Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/11/05 - ADMIN - Agenda Packets - City Council - RegularAGENDA NOVEMBER 5, 2012 6:30 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Council Chambers Discussion Items 1. 6:30 p.m. City Hall Renovation Project Update 2. 7:00 p.m.Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update 7:30 p.m. Adjourn 7:30 p.m. CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers 1. Call to Order 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations -- None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Meeting Minutes September 24, 2012 3b. City Council Meeting Minutes October 1, 2012 3c. Study Session Meeting Minutes October 8, 2012 3d. Special Study Session Meeting Minutes October 15, 2012 3e. City Council Meeting Minutes October 15, 2012 3f. Study Session Meeting Minutes October 22, 2012 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. The items for the Consent Calendar are listed on the last page of the Agenda. Recommended Action: Motion to approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. (Alternatively: Motion to add or remove items from the agenda, or move items from Consent Calendar to regular agenda for discussion.) 5. Boards and Commissions -- None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to Consider the Reconstruction of Highway 100 Recommended Action: Mayor to close the Public Hearing. The following actions are available for Council at this time: 1. Refer to a future Study Session for further discussion (note – time has been tentatively set aside for a discussion during a special study session on November 19) 2. Grant Municipal Consent (approve the project) - Motion to Adopt Resolution granting Municipal Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project and approving MnDOT Staff Approved Layout 3D for S.P. 2734-33 3. Deny Municipal Consent (deny project approval) – Motion to deny Municipal Consent Meeting of November 5, 2012 City Council Agenda 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. First Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt First Reading of the Beekeeping Ordinance to amend Chapter 4 of the City Code and to set Second Reading for November 19, 2012. 8b. First Reading of Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97 Recommended Action: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Xcel’s franchise ordinance #2086-97 and set second reading for November 19, 2012. 8c. First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt the first reading of Ordinance approving the Zoning Ordinance amendment pertaining to Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering, and to set the second reading for November 19, 2012. 9. Communication Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. Meeting of November 5, 2012 City Council Agenda CONSENT CALENDAR 4a. Adopt Resolution authorizing award of the 2013 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants 4b. Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Jerry Herzog in the amount of $50 for Westwood Hills Nature Center 4c. Adopt Resolution accepting a donation from the Duck Soup Softball Tournament in the amount of $2,000 to be available for individuals who qualify for financial assistance through the Parks and Recreation Department 4d. Adopt Resolution accepting a donation from the Minnesota Cycling Team in the amount of $1,500 to be available for individuals who qualify for financial assistance through the Parks and Recreation Department 4e. Amend the Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase the rates paid for attorney and law clerk/paralegal services 4f. Adopt Resolution establishing 2013 Employer Benefits Contribution 4g. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $1,426.95 and accepting work for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 22 (Fire Suppression) with Brothers Fire Protection, Inc. Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 38-11 4h. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $22,724.18 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 08 (Roofing and Metal Panels) with Tecta America Stock Roofing, LLC Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City Contract No. 57-11 4i. Table Second Reading of the Xcel and CenterPoint Energy Franchise Ordinances 4j. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance imposing a franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and authorize publication in full 4k. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance imposing a franchise fee on Northern States Power Company and authorize publication in full 4l. Approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $301,000 for Parcel 4 (6010 Highway 7 – Restaurant Brokers Property), and authorize the City Attorney to execute stipulation of settlement 4m. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3809 Kipling Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-12-0021 4n. Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer service lines at 2850 Sumter Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 08-117-21-33-0101 4o. Adopt Resolution Approving Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds 4p. Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $51,536.02 for Water Treatment Plant No. 6 Rehabilitation with Magney Construction, Inc. - Project No. 2010- 1300, City Contract No. 177-11 Meeting of November 5, 2012 City Council Agenda 4q. Approve for Filing Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 4r. Approve for Filing Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2012 4s. Approve for Filing Housing Authority Minutes September 12, 2012 4t. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. To make arrangements, please call the Administration Department at 952/924-2525 (TDD 952/924-2518) at least 96 hours in advance of meeting. St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority and regular City Council meetings are carried live on Civic TV cable channel 17 and replays are frequent; check www.parktv.org for the schedule. The meetings are also streamed live on the internet at www.parktv.org, and saved for Video on Demand replays. The agenda is posted on Fridays on the official city bulletin board in the lobby of City Hall and on the text display on Civic TV cable channel 17. The agenda and full packet are available by noon on Friday on the city’s website. Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 1 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: City Hall Renovation Project Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: No formal action is necessary at this time. This report and study session discussion is intended to provide an update to Council as to where things stand with this project. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council have questions or concerns as to the status of this project? Does the City Council wish staff to integrate public art into the renovation project and provide the necessary funding to do so? BACKGROUND: During the July 23, 2012 Study Session staff and designers Brady Mueller and Cindy Douthett Nagel from Krech, O’Brien, Mueller and Associates (KOMA), provided a proposed design concept of the first floor project resulting from meetings with staff committees over the preceding months. Council agreed with the project concept and KOMA was retained to complete full design drawings and construction specifications, including an entrance canopy and interior stairway improvements. A subsequent open house for employees and continued committee meetings have provided valuable insights to assist the architect in designing what will be a welcoming and service friendly public experience at City Hall. DISCUSSION: Staff and KOMA representatives will present at the study session current drawings and a project summary updating Council on the design progress. The architect and interior designer will be available to answer questions involving design components and finishes being considered. The entrance area into City Hall provides an opportunity for Council to consider inclusion of public art. A wide range of projects may be possible. These could be integrated with the construction project plans or done separately, with the construction plans allowing for future placement of the art. Some of the concepts discussed include: • Art glass (as utilized in many of our park buildings) for the new vestibule or community room windows. • Artist designed bronze sitting benches/surfaces under the proposed canopy. • 3-D commissioned art piece in front of the building, either freestanding decorative or coupled with a functional amenity on the entrance sidewalk. Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 1) Page 2 Subject: City Hall Renovation Project Update Art glass or benches may be accomplished within a $10,000-$15,000 budget depending on the extent desired and using the project design team. If the Council desired something more in keeping with the third option noted above, a more involved process would be necessary and require a higher budget. An initial conversation with art consultant Jack Becker, Forecast Public Art, suggests a reasonable minimum cost for planning, commissioning and completing an installation like this would about $40,000-$50,000. Any option for including art needs to be integrated with the project plans. A commissioned piece may take nine months to plan and create, and not being installed until after construction is complete. However, the plans should provide footings, electrical or other components necessary for reduce cost and avoiding disruption of newly installed materials. NEXT STEPS: The design committee will continue to work with KOMA to complete plans and specifications. Staff will return to Council in January or February 2013 with the completed plans and updated cost estimate, and requesting authorization for construction bidding. Construction is expected to begin in spring or early summer with substantial construction taking about four months. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Two million dollars in the Capital Replacement Fund is currently reserved for this project in 2013. The initial estimate by KOMA for design and construction was about $1.8 million. Until final design and engineering details are completed, a final construction cost estimate is not possible. The decision for funding public art should be determined at this time based on these estimates or an alternate funding source determined. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Attachment: None Prepared by: Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 2 Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to update Council on the public process, communication plan, and anticipated schedule of upcoming activities and steps for the Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. Please let staff know of any comments or questions you might have. BACKGROUND: History At the June 11th Study Session staff presented the final proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan and a ten year prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Council provided input on the prioritization of the projects in the CIP as well as discussed possible parking restrictions associated with utilization of bike lanes. Council requested staff to provide an evaluation of the proposed bike lanes and parking restriction implications, and also requested staff to prepare a financial and communications plan for consideration at a future Study Session. Staff returned to Council on July 16, 2012 with a revised Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan and ten year prioritized Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In addition, staff evaluated bike lane parking restriction impacts and developed and presented a financial and communications plan for the proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. Copies of the revised CIP were provided and a summary of financial options were provided. Among the options presented, General Obligation (GO) bonds were recommended by staff as the best option for financing the improvements. A Communications Plan (Exhibit 5) was also provided to Council on July 16. The intent of the plan was to utilize a broader citywide message to begin the communication effort, and then follow with more distinct communications aimed at specific project improvements so that every property owner may assess the entire plan as well as consider personal impacts and concerns. As a part of the public process, staff and Council anticipated many concerns would be raised and asked. As a result, a list of Expected Issues and Concerns (Exhibit 9), along with a list of Guiding Principles (Exhibit 8) was assembled Staff then initiated the communication process of presenting the proposed program to the public and gathering input. This effort included the launch of a website titled “Connect the Park” (http://www.stlouispark.org/connect-the-park.html). This site provides comprehensive information, including a general description of the purposes and goals of the program, maps of proposed projects and schedule, estimated costs, FAQ’s, notifications of upcoming informational meetings, and more. Similar information (including a link to the website) was also published in in the Park Perspective. Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 2 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Recent Activities An initial public informational meeting was held on Tuesday, October 9 in the Council Chambers. In addition to the website and other media outlets, all residents and property owners were notified of the meeting by mass mailing of a specially prepared “Connect the Park” brochure. Attendance was fair (just over 50 in attendance), and the general response to the plan and comments received were positive. The meeting was conducted in a city-wide general information open-house style meeting that provided a general overview of the plan development history (through the visioning process), the proposed plan improvements, and public process and implementation schedule. This general City-wide informational meeting was followed by area (ward) specific meetings. Two of the meetings have been conducted thus far (Wards 2 and 3) with Wards 1 and 4 held shortly after the time of this writing. The intent of the ward meetings has been to discuss specific projects with residents in more detail and encourage and receive additional comments and feedback. The Ward 2 meeting was held on Tuesday, October 23 at the Rec Center and was lightly attended (about 15 people). In general, the proposed projects were well received by those who attended the meeting. In particular, sidewalks such as 41st Street that provided links/connections to Susan Lindgren School and other destinations such as Browndale Park were supported by the residents. Comments are continuing to be received from Ward 2. There were also several requests to move some projects such as 41st Street to a higher priority on the proposed implementation schedule. The Ward 3 meeting was held on Thursday, October 25 at the Municipal Services Center. The attendance at this meeting was slightly higher than the previous meeting (just over 30 in attendance). Although there were a few favorable comments for the City-wide plan as a whole, the vast majority of the residents and the comments conveyed were in very strong opposition to the proposed sidewalk along 31st Street between Texas Avenue and Colorado Avenue. Very few comments were received with regards to other proposed projects in Ward 3. Written and verbal comments are continuing to be received from Ward 3 Informational meetings for Ward 4 and Ward 1 were held on October 30 and November 1 respectively at the St. Louis Park Middle School and Council Chambers. Summary and Next Steps Comments received by staff thus far have generally been positive for the City-wide initiative as a whole, but mixed for specific projects with strong support for some and strong opposition for others. Because attendance at the informational meetings has generally been light, staff has concerns that sufficient public input has not been received, especially from property owners directly adjacent to proposed projects. As a result, staff will be directing an additional mailing targeted at those property owners considered to be more directly impacted by projects. This mailing is expected to be released within the next week. In summary, staff is receiving and will continue to receive considerable amounts of input and comments over the next few weeks and beyond. These comments will all be tabulated and provided to Council at a subsequent Study Session update, presently scheduled for November 26, 2012. At that time, it is anticipated that staff and Council will collectively be able to ascertain an appropriate date for a public hearing to adopt the plan or pursue any additional public process Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 3 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update steps, depending on the amount and type of public input received. The goal is to have the 10- year plan adopted just after the first of the year or early 2013 so that higher priority projects can commence construction next year. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: If Council decides to adopt the system of Community sidewalks and trails via a capital program as proposed, a source of capital ($18 - $25 million dollar range – spread over ten years) and maintenance funds ($34,000 annually in present day costs) will be needed. As previously reported the recommended source for the capital costs would be the issuance of GO Bonds. The likely source for the additional maintenance costs would be the General Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: Strategic Direction - The following vision Strategic Direction and focus areas were identified by Council. St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Developing an expanded and organized network of sidewalks and trails. Attachments: Exhibit 4 - CIP Summary Info Exhibit 5 - Communications Plan Exhibit 8 - Guiding Principles Exhibit 9 - Expected Issues and Concerns Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Sean Walther, Senior Planner Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 4 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Exhibit 4 CIP Summary Information Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails Construction Year Annual Construction Cost Sidewalk Costs Bikeway Costs Bike Lane Costs Trail Costs Bridge Costs 2013 $587,500 $228,000 $45,000 $101,500 $213,000 $0 2014 $300,000 $176,000 $44,000 $0 $80,000 $0 2015 $6,729,900 $187,000 $26,400 $247,000 $369,500 $5,900,000 2016 $317,000 $304,000 $13,000 $0 $0 $0 2017 $429,000 $422,000 $7,000 $0 $0 $0 2018 $2,255,000 $240,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $2,000,000 2019 $456,000 $456,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 2020 $237,000 $148,000 $22,000 $28,000 $39,000 $0 2021 $712,500 $692,500 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 2022 $256,000 $244,000 $12,000 $0 $0 $0 2023 $425,000 $425,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,704,900 $3,522,500 $204,400 $376,500 $701,500 $7,900,000 Element Community Sidewalks Neighborhood Sidewalks Bikeways Bike Lanes Trails Bridges Length (ft.) or # 57,608 21,169 117,599 44,237 15,572 4 Cost of Neighborhood Sidewalks $1,137,500 Cost of Community Sidewalks $2,385,000 Total Sidewalk Construction Costs $3,522,500 Notes: 1. Costs above do not account for inflation, engineering, contingencies, right-of-way acquisition and other unknown project costs. Public Works feels these factors will significantly add to the cost shown and project the total cost to build the improvements proposed in the $18 - $25 million dollar range. Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 5 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Exhibit 5 Communications Plan Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways July 2012 A Branded Initiative As the Sidewalk, Trails and Bikeways plan is a long-term, multi-faceted initiative, it’s important that the city establish an identity for it that will be recognizable to community members for years to come. This will also help the public understand that each smaller project is part of something larger. The Communications Division is currently developing a logo and taglines that will be consistent with the city’s overall brand but also give an identity to the multi-year initiative under the “Connect the Park” name. Taglines will focus on the initiatives roots in Vision St. Louis Park and on the specific components of the initiative. Three Phases There are three phases or components of communication messages/deployment. Some overlap and many tools will be used across phases, but the essential elements are as follows: Phase One – Educate the public about the roots of the plan (i.e. Vision), explain the work that has been done and the Council’s goals for the initiative. This is a citywide effort that will also aim to educate the community about the various components of the plan, the benefits and answer the “why” question and show the overall picture about this initiative. Phase Two – Educate the public about the specific elements contained in the initiative, projected costs and physical impacts (i.e. loss of right of way, parking, etc.). This communication will be tailored to four quadrants of the city either based on Ward boundaries or other boundaries deemed appropriate by Public Works staff. Phase Three – Educate the public about the specific elements affecting them in their neighborhoods or on their streets. The most local element of the Communication Plan, this portion will be conducted much like we conduct communications for any street or utility project with meetings and mailings directed at affected parties. Goals • To remind residents about the city’s Vision, previous work already completed on the sidewalks and trail plan, and the Council’s commitment to the long-term vision of a connected community • Educate residents about the components of the proposed plan (Sidewalks, trails, bike lanes & bikeways) • To inform residents about new proposed Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways in St. Louis Park • To obtain resident input regarding the proposed Sidewalk, Trails, and Bikeways in St. Louis Park Communication tools to be utilized in plan • News release • Website • Cable Television • Social Media • Neighborhood Newsletters • Park Perspective Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 6 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update • Staff Presentations o Generate list of organizations • Brochures/Posters o Mailed to all residents o Handed out at city events • Maps • Open Houses Strategies News Release – The news release will be issued to the Sun-Sailor, Patch, Star Tribune and local television stations to announce that the city is seeking input on a 10-year plan. A map and project list will be included. PHASE 1 Website – The city will utilize a project website that will include a main article about the initiative (likely based off of the original press release), upcoming events, maps, pdf documents of publications and Council reports related to the initiative, and a list of all of the proposed projects with details (as each project is undertaken). The site will also include a Frequently Asked Questions area that will develop over time, and ways to provide feedback (email/phone) will include staff contacts. PHASES 1, 2, 3 The city will use a separate domain name for the initiative – www.ConnectThePark.org in its branding initiative. This won’t be a separate website, but the domain name will be redirected to the project page on the city’s website allowing for easy access. The city has used other domain names for marketing purposes such as beautifythepark.org and parkTV.org in the past with success. Additionally, the proposal will be highlighted on the spotlight of the homepage of stlouispark.org as space is available (usually for a couple of weeks at a time), especially around major events such as public meetings. Cable Television – We’ll highlight the proposed plan in several ways: • Scripted Public Service Announcement (Commercial) with voiceovers that will run on the Cable TV system, be embedded to the website and shared on social media. This will be an introduction to the “Connect the Park” Initiative and explain how the public can learn more. PHASE 1 • Regular promotion through our weekly “Park Update” program which is shared on the Cable TV system, the website and social media. PHASES 1, 2, 3 • Create a Cable TV Billboard announcement (the informational screens that run on the Cable TV system in between programming) Phases 2,3 Social Media – Social media has become a powerful tool for the city now with nearly 4,500 people inside and outside of the community utilizing them. A series of informal messages linked to our main website article to promote the proposed plan will be utilized. Phases 1, 2, 3 Neighborhood Newsletters – The content of the initial news release, which contains the basic information about the proposed plan, plus a link to the website, will be provided to neighborhood leaders for inclusion in their publications and websites. Additional information will be relayed to the Community Liaison for inclusion in regular communication with neighborhood leaders. Phases 2, 3 Park Perspective – The content of the initial news release, which contains the basic information about the proposal, plus a link to the website, will be included in the August Park Perspective. Photos will be included and the content will be reworked into a basic Q & A format. In the November Park Perspective, a brief update, including any upcoming meetings will be included in the newsletter. After that time, the Park Perspective will be used as a tool for printed updates and to reference the website. It’s expected that at least once annually, probably the spring/summer edition each year, the Park Perspective will be utilized for a more extensive update that outlines the planned projects for each year. Phases 1, 2, 3 Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 7 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Flyer / Brochure – A full-color educational brochure will be created highlighting the plan elements proposed for construction, the City’s Vision and overall education about the reasons for creating and implementing the plan. This brochure will be mailed to all St. Louis Park households and businesses. Phase 1 Four separate mailings will then be created that deal specifically with projects proposed in the four separate wards (or other quadrants as determined by staff). These mailings will include maps and specific project details and timelines in local area. Phase 2 Poster – Staff will create a full-color 11 x 17 poster containing some details of the proposal and references to ConnectThePark.org and hung in city buildings and other locations throughout the community. Phase 1 Maps – Staff from the Information Resources and Public Works departments will collaborate on both printed and interactive online maps for the public to utilize. Phases 1, 2, 3 Staff Presentations – Staff will provide project presentations to neighborhood and community groups as requested. Phases 1, 2, 3 Open Houses – The city will hold four public meetings (one each in each of the four wards or quadrants as determined by staff). Phases 2,3 Timeline July • Staff prepares communication tools (publications, videos, maps, website, posters etc.) August • News release issued • Park Perspective Article • Website project page launched • Initial overview publication sent to neighborhoods • Posters debut September • Public Service Announcement Debuts • TV Billboard announcements begin (highlight meeting dates, website, maps) • Information shared with neighborhood leaders • Ward/Quadrant information sent to residents (prior to Public Meetings) • Public Meetings Begin October • Public meetings continue November • Park Perspective article Ongoing • Social media • Cable TV • Website • Park Perspective Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 8 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Exhibit 8 Guiding Principles Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails Design & Construction: 1. Current Designs: • Sidewalk - 6' concrete with 7' grass boulevard • Trail - 10' bituminous with 7' grass boulevard 2. Design Options (when necessary): • Narrow grass boulevard up to nothing (eliminate) • Narrow sidewalks up to 5' in width • Narrow trails up to 8' in width 3. Minimize parking restrictions associated with Bikeway designations 4. Facilities to be ADA accessible. 5. Narrow existing streets to accepted standards • Restrict or eliminate parking (when necessary). 6. Curve sidewalks/trails to avoid tree removals. 7. Forester determines tree viability (remove or trim). 8. Leave trees, walks, fences, etc. wherever possible. 9. Relocate or bury utilities in lieu of moving walk or trail. 10. Avoid right of way acquisition whenever possible. 11. Improvements should not decrease public safety. 12. Retaining wall need and ownership to be determined per existing Council policy. 13. Design and construct facilities as adopted by Council unless Council directs otherwise. Maintenance: 1. Facilities to be maintained to Ordinance requirements or better. 2. All sidewalk and trail repairs are City responsibility and at City cost. 3. Community sidewalk and trail snow removal will be by the City at city cost. 4. Neighborhood sidewalk snow removal will be by residents at resident cost. Special Study Session Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 2) Page 9 Subject: Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan Update Exhibit 9 Expected Issues and Concerns Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails Expected issues, concerns, and suggestions related to proposed Sidewalks, Bikeways, and Trails: 1. Sidewalk maintenance (snow removal) 2. Adverse property impacts: • reduced yard size • removal of trees • alterations to walls and fences • reduced aesthetics • reduced property values 3. Cost - too costly, do not raise taxes 4. Closeness of walks or trails to homes/buildings 5. Driveways will become too short to park cars 6. Concern over increase in outsiders and crime 7. Necessity - there is no need for walks or trails - walk in the street 8. Safety concerns over: • additional vehicle/pedestrian conflicts at driveways • children falling off retaining walls 9. Discourteous or disrespectful use of walks and trails by users 10. Bicycle traffic will cause or increase congestion 11. Adverse impacts to the character or culture of a neighborhood 12. Put walks/trails at the curbline 13. Put walks on just one side of a street 14. Narrow up walks/trails 15. Do more "on street trails" 16. Narrow up streets 17. Consider one-way streets 18. Eliminate or restrict street parking in some areas 19. Some sidewalks should be removed from the proposal 20. Some sidewalks should be added to the Proposal 21. Locate walks/trails elsewhere - where more appropriate 22. Show more importance to major street crossings 23. Let neighborhoods decide what is best in their respective area 24. Do less, this is too much Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3a UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 8, 2012 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for October 8, 2012. He indicated that Professor Myron Orfield recently published "America's Racially Diverse Suburbs – Opportunities and Challenges" and asked if Council was interested in discussing the report at a future study session. It was the consensus of the City Council to add Professor Orfield's report to a future study session agenda. Councilmember Sanger requested that Council have a study session discussion regarding the Planning Commission's rejection of the proposal for the Eliot School site. She also requested that Council have a study session discussion regarding the SWLRT DEIS scheduled to be released in October. Mr. Harmening agreed to add a discussion regarding the Eliot School site to a future study session agenda. He advised that staff will provide Council with a report in its next study session agenda regarding the SWLRT DEIS, including an overview of the DEIS process and how the comment period works. He stated the City is interested in bringing in technical assistance to assist the City in its formulation of comments and will then come back to Council in late October or November to further discuss the DEIS process. He indicated he would provide Council with a link to the DEIS and will check to see if an executive summary of the issues relevant to the City will be prepared. 2. Toby Keith's Liquor License Ms. Deno presented the staff report and stated representatives from Toby Keith's were in attendance this evening. She advised that data received from Toby Keith's indicates that for the period ending August 31, 2012, Toby Keith's met the Ordinance requirements for food and liquor sales, with 51% food sales and 49% liquor sales. Councilmember Ross commended Toby Keith's for exceeding the City's requirements and was happy to see the numbers contained in the report. She stated she was amenable to removing City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 2 Subject: Study Session Minutes of September 24, 2012 Toby Keith's probationary status at this time and felt they were working hard to comply with the City's Ordinance requirements. Councilmember Sanger commended Toby Keith's for making progress on meeting the Ordinance requirements and did not have a problem with taking Toby Keith's off probation. She stated she did not want to see Toby Keith's or any other licensee fluctuate in meeting the City's requirement for food and liquor sales and asked if the Ordinance requires a licensee to stay off probation for a certain length of time once they come off probation. Ms. Deno stated this is the first time the City has dealt with this issue and the Ordinance does not contain a provision that requires a licensee to stay off probation for a certain length of time. She added the City will review food and liquor sales again at the time of liquor license renewal. Councilmember Sanger indicated she would like to see an Ordinance requirement that states once an establishment comes off probation there can be no second probationary period within a certain period of time so there is no fluctuation in compliance with the food and liquor sales requirements. Councilmember Ross stated that the issue raised by Councilmember Sanger is totally separate from the Toby Keith's matter and felt Council should review the overall ordinance in a separate discussion. Councilmember Santa stated she was confident that Toby Keith's will sustain its food and liquor sales and commended their efforts in getting to this point. She asked if the six-month probation will expire or whether Council needs to take formal action. Ms. Deno stated she would check with the City Attorney about whether Council needs to take action or whether the six-month probation will simply expire. Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Spano, Hallfin and Mavity were also in favor of removing the probationary status of Toby Keith's. It was the consensus of the City Council that Toby Keith’s had met conditions of probation and are removed from the probationary status. Councilmember Spano stated there was a charitable gambling request that was denied by Council based on Toby Keith's probationary status and asked if Council will revisit the charitable gambling request now that Toby Keith's is off probation. Mr. Harmening advised that Toby Keith's was told the City would review any charitable gambling request after the probationary status was removed. It was the consensus of the City Council to have a study session discussion regarding the liquor Ordinance related to the 50-50 ratio provision and the issue raised by Councilmember Sanger. 3. Use of City Portion of Lodging Tax Revenue Mr. Harmening presented the staff report and stated the City has approximately $48,000 available and can expect up to $35,000 per year to use for special projects, such as public art, special City marketing initiatives, or City festivals and events. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 3 Subject: Study Session Minutes of September 24, 2012 Councilmember Santa stated the public art is great but if the art is not taken care of, it is a waste of money and becomes a huge disappointment to the community at large. She indicated she would like to see some of the funds used toward maintenance of the public art. Councilmember Sanger stated she was okay with using some of the funds for events if it is an event that draws visitors to the City. She indicated she has had some concerns about the negative comments received about the City's public art and would rather see the money used for enhanced design or architectural upgrades of bridges or public buildings. She added she would like Council to have a separate discussion about the City's public art program. Councilmember Ross stated she liked the idea of using the money for enhanced design or architectural upgrades of bridges or public buildings and agreed Council needed to have a broader discussion on public art. She stated she would also like to see some money put into some type of advertisement to draw people into the City. Councilmember Mavity stated she has not heard that maintenance of the City's public art has become a problem. She liked the idea of using funds for enhanced architectural design, noting that if a developer is engaged in investing in this she did not want to dissuade that and the City should continue to encourage developer involvement. She indicated she was also in favor of doing some marketing initiatives and felt the City should do more to get its name out there. Councilmember Hallfin stated he liked the ideas in general and suggested using some of the funds for youth sports or events because these types of events bring a lot of people into the City. Councilmember Spano stated he felt the City does not currently do all it can to support artists and the arts community and suggested Council consider a scholarship-type mentoring program for young artists. Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation talked about the art grant and scholarship program through Friends of the Arts and that they provide funding for scholarships. Councilmember Mavity stated she did not think that was an appropriate role for the City and asked whether money could be given to Friends of the Arts for that type of program. She added the organizers of the Shakespeare Festival at Wolfe Park are trying to turn the event into a premiere Shakespeare festival for the region and felt this was something the City could invest in because it brings people into the City. Mr. Harmening agreed to draft a policy for Council consideration that addresses public art and maintenance of public art, marketing initiatives, and promoting high quality architecture in public architecture. Councilmember Ross requested that the policy provide Council with flexibility for using the funds so that dollars can be moved around to other projects as determined by Council. Mayor Jacobs stated he would like to see public art installed at the light rail transit stations. 4. Council Reports – Executive Summary Ms. Deno presented the staff report and stated an executive summary page is intended to provide Council with a one-page snapshot followed by background material in Council reports. She stated that the main issues for Council consideration would be contained on the first page and the City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 4 Subject: Study Session Minutes of September 24, 2012 reports would include hyperlinks in the executive summary to help quickly direct Council to relevant background information. Councilmember Spano stated he suggested using an executive summary because the current staff reports go right into a significant amount of detail and an executive summary could provide brief information about the history of an issue and what action Council is being asked to take on a particular issue. He stated what he has found missing in the reports is a top-level view of the larger issue being considered by Council. Councilmember Sanger expressed concern that an executive summary might make it too easy to just read the executive summary and not get into the details. She felt an executive summary might also make more work for staff. Ms. Deno felt in the long run, this type of report will make it easier for the City to track items. She stated staff would like to try using the executive summary format and acknowledged it will take a while to transition to this format. City Council was in agreement in moving forward with the executive summary style of report for Council agendas. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Councilmember Mavity stated she felt the Beltline LRT written report contained in the agenda did not nail down the key circulation issues that Council discussed with the consultants. She expressed concern that the summary is still missing some key elements, noting that the report indicates that Raleigh Avenue from Minnetonka Boulevard south to 36th Street over the railroad tracks would be further reviewed. She stated when Council had this discussion, she indicated she would not be supportive of a crossing over the railroad tracks and stated this felt like a setup to analyze something that is a non-starter because she did not think going over the railroad tracks was a viable option. Councilmember Sanger agreed with Councilmember Mavity and stated the reference to studying a route that is an at-grade crossing of the tracks, whether at Raleigh or Inglewood, is a non- starter. She indicated she asked for additional study on Ottawa Avenue that dealt with the parking issues if Ottawa ends up being chosen as the north-south connection. Councilmember Mavity stated the report talks about the impact of new street crossings over the regional trail and felt like this was also a set-up to why this will not work. She also questioned why the discussions with Minneapolis about opening Park Glen were not included in the report because this is probably the most viable of all the options. Mr. Locke stated that staff attempted to capture what was in the minutes from the previous city council discussion in the written report, noting that nothing in the written report is intended to state these are the solutions; rather, staff's intent was not to eliminate anything that was discussed at the last meeting, including connections into Minneapolis. He stated the goal was to make sure staff captured all the questions raised to make sure those issues are addressed, recognizing that some things went beyond the scope of this particular study. He indicated that staff is not asking Council to endorse any of these ideas but to acknowledge that these were things that came up in City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3a) Page 5 Subject: Study Session Minutes of September 24, 2012 previous discussions. The goal is to make sure these issues are talked about with the Advisory Committee with the intent of coming back with a recommended plan for Council to review. Councilmember Sanger stated the point discussed at the last meeting was how a Birchwood or Blackstone neighborhood resident who lives north of Minnetonka Boulevard would easily get to the light rail station and the point was made that people who live in this area are not going to Inglewood to double back to the light rail station. She added it is not just about how to cross the railroad tracks and the focus has to be Beltline and further west and north, not east. Mr. Locke explained that this study is working on the Beltline LRT station area circulation plan. It addresses the area immediately surrounding that station. The study is focused on the ½-mile radius around the Beltline LRT station. He assured Council that the study with the help of our consultants as well as the Advisory Committee will, no doubt, generate additional ideas and will not be constrained by what is contained in the current staff report. Councilmember Sanger stated that the disconnect appears to stem from the Study being focused on this ½ mile radius while Council is urging staff not to look at the ½ mile radius in a vacuum and to look at the bigger picture of how to get people to the light rail station. Councilmember Ross stated the Advisory Committee has been tasked with doing the "how" work and it is up to the Advisory Committee to figure out how this can work. Mr. Harmening suggested that he and Mr. Locke meet with Councilmembers Mavity and Sanger to further discuss this matter. Councilmember Spano requested that the Public Involvement Resident Summary on the solid waste program changes be corrected to accurately state how many residents favored dual sort and how many favored single sort. The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 5. Beltline LRT Station Area Circulation Planning and Advisory Committee Process 6. Pedestrian and Bicycle System Implementation Plan 7. Project Update – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project 8. 2013 – 2018 Solid Waste Collection Program Update 9. August 2012 Monthly Financial Report ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3b UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 1, 2012 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Community Liaison (Ms. Olson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations 2a. WELCOME – SLP Parktacular Ambassador Meet & Greet w/ Council & Mayor Mayor Jacobs welcomed the Parktacular ambassadors and thanked them for participating in all of the Parktacular events. 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Study Session Minutes September 10, 2012 Councilmember Spano requested that Council's discussion regarding issues associated with coyotes on page 2 be amended to reflect that he was in favor of reducing the coyote population but advocated in favor of providing notification, citing neighborhood concerns. Councilmember Mavity requested that Council's discussion regarding issues associated with coyotes be amended to reflect she was in agreement with Councilmember Spano. The minutes were approved as amended. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 2 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2012 4a. Adopt Resolution No. 12-135 appointing additional election judges needed to staff the polls at the General Election to be held November 6, 2012. 4b. Approve a Temporary On-Sale Intoxicating Liquor License for the Job’s Daughters Foundation of Minnesota, 11501 Masonic Home Drive, Bloomington, for an event to be held on October 20, 2012, at Paul Revere Masonic Center, 6509 Walker St., St. Louis Park. 4c. Adopt Resolution No. 12-136 authorizing final payment in the amount of $10,911.65 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 6 (Structural Steel & Metal Fabrication) with A.M.E. Construction Corporation Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City Contract No. 42-11. 