Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999/12/06 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - Regular 1 Prior – Board and Commission Interviews - Time TBD 7:00 p.m.. - Economic Development Authority AGENDA - CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA December 6, 1999 7:30 p.m. 1. Call to order 2. Presentation a. Recognize Board and Commission resignees 3. Roll Call 4. Approval of Minutes a. City Council meeting of November 15, 1999 Action: Corrections/amendments to minutes - Minutes approved as presented b. Special City Council meeting of November 15, 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. Public Hearing on the 2000 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy The City is required to hold a public hearing each year on the proposed budget and tax levy. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. Second Reading of an Ordinance Regulating Operation of Lawful Gambling in St. Louis Park. Proposed changes to the ordinance improving administrative processes and regulating the distribution of proceeds from lawful gambling. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication. 8b. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Minnesota Youth Athletic Services operating at Gipper’s Sports Bar, 4608 Excelsior Blvd Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. 8c. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for VFW Post 5632 operating at 5605 West 36th Street Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. 8d. Resolution of approval for Year 2000 Liquor License Renewals Request of Council to approve year 2000 liquor license renewals for on-sale, off- sale, Sunday-sale, club and wine intoxicating liquor and off-sale and on-sale 3.2% malt liquor. Recommended Action: Motion to approve renewal of licenses contingent on full compliance with ordinance requirements 8e. Amendment to Ordinance regarding the presence and conduct of pets in City parks. This report considers the adoption of an amended ordinance that authorizes pets to be permitted in all parks in all areas except playground structures, athletic fields and park shelters. Dogs will not be allowed in the Westwood Hills Nature Center, Oak Hill Park wading pool, and the Rec Center. 3 Recomm ended Action: Motion to approve second reading of the amended ordinance that allows pets in all parks. 8f. Second reading of ordinance to rezone land in the northwest quadrant of Zarthan Avenue and West 16th Street to R-4, Multiple Family Residence District Case No. 99-25-Z Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone property to R-4, adopt the ordinance and to authorize publication, based upon a finding that the R-4 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 8g. Request by Microcenter, Inc. for a Minor Amendment to a Special Permit to allow certain property improvements 3700 Highway 100 South Case No. 99-26-CUP Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to a Special Permit for Microcenter, Inc. subject to conditions in the resolution. 8h. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for 2000 This action would increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%. Rates effective January 1, 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to waive first reading and set second reading for December 20, 1999. *8i. Resolution Appointing Jean McGann as Alternate to LOGIS Board of Directors Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing appointment. *8j. Request by Silvercrest Properties, LLC to amend final plat resolution for Silvercrest Addition to extend final plat filing deadline to January 6, 2000 Case No. 99-15-S 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 99-102, extending final plat filing deadline to January 6, 2000 4 *8k. Amendment to Ordinance 1325 First Reading of Ordinance amending the legal description for street vacation granted by Ordinance 1325 Dated March 1, 1976 Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance and set second reading for December 20, 1999. *8l. Resolution to Amend the 1999 Budget A revised estimate for the 1999 Budget was completed as part of the 2000 budget preparation. The revised budget estimate numbers were detailed in the 2000 Proposed Budget document presented to the Council in August. The changes to the 1999 budget were presented to the Council at the Study Session on November 22, 1999. It will be the amounts in this final amendment that is used to report budget to actual numbers in the year end financial statements. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution. *8m. Resolution authorizing policy on Naming of Parks, Trails, and Facilities in the City of St. Louis Park. To approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommendations for naming of parks, trails, and facilities in the City of St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution. 8n. First Reading of Ordinance Amendment Revising Permit Fees for Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Permits. Proposed changes simplify the method in which fees for plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits are calculated and provide a more accurate fee for service relationship. Recommended Action: Close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of ordinance amendment revising plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit fees. Set second reading for December 20, 1999 *8o. Year 2000 Major Equipment Purchases This report considers major equipment scheduled and budgeted for replacement during year 2000. The City Charter and Statute requires all purchases and contracts in excess of $25,000 be approved by the City Council. 5 Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report and authorizes staff to acquire equipment scheduled for replacement in year 2000 as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance. *8p. Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for participation in the Federal Aid Preservation Program at various traffic signal locations throughout the City. Hennepin County is requesting the City execute a Cooperative Agreement for participation in the Federal Aid Preservation Program to be managed by Hennepin County for traffic signal improvements at various locations throughout the City. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 60-05-99. *8q. Authorization to Use City Property for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail This report considers the adoption of a resolution required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation authorizing the use and dedication of City property for the Hutchinson Spur Re gional Trail. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the use and dedication of City property for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees *a. Single Audit Report Action: By consent, accept report for filing *b. Charter Commission Minutes of March 25, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *c. Charter Commission Minutes of October 13, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *d. Human Rights Commission Minutes of October 20, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *e. Planning Commission Minutes of November 3, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing 6 *f. Housing Authority Minutes of October 13, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *g. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of October 28, 1999 Action: By consent, accept report for filing *h. Vendor Claims Action: By consent, accept report for filing 10. Unfinished Business a. Board and Commission Appointment and Reappointments Action: Motion to appoint Board and Commission Member(s) 11. New Business *11a. Contract Extension for Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Related Activities – Consultant Services Contract No. 72-98 This report considers extending the contract with ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR) for consultant services required to implement the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 72-98 with ENSR Consulting and Engineering. *11b. Contract Extension for Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Laboratory Services - Contract No. 1893. This report considers extending the Contract with Quanterra Environmental Services for laboratory services for the analysis of groundwater related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program for year 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Quanterra Environmental Services for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2000. *11c. Avalon Bay Preliminary Development Agreement This report considers approving the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement with Avalon Bay relating to Phase I of the Park Commons redevelopment project. 7 Recommended Action: Motion to approve the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement with Avalon Bay relating to Phase I of the Park Commons redevelopment project. 12. Miscellaneous 13. Claims, Appropriations, Contract Payments a. Contract payments FINALS Contractor Amount Standard Sidewalk, Inc. $ 7,351.72 City wide random curb & gutter & sidewalk repair work Contract No. 58-99 Thomas & Sons Construction $ 22,582.24 Grading, base, storm sewer, curb & gutter & bituminous paving Contract No. 59-99 Kevitt Excavation, Inc. $103,256.34 Park Commons Demolition/Site Restoration Contract No. 57-99 Asphalt Surface Technologies Corporation $ 54,980.88 Contract Sealcoat Contract No. 16-99 Action: By consent adopt resolutions. PARTIALS Nadeau Utility, Inc. $ 48,350.34 Entry signage and site improvements Contract No. 54-99 Killmer Electric $ 13,021.17 Installation of EVP Signal System Contact No. 18-99 Action: By consent approve and authorize payments 14. Communications 15. Adjournment 8 Item # 4a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, INNESOTA November 15, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. 2. Presentations - None 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); Economic Development Coordinator (Mr. Kleve); Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh); Police Chief (Mr. Luse);Director of Finance (Ms. McGann); Planning Associate (Ms. Peterson); City Clerk (Ms. Larsen); and Recording Secretary (Ms. Olson). 4. Approval of Minutes 4a. City Council Meeting of November 1, 1999 The minutes were approved as presented. 5. Approval of Agendas a. Consent Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the consent agenda. The motion passed 7-0. b. Agenda It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve the agenda. The motion passed 7-0. c. Resolutions and Ordinances By consent, Council waived reading of resolutions and ordinances. 6. Public Hearings 9 6a. Amendment to an Ordinance regarding the presence and conduct of pets in City parks Cynthia Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation presented a staff report. She indicated that City staff had received about a dozen calls relating to the proposed ordinance. While a few of the residents were dog owners in favor of the expanded park areas where dogs would be allowed, the majority of the calls were not in favor of an ordinance change. Their opposition was related to enforcement. The people opposed to the proposed change did not believe the ordinance is being enforced now, therefore, they do not believe the new ordinance will be enforced. Terry Jacobson, 3340 Rhode Island Avenue South, stated that she lives close to Oak Hill Park and has witnessed several irresponsible pet owners. She was concerned about the ordinance being passed without the means to enforce it and that the City parks could become pet toilets, exercise areas, and playgrounds. She didn’t believe that the City was going to be fined or loose credibility for not passing the amendment. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing subject to the right of the Council to reopen it at a future date. Councilmember Nelson asked if the Police Chief could address the ability of the police department to enforce the amended ordinance. John Luse, Police Chief, stated that he hoped that the City would allow some period of time for the community to become acclimated to the change in policy and the initial steps would be to control and monitor the parks and inform people of the change. He indicated it was certainly within the department’s capability to monitor and enforce behavior based on complaints and patrol patterns. He noted that out of 1000 animals complaints that were received to date that less than 5% of them were about animals in parks. Councilmember Brimeyer believed that the bad behavior of pet owners was the problem and recommended that a zero tolerance policy carried out. Mr. Luse indicated that a zero tolerance policy was possible, but the general objective has always been to move toward voluntary compliance verses enforcement as a first step. Councilmember Brimeyer asked staff to clarify the proposed language that will be put on park signs. Ms. Walsh indicated that the signs will be changed to specifically tell people where pets are and are not allowed in area parks. Councilmember Sanger believed that the irresponsible pet owners were a problem and she hoped that the need for greater enforcement will not be there, but to the extent that it needs to be done is fine. She encouraged residents who see an irresponsible pet owner to approach and inform them that they need to be more responsible as a pet owner or its ruining it for everyone else. She indicated that another reason for passing the ordinance was that the City should not be denying pet owners from using the park just because there are a few bad apples. 10 Councilmember Sanger recommended a proposed amendment to Section 6-406 (L) Exceptions(1). Delete “on trails and in parking lots at all parks” and add another exception (e) “Pets are not permitted in areas of parks utilized for playgrounds, athletic facilities or in park buildings”. Councilmember Santa asked if picnic areas were included. Mr. Meyer, City Manager noted that he had a concern about how well defined picnic areas were. He believed it was clear that park buildings and playgrounds could be defined, but picnic areas tend not to have undefined borders to them and it may become a problem. Councilmember Latz believed that pet owners should be allowed to go to the picnic tables that are out in the grassy areas, but would not want to see pets in the picnic shelter areas. Councilmember Nelson would like to expand the areas where pets were prohibited to include areas that were environmentally sensitive to pets, i.e. Browndale walking path. Mayor Jacobs would like to allow staff the ability to post an area indicating that dogs are not allowed rather than come up with a list of areas that are environmentally sensitive and pets should be prohibited. Mr. Meyer stated that staff could incorporate some language into the ordinance for second reading that would give the authority to the Parks and Recreation Director to post certain areas for no dogs. Councilmember Young was in favor of the ordinance. He indicated that part of the vision for St. Louis Park was to build community connections and believed allowing dogs in parks would encourage this to happen. Councilmember Latz indicated violation of the ordinance would be a petty misdemeanor and they were not considered actual crimes. He asked staff to comment on the existing conditions of the parks where dogs are allowed and did it appear that people were cleaning up after their pets and using leashes. Ms. Walsh stated that 95% of the pet owners were responsible. Councilmember Latz was comfortable with a zero tolerance policy since new residents receive a St. Louis Park fact book with City ordinances outlined. Celia Anderson, 4246 Vernon Avenue South, was concerned that there was nothing in the ordinance that stated what the penalty would be for violation of the ordinance. Mr. Scott, City Attorney, indicated that there was a general provision in the City ordinance that sets the violations for all types of City ordinances. He didn’t have the code with him and would look into the type of penalty for this ordinance before the second reading. Mayor Jacobs believed that the ordinance should be expanded with Councilmember Sanger’s suggestions and encouraged pet owners to be responsible for their pets. He agreed with the Police Chief’s approach about not being too heavy handed about enforcement right up front, but 11 rather educating the community by issuing warnings first and noted the need for additional signage. Councilmember Nelson reiterated that the change was that now all the parks in St. Louis Park would allow dogs, but they must be on a leash to ensure public safety. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Young, to approve first reading of the amended ordinance that allows pets in all parks with the following amendment: Section 6-406 (L) Exceptions(1). Delete “on trails and in parking lots at all parks” and add exception (e) “Pets are not permitted in areas of parks utilized for playgrounds, athletic facilities, park buildings, picnic shelters or other areas posted or designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation” and set second reading for December 6, 1999. The motion passed 7-0. Councilmember Latz believed the intent to include other areas posted or designated by the Director of Parks and Recreation was in areas that were environmentally sensitive for one purpose or another and recommended that that staff work on the exact language before the second reading with the input of the City’s naturalist. 7. Petitions, Requests, Communications - None 8. Resolutions and Ordinances 8a. First Reading of Ordinance Regulating Operation of Lawful Gambling in St. Louis Park Cindy Larsen, City Clerk presented a staff report and noted that the ordinance would require gambling organizations operating in St. Louis Park to distribute 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures with the trade area (St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Golden Valley, Hopkins and Edina). They also requested that the ordinance contain a provision requiring gambling organizations operating within St. Louis Park to contribute a percentage of their net profits to a fund administered by the city. The fund will be used to cover costs related to the administration and regulation of lawful gambling. She indicated that the effective date of the ordinance would be January 1, 2000. Mayor Jacobs noted that he received a document from the St. Louis Park Hockey Association. Bruce Berthioume, 3125 Oregon Avenue South, Gambling Manager for the St. Louis Park Hockey Boosters, stated “I am opposed to the trade area restrictions and with them our organization cannot perform the way they are now. Some of the equipment we purchase comes out of Bloomington which would be outside of the trade area. What type of reports that the City would require on a quarterly or semi-annual basis? I think we do our part for the children in St. Louis Park and would like to see money going to them and not the city administered fund”. Ms. Larsen, City Clerk stated “for the trade area expenditures what we would be asking for is a year end report of everywhere you have made lawful purpose expenditures, similar to the document you submitted to the council this eveing. A form is being developed for the future”. 12 Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated “If items are purchased outside of the trade area for an activity that was conducted in the trade area than my impression it would be an activity that was conducted within the trade area and be allowed”. Scott McDonald, 5400 Vernon Avenue South, Gambling Manager of Minnesota Youth Boxing at Al’s Liquor stated “When we began charitable gambling about four years ago, there were no restrictions on programs that could be funded. A number of our programs are located in St. Paul, Duluth and Rochester. Without our funding, these programs would have to be eliminated and doesn’t believe it would be the Council’s intention to destroy these programs that are in place”. David Payne, 3912 Excelsior Boulevard, Owner of Al’s Liquor, stated “I have also been the Chief fund-raiser for the St. Louis Park Parktacular and noted that Minnesota Youth Boxing has been a major contributor for the event”. Frank Howard, 4360 Brookside Court, Edina, member of VFW Post 156-32, stated that he was against the ordinance. He gave a brief history of the VFW organization. He noted that the VFW has made a lot of contributions, but as the number of members decreases the amount of funds available is less for special events and services. He stated that charitable gambling is their major source of income and they feel they cannot absorb another 10%. Councilmember Latz asked if the trade area restriction was interpreted as the City Attorney suggests would that make it work for Mr. Howard’s organization. Mr. Howard stated that this was up to the City Attorney and he didn’t know the answer to the question. Councilmember Sanger believed it would be helpful to receive information from staff about the surrounding communities that have the trade area restrictions. Ms. Larsen briefly commented that Minneapolis, Plymouth, and Arden Hills have trade area restrictions in place. Councilmember Young stated that he was a member of the VFW and believed that 100% of the VFW expenditures were spent in St. Louis Park in the form of the organization who was the end recipient, but if gambling proceeds were used to send a donation to the National Home in Bloomington then that may be restricted. Ed McDevitt, 3379 Brownlawn Avenue South, Knight of Columbus Bingo in St. Louis Park, stated that he was opposed to the ordinance and opposed to taking a percentage of their net profits to a fund administered by the city. He explained that his organization does try to spend are money all in St. Louis Park and has contributed a large amount in the past. Mr. Meyer, City Manager clarified that the provision requiring gambling organizations operating within St. Louis Park to contribute a percentage of their net profits to a fund administered by the City would be used to cover costs related to the administration and regulation of lawful gambling. He explained that it was not intended that any of the money would be decided to be used for other purposes by the City Council. Shirley Kell, 1822 Edgewood Avenue South, stated that when she renews her license she already pays $250 for investigation fees. She believed that a contribution of 10% of her net profits to a 13 fund administered by the city and a distribution of 100% of her expenditures to St. Louis Park was too high. Ms. Larsen, City Clerk clarified that the investigation fees are set by the State and the City was limited in its ability to raise fees in other ways. She indicated that the cost of the investigations is often greater. She noted that the current fee of $250 will no longer be required by organizations making an application. Mr. Meyer indicated that 10% was the maximum allowed under statute. This proposal was to set the fee at 5% based on what the City’s actual expenses are for enforcement. Ms. Larsen indicated that the City would go through a year of determining what the actual costs are and at the end of that year, we’ll see how it all balances out since these expenditures have not really been tracked by the City in the past. Peter Levy, 2842 Salem Avenue South, President of the St. Louis Park Association, CEO of the St. Louis Park Boosters, stated that he supports the general concept of the ordinance. It was in their charter to give 100% of gambling proceed to St. Louis Park. He believed it was important to clarify the issue about making expenditures outside trade area and recommended that when the ordinance form was drafted keep in mind other state required forms. He questioned if a 5% contribution of their net profits to a fund administered by the City was necessary. Mr. Luse, Police Chief commented briefly on the investigation process and was fairly comfortable stating that the $250 fee was not sufficient for a background investigation. Tom Flugar, 2900 Pennsylvania Avenue, St. Louis Park Basketball Association, Texa- Tonka Lanes, reiterated that the organizations present were all responsible and were involved in charitable gambling to help the kids in St. Louis Park and he didn’t see the need to regulate gambling because it was already happening. Councilmember Latz believed the speakers raised a number of good points. He believed that clarification was needed as to whether or not State Statute does in fact trade area to be defined as location of where the activities are conducted rather than the location of where the money is spent. He recommended that consideration of the ordinance be deferred until the Council has the answer to that question. Secondly, he would like to include in the ordinance a specific restriction on how any proceeds from the fund administered by the city would be used. He had some hesitation of the trade area issues from the beginning and didn’t know if a requirement of 100% of expenditures within the trade area was necessary. Related to the 5% of net profits to a fund administered by the city, he would like to see some type of provision in the ordinance to change the percentage at a future time if necessary or return any excess funds to the organization that contributed to it in the proportion that is was received. Councilmember Sanger stated that she concurred with Councilmember Latz. She was glad to hear that the organizations present were already funneling their expenditures primarily into St. Louis Park and she would hope that others would do the same as well. Councilmember Young briefly reviewed the path of the Council on this issue in the past. He strongly supports the intent of the Council to retain the donation of the proceeds to the St. Louis 14 Park and encouraged the Council to keep moving this along and pass the amendment at first reading and get clarification on the issues before second reading on December 6th. Mr. Scott, City Attorney stated that there was no problem with getting clarification on the issues of concern by the second reading and that the language could be placed in the ordinance. Peter Levy believed that a 100% distribution is a bit extreme because in any given organization there is going to be an extraordinary event that could require funding and now would be restricted. Ms. Larsen, City Clerk stated that under State Statute is was all or a portion of the expenditures. Council could set the percentage anywhere up to 100%. Councilmember Sanger believed that organizations would only be restricted to money raised through charitable gambling in St. Louis Park, but would be free to make contributions outside the trade area from funds by any other source. She asked if organizations were raising funds from other sources. Peter Levy indicated that his organization received funds from other sources that is used for daily operations, but didn’t know about the other organizations. He was concerned that if fees were based on net profits than his organization, which may be one of the more profitable organizations, may be funding the investigation reporting of his competitors. Bob McWhite, St. Louis Park VFW Gambling Manger, explained the financial background of his organization and noted there was not an excess of funds to contribute to another fund. Councilmember Latz asked if Mr. McDevitt of the Knights of Columbus had information about what percentage of the net profits of his organization are spent in St. Louis Park trade area. Ed McDevitt, Knights of Columbus, stated that he didn’t have the information. Councilmember Latz asked that this information be received before second reading. Councilmember Nelson commented on both the expenditure and revenue side of this issue. He supports the provision requiring gambling organizations operating within St. Louis Park to contribute a percentage of their net profits to a fund administered by the city. He does not support the trade area restriction because that is saying where a charitable organization can spend their money and that should be their own business. Related to the revenue issue, he questioned how the organizations survived before charitable gambling came along. He is opposed to charitable gambling in St. Louis Park and elsewhere. He believed it is an inefficient method of raising money and just the expenses of having these programs is a very high percentage of the gross profit. The police department stated that it attracts a certain element that is undesirable referring to the American Legion. He suggested that if an organization depends solely on charitable gambling than they are on risk and need to think of diversifying their incomes. He believed that gambling preys on the underprivileged and suggests a phasing out period of three years and get out of this program altogether. He states there is a cost of our City in time and that a police officer could be using his time more efficiently. He believed that even though an activity is legal and the outcome may be good, it doesn’t mean that the St. Louis Park needs to be participating in it and gave several examples. 15 It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to approve first reading and set second reading for December 6, 1999 with a change to require gambling organizations operating in St. Louis Park to distribute 90% instead of 100% of their lawful purpose expenditures with the trade area and direct staff to present before second reading further clarification on the points raised and that the 5% city fund to be used only for investigation, administration and regulation of lawful gambling and cannot be used for other purposes. The motion passed 6-1. Councilmember Nelson was opposed. 8b. Resolution Authorizing An Agreement Between the City of St. Louis Park and Tautges, Redpath & Co. Ltd. for Audit Services Jean McGann, Director of Finance presented a brief staff report. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt the attached resolution. The motion passed 7-0. 8c. Wolfe Park Amphitheater Councilmember Nelson staff to clarify the terms of the grant agreement. Ms. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation stated at this point in time the City was committed to spending the money, but that is not to say that the City can’t give the money back if the City decides not to do the project. There were other organizations that have committed to spending the money and have continued to delay the project and the state was still working with them. She believed that the City was not under any time parameters at this time. She stated that the City was not committed to any design standards since the City was general enough in the design that was submitted to the State so the City could do what it wanted on the site. Councilmember Brimeyer believed it was time to develop the final design concept so that if the money did go back it would go back quickly. It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the execution of a grant agreement with the Department of Trade and Economic Development in the State of Minnesota to secure $315,000 for the development of the Wolfe Park Amphitheater. The motion passed 7-0. 8d. Request to rezone land in the northwest quadrant of Zarthan Avenue and West 16th Street to R-4, Multiple Family Residence District Case No. 99-25-Z Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the rezoning request to R-4, Multiple Family Residence District. Councilmember Sanger asked if it would be preferable to specific designate by zoning a portion of this site as parks and open space to really confirm the size and location of the neighborhood park. 16 Ms. Peterson stated that this was a possibility, but it would depend on if a specific proposal came in the future where staff, the applicant and the Council agreed that the park would be better served in a different location then that would necessity a rezoning. Councilmember Sanger asked if it would be better to wait until we have a specific plan where we know more specifically where the park would be located and at that time zone that portion of the land as parks and open space. Mr. Harmening, Community Development Director, indicated that the City did not have a zoning district of parks and open space, but we have residential districts where we allow parks. The Comprehensive Plan somewhat arbitrarily designated some parcels just north of 16th Street for a park and open space area, however the language of the plan by neighborhood section of the Comprehensive Plan said that the location of the park could be different than that shown on the map if it made sense at the time a development plan was brought in such as the CSM Rottlund Project. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brimeyer, approve first reading of an ordinance to rezone land in the northwest quadrant of W. 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue to R-4 based on a finding that the R-4 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and to set second reading for December 6, 1999. The motion passed 7-0. 