We don’t want to go down the avenue of debating the marketability
of the 16 screens. The issue before the Planning Commission is going to be whether it
fits with the zoning and Comprehensive Plan and whether the community is adequately
protected by our zoning ordinance from adverse affects. Relating to the other question
about what other development ideas were suggested for Knollwood Mall, I would not like
to go there at the Planning Commission public hearing. How you arrived at that point at
this discussion level isn’t relevant since we are trying to determine whether this proposal
is going to be approved”.
John Share, 9009 Minnehaha Circle South, stated “The back of my house faces 36th
Street. Most of the discussion of the traffic has focused on the area directly behind the
mall. We hear the traffic on 36th Street and have considerable noise from Hwy 169. We
have been told by a staff person at the State transportation department that the
neighborhood already exceeds noise level. So when I hear there is a 10% increase in
traffic on 36th Street, that is not insignificant in my mind. I was wondering if it was ever
considered to have an additional buffer, wall or landscaping in the area west of Aquila to
Hwy 169. If a wall is considered on north side of 36th Street could it be extended all the
way to Hwy 169? I think a good example of an attractive buffer that could be built is the
attractive wall at the Shops of Lyndale development. I am willing to be put up with a
little more traffic because I think it would be an asset to the community to do something
at Knollwood that has been a pretty sorry place for a long time. I am not concerned about
the security issue, because I think more people at the mall will create a safer
environment”.
Gene Kreager, 3536 Yukon Avenue, stated “Are they planning on doing anything on a
turn lane coming from Texas Avenue to Cub Foods and the Knollwood Mall because the
traffic already backs up onto Hwy 7 at rush hour and now you have the theater coming in.
This is a bad area. People are new to the area and don’t know what they are doing there.
You say that you need another movie theater in this area. Do you realize that down on
Hwy 394 and Hwy 494 they are building another 8-10 multiplex down there. There is
going to be a little competition with Excelsior, Hopkins, Shelard Park. We are getting a
67
little saturated here. You always talk about crime in the parking lot, but they don’t talk
about crime coming into the neighborhood. That is what I would like to be addressed.
Most of these surveys that are being done on the theaters are where theaters are in
industrial areas. You don’t see big multiplex in residential areas. Did anyone do a
survey in a residential area where there is a big 16-multiplex theater”.
Orville Jensen, 3537 Wyoming Avenue South, stated “I am concerned very much about
the crime and traffic issues. I can’t quite understand why we would want to bring that
many people into that type of neighborhood. I worked at Knollwood Plaza for 13 1/2
years. I talked to a gentlemen who was there when they put in the elevator in the J.C.
Penny building which is on the northeast corner of where the theater sits right now. He
said that it was quick sand there and they had to put hundreds of feet of pilings in order to
get an elevator there. I wonder if they realize what they are doing as far as the soil
conditions. He questioned the new businesses that the mall has brought in and were very
viable. I know that the food court is down to one food place at the moment and this is a
concern”.
Chair Morris asked staff if there was a soil study done on site.
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager, stated that this would be the developer’s responsibility.
Diane Slice, 3525 Zinran Avenue South, stated “The maps that were shown don’t show a
break between 36th and Zinran through Utah which is currently there. They are not
through streets and we are hoping this is not going to change since we have children in
the neighborhood”.
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager stated there is no plan to change the circulation pattern
there at all.
Ms. Slice stated “I was shocked by a report by someone coming to my door last night and
talking about the property values decreasing. I would wholeheartedly support a property
value study. I would be willing to help in any way. Related to security issues, I am a
probation parole officer for Hennepin County. I work with severely at risk juvenile
delinquents who are arrested for aggravated robbery to murder. I also know that a
number of the kids that I have on probation have been arrested in other malls, i.e. Mall of
American or City Center. I have a real concern about this. I live with this professionally,
I don’t want to live with it personally. Another questions is what type of timetable are we
looking at in terms of commencement of the construction”.
Bill Moston stated “We are looking at doing some preliminary demolition ideally this
fall. Our theater operator would like to open for the holiday season of 2000 and, if this
doesn’t happen, it would be May, 2001. They want to open with the major film releases.
All site improvements are on the same construction schedule. Just a comment about
security. Even if there is one incident, this is improper and bad public relations. In our
interest as well as the community, we will make sure the place is safe”.
68
Kim Jacobson, 3533 Virginia Avenue South, “I already know that none of the
Commissioners live in this area. Is the role the Commission just to determine if the plan
falls within the legalities of St. Louis Park or are you taking the neighborhood into
consideration”.
Chair Morris stated “The issue of whether we live in a particular neighborhood or not is
not relevant, from my perspective. I live in a neighborhood and I am concerned about
what goes on in my neighborhood as well as throughout St. Louis Park. If the
Commission only dealt with issues because someone on the Commission lived in the
neighborhood, it would be impossible to deal with. We are responsible for making sure
that the projects are in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance, but the neighborhood issues are a concern. However, this doesn’t mean that
we can always stop something from happening and sometimes what gets passed by the
Planning Commission is not popular with the neighborhood. (i.e. Home Depot
development)
Ms. Jacobson asked “Would you have authority to mandate a sound wall on the north
side of 36th Street”.
Ms. Jeremiah stated “The issue with the sound wall is two fold. First, is it really going to
work and help the neighborhood out? Secondly, who is going to pay for it? If we can’t
show there is a significant increase in noise from the development that would be
perceptible to the neighborhood, then there isn’t justification to have the mall pay for it.
Unless we can prove that the mall substantially is increasing noise, then it might come
down to the neighborhood coming up with some assessments”.
Ms. Jacobson stated “There is no way under God’s green earth that you can convince me
that the noise and the traffic levels have not changed since Cub Foods moved in. In the
short time since they moved in, I have heard more tire screeching, cars crashing and
horns honking than all the ten years that I have lived in the house. There is no way! I
don’t care if you pay this woman a half of a million dollars for her so called sound and
traffic assessment. Come and sit in my backyard and you can’t have a conversation with
the person sitting next to you. You can’t tell me that when you are going to put all those
parking spots and extra people in the neighborhood that it is not going to increase the
noise and traffic. Why should the citizens have to pay for that wall, when General
Growth is making money off of us. If I want to live in a neighborhood like this I would
have stayed in South Minneapolis and paid a lot less money for a lot more house. I chose
to live in St. Louis Park. I didn’t choose to live across from Cub Foods or a 16-screen
theater and wouldn’t have purchased by house if they were there. Putting in a 3 foot
evergreen does not do me any good. I’m not going to stick around for 20 years for that
tree to grow up. I think you are going to end up with turnover and lower property values.
There have been no considerations of what had been said at the first meeting at the
Planning Commission and everything is going ahead as planned as General Growth wants
it to go ahead. We really have no say in this and have to sit here and take it”.
69
Chair Morris clarified that the Planning Commission is an advisory committee to the City
Council. You will have an opportunity to direct your comments and concerns to them
also.