4d. Adopt Resolution No. 12-137 authorizing final payment in the amount of $3,365.00 and accepting work for Fire Station No. 1 Work Scope 17 (Floor Coatings) by Henkemeyer Painting & Floor Coatings, Inc., Project No. 2008- 3001, City Contract No. 58-11. 4e. Adopt Resolution No. 12-138 authorizing an agreement between the City of St. Louis Park and Hennepin County for City participation in Active Living Hennepin County and for the development of an Active Living Policy. 4f. Grant the City Manager authority to administratively approve work extras (change orders and minor extra work) for an additional $100,000 limit for City Projects 2008-3001 and 2008-3002 (Fire Stations Replacement), in accordance with the City Council’s existing policy. 4g. Approve Amendment No. 5 to Contract 142-08 which will provide additional engineering consulting services needed to complete Phase 4 activities (Final Design) for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange project, Project No. 2012-0100. 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 12-139 authorizing filing of application and execution of agreement to improve various amenities and lighting in Louisiana Oaks Park under the provisions of the Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Program. 4i. Approve for filing Planning Commission Minutes August 15, 2012. Councilmember Spano requested that Consent Calendar item #4g be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent Calendar item #4g to the Regular Agenda as item #8a; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 7-0. 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing to Consider 2013 Fees Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and advised the City's fees are reviewed annually as a part of the budget process and some fees are required to be set by Ordinance while City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 3 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2012 other fees are set administratively. He noted that the administrative penalties approved by Council in August have been added to the Ordinance. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Adopting Fees for Calendar Year 2013 and to set Second Reading for October 15, 2012. The motion passed 7-0. 6b. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Granting a Natural Gas Utility Franchise to CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and explained that in 2003 the City granted a ten year utility franchise to CenterPoint Energy (CPE). He stated the City is proposing to use the same process and schedule as that used for the Xcel Energy franchise and CPE has agreed to revise the ordinance to make it generally consistent with the Xcel Energy ordinance as well as to increase the base franchise fee by $.50 per month. He indicated the ordinance term will be ten years and subjects CPE to the City's administrative regulations and requirements, the ordinance requires CPE to provide mapping information and requires prompt facility relocations. He suggested that Council have a study session discussion on October 8th regarding the CPE and Xcel Energy franchise ordinances and franchise fees to answer any further questions of Council. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Granting CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., d/b/a CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas ("CenterPoint Energy"), its Successors and Assigns, a Nonexclusive Franchise to Construct, Operate, Repair and Maintain Facilities and Equipment for the Transportation, Distribution, Manufacture and Sale of Gas Energy for Public and Private Use and to Use the Public Ways and Grounds of the City of St. Louis Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, for such purpose; and, Prescribing Certain Terms and Conditions Thereof and to set Second Reading for October 15, 2012. The motion passed 7-0. 6c. Public Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and explained that the CPE base residential franchise fee of $1.25 per month was initiated in January 2004 and in 2010 was raised to $2.00 per month. He stated the franchise fee from CPE and Xcel Energy is used entirely to pay for the City's pavement management program implemented in 2005. He indicated the City is asking for a $.50 per month increase to the base residential rate in 2013. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 4 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2012 Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding the franchise fees for commercial customers. Mr. Rardin referred to the franchise fee estimate contained in the staff report, noting that the City currently receives approximately $393,000 per year from residential customers pursuant to the CPE franchise fee, which is projected to increase to approximately $491,000 per year in 2013. He stated that most of the various classes of commercial customers will see a $.50 per month increase in the CPE franchise fee totaling $124,000 for 2013 with total revenues from the CPE franchise fee from all customer classes projected to be approximately $615,000 in 2013. Councilmember Ross stated that while it appears a lot of fees are going up, the Public Works Department is the envy of a lot of cities when it comes to pavement management and the pavement management program cannot continue without increasing fees. She felt the franchise fee was a modest increase when considering the cost to residents if the City had to assess for street improvements and represents a low cost on the front end to pay for a lot of work the City does on the back end. It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Implementing a Gas Energy Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas ("CenterPoint Energy") for Providing Gas Energy Service within the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and to set Second Reading for October 15, 2012. The motion passed 7-0. 6d. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Granting an Electrical Energy Utility Franchise to Northern States Power Company (Xcel Energy) Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and stated the City began discussions with Xcel Energy earlier this year regarding the electrical services utility franchise, including discussions regarding performance issues with Xcel Energy and addressing those concerns. He advised that the City is interested in changing the term of the franchise from twenty to ten years and Xcel Energy would be subject to the City's administrative regulations; in addition, Xcel Energy would be required to provide mapping information and prompt relocation of facilities and would be subject to permit fees like other utilities. He added that Xcel Energy has been resistant to the permit fee requirement but the City and Xcel Energy have continued negotiations with good strides made in the last few days. He then introduced Ms. Michelle Swanson with Xcel Energy. Mayor Jacobs asked if representatives from CPE and Xcel Energy will be in attendance at the study session on October 8th. Mr. Rardin agreed to request that representatives from CPE and Xcel Energy attend the study session meeting on October 8th. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 5 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2012 Ms. Michelle Swanson, Xcel Energy Community Relations Manager, 5309 West 70th Street, Edina, appeared before the City Council and stated a number of issues were brought up during meetings with the City and Xcel Energy is working to correct the performance issues raised. She felt progress has been made to move the agreement along and items in the agreement that Xcel Energy does not agree with include Xcel Energy's position that the agreement is in the form of an ordinance and Xcel Energy feels the franchise is a contract which must be agreed to by both parties; in addition, every city that Xcel Energy has a franchise agreement with has a twenty year term. They are considering the possibility of a ten year checkpoint. She added Xcel Energy is anxious to reach agreement with the City. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Mavity asked if structuring this as an ordinance versus a franchise agreement will set a precedent in the City or any other community. Mr. Scott advised there is a recent Court case in an outstate community where the Court determined the community had the right to impose a franchise agreement without the utility company's consent, adding he would not say this was unprecedented but was unusual and franchise agreements are typically done by consent. Councilmember Hallfin asked if issues with trees and power lines were part of the franchise agreement. Mr. Rardin stated that there is a provision in the agreement that discusses tree trimming, adding that Xcel Energy is fairly regulated regarding dependability of their service and tree trimming in particular. Mayor Jacobs stated an issue for him has been a requirement that Xcel Energy underground their utility lines, noting that while it is expensive to underground the lines, over the course of time it is less expensive to underground the lines rather than continually repair them after wind or ice storms. It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Granting to Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy, its Successors and Assigns, Permission to Construct, Operate, Repair and Maintain in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, an Electric Distribution System and Transmission Lines, including necessary Poles, Lines, Fixtures and Appurtenances, for the Furnishing of Electric Energy to the City, its Inhabitants, and Others, and to use the Public Grounds and Public Ways of the City for such purposes and to set Second Reading for October 15, 2012. The motion passed 7-0. 6e. Public Hearing and First Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company (d/b/a Xcel Energy) City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 6 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2012 Mr. Rardin presented the staff report and stated the proposed increase of the Xcel Energy franchise fee is $.50 per month for residential customers, adding that this franchise fee is also used for the City's pavement management program. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to approve First Reading of Ordinance Implementing an Electric Service Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota Corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy, its Successors and Assigns, for Providing Electric Service within the City of St. Louis Park and to set Second Reading for October 15, 2012. The motion passed 7-0. 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Approve Amendment No. 5 to Contract 142-08 which will provide additional engineering consulting services needed to complete Phase 4 activities (Final Design) for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue interchange project, Project No. 2012-0100 Councilmember Spano requested clarification regarding Original Contract costs and costs associated with Amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, noting the Original Contract was for Phase 1 and 2 work. He asked if the Original Contract acts as a master contract for administrative purposes. Mr. Rardin explained that the Original Contract for this project and for the Highway 7 and Wooddale Avenue project was for Phase 1 work only and stated the City did not want one large contract on either of these projects because it is better to negotiate costs and work tasks as the project moves along rather than having one large initial contract addressing all phases of work which speculates at future work tasks and costs. Councilmember Spano noted that Amendment No. 3 for Phase 4 work was approximately $958,000 and Amendment No. 5 includes additional Phase 4 work for approximately $384,000. He expressed concern that this represents an approximate 40% increase in Phase 4 work. Mr. Rardin advised that the scope of work in Amendment No. 3 specifically did not include right-of-way acquisition activities, preparation of the Remedial Action Plan, or public art development activities and that was noted by the City at the time Amendment No. 3 was approved. Councilmember Hallfin stated he has had conversations with business owners in the area of the new interchange and requested that the record reflect that the City has heard what these business owners are saying about maintaining good access to their businesses during construction and the City will make sure to do its best to make sure businesses have full access during construction. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3b) Page 7 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 1, 2012 Councilmember Santa stated there are also residents in the construction area and the City is very aware that moving around the City during this project will be problematic and the City is looking at ways to make it easier and less painful for residents and businesses. It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to approve Amendment No. 5 to Contract 142-08 which will provide additional engineering consulting services needed to complete Phase 4 activities (Final Design) for the Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue interchange project, Project No. 2012-0100. The motion passed 7-0. 9. Communications Mayor Jacobs congratulated the School District Foundation on its successful fundraising event held last Saturday. Mr. Harmening requested that residents water their boulevard and other trees. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3c UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 8, 2012 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Julia Ross. Staff present: Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Director of Inspections (Mr. Hoffman), Inspection Services Manager (Ms. Boettcher), Engineering Project Manager (Mr. Olson), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Administrative Services Intern (Mr. French), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guest: Michelle Swanson (Xcel Energy). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 15 & October 22, 2012 Ms. Deno presented the proposed special study session agenda for October 8, 2012, and the proposed study session agenda for October 22, 2012. Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the written report on the recycling contract with Eureka and questioned why the City has to pay more for glass recycling, noting that the City is being asked to pay for something that is now a Hennepin County mandate. Ms. Deno agreed to provide Council with further information regarding glass recycling. 2. Beekeeping in St. Louis Park Ms. Deno presented the staff report. Councilmember Hallfin asked how often the City has been contacted about beekeeping. Mr. Hoffman replied the City has been contacted approximately once per year and received one complaint regarding beekeeping. Councilmember Hallfin stated there have not been a lot of complaints and preferred that there be the least amount of regulation possible, adding that it made sense to require beekeepers to provide a water source. Councilmember Mavity agreed and stated she felt this issue was a solution in search of a problem. She was hesitant to do anything about setbacks, flyway barriers or fences particularly because the City has a variety of lot sizes and these requirements would have a disparate impact on people with smaller yards. She preferred that the City allow beekeeping through the Code and if minimum requirements are to be added, she would only support a requirement to provide a water source. She stated a one-time license could be required so the City knows where bees are being kept and the City should address any issues on an as-needed complaint basis. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 2 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2012 Councilmember Spano indicated that Councilmember Ross requested that he convey her support for some regulation around best practices, e.g., providing a water source and requiring beekeepers to register their hive location, but nothing onerous. He stated he felt the City was not an expert on beekeeping and could rely on the Hobby Beekeepers Association for guidance, adding that he preferred less regulation on this issue. Councilmember Sanger stated she did not like the idea of allowing beekeeping because the City is much too dense and beekeeping is a rural activity. She acknowledged that her point of view is not the majority and was in favor of regulating beekeeping using the model the City has for recreational fires which requires a one-time permit so the City knows where hives are being kept. She indicated she was disconcerted that Council does not feel regulations are needed and this puts staff in a tough spot to address a situation if no standards are established. She was supportive of the model ordinance, particularly a requirement that beekeepers provide evidence of training to certify their expertise in beekeeping. She requested further information regarding flyway barriers and suggested adding language that if a hive is not within 25' of a neighboring property, they are not required to add fencing. She added she did not see why one person's hobby should constrain the neighbors from enjoying their property. Councilmember Mavity recited a portion of the Code's environment/public health section related to nuisances and felt this was a tool available to the City to address complaints. Councilmember Sanger disagreed and stated the City's ability to claim beekeeping is a nuisance has been taken away. She discussed how the term nuisance is too vague to allow any type of enforcement. Mr. Hoffman stated that this section of the Code is too vague if applied to beekeeping and it would be hard to prove a nuisance exists. Councilmember Santa agreed with using a less is more approach and likened this issue to the issue of recreational fires. She supported a permit requirement so the City knows where hives are being kept and this will help people be good neighbors. She was supportive of allowing beekeeping and the City should use best practices. Mayor Jacobs stated he was in favor of a best practices approach and was in favor of the setback requirements. He indicated if for some reason a beekeeper cannot meet the 25' setback because of their lot's configuration, a fence should be required, adding he did not see any need to limit a colony based on lot size. He agreed with the recreational fire analogy and requiring a one-time permit but did not feel evidence of training was necessary. Councilmember Mavity did not agree with having setback requirements and felt a hive could be placed on a small lot with no impact to neighbors. Councilmember Spano asked if it was possible to address the setback issue only if a complaint was received by the City. Councilmember Sanger felt there should be setback requirements and stated an alternative might be if the setbacks are less than 25' then the hive must be located in the center of the back yard. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 3 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2012 Councilmember Mavity called the question regarding setback requirements and stated that beekeeping has not been a major problem and it felt like the City was making people jump through hoops when there has not been a problem. Councilmember Sanger stated a complaint was lodged because a resident was keeping bees on the property line where it affected the neighbor and a setback requirement would have been beneficial. She added beekeepers are taking on a hobby that carries inherent risks and the City needs to protect people. Councilmember Santa stated the City regulates how people should treat their animals and there are steps the City can take to address a problem. She felt it was reasonable to give staff some tools to work with so if a problem arises with beekeeping it can be dealt with to keep the bees and the neighbors safe and to make sure neighbors are not inconvenienced. Councilmember Mavity suggested the Code define nuisance related to beekeeping and recited a portion of the New York City Code that defines nuisance. She stated if the beekeeping becomes a nuisance, the City can pull the permit. Council continued its discussion regarding setback requirements and nuisance. Councilmember Spano suggested that the City Attorney could look into nuisance and Council can amend the ordinance at a later date if it is determined that nuisance should be added. Councilmember Hallfin stated he would be okay with having setback requirements and if a complaint was received, the beekeeper should be required to meet the 25' setback. Councilmember Mavity stated she would not agree with that requirement. Mayor Jacobs stated he would agree with a 25' setback requirement in the ordinance but that existing hives would only be required to be moved upon complaint, adding this is similar to the City's overnight parking restrictions. He indicated there is currently nothing in place regarding setback requirements and the City cannot enforce something unless there is a standard for it. He added that any new hive would be required to comply with the setback requirement. It was the consensus of the City Council to amend the City Code to allow beekeeping in residential zoning districts and to include a regulation in the City Code requiring that a water source be provided. It was also the consensus of the City Council to not allow in multi-family and to add if setback of 25 or 20 fee could not be met that a fence or flyway zone could be required. 3. Xcel and CenterPoint Energy (CPE) Franchise Ordinances Ms. Deno presented the staff report. Mr. Rardin introduced Ms. Michelle Swanson from Xcel Energy. He advised that staff met with representatives from Xcel Energy last Thursday and at this time, the only issue to be resolved has to do with Xcel's accountability to the City as it relates to facility relocations. He stated Xcel Energy is willing to move forward on the franchise and staff is optimistic that agreement will be reached; however, the second reading of the ordinance may need to be rescheduled to November. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 4 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2012 Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding Xcel Energy's unwillingness to commit to following the City's standards and ordinances. She questioned why Xcel Energy would think it is not required to comply with the City's ordinances and also questioned why that has to be in the agreement when it should be a given that Xcel Energy must comply with the City's ordinances. Mr. Scott clarified there was not an issue with Xcel Energy complying with the City's ordinances but rather a matter of what terms would be contained in this ordinance. He advised the City has permitting requirements in the ordinance but also has standards not contained in the ordinance and the City added language requiring Xcel Energy to comply with the ordinance as well as the City's administrative permitting requirements. He stated that Xcel Energy did not agree with that requirement but has since eliminated that objection. Councilmember Sanger asked if the City has legal authority to impose a franchise as an ordinance. She asked what the difference would be if the City imposed the franchise as an ordinance versus reaching an agreement with Xcel Energy. Mr. Scott replied that his position is that the City has the legal authority to impose a franchise as an ordinance. He stated at this time it would not make any difference if the franchise was in the form of an agreement or in the form of an ordinance. However, future amendments to an agreement would have to be with Xcel consent, whereas ordinance amendments would not. Councilmember Santa stated that residents have expressed concern about Xcel Energy's lack of responsiveness to residents when they call about a downed power line. She indicated that this represents a performance issue and requested that performance be addressed so the City has an understanding that issues will be dealt with in a timely manner. Mr. Scott advised that this type of performance issue is not being addressed in the agreement with Xcel Energy and stated he was not sure whether the agreement can address that kind of performance issue, adding that the agreement deals with performance issues such as relocation of lines, e.g., Highway 7 and Wooddale. Ms. Michelle Swanson, Xcel Energy, appeared before the City Council and expressed concern that a downed power line was not quickly addressed. She stated if residents are not getting a response from Xcel Energy's customer service area, they can call her directly for follow-up and agreed to provide her business card to Council. Councilmember Hallfin indicated a tree fell on his property approximately ten years ago and Xcel Energy trimmed the tree around the power line at no cost to him. He asked what has changed during that time because it now appears the homeowner is responsible to pay for tree trimming in the area from the power line to the house. Ms. Swanson advised that it has always been Xcel's policy that the service line to the house is the responsibility of the homeowner. Xcel Energy will drop the line and trim the tree at the homeowner's expense. She presented a brochure entitled "Tree Pruning Near Power Lines" and urged Council to call with any further questions. Councilmember Hallfin asked if it was possible to require Xcel Energy to trim trees around power lines at its expense to take the onus off homeowners adding there have been situations City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 5 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2012 where a tree needs to be trimmed but the power line belongs to the neighbor, which means that the neighbor has to pay for tree trimming on a tree that belongs to someone else. Ms. Swanson stated that the section of line coming into homes from the pole is not what causes massive power outages and is typically not where the focus is in terms of tree trimming. Councilmember Sanger stated that the tree trimming done by Xcel Energy has been characterized as butchering and asked that Xcel Energy improve the quality of its tree trimming. Ms. Swanson stated that Xcel Energy's contractors use industry standards and trees are trimmed to maintain the health of the tree and get the tree away from the power line. Councilmember Mavity asked what tools are being built into the agreement to prevent a similar situation to the Highway 7/Wooddale project. Mr. Scott advised this issue is currently being discussed but has not been resolved. He explained if you do not have a franchise agreement, the right-of-way rules indicate if a project requires lines to be relocated, the utility needs to promptly move the lines following notice by the City. He noted this is basically the same language as is contained in the current franchise agreement; however, the City included liquidated damages language that states if the City gives notice to move lines within 60 days and Xcel Energy does not move the lines, it would trigger a penalty per day in addition to other remedies. He indicated that Xcel Energy is still reviewing that language and if Xcel Energy will not agree to this language and the City adopts the franchise as part of its ordinance, Xcel Energy is going to object to the ordinance and take the position that the City cannot impose a franchise without Xcel Energy's agreement. Councilmember Spano stated he lives near Methodist Hospital and the neighborhood spent two years negotiating ways to lessen the impact of lighting to adjacent properties. He indicated an agreement was reached to plant slow-growing trees that shielded the lights and last year Xcel chopped all the trees in half, which means the neighborhood will not have the benefit of shielding because of the way Xcel Energy trimmed the trees. He stated the City has begun using natural plantings to minimize impacts to property owners and it will be important to make sure there is tighter coordination among the parties to avoid another situation like this. Councilmember Sanger supported the liquidated damages language and asked if an expedited arbitration clause could be added to the agreement to get disputes quickly resolved. Mr. Scott agreed to add an expedited arbitration clause to the agreement and discuss the clause with Xcel Energy. 4. Project Update – Highway 7 / Louisiana Avenue Interchange Project Mr. Olson presented the staff report and advised that Cardinal Glass requested that their four driveways remain permanently after construction is completed. Construction plans called for removing two of the four driveways. The City has been able to restore all four driveways into the project. He stated that Sam's Club has not responded to their offer letter and the Oak Hill office building wants it in writing that the new storm water system will not be their responsibility after construction of the project since their storm water pond will be removed as part of the construction. He advised that Louisiana Oaks Apartments has been presented an offer but City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 6 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2012 nothing has been submitted in response and the City's agent has indicated that Louisiana Oaks will likely be going through commissioner hearings and negotiations with them are not likely. He stated the Newport apartment building's new owners are reviewing the offer. He advised that a meeting has been scheduled with the billboard sites on October 11th regarding relocating the signs and stated the billboard sites have concerns that the new location might not have the same visibility due to the higher elevation of the road. He then presented the staging and detour plans noting that work will commence in April 2013. He explained that Highway 7 will have two lanes open for in-bound traffic as well as one lane open for out-bound traffic and Louisiana Avenue will have two lanes open but will be restricted to two-way traffic during the later phases. He described the planned detour routes for phases 1-4 and discussed signage along the detour routes. Ms. Deno indicated that if traffic issues arise during construction, the police department will be asked to provide assistance. Mr. Olson explained that meetings were held with the business owners to discuss their concerns about the planned rerouting. He stated that Mn/DOT has a public affairs coordinator and engineer assigned to this project with significant expertise in this area and they will bring examples of what has been used on other projects and explain how the business owners can incorporate these examples to keep customers coming to their businesses. He indicated the City can provide maps showing alternate routes as well as specialty signage for business owners. He then discussed the public art and explained that fabrication of the form liner for the bridge will cost $87,000 and noted that construction of the form liner is covered under general aesthetics but the crafting of the form liner is the City's responsibility. He stated the brick paver work will cost $94,000 and the design has been simplified to reduce the cost and make it easier to construct. He indicated that the two precast concrete elements are $11,000 each, the vertical towers will cost $112,000, and the under bridge lighting will cost $135,300 and includes four hidden LED lights which can be color changed. He added that streetlights are not yet shown but will include low- level pedestrian lighting and selected high level lighting at intersections using LED lights. Councilmember Mavity indicated the City is spending a lot on aesthetics and urged the City to make sure the aesthetics and detail of the streetlights is taken into consideration. Councilmember Sanger questioned the placement of seating elements under the bridge and felt these benches should be removed. Councilmember Santa agreed that benches under the bridge might not feel safe. Ms. Deno asked Mr. Rardin to take out the two seating elements and leave them as an option. Mr. Olson stated that Xcel Energy has provided an estimate of $450,000 for undergrounding the power lines and indicated that a Special Facilities Surcharge can be used by the City to recoup the undergrounding costs through a monthly surcharge of $.50 to residential customers for three years. He stated the other option is to have the City pay the cost of undergrounding the power lines out of the project budget. Mr. Rardin noted that the City's franchise states that utility companies are obligated to relocate their lines and if the City wants the lines undergrounded, the City is obligated to pay the additional cost. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3c) Page 7 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2012 Councilmember Spano stated that a monthly surcharge could be used towards undergrounding lines throughout the City and felt this could become a vehicle for getting rid of overhead lines. Councilmember Santa stated she was reluctant to impose another fee structure, adding that the pavement management fee makes sense but she could not justify a fee for undergrounding lines. It was the consensus of the City Council to pay the cost of undergrounding the power lines from the project budget. 5. Disposition Process for Excess MNDOT Parcels – Wayzata Boulevard Ms. Deno presented the staff report and policy question for Council consideration. Councilmember Sanger stated she was in agreement with the current policy. She expressed concern with the proposal to build one-story buildings and indicated her recollection was that a two- or three-story building was proposed for the parcel east of Texas Avenue where there is a significant grade change. Councilmember Spano stated that Councilmember Ross asked him to convey her preference for the KM Anderson Builders proposal for medical office buildings acknowledging that that would require a policy change. He stated that the City has recently lost a number of single-family homes and felt the property on the west end on Texas Avenue might present an opportunity to replace some of those single-family homes. Councilmember Mavity stated the site lends itself to clustered housing or low-density townhomes. Councilmember Sanger indicated there is another Mn/DOT parcel in Cedarhurst on the east side of Highway 100 and asked if Council should discuss this again to see if Mn/DOT is willing to give up that parcel for a single family home. Mr. Locke agreed to follow up on this Mn/DOT parcel. Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) None. The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 6. Update on Potential Upcoming Redevelopment Sites and Projects 7. 2013 Budget & Property Owner Service Charges – Special Service Districts Nos. 1-6 8. Amend Recycling Contract with Eureka Recycling 9. Business Park Zoning District – Rezoning Update 10. SWLRT DEIS Update ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3d UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 15, 2012 The meeting convened at 6:03 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), City Assessor (Mr. Bultema), Commercial Appraiser (Ms. Nathanson), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Utilities Superintendent (Mr. Anderson), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1. Fiscal Disparities Overview and Information Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Mr. Bultema explained that the Fiscal Disparities program was designed to even out the fiscal capacities of communities in the seven county metro area. He stated that 40% of the growth in the commercial-industrial tax base flows into the fiscal disparities pool and the average tax capacity for all jurisdictions is calculated with tax capacity adjusted by contribution and distribution of the pool. He indicated St. Louis Park is a net contributor to the pool and for every dollar the City put into the pool for taxes payable in 2012 and 2013, it received $.63, noting that County-wide the average is approximately $.75. He stated that Brooklyn Park has a similar total valuation which, translated to tax capacity is a little lower than the City but because Brooklyn Park has a much larger population it receives $1.73 because in terms of fiscal capacities, Brooklyn Park is much poorer than St. Louis Park. He stated the Fiscal Disparities program is generally a revenue sharing program and the City closely tracks the program due to its impact on the City's budget. He stated the Tischler report which studied the Fiscal Disparities program indicates that St. Louis Park pays 4.3% higher in taxes because that money is going to other jurisdictions to offset their property deficits. Councilmember Santa requested further information regarding the impact of fiscal disparities on the City, noting that the City was hit hard a couple of years ago. Mr. Bultema explained that the City's pre-1979 TIF districts which are accommodated in the fiscal disparities calculations were coming back on-line for tax capacity; in addition, the City had the West End development coming fully on-line and at that time most jurisdictions in the metro area were decreasing in value whereas the City's value increased because of this new construction which caused a 125% shift in the City's net flows. Mr. Harmening indicated that he and Mr. Swanson participated in a workgroup for metro cities regarding changes to the fiscal disparities law and discussion items included earlier distribution of information from the County, changing the base year, and prospectively excluding tax increment districts from having to contribute to the fiscal disparities pool, e.g., West End. He stated the fiscal disparities for West End are being paid from within the district which means in City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 2 Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of October 15, 2012 effect that district has less tax capacity and the City is not enjoying the benefits of tax capacity from that property because 40% of its value goes into the pool. He added it is highly unlikely the City will see any changes to the fiscal disparities law that impacts how cities enjoy it today particularly the net recipients and any change in the law has to be prospective with cities held harmless for what they receive today. Councilmember Sanger stated the City has to pay more for the infrastructure for its commercial and industrial properties yet the City does not get any credits in the formula to cover those costs. She requested information regarding the impact of a city's population on the fiscal disparities pool. Mr. Bultema advised that flow into the pool is 40% of growth and tax capacity while flow out of the pool is based on per capita. He stated that St. Louis Park has a population of 45,000 whereas Brooklyn Park is 2.5 times larger geographically with a population of 75,000 so even though the cities have similar market values and tax capacities, Brooklyn Park is much less fiscally capable. Mr. Harmening stated the City is sharing value as a net contributor so when the City matches its property tax levy against its value, the City's value is lower because of fiscal disparities, which means the City's tax rate goes up slightly and everyone in the City has to pay a little more. He added that the City feels it is better to be a net contributor than to be a net recipient because it means the City has a strong commercial-industrial tax base, which brings jobs and economic vitality to the City. 2. 2013 Budget Discussion Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Mr. Swanson reviewed the budget analysis snapshot for years 2011-2013 and assumptions used for preparing the 2013 budget, noting that the General Fund and Park and Recreation Funds show a balanced budget for 2013. He stated the 2013 budget does not use any fund balances and includes elimination of transfers from the Housing Rehab Fund to the General Fund of $99,000 as well as unwinding of the police and fire pension transfer of $134,000 and unwinding of the Cable TV transfer of $25,000. He indicated that funds for the community survey are included in the Development Fund and any additional expenditure for Council-driven environmental programs would come from the Solid Waste Fund. He added the 2013 budget shows an overall 4.0% levy adjustment as adopted by Council in September and a 4.0% levy adjustment provides discretionary funds for other opportunities or as a buffer for unforeseen issues. He pointed out the 2013 budget is also balanced with a 2.88% levy adjustment but would contain no discretionary funds. Councilmember Santa requested confirmation that a 4.0% levy increase will help project the City into the future on a more solid basis. Mr. Swanson stated that this was correct and added that a 4.0% levy increase provides approximately $265,000 in discretionary funds and if Council chooses not to use these discretionary funds, the final levy could be set at 2.88% to achieve a balanced budget. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 3 Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of October 15, 2012 Councilmember Sanger asked if the budget includes funds either within the discretionary amount or elsewhere for things like consultant services related to the DEIS or the civic center project as well as the sidewalks and trails project. Mr. Harmening advised that expenses associated with the DEIS will come out of the Development Fund and funds have been included in that budget. He stated that the sidewalks and trails project is being handled as a capital project not funded out of the General Fund and extra levy dollars could be used to fund additional staff needed to maintain the sidewalks and trails. He agreed to verify that sufficient funds for the civic facility are included in the budget. He stated that the City will expend capital costs beyond 2013 particularly related to the sidewalks and trails project or civic facility project and Council could use part or all of the $265,000 set aside in the levy base. Mr. Swanson reviewed the residential estimated City share of property taxes based on a 4.0% levy increase and a 2.88% levy increase and noted there would not be a significant reduction in the City share of property taxes between a 4.0% levy increase and a 2.88% levy increase. Water Availability Charge (WAC) Mr. Heintz advised that the City's infrastructure for water is paid for by existing customers through the City's utility rates and when adding a large amount of hookups, the current capacity is being taxed and if this continues the City will need to expand its capacity. He stated the proposed WAC fee of $750 would be charged to new residential developments starting January 1, 2013, and would be tied to the SAC charge calculation. Mr. Harmening pointed out that the WAC fee would not be charged in a situation where a home was torn down and a new home built. He added that in a situation like the Eliot School site, there would be some credits on the property because of the existing use, which would be subtracted from the total WAC charge. Councilmember Sanger expressed support for the WAC charge and asked why the City was limiting the charge only to water, stating there are other one-time capital costs with a new development such as sanitary sewers and water mains. Mr. Harmening indicated street and sewer costs are built into the cost by the developer and it is common for a developer to pay those costs. He added that some cities charge impact fees noting there have been some legal challenges to those charges and agreed to have the City Attorney provide background information to Council regarding the City's ability to charge an impact fee. Mr. Anderson stated that the City's infrastructure for sewer is in place now and all necessary repair and upgrading is done through the operating budget and incorporated into the sewer rates. Mr. Swanson advised that the Water Fund needs assistance and the WAC charge is one way to achieve long term sustainability in the fund and create a sense of fairness. It was the consensus of the City Council to set the 2013 Final Property Tax Levy at $24,712,941 or approximately 4.0% over the 2012 Final Property Tax Levy. It was also the consensus of the City Council to move forward with the WAC charge. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3d) Page 4 Subject: Special Study Session Minutes of October 15, 2012 Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 3. Minnehaha Creek Remeander and Trail – Progress Update Mr. Harmening indicated the remeander project is currently out for bids and the project will be done this winter and next spring. He stated the Watershed District wants to partner with the City on the construction of the trails and bridge and those improvements are in the City's proposed sidewalks and trails plan, adding that this would be the time for the City to build these improvements but the City does not currently have the money available. He stated the Watershed District has indicated it is willing to front the cost and the City would work out a payment plan with the Watershed District if acceptable to Council. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct the City Manager to partner with the Watershed District on the construction of the trails and bridge as part of the remeander project and to work out a payment plan with the Watershed District for the completion of this work. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3e UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 15, 2012 1. Call to Order Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Julia Ross, Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano. Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Scott), Deputy City Manager/Director of Human Resources (Ms. Deno), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Finance Supervisor (Mr. Heintz), Public Works Operations Superintendent (Mr. Hanson), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), Director of Community Development (Mr. Locke), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Public Works Coordinator (Mr. Merkley), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). 1a. Pledge of Allegiance 1b. Roll Call 2. Presentations - None 3. Approval of Minutes 3a. Special Study Session Minutes August 6, 2012 The minutes were approved as presented. 4. Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar 4a. Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2422-12 adopting fees for 2013 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances, approve summary, and authorize publication. 4b. Adopt Resolution No. 12-140 approving a Registered Land Survey for Solomon Real Estate Group at Hwy 7 and Blake Road. 4c. Reaffirm the final plat of Gateway Plaza, and approve a six-month extension for the filing of the plat, and for a variance pertaining to the rear yard setback. 4d. Continue 2nd Reading of Ordinances Relating to Xcel and CenterPoint Energy Franchises until November 5, 2012. 4e. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 38-08 w/ Eureka Recycling modifying the plastics materials being collected and the financial terms relating to revenue sharing. 