Council Meeting - St. Louis Park

Transcription

AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2, 2015
6:15 p.m. SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
1.
30 min. Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
2.
35 min. Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance
7:20 p.m. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY -- Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes October 19, 2015
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Reports
5a. Approval of EDA Disbursements
6. Old Business – None
7. New Business
7a. First Amendment to the Shoreham Redevelopment Contract
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the First
Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA and Shoreham
Apartments LLC.
7b. Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Shoreham Apartments LLC and
Assignment of Payments under TIF Note – The Shoreham
Recommended Action: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Assignment &
Subordination of Contract between the EDA, Shoreham Apartments, LLC and TCF
Investments Management and the Assignment of Payments Under Tax Increment Note
between Shoreham Apartments LLC and Bridgewater Bank consented to by the EDA
relative to The Shoreham redevelopment project.
8. Communications -- None
9. Adjournment
Meeting of November 2, 2015
City Council Agenda
7:30 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING – Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
1a. Pledge of Allegiance
1b. Roll Call
2. Presentations
2a. Small Business Saturday Proclamation
3. Approval of Minutes
3a. Study Session Minutes September 28, 2015
3b. Listening Session Minutes October 12, 2015
3c. Study Session Minutes October 12, 2015
3d. Special Study Session Minutes October 19, 2015
3e. City Council Meeting Minutes October 19, 2015
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 and First Reading of CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Ordinance
Recommended Action: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading
of an Ordinance granting a non-exclusive cable franchise to CenturyLink and set second
reading of the ordinance for November 16, 2015.
7. Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public -- None
8. Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a. Kerasotes Showplace ICON Theatre Liquor License Premises Amendment
Recommended Action: Motion to approve the request of Kerasotes Showplace ICON
Theatre to amend the existing licensed premises by expanding the liquor service area to
include all auditoriums on the premises and permitting the sale of alcohol from multiple
service points on the premises.
9. Communications – None
City Council Agenda
Immediately Following City Council Meeting
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION – Community Room
Discussion Items
3.
45 min. The Future of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
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.
City Council Agenda
CONSENT CALENDAR
4a.
Accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the period of, 2015 through, 2015.
4b.
Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 3 of the
Zoning Code and amending the Zoning Map from R-1 Single Family Residence to
PUD 3 for property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue,
and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication.
4c.
Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 3325 Gettysburg Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 18-117-21-23-0044.
4d.
Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the sewer service
line at 8206 35th Street West, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-0018.
4e.
Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment for the repair of the water service
line at 2850 Texas Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0012.
4f.
Adopt Resolution authorizing the submission of the Hennepin County Environmental
Response Fund (ERF) Soils Grant Application to the City of St. Louis Park in the
amount of $357,200 for soil excavation adjacent to The Rec Center (3700 Monterey
Drive) for the outdoor ice rink project.
4g.
Adopt Resolution authorizing fiscal agent, opening a bank account, and authorizing
bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair.
4h.
Approve for filing Fire Civil Service Commission Meeting Minutes June 23, 2015.
4i.
Approve for filing Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 16, 2015.
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: Special Study Session
Meeting Date: November 2, 2015
Discussion Item: 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff desires feedback on a revised draft of the Zero Waste
Packaging Ordinance and direction on next steps.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Will the revised Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance achieve the
Council’s desired outcomes? Does Council wish to move forward with the first reading of a Zero
Waste Packaging Ordinance and related public hearing?
SUMMARY: This report provides an update to the Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance being
considered by Council. The draft ordinance has been updated to reflect the pertinent changes
identified by stakeholders. See Attachment 2 for stakeholder comments.
NEXT STEPS:
If the Council desires to move forward with the adoption of an ordinance, the following schedule
is suggested.
1. 1st Reading of Ordinance/Public Hearing – December 2015 or January 2016 Council
Meeting
2. 2nd Reading of Ordinance – January or February 2016 Council Meeting
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The implementation, education and
enforcement of the proposed ordinance will impact the 2016 solid waste budget and likely future
year’s budgets.
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
· Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance (Attachment 1)
· Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance Stakeholder Comments (Attachment 2)
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by
Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator
Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager; Mark Hanson, Public Works
Superintendent; Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Tom Harmening, City Manager
Special Study Session Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No.1)
Title: Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
Page 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance draft was presented at the September
8, 2015 Special Study Session. Council was in favor of using the draft ordinance as part of the
public education process and encouraged comments on the draft ordinance from stakeholders
during the October 12, 2015 listening session. The updated draft Zero Waste Packaging
Ordinance (Attachment 1) reflects changes that staff is suggesting based on stakeholder input.
The stakeholder comments are attached for the record (Attachment 2).
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS: The overall objective of the ordinance remains the same:
require that all food and beverage container packaging used for immediate consumption be made
from recyclable or compostable material to reduce the disposal of solid waste and the associated
economic and environmental costs.
Ordinance Intent:
· To require reusable, recyclable, or compostable packaging for food that is prepared and
served on-site or taken to-go from a licensed food establishment.
·
To require that food establishments have on-site recycling and organics recycling
receptacles for customers to discard their used food packaging into.
·
To allow staff to develop exemptions where no commercially available or viable
alternatives can be found, with an annual review of the exemptions and approval by the
City Council.
Proposed Ordinance Changes:
· Recyclable Definition 12.202 – Recyclable packaging should not include a list of specific
plastics that are considered recyclable but instead be defined by local material recovery
facilities (MRFs) ability to accept and market recyclables.
·
Compostable Definition 12.202 – Compostable packaging definition is enhanced by
requiring either unlined paper products or certified compostable lining on paper products.
·
Opportunity to Recycle Exemption 12.203 – Food establishments without on-site dining
are exempted from providing recycling and/or organics recycling to their customers.
·
Violations and Enforcement 12.204 – Language has been included to outline the
administrative penalties that food establishments will be subject to when a violation
occurs. Enforcement would be complaint based. Additionally, staff would provide
Hennepin County Health Department inspectors with educational material to disseminate
during their routine inspections and have them notify Public Works staff of noncompliance. Public Works staff would be responsible for determining if a food
establishment is in violation and resulting enforcement action. Note: Penalties section
12.127 was removed and incorporated in Violations and Enforcement section 12.204.
·
Rulemaking 12.205 – Staff will develop a list of recyclable, compostable, and exempted
packaging which is reviewed and approved by council as needed. This will be done by
consulting not only affected food establishments, but also local MRFs and composting
facilities receiving and processing materials.
Special Study Session Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No.1)
Page 3
NEXT STEPS: If Council wishes to move forward with the Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance,
the following are suggested next steps.
1. 1st Public Reading of Ordinance – December 2015 or January 2016 Council Meeting
2. 2nd Public Reading of Ordinance – January or February 2016 Council Meeting
Special Study Session Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 1)
Attachment 1
Page 4
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. ____ - 15
ORDINANCE TO INCREASE TRADITIONAL RECYCLING
AND ORGANICS RECYCLING OF
FOOD AND BEVERAGE PACKAGING AND TO-GO CONTAINERS
THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK DOES ORDAIN:
CHAPTER 12 – Environment and Public Health
Division VI. ZERO WASTE PACKAGING
12-201. - Legislative purpose.
The city council (council) finds that discarded packaging from foods and beverages prepared for
immediate consumption constitutes a portion of the waste stream in St. Louis Park that could be
diverted for reuse, recycling, or organics recycling. Regulation of food and beverage packaging,
therefore, is a necessary part of any effort to encourage a recyclable and compostable waste
stream, thereby reducing the disposal of solid waste and the economic and environmental costs
of waste management for the citizens of St. Louis Park and others working or doing business in
St. Louis Park.
The council further finds that plastic packaging is rapidly replacing other packaging material,
and that some plastic packaging used for foods and beverages is nonreusable, nonreturnable,
nonrecyclable and noncompostable.
The council also finds that the two (2) main processes used to dispose of discarded nonreusable,
nonreturnable, nonrecyclable and noncompostable plastic food and beverage packaging are land
filling and incineration, both of which should be minimized for environmental reasons.
The council therefore finds that the minimization of nonreusable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable
and noncompostable food and beverage packaging originating at retail food establishments and
at events providing food and/or beverages within the city of St. Louis Park is necessary and
desirable in order to minimize the city's waste stream, so as to reduce the volume of landfilled
waste, to minimize toxic by-products of incineration, and to make our city and neighboring
communities more environmentally sound places to live.
12.202. - Definitions.
As used in this chapter, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings as defined in
this section:
(a) Packaging shall mean and include food or beverage cans, bottles or containers used to
package food and beverage products for distribution including glasses, cups, plates,
serving trays, and to-go containers. The following exclusions apply: foods pre-packaged
Page 5
by the manufacturer, producer or distributor; plastic knives, forks and spoons sold or
intended for use as utensils; and plastic films less than ten (10) mils in thickness.
(b) Zero waste packaging shall mean and include any of the following:
(1) Reusable and returnable packaging: Food or beverage containers or packages, such
as, but not limited to, water bottles, growlers, milk containers and bulk product
packaging that are capable of being refilled at a retail location or returned to the
distributor for reuse at least once as a container for the same food or beverage;
(2) Recyclable packaging: Packaging that is separable from solid waste by the
generator or during collection for the purpose of recycling including, but not
limited to, glass bottles, aluminum cans and plastic food and beverage packaging.
Recyclable packaging must be accepted by the local material recovery facilities
receiving and processing the materials and have existing that have robust recycling
markets as determined by the Public Works Division by rule promulgated pursuant
to section 12.205. For the purposes of this chapter, zero waste plastic packaging
includes the following plastic types:
a.
Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE);
b.
High Density Polyethylene (#2 HDPE); and
c.
Polypropylene (#5 PP).
(3) Compostable packaging: Packaging that is separable from solid waste by the
generator or during collection for the purpose of composting. Compostable
packaging must be made of unlined paper (unless lining is certified compostable),
certified compostable plastics that meet ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868 for
compostability or other cellulose-based packaging capable of being decomposed
throughor other material accepted by the commercial composting or anaerobic
digestion facility receiving and processing the materials.
(c) Food establishment, as used in this chapter, means a "food establishment" as defined in
by Chapter 3.3.1 Hennepin County Code of Ordinances.
12.203. - Prohibitions and duties.
(a) No person owning, operating or conducting a food establishment or any person or
organization providing free food or beverage products within the city of St. Louis Park
pursuant to a Hennepin County permit or license, or in a manner which would require a
permit or license, shall do or allow to be done any of the following within the city: Sell
or convey at retail or possess with the intent to sell or convey at retail any food or
beverage intended for immediate consumption contained, at any time at or before the
time or point of sale, in packaging which is not zero waste packaging. The presence on
the premises of the food establishment of packaging which is not zero waste packaging
shall constitute a rebuttable presumption of intent to sell or convey at retail, or to
provide to retail customers packaging which is not zero waste packaging; provided,
Page 6
however, that this subparagraph shall not apply to manufacturers, brokers or warehouse
operators, who conduct or transact no retail food or beverage business.
(b) Packaging used to contain food or beverages intended for immediate consumption shall
be considered zero waste packaging only when the food establishment provides
consumers with an opportunity to recycle and/or appropriately manage compostable
packaging and compostable plastics and utilizes a qualified recycling and/or organics
management system.
(1) A qualified recycling system shall have the following elements:
a.
A clear and verifiable process for separating recyclable packaging from
discarded solid waste; and
b.
Collection and delivery of recyclable packaging to a recycling facility for
processing in the same or at least similar manner as recyclable packaging
collected in a city approved recycling program.
(2) A qualified organics recycling system shall have the following elements:
a.
A clear and verifiable process for separating organic materials from discarded
solid waste; and
b.
Collection and delivery of organic materials to an food to people, food to
animals, organics composting or anaerobic digestion facility in the same
manner or at least similar manner as organic materials collected in a
municipally approved organics management program.
(3) A food establishment that does not have dine-in seating for consumers is exempt
from the requirement to provide consumers with an opportunity to recycle and/or
manage compostable packaging/compostable plastics as defined in Sec 12-203(b).
12.204. -– Violations and Enforcement.
When a violation of this chapter has occurred, the food establishment shall be subject to the
penalties set forth below.
A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor.
Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to City Code
Ordinance 2420-12, Section 1-14 Administrative Penalties, as follows:
(a) A warning notice in writing for the first violation;
(b) A fine of $100 for the second violation;
(c) Repeat subsequent violations with 24 months, a fine double the amount of the fine
imposed for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example if there
were four occurrences of a violation that carried a $100 fine: first is $0 (warning); second
is $100, third is $200, forth is $400).
Page 7
(d) At the time a violation occurs, the city will provide the food establishment with a
corrective action timeframe prior to a subsequent fine being issued.
The administrative offenses provided for in this chapter shall be in addition to any other legal or
equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
12.205. - Rules and regulations.
The Public Works Division may, upon notice and hearing, promulgate such rules and regulations
as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter and protect the health of the public,
including the development of list of recyclable and compostable packaging that meets definitions
under section 12.202 and development of exemptions under section 12.206 for packaging for
which there is no reasonable commercially available alternative. In promulgating such rules, the
division shall consider the legislative purposes provided in section 12.201 of this chapter and
shall consult with the operators of affected food establishments, local material recovery facilities
and local commercial composting facilities. The Public Works Division rules and regulations
shall be approved by council annually.
12.206. - Exemptions.
Notwithstanding any other provision to the contrary, this chapter shall not apply to:
(a) Any packaging which is not zero waste packaging, but for which there is no
commercially available alternative as determined by the Public Works Division by rule
promulgated pursuant to section 12.205. In determining whether there are commercially
available alternatives, the Public Works Division shall consider the following: (1) the
availability of zero waste packaging for affected products; (2) the economic
consequences to manufacturers, suppliers, retailers and other vendors of requiring zero
waste packaging when available; and (3) the competitive effects on manufacturers,
suppliers, retailers and other vendors involved in the sale of product brands or labels
available only in packaging that is not zero waste packaging. Every rule creating an
exemption under this paragraph shall be reviewed annually by the Public Works
Division to determine whether current conditions continue to warrant the exemption.
12.127. - Penalties.
Each violation of any provision of this chapter or of lawful regulations promulgated under
section 12.125 hereof shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to City Code
Ordinance 2420-12, Section 1-14 Administrative Penalties.
12.207. - Severability.
If any part or provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, entity, or
circumstances shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent
Page 8
jurisdiction, such judgment shall be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application
which is directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered,
and shall not affect or impair the validity of the remainder of this chapter or the application
thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances.
12.208. - Effective date.
This ordinance shall take effect January 1, 2017.
Secs. 12-209--12-250. Reserved.
Reviewed for Administration
Adopted by the City Council _______________
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk
City Attorney
Page 9
Attachment 2
RECORD OF WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED BY RESIDENTS
9/29/15
Get rid of them!!!! All the gibberish-jabber about them - they are HORRIBLE for environment. Can't
anyone "take the bull by the horn" and FINALLY do what's right!!!!
-Deb Lyneis
10/5/15
Sue,
After reading through the city newsletter and Sun Sailor article on the plastics and polystyrene debate, I
thought I would throw my 2¢ into the ring.
Some businesses were concerned that it would raise their costs to switch to an alternative, which may
be very well true. However, it's not the business of government to cater to companies' preferences, but
rather make a safe and inviting environment for its citizens. Take-out companies may see costs go up by
a couple of thousand dollars a year, but that strikes me as an inconsequential amount when the cost is
spread out over thousands of orders they send out every year. If their finances are already that shaky,
then they don't have a strong business model.