Anna Crabb, 3540 Yukon Avenue South, stated “I want to thank the Commission, staff
and developer for trying to work with the neighborhood to improve the plan. I think there
have been some changes to the plan since the plan was seen at the first neighborhood
meeting. I am still concerned about the pedestrian access to the mall from the north end.
I noticed there is one entrance sort of towards the east. I am wondering if there would be
plans for another, because currently if we walk over to Knollwood, we would have to
basically divert the path. We don’t want to divert the car traffic from that area, but I
think it would be helpful to have another pedestrian assess at that point since that is one
of the goals of the City. I don’t think that pedestrians coming through the same access as
the parking ramp would be an effective way unless there is a place for pedestrians to walk
in that area. I have a concern about the parking. This plan is going to be in conjunction
with some other developments coming into the mall and the increased parking from these
additional places. Can we ensure that this parking will be sufficient for all of these other
venues as well. Where is the gap in the sound wall that is currently proposed, since noise
can be louder at this point?.
Ms. Peterson clarified on the plan where the masonry screening wall (not sound proofing)
with gaps is proposed and the pedestrian access points.
Chair Morris indicated that the amount of required parking stalls is based on the square
footage of mall whether it is occupied or not.
Chair Morris closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Mr. Garelick indicated that the community is getting older and we are at that fork where
we have to say as leaders in the community are we going to let Knollwood die and what
is going to happen to the quality of life in the city. People do not want to live in a
neighborhood where the malls and shopping centers are dying. The neighborhoods in St.
Louis Park are of quality and very unique. We have to start revitalizing the Park, because
if we don’t take a proactive stance, people will not want to live in St. Louis Park.
Mr. Carver indicated that he has heard some comments that a 4 foot wall would not be
good, but a 6 feet wall would be better. What are some considerations here and what
would prevent a 6 feet wall?
Ms. Peterson indicated that one of the primary considerations for screening would be to
block headlights, so a 4 foot masonry wall would be a sufficient height to accomplish
this. A 6 foot wall would provide more visual screening, but there would be cost and
aesthetic issues.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that it would be good to run this by the Police Department to
address safety issues with wall heights.
70
Ms. Velick stated she has lived in St. Louis Park for 25 years and is pleased that General
Growth has come forth with this plan to revitalize the mall and make it a viable place to
shop and have entertainment. She would like to make the development more tolerable
for the neighborhood and would like to establish a trust that the neighborhood would see
in the developer by addressing some of their concerns that have not been taken care of
with the Cub Foods property. I would like to see that General Growth comes into
compliance by making Cub Foods do all of the things that we as a Planning Commission
asked them to do”.
Chair Morris indicated that this is a condition of approval of the PUD.
Ms. Velick asked for clarification on the time table of completion.
Ms. Peterson indicated that there is a condition that is recommended that substantial
progress on addressing the outstanding issues with Cub Foods would be shown before
this project would even proceed to City Council and that would be determined by the
Zoning Administrator who is working with Cub Foods to address these issues. Ms.
Peterson stated she has received letter from Cub Foods that lays out a time table and
addresses several of the issues.
Chair Morris questioned a comment in Scott Moore’s letter that evergreens don’t have to
be trees.
Ms. Peterson indicated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a certain percentage of the
landscaping to be evergreens, but it is not required to be evergreen trees.
Chair Morris noted that the 3 zoning modifications proposed for parking, landscaping and
signage are specific to this location. He recommended that the new signage for the
crosswalk on 36th Street be the new brighter color (Mr. Yuck). He said, in addressing
the issues about traffic on 36th, often he gets on the freeway at Hwy 100 and Lake Street
and there are 3 or 4 police cars there a couple times of month that are enforcing the sane
lane and I think the police department can manage to do a few sweeps into the Aquila
neighborhood and seek compliance with the traffic ordinance. Certainly, the
neighborhood is indicating that it is degenerating. I think the Commission should put
forward a message to the Council and the Police Department that the neighborhood
would like to see some better traffic enforcement, not only as part of this development,
but as part of their community. He asked if it would be the City’s responsibility for snow
plowing on the proposed sidewalk on Aquila and 36th Street.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the sidewalks are on public right of way, but she believed it
would be the private property owners responsibility to keep them clear.
Chair Morris stated that he would recommend an additional condition to the PUD that the
property owner be responsible for removing snow and ice along the perimeter sidewalks.
They may voluntarily do it, but I feel that it should be a condition that they have to do it.
71
The parking stalls that are in the shopping strip next to the planned redevelopment are
eliminated on the new plan. I assume this is because of the traffic pattern going in. I
think it would be better if they also had a right turn short of that location so that a lot of
traffic coming in through Cub could make the turn and use the perimeter road to get to
Cub rather than have to come up to the mall and make a right, make a left, and make
another right. It would certainly break up the circulation pattern around the perimeter.
Currently, both Cub and mall management obtained annual permits for vendors in the
parking lot. I am assuming that the parking stalls that are being used and taken away
from the development don’t have much impact. But when we start to get more retail
development into this mall, will this be a factor.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that currently the temporary permits are not issued with a lot of
consideration to the amount of parking that is lost, so if you have a concern about that I
think it would be prudent to put that in the conditions of approval.
Chair Morris strongly recommended that Staff take that approach because not only does
it take away from parking stalls, it adds another use to the mall which is not counted in
the square footage for parking stalls. It is losing parking and gaining traffic into the mall.
Mr. Timian asked if there is enough parking available for Cub Foods.
Ms. Jeremiah stated that the concern arises if there is parking in fire lanes or in the street
and she has not seen any violations.
Mr. Timian asked if the traffic study considered traffic on 35th Street. Staff responded
that it did not.
Chair Morris indicated that there may be a need for signage at intersections in the
neighborhood that state that there is no access to Knollwood Mall.
Councilmember Santa indicated that at a recent Aquila Neighborhood Association
meeting, it was noted that there has been an additional police presence in that area
monitoring traffic.
Chair Morris noted that even if and when the theater goes in, this shouldn’t stop the
neighborhood input to the City government.
Mr. Carver stated that, related to not living in this particular neighborhood, even though I
may not be a next door neighbor, I clearly understand these issues and they are of utmost
importance to me. The reason I moved to this town is because of its vitality in terms of
housing and people. Nobody said democracy was easy. General Growth Properties has
the right to develop their property and needs to be a looked at as part of the
neighborhood. Everyone has to be involved to make sure their issues get watched and
recorded to make it the best neighborhood.
72
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that SRF Consulting is considering a possible compromise
between the 4 foot wall and a full freeway-type noise wall. Staff is recommending that
the option be explored by Public Works prior to City Council, possibly with some input
from the neighborhood. This may be a better solution.
Mr. Garelick stated that if we look at our history and what we are trying to do to
revitalize the City and take it into the next century, approving this plan is in pattern with
other improvements that we are making in the community to make this a viable place for
us and our children to come.
It was moved by Ms. Bissonnette, seconded by Ms. Velick, to recommend approval of
the PUD subject to 8 conditions and additional recommendations by staff. The motion
passed 6-0.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that the neighborhood would be notified of the next meeting City
Council and a list of the 8 conditions is available to residents upon request.