4f. Adopt Resolution No. 12-141 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3043 Cavell Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN – P.I.D. 18-117-21-21-0027. 4g. Adopt Resolution No. 12-142 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 4261 Utica Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07- 028-24-32-0182. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 2 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 4h. Adopt Resolution No. 12-143 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 3329 Xenwood Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 16-117-21-24-0057. 4i. Adopt Resolution No. 12-144 authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service line at 7025 W. 24th Street, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 08-117- 21-13-0101. 4j. Adopt Resolution No. 12-145 approving the Minnesota Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Joint Powers Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute attached resolution. 4k. Approve for Filing Fire Civil Service Commission Minutes August 17, 2012. 4l. Approve for Filing Vendor Claims. Councilmember Spano requested that Consent Calendar item #4e be removed and placed on the Regular Agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to approve the Agenda and items listed on the Consent Calendar as amended to move Consent Calendar item #4e to the Regular Agenda as item #8c; and to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent). 5. Boards and Commissions - None 6. Public Hearings 6a. Public Hearing for Assessment of Delinquent Utilities, Tree Removal/Injection, Mowing, False Alarms, and Other Miscellaneous Charges. Resolution No. 12-146 Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and advised that each of the customers has been notified of the special assessment process and this public hearing. He stated the City has received a number of payments since the original notification was mailed and the current delinquent balance owed the City is $626,435. He indicated property owners have until 4:30 p.m. on November 2, 2012, to pay the delinquent amount and any amounts not paid by the due date will be charged a $30 administrative fee and the past due amount will be certified to Hennepin County for collection as part of the owner's property tax bill. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Ross asked if the City provides a payment plan for property owners to pay their delinquent accounts and also asked if an account is considered delinquent if not paid in full by the due date. Mr. Heintz advised it has not been the City's practice to offer a payment plan for delinquent utility accounts, which represents the vast majority of the delinquent accounts; however, the City does offer payment plans for tree removal. It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 12-146 Levying Assessment for Delinquent Utility Accounts, Tree Removal/Injection, False Alarm Fees and Other Miscellaneous Charges. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 3 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 Councilmember Sanger stated that every year the City sends delinquent notices and there are hundreds of people who pay their bill only after receiving the delinquent notice, which means the rest of the taxpayers are picking up the slack. She felt the City needs to have a stricter system of penalties to encourage people to pay their bills on time and asked that the City look into implementing stronger penalties or applying a higher interest rate to encourage people to pay their bills on time. The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent). 6b. Consolidated Public Hearing. (1) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1. Resolution No. 12-147 (2) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 2. Resolution No. 12-148 (3) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 3 and extension of Special Service District through 2022. Resolution No. 12-149 (4) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 4. Resolution No. 12-150 (5) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 5. Resolution No. 12-151 (6) 2013 Budget and Property Owner Service Charges for Special Service District No. 6. Resolution No. 12-152 Mr. Hanson presented the staff report and advised that the City has six Special Service Districts set up to provide an increased level of service including landscaping, irrigation, banners in Special Service Districts 1-5, snow removal in Special Service Districts 1 and 3, as well as decorative lights in Special Service Districts 1-3 and 5. He reviewed the proposed budgets in each of the Special Service Districts and noted that the proposed 2013 budgets were approved by the Special Service District Advisory Board. Mayor Jacobs opened the public hearing. No speakers were present. Mayor Jacobs closed the public hearing. Councilmember Santa requested general information regarding the purpose of the Special Service Districts and who is involved, adding there has been some confusion about why some areas have a Special Service District and others do not. Mr. Harmening explained that a Special Service District is authorized by State statute and allows commercial property owners to petition for and ask a city to provide a higher level of service for their particular area. He stated the City uses Special Service Districts in areas that are redeveloping and the City's philosophy has been that it should not install nice streetscapes if there is no mechanism in place to maintain them. He stated that Hoigaard Village and the Shops at West End are good examples of a higher level of amenities installed by the developer and the City has indicated it does not have the resources to maintain those amenities and the commercial property owners are told if they want higher quality amenities they have to pay for maintaining those amenities. He added that under the law, a city can only charge commercial properties and cannot charge residential properties. He added that under law, each Special Service District has an City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 4 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 Advisory Board that the City works with for setting their budgets and to address any issues within a district. He added Mr. Hanson has done a great job running these Special Service Districts and the reason people are not at the public hearing is because they are happy with the services being provided. Councilmember Ross requested further information regarding Special Service District No. 5 and asked why no money is budgeted for snow removal. She also asked why the charge for the Doubletree Hotel increased more than the Shops at West End. Mr. Hanson explained that the Shops at West End elected not to have snow removal, which is an optional service. He stated that all service charges are based on the foot frontage and not on square footage of a property and the service charge is divided out among all front footage then split out for each property. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to adopt Resolution No. 12-147 Approving 2013 Budget and Service Charges for Special Service District No. 1; Resolution No. 12-148 Special Service District No. 2; Resolution No. 12- 149 Special Service District No. 3; Resolution No. 12-150 Special Service District No. 4; Resolution No. 12-151 Special Service District No. 5, and Resolution No. 12-152 Special Service District No. 6 The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent). 7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None 8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items 8a. Eliot Park Apartments – Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Civic to High Density and Low Density Residential. Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and explained that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would modify the land use plan of the Eliot School site from Civic to a combination of High Density Residential (RH) and Low Density Residential (RL). She stated that the City has received a concept for development of the site, noting that the City Code requires amendment of the Comprehensive Plan before any applications for rezoning, PUD, or preliminary plat are reviewed. She advised the proposed development includes two 72-unit apartment buildings of two and three stories as well as the development of three single family homes on the north end that would buffer the existing single family homes from the higher density use for a total of 147 new residential homes. She reviewed the public process undertaken by the City, including task force meetings with the neighborhood to create a set of design guidelines for the site, and indicated one of the design guidelines was to have the building setback the same distance as the single family homes to retain the feel of the neighborhood; in addition, the neighborhood expressed interest in keeping the triangular corner facing Cedar Lake Road as open space. She explained that the proposed density is near the recommended maximum of 34 units per acre and the unit mix proposed meets market demands and meets the maximum of three stories in height. She noted that the units per acre is just one measure of density City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 5 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 and the unit mix could change but the overall density of the site meets the intent of the design guidelines. She stated that a second neighborhood meeting will be scheduled to review the plans in detail. She then introduced Mr. Dan Hunt and Mr. Pete Keely. Mr. Dan Hunt, President of Hunt Associates, appeared before the City Council and stated that the primary concern expressed by residents has been related to traffic concerns. He indicated that traffic generated from the former use was approximately 100 trips during the morning and afternoon peak hours while the traffic study showed the proposed development would generate 75 trips during the morning peak hour and approximately 90 trips during the afternoon peak hour. He felt they have done a great job of trying to meet the design guidelines, they have adjusted the height of the building throughout the site and he felt the proposal fits well in the neighborhood. He indicated they have moved the entrance to the parking lot for the second building over to Hampshire to split the traffic and he felt the development would be a great attribute to the neighborhood. Mr. Pete Keely, Collage Architects, appeared before the City Council and stated with a courtyard design they were able to pull the mass of the building to the center of the site and to leave the triangular piece open for green space. He indicated the courtyard will have a semi-private use where residents of the apartments can enjoy that space and will keep more of the noise in that area. He advised that each of the units on the two-story portion of the building will have a front stoop, which will provide a row house feel. He stated they are considering a modification to the plan that will align the southern driveway access with 22nd Street which will provide more green space in the southwest area. Councilmember Ross asked if the drive-through space in the middle area would be used for loading and unloading for people moving in and out and expressed concern about vehicles blocking traffic. Mr. Keely stated there will be a loading zone in the middle of the street, which will provide an easy access point and will bring traffic toward the middle rather than toward the edges. Councilmember Sanger asked if the developer was planning to ask for financing from the City. Mr. Hunt replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Spano asked if there will be three bedroom units available. Mr. Keely replied the current plan has one- and two-bedroom units and they are adding four three-bedroom units that will be split between the two buildings. Ms. Elaine Mense, 6712 Cedar Lake Road, appeared before the City Council and expressed concern about having apartment buildings on the site and the neighborhood has said they want family owned homes. She indicated she had a problem with rentals because people do not take care of their property if they do not own it. She stated they are in a quiet neighborhood and noise from the apartment buildings was a concern. She stated the School District wants money and does not care what happens to the neighborhood and did not take the neighbors into consideration. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 6 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 Mr. John Lang, 6610 Cedar Lake Road, appeared before the City Council and stated he was in favor of residential on the site and against high density zoning. He stated if the City approves the high density and Hunt Associates goes out of business, the City could get someone else to put up a six or eight story building because it is zoned high density. He was also concerned about traffic especially during rush hour when he cannot get out of his driveway and asked the City to consider a partial traffic control during peak times. Mr. Jaime Calle, 2055 Kentucky Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and stated he did not think it was a good idea for an apartment building in his neighborhood. He stated there are a lot of kids in the neighborhood and it is a quiet, beautiful place. He indicated this is an opportunity for Mr. Hunt to make money but the City will take away their happiness. He was concerned about the high volume of people in an apartment building and how this will affect traffic, his life, and his kids. Mr. Wade Hammer, 2201 Jersey Avenue, appeared before the City Council and stated the neighbors who attended the task force meetings indicated overwhelmingly they wanted single family housing. He stated that principle #1 of the design guidelines calls for a mix of medium density residential land uses which should have been the starting point for consideration and starting at a high density designation may allow the City to be able to manage perceptions when in fact medium density should have been the starting point. He felt open discussion of this option should be considered before remapping the area. He did not agree that redevelopment of the area to residential was not a viable option due to conditions in the housing market and felt that single family lots should be explored. He stated the range of medium density residential is 6-30 units per acre which is a range of 26-129 units on the site and did not feel the City Council should jump to the conclusion that 129 is acceptable. He commended the proposal put forth by Mr. Hunt but wanted to advocate for single family homes and owner occupied homes. He strongly urged the City Council to table its vote and reconsider whether it is viable to have single family homes on this site. Ms. Jan Agren, 1810 Hampshire Avenue South, appeared before the City Council and stated she was not pleased about adding 250 people to her block and preferred lower density. She also expressed concern about traffic on Cedar Lake Road. Ms. Judy Dvorak, 6636 West 16th Street, appeared before the City Council and asked if there was a website yet for the development of the Eliot site. She stated that larger developments are usually located on the edge of communities and not in the center. She asked if there has been a study of apartment vacancies in St. Louis Park. She indicated the apartments on Hampshire are renting for $900-$1,500, the apartments at Park Pointe are renting for $945-$1,650 and have vacancies, the Gables rent is $1,150-$1,825 and there are vacancies so it appears the higher cost apartments have vacancies and this development falls into that category. She was concerned about adequate parking noting that one car per bedroom is provided which means there will only be ten extra spaces for guests. She was concerned about traffic and stated they do not want sidewalks because there is too much traffic in the area. She questioned if the City was planning on putting in four way stop signs because of the additional traffic. Councilmember Ross stated that Council has been concerned about the number of units being built in the City and asked about vacancy rates in the City. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 7 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 Mr. Locke stated the new projects in the City have done well and there are a number of buildings underway that are not yet renting. He added that market vacancy rates in the City are quite low which is driving the market for rental housing in the broader area. Councilmember Ross stated she would like to see single family homes and there were many residents who voiced their opinion about wanting single family homes, however, the City Council as well as those working in the industry have been looking at future trends, which are not trending toward single family developments. She noted the City has housing stock sitting vacant because the market has changed, financing has changed, and the City's population is aging and she has had people ask her about more developments with larger units because they have not been able to secure three-bedroom units. She felt the developer had done a good job of meeting most but not all of the criteria in the design guidelines. She stated the concerns expressed by residents in terms of traffic, noise, and parking are some of the same issues that came up when the Ellipse was developed and she felt the Ellipse has been a successful development that is located in a residential area. She was concerned about some of the comments made about renters and stated that family dynamics are changing in society and there are more generations living together requiring a different type of housing. She stated that work hours are also changing and studies indicate more people are working from home or are working a flex shift, which will not impact the normal 9:00-5:00 traffic. She disagreed with the assumption that there is a level of behavior that comes with renters and stated she was sensitive to plans that tend to relegate housing or segregate housing. She did not think people with a family will want to rent in the West End where there is little open space for parks or green space and felt this developer has done a lot of what the City Council asked for in order to make the site a more family friendly atmosphere. She stated families want access to parks, a safe area, and adequate parking and some people like living in apartments for its sense of community and a lot of the tone is set with the developer and the manager of those communities to encourage a sense of community and to take care of your property. She stated that any future plans for a building higher than three stories in this area will not be allowed and she felt the developer had done a reasonable job in terms of maintaining the integrity of the site and she would support the Comprehensive Plan amendment. Councilmember Sanger stated she felt the Planning Commission and the neighbors were correct in recommending the site be designated medium and low density residential. She stated this site is not amenable for high density housing and supported the idea of having mixed types of housing but did not agree with the current proposed mix of housing or proposed density and would not support it for that reason. She stated that all the developers who have come to the City have proposed smaller one- and two-bedroom units and four three-bedroom units on this site is not adequate when the community is looking for more family-type housing. She stated the Comprehensive Plan amendment to allow high density does not mean the proposal by Mr. Hunt is the plan the City will end up with and there is nothing to stop the proposal from changing. She pointed out that the School District has told the City that it wants to see more homes with larger units so there is a greater possibility that more children will be raised in these units, which is essential for supporting the School District. She stated if this developer is going to be requesting TIF financing for this project it City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 8 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 underscores her point of view that if this is to be built with TIF financing it needs to be built in a way that meets the community's needs and not just the developer's needs. She stated she would much rather look at this long term and not just what the market will support today and to also consider what the City knows regarding the demand for move- up housing and larger units as well as the aging population in the City. She suggested the plan be reconfigured to respect the Planning Commission and neighbor's desires to have medium density housing with fewer units and a greater mix of owner occupied single family and row houses or townhouses with some rental. Councilmember Spano asked if were there any proposals to build a fully residential development with single family homes on this site. Mr. Garfield Clark representing the St. Louis Park School District appeared before the City Council and stated there have been other proposals over the two year period the site has been on the market and several single family home developers were interested in the site. He stated these proposals were not selected because it boils down to the value of the property and whether single family homes can carry the value of the property. Councilmember Spano requested information about vandalism and police calls to the property and stated he has concerns about the property remaining vacant and becoming blighted. Mr. Harmening stated that because the property is vacant and up for sale, it is not being maintained and there has been some vandalism, break-ins, and there was a small fire in the building. He stated the City has talked about tearing down the building for the School District and having the School District reimburse the City because of the potential for a blighting influence on the neighborhood. He added that some work has been done to secure the building, which has helped. Councilmember Hallfin asked if the School District has figured out how many single lots could be built on the site and their corresponding value. Mr. Clark replied that none of the proposals ever got that far. Councilmember Sanger asked if it was correct that the true value of the property is in large part dependent on the zoning applied to the parcel. Mr. Clark replied that if the zoning were constant, yes, however the zoning is altered based on things that occur in the market place over time. Councilmember Sanger asked if over time the property was worth more to the seller if zoning allowed for a higher density development. Mr. Clark replied that options include single family, multi family, commercial, or office and over time, the School District considers uses that would fit in the community. He stated it is presumed there will be a mix of uses and the developers who invest in the site do so with an understanding of what the future will bring. He indicated the way the markets are shifting regarding residential use is down and in some ways, those people City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 9 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 who were interested in buying single family homes are less likely to do so today and the question for the School District is how to focus on finding a solution acceptable to the neighbors, City C ouncil, and the ultimate market user. Councilmember Sanger asked if it was true that the School Board would reap a higher profit on this if the site were zoned high density as opposed to low density. Mr. Clark stated he was not sure of that and added it depends on what the rents would be. Mr. Locke stated the current use no longer makes sense and agreed that most people wanted to see single family homes or lower density row homes on the site and one of the principles guiding the development of the design guidelines was to consider what it would take to make the site economically viable. He stated the guidelines were put together to work through this question first before talking to developers and before the Comprehensive Plan amendment, adding that the Comprehensive Plan amendment is needed or the density is not available to allow a project such as this. He indicated the Comprehensive Plan amendment does not obligate the City to approve this project and the City has discretionary control, including whether to provide TIF financing. It was moved by Councilmember Ross, seconded by Councilmember Santa, to adopt Resolution No. 12-__ Approving an Amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of St. Louis Park Under Minnesota Statutes 462.351 to 462.364 – 6720 and 6800 Cedar Lake Road. Councilmember Hallfin stated he initially supported changing this to high density but after reviewing all the documents, talking to residents, and reviewing the Planning Commission's recommendation, he was convinced that high density was not right for this project and would be voting against the amendment. The motion failed 3-3 (Councilmembers Hallfin, Sanger, and Spano opposed; Councilmember Mavity absent). Mr. Harmening stated the developer needs to decide what he wishes to do since the motion failed and staff can bring the issue back to Council in a study session 8b. Resolution to Amend Fee Resolution for the Greensboro Condominium Improvement Area (HIA). Resolution No. 12-153 Mr. Locke presented the staff report and stated this is a housekeeping item to adjust the fee resolution for the Greensboro HIA now that the project has been constructed and actual costs known, including the lower interest rate. It was moved by Councilmember Santa, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to adopt Resolution No. 12-153 Amending Resolution No. 11-134 Approving a Housing Improvement Fee for the Greensboro Condominium Association Housing Improvement Area Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 428A.11 to 428A.21. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Councilmember Ross abstain; Councilmember Mavity absent). 8c. Approve Amendment No. 2 to Contract 38-08 with Eureka Recycling modifying the plastics materials being collected and the financial terms relating to revenue sharing City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3e) Page 10 Subject: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 15, 2012 Councilmember Spano requested further information regarding the amount the City receives in revenue sharing with Eureka Recycling noting that the amendment includes an approximate 40% decrease in revenue sharing related to plastics recycling. Mr. Merkley explained the City receives $150,000 per year in revenue sharing and the contract amendment reduces the amount of revenue sharing by approximately $50,000. He stated Eureka has indicated its Material Recycling Facility is not set up for separation of the additional plastics material so Eureka intends to hire several additional staff to do manual sorting of these materials and the reduction in revenue sharing is to enable Eureka to collect the plastics material and fund the necessary staff. He agreed this is a large reduction in revenue sharing and stated the City does not have a lot of leverage in this case because the amendment comes in the middle of the contract term. He stated that collection of the additional plastics will start Monday, November 12th, and the City is in the process of putting together educational materials. He added an article will appear in the Park Perspective before the November 12th start date and Eureka has indicated it is ready to start picking up these additional plastics. Councilmember Santa stated it was her understanding that Hennepin County is requiring cities to take more plastics for recycling; therefore, if Eureka wishes to do business with cities in Hennepin County, they need to collect this additional plastic. Mr. Merkley stated that the mandate is coming from the MPCA to the counties and in the City's case, the contract with Eureka calls for them to collect #1 and 2 bottles and it is up to the City to negotiate a contract to conform with the new mandates. It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to approve Second Amendment to Agreement for Recycling Collection Services (City Contract No. 38-08). The motion passed 6-0 (Councilmember Mavity absent). 9. Communications Councilmember Santa reminded residents of the annual Halloween party at Westwood Nature Center on Friday, October 19th, and Saturday, October 20th, from 6:30-9:30 p.m. and also reminded residents that pre-registration is required. Mr. Harmening stated that Mn/DOT will be holding an open house regarding the Highway 100 reconstruction project on Wednesday, October 24th, from 5:00-7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. He added there will also be a public hearing regarding the project on November 5th at 7:30 p.m. at the City Council meeting. 10. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 3f UNOFFICIAL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA OCTOBER 22, 2012 The meeting convened at 6:30 p.m. Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity, Julia Ross (arrived at 6:40 p.m.), Susan Sanger, Sue Santa, and Jake Spano (arrived at 6:37 p.m.). Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Public Works (Mr. Rardin), City Engineer (Mr. Brink), Chief Information Officer (Mr. Pires), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), Communications Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling), Director of Parks and Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Assistant Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Hughes). Guest: Joanne Hovis (CTC Consulting), Mr. Toby Keeler, Mr. Bruce Browning and Mr. Rick Dworsky (Telecommunications Advisory Commission), Susan Schneck and George Hagemann (Friends of the Arts Board Members), and April Crockett (Mn/DOT). 1. Future Study Session Agenda Planning – November 5 & November 13, 2012 Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for November 5, 2012, and the proposed study session agenda for November 13, 2012. Councilmember Sanger suggested moving the Highway 7/Louisiana discussion to the special study session on November 5th or to a different date because the Community Recreation Facility Task Force and SWLRT DEIS discussion on November 13th will take a majority of the time. Mr. Harmening stated the special study session on November 5th could start at 6:00 p.m. to allow time for the sidewalks and trails update as well as the Highway 7/Louisiana update. It was the consensus of the City Council to start the November 5th special study session at 6:00 p.m. 2. Fiber Optic Study Mr. Pires presented the staff report and introduced Joanne Hovis, President of CTC Consulting, and Mr. Toby Keeler, Mr. Bruce Browning, and Mr. Rick Dworsky from the Telecommunications Advisory Commission (TAC). He also acknowledged Mr. Martin Ludden and Mr. Emmett Coleman from Comcast. He provided a brief history of the fiber optic study and stated that CTC interviewed multiple stakeholders, including Comcast, and also reviewed City-related data and conducted a survey of businesses to prepare its recommendations and cost estimates. Ms. Hovis advised that the most important study finding is that the City has a tremendous asset in its existing fiber network and is using it remarkably well. She stated over the years, the City has incrementally and cautiously built 30 miles of public fiber and is delivering state of the art City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3f) Page 2 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2012 services at a relatively low cost. She stated the survey showed that the availability of broadband service in the small business community is better than in 2006 and the City has a very solid record and is ahead of most local governments in the country. She stated the gaps in serving public institutions are modest and a majority of public buildings are being served. She indicated the library is a singular situation because it is not a City facility but the County has not had fiber deployment of its own as a high priority and recommended exploration of a partnership with the County where the City's fiber infrastructure could serve the library. She stated that private anchor institutions are an essential part of the community and even though they are not public, they are being increasingly recognized on a national level, e.g., Park Nicollet, Benilde, and Hamline, as serving substantial community needs that could be supported at a relatively modest cost. She stated the prospect of extending fiber to those institutions would fill gaps and would be in keeping with the idea of a public broadband communications network that serves the community. She indicated that one way to maximize existing fiber to the private sector is to use the City's excess fiber capacity and look for private partners that are willing to pay to lease some of that fiber. She advised that an emerging business model being tested by the current administration uses public investment in the middle mile of fiber, adding that the potential use of existing fiber in this way would be of low risk to the City. She stated there are approximately one hundred municipal networks that have fiber ownership all the way into the home and for the most part these networks are located in rural areas where there is not as much private sector competition, adding that this is capital intensive and expensive to build. Councilmember Sanger stated she would be interested in further information comparing public ownership versus leasing. Ms. Hovis stated there are different business models and bringing fiber to the home will deliver enormous benefits to a community but those benefits will be challenging and require a $30 million capital investment as well as requiring a 50-60% penetration rate to cover operating expenses. She explained that changes in technology are primarily driven by consumer electronics but the roads over which these devices operate do not change and fiber has infinite potential to expand. She stated that an expansive strategy to bring fiber to the home would drive enormous benefits but those benefits are not easy to quantify at this point. She stated there are incremental steps the City could take that are not risky and recommended extensive additional analysis of any more aggressive options including robust survey work in the residential and business markets where there appears to be some interest. She added that in order to get a picture of the potential additional benefit to the public and private sectors from the fiber network, the City might consider an RFI process that could yield significant information for the City, again with low risk. She stated that the survey work also revealed that the small business market is better served now than in 2006, but that there is a satisfaction gap between price and service speed. Mr. Pires stated that an RFI would allow creative ideas to come to the table and would be non- binding on the City. He indicated they have also talked about expanding the study to a master plan to look at the big picture, long term and to consider what incremental expansions to pursue. Mr. Browning stated technology is changing at breakneck speed and the City is poised to consider some options not available to other cities. He indicated there are places within Minneapolis that have fiber to the home now and felt it was appropriate for the City to be looking at this. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3f) Page 3 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2012 Mr. Keeler stated this has the potential to replace the revenue coming in from the City's existing franchise agreements if traditional delivery methods are replaced by broadband. He indicated the City will probably not see fiber to the home for a number of years but felt that some of the study's recommendations could be acted on with the help of the City's consultant and third party providers. Ms. Hovis stated that the concept of requiring installation of conduit in new developments or in substantial redevelopment of existing buildings is a new strategy that has been tried in a few communities and agreed to provide further information to Council regarding cost implications to builders, noting that the cost of putting fiber in new construction is marginal. Councilmember Mavity agreed with expanding the fiber between Park Nicollet's facilities and felt that $85,000 was affordable. She stated she was unclear about what was included in the recommendation regarding the park and rec and public works facilities, adding that the rest of the recommendations make sense particularly regarding fiber redundancy. She stated she was less concerned about providing fiber to single family homes given the amount of multi-family and office building development going on in the City. Councilmember Sanger stated she was not certain that the suggestion about undertaking an RFI process made sense until there are clearly stated goals and strategies, which should be part of a separate discussion. She indicated the recommendation about building a fiber connection between Park Nicollet and Methodist raised concerns for her and she did not want to do something special for Park Nicollet and Methodist that the City would not do for other businesses. She indicated she would rather develop a model where the City specifies what it will do for governmental purposes or for private entities. She added she was supportive of requiring installation of fiber conduit in new construction or significantly remodeled buildings. Councilmember Santa stated that many of the City's public buildings and water towers are near business nodes so the City is building the backbone, which is the direction the City needs to be thinking about. She agreed with Councilmember Sanger's comments about having clearly stated goals and strategies. It was the consensus of the City Council to explore incremental improvements to the City's fiber network. It was also the consensus of the City Council to further explore an RFI process after development of a master plan with clearly stated goals and strategies. It was also the consensus of the City Council to develop a Code requirement for installation of fiber conduit in new or significantly remodeled construction. 3. Friends of the Arts Annual Report and Update Ms. Walsh presented the staff report and introduced Susan Schneck and George Hagemann. Ms. Schneck presented the annual report and stated that Friends of the Arts (FoTA) has worked hard to support art as an integral part of the community and has developed programs that serve individuals, artists and organizations along with the entire community. She indicated the Beats and Streets program was very successful and FoTA is now looking at doing an organizational audit and strategic plan to build on its current foundation. She advised that FoTA has partnered with several organizations including Shalom Home, Meadowbrook, and Partnership Resources and opportunities exist for further private/public partnerships. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3f) Page 4 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2012 Councilmember Ross agreed with the idea of incorporating public art into architecture and stated she would like to see FoTA partner with the Parks and Recreation Department on a program involving dance or exercise to get people involved in something that is fun and healthy and is a low cost option for families. Mr. Hagemann indicated the town hall meeting scheduled for October 25th will allow community members to be heard and FoTA has tried to make sure its programs and events have a good outcome and include a component of education for participants and audience members. He added FoTA has applied to the Minnesota Regional Arts Council for a $10,000 grant to fund a more thoughtful process after the town hall meeting. Councilmember Sanger thanked Friends of the Arts for all its good work and encouraged FoTA to consider programs that focus on dance in general and to focus on programs that enhance the community's appreciation of quality and aesthetic architecture. Mr. Hagemann stated the City's website has a public art section that includes information on each of the public arts projects; in addition, FoTA has reached out to Park Nicollet to see if they have any interest in showcasing private installations of public art. Councilmember Mavity agreed with the suggested focus of public art in architecture. She stated that FoTA board member Mark Hauck is the driving force behind Shakespeare in the Park and the possibility of having a permanent home at Wolfe Park and asked if this was something that FoTA would consider supporting. Ms. Schneck stated that FoTA provides fiscal sponsorship for a number of arts organizations in the City including three theater groups. She indicated FoTA's vision allows them to work at different levels, e.g., the Film Festival, and the strategic planning process will help FoTA figure out its relationship with the City and other major organizations. She added that the Shakespeare in the Park concept presents a great opportunity and FoTA will need to determine how it fits into the big picture. Councilmember Hallfin expressed thanks to Friends of the Arts and asked if FoTA needs anything else from the City. Mr. Hagemann indicated that City has been responsive to FoTA and added FoTA would like to have more early input on public art in architecture. Ms. Schneck stated that one of FoTA's 2013 goals is more outreach and marketing to get more visibility in the community regarding its scholarship programs and the arts and culture grants. She thanked Mr. Zwilling for his assistance and added they could use more help with social media. She indicated the School District has been providing office space for FoTA but they are being squeezed out and FoTA is looking for a larger office with storage space. Councilmember Ross indicated that Shakespeare does not appeal to everyone and preferred to have a rotation of other theater companies. Councilmember Spano stated he would like to see if an opportunity exists where FoTA arranges for artists to work with the schools to select students who can be mentored by a professional City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3f) Page 5 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2012 artist. Ms. Schneck and Mr. Hagemann explained that it is already possible to fund that within the framework of the Arts for Life program. Mr. Hagemann felt that FoTA could have an artist in residence type of program and FoTA would be happy to help tailor its programs to meet a particular need. Councilmember Santa felt it was important for FoTA to focus on those areas where it can be most effective and was happy to see FoTA engaging in a strategic planning process. 4. Project Update – Highway 100 Reconstruction Project Mr. Rardin presented the staff report. Mr. Brink stated that Mn/DOT will be hosting an open house on October 24th, from 5:00-7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers and the public hearing for the municipal consent will be held at the November 5th City Council meeting. He added that the noise wall voting process has begun with ballots sent to residents and Mn/DOT held informational meetings last week where there was light turnout. He stated that there will continue to be a lot of public input as part of the process once municipal consent occurs, including input on noise walls, design and aesthetics. Councilmember Sanger requested further information regarding the Project Advisory Committee. Mr. Brink explained the Project Advisory Committee will include a variety of business and community-wide interests to discuss access to businesses, including construction staging, signage and traffic flow, and ultimately what will happen long term. Mr. Rardin stated the Project Advisory Committee will include public safety, schools, and businesses to make sure their stakeholders are being accommodated throughout the project and to provide feedback to the entire project management team during construction. Ms. Crockett stated that Mn/DOT will have someone involved on a weekly basis and added any questions can be directed to her. She stated that construction of the ramps will begin in the fall of 2014 and the bridges will be done in 2015. She indicated that funding for the project has been committed and municipal consent is needed for approval of the final design. Councilmember Mavity stated the City has many large projects occurring in 2014 including Highway 7/Louisiana and light rail and requested a timeline that lays out all these projects. Mr. Rardin stated the CIP includes a timeline and agreed to provide Council with a calendar, pointing out that the City cannot control everything and that light rail is still uncertain. 5. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Regulating Outdoor Lighting Ms. McMonigal presented the staff report and proposed Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. Councilmember Sanger stated that most of Council's discussion at the first reading of the ordinance centered on the issue of controlling glare and felt that the issue was not adequately addressed. She indicated the ordinance deals with glare by requiring that light fixtures be City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3f) Page 6 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2012 changed out to include a glare package, which has been pointed out as very expensive to replace. She felt that other alternatives should be considered and stated other communities have required the existing shield around the light to be painted black, which does not completely eliminate glare but will significantly reduce glare onto neighboring properties. She requested that this requirement be incorporated into the ordinance as a first step and to provide "x" number of months for the fixture to be painted. She also stated there may be no need to replace lights to control glare and it might be possible to replace or augment the shields around the lights and proposed that the ordinance include a date certain by which the fixtures have the shields replaced with glare packages or in the alternative to add visors onto the shields to help control the direction so glare does not go into neighboring houses. She stated that another provision should require the operator to replace the shields or augment the shields by a date certain, e.g., two years if they have not already been replaced. She stated Council also talked about the number of times per week the fields are used and suggested adding a requirement that if shields are not installed or painted black then those fields should be restricted to no more than two nights per week. She felt these requirements would achieve a better balance because the proposed ordinance does not balance the rights of property owners and added these additional requirements would be cheaper, more effective, and provide an immediate way of dealing with the issue of glare. Ms. McMonigal indicated staff would need to research the issue of adding visors to make sure no weight issues are raised. Councilmember Sanger stated she understood this has been done elsewhere and felt it was worth researching further. Councilmember Mavity agreed that further research to consider the addition of visors was reasonable and asked that staff explore if there are best practices related to this adding she would like to see evidence that it actually works to control glare; if it does and the cost is fairly minimal she felt this would achieve a good balance. Councilmember Sanger stated that Council might want to consider the question of distance because lights glaring 300' from people's homes is different than lights glaring 700' from someone's home and suggested using a tiered approach where changes are required, i.e., in those places closest to people's homes. She stated there are people who cannot use their patios or decks because they are most directly in the line with the lighting on the fields. Ms. McMonigal stated that the idea of distance might not matter because they have to light the fields for safety of the sport. Mayor Jacobs expressed concern about how the City would enforce the ordinance and the burden on staff. Councilmember Sanger stated if there is a concern about requiring compliance for all fields at once, the ordinance could be structured to require compliance for the closest fields first. Councilmember Spano felt it was a good idea to look into the idea of painting the fixtures. He agreed with Mayor Jacobs's concern about the ordinance becoming very cumbersome. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3f) Page 7 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2012 Councilmember Sanger stated the problem specific to Benilde is that they agreed to the requirements when the City granted their permits and by staff's admission Benilde has not complied with the glare problem. She added that regardless of what comes out of the ordinance discussion, the City needs to be more proactive in addressing the Benilde situation and addressing complaints. Mr. Harmening stated that Councilmember Sanger's statements were not accurate and advised there are provisions in the current ordinance that are not enforceable and are not reasonable. He stated that provisions in the existing code cannot be met by Benilde or by the school district and the City Attorney has indicated if the City wants him to go to court to enforce the ordinance, it will not work. It was the consensus of the City Council to direct staff to provide Council with research regarding the question of painting the light shields including information regarding best practices and to provide this information in a study session prior to second reading. It was also the consensus of the majority of the City Council that the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance should not contain a limitation on the number of evenings per week for lighted athletic fields. It was also the consensus of the majority of the City Council that the current provision regarding hours of operation should not be changed. 6. Zoning Ordinance Amendment Pertaining to Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering Mr. Morrison presented the staff report and proposed revisions to the Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering Zoning Ordinance amendment. He described the changes made to the ordinance to address Council's concerns regarding signage, noise, hours of operation, and alcoholic beverages, as well as additional provisions that restrict lights and provide shielding. He stated that overnight parking is not allowed with the exception of vehicles under long-term contract such as the hot dog trailer outside of Cub Foods for example. He indicated that festivals like Parktacular would fall under a special category because these are private events. He stated that an additional provision was added requiring all litter to be kept in sealed leak-proof containers and vendors must provide their own trash receptacle. He added the ordinance also contains a provision requiring only non-alcoholic beverages to be sold. He advised that the Catering Ordinance has not been revised since the first reading and stated the City Assessor calculates the taxes due by comparing the ratio of for profit activities to nonprofit activities. Mr. Harmening stated the second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for November 5th. 7. City Manager's 2012 Performance Evaluation Mr. Harmening presented the staff report. Councilmember Sanger felt that Council's work with J. Forrest in the past has worked well. Mayor Jacobs and Councilmembers Ross and Mavity agreed. Councilmember Santa agreed that J. Forrest has done a great job and suggested that Council consider taking a different approach in the future, stating she felt it was important to get a different perspective. It was the consensus of the City Council to use consultant J. Forrest to assist Council with the City Manager's 2012 performance evaluation. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 3f) Page 8 Subject: Study Session Minutes of October 22, 2012 Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal) Mr. Harmening advised that the City will be partnering with the County on a multi-family recycling initiative and stated a recycling tote bag containing recycling information will be provided to multi-family properties to encourage voluntary participation in the recycling program. Mr. Harmening stated that the City is planning to conduct an analysis of the public works operations similar to the analysis being conducted of the police and fire departments. He indicated there are a lot of changes occurring in the community as well as increasing demands and the analysis will make sure the City's resources are being deployed in a way that best meets the needs of the City and its residents. Mr. Harmening referenced an earlier email from Andy Ewald asking if the City was interested in participating in improving the amenities at the football stadium. Councilmember Sanger indicated she has no interest in paying any capital costs for improvements. Councilmember Mavity stated the question of domed turf will arise when discussing community recreation facilities and she would be interested in that discussion, but felt it needs to be done in the context of the community recreation facility discussion. Councilmember Spano felt there may be opportunities that are mutually beneficial to the School District and the City and felt it was worth pursuing further discussion with the School District. Mr. Harmening distributed a list of major projects and initiatives in the City and stated that City staff is working hard to keep up with all the projects. Councilmember Sanger urged Mr. Harmening to let Council know if additional staff is needed. Councilmember Mavity stated there are numerous redevelopment projects coming on line and there are at least seven large sites in play in Ward 2. She urged the City to creatively design these projects so that they are interesting, unique, and attractive and that include an affordability component to provide some balance in affordability. Mayor Jacobs suggested that this topic be included on Council's 2013 retreat agenda. The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only: 8. September 2012 Monthly Financial Report 9. Third Quarter Investment Report (July – September, 2012) 10. Open to Business Program Update ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Nancy Stroth, City Clerk Jeff Jacobs, Mayor Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Award of the 2013 Arts and Culture Grants RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing award of the 2013 St. Louis Park Arts and Culture Grants. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council concur with the recommendations made by the Arts and Culture Grant Review Committee? BACKGROUND: The Council has supported the Arts and Culture Grant program since its inception in 2006. The grant application for 2013 was released in May with an August 10th deadline. This process allows grantees one full year to complete their projects. Each year the Arts & Culture Grant Committee offers a grant to fund art projects and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engaging people in creative learning, and promoting artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park. This program is funded through the city’s budget process ($16,000). St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts provides technical assistance to the program and its recipients. The St. Louis Park Arts & Culture Grants review committee, comprised of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, Friends of the Arts, city staff, and community members, reviewed the applications and identified applicants whose proposals best met the objectives of the program and are compatible with the Council’s strategic direction for arts, culture and community aesthetics. For the 2013 grant process, 13 applications were received; however, only four were recommended for approval. The committee is recommending the following four applicants be approved to receive Arts & Culture Grant money for their project: The Public Theater of Minnesota – $5,000 to be used for the production of Shakespeare’s As you Like It and family friendly musical You’re a Good Man Charlie Brown to be held in Wolfe Park in the summer of 2013. Maggie’s Farm Theater - $2,670 for the production of an expanded scope of Books Alive! Play Reading Series for all ages held at the St. Louis Park Library quarterly from November 2012 to August of 2013. Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts - $2,000 for the production of Lillian Hellman’s “The Children’s Hour” in April of 2013. St. Louis Park Middle School - $5,500 for a photography project called “Chalk Talk” that is focused on “international-mindedness” and led by artist Wing Huie. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 2 Subject: Award of the 2013 Arts and Culture Grants FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This program is funded from the Housing Rehab Fund. The total amount granted for art projects in 2013 will be $15,170. VISION CONSIDERATION: The Arts and Culture Grants are consistent with the city’s Strategic Direction, “St. Louis Park is committed to promoting and integrating arts, culture, and community aesthetics in all City initiatives, including implementation where appropriate”. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Lisa Abernathy, Recreation Coordinator Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4a) Page 3 Subject: Award of the 2013 Arts and Culture Grants RESOLUTION NO. 12-___ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZE AWARD OF ST. LOUIS PARK ARTS & CULTURE GRANTS TO THE PUBLIC THEATER OF MINNESOTA, MAGGIE’S FARM THEATER, SABES JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER PERFORMING ARTS AND THE ST. LOUIS PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park created this program in 2006 with the assistance of Friends of the Arts and the St. Louis Park Community Foundation to create and support a grant program to fund art projects and cultural activities that build bridges between artists and communities, engage people in creative learning, and promote artistic production and cultural experiences in St. Louis Park; and WHEREAS, 13 applicants responded to the call for proposals and were evaluated by a committee comprised of representatives of the St. Louis Park Community Foundation, St. Louis Park Friends of the Arts, St. Louis Park Schools, the city, and community members; and WHEREAS, the committee recommends the City Council fund four (4) grant proposals for a total of $15,170: The Public Theater of Minnesota, Maggie’s Farm Theater, Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts, and St. Louis Park Middle School. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, authorizes execution of grant agreements with the following organizations based on the review committee’s recommendations and the applicants’ proposals. 1. The Public Theater of Minnesota is awarded a maximum of $5,000. 2. Maggie’s Farm Theater is awarded a maximum of $2,670. 3. Sabes Jewish Community Center Performing Arts is awarded a maximum of $2,000. 4. St. Louis Park Middle School is awarded a maximum of $5,500. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation in Memory of Eugene Edwards ($50) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Jerry Herzog in the amount of $50 for Westwood Hills Nature Center. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? BACKGROUND: State statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. Jerry Herzog graciously donated $50 in memory of Eugene Edwards. Eugene Edwards recently passed away and the donation is in tribute to him. The donation is given with the restriction that it be used at the discretion of Westwood Hills Nature Center. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will be used at the discretion of Westwood Hills Nature Center. VISION CONSIDERATION: The donation will assist us in preserving, enhancing and providing good stewardship of our parks. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Mark Oestreich, Manager of Westwood Hills Nature Center Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4b) Page 2 Subject: Accept Monetary Donation in Memory of Eugene Edwards ($50) RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION IN MEMORY OF EUGENE EDWARDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 TO BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF WESTWOOD HILLS NATURE CENTER WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, Jerry Herzog, friend of Eugene Edwards, desires to honor Eugene Edwards with a donation of $50 to Westwood Hills Nature Center; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to Jerry Herzog with the understanding that it must be used at the discretion of Westwood Hills Nature Center. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4c Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from Duck Soup Softball for Scholarship Program ($2,000) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting a donation from the Duck Soup Softball Tournament in the amount of $2,000 to be available for individuals who qualify for financial assistance through the Parks and Recreation Department. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? BACKGROUND: State Statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The Duck Soup Softball Tournament has been utilizing the fields at Aquila and Dakota Parks for their softball tournament in St. Louis Park. To show their appreciation, they have sent a check to the department to use for our fee assistance program. The Duck Soup Softball Tournament is graciously donating to the Parks and Recreation an amount of $2,000. This donation is given to provide activities to individuals who are experiencing financial hardship. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will assist the Parks and Recreation Dept in meeting needs of our residents. VISION CONSIDERATION: Collaboration with other organizations is related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions stating that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4c) Page 2 Subject: Accept Monetary Donation from Duck Soup Softball for Scholarship Program ($2,000) RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM THE DUCK SOUP SOFTBALL TOURNAMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,000 TO BE AVAILABLE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO QUALIFY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, the Duck Soup Softball Tournament desires to assist the Parks and Recreation Department’s Financial Assistance program with a donation of $2,000; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the Duck Soup Softball Tournament with the understanding it will be used toward activity fees for individuals who qualify for financial assistance. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4d Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Accept Monetary Donation from the Minnesota Cycling Team for Scholarship Program ($1,500) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution accepting a donation from the Minnesota Cycling Team in the amount of $1,500 to be available for individuals who qualify for financial assistance through the Parks and Recreation Department. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to accept the gift with restrictions on its use? BACKGROUND: State Statute requires City Council’s acceptance of donations. This requirement is necessary in order to make sure the City Council has knowledge of any restrictions placed on the use of each donation prior to it being expended. The Minnesota Cycling Team has been utilizing Aquila Park for their annual bicycle races in St. Louis Park. To show their appreciation, they have sent a check to the department to use for our fee assistance program. The Minnesota Cycling Team is graciously donating to the Parks and Recreation an amount of $1,500. This donation is given to provide park and recreation activities to individuals who are experiencing financial hardship. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: This donation will assist the Parks and Recreation Dept in meeting needs of our residents. VISION CONSIDERATION: Collaboration with other organizations is related to the results of Vision St. Louis Park Strategic Directions stating that “St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community”. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Stacy Voelker, Administrative Secretary Reviewed by: Cindy Walsh, Director of Parks and Recreation Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4d) Page 2 Subject: Accept Monetary Donation from the Minnesota Cycling Team for Scholarship Program ($1,500) RESOLUTION NO. 12-___ RESOLUTION APPROVING ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION FROM MINNESOTA CYCLING TEAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,500 TO BE AVAILABLE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO QUALIFY FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE THROUGH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, The City of St. Louis Park is required by State statute to authorize acceptance of any donations; and WHEREAS, the City Council must also ratify any restrictions placed on the donation by the donor; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Cycling Team desires to assist the Parks and Recreation Department’s Financial Assistance program with a donation of $1,500; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park that the gift is hereby accepted with thanks to the Minnesota Cycling Team with the understanding it will be used toward activity fees for individuals who qualify for financial assistance. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Consent Agenda Item: 4e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: Civil Attorney Fee Increase RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to amend the Professional Services Agreement with Campbell Knutson to increase the rates paid for attorney and law clerk/paralegal services. POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time. SUMMARY: The attorneys and staff of Campbell Knutson have served the City since 1996. The firm has requested a rate increase for legal services to begin January 1, 2013. If approved, the attorney hourly rates would increase from $150/hour to $160/hour and law clerk/paralegal rates would increase from $77.50/hour to $80.00/hour. The firm has not requested a rate increase for four years. Listed below is a summary of rates over the past several years: Contract Years Attorneys Law Clerks/Paralegals Proposed 2013 $160/hr $80/hr 2009 – 2012 $150/hr $77.50/hr 2008 $145/hr $75/hr 2007 $140/hr $70/hr 2005 – 2006 $135/hr $70/hr FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Funds to cover this increase are in the 2013 proposed budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Addendum to Agreement Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4e) Page 2 Title: Civil Attorney Fee Increase ADDENDUM TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES Effective January 1, 2013, City Contract # 4078 between the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) and Campbell Knutson, P.A. (“Contractor”) is amended to provide for the following hourly rates for legal services: Attorney $160.00/hr Law Clerks/Paralegals $ 80.00/hr Approved by City Council November 5, 2012 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Manager CONTRACTOR Campbell Knutson, P.A. By Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4f Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: 2013 Employer Benefits Contribution RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution establishing 2013 Employer Benefits Contribution. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to approve the recommended amount for the 2013 employer contribution? BACKGROUND: This report details the City’s benefits planned for 2013, and staff’s recommendation for setting the employer contribution for 2013. Recommendation for 2013 Employer Contribution: • Employer Contribution to Insurance Plans: Staff recommends a $20 increase (from $815/month to $835/month) to the monthly employer contribution for all full-time benefit earning employees, pro-rated for part-time employees. There was no increase to the employer contribution in 2012. • Wellness Incentive: In Resolution 12-029, Council approved to continue the wellness incentive program with an increase of $10 per month (from $25/month in 2012 to $35/month in 2013) for employees who complete certain required wellness and preventive health activities in 2012. Currently, 169 employees are receiving the incentive in 2012 for completing wellness activities in 2011 (approximately 70%). Benefit Overview: The City has a Benefits Committee that consists of employees represented by all departments and all union groups. The purpose of the committee is to help educate staff on benefits and to get a pulse on what our staff is interested in seeing in our benefits design. As in past years, benefit information was reviewed with the Benefits Committee. Medical Insurance: The City has been insured through HealthPartners since 1/1/12. We had secured a rate increase cap of 9% for 2013. Although our claims experience exceeded the cap and warranted a higher increase, we will only receive a 9% increase in rates for 2013. Medical Insurance Monthly Premiums (9% Increase for 2013) $30-Copay 2012 2013 Single $535.50 $583.50 Employee + Spouse $1,178.00 $1,284.00 Employee + Child(ren) $1,124.00 $1,225.00 Family $1,499.00 $1,634.00 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 2 Subject: 2013 Employer Benefits Contribution High Deductible (VEBA) 2012 2013 Single $431.00 $470.00 Employee + Spouse $949.00 $1,034.50 Employee + Child(ren) $905.00 $986.50 Family $1,207.00 $1,315.50 A Refresher on VEBAs The City continues to offer a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) with a VEBA funding mechanism in coordination with the High Deductible Health Plan. Funds from the employee’s monthly employer contribution will be placed in a VEBA trust in an individual’s name available for reimbursement of eligible medical expenses. VEBA funds not spent will stay with the individual and roll over each year for future expenses. VEBA funds are set aside tax free, earn tax free interest, and are reimbursed tax free. The VEBA account stays with the individual even after they leave employment and can be used for reimbursement of qualified medical expenses. Dental Insurance: We received a favorable renewal from Delta Dental for 2013 rates, and new for 2013, we were also able to add additional tiers of Employee + Spouse and Employee + Child to allow for additional options for staff to choose from. As with all our benefit offerings, we discussed this change with the Benefits Committee and they were in support of making this type of program change. Dental is a voluntary program for our employees. Monthly Dental Rates with Delta Dental (Aggregate 3.09% Increase) 2012 2013 Single $42.35 $43.65 Employee + Spouse N/A $87.75 Employee + Child(ren) N/A $82.50 Family $96.25 $105.80 Life Insurance: We are pleased to continue our life insurance program through Prudential Life with no rate increase for 2013. In our basic life insurance plan, all employees receive a mandatory benefit of $10,000 and a supplemental option to purchase additional insurance (up to $500,000) and spouse and dependent life insurance as well. Exempt employees are provided with an additional basic life insurance amount of 1.5 times their salary. Long Term Disability (LTD): LTD is currently a voluntary benefit for our non-exempt employees and is provided to our exempt employees at no cost. It is recommended that to continue to equalize benefits between exempt and non-exempt employees, the City provide LTD to all non-union staff (same as currently provided to only exempt employees). As previously discussed, this additional benefit has already been negotiated and included in all five bargaining agreements for union staff in 2013. This program will be for all 5 union contracts and non-organized employees who are benefit eligible. The additional cost of this benefit is approximately $30,000 per year and funds are included in the Employee Administration Fund Budget for 2013. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 3 Subject: 2013 Employer Benefits Contribution Long Term Care (LTC): LTC is a new voluntary benefit that was first offered in September, 2010 to our staff. Long Term Care Insurance provides coverage for employees and spouses who may need nursing home, assisted living, home health, or other care. Coverage is provided through the Municipal Pool and rates are set for the entire group. Employees who participate in this program are required to pay the full premium. Deferred Compensation: The City offers four deferred compensation programs (457 plans). Deferred compensation is a program that allows employees to invest today for retirement. Federal and (in most cases) state income taxes are deferred until assets are withdrawn, usually during retirement when employees may be in a lower tax bracket. This is a voluntary program for employees, with an employer match of $10 per pay period to non-union staff with a minimum employee contribution of $50 per pay period (Resolution 12-044). This has also been negotiated into union contracts. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The amount recommended for approval of the employer contribution for benefits (insurance) has been included in the 2013 budget. VISION CONSIDERATION: Offering a competitive benefits package helps in recruitment and retention of connected, engaged, and diverse staff. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Ali Fosse, HR Coordinator Reviewed by: Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4f) Page 4 Subject: 2013 Employer Benefits Contribution RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING 2013 EMPLOYER BENEFITS CONTRIBUTION WHEREAS, the City Council has established a benefit plan that provides an effective means for providing employee group benefits; and WHEREAS, the City Council establishes rates and plans for each calendar year; and WHEREAS, the administration of such plans will be in accordance with plan documents as approved by the City Manager, who will also set policy and procedures for benefit level classification and administration of plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park: 1. Effective January 1, 2013, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for non-union regular employees, including the City Manager, who work at least 30 hours per week, be set at $835 per month ($20 increase from 2012). 2. Effective January 1, 2013, the monthly contribution of benefit dollars from the City for non-union regular employees working 20 through 29 hours per week shall be set at 50% of the full time monthly contribution. 3. Employees are eligible for Wellness Incentive dollars in 2013 as approved by Resolution 12-029. 4. Employees who choose to waive health insurance coverage will have the highest single premium less $50 (or the entire employer contribution, whichever is less) deducted from their monthly employer contribution in accordance with City policy. 5. The City will provide Long Term Disability Insurance coverage to all eligible non-union employees who work at least 25 hours per week (same policy that was previously provided to exempt employees). 6. The City will continue to administer other benefit programs. 7. The appropriate City officials are hereby authorized and directed to deduct the balance of any sum premium from the compensation of an employee or officer and remit to the insurer under an approved contract the employee’s or officer’s share of any such premium. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4g Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 38-11 Brothers Fire Protection – Project No. 2008-3002 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $1,426.95 and accepting work for Fire Station No. 2 Work Scope 22 (Fire Suppression) with Brothers Fire Protection, Inc. Project No. 2008-3002, City Contract No. 38-11. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Bids were received on March 31, 2011 for Two New Fire Stations – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002. The projects included construction of Fire Station No. 1 at 3750 Wooddale Avenue and Fire Station No. 2 at 2262 Louisiana Avenue. The City used an agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations, rather than a general contractor (GM). With this approach, the City is the owner and general contractor for the project. The construction manager acts as the city’s advisor and representative throughout planning, design and construction of the stations. There are 31 different contracts related to the construction of the two stations. City Council awarded the contract for Work Scope 22 (Fire Suppression) for Fire Station No. 2 to Brothers Fire Protection, Inc. on April 11, 2011, in the amount of $26,800.00. The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of $28,538.95. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Fire Stations Project was programmed in the Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2011/12 at a total projected cost of $15,500,000. The final project costs are expected to be approximately $15,100,000. $12.5 million of this project cost will be paid from bond proceeds issued in December 2010. The remaining portion will be paid from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4g) Page 2 Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 38-11 Brothers Fire Protection – Project 2008-3002 RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,426.95 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE FIRE SUPPRESSION FOR FIRE STATION NO. 2 WITH BROTHERS FIRE PROTECTION, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-3002 CONTRACT NO. 38-11 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 12, 2011, Brothers Fire Protection, Inc. has satisfactorily completed Work Scope 22 (Fire Suppression) for Fire Station No. 2, as per Contract No. 38-11. 2. The Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson Construction Company recommends final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Original Contract Price $26,800.00 Change Order 1 + $1,738.95 Final Contract Amount $28,538.95 Previous Payments - 27,112.00 Balance Due $ 1,426.95 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4h Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 57-11 Tecta America Stock Roofing – Project Nos. 2008- 3001 & 2008-3002 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $22,724.18 and accepting work for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 Work Scope 08 (Roofing and Metal Panels) with Tecta America Stock Roofing, LLC Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002, City Contract No. 57-11. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: Bids were received on March 31, 2011 for Two New Fire Stations – Project Nos. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002. The projects included construction of Fire Station No. 1 at 3750 Wooddale Avenue and Fire Station No. 2 at 2262 Louisiana Avenue. The City used an agency construction manager (CM) delivery method for both fire stations, rather than a general contractor (GM). With this approach, the City is the owner and general contractor for the project. The construction manager acts as the city’s advisor and representative throughout planning, design and construction of the stations. There are 31 different contracts related to the construction of the two stations. City Council awarded the contract for Work Scope 08 (Roofing and Metal Panels) for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2 to Tecta America Stock Roofing, LLC on April 11, 2011, in the amount of $442,300.00. The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of $454,483.70. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The Fire Stations Project was programmed in the Capital Improvement Program for construction in 2011/12 at a total projected cost of $15,500,000. The final project costs are expected to be approximately $15,175,000. $12.5 million of this project cost will be paid from bond proceeds issued in December 2010. The remaining portion will be paid from the Fire portion of the Police and Fire Pension Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Sean Walther, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Luke Stemmer, Fire Chief Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4h) Page 2 Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 57-11 Tecta America – Projs 20083001 & 20083002 RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,724.18 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE ROOFING AND METAL PANELS FOR FIRE STATIONS NO. 1 AND NO. 2 WITH TECTA AMERICA STOCK ROOFING, LLC CITY PROJECT NO. 2008-3001 and 2008-3002 CONTRACT NO. 57-11 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated April 12, 2011, Tecta America Stock Roofing, LLC has satisfactorily completed Work Scope 08 (Roofing and Metal Panels) for Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 2, as per Contract No. 57-11. 2. The Construction Manager Kraus-Anderson Construction Company recommends final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Original Contract Price $ 442,300.00 Change Order 1 + $ 0.00 Change Order 2 + $ 12,183.70 Final Contract Amount $ 454,483.70 Previous Payments - $ 431,759.52 Balance Due $ 22,724.18 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4i Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Table Second Reading of Ordinances Granting Xcel and CPE Utility Franchises RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Table Second Reading of the Xcel and CenterPoint Energy Franchise Ordinances. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The City currently has franchise agreements with Xcel Energy (agreement expires February 20, 2013) and with CenterPoint Energy (agreement expires July 1, 2013). Staff from these two utilities approached City staff earlier this year to begin discussing renewal of their respective franchise agreements. The adoption of new franchise ordinances was presented to the City Council at the July 23rd Study Session, was followed up with a staff / Council discussion at the August 13th Study Session, and a Public Hearing and first reading of these ordinances was conducted Monday, October 1st at which time second reading was set for October 15th. Due to several questions by Xcel and Council during first reading, a study session discussion was held on October 8th. On October 15th second reading was continued to November 5th to allow time for Xcel and City staff to revise the proposed ordinance. Ordinance provisions and possible revisions continue to be discussed by Xcel and city staff; however, discussions are not expected to be concluded for another few weeks. As a result, staff is proposing second reading be tabled (postponed) at this time until discussions are complete and final ordinance provisions are agreed to. This action would table (postpone) second reading of both proposed franchise ordinances for a short period of time. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: None Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4j Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Second Reading Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy Resources Corporation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance imposing a franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp. and authorize publication in full. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does the City Council wish to increase the franchise fees for CenterPoint Energy to assist in funding the City’s Pavement Management Program? BACKGROUND: History In early 2003 the City adopted an ordinance granting CenterPoint Energy (CPE) a natural gas utility franchise in the city; that ordinance allowed the City to impose a franchise fee on CPE. The City Council acted to impose a franchise fee of $1.25/month for a residential customer on CPE which went into effect in January of 2004. These franchise fees were increased by Council $0.75/month per utility for a residential customer in 2010. This increase took effect on February 1, 2011, which changed the fee to $2.00/month per utility for a residential customer. Franchise fees in St. Louis Park are used in their entirety to assist in funding the cost the City experiences to maintain, reconstruct and repair the street system via the City’s Pavement Management Program. Special assessments to property owners have never been used to help fund this program and, starting in 2013, property tax dollars will not be used either. The franchise fee is essentially a user fee collected from customers on their utility bill and paid to CPE. The utility then functions essentially as a pass through entity with the franchise fee revenue being remitted to the City of St. Louis Park. Given funding deficits projected for the City’s Pavement Management Fund over the next ten years, in 2009 the City Council reviewed and determined the City would need to increase franchise fees from time to time to ensure the Pavement Management Program could be continued and fully funded. This increase is a part of that plan. Proposed Fee Increase As discussed with the Council previously, staff is proposing a $0.50/month fee increase to residential customers for 2013 to continue funding the Pavement Management Program. Based on customer class, customers would see increases ranging from $0.50/month per utility for residential customers to $4.00/month per utility for large commercial/industrial customers (please see attachment - Franchise Fee Estimate). Residential customers make up approximately 90% of the total customers. It was desired by the City to adopt an ordinance that would allow for automatic annual or alternating year fee increases, but that is not allowed by the Public Utilities Commission. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 2 Subject: Second Reading Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy The City also imposes an equivalent franchise fee on Xcel Energy. Staff is also proposing (under separate action) to increase Xcel’s current basic Franchise Fee by $0.50/month per utility for residential customers. Per the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan, by increasing franchise fees in 2013 and again in 2015, it is projected that the Pavement Management Program could be funded entirely by franchise fees making the fund sustainable for the long-term. Based on recent discussions with CPE staff, they do not oppose this proposed increase in the franchise fee. Adoption Process and Schedule The following steps outline the adoption process to be followed: 1. Ordinances must contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise 2. Franchise ordinances require a public hearing 3. Hearing notice must be published at least once in the City's official newspaper at least twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing. 4. At least seven days must pass between first reading (public hearing) and 2nd reading 5. At second reading motion will be “Motion to adopt the ordinance and authorize publication” 6. Ordinance becomes effective 90 days after its adoption and publication Based on the above process, staff has developed the following steps and schedule for adopting the franchise fee ordinance: Study Session - Written Report July 23, 2012 Study Session - Discussion Aug 13, 2012 Submit Public Hearing Notice to Sun Sailor Aug 30, 2012 Public Hearing Notice Published Sept 6, 2012 First Reading and Public Hearing Oct 1, 2012 Second Reading (adopt ordinance and authorize publication) Nov 5, 2012 Submit Ordinance to Sun Sailor Nov 7, 2012 Ordinance Publication Nov 14, 2012 Ordinance Effective Date Feb 4, 2013 Summary and Recommendations City staff has not identified any issues associated with adoption of this franchise fee ordinance which imposes an increased franchise fee on CPE. Staff is proposing, and CPE supports, that their franchise fee is consistent with the franchise fee we impose on Xcel Energy. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: The city’s Pavement Management Program is currently funded by franchise fee revenues, collected for us by both Xcel and CPE. Franchise fees can be collected by a utility when the city has a franchise ordinance providing for this. Thus, failure to grant CPE a utility franchise would result in the loss of franchise fee revenues for our Pavement Management Program. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 3 Subject: Second Reading Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy Based on the current fees, total franchise fees generate approximately $1.35 million annually (CPE - $510,654; Xcel - $843,445). The proposed increase in the CPE franchise fee would add approximately $105,000 in additional annual revenue to the Pavement Management Program, and provide greater sustainability into the future. By implementing this proposed franchise fee increase for 2013, St. Louis Park would still be competitive with other cities in the area. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Franchise Fee Estimate Franchise Fee Ordinance Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Reviewed by: Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor Tom Scott, City Attorney Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 4 Subject: Second Reading Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy City of St Louis Park, Minnesota Franchise Fee Estimate Variable Increases Proposed for 2013 Beginning in 2013 and Every Other Year After an Increase of $0.50 For All Non Large C/I, With Large C/I Increase of $4.00. Xcel - Electric CUSTOMER CLASS AVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNT ESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 2013 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEE 2013 New Fee Proposal Residential* $2.00 $2.50 Small C&I – Non-Demand* $4.00 $4.50 Small C&I – Demand $13.25 $13.75 Large C&I $73.00 $77.00 Public Street Lighting Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand $4.00 $4.50 Municipal Pumping – Demand $10.00 $10.50 Total 24,554 $843,445 $996,578 Net Increase $153,133 CenterPoint - Heating Gas CUSTOMER CLASS AVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNT ESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 2013 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEE New Fee Proposal Residential $2.00 $2.50 Commercial A $2.00 $2.50 Commercial B $4.00 $4.50 Commercial C $13.25 $13.75 SVDF A & B $13.25 $13.75 LVDF $73.00 $77.00 Total 17,387 $510,654 $615,144 Net Increase $104,490 Total $257,623 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 5 Subject: Second Reading Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy CenterPoint Energy Gas Franchise Fee Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____-12 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A GAS ENERGY FRANCHISE FEE ON CENTERPOINT ENERGY MINNESOTA GAS (“CENTERPOINT ENERGY”) FOR PROVIDING GAS ENERGY SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: 1.1 City. The City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. 1.2 Company. CenterPoint Energy Minnesota Gas (“CenterPoint Energy”), its successors and assigns. 1.3 Franchise Ordinance. The franchise ordinance adopted by the City - City Ordinance __________. 1.4 Notice. “Notice” means a writing served by any party or parties on any other party or parties. Notice to Company shall be mailed to CenterPoint Energy, Minnesota Division Vice President, 800 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55402. Notice to City shall be mailed to the City Manager, City of St. Louis Park, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, MN 55416. SECTION 2. GAS FRANCHISE FEE. 2.1 Purpose. The St. Louis Park City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City. Pursuant to the Franchise Ordinance, the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Company. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 6 Subject: Second Reading Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy 2.2 Franchise Fee Statement and Schedule. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Company commencing with the March 2013 billing month, and in accordance with the following fee schedule: Customer Classification Amount per Account per Month ($) Residential $2.50 per month Firm A $2.50 per month Firm B $4.50 per month Firm C $13.75 per month Small Volume, Dual Fuel A (“SVDF A”) $13.75 per month Small Volume, Dual Fuel B (“SVDF B”) $13.75 per month Large Volume, Dual Fuel (“LVDF”) $77.00 per month 2.3 Account Fee. This fee is an account based fee and not a meter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one account, each account shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any account, the highest possible fee amount shall apply. 2.4 Payment. Franchise fees are to be collected by the Company and submitted to the City as follows: January – March collections due by April 30. April – June collections due by July 31. July – September collections due by October 31. October – December collections due by January 31. 2.5 Record Support for Payment. The Company shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total made to account for any non-collectible accounts, refunds or error corrections. The Company shall permit the City, and its representatives, access to the Company’s records for the purpose of verifying such statements. 2.6 Payment Adjustments. Payment to the City will be adjusted where the Company is unable to collect the franchise fee. This includes non-collectible accounts. 