8e. Request by Holiday Stationstores, Inc. for a Special Permit Amendment for a building expansion 7000 W. Lake Street Case No. 99-24-CUP Ms. Peterson, Planning Associate presented a staff report and recommended approval of the Special Permit Amendment with the conditions outlined in the staff report. Councilmember Latz was concerned about the landscaping along the south and east edge of the property because of the possibility of interfering with the site lines of vehicles entering and exiting from Highway 7. Ms. Peterson clarified the type and height of the proposed trees that would be used for landscaping in that area. Mr. Harmening recommended that staff take a specific look at the landscaping plan for that area to consider what the size of the trees will be both a planting and mature stage, consult with the City Engineer and require the developer to change this plan to address the safety concerns and still meet the City’s ordinance in terms of the number of plant materials that have to be provided on the site. Councilmember Santa asked if MnDOT was consulted on this project. Ms. Peterson indicated that since the curb cuts were not changing and because the expansion is so minor there was not a requirement that they be consulted. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Latz, to adopt a resolution approving the Special Permit Amendment with conditions in the resolution. The motion passed 7-0. 17 8f. Change Order No. 2 to Contract No. 57-99 with Kevitt Excavating, Inc. for Park Commons demolition’s/site restoration By consent, Council adopted the attached resolution authorizing execution of Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $11,450.00 to Contract No. 57-99 for additional demolition work and hazardous material disposal, increasing the total contract amount from $193,662.30 to $205,112.30. 8g. Traffic Study No. 547: Three way stop signs at Quentin Avenue So. and W. 42nd Street By consent, Council accepted the report for filing and adopted the attached resolution authorizing the installation of three way stop signs at the intersection of Quentin Avenue So. and W. 42nd Street. 9. Reports from Officers, Boards, Committees a. Planning Commission Minutes of October 20, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. b. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes of September 23, 1999 By consent, Council accepted report for filing. c. Vendor Claims By consent, Council accepted report for filing. 10. Unfinished Business - None 11. New Business 11a. Bid Tabulation: One (1) Street Flusher Truck By consent, Council designated Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc. the lowest responsible bidder for one (1) new 2000 Street Flusher Truck and to authorize execution of a purchase agreement with Ruffridge-Johnson Equipment Company, Inc. in the amount of $118,451.14. 12. Miscellaneous - None 13. Claims, Appropriation, Contract Payments - None 14. Communications >From the City Manager - None 18 >From the Mayor - Mayor Jacobs briefly commented on a Planning Discussion Seminar held by the City that he recently attended and indicated that Judie Erickson was working on a summary of the discussion that would be available for review by Council at a future date. Councilmember Latz indicated that it would be helpful to him to have data on what current proportion of gambling proceeds of each organization are spent within and without the proposed definition of trade area. Council had a brief discussion about the feasibility and purpose of asking for this type of information from organizations. 15. Adjournment It was moved by Councilmember Nelson, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. City Clerk Mayor 19 Item # 4b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA November 15, 1999 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. 2. Roll Call The following Councilmembers were present at roll call: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Chris Nelson, Susan Sanger, Ron Latz, Sue Santa, Jim Brimeyer and Robert Young. Also present was the Executive Director (Mr. Meyer). 3. Public Hearing on the Levying of Assessments for Delinquent Fees and Charges Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing with the right of the Council to open it at a future date. It was moved by Councilmember Young, seconded by Commissioner Latz, to adopt a resolution to assess delinquent water, sewer, refuse and other fees and charges. The motion passed 7-0. 4. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to adjourn the meeting at 6:50 p.m. The motion passed 7-0. City Clerk Mayor 20 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 6a Meeting of December 6, 1999 6a. Public Hearing on the 2000 Proposed Budget and Tax Levy The City is required to hold a public hearing each year on the proposed budget and tax levy. Recommended Action: Mayor to close the public hearing. Background: State statutes require local governments to hold public hearings on their proposed budget and tax levy for the new year. Formal adoption of the 1999 budget and tax levy must occur at a meeting subsequent to the public hearing date. If the public hearing cannot be completed at this Council meeting, the time and date of the continuation hearing must be announced prior to closing the Public Hearing. Staff does not anticipate this event occurring. Adoption of the 2000 budget is scheduled for the meeting on December 20, 1999. Bound copies of the 2000 budget will be available at this time. The format for the Truth in Taxation hearing is as follows; • Introductory Comments – Mayor • Overview of the City’s Budget – Director of Finance • Property Values and Trends - City Assessor • Public Comment Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 21 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8a Meeting of December 6, 1999 8a. Second Reading of an Ordinance Regulating Operation of Lawful Gambling in St. Louis Park. Proposed changes to the ordinance improving administrative processes and regulating the distribution of proceeds from lawful gambling. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the ordinance, approve the summary and authorize summary publication. Background On November 15, 1999 Council heard first reading of a proposed ordinance regulating lawful gambling in the city. Council’s stated intent in regulating gambling activity is to ensure that proceeds from lawful gambling benefit local organizations, city costs are recovered, and adequate investigation and enforcement activities are conducted. Several representatives of the gambling industry were in attendance and shared comments and concerns with the Council and city staff. In response to that discussion, some modifications to the ordinance have been made. Mechanisms for City Cost Recovery Council has considered two options allowed by state statute which provide mechanisms for local jurisdictions to recover costs associated with the conduct of lawful gambling within their boundaries. The first option, the “ten-percent fund” is a city-administered fund derived from contributions of up to 10% of the net profits (gross profit less allowable expenses). This fund is loosely structured and can be used for any lawful purpose expenditure, as defined in the statute. The second option, the “city tax” is a city-imposed tax of up to 3% of the gross profits (gross receipts less prizes paid out). The tax fund is more highly regulated and its use must be limited to actual costs of administration, investigation and enforcement of lawful gambling. First reading of the ordinance included a provision calling for the use of the “ten-percent fund” and language was not detailed as to the proposed use of that fund. Following discussion at first reading, Council asked that the language of the ordinance be specific as to the purpose and use of any fund derived from the proceeds of lawful gambling. They asked that the language be clarified to ensure that the money could be used only to cover costs of investigation, administration and enforcement. Council and representatives of the industry were also concerned that specific costs had not yet been identified and that the money collected may exceed the city’s needs. Council directed staff to explore mechanisms available to return positive fund balances to contributing organizations should that balance exceed city costs. 22 Statutory guidelines for the use of the “city tax” call for great detail in reporting requirements on the part of the city. The tax fund also provides mechanisms to ensure that the fund balance does not exceed the city’s actual costs. Administrative guidelines of the tax allow cities to refund excess revenue at year-end or to maintain a positive fund balance from year to year if circumstances dictate. If a positive fund balance is maintained, adequate justification must be provided to the State Gambling Board. Based on Council direction and recommendations from the city attorney, the language of the ordinance has been revised to incorporate a “city tax” rather than the “ten-percent fund” previously presented. Projected City Cost/Amount of Tax Chief Luse has indicated that it is in the City’s best interest to ensure that thorough background investigations are conducted at the time of application. A cursory investigation often does not reveal problems with an applicant and many municipalities, school districts and other entities have experienced significant problems as a result of doing a less than thorough investigation. The Police Department has estimated that the cost of thorough investigation and enforcement related to gambling activity will be approximately $20,000 to $30,000 per year. In addition to Police Department costs, there will be costs related to routine administration of the license and reporting requirements. The attached table reflects actual gambling revenues through September of 1999 and projected revenues for the entire year. Based on projected 1999 figures, it is estimated that a tax of 2% of the gross profits would amount to approximately $40,000/year and the language of the ordinance has been drafted to enact a city tax of 2%. The actual amount will fluctuate year to year depending on the success of pull-tab sales. Should the city’s costs fall short of or exceed the amount collected from a tax of 2%, Council may act in the future to adjust the amount of tax to be collected. Trade Area Restriction/Allowable Expenditures During discussion at first reading, Council directed staff to lower the trade area restriction from 100% to 90%. That change has been made in the ordinance. Questions were also raised by representatives of gambling organizations and the Council as to whether expenditures could be made outside the trade area if the purpose of the expenditure was for local benefit. Following is an excerpt from a letter clarifying this issue from our City Attorney: “…the language in the statute is clear. The lawful purpose expenditures are not required to be made within the city’s trade area, rather only the lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area. Thus, as long as the lawful purpose is conducted within the city’s trade area and the expenditures are for those lawful purposes, it does not matter where the expenditure is made.” Council also asked what percentage of expenditures were currently being made in the trade area. A letter requesting that information was sent to each lawful gambling organization in St. Louis Park. Responses received are indicated below: 23 Organization Percentage of expenditures Made inside the trade area Boxing Bloomington BT Bombers club 50 – 75% VFW Post #5632 90% Animal Humane Society 100% Boy’s Traveling Basketball Assn 100% The Boxing Bloomington BT Bombers Club which operates at Al’s Liquors has requested that Council expand the trade area to include St. Paul. Though state statute requires that the trade area include all cities contiguous to the city enacting the ordinance, the statute does not limit the area to only those cities. If Council wishes to expand the trade area to include St. Paul they may do so. Forms Required There has been concern expressed by gambling organizations that compliance with the ordinance would require them to produce additional forms which would be an administrative burden. Most forms required by the ordinance are already produced for the state and the ordinance only requires that a copy be submitted to the city. In addition to forms produced for the state, organizations will be required each January to file with the city a report listing all lawful purpose expenditures from January 1 through December 31 of the preceding year. The report is to identify the name of the entity to whom the check was written, the city location of the recipient and the amount of the donation. The ordinance requires that the report be certified by an independent Certified Public Accountant to document compliance with the trade area restriction. A city application form will also be required and will expedite the application and investigation process for staff and applicants. Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager Attachments: Gambling Activity Report Ordinance Ordinance Summary 24 ORDINANCE NO. 2148-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTIONS 13-1600 through 13-1613 REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF LAWFUL GAMBLING IN THE CITY THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 13-1600. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to regulate and control the conduct of lawful gambling in the City of St. Louis Park by providing standards and criteria related to the approval or denial of premises permits as required by Minn. Stats. Section 349.213, as may be amended from time to time. Section 13-1601. Definitions. As used in this section, the terms defined in Minn. Stats. 349.12 are incorporated herein and by reference: (a) Board. "Board" shall mean the Minnesota Gambling Control Board. (b) Lawful Gambling. "Lawful Gambling" is the operation, conduct or sale of bingo, raffles, paddle-wheel, tipboards and pulltabs. (c) Organization. "Organization" shall mean any fraternal, religious, veterans or other nonprofit group which has at least 15 active dues paying members and either has been duly incorporated in Minnesota as a nonprofit organization for the most recent three years or has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as exempt from income taxation for the most recent three years, as defined in Minn. Stats. 349.12 as may be amended from time to time. (d) Organizational License. "Organizational license" ("license") shall mean a license for lawful gambling issued by the Board. (e) Bingo Occasion. "Bingo occasion" means a single gathering or session at which a series of one or more successive bingo games are played. (f) Premises Permit. "Premises permit" shall mean a permit issued by the Board to an organization as defined herein, after approval by a City Council resolution. A premises permit shall designate the location of an organization's lawful gambling activities. (g) Class of License. "Class of License" shall mean a Class A, B, C or D license issued by the Board as authorized under Minn. Stats. 349.16 (6) as may be amended from time to time. (h) Trade Area. “Trade Area” shall mean St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Plymouth and Golden Valley. 25 Section 13-1602. Gambling Permitted Prohibited, Exemption. Lawful gambling conducted pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, chapter 349 is authorized within the city and shall be operated in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in this division, other applicable provisions of the city code and state and federal laws and regulations. No person except an organization which has a premises permit from the Board pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 or an organization permitted under this Section, shall conduct lawful gambling within the city. The following bingo and raffle activities are exempt from the lawful gambling requirements: (a) Bingo may be conducted without a premises permit if it is in connection with a civic celebration and if it is not conducted for more than four consecutive days in a calendar year. A civic celebration is an event which celebrates a recognized national holiday or occasion celebrating an event proclaimed by the St. Louis Park City Council. (b) Bingo may be conducted without a premises permit if it is conducted by an organization which conducts four or fewer bingo occasions in a calendar year. (c) Bingo may be conducted without a premises permit within a nursing home, senior citizens housing project or by a senior citizen organization if the prizes for a single game do not exceed $10, total prizes awarded at a single occasion do not exceed $200, no more than two occasions are held each week, only members or residents are allowed to play, no compensation is paid for persons conducting bingo, and a manager is appointed who must first register with the Board. (d) Raffle may be conducted without a premises permit if it is conducted by an organization and if the value of all raffle prizes awarded in a calendar year does not exceed $750, or if the raffle is conducted by a tax-exempt health or social service organization under contract to the state or a political subdivision if the prizes awarded are real or personal property donated by an individual, firm or other organization. (e) Lawful gambling may be conducted without a premises permit if the organization conducts gambling on five or fewer days in a calendar year, does not award more than $50,000 in prizes in a calendar year, and receives an exemption from the State Gambling Board. If there is no regularly scheduled Council meeting prior to the date of the proposed event, Upon receipt of an application for exemption, the City shall conduct a background investigation of the applicant. Pending outcome of that investigation, the City Manager or designee may approve a waiver of the thirty day waiting period or recommend Council action to issue a resolution of denial. 26 Section 13-1603. Penalties and Enforcement. (a) It shall be a misdemeanor to carry on any lawful gambling activity without a valid premises permit. Nothing in this section shall preclude the city from enforcing this ordinance by means of any appropriate legal action. (b) Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to require the city to undertake any responsibility for enforcing compliance with Minn. Stats. 349 other than those provisions related to the issuance of premises permits as required in Minn. Stats. 349.213 as may be amended from time to time. Section 13-1604. Application. Filing of Records; Investigations. (a) Premises Permit. An organization shall make application for a premises permit on a form prescribed by the Board. The application shall contain the following: (1) The name and address of the applying organization and of the organization's gambling manager and employees; (2) A description of the site for which the license and permit are sought, including its address and, where applicable, its placement within another premises or establishment; (3) If the site is leased, the name and address of the lessor and such information about the lease as the city may require, including all rents and other charges for the use of the site; and (4) Other information the city deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Section. (b) An organization holding a premises permit must notify the city in writing within 10 days whenever any material change is made in the above information. Said information shall be forwarded to the police investigator. (a) Organizations making application to conduct lawful gambling in the city shall complete the city’s investigation form, submit copies of all state gambling application forms and submit any additional information required by the city. (b) The Police and Inspections Departments shall investigate each organization and report their findings and recommendations to the City Council through the City Manager. (c) Every gambling event in the City of St. Louis Park conducted by an organization under state license shall be open to inspection by the City. (d) Organizations conducting lawful gambling in the city shall submit to the city copies of all reporting forms required by the Board. 27 Section 13-1604. City Investigation Fee. (a) Organizations applying for or renewing premises permits shall pay an investigation fee of $250. This fee shall accompany the application, and it shall reimburse the city for its cost incident to conducting a background investigation of the organization, its employees, and the location from which the organization intends to operate. (b) The Police and Inspections Departments shall investigate each applicant and report their findings and recommendations to the City Council through the City Manager. Section 13-1605. Notice, Approval or Disapproval of Premises Permits. (a) Notice. The Board shall notify the City Council pending application for a premises permit. The applicant shall cooperate fully with the city officials in supplying all information provided for in this Section. The City Council shall determine whether the organization meets all the criteria provided for in this Section necessary to approve a premises permit. (b) Approval or Disapproval. Each pending application for a premises permit shall be approved or disapproved by resolution of the City Council within 60 days of receipt of a complete application. (c) Location. All organizations applying for a premises permit must meet criteria set forth herein relating to location of lawful gambling activities. Section 13-1606. Location Criteria for Premises Permits. (a) Gambling in the city may be conducted only at the following locations: (1) In the licensed organization's hall where it has its regular meetings; (2) In licensed on-sale liquor, wine and beer establishments; (3) Class D (raffle only) premises permits when required are exempt from the location restrictions prescribed in this Section. (4) No location shall be approved unless it complies with the applicable zoning, building, fire and health codes of the city and other regulations contained in this Section. (b) Bingo on Leased Premises. A person or organization, other than an organization, which leases any premises it owns to an organization for the purpose of conducting bingo, may not allow more than 18 bingo occasions to be conducted on the premises in any week. Not more than six bingo occasions each week may be conducted by an organization. At 28 least 15 bingo games must be held at each occasion and a bingo occasion must continue for at least 1.5 hours; but not more than four consecutive hours. (c) Area Prohibited. (1) No premises permit shall be issued for any location within 350 feet of any dwelling (residence), school or place of worship. (2) The distance imposed in Subset. I above may be waived at the discretion of the Council provided a notice of the time and place of the Council meeting at which the application will be considered shall be mailed at least 10 days before the date of the Council meeting to all property owners of record located wholly or partly within 350 feet of the site where the lawful gambling is proposed. The applicant shall supply mailing labels obtained from the Hennepin County Auditor's Office listing the names/addresses of owners within said 350 feet. This notice and the list of owners to whom it was sent will be made a part of the record of the proceedings. This notice will advise the owners they may file any objections with the City Clerk prior to the Council meeting or they may attend the meeting and be heard. (3) In no event shall the distance between the premises and a residence, place of worship or school be fewer than 200 feet. (d) Parking Requirements. Premises permits will not be approved if the location does not meet current parking requirements as prescribed in the St. Louis Park Municipal Code. Section 13-1607. Exemptions from Section 13-1606 "Location Criteria" for Organizations Licensed as of August 9, 1990. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 13-1600 et seq., organizations with Class A, B, C or D licenses issued by the Board and operating in the City of St. Louis Park on August 9, 1990, may continue to operate and renew their premises permits, and organizations may be substituted for the same class of license at the location where they were licensed on August 9, 1990, so long as the organizations comply with the requirements of Minn. Stats. Chapter 349 as may be amended from time to time. Section 13-1607. Distribution of Proceeds. Each organization conducting lawful gambling within the city must expend 90% of it’s lawful purpose expenditures on lawful purposes conducted or located within the trade area as defined in Section 13-1601 (h) of this chapter. This section applies only to lawful purpose expenditures of gross profits derived from lawful gambling conducted at premises within St. Louis Park. Annually, each organization must file with the city a report prepared by an independent certified public accountant documenting compliance with this section. In addition, each organization must submit a report to the city each January listing all lawful purpose expenditures from January 1 through December 31 of the preceding year. The report shall identify the name of the 29 entity to whom the check was written, the city location of the recipient and the amount of the donation. Section 13-1608. Local Tax. Any organization authorized to conduct lawful gambling shall pay to the city on a monthly basis a local gambling tax in the amount of 3% of the gross receipts of a licensed organization from all lawful gambling less prizes actually paid out by the organization. Payment shall be made no later than twenty-five (25) days after the end of the preceding month and shall be accompanied by a copy of the monthly return filed with the State Gambling Control Board. Section 13-1609. Severability. If any portion of this ordinance is found to be invalid for any reason whatsoever, the validity of the remainder shall not be affected. Section 13-1613. Video Games of Chance. "Video Games of Chance" means games or devices which simulate poker, blackjack, craps, hi-lo, roulette or other common gambling forms, though not offering any type of pecuniary award or gain to players. The term also includes any video game have one or more of the following characteristics: (i) It is primarily a game of chance and has no substantial element of skill involved; (ii) It awards games credits or replays and contains a meter or device which records unplayed credits or replays and contains a device that permits them to be canceled. (1) State License Required. No person shall engage in the business of a distributor or operator of video games of chance at any place of business without first receiving licenses from the State Department of Public Safety (Liquor Control Division) to engage in that business at that location and for each video game of chance. The City may not impose a fee or tax of any kind on video games of chance. (2) Limitations on Placement. No location may have more than two video games of chance, and the games may be operated only at licensed on-sale intoxicating liquor establishments and private clubs holding club on-sale licenses issued under Minnesota Statutes, Section 340A.404. (3) Permitted Accessory Uses. These games shall be in addition to the zoning ordinance "permitted accessory uses" related to electronic amusement devices. (4) Video Gaming License Account. In January of each year, the State Treasurer shall pay from the video gaming license account to the City $30 for each game of chance located within its limits. (5) Penalty. Violation of this section constitutes a misdemeanor punishable in accordance with section 1-13. This section does not preclude civil and criminal penalties under other applicable laws. 30 Section 13-1613. Effective Date Effective date of the ordinance shall be January 1, 2000. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney 31 City of St. Louis Park (Official Publication) SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2148 - 99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTIONS 13-1600 THROUGH 13-1613 REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF LAWFUL GAMBLING IN THE CITY This ordinance states that sections 13-1600 through 13-1613 of the Municipal code shall be amended to facilitate the application and investigation process and further regulate the conduct of lawful gambling in the city through the imposition of a city tax on the proceeds derived from lawful gambling and limiting distribution of lawful purpose expenditures to the trade area. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 /s/ Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. (December 15, 1999) 32 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8b Meeting of December 6, 1999 8b. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for Minnesota Youth Athletic Services operating at Gipper’s Sports Bar, 4608 Excelsior Blvd Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. Background: The Minnesota Youth Athletic Services has submitted a renewal application for a Class B Gambling Premises Permit at Gipper’s Sports Bar, 4608 Excelsior Blvd in St. Louis Park. This organization has operated in the City since September of 1998 and also holds a permit to conduct lawful gambling at the Classic Bar and Café, 4700 Excelsior Blvd. Council acted to renew the premises permit for the Classic on November 1, 1999. The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State Gambling Control Board. A copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be submitted to the State. All current requirements for issuance of the license have been met. Notification was made to property owners within 350 feet of the establishment and no calls have been received as a result of that mailing. The Police Department has conducted a background investigation and no records or warrants where discovered by using conventional police methods of investigation. Attachments: Resolution Application Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 33 RESOLUTION NO. 99-136 A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR THE MINNESOTA YOUTH ATHLETIC SERVICES WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved MINNESOTA YOUTH ATHLETIC SERVICES AT GIPPER’S SPORTS BAR 4608 EXCELSIOR BLVD ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 34 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8c Meeting of December 6, 1999 8c. Resolution Authorizing Renewal of Gambling Premises Permit for VFW Post 5632 operating at 5605 West 36th Street Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing renewal. Background: VFW Post 5632 has submitted a renewal application for a Gambling Premises Permit at their hall located at 5605 West 36th Street in St. Louis Park. This organization has operated continuously in the City since 1985. Prior to 1985, it conducted bingo on a regular basis. The City Council must act to approve or deny the renewal before it is submitted to the State Gambling Control Board. A copy of the resolution passed by the Council will be submitted to the State. All current requirements for issuance of the license have been met. Notification was made to property owners within 350 feet of the establishment and no calls have been received as a result of that mailing. The Police Department has conducted a background investigation and no records or warrants where discovered by using conventional police methods of investigation. Attachments: Resolution Application Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 35 RESOLUTION NO. 99-137 A RESOLUTION OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY COUNCIL APPROVING ISSUANCE OF A PREMISES PERMIT FOR LAWFUL GAMBLING FOR THE MINNESOTA YOUTH ATHLETIC SERVICES WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 349 and St. Louis Park Ordinance Section 13-1600 , provide for lawful gambling licensing by the State Gambling Control Board; and WHEREAS, a licensed organization may not conduct lawful gambling at any site unless it has first obtained from the Board a premise permit for the site; and WHEREAS, the Board may not issue or renew a premises permit unless the organization submits a resolution from the City Council approving the premises permit; therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of St. Louis Park City Council that the applicant listed below meets the criteria necessary to receive a premises permit, and the application is hereby approved VFW POST 5632 ST. LOUIS PARK 5605 WEST 36TH STREET ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 36 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8d Meeting of December 6, 1999 8d. Resolution of approval for Year 2000 Liquor License Renewals Request of Council to approve year 2000 liquor license renewals for on-sale, off- sale, Sunday-sale, club and wine intoxicating liquor and off-sale and on-sale 3.2% malt liquor. Recommended Action: Motion to approve renewal of licenses contingent on full compliance with ordinance requirements Background: Renewal applications, dramshop insurance certificates and license fees have been received from all applicants for 2000 liquor licenses, with one exception. Application and payment have not been received from the Knights of Columbus Hall and verification via Hennepin County indicates that the most recent property tax payments have not been received. City Ordinance Section No. 13-326 (7) requires property tax payments to be current prior to issuance of a liquor license. Staff has been in contact with the manager of this establishment and is requesting Council approval of that license contingent on receipt of application and payment of applicable fees and property taxes. If the Knights of Columbus are not able to comply with ordinance requirements their current license will expire at midnight on December 15th, the renewal will not be issued and a new application will be required of the establishment. Administration of Liquor Licensing: In 1997 business licensing was transferred from the City Clerk’s Office to the Inspections Department. While that move has been very beneficial in terms of general business licensing, staff has determined that the regulation of liquor licensing is best placed under the administration of the City Clerk. That change took effect with the resignation of the Inspections Department Licensing Representative on November 19th. The Clerk’s Office will work with the Police Department and the State of MN to process applications, conduct investigations and issue licenses as required by the ordinance. The City Clerk and Police Department are working on proposed changes to the ordinance intended to streamline administrative processes and ensure that adequate background investigations are conducted. Council can expect a presentation regarding this issue in the near future. Police Calls for Service: The police calls for service from November 1, 1998 through October 31, 1999 are attached. A full documentation of each call is available in the Clerk’s office for review. Attachments: 2000 Applicant List Police Calls for service Prepared by: Cynthia D. Larsen, City Clerk Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 37 LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS - CALLS FOR SERVICE Listed below are the current intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor license holders in the City and the number of police calls for service to those establishments from November 1, 1998, through October 31, 1999. Computer printouts with more detailed information are available in the City Clerk’s office. Because calls for service are recorded by address, and some addresses contain more than one business or type of business, it is not possible to separate calls occurring at liquor establishments from other businesses located at the same address. The numbers listed below for Byerly’s, Sam’s Club, Double Tree Guest Suites, and the Holiday Inn include calls to the entire business, not only the liquor portion of the business. This is also the case with Yvette’s located in the Interchange Office Tower, Applebee’s Restaurant located in Knollwood Mall and Knollwood Liquor which shares an address with Little Caesars. Name Address Calls Al’s Bar/Liquor 3912-3916 Excelsior Blvd 11 Applebee’s Restaurant 8332 Highway 7 (Knollwood Mall) 14 known Bennigan’s 6475 Wayzata Blvd 65 Bunny’s 4730 Excelsior Blvd & 5916 Excelsior Blvd 40 Byerly’s 3777 Park Center Blvd 173 Chili’s 6245 Wayzata Blvd 18 Classic Cafe 4700 Excelsior Blvd 41 DoubleTree Hotel 1500 Park Place Blvd. 46 Fuddrucker’s 6445 Wayzata Blvd 14 Holiday Inn 9970 Wayzata Blvd 71 Jennings/Gippers/O’Toole’s 4600-4630 Excelsior Blvd 40 Knights of Columbus 6900 Oxford 9 Knollwood Liquor/Little Caesars 7924 Highway 7 21 Minneapolis Golf Club 2001 Flag Ave S 42 Olive Garden 5235 Wayzata Blvd 18 Park Tavern 3401 Louisiana Ave S 49 Rainbow Foods 8950 Highway 7 53 Sam’s Club 3745 Louisiana Ave S 87 Santorini 9920 Wayzata Blvd 20 Shelly’s Woodroast 6501 Wayzata Blvd 17 Summit Liquor 8242 Minnetonka Blvd 4 Super Valu (Cub Foods) 3620 Texas Ave S 90 Taste of India 5617 Wayzata Blvd 2 Texatonka Lanes 8200 Minnetonka Blvd 11 TGI Fridays 5875 Wayzata Blvd 48 Timberlodge Steakhouse 5500 Excelsior Blvd 11 Tom Thumb 8140 Minnetonka Blvd 16 Vescio’s 4001 Highway 7 8 VFW 5605 36th St W 14 Vic’s Liquor 6316 Minnetonka Blvd 8 Westwood Liquor 2304 Louisiana Ave 12 Yangtze 5625 Wayzata Blvd 4 Yvette’s Restaurant 600 S. Highway 160 (Interchange Tower) 1 known 38 ESTABLISHMENTS SEEKING RENEWAL FOR YEAR 2000 LIQUOR LICENSE December 6, 1999 Name 3-2 Off Sale 3-2 On Sale Intox On Sale Entertainment Intox Off Sale Intox Sunday Club Wine Total Fees Al's Bar $5,400 $5,400 Applebee's $6,000 $200 $6,200 Bennigans Steak & Ale $7,200 $200 $7,400 Bunnys $5,400 $200 $5,600 Byerly's Restaurant $750 $2,000 $2,750 Byerly's Liquor Store $200 $200 Chilis $6,000 $200 $6,200 Classic Cafe $6,000 $1,200 $200 $7,400 Double Tree Hotel $6,600 $1,200 $200 $8,000 Fuddruckers $6,000 $200 $6,200 Holiday Inn $5,400 $200 $5,600 Jennings Red Coach Inn $6,600 $1,200 $200 $200 $8,200 Knights of Columbus $200 $400 $600 Knollwood Liquor $200 $200 Mpls. Golf Club $200 $400 $600 Olive Garden $6,600 $200 $6,800 Park Tavern $6,000 $1,200 $200 $7,400 Rainbow Foods $50 $50 Sam's Club $200 $200 Santorini $6,000 $200 $6,200 Shelly's Woodroast $5,400 $200 $5,600 Super Valu/Cub $50 $50 Taste of India $750 $2,000 $2,750 Texa-Tonka Lanes $6,000 $200 $6,200 Texas-Tonka Liquors (Summit) $200 $200 TGI Fridays $6,000 $200 $6,200 Timberlodge Steakhouse $5,400 $200 $5,600 Tom Thumb $50 $50 Vescio's $750 $2,000 $2,750 VFW $200 $700 $900 Vic's Liquor $200 $200 Westwood Liquors $200 $200 Yangtze River $5,400 $200 $5,600 Yvette's Restaurant $6,000 $200 $6,200 39 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8e Meeting of December 6, 1999 8e. Amendment to Ordinance regarding the presence and conduct of pets in City parks. This report considers the adoption of an amended ordinance that authorizes pets to be permitted in all parks in all areas except playground structures, athletic fields and park shelters. Dogs will not be allowed in the Westwood Hills Nature Center, Oak Hill Park wading pool, and the Rec Center. Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of the amended ordinance that allows pets in all parks. Background: At the first reading of the ordinance on November 15, 1999 the Council discussed allowing dogs in all parks with some exceptions. Those exceptions have been incorporated into the ordinance for this second reading. The exceptions include playground structure areas, athletic fields, and park shelters. The ordinance also allows for additional restricted areas to be posted where it may not be appropriate for pets. An example of such a site would be an environmentally sensitive area within a park. Proposed Ordinance: The City Council is now being requested to authorize the amended ordinance. The attached ordinance, which was drafted by the City Attorney, authorizes pets to be permitted in all parks, except for the Westwood Hills Nature Center, Oak Hill Park wading pool and the Rec Center. As mentioned above, pets are not allowed in playground structure areas, athletic fields, and park shelters. Enforcement: City staff has received approximately a dozen calls related to the proposed ordinance. While a few of the residents were dog owners in favor of the expanded park areas where dogs would be allowed, the majority of the calls were not in favor of an ordinance change. Their opposition was related to enforcement. The people opposed to the proposed change do not believe the ordinance is being enforced now, therefore, they do not believe the new ordinance will be enforced. The City of St. Louis Park police department will be responsible for enforcing the new ordinance. It will be easier for the police department to see and enforce the violations relating to dogs not being on leashes than it will be for them to catch and enforce clean-up violations. The primary way we intend to deal with people cleaning up after their pets is by educating them and creating neighborhood awareness. We hope to create awareness through the park perspective initially and by routine reminders in the neighborhood newsletters. People are more likely to comply if it becomes a neighborhood issue and their peers are reminding them. The police department can enforce this if they see it happening; however, it will be difficult to witness 40 violations. In parks where residents are routinely not cleaning up after their pets, we will place specific signs reminding them they are required to do so. The question came up at the first reading regarding what classification a ticket violation is for an owner caught with their dog not on a lease or not cleaning up after a pet. Tom Scott has researched this and determined that it is a misdemeanor. If a fine is imposed at $200 or less, it automatically becomes a petty misdemeanor. Attachments: Proposed amended ordinance Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Parks and Recreation Director Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 41 ORDINANCE NO. 2149-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 6-406 (L), ESTABLISHING RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING REGULATING THE PRESENCE AND CONDUCT OF PETS IN CITY PARKS THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Sec. 1. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 6-406 (L), is amended to read as follows: (L) Pets. Pets are permitted in all parks as defined in Section 6-402 provided pet owners abide by the provisions listed below with the following exceptions. It shall be unlawful for any person to cause or permit have a dog, cat, or other pet or animal under that person’s care and control, with the exception of seeing-eye dogs and police dogs, to be present in any areas of the public parks (Sec. 6-406(L) amended by Ord. 1351, 11-29-76, & 94-2005, 10-3-94) (1) Exceptions. Pets shall not be permitted in trail areas and parking facilities at Aquila Park, Carpenter Park, Dakota Park, Lamplighter Park, Oak Hill Park, Shelard Park, Wolfe Park, Oak Park Village, Otten Pond, and the Bass Lake Preserve in playground structure areas, athletic fields, picnic areas, park buildings or wading pools. Pets are not allowed anywhere in the Westwood Hills Nature Center or the Rec Center. Seeing-eye dogs and police dogs are permitted in any area where they are needed. The Parks and Recreation Director shall be authorized to post additional restricted areas that may be determined inappropriate for pets. (2) Provisions. (a) The pet is properly licensed; (b) Pets shall be under control at all times. The pet owner is liable for any action taken or damage caused by the pet; (c) All pets shall be restrained at all times on adequate leashes not longer than six feet. Nothing herein shall be construed to permit the running of pets at large. (d) Persons in control of pets conducting pets in the public parks must have in their possession tools or equipment suitable for the removal of animal fecal material and shall promptly and effectively remove from the ground or surface of any park and any park facilities all fecal material deposited there by a pet under their care and control. Persons removing animal waste from park surfaces shall dispose of it in a sanitary manner, which may include depositing it in any designated waste receptacle located in the public parks. (Sec. 6-406(L)(1) added by Ord. 94-2005, 10-3-94; amended by 95-2032. 6/5/95) 42 (23) Signage. The Director of Parks and Recreation Department shall cause will place signs to be erected in all public parks to inform park users of the distinction between areas where pets are prohibited and permitted in accordance with Subsec. (L) above and areas where pets are permitted in accordance with Subsection (L)(1) above. (Sec. 6-406(L)(2) added by Ord. 94-2005. 10-3-94; amended by 95-2032, 6/5/95) (Sec. 6-406(L)(3). “Expiration,” added by Ord. 94-2005, 10-3-94; amended by Ord. 95-2026, 4-3-95; repealed by 95-2032, 6/5/95) Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its passage and publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Mana ger Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney 43 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8f Meeting of December 6, 1999 8f. Second reading of ordinance to rezone land in the northwest quadrant of Zarthan Avenue and West 16th Street to R-4, Multiple Family Residence District Case No. 99-25-Z Recommended Action: Motion to approve second reading of an ordinance to rezone property to R-4, adopt the ordinance and to authorize publication of summary ordinance, based upon a finding that the R-4 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning: Currently O, Office and R-2, Single Family Residence District Comp Plan Designation: RM, Medium Density Residential (up to 30 units per acre) and Park Background: Staff is proposing that an approximately 5 acre portion of property in the northwest quadrant of Zarthan Avenue and W. 16th Street be rezoned to R-4, Multiple Family Residential. Please see the attached map for the exact location. The property is currently zoned O, Office and R-2, Single Family Residential. The site contains a portion of a vacant warehouse site, vacant property owned by Northern States Power, a small office property, several single family residences along 16th Street, and a small neighborhood park. The property is currently guided RM, Medium Density Residential and Park in the Comprehensive Plan. The rezoning would bring the property into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the rezoning would make way for a proposed redevelopment of these and other properties. On November 3, 1999 the Planning Commission considered the rezoning request and recommended approval on a vote of 5-0. Three individuals spoke at the public hearing. The one person to speak against the rezoning asked that the City delay consideration of the rezoning in order to re-examine future land use in the entire Blackstone area. On November 15, 1999 the City Council approved first reading of the ordinance to rezone and set second reading for December 6, 1999. Issues: • Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? • What is the effect of the proposed rezoning? 44 • Would the neighborhood park be preserved? Issue Analysis: Is the proposed rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan? With substantial input from members of the Blackstone neighborhood, this site was reguided to RM, Medium Density Residential and Park in the Comprehensive Plan in 1999 (please see attached map). The RM designation allows up to 30 units per acre. Townhouses and a small neighborhood park are envisioned for this area. An R-3 zoning, which allows up to 11 units per acre, or an R-4 zoning, which allows up to 30 units per acre, would bring the zoning into conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. What is the effect of the proposed rezoning? R-4 zoning permits up to 30 residential units per acre. The following are permitted uses in the R-4 Zoning District: • Single family homes • Two family dwellings • Cluster housing, (e.g. townhomes, by CUP) • Multiple family dwellings (by CUP) • Elderly housing (by CUP) • Office under 2,500 square feet • Parks and open space • Nursing home, adult day care, group home, rooming house, hostel • Library, community center, police/fire station, transit station, communication tower • Educational, religious institution The current industrial use is nonconforming in the Office District and would remain nonconforming in the R-4 district. The office use would become non-conforming if the property were rezoned to R-4. Future redevelopment: The R-4 zoning would allow townhouses, which are envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan for this site and which a developer is proposing. As part of a larger redevelopment north of 16th Street and West of Zarthan, a developer is proposing to construct approximately 80 townhouse units at a density of 16-17 units per acre. Other approvals are required for this project including a replatting and Planned Unit Development. However, the rezoning should be considered separately from that project, since if approved the rezoning would remain in place regardless of whether the project moves forward. Staff believes the R-4 zoning is more appropriate than the R-3 zoning to allow more flexibility in the density of future development. The property would be financially difficult to redevelop with the lower density. 45 Would the neighborhood park be preserved? The Comprehensive Plan designates a portion of the site for park but give some flexibility regarding the location of the park. Any development proposals under the proposed R-4 zoning would be reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan park designation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of second reading of the ordinance to rezone the property to R-4, Multiple Family Residential based upon a finding that the R-4 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Attachments: • Proposed ordinance • Proposed ordinance summary • Map showing area proposed for rezoning Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate 46 ORDINANCE NO. 2150-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WEST 16TH STREET AND ZARTHAN AVENUE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. The St. Louis Park Zoning Ordinance adopted December 28, 1959, Ordinance No. 730; amended December 31, 1992, Ordinance No. 1902-93, as heretofore amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning district boundaries by reclassifying the following described lands from their existing land use district classification to the new land use district classification as indicated for the tract as hereinafter set forth, to wit: That portion of the northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue, lying east of the Soo Line Railroad Company property and south of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the west boundary of Zarthan Avenue 355.5' north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Zarthan Avenue and West 16th Street, then proceeding 361.99' due west, then proceeding along a line 64.23 degrees northwesterly to the eastern boundary of the Soo Line Railroad Company property. from “O” Office and “R-2” Single Family Residential to R-4 Multiple Family Residence. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney 99-25-Z/N/res/ord 47 SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. 2150-99 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE CHANGING BOUNDARIES OF ZONING DISTRICTS NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF WEST 16TH STREET AND ZARTHAN AVENUE This ordinance states that the property located at the northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue shall be rezoned from “O” Office and “R-2” Single Family Residential to “R-4” Multiple Family Residence. This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication. Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: December 15, 1999 99-25-Z/N/res/ord 48 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8g Meeting of December 6, 1999 8g. Request by Microcenter, Inc. for a Minor Amendment to a Special Permit to allow certain property improvements 3700 Highway 100 South Case No. 99-26-CUP Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution approving a minor amendment to a Special Permit for Microcenter, Inc. subject to conditions in the resolution. Zoning: C-2, Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial Background: Microcenter, Inc. is requesting approvals to occupy the former Almstead’s Grocery site, next to Burlington Coat Factory. The business is a full-service computer retailer, including computer and related sales, service, and training. The applicant is proposing to recess the existing loading dock in the rear of the building, and to correct a drainage problem in the front entrance area. In addition, a number of property improvements are proposed to bring the entire property, which includes Burlington Coat Factory and Jerry’s Auto, into closer conformance with current Code requirements. Several parking lot improvements are proposed, including adding internal landscaping, lighting, and additional spaces, as well as building façade enhancements and screening of the loading area. The proposed site changes require a minor amendment to the existing Special Permit, which entails City Council review and approval. Issues: • What are the requirements for a minor amendment to a Special Permit? • Does the property continue to comply with all provisions of the existing Special Permit? • Do the proposed changes to the property comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements? • Are nonconformities on the site proposed to be brought into greater or complete compliance with Code requirements to the extent reasonable and possible? • Are there any other issues? Issues Analysis: What are the requirements for a minor amendment to a Special Permit? 49 A minor amendment requires City Council approval but no review by the Planning Commission, and is intended for changes to a property which do not involve increases in building square footage, required parking, or other intensifications of the use of the property. In this instance, the proposed changes near the front of the building to correct drainage problems and to the loading dock necessitate the minor amendment. If no changes were being proposed, the tenant or owner would be required to bring the parking lot and landscaping into compliance with current Ordinance requirements to the extent possible and to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy, but other nonconformities would not be required to be addressed. The requirements for amending a Special Permit are as follows: a) Any property covered by a continued special permit shall continue to comply with all provisions of the special permit which were in effect on December 31, 1992. b) Any expansion, alteration or modification shall comply in all respects with applicable provisions of this ordinance, and shall not result in an increase or intensification of any existing non-conformities (with certain exceptions). c) Any nonconformities existing on the site shall be brought into greater or complete compliance with other provisions of this ordinance to the extent reasonable and possible, except that this is not required for certain provisions (including lot area, lot width, usable open space, floor area ratio and certain other provisions). These items are addressed below. Does the property continue to comply with all provisions of the existing Special Permit? The existing Special Permit requires that automatic irrigation be installed in all landscaped areas. There is currently no automatic irrigation on site. The applicant is proposing extensive new landscaping within the parking lot to comply with ordinance requirements, including adding several new parking islands. The applicant is requesting approval to waive the requirement for automatic irrigation and use drought-tolerant plant materials instead, to avoid tearing up large portions of the parking lot. The City’s landscape ordinance allows for drought tolerant plant materials to be used as an alternative to automatic irrigation, provided the plants are irrigated through temporary means for two years following installation. Staff believes the request is reasonable. There is a substantial amount of perimeter landscaping and some internal parking lot landscaping currently which is in good health, indicating that the methods used for watering and maintenance thus far are adequate. The new plants proposed are drought tolerant species. Staff is recommending a condition that irrigation of all newly installed landscape material is required for two years following installation and that any dead material be replaced within that two year period. Do the proposed changes to the property comply with Zoning Ordinance requirements? 50 The applicant is proposing to recess the existing loading dock in the rear of the building, and to regrade and repave a portion of the front entryway and parking lot in order to correct a drainage problem. The loading dock is currently nonconforming with regard to screening from a public right of way, and this nonconformity is proposed to be somewhat reduced (see section below). The drainage correction is within Code requirements. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed corrections and finds them acceptable. Are nonconformities on the site proposed to be brought into greater or complete compliance with Code requirements to the extent reasonable and possible? The following nonconformities exist on the site today: 1. Building façade-exterior materials do not meet minimum percentages for Class I, Class II materials on north, south, and west facades (all but front façade). 2. Building façade-building wall deviation standards are not met. Code requires a maximum 4:1 ratio of unbroken building wall length to height. The south façade has a ratio currently of 11:1, and one portion of the west façade has a ratio of 8:1. 3. Parking lot: Total number of required parking stalls is not met. 4. Parking lot: Total number of required handicapped parking stalls is not met. 5. Parking lot: Internal parking lot landscaping is significantly less than required by Code. 6. Parking lot: Some drive aisle widths do not meet the minimum width requirements. 7. Parking lot: Parking lot lighting is less than required by Code. Some light poles are not contained within curbed islands. 8. Loading area: Rear loading area is not screened properly. 9. Perimeter landscaping: perimeter landscaping does not meet bufferyard requirements in some areas. 10. Rooftop equipment: Some rooftop equipment is not screened properly. Each of these items is addressed below. Building façade: Regarding the portion of the building that Microcenter is proposing to occupy, the south and west (rear) facades are currently faced in painted concrete block, which is considered a Class III material and does not comply with Ordinance requirements. The applicant is proposing to reface the entire south façade and the south 100 feet of the west façade in concrete stucco, which is a Class I material. These portions of the building and the front façade would then exceed Ordinance requirements for exterior materials. Staff believes that the proposed changes are acceptable. These are the primary portions of the building that are visible from public right of way (from the Highway 100 exit ramp onto Wooddale Avenue), and staff believes it is acceptable for the applicant to focus on the portions of the building they intend to occupy. Building wall deviation: The applicant is proposing no changes to building wall deviation. Given that the use of the property is not proposed to be expanded or intensified and the request is not a Major amendment, it may be appropriate to allow some nonconformities to remain. Furthermore, the most visible portions of the building are proposed to be upgraded through 51 exterior materials improvements which exceed Ordinance requirements. Staff believes it is therefore acceptable to require no changes to wall deviation. Parking lot: The applicant is proposing several changes to improve the parking lot, including increasing the number of stalls, adding internal landscaping, and adding lighting. The changes are discussed below with respect to reducing existing nonconformities. Number of parking stalls: There are currently 456 stalls provided, whereas 703 stalls are required for all the uses on site. The proposal is to reconfigure some portions of the lot and provide 537 stalls, an increase of 81 stalls. The applicant believes that the amount of parking will be adequate for their business. There is a provision in the parking standards for retail stores selling large appliances such as furniture or carpeting. If this standard were applied, only 515 stalls would be required. While computer sales do not technically fall into this category, it is worth noting for comparison that the amount of parking proposed is a reasonable amount. Number of handicapped stalls: There are currently 8 handicapped stalls provided on site, and 30 are required. The applicant is proposing to provide 23 handicapped stalls. The Building Official has determined that the full 30 handicapped stalls must be provided. Because adjacent handicapped stalls can share a loading area, two adjacent handicapped stalls occupy the space of three regular stalls. Therefore the total number of parking stalls provided on site would be reduced by just one, to 536. Staff is recommending a condition that the site plan be revised to show a minimum of 30 handicapped stalls. Drive aisle widths: There are two drive aisles within the parking areas in front of the Burlington Coat Factory which are one foot less than the minimum widths required between parking stalls. Staff believes this situation is acceptable, given that this is an existing use, and correcting the problem would require the elimination of an entire row of stalls. The Fire Department has no objections. Interior landscaping: Currently there is very little internal parking lot landscaping. The Code requires a certain number of plant units and square footage of green area per square footage of parking area. The applicant is proposing to bring the property fully into compliance with regard to internal landscaping, which involves adding approximately 900 plant units and several curbed parking islands. 22 honeylocust trees are proposed to be planted within a new large planting island running the width of the parking lot. To provide more growing space between these trees, staff is recommending that 5 to 6 of these trees be planted along the east parking lot perimeter and the remaining trees be spread out to 15-18 feet on center. The applicant has agreed to this change and is providing a revised landscape plan. Otherwise, the proposed internal landscaping is acceptable. Perimeter landscaping: Currently, there is a substantial amount of perimeter landscaping, although the bufferyard requirements are not met in some areas. The applicant is proposing no additional perimeter landscaping (except to shift 5-6 honeylocust trees from an interior island to the east perimter—see above). Staff concurs with the applicant that the amount of perimeter landscaping is adequate, and that improving the interior landscaping is a higher priority. The perimeter is very adequately screened, and there are no residential uses surrounding the property. 52 The only portion of the parking lot which is not screened from right of way is directly west of the south curb cut entrance. This boulevard area is public right of way, and Public Works prefers that no landscaping be planted in this area. Traffic visibility is a concern as well as underground utilities in the right of way. Lighting: Several new light poles are proposed within the main parking lot to increase the lighting to City standards. However, the lighting levels along one portion of the east property line exceed the Ordinance maximum of 1.0 footcandles. Staff is recommending that the lighting plan be revised to correct this. Otherwise, the lighting plan complies with City standards. Phasing: The applicant is proposing to make the parking lot improvements in two phases. The first phase would cover the portions of the property to be utilized by Microcenter and would be completed prior to Microcenter becoming operational. The second phase would be completed by the owner within two years. Staff believes this is an acceptable method of bringing the property into more compliance given the financial costs of doing so. Screening of loading area: The truck loading area in the rear southwest corner of the building is currently not screened properly. A landscaped bufferyard “F” is required to screen any loading area from public right of way. The applicant is proposing to provide an eight foot high, artificial stucco solid screen wall along the loading dock, as well as a small amount of landscaping adjacent to the wall. The boulevard area adjacent to the loading area is public right of way, and Public Works prefers that there be no landscaping or trees there, for traffic safety reasons and because there are underground utilities. Therefore, the proposed screening appears to be the maximum possible given the limited space. Staff believes the proposed screening is acceptable and will provide much greater screening and better appearance than exists currently. Screening of rooftop equipment: There is some rooftop equipment on the Burlington Coat Factory portion of the building that is not screened properly. The rooftop equipment must be screened with a fence or parapet wall or painted light blue. The applicant is proposing to screen the equipment as part of the phase two improvements, and staff finds this acceptable. Are there any other issues? Parking lot encroachment on right of way: A small portion of the parking lot, just west of the south driveway access, encroaches on MNDOT Highway 100 right of way. Staff is recommending a condition that the applicant/owner obtain written permission from MNDOT, or that the parking lot must be modified to eliminate the encroachment. Watershed District: The Public Works Department has confirmed that a Watershed District permit is not required in this case, because the project does not meet the minimum threshold for amount of area being disturbed. 