Chair Morris indicated that a Cub Foods representative is available in the Community
Room to answer additional questions from the neighborhood.
4. Old Business: None
5. New Business
A. Consent Agenda - None
B. Other New Business
i. Case No. 99-23-CUP - Request of Groves Learning Center to amend a
Continued Special Permit to permit the expansion of the school located at
3200 Highway 100
Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented a staff report and recommended
approval of the Special Permit Amendment with the conditions outlined in the
staff report.
Mr. Timian asked if the additional entrance proposed was going to have conflict
with traffic and if there was a traffic study done of this area.
Ms. Peterson indicated that the entrance to Hwy 100 is actually separate from a
frontage road that accesses the school.
Chair Morris asked if the area near Webster Park is considered part of the
frontage road.
Ms. Peterson indicated that this is the case.
73
Chair Morris noted an alley on the map and asked if it was vacated.
Ms. Peterson indicated that this is the case.
Chair Morris commented that there may be a possible flaw in the City ordinance
since there is a lack of a height requirement in the requirement for evergreen
screening.
Ms. Bissonnette asked if the new gymnasium would be open to the public.
Tom Mohagen, Architect for the applicant, indicated that Groves Academy has
contacted the City and is interested in having the gymnasium open for public use.
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that a neighborhood meeting was held.
It was moved by Mr. Carver, seconded by Ms. Velick, to recommend approval of
the Special Permit Amendment subject to conditions as recommended by staff.
The motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Timian asked about the size of the gymnasium.
Mr. Mohagen stated that the new gym would be high school size.
Mr. Garelick stated he believes this would increase public awareness of this
facility and continue to be an asset in the community.
ii. Case No. 99-19-CUP - Final PUD and Plat for Medical Office Building
Hwy 7 & Louisiana
Janet Jeremiah, Planning Manager, introduced Greg Ingraham, Planning
Consultant, and stated he is presenting the staff report.
Greg Ingraham, Planning Consultant, presented a staff report and recommended
that the Planning Commission recommend that City Council adopt a resolution
approving the final plat and final planned unit development plan subject to the 7
conditions in the staff report.
Chair Morris commented briefly on the architectural style and that it looks like a
box.
Steve Doudy, Pope Architects described the proposed architecture materials and
design.
Mr. Timian asked when it was anticipated that the restaurant would be coming in.
74
Mr. Ingraham indicated that the developer wants to focus on leasing the medical
office building.
Mr. Doudy indicated that about 50% of the space has been leased to date.
Chair Morris commented that the staff report showed the parking requirement for
the planned restaurant was coming up 40-45 parking stalls short. When the
restaurant goes in, will it require further action of the Planning Commission or
BOZA to open or establish the restaurant?
Mr. Ingraham indicated that this would require a minor or a major amendment
and will come back to Planning Commission for review. The developer will get
some credit for cross parking.
Ms. Jeremiah noted that staff recognizes that the medical office building and
restaurant would need to have a shared parking agreement so it is important that
the medical office is comfortable with the restaurant.
It was moved by Ms. Velick to recommend that the City Council adopt a
resolution approving the final plat and final planned unit development plan
subject to the 7 conditions in staff report. The motion passed 6-0.
iii. Modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the Modification of the
Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District
Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager introduced Dave Anderson, former Economic
Development Coordinator, who is temporarily working on a consulting basis and
would be presenting the staff report and Tom Kleve who is the the new Economic
Development Coordinator.
Dave Anderson presented the staff report and recommended that the Planning
Commission find the modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the
modification of the Park Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing
District in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Chair Morris asked if the Planning Commission is considering the whole area
outlined on the map as Phase II.
Mr. Anderson indicated that this is the case.
Chair Morris asked if the Commission would have to go through this modification
when the end phase at W. 36th comes in or is that in the boundary.
Mr. Anderson indicated that this area is not in the boundary and there will not
likely be another modification to this. That will come in as a separate project
proposal.
75
Ms. Jeremiah indicated that the property in question is already part of the
Excelsior Boulevard Tax Increment District.
Chair Morris asked for clarification on the options on Page 2-3 of staff report.
Mr. Anderson indicated that only one option would be chosen and that at any
given time the entire project has to comply with one of these thresholds, but from
year to year this could change.
Mr. Garelick asked for an explanation of Tax Increment District and reason for
boundaries.
Chair Morris requested that the Tax Increment District packet be made available
for the Commission to review.
It was moved by Mr. Bissonnette to adopt a resolution finding the proposed
modification of Redevelopment Project No. 1 and the modification of the Park
Center Boulevard Housing Tax Increment Financing District to be in
conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of the City of St. Louis Park. The
motion passed 6-0.
Mr. Timian recommended that the staff draw up a resolution for the Planning
Commission thanking Dave Anderson for all his years of service and educational
input.
6. Communications
A. Recent City Council Action - None
B. FYI - Ms. Jeremiah, Planning Manager gave an update on the reorganization of
the Inspections Department and Community Development and indicated that she
was recently appointed as the new Planning and Zoning Supervisor.
7. Miscellaneous - None
8. Adjournment
Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Janice Loftus
Administrative Secretary
Prepared by: Shirley Olson, Recording Secretary
76
Item 9e*
MINUTES
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
FEBRUARY 5, 1999
9:00 A.M.
1) The meeting was called to order at 9:02 a.m. by John Mann.
2) In attendance were Commissioners John Mann, Roger Israel and William MacMillan.
Also present were Nancy Gohman, Staff Liaison/Human Resources Manager, Fire Chief,
Bob Gill, Fire Administrative Analyst, Bridgett Boche, Firefighter, Paul Rosholt, and
Firefighter President Local 993, Paul Steinhilber.
3) It was the consensus of the Commission that John Mann will act as Temporary Chair at
the beginning of this meeting until a Chair is selected.
4) A motion was made by Commissioner Mann, seconded by Commissioner Israel, to
approve the minutes of February 2, 1998. The motion carried.
5) Election of Secretary – The Commission discussed the election of Secretary for the Fire
Civil Service. A motion was made by Commissioner Israel, seconded by Commissioner
MacMillan, to nominate John Mann as Secretary of the Fire Civil Service Commission.
The motion carried.
6) Other Business
A) The Commission discussed the nomination of a Chair. A motion was made
by Commissioner Israel, seconded by Commissioner Mann, to appoint
Commission William MacMillan as Chair of the Fire Civil Service
Commission. The motion carried.
B) 1998 Overview – Bob Gill, Fire Chief, presented an overview of staffing activities
and department highlights in 1998 to the Commission.
7) The Commission adjourned at 9:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Gohman
City Staff Liaison to the Fire Civil Service Commission
CC: Paul Steinhilber
77
Item 9f*
MINUTES
POLICE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
May 20, 1999
THIRD FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM AT CITY HALL
1) The meeting was called to order at 8:08 a.m. The following were present: Chair Jim
Lanenberg, Commissioner Bryan Leary. Also present was Staff Liaison Nancy Gohman,
Human Resources Manager and Police Sergeant Lori Dreier.