Addressing some of the other objections that were brought up, it's true that plastic bags may be a small
percentage of the waste stream. The goal though is to get to zero waste and as such it needs to be
addressed sooner or later. One of the advantages of banning plastics at this time is it positions St. Louis
Park as a leader on this and similar issues, as opposed to a city that will only jump on the band wagon
once other municipalities have paved the way. Leading attracts people who appreciate an innovative
environment and helps to put us on the map.
Personally, I would like to see the U.S. follow the European model and require all manufacturers to take
in their packaging material. But that's a method that needs to be addressed on the national level. Until
then we need to do what we can locally to move the ball forward.
Thanks,
-Todd (Hintz) Adler
10/8/15
Kala,
Hello, my name is Paula Evensen.
I have been raising a stink about banning plastic bags, [not a good idea], and I would like to follow up
with you about polystyrene.
My comment to the council was that "not every good idea needs to be a law". [or ordinance or
regulation]
Page 10
I reuse my Target bags and please don't take them away so I have to buy them.
With polystyrene, yes. I wish it would go away. But again, I believe an ordinance should be unnecessary.
The ban on incandescent light bulbs was premature. LED bulbs were the way to go, but they weren't
ready yet. Now I have a house full of CFLs that are dim, or take minutes to come on, but are not ready to
toss [as hazardous waste]. Now that LED bulbs are affordable, people are buying them. Their time has
come.
I believe this discussion is good, to show this city is serious about waste. Yet, as the rest of my argument
goes, "any law with a long list of exceptions doesn't need to be a law".
If the council would write a strongly worded opinion about polystyrene, I believe polystyrene would fade
away in due time.
Imagine the business that just bought a years worth of take out containers and because of an ordinance
now can't use them. Imagine the sauce that just drips through everything else. Let businesses decide
what is best for their product.
I don't believe we need more ordinances and bans just to make us look like responsible stewards of the
earth.
Thanks
Paula Evensen
W 37th St
SLP 55416
10/9/15
I am writing to share my support of the non-foam food packaging proposal. First, we shouldn't used a
non-renewable resource, oil, to make Styrofoam to put it in a landfill. We're going to need that oil later
for more important uses. Second, because there are paper/bio products available, made from a
renewable resource, we should use those. Third, it's better yet if the biodegradable packaging gets
composted, which is a major effort in the City. So why not carry through the whole organics effort and
require such packaging. It may cost a few cents more per package, but it is up to the citizenry to bear the
cost of a sustainable future for everyone.
Good luck with the anti-polystyrene effort.
-Lee Ann Landstrom
2701 Yosemite Ave. So., St. Louis Park MN 55416
Page 11
10/9/15
As an SLP citizen and business owner in SLP I fully support the banning of plastic bags and other
polystyrene products.
I help clean the creek every year and am shocked by the amount of polystyrene in our waters. I carry
cloth bags and refuse plastic. I support all businesses that have banned polystyrene.
Thank you,
Marjorie Herdes
President, Mobius, Inc.;
Partners for Strategic Change
10/13/15
Hello Kala;
I was not unable to attend the 5:30 PM listening session this past Monday.
Polystyrene currently does not have a sustainable market for recycling and the harm the waste does to
the environment out weight any benefits. This product can be easily replaced by encouraging
customer's to bring their own containers similar to Caribou and/or be replaced by more environmental
friendly products.
Plastic Bags - Can be replaced with reusable products or corn or sugar based plastic bags. I started
keeping a box in my car of groceries and I haven't had a glass jar break in my plastic bags or a paper bag
handle break and you can take more items into the house at one time. Plus the box keeps dirty items
that I throw into the car at times from ruining the trunk carpet.
Good luck on banning.
Cindy Brausen
RECORD OF WRITTEN COMMENTS PROVIDED BY OTHER STAKEHOLDERS
Kala and St. Louis Park Staff,
Thank you for sending the draft Zero Waste Packaging ordinance language. Madalyn and I have had a
chance to review it and wanted to provide a few thoughts.

12.121 – Legislative purpose.
o The goal of the ordinance is clear. This effort is about solid waste and reducing the
fraction that cannot be reused, recycled, or composted. A clear, straightforward goal is a
very important part of policy making, especially in regard to ordinances that will end up
prohibiting the use of particular materials and products. The use of the term “zero
waste packaging” in the definitions further clarifies the intent.
o
o

Page 12
It is understood that the ordinance was drafted using language from the Minneapolis
packaging ordinance, and this is useful in that it harmonizes policy in neighboring
municipalities. However, as the Minneapolis ordinance is an older policy that was
updated, it contains some language that is now largely outdated, specifically: “The
council further finds that plastic packaging is rapidly replacing other packaging material,
and that some plastic packaging used for foods and beverages is nonreuseable,
nonreturnable, nonrecyclable, and noncompostable.”
This statement reflects where packaging was when the Minneapolis policy was first
written, however this transition to plastic has already happened. Additionally, there are
types of packaging that people may think of as being paper that will be impacted by the
ordinance as they are lined with another material (usually plastic, but also metal foil),
and therefore are nonreuseable, nonreturnable, nonrecyclable, and noncompostable.
Examples include foil-lined wrap (such as for hot sandwiches) and plastic-lined wrap, hot
cups, and movie theater popcorn bags.
 Ultimately this language is not necessary to demonstrate the purpose of the
ordinance, and the MPCA suggests it be removed.
rd
In the 3 paragraph of this section, disposal methods for “plastic” food and beverage
packaging are highlighted, however any packaging that is not zero waste is disposed of
by the same methods.
 It is suggested that the word “plastic” be removed.
12.122 – Definitions
o Recyclable packaging – Any package could be separated by the generator. Recycling
survives only when markets exist. Defining the recyclability of a product in terms of
available markets can be a valuable way to address which materials meet the definition.
However, recycling markets change. Sometimes they change to expand materials that
are accepted, such as has been seen with polypropylene (#5) containers and plasticlined cartons in the last decade. Sometimes the markets change and certain materials
are still accepted, but the markets are not as “robust,” as has recently been the case
with glass. In the St. Louis Park conversation, the focus has primarily been on foam
polystyrene (expanded polystyrene, or EPS), which currently has limited, if any, markets.
However, there are many polystyrene items that are not EPS, such as hot cup lids, red
“Solo” cups, and service trays for catering, and these items may find markets in the
future.
 The MPCA supports defining recyclable packaging as those which have ready
markets, but suggests eliminating the list of specific plastics in 12.122(b)(2) to
allow the City of St. Louis Park more flexibility to adjust to future changes in
recycling, without the need to amend laws. One alternative would be to specify
that St. Louis Park environmental staff will evaluate and determine what is
recyclable at least every 5 years.
o Compostable packaging – There are many products out there that the average
consumer and business owner may think of as paper, but due to plastic lining is
unwanted by compost facilities, so it is suggested to clarify only unlined paper is
accepted, unless it has a compostable lining.
 Suggested language: Compostable packaging must be made of unlined paper
(unless lining is certified compostable), certified compostable plastic that meet
ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868, or other material accepted by the commercial
compost or anaerobic digestion facility receiving and processing the materials.

Page 13
12.123 – Prohibitions and duties
o The requirement for having a collection method in place for the packaging materials in
question, as the ordinance has done, is very important. Requiring businesses to switch
from a material such as polystyrene to paper or compostable plastic, but not requiring
the new materials be collected for composting has the potential to increase the
negative impacts of the packaging, since the disposal method would not change, but the
life cycle impacts may be higher. Given St. Louis Park’s curbside organics program, and
availability of that collection service to businesses, the opportunity to capture
compostable materials from businesses and residents is high. We strongly support St.
Louis Park’s inclusion of this collection requirement in the ordinance.
Two comments:
 Would collection be required of food establishments without a seating area? In
other words, if customers are unable to eat on the premises, and presumably
take the packaging with them, would the establishment be required to have
recycling or composting for the materials available to customers? An example
would be a food truck or any establishment that only has takeout.
 In section (b)(2)(b) the options for a qualified organics recycling program include
“food to people” and “food to animals.” However, these are not collection
options that could accept packaging. It would seem the establishment would
still need collection for composting or anaerobic digestion to accommodate
proper management of the packaging materials.
 The MPCA suggests removing “food to people” and “food to animals” to
reduce confusion.
Thank you again for allowing the MPCA an opportunity to provide input on the proposed St. Louis Park
packaging policy.
Emily
Emily Barker
Organics and Recycling Specialist
Sustainable Materials Management Unit, RMAD
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(651) 757-2030
520 Lafayette Road N
St. Paul, MN 55155
Page 14
Date:
October 7, 2015
To:
Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Coordinator, Saint Louis Park, MN
From:
Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Subject:
ACC Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group comments: Information you requested from industry
on polystyrene and plastics foodservice containers in advance of October 12, 2015 Listening
Session on draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
Dear Kala,
Our group, the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), represents the
leading suppliers and manufacturers of plastics foodservice packaging products, including polystyrene food and beverage
containers.
We do support programs with respect to health and safety studies and testing, litter education and prevention, waste
minimization, and recycling (including all plastics foodservice, like polystyrene foam #6 as proven solutions to address
these key issues.
As you in Saint Louis Park go through a similar process that the City of Minneapolis is going through with how it is
addressing environmentally acceptable packaging with respect to certain packaging, including polystyrene containers, we
would like to provide these written comments (in addition to previous comments submitted to you and City Council on
May 26th and at the July 27th Polystyrene Experts Panel) on the draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance that will be the
subject of a Listening Session at Saint Louse Park on October 12th. We will participate in the session, and be happy to
answer any questions on our comments.
In particular, we want to amplify the comments at the July 27th experts panel by the Minneapolis Pollution Control Board
and the Hennepin County solid waste authorities stating they did not see that polystyrene (plastics, or foodservice
packaging in general) represented a significant solid waste management problem – both in amount, and the fact that the
Hennepin Energy Resource Corporation (HERC) waste to energy plant already reduces this waste and generates energy –
both in Minneapolis and St. Louis Park.
Here are the key reasons why we believe the draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance should not be adopted by St. Louis
Park:
1. PS Foodservice Uses and Benefits
PS foodservice is a safe, low cost, and efficient foodservice package that has been used for over 50 years. It has
performance benefits that make it a preferred choice – from PS lids used on all hot beverage materials (paper and
plastic) to prevent burning from leaky seals, to PS foam cups and clamshells that utilize 98% air as insulation, keeping
hot foods hot and cold liquids cold. Minneapolis Green to Go Ordinance has not demonstrated any performance
benefit with the alternative foodservice materials to PS and certain plastics foodservice, or any environmental benefit
of these alternatives – with no current infrastructure in place to compost all the non-plastics foodservice.
Page 15
2. Polystyrene foodservice costs versus alternatives
Polystyrene foodservice containers – both foam polystyrene (e.g., cups, clamshells, plates) and solid polystyrene (e.g.
cups, lids) are anywhere from 2–3 times less expensive than coated bleached paperboard items, and 2-4 times less
expensive than compostable alternatives. We provided you with same cost data requested from our industry as part of
our work on the Minneapolis EnVAP task force to show these cost differences. Local Saint Louis Park restaurants,
food establishments, cafeteria owners, as well as the restaurant/beverage associations have testified this cost
difference is a major impediment to their businesses – and these costs cannot be passed on.
What about environmental, health and safety attributes of PS foodservice compared to alternative foodservice?
3. What have other states/cities done about PS foam foodservice from a public policy perspective:
- No federal government or state has ever passed a law restricting polystyrene or any foodservice material.
- Cities who have banned learned the following:
o New York City - On September 21, 2015, the Supreme Court of the State of New York (New York County)
issued a ruling overturning NYC Sanitation Commissioner’s decision to ban foam foodservice items, and
determined that in fact there are markets for PS foam recycling in NYC and you can recycle PS foam in NY
C. This clears the way for NYUC to embrace a recycling program that would cover 100 percent of
polystyrene products and generate new revenue for NYC.
o Portland, OR – In 1988 Portland, OR enacted a ban on PS foam foodservice, despite concerns by the Portland
City Commissioner that the ban might increase pollution and costs than decrease them due to the need to use
alternative materials. Ten years later, Cascades Policy Institute published studies showing the ban on PS
foam failed on both environment and economic effects to the City – and should be repealed.
o San Francisco, CA -– SF argued that PS foam foodservice should be banned and that in doing so they would
solve a major litter problem. Despite the lack of data to support this theory, they passed a ban in 2007. A
2008 report by consulting firm HDR commissioned by the City of San Francisco Streets Litter Re-Audit 2008
verified through data that in fact eliminating all food-related polystyrene (through their ban) simply changed
the type of litter found on its sidewalk and street and in waterways – and did not reduce the quantity or
eliminate the negative effect of improper disposal that put it there in the first place. Key findings of the PS
Foam and Paper Cup Data
 In 2008, all paper cups observed (hot, cold, and other), increased to 2.41 percent of total large litter
from 1.82 percent in 2007, while polystyrene cups decreased to 0.78 percent from 1.13 percent during
the same period.
 More specifically, the number of paper hot cups observed increased 58% from 36 pieces in 2007 to
57 pieces in 2008
 Paper hot cups, not polystyrene foam hot cups, was one of the top 25 sub-categories (comprising 84
percent) of large litter.
Summary: This data indicates that prohibiting the sale and use of polystyrene cups does not decrease overall litter but just
causes a shift in litter to other materials.
o
Oahu, Hawaii Report to City Council – Uses and Impacts of Single-Use Food service Containers. Like Saint
Louis Park, the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii was asked to perform a study for its City Council to
assess the uses and impacts of single-use food service containers, including polystyrene. Also like St. Louis
Park (and Minneapolis), the City and County of Honolulu, Hawaii rely on waste to energy recovery
(HPOWER) as the primary end of life disposal mechanism. Honolulu’s June 2015 report was provided to
Kala Fisher of Saint Louis Park which included an assessment of the quantify of different single-use food
service containers used on Oahu, as well as the quality of single use food containers, recognizing the
insulation benefits of PS foam versus the other materials. The report did not have any specific
recommendations for handling polystyrene foam containers compared to the other alternatives, since (a) all
foodservice was part of the trash that is collected and turned in to energy at the City’s waste-to energy facility
(HPOWER), and (b) the island has no commercial composting program for single-use-containers (i.e., for
compostable foodservice alternatives). The report also assessed the potential health and safety risks
Page 16
associated with the everyday use and disposal of single- use foodservice containers – and found that FDA
regulates them and there is no risk to consumers for FDA approved foodservice products, including
polystyrene foodservice.
4. How much polystyrene is in the waste stream?
According to latest U.S. EPA MSW characterization report (Advancing Sustainable Materials Management – Facts
and Figures 2013), we generated 254 million tons of MSW (trash) in 2013. All plastics, including polystyrene,
generated 35.5 million tons of MSW. All polystyrene applications contributed 2.27 million tons of MSW – less than
1% of all MSW. All foodservice packaging is similarly a very small component of overall MSW.
5. How much polystyrene foam contributes to overall litter – According to a 2012 study, commonly used polystyrene
foam foodservice products make up 1.5 percent of litter. The report compiled information from nineteen litter surveys
conducted in the U.S. and Canada from 1994 to 2009, including a 2008 national survey of 240 sites. In addition, our
industry has many partnerships with cities on helping them address the root causes of litter, and help changing
behavior that is necessary to help prevent litter.