2.7 Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission may allow the Company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse the Company for the cost of the fee. 2.8 Relation to Franchise Ordinance. This ordinance is enacted in compliance with the Franchise Ordinance and shall be interpreted as such. 2.9 Periodic Review. The City Council shall review this ordinance every two years in whatever manner the City Manager then determines to be appropriate. Failure to review this ordinance shall not in any way invalidate or limit it. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4j) Page 7 Subject: Second Reading Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on CenterPoint Energy SECTION 3. PREVIOUS FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCE SUPERSEDED. This Gas Franchise Fee Ordinance supersedes Ordinance No. 2395-10. SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall take effect ninety (90) days after its passage and publication. ADOPTED this _____ day of __________, 2012, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Date Published:____________________ Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4k Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Second Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on Northern States Power Company (D/B/A Xcel Energy) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance imposing a franchise fee on Northern States Power Company and authorize publication in full. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does the City Council wish to increase the franchise fees for Northern States Power Company to assist in funding the City’s Pavement Management Program? BACKGROUND: History In 1993 the City adopted an ordinance granting Northern States Power Company (D/B/A Xcel Energy) an electrical services utility franchise in the city; that ordinance allowed the City to impose a franchise fee on Xcel. The City Council acted to impose a franchise fee on Xcel of $1.25/month for a residential customer which went into effect in January of 2004. These franchise fees were increased by Council $0.75/month per utility for a residential customer in 2010. This increase took effect on February 1, 2011, which changed the fee to $2.00/month per utility for a residential customer. Franchise fees in St. Louis Park are used in their entirety to assist in funding the cost the City experiences to maintain, reconstruct and repair the street system via the City’s Pavement Management Program. Special assessments to property owners have never been used to fund this program and, starting in 2013, property tax dollars will not be used either. The franchise fee is essentially a user fee collected from customers on their utility bill and paid to Xcel. The utility then functions essentially as a pass through entity with the franchise fee revenue being remitted to the City of St. Louis Park. Given funding deficits projected for the City’s Pavement Management Fund over the next ten years, in 2009 the City Council reviewed and determined the City would need to increase franchise fees from time to time to ensure the Pavement Management Program could be continued and fully funded. This increase is a part of that plan. Proposed Fee Increase As discussed with the Council previously, Staff is proposing a $0.50/month fee increase to residential customers for 2013 to insure adequate funding for the Pavement Management Program. Based on customer class, customers would see increases ranging from $0.50/month per utility for residential customers to $4.00/month per utility for large commercial/industrial customers (please see attachment - Franchise Fee Estimate). Residential customers make up approximately 90% of the total customers. It was desired by the City to adopt an ordinance that would allow for automatic annual or alternating year fee increases, but that is not allowed by the Public Utilities Commission. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4k) Page 2 Subject: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on NSP (dba Xcel) The City also imposes an equivalent franchise fee on CenterPoint Energy. Staff is also proposing (under separate action) to increase CenterPoint’s current basic Franchise Fee by $0.50/month per utility for residential customers. Per the City’s Long Range Financial Management Plan, by increasing franchise fees in 2013 and again in 2015, it is projected that the Pavement Management Program could be funded entirely by franchise fees making the fund sustainable in the long-term. Based on recent discussions with Xcel staff, they do not oppose this proposed increase in the franchise fee. Adoption Process and Schedule The following steps outline the adoption process to be followed: 1. Ordinances must contain all the terms and conditions of the franchise 2. Franchise ordinances require a public hearing 3. Hearing notice must be published at least once in the City's official newspaper at least twenty (20) days prior to the public hearing. 4. At least seven days must pass between first reading (public hearing) and 2nd reading 5. At second reading motion will be “Motion to adopt the ordinance and authorize publication” 6. Ordinance becomes effective 90 days after its adoption and publication Based on the above process, staff has developed the following steps and schedule for adopting the franchise fee ordinance: Study Session - Written Report July 23, 2012 Study Session - Discussion Aug 13, 2012 Submit Public Hearing Notice to Sun Sailor Aug 30, 2012 Public Hearing Notice Published Sept 6, 2012 First Reading and Public Hearing Oct 1, 2012 Second Reading (adopt ordinance and authorize publication) Nov 5, 2012 Submit Ordinance to Sun Sailor Nov 7, 2012 Ordinance Publication Nov 14, 2012 Ordinance Effective Date Feb 4, 2013 Summary and Recommendations City staff has not identified any issues associated with adoption of this franchise fee ordinance which imposes an increased franchise fee on Xcel. Staff is proposing, and Xcel supports, that their franchise fee is consistent with the franchise fee we impose on CenterPoint Energy. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: The City’s Pavement Management Program is currently funded by franchise fee revenues, collected for us by both Xcel and CPE, along with some general funds. Franchise fees can be collected by a utility when the city has a franchise ordinance providing for this. Thus, failure to grant Xcel a utility franchise would result in the loss of franchise fee revenues for our Pavement Management Program. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4k) Page 3 Subject: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on NSP (dba Xcel) Based on the current fees, total franchise fees generate approximately $1.35 million annually (CPE - $510,654; Xcel - $843,445). The proposed increase in the Xcel franchise fee would add approximately $153,000 in additional annual revenue to the Pavement Management Program, and provide greater sustainability into the future. By implementing this proposed franchise fee increase for 2013, St. Louis Park would still be competitive with other cities in the area. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Franchise Fee Estimate Franchise Fee Ordinance Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Reviewed by: Steve Heintz, Finance Supervisor Tom Scott, City Attorney Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4k) Page 4 Subject: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on NSP (dba Xcel) City of St Louis Park, Minnesota Franchise Fee Estimate Variable Increases Proposed for 2013 Beginning in 2013 and Every Other Year After an Increase of $0.50 For All Non Large C/I, With Large C/I Increase of $4.00. Xcel - Electric CUSTOMER CLASS AVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNT ESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 2013 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEE 2013 New Fee Proposal Residential* $2.00 $2.50 Small C&I – Non-Demand* $4.00 $4.50 Small C&I – Demand $13.25 $13.75 Large C&I $73.00 $77.00 Public Street Lighting Municipal Pumping – Non-Demand $4.00 $4.50 Municipal Pumping – Demand $10.00 $10.50 Total 24,554 $843,445 $996,578 Net Increase $153,133 CenterPoint - Heating Gas CUSTOMER CLASS AVERAGE MONTHLY CUSTOMER COUNT ESTIMATED ANNUAL FRANCHISE FEE REVENUES 2013 New Revenue Estimate MONTHLY FLAT FEE New Fee Proposal Residential $2.00 $2.50 Commercial A $2.00 $2.50 Commercial B $4.00 $4.50 Commercial C $13.25 $13.75 SVDF A & B $13.25 $13.75 LVDF $73.00 $77.00 Total 17,387 $510,654 $615,144 Net Increase $104,490 Total $257,623 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4k) Page 5 Subject: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on NSP (dba Xcel) XCEL ENERGY ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. ____-12 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING AN ELECTRIC SERVICE FRANCHISE FEE ON NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, D/B/A XCEL ENERGY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, FOR PROVIDING ELECTRIC SERVICE WITHIN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, ORDAINS: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following capitalized terms listed in alphabetical order shall have the following meanings: 1.1 City. The City of St. Louis Park, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. 1.2 Company. Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation, d/b/a Xcel Energy, its successors and assigns. 1.3 Franchise Ordinance. The franchise ordinance adopted by the City - City Ordinance __________. 1.4 Notice. A written notice served by one party on the other party referencing one or more provisions of this Ordinance. Notice to Company shall be mailed to the General Counsel, 414 Nicollet Mall, 5th Floor, Minneapolis, MN 55401. Notice to the City shall be mailed to the City Manager, City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Blvd., St. Louis Park, MN 55416. Either party may change its respective address for the purpose of this Ordinance by written notice to the other party. SECTION 2. ELECTRIC FRANCHISE FEE. 2.1 Purpose. The St. Louis Park City Council has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to impose a franchise fee on those public utility companies that provide natural gas and electric services within the City. Pursuant to the Franchise Ordinance the City has the right to impose a franchise fee on Company. 2.2 Franchise Fee Statement and Schedule. A franchise fee is hereby imposed on Company commencing with the March 2013 billing month, and in accordance with the following fee schedule: City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4k) Page 6 Subject: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on NSP (dba Xcel) Customer Classification Amount per Account per Month ($) Residential $2.50 per month Small C & I with no demand charge $4.50 per month Small C & I with demand charge $13.75 per month Large C & I Municipal $77.00 per month Municipal pumping with no demand charge $4.50 per month Municipal pumping with demand charge $10.50 per month 2.3 Account Fee. This fee is an account based fee and not a meter-based fee. In the event that an entity covered by this ordinance has more than one meter, but only one account, only one fee shall be assessed to that account. In the event any entities covered by this ordinance have more than one account, each account shall be subject to the appropriate fee. In the event a question arises as to the proper fee amount for any account, the highest possible fee amount shall apply. 2.4 Payment. Franchise fees are to be collected by the Company and submitted to the City as follows: January – March collections due by April 30. April – June collections due by July 31. July – September collections due by October 31. October – December collections due by January 31. 2.5 Record Support for Payment. The Company shall make each payment when due and, if requested by the City, shall provide a statement summarizing how the franchise fee payment was determined, including information showing any adjustments to the total made to account for any non-collectible accounts, refunds or error corrections. The Company shall permit the City, and its representatives, access to the Company’s records for the purpose of verifying such statements. 2.6 Payment Adjustments. Payment to the City will be adjusted where the Company is unable to collect the franchise fee. This includes non-collectible accounts. 2.7 Surcharge. The City recognizes that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission may allow the Company to add a surcharge to customer rates to reimburse the Company for the cost of the fee. 2.8 Relation to Franchise Ordinance. This Ordinance is enacted in compliance with the Franchise Ordinance and shall be interpreted as such. 2.9 Periodic Review. The City Council shall review this ordinance every two years in whatever manner the City Manager then determines to be appropriate. Failure to review this ordinance shall not in any way invalidate or limit it. SECTION 3. PREVIOUS FRANCHISE FEE ORDINANCE SUPERSEDED. This Electric Franchise Fee Ordinance supersedes Ordinance No. 2394-10. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4k) Page 7 Subject: 2nd Reading of an Ordinance Imposing a Franchise Fee on NSP (dba Xcel) SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance takes effect ninety (90) days after its passage and publication. ADOPTED this _____ day of __________, 2012, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Date Published:____________________ Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4l Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Approve Right of Way Purchase – Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Project No. 2004-1700 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve right of way purchase in the total amount of $301,000 for Parcel 4 (6010 Highway 7 – Restaurant Brokers Property), and authorize the City Attorney to execute stipulation of settlement. POLICY CONSIDERATION: This action is consistent with previous direction given by Council as part of the Highway 7/Wooddale project. BACKGROUND: At the February 2, 2009 City Council meeting, Council approved a resolution Authorizing Condemnation of Land for Public Purposes for the Highway 7/Wooddale Interchange Project. Prior to that action, specific right of way needs were determined and appraisals for five identified properties were conducted. As a result, the City Attorney commenced eminent domain proceedings pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 117 to acquire the necessary land over the five properties identified. Pursuant to the “quick take” provisions of Minnesota Statutes, the City Attorney has since negotiated a settlement with the legal representatives of Parcel 4 in the total amount of $301,000. The City’s initial appraisal was in the amount of $275,000. The City Attorney recommends approval of this settlement. The Parcel 4 property is located along the northeast corner of the interchange, and the acquisition attained from this property was needed to accommodate required widening of Wooddale Avenue. This acquisition settlement is the final settlement purchase for all five parcels. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The project budget as previously presented anticipated right of way acquisition costs, and is being funded through the City’s share of the project costs. VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St. Louis Park. Attachments: Exhibit A – Parcel 4 Location Exhibit B – Settlement Letter and Stipulation Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: Mike Rardin, Director of Public Works Tom Scott, City Attorney Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4l) Page 2 Subject: Approve Right of Way Purchase – Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Proj. No. 2004-1700 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Approve Right of Way Purchase – Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Proj. No. 2004-1700Page 3 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4l) Subject: Approve Right of Way Purchase – Hwy 7/Wooddale Interchange Project – Proj. No. 2004-1700Page 4 Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4m Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Special Assessment - Sewer Service Line Repair at 3809 Kipling Avenue South RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line at 3809 Kipling Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 07-028-24-12-0021. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Jo Dougherty, owner of the single family residence at 3809 Kipling Avenue South, has requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for her home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water or sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owner hired a contractor and repaired the sewer service line in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owner has petitioned the City to authorize the sewer service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $4,095.00. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4m) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3809 Kipling Avenue RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT 3809 KIPLING AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 07-028-24-12-0021 WHEREAS, the Property Owner at 3809 Kipling Avenue South has petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the sewer service line for the single family residence located at 3809 Kipling Avenue South; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by th e City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owner requesting the approval and special assessment for the sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $4,095.00. 4. The Property Owner has agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owner has agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85%. 6. The Property Owner has executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4n Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Special Assessment – Water and Sewer Service Line Repair at 2850 Sumter Avenue South RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer service lines at 2850 Sumter Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN - P.I.D. 08-117-21-33- 0101. POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously established by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Thomas and Sandra Olson, owners of the single family residence at 2850 Sumter Avenue South, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water and sewer service lines for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment policy. Analysis: The City requires the repair of service lines to promote the general public health, safety and welfare within the community. The special assessment policy for the repair or replacement of water and sewer service lines for existing homes was adopted by the City Council in 1996. This program was put into place because sometimes property owners face financial hardships when emergency repairs like this are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for the service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water and service lines in compliance with current codes and regulations. Based on the completed work, this repair qualifies for the City’s special assessment program. The property owners have petitioned the City to authorize the water and sewer service line repairs and special assess the cost of the repair. The total eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $10,395.00. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the cost of this special assessment. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Scott Anderson, Utility Superintendent Through: Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Brian Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4n) Page 2 Subject: Special Assessment – Water and Sewer Service Line Repair at 2850 Sumter Avenue RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICE LINES AT 2850 SUMTER AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN P.I.D. 08-117-21-33-0101 WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 2850 Sumter Avenue South have petitioned the City of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water and sewer service lines for the single family residence located at 2850 Sumter Avenue South; and WHEREAS, the Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, right of notice and right of appeal pursuant to Minnesota Statute, Chapter 429; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park has received a report from the Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water and sewer service lines. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, that: 1. The petition from the Property Owners requesting the approval and special assessment for the water and sewer service line repair is hereby accepted. 2. The water and sewer service line repair that was done in conformance with the plans and specifications approved by the Public Works Department and Department of Inspections is hereby accepted. 3. The total cost for the repair of the water and sewer service lines are accepted at $10,395.00. 4. The Property Owners have agreed to waive the right to a public hearing, notice and appeal from the special assessment; whether provided by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, or by other statutes, or by ordinance, City Charter, the constitution, or common law. 5. The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the above improvements through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 5.85 %. 6. The Property Owners have executed an agreement with the City and all other documents necessary to implement the repair of the water and sewer service lines and the special assessment of all costs associated therewith. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item: 4o Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Special Meeting Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Special Session Other: TITLE: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution Approving Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds. POLICY CONSIDERATION: • Does the City Council desire to comply with revised Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations related to tax-exempt bonds to ensure they remain tax-exempt? • Does the City Council desire to have the City and the parties it deals with follow the provisions of the Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds? BACKGROUND: The City of St. Louis Park is an issuer of tax-exempt governmental bonds. Over time the IRS has developed a series of regulations that require issuers of such bonds to take certain actions after the bonds have been issued to ensure that the bonds remain tax-exempt. The IRS has also begun to investigate whether issuers of tax-exempt bonds are complying with these regulations. For example, in early 2009, the IRS mailed its Governmental Bond Financings Compliance Check Questionnaire, Form 14002 to two hundred governmental entities that had issued tax- exempt bonds in 2005. St. Louis Park did not receive one. A major focus of the IRS questionnaire is whether the governing body responding to the questionnaire had adopted written procedures for its required post-issuance compliance actions. The questions in this questionnaire provide clear guidance from the IRS on the post-issuance actions that are expected from issuers of tax-exempt governmental bonds, the records that the IRS expects such issuers to retain, and the period of time such records are expected to be retained. The IRS has suggested that it may send this or a similar questionnaire to more issuers in the near future. More recently, in September 2011, the IRS revised its Form 8038-G, which is the informational tax return that issuers of tax-exempt governmental bonds are required to submit in connection with each bond issue. The new version of the Form 8038-G requires the issuer to certify whether it has written procedures in place for its post-issuance compliance activities. In addition, if a problem with the tax exemption of the bonds is identified at some point, the IRS has indicated it will allow reduced closing agreement amounts under its Voluntary Closing Agreement Program for issuers who implement written post-issuance compliance procedures. To date, the City of St. Louis Park has not received any questionnaires from the IRS, nor has been involved in any post-issuance compliance issues. The attached policy has been prepared by Kennedy and Graven, whom the City works very closely with on bond issues, in conjunction with the Controller. This policy, if implemented and followed, will meet IRS requirements for post-issuance compliance. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Page 2 Title: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Implementation and following the provisions of the policy could protect the tax-exempt status of a bond issue if an issue ever arose based on IRS scrutiny. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: 1) Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds 2) Resolution Approving Post-Issuance Compliance and Procedure Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds Prepared by: Brian A. Swanson, Controller Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota POST-ISSUANCE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE AND POLICY FOR TAX-EXEMPT GOVERNMENTAL BONDS Adopted November 5, 2012 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Subject: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds Page 3 -1- Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “Issuer”) issues tax-exempt governmental bonds (“TEBs”) to finance various public projects. As an issuer of TEBs, the Issuer is required by the terms of Sections 103 and 141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder (the “Treasury Regulations”), to take certain actions after the issuance of TEBs to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of such bonds. In addition, Section 6001 of the Code and Section 1.6001-1(a) of the Treasury Regulations impose record retention requirements on the Issuer with respect to its TEBs. This Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds (the “Policy”) has been approved and adopted by the Issuer to ensure that the Issuer complies with its post-issuance compliance obligations under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations. 1. Effective Date and Term. The effective date of this Policy is the date of approval by the City Council of the Issuer (November 5, 2012) and this Policy shall remain in effect until superseded or terminated by action of the City Council of the Issuer. 2. Responsible Parties. The City Controller of the Issuer (the “Compliance Officer”) shall be the party primarily responsible for ensuring that the Issuer successfully carries out its post-issuance compliance requirements under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations. The Compliance Officer will be assisted by the staff of the Issuer and other officials when appropriate. The Compliance Officer of the Issuer will also be assisted in carrying out post-issuance compliance requirements by the following organizations: (a) Bond Counsel (as of the date of approval of this Policy, bond counsel for the Issuer is Kennedy & Graven, Chartered); (b) Financial Advisor (as of the date of approval of this Policy, the financial advisor of the Issuer is Ehlers & Associates, Inc.); (c) Paying Agent (the person, organization, or officer of the Issuer primarily responsible for providing paying agent services for the Issuer); and (d) Rebate Analyst (the organization primarily responsible for providing rebate analyst services for the Issuer). The Compliance Officer shall be responsible for assigning post-issuance compliance responsibilities to members of the Finance Department and other staff of the Issuer, Bond Counsel, Paying Agent, and Rebate Analyst. The Compliance Officer shall utilize such other professional service organizations as are necessary to ensure compliance with the post-issuance compliance requirements of the Issuer. The Compliance Officer shall provide training and educational resources to Issuer staff responsible for ensuring compliance with any portion of the post-issuance compliance requirements of this Policy. 3. Post-Issuance Compliance Actions. The Compliance Officer shall take the following post-issuance compliance actions or shall verify that the following post-issuance compliance actions have been taken on behalf of the Issuer with respect to each issue of TEBs: (a) The Compliance Officer shall prepare a transcript of principal documents (this action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel). City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Subject: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds Page 4 -2- (b) The Compliance Officer shall file with the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), within the time limit imposed by Section 149(e) of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations, an Information Return for Tax-Exempt Governmental Obligations, Form 8038-G (this action will be the primary responsibility of Bond Counsel). (c) The Compliance Officer shall prepare an “allocation memorandum” for each issue of TEBs in accordance with the provisions of Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-6(d)(1), that accounts for the allocation of the proceeds of the tax-exempt bonds to expenditures not later than the earlier of: (i) eighteen (18) months after the later of (A) the date the expenditure is paid, or (B) the date the project, if any, that is financed by the tax-exempt bond issue is placed in service; or (ii) the date sixty (60) days after the earlier of (A) the fifth anniversary of the issue date of the tax-exempt bond issue, or (B) the date sixty (60) days after the retirement of the tax-exempt bond issue. Preparation of the allocation memorandum will be the primary responsibility of the Compliance Officer (in consultation with the Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel). (d) The Compliance Officer, in consultation with Bond Counsel, shall identify proceeds of TEBs that must be yield-restricted and shall monitor the investments of any yield-restricted funds to ensure that the yield on such investments does not exceed the yield to which such investments are restricted. (e) In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall determine whether the Issuer is subject to the rebate requirements of Section 148(f) of the Code with respect to each issue of TEBs. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall determine, with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer, whether the Issuer is eligible for any of the temporary periods for unrestricted investments and is eligible for any of the spending exceptions to the rebate requirements. The Compliance Officer shall contact the Rebate Analyst (and, if appropriate, Bond Counsel) prior to the fifth anniversary of the date of issuance of each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and each fifth anniversary thereafter to arrange for calculations of the rebate requirements with respect to such TEBs. If a rebate payment is required to be paid by the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Arbitrage Rebate, Yield Reduction and Penalty in Lieu of Arbitrage Rebate, Form 8038-T, and submit such Form 8038-T to the IRS with the required rebate payment. If the Issuer is authorized to recover a rebate payment previously paid, the Compliance Officer shall prepare or cause to be prepared the Request for Recovery of Overpayments Under Arbitrage Rebate Provisions, Form 8038-R, with respect to such rebate recovery, and submit such Form 8038-R to the IRS. 4. Procedures for Monitoring, Verification, and Inspections. The Compliance Officer shall institute such procedures as the Compliance Officer shall deem necessary and appropriate to monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs issued by the Issuer, to verify that certain post-issuance compliance actions have been taken by the Issuer, and to provide for the inspection of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds. At a minimum, the Compliance Officer shall establish the following procedures: (a) The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of the proceeds of TEBs to: (i) ensure compliance with the expenditure and investment requirements under the temporary City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Subject: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds Page 5 -3- period provisions set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-2(e); (ii) ensure compliance with the safe harbor restrictions on the acquisition of investments set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-5(d); (iii) ensure that the investments of any yield-restricted funds do not exceed the yield to which such investments are restricted; and (iv) determine whether there has been compliance with the spend-down requirements under the spending exceptions to the rebate requirements set forth in Treasury Regulations, Section 1.148-7. (b) The Compliance Officer shall monitor the use of all bond-financed facilities in order to: (i) determine whether private business uses of bond-financed facilities have exceeded the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code as a result of leases and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to nongovernmental persons; and (ii) determine whether private security or payments that exceed the de minimis limits set forth in Section 141(b) of the Code have been provided by nongovernmental persons with respect to such bond-financed facilities. The Compliance Officer shall provide training and educational resources to any Issuer staff who have the primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of bond-financed facilities with regard to the limitations on the private business use of bond-financed facilities and as to the limitations on the private security or payments with respect to bond-financed facilities. (c) The Compliance Officer shall undertake the following with respect to each outstanding issue of TEBs of the Issuer: (i) an annual review of the books and records maintained by the Issuer with respect to such bonds; and (ii) an annual physical inspection of the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds, conducted by the Compliance Officer with the assistance with any Issuer staff who have the primary responsibility for the operation, maintenance, or inspection of such bond-financed facilities. 5. Record Retention Requirements. The Compliance Officer shall collect and retain the following records with respect to each issue of TEBs of the Issuer and with respect to the facilities financed with the proceeds of such bonds: (i) audited financial statements of the Issuer; (ii) appraisals, demand surveys, or feasibility studies with respect to the facilities to be financed with the proceeds of such bonds; (iii) publications, brochures, and newspaper articles related to the bond financing; (iv) trustee or paying agent statements; (v) records of all investments and the gains (or losses) from such investments; (vi) paying agent or trustee statements regarding investments and investment earnings; (vii) reimbursement resolutions and expenditures reimbursed with the proceeds of such bonds; (viii) allocations of proceeds to expenditures (including costs of issuance) and the dates and amounts of such expenditures (including requisitions, draw schedules, draw requests, invoices, bills, and cancelled checks with respect to such expenditures); (ix) contracts entered into for the construction, renovation, or purchase of bond-financed facilities; (x) an asset list or schedule of all bond-financed depreciable property and any depreciation schedules with respect to such assets or property; (xi) records of the purchases and sales of bond-financed assets; (xii) private business uses of bond-financed facilities that arise subsequent to the date of issue through leases and subleases, licenses, management contracts, research contracts, naming rights agreements, or other arrangements that provide special legal entitlements to nongovernmental persons and copies of any such agreements or instruments; (xiii) arbitrage rebate reports and records of rebate and yield reduction payments; (xiv) resolutions or other actions taken by the governing body subsequent to the date of issue with respect to such bonds; (xv) formal elections authorized by the Code or Treasury Regulations that are taken with respect to such bonds; (xvi) relevant correspondence relating to such bonds; (xvii) documents related to guaranteed investment contracts or certificates of deposit, credit enhancement transactions, and financial derivatives entered into subsequent to the date of issue; (xviii) copies of all Form 8038-Ts and Form 8038-Rs filed with the IRS; and (xix) the transcript prepared with respect to such TEBs. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Subject: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds Page 6 -4- The records collected by the Issuer shall be stored in any format deemed appropriate by the Compliance Officer and shall be retained for a period equal to the life of the TEBs with respect to which the records are collected (which shall include the life of any bonds issued to refund any portion of such TEBs or to refund any refunding bonds) plus three (3) years. 6. Remedies. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall become acquainted with the remedial actions under Treasury Regulations, Section 1.141-12, to be utilized in the event that private business use of bond-financed facilities exceeds the de minimis limits under Section 141(b)(1) of the Code. In consultation with Bond Counsel, the Compliance Officer shall become acquainted with the Tax Exempt Bonds Voluntary Closing Agreement Program described in Notice 2008-31, 2008-11 I.R.B. 592, to be utilized as a means for an issuer to correct any post-issuance infractions of the Code and Treasury Regulations with respect to outstanding tax-exempt bonds. 7. Continuing Disclosure Obligations. In addition to its post-issuance compliance requirements under applicable provisions of the Code and Treasury Regulations, the Issuer has agreed to provide continuing disclosure, such as annual financial information and material event notices, pursuant to a continuing disclosure certificate or similar document (the “Continuing Disclosure Document”) prepared by Bond Counsel and made a part of the transcript with respect to each issue of bonds of the Issuer that is subject to such continuing disclosure requirements. The Continuing Disclosure Documents are executed by the Issuer to assist the underwriters of the Issuer’s bonds in meeting their obligations under Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation, 17 C.F.R. Section 240.15c2-12, as in effect and interpreted from time to time (“Rule 15c2-12”). The continuing disclosure obligations of the Issuer are governed by the Continuing Disclosure Documents and by the terms of Rule 15c2-12. The Compliance Officer is primarily responsible for undertaking such continuing disclosure obligations and to monitor compliance with such obligations. 8. Other Post-Issuance Actions. If, in consultation with Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor, Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer determines that any additional action not identified in this Policy must be taken by the Compliance Officer to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of any issue of governmental bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall take such action if the Compliance Officer has the authority to do so. If, after consultation with Bond Counsel, Financial Advisor, Paying Agent, Rebate Analyst, or the City Council, the Compliance Officer determines that this Policy must be amended or supplemented to ensure the continuing tax-exempt status of any issue of governmental bonds of the Issuer, the Compliance Officer shall recommend to the City Council that this Policy be so amended or supplemented. 9. Taxable Governmental Bonds. Most of the provisions of this Policy, other than the provisions of Section 7, are not applicable to governmental bonds the interest on which is includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes. On the other hand, if an issue of taxable governmental bonds is later refunded with the proceeds of an issue of tax-exempt governmental refunding bonds, then the uses of the proceeds of the taxable governmental bonds and the uses of the facilities financed with the proceeds of the taxable governmental bonds will be relevant to the tax-exempt status of the governmental refunding bonds. Therefore, if there is any reasonable possibility that an issue of taxable governmental bonds may be refunded, in whole or in part, with the proceeds of an issue of TEBs, then for purposes of this Policy, the Compliance Officer shall treat the issue of taxable governmental bonds as if such issue were an issue of TEBs and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of this Policy with respect to such taxable governmental bonds. The Compliance Officer shall seek the advice of Bond Counsel as to whether there is any reasonable possibility of issuing TEBs to refund an issue of taxable governmental bonds. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Subject: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds Page 7 -5- 10. Qualified 501(c)(3) Bonds. If the City issues bonds to finance a facility to be owned by the City but which may be used, in whole or in substantial part, by a nongovernmental organization that is exempt from federal income taxation under Section 501(a) of the Code as a result of the application of Section 501(c)(3) of the Code (a “501(c)(3) Organization”), the City may elect to issue the bonds as “qualified 501(c)(3) bonds” the interest on which is exempt from federal income taxation under Sections 103 and 145 of the Code and applicable Treasury Regulations. Although such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds are not governmental bonds, at the election of the Compliance Officer, for purposes of this Policy, the Compliance Officer shall treat such issue of qualified 501(c)(3) bonds as if such issue were an issue of tax-exempt governmental bonds and shall carry out and comply with the requirements of this Policy with respect to such qualified 501(c)(3) bonds. Alternatively, in cases where compliance activities are reasonably within the control of the relevant 501(c)(3) Organization, the Compliance Officer may determine that all or some portion of compliance responsibilities described in this Policy shall be assigned to the relevant organization. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Subject: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds Page 8 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION APPROVING POST-ISSUANCE COMPLIANCE PROCEDURE AND POLICY FOR TAX-EXEMPT GOVERNMENTAL BONDS BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council (the “Council”) of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”) as follows: Section 1. Recitals. 1.01. The City from time to time issues tax-exempt governmental bonds to finance various public projects. 1.02. Under Sections 103 and 140 to 150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and related regulations, the City is required to take certain actions after the issuance of such bonds to ensure that interest on those bonds remains tax-exempt. 1.03. The City has determined to adopt written procedures regarding how the City will carry out its bond compliance responsibilities, and to that end has caused to be prepared a document titled Post-Issuance Compliance Procedure and Policy for Tax-Exempt Governmental Bonds (the “Policy”). 1.04. The Council has reviewed the Policy has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to adopt the Policy. Section 2. Policy Approved. 2.01. The Council approves the Policy in substantially the form on file in City Hall. 2.02. City staff is authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the Policy. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4o) Subject: Post-Issuance Compliance Policy for Tax-Exempt Bonds Page 9 Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4p Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 177-11 Magney Construction, Inc. – Project No. 2010-1300 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing final payment in the amount of $51,536.02 for Water Treatment Plant No. 6 Rehabilitation with Magney Construction, Inc. - Project No. 2010-1300, City Contract No. 177-11. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the Council wish to approve the final payment? BACKGROUND: City Council approved undertaking the Water Treatment Plant No. 6 Rehabilitation, Project No. 2010-1300. The project was advertised, bid and awarded to Magney Construction, Inc. on January 3, 2012 in the amount of $708,000.00. This project included filter rehabilitation and process improvements to Water Treatment Plant No. 6 located at 4241 Zarthan Avenue in the Brookside Neighborhood. The Contractor completed this work within the contract time allowed at a final contract cost of $723,222.12, including one change order in the amount of $15,222.12. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The cost for this project was accounted for in the 2012 capital budget. The project is funded by the Water Utilities Fund. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Resolution Prepared by: Jim Olson, Engineering Project Manager Reviewed by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Mike Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4p) Page 2 Subject: Final Payment Resolution - Contract 177-11 Magney Construction – Project No. 2010-1300 RESOLUTION NO. 12-___ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FINAL PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $51,536.02 AND ACCEPTING THE WORK FOR THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT NO. 6 REHABILITATION PROJECT WITH MAGNEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 2010-1300 CONTRACT NO. 177-11 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, as follows: 1. Pursuant to a written contract with the City dated January 3, 2012, Magney Construction, Inc. has satisfactorily completed the Water Treatment Plant No. 6 Rehabilitation Project, as per Contract No. 177-11. 2. The Director of Public Works has filed his recommendations for final acceptance of the work. 3. The work completed under this contract is accepted and approved. The City Manager is directed to make final payment on the contract, taking the contractor's receipt in full. Original Contract Amount $ 708,000.00 Change Orders $ 15,222.12 Final Contract Amount $ 723,222.12 Previous Payments $ 671,686.10 Balance Due $ 51,536.02 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4q OFFICIAL MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK The St. Louis Park Board of Zoning Appeals conducted a meeting on September 27, 2012, at St. Louis Park City Hall, 5005 Minnetonka Boulevard, St. Louis Park, Minnesota – Council Chambers. Members Present: Susan Bloyer, James Gainsley, Paul Roberts, Henry Solmer Members Absent: None Staff Present: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Nancy Sells, Administrative Secretary Others: Tom Scott, City Attorney 1. CALL TO ORDER – ROLL CALL Chair Gainsley called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2011 Chair Gainsley made a motion to approve the minutes of November 1, 2011. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: None 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Variance: Side yard setback Location: 2917 Quentin Avenue South Applicant: Sara and Henry Stokman Case No.: 12-25-VAR Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. Sara and Henry Stokman are requesting a variance from the side yard setback to allow an addition to the house with a 0.9 foot setback instead of the required five foot setback. The variance is requested to replace the existing one car attached garage with an addition consisting of living space in the basement and a bedroom and mudroom on the main floor. Mr. Morrison reviewed the seven variance criterion. He said staff believes the proposed application does not meet the criterion required for granting a variance and, therefore, recommends denial. Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 2 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 Henry Stokman, applicant, stated that what might be misconstrued is that they are trying to replace and fix the existing foundation under the garage. They are not advocating for an addition on the house. The existing foundation is not a frost footing and is failing, crumbling and pulling the garage away from the house. He said they are asking to be able to fix and replace with a structure that is useful to them but maintains integrity and architectural uniqueness of the house and also helps increase the value of their property and the value of the neighbors’ properties. He said they are doing this as responsible homeowners and being responsible members of the neighborhood and St. Louis Park. He said the distance to the property line is not ideal. Mr. Stokman asked the board to take that into consideration when evaluating their request. He said he understood that variances of this nature and of this proximity to property line normally are not granted. He asked the board to look at the situation and grant the variance as all they are trying to do is fix the foundation and build a structure that is on the existing footprint. Mr. Stokman said they have spoken with neighbors about their proposal. He provided 13 signatures of support to the Chair and the board. Sara Stokman, applicant, said when she bought the house, she knew the foundation was failing. When they built their detached garage they knew they were very close to the property line and there was a sense of being grandfathered in. She said it was disappointing to end up making a request for a variance. She said they just want to use the existing footprint so they can maintain the roofline and what they like about the house today, trying to make it as functional as possible. She spoke about public safety. She said the neighbor is definitely within her right to put an addition on her house and build up to five feet of the property line. That would still leave them with six feet in-between. Commissioner Roberts asked if the neighbor to the north is included in the signature document. Ms. Stokman said that neighbor came in person to the meeting. Commissioner Solmer asked if the failing foundation is integrally attached to the house foundation. Mr. Stokman responded that there is block underneath the garage but it does not go down three feet to the proper depth. Commissioner Solmer said what he is trying to determine is that the failure of the garage foundation is not damaging the basement wall of the house. Mr. Stokman said when the house was inspected; they were warned that if something was not repaired it could present a problem to the foundation of the basement and the remainder of the house. Chair Gainsley said he didn’t think BOZA was allowed to consider future events without there being any substantial evidence for them. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 3 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 Ron Sonnek, Sicora Design Build, presented photos of the side foundation of the garage. He described the slab as a floating slab. He said the floating slab is most likely pinned into the existing foundation of the house. He said when those do not go 42-48 inches deep, a lot of the concrete contractors at that time would still re- rod those foundations into the existing foundation of the house in order to help stabilize the foundation. At some time there will be an issue that will affect the foundation of the house. He said the foundation is failing and needs to be dealt with and remedied. Mr. Sonnek said it is perfectly allowable by building code to build up to the property line as long as a proper firewall is built. He said a firewall would be required for the new construction. Chair Gainsley asked about city requirements. Mr. Morrison said regardless of the nature of the variance, anything within 5 feet of the property line has to be fire rated, and that openings in the wall are not permitted if the setback is 3 feet or less. Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Morrison if any of the applicant or builder comments were in conflict with the staff report or presentation. Mr. Morrison responded that it is not known if the foundation is re-rodded or if there is damage to the structure right now. He said it sounds like there isn’t damage right now, but there is potential in the future. He said as far as how it is attached to the house, it does sound like technically it isn’t known for certain other than there is a pattern in the city for this type of construction. Kris Kauffmann, 2913 Quentin Ave. S., said she is the neighbor directly to the north. She said she has no objections to the variance request and supports it. She said she’s lived there for 20 years and the garage has been in that same space the whole time and it doesn’t affect her in any way. Ms. Kauffmann said she hopes the variance will be granted as she supports the Stokman’s request and doesn’t believe the variance will impact her. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bloyer said she doesn’t like a setback of less than 1 foot, but she’d like to get something done with the property and doesn’t know what can be done to make it workable for everyone. Commissioner Solmer said he understands the applicant has the right to rebuild within the existing footprint, but they are looking to increase it in every dimension except the side width. There will be more nonconformance and it will be more permanent and the existing neighbor may not care about this but in the future it could be different. There was a discussion about the state statute allowing nonconformities to be replaced to the exact same dimensions. Mr. Morrison said it does have to meet code and the city can put restrictions on it if there are safety welfare or building City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 4 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 code concerns. He said in the case of a 1 ft. setback the city would ask that it be pulled back more. Commissioner Roberts said he’d be more comfortable if it was a 2 foot setback from the side yard. He said even though the footprint is expanding a little bit it isn’t intensifying the use of the land. There was a discussion about needing more detail for resolution findings if the board wished to recommend approval. Chair Gainsley reopened the public hearing. Chair Gainsley asked the applicant if they could come up with an alternative plan that encompasses the discussion points which have been made, submit it to the city, and return to the board. Mr. Stokman said he thought they could do that. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Roberts made a motion to continue the request to the next Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, October 25th. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. B. Variance: Front yard setback Location: 2937 Ensign Avenue South Applicant: Ensign, LLC Case No. 12-27-VAR Gary Morrison presented the staff report. Ensign, LLC is requesting a variance from the front yard setback to allow the future construction of a house with a 20 foot front yard setback instead of the required 30 foot front yard setback. Mr. Morrison provided background on the property. The final plat was approved by the City Council on January 17, 2012. Mr. Morrison noted that the Applicant is on record at the City Council meeting of November 21, 2011 stating that he can build houses on each of the lots in the plat without variances. Mr. Morrison reviewed the seven variance criterion. He said staff believes the proposed application does not meet the criterion required for granting a variance and, therefore, recommends denial. Chair Gainsley asked why the request was being made as the survey shows the house meeting the required setbacks. Mr. Morrison said he agreed and that is why staff has made a recommendation of denial. He added that it is especially difficult since it isn’t a proposal for a house; it is just a general setback variance request. He said the application was made so it has to be heard. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 5 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Curt Fretham, Applicant, said the six lot development has been going very well. He said he believes his request meets the criteria for a variance. Mr. Fretham said ultimately he is trying to create the best development that he can and respect the intent of the city’s ordinance. Mr. Fretham spoke about criteria No. 1 in the analysis section of the staff report. He said he believes that extraordinary and exceptional conditions do exist on the lot. He said he did make the statement in the preliminary plat process that a house could be built on Lot 1 without a variance. He still believes that to be true, though it may not be the right thing for the city. Mr. Fretham said what is missing from the staff report is that the neighbor’s home has only a 17 ft. front yard setback. He illustrated how the northwest corner of the garage is in line with the rear corner of the neighbor’s house. He said looking down Ensign Ave. the houses are all straight, except for the side of the neighbor’s house on the northwest. He said he doesn’t want to pull the house up to match it, but wants to create a transition between the new house proposing to build, the new house further to the south, and the existing house on the corner. He wants to come up with some common ground to provide for a better streetscape. Mr. Fretham spoke about the City Council staff report of November 21, 2011 which included the following question from neighbors: Should the house on Lot 1 receive a front yard setback variance to be located closer to the street than code allows to better line up with the existing house to the west? He said the staff response was as follows: The house on Lot 1 could be moved slightly forward to transition existing house to the west which has a 17 ft. front yard setback. Mr. Fretham said the neighbors asked for it to be moved forward, staff suggested it be put forward, and it’s in the staff recommendations that the house have a front yard setback variance included. He said he removed it because he was comfortable and at that time didn’t feel like it was necessary. He said he would explain changes that took place after that meeting which provide further evidence as to why he is asking for a variance now. Mr. Fretham said in relation to Criteria No. 2 from the BOZA staff report, he finds the property does have peculiar circumstances because: 1) neighbors 17 foot setback; and, 2) the street itself is not centered in the right-of-way; it is shifted to the west. Chair Gainsley asked if the centering issue was known at the time of the plat application. Mr. Fretham responded that it probably was known at the time, but not recognized. He went on to say the impact of the street being off center in the right-of-way is that there is 20 ft. of curb before the property line, then there is another 30 ft. to the house. The houses are currently set back more than 50 ft., which is extraordinary for St. Louis Park. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 6 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 Mr. Fretham said the third point is the difference between the preliminary plat stage and the final plat. When he recorded the final plat the Hennepin Co. surveyor office would not record the plat because they felt there was either a gap or an overlay in the area and so Mr. Fretham had to move the west property line 4.88 ft. east. The consequence of that is that it pushes the house back another 4.88 ft. That was not taken into account in the approval process. He displayed a copy of the preliminary and final plat in overlay illustrating the 4.88 ft. difference along with a note by the surveyors of the 4.88 ft. difference. It changes the position of the house and pushes it further back behind the property owner’s to the northwest. Mr. Fretham spoke about the setback problem as it infringes upon the privacy and quiet enjoyment of both properties as the front door of the proposed home will be looking into the side and back yard of the existing home. He said this satisfies Criterion No. 3. Mr. Fretham stated there would still be adequate parking at 20 ft., and there is still additional 20 ft. of right-of-way between the street and the property line, totaling 40 ft. length of driveway for parking vehicles. Mr. Fretham said the environmental impact benefit of granting a variance is by pulling the house forward it pulls the house away from the slope and away from the lake. Chair Gainsley noted receipt of email correspondence opposing the variance request from David Marquis and Mary Klueh of 2932 Ensign Ave. S., Rod Gulbro of 2950 Ensign Ave. S., Robert Slavik of 2962 Ensign Ave. S., and Dean Gutzke of 2920 Ensign Ave. S. Tyler Wenkos, Gonyea Homes and Remodeling, is currently under contract with Ensign, LLC for the six lots in the subdivision. He stated that Gonyea Homes is in full support of the application. They are in process of building four homes in the subdivision. The home on the corner is completed (front setback off of Ensign is 20 ft.) and he said he believes the homes across the street all have a 30 ft. setback. The two homes to the south of this lot would have 30 ft. front yard setbacks. He said he believes Mr. Fretham’s request is reasonable. Mr. Wenkos said they have struggled in showing clients this property because of the way it sits positioned to the house to the northwest. From that standpoint he finds that there is an issue with the current setback because of placement of the homes to the northwest. Commissioner Solmer asked why none of these considerations came up during the City Council approval process. Mr. Fretham responded that no variances were required to approve the development. He said he is now asking for a variance to make it a better development, to line up and transition the front yard setback. He said during the approval process he was not aware of the gap or overlap in the area that was brought up at the Henn. Co. surveyor’s office which further exaggerated the situation. Even if it had been known, the requirement for a variance was still not City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 7 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 there. Now, without a variance they would have to put the house in crooked. He said he finds the request to line up with the houses on the street to be very reasonable. Commissioner Solmer said the board doesn’t know what it is being asked to approve since there isn’t a drawing for the proposal. Mr. Fretham said he understood the question but wondered what impact a drawing would make in the board’s decision as it’s not about what the house looks like, but rather about having the houses transition and line up. The request is more basic than a drawing. Chair Gainsley remarked the board is being asked to do something which is not relative to the work of the Board of Zoning Appeals. He said these approvals came up previously with the City Council. Tom Scott, City Attorney, said the City Council minutes which have been referred to dealt with a subdivision variance as part of the plat. Mr. Scott said his comments in the minutes referred to the Council having very little discretion and having to approve the plat since the applicant wasn’t asking for any variances from the subdivision requirements. He went on to say in the course of that there were also questions about whether or not he could build houses on the lots without doing what he is proposing now and asking for a zoning variance. Mr. Scott said that was commentary and certainly not legally binding on anyone. There’s nothing that occurred with the approval of the plat that would preclude the board from considering this zoning variance just like any other zoning variance. Mr. Scott said it is a legitimate question from the board that the applicant is asking for a variance without presenting an actual plan for a home. Mr. Scott said the board could approve the 20 ft. setback if it chooses to without having any housing plans, but could also decline to do that. Mr. Fretham said he would be willing to take the extra step and provide a drawing of placement of the house on the lot if that is what the board needs to make a decision. Commissioner Solmer asked if the applicant could accept a variance for the 4.88 ft. Mr. Fretham responded that would be an improvement and he could accept that, but because it is on an arc it is exaggerated. Commissioner Bloyer commented that she would want to see a plan of the home in perspective to the other homes since the concern is aesthetic. Mr. Fretham said he could provide that as well. Stephanie Slavik, 2962 Ensign Ave. S., across from Lot 3, said she would like to see plans. Her son lives in the house to the west of the house on Lot 1 which is being discussed. She said from the beginning 6 houses always felt like too much for this development. She said 4 or 5 would have been alright, but 6 is a lot aesthetically. She said at the time they were told Lot 1 is the biggest lot. The front setback of 17 feet was a known fact from the beginning. The decision was made, there wasn’t a need for a variance, and she feels the neighbors have already made City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 8 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 so many concessions. She would support the board’s request for plans. She said she was concerned if plans should change for Lot 3 and wanted to hold the applicant to proper planning. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak. Commissioner Bloyer stated she would like to see the request continued in order to see plans. Commissioner Solmer said he had no objections to continuing the request. Commissioner Roberts said he’d like to see plans for Lot 1. Chair Gainsley made a motion to continue the request until the October 25th meeting during which time the applicant can make a presentation of plans as discussed. The motion passed on a vote of 4-0. C. Appeal of a Zoning Determination Location: 4215 Cedarwood Road Applicant: Peter Hagen Case No.: 12-23-AP Tom Scott, City Attorney, stated that the property owner Mr. Fink was present earlier, along with his attorney Dan Rosen. There was an emergency situation and the applicant had to leave. If the board needs any input from the owner or his attorney before making its decision, then Mr. Rosen is requesting that the matter be continued. The presentation can be made, open the hearing, take comments, and at that point the board can decide whether or not it needs input from the owner and attorney before it can make its decision. Gary Morrison, Asst. Zoning Administrator presented the staff report. He explained that the appeal relates to four determinations made by staff based on the approval of a tree house at 4215 Cedarwood Road. The four determinations are: 1) that the windows are not located in the second story of the tree house, and therefore, are not in violation to City Code.; 2) that the tree house is not taller than the house; 3) that the deck on the tree house conforms to setback requirements; and 4) that the tree house is not built in a utility easement. Mr. Morrison reviewed the chronology of staff determinations and the appeal. He reviewed city code regarding time limit and the right of appeal. He explained that Mr. Hagen’s right to appeal staff’s determination of the height expired on July 11, 2012, and his right to appeal staff’s determination regarding window placement expired on July 12, 2012. Mr. Morrison discussed yard requirements for decks, porches and stoops from City Code Section 36-73(b)(4) and Section 36-73(c). Staff determined that the tree house “deck” is a component of the accessory building and meets the setback requirements. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 9 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 Mr. Morrison discussed the utility easement. The National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) is not part of the Zoning Ordinance, and is not subject to a zoning appeal. Staff determined that an easement does not exist along the property lines in the vicinity of the tree house. Chair Gainsley opened the public hearing. Mr. Peter Hagen, Appellant, presented copies of his documents, Exhibit A, to the board and staff. After a discussion with Mr. Scott about timeliness, Chair Gainsley determined the board would discuss the timeliness element only. Mr. Scott noted that the property owner, Mr. Fink, and his attorney Mr. Rosen, requested that the board continue the hearing if they feel they need to hear from Fink and Rosen in order to make a decision. Mr. Hagen said he did have a copy of the utility easement attached to the title of the Fink property. Mr. Hagen said no permit was pulled for the structure, either zoning or building. On September 9, 2011 he asked for a copy of the permit at City Hall. There wasn’t a permit on file. Later by phone he was told by Mr. Morrison that he had requested one from the Finks. Mr. Morrison said he did have the permit. Mr. Hagen said he was not given a final determination and notice of right of appeal. He said zoning claims that his appeal expired on July 11th on the height issue and July 12th on the window issue. He said he never received anything verbally or in writing from the zoning office that he had the right to appeal. He said on June 26th he sent an email to Jeff Jacobs, Sue Sanger, Tom Harmening, Gary Morrison, and Meg McMonigal stating that he had hired an attorney and requested that the City furnish him with City Council minutes on various ordinances. Mr. Morrison responded 10 days later. He didn’t have the information in hand to do an appeal until July 6th. He said his attorney was on vacation from June 29 – July 9. On July 17th his attorney sent a letter to Tom Harmening objecting to zoning’s position. The letter was sent within 11 days of his request from the City Council minutes. He said they have responded in a timely manner, even though they were not made aware of the 20 day time limit for appeal. Mr. Hagen said they did do an appeal to the city on July 17th. Chair Gainsley asked Mr. Scott about notice of right of appeal. Mr. Scott responded that the emails from staff clearly respond specifically to the request of the two items. They do not say there is a 20 day time period to appeal. That notice is not legally required. The ordinance provision indicates that they have 20 days to appeal a determination. The determination was communicated to City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 10 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 Mr. Hagen. He recognized that was the final determination because he responded that he needed to talk to his attorney about his next step. Clearly the email constitutes a writing, it was transmitted to him and it was clearly a determination by the zoning administrator on those two issues. Mr. Scott said from a legal standpoint that is when the 20 days started. The 20 day deadline is clearly stated in the zoning ordinance. Mr. Hagen said in his email back to Mr. Morrison on June 26th he stated that he disagreed with his determination on the height and window placement. That wasn’t in a formal format but he said he clearly disagreed with the assessment. He said that is within the 20 day window. Mr. Hagen said at that time he requested more information for a more effective response and that was not provided for 10 days, taking up 10 of those 20 days. This email was also sent to Jeff Jacobs, Tom Harmening, Sue Sanger and Meg McMonigal. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. Commissioner Roberts said the June 26th letter indicated the appellant’s disagreement with the determination. Commissioner Bloyer said she didn’t like the informality of this. She said the appellant did make a fuss, although informally. She said she’d rather continue the request rather than make a determination at this point. Chair Gainsley said it appeared Mr. Hagen objected to the determination and had another way he wanted to proceed. He doesn’t like being called untimely because there was a delay in City processing. It’s not unlawful for a city to take time to respond. Mr. Scott said in light of the board being uncomfortable deciding this evening and in light of the fact that the property owner, his attorney, and Mr. Hagen’s attorney are not present, the board may want to continue the request. Mr. Scott added that the delay in filing the appeal was almost two months. Chair Gainsley reopened the public hearing in case anyone wished to speak. Mr. Hagen said he agreed with continuing the timeliness issue for the height and the window. He said he would like to address the deck and easement issue this evening. Chair Gainsley said all of this would have to be repeated again and all items would have to be continued. He said the issue is broad enough that all parties should be present, to be fair to the applicant. Mr. Hagen said he considered this meeting a waste of his time. Chair Gainsley closed the public hearing. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4q) Page 11 Subject: Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting Minutes of September 27, 2012 Chair Gainsley made a motion to continue the case until the next meeting October 25th. The motion passed on a vote of 3-1 (Roberts opposed). Commissioner Roberts stated that he would not be present at the October 25th meeting. 5. Unfinished Business: None 6. New Business A. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair Chair Gainsley nominated Paul Roberts for Chair. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. Chair Gainsley nominated Henry Solmer for Vice Chair. The motion passed on a vote of 3-0. 7. Communications: None 8. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Sells Administrative Secretary Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4r OFFICIAL MINUTES ST. LOUIS PARK TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING OF MAY 9, 2012 ST. LOUIS PARK COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT: Bruce Browning, Rick Dworsky, Dale Hartman, Cindy Hoffman, Rolf Peterson, and Bill Theobald MEMBERS ABSENT: Toby Keeler STAFF PRESENT: Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer; Jamie Zwilling, Communications Coordinator; Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator; John McHugh, Community TV Coordinator OTHERS PRESENT: Joanne Hovis, President, Columbia Telecommunications Corporation 1. Call to Order Chair Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 2. Roll Call Present at roll call were Commissioners Browning, Hartman, Hoffman, Peterson and Theobald. Commissioner Dworsky arrived at 7:12. 3. Approval of Minutes for February 29, 2012 It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Hartman, to approve the minutes of February 29, 2012, without changes. The motion passed 4-0-1 (Peterson abstained). 4. Adoption of Agenda It was requested to move Item D forward on the agenda. It was moved by Commissioner Theobald, seconded by Commissioner Browning, to approve the agenda as amended. The motion passed 5-0. 5. Public Comment - None 6. New Business A. Comcast Price Increase follow-up Mr. Dunlap stated he got an email today from Comcast with follow up information that turns out to be pretty straight forward. For example, the new channel line-up didn’t say anything about Music Choice channels being available to Basic cable customers, but it turns out customers will still receive those channels. There were price increases in February and April, done at different times depending on customer packages. Customers didn’t receive two price increases. Comcast customer service staff will be present at an upcoming meeting for further follow up. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4r) Page 2 Subject: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2012 Chair Peterson said that he noticed the response to Commissioner Dworsky’s comment about not receiving price increase information, and thought the same was true until he found out that at his house, those notices are automatically recycled. Mr. Dunlap said that for people doing on-line payment, the bill summary has a link for further details which opens a PDF of the same statement that is mailed to customers, which includes the advance notices. He encourages online customers to look for that link to stay informed on changes in Comcast services. Commissioner Browning said it struck him as odd that service upgrades had increased something like $6, which seems odd because the customer is signing up for more expensive services. B. City web site upgrade converts entire site to mobile-compatible Mr. Zwilling presented a PowerPoint to illustrate the mobile strategy for the web site. The web site was redesigned in 2008 and won a National Award. In 2010 they created a custom contact management system, which was a huge difference for managing the site. Mobile devices include smart phones and tablets like iPads. Mobile devices will overtake PC’s as the most common web access devices by 2013, so we need to react to that. In April 2011, 5% of the City web site users accessed with a mobile device, and now it is 15% and growing. Accepted mobile device guidelines are: crisp, clean design; focus on core use scenarios; minimize input where possible, to minimize the number of button clicks to get information; and continue to monitor and improve usability. These principles apply to desktop users also. The City has developed a two-year Communication Plan that recognizes a shift in communication, that the web site is now the central tool of our communications. Strategies are to: develop complete mobile web/application plan, redesign site and meet HTML5 and mobile standards; continue to enhance look and feel of site; add customer service portal and track requests; utilize users to identify areas that need improvement and updating; continue to monitor statistics to drive content; and, hold annual refresher training/meetings with staff web contributors. Content is what matters most, and the site needs to be flexible and adaptable to many form factors. We need to get comfortable with the fact that it won’t look the same everywhere because it varies from browser to browser and device to device. There currently are over 50 mobile devices available. Mr. Zwilling did a demonstration of the prototype design, and said that he anticipates a June launch. He said we still need to move some data around and do user groups testing. Commissioner Browning asked about apps? Mr. Zwilling said that this design doesn’t include any apps, but that is the way they are going. It may be a reporting app, for example, to report sighting a coyote or a pothole. Mr. Pires said that the City has been using Blackberry’s for the last 4 or 5 years, but staff will be moving to Androids and iPhones so that they can see what the customer sees. Commissioner Hoffman asked if the phone numbers will automatically call if clicked? Mr. Zwilling said on an iPad or phone, all the phone numbers will automatically call when the hot link is pressed. For the contact us portion, the email addresses will be activated as well. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4r) Page 3 Subject: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2012 C. Consider franchise fee audit notice, going back 3 years from the date of the notice Mr. Dunlap said that even if audit notice were sent immediately, there would be a gap between the last audit and the next because the Commission decided to not to proceed with an audit last year. Audits verify that the amounts the cable company pays the city are correct. He recommended that even if the Commission isn’t interested in pursuing an audit at this time, to put this on next year’s work plan. Commissioner Peterson asked if other cities were auditing Comcast? Mr. Dunlap said that right now most other cities are working on franchise renewals, and that’s a very good time to do audits. St. Louis Park’s franchise renewal is 5 or 6 years away. In the past St. Louis Park has worked together with other commissions on audits, which was more economical. It was moved by Commissioner Browning, seconded by Commissioner Dworsky, to table the discussion and revisit the Franchise Fee Audit at the December, 2012 meeting. The motion passed 6-0. D. Fiber optic study update Mr. Pires introduced Joanne Hovis who is doing stakeholder interviews as part of the Fiber Optic study, getting input from Comcast, CenturyLink, members of the fiber industry, St. Louis Park public schools, Benilde-St. Margaret’s and Hamline University. Ms. Hovis said she has been working on the fiber optic study since late last year. Their job is to evaluate the existing fiber and provide strategic recommendations and options on how it can be utilized for the long term interest of the community and to make sure St. Louis Park is looking toward the future. They have met with wide range of people with some really interesting models, from wireline incumbents to the smaller entrepreneurs who are pushing the envelope on how fiber is being used in the private sector. They are also closely monitoring what is happening in Washington, since those activities can impact technologies down the road. They are looking broadly at business plans for networks and technologies that affect St. Louis Park and the services that are available. They are also doing a non-scientific study of the business community and an on-line survey to get a sense of what the community is looking for, if their needs are being met, what kind of connectivity they are experiencing and if there are gaps, and where they see their uses going in the coming years. To this point the focus has been on data collection and now they are starting to analyze the data. Commissioner Theobald asked if they had started analysis of the existing public fiber? What are the strengths or deficiencies? Ms. Hovis replied yes, they have a good sense of the existing fiber. There are both strengths and deficiencies for public fiber. This is a well-served community for schools and government facilities, with big bandwidth and redundancy at extraordinary savings vs. leasing. Deficiencies depend on what the goal is. They are identifying and targeting other locations that are underserved for the feasibility of adding them. Public works and the library come to mind. The library has relatively low bandwidth, and is operated by the County. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4r) Page 4 Subject: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2012 Chair Peterson asked other than city and school, is anyone else using the fiber now? Mr. Pires replied yes, the City is a member of a consortium of 45 cities (LOGIS) and they link via fiber back to a central data system in Golden Valley. One of the advantages of working with other cities is the redundant fiber lines in case a line is cut, so that the City and Schools can stay connected. Chair Peterson asked about participation in the business survey and if they were satisfied with it? Ms. Hovis replied they would love more responses, but have had a high level. They are leaving the response time open longer and trying to draw more attention to the survey. Mr. Pires added they could do another phase of the study that would be more scientific. Commissioner Browning asked how businesses had been notified? Mr. Pires replied they sent a postcard with a link and background information. They also used social media and advertised in the paper. Mr. McHugh asked when the first phase was done, would there be a map showing public and private fiber? Ms. Hovis replied a public map is done. Private carriers don’t provide that data and feel it is proprietary. Mapping is seldom accurate because it is difficult to identify. Mr. Pires stated they anticipate a draft report in July and they will then have a work session. E. Review budget for 2011 Year to Date & 2012 Mr. Dunlap sent an Email with a summary. He researched why non-capital expenditures in 2011 were $5,500 instead of $2,000. It turns out John McHugh purchased camcorders for Community TV that were budgeted as part of the Capital Improvement Plan, a different budget category, and since they cost less than $5,000, they were put into the non-capital category instead. 7. Reports A. Complaints Commissioner Browning asked about the Photo ID requirement if a tech comes out, is that new? Mr. Dunlap replied the Comcast response didn’t really address it and he could follow up and see if they have a policy. Commissioner Browning said that some of the comments had to do with pricing, and reiterated that the City has no control over that. He said there are other options out there, and that the Commission needs to look at opportunities to provide competition. 8. Communication from the Chair Chair Peterson welcomed new Commissioner Hoffman to her first meeting. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4r) Page 5 Subject: Telecommunications Commission Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2012 9. Communications from City Staff Mr. McHugh handed out information on capital items they were buying for the department. He described the producer and volunteer recognition event in April, which was an open house with the van on display. 10. Adjournment Commissioner Dworsky made a motion, Commission Hartman seconded to adjourn at 8:04. The motion passed 6-0. Respectfully submitted by: Amy L. Stegora-Peterson Recording Secretary Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4s MINUTES St. Louis Park Housing Authority Westwood Room, St. Louis Park City Hall Wednesday, September 12, 2012, 5:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Catherine Courtney, Renee DuFour, Suzanne Metzger, Osman Mire MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Justin Kaufman STAFF PRESENT: Jane Klesk, Kevin Locke, Michele Schnitker, Teresa Schlegel 1. Call to Order – The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m. 2. Approval of Minutes for August, 2012 The Board minutes of August 9, 2012 were unanimously approved. 3. Hearings – None 4. Reports and Committees – None 5. Unfinished Business – None 6. New Business a. Approval of Wayside Project Based Contract Ms. Schnitker explained that during the next year staff will apply for an additional ten unit allocation of S+C for Wayside. Perspectives and Community Involvement Program has agreed to continue supplying 5 units of Shelter Plus Care rental assistance for the next year. In the meantime Ms. Schnitker requested Board approval of a one-year extension of the Wayside contract. Commissioner DuFour requested performance information on the Wayside program, such as how many participants successfully graduated, and program goals. Commissioner Courtney requested that the Board receive financial information. Commissioner Metzger moved to approve the Eighth Amendment to the Housing Assistance Payments Contract between the Housing Authority of St. Louis Park and Wayside House, Inc., to administer 15 units of project-based Section 8 Housing Choice rental assistance (PBA) at 1341 and 1349 Jersey Ave. So., St. Louis Park, for an additional twelve months, October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013. Commissioner Mire seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0. b. Approval of Capital Improvement Award for Hamilton House Ms. Schnitker stated that staff is seeking approval to enter into a contract with Weber, Inc. for an interior renovation project of the 3rd and 4th floor common areas at Hamilton House, including wall paper, lighting, ceiling tiles and handrails. Weber, Inc. meets Section 3 numerical goals complying with HUD’s City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4s) Page 2 Subject: Housing Authority Meeting Minutes of September 12, 2012 Section 3 requirements. HA staff will draft policy standards and procedures related to HUD’s Section 3 requirements, and present them for Board consideration at a future meeting. Commissioner DuFour moved to approve the award of the Hamilton House interior renovation contract including two add alternates, in the amount of $181,700, to Weber, Inc. Commissioner Mire seconded the motion, and the motion passed 4-0. c. Follow-up Discussion to Eliot School Redevelopment Site and Strategies and Tools for Creating Affordable Housing in New Multi-Family Housing Developments Ms. Schnitker provided follow-up on the Eliot School redevelopment proposal presented at the August Board meeting. Commissioners DuFour, Metzger and Mire stated their support of the project adding that it will be an asset to the community. Commissioner Courtney stated that she would like to know what the developer will request in TIF. All Commissioners agreed that the cost of utilities that tenants must pay on top of their rent will likely push the cost of renting at the development out of the affordable housing range. Staff will prepare a draft of the Board’s comments to be shared with the City Council and Planning Commission as the development progresses through the planning process. The Board continued their discussion on developing strategies and tools to create affordable housing. Board members requested staff to contact Dan Hunt, the Eliot School Redevelopment Site developer and ask his opinion on what it takes to create affordable housing in market rate developments. d. Continuing Discussion: Hamilton House Smoke Free Discussion Ms. Schnitker presented information for the continuing discussion regarding transitioning to smoke-free at Hamilton House. The majority of the Commissioners wish to proceed with efforts to transition Hamilton House to a smoke-free facility. Staff will keep the Board informed of future developments related to this process. 7. Communications from Executive Director a. Claims List – September, 2012 b. Communications 1. Monthly Report – September, 2012 8. Other 9. Adjournment Commissioner Metzger moved to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner DuFour seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _____________________ Renee DuFour, Secretary Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 4t Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Vendor Claims RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing Vendor Claims for the period October 6 through October 26, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. BACKGROUND: The Finance Department prepares this report on a monthly basis for Council’s review. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Vendor Claims Prepared by: Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 1 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 2,100.00 INSPECTIONS G & A TRAINING 10,000 LAKES CHAPTER 2,100.00 802.63 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 1-800 RADIATOR 802.63 10,424.98 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY AAA-LICENSE DIVISION 10,424.98 64.94 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC 64.94 113.19 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ABM EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY INC 113.19 330.00 PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ABRAKADOODLE 330.00 63.53 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI ACE SUPPLY CO 1,400.00 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS 1,463.53 1,175.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ACZ LABORATORIES INC 1,175.00 52.62 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL 52.62 1,603.13 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS ALLDATA 1,603.13 78.85 POLICE G & A TELEPHONE AMERICAN MESSAGING 78.85 374.66 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS 374.66 75.00 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVIC 75.00 182.19- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS ANDERBERG INNOVATIVE PRINT SOL 2,832.19 ENGINEERING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 2 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 2 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 2,650.00 260.70 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ANDERSON, DEANNA 260.70 3,269.01 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ANDERSON, RACHAEL 3,269.01 2,957.30 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ANGELSEN, KAREN 2,957.30 464.88 GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ARAMARK UNIFORM CORP ACCTS 464.88 260.87 ORGANIZED REC G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES ARC 260.87 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ARNTSON, LOIS 572.40 4,006.