2) A motion was made by Commissioner Leary, seconded by Chair Lanenberg, to approve
the minutes of April 5, 1999. The motion carried.
.
3) The Commission discussed certification of Police Officer candidates. A motion was
made by Commissioner Leary, seconded by Chair Lanenberg, to certify six candidates for
four vacancies:
1) Marni Strauss
2) Dale Ouse
3) Robert Sadusky
4) Luke Ellanson - June, 1999 – POST test scheduled (not certified until POST
complete)
5) Brian Flaherty
6) Troy Buhta
7) Troy Peek – August, 1999 – POST test scheduled (not certified until POST complete)
8) Amy Sprague-Walker
Candidates #4 and #7 will be certified for appointment upon successful completion and
certification of POST LICENSE, at such time, these candidates will be added to certification and
placed in order based on test scores. The motion carried.
4) A motion was made by Commissioner Leary, seconded by Chair Lanenberg, to adjourn at
8:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Gohman
City Staff Liaison to the Police Civil Service Commission
78
Item # 9g*
October 8, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 788.75
ABLE COURIER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23.30
ADAMS, MARY B GENERAL SUPPLIES 40.85
ADVANTAGE PAPER OFFICE SUPPLIES 378.55
AIIM INTERNATIONAL SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 250.00
AIR CHEK INC MERCHANDISE PURCH FOR
RESALE
2,450.00
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 164.24
ALBINSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 105.00
ALLSTATE SALES CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS 470.54
ALMSTEAD'S SUPERVALU CONCESSION SUPPLIES 8.13
ANCHOR PAPER CO OFFICE SUPPLIES 446.18
ANDERSEN INC, EARL F OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 387.32
ANNATONE TREE SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,875.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE GENERAL SUPPLIES 476.99
AUTO GLASS SPECIALISTS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 932.34
AWWA MINNESOTA SECTION TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
100.00
BARON, EILEEN GENERAL SUPPLIES 260.68
BEACON BALLFIELDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 152.28
BERGEN BRUNSWIG MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.93
BERTHIAUME, BRUCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 74.96
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE
SERVICE
GENERAL SUPPLIES 325.88
BOYER TRUCK PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 71.74
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
BROCK WHITE CO LLC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,349.36
CAP ASSOCIATES INC OTHER ADVERTISING 240.00
CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC. TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
195.00
CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 138.03
COMPRESSAIR & EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 56.43
CONN, KEVIN L STUDY INCENTIVE & MERIT PAY 854.25
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68)
DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 455.00
DELEGARD TOOL CO SMALL TOOLS 167.24
DELOITTE & TOUCHE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,980.00
DIAMOND VOGEL PAINTS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 427.49
DUDOVITZ, SUSAN INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
ELAN GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,480.66
EPA AUDIO VISUAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,064.28
EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 490.00
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
COMPANY
EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,361.64
FIRST SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 5,118.07
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
79
HABERMAN, JULIE UNREALIZED REVENUE 434.71
HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL 1,381.64
HENN CO TREASURER SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 8,804.08
HENNEPIN COUNTY PUBLIC
WORKS
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL 7,696.77
HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 483.98
HEWLETT -PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 959.03
HOME DEPOT/GECF OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 101.00
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 223.16
HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 116.81
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 111.65
INDELCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 56.13
INSIGHT NEWS INC OTHER ADVERTISING 80.96
KAISER, CINDY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 68.20
KEYSTONE LEARNING SYSTEMS COMPUTER SERVICES 499.95
KNOX LUMBER COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.62
LAKESHORE LEARNING MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.15
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 17,273.00
LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.99
LITTLE TYKES COMMERCIAL PLAY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,671.15
M I A M A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
200.00
MANAGED SERVICES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 985.26
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00
MENARDS BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 107.35
METROCALL TELEPHONE 95.91
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 9.00
MILLER, CAROL CONCESSION SUPPLIES 69.94
MINN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 80.00
MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,207.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT (46.00)
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
PROFESSION
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 233.00
NATL WILDLIFE FEDERATION GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.85
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 3,154.42
NYSTROM PUBLISHING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 2,703.00
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 239.41
ONYX SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
800.00
PALM BROTHERS CONCESSION SUPPLIES 61.86
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 271.06
PETERSON, SACHA MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 121.47
POMMER MFG CO INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 102.85
PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC. GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.30
PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 200.25
PRINTERS SERVICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28.30
PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 612.00
QUILL CORPORATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 36.98
RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES 293.33
RIVEREDGE NATURE CENTER GENERAL SUPPLIES 29.95
SCHAEFFER MFG CO MOTOR FUELS 73.50
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS (51.62)
SMITH MICRO TECHNOLOGIES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 134.39
80
SPEEDY LOCK & KEY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 75.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 21.60
STRAND MFG COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 174.66
SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 140.48
SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 69.83
SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 217.10
SUNNYSIDE SUPERVALU FOODS MEETING EXPENSE 75.79
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,229.17)
TAKUMI, VERNICE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
404.09
TEAM CENTRAL SPORTING GOODS GENERAL SUPPLIES 240.00
TIERNEY BROTHERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 314.65
TOURVILLE, RUTH YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES-
exempt
35.00
TWIN CITY OPTICAL CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 134.41
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 41.49
WALSER FORD EQUIPMENT PARTS 25.76
WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 538.47
WHITE, PERRY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOOL
S
399.31
WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,047.18
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 28.22
ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 876.66
ZIEGLER INC SMALL TOOLS 10.35
ZIP PRINTING OFFICE SUPPLIES 445.60
ZIP SORT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 83.25
102,976.50
October 15, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AAA-LICENSE DIVISION MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 769.25
ACT ELECTRONICS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 154.55
ADVANCED STATE SECURITY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 440.49
ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45
AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 2,635.99
ALEX, HEATHER M TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
97.44
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 5,419.00
ANDERSON, SCOTT TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
354.69
ANTONSON, DALE GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.00
APACHE GROUP OF MINNESOTA CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL
SUPPLY
1,985.06
APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS GENERAL SUPPLIES 315.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE
ACCT
GENERAL SUPPLIES 440.82
AUDIOVISUAL INC OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 1,185.00
BENNETT, EDNA C INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 218.26
BIRCHWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD
ASSOC
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 79.08
BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 83.64
81
BOBS BINDING & SERGING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.50
BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE
SERVICE
GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.47
BONE, BRIDGET G. OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.97
BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66)
CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 472.80
CENTER FOR ENERGY &
ENVIRONMEN
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,060.00
CHERINGTON INTERIORS LTD GENERAL SUPPLIES 4,539.64
CLOSE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 225.00
CMI INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 262.62
COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00
COLICH & ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 11,786.31
COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 108.00