6. How does polystyrene foodservice compare to other foodservice materials – what is its environmental footprint
A measure of sustainability goes well beyond whether a product can be recycled or composted. It’s an assessment
throughout the whole life cycle of making a product from raw materials (cradle) to end of life disposal (final use), and
then determining what the impacts are on the environment. Polystyrene foam foodservice, when compared to
alternative foodservice products (namely coated bleached paperboard and corn-based compostable foodservice), is
actually more sustainable in that the footprint (or burden) of raw materials, energy resources, air, water, solid waste
emissions it takes to makes PS foam foodservice products (on an item by item basis) is lower than what it takes to
make non polystyrene foam foodservice containers.
- Highlights of the study include:
o Energy use: Polystyrene foam products consume significantly less energy than the alternatives—half as
much as wax-coated paperboard cups and one-third as much as PLA clamshells.
o Water use: Polystyrene foam products use significantly less water than the alternatives—up to four times less
than PLA clamshells.
o Solid waste: Polystyrene foam products create significantly less solid waste by weight than the alternatives—
up to five times less than paperboard and PLA products. Comparisons by volume vary widely:
 Polystyrene foam cups for hot drinks create less waste by volume than the alternatives—significantly
less than paperboard cups with corrugated sleeves used for insulation.
 Polystyrene foam cups for cold drinks create similar waste by volume as plastic coated paperboard
cups and significantly less than wax coated paperboard and PLA cups.
 Heavy duty polystyrene foam plates produce more solid waste by volume than the alternatives, while
lighter duty polystyrene foam plates create similar waste by volume as the paperboard counterparts.
 Polystyrene foam clamshells create slightly more waste by volume than paperboard clamshells and
half the waste by volume of PLA clamshells.
o Greenhouse gases: Polystyrene foam products generate slightly more greenhouse gas emissions than PLA
products, expressed as net CO2 equivalents (see note below). If paperboard products do not degrade after
disposal, they store carbon and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions than polystyrene foam products;
however, if paperboard products degrade to the maximum extent, they generate more greenhouse gas
emissions than polystyrene foam products, so comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions vary widely
depending on assumptions about the degradation of paperboard products.
Summary: When developing policy around polystyrene foam foodservice containers, it is important to evaluate its overall
sustainability including, but not limited to, the end of life disposal of the product. When doing so, the studies show
polystyrene foam foodservice products are actually more sustainable than alternative products, which are usually heavier
by weight and have larger impacts on the environment.
Page 17
7. How does polystyrene fit in the greater Minneapolis area waste management end of life programs?
Polystyrene foodservice and waste to energy recovery - Hennepin Energy Resource Co. - Polystyrene foodservice
products are recovered and recycled in various ways in many communities, depending on their solid waste program.
The City of St. Louis Park’s residential waste is sent to the Covanta Hennepin Energy Resource Co. (HERC) waste to
energy plant. Plastics, including plastics foodservice waste like polystyrene, provide a higher BTU (caloric) value
than the mixed paperboard and non-plastics waste – and help with the burning of waste in the HERC facility.
Compared to composting, waste-to-energy is a more cost effective alternative that produces electricity “with less
environmental impact than almost any other sources of electricity” (EPA). (Source: Congress to Convert Waste to
Energy, Oct 6, 2011, http://cha.house.gov/press-release/congress-convert-waste-energy).
Summary – Given the HERC facility in Hennepin County that already exists, and the lack of infrastructure and series
of commercial composting facilities in place that would be needed to handle “compostable” foodservice, along with
the fact that there is no end of life benefit for a compostable product if it’s not composted, it appears that polystyrene
foodservice is already recovered for energy, and reduced as a waste under the current waste disposal practices in
Hennepin County.
8. Can polystyrene foam be recycled – yes?
The proposed draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance defines recyclable packaging for plastics as only #1 (PET or PETE),
#2 (HDPE), or #5 (PP). New York City decision reaffirms that #6 PS – foam or rigid) can in fact be recycled. Should
St. Louis Park wish to add polystyrene to its recyclables before going to the HERC facility for waste to energy recover,
there are many cities that have done this. We’ve provided detailed information to Kala Fisher, but here are some
highlights:
- Polystyrene Foam Recycling is a reality - 65 cities in California (representing 22% of the population) have PS foam
recycling going on – both foodservice polystyrene foam and what we call EPS (expanded PS foam) protective
packaging (shape molded transport packaging). There are recyclers like Nepco in California that collect, process and
make picture frames out of the recycled polystyrene foam. This includes the City of Los Angeles, our nation’s
second largest city, which collects polystyrene packaging in its curbside recycling program. The LA program accepts
foodservice products, like foam cups and take-out containers—residents simply wipe away food residue and toss them
in the blue bin with their other recyclables.
- How polystyrene foam containers are recycled in cities (http://www.fpi.org/PressReleases) and the Foam Recycling
Coalition shows how it can be done (http://www.fpi.org/recyclefoam)
- Midwest cities recycling:
o Denver – Alpine Waste & Recycling to Recycle Foam in Denver Metro Area Many residents and commercial
companies in the Denver Metro area will soon be able to add polystyrene foam foodservice packaging, egg
cartons, meat trays and protective packaging to their recycling bins, thanks to a $45,000 grant from the Foam
Recycling Coalition. Alpine Waste & Recycling of Commerce City, Colo., is the first recipient of the
recently launched North American funding program designed to increase the collection, processing, and
marketing of post-consumer polystyrene foam. Alpine will use the grant money to purchase equipment that
compacts (densifies) polystyrene foam into bricks, making Alpine the first company in Denver to provide
foam recycling services. Alpine is the largest independent, privately held waste and recycling company in
Colorado. It is vertically integrated with a fleet of more than 80 collection vehicles and 220 employees; plus a
recycling facility (the second largest in the state); composting collection and operations; and a landfill.
o Cedar Falls, IA tell residents what to do with Styrofoam; Recycle. IA DNR awarded the city $20,000 grant to
purchase a densifier, with another $20,000 coming from cost savings from AA recent addition to their
recycling center.
- EPS Recycling Works at MRFs (Material Recycling Facilities)
o Burrtec Waste (Fontana, CA) and EDCO (Lemon Grove, CA) explain why recycling EPS programs work
there, and how they did it. Case studies and contacts are available.
- How solid polystyrene containers are recycled more and more in “non-bottle rigid programs” that cities like Saint
Louis Park can replicate. Here’s the latest non-bottle rigid plastic report:
Page 18
http://plastics.americanchemistry.com/Education-Resources/Publications/2013-National-Report-on-PostConsumer-Non-Bottle-Rigid-Plastic-Recycling.pdf.
9. Composting: Not a Simple Solution – Many people believe that communities could easily compost paper-based and
other “biodegradable” foodservice products. But it’s not that simple. These used foodservice items would still need
to be collected, separated and delivered to a large-scale compositing facility, of which there are few in the U.S. In the
absence of such a facility, these products generally end up in landfills. Once in landfills, they do not readily break
down because modern landfills are actually designed to retard decomposition.
10. Plastics and Marine Debris
-
On September 30 Ocean Conservancy released a new report on marine debris generated titled Stemming the Tide:
Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean (http://www.wset.com/story/30150165/ocean-conservancyreleases-global-report-outlining-solutions-to-critical-problem-of-plastic-waste-in-oceans)
Highlights
- Proper land-based waste management is the best solution to prevent plastic leakage into the ocean – not plastic
bans or restrictions, because they are less ineffective
- Long term solution to plastic in our oceans is the prevention of land-based plastic leakage
-Better waste management in the top five countries could cut leakage by 65% in those countries in 10 years—a
45% cut globally—and the cost is manageable
-Better waste management includes raising the amount of trash collected, better containment, and waste treatment
especially for low-value plastic
Key Findings
-75% of land-sourced ocean plastic comes from uncollected waste or litter, while the remaining 25% comes from
gaps in the collection system itself.
-Waste management solutions should be focused on the five identified countries that account for half of all plastic
leakage
Recommendations
-Increase waste collection rates by service expansion, as plastic waste is two times more likely to leak if it
remains uncollected
-Close leakage points within the collection system, otherwise 7% of collected waste will leak to the ocean
-Keep leakage points in the system closed through commercial treatment that increases the value of plastic waste
-Convert waste to fuel or electricity in areas with high waste density to deal with the full waste stream
-Manually sort waste in areas with low waste density to extract 20% of plastic waste that is of high residual value
for recycling
-Convert the 80% of plastic waste that is of low residual value to Refuse-Derived-Fuel for industrial application
-By 2020, improvement in collection infrastructure and plugging post-collection gaps can reduce annual leakage
by 49%
-By 2025, the development of commercially viable waste treatment can reduce annual leakage by a further 16%
-Provide local “proof of concept” for integrated waste management approaches in a number of carefully selected
“beta” cities.
Study Results: To Curb Marine Debris, Focus Efforts Where Waste Inputs Are Greatest 1
Inadequate waste management in multiple developing countries dominates the sources of plastic waste in the oceans
according to a landmark study by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at University of
California at Santa Barbara and published in Science Magazine on February 13, 2015. Linking worldwide data on solid
waste, population density, and economic status the study estimated 4.8 to 12.7 million metric tons of land-based plastic
1
Adapted from, Jambeck, et al., Plastic waste inputs from land into the ocean, Science (2015).
Page 19
waste entered the ocean in 2010. Population size and the quality of waste management systems largely determine
contributions to ocean waste.
Fast developing countries with poor waste management dominate sources with China, Indonesia, the Philippines and
Vietnam as the top countries. The United States, with a large coastal population compared with most countries, ranked
twentieth in terms of high plastic use; but, it had a high level of proper waste management at 98 percent. By contrast the
European Union, with a much smaller coastline, had a ranking of eighteenth. These numbers are estimates and the study
authors admit there are many sources of uncertainty in the data because few measurements are collected for waste
generation, characterization, collection, and disposal.
Ocean Plastic Debris by Country (2010)
4
Millions of Metric Tons
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
3.53
1.29
0.75
0.73
0.64
0.15
0.11
5 Sri Lanka
18 Coastal
EU countries
20 US
0
1 China
2 Indonesia 3 Philippines 4 Vietnam
Rank/Country
High Estimate
2

An estimated 2.5 billion metric tons (MT) of municipal solid waste was generated in 2010 by 6.4 billion people
living in 192 coastal countries (representing 93% of the global population). Approximately 11% (or 275 million
MT) of the waste generated by the total population of these 192 countries is plastic.

The estimate of plastic waste entering the ocean is one to three orders of magnitude greater than the reported mass
of floating plastic debris in high-concentration gyres and also globally.

Although plastics in the ocean absorb chemicals in the environment we should not assume that this phenomena
increases exposure. As to conclude that plastics in the ocean can act as a vector for the transfer of PBTs to the
food web, EPA’s own Expert Forum on Possible Human Health Risks from Microplastics in the Marine
Environment concluded that the current state of the science does not allow an assessment of possible human
health risks from the ingestion of seafood contaminated with microplastic-derived PBTs.2
EPA Forum Convened on April 23, 2014, http://www.prrecycles.org/uploads/9/6/3/0/9630382/1._201302_collections_certification_course_flyer_-_swana_caribbean_partners.pdf, (February 6, 2015)

Page 20
It is widely cited that 80% of marine debris is from land-based sources and that most of that is plastic. The
problem with using these percentages is that they are not substantiated by any peer-reviewed scientific studies.
Citing these percentages, without proper scientific basis, may have the unintended effect of deemphasizing efforts
aimed at preventing discharge of plastics and fishing gears at sea.
11. Lessons learned from participation in EnVAP (City of Minneapolis Work Group)
- Polystyrene foodservice containers cost much less than alternatives – several exemptions were discussed among the
working group for small businesses and vendors that would be impacted
- The scope of products under the environmentally acceptable packaging ordinance was underestimated. For instance,
polystyrene lids are used for all hot beverages (regardless if the container is paperboard, compostable, or plastic).
Exemptions for these products were needed.
- Polystyrene containers shipped into the city (Minneapolis) are not covered by the ordinance. Polystyrene meat trays,
seafood trays, and poultry trays used by grocery stores and supermarkets are the preferred product because of
sanitation (public health – less blood leakage) as well as cost issues.
- Ordinance was based on the misperception that PS foam could not be recycled. Companies like Dart Container
Corporation that has programs to recycle foam cups in place applied for an exemption from the ordinance on the basis
that the product can be recycled. The city rejected this request citing it has to be recyclable in the existing recycling
the city currently undertakes. Dart is open to working with the city to help them institute foam recycling.
- The replacement compostable/biodegradable products do not have an infrastructure or approved facilities to handle all
the polystyrene replacement products. In the absence of this, the polystyrene containers that were banned in the
ordinance are actually a more environmentally sustainable choice – since less energy, waste, water and greenhouse
emissions are used in the life cycle it takes to make polystyrene containers versus the alternatives.
Conclusion: We hope St Louis Park can better understand through a fair and thorough analysis of the environmental,
safety, health and economics benefits you get from continuing to have polystyrene foam foodservice part of the
foodservice packaging choices today by businesses and consumers actually provides a net benefit (environmental and
economic), and should not be the subject of policy restrictions or bans as currently in the draft Zero Waste Packaging
Ordinance. All foodservice products have different benefits and costs – the consumers and end-users through the
marketplace should be able to make those choices through their purchasing preferences. There is no health risk by using
any FDA approved foodservice packaging, including polystyrene that would warrant any restrictive action by the City.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak on Oct 12th, and we are here to not only answer questions, but be part of this
continuous process of helping St Louis Park evaluate different policy alternatives. We realize this is a lot of information
all at once, but hope it is helpful. Look forward to talking with you and participating in the Oct 12th Listening Session.
Sincerely,
Mike Levy, Director
Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG)
American Chemistry Council
(tel: 202-249-6614; e-mail: [email protected])
Page 21
Date:
October 22, 2015
To:
Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Coordinator, and St. Louis Park, MN
From:
Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) of the American Chemistry Council (ACC)
Subject:
Proposed Amendment to St. Louis Park, MN Draft Ordinance for Zero Waste Packaging –
following comments from public speakers at October 12, 2015 Listening Session
Dear Kala,
Thanks again for affording our group, the Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG) of the American Chemistry
Council (ACC), representing the leading suppliers and manufacturers of plastics foodservice packaging products,
including polystyrene food and beverage containers, the opportunity to participate in the October 12th Listening Session
for the above referenced St. Louis Park draft ordinance for Zero Waste Packaging.
Based on our previous comments to you submitted outlining our concerns about certain plastics packaging (polystyrene)
being left off the recyclables list of other plastics packaging (submitted to you May 26th, at the July 27th PS Experts
Panel), and most recently at the Oct 12th Listening Session), and also noting that 7 of the 8 public speakers also expressed
the same concerns and opposition to the proposed draft Zero Waste Ordinance as currently written, we propose the
following amendment to 12.122. – Definitions of the draft ordinance to address these concerns:
Proposed amendment language:
12.122. – Definitions
(b) Zero waste packaging shall mean and include any of the following:
(2) Recyclable packaging: Packaging that is separable from solid waste by the generator or during
collection for the purpose of recycling including glass bottles, aluminum cans and plastic food and
beverage packaging that have robust recycling markets. For purposes of this chapter, zero waste plastic
packaging includes the following plastic types:
a. Polyethylene Terephthalate (#1 PET or PETE);
b. High Density Polyethylene (#2 HDPE);
c. Polypropylene (#5 PP) foam and rigid; and
d. Polystyrene (#6 PS) foam and rigid.