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO 4,006.00 2,484.00 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ASPEN LAWN SERVICE/SIPE'S ENTE 2,484.00 1,544.74 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES ASPEN MILLS 1,544.74 1,570.00 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION 794.23 WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,364.23 64.59 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE ATOMIC RECYCLING 64.58 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 64.58 SEWER UTILITY G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 193.75 1,016.88 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY AUBART, MARY 1,016.88 1,878.50 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 3 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 3 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 238.50 SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 2,117.00 65.79 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE AUTOMOBILE SERVICE 65.79 26.72 HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION AVEX LLC 26.72 2,807.92 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY AXELSON, IRENA 2,807.92 2,807.92 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BACHAUS, DONNA 2,807.92 2,807.92 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BALTES, MARY JEN 2,807.92 118.05- SSD 1 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS BANNER CREATIONS 1,835.08 SSD 1 G&A OTHER 92.29- SSD 2 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 1,434.70 SSD 2 G&A OTHER 75.12- SSD 3 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 1,167.78 SSD 3 G&A OTHER 57.95- SSD #4 BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 900.85 SSD #4 G&A OTHER 4,995.00 280.00 SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BASSIRI, ABDELHADI 280.00 141.01 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES BATTERIES PLUS 261.84 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 175.50 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 578.35 237.28 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BAYIHA, JOHN 237.28 510.00 COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE BCA MNJIS SECTION 510.00 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 4 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 4 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 1,636.87 WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES BEBERGS LANDSCAPE SUPPLY 1,636.87 2,922.17 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BENZAQUEN, MOMY 2,922.17 3,081.64 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BIRMANNS, SARAH 3,081.64 53.44 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BLACKSTONE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN 53.44 3,081.63 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BLEECKER, ARLENE 3,081.63 1,502.51 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY BLUE TARP FINANCIAL INC 63.00 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,565.51 125.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES BOBIER, HEIDI 145.35 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 270.35 727.40 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BOHN WELDING INC 727.40 102.41 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS BOLDISCHAR, MARY 102.41 237.28 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BOLL, ANDREA 237.28 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BOLLMAN, LORETTA 572.40 495.59 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY BOYER TRUCK PARTS 495.59 1,939.05 ENGINEERING G & A POSTAGE BRAEMAR MAILING 1,939.05 2,057.50 CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 5 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 5 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 2,057.50 791.67 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS BRIN NORTHWESTERN GLASS CO 791.67 103.13- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS BROOKSIDE MOBILE 1,603.13 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,500.00 3,264.78 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES BRYAN ROCK PRODUCTS INC 3,264.78 1,051.95 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY BURGER, DANIEL 1,051.95 8,078.72 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC 54.25 EXCESS PUBLIC LAND LEGAL SERVICES 1,599.00 STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 2,190.00 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT G&A LEGAL SERVICES 810.00 WATER UTILITY G&A LEGAL SERVICES 375.00 SOLID WASTE G&A LEGAL SERVICES 13,106.97 1,000.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW CARLSON, TODD & SHADEE 1,000.00 270.39 IT G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE CARTRIDGE CARE 270.39 238.10 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CBIZ BENEFITS & INSURANCE SERV 238.10 4,912.72 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT CDW GOVERNMENT INC 4,912.72 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY CECKA, JENNIFER 572.40 3,724.33 DISCOUNT LOAN PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CENTER ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT 2,080.00 MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 CES Resid Energy Conservation OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,104.33 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 6 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 6 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 299.18 FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY 211.78 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A HEATING GAS 17.82 WESTWOOD G & A HEATING GAS 39.32 NATURALIST PROGRAMMER HEATING GAS 1,376.59 WATER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 23.60 REILLY G & A HEATING GAS 35.12 SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 41.89 SEWER UTILITY G&A HEATING GAS 2,045.30 362.20 FACILITY OPERATIONS HEATING GAS CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES IN 4,003.14 ENTERPRISE G & A HEATING GAS 4,365.34 10,400.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S OTHER RETIREMENT CENTRAL PENSION FUND 10,400.00 175.92 IT G & A TELEPHONE CENTURY LINK 47.68 E-911 PROGRAM TELEPHONE 150.00 E-911 PROGRAM REPAIRS 373.60 26.47- SOLID WASTE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CHINOOK BOOK 411.47 SOLID WASTE G&A OTHER 385.00 160.63 FACILITIES MCTE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES CINTAS CORPORATION 86.20 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 46.81 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 18.17 AQUATIC PARK MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 217.85 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 72.21 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 11.70 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 613.57 61.30- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK 715.10 ADMINISTRATION G & A POSTAGE 13.88 ADMINISTRATION G & A MEETING EXPENSE 99.24 COMM & MARKETING G & A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 549.00 COMM & MARKETING G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 538.66 FINANCE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 7 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 7 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 630.22 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A TRAINING 121.11 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE 853.91 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER 4,534.40 POLICE G & A SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 139.45- CABLE TV BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 45.00 FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 275.26 TV PRODUCTION GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,940.67 TV PRODUCTION OTHER 49.22 TV PRODUCTION REPAIRS 748.41 TV PRODUCTION SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 196.00 HOUSING REHAB G & A TRAINING 107.26 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 11,216.59 14,440.44 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL SERVICES COLICH & ASSOCIATES 14,440.44 166.95 IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS COMCAST 4.51 BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 130.90 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 131.41 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 433.77 188.22 PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY 5,400.01 PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,812.80 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 10,800.02 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 34,201.05 544.22 CE MATERIALS TESTING IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION 544.22 3,772.00 EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP S 3,772.00 26.72 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES COMPAR INC 26.72 2.20- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS COOKE JP CO 34.20 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 32.00 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 8 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 8 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 55.00 POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS COSTCO WHOLESALE MEMBERSHIP 55.00 720.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI COURT SURFACES & REPAIR 720.00 460.00 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT CROWN POINTE TECHNOLOGIES INC 460.00 127.19 POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES CUB FOODS 127.19 123.75- SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS CUES INC 1,923.75 SEWER UTILITY G&A OFFICE EQUIPMENT 1,800.00 459.00 SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CURRAN-MOORE, KIM 459.00 2,644.30 SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES 4,257.52 SSD 2 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,099.32 SSD 3 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,135.65 SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,127.09 SSD #5 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 749.51 SSD #6 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,013.39 19,768.05 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES DAKOTA SUPPLY GROUP 19,768.05 363.10 REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES DALCO ENTERPRISES INC 363.10 1,955.75 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY DEALER AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES INC 1,955.75 3,137.48 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY DEAM, PENNY 3,137.48 8.66 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES DEKO FACTORY SERVICE INC 8.66 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 9 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 9 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 293.35 ENTERPRISE G & A ADVERTISING DEX MEDIA EAST LLC 293.35 2,000.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES DJ ELECTRIC SERVICES INC 2,000.00 195.52 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES DO-GOOD.BIZ INC 195.52 42.75 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES DON'S RODENTS 42.75 3,081.64 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY DUDYCHA, CHAD 3,081.64 572.41 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY DYNAN, ROBERT 572.41 793.71 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES ECOLAB INC 793.71 3,550.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC EDWARDSON, TODD 3,550.00 249.75 ORGANIZED REC G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR EISOLD, JASON 249.75 925.53 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE ELECTRIC MOTOR REPAIR 18,697.78 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 19,623.31 200.00 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ELECTRIC PUMP INC 200.00 2,793.14 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE 4,766.75 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 7,559.89 1,509.34 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOG 1,509.34 35,754.79 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS RECYCLING SERVICE EUREKA RECYCLING City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 10 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 10 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 35,754.79 1,200.00 RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI EVERGREEN LAND SERVICES CO 1,200.00 3,137.48 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY EYDELNANT & ROSS PLOUNICK, LIZ 3,137.48 864.68 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO 481.83 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,346.51 6.05 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES FASTENAL COMPANY 33.65 SEWER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 39.70 270.87 ICE RESURFACER MOTOR FUELS FERRELLGAS 270.87 67.00 INSPECTIONS G & A MECHANICAL FIRESIDE HEARTH & HOME 67.00 73.22 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FISHMAN, STEWART 73.22 19.24 REC CENTER BUILDING OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES FLOYD TOTAL SECURITY 19.24 10.50 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MEETING EXPENSE FULTON, ADAM 170.39 COMM DEV PLANNING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 180.89 56.63 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES FUNDINGSLAND, ROBERT 56.63 266.85 ENGINEERING G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES G S DIRECT 266.85 1,063.63 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY GABAY, LYUDMILA 1,063.63 1,508.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 11 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 11 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 1,508.00 33.18 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GASPARD, CHRIS 33.18 9,450.00 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI GELLERMAN CONSTRUCTION CO INC 9,450.00 282.64 REC CENTER BUILDING EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE GENERAL PARTS INC 282.64 210.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GILNESS, WILLIAM 210.00 4,178.15 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S LONG TERM CARE INSUR GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS 4,178.15 2,827.61 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY GOODWIN, MARK 2,827.61 923.85 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC 923.85 392.09 TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCE GOULET, VIVIAN 392.09 454.22 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY GRAFIX SHOPPE 454.22 715.85 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES GRAINGER INC, WW 23.02 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 738.87 3,979.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI GRANT'S PRECISION PAINTING LLC 3,979.00 1,220.00 SNOW PLOWING SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS GREAT LAKES WEATHER SERVICE 1,220.00 2,740.00 OAK HILL SPLASH PAD OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GREEN ACRES SPRINKLER CO 1,410.66 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 4,150.66 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 12 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 12 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 171.00 SSD #4 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GREEN HORIZONS 171.00 54.69 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE GREEN LIGHTS RECYCLING INC 54.69 234,793.46 GREENSBORO HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GREENSBORO CONDOMINIUM OWNERS 234,793.46 2,000.00 ESCROWS GENERAL GROVES ACADEMY 2,000.00 131.45 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES GRUSSING, KATHERINE 131.45 37.50 INSPECTIONS G & A TOWNHOME/CONDO/COOP HOUSING GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 37.50 1,820.00 SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HACHEM, DRISS 1,820.00 286.51 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION HAGEN, DENNIS 286.51 260.70 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY HAMBLET, JODIE 260.70 9,195.56 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES HAWKINS INC 9,195.56 98.61 POLICE G & A POLICE EQUIPMENT HECKLER & KOCH DEFENSE INC 98.61 174.22 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES HEGNA, JESSICA 24.97 WESTWOOD G & A SMALL TOOLS 32.19 WESTWOOD G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR 2.43 FAMILY PROGRAMS GENERAL SUPPLIES 11.26 SUMMER GRADE 4-5 GENERAL SUPPLIES 245.07 150.00 SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HENDERSON, TRACY City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 13 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 13 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 150.00 1,907.76 POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE HENNEPIN COUNTY INFO TECH 703.90 OPERATIONS RADIO COMMUNICATIONS 201.86 OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 2,813.52 1,068.76 IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 3,536.57 POLICE G & A SUBSISTENCE SERVICE 254.64 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 4,859.97 799.71 ENGINEERING G & A RENTAL EQUIPMENT HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORP 799.71 96.77- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS HILL CO, ROBERT B 1,504.37 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,407.60 300.00 TREE REMOVAL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOLLINGER, ED 300.00 257.79 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 8.52 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 21.53 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS 82.20 DAMAGE REPAIR SMALL TOOLS 72.57 DAMAGE REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES 29.25 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 44.45- PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.40 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 275.28 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 29.29 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 204.50 REC CENTER BUILDING GENERAL SUPPLIES 73.66 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES 280.10 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 13.88 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 3.21 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 21.41 SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 122.17 SEWER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT PARTS 42.89 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,501.20 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 14 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 14 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 10,000.00 HOUSING LAND TRUST OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOMES WITHIN REACH 10,000.00 17,816.40 OPERATIONS OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES HONEYWELL 17,816.40 596.20 GENERAL REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE HOPKINS AUTO BODY INC 596.20 88.80 ASSESSING G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR HOPPE, MARK 88.80 275.00 KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOWES, JEFFREY 275.00 50.00 VOLLEYBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOWES, JENNIFER 50.00 KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 350.00 KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOWES, JESSICA 350.00 75.00 KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HOWES, KRISTINE 75.00 600.00 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT POLICE EQUIPMENT HRGREEN 600.00 119.64 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS HSBC MINNESOTA REALTY 119.64 2,297.81 SPEC ASSMT CONSTRUCTION OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES HUBER UNIVERSAL SERVICES LLC 2,297.81 1,016.88 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY HUYINK, NANCY 1,016.88 1,685.10 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49 1,685.10 254.00 OPERATIONS SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS IAFC MEMBERSHIP 254.00 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 15 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 15 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 77.48 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES IDZOREK, EDWARD & JULIE 77.48 929.89 WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS 929.88 SEWER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 1,024.40 SOLID WASTE G&A PRINTING & PUBLISHING 929.88 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS POSTAGE 929.88 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A POSTAGE 4,743.93 84.97 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES INDELCO 84.97 566.44 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO 566.44 3,211.33 IT G & A TELEPHONE INTEGRA TELECOM 3,211.33 1,948.32 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY INVER GROVE FORD 1,982.97 ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 3,931.29 245.00 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS ISA 245.00 1,016.88 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ISRAEL, RICHARD 1,016.88 161,804.53 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY I-STATE TRUCK CENTER 161,804.53 12.22 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS J&D 14-93 LP 12.22 175.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES JENNINGS, NICHOLAS 175.00 10.17 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES JERRY'S HARDWARE 89.58 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 99.75 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 16 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 16 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 502.45 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO 502.45 169.25 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES JOHNSON, DICK 169.25 35.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES JOHNSON, MARY 35.00 66.00 ZONING ZONING JOHNSON, PAULA 66.00 375.00 KICKBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES JOHNSON, SUSAN 375.00 2,827.61 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY KAMENIR, JEFFREY 2,827.61 85.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES KARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER 244.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 329.00 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY KASAHARA, YOSHIFUMI 572.40 649.97- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE KASSA CONSTRUCTION, RON 12,999.35 ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,699.75- PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE 33,995.00 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 466.87- STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET RETAINED PERCENTAGE 9,337.50 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53,515.26 165.55 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE 165.55 276.92 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS KELLER, JASMINE Z 276.92 7.36 FIELDTRIPS GENERAL SUPPLIES KENIGER, ALISA 7.36 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 17 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 17 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 289.00 ESCROWS KENNEDY & GRAVEN 720.00 GREENSBORO HIA LEGAL SERVICES 990.00 WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA LEGAL SERVICES 1,999.00 3,081.64 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY KENTON, PATRICIA 3,081.64 97.05 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS KENWOOD/ALDRICH PARTNERS LLC 97.05 33,144.00 WATER UTILITY G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE KEYS WELL DRILLING CO 33,144.00 4,000.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LL 4,000.00 210.00 PRE-SCHOOL PROGRAMS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KIDCREATE STUDIO 210.00 1,176.67 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A TUITION KIVEL, PHILIP 1,176.67 2,410.15 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE KLEIN UNDERGROUND LLC 2,410.15 420.00 SOCCER OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES KOSOWSKI, MARY 420.00 572.41 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY KOULLICK, EDOUARD 572.41 2,177.99 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI KRECH, O'BRIEN, MUELLER & WASS 2,177.99 3,081.64 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY KUKULEVSKAYA, ANNA 3,081.64 2,807.92 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY LACASIO, MARLENE 2,807.92 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 18 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 18 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 61.63 PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES LAKES GAS CO 61.63 1,016.88 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY LAMBERTSON, JAMES 1,016.88 144.85 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS LARSON, CHARLES 144.85 2,056.34 SYSTEM REPAIR OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES LARSON, JH CO 135.28 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 2,191.62 2,385.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES 2,385.00 4,240.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW LAWRENCE, GREG 4,240.00 600.48 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES LAWSON PRODUCTS INC 600.48 4,487.97 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEADING EDGE COACHING & DEVELO 4,487.97 85.00 POLICE G & A TRAINING LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 6,996.00 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A League of MN Cities dept'l exp 7,081.00 40,794.50 UNINSURED LOSS G&A UNINSURED LOSS LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INSURANCE 40,794.50 3,269.01 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY LEE, GENE 3,269.01 141.13 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES LENTNER, LAURA 141.13 462.33 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS LEVITT, ARTHUR 462.33 128.00 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LEXIS NEXIS OCC HEALTH SOLUTIO City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 19 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 19 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 128.00 100.00 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE LIBERTY TIRE RECYCLING LLC 100.00 41,778.00 IT G & A COMPUTER SERVICES LOGIS 4,713.18 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE EQUIPMENT 46,491.18 237.28 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY LOWRIE, SHIRLEY 237.28 1,194.77 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGIES INC 1,194.77 376.27 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY LUPIENT CHEVROLET OF BLOOMINGT 376.27 660.49 FABRICATION OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES LYLE SIGNS INC 660.49 125.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES MACGREGOR-HANNAH, MAREN 185.35 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 310.35 275.17 SSD 1 G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MAPLE CREST LANDSCAPE 2,473.00 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 2,748.17 260.70 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY MARIOT, TOM 260.70 260.70 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY MARX, JERRY 260.70 450.00 OPERATIONS TRAINING MBFTE 450.00 34.95 SCHOOL GROUPS GENERAL SUPPLIES MCCONNELL, BECKY 34.95 3,257.30 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY MCGOWAN, REBECCA City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 20 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 20 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 3,257.30 35.37 CABLE TV BUDGET GENERAL SUPPLIES MCHUGH, JOHN T 91.08 TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION MEETING EXPENSE 126.45 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY MEHRETE, ABEBAW 572.40 87.99 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES MENARDS 184.68 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 174.16 SPLASH PAD MAINT - Oak Hill Pk GENERAL SUPPLIES 242.97 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 57.66 HALLOWEEN PARTY GENERAL SUPPLIES 747.46 16,185.57 SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS METHODIST HOSPITAL 16,185.57 1,309.43 POLICE G & A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE METRO SALES INC 1,309.43 12,641.64 REILLY BUDGET CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 292,430.91 OPERATIONS CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE 305,072.55 248.81 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES MICRO CENTER 257.45 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 506.26 6,550.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI MIDWEST ACOUSTICS INC 6,550.00 3,335.50 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MIDWEST AQUA CARE 3,335.50 28,937.59- PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT B/S RETAINED PERCENTAGE MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP 274,515.33 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 75.42 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 245,653.16 15.00 ZONING ZONING MIDWEST FENCE & MFG City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 21 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 21 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 15.00 1,440.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MIDWEST TESTING LLC 1,440.00 367.20 PAWN FEES OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT 367.20 155.00 HUMAN RESOURCES RECRUITMENT MINNESOTA FIRE SVC CERT BD 375.00 OPERATIONS TRAINING 530.00 750.85 SUPPORT SERVICES G&A OFFICE SUPPLIES MINUTEMAN PRESS 750.85 200.00 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY 200.00 227.55 REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR MONTE, JOHN 227.55 2,375.00 PE INVEST/REVIEW/PER IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI MPCA 2,375.00 160.00 SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES MRPA 10.00 REC CENTER BUILDING SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 170.00 10,000.00 ESCROWS PMC ESCROW MUELLER LLC, GL 10,000.00 6.73 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT PARTS NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO) 1,562.56 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 386.92 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES 1,956.21 3.49 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES NELSON, MARK 3.49 750.00 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT NELSON, SCOTT 750.00 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 22 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 22 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 46.07 ADMINISTRATION G & A TELEPHONE NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 46.46 HUMAN RESOURCES TELEPHONE 456.66 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONE 46.07 ASSESSING G & A TELEPHONE 81.05 FINANCE G & A TELEPHONE 378.01 POLICE G & A TELEPHONE 137.01 OPERATIONS TELEPHONE 559.92 INSPECTIONS G & A TELEPHONE 119.58 ENGINEERING G & A TELEPHONE 125.52 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A TELEPHONE 51.17 PARK AND REC G&A TELEPHONE 245.27 ORGANIZED REC G & A TELEPHONE 26.73 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE 45.22 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A TELEPHONE 51.17 WESTWOOD G & A TELEPHONE 41.39 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A TELEPHONE 359.46 WATER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 82.68 SEWER UTILITY G&A TELEPHONE 14.42 SOLID WASTE G&A TELEPHONE 412.91 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT TELEPHONE 3,326.77 2,500.00 ESCROWS DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC NITTI ROLLOFF SERVICES 2,500.00 1,000.00 ESCROWS GENERAL NOAM, DARCHEI 1,000.00 260.70 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY NORDENSON, CYNTHIA 260.70 150.00 ORGANIZED REC G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS NRPA 150.00 50.00 INSPECTIONS G & A PLUMBING NYBERG, DEREK 50.00 150.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES NYBERG, JAN 150.00 500.00 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL 500.00 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 23 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 23 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 3,708.75 GENERAL WILD ANIMAL MANAGEMENT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES OAKRIDGE WILDLIFE CONTROL 3,708.75 271.79 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES OFFICE DEPOT 18.16 HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SUPPLIES 185.49 SUPPORT SERVICES G&A EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE 473.04 POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 78.71 OPERATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 253.82 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 208.74 PUBLIC WORKS G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,489.75 1,063.50 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OFFICE TEAM 1,063.50 133.02 PATCHING-PERMANENT EQUIPMENT PARTS OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC 133.02 1,016.88 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY OLSEN, JUDITH 1,016.88 5,711.18 PORTABLE TOILETS/FIELD MAINT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ON SITE SANITATION 230.86 OFF-LEASH DOG PARK OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 277.88 WESTWOOD G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 53.44 SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 6,273.36 163.75 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OPTUM HEALTH 163.75 1,040.26 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY O'ROURKE, BRIGID 1,040.26 3,149.16 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY PALM, PATRICIA 3,149.16 134.18 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY PARK JEEP 134.18 499.25 SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PARK TAVERN 499.25 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 24 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 24 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 137.09 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PARR, MELISSA 137.09 409.96 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES PARTSMASTER 409.96 2,945.59 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY PERRIN, MARGARET 2,945.59 27.00 POSTAL SERVICES POSTAGE PETTY CASH 33.49 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 4.96 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES 7.71 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A SMALL TOOLS 6.42 PARK EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES 113.25 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LICENSES 12.32 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 13.61 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6.40 WATER UTILITY G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 8.57 SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL SUPPLIES 21.25 SOLID WASTE G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 14.47 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MEETING EXPENSE 269.45 250.00 CLERICAL TRAINING PLEAA 250.00 446.05 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES POLK, MARLA 529.84 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 975.89 4,194.18 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC 4,194.18 361.80 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A TELEPHONE POPP.COM INC 361.80 1,040.26 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY POPPEWELL, BARBARA 1,040.26 4,500.00 COMM & MARKETING G & A POSTAGE POSTMASTER 3,894.33 ENGINEERING G & A POSTAGE City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 25 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 25 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 8,394.33 10.98- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 170.73 BEAUTIFICATION / FLOWERS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 159.75 11,183.39 TREE DISEASE PUBLIC CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE 673.32 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 380.48 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 12,237.19 12,703.76 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY PREMIER FLEET SERVICES 93.20- PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH DUE TO OTHER GOVTS 12,610.56 108.00 ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE PRINTERS SERVICE INC 108.00 814.00 DIAL-A-RIDE PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PRISM EXPRESS MANAGER 814.00 583.21 BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE PUMP & METER SERVICE 583.21 510.00 SEWER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE Q3 CONTRACTING 600.00 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 1,110.00 63.37 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A POSTAGE QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER 63.37 7,095.00 INSPECTIONS G & A DUE TO OTHER GOVTS R J RYAN 4,675.25 INSPECTIONS G & A BUILDING 11,770.25 200.00 HALLOWEEN PARTY OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RAINBOW PARTY ARTS 200.00 322.76 WESTWOOD G & A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES RAMSEY COUNTY 322.76 536.35 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY RANGER GM City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 26 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 26 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 536.35 7,450.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RAPP LLC, CRAIG 7,450.00 312.50 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RAUK, TIM 312.50 75.00 SOLID WASTE G&A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS RECYCLING ASSOC OF MN 75.00 63.04 POLICE G & A OFFICE SUPPLIES REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC 63.04 1,016.88 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY REISMAN, AUDREY 1,016.88 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY RICHARDSON, RALPH 572.40 209.35 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY RIGID HITCH INC 209.35 533.11 ARENA MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE RINK SYSTEMS INC 533.11 408.00 SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES RITCHIE, TAYLOR 408.00 956.53 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE ROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC 956.53 40.00 YOUTH PROGRAMS PROGRAM REVENUE ROLOFF, TIFFANY 40.00 1,040.26 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ROSS, IVAN 1,040.26 200.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ROTERT, DAVID 200.00 2,957.30 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ROTO-MORGAN, CAMMY City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 27 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 27 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 2,957.30 272.60 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON EQUIPMENT CO 272.60 185.59 ACCIDENT REPAIR EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC 185.59 225.00 MOVE-UP PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SALA ARCHITECTS INC 225.00 10.60 ORGANIZED REC G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES SAM'S CLUB 598.47 GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 609.07 125.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS GENERAL SUPPLIES SAURER, MARTI 272.00 INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 397.00 1,923.75 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LANDSCAPING SERVICE SCHARBER & SONS INC 1,923.75 449.28 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES SCHERER BROS. LUMBER CO. 1,121.76 SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 1,571.04 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY SCHROEDER, MICHELLE 572.40 3,269.01 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY SCHULTE, ROBERT 3,269.01 83.56 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SCOTT, LOIS 83.56 45,793.84 CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SEH 1,288.63 SEWER UTILITY G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 47,082.47 2,181.34 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES SHERWIN WILLIAMS 202.79 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 2,384.13 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 28 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 28 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 2,821.05 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY SHKOLNIK, SAMUIL 2,821.05 10.00 ADMINISTRATION G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS 10.00 FINANCE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 116.00 POLICE G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 10.00 INSPECTIONS G & A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 20.00 PARK AND REC G&A GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 166.00 375.00 WESTWOOD G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES SIEFERT, JIM 375.00 145.35 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES SIGN PRODUCERS INC 145.35 1,819.78 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC 1,819.78 327.77 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS SILVERBERG, BEN 327.77 949.38 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP 237.62 REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE 1,187.00 1,430.04 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNION DUES SLP ASSOC OF FIREFIGHTERS #993 1,430.04 50.00 SOFTBALL OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SMITH, PERRY 50.00 2,807.92 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY SOLOVEY, ANNA 2,807.92 10,028.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI SOUTHERN ALUMINUM MFG INC 10,028.00 1,749.90 IT G & A DATACOMMUNICATIONS SPRINT 1,749.90 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 29 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 29 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 2.98- FACILITIES MCTE G & A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES SPS COMPANIES INC 159.24 PLUMBING MTCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES 440.47 WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 8.24- WATER UTILITY G&A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 203.21 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE 3.80- STORM WATER UTILITY G&A BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES 787.90 1,511.10 ENGINEERING G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 8,985.96 CE INSPECTION IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 11,181.15 CONSTRUCTION PAYMENTS IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 21,678.21 790.88 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI ST CROIX REC CO 790.88 11,821.45 TREE DISEASE PRIVATE CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE ST CROIX TREE SERVICE INC 11,821.45 648.43 PATCHING-PERMANENT OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES ST PAUL, CITY OF 648.43 3,137.48 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY STANILEVSKAYA, TAMARA 3,137.48 1,412.81 REC CENTER BUILDING BUILDING MTCE SERVICE STANLEY STEEMER CARPET 1,412.81 2,821.05 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY STARINETS, MAX 2,821.05 1,040.26 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY STATZ, STEPHANIE 1,040.26 63.18 OPERATIONS GENERAL SUPPLIES STEMMER, LUKE 357.39 OPERATIONS SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT 420.57 40,000.00 HOUSING REHAB G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES STEP 40,000.00 3,081.64 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY STIFTER, MARY City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 30 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 30 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 3,081.64 2,821.05 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY STILLEY, MARK 2,821.05 150.00 GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES STODGHILL, LARRY 150.00 873.65 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC 873.65 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY STRADER, CHASE 572.40 31.77 POLICE G & A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES STREICHER'S 74.13 ERU OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 451.77 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY 557.67 1,264.22 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY SUBURBAN TIRE WHOLESALE 1,264.22 52,090.28 REILLY BUDGET GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC 52,090.28 59.95 ADMINISTRATION G & A LEGAL NOTICES SUN NEWSPAPERS 116.87 SSD 1 G&A LEGAL NOTICES 116.87 SSD 2 G&A LEGAL NOTICES 157.33 SSD 3 G&A LEGAL NOTICES 116.87 SSD #4 G&A LEGAL NOTICES 116.87 SSD #5 G&A LEGAL NOTICES 116.87 SSD #6 G&A LEGAL NOTICES 77.94 STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 879.57 991.59 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TENNANT SALES AND SERVICE CO. 991.59 104.06 BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE TERMINIX INT 104.06 42.66 ADMINISTRATION G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY THE HARTFORD - PRIORITY ACCOUN City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 31 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 31 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 51.90 HUMAN RESOURCES LONG TERM DISABILITY 15.51 COMM & MARKETING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 47.44 IT G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 33.10 ASSESSING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 64.49 FINANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 106.70 COMM DEV G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 113.80 POLICE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 55.24 OPERATIONS LONG TERM DISABILITY 54.34 INSPECTIONS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 40.99 PUBLIC WORKS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 70.77 ENGINEERING G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 19.25 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 65.00 ORGANIZED REC G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 19.25 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 16.05 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 16.05 WESTWOOD G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 12.99 REC CENTER/AQUATIC PARK SAL LONG TERM DISABILITY 16.51 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 15.60 HOUSING REHAB G & A LONG TERM DISABILITY 19.25 WATER UTILITY G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 1,936.59 EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A LONG TERM DISABILITY 2,833.48 2,922.17 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY THEIS, SUSAN 2,922.17 2,807.92 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY THOMSON, DALE 2,807.92 745.66 BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR 745.66 353.38 ADMINISTRATION G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL 353.38 35.13 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TITAN MACHINERY 35.13 1,774.11 PE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI TKDA 1,774.11 40,750.00 PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI TOWN & COUNTRY FENCE INC City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 32 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 32 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 40,750.00 397.88 RELAMPING OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP 397.88 862.69- PARK IMPROVE BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS TREE TRUST 13,410.91 REFORESTATION FUND OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,548.22 9.39 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS TRI STAR MANAGEMENT 9.39 415.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TRI STATE BOBCAT 415.00 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY TSE, HON 572.40 1,051.95 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY TSUPRUN, TATYANA 1,051.95 176.17 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY TURFWERKS 176.17 366.50 MUNICIPAL BLDG IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 366.50 168.50 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES UHL CO INC 16,618.50 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT OFFICE FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT 16,787.00 149.63 SUPPORT SERVICES OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD) 638.18 SUPERVISORY OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 2,368.73 PATROL OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 933.36 COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES 4,089.90 1,000.00 ESCROWS HO IGAARD VILLAGE UNION LAND II, LLC 1,000.00 150.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S WAGE GARNISHMENTS UNITED STATES TREASURY 150.00 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 33 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 33 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 240.00 EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S UNITED WAY UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA 240.00 120.00 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS 120.00 118.48 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS US BANK HOME MORTGAGE 118.48 17.64 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS US ELECTRONICS 17.64 5.67- GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET DUE TO OTHER GOVTS US IDENTIFICATION MANUAL 88.17 POLICE G & A SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS 82.50 151.75 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES USA BLUE BOOK 151.75 557.04 OPERATIONS TELEPHONE USA MOBILITY WIRELESS INC 557.04 53.95 HUMAN RESOURCES RECOGNITION VAIL, LORI 53.95 1,400.00 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE VALLEY-RICH CO INC 1,434.00 SEWER UTILITY G&A IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI 2,834.00 129.87 ENVIRONMENTAL G & A MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR VAUGHAN, JIM 129.87 74.04 COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL TELEPHONE VERIZON WIRELESS 74.04 228.76 PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY 228.76 326.60 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS WAHL, KAREN 326.60 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 34 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 34 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 3,269.01 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY WALLNER, MELVIN 3,269.01 150.00 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS WALLRICH, E 150.00 5,996.55 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS MOTOR FUELS WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN 60,605.85 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 25,260.21 SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS YARD WASTE SERVICE 29,421.53 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE 8,038.48 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL YARD WASTE SERVICE 129,322.62 8,676.92 WATER UTILITY G&A OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC 8,676.92 79.47 GENERAL REPAIR GENERAL SUPPLIES WAYTEK 79.47 314.42 TREE INJECTION TREE MAINTENANCE WELCH, DOLORES 314.42 1,052.32 HUMAN RESOURCES ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT WELLS CATERING 1,052.32 100.00 GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET CLEARING ACCOUNT WELSH COMPANIES LLC 100.00 572.40 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY WENDT, KAREN 572.40 126.00 POLICE G & A OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES WEST PAYMENT CENTER 126.00 305.00 BLDG/GROUNDS OPS & MAINT BUILDING MTCE SERVICE WESTSIDE EQUIPMENT 305.00 246,077.09 WESTWOOD VILLAS HIA OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES WESTWOOD VILLA ASSN 246,077.09 58.43 WATER UTILITY G&A GENERAL CUSTOMERS WFG LENDERS GROUP 58.43 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 35 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 35 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 4,186.30 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE BUILDING MTCE SERVICE WHEELER HARDWARE 4,186.30 1,016.88 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY WILLIAMS, NAROCHA 1,016.88 3,810.00 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ENGINEERING SERVICES WSB ASSOC INC 3,810.00 14,975.56 GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE ELECTRIC SERVICE XCEL ENERGY 10.02 OPERATIONS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 15,782.29 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 4,324.59 PARK MAINTENANCE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 20.13 BRICK HOUSE (1324) ELECTRIC SERVICE 50.72 WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322) ELECTRIC SERVICE 507.48 WESTWOOD G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 18,857.53 ENTERPRISE G & A ELECTRIC SERVICE 38,154.24 WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 1,308.37 REILLY BUDGET ELECTRIC SERVICE 2,075.18 SEWER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 66.09 STORM WATER UTILITY G&A ELECTRIC SERVICE 96,132.20 3,137.48 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ZANDER, HARVEY 3,137.48 335.35 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES ZANDER, LOIS 335.35 137.16 BUILDING MAINTENANCE GENERAL SUPPLIES ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 137.16 60.00 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC 60.00 990.32 PARK AND RECREATION BALANCE SH INVENTORY ZIEGLER INC 990.32 1,040.26 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ZILBERG, MIKHAIL 1,040.26 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 36 10/31/2012 CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK 8:55:01 R55CKSUM LOG23000VO 36 Page - Council Check Summary 10/26/2012 - 10/6/2012 Vendor Amount Business Unit Object 47.25 PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A GENERAL SUPPLIES ZIMMERMAN, JEAN 47.25 352.92 YOUTH PROGRAMS PRINTING & PUBLISHING ZIP PRINTING 352.92 2,769.92 GREENSBORO HIA COLLECTED BY CITY ZONNEVELD, IDA 2,769.92 Report Totals 2,585,335.72 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 4t) Subject: Vendor Claims Page 37 Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 6a Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider the Reconstruction of Highway 100 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayo r to close the Public Hearing. The following actions are available for Council at this time: 1. Refer to a future Study Session for further discussion (note – time has been tentatively set aside for a discussion during a special study session on November 19) 2. Grant Municipal Consent (approve the project) - Motion to Adopt Resolution granting Municipal Request for the Highway 100 Reconstruction Project and approving MnDOT Staff Approved Layout 3D for S.P. 2734-33 3. Deny Municipal Consent (deny project approval) – Motion to deny Municipal Consent POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council: 1. Have any concerns with the project as proposed? 2. Require additional public input or discussion regarding the project as proposed? 3. Wish to approve MnDOT’s request for Municipal Consent? BACKGROUND: History A report was provided to Council on September 10, 2012 providing an update on the Highway 100 project. The report provided a general history and background of the entire project, including the process over the last several years that led to the current layout. In addition, the report laid out a list of anticipated next steps and projected schedule. Subsequently, a formal letter (dated September 18, 2012) requesting municipal consent was received by the City (Attachment 1). This request was presented to the City Council at the regular meeting on September 24, and a public hearing was scheduled for November 5, 2012. Municipal consent is required when any of the following three conditions are a result of the improvement: Access changes, capacity increases or decreases, and the acquisition of right of way. More recently, MnDOT conducted a final Open House/Informational meeting on October 24, 2012 to receive further public comment prior to the Public Hearing. Among the comments and related questions expressed at or after the open house were the following: 1. Bicycle and Pedestrian movements through the Minnetonka Boulevard corridor (including the bridge) and how they are accommodated in the design of the bridge itself. 2. Staging and phasing during construction, especially with regards to replacement of the Minnetonka Boulevard and Highway 7 bridges. This would include how vehicles, pedestrian, transit, and bicycle movements (both east-west and north-south). 3. Noise wall determination and aesthetics. 4. Right of Way impacts. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 2 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100 Proposed Project For Monday night’s public hearing, staff will introduce the project and the MnDOT project manager who will present the project (Attachment 2 - Layout 3D) highlighting the following: 1. The proposed improvements 2. Right of Way Impacts 3. Estimated construction costs 4. Project schedule 5. Next steps No Council action is necessary at this Public Hearing. The City must approve or disapprove the MnDOT municipal consent request within 90 days of the Public Hearing or let the time period expire, in which case it is deemed approved. As a result, the Council has until February 3, 2013 to either approve or disapprove of this project. If the Council does neither, then on February 3, 2013 the time period for action expires and the MnDOT project will be deemed approved. Should Council desire to approve the project at this time, staff has drafted and attached a resolution which can be used for that purpose (Attachment 3 - Municipal Consent Resolution). If the City denies Municipal Consent for the project, MnDOT’s options are: 1. Make the changes requested by the City (if any) 2. Refer the proposed layout to an Appeal Board 3. Stop the project 4. Modify the project so municipal consent is not required 5. Prepare a new final layout and start the municipal consent process over from the beginning Other Concurrent Activities Noise Walls and Environmental Assessment Concurrent with this Municipal Consent process, MnDOT is conducting a parallel process with approval of an Environmental Assessment (EA) and whether or not to remove noise walls from the project design plans. MnDOT has indicated intent to release the EA for public comment sometime late this year or early 2013. Noise walls are presently included as part of the project layout and design. The State of Minnesota, in accordance with federal regulations, follows a process that allows for adjacent property owners to remove the walls from the project should they desire through a voting procedure. Additional informational meetings to provide residents further information and clarifications as needed were held on October 16 and October 18. Visual Quality and Project Advisory Groups: MnDOT has also commenced the process of developing a Visual Quality Process Manual Development for the project. This process involves a committee to allow for articulation of community values and objectives to ensure sensitivity to visual quality and aesthetics (including public art) in the design, similar to procedures utilized for the Highway 7/Louisiana Avenue project. A committee comprised of representatives from adjacent neighborhoods, institutions adjacent to the highway, staff, and other interests has been assembled. This committee will be meeting monthly over the next several months to insure that these values are incorporated into the design. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 3 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100 MnDOT is also working to form a Project Advisory Committee. This group will meet on a biannual basis through the design phase and more frequently during actual construction. The purpose of this committee will be to allow MnDOT to provide current project information and receive feedback from stakeholders to help better understand and address the many issues that arise during a project of this magnitude. Specific committee members have not yet been determined, but it is expected that members will include a wide variety of interests, including representatives of the many agencies involved (both elected representatives and staff), such as the City, County, State, the business community, and other stakeholders as appropriate. Project Schedule: Based on the current project status and progress made to date, the following schedule is anticipated at this time: Municipal Consent Approval Process City Holds Public Hearing November 5, 2012 Deadline to Approve / Deny Request February 3, 2013 Public Environmental Assessment (EA) Released Late 2012 – Early 2013 Noise wall Voting Process Ballots and Information Mailed Early October Information Meetings October 16 and 18, 2012 Voting Period Expires December 28, 2012 Development of Construction Plans and Specifications Fall 2012 - September 2014 EA Process Completed Early 2013 Right of Way Acquisition May 2013 - May 2014 Open Bids and Award Contract May 2014 Construction Late 2014 - 2016 FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: As described in MnDOT’s request, the City’s share of the MnDOT project cost at this time is estimated to be approximately $60,000. As the City continues to work with MnDOT through final design, including visual quality and public art considerations, the City’s share of the project cost may increase, depending on the level of improvements desired by the city. In addition to cost participation in the actual MnDOT project, the City also has several other obligations related to this project: Engineering Expenses: Previous Expenses and Studies $90,000 Additional Engineering Expenses $150,000 Utility Relocations or Improvements: Stormwater Facilities $600,000 Sanitary Sewer Facilities $1,000,000 Water Facilities $900,000 Utica Ave Reconstruction $250,000 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Page 4 Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100 VISION CONSIDERATION: The following Strategic Direction and focus area was identified by Council in 2007: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged community. Focus will be on: • Promoting regional transportation issues and related dedicated funding sources affecting St. Louis Park including but not limited to Highway 100 and SWLRT. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Municipal Consent Request Attachment 2 - MnDOT Staff Approved Layout 3D Attachment 3 - Municipal Consent Resolution Prepared by: Scott Brink, City Engineer Reviewed by: April Crockett, West Area Engineer, MnDOT Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100Page 5 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100Page 6 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100Page 7 Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. 12-____ RESOLUTION FOR LAYOUT APPROVAL WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has desired for some time to reconstruct Highway 100 through a portion of the City of St. Louis; and WHEREAS, MnDOT has prepared a final layout for Highway 100 Reconstruction Project SP 2734-33 within the City of St. Louis Park from W. 36th Street to W. 25 ½ Street; and WHEREAS, MnDOT is requesting Municipal Consent for this project from the City of St. Louis Park based on this final layout; and WHEREAS, said final layout is on file in the Minnesota Department of Transportation office marked, labeled and identified as MnDOT Staff Approved Layout 3D S.P. 2734-33; and WHEREAS, improvements to city streets and appurtenances have been included in the said final layout. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said final layout for the improvement of said Highway 100 within the corporate limits be and is hereby approved. Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 5, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: City Clerk City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 6a) Subject: Public Hearing to Consider Reconstruction of Highway 100 Page 8 Meeting: City Council Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Action Agenda Item: 8a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TITLE: First Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt First Reading of the Beekeeping Ordinance to amend Chapter 4 of the City Code and to set Second Reading for November 19, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City Council amend the ordinances relative to the keeping of bees? SUMMARY: At the August 27, 2012 Study Session, after being presented with a range of options on how to address beekeeping in the city, the Council advised that staff should return with a list of regulations that would provide direction on developing an ordinance for future consideration. At the October 8, 2012 Study Session, the Council discussed the regulations presented and directed staff to prepare an ordinance for first reading. In accordance with the consensus of the City Council, the proposed ordinance permits the keeping of bees on single-family lots and on school district and city-owned properties, prohibiting the practice in all other areas. It also requires the beekeeper provide a water source within 10 feet of each colony. Bee hives must be kept at least 20 feet from all property lines, with an exception reducing the setback requirement to 10 feet with a 6 foot tall flyway barrier. The flyway barrier may be a wall or solid fence, and shall continue parallel to the lot line for 10 feet in either direction from the hive, or contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least 6 feet in height. Enforcement of these provisions will be by complaint response. The failure of an owner to maintain the minimum standards laid out in the proposed code would be treated as any code violation needing correction. The property owner would be advised on how to come into compliance with the code provisions. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis park is committed to being a leader in environmental stewardship. We will increase environmental consciousness and responsibility in all areas of city business. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Discussion Example of Bee Hive Placement Ordinance Summary Ordinance Prepared by: Ray French, Administrative Services Intern Reviewed by: Ann Boettcher, Inspection Services Manager Brian Hoffman, Director of Inspections Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 2 Title: First Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance DISCUSSION BACKGROUND: At the June 18, 2012 City Council Meeting, city staff advised the Council that the current City Code is not clear about whether the raising of honey bees is permitted and that the City has received questions and complaints about neighbors keeping bee hives. City staff then returned to the August 27, 2012 Study Session with a wide range of options on how to approach the issue of beekeeping in the community, including prohibition, permitting, and regulating. It was the consensus of the City Council for staff to return and provide a list of options for regulating beekeeping and enforcement in the city code. At the October 8, 2012 Study Session, city staff presented a list of options for regulating beekeeping that discussed the extent of regulation and the methods of enforcement. It was the consensus of the City Council to amend the City Code to allow beekeeping on single-family residential lots and to include a regulation requiring that a water source be provided. It was also the consensus of the City Council to include a hive setback of 25 or 20 feet from all property lines that could be reduced to 10 feet with a 6 foot tall flyway barrier. PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The proposed ordinance includes three primary regulations. First, Section 4-44(a) permits the keeping of bees on single-family lots and school district and city-owned properties, prohibiting the practice in all other areas. This reflects the Council’s preference to prohibit beekeeping on multi-family lots, and provide an exception for the beekeeping at Westwood Nature Center. Second, the proposed Section 4-44(b) requires a beekeeper to provide a convenient source of water within 10 feet of each colony at all times that the colonies remain active outside the hive. This requirement was identified by Council as a standard of beekeeping that should be required of all beekeepers. Providing a water source reduces the opportunities for bees to interact with neighbors, children, and pets, so that they will not congregate at swimming pools, pet watering bowls, bird baths, or other water sources. Third, the proposed Section 4-44(c) requires that bee hives be kept at least 20 feet from the property lines of the lot upon which they are located. Staff selected the 20 foot setback requirement to provide more flexibility for property owners with 40 foot-wide lots. However, an exception is provided that allows bee hives to be kept as close as 10 feet from the property lines if a 6 foot tall flyway barrier is installed. The flyway barrier may be a wall or solid fence, and shall continue parallel to the lot line for 10 feet in either direction from the hive, or contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least 6 feet in height. By requiring a solid fence or wall at least 6 feet in height, the bees are forced to fly up and over neighboring areas and cannot fly through the barrier in any way. The example of a bee hive placement illustrates the setback and flyway barrier requirements on the city’s smallest single-family lots with a width of 40 feet. It demonstrates that a bee hive must be at least 20 feet away from the property line, but may be as close as 10 feet with a 6 foot tall flyway barrier installed. Verification of these provisions will be by the property maintenance and complaint response programs. At the time of verification, the Inspections Department will work with property owners to come into compliance with the provisions of the City Code. NEXT STEPS: Should the City Council adopt the first reading of the beekeeping ordinance, second reading will be set for November 19, 2012. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 3 Title: First Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 4 Title: First Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance ORDINANCE NO. ____-12 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF BEES, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Chapter 4, Article II of the City Code is hereby amended to add the following provisions after Section 4-43, with subsequent sections renumbered in accordance: Sec. 4-44. Keeping of bees. (a) The keeping of bees is permitted on single-family lots and school district and city-owned properties, and is prohibited at all other locations. (b) Each beekeeper shall ensure that a convenient source of water is available within 10 feet of each colony at all times that the colonies remain active outside the hive. (c) Bee hives shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from all property lines, as measured from the nearest point of the hive to the property line. Exception: The minimum hive setback may be reduced to 10 feet from a property line when a 6 foot high flyway barrier is installed between the hive and property line. The flyway barrier may be a wall or solid fence, and shall continue parallel to the lot line for 10 feet in either direction from the hive, or contain the hive or hives in an enclosure at least 6 feet in height. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. First Reading November 5, 2012 Second Reading November 19, 2012 Date of Publication November 29, 2012 Date Ordinance takes effect December 14, 2012 Reviewed for Administration: Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to form and execution: City Clerk City Attorney City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8a) Page 5 Title: First Reading of Beekeeping Ordinance SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. _____-12 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE KEEPING OF BEES, AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE This ordinance permits the keeping of bees in the City of St. Louis Park on single-family lots and school district and city-owned properties. The ordinance requires that a water source be provided and set back 20 feet from all property lines, which may be reduced to 10 feet with a flyway barrier. This ordinance shall take effect December 14, 2012. Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012 Jeffrey W. Jacobs /s/ Mayor A copy of the full text of this ordinance is available for inspection with the City Clerk. Published in St. Louis Park Sailor: November 29, 2012 Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8b Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: First Reading of Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve first reading of Ordinance amending Xcel’s franchise ordinance #2086-97 and set second reading for November 19, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: Does Council wish to extend the expiration date of Xcel’s current franchise ordinance 3 months? BACKGROUND: History The City currently has a franchise agreement with Xcel Energy (agreement expires February 20, 2013). Staff from Xcel Energy approached City staff early this year to begin discussing renewal of their franchise ordinance. The adoption of a new franchise ordinance was presented to the City Council at the July 23rd Study Session, was followed up with a staff / Council discussion at the August 13th Study Session, and a Public Hearing and first reading of the ordinance was conducted Monday, October 1st at which time second reading was set for October 15th. Due to several concerns identified by Xcel and Council during first reading, a study session discussion was held on October 8th. On October 15th second reading was continued to November 5th to allow time for Xcel and city staff to revise the proposed ordinance. Ordinance provisions and possible revisions continue to be discussed by Xcel and city staff; however, new ordinance provisions will not become finalized soon enough to prevent the current franchise from expiring. To prevent the undesirable expiration of the current franchise ordinance, several weeks ago Xcel requested and staff agreed that we should extend the termination date of the current ordinance by three (3) months. This action would amend the current franchise ordinance making it effective through May 19, 2013. Adoption Process and Schedule Staff has developed the following steps and schedule for amending the current franchise ordinance: First Reading Nov 5, 2012 Second Reading (adopt ordinance and authorize publication) Nov 19, 2012 Submit Summary to Sun Sailor Nov 20, 2012 Ordinance Publication Nov 28, 2012 Ordinance Effective Date Dec 13, 2012 City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 2 Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97 Summary Staff recommends that Council approve 1st reading and set 2nd reading for November 19th as per the schedule outlined above. The current Franchise is effective through February 19, 2013. This amendment would make the Franchise effective through May 19, 2013. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS: The City’s Pavement Management Program is currently funded by franchise fee revenues, collected for us by both Xcel and CPE, along with some general funds. Franchise fees can be collected by a utility when the City has a franchise ordinance providing for this. Failure to extend the current franchise expiration date will result in expiration of the current franchise leading to the loss of many months of franchise fee revenues for our pavement management program. Based on the current fees, total Xcel franchise fees amount to approximately $843,445 annually. The currently proposed increase in the Xcel franchise fee would add approximately $153,000 in additional annual revenue to the Pavement Management Program. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Ordinance Prepared by: Michael P. Rardin, Public Works Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8b) Page 3 Subject: First Reading of Ordinance Amending Xcel Franchise Ordinance #2086-97 ORDINANCE NO.____-12 CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE SECTION 9-603 EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY FRANCHISE THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: SECTION 1. Section 9-603(1) of the St. Louis Park City Code is amended to extend the term of the franchise granted to Northern States Power Company d/b/a Xcel Energy through May 19, 2013. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its passage and publication. ADOPTED this _____ day of __________, 2012, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park. Reviewed for Administration Adopted by the City Council November 19, 2012 City Manager Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney Date Published:____________________ Meeting Date: November 5, 2012 Agenda Item #: 8c Regular Meeting Public Hearing Action Item Consent Item Resolution Ordinance Presentation Other: EDA Meeting Action Item Resolution Other: Study Session Discussion Item Written Report Other: TITLE: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt the first reading of Ordinance approving the Zoning Ordinance amendment pertaining to Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering, and to set the second reading for November 19, 2012. POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council wish to make changes to the City Code to allow mobile food vehicles as a temporary use on private property, and to allow catering as an accessory use in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts? BACKGROUND: The City Council considered the first reading of the proposed ordinance on September 4, 2012. The City Council asked that the proposed ordinance be scheduled for a study session so it could discuss mobile food vehicle performance standards and the impacts of allowing catering as an accessory use. At the October 22, 2012 study session the Council discussed the proposed ordinance and performance standards recommended by staff. The consensus of the Council was that staff should schedule consideration of the proposed ordinance at the November 5, 2012 City Council meeting for the first reading. Below is a summary of the proposed ordinance as amended to address the concerns expressed by the City Council. Mobile Food Vehicles Mobile Food Vehicles are currently allowed in a limited fashion as a temporary use. Existing Ordinance: A mobile food vehicle is a motorized vehicle, a trailer or a push cart that is used for preparing and selling food and beverages to the general public. The City currently allows mobile food vehicles in two ways: 1. As a temporary sales activity in the same manner as we allow sidewalk sales and other special event sales a retailer may have. This means a property owner may have a mobile food vehicle for up to 14 days per calendar year, and the business owner can only sell outside what is also being sold inside their building. Therefore, a mobile food vehicle can only locate at private property that is also selling food inside the building. 2. As a vendor participating in a special event such as Parktacular or a farmers market. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 2 Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance will create a new section in the temporary sales section of the zoning ordinance that is specific to mobile food vehicles. This will create a clear distinction between temporary food sales and temporary sales of merchandise. The proposed ordinance expands the permitted operation of mobile food vehicles primarily by allowing them to operate at any non-residential property, and by removing the requirement that they can only sell what is being sold inside the building located at the property on-which the mobile food vehicle is operating. The following are some of the proposed performance standards incorporated into the ordinance to address safety and potential nuisances’ issues. • Signage. Additional standards were added to limit signage to anything applied to the vehicle itself by decals, paint, and awnings. It also allows signage to be attached to the vehicle as long as it does not extend above the height of the vehicle. (Some vehicles attach a menu board to the side of the vehicle when it is in operation.) A pedestrian sign is also allowed within five feet of the vehicle. A pedestrian sign is a temporary sign that fits within the volume of three feet wide by three feet deep by four feet high. • Lighting. Shielding was better defined so that the light is directed down and illuminates only the point of sale area and no more than 10 feet away from the vehicle. The intent is to provide lighting that is safe and necessary for the operation, but is not a nuisance to neighbors. • Noise. Noise making devices such as radios, televisions, visual entertainment devices or noisemakers such as bells, horns or whistles are not permitted. A limit of 70 decibels is also established for power generators. This is the limit used by the City of St. Paul. They found that this works well for newer generators, and can be a problem for older or poorly maintained generators. • Hours of operation. Hours of operation were added to the ordinance. The proposed hours are 7 am to 10 pm. This limitation is consistent with the hours of the day higher noise limits are allowed by the existing City noise ordinances. A question was raised by the Council at the Study Session about the compatibility of these hours with the hours permitted for tap rooms. Taprooms were allowed to operate during the following hours: Monday-Thursday: 3pm – 8pm Friday: 3pm – 10pm Saturday: 11am – 10pm Sunday: 11am – 8pm Federally Recognized Holidays: 11am – 10pm The hours allowed for a mobile food vehicle are consistent with those previously approved for a taproom. • Overnight parking. Overnight parking or storage of the vehicle is not allowed. The only exception to this is vehicles under long-term contract with the property owner to be open nearly every day. Examples include the hot dog trailer outside Cub Foods, Home Depot has also expressed interest in a hot dog trailer outside their store. These trailers will be secured and stored overnight in the same location that they operate from. • Alcoholic beverages. A provision was added to allow only the sale of food and non- alcoholic beverages. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 3 Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering Staff reviewed ordinances from Minneapolis and St. Paul, reviewed the findings of a study completed by the City of Eagan in which they surveyed numerous cities in the metropolitan area, and reviewed the performance standards with the Inspections Department, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, the Fire Department, and the Police Department. A revised copy of the proposed ordinance is attached for your review. The bold language represents new language added to the ordinance as a result of the research since the September 4th City Council meeting. Catering Over the past two years, City staff has received requests from property owners/managers of community centers, religious institutions and educational facilities to allow small private catering companies to use their commercial kitchens. Facilities such as these are required by the state food codes to install commercial grade kitchens even though the commercial kitchen may be in- frequently used. The equipment is expensive, and allowing a catering company to utilize the kitchen equipment while the facility is not in use allows the facility to re-coup some costs. In some cases the facility also benefits from having the catering company readily available in the building. The caterer can provide food for events happening at the facility, and make meal programs available to the congregation and community. There are approximately 16 facilities that have commercial kitchens. Of these, 11 are schools and the remaining five are religious institutions and community centers. It is not expected that a public school will take advantage of this provision, but a private school may be more likely. The City has received interest in the past from the Jewish Community Center and Lenox Community Center, so it is likely that they will take advantage of the ordinance. Property Taxes: The proposed ordinance allows for-profit catering businesses to operate out of educational facilities, community centers, and religious institutions all of which are non-profit uses, and do not pay property taxes. However, if a for-profit business operates from a tax-exempted property, property taxes are owed for the for-profit activities. Cory Bultema, City Assessor, calculates the taxes due by determining a ratio that reflects how the activities of the for-profit use compared to the activities of the non-profit use. That ratio is then applied to the property valuation, and the property owner pays property taxes on the for-profit portion of the formula, while the non-profit remains tax-exempt on the remaining portion. Existing Ordinance: Catering is currently allowed as a principal use in the Industrial and Business Park Zoning Districts, and as an accessory use to restaurants in the Commercial, Office and Mixed-Use Zoning Districts. Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance would allow catering as an accessory use to Religious Institutions, Community Centers and Educational Facilities located in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 Zoning Districts. This would allow the catering company operating at one of these facilities to use the kitchen to prepare food for consumption at an event located off-site. The only condition attached specifically to the use is a prohibition on the outside storage of vehicles used in the catering business due to the close proximity most of these uses have to residential properties. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 4 Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on August 15, 2012. No comments were received from the public. The Commission recommended approval of the ordinance upon a 7-0 vote. NEXT STEPS: Schedule the ordinance for a second reading before the City Council on November 19, 2012. FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable. Attachments: Draft Zoning Ordinance Prepared by: Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator Reviewed by: Meg McMonigal, Planning & Zoning Administrator Kevin Locke, Community Development Director Approved by: Tom Harmening, City Manager City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 5 Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering ORDINANCE NO.____-12 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK ORDINANCE CODE RELATING TO ZONING BY AMENDING SECTIONS 36-4, 36-82, 36-163, 36-164, AND 36-165 MOBILE FOOD VEHICLES AND CATERING THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN: Findings Sec. 1. The City Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission (Case No. 12-21-ZA). Sec. 2. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Sections 36-4, 36-82, 36-163, 36-164, and 36-165 are hereby amended by adding underscored language. Section breaks are represented by ***. Section 36-4. Definitions *** Mobile Food Vehicle means a vehicle or cart used to prepare and serve food and/or beverages. *** Sec. 36-82. Temporary uses. (a) Purpose and effect. The purpose of this section is to provide conditions under which temporary uses may be allowed in order to ensure a minimum negative impact to neighborhoods and neighboring land uses. (b) Authorized temporary uses. A structure or land in any use district may be used for one or more of the following temporary uses if the use complies with the conditions stated in this chapter: *** (10) Mobile Food Vehicle. Mobile food vehicles (vehicle) are permitted with the following conditions: a. The vehicle is not permitted on property that is zoned residential and used as a residential dwelling. b. The vehicle shall have all permits and licenses required by the State and Hennepin County to operate. A current copy of the permits and licenses shall be kept at the vehicle and immediately made available upon request. The operator shall comply in all respects with all requirements of state and county law. c. The vehicle may be parked in a public right-of-way if the right-of-way is closed as authorized by the City. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 6 Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering d. The vehicle operator shall have written permission from the property owner to operate on their property. The written permission shall be kept with the vehicle, and made immediately available to the City upon request. e. Only food and non-alcoholic beverages shall be sold. f. The vehicle operator shall comply with the following site standards: 1) The vehicle shall be parked on a paved surface, unless it is located on a public park as approved by the City. 2) The vehicle shall be located at least 30 feet away from an entrance to a public road. 3) The vehicle shall not disrupt traffic and parking. 4) The vehicle shall not have a drive-thru. 5) There shall be at least six feet of safe pedestrian passage around the vehicle. g. Hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 a.m. and 10 pm. h. Lighting shall be limited to: 1) Vehicular lighting that is required by law. 2) Lights necessary to illuminate the inside of an enclosed vehicle, service deck of a cart, and the point of sale area of the vehicle. The lighting shall not extend above the vehicle, shall be downcast, and shielded in such a way to illuminate the vehicle, and a point of sale area only. The lighting shall not directly illuminate an area more than 10 feet away from the vehicle. i. Noise generated by the vehicle and the use shall not become a nuisance. The operation of the vehicle shall adhere to the following: 1) No vehicle shall use or maintain any outside sound amplifying equipment, televisions or similar visual entertainment devices, or noisemakers, such as bells, horns, or whistles. 2) Power generators shall not exceed 70 decibels measured 10 feet away from the source. j. Signage shall be limited to the following: 1) Text and images permanently applied to the vehicle as a decal or painted image and text. 2) Signs that are attached to the vehicle. The signs shall not extend above the roof of the vehicle, or extend more than five inches beyond any side of the vehicle. These signs can be unlit or internally lit. 3) Text and images permanently applied to awnings that are attached to the vehicle, do not extend above the height of the roof of the vehicle, and are at least six feet from the ground to the bottom of the awning. 4) Text and images permanently applied to umbrellas that are attached to a food cart. The umbrella shall be less than nine feet in height, and maintain a clearance of at least six feet from the ground to the bottom of the umbrella. 5) One Pedestrian sign as defined in Section 36-362. The Pedestrian sign must be located within five feet of the vehicle. k. Trash, litter, recycling and refuse shall be handled in the following manner: 1) All waste liquids, garbage, litter and refuse shall be kept in leak proof, nonabsorbent containers which shall be kept covered with tight-fitting lids and properly disposed of at the establishment the vehicle operates from. Public trash cans shall not be used to dispose of waste generated by the operation. Excepted from this is the occasional use by customers. City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 7 Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering 2) No waste liquids, garbage, litter or refuse shall be dumped or drained into sidewalks, streets, gutters, drains, or any other place except the licensed food establishment. 3) The vendor shall provide a garbage receptacle with a tight fitting lid. The receptacle shall be easily accessible for customer use, and located within five feet of the vehicle. 4) The operator shall be responsible for all litter and garbage left by customers. l. Overnight parking of the vehicle is not permitted, except that a vehicle under a long term contract to operate on a premises may be kept overnight on the same premises with the following conditions: 1) The vehicle is open for business at least six hours and five days per week for every week it is kept on site. The business hours must be posted on the outside of the vehicle at all times. 2) The vehicle is kept along the front wall of the building, near the customer entrance of the building. 3) The vehicle is kept within 10 feet of the principal building wall. 4) There is a minimum of six feet of pedestrian walkway between the vehicle and the edge of the sidewalk or marked pedestrian walkway. 5) Vehicles located on public property are exempt from these requirements pertaining to overnight parking. *** Sec. 36-163. R-1 single-family residence district. (a) Purpose and effect. The purpose of the R-1 single-family residence district is to provide appropriately located areas for single-family living on larger lots ensuring adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling; protect residents from the impacts of high levels of traffic; minimize traffic congestion; avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size when compared with surrounding structures; provide institutional and community services such as parks, schools, religious facilities, and community centers supportive of a residential area while safeguarding its residential character; and protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, dust, dirt, smoke, vibration, heat, glare, and other objectionable influences. *** (e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-1 district: *** (14) Catering is permitted as an accessory use to Community Centers, Educational (academic) facilities, Country Clubs, and Religious Institutions with the following conditions: a. Vehicles used to receive and/or deliver food shall not be stored outside. *** City Council Meeting of November 5, 2012 (Item No. 8c) Page 8 Subject: First Reading of Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Mobile Food Vehicles and Catering Sec. 36-164. R-2 single-family residence district. *** (e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-2 district: *** (14) Catering is permitted as an accessory use to Community Centers, Educational (academic) facilities, and Religious Institutions with the following conditions: a. Vehicles used to receive and/or deliver food shall not be stored outside. *** Sec. 36-165. R-3 two-family residence district. *** (e) Accessory uses. The following uses shall be permitted accessory uses in an R-3 district: *** (13) Catering is permitted as an accessory use to Community Centers, Educational (academic) facilities, and Religious Institutions with the following conditions: a. Vehicles used to receive and/or deliver food shall not be stored outside. Sec. 3. The contents of Planning Case File 12-21-ZA are hereby entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case. Sec. 4. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication. Public Hearing August 15, 2012 First Reading November 5, 2012 Second Reading November 19, 2012 Date of Publication November 29, 2012 Date Ordinance takes effect December 14, 2012 Adopted by the City Council Reviewed for Administration City Mana ger Mayor Attest: Approved as to Form and Execution: City Clerk City Attorney