COLUMBIA AUDIO/VIDEO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 894.93
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68)
CRILEY, KATHI L MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 119.02
CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 421.54
CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,242.62
DARTEK COMPUTER SUPPLY OFFICE SUPPLIES 248.59
DAY-TIMERS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 49.19
DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 301.71
DEGIDIO, LOUIS BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 63.14
DELI DOUBLE MEETING EXPENSE 266.67
DESIGN CLASSICS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 800.00
DOEDEN, MIKE OFFICE SUPPLIES 31.79
DOUBLETREE PARK PLACE HOTEL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,289.23
EP ELECTRIC PUMP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,016.01
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS
COMPANY
EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67)
FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00
GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
0.00
GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07)
GOAR, THOMAS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 110.00
GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89
HANSON ASSOC INC, R D GENERAL SUPPLIES 43.90
HASLERUD, CARRIE GENERAL SUPPLIES 139.48
HENN CO TREASURER LICENSES/TAXES 467.34
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,053.00
HOLZ, ANNE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 362.30
HOME DEPOT/GECF BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 228.53
HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 215.08
IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41
IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.00
J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,380.03
JOHNSON, DICK GENERAL SUPPLIES 116.67
KANSAS STATE BANK OF
MANHATTAN
NOTES PAYABLE 1,994.31
LAKE COUNTRY CHAPTER-ICBO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
540.00
LEAGUE MN CITIES INS TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,942.33
82
LEGEND TECHNICAL SERVICES GENERAL SUPPLIES 8,875.30
LIPPERT, LEE INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
M A C T A TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
1,080.00
MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00
MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 19.84
METRO CHIEF FIRE OFFICERS
ASSO
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 90.00
METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 251.83
METROCALL TELEPHONE 230.08
MEYER, CHARLES TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
810.28
MEYER, JENNIFER L MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 23.87
MICROSLATE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 552.03
MINN STATE TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
60.00
MINNEGASCO HEATING GAS 8,242.38
MINNESOTA DEPT OF COMMERCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,131.00
MINNESOTA ELECTRICAL ASSOC GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.86
MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 510.00
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT
CHARGE
(46.00)
MONROE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 641.16
MPLS AREA ASSOC OF REALTORS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00
MPLS DEPT OF HEALTH/FAMILY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 46.40
NATIONAL CAMERA EXCHANGE NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 724.10
NORTHERN GENERAL SUPPLIES 78.96
NORTHLAND ELECTRIC SUPPLY
CO
GENERAL SUPPLIES 10,016.02
NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 66,721.25
OESTREICH, MARK GENERAL SUPPLIES 252.94
OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 95.84
OFFICE MAX GENERAL SUPPLIES 161.71
ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46
PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 882.24
PALMS BAKERY MEETING EXPENSE 73.20
PAPER WAREHOUSE-GENERAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 33.34
PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00
PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 34.66
PERSONNEL DECISIONS
INTERNATIO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,550.00
PINKERTON SERVICES GROUP PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 392.16
PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 581.40
PRYOR RESOURCES INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
374.00
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER POSTAGE 826.38
RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,070.08
RARDIN, MICHAEL TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
687.01
RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33
RHI MANAGEMENT RSOURCES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,587.50
SALVERDA & ASSOCIATES,
DONALD
TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO
LS
1,444.86
83
SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 96.00
SCHARBER & SONS EQUIPMENT PARTS (51.62)
SCHWANTZ, LARRY GENERAL SUPPLIES 169.00
SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 36.10
SEDGWICK JAMES OF MINN INC PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 1,540.00
SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00
SPS COMPANIES INC BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 89.41
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,928.78
ST LOUIS PARK HIGH SCHOOL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28,667.00
STAR TRIBUNE OTHER ADVERTISING 1,596.90
STEMMER, LUKE GENERAL SUPPLIES 118.15
SUN NEWSPAPERS OTHER ADVERTISING 170.00
SUPER JUMP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 170.40
SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,229.17)
SWIDERSKI, PATRICIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9.31
TARGET/DAYTONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 30.36
THE MOBILE PHONE COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 111.45
TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 7,760.79
U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,346.39
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED GENERAL SUPPLIES 5,863.75
VALLEY-RICH CO INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 5,271.68
VEIT & COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 775.00
VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 153.36
VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.61
VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,451.91
WENDELL'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.39
WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 190.36
WMJR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00
WOLF CAMERA INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.49
ZIPSORT POSTAGE 16,791.65
251,730.58
October 13, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
98.38
FAIRVIEW CLINICS WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
108.56
ORTHOPEDIC MEDICINE & S WORKERS COMPENSATION
INSURANCE
41.72
REILLY, MATTHEW INJURY PAY 1,020.00
1,268.66
October 13, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 2,626.96
2,626.96
84
October 13, 1999
VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE &
ANNUITY
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 738.68
ALLINA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 82,028.56
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00
DISTRICT COURT ADMINISTRATOR LAND 61,825.00
FORTIS BENEFITS DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,666.30
HARDRIVES INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 8,692.02
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 11,482.08
LAND TITLE INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 40,000.00
MINN COMM OF REVENUE SALES & USE TAX 13,761.00
MINNESOTA BENEFIT
ASSOCIATION
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 978.91
MINNESOTA NCPERS LIFE
INSURANC
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 105.00
MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT
CENTE
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,351.85
NADEAU UTILITY INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 20,874.25
ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,974.00
PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 98,656.94
PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 42,994.70
PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT
ASSOC
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,709.08
PERA POLICE RETIREMENT
ASSOC
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,138.64
RORMAN, MURIEL INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00
SCANDY CONCRETE INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 11,553.24
SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 28,013.84
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS
AREA
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 317.35
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,319.82
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO OF
AMERICA
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 642.15
USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 7,072.46
VALLEY PAVING INC OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 23,320.64
WESTBRIDGE CAPITAL CORP
INSURANCE
DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 39.00
475,729.49
85
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item #11a*
Meeting of October 19 1999
11a* Compensation of the City’s Prosecuting Attorney
Recommended
Action:
2) Motion to adopt resolution increasing the hourly fee paid to
the City’s prosecuting attorney from $67.50 to $75.00.
Background:
For more than ten years, the City of St. Louis Park has hired the services of Mike Colich of
Colich and Associates to be the City’s prosecuting attorney for an hourly fee of $67.50. This
amount has remained the same since services began. Due to inflation and the increasing cost
associated with conducting business, Mr. Colich has requested a fee increase from the City and
has asked the City to make a reasonable offer.
Findings:
A survey was conducted of 12 area cities in the metropolitan area to determine the average
hourly fee paid to prosecuting attorneys. Please see attachment. The survey indicates that the
fee paid by the City of St. Louis Park of $67.50 is below the mean and is the lowest of the cities
surveyed. The survey indicates the average hourly fee paid is $82.42. However, the City of St.
Louis Park is unique in that it is the only city that has a full time legal secretary that handles
majority of the clerical functions for Mr. Colich.