We believe this amendment language is consistent with the intent of the draft ordinance for Zero Waste Packaging for the
following reasons:
1. There are more than three plastics “recyclable” packaging, including polystyrene #6 foam and rigid. If the goal of
the zero waste ordinance for packaging is to encourage recycling, all recyclable plastics should be included. This
was reinforced by most of the public comments as well at the October 12th Listening Session.
2. Documentation that polystyrene #6 (foam and rigids) is “recyclable” is as follows:
Page 22
a. New York City September 21st Judge Chan (Supreme Court of the State of New York) ruling that the
Dec 2013 Local Law 142 ban on PS foam foodservice because NYC Commissioner of Sanitation
determined PS foam “not to be recyclable” was overturned and considered null and void. The opinion by
Judge Chan stated, “… The Commissioner’s (NYC) concern is not justified given the abundant evidence
showing a viable and growing market for not just clean EPS (expanded polystyrene/foam) but postconsumer EPS material; that EPS recycling and the post-consumer EPS market is beyond the pilot
program stages or still paddling in untested waters …”
b. Moore Recycling Polystyrene and Paper Foodservice Recycling and Composting Study (submitted to you
on May 26th). http://plasticfoodservicefacts.com/Pages/Access-to-Recycling-Expanded-PolystyreneFood-Service-Items.pdf. The study looked at access to recycling of foodservice products to compare
recycling opportunities for paper versus polystyrene foam. The study of the fifty largest US and
California cities found that far more communities provide access to recycling of polystyrene foam
foodservice products than paper foodservice products. For example, half the population of California’s
fifty largest cities has direct or indirect access to foam foodservice recycling. In contrast, only two percent
of this population has direct or indirect access to paper foodservice recycling, meaning paper foodservice
recycling in California is almost nonexistent. Of the population of the fifty largest US cities, sixteen
percent has direct or indirect access to foam foodservice, while six percent can recycle paper foodservice.
In addition, the study shows that access to composting of paper foodservice products also is low: only
seven percent of the population of the fifty largest US cities. The study demonstrates that commonly held
beliefs about the recyclability of foodservice products are not based on actual recycling activities.
ACCESS TO RECYCLING/COMPOSTING OF FOAM AND PAPER FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS
CA 50 Largest Cities
Foam Collected for Recycling
Paper Collected for Recycling
Paper Collected for Composting
US 50 Largest Cities
Foam Collected for Recycling
Paper Collected for Recycling
Paper Collected for Composting
Percent of Population
50%
2%
13%
Percent of Population
16%
6%
7%
3. The City of St. Louis Park’s residential waste, including all types of packaging, is sent to the Covanta Hennepin
Energy Resource Co. (HERC) waste to energy plant. If the goal of the Zero Waste Packaging ordinance is to
divert that current packaging that goes to the HERC facility for both energy recovery and waste disposal/landfill
minimization – and instead create a separate infrastructure to collect and process, in approved recycling and
industrial composting facilities, the acceptable packaging defined under the draft ordinance (specifically
“recyclable packaging” or “compostable packaging”), then it behooves St. Louis Park include all recyclable or
compostable packaging in the ordinance.
Recommendation: We believe expanding the definition of plastics recyclables in the current draft ordinance to include
polypropylene (#5 – foam and rigid) and polystyrene (#6 – foam and rigid) both addresses the concerns from the public
during the PS expert panel as well as the recent Listening Session as to not limit the amount of “recyclables” in the draft
ordinance, and still meets the spirit and intent of the draft zero waste ordinance.
We hope you will take this into consideration during the subsequent Study Session discussion and future public hearings,
and make the amendment as described above. Could you please share this letter with Council members? Please contact
us if you have questions on this proposed amendment, or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Mike Levy, Director
Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group (PFPG)
(tel: 202-249-6614; e-mail: [email protected])
Page 23
Page 24
October 9, 2015
Mayor Jeff Jacobs
St. Louis Park City Hall
5005 Minnetonka Blvd.
St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Steve Hallfin
At-Large A
Anne Mavity
Ward 2
Jake Spano
At-Large B
Gregg Lindberg
Ward 3
Susan Sanger
Ward 1
Tim Brausen
Ward 4
RE: St. Louis Park Draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance
Dear Mayor Jacobs and St. Louis Park City Council:
I am writing in regard to the draft Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance that is currently being
considered for St. Louis Park (SLP). The stated goal of the ordinance is “increasing traditional
recycling and organics recycling while reducing waste and environmental impact from
disposable food and beverage packaging associated with food and beverages prepared for
immediate consumption”. Increasing both traditional and organics recycling is admirable, but
the ordinance’s strategy for achieving this comes at the price of limiting consumer choice and
increasing costs. However, SLP has the opportunity to make this goal a net positive if the city
opts to add additional foodservice materials to its recycling programs.
My name is AnnMarie Treglia and I am the Global Manager, Government Affairs and the
Environment for Dart Container Corporation (Dart). Dart is a leading manufacturer of
foodservice containers. We produce containers from paper, bio-resins and a variety of plastics
Page 25
which includes polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS/EPS)
in both foamed and rigid form.
Traditional recycling for plastics or other materials should not be limited to only three items on
the basis that these have robust recycling programs - yet never defines what “robust” means.
It’s likely that when recycling began for PET, HDPE and PP in SLP that the markets were not
“robust”. Most likely the programs were modest at the start and became “robust” over time.
Therefore, why not allow other materials to be added into the recycling stream? Polystyrene
foam (foam) is 100% recyclable and actually is recycled today. Recycled foam is used to create
other durable plastic products such as building insulation, plastic lumber, and picture frames.
In California there are over 60 cities that have curbside collection of post-consumer foam. Other
cities have added foam to local recycling drop off centers. One example is Highland Park,
Illinois. Like SLP, they too had looked to ban foam several years ago. However, Highland Park
officials realized that banning foam was not going to achieve anything but higher prices for local
consumers and businesses since they would be forced to switch to more expensive materials.
Therefore, they opted to offer their citizens foam recycling by adding it to their pre-existing ewaste collection center.
If SLP does not want to expand its traditional recycling program to include foam or other
foodservice materials, then the option of waste-to-energy is ideal and another means of
resource recovery. Through this process, waste is converted into energy which is used to heat
homes and produce electricity. According to the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC)
website, “[s]tatistics compiled for more than a decade have proven that waste-to-energy and
recycling are compatible”.
In the closing, SLP’s desire to have zero waste could be a net positive for businesses,
consumers and the city. However, by pursuing the ordinance’s current path the city is
opting to take away choice and drive up costs on businesses and consumers who will be
forced to pay more for the products they use. Fortunately, SLP has two positive alternative
routes it can take to reduce waste while maintaining consumer choice and keeping costs
down. These are recycling in the traditional means or recycling through the process of
waste-to-energy recovery.
Sincerely,
AnnMarie Treglia
Global Manager, Government Affairs
and the Environment
Page 26
Mayor Jeff Jacobs
Members of City Council
City of St. Louis Park
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council Members:
The City of St. Louis Park, in an effort to be a more sustainable community, embarked on a months-long
study to learn more about plastic bags and polystyrene. The City of St. Louis Park staff and council
engaged members of business associations to participate in the process along with several industry
experts. Business associations included the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, The Minnesota Retailers
Association, the Minnesota Grocers Association, Hospitality Minnesota, and the Minnesota Beverage
Association. Industry experts from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, American Chemistry
Council, Dart Container Corporation and the American Progressive Bag Alliance attended and provided
comments and as well.
What we learned:
•
•
•
•
•
Plastic bags are a very small portion of the waste stream—less than 0.5%.
Retailers have already embraced recycling programs voluntarily; recycling materials like
cardboard, cans, bottles and organics. We also have many examples of businesses engaging in
plastic bag take-back efforts and reward programs for customers who choose to bring their own
bag.
Businesses anticipate any bag ban or fee will result in higher costs—both administratively and in
lost business. Additionally, a ban or fee confined to St. Louis Park will provide an unwelcome
and uncompetitive landscape for businesses whose peers right across city borders are not
subjected to the same mandates.
In a city of 45,000 residents, there is minimal support to regulate bags or polystyrene; rather,
consumers prefer choice.
Polystyrene is recyclable and has a viable market; recycling should be encouraged.
Page 27
In a community like St. Louis Park, striving for sustainability, we suggest that more can be accomplished
with an education campaign that focuses on collaboration and creating awareness rather than a
regulatory and punitive approach. Based on the evidence presented during the study period, we can’t
support regulating bags and polystyrene materials, nor can we accept mandating that businesses collect
a fee from their customers.
We appreciate the invitation to join in the learning and education process and hope that you have come
to the same conclusion we have; a regulatory approach to controlling the use of bags and polystyrene
materials provides no long term benefit to the businesses and residents of St. Louis Park.
Sincerely,
Deb McMillan, Director of Government Affairs
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
Bruce Nustad, President
Minnesota Retailers Association
Jamie Pfuhl, President
Minnesota Grocers Association
Lance Klatt, Executive Director
Minnesota Petroleum Marketers Association
Kevin Thoma, Executive Director
Minnesota Service Station and
Convenience Stores Association
Dan McElroy, President/CEO
Minnesota Restaurant Association and
Minnesota Lodging Association
Mike Levy, Senior Director
Plastic Foodservice Packaging Group
Gretchen Spear, Director
Packaging and Government Affairs
American Forest and Paper Association
Lee Califf, Executive Director
American Progressive Bag Alliance
Discussion Item: 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The purpose of this report is to provide Council with a draft
Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance and receive direction on next steps.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does Council wish to continue to move forward with
consideration of the Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance at this time? Does Council have any
questions or concerns with the draft ordinance?
SUMMARY: This report provides a draft Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance for Council’s
consideration. The ordinance has been drafted to encourage use of reusable bags by placing a
charge on both plastic and paper single-use carryout bags and provides criteria for requiring atstore recycling of plastic single-use carryout bags.
NEXT STEPS:
1. Staff conducts additional research – November/December 2015
2. Updated Ordinance discussion – December 2015 Study Session
3. Provide Final Ordinance – January 2016 Study Session (if needed)
4. 1st Public Reading of Ordinance - February 2016 Council Meeting
5. 2nd Public Reading of Ordinance – February/March 2016 Council Meeting
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The implementation, education and
enforcement of the proposed ordinances would impact the 2016 solid waste budget and likely
subsequent year’s budgets
business.
· Discussion
· Draft Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance (Attachment 1)
· Business Association & Industry Letter (Attachment 2)
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Kala Fisher, Solid Waste Program Coordinator,
Scott Merkley, Public Works Services Manager; Mark Hanson, Public Works
Superintendent; Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Title: Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance
Page 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: At the October 5, 2015 Special Study Session Council directed staff to draft
an ordinance that places a charge on both plastic and paper single-use carryout bags and requires
at-store recycling of plastic single-use carryout bags for stores meeting specific criteria. The
report provides an overview of the main components of the draft Bring Your Own Bag
Ordinance (Attachment 1). Local business associations and industry stakeholders continue to
provide input, requesting an education and awareness campaign over a regulatory approach
(Attachment 2).
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS
Ordinance Summary: The draft ordinance includes a proposed charge on plastic and paper
single-use carryout bags, and outlines requirements for certain stores to provide at-store plastic
bag recycling. The draft ordinance reflects components from single-use bag ordinances from
Boulder, Colorado; Portland, Maine; Washington, D.C. and the state of Delaware.
The ordinance requires all retail establishments to charge customers for any single-use carryout
bag that is used to carry purchases out of the store. Certain types of bags used inside the store for
specific purposes or sold in packages inside the store (e.g. kitchen garbage bags, pet waste bags)
are exempt by definition. The retail store must indicate on the receipt how many bags are being
charged and cannot refund customers for the charge. The retail store retains the entire charged
fee and must use the collected funds for certain in-store educational activities, training, and other
uses defined in the ordinance. Enforcement is complaint based.
Further Research Required: If Council is in favor of moving forward with the draft ordinance,
the following sections will need additional research and Council input during subsequent study
session discussions:
·
Purpose 12.251 – To promote use of reusable bags and reduce single-use bag distribution
and their associated impacts on the solid waste management and recycling systems, litter,
natural resource impacts, and greenhouse gas emissions through a charge assessed for the
purpose of mitigating these impacts. To increase opportunities to appropriately recycle
plastic single-use carryout bags and incentivize the use of reusable bags in the City of St.
Louis Park.
o Research & Discussion Required: Determine if any additional research or data
collection is needed.
·
Reusable Bag 12.252(a) – This definition will determine which bags are considered
reusable and therefore no charge is required.
o Research & Discussion Required: Determine if the requirements for a reusable
bag, from source ordinances, can be substantiated by an industry standard.
·
Retail Plastic Bag Recycling Location 12.252(b) – This definition will determine which
stores would be required to provide at-store recycling of plastic bags, based upon square
footage of store or number of stores in the State.
o Research & Discussion Required: Determine the appropriate retail square footage
and/or number of retail stores in the State with a certain retail square footage in
order to meet the requirement.
Page 3
·
Retail Store 12.252(c) – This definition will determine which stores would be required to
charge customers for single-use carryout bags. Draft language includes all retail stores
including grocers, department stores, big box stores, gas stations that provide single-use
carryout bags to customers at the point-of-sale.
o Research & Discussion Required: If certain businesses, such as restaurants would
be exempted, they would either need to be exempted by definition or through the
exemptions section 12.259.
·
Establishment of Bag Charge 12.254 – Typical charges found in ordinances around the
United States are 5 – 10 cents per bag.
o Research & Discussion Required: Determining the correct charge for single-use
carryout bags requires more discussion to ensure that charge would discourage
use of single-use carryout bags.
·
Violations and Enforcement 12.260 – Language has been included to outline the
administrative penalties that retail outlets will be subject to, when a violation occurs.
Enforcement would be complaint based. Follow-up including education and enforcement
would be conducted by Public Works staff.
o Research & Discussion Required: Determine process for effectively identifying
and responding to non-compliance through a complaint based process.
NEXT STEPS: If Council wishes to move forward with the Bring Your Own Bag Ordinance,
the following are suggested next steps.
1. Staff conducts additional research – November/December 2015
2. Updated Ordinance discussion – December 2015 Study Session
3. Provide Final Ordinance – January 2016 Study Session (if needed)
4. 1st Public Reading of Ordinance –February 2016 Council Meeting
5. 2nd Public Reading of Ordinance – February/March 2016 Council Meeting
Attachment 1
Page 4
DRAFT
DRAFT ORDINANCE
TO REDUCE SINGLE-USE BAG DISTRIBUTION, WASTE AND LITTER; INCREASE PROPER RECYCLING OF
SINGLE-USE BAGS; AND INCREASE THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS
Article VII. BRING YOUR OWN BAG
12-251. Legislative Purpose
12-252. Definitions
12-253. Requirements for single-use carryout bags made available to customers by retail stores.
12-254. Establishment of Single-use Bag Charge.
12-255. Retention of the Single-use Bag Charge.
12-256. Establishment of an At-Store Plastic Bag Recycling Program
12-257. Reporting Requirements.
12-258. Required Signage for Retail stores.
12-259. Exemptions.
12-260. Violations and enforcement.