53 Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Special Permit minor amendment, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits E through K, such documents incorporated by reference herein. Prior to signing, Exhibit E, Site Plan to be revised to show a minimum of 30 handicapped parking stalls, Exhibit I, Landscape plan to be revised to move 5-6 trees to east parking lot perimeter, and Exhibit J, Lighting Plan to be revised to comply with City lighting standards. 2. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Assent forms and official exhibits to be signed by applicant and owner. b. Written permission obtained from MN Dept. of Transportation to allow encroachment of parking lot onto right of way. If permission cannot be obtained, parking lot shall be altered to eliminate the encroachment. 3. Issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements. 4. Sign permits are required for all new signs. 5. Automatic irrigation is not required for site landscaping. Irrigation shall be provided for a period of two years following installation for all new plants. Any dead or dying plants shall be replaced with similar species for a period of two years following installation. 6. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: a. All phase one improvements are to be completed. b. Parking lot encroachment on MNDOT right of way shall be eliminated, if this is required. c. Submit letter of credit covering Phase Two improvements. Phase Two improvements, including screening of rooftop equipment, shall be completed within two years of passage of this resolution. Attachments: • Proposed resolution • Official exhibits • Floor plans Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 54 RESOLUTION NO. 99-138 Amends Resolutions 6671 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 6671 ADOPTED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980 AND GRANTING SPECIAL USE PERMIT UNDER SECTION 14:8-6 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING TO ALLOW MODIFICATIONS TO THE BUILDING FOR PROPERTY ZONED C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL AT 3700 HIGHWAY 100 SOUTH FINDINGS WHEREAS, Peninsula Industrials (Micro Electronics, Inc.) has made application to the City Council for an amendment to a continued special use permit under Section 14:8-6 of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code to allow modifications to the building at 3700 Highway 100 South within a C-2 General Commercial District having the following legal description: See Attached Legal Description WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the information related to Planning Case Nos. 80-74-SP and 99-26-CUP. and the effect of the proposed modifications to the building on the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants of the surrounding lands, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, the effect on values of properties in the surrounding area and the effect of the use on the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, a special use permit was issued regarding the subject property pursuant to Resolution No. 6671 of the St. Louis Park City Council dated October 6, 1980 which contained conditions applicable to said property; and WHEREAS, due to changed circumstances, amendments to those conditions are now necessary, requiring the amendment of that special use permit; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of this resolution to continue and restate the conditions of the permit granted by Resolution No. 6671 to add the amendments now required, and to consolidate all conditions applicable to the subject property in this resolution; WHEREAS, the contents of Planning Case Files 80-74-SP and 99-26-CUP are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. CONCLUSION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Resolution No. 6671 (Document not filed) is hereby restated and amended by this resolution which continues and amends a special use permit to the subject property for the purposes of permitting modifications to the building within 55 the C-2 General Commercial District at the location described above based on the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibit A, Site Plan; Exhibit B, Landscape Plan; Exhibit C, Floor Plan; and Exhibit D, Building Elevations. 2. The compactor shall be screened and shielded from view. 3. All signage shall comply with ordinance requirements. 4. All dead landscape stock shall be replaced, and the landscape irrigation system be repaired and made operational. 5. Within thirty days of approval of an interchange plan for 36th Street and Highway No. 100, the parking lot plan, with any necessary revisions, shall be resubmitted for approval. 6. All construction and alteration activities shall be completed by July 15, 1981. 7. The conditional use permit shall be amended on December 6, 1999 (Case No. 99-26-CUP) to incorporate all of the preceding conditions and add the following conditions: a. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with Exhibits E through K, such documents incorporated by reference herein. Prior to signing, Exhibit E, Site Plan to be revised to show a minimum of 30 handicapped parking stalls, Exhibit I, Landscape plan to be revised to move 5-6 trees to east parking lot perimeter, and Exhibit J, Lighting Plan to be revised to comply with City lighting standards. b. Prior to any site work, the applicant shall comply with the following: 1) Assent forms and official exhibits to be signed by applicant and owner. 2) Written permission obtained from MN Dept. of Transportation to allow encroachment of parking lot onto right of way. If permission cannot be obtained, parking lot shall be altered to eliminate the encroachment. c. Issuance of a building permit, which may impose additional requirements. d. Sign permits are required for all new signs. e. Automatic irrigation is not required for site landscaping. Irrigation shall be provided for a period of two years following installation for all new plants. Any dead or dying plants shall be replaced with similar species for a period of two years following installation. f. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy: 1) All phase one improvements are to be completed. 2) Parking lot encroachment on MNDOT right of way shall be eliminated, if this is required. 3) Submit letter of credit covering Phase Two improvements. Phase Two improvements, including screening of rooftop equipment, shall be completed within two years of passage of this resolution. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 56 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 99-26-CUP/N/res/ord 57 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8h Meeting of December 6, 1999 8h. First Reading of the Ordinance Amending Water & Sewer Utility Rates for 2000 This action would increase the water and sewer utility rates by 2%. Rates effective January 1, 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to waive first reading and set second reading for December 20, 1999. Background: This action provides for a two- percent (2%) rate increase for both water and sewer charges. The 2% increase applies for both the flat service charges as well as the volume charges. The proposed increase in considered an inflationary increase. No change is proposed in refuse rates in accordance with plans made when the rates were lowered when the service contract was changed. The City has provided for very moderate annual increases in the water and sewer rates. It is the City’s intent to increase rates a modest levels each year and at the same time provide for adequate levels of capital reserves. By maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves the need for extraordinary rate increases is avoided. Maintaining adequate levels of capital reserves also avoids the need to issue debt or otherwise borrow for necessary improvements to the utilities’ infrastructure systems. Analysis: The “impact” of the rate increase is different for each customer. This is because a portion of the rate is volume-based. The more water consumed the higher the impact of the rate increase. Specific examples for three different types of residential customers are as follows; 58 Customer #1:Small Family – will typically use 23 units of water per quarter. Proposed Change 00 At 1/1/99 2000 over 99 Refuse (a)30.50$30.50$-$0.00% Water - svc. chg. (flat)6.54 6.67 0.13 1.99% - volume charge 15.39 15.69 0.30 1.95% Subtotal - water 21.93 22.36 0.43 1.96% Sewer - svc. chg. (flat)10.44 10.65 0.21 2.01% - volume charge 31.97 32.66 0.69 2.16% Subtotal - sewer 42.41 43.31 0.90 2.12% Total quarterly bill 104.84$106.17$0.1.33$1.27% Customer #2:Single household - fixed income - 10 units per cycle; one-can Proposed Change 00 At 1/1/99 2000 over 99 Refuse (a)30.50$30.50$-$0.00% Water - svc. chg. (flat)6.54 6.67 0.13 1.99% - volume charge 6.69 6.82 0.13 1.94% Subtotal - water 13.23 13.49 0.26 1.97% Sewer - svc. chg. (flat)10.44 10.65 0.21 2.01% - volume charge 13.90 14.20 0.30 2.16% Subtotal - sewer 24.34 24.85 0.51 2.10% Total quarterly bill 68.07$68.84$0.77$1.13% Customer #3:Larger family - using 40 units of water per Proposed Change 00 At 1/1/99 2000 over 99 Refuse (a)40.50$40.50$-$0.00% Water - svc. chg. (flat)6.54 6.67 0.13 1.99% - volume charge 26.76 27.28 0.52 1.94% Subtotal - water 33.30 33.95 0.65 1.95% Sewer - svc. chg. (flat)10.44 10.65 0.21 2.01% - volume charge 55.60 56.80 1.20 2.16% Subtotal - sewer 66.04 67.45 1.41 2.14% Total quarterly bill 139.84$141.90$2.06$1.47% 59 The Utility Budgets and Capital Improvements for 2000 Significant to the operating budget of the Water utility is the ongoing cost for the Reilly “RAP” activities. In 1999, a separate division was established to track these costs. The proposed total budget for operation and maintenance of the three GAC treatment plants is $682,050. Water utility revenues have been and are expected to continue to fund these activities. The majority of the sanitary sewer budget operating expense (72%) is for wastewater treatment by the Metropolitan Council - Environmental Services (MCES). Sewer charges also support the operation, maintenance and improvement to the storm sewer system. Staff is in the process of evaluating a separate utility and fee structure to support the storm sewer system. The rates proposed for sewer do not take into account a shift of storm sewer related costs to the storm sewer utility. The sanitary sewer rates should be reduced concurrent with the adoption of a storm water utility rate. The various divisions of the Public Works Department are in the process of implementing the computerized infrastructure management systems. These systems will provide a means for the inventory, evaluation and management of the water, sewer and storm sewer infrastructure systems. The inventorying and assessment of the infrastructure systems will help focus where and when capital improvements dollars are needed. There are no significant capital expenditures planned for 2000 within the Water or Sanitary Sewer Utility Funds. Summary The recommended increase in water and sewer rates will provide a moderate increase in revenues to help support operations and maintain capital reserve levels without adversely affecting the typical residential customer. Attachments: Utility Rate Survey Utility Billing History Proposed Ordinance Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 60 City Water Sewer Storm Total St. Paul $37.20 $68.70 $105.90 Arden Hills $47.03 $53.95 $3.98 $104.96 Little Canada $50.94 $47.30 $98.24 New Hope $35.05 $54.18 $4.80 $94.03 Mendota Hts $37.20 $49.50 $3.50 $90.20 Edina $39.00 $45.60 $5.00 $89.60 Robbinsdale $33.06 $49.62 $6.87 $89.55 Hopkins $23.63 $56.25 $9.00 $88.88 Roseville $41.96 $41.96 $4.38 $88.30 St. Anthony $27.00 $49.50 $3.00 $79.50 Fridley $20.25 $56.25 $2.80 $79.30 Crystal $35.10 $39.69 $4.20 $78.99 Columbia Heights $42.00 $34.50 $76.50 Richfield $30.14 $35.64 $8.55 $74.33 Eden Prairie $25.30 $44.85 $3.00 $73.15 St. Louis Park $24.82 $47.95 $72.77 Bloomington $34.10 $29.10 $9.00 $72.20 West St. Paul $37.20 $34.11 $71.31 Golden Valley $33.00 $34.00 $2.50 $69.50 Brooklyn Center $18.92 $42.50 $8.00 $69.42 Shoreview $23.24 $39.20 $5.79 $68.23 Brooklyn Park $22.65 $45.15 $67.80 New Brighton $17.02 $44.85 $3.10 $64.97 Maple Grove $20.25 $43.27 $63.52 Minnetonka $23.63 $34.88 $58.51 North St. Paul $24.75 $25.20 $1.75 $51.70 Average $30.94 $44.14 $4.96 $78.51 Bold = Mpls. supplies water Italics = St. Paul supplies water Rate is based on 22,500 gallons quarterly usage Storm Water Utility charge is per quarter Utility Rate Survey 1996 Quarterly Utility Billing 61 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Utility Billing History WATER SEWER Quarterly $ per 30 units Quarterly $ per 30 units Year Service Chg.100 cubic feet Usage Cost Service Chg.100 cubic feet Usage Cost 1998 $6.41 0.656 $26.09 $10.23 1.360 $51.03 1997 $6.28 0.643 $25.57 $10.02 1.330 $49.92 1996 $6.10 0.624 $24.82 $9.72 1.290 $48.42 1995 $5.92 0.606 $24.10 $9.45 1.250 $46.95 1994 $5.92 0.606 $24.10 $8.75 1.160 $43.55 1993 $5.69 0.583 $23.18 $8.33 1.100 $41.33 1992 $5.58 0.572 $22.74 $8.01 1.060 $39.81 1991 $5.47 0.561 $22.30 $7.28 1.010 $37.58 1990 $5.26 0.539 $21.43 $7.00 0.972 $36.16 1989 $5.01 0.513 $20.40 $6.67 0.926 $34.45 1988 $4.77 0.489 $19.44 $6.35 0.882 $32.81 Bold numbers represent a decreasing rate system. Percent of Increase - per 30 unit cost Water Sewer 1998 2.03%2.22% 1997 3.02%3.10% 1996 2.99%3.13% 1995 0.00%7.81% 1994 3.97%5.37% 1993 1.93%3.82% 62 ORDINANCE NO. _____________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO THE 2000 WATER RATES, SECTION 9-101, AND THE 2000 SEWER RATES, SECTION 9-231 THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Sec. 1. Section 9-101 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Rates. The rate due and payable to the City by each water user with the City for billings on or after January 1, 1999 2000 for water taken from the City water supply system shall be $.669 $.682 per 100 cubic feet. All charges for single and multiple-family dwelling users shall be determined and payable on a quarterly basis, and all charges for commercial, industrial and institutional users shall be determined and payable on a monthly or quarterly basis provided, however, that there shall be a service charge to each water user for each quarter year period during which water service is furnished as follows: Service Charges -- January 1,1999 2000 Meter Size 5/8 inch $3.49 $3.56 5.38 5.49 3/4 inch 3.92 4.00 6.54 6.67 1 inch 5.07 5.17 9.57 9.76 1 and 1/2 inch 7.47 7.62 16.17 16.49 2 inch 10.83 11.05 25.03 25.53 3 inch 19.05 19.43 47.13 48.07 4 inch 32.12 32.76 76.29 77.82 6 inch 62.07 63.31 149.52 152.51 8 inch 95.73 97.64 236.29 241.02 10 inch 131.44 134.07 318.51 324.88 12 inch 157.01 160.15 373.87 381.35 Water Rates--0.682 per 100 cubic feet Sewer Rates--1.42 per 100 cubic feet of water monthly service charge of $3.55 quarterly service charge of $10.65 Monthly Quarterly 63 In case the meter is found to have stopped or to be operating in a faulty manner, the amount of water used will be estimated in accordance with the amount previously used for the comparable period of the last previous year. Where service is for less than the billing period, the service charge will be prorated accordingly.” Sec. 2. Section 9-231 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: “Sewer Rental Rates. Charges for sewer service to residential and non-residential users within the City provided in Section 9-230 hereof for billings on or after January 1, 1999 2000 shall be: $1.39 $1.42 per 100 cubic feet of water consumption as measured during the winter quarter (or otherwise determined in Section 9-231 (1)), and a service charge of $3.48 $3.55 monthly, or $10.44 $10.65 quarterly per dwelling or account.” Sec. 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective 15 days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 64 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8i* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8i. Resolution Appointing Jean McGann as Alternate to LOGIS Board of Directors Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution authorizing appointment. Background: Each member organization of LOGIS (Local Government Information Systems) has its chief administrative officer automatically appointed as a director to the LOGIS Board of Directors. LOGIS by-laws also provide for the appointment of alternate directors who may attend Board meetings and vote in the absence of the Director. In St. Louis Park, the City Manager is the Director to the LOGIS Board, and the Deputy City Manager is an Alternate Director. Typically in St. Louis Park, the Finance Director has also been appointed as an Alternate Director. Jean McGann is the recently appointed Finance Director, and it is recommended that she be appointed as an Alternate Director, particularly given the scope of mission-critical LOGIS applications employed by the Finance Department and major upgrades to those applications occurring in 2000 and 2001. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Clint Pires, Deputy City Manager Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 65 RESOLUTION NO. 99-139 RESOLUTION APPOINTING JEAN MCGANN AS ALTERNATE TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF LOGIS WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park entered into a joint and cooperative agreement with other governmental units of the State of Minnesota to create Local Government Information Systems (LOGIS) on May 1, 1972; and WHEREAS, as stated in Article IV, Section 2, of the joint and cooperative agreement of LOGIS, each member shall be entitled to alternate directors who shall be entitled to attend meetings of the board and who may vote in the absence of the member’s director; and WHEREAS, a second alternate director for the City of St. Louis Park is needed on occasion to substitute for the City’s director and first alternate director, City Manager Charles W. Meyer and Deputy City Manager Clinton E. Pires, respectively. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that Finance Director Jean McGann be appointed to represent the City of St. Louis Park as an alternate to the Board of Directors of LOGIS. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 66 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8j* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8j. Request by Silvercrest Properties, LLC to amend final plat resolution for Silvercrest Addition to extend final plat filing deadline to January 6, 2000 Case No. 99-15-S 3601, 3633, 3663 Park Center Boulevard Recommended Action: Motion to adopt a resolution amending Resolution No. 99-102, extending final plat filing deadline to January 6, 2000 Background: On September 6, 1999 the City Council approved the final plat for Silvercrest Addition, which reconfigured internal lot lines to make way for a 46-unit addition to Silvercrest’s senior assisted living facility, and in anticipation of future redevelopment of the office property. The conditions in the resolution included the typical 60-day deadline for the developer to record the final plat with Hennepin County. Before the City signs the final plat for recording, there are a number of items the developer is required provide, including a letter of credit and drafts of the trail and road easements. The developer is requesting a two-month extension for filing of the final plat to January 6, 2000, in order to complete these documents. Timing of construction: The developer now anticipates a construction start date of February 1, 2000 rather than a fall construction start. One condition of the plat resolution is that the public trail, which is to be relocated to the north side of the assisted living building, may be closed over the winter but must be operational as of May 1, 2000. The developer has stated that the construction delay will not affect the ability to have the relocated trail operational as of May 1, and that the Norwest Bank building will be removed on schedule in February. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the two month extension. Attachments: • Proposed resolution • Letter from Silvercrest requesting extension Prepared by: Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 67 RESOLUTION NO. 99-140 Amends Resolution No. 99-102 RESOLUTION GIVING APPROVAL FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT OF SILVERCREST ADDITION AMENDS RESOLUTION NO. 99-102 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 7, 1999 EXTENDING THE FINAL PLAT FILING DEADLINE TO JANUARY 6, 2000 BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of St. Louis Park: Findings 1. Silvercrest Properties, Inc., owners and subdividers of the land proposed to be platted as Silvercrest Addition have submitted an application for approval of preliminary plat of said subdivision in the manner required for platting of land under the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, and all proceedings have been duly had thereunder. 2. The proposed preliminary plat has been found to be in all respects consistent with the City Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the ordinances of the City of St. Louis Park. 3. The proposed plat is situated upon the following described lands in Hennepin County, Minnesota, to-wit: See Attached Legal Description Conclusion 1. The proposed preliminary and final plat of Silvercrest Addition are hereby approved and accepted by the City as being in accord and conformity with all ordinances, City plans and regulations of the City of St. Louis Park and the laws of the State of Minnesota, subject to the following conditions: A. The site shall be developed, used and maintained in accordance with the approved Exhibits A through I, such documents incorporated by reference herein, and with the standards outlined in the Redevelopment Plan in the Comprehensive Plan. B. Before a final plat is signed by the City, the developer shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Submit to the City a copy of owner’s policy of title insurance which insures City’s interests in the plat, in an amount to be determined by the City. 68 2. Financial security, in the form of cash escrow or a letter of credit, covering tree removal and replacement, utility work, paving, curb and gutter, and repair/cleaning of public streets after construction. 3. A Development Agreement shall be executed, or existing Development Agreement amended, to address terms and conditions of development, including allowable Ordinance modifications for redevelopment of Lot 1. Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute this agreement. D. Prior to any site work or issuance of any building permits, the developer shall meet the following: 1. Provide a copy of Watershed District permit to the City. 2. Provide a tree replacement bond to cover the costs of tree removal and replacement. E. Within 60 120 days of final plat approval by the City Council, the subdivider shall record the final plat with the County Recorder. The subdivider shall, immediately upon recording, furnish the City Clerk with a print and reproducible tracing of the final plat showing evidence of the recording. The subdivider shall also provide a copy of the final plat on disc in an electronic data format. No building permits shall be issued for the project until evidence is provided to the City of recording of the final plat. F. Prior to or simultaneously with recording of the final plat, trail easement over lots 1 and 2 and road easement and trail easement over Lot 3 shall be recorded. G. Vacation of trail easement, 10 foot utility easement, and 24 foot utility easement shall not become effective until new easements are recorded. H. Prior to issuance of any building permits, the developer shall comply with the following: 1. The subdivider shall furnish the City with evidence of recording of the final plat and road and trail easements. 2. Construction plans of the enclosed walkway shall be submitted to and approved by Public Works. 3. A hold harmless agreement shall be executed which releases the City from liability for damages to the walkway as a result of needed utility work with the easement. 4. The parking agreement between lots 2 and 3 shall be amended to reflect the additional stalls required for Lot 2. Other agreements between the properties shall be amended as needed. I. Modifications to ordinance requirements and parameters for future redevelopment of Lot 1 approved as part of the Redevelopment Plan are as noted in Resolution 99-101 adopting a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. J. The property owner shall cooperate with the City regarding future construction of the north-south roadway and agrees to work with the City regarding an additional trail connection from Wolfe Park to the new roadway along the south property line of Lot 3. K. If Lots 2 and 3 come under separate ownership, the owners shall execute a joint maintenance agreement for the enclosed walkway. L. The owner shall execute a snow removal and maintenance agreement with the City for the relocated trail. M. The existing trail may be removed on or after October 1, 1999. A new trail must be installed and fully operational no later than May 1, 1999. If the new trail is not 69 operational by May 1, 1999 the developer shall cooperate with the Park and Recreation Department to provide an alternate temporary trail connection. N. Property owner shall work with staff to reach agreement on a plan to reduce the volume of non-emergency fire and police calls to the 3633 and 3663 buildings. An agreement shall be reached and a plan shall be in place prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy on the assisted living expansion. The property owner agrees that one or more of the following methods would be employed to ensure that calls are effectively reduced into the future: a. A written agreement between the City and Silvercrest, either written into a Development Agreement or by separate agreement b. Tie the plan to the multi-family licensing program, i.e. if an inspection reveals the plan is not being followed the annual license would not be renewed. c. Explore the possibility, in addition to one of the methods above, of some type of charge for an extraordinary volume of emergency calls. Provided, however, that this approval is made subject to the opinion of the City Attorney and Certification by the City Clerk as provided for in Sections 14-303(3)(d) and (e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code. 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to supply two certified copies of this Resolution to the above-named owner and subdivider, who is the applicant herein. 3. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute all contracts required herein, and the City Clerk is hereby directed to execute the certificate of approval on behalf of the City Council upon the said plat when all of the conditions set forth in Paragraph No. 1 above and Section 14-303(3)(e) of the St. Louis Park Ordinance Code have been fulfilled. 4. Such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the City Clerk, as required under Section 14-303(3)(e), shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City officials charged with duties above described and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 99-15-S-2/N/res/ord 70 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8k* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8k. Amendment to Ordinance 1325 First Reading of Ordinance amending the legal description for street vacation granted by Ordinance 1325 Dated March 1, 1976 Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance and set second reading for December 20, 1999. Background: We have received a request on behalf of the property owner at 3938 Meadowbrook Road to correct the legal description for a street vacation granted by Ordinance 1325. On March 1, 1976, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1325 vacating a portion of Meadowbrook Road north of the intersection of Oxford Street and Meadowbrook Road. The legal description included in Ordinance 1325 was unclear because it describes a portion of Meadowbrook Road that, according to the map, was not intended to be vacated. As a result, Hennepin County did not accept the vacation documents and the Examiner of Titles will not issue a certificate of title attaching the vacated portion of Meadowbrook Road to the adjoining lots at 3928 Meadowbrook Road. The attached Ordinance amends the legal description so that it corresponds with the actual vacated right of way. Attachments: Ordinance Prepared by: Judie Erickson, Planning Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 71 ORDINANCE NO.___________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1325 ADOPTED ON MARCH 1, 1976 VACATING A STREET (portion of Meadowbrook Road north of the intersection of Oxford Street and Meadowbrook Road) THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Section 1. This ordinance amends Ordinance No. 1325 adopted on March 1, 1976 by correcting the legal description for the property to be vacated approved in said ordinance. Section 2. A petition in writing signed by a majority of all of the owners of all property abutting upon both sides of the street proposed to be vacated has been duly filed with the City Clerk, requesting vacation of the street, and the City Clerk has furnished a copy of said petition to the City Manager who has required filing of same to the newspaper, the St. Louis Park Sailor, on February 4, 1976 as directed by the said notice and has conducted a public hearing upon said petition and has determined that the street is not needed for public purposes, and that it is for the best interest of the public that said street be vacated. Section 3. The following described street, as now dedicated and laid out within the corporate limits of the City of St. Louis Park, is vacated: That part of Meadowbrook Road, as dedicated in the plat of CARLSON’S CREEKSIDE ADDITION, which lies north of a line drawn perpendicular to the right of way of said Meadowbrook Road from the most southerly corner of Lot 7, Block 1, PARK INDUSTRIAL ADDITION. reserving, however, to the City of St. Louis Park an easement over, and across all but the north 20 feet of the described property for storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water main, public utility and drainage purposes. 72 Section 4. The City Clerk is instructed to record certified copies of this ordinance in the Office of the Hennepin County Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles as the case may be. Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 1571/N/res/ord 73 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8l* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8l. Resolution to Amend the 1999 Budget A revised estimate for the 1999 Budget was completed as part of the 2000 budget preparation. The revised budget estimate numbers were detailed in the 2000 Proposed Budget document presented to the Council in August. The changes to the 1999 budget were presented to the Council at the Study Session on November 22, 1999. It will be the amounts in this final amendment that is used to report budget to actual numbers in the year end financial statements. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the resolution. Background: There are a number of adjustments requested for the current year budget as year-end approaches. One of the purposes of this final budget amendment for 1999 is to account for changes in operations subsequent to the amendments made in September when the tentative 2000 budget was considered. On November 22, 1999, the Council received a summary of budget revisions for 1999. A copy of that is attached to this document. In addition to those revisions, there is one additional transfer into Capital Projects funds in the amount of $445,200. This amount reimburses the matured special assessment fund and the park improvement fund for expenditures related to the construction of Wolfe Park. Wolfe Park is an Economic Development Authority Project. Attachments: • 1999 Budget Revision Analysis • Proposed Resolution to Amend the 1999 Budget Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 74 1999 Budget Revision Analysis On September 7, 1999, the City Council adopted the preliminary 2000 budget and the revised 1999 budget. Since that time, staff has reviewed the 1999 and 2000 budgets for any final adjustments. The adjustments below are segregated into two classifications. The first classification, line item revisions, does not effect the bottom line of the budget. These revisions only reclassify where individual departments are intending to spend money. The second classification, new dollar requests, is for unanticipated expenditures that have occurred or need to occur sometime in 1999. Description Purpose Increase Decrease Accounting Wages/Benefits (Interim assistance)-$ 27,000$ Professional Services 27,000 Police General Supplies 800 Telephone 800 Grant Revenue 99,297 Grant Expenditure 99,297 Total 127,097$ 127,097$ Description Purpose Increase Decrease Park & Rec FEMA Revenue 20,000$ Expense (FEMA related)(20,000) Total -$ General Fund - 1999 Line Item Revisions Parks & Rec - 1999 Line Item Revisions 75 Description Purpose Increase Decrease Revenue Building Permits Anticipated Revenue 20,001$ -$ Amusement Licenses Legislative Change 2,500 Net Revenue Increase 17,501$ Expenditures Communications Radio Communications 3,951$ Community Development Wages (Planning Commission)1,500 City Clerk/Elections Non-Capital Equipment (voting booths)10,000 Police Grant Match 2,050 Net Expenditure Increase 17,501$ Description Purpose Increase Decrease Expenditures Professional Services Council Action 06-14-99 4,000$ Other Contractual Service 21,167 Net Expenditure Increase 25,167$ General Fund - 1999 New Dollar Requests Cable TV - 1999 New Dollar Requests 76 RESOLUTION NO. 99-141 RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 1999 ADOPTED BUDGET WHEREAS, The annual budget for 1999 for the City of St. Louis Park was adopted by Ordinance 2108-97 on December 21, 1998 and subsequently amended on September 7, 1999; and WHEREAS, additional modifications to the 1999 are required; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the budget for 1999 shall be amended as follows: AVAILABLE RESOURCES Revenues:Current Change Amended General Property Taxes 9,524,333$ -$ 9,524,333$ Business License Permits 331,000 (2,500)$ 328,500 Non-Business License Permits 1,048,500 20,001$ 1,068,501 Intergovernmental 6,503,349 119,297$ 6,622,646 Charges for Services 2,017,472 -$ 2,017,472 Fines, Forfeits and Penalties 379,000 -$ 379,000 Enterprise 9,140,445 -$ 9,140,445 Special Assessments 169,345 -$ 169,345 Miscellaneous Revenue 4,321,907 -$ 4,321,907 Refunds and Reimbursements 4,928,718 -$ 4,928,718 Transfers In 2,638,197 445,200$ 3,083,397 Total Revenues 41,002,266 581,998 41,584,264 Fund Balance / Reserves - January 1 31,793,291 31,793,291 Total Available 72,795,557 581,998 73,377,555 Appropriations: Personal Services 17,909,126 60,440 17,969,566 Supplies, Services & Other Charges 22,461,874 (79,561) 22,382,313 Capital Outlay 3,144,486 20,000 3,164,486 Transfers Out 2,638,197 - 2,638,197 Total Appropriations 46,153,683 879 46,154,562 Fund Balance/Reserves Dec 31 26,641,874 581,119 27,222,993 Total Requirements 72,795,557 73,377,555 REQUIREMENTS 77 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager be directed to cause the appropriate accounting entries to be made in the books of the City. Attest: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Clerk Mayor Reviewed for Administration: City Manager 78 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8m* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8m. Resolution authorizing policy on Naming of Parks, Trails, and Facilities in the City of St. Louis Park. To approve the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission recommendations for naming of parks, trails, and facilities in the City of St. Louis Park. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt resolution. Background: In August of 1996, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and City Staff began the revision of a policy for naming parks, trails and facilities which was originally adopted in 1972 and updated in 1977. The Commission reviewed policies adopted by other cities along with staff’s current policy. The Commission has recommended that we adopt a written policy. A written policy would ensure all requests would be processed fairly and uniformly. It can also help educate residents about what to expect from the City when requesting a change. DISCUSSION ITEMS: Staff believes that the Commission did a good job of identifying the criteria and qualifying events for naming or renaming of parks, trails, and facilities. The majority of requests should be covered by one of these areas. RECOMMENDATION: Attached is the policy that is recommended by staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission. This written policy will serve as a tool in guiding in the fair and uniform treatment of all requests. Attachments: Resolution Policy for the Naming of Parks, Trail and Facilities Prepared by: Cindy S. Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 79 RESOLUTION NO. 99-142 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF A CITY POLICY FOR NAMING PARKS, TRAILS, AND FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission has developed and recommends this policy be adopted by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the policy would serve as a guide for the future naming of parks, trails, and facilities; and WHEREAS, this policy sets up a process for naming when residents or Council members have a suggestion or inquiry; and WHEREAS, the City Council has previously discussed the benefit of having a naming policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, adopts the attached policy to guide the future naming efforts of parks, trails, and facilities within the City. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 80 POLICY FOR THE NAMING OF PARKS, TRAILS, AND FACILITIES IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK 1. INTRODUCTION: Records of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission show that over the last, approximately twenty-five (25) years the Commission and the City have studied the issue of naming parks, park trails, and park facilities in the City of St. Louis Park. While non-binding guidelines have been developed over the years to aid in determining a name for a particular park, park trail, or park facility, it appears that there has never been developed a comprehensive policy and set of procedures to be utilized by the Commission and the City when naming parks, park trails, or park facilities. It is the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission that a formal process for naming parks and park facilities in the City of St Louis Park be adopted by the City Council. 2. CRITERIA: Previously, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission and the City had developed a list of guidelines for the naming of parks and park facilities in the City of St Louis Park. The Commission recommends that those guidelines continue to be utilized in the naming / renaming of parks and park facilities in the City of St Louis Park. (See guidelines dated 12/19/77 and 5/13/91). A review of these guidelines can be divided into the following general categories: a. Contributor – an individual or organization who has contributed financially to the acquisition and/or development of a park, park trail or park facility or who has provided significant service to the community and/or City. b. Location – a name that fits the neighborhood, street, or other characteristics of the park or park facility locale. c. Famous American – possible names would be President, Military Leaders, cabinet members, Congresspersons or State Official. The Commission recommends that a waiting period of two (2) years after the individual terminates public service be observed before consideration in this category is given. d. Occasion – a special event in history. Example: D-Day. The Commission recommends that these general categories be included in any information that is distributed to all requests and petitions for park facility naming/renaming. The Commission recommends that these guidelines be a permanent part of the procedure for naming/renaming park facilities and that they remain in effect until changed at the recommendation of the Commission with the approval of the St. Louis Park City Council. The Commission recognizes that the final determination of all names for park facilities must be made by the City Council. 3. QUALIFYING EVENT: The Commission recommends that in order to eliminate the ad hoc practice of determining whether a park facility should be named or renamed, one of the following events should occur prior to initiating the naming/renaming of a park facility: 81 a. Neighborhood Changes. If the neighborhood changes in nature either by composition of the residents or the composition of the surrounding area. This consideration should be made either as a result of a petition or by recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission. b. Financial. If an individual or organization wishes to contribute a significant portion of the cost of developing a park facility or area, the Commission may recommend naming/renaming the park facility after the contributor. c. Service to the Community. A park facility can be named/renamed for an individual living or deceased who has significantly served the community above and beyond the call of duty. In order to be considered for such an honor, the person should have the following: ◊ Completed at least ten (10) years of service, and; ◊ A waiting period of at least two years from termination of service or two years from the death of the individual, whichever occurs first. In a situation where service to the community is demonstrated by an individual or organization donating land adjacent to an existing park facility, this should be considered if the total contribution of the donation is estimated to be at least half of the value of the total existing park facility by fair and equitable professional evaluation. d. Memorials. An individual or organization may wish to recognize a deceased City resident by means of a visible, physical item such as a plaque, living memorial or art object displayed in a public recreation facility. The donor must provide for the cost of the object plus installation cost. Future maintenance should be considered as part of the installation cost. Specific plans for the object must be submitted in advance of approval. The object and its location must be approved by the Commission and the City Council. If the memorial is to be in the form of a plaque, the size will not exceed 225 square inches. Other memorials will also be limited to size and appropriateness of the object and location. The installation of these memorials will be supervised by the appropriate City personnel. e. Original Acquisition of Park Land. After a parcel is acquired the guidelines previously utilized by the City of St Louis Park shall be used in naming the new park facility. (See guidelines dated 12/19/77 and 5/13/91). The Council is given the authority and discretion to make exceptions to the above-mentioned qualifying events in special situations deemed appropriate by the Council. 4. FACILITIES WITHIN THE PARK: Facilities within a park may be named with initiation of the naming of the facility as set forth in Section 3 (a-e) above. Examples of such facilities may include, but not be limited to athletic fields; tennis courts; swimming pools; ice arenas; golf courses; wildlife areas and buildings. 5. PROCESS FOR NAMING A PARK, TRAIL OR FACILITY ; Staff and the Commission have discussed the following process: 82 1. Resident or City Council member inquiry leads to staff sending out a form to collect the information criteria or qualifying event. 2. Staff reviews the form and sends recommendations to the Parks and Recreation Commission. 3. Parks and Recreation Commission reviews the request and makes a recommendation to the City Council. 4. City Council reviews and passes a resolution naming or renaming the park, trail or facility. 5. Staff puts up a park sign or plaque in the appropriate location. 83 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8n Meeting of December 6, 1999 8n. First Reading of Ordinance Amendment Revising Permit Fees for Plumbing, Mechanical, Electrical Permits. Proposed changes simplify the method in which fees for plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits are calculated and provide a more accurate fee for service relationship. Recommended Action: Close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading of ordinance amendment revising plumbing, mechanical and electrical permit fees. Set second reading for December 20, 1999 Background This report was discussed by Council during the November 22, 1999 Study Session. The current permit fee schedule for plumbing, mechanical and electrical permits has been in use since November 1986. The fee schedule is a regressive table based upon the contract price of the work being completed. In October 1995 the ordinances were amended to provide a minimum fee of $21.00 for all permits. There has been no increase in the table to account for inflationary costs necessary to provide the relevant inspection services. Issues and Analysis Relevant and proportional to services provided: Inequities in Current Fee - The current permit fee by valuation creates inequity for homeowners and contractors. Fee amounts may increase when the applicant accurately states the cost of work. For a furnace replacement permit, fees increase dramatically if a homeowner installs a more expensive high efficiency furnace rather than a cheaper low efficiency type. Staff’s time and effort for this inspection service is not significantly different. However, the person who spent more money to save energy and improve the value of their home is penalized with a higher fee. In some cases, this may be almost double the permit cost. This same phenomenon occurs when a contractor charges more because they include a warranty or other valuable benefits to the homeowner. Establishing a flat fee for routine replacement of water heaters, furnaces, and electrical services helps to level the field when contractors are bidding on a job. This also helps improve relationships between contractors and the City by eliminating any questions by staff of the stated value when it seems extremely low. Flat fees for permits are also easy to explain when a resident is requesting information about replacing an appliance. 84 Fee for Service permits are intended to generate sufficient revenue to allow the municipality to provide the associated inspection services. The services include not just the cost of the field inspector but also the cost of receiving applications, plan review, processing applications, issuing permit, follow-up, record keeping and overall department administration. Other costs such as the operational overhead of the City may also be included in assessing the actual costs to provide a service. Permit fees have remained unchanged since 1986. In 1995 a revision increased the minimum permit fee to $21.00. In no case can the department provide an inspection and cover the costs incurred with the $21.00 permit fee. Also, revenue for some areas of permits such as plumbing does not even fully compensate for even the cost of a staff inspector. Provide a method of calculating fees which is simple and easily understood: The current fee is a regressive percentage table based solely on valuation with multiple tiers and a different percentage for each tier. In addition, there is a minimum fee of $21.00, which essentially negates the bottom tiers of the fee table. This itself has led to some confusion in the calculation of fees. When issuing permits, we are required by the State of Minnesota to collect a surcharge for each permit. The surcharge must be figured in one of two ways, depending how the permit fee is calculated. Permits, which are based solely on value, are charged .0005 times the valuation. Permits, which have a flat or single fee, are charged a consistent fifty cents. The current method of determining all permit fees by valuation has resulted in many contractors submitting incorrect surcharge amounts resulting in significant staff time necessary to balance the fees and surcharges. Rather than simply increasing our permit fee tables for inflation the amendment revises the method by which we calculate many fees. This addresses the above concerns by increasing the relationship between services provided and revenue generated and is more consistent with what other cities are charging. The amended fee tables in each code section are designed to be user friendly and easier to explain to contractors and homeowners. Flat fees will be utilized for most types of permits issued for single family homes because the majority of the permits are for the installation or replacement of a single item. By going to this flat fee, the State Surcharge becomes an automatic fifty cents. This is typically what contractors are use to paying in other cities. Effect on Revenue: The effect on total permit revenue is relatively minor and indicated in attachment “A”. The fee structure is designed so that in future years, if needed, the fees can be increased by a relatively modest amount by increasing the base fee and charge for single fixtures. Although the proposed base fee may still not cover our costs in many instances, it is believed this is a fair compromise between maintaining fees low enough to encourage contractors and residents to request a permit when work is being done but yet high enough to cover most of the cost incurred. The most important criteria is looking at the overall revenue generation versus the expenditures for providing these services. In this regard we believe we are in keeping with the intent of offering a true fee for service. 85 Effective Date Fee revisions for the permits are easiest for the City and contractors to implement at the beginning of the year when construction activity is at an annual low. The proposed effective date for this amended ordinance is January 3, 2000. Attachments:Revenue Analysis Proposed Amended Ordinance Prepared by: George Shoppe, Chief Building Official Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 86 ATTACHMENT ‘A’ REVENUE ANALYSIS The analysis is based on actual revenue for the period from January 1, 1999 to November 1, 1999. The projected revenue uses the valuation of the same period with the Proposed Fee Table. PERMIT TYPE REVENUE 1999 TO DATE PROJECTED NEW REVENUE NET CHANGE IN REVENUE Plumbing 61,000 82,000 21,000 Mechanical 116,000 98,000 (18,000) Electrical 109,500 134,000 24,500 Sewer and Water 12,500 16,000 3,500 TOTAL 299,500 330,000 31,000 87 ORDINANCE NO. ____ Amending sections 15-242, 253 and 262 Permit Fees for Plumbing, Mechanical and Electrical Permits Section 15-242. Permit Fees. The fees for such permits shall be as follows: (1) Minimum Fees. In no case shall the fee charged for any permit issued under this ordinance be less than $21.00. (2) Fee Schedule. Permit fees shall be paid to the City as set forth in the following schedule: CONTRACT PRICE % OF CONTRACT PRICE $0.00 to 500.00 2.75% 501.00 to 1,000.00 2.50% 1,001.00 to 5,000.00 2.25% 5,001.00 to 10,000.00 2.00% 10,001.00 to 25,000.00 1.75% 25,001.00 to 50,000.00 1.50% 50,001.00 and over 1.25% (State Surcharge is .0005 of mechanical valuation under $1,000,000, or 50¢, whichever is greater. For valuations over $1,000,000, call Inspections Department for the surcharge fee.) All plumbing, sewer and water permits for installation, replacement or repair shall be $35.00 + 1.75% of the contract price. 88 Exception: The following permits for single family dwellings defined as R-3 occupancies by State Building Code: 1) Installation, replacement of repair of a single plumbing fixture $35.00 2) Replacement or repair of sewer service or water service $35.00 Section 15-253. Permit Fees. (1) Minimum Fees. In no case shall the fee charged for any permit issued under this ordinance be less than $21.00. (2) Permit fees shall be paid to the City as set forth in the following schedule: CONTRACT PRICE % OF CONTRACT PRICE $0.00 to 500.00 2.75% 501.00 to 1,000.00 2.50% 1,001.00 to 5,000.00 2.25% 5,001.00 to 10,000.00 2.00% 10,001.00 to 25,000.00 1.75% 25,001.00 to 50,000.00 1.50% 50,001.00 and over 1.25% (State Surcharge is .0005 of electrical valuation under $1,000,000, or 50¢, whichever is greater. For valuations over $1,000,000, call Inspections Department for the surcharge fee.) All mechanical permits for installation, replacement or repair shall be $35.00 + 1.75% of the contract price. Exception The following permits for single family dwellings defined as R-3 occupancies by the State Building Code. 1) Installation of a fuel burning appliance including fuel piping to the unit Or Replacement of a central heating appliance $50.00 2) Installation, replacement or repair of a single mechanical appliance $35.00. 89 Section 15-262. Permit Fees. The fees for electrical permits shall be as follows: (1) Minimum Fees. In no case shall the fee charged for any permit issued under this ordinance be less than $21.00. (2) Fee Schedule. Permit fees shall be paid to the City as set forth in the following schedule: CONTRACT PRICE % OF CONTRACT PRICE $0.00 to 500.00 2.75% 501.00 to 1,000.00 2.50% 1,001.00 to 5,000.00 2.25% 5,001.00 to 10,000.00 2.00% 10,001.00 to 25,000.00 1.75% 25,001.00 to 50,000.00 1.50% 50,001.00 and over 1.25% (State Surcharge is .0005 of electrical valuation under $1,000,000, or 50¢, whichever is greater. For valuations over $1,000,000, call Inspections Department for the surcharge fee.) All electrical permits for installation, replacement or repair shall be $35.00 + 1.75% of the contract price. Exception The following permits for single family dwellings defined as R-3 occupancies by the State Building Code. 1) Installation, replacement or repair of a single electrical appliance or device $35.00. Adopted by the City Council December 20, 1999 Reviewed for Administration City Manager Mayor Attest:: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney 90 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8o* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8o. Year 2000 Major Equipment Purchases This report considers major equipment scheduled and budgeted for replacement during year 2000. The City Charter and Statute requires all purchases and contracts in excess of $25,000 be approved by the City Council. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution that accepts this report and authorizes staff to acquire equipment scheduled for replacement in year 2000 as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance. Background: Procurement of vehicles is accomplished in a variety of ways. By Statute, Charter, and Ordinance, all purchases over $25,000 have to be authorized by the Council and bid in accordance with public contracting laws. Once equipment purchases are authorized by Council, bids can be called for by the City or equipment can be purchased through other agencies that have already legally bid for this equipment (i.e. State of Minnesota contracts, Hennepin County contracts, etc.). Replacement of equipment costing less than $25,000 does not require Council authorization. Staff replaces this type of equipment by purchasing it from State or County contracts or by obtaining competitive quotes. Final List for Replacement: In the first quarter of 1999, Public Works staff met with each equipment-using department to discuss planned replacements and come up with a final list. This list was placed in the budget proposal earlier this year. The final list for year 2000 contains 23 units estimated to cost (gross) $683,842. This listing is attached for your information. Of those, there are 9 vehicles that will cost more than $25,000 and will require Council authorization. The Year 2000 proposed budget contains $712,140 (gross) for equipment purchases. The difference is due to the removal of a trailer and a sedan from the initial budget request. The trailer will be kept for some additional time and the sedan was replaced earlier in 1999 and should not have been included in year 2000 proposed budget. Attachments: Resolution Year 2000 Equipment Purchase Spreadsheet Prepared by: Michael Roth, Administrative Assistant Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer 91 RESOLUTION NO. 99-143 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING REPORT, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS, AND AUTHORIZING ADVERTISEMENTS FOR BIDS FOR YEAR 2000 MAJOR EQUIPMENT PURCHASES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota has received a report from the Director of Public Works related to major equipment scheduled for replacement during year 2000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The Director of Public Works Report regarding year 2000 equipment replacement is hereby accepted. 2. The following nine (9) pieces of equipment costing $25,000 or more are authorized for replacement during year 2000: Old Vehicle Unit No. New Vehicle Description 1. 9001 1. Zamboni, Propane 2. 980X 2. Police Squad 3. 980X 3. Police Squad 4. 980X 4. Police Squad 5. 980X 5. Police Squad 6. 980X 6. Police Squad 7. 8525 7. Excavator 8. 8525E 8. Hydraulic Breaker Attachment 9. 9234 9. 1T truck, Utility 3. The Director of Public Works is further authorized to acquire all year 2000 equipment purchases as allowed by Statute, Charter, or Ordinance through the following methods: by bid, by purchase from State of Minnesota Contract, Hennepin County Contract, or by quotations. 4. The necessary Specifications for year 2000 equipment purchases as prepared under the direction of the Director of Public Works are Approved. 5. When necessary, the City Clerk shall prepare and cause to be inserted at least two weeks in the official newspaper and in the Construction Bulletin advertisements for bids for said equipment under said specifications. Advertisements shall appear not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the date and time bids will be received by the City Clerk, and that no bids will be considered unless sealed and filed with the City Clerk and accompanied by a cashier’s check, bid bond, or certified check payable to the City for five (5) percent of the amount of the bid. 92 6. Bids received for equipment shall be tabulated by the Director of Public Works who shall report his tabulation and recommendation to the City Council. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 93 VII. Year 2000 Major Equipment Purchases OLD OLD REPLACEMENT PRIMARY NEW VEHICLE Year 2000 UNIT # DESCRIPTION CYCLE AGE DEPT. DESCRIPTION APPRO. * 1 9001 Zamboni, Propane 10 10 Bldgs. & Structures Zamboni, Propane $56,650 2 9013 Truck, 1Ton, 2x4 10 or 90,000 10 Grounds & N. R. Truck, 1Ton, 2x4 $17,716 3 9018 Gravely Mower 10 10 Grounds & N. R. Gravely Mower $7,048 4 9503 Retired Squad Car 4 5 Inspections Jeep Cherokee $21,000 5 9504 Retired Squad Car 4 5 Inspections Jeep Cherokee $21,000 6 9505 Retired Squad Car 4 5 Inspections Jeep Cherokee $21,000 7 9601 Retired Squad Car 4 4 Inspections Jeep Cherokee $21,000 8 9603 Retired Squad Car 4 4 Inspections Jeep Cherokee $21,000 9 Inspections Jeep Cherokee $21,000 10 9223 Ford Crown Victoria 8 or 100,000 8 Police Ford Crown Victoria $22,145 * 11 980X Police Squad 2 2 Police Police Squad $30,000 * 12 980X Police Squad 2 2 Police Police Squad $30,000 * 13 980X Police Squad 2 2 Police Police Squad $30,000 * 14 980X Police Squad 2 2 Police Police Squad $30,000 * 15 980X Police Squad 2 2 Police Police Squad $30,000 * 16 8525 Excavator 15 15 Pool Excavator $185,400 17 8525A Excavator Bucket 15 15 Pool Excavator Bucket $11,374 * 18 8525E Hydraulic Breaker Attachment 15 15 Pool Hydraulic Breaker Attachment $29,889 19 8525F Compactor Attachment 15 15 Pool Compactor Attachemnt $15,496 20 9012 Truck, 1 Ton, 2x4 10 or 90,000 10 Operations Truck, 1Ton, 2x4 $17,716 21 9602 Retired Squad Car 2 2 Operations Truck, 1/2 Ton, 2x4 $18,100 22 9909 Bobcat, Lease 1 1 Operations Bobcat, Lease $2,000 * 23 9234 Truck, 1 Ton Utility 10 or 90,000 8 Utilities Truck 1T Utiltity $24,308 * Units estimated near or over $25,000 that Council will be requested authorization to purchase TOTAL $683,842 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #8p* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8p. Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for participation in the Federal Aid Preservation Program at various traffic signal locations throughout the City. Hennepin County is requesting the City execute a Cooperative Agreement for participation in the Federal Aid Preservation Program to be managed by Hennepin County for traffic signal improvements at various locations throughout the City. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to execute Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 60-05-99. Background: In March of 1999 City staff applied for Federal Funding to upgrade various traffic signal systems throughout the City under a program entitled “Federal Aid Preservation Program”. The projects applied for are: The conversion of the red traffic signal incandescent lamps to energy efficient LED (Light Emitting Diode) lamps, and the exterior painting of these same traffic signals. The attached map identifies the 35 locations of the traffic signal systems approved for federal funding. There are 19 of the 35 locations that will also be painted. The Federal Funding for the project pays 80 percent ($63,120) with local funds paying 20 percent ($15,780). In addition the City must pay engineering costs of 10 percent ($7,890). Following is a cost breakdown for the project: Total Construction Cost = $ 78,900 Federal Funds (80%) 63,120 Local Construction Costs (20%) 15,780 Local Engineering Costs (10%) 7,890 Total Local Project Costs $ 23,670 Funding for this project has been included in the Public Works Operations Budget for the year 2000. Attachments: Map of Various Traffic Signal Locations Resolution Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Mike Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 95 RESOLUTION NO. 99-144 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE FEDERAL AID PRESERVATION PROGRAM AT VARIOUS TRAFFIC SIGNAL LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has been requested to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County No. PW 60-05-99 for participation in the Federal Aid Preservation Program at various traffic signal locations throughout the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute Hennepin County Agreement No. PW 60-05-99 for participation in the Federal Aid Preservation Program at various locations throughout the City. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk 96 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 8q* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *8q. Authorization to Use City Property for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail This report considers the adoption of a resolution required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation authorizing the use and dedication of City property for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail. Recommended Action: Motion to adopt the attached resolution authorizing the use and dedication of City property for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail. Discussion: The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) has requested the City adopt a resolution formally authorizing and dedicating the park land in Dakota Park, Nelson Park, Aquila Park, right of way adjacent to Phillips Parkway, and the trail easement on the McCullough property trail easement, for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail for non motorized trail purposes as indicated on the plans. This action will satisfy the requirements for right of way acquisition for state and federally funded projects. It is anticipated that this project will be bid in the spring for construction in the summer of 2000. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Carlton Moore/Mike Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 97 RESOLUTION NO. 99-145 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING USE OF CITY PROPERTY FOR THE HUTCHINSON SPUR REGIONAL TRAIL MINN. PROJECT NO. TEAX 2798 (032) S.P. 163-090-01 CITY PROJECT NO. 98-09 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, has prepared plans and specifications for the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail improvements; and WHEREAS, said plans and specifications are designated as City Project No. 98-09, State Project No. 163-090-01, and Minn. Project No. TEAX 2798 (032); and WHEREAS, the plans and specifications for said project require the use of certain City property to construct the necessary improvements at Dakota Park, Nelson Park, Aquila Park, right of way adjacent to Phillips Parkway, and the trail easement on the McCullough property . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, hereby authorizes the use of City property at Dakota Park, Nelson Park, Aquila Park, right of way adjacent to Phillips Parkway, and the trail easement on the McCullough property for construction of the Hutchinson Spur Regional Trail for non motorized trail purposes as indicated in the plans for Project S.P. 163-090-01. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council December 6, 1999 City Manager Mayor Attest:Reviewed for Administration: Attest: City Clerk 98 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #9a* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *9a. Single Audit Report This is a report prepared by the audit firm of HLB Tautges Redpath, Ltd., on Federal Financial Assistance. Recommended Action: Motion to accept report Background: A single audit report was required for year ended December 31, 1998. The single audit report is required when federal financial assistance received exceeds $300,000. In 1998 a total of $460,349 was received. This assistance was for disaster assistance with the storms, the Community Development Block Grant and the COPS grant. Attachments: Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and Independent Auditor’s Reports. Prepared by: Jean D. McGann, Director of Finance Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 99 Item # 9b* MINUTES (Official) CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA March 25, 1999 City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room I. Call to Order Chair Samudio called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. Introductions and Attendance It was moved by Commissioner Beck and seconded by Commissioner Velik to excuse absent members who had requested absent status. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOULSY. A. Members Present: Therese Samudio, Cynthia Ahrens, George Beck, Dorothea Moga, Richard Pogin, Alan Sargent, Jim Schaefer, Sally Velik B. Members Excused: Christopher Johnson, Michael Sixel C. Members Unexcused: Paul Carver, Philip Finkelstein, Ruth Kirschner (Note: Paul Carver called later on 3/25/1999 to indicate he was delayed by a Northwest Airlines flight, but intended to attend this meeting.) D. Staff Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires E. Vacancies: The Commission currently has two vacancies. III. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Pogin, seconded by Commissioner Ahrens to approve the meeting minutes of May 26, 1998 as presented. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY (with Commissioner Velik abstaining). IV. Annual Officer Elections Chair Samudio presented the following slate of candidates for Commission offices: Chair: George Beck Vice Chair: Cynthia Ahrens Secretary: Michael Sixel 100 It was moved by Chair Samudio, seconded by Commissioner Pogin to elect the slate of candidates presented. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Commissioner Samudio then turned the Commission chair over to newly elected Chair Beck. V. Approved Charter Updates Staff Liaison Pires reported that the City Council approved amendments to Chapters 2, 6, 11, and 12 had all taken effect. It was moved by Chair Beck, seconded by Commissioner Velik that the Charter document now be reprinted with these amendments incorporated. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. VI. Recodification of City Ordinance Code Staff Liaison Pires reported that the process for recodification of the City Ordinance Code has begun. A description of the process, including reports to the City Council, was provided to Commission members. Commissioner Samudio noted that the reports show that certain proposed changes to the City Ordinance Code would require consideration and possible action by the Commission. Chair Beck stated that recodification as it relates to the Charter may be a major project for the Commission during the next 12 months. Chair Beck suggested that the commission plan its future meetings during the next several months around this project. Staff Liaison Pires stated that the Commission would be invited to participate in providing comments and suggestions as this process unfolds, including review of section drafts provided by Municipal Code Corporation, the City’s contractor for recodification. No action was required. VII. Legislative Session Update-Impact on City Charter Staff Liaison Pires reported that the City Attorney reviewed current state legislation for potential impacts on the Charter Commission, and that no related legislation was pending. Staff Liaison Pires stated that he would inform commission members of any legislation he becomes aware of that could have potential impacts on the Charter Commission. No action was required. VIII. Meeting Schedule Chair Beck asked whether the second Wednesday of the month would work as a meeting day for Commission members. Commissioner Samudio indicated that she had just recently become available to meet on second Wednesdays. Chair Beck then stated that the Commission should plan to meet on the second Wednesday of each month, but not beginning until draft sections of the City Ordinance code are available for Commission review. No action was required. IX. Other Business Commissioner Samudio requested that the Chair consider maintaining an adjournment time 101 of 9:00 p.m. or earlier. No objections were stated. Commissioner Samudio requested that the Chair reconsider revisions to Chapter 9- Franchises. After discussion by Commission members, it was agreed that this issue had been settled at the May 26, 1998 meeting, where the Motion that the Commission approve the revised City Attorney version of the Chapter 9-Franchise language failed (3-8). No further action was required. Commissioner Samudio stated that the 1998 Commission annual report should be prepared and submitted to Hennepin County Court. Staff Liaison Pires indicated he would draft said report and submit it to Chair Beck for review and correction prior sending it to Hennepin County Court. Commissioner Samudio suggested that in the absence of newly elected Secretary Sixel, Vice Chair Ahrens should review this meeting’s minutes. Commissioner Samudio stated that there are currently two vacancies on the Commission, and current Commission members should encourage others who may be interested to apply to Hennepin County District Court for Commission membership. Staff Liaison Pires was requested to draft an advertisement for Commission vacancies to be placed in the City’s official newspaper, and send the draft to Chair Beck for review prior to publication. There was discussion regarding letters and terms of appointment for Commission members. It was moved by Commissioner Samudio, seconded by Commissioner Moga that Hennepin County District court be requested by Staff Liaison Pires to send copies of letters of current and future appointments to the Commission as well as current member terms and dates to Staff Liaison Pires, to keep City records current. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. X. Adjournment As there was no other business, it was moved by Commissioner Schaefer, and seconded by Commissioner Velik to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Clint Pires Staff Liaison 102 Item # 9c* MINUTES (Official) CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA October 13, 1999 City Hall, Third Floor Conference Room I. Call to Order: Chair Beck called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. Introductions and Attendance It was moved by Commissioner Moga, seconded by Commissioner Ahrens to excuse Paul Carver's absence at the March 25, 1999 meeting and Phil Finkelstein and Therese Samudio's absence at the October 13, 1999 meeting. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. A. Members Present: Cynthia Ahrens, George Beck, Paul Carver, Chris Johnson, Dorothea Moga, Alan Sargent, James Schaefer, Michael Sixel, Carol Walsh B. Members Excused: Phil Finkelstein, Therese Samudio C. Members Unexcused: Ruth Kirschner, Richard Pogin D. Staff Present: City Staff Liaison Clint Pires E. Vacancies: The Commission currently has two vacancies. III. Approval of Minutes It was moved by Commissioner Ahrens, seconded by Commissioner Sixel to approve the meeting minutes of May 26, 1999 as presented. MOTION Passed unanimously. IV. Charter Review 2.08, 3.01, 4.06 (petition form, remove the 19), changes were approved per the recommendations of the recodification project’s lawyer. The following changes suggested by the recodification project’s lawyer were not approved: 2.07, 4.06, 11.06, 5.05, 12.01 More information on the rationale for changes suggested in 2.07 will be sought by the Commission. 103 Also, the following changes were made based on acceptance of the rationale of the recodification project’s lawyer. The text was revised to enhance clarity: 2.06 "…Mayor in case of the Mayor's disability, absence from the City, or in the case of vacancy in the office of Mayor until a successor is appointed and qualified." 3.03 "A majority of the Council shall constitute a quorum." 3.07, (d) "…thereto by marking a copy "official copy" and filing it...." V. Retiring Commissioners/Vacancies The Commission unanimously passed a resolution commending our "retiring" members for their service to the Commission, and most importantly, St. Louis Park. VI. Meeting Schedule A meeting was called for the 2nd Wednesday of November. Mr. Pires was asked to add phone number and e-mail address to our roster. VIII. Adjournment As there was no other business, it was moved by Commissioner Ahrens, and seconded by Commissioner Schaefer to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. Respectfully submitted, Michael Sixel Secretary 104 Item #9d* City of St. Louis Park Human Rights Commission Meeting Minutes - October 20, 1999 First Floor Community Room - City Hall ______________________________________________________________________________ Present Commission Members: Marc Berg, Kim Fisher, Laurel Higgins and Chris Smith Staff: Martha McDonell, staff liaison, and Lynn Schwartz, recording secretary Guests: Karen Finney, Emily Wallace-Jackson, Marcy Joseph, Michael Garelick, Josine Peters Chair Laurel Higgins called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. Approval of Minutes Moved by Chris Smith and seconded by Laurel Higgins to accept the September minutes. Reports Martha McDonell distributed a memo from Herb Isbin outlining topics he wishes the commission to study. Martha McDonell reported that the City Council did not appoint Oreland Thornsjo to the commission. Concern was expressed that the City Council, in its reluctance to offend applicants, may be misleading them into thinking they will be appointed. It was suggested that the City Council should consider promptly sending a letter informing applicants that they have not been appointed to avoid misunderstanding in the future. Laurel Higgins reported that Petrona Melgarejo has been interviewed by the City Council; however, no formal action has been taken. Strategic Action Plan One: Receiving, Responding and Reporting Calls Phone Line Call Report: Martha McDonell reported on two calls. One caller sought help in finding transportation for a new immigrant who was having difficulty getting to her job. McDonell offered several suggestions and linked the caller with the neighborhood association which posted an ad its neighborhood newsletter. Another caller sought the phone number of the Minnesota Department of Human Rights because he was considering filing a discrimination complaint against his employer. John Archbold has finished his rotation in responding to calls coming to the Human Rights phone line. Calls to the phone line for the remainder of October as well as November and December will be forwarded to Herb Isbin. Martha McDonell will contact Isbin and supply him with materials. 105 Strategic Action Plan Two: Public Awareness Campaign 1999 Human Rights Award: Martha McDonell reported on updates she made to the award announcement letter: the criteria was changed so that the nominee need not be a St. Louis Park resident and the deadline date was changed. She also checked on possible City Council meeting dates when the award could be presented. McDonell reported that the best meeting date to present the award would January 3rd. Commissioners agreed to aim for a January 3rd presentation as well as ask last year’s award winner—Eileen Soderberg—to participate in the ceremony. They also set a December deadline for nominations so that commissioners could make their choice at their December 15th meeting. McDonell suggested that the commission offer more specific examples of the types of actions that might qualify a company for the award. Members agreed to rewrite the letter to include more examples. McDonell will contact Betty Merritt to make the revisions. Block Captains’ Training: McDonell reported on the October 7th block captains training session (the October 9th session was cancelled and rescheduled to November 6th). As a result of the commission’s participation, McDonell reported that the Oak Hill neighborhood association is interested in having a presentation on the Human Rights Commission at one of its neighborhood meetings. Before the next block captain session, McDonell suggested that commissioners try to come up with ideas that link their efforts to neighborhood efforts. Marc Berg offered to attend the November 6th session. McDonell will check with Petrona Melgarejo to see if she wants to attend the block captain training session as well. Human Rights Conference: McDonell reported on the Human Rights Day conference and noted that the speaker from the City of Shoreview’s counseling center would make an excellent presenter for a commission meeting or St. Louis Park community meeting. The speaker—Julie Williams—discussed her work in the juvenile diversion program and her belief that adult violent crimes and hate/bias crimes can be linked to childhood incidents of harassment and teasing. Laurel Higgins agreed that Williams would be an excellent resource. If commissioners wish to focus on preventing bias/hate crimes by working with children, Martha McDonell suggested bringing Karen Atkinson of Children First to a future Human Rights Commission meeting as well. This might also be a topic for inclusion in next year’s work plan. Laurel Higgins reported that Mort Ryweck will be speaking at the St. Louis Park Police Station on December 10th on the topic of identifying bias/hate crimes. Ryweck will be speaking as part of an all day law enforcement training session; Ryweck is scheduled to speak from 1 to 2 p.m. Commissioners are encouraged to attend, but should call Martha McDonell so she can make arrangements. Chris Smith and Kim Fisher expressed interest in attending. Strategic Action Plan Three: School Support School District Strategic Plan: Laurel Higgins gave a brief overview of Barbara Pulliam’s presentation at last month’s meeting. Chris Smith noted that he felt better about the district’s direction after listening to Pulliam’s presentation. Although most of the diversity projects will not be addressed until year two or three of the plan, Martha McDonell noted that the commission can still work on other school-related projects. 106 New Business Issues: Commission members and visitors then had a general discussion on human rights issues facing St. Louis Park. Although few complaints or crimes occur, discussion participants felt that St. Louis Park has human rights concerns that should be addressed. These included: perceptions about the schools, the “invisibility” of problems (people are reluctant to complain or stand out), the need to appreciate differences while also building bridges of acceptance, the need to feel more safe in identifying yourself as a different from the majority culture, and the need to address the importance of human rights at a very early age. Michael Garelick, a member of the Planning Commission, offered to be a speaker on housing if the need arises. Annual Report: Laurel Higgins reported that she will be preparing the Human Rights Commission’s year-end report to the City Council. She asked members to bring their suggestions to the next meeting. Old Business Bylaws: Herb Isbin and Chris Smith worked on revisions to the bylaws, and Smith reviewed some of the proposed changes. Martha McDonell reported that the bylaws can be presented and discussed tonight, but can’t be moved on until next month. Smith asked that McDonell check the City ordinance to determine whether the School Board appoints or approves a commission representative. McDonell agreed to check with the City Clerk and report back at the next meeting. Smith noted that Herb Isbin proposed deleting the reference to standing committees because the commission isn’t following this procedure. Smith also pointed out that the reference to Roberts’ Rules of Order could remain since there are provisions for small governing bodies and these rules are much less formal. Smith felt it was appropriate to retain the reference to Roberts’ Rules since some rules are needed. Recruitment: Martha McDonell reported on recruitment efforts. The article in the Park Perspective newsletter netted 17 calls and a number of applicants. McDonell felt the larger number of callers bodes well for filling the commission’s vacancies. She reported that the City Council interviews everyone who applies, and she encouraged the visitors to submit an application if they haven’t already done so. Discrimination and Affirmative Action: Laurel Higgins suggested that the discussion about unfair discrimination and affirmative action be moved to next month’s agenda since Herb Isbin—who initiated the request—was not at tonight’s meeting. Members agreed to place these items on the November agenda. Set Agenda Higgins asked that next month’s agenda include a discussion of what should be highlighted in the year end report to the City Council. Higgins noted that her term expires at the end of the year so members should also begin considering whether they wish to serve as the commission chair. 107 Adjournment Moved by Chris Smith and seconded by Marc Berg to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynn Schwartz, Recording Secretary 108 Item # 9e* MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 3, 1999 --7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Michelle Bissonnette, Paul Carver (arrived 7:05) Michael Garelick, Ken Gothberg, Jerry Timian, Sally Velick MEMBERS ABSENT: Dennis Morris STAFF PRESENT: Janice Loftus, Sacha Peterson 1. Vice-Chair Bissonnette called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes of October 20, 1998 Ms. Velick moved approval of the minutes of October 20, 1999 and the motion passed unanimously. 3. Hearings: A. Case No. 99-25-Z - Request of City of St. Louis Park to rezone a portion of the property located at the northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue from “O” Office & R-2 Single Family Residential to R-4 Multiple Family Residence. Vice Chair Bissonnette opened the public hearing. Sacha Peterson, Planning Associate, presented the staff report. She stated that staff is proposing that an approximately 5 acre portion of property in the northwest quadrant of West 16th Street and Zarthan Avenue be rezoned to R-4 Multiple Family Residential. She indicated that earlier in the year this property was reguided to RM, Medium Density Residential for the Comprehensive Plan and that would basically support a density up to 30 units per acre and permit single family townhomes, duplexes, cluster housing including townhomes, multiple family dwellings, and elderly housing by CUP. She stated that the reguiding was done as part of a process for an overall updating of the Comprehensive Plan which included several neighborhood meetings and is consistent with what staff and the City Council believe to be the desires of the neighborhood. She indicated that the current industrial use and the office property that are part of this parcel would be non-conforming if the property is rezoned to R-4. She noted that there is a particular proposal which has received preliminary concept approval from the City Council in terms of some financial 109 assistance which has been submitted by CSM Corporation and Rottlund Townhomes. As part of that proposal, the Rottlund Company would like to develop some urban style town homes at a density of 16-17 units per acre on this property and this would be allowed with the proposed zoning change. She also indicated that there is a portion of this property guided as neighborhood park. The Comprehensive Plan does not specify an exact location for the park, but it needs to be somewhere within that parcel so any redevelopment of that property would need to include some park land. Staff recommends approval of the rezoning request to R-4, Multiple Family Residence District. Mr. Timian asked how much park land would need to be included. Ms. Peterson stated that it would be approximately one acre out of five acres. Ms. Velick mentioned that she saw the area and it doesn’t seem that spacious to handle 85 - 150 units of housing and wondered if that would be difficult to handle for that small corner. She said she does not want to see something like Victoria Ponds again. Mr. Garelick asked about the location proximity to Home Depot. Ms. Peterson pointed out the location on the map. Mr. Timian asked if there is a conceptual plan for the Rottlund proposal. Ms. Peterson indicated that there is a conceptual plan but this is not part of the rezoning request. She noted that the conceptual plan is 4 to 5 buildings with about 80 townhouse units and a one acre park. Mr. Timian asked if the townhouses were stacked units. Ms. Peterson stated that that proposal is for 2 1/2 story townhomes. Each of the townhomes is proposed to have a 2 car garage, with only one entrance to the garages per building. Mr. Garelick asked if this rezoning is approved would the Planning Commission have a chance to review the plans and then make any modifications. Ms. Peterson said the rezoning makes way for this type of project, but the project would need to come back for a full review by the Planning Commission, including such things as consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, architectural design, setbacks, etc. Mr. Garelick asked if staff had any idea what something like this would cost per unit. 110 Ms. Peterson stated that what she understands that the townhomes would start at around $180,000. (Later corrected by the developer as $150,000.) Mr. Garelick provided the Planning Commission the following information for consideration of what they are approving: Greensboro is located at Cedar Lake Road and Louisiana which is right down the street from this area. He noted that the 2 bedroom townhomes there which were built back in the 1970’s have 1500 square feet and are selling for about $105,000. Right next to those there are 3 bedroom townhomes with tuck under garages that are going to sell for about $125,000 - $130,000. There are some other townhouses by the railroad tracks in the Blackstone area which have a lot of density in a very small area and I assume that this proposal would look something like that. In response to an earlier point, Ms. Peterson pointed out that the Victoria Ponds project is 10 units per acre in density and that a Vic Ponds would be permitted with the R-3 or R-4 zoning. But, the design of the project can have a big effect on the apparent density. Ms. Velick asked if staff is saying that if the Planning Commission approves the change the property would have more density than Victoria Ponds, but because of the design it will be more desirable. Ms. Peterson stated that we need to separate the rezoning proposal from any preliminary concept plan being proposed, but the rezoning would allow for higher density than the Vic Ponds project. Steve Now, 1629 Brunswick Avenue South, stated “In what you are discussing as the density, there is another development right on Brunswick in that particular small complex where units are selling in the $125,000 to $130,000 range and they run about 1200 finished square feet and there are about 10 of them right there. If you look at the space that that takes up to have 10 in that small area it’s really not that bad. So as far as having 30 units per acre, I don’t see any concerns with that at all. My only concern would be the price point and starting at $180,000 may be too high. I know we want move-up housing, but there are a lot of young professionals out there starting out and wanting their first home. They don’t want to live out in Chanhassen, but would prefer to live in St. Louis Park. Because St. Louis Park is an inner ring suburb, we don’t have a lot of townhomes and a lot of them don’t want the responsibilities of lawn care, etc. My concern would be to have a little lower price bracket such as $130,000 to $150,000”. Joshua Aaron, 7600 W. 14th Street, stated “I have been a long time resident of St. Louis Park and I am the President of Parkland Company also located in St. Louis Park. Having reviewed the immediate area, there are approximately 5 1/2 million square feet of office, retail, industrial and warehouse existing or proposed in the area of Hwy 394 and Hwy 100. The City of St. Louis Park has a tremendous opportunity to develop a supporting community which would enable workers to 111 not just work here, but also live in the neighborhood. To meet those needs, we have developed a preliminary concept plan which would create a neighborhood that would include a variety of housing options, neighborhood and retail services, and amenities. This plan is based on both the Vision St. Louis Park and Livable Community guidelines. We are in the process of meeting with City officials to gain further support for our plan. For this reason, I respectfully request that the Planning Commission postpone any action this evening that would prevent an appropriate overall neighborhood development”. Mr. Garelick asked if Mr. Aaron was a principal in this development. Mr. Aaron indicated that he was a land owner of two properties within this proposed rezoning area (on the corner of 16th and Zarthan on the northwest corner and the park that is currently leased by the City of St. Louis Park). Richard Palmatier, Rottlund Company, stated “We have been working with CSM Corporation and the City in a development plan for this particular property. We have been working with the intent of going forward with this project in the near future and I would like to request that you go forward with this planned rezoning tonight that would keep the process moving. We would appreciate that.” Mr. Garelick asked, how many bedrooms were proposed in the townhouse concept and who was the market designated for. Mr. Palmatier indicated that this was a brand new housing type for us that is being proposed, but would be a 3 level building and the market that we would be aiming for would be the young professionals. We have presented to the City that the price point we would like to average for these particular units is $150,000. Mr. Garelick indicated that in Plymouth there is an area called Parkers Lake that has a similar design. He asked Mr. Palmatier if he is familiar with this area, and if this proposed development is patterned after any other development in the Twin Cities area. Mr. Palmatier stated that some of the similar design concepts come after Centennial Lakes in Edina and that our design architect is the same one that designed those particular units. In order to get a little bit higher density, we would have to bring the garage inside which allows for a cleaner look on the exterior with one garage door and front doors to every unit. Mr. Garelick asked what the time frame was. Mr. Palmatier stated that the general process would be going through the approval process this winter with a spring construction start. CSM Corporation is looking at the same sort of thing, but has some major demolition along I-394 which would take additional effort. 112 Mr. Garelick stated that the area is in definite need of redevelopment. The Blackstone neighborhood is low on aesthetics and value of property and if we can find something that will start giving the community back some life over there, it would be worthwhile and be something to base other developments on as we go through the neighborhoods. He asked if the proposal is for owner occupied townhomes. Mr. Palmatier indicated that the proposal is for 100% owner occupied townhomes. Vice Chair Bissonnette staed she believes the proposal would bring more of a mixed use feel to the area. Mr. Gothberg stated that back when we were going through the Comprehensive Plan, the primary reason for recommending reguiding of this particular area was to make sure we had more of a buffer and transition between major office and business areas and the residential area and by reguiding we would be able to accomplish that objective. My personal view point is that the R-4 rezoning is the appropriate way to go. Mr. Garelick moved that the Commission recommend approval of the rezoning request based on a finding that the R-4 zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed on a vote of 6-0 with Bissonnette, Carver, Garelick, Gothberg, Timian, and Velick voting in favor. 4. Old Business - None 5. New Business A. Consent Agenda B. Other New Business Ms. Velick commented that it has come to her attention from several of her neighbors that they are having a lot of difficulty in the area of traffic at the intersection of the south frontage road of Hwy 394 and Texas and she is hoping that staff could initiate some sort of traffic study at that intersection because it is getting increasingly difficult to get off of Texas because there are so many people coming in and vice versa. It is very dangerous. Mr. Gothberg said he believes that part of the issue is that many people are using Texas Avenue to avoid Louisiana Avenue. Mr. Carver said the bigger issue is with Wayzata Boulevard and the cross traffic. Ms. Peterson indicated that she would bring the issue up to the Public Works Department. 113 6. Communications A. Recent City Council Action - November 1, 1999 B. Board of Zoning Appeals Minutes - September 23, 1999 C. Board of Zoning Appeals Agenda - October 28, 1999 D. Training Reminder - November 13, 1999 E. Other 7. Miscellaneous In response to a question from Mr. Timian on the status of the CUB situation, Ms. Peterson stated that most of the issues relative to late hour delivery, parking lot sweeping and lighting have been substantially rectified. She stated that at Monday’s City Council meeting a resident stated that the late evening noise is less. Vice Chair Bissonnette stated that the traffic at Texas and Highway 7 is awful. Ms. Peterson stated that the Traffic Study of the area shows that the traffic at the intersection on Texas and Highway 7 is a Level D at rush hour and the theater use will not change that level. 8. Adjournment Vice Chair Bissonnette adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Janice Loftus Administrative Secretary Prepared by: Shirley Olson Recording Secretary 114 Item # 9f* MINUTES HOUSING AUTHORITY ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA October 13, 1999 Community Room MEMBERS PRESENT: William Gavzy, Bridget Gothberg and Judith Moore MEMBERS ABSENT: Catherine Courtney and Shone Row STAFF PRESENT: Michele Schnitker, Sharon Anderson, Paula Jordan, Cindy Stromberg and Tom Harmening OTHERS PRESENT: Randall D. Niewedde, Niewedde and Wiens 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m. 2. Approval of the Minutes Commissioners noted corrections in the September 8th Board Minutes. (Corrections noted and made). Commissioner Moore moved to approve the minutes as amended. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg and Moore voting in favor. Commissioner Moore moved to approve the September 22nd minutes. Commissioner Gavzy seconded the motion. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0 With Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg and Moore voting in favor. 3. Hearings: None 4. Reports and Committees: None 5. Unfinished Business : None 6. New Business: 115 a. Financial Audit for Fiscal Year Ending, March 31, 1999. Ms. Schnitker stated that Niewedde & Wiens conducted the audit for the Fiscal Year ending 3/31/99. In their report there were three reportable conditions relating to outstanding checks, investments and the FSS program. The FSS program condition is considered a material weakness. Randall D. Niewedde from the accounting firm was in attendance to present the audit report and answer any questions from the commissioners. Mr. Niewedde indicated that this would be the last year for this type of report presentation. Next year the HUD is requiring all HAs to switch to GAAP, (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals), which will provide a better financial picture of the HA. Mr. Niewedde provided an analysis of the surplus account. The amount of, $89,611, was added to the public housing reserves for the fiscal year ending, March 31, 1999, resulting in a total reserve balance of $528,157. Mr. Niewedde indicated that this was a very good balance for a housing authority of this size. The Certificate and Voucher programs showed a slight decrease in their reserve balances. He stated that the operating reserves in the Section 8 Certificate and Voucher Programs are more than adequate for the size of these programs. Financial Statement Findings - Outstanding Checks, Investments, and FSS findings were discussed. Mr.Niewedde stated that limited financial services from December 31, 1998 to March 31, 1999 due to staff turnover may have contributed to some of the problems noted in the findings. He noted that the agency has reorganized, implemented in-house accounting and services, and has also implemented new financial software since the end of the Fiscal year just audited. b. Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy Plan; Income Mix and Deconcentration of Poverty - Resolution No. 464 Ms. Schnitker reported that staff is requesting the Authority to adopt a resolution making a determination that no change is needed to the Public Housing Leasing and Occupancy Plan to comply with the income mix and deconcentration of poverty provisions required by the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 (QHWRA). All housing authorities are required to comply with this requirement, but the intent of this does not apply to St.Louis Park. Deconcentration requirements apply to housing authorities who have multiple developments where there is the potential to have one development be more affluent than another. HUD instructed staff to implement a resolution stating that St. Louis Park's current policies comply with the new regulation. 116 Commissioner Gothberg moved to adopt Resolution No. 464. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Moore and Gothberg voting in favor. c. Administration of Rental Assistance for Family Stabilization (RAFS) Ms. Schnitker stated that staff is requesting that the Housing Authority Board grant permission to the Metropolitan Council Housing and Redevelopment Authority (Metro HRA) to administer the RAFS program in St. Louis Park. Ms. Schnitker reported that in June, 1999, the Board authorized the Housing Authority to exercise it's right to terminate the agreement with MHFA to administer the RAFS program in St. Louis Park. The reason for this was that it was not cost- effective to continue to administer. Despite efforts to expand the program, families utilizing the RAFS subsidy in St. Louis Park remained at two to four families over the past two years. The RAFS agreement was terminated effective August 30, 1999. Ms. Schnitker stated that the Metro HRA has requested permission to administer the rental subsidy component of the RAFS program in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Moore moved to grant permission to Metro HRA to administer the RAFS Program in St. Louis Park. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gothberg, Gavzy and Moore in favor. d. Action Plan Update - Year 2000 Commissioner Gavzy asked if the Action Plan Update - Year 2000 could be tabled for one month so that the entire Board would have an opportunity to discuss the plan prior to the Board adoption. All Commissioners and staff were in agreement; the plan will be tabled until the November meeting. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List No 99-10 Ms. Schnitker added that utility reimbursements to tenants have been added to the claims list. She indicated that because of the new financial software, next month staff would provide two versions of the claims list for the Board's approval, the manual version that they usually see, and a report generated by the new financial software. Commissioner Gavzy indicated that it would not be necessary to run two versions unless staff chose to do so. Commissioner Gavzy indicated that submission of only the computer generated claims report would be acceptable to the Board. 117 Commissioner Gothberg moved approval of Claims List No 99-10 in the amount of $139,334.25. Commissioner Moore seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 3-0 with Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg and Moore voting in favor. b. Communications (1) Monthly Report for October, 1999 The report was accepted and filed. (2) Scattered Site Houses and Hamilton House Report Sharon Anderson gave an update on CIAP. The project with Flag Builders has been going very well. The driveways were completed by ACI, as a side contract, and their work was exceptional. Ms. Anderson reported that the smoke detectors, concrete, tree removal, fencing, exhaust fans and siding projects are all complete. She added that the roof work, is progressing. Zone valves have also been completed at Hamilton House. Ms. Anderson indicated that all facets of the project have progressed on schedule. (3) Home Renewal Program Habitat Program Update Ms. Schnitker reported that staff is scheduled to close on the Jersey property with Stobbe Builders, October 16th. Stobbe is planning on breaking ground this year in order to get the shell up and enclosed before winter. The Ottawa property is also scheduled to close on October 16th. Ms. Schnitker stated that letters are being sent to all neighboring residents explaining the Home Renewal Program and what they can expect to happen to the property. The proposal packets to potential developers should be mailed next week. John Altepeter, Superintendent of Facilities Maintenance, is ready to arrange demolition of the property as soon as we close. Commissioner Gavzy inquired about the neighborhood notification radius. Ms. Schnitker replied that the notification area radius was 350 feet from the property. (4) PPL - Louisiana Court Update Ms. Schnitker reported that the Livable Communities Grant was submitted and that staff was very pleased with the end result. 118 Applicants will be invited to make presentations to the Met Council next month. Ms. Schnitker said that the inclusion of twelve Hollman units in the proposal should be advantageous for the application. She said that staff would continue updating the Board on this issue and possibly present an authorization for a Cooperation Agreement at the November meeting. Commissioner Moore inquired about the City Council's response to the Livable Communities grant application. Ms. Schnitker replied that the City Council approved the Livable Communities Grant submission, but that the City Council has not made a final decision whether to issue GO bonds for the project. All issues related to the Louisiana Court Project will be reviewed with the Council at their November 22nd Study Session. Final approval to issue the bonds will be presented to the Council at their December 20th meeting. Commissioner Moore inquired about the Hollman Unit. Ms. Schnitker provided background on the Hollman units. Ms. Schnitker indicated that the Board will be asked to enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City and an Initial Agreement with the Minneapolis Public Housing Authority. Ms. Schnitker said that incorporating Hollman units into the Louisiana project is a very desirable method for St. Louis Park to increase its supply of affordable units, since it would be difficult to go into an existing neighborhood and build affordable housing. (5) Action Plan 7. Other Sharon Anderson reported on a situation where the tenant was asked to vacate for attempting to sublet his unit. The tenant did move out and the unit has been re-rented. Ms. Schnitker said that the Housing Authority tour could be held at 3:30P.M. prior to the November 10th Board meeting. The tour would consist of many of the Home Renewal properties units, some Public Housing Scattered Sites, Hamilton House, units where Section 8 participants reside and other City housing initiatives. The Board agreed to hold the tour prior to the November 10th Board meeting. 8. Adjournment 119 Commissioner Moore moved to adjourn. Commissioner Gothberg seconded the motion. The motion was passed on a 3-0 vote with Commissioners Gavzy, Gothberg and Moore voting in favor. Respectfully Submitted _________________________ Shone Row Secretary 120 Item #9g* MINUTES BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MEETING St. Louis Park, Minnesota October 28, 1999 City Hall, Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts, Mr. Reel, Mr. Robertson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Scott Moore 1. Call to Order - Roll Call Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes dated September 23, 1999 Mr. Reel moved and Mr. Robertson seconded the motion to approve the Minutes of the meeting dated September 1, 1998. Motion Passed Unanimously. 3. Consent Agenda: None 4. Public Hearings: a. Case No. 12-99 VAR -- The request of Fine Properties (Vladimir Velikson) for a variance from Sections 14:5-5.3(C)(17)(a) and 14:5-5.2(D)(4)(b) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit private indoor entertainment within 60 feet of an ® Use District and a restaurant with liquor within 100 feet of an “R” Use District for property located in the “C-2” General Commercial District Mr. Moore presented a staff report and stated that since this space could be leased to another land use which would not require the variance, the request would be contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. He concluded that since five of the seven criteria have not been satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit private indoor entertainment within 60 feet of an “R” Use District and a restaurant with liquor within 100 feet of an “R” Use District be denied. Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Ms. Bloyer questioned where the problem was in defining the type of land use. Mr. Moore indicated that the applicant was seeking to use the land for cultural ethnic dancing and there was no current land use definition that defined this activity. 121 Chair Gainsley asked why this type of land use was not considered in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Moore believed that dancing had been considered, but was not added as a type of land use. Ms. Bloyer asked if staff was aware of how other surrounding cities defined this type of activity. Mr. Moore indicated that staff had not researched this. Jim Yaroush, attorney representing Fine Properties, and Andre Velikson was present. Mr. Yaroush stated that this was a unique concept that the city code did not contemplate at this time. He indicated that the proposal was for an ethnic cultural restaurant experience where people would come in and dine and have the ability to serve drinks to those who wanted to have alcohol, but there would not be an accessory bar. He stated that this concept was modeled after other restaurants in Chicago and New York. He reviewed the history of the process that the applicant had experienced to date and indicated that in the beginning, it didn’t seem that staff was aware of the dancing component of the concept of Mr. Velikson’s plan which was integral to his operation to make this use viable, but then staff determined that this was a private indoor entertainment use and therefore a variance was required. Mr. Yaroush didn’t believe that this was not going to diminish or impair the value of the neighborhood and that people were excited about this particular use. He indicated that the applicant had experienced hardship since the code was inadequate and didn’t address this concept properly. Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Yaroush to clarify what he was asking the Board of Zoning Appeals to do. Mr. Yaroush indicated that he was asking that the Board to take the existing imperfections of the code and apply this situation to come to a determination. He believed there were reasons that the strict applications of the zoning code should be alleviated in a particular instance. Mr. Reel asked staff to clarify why the address and the location of the proposed restaurant were different. Mr. Moore clarified that for tax purposes the general 8000 address was used, but it was the space at the end of the shopping center. Mr. Robertson questioned the location within the property that the dancing was proposed. Mr. Yaroush indicated that the dancing was proposed on the front side of the building and there would not be any pedestrian or vehicular exit toward the residential area. Mr. Robertson questioned the anticipated noise level. 122 Andre Schmikoff, Manager of Euro Gourmet, stated that the dancing floor would be closer to the Minnetonka Boulevard and there would be a live band for patrons that would not be applied. Chair Gainsley asked if noise issues were considered when determining a use in a zoning ordinance. Mr. Moore indicated that when there is a situation where the land use is not defined, staff tries to define it and place it in a category that is closely related to it as possible and that traffic generation, hours of operation, and noise issues are considered. He reviewed the definition of private indoor entertainment. Mr. Reel asked if the sidewalk and patio area in front of the building would be used to serve patrons. Mr. Schmikoff stated that this was not planned or permitted by the health department. Mr. Roberts asked staff to clarify the history of why staff originally approved the condition of having a restaurant with liquor within 25 feet. Mr. Moore clarified that what staff had originally gone through was a text amendment to the zoning ordinance that would reclassify a restaurant that has liquor, as an accessory bar as a use that is permitted with conditions. Chair Gainsley believed that if this variance were approved, a broad condition would need to be placed to the affect that the concept as outlined continued to meet with staff approval throughout the execution process. Mr. Moore concurred and stated that any additional conditions that would be recommended would be put into the text amendment. Mr. Yaroush indicated that several additional steps are required to finalize this concept. Mr. Reel asked if there were different levels of liquor licenses that could be granted. Mr. Moore clarified the liquor license process. Mr. Robertson asked what the relationship was between the existing deli and the new restaurant and could this concept work at another location. Mr. Yaroush indicated that is was going to be two separate business with same ownership, but could only work if it was adjacent to the existing deli because the manager of the deli would need to be available to assist in the operations. Mr. Reel asked if there was any calls or letters from the surrounding neighborhood. 123 Mr. Moore stated that staff received some calls from residents asking what the private indoor entertainment use was and when they found out what it was they were satisfied. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Ms. Bloyer believed that this was a unique area and this concept could fit in well with the neighborhood and was not contrary to the intent of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Reel has seen this type of concept work well in another state, but he was concerned that if this was used for special events, it could cause some neighborhood disturbances. Ms. Bloyer explained that the neighborhood had no problem with Texa Tonka lanes being granted a liquor license. Mr. Roberts was in favor of requesting the variance to permit private indoor entertainment, but as far as permitting a restaurant with liquor he would be more inclined to let the text amendment serve the variance rather than putting a variance in with conditions. Mr. Moore asked that if Mr. Robert’s concern was the distance between the use and the residential property, right now it was 100 feet and that was what the requirement was and staff was recommending that that be reduced down to 25 feet. He stated that it could be looked at to put a condition in basically allowing a restaurant with liquor that was in accordance with the concept that was being contemplated right now. Mr. Robertson believed that since a portion of this concept was already established in this location, he would like to find a way to allow someone who is doing something successful now, to even be more successful. He didn’t have a problem with the distance of the restaurant to the neighborhood and it would not have negative impact on the residential area, and was comfortable with allowing these variances with the stipulations discussed. Chair Gainsley was comfortable about having a new concept in St. Louis Park and comfortable with BOZA stepping in when a particular usage is not defined within the Comprehensive Plan. He was concerned about having the alcohol there without a lot more data to back up the decision to give a variance, but actually the residential area was relatively isolated from this with a steep vertical bank. He indicated that there was safety in that this was not the end of the process. He suggested placing a condition related to the entrances and also a sunset be put on project so that there was not a precedent set for the future that would awkward. Mr. Moore indicated that staff was comfortable with the language in the standard resolution related to timing of the project. He indicated that a condition would be to limit the percentage of the leased area for dancing. 124 Mr. Robertson moved to grant both variances with a condition that the concept as outlined continue to meet with staff approval throughout the execution process. Mr. Bloyer seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4-1. Commissioner Roberts was opposed. b. Case No. 13-99 VAR -- The request of Presswrite Printing (Alan Goltzman) for a variance from Section 14:5-7.2(G)(4) of the Ordinance Code relating to zoning to permit a building with side yard setbacks of 2 feet and 12 feet 5 inches instead of the required 20 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of the required 20 feet for property located in the “I-P” Industrial Park District. Mr. Moore presented a staff report with an additional handout. He concluded that since five of the seven criteria have not been satisfied, it is recommended that the request to permit a building with side yard setbacks of 2 feet and 12 feet 5 inches instead of the required 20 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of the required 20 feet and to permit a floor area ratio of 56% instead of the maximum of 50 % for property located in the “I-P” Industrial Park District be denied. Chair Gainsley opened the pubic hearing. The applicant, Alan Goltzman, President of Presswrite Printing gave a brief history of his case. He believed that although he had received inaccurate information from city staff, he had followed direction and has complied with all the zoning requirements. He feels that he is an asset to the Lenox neighborhood as lifelong property owner in St. Louis Park and hopes to remain. Mr. Goltzman provided a letter from Kim and Doug Ernst of 3378 Brownlow Avenue to be entered into the public record as Exhibit A, and pictures of his property to be entered into the public record as Exhibit B, and two diagrams be entered Exhibit C and Exhibit D. Mr. Roberts was concerned about the setback adjacent to the residential although the current residents don’t have a problem with it, future residents might. He asked if the requirement of a 20 feet remained, how drastically would that affect the expansion plan. Mr. Goltzman believed that it would actually cause more problems to the neighborhood, because what we are doing is putting a garage door there so that a truck backing up could just move back in and drop something off. It is quicker that what currently occurs and would make less of a traffic flow in the neighborhood. He indicated that the current inadequate screening would be replaced and that landscaping could be added if needed. Mr. Reel asked how long the expansion had been planned. Mr. Goltzman indicated that when he bought the building he thought he would have the ability to expand in the future. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. 125 Mr. Robertson believed that in light of some of the errors that have happened with information that Mr. Goltzman had received and that a 12 feet 5 inches buffer was adequate he was in favor of granting the variance. Mr. Roberts concurred. Mr. Reel believed that the applicant had received misinformation and his business decisions were initially based on that. He was in favor of granting the variance. Chair Gainsley indicated that this plan was an improvement to the neighborhood in improving the traffic flow, and was consistent throughout the years and that Mr. Goltzman did not contribute to the need for the variance. He was comfortable with granting the variance. Ms. Bloyer believed that the improvement to the traffic flow and safety for the neighborhood was a positive reason to grant the variance. Ms. Bloyer moved to grant variance to permit a building with side yard setbacks of 2 feet and 12 feet 5 inches instead of the required 20 feet and a rear yard setback of 10 feet instead of the required 20 feet and to permit a floor area ratio of 56% instead of the maximum of 50 % for property located in the “I-P” Industrial Park District be denied. Mr. Reel seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0. 5. Old Business: None 6. New Business: None 7. Communication: 1. Reorganization in Departments Mr. Moore indicated that he has moved from the Inspections Department to the Community Development Department 2. Variances in conjunction with CUP and PUD 3. Training Session for Planning Commissions and City Council 8. Miscellaneous: None 9. Adjournment: Mr. Reel moved and Ms. Bloyer seconded the motion that the meeting be adjourned. Motion Passed Unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Scott Moore Zoning Administrator 126 Item # 9h* November 19, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 351.45 ADVANCED STATE SECURITY GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.00 ADVANTA BANK CORP OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 97.45 AETNA LIFE INSURANCE & ANNUITY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 738.68 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 1,761.79 ALBERS MECHANICAL SERVICES BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,116.00 ALBINSONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 60.33 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 304.00 AMERICA'S BEST ROOFING INC BUILDING 77.60 AMERIPRIDE LINEN AND APPAREL S CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 160.00 ANIMALS OF WALTONS HOLLOW UNREALIZED REVENUE 825.00 APPLIED CONCEPTS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 138.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 551.43 AT&T TELEPHONE 0.64 BACHMANS BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 107.57 BACKLUND, ELLWOOD Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 300.00 BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 60.63 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 36.83 BLUE PRINT SERVICE CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 151.03 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.97 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BUSKEY, JENNIFER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 37.95 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 256.80 CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES 1,000.00 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 532.92 CATCO PARTS SERVICE EQUIPMENT PARTS 567.88 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 100.00 COFFEE MILL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 96.00 COLLINS COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 288.00 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 422.50 COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 203.00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (996.68) COPY EQUIPMENT GENERAL SUPPLIES 742.98 CRILEY, KATHI L MOTOR FUELS 259.37 CUB FOODS SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES 283.93 DANKO EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT CO SMALL TOOLS 244.72 DCA INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 302.84 DISCOUNT STEEL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 65.82 ELVIN SAFETY SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 85.63 EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,821.24 127 EMERY'S TREE SERVICE INC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 12,913.25 EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,231.25 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 42.50 FORCE AMERICA INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 93.21 G C PETERSON MACHINERY GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.07 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 584.50 GRAINGER INC, W W BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 33.69 GREEN TREE VENDOR SERVICES COR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 751.89 HANSEN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 15,930.00 HEDBERG AGGREGATES BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 462.75 HENN CO INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER SERVICES 136.25 HENNEPIN CO ASSESSOR OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 74.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 687.82 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 780.00 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 26.98 HOME HARDWARE GENERAL SUPPLIES 102.24 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 287.84 I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,445.65 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-401 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 245.98 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST-457 DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 11,525.65 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 208.74 INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 793.08 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 6,256.84 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 252.41 IRON MOUNTAIN OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9.60 J H LARSON COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 319.12 JAVNER, JOHN B MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 210.18 JOLLEY, PETER A GENERAL SUPPLIES 200.05 JONES, MARK UNREALIZED REVENUE 686.59 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 33.10 KANSAS STATE BANK OF MANHATTAN NOTES PAYABLE 2,636.74 KONICA BUSINESS TECHNOLOGIES I RENTAL EQUIPMENT 39.41 KRUGE-AIR INC. BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 89.00 LANGEFELS, DOUGLAS MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 59.83 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,749.00 MARS CO, W P & R S OFFICE SUPPLIES 193.59 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00 MAUMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 248.99 128 MERRILL/ALTERNATIVES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 274.80 METRO COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 265,620.39 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 404.38 METROCALL TELEPHONE 233.07 MICROSLATE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 299.35 MILLER, CAROL GENERAL SUPPLIES 75.29 MINN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION TELEPHONE 4,713.36 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 72.39 MN CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENT CENTE DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 3,255.05 MN DEPT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE 2,611.71 MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY LICENSES/TAXES 20.00 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 637.50 MN DIV OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT OTHER FEDERAL REVENUE 6,591.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MNA TREASURER TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 551.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING CO EQUIPMENT PARTS 520.06 MUNICILITE EQUIPMENT PARTS 120.40 NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 693.33 NATROGAS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 61.00 NEXTEL RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 87.00 NORTHERN STATES POWER CO OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 575.00 NOVARTIS NUTRITION CORP. GENERAL CUSTOMERS 9,257.96 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 3,048.28 OFFICE MAX OFFICE SUPPLIES 280.90 ON SITE SANITATION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,050.54 ORCHARD TRUST COMPANY DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 4,974.00 ORKIN PEST CONTROL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.46 PARK PET HOSPITAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 639.00 PERA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 44,251.10 PERA FIREMEN'S RETIREMENT ASSO DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 2,720.78 PERA POLICE RETIREMENT ASSOC DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 5,891.73 PERFORMANCE OFFICE PAPERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 18.85 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 7,074.54 PRECISION PAVEMENT MARKING NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 914.60 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 372.94 PRINTERS SERVICE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 144.00 PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 326.40 PROBST, JOE LICENSES/TAXES 40.00 R & R SPECIALTIES GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.76 RANDY'S SANITATION INC GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 3,059.58 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33 REYNOLDS WELDING SUPPLY CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 109.35 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 646.42 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.18 SEDGWICK CLAIMS GMT PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 980.00 129 SERVICES SEDGWICK JAMES OF MINN INC PROF/CONSULT SERVICES 1,960.00 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,144.91 SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS- LOCA DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 1,005.04 SLP CREDIT UNION DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 27,628.41 ST CROIX RECREATION COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 13,323.77 ST LOUIS PARK SCHOOL DIST #283 OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 517.95 STANDARD PLUMBING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 200.00 STEFONOWICZ, JODY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 346.00 STREICHER'S EQUIPMENT PARTS 148.35 STRUCK, DONALD Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 19.99 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.00 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 61.63 SUBURBAN TIRE CO TIRES 284.06 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,006.45) TRU VALUE GENERAL SUPPLIES 102.17 TWIN CITY OXYGEN CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.96 U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS TELEPHONE 4,061.40 UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,836.15 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 140.00 USCM / MIDWEST DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 6,464.46 VERMEER OF MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT PARTS 21.02 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 70.29 WHEELER LUMBER OPERATIONS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 735.12 WM H MC COY PETROLEUM FUELS GENERAL SUPPLIES 50.33 WSB ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 178.74 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 45.28 ZEP MANUFACTURING BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 23.32 ZIP SORT OFFICE SUPPLIES 427.55 511,380.92 November 24, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AAA LAMBERTS LANDSCAPE PRODUCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 106.50 ADAMS, MARY B MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 14.88 ADVANCED ELECTRIC CO INC ELECTRICAL 21.50 AILES, KEN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 86.18 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR GENERAL SUPPLIES 438.89 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 888.00 ALLINA HOME HEALTH SERVICES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 230.00 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.42 ANDON INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.20 ANOKA CO GOVERNMENT CTR SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 25.00 AQUA LOGIC INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 310.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 462.19 130 AUDIO-TECH BUSINESS BOOK SUMMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 71.89 BAHE, DALLAS MEETING EXPENSE 310.00 BANNER CREATIONS LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 8,437.92 BERNDT ELECTRIC SERVICE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,311.04 BERTHIAUME, BRUCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 95.00 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 659.94 BOLTON & MEEK INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,750.00 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) BROWN TRAFFIC PRODUCTS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 296.00 CALGON CARBON CORPORATION CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 6,675.00 CARTRIDGE CARE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 105.93 CHENEY SIGNS GENERAL SUPPLIES 12.38 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) CONTINENTAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT SMALL TOOLS 20.61 COUNTRY FLAGS GENERAL SUPPLIES 113.50 CRYSTEEL TRUCK EQUIP INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 2,076.55 CURTIS 1000 INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 755.62 DALCO GENERAL SUPPLIES 179.00 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 DIGITAL BIOMETRICS INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 485.00 DITZLER PROPERTIES INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DOCK RITE INC BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 420.00 DOUBLETREE PARK PLACE HOTEL GENERAL SUPPLIES 76.73 DOUD, KEVIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 214.00 E-Z SHARP INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 228.97 E.H. RENNER & SONS EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 8,668.00 ECOLAB GENERAL SUPPLIES 925.28 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 46.35 ENSR CONSULTING & ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 5,491.28 EP ELECTRIC PUMP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 308.10 ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 186.00 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP POSTAGE 9.55 FRANKLIN COVEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 25.52 G & K SERVICES EQUIPMENT PARTS 118.30 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GILL, ROBERT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 26.13 GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 292.10 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 563.48 HACH COMPANY GENERAL SUPPLIES 112.90 HAMILTON, JAYME GENERAL SUPPLIES 137.02 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 2,538.94 HENNEPIN CO-OPERATIVE SEED EXC GENERAL SUPPLIES 127.48 131 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER POSTAGE 304.56 HEWLETT -PACKARD CO OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 959.03 HOME DEPOT/GECF GENERAL SUPPLIES 625.10 HUIRAS, SHIRLEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 107.27 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 158.47 INACOM EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 291.09 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 1,250.52 INTERNATIONAL CITY MANAGEMENT SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 910.55 INTERNATIONAL SECURITY PRODUCT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 186.78 INTL ASSN ELECT INSP SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00 INTL CONFERENCE BLDG OFFICIALS OFFICE SUPPLIES 160.50 J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL OTHER 750.12 J H LARSON COMPANY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 43.58 JUSTUS LUMBER COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 40.80 KERSTEN, JEFFREY YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 35.00 KNOLLWOOD LIQUOR CONCESSION SUPPLIES 106.50 LADEN'S BUSINESS MACHINES INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 207.67 LANDSCAPE ALTERNATIVES INC LANDSCAPING MATERIALS 313.11 LEARNING INNOVATIONS INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,320.00 LINHOFF PHOTO & DIGITAL IMAGIN GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.54 LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC MOTOR FUELS 321.42 LUEDTKE, AL GENERAL SUPPLIES 294.91 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 485.19 MAUMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 MC CONNELL, BECKY GENERAL SUPPLIES 34.20 MENARDS GENERAL SUPPLIES 235.74 MERRILL/ALTERNATIVES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,640.14 METRO SALES INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 330.00 METROCALL TELEPHONE 76.29 MILLER, CAROL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 138.88 MIND SHARP TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 258.00 MINN CO ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION OFFICE SUPPLIES 57.50 MINUTEMAN PRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 447.32 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN PIPE & EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT PARTS 387.45 MOHLER CHIMNEY REPAIR BUILDING 40.76 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 85.00 NCITE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00 NORCOSTCO RENTAL EQUIPMENT 403.00 NORWEST BANK MINNESOTA NA INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS 925.00 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 455.31 OFFICE DEPOT GENERAL SUPPLIES 242.31 OLSON, JON GENERAL SUPPLIES 300.00 PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,037.51 132 PAPER WAREHOUSE-GENERAL OFFICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 27.48 PARK VALLEY CATHOLIC SCHOOL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 PARKER, JON TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 283.23 PETERS, KIM L INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 100.00 PRINT SHOP PRINTING & PUBLISHING 405.00 PRINTERS SERVICE OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 23.10 PROGRESSIVE CONSULTING ENGINEE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 3,913.00 PRYOR RESOURCES INC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 377.45 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 233.87 RENTAL RESEARCH SERVICES INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00 RHODES, JIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 400.00 ROTO-ROOTER OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 267.00 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 943.34 SAM'S CLUB CONCESSION SUPPLIES 589.58 SAVIN CORPORATION EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 50.90 SAVITT BROS INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 47.99 SEARS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 24.85 SECURITYLINK FROM AMERITECH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.92 SIEGEL DISPLAY PRODUCTS GENERAL SUPPLIES 369.93 SPS COMPANIES INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 17.77 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 897.40 STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.12 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.00 SUBURBAN FEED & SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 194.81 SUBURBAN PROPANE MOTOR FUELS 143.44 SUHL, JOEL GENERAL SUPPLIES 80.02 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 120.90 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,006.45) TKDA OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 162.80 TRU VALUE GENERAL SUPPLIES 4.63 U S WEST INTERPRISE TELEPHONE 1,144.31 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 1,530.00 VICKERMAN INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 2,745.25 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 319.20 VIRTUE, JOEL J ICE RENTAL 255.00 VISU-SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 337.50 VOELKER, STACY M GENERAL SUPPLIES 36.21 WALSH, CINDY S MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 144.62 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 481.24 ZD JOURNALS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 227.00 ZIEMER, MIKE Clothing Allow/Reimbursement 300.00 ZIP SORT OFFICE SUPPLIES 732.94 ZIPSORT POSTAGE 116.48 83,228.72 December 3, 1999 133 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ABLE COURIER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 24.80 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR TELEPHONE 30.21 ALL FIRE TEST INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 395.43 ALLIANCE MECHANICAL SERVICES I EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 353.00 AMERICAN SEMI PARTS/SERVICE IN EQUIPMENT PARTS 77.79 ANCHOR PAPER CO GENERAL SUPPLIES 347.30 ANDERSON, SCOTT LICENSES/TAXES 77.40 APCO INSTITUTE SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 60.00 APPLIANCE RECYCLING CENTERS OF GENERAL SUPPLIES 20.00 ARAMARK UNIFORM CORPORATE ACCT GENERAL SUPPLIES 503.88 AUDIO-TECH BUSINESS BOOK SUMMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 71.89 BATTERIES PLUS GENERAL SUPPLIES 350.32 BAUER BUILT TIRE & BATTERY EQUIPMENT PARTS 238.52 BEARCOM RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 470.70 BOBS PERSONAL COFFEE SERVICE GENERAL SUPPLIES 146.35 BORDER STATES ELECTRIC SUPPLY BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 128.76 BOWKER, JACQUELINE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.96 BRAD'S LANDSCAPING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 588.80 BRAUN PUMP & CONTROLS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 8,239.61 BROADWAY RENTAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT (1.66) CAMILON, MANNY MERCHANDISE PURCH FOR RESALE 64.84 CAPITOL COMMUNICATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 81.05 CD PUBLICATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 437.00 CIM SOFTWARE CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 439.00 COLLISYS ELECTRIC CO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 353.05 CONCEPT SEATING INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 180.00 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS GENERAL SUPPLIES (938.10) CRILEY, KATHI L OFFICE SUPPLIES 218.72 CULNANE, JANICE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 33.55 CUMMINS NORTH CENTRAL INC EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 1,688.09 DAVIDSON, ELLIOTT M INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 DUFFY AVERY H INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 EES-U OF M TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 795.00 EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 600.00 ELECTION SYSTEMS & SOFTWARE IN PRINTING & PUBLISHING 150.15 ELECTRIC PUMP WALDOR GROUP EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 553.83 ELMWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 66.00 ENGINEERING REPRO SYSTEMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.60 EQUISERVE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,287.88 ERICKSONS SEWER SERVICE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 190.00 ETZWILER, DAVID D INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 EXPLORER POST 505 GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,500.00 134 FACTORY MOTOR PARTS COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS (15.67) FELLMAN, DAVID OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 38,295.00 FLANNIGAN, JANE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00 FRANKLIN COVEY GENERAL SUPPLIES 24.85 GALLAGHER & CO OF MN INC, A J WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 0.00 GENERAL SAFETY EQUIPMENT CORP EQUIPMENT PARTS (14.07) GIEBEL, JOHN GENERAL SUPPLIES 121.98 GIWOYNA, NANCY MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 26.24 GRAINGER INC, W W BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 369.72 GUNNAR ISBERG & ASSOC TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 700.00 HARCEY, MICHAEL L TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 186.91 HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT GROUP CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY 1,197.78 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 2,065.24 HOME HARDWARE EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.38 HOUGHTON, DAN YOUTH ATHLETICS/LEAGUES- exempt 35.00 HPI INTERNATIONAL INC GENERAL SUPPLIES 179.90 HYDRO SUPPLY COMPANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 621.69 INACOM INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMPUTER SUPPLIES 5,042.88 INTERSTATE DETROIT DIESEL EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 356.34 IOS CAPITAL RENTAL EQUIPMENT 710.36 J & F REDDY RENTS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 157.62 J-CRAFT INC. OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 180.52 KEN ANDERSEN TRUCKING OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 95.00 KNOX LUMBER BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 26.49 LARSEN, KATHLEEN MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 42.00 LARSON, TOM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 124.24 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES MEETING EXPENSE 30.00 M & M HYDRAULIC CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 61.43 MAIL BOXES ETC # 1236 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 118.94 MAKI, DENNIS TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 933.46 MARS CO, W P & R S OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,005.34 MASTERSON PERSONNEL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 662.25 MAUMA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 30.00 MAY, JANETTE TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 110.79 MC GRAW -HILL INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 64.43 MEHTA, VINAY K INSPECTION-SINGLE/DOUBLE 25.00 MENARDS OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 200.71 METRO ATHLETIC SUPPLY GENERAL SUPPLIES 131.85 MEYER, DANIEL J TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 132.83 MICROSLATE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 588.05 MIDWEST LANDSCAPES OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,368.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS PRINTING & PUBLISHING 4,844.00 135 MN DEPT OF HEALTH OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,628.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SVCS EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT CHARGE (46.00) MN INSTITUTE OF LEGAL EDUCATIO TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 225.00 MN RECREATION AND PARKS ASSOCI OTHER ADVERTISING 75.00 MSSA SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 50.00 MUSGJERD, JEFF GENERAL SUPPLIES 37.36 MYERS TIRE SUPPLY COMPANY EQUIPMENT PARTS 167.92 NAPA AUTO PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 399.74 NSP CO ELECTRIC SERVICE 245.68 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE SUPPLIES 85.02 OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 55.91 OLSON, DON GENERAL SUPPLIES 219.99 OSSEO SPORTS MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT 6,627.91 PAGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING IN EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 216.42 PALMS BAKERY TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 17.58 PARTS PLUS EQUIPMENT PARTS 392.03 PETERSON MACHINERY CO INC, G C GENERAL SUPPLIES 77.20 PHOTO FAST, INC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 26.95 PRESTIGE LINCOLN MERCURY EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 479.15 PRO STAFF OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,468.80 PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT CO EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 315.00 QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.40 RC INDENTIFICATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES 5.33 RENNER & SONS INC, E H EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 286.50 ROHLIK, CHAR TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 136.42 RONGLIEN, LARRY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 161.00 RUDDLE, MARJEAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 373.32 RYDER TRS RENTAL EQUIPMENT 120.20 SA-AG INC OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 1,552.94 SLP CRIME PREVENTION FUND ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 1,908.39 SOJOURNER PROJECT INC OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,789.75 STAT MEDICAL GENERAL SUPPLIES 128.69 STI-CO INDUSTRIES INC RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 156.60 STREICHER'S GENERAL SUPPLIES 6,498.64 STRUCK, DONALD LICENSES/TAXES 232.84 SUBURBAN CHEVROLET EQUIPMENT PARTS 0.00 SUN NEWSPAPERS LEGAL NOTICES 154.05 SWEENEY BROS TRACTOR EQUIPMENT PARTS (1,006.45) THE CIRCLE OTHER ADVERTISING 33.00 THYMES TWO CATERING TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 172.00 TIFT, ANNA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 77.64 TRACY/TRIPP FUELS MOTOR FUELS 2,633.38 UNIFORMS UNLIMITED EQUIPMENT PARTS 23.43 UNITED RENTALS EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,280.27 UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO 625.00 136 LS VANBERGEN, BRAD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 111.00 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 113.20 VISUAL COMMUNICATIONS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 262.50 WASTE MANAGEMENT-BLAINE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 170,773.68 WATSON CO INC CONCESSION SUPPLIES 1,277.66 WELCHLIN, KIT R TRAINING/CONFERENCES/SCHOO LS 900.00 WEST WELD EQUIPMENT PARTS 28.40 WIGFIELD, TOM MEETING EXPENSE 101.70 WILLIAMS STEEL & HDWE EQUIPMENT PARTS 28.94 ZACKS INC EQUIPMENT PARTS 127.80 ZEP MANUFACTURING GENERAL SUPPLIES 87.11 ZIP PRINTING PRINTING & PUBLISHING 43.77 310,791.96 Dember 3, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT MARKERT, TIM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 MINN COMM OF REVENUE SEASON SKATING TICKETS 13,592.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE MOTOR FUELS 198.69 PARK NATIONAL BANK DEDUCTIONS PAYABLE 99,384.33 STRUCK, DONALD GENERAL SUPPLIES 10.00 113,385.02 December 3, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PARK NICOLLET MEDICAL CENTER WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE 108.22 108.22 December 3, 1999 VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT GREAT WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INS DENTAL INSURANCE 173.57 173.57 137 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #11a* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *11a. Contract Extension for Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Related Activities – Consultant Services Contract No. 72-98 This report considers extending the contract with ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR) for consultant services required to implement the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) Remedial Action Plan (RAP) during year 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of a one (1) year extension to Contract No. 72-98 with ENSR Consulting and Engineering. Background: In September, 1986, the Reilly Consent Decree became effective and the City accepted responsibility for a number of environmental remediation tasks contained in the Reilly RAP. Over the last 13 years the City has retained the services of nine consulting engineers or firms to provide for the design and/or implementation of the RAP activities. One firm, ENSR, has served as the cornerstone of the professional “consortium” because of its extensive historical relationship with the Reilly project. Currently the City has a one (1) year Contract with ENSR for consultant services. The current contract expires December 31, 1999 but has annual renewal options for years 2000 and 2001. The activities or services provided by this contract are: Groundwater sampling and analysis Preparing annual reports for agency review Aquifer studies Investigation of leaking wells Laboratory audits and coordination Historical file searches General project administration Discussion: While many of the studies required by the Reilly RAP have been completed by ENSR and others, certain tasks such as groundwater sample retrieval and annual reporting represent ongoing activities which will require consultant assistance in year 2000 and into the future. ENSR has provided consultant services for the ongoing tasks in the past, and as such, has been recognized by the United States Environmental Protection Agency and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Agencies) as an approved consultant for such activities. Staff supports the continued use of ENSR for such services. In addition to the general ongoing tasks identified above, three (3) other significant tasks are scheduled for year 2000: Task 500 - Prairie du Chien Aquifer Remedy Implementation. This task includes meetings with MPCA to discuss ground water modeling results and the possible need for an additional pumping well in the Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer (e.g., well SLP 6, which could be treated and used 138 for drinking water, or well W48 or W119, either of which could be treated and discharged to surface water). The $25,000 task budget shown in Table 1 covers a feasibility study, meetings, and negotiations with MPCA on this topic in year 2000. Task 600 - Lab Coordination/Audit This task includes an on-site audit of Quantera’s laboratory in Arveda, Colorado, in March or April 2000. The year 2001 Sampling Plan and Quality Assurance Project Plan will also be prepared as part of this task. Task 700 - RAP Renegotiation/Site Closure Activities This task involves negotiations with MPCA to establish groundwater pumping cessation criteria (as well as other CD-RAP changes) to afford cost-savings opportunities for the City. These negotiations will impact the manner in which the two outstanding issues required to “close” the Reilly Site are resolved: • The Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aquifer Gradient Control Modification (as discussed in Task 500) • The treatment of discharge water from pumping wells W422, W434, W439, and W410 As shown in Table 1, a budget of $30,000 is estimated for this task. Financial Considerations: Recent correspondence with ENSR estimates the cost for year 2000 work tasks at $151,000. Following is a summary of the year 2000 tasks and estimated costs: Table 1 Task 100 1999 Annual Monitoring Report (due March 15, 2000) $ 18,000 Task 150 1999 Progress Report and GAC Plant Report 8,000 Task 400 Groundwater Monitoring 35,000 Task 500 Prairie du Chien Aquifer Remedy Implementation 25,000 Task 600 Laboratory Coordination 15,000 Task 700 Site Closure 30,000 Task 810 Program Management/Miscellaneous 20,000 Total Estimated Project Cost for Year 2000$151,000 Estimated Remaining Funds from Year 1999 _______0 Estimated Additional Authorization Required $151,000 The year 2000 Water Utility Budget contains funding for these Reilly related consultant activities. Attachments: Contract Extension Agreement Prepared by: Mike Rardin, Public Works Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 139 EXTENSION TO CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made on December 6, 1999, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, Minnesota, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘City”), and ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘ENSR”). 1. BACKGROUND. The parties have previously entered into an agreement for consulting services dated December 7, 1998 (“Initial Agreement”). The Initial Agreement authorizes the CITY to extend its terms for up to two (2) additional one-year periods. 2. EXTENSION. Subject to the modifications set forth herein, the Initial Agreement is extended for a one (1) year period terminating on December 31, 2000. The City retains the right to extend the initial Agreement for an additional one (1) year term. 3. SCOPE OF WORK AND BUDGET FOR YEAR 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. The Council report dated December 6, 1999, from the City Manager, describing the year 2000 project tasks and estimated costs, is incorporated herein by reference. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective duly authorized officers. ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK By:________________________________ By:________________________________ Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Title:_______________________________ and ________________________________ Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 140 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item #11b* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *11b. Contract Extension for Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation Laboratory Services - Contract No. 1893. This report considers extending the Contract with Quanterra Environmental Services for laboratory services for the analysis of groundwater related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program for year 2000. Recommended Action: Motion to authorize execution of a contract extension to Contract No. 1893 with Quanterra Environmental Services for laboratory services related to the Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation groundwater sampling program through year 2000. Background: The City has maintained a contractual relationship with Quanterra Corporation (formerly Rocky Mountain Analytical Laboratory) for the analysis of groundwater in accordance with the provisions of the consent decree with Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) since 1988. Staff has identified only two firms capable of providing necessary laboratory services, Quanterra and CH2M Hill, the laboratory used by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Insofar as the USEPA remains opposed to the use of its laboratory consultant by either the City or Reilly, Quanterra remains the only available consultant for laboratory services. The contract with Quanterra has been amended each year since its award in 1988. The City Council has previously authorized staff to negotiate contract amendments with Quanterra. The staff has completed negotiations with a continuing freeze in costs (unit prices) for the laboratory analysis to be performed in year 2000. Financial Considerations: Based on the water sampling activity and revised reporting requirements contained in the proposed year 2000 plan, staff requested that Quanterra provide a proposal for further amendment to the contract. In response, Quanterra indicated they would again freeze their unit prices at 1998 contract levels. It should be noted that the average annual cost for groundwater analysis had been generally increasing over time until 1998. This has been due to slight increases in testing costs (about 10% since 1991) but mostly because of additional testing due to more wells being added to satisfy groundwater containment and monitoring requirements. During 1998, staff negotiated a reduction in the unit prices. Contract authorizations from 1988 through 1999 provide for a cumulative contract amount of $1,802,000 with total estimated expenses of $1,795,827 thereby creating a contract balance of 141 $6,173 (estimated) at the end of 1999. Based on Quanterra’s proposal to freeze unit prices, staff estimates that approximately $135,000 will be expended for water sampling and analysis during year 2000. Therefore, staff is seeking an additional authorization of $135,000 to the contract amount to cover the expected year 2000 costs. Recommendation: Staff recommends Contract No. 1893 be amended to increase the contract amount by $135,000 to provide for groundwater sampling and testing during year 2000. Attachments: Amendment No. 10 to Contract No. 1893 Prepared By: Michael P. Rardin, Director of Public Works Approved By: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager 142 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT NO. 1893 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 10 to Contract No. 1893 is made on December 6, 1999, by and between the CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, a Minnesota municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), and QUANTERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES (formally ROCKY MOUNTAIN ANALYTICAL LABORATORY/ENSCO (hereinafter referred to as “QUANTERRA”). BACKGROUND On December 12, 1988, the CITY and QUANTERRA entered into Contract No. 1893 for consultant services related to certain rights and responsibilities the CITY accepted under an agreement with Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation (Reilly) which is attached as Exhibit B to a Consent Decree in United States of America, et al. vs. Reilly Tar & Chemical Corporation, Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Louis Park, Oak Park Village Associates, Rustic Oaks Condominium, Inc. and Philips’s Investment Company, United States District Court, District of Minnesota, Civil File No. 4-80-469. Pursuant to communication between the CITY and QUANTERRA, it has been determined that it is in the best interests of the CITY and QUANTERRA to extend the term of Contract No. 1893 to December 31, 2000, and amend the provisions of Contract No. 1893 and amendments issued thereto dated June 29, 1989, March, 1990, November 18, 1991, February 22, 1994, January 11, 1995, February 20, 1996, December 2, 1996, March 2, 1998, and December 7, 1998, incorporating responsibilities each party will assume through year 2000 to discharge those responsibilities the CITY has accepted under Exhibit B to the Consent Decree. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above facts and mutual covenants herein contained, it is hereby agreed that Contract No. 1893 and all previous Amendments are amended as follows: I. Contract Period 1. The length of Contract No. 1893 shall be extended to December 31, 2000. 2. Total compensation to QUANTERRA for all services rendered pursuant to Contract No. 1893, as amended, shall not exceed $1,937,000. IT IS FURTHER AGREED that all other provisions of Contract No. 1893 and all previous Amendments shall remain unchanged and fully effective, and this Amendment shall become an integral part thereof. 143 EXECUTED as to the day and the year first above written. CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA QUANTERRA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES By: Mayor City Manager Attest: City Clerk 144 City of St. Louis Park City Council Agenda Item # 11c* Meeting of December 6, 1999 *11c. Avalon Bay Preliminary Agreement This report considers approving the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement with Avalon Bay relating to Phase I of the Park Commons redevelopment project. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement with Avalon Bay relating to Phase I of the Park Commons redevelopment project. Background: On August 16, 1999 the EDA adopted the amended and restated preliminary redevelopment Agreement with Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. relating to Phase I of the Park Commons Redevelopment Area. Since this time staff and Avalon Bay have been working to finalize a number of items including the negotiation of a final development agreement. These negotiations are progressing but it is evident that a final development agreement will not be ready by the end of the year. Revised Development Agreement Issues: The fact that the final development agreement will not be completed by the end of the year raises a number of issues that staff would like to address in an amendment to the existing preliminary development agreement. The issues staff would like to raise follow: • Use of TIF for streetscape and town green improvements. • Assignment of Development Rights and Obligations. • Allowing the EDA/Council use of the total $100,000 deposit. • Revising the dates in the development agreement. TIF Streetscape/Town Green Improvements: Under a TIF law revision effective at the end of the year, the EDA needs to have a letter of intent from Avalon Bay in order for TIF to be used for streetscape and town green improvements. This provision is included in the amended agreement. Assignment of Development Rights and Obligations: Staff would like to protect the EDA/Council from the expiration or a notice of termination of the development agreement. A clause has been added to the agreement to state that the EDA/Council can assign the developer’s rights and obligations to another developer if for some reason the development agreement is terminated or if it expires before a final development agreement is agreed to. 145 Allowing the EDA/Council use of the total $100,000 deposit: The EDA/Council has been using funds from a $100,000 deposit Avalon Bay made for out of pocket costs incurred by the EDA/Council since July 15, 1999. The redevelopment agreement states that the EDA/Council may not spend more than $50,000 of these funds until the Park Commons tax increment financing district is established. The out of pocket costs incurred are approaching the $50,000 limit and the EDA/Council has taken the necessary steps to create the TIF district except for the final adoption of the resolution establishing the district. Staff recommended that the EDA/Council wait to adopt this resolution until a final development agreement with Avalon Bay is approved. Staff has discussed this issue with Avalon Bay and Avalon Bay has agreed to allow the EDA/Council use the rest of the $100,000 deposit. This provision is included in the amended agreement. Revising the Dates in the Development Agreement: The final issue involves the dates in the development agreement. Avalon Bay was to use its best efforts to complete a number of tasks by certain dates. Some of these tasks have not been completed. Staff is in the process of revising some of dates in the development agreement to better reflect the timeline required by Avalon Bay. Next Steps: Staff will continue negotiating the final development agreement with Avalon Bay with hopes of getting it finalized by February. Attachments: First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Preliminary Development Agreement Prepared by: Tom Kleve, Economic Development Coordinator Approved by: Charles W. Meyer, City Manager