At this point, the City has several alternatives that can be pursued. One, the City can make a fair
and reasonable offer to Mr. Colich comparable with the hourly rates of other metropolitan area
city prosecuting attorneys. Second, the City could look into the possibility of hiring in house
council. During the period of time which Mr. Colich has been the City’s prosecuting attorney,
the City has spent approximately $175,000/ year on attorney fees and this has remained
consistent. Therefore, it may not be feasible to hire an in house attorney and support staff based
on the limited amount of legal work required by the City. The final alternative is to open up the
process to allow for competitive bidding by any interested parties. However, Mr. Colich has
worked for the City for several years and has provided quality service.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends based on the quality of the work performed, the years of service with the City,
the comparable fees paid by metropolitan area cities, and the clerical functions performed by the
City’s legal secretary that Council sets by resolution a fee increase for Mr. Colich’s services
from $67.50 to $75.00/ hour.
Prepared by: Durell Vieau
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
86
Prosecuting Attorney Fees Survey
Hourly fee
Blaine $ 87.50
Brooklyn Center $ 70.00
Brooklyn Park *
Coon Rapids *
Eden Prairie $ 100.00
Edina $ 100.00
Fridley $ 80.00
Hopkins $ 77.00
New Hope $ 85.00
Roseville *
St. Louis Park $ 67.50
Stillwater *
Woodbury $ 75.00
AVERAGE $ 82.42
* City pays an annual fee for all duties defined in contract.
87
RESOLUTION NO. 99-122
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE INCREASE IN THE HOURLY FEE PAID
TO THE CITY’S PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has acquired the services of Mike Colich of
Colich and Associates to be the City’s prosecuting attorney;
WHEREAS, the City Council is in consensus and wishes to continue using the services
of Mr. Colich;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, that:
1. The hourly fee paid to Mr. Colich should be increased from $67.50 an hour to $75.00
an hour effective November 1, 1999.
Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council October 19, 1999
City Manager Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
88
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11b*
Meeting of October 18, 1999
11b* Bid Tabulation: One (1) Street Flusher Truck
This report considers rejecting all bids received for the purchase of one (1) new
1999 Street Flusher Truck.
Recommended
Action:
Motion to reject all bids and re-advertise for this equipment.
Background: Proposals were received on September 2, 1999, for the purchase of One (1) new
1999 Street Flusher Truck as provided in the 1999 Capital Equipment Replacement Fund.
An advertisement for bids was published in the St. Louis Park Sun-Sailor on August 18 and 25,
1999. Six (6) bid packages were issued to vendors throughout the metropolitan area. A summary
of the bid results is as follows:
Vendor Net Purchase Price
Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Co., Inc. $ 116,534.14
Discussion: After receiving one bid for the Street Flusher Truck, staff believes it is in the best
interest of the City to reject the bid, search for additional suppliers, and re-advertise regionally
for this item.
Staff recommends Council reject all bids and re-advertise for this equipment. This will delay
equipment acquisition four (4) to six (6) weeks, but this is acceptable.
Prepared By: Harlan Backlund/Michael P. Rardin, Public Works
Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
89
City of St. Louis Park
City Council Agenda Item # 11c*
Meeting of October 18, 1999
11c* School District #283 request for funding from Cable TV franchise fees
School District #283 requested an increase from past operating funding grants of
$25,000 for 1999 at the April 18, 1999 Cable TV Commission meeting.
Recommende
d Action:
Motion to authorize payment to the School District of an operating
grant of $25,000 for 1999
Background:
The School District has received funding from Cable TV franchise fees since 1982, and in the
last few years the Cable TV Advisory Commission has reviewed the request and recommended
action to the City Council. The Commission has traditionally felt that franchise fees should be
used to produce programming and District videotext display announcements and schedules for
Educational Channel 32, a benefit available to all cable viewers.
In 1996 the Commission proposed criteria for future School District funding requests, which
were approved by the City Council on July 1, 1996:
1) Detail on how the funds will be used to program Cable Channel 32 and produce original
programming;
2) how the District’s television production facilities will be made available to the
community;
3) a review of the previous year’s programming as reflected in monthly program reports as
provided by other locally funded channels.
In 1997 the Commission recommended $25,000 for School District operations with an additional
grant budgeted for 1998 of up to $8,000 for an automated playback system. The Council
approved this action on July 7, 1997 meeting. The School District hosted the Commission
meeting of May 5, 1998, and demonstrated the system. The programming hours for Educational
Channel 32 have increased and the text display has dramatically improved as a result of this
specific equipment grant.
In 1998 the Commission recommended a $25,000 operations grant plus budgeting $7,500 in
1999 for an equipment grant for camcorders and tripods contingent upon requests for
information that were addressed at the February 18, 1999 Cable Commission meeting (minutes
attached). The equipment grant of $7,500 for camcorders and tripods was sent to the District on
March 18 with a request for details about how the replaced camcorders and tripods could be made
available for non-public schools.
90
At the April 18, 1999 Commission meeting the District Superintendent Barbara Pulliam, Assistant
Superintendent Dan Walker, and Carolyn Charles requested an increased operations grant for 1999
because the amount had been $25,000 for many years. Ms. Charles described the recent
accomplishments and future challenges for the video production facility, including hiring a
replacement video technician at the busiest time of year (spring). The Commission met again
May 13, 1999 and proposed a detailed list of questions, most of which were addressed in a
September 22 report from Charles E. Fiss, the new District video technician (minutes attached).
On October 7, 1999 the Commission recommended an operating grant of $25,000 for the District in
1999. This is in addition to the $7,500 for camcorders paid earlier this year (approved by Council
last year) and the $28,667 (one third) from the $86,000 franchise equipment grant from Paragon
Cable approved by Council on September 21, 1999. The Cable TV Commissioners have further
questions about the District’s Cable TV plans before they feel comfortable recommending an
increase in the operating grant. For the last few years the Commission felt that additional support
was warranted but that a modest increase, granted for a specific equipment purchase, was the
best recommendation to avoid a precedent of automatically increased support. The
Commission also discussed increased funding for the video tech position if the School District
adjusted its position classification procedures to allow this change.
The Cable TV fund could accommodate an increased operating grant since franchise fees have
increased from $185,000 in 1995 to an estimated $270,000 in 1999 (see attached chart). There
have been small rate increases each year as per the Federal Communications Commission’s
Social Contract with Time Warner, and the number of cable subscribers has grown from 10,300
to 12,688 in that same period.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Council approve payment to the School District of an operating grant of
$25,000 for 1999 from the Cable TV Fund.
Submitted by: Reg Dunlap and John McHugh, TV Coordinators
Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager
Attachments:
Cable TV Commission minutes of February 18, 1999
Cable TV Commission minutes of May 13, 1999
Cable TV Fund Revenues chart
91
APPROVED MINUTES OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 18, 1999 7:00 P.M.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Ken Huiras, Robert Jacobson, and Mary
Jean Overend
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh,
Community TV Coordinator; and Rebecca Belz, Recording
Secretary
1. Call to Order:
Vice Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
All current members of the Commission were present.
3. Approval of Minutes:
Vice Chair Huiras requested discussion and approval of the January 28, 1999
minutes. Changes requested were as follows:
* The words “questioned who was responsible for repairs for non-public
equipment and suggested” be removed from the last sentence on page
one and replaced with the words “asked if it would be possible for.”
* To correct the spelling of Vice Chair Ken Huiras’ name throughout the
document.
* Insert a period after the word “technology” in the second sentence under
letter B on page two. Then to begin a new sentence with “This
information supported the need for community flexibility and planning
in the use of technology and therefore”
With changes noted, Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to
approve the minutes of the January 28, 1999 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory
Commission as corrected. Motion carried unanimously.
Vice Chair Huiras then asked for review and acceptance of the Notes of the
December 8, 1998 and the September 22, 1998 meetings.
92
Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to accept the Notes of the
December 8, 1998 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
Bruce Browning moved, seconded by Robert Jacobson to accept the Notes of the
September 22, 1998 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented.
Motion carried unanimously.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
Vice Chair Huiras asked for any changes to the Agenda. It was requested to discuss
the Y2K Report from Paragon under letter E. of New Business. It was also
requested to discuss the e-mail information that is distributed by staff under
Communications from City Staff.
5. Old Business:
A. School District funding for 1999:
Discussion began with Vice Chair Huiras inquiring whether the District’s
funding request had been received in writing. Mr. McHugh reported that the
District had originally made a request in April of 1998 for $5,100. Since the
time of the request, the Commission had questions that have been adequately
answered. Mr. Dunlap reviewed with the Commission the replies to their
questions. He noted that the District provided a full inventory of the TV
equipment, described their maintenance practices, and acknowledged the
suggestion to plan a way to assist nonpublic schools with used video
equipment.
The Commission and staff agreed that $7,500 is a more adequate amount for
the equipment the District desires to purchase. Bruce Browning moved,
seconded by Robert Jacobson, to recommend that City Council approve the
request for $7,500 for a special equipment grant to purchase camcorders and
tripods provided the School District supplies an invoice for the purchase.
Motion carried unanimously.
There was also some discussion regarding the matching funds concept.
Commissioner Jacobson expounded on his idea and explained that if the
School District were interested in matching funds they would in turn be able
to purchase more and/or better equipment, with the condition that it would
be made available in some way to the community at large, and not used
solely for teaching high school video production.
B. Name Change:
Commissioner Jacobson noted previous discussions regarding the pros and
cons of the name change and that the intent of the Commission was to
93
continue in an advisory capacity. The Commission continued by
acknowledging its role has changed since its inception and believes it will
continue to evolve through time. Bruce Browning then moved, seconded by
Mary Jean Overend, to recommend that the City Council change the name of
the “Cable TV Advisory Commission” to the “Telecommunications
Advisory Commission” as a proactive step in a converging technological
landscape. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Paragon Rates Update:
Mr. Dunlap received the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) form
1240 from Paragon explaining their rate calculations for the standard
package. He said it was difficult to understand and seemed incomplete, but
that several articles in trade journals had confirmed Paragon’s account that
programming costs had increased substantially. Mr. Dunlap suggested
the Commission accept this explanation by Paragon and that no purpose
would be served by filing a rate complaint with the FCC with rate regulation
ending on March 31, 1999. He also said that one of the benefits of the Time
Warner (Paragon’s parent company) Social Contract was that only one
increase was allowed each year, while other communities may face a second
increase after the rate regulation sunset.
6. New Business:
A. Election of Officers:
Commissioner Jacobson requested this be addressed at another meeting after
additional recruitment has been completed. Hearing no objections, the
Commission continued with the next item of business.
B. 1999 Meeting Schedule:
The Commission discussed the proposed dates for meetings in 1999 and
decided on the following schedule:
April 8, 1999
July 15, 1999
October 7, 1999
December 9, 1999
The meetings will begin at 7:00 p.m. and held at City Hall unless otherwise
notified.
C. 1999 Work Plan:
The Commission also discussed the work plan in conjunction with the
meeting schedule for 1999. In addition to the information Mr. Dunlap
distributed regarding the plan, the Commission requested that a Y2K update
94
be received from Paragon mid-year and that a futurist and/or various outside
sources be consulted prior to completing the needs assessment.
Mr. McHugh suggested sending Paragon a letter requesting the update prior
to the July meeting to ensure a response by that time. This will be completed
by staff. Staff will also consult various sources regarding future technology
and the potential impact of Y2K.
D. Matched funding concept with the School District:
This was discussed under the School District Funding for 1999. It was
proposed that it be discussed with the appropriate school personnel at the
April 8, 1999 meeting.
E. Y2K Update from Paragon:
This was discussed under the 1999 Work Plan segment. Staff will send a
letter requesting an update for the July 15, 1999 meeting.
7. Reports:
No report was given.
8. Communications from Chair:
No report was given.
9. Communications from City Staff:
A. E-mail and Technology Information Suggestion:
Commissioner Overend suggested that the helpful information forwarded to
Commissioners via e-mail by City Staff be submitted to the Park Perspective
and/or the Sun Sailor for more widespread exposure. She indicated that the
information was helpful and believed it would benefit others.
Vice Chair Huiras questioned whether the City was pursuing re-developing
its web page. Mr. Dunlap responded that appropriate City Staff are
discussing it.
Mr. Dunlap made note of the information distributed regarding the
Bloomington City Council’s meeting concerning their cable franchise
agreement. Key points include a 15 year franchise, and an upgrade to a 550
MHz cable TV system (like St. Louis Park’s) by April of 2000, that would
be capable of advanced services (like telephone service or Internet access)
when the company offers those services in about 18 to 24 months. He added
that he had taped the meeting and it was available for Commissioners to
review.
95
10. Adjournment:
With no other business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Robert
Jacobson, seconded by Bruce Browning, to adjourn at 8:34 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rebecca L. Belz
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
City of St. Louis Park
96
APPROVED MINUTES
ST. LOUIS PARK CABLE TV ADVISORY COMMISSION
May 13, 1999 --7:00 P.M.
ST. LOUIS PARK CITY HALL FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Dale Hartman, Ken Huiras, Mary Jean
Overend, Rick Dworsky (arrived at 7:15 p.m.) & Robert
Jacobson (arrived at 7:35 p.m.).
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh,
Community TV Coordinator; and Shirley Olson, Recording
Secretary
1. Call to Order - Roll Call
Chair Huiras called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
2. Roll Call:
All current members of the Commission were present.
3. Approval of Minutes:
It was moved by Bruce Browning, seconded by Mary Jean Overend, to approve the minutes
of April 8, 1999 meeting of the Cable TV Advisory Commission as presented. Motion
carried unanimously.
4. Adoption of Agenda:
Chair Huiras asked that a review of the upcoming meeting schedule and work plan be added
to the agenda under New Business.
5. Old Business
A. School District funding for 2000
B. School District funding request from Franchise Equipment Grant
The Commission discussed the School District presentation given by Carolyn Charles at the
April 8, 1999 meeting and the District’s request for a funding increase.
Chair Huiras stated that he had no problem with an increase.
Mary Jean Overend was concerned about what the School District’s actual plans for video
were and was interested in the findings of the School District’s Action Team who were
going to examine the positions related to technology and develop a strategic plan.
97
Bruce Browning was in favor of an increase, but was concerned about how important video
really was to the School District. He felt that if the School District conceded that video was
important, that they should have a more detailed plan. He empathized with the School
District’s equipment needs, but felt uncomfortable with any funding being used for a
salaried position.
Chair Huiras concurred.
Bruce Browning asked if there was any other source of funding available to the School
District. Reg Dunlap stated that he believed this grant would be the only source of capital
equipment funding that the School District received and that they may be more focused on
computers and fiber optics than expanding video. He explained the breakdown of revenues
from the franchise equipment grant.
Mary Jean Overend felt that she needed additional information about the plans of the School
District relative to cable. She asked if the Commission could wait to make a decision until
more information was received. She believed that it was important that students learn
presentation skills.
Reg Dunlap indicated that approval could be contingent on the School District answering a
set of questions that the Commission adopted. He believed that the School District’s Action
Team was planning to meet over the summer.
Rick Dworsky believed the School District was appealing to help with salary differential of
cable position and questioned how St. Louis Park measured up to other communities.
John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator briefly described the School District operation
of Hopkins. Reg Dunlap noted that Hopkins had staff and students who produced several
innovative and high profile cable productions.
Chair Huiras asked what the status was of the idea to match funding.
Reg Dunlap stated that this idea was still just a concept.
After a brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Commission to grant one third of the
franchise equipment grant of $86,000 received from Paragon to the School District.
Bruce Browning felt it was important to know how the School District funding was being
used.
Robert Jacobson believed that the School District had not exercised good judgment in the
past as it related to use of funding. He was not sure of what the rules were for the use of
franchise fees and believed that the School District needed more direction about how the
funds were to be used.
98
The Commission agreed that it was important to help set direction and standards for the
School District. The Commission drafted the following list of questions to be submitted to
the School District for a response.
1. What are the goals of your Action Plan?
2. What is your Mission Statement?
3. Do you have a schedule of implementation?
4. What role does the teacher on staff have in the program?
5. What is the expected replacement date for the capital equipment list?
6. How does cable fit in with your future plans for computer technology?
7. Who is responsible for equipment purchasing?
8. What is your future plans for high profile production or innovative programming?
9. How do you plan to staff after hours for programming on Channel 32?
10. Would the School District be willing to meet with the Commission to discuss future
plans for video and cable?
It was moved by Bruce Browning, seconded by Robert Jacobson, to grant a one time capital
grant of one third of the franchise equipment grant of $86,000 received from Paragon and to
request a written response to a list of questions about the School District’s future plans
before considering
a funding increase for 2000. Motion carried unanimously.
C. Needs assessment background and discussion
Arlen Mattern, Public Affairs Administrator of Paragon was present for this item.
John McHugh presented an update on the current Paragon Cable franchise agreement. He
emphasized that Paragon provided good cable service in St. Louis Park and so the City was
in a good position when trying to assess community needs compared to other cities. He
explained the possibility of approaching area Business Councils, community groups and
public and private schools to solicit their telecommunication needs over the next 5-10 years.
He noted that Paragon has a web site at their Portland operation, and that a possible
customer service need in St. Louis Park would be allowing customers to contact the
company through fax or email with a professional response time. He asked the Commission
to exchange ideas and explained the need to form a Needs Assessment Subcommittee to
work on developing a needs assessment survey.
Mary Jean Overend believed that public awareness through education was important to
make the public aware of upcoming changes in technology so they can determine personal
needs.
Robert Jacobson recommended communicating by e-mail to a target group.
Rick Dworsky recommended using the Park Perspective, Sun Sailor and local cable
programs to solicit information.
99
Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, and Mary Jean Overend volunteered to serve on the Needs
Assessment Subcommittee.
John McHugh asked the subcommittee members to e-mail needs assessment ideas and
recommendations to him.
6. New Business
A. Review of upcoming meeting schedule and work plan.
The Commission reviewed the upcoming meeting schedule. It was noted that Rick
Dworsky would be absent at the July 22, 1999 meeting.
The Commission recommended that the response from the School District to the list of
questions be discussed at the October meeting.
7. Reports
A. Rename Commission TV Commission to Telecommunications Commission
Reg Dunlap asked Commissioners to review draft of name change and send any concerns or
questions to him. He noted that the name change was scheduled on a June agenda for the
City Council.
B. Cable Complaints
The Commission reviewed and discussed the list of cable complaints. Reg Dunlap brought
up the complaint that Paragon should do a better job of publicizing basic cable as an option
(less than $10 per month for 22 channels). Arlen Mattern said that the company makes its
real money from the standard package and additional services, so that is what they promote;
however, in the annual price information sent to every customer, basic cable is always listed
as available.
8. Communications from the Chair
Chair Huiras asked if there was any progress on the development of a city web site. Reg
Dunlap said that John McHugh and himself have been asked to help with further
developing the City web site.
Chair Huiras requested an update of the Cable TV Advisory Commission roster.
9. Communications from City Staff
10. Adjournment
With no other business to come before the Commission, it was moved by Bruce Browning,
seconded by Robert Jacobson to adjourn at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shirley Olson
Recording Secretary
ATTEST:
Reg Dunlap
Civic TV Coordinator
100
Cable TV Fund Revenues
Year School
District
allocation
Total
Franchise
Fees
Administration notes
1987 20,000 95,379 Negotiation of new franchise agreement
with cable operator
1988 21,000 113,463 Finalize franchise proposal
1989 23,000 117,254 • First year of current franchise
• I-Net Committee established
1990 27,000 135,736 March 1 rebuild (add ppv, more premium
channels)
1990 15,000 60,000 Received franchise equipment grant
1991 25,000 158,212 MSC issue (contracted with cable
attorney)
1992 25,000 170,211 School District technology referendum
passes
1993 25,000 169,605 • 1992 Cable Act implemented
• Contracted with cable attorney to
assist in regulation of basic cable
1994 25,000 170,561 Transfer to Paragon Cable (contracted
with cable attorney)
1994 (estimate)18,000 72,000 Received franchise equipment grant
1995 25,000 184,860 Transfer to Time Warner (contract
review with cable attorney)
1996 25,000 213,706 • Upgrade to 550 MHz
• Hired engineer to certify upgrade
• Contracted with cable attorney for
franchise amendment language
review
1997 25,000 233,781
Approved equipment grant to School
District for auto playback system in 1998
1998 25,000
+ 8,000
255,387
• Paid auto playback equipment grant
(approved in 1997)
• Franchise amended re: survey
1999 25,000
+ 7,500
270,000
(estimate)
• City needs assessment survey
• Council Chambers remodeling
• Camcorder/tripod grant paid 3/99
1999 28,667 86,000 • Received 1/1/99 franchise equipment
grant from Paragon