12-261. Severability
12-262. Effective Date
Page 5
DRAFT
DRAFT ORDINANCE
TO REDUCE SINGLE-USE BAG DISTRIBUTION, WASTE AND LITTER; INCREASE PROPER RECYCLING OF
SINGLE-USE BAGS; AND INCREASE THE USE OF REUSABLE BAGS
Article VII. BRING YOUR OWN BAG
12-251. Legislative Purpose
The city council of St. Louis Park (council) finds as follows:
(a) The council has a duty to protect public health and the environmental assets of St. Louis
Park;
(b) The city, through its policies, programs, and laws, supports efforts to reduce the amount of
waste that must be land-filled or incinerated, increase reuse, recycling, and pursue efforts to
achieve State recycling and waste reduction goals;
(c) The use of both plastic and paper single-use carryout bags have impacts on the environment
on a local and global scale, including greenhouse gas emissions, litter, harm to wildlife,
atmospheric acidification, water consumption and solid waste generation;
(d) Despite recycling and voluntary solutions to control pollution from single-use carryout bags,
many single-use carryout bags ultimately are disposed of in landfills and incinerators, plastic
single-use carryout bags that are place in curbside recycling reduce the value of recyclables
collected through the curbside recycling process due to the harm they pose on material
recovery facility sorting equipment, litter the environment, endanger wildlife, and create
obstructions in stormwater conveyance systems and are discharged into surface waters in
our environment;
(e) The city’s taxpayers bear the costs associated with the effects of single-use bags on the solid
waste stream, drainage, litter and wildlife;
(f) The council believes that residents and visitors should use reusable bags and that
prohibiting the free distribution of single-use carryout bags by stores is appropriate and will
incentivize the use of reusable bags; and
(g) It is in the best interests of the health, safety and welfare of citizens and visitors of St. Louis
Park increase the value of recyclables and rate of single-use carryout bag recycling, protect
our environment and natural resources by reducing the distribution of single-use carryout
bags through requiring a charge be assessed for the purpose of mitigating their impacts and
increase opportunities to appropriately recycle them, and incentivize the use of reusable
bags at Retail Stores, as defined in this Ordinance.
Page 6
12-252. Definitions
For the purposes of this ordinance, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings defined in
this section:
(a) “Reusable carryout bag” means a bag that:
(1) is made with handles and is made of cloth, fiber, other machine washable fabric, or
durable plastic that can be cleaned and disinfected regularly;
(2) is at least 2.25 mil thick if made from plastic;
(3) is specifically designed and manufactured for multiple reuses over a period of time
and a minimum lifetime of 75 uses; and
(4) Has the capability of carrying a minimum of 18 pounds.
(b) “Retail recycling location” means a retail store, excluding a restaurant, that offers plastic
carryout bags to its customers in conjunction with the sale of goods and/or services and that
meets either of the following requirements:
(1) Has at least 7,000 square feet of retail sales space, or
(2) Has 3 or more stores or retail locations, each having at least 3,000 square feet of
retail sales space, in the State of Minnesota.
(c) “Retail store” means a retail establishment engaged in the business of selling or exchanging
goods and/or services for cash, barter or any form of consideration on the assumption that
the purchaser of such goods and/or services has acquired the goods and/or services for
ultimate consumption or use and not resale that provides single-use carryout bags to its
customers in conjunction with the sale of such goods and/or services.
(d) “Single-use Bag Charge” means a charge established by the city for the purpose of mitigating
the impacts of Single-use Bags and required to be paid by each consumer making a purchase
from a retail store for each Single-use Bag used during the purchase.
(e) “Single-use carryout bag” means a bag of any material, commonly plastic or kraft paper,
which is provided to a consumer at the point of sale to carry purchases. The term “singleuse carryout bag” shall not include:
(1) Bags used by consumers inside stores to:
(A) Package bulk items, such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, candy, or mall
hardware items;
(B) Contain or wrap frozen foods, meat, or fish, whether prepackaged or not;
(C) Contain or wrap flowers, potted plants, or other items where dampness may
be a problem; and
(D) Contain unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods;
(2) Bags provided by pharmacists to contain prescription drugs;
Page 7
(3) Newspaper bags, door-hanger bags, laundry-dry cleaning bags, or bags sold in
packages containing multiple bags intended for use as garbage, pet waste, or yard waste
bags;
(4) Reusable carryout bags.
12-253. Requirements for single-use carryout bags made available to customers by retail stores.
(a) Single-use carryout bags made of paper shall:
(1) Be 100% recyclable;
(2) Contain a minimum of 40% post-consumer recycled content; and
(3) Display the phrase “Please Recycle This Bag”, or a substantially similar phrase, in a
highly visible manner on the bag exterior.
(b) Single-use carryout bags made of plastic shall:
(1) Be 100% recyclable;
(2) Be made of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) film marked with the SPI resin
identification code 2 or low-density polyethylene (LDPE) film marked with the SPI resin
identification code 4; and
(3) Display the phrase “Please Recycle This Bag At A Participating Store”, or a
substantially similar phrase, in a highly visible manner on the bag exterior.
(c) Single-use carryout bags made of compostable plastic shall:
(1) Be 100% certified compostable;
(2) Be made of certified compostable plastic that meets ASTM D6400 or ASTM D6868
for compostability and be labeled to reflect that it meets the standard.
(3) Display the phrase “Please Compost This Bag In An Organics Recycling Program”, or a
substantially similar phrase, in a highly visible manner on the bag exterior.
(4) Display the BPI Certified Compostable Logo or Cedar Grove Logo
12-254. Establishment of Single-use Bag Charge.
(a) A consumer making a purchase from a retail store shall pay at the time of purchase a charge
of [TBD] for each single-use carryout bag.
(b) A retail store shall not advertise or hold out or state to the public or to a customer directly
or indirectly that reimbursement of the charge or any part thereof to be collected by the
retail store will be offset by the retail store or otherwise refunded to the customer.
(c) All retail stores shall indicate on the consumer transaction receipt the number of single-use
carryout bags provided and the total amount charged.
Page 8
12-255. Retention of the Single-use Bag Charge.
(a) A Retail Store shall retain 100 percent of each Single-use Bag Charge collected.
(b) The Single-use Bag Charge may only be used by the Retail store to:
(1) Provide educational information about the Single-use Bag Charge to customers;
(2) Provide the signage required by section 12.258, “Required Signage for Retail stores,”;
(3) Improve or alter infrastructure to allow for the implementation, collection,
administration of the charge;
(4) Collect, account for and provide reporting to the city;
(5) Develop and display informational signage to inform consumers about the charge,
encourage the use of reusable bags, promote reuse and recycling of plastic bags, or
educate on organics recycling for compostable bags so they do not contaminate plastic
bag recycling; and
(6) Establish, maintain or improve an at- store plastic bag recycling program.
(7) Subsidize cost paid by consumer for purchase of reusable carryout bags sold by
Retail Store.
12-256. Establishment of an At-Store Plastic Bag Recycling Program
(a) A Retail Recycling Location shall establish an at-store plastic bag recycling program pursuant
to this section that permits a customer of the store to return clean plastic carryout bags to
the store.
(b) A retail store that does not meet the definition of a retail recycling location, as defined
herein, may adopt a similar at-store plastic bag recycling program, as specified in this
section.
(c) An at-store plastic bag recycling program provided by a retail recycling location shall include
all of the following:
(1) A plastic single-use carryout bag collection bin shall be placed at each store and shall
be visible, easily accessible to the consumer, and clearly marked that the collection bin
is available for the purpose of collecting and recycling plastic single-use carryout bags.
(2) All plastic single-use carryout bags collected by the store shall be collected and
recycled in a manner consistent with the intent of this section and Minnesota Statute
115A.95 (Recyclable Materials). In no instance shall a store permit collected plastic
carryout bags to be disposed of or to further any act other than the recycling of such
bags.
(3) The Retail Recycling Location shall make reusable bags available to customers within
the store, which bags may be provided to or purchased by such customer and used in
lieu of using a plastic carryout bag or paper bag.
Page 9
12-257. Reporting Requirements
Every Retail Store and Retail Recycling Location shall maintain records and submit information on
reporting on forms provided by the City, which includes the following information:
(a) Every Retail Store shall maintain records of the single-use carryout bag charges to their
customers for each type of single-use carryout bag, and documentation of the use of the
retained single-use bag charge on an annual basis.
(b) Every Retail Store shall maintain and provide records of the quantity and type of single-use
carryout bags purchased during the previous calendar year.
(c) Every Retail Recycling Location shall maintain records describing the collection and recycling
of plastic carryout bags collected by such store and shall make the records available to the
City, upon request, to demonstrate compliance with this chapter.
12-258. Required Signage for Retail Stores.
Every Retail Store subject to the collection of the Single-use Bag Charge shall display a sign in a location
outside or inside of the business, viewable by customers, alerting customers to the city of St. Louis
Park’s Single-use Bag Charge.
12-259. Exemptions.
A Retail Store must provide Single-use Carryout Bags to a customer at no charge for purchases made, if
the customer provides evidence that he or she is a participant in a federal or state Food Assistance
Program.
12-260. Violations and enforcement.
When a violation of this chapter has occurred, the Retail Store or Retail Recycling Location in violation of
this chapter shall be subject to the penalties set forth below.
A violation of this chapter is a misdemeanor.
Violations of this chapter shall be punishable as an administrative offense pursuant to City Code
Ordinance 2420-12, Section 1-14 Administrative Penalties, as follows:
(a) A warning notice in writing for the first violation;
(b) A fine of $100 for the second violation;
(c) Repeat subsequent violations with 24 months, a fine double the amount of the fine imposed
for the previous violation, up to a maximum of $2,000. For example if there were four
occurrences of a violation that carried a $100 fine: first is $0 (warning); second is $100, third
is $200, forth is $400).
Page 10
(d) At the time a violation occurs, the city will provide the food establishment Retail Store or
Retail Recycling Location with a corrective action timeframe prior to a subsequent fine being
issued.
The administrative offense provided for in this chapter shall be in addition to any other legal or
equitable remedy available to the city for city code violations.
12-261. Severability
If any part or provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstances
shall be adjudged unconstitutional or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such judgment shall
be confined in its operation to the part, provision or application which is directly involved in the
controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered, and shall not affect or impair the validity
of the remainder of this chapter or the application thereof to other persons, entities, or circumstances.
12-262. Effective Date
The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective on April 22, 2017.
Page 11
Attachment 2
Mayor Jeff Jacobs
Members of City Council
City of St. Louis Park
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council Members:
The City of St. Louis Park, in an effort to be a more sustainable community, embarked on a months-long
study to learn more about plastic bags and polystyrene. The City of St. Louis Park staff and council
engaged members of business associations to participate in the process along with several industry
experts. Business associations included the TwinWest Chamber of Commerce, The Minnesota Retailers
Association, the Minnesota Grocers Association, Hospitality Minnesota, and the Minnesota Beverage
Association. Industry experts from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, American Chemistry
Council, Dart Container Corporation and the American Progressive Bag Alliance attended and provided
comments and as well.
What we learned:
•
•
•
•
•
Plastic bags are a very small portion of the waste stream—less than 0.5%.
Retailers have already embraced recycling programs voluntarily; recycling materials like
cardboard, cans, bottles and organics. We also have many examples of businesses engaging in
plastic bag take-back efforts and reward programs for customers who choose to bring their own
bag.
Businesses anticipate any bag ban or fee will result in higher costs—both administratively and in
lost business. Additionally, a ban or fee confined to St. Louis Park will provide an unwelcome
and uncompetitive landscape for businesses whose peers right across city borders are not
subjected to the same mandates.
In a city of 45,000 residents, there is minimal support to regulate bags or polystyrene; rather,
consumers prefer choice.
Polystyrene is recyclable and has a viable market; recycling should be encouraged.
Page 12
In a community like St. Louis Park, striving for sustainability, we suggest that more can be accomplished
with an education campaign that focuses on collaboration and creating awareness rather than a
regulatory and punitive approach. Based on the evidence presented during the study period, we can’t
support regulating bags and polystyrene materials, nor can we accept mandating that businesses collect
a fee from their customers.
We appreciate the invitation to join in the learning and education process and hope that you have come
to the same conclusion we have; a regulatory approach to controlling the use of bags and polystyrene
materials provides no long term benefit to the businesses and residents of St. Louis Park.
Sincerely,
Deb McMillan, Director of Government Affairs
TwinWest Chamber of Commerce
Bruce Nustad, President
Minnesota Retailers Association
Jamie Pfuhl, President
Minnesota Grocers Association
Lance Klatt, Executive Director
Minnesota Petroleum Marketers Association
Kevin Thoma, Executive Director
Minnesota Service Station and
Convenience Stores Association
Dan McElroy, President/CEO
Minnesota Restaurant Association and
Minnesota Lodging Association
Mike Levy, Senior Director
Plastic Foodservice Packaging Group
Gretchen Spear, Director
Packaging and Government Affairs
American Forest and Paper Association
Lee Califf, Executive Director
American Progressive Bag Alliance
Discussion Item: 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: The Future of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Fire Chief and City Manager desire to provide an update to
the City Council on changes coming to how EMS will likely be provided in the future. No
specific direction is requested of the Council at this time.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
SUMMARY: The St. Louis Park Fire Department currently responds to approximately 4,000
medical calls a year with no chance for reimbursements. It is expected the demands placed on the
City to respond to EMS calls will continue to grow.
The future of how emergency medical services are delivered in this country is rapidly
changing. The potential impacts to our customers and the role of the City continues to evolve
including Fire, Police and Dispatch services. Staff feels it is important we engage proactively to
influence the outcomes. The Fire Chief will give an overview of where we have been, what the
current state is and what the future will likely transition to. This is a big picture view of the
world that should spur discussion on the impacts of the Affordable Care Act, potential revenue
streams and discussions around shared resources or community partnerships.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to being a connected and engaged
community.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
Discussion
Steve Koering, Fire Chief
Title: The Future of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Page 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The increase for demand on emergency medical services and the trend of
continued increases will continue to impact the City’s public safety infrastructure. The advent of
the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act is dramatically changing the landscape of how patient
care is managed and reimbursements are determined.
We currently respond to approximately 4,000 medical calls a year with no chance for
reimbursements. The requirements of CMS (Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services) are
forcing all levels of the care continuum to change their business model. This has worked its way
through the hospital system, providers and is now moving to the frontline which includes us. We
are positioned slightly better today to be part of these discussions and/or partnerships due to our
early foray into mobile integrated healthcare with Park Nicollet and the fact we have our own
911 Dispatch facility
If we are able to adapt to these changes properly we will have the ability to manage the
responsiveness, the quality of care and the type of care for our citizens and add significant
revenue to support this work. It is likely this will become a collaborative effort with other
communities or service providers as a final solution is crafted.
NEXT STEPS: Continue to explore partnerships and opportunities which position the City of
St. Louis Park as the model for mobile integrated healthcare and building on our success with
our post discharge patient visit program.
Meeting: Economic Development Authority
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
OCTOBER 19, 2015
1.
Call to Order
President Mavity called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioners present: President Anne Mavity, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Jeff Jacobs, Gregg
Lindberg, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Commissioners absent: None.
Staff present:
Executive Director (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick),
Planning/Economic Development Assistant (Ms. Grove), Economic Development Coordinator
(Mr. Hunt), Community Coordinator (Mr. Zwilling) and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple).
2.
Roll Call
3.
Approval of Minutes
3a.
Economic Development Authority Minutes October 5, 2015
The EDA minutes were approved as presented.
The motion passed 7-0.
4.
Approval of Agenda
The EDA agenda was approved as presented.
5.
Reports – None
6.
Old Business - None
7.
New Business
7a.
Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Urban Land II LLC –
Hoigaard Village. Resolution No. 15-20.
Mr. Hunt presented the staff report and provided background information on the
Subordinate Agreement. He explained the terms of the new agreement and noted that the
updated agreement would replace the 2007 version.
President Mavity received confirmation that there would be no financial impact, positive
or negative, to the EDA as a result of this agreement.
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 3a)
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2015
Page 2
It was moved by Commissioner Spano, seconded by Commissioner Hallfin, to waive the
reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 15-20 approving the Assignment &
Subordination of Contract between the EDA, Union Land II, LLC and Lincoln Benefit
Life Company relative to the Hoigaard Village redevelopment project.
7b.
Business District Initiative Grant Application. Resolution No. 15-21
Ms. Grove presented the staff report and provided additional information on the
Hennepin County business district initiative grant program, noting an area that has been
identified as a good candidate for the grant. She stated staff met with business owners
and residents who support this action. She noted that staff intends to file an application
by the October deadline and noted that a decision would be made in February. She stated
this grant would not require matching funds but noted that applications with matching
funds rank higher during the review process. She asked if the EDA would support
matching funds of up to $50,000 for implementation of the grant. She stated residents in
that area do support the request and also may be willing to contribute toward the
implementation of the program.
President Mavity stated there has been a lot of discussion regarding the support of small
business and the benefits that small businesses provide. She appreciated the efforts of
staff.
Commissioner Lindberg also thanked staff and stated this topic has brought about an
energized discussion about the area, which has great access to the high school and
neighborhoods in that area, and therefore he also supports this action. He encouraged the
use of matching funds by the EDA to support the revitalization of the area.
It was moved by Commissioner Lindberg, seconded by Commissioner Sanger, to waive
the reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 15-21 authorizing the submission of a grant
application to the Hennepin County Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HCHRA)
Business District Initiative for Walker/Lake Streets Business Area, with the agreement
that the City is willing to contribute up to $50,000 in matching funds.
Commissioner Sanger stated she supports the revitalization of the area and believed that
even if grant is received it would not be enough funding to fully revitalize the area. She
wanted to ensure that the historic character was maintained while also making the area
more known and updated.
Commissioner Hallfin stated he and his wife own a small business in the corridor and
asked if that would be a conflict of interest.
Mr. Mattick recommended that Commissioner Hallfin abstain from the vote.
President Mavity stated there are other small business nodes throughout the community
and asked how the information from this program and area could be used to benefit other
areas.
Title: Economic Development Authority Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2015
Page 3
Ms. Grove stated when the conversation was started with the stakeholders in this area that
spurred immediate action by some property owners to invest in their own properties now.
She stated if the conversation is started in other areas that could have the same result.
Mr. Harmening agreed that there could be great spin-off possibilities and this could serve
as a demonstration.
Commissioner Spano stated when the green line was being built in St. Paul there was a
robust marketing and revitalization of the areas near the stations and Metro Transit may
have additional information that could be useful to the City.
The motion passed 6-0-1 (Hallfin abstained).
7c.
Authorize Grant Application Submittals for Redevelopment of 4911
Excelsior Boulevard. Resolution No. 15-22 and Resolution No. 15-23
Ms. Grove presented the staff report and explained that the applicant plans to demolish
the building at 4911 and redevelop the site for use by a tenant, specifically a paint store.
She stated during this process contamination was found in the soils from a previous
business and the applicant has requested $170,000 in grant funds from Hennepin County
and Metropolitan County to assist in the clean-up of the site. She stated the applications
would need to be submit by the EDA but noted that the EDA would not have any
financial liability.
It was moved by Commissioner Hallfin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to waive the
reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 15-22, authorizing the Executive Director and
President to submit a grant application to the Metropolitan Council Tax Base
Revitalization Grant Program on behalf of the 4911 Excelsior Boulevard project.
It was moved by Commissioner Hallfin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs, to waive the
reading and adopt EDA Resolution No. 15-23, authorizing the Executive Director and
President to submit a grant application to the Hennepin County Environmental Response
Fund Program on behalf of the 4911 Excelsior Boulevard project.
8.
Communications – None
9.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Secretary
President
Consent Agenda Item: 5a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of EDA Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing EDA Disbursement Claims for the
period of September 26, 2015 through October 23, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA desire to approve EDA disbursements in
accordance with Article V – Administration of Finances, of the EDA Bylaws?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the EDA to
review and approve. The attached reports show both EDA disbursements paid by physical check
and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the EDA’s Bylaws and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
VISION CONSIDERATION: Not applicable.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Disbursements
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Brian A. Swanson, Controller
Title: Approval of EDA Disbursements
R55CKS2
CITY OF ST LOUIS PARK
LOGIS400V
Note: Payment amount may not reflect the actual amount due to data sequencing and/or data selection.
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
BU Description
10/23/201511:39:16
Council Check Summary
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
Page 2
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
Object
CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU
LEGAL SERVICES
462.00
DEVELOPMENT - EDA G&A
LEGAL SERVICES
148.50
HWY 7 & LOUISIANA
LEGAL SERVICES
891.00
1,501.50
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
WEST END TIF DIST G&A
OTHER CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
107.50
320.00
427.50
GREEN HORIZONS
7015 WALKER-REYNOLDS WELD PROP
LAND MAINTENANCE
168.00
4601 HWY 7 PROP ACQUISITION
LAND MAINTENANCE
204.00
MCGARVEY COFFEE SITE
LAND MAINTENANCE
126.00
PARK COMMONS G&A
LAND MAINTENANCE
80.00
578.00
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
LEGAL SERVICES
PARK COMMONS G&A
LEGAL SERVICES
1,356.00
378.00
1,734.00
METRO TRANSIT COMMISSION
63,996.77
63,996.77
OFFICE DEPOT
OFFICE SUPPLIES
57.83
57.83
ST LOUIS PARK CONV & VISITORS BUREAU
CONVENTION & VISITORS BUREAU
COST REIMBURSEMENT-CVB
78,815.90
78,815.90
Report Totals
147,111.50
1
Action Agenda Item: 7a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: First Amendment to the Shoreham Redevelopment Contract
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the First
Amendment to the Contract for Private Redevelopment between the EDA and Shoreham
Apartments LLC.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA support clarifying the grant section within the
Redevelopment Contract as specified in the proposed First Amendment and allowing the
Redeveloper to purchase the Redevelopment Property in connection with a tax-deferred 1031
exchange?
SUMMARY: On August 17, 2015, the EDA approved a Contract for Private Redevelopment
with Shoreham Apartments LLC (an affiliate of Bader Development) in connection with the
construction of The Shoreham mixed-use redevelopment at the SW corner of CSAH 25 and
France Ave. The project has been awarded several grants, one from the Metropolitan Council,
one from DEED, and two from Hennepin County. The Metropolitan Council and DEED grants,
along with one County grant, were awarded for environmental remediation purposes and are
administered by the EDA. The other County grant is for transit-oriented development and was
awarded directly to the Redeveloper in the form of a forgivable loan. The current Contract does
not clearly make the distinction between the two County grants.
The Redeveloper recently informed staff that it will be using the grants as collateral in
connection with its construction financing. The Redeveloper has requested a First Amendment
to the Contract to clarify the County grant provisions and allow the EDA to pay proceeds of the
grants it administers directly to TCF Bank, the Redeveloper’s lender. TCF will ensure that lien
waivers are received prior to disbursing any funds for grant-related activities.
In addition, the Redeveloper has requested the addition of a new Section 8.4 in the Contract that
allows the Redeveloper to purchase the Redevelopment Property in connection with a taxdeferred 1031 exchange without this transaction being considered a Transfer requiring prior
written approval by the EDA. The Redeveloper covenants that it will remain fully responsible
and liable for the Redeveloper’s obligations under the Contract throughout the 1031 exchange
period.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: All expenses associated with amending the
Shoreham Redevelopment Contract are to be paid by Bader Development.
VISION CONSIDERATION: St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
diverse housing stock.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: EDA Resolution
Proposed 1st Amendment to Shoreham Redevelopment Contract
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Greg Hunt, Economic Development Coordinator
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor
Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director, and City Manager
Title: First Amendment to Shoreham Redevelopment Contract
Page 2
EDA RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIRST AMENDMENT OF A CONTRACT FOR
PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND SHOREHAM APARTMENTS LLC
BE IT RESOLVED BY the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the "Authority") as follows:
Recitals.
1.01. Pursuant to its authority under Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.090 to 469.1082
and 469.174 to 469.1794, as amended, the Authority created the Shoreham Tax Increment
Financing District within its Redevelopment Project No. 1 (the “Project”), for the purpose of
facilitating the redevelopment of certain substandard property within the Project.
1.02. The Authority and Shoreham Apartments LLC (the “Redeveloper”) executed a
Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated as of August 17, 2015 (the “Contract”), providing,
among other things, for the construction of certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”)
on the property legally described within the Contract (the “Redevelopment Property”), and the
disbursement of various grants for environmental remediation and transit-oriented development in
connection with the Redevelopment Property, including two grants from Hennepin County (the
“County Grants”).
1.03. The parties have negotiated and propose to execute a First Amendment to the
Contract (the “First Amendment”) to expand upon the terms, purposes, and disbursement process
for the County Grants and to allow for the Redeveloper to acquire the Redevelopment Property
through a tax-deferred exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
Section 2.
First Amendment Approved.
2.01. The First Amendment as presented to the Board is hereby in all respects
approved, subject to modifications that do not alter the substance of the transaction and that are
approved by the President and Executive Director, provided that execution of the First
Amendment by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf
of the Authority the First Amendment and any documents referenced therein requiring execution
by the Authority, and to carry out, on behalf of the Authority, its obligations thereunder.
2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to
carry out the intent of this resolution.
Reviewed for Administration:
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 2, 2015
Executive Director
President
Attest
Secretary
Page 3
Page 4
FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT FOR PRIVATE REDEVELOPMENT
This agreement is made as of ______________, 2015, by and between the ST. LOUIS
PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body politic and corporate (the
“Authority”) and SHOREHAM APARTMENTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the
“Redeveloper”).
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Redeveloper entered into that certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment dated as of August 17, 2015 (the “Contract”) providing, among other things, for the
construction of certain improvements (the “Minimum Improvements”) on the property legally
described within the Contract (the “Redevelopment Property”), and the disbursement of various
grants for environmental remediation and transit-oriented development in connection with the
Redevelopment Property, including two grants from Hennepin County (the “County Grants”); and
Grants.
WHEREAS, the parties have determined to clarify the amounts and purposes of the County
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual obligations of the
parties hereto, each of them does hereby covenant and agree with the other as follows:
1.
as follows:
Amendment to Section 1.1 of the Contract. Section 1.1 of the Contract is amended
“County Grant Agreement” means the Environmental Response Fund Grant Agreement
between the Authority and the County in the amount of $200,000, by and through its Environment
and Energy Department, approved by the County in connection with the development of the
Minimum Improvements.
2.
Amendment to Sections 3.4(a) and (b) of the Contract. Sections 3.4(a) and (b) of the
Contract are amended as follows:
(a) To finance a portion of the environmental remediation activities on the Redevelopment
Property, including the costs of implementing the VRAP (the “Grant-Eligible Costs”), the Authority
has obtained a grant from DEED in the amount of $625,075, a grant from the County in the amount
of $200,000, and a grant from the Met Council in the amount of $594,000. The Redeveloper has
separately received a forgivable loan from the County for transit-oriented development purposes in
the amount of $430,000. The parties agree and acknowledge that only the Grant-Eligible Costs are
subject to the terms of this Agreement, and that for purposes of this Agreement, transit-oriented
development costs are not Grant-Eligible Costs.
(b)
The Authority will pay or reimburse the Redeveloper for Grant-Eligible
Costs from and to the extent of the grant proceeds from DEED, the Met Council, and the County in
accordance with the terms of the DEED Grant Agreement, the Met Council Grant Agreement, and
the County Grant Agreement, respectively, and the terms of this Section. The Authority and
Redeveloper agree that any amounts payable to the Redeveloper pursuant to this Section 3.4 will be
tendered to TCF National Bank, for the account of Shoreham Apartments LLC, as follows:
Page 5
TCF National Bank
Attn: Molly Rutzick, Vice President
11100 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 600
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Telephone: (952) 512-6439
Email: [email protected]
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, if Grant-Eligible Costs exceed the amount to be
reimbursed under this Section, such excess shall be the sole responsibility of the Redeveloper
(except to the extent such costs are eligible for reimbursement under the Note).
3.
Amendment to Article VIII of the Contract. Article VIII of the Contract is amended
to add a new Section 8.4 as follows:
Section 8.4. Tax Deferred Exchange. Notwithstanding Section 8.2 hereof, if the
Redeveloper desires to purchase the Redevelopment Property in connection with a tax-deferred
exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”),
Redeveloper shall have the right to temporarily assign its rights under this Agreement to a “qualified
exchange intermediary” (a “1031 Agent”) within the meaning of Section 1031 of the Code. During
any period when this Agreement is temporarily assigned to a 1031 Agent, the Redeveloper shall
remain fully responsible and liable for its obligations under this Agreement. It is expressly
understood by the parties that the Authority assumes no liability or responsibility in connection with
the Redeveloper’s tax-deferred exchange and the Redeveloper shall hold the Authority harmless
from any claims, actions or liabilities that may result from the agreements, transactions or
assignments necessary to complete said tax deferred exchange.
4.
Miscellaneous. Except as amended by this Amendment, the Contract shall remain in
full force and effect. Upon execution, Redeveloper shall reimburse the Authority for all out-of
pocket-costs incurred by the Authority in connection with negotiating, drafting and approval of this
Amendment.
(Remainder of this page intentionally left blank.)
Page 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and the Redeveloper have caused this Agreement to be
duly executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the date first above written.
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By
By
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Its President
Its Executive Director
)
) SS.
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
by Anne Mavity and Tom Harmening, the President and Executive Director of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority, on behalf of the Authority.
Notary Public
Authority signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Page 7
SHOREHAM APARTMENTS LLC
By
Its: Chief Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF _________
)
) SS.
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of November, 2015,
by Jeffrey R. Peterson, the Chief Manager of Shoreham Apartments LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, on behalf of the company.
Notary Public
THIS DOCUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered (MNI)
470 US Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
(612) 337-9300
469412v1 MNI SA285-105
Redeveloper signature page to First Amendment to Contract for Private Redevelopment
Action Agenda Item: 7b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Assignment & Subordination Agreement with Shoreham Apartments LLC and
Assignment of Payments under TIF Note – The Shoreham
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: Motion to Adopt EDA Resolution approving the Assignment &
Subordination of Contract between the EDA, Shoreham Apartments, LLC and TCF Investments
Management and the Assignment of Payments Under Tax Increment Note between Shoreham
Apartments LLC and Bridgewater Bank consented to by the EDA relative to The Shoreham
redevelopment project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the EDA find that the proposed Assignment & Subordination of
Contract agreement between the EDA, Shoreham Apartments, LLC and TCF Investments Management
and the proposed Assignment of Payments Under Tax Increment Note between Shoreham Apartments
LLC and Bridgewater Bank consented to by the EDA are in the best interest of the city and its residents?
SUMMARY: Shoreham Apartments, LLC (Bader Development) is in the process of financing its
Shoreham mixed-use project with TCF Investments Management as senior lender and Bridgewater
Bank as subordinate lender. As a result, the senior lender has requested that the EDA approve a new
Assignment & Subordination agreement. Pursuant to Section 7.3 of the Redevelopment Contract of
August 17, 2015 between the EDA and Shoreham Apartments, LLC, the EDA agreed to subordinate
its rights under the contract to the holder of any mortgage securing construction or permanent
financing related to The Shoreham redevelopment properties, subject to terms and conditions
mutually agreeable by the parties. The terms of this proposed Assignment & Subordination Agreement
asserts that the EDA’s rights under the Contract and Deed for the redevelopment properties are
subordinate to the lender’s rights under its loan documents pertaining to the same properties. The
proposed Assignment & Subordination of Contract Agreement is substantially similar to other
subordination agreements the EDA approved in the past.
Shoreham’s subordinate lender has requested that the EDA consent to an assignment of the
payments under the TIF Note to the subordinate lender. The subordinate lender has also requested
the ability to cure any default under the contract for private development specifically related to the
issuance of the TIF Note. The EDA’s legal counsel, in consultation with staff, has reviewed the
proposed Assignment & Subordination Agreement and the Assignment of Payments Under Tax
Increment Revenue Note and recommends their approval.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The proposed Assignment of Payments Under Tax
Increment Revenue Note requires payments under the TIF Note to be made to Bridgewater Bank and
allows Bridgewater Bank to cure any defaults under the Contract related to the issuance of the TIF Note.
All costs associated with this agreement (Kennedy & Graven) are to be paid by Shoreham Apartments, LLC.
VISION CONSIDERATION:
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
St. Louis Park is committed to providing a well-maintained and
Resolution of Approval
Assignment & Subordination Agreement
Assignment of Payments Under Tax Increment Revenue Note
Tom Harmening, EDA Executive Director and City Manager
Economic Development Authority Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 7b)
Title: Assignment & Subordination Agreement – The Shoreham
Page 2
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
RESOLUTION NO. 15-____
RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS
UNDER TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE AND AN
ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
BE IT RESOLVED By the Board of Commissioners ("Board") of the St. Louis Park
Economic Development Authority ("Authority") as follows:
Section 1. Recitals.
1.01. The Authority has entered into a Contract for Private Redevelopment, dated
August 17, 2015, as amended (the “Development Contract”), with Shoreham Apartments LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company (the “Redeveloper”), pursuant to which the Redeveloper agreed to
construct an approximately 148-unit multifamily rental housing development and functionally
related facilities with approximately 20,000 square feet of commercial space and approximately 202
parking spaces (the “Project”) on land located in the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”).
1.02. Under the Development Contract, the Authority has agreed to issue a Tax Increment
Revenue Note (the “TIF Note”) to the Redeveloper to finance the development of the Project after
evidence of qualified costs is provided by the Redeveloper.
1.03. In order to make the construction of the Project feasible, the City has agreed to issue its
(i) Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series 2015A (the “Series 2015A
Bonds”), in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $34,500,000; (ii) Variable Rate Demand
Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series 2015B (the “Series 2015B
Bonds”), in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $3,700,000; and (iii) Taxable Variable Rate
Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series 2015C (the “Series
2015C Bonds,” and collectively with the Series 2015A Bonds and the Series 2015B Bonds, the
“Bonds”), in the approximate aggregate principal amount of $500,000.
1.04. The City will loan the proceeds of the Series 2015A Bonds to the Redeveloper pursuant
to a Loan Agreement, dated as of November 1, 2015 (the “Series 2015A Loan Agreement”), between
the City and the Redeveloper. Pursuant to an Assignment of Loan Agreement, dated as of November
1, 2015 (the “Series 2015A Assignment of Loan Agreement”), between the City and the Senior
Lender, the City will assign and transfer to TCF Investments Management, Inc., a Minnesota
corporation (the “Senior Lender”), its right, title, and interest in and to the Series 2015A Loan
Agreement, except for certain reserved rights referred to in the Series 2015A Loan Agreement. The
Senior Lender has agreed to purchase the Series 2015A Bonds pursuant to a Bond Purchase
Agreement, dated the date of issuance of the Series 2015A Bonds (the “Series 2015A Bond Purchase
Agreement”), between the Redeveloper, the Senior Lender, and TCF National Bank, a national
banking association (the “Servicer”).
1.05. The City will loan the proceeds of the Series 2015B Bonds and the Series 2015C Bonds
(together, the “Series 2105BC Bonds”) to the Redeveloper pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of
November 1, 2015 (the “Series 2015BC Loan Agreement”), between the City and the Redeveloper.
Page 3
1.06. To secure the Redeveloper’s obligations under the Series 2015A Loan Agreement, the
Redeveloper will execute and deliver to the City a Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and
Fixture Financing Statement, dated the date of issuance of the Series 2015A Bonds (the “Series 2015A
Mortgage”), and an Assignment of Leases and Rents, dated the date of issuance of the Series 20145
Bonds (the “Series 2015A Assignment of Leases and Rents”), both of which the City has agreed to
assign to the Senior Lender pursuant to an Assignment of Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement
and Fixture Financing Statement and of Assignment of Leases and Rents, dated the date of issuance of
the Series 2015A Bonds (the “Assignment of Series 2015A Mortgage”).
1.07. The Bank has agreed to issue an Irrevocable Letter of Credit to secure the Series 2015BC
Bonds, dated the date of issuance of the Series 2015BC Bonds (the “Series 2015BC Letter of Credit”),
pursuant to a Reimbursement Agreement, dated the date of issuance of the Series 2015BC Bonds (the
“Series 2015BC Reimbursement Agreement”), between the Redeveloper and the Bank.
1.08. There has been presented to this Board an Assignment and Subordination of
Development Contract (the “Assignment and Subordination of Development Contract”), proposed to
be entered into by the Authority, the Redeveloper, and the Senior Lender, pursuant to which (i) the
Redeveloper will assign all of its rights under the Development Contract to the Lender under the Series
2015A Bonds, the Series 2015A Loan Agreement, the Series 2015A Assignment of Loan Agreement,
the Series 2015A Bond Purchase Agreement, the Series 2015A Mortgage, the Series 2015A
Assignment of Leases and Rents, and the Assignment of Series 2015A Mortgage (collectively, the
“Series 2015A Loan Documents”); (ii) certain rights of the Authority under the Development Contract
will be subordinated to the Series 2015A Mortgage and the Series 2015A Assignment of Leases and
Rents; and (iii) the Authority subordinates its rights under the Development Contract and the other
Series 2015A Loan Documents to the Senior Lender, except as specifically set forth in the Assignment
and Subordination of Development Contract.
1.09. There has been presented to this Board an Assignment of Payments under Tax Increment
Revenue Note (the “Assignment of TIF Note”), proposed to be made by the Redeveloper for the
benefit of the Bank, pursuant to which the Redeveloper will assign its right and interest under the TIF
Note to the Bank in order to secure its obligations with respect to the Series 2015BC Bonds.
1.10. The Board has reviewed the Assignment and Subordination of Development Contract
and the Assignment of TIF Note and finds that the approval and execution thereof are in the best
interest of the City and its residents.
Section 2. Authority Approval; Other Proceedings.
2.01. The Assignment and Subordination of Development Contract and the Assignment of
TIF Note as presented to the Board are hereby in all respects approved, subject to modifications that do
not alter the substance of the transaction and that are approved by the President and Executive Director,
provided that execution of the Assignment and Subordination of Development Contract and the
Assignment of TIF Note by such officials shall be conclusive evidence of approval.
2.02. The President and Executive Director are hereby authorized to execute on behalf of the
Authority the Assignment and Subordination of Development Contract and the Assignment of TIF
Note and any other documents requiring execution by the Authority in order to carry out the
transaction described in the Assignment and Subordination of Development Contract and the
Assignment of TIF Note.
Page 4
2.03. Authority staff and consultants are authorized to take any actions necessary to carry out
the intent of this resolution.
Adopted by the Economic Development
Authority November 2, 2015
Executive Director
President
Attest
Secretary
Page 5
ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION OF
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
THIS ASSIGNMENT AND SUBORDINATION OF DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT (the
“Agreement”) is made and entered into to be effective as of the ___ day of November, 2015, by and
among the ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, a public body
corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota (the “Authority”), SHOREHAM
APARTMENTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Borrower”), and TCF
INVESTMENTS MANAGEMENT, INC., a Minnesota corporation (the “Lender”).
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the Borrower is the owner of certain real property located in St. Louis Park,
Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Land”); and
WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Authority entered into that certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment dated August 17, 2015, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Contract for
Private Redevelopment dated ______________, 2015 (collectively, the “Development Contract”);
and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (the “City”), has agreed to lend to the
Borrower the proceeds of its Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series
2015A, in the original aggregate principal amount of $34,500,000 (the “Bonds”), pursuant to a Loan
Agreement dated as of the date hereof (together with any amendment thereto, the “Loan
Agreement”), between the Borrower and the City, to finance the development of the Land and the
construction thereon by the Borrower of an approximately 148-unit multifamily rental housing
development and functionally related facilities with approximately 20,000 square feet of
commercial space and approximately 202 parking spaces to be located on the Land (the
“Improvements”) (the Land and the Improvements are hereinafter at times collectively referred to as
the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the City has assigned and transferred to the Lender all its right, title and interest
in and to the Loan Agreement pursuant to that certain Assignment of Loan Agreement, dated as of
the date hereof, between the City and the Lender (together with any amendment, the “Assignment
of Loan Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the Lender has agreed to purchase the Bonds subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in that certain Bond Purchase Agreement dated as of the date hereof, among the
Borrower, the Lender, and TCF National Bank, a national banking association, as servicer (together
with any amendment thereto, the “Bond Purchase Agreement”), and will loan the proceeds of the
Bonds to the Borrower (the “Loan”). Unless the context otherwise indicates, capitalized terms used
but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Bond Purchase
Agreement; and
WHEREAS, to secure its obligations under the Loan Agreement and the Bonds, the
Borrower has executed and delivered to the City a Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and
Fixture Financing Statement of even date herewith (together with all modifications, extensions,
renewals and replacements, the “Mortgage”) and an Assignment of Leases and Rents of even date
herewith (the “Assignment of Rents”), each covering the Project; and
Page 6
WHEREAS, the City has assigned and transferred to the Lender all its right, title and interest
in and to the Mortgage and the Assignment of Rents pursuant to that certain Assignment of
Combination Mortgage, Security Agreement and Fixture Financing Statement and of Assignment of
Leases and Rents dated as of even date herewith, from the City to the Lender (the “Assignment of
Mortgage”); and
WHEREAS, the Mortgage was filed of record in the office of the Hennepin County
Recorder on __________, as Document No. __________, and in the office of the Hennepin County
Registrar of Titles on __________, as Document No. __________, and the Assignment of Rents
was filed of record in the office of the Hennepin County Recorder on __________, as Document
No. __________, and in the office of the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles on __________, as
Document No. __________, and the Assignment of Mortgage was filed of record in the office of
the Hennepin County Recorder on __________, as Document No. __________, and in the office of
the Hennepin County Registrar of Titles on __________, as Document No. __________; and
WHEREAS, the Bonds, the Loan Agreement, the Assignment of Loan Agreement, the Bond
Purchase Agreement, the Mortgage, the Assignment of Rents, the Assignment of Mortgage and all
other documents and instruments now or hereafter evidencing or securing the Loan and all other
obligations of the Borrower to the Lender with respect to the Project, as the same may be amended,
modified or supplemented, are collectively referred to herein as the “Loan Documents”; and
WHEREAS, the Lender has required, as a condition to the purchase of the Bonds, that
(a) the Borrower assign all of its rights under the Development Contract to the Lender to secure the
obligations of the Borrower to the Lender under the Loan Documents, (b) certain rights of the
Authority under the Development Contract be subordinated to the Mortgage and the Assignment of
Rents, and (c) the Authority agrees to certain other matters, all as more fully contained herein.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto hereby agree as follows:
1.
Assignment. The Borrower hereby assigns to the Lender and grants to the Lender a
security interest in all of its right, title and interest under the Development Contract to secure the
Borrower’s obligations under the Loan Documents. Notwithstanding this assignment, the Borrower
will remain liable for payment and performance of all of its obligations under the Development
Contract. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, in no event shall the Lender have any
obligation to perform any of the Borrower’s obligations under the Development Contract unless and
until the Lender expressly assumes the obligations of the Borrower thereunder in accordance with
Paragraph 5 of this Agreement.
2.
Representations and Warranties of the Borrower. The Borrower hereby represents
and warrants that (a) the Borrower has the full right and title to assign the Development Contract to
the Lender, (b) there have been no prior assignments of the Development Contract, (c) the
Development Contract is valid and enforceable agreements in full force and effect and has not been
amended, modified, altered, cancelled or surrendered, and (d) neither the Authority nor the
Borrower is in default thereunder and all covenants, conditions, agreements and payments have
been performed as required therein, except those not to be performed until after the date hereof.
The Borrower agrees not to sell, assign, pledge, mortgage or otherwise transfer or encumber its
interest in the Development Contract as long as this Agreement is in effect. The Borrower hereby
irrevocably constitutes and appoints the Lender as its attorney-in-fact to demand, receive and
enforce the Borrower’s rights with respect to the Development Contract for and on behalf of and in
Page 7
the name of the Borrower, or, at the option of the Lender, in the name of the Lender, with the same
force and effect as the Borrower could do if this Agreement had not been made.
3.
Present Assignment. This Agreement shall constitute a perfected, absolute and
present assignment, provided that the Lender shall have no right under this Agreement to enforce
the provisions of the Development Contract or exercise any of its rights or remedies under this
Agreement until an Event of Default (as that term is defined in any of the Loan Documents) shall
occur and be continuing.
4.
Security Agreement; Financing Statement. This Agreement constitutes a Security
Agreement under the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in Minnesota (the “Code”) and shall be
governed by the Code. The Borrower acknowledges that, in connection with the execution of this
Agreement, the Lender is filing a Uniform Commercial Code financing statement in the office of
the Secretary of State of Minnesota showing the Borrower as debtor and the Lender as secured party
to create and perfect the security interest created by this Agreement.
5.
Event of Default; Remedies. Subject to the provisions set forth in this Paragraph 5,
upon the occurrence of an Event of Default, the Lender may, without affecting any of its rights or
remedies against the Borrower under any other instrument, document or agreement, exercise its
rights under this Agreement as the Borrower’s attorney-in-fact in any manner permitted by law and,
in addition, the Lender shall have the right to exercise and enforce any and all rights and remedies
available after a default to a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code as adopted in the
State of Minnesota. If notice to the Borrower of any intended disposition of collateral or of any
intended action is required by law in any particular instance, such notice shall be deemed
commercially reasonable if given at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the intended disposition or
other action. Furthermore, upon the occurrence and during the continuance of an Event of Default,
the Lender shall have the right (but not the obligation), upon written notice to the Authority, to (i)
terminate the Development Contract and thereafter, the Development Contract shall be of no further
force or effect, or (ii) assume all obligations of the Borrower under the Development Contract.
6.
Representations and Warranties of the Authority. The Authority hereby consents
and agrees to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The Authority further represents and
warrants to the Lender that (a) the Development Contract is a valid agreement enforceable in
accordance with its terms, is in full force and effect and has not been amended, modified, altered,
cancelled or surrendered, (b) that the Authority is not in default thereunder and that all covenants,
conditions, agreements and payments have been performed as required therein, except those not to
be performed until after the date hereof, and (c) except for this Agreement, none of the undersigned
has received any notice of a sale, transfer, assignment, hypothecation, encumbrance or pledge of the
Development Contract. To the best knowledge of the Authority, the Borrower is not in default
under the Development Contract.
7.
Approval of Construction Plans. The Authority hereby acknowledges and agrees
that pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Development Contract, the Authority has approved the
Construction Plans (as that term is defined in the Development Contract) in connection with the
construction of the Project.
8.
Subordination. The Authority hereby agrees that the rights and remedies of the
Authority under the Development Contract and the Authority’s interest in the Land created thereby,
hereby are and shall remain at all times completely and unconditionally subject and subordinate to
the liens, rights and security interest created by the Mortgage, the Assignment of Rents and the
other Loan Documents and to any and all amendments, modifications, extensions, replacements or
Page 8
renewals of the Mortgage, the Assignment of Rents and the other Loan Documents; provided,
however, that nothing herein shall be construed as subordinating the requirement contained in the
Development Contract that the Project be used in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.3 of
the Development Contract, or as subordinating the Authority’s rights under the Note (as that term is
defined in the Development Contract) to suspend payments in accordance with the Note.
9.
Approval of Financing. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of the Development Contract, the
Authority hereby approves the financing of the Project as contemplated by the Loan Documents.
10.
Notice to the Authority. The Lender agrees to provide the Authority with all default
notices sent to the Borrower pursuant to the Bond Purchase Agreement and will provide the
Authority an opportunity to cure any such default stated therein, provided such default is susceptible
of cure under the Bond Purchase Agreement, upon the same terms as are applicable to the
Borrower.
11.
No Assumption. The Authority acknowledges that the Lender is not a party to the
Development Contract and by executing this Agreement does not become a party to the
Development Contract, and specifically does not assume and shall not be bound by any obligations
of the Borrower to the Authority under the Development Contract and that the Lender shall incur no
obligations whatsoever to the Authority except as expressly provided herein.
12.
Notice from the Authority; the Lender Right to Cure and Perform. So long as the
Development Contract remains in effect, the Authority agrees to give to the Lender copies of
notices of any default or event of default given to the Borrower under the Development Contract.
Prior to any termination of any of said agreements, the Lender shall have an opportunity to cure
such default within a reasonable time. Furthermore, regardless of whether a default or event of
default has occurred under any of said agreements, the Authority agrees to accept from the Lender
any performance tendered under the Development Contract by the Lender as if the same were
tendered by the Borrower; provided however that it is understood and agreed (a) that by tendering
performance under any of said agreements, the Lender does not assume any of the obligations or
duties of the Borrower under or with respect to such agreement unless the Lender expressly assumes
the such agreement in writing as provided in Paragraph 5 above, and (b) the Lender shall not be
obligated to cure any defaults of the Borrower under any of the said agreements.
13.
Amendments. The Authority and the Borrower agree that no change, modification,
amendment or termination shall be made to the terms of the Development Contract without the prior
written consent of the Lender.
14.
Waiver. This Agreement can be waived, modified, amended, terminated or
discharged only explicitly in writing signed by the parties hereto. A waiver by the Lender shall be
effective only in a specific instance and for the specific purpose given. Mere delay or failure to act
shall not preclude the exercise or enforcement of any of the Lender’s rights or remedies hereunder.
All rights and remedies of the Lender shall be cumulative and may be exercised singularly or
concurrently at the Lender’s option, and any and exercise or enforcement of any one such right or
remedy shall neither be a condition to nor bar the exercise or enforcement of any other.
15.
Headings. The descriptive headings for the several sections of this Amendment are
inserted for convenience only and not to confine or limit any of the terms or provisions hereof.
16.
Addresses for Notice. Any notice from, request, demand or communication
hereunder shall be deemed fully given if delivered or served by depositing the same with the United
Page 9
States Postal Service, postage prepaid, certified or registered, addressed to the parties as set forth
below:
If to the Authority:
St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority
Attn: Executive Director
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park, MN 55416-2518
with a copy to:
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
200 South 6th Street, Suite 470
Attn: Martha Ingram, Esq.
If to the Borrower:
Shoreham Apartments LLC
5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 200
Attention: Robb Bader
with a copy to:
Lindquist & Vennum LLP
4200 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Attention: Debra Page, Esq.
If to the Lender:
TCF Investments Management, Inc.
c/o TCF National Bank
11100 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 600
Minnetonka, MN 55305
Attention: Commercial Real Estate Lending Group
with a copy to:
Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A.
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
Attention: Jon J. Hoganson, Esq.
17.
Transfer of Title to the Lender. Subject to the provisions of Paragraphs 5 and 8
hereof, the Authority agrees that in the event the Lender or the Lender’s nominee, assignee, or any
entity wholly-owned or controlled by the Lender (the “Lender Party”) acquires title to the Project
pursuant to a foreclosure sale, or a deed in lieu thereof, the Lender Party shall not be bound by the
terms and conditions of the Development Contract, except as expressly provided herein.
Further, the Authority agrees that in the event a Lender Party acquires title to the Project pursuant to
a foreclosure sale or a deed in lieu thereof, then such Lender Party (provided the Lender or such
Lender Party has elected to assume the applicable agreement(s) pursuant to Paragraph 5 hereof)
Page 10
shall be entitled to all rights conferred upon the Borrower under the Development Contract,
provided that no condition of default exists and remains uncured beyond applicable cure periods in
the obligations of the Borrower under the Development Contract.
18.
Successors. This Agreement and each and every covenant, agreement and other
provision hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their
respective successors and assigns, including any person who acquires title to the Project through the
Lender of a foreclosure of the Mortgage.
19.
Severability. The enforceability or invalidity of any provision hereof shall not render
any other provision or provisions herein contained unenforceable or invalid.
20.
Governing Law. This Agreement is made in and shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Minnesota.
21.
Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together
constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day
and year first above written.
[THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.]
10550.32
10830535v3
Page 11
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
By:
Print:
Its:
By:
Print:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
)
)
)
by ____________________ and ____________________, the ______________ and the
__________________, respectively, of the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority, a
public body corporate and politic under the laws of the State of Minnesota, for and on behalf of the
Authority.
Notary Public
Page 12
SHOREHAM APARTMENTS LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company
By:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
Jeffrey R. Peterson
Its Chief Manager
)
)
)
liability company, for and on behalf of the limited liability company.
Notary Public
Page 13
TCF INVESTMENTS MANAGEMENT,
INC., a Minnesota corporation
By:
Name:
Title:
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
)
)
)
by ____________________, the ____________________ of TCF Investments Management, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, for and on behalf of the corporation.
Notary Public
THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY:
Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. (JJH)
225 South Sixth Street, Suite 3500
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Page 14
Page 15
ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
THIS ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER TAX INCREMENT REVENUE
NOTE (“Assignment”) is made as of the ____ day of November, 2015, by and between
SHOREHAM APARTMENTS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter referred to
as “Borrower”), and BRIDGEWATER BANK, a Minnesota banking corporation (hereinafter
referred to as “Lender”).
1.
2.RECITALS
Concurrent herewith, or prior hereto, Lender made a loan in the amount of $4,258,333.00
(the “Loan”) to Borrower pursuant to that certain Reimbursement Agreement between Borrower
and Lender (the “Reimbursement Agreement”). The Loan is evidenced by a Demand Note from
Borrower to Lender of even date herewith (the “Demand Note” or “Note”). Borrower will use the
proceeds of the Loan to fund a portion of the acquisition and construction costs of land located in
Hennepin County, Minnesota. The Demand Note supports an Irrevocable Letter of Credit No. 321
issued by the Lender in favor of U.S. Bank National Association, acting for the benefit of the
bondholders as set forth in the Indenture of Trust, dated as of November 1, 2015, between the City
of St. Louis Park, Minnesota and U.S. Bank National Association (or any successor Trustee
thereunder) (the “Trustee”), for and on the account of the Borrower (“Letter of Credit”) to provide
credit support for the Three Million Seven Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollar ($3,700,000.00)
City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Variable Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds
(The Shoreham Project), Series 2015B Bonds (the “Series 2015B Bonds”), and the Five Hundred
Thousand and 00/100 Dollar ($500,000.00) City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Taxable Variable
Rate Demand Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds (The Shoreham Project), Series 2015C Bonds
(the “Series 2015C Bonds”) (Series 2015B Bonds together with the Series 2015C Bonds sometimes
collectively referred to as the “Bonds”). The Reimbursement Agreement, Note, Letter of Credit,
Bonds, and other collateral documents (along with any extensions, modifications or renewals
thereof) described in or accompanying the Reimbursement Agreement are hereinafter sometimes
collectively referred to as the “Loan Documents”. Unless otherwise defined herein, terms are used
herein with the same meanings as defined in the Reimbursement Agreement. In the event of any
conflict between the terms hereof and the Reimbursement Agreement, the terms and conditions of
the Reimbursement Agreement shall control. As a condition to the Loan, Lender has requested
Borrower to cause the execution and delivery of this Assignment.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Loan and intending to be legally bound,
Borrower does hereby covenant, agree, warrant, represent, assign, set over and transfer, to the
extent assignable and transferable, as set forth herein:
1. A Tax Increment Revenue Note Series 2015, No. R-1 that will be issued after the date
hereof, pursuant to the provisions of that certain Contract for Private Redevelopment between
Borrower and Authority (as later defined) dated August 17, 2015, as amended (the “Contract”), by
the St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (the “Authority”) to the Borrower (the
“Issuance Date”), in the original principal amount of $1,200,000.00 (the “TIF Note”) shall be the
subject of this Assignment. On the Issuance Date, Borrower shall deliver a fully executed copy of
the TIF Note to Lender. If the TIF Note is not issued and delivered to Lender, as provided in this
Section 1, by ____________, or Lender reasonably believes that the TIF Note will not be issued,
then it shall be an Event of Default hereunder and Lender shall be entitled to all rights and remedies
Page 16
available to it as are more fully described in Section 6.
2. Borrower hereby assigns, transfers and sets over unto Lender all of its current and future
right, title and interest in and to the payments under the TIF Note and all rights and benefits
therefrom, as security for the full, timely and faithful repayment by Borrower of the Loan, and
performance by Borrower of its obligations under the Loan Documents. Borrower hereby agrees to
execute such additional documentation as required by Lender in order to give full force and effect to
such assignment to Lender of the TIF Note.
3. Commencing with the payment by the Authority under the TIF Note, on or around
November 1, 2018, and continuing on each May 1 and November 1 thereafter until the TIF Note is
paid or May 1, 2021, whichever is later, the Borrower hereby acknowledges and agrees that all
payments made by the Authority under the TIF Note shall be paid for the benefit of the Borrower
directly to Lender, by the Authority sending payments to Lender at the address as provided in
Section 13 and deposited into escrow account no. ____________ with Lender (the “Sinking Fund”).
Lender shall use the proceeds in the Sinking Fund to purchase or redeem Bonds pursuant to Section
3.13 of the Reimbursement Agreement.
4. Borrower agrees to faithfully observe and perform all of the obligations and agreements
pursuant to the Contract for the issuance of the TIF Note and the terms and conditions of the TIF
Note, subject to Borrower’s right to reasonably contest observance and performance.
5. Lender will not be deemed in any manner to have assumed any of the obligations related
to the Contract or TIF Note, nor shall Lender be liable to the Authority by reason of any default by
any party under the Contract or TIF Note. Borrower agrees to indemnify and to hold Lender
harmless of and from any and all liability, loss or damage which it may or might incur by reason of
any claims or demands against it based on its alleged assumption of Borrower’s duty and obligation
to perform and discharge the terms, covenants and agreements in the Contract or TIF Note.
6. After the occurrence of an Event of Default (as defined and set forth in the
Reimbursement Agreement), subject to applicable grace or cure periods:
a. Lender may elect to exercise any and all of Borrower’s rights and remedies under
the TIF Note, without any interference or objection from Borrower, and Borrower shall
cooperate in causing the Authority to comply with all the terms and conditions of the TIF
Note;
b. Lender may exercise Borrower’s rights under the TIF Note, and perform all acts
in the same manner and to the same extent as Borrower might do. In connection with any
and all of the foregoing powers, and without limiting the same, Lender may amend the terms
of the TIF Note (with the consent of the Authority), and make concessions to the Authority;
c. Lender may exercise Borrower’s rights under the provisions of the Contract
specifically related to the issuance of the TIF Note, and perform all acts in the same manner
and to the same extent as Borrower might do. In connection with any and all of the
foregoing powers, and without limiting the same, Lender may amend the terms of the
Contract (with the consent of the Authority), and make concessions to the Authority
specifically related to the provisions of the Contract related to the issuance of the TIF Note;
d. Lender may exercise any remedies provided to it in the Reimbursement
Agreement or Loan Documents.
Page 17
7. All of the foregoing powers herein granted to Lender shall be liberally construed.
Lender need not expend its own funds in the exercise of such power, but if it does, such amounts
shall be considered as advances for and on behalf of Borrower secured by this Assignment and also
secured by the Loan Documents. Any amounts so advanced shall bear interest at the then current
rate prescribed in the Note.
8. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as constituting a waiver of suspension by
Lender of its right to enforce payment of the debts under the terms of the Loan Documents. Lender
is not the agent, partner or joint venturer of the Borrower or the Authority.
9. This Assignment may be enforced from time to time by Lender at its discretion, with or
without order of any court, as Lender shall determine. Lender may also, at any time, cease to
enforce this Assignment. Any failure on the part of the Lender promptly to exercise any option
hereby given or reserved shall not prevent the exercise of any such option at any time thereafter.
Lender may pursue and enforce any remedy or remedies accorded it herein independently of, in
conjunction or concurrently with, or subsequent to its pursuit and enforcement of any remedy or
remedies which it may have under the Loan Documents.
10. Borrower warrants and represents that:
a. It has the right to exercise and deliver this Assignment under the terms of the
Contract and TIF Note. The execution of this Assignment and performance and observance
of its terms hereof have been duly authorized by necessary company action and do not
contravene or violate any provision of Borrower’s organizational documents.
b. It has made no prior assignments of the TIF Note.
c. To Borrower’s knowledge, as of the date hereof the Contract is in full force and
effect and the TIF Note shall be in full force and effect on the Issuance Date, subject to no
defenses, setoffs or counterclaims whatsoever.
d. To Borrower’s knowledge, there exists no event, condition or occurrence which
constitutes, or which with notice and/or the passage of time would constitute, a breach of or
default under any terms or conditions of any of the Contract or TIF Note. Borrower also
hereby covenants and agrees not to do any act which would destroy or impair the security to
Lender of this Assignment.
e. Borrower has filed all tax returns required to be filed and either paid all taxes
shown thereon to be due, including interest and penalties, which are not being contested in
good faith and by appropriate proceedings, and Borrower has no knowledge of any
objections or claims for additional taxes in respect to federal tax or excise profit tax returns
for prior years.
11. When the context so requires, the singular shall include the plural and conversely, and
use of any gender shall include all genders.
12. This Assignment shall be governed by and be construed in accordance with the laws of
the State of Minnesota. Whenever possible, each provision of this Assignment shall be interpreted
in such manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law, but if any provision of this
Assignment shall be prohibited by or be invalid under applicable law, such provision shall be
ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remainder of such
Page 18
provisions or the remaining provisions of this Assignment.
13. Notices required hereunder shall be by registered or certified mail or hand delivered,
addressed as follows:
If to Borrower at:
Shoreham Apartments LLC
c/o Commercial Partners Exchange Company, LLC
1300 U.S. Bank Plaza
200 South Sixth Street
With a copy to:
Mark E. Jensen
5402 Parkdale Drive, Suite 200
With a copy to:
Lindquist & Vennum LLP
4200 IDS Center
80 South Eighth Street
Attn: Debra Page
If to Lender at:
Bridgewater Bank
4400 Excelsior Boulevard
Attn: Nicholas Place
With a copy to:
Messerli & Kramer P.A.
1400 Fifth Street Towers
100 South Fifth Street
Attn: Michelle R. Jester, Esq.
or to such other address specified in writing by one party to the other in accordance herewith.
14. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Assignment or any of the Loan
Documents, all of the parties hereto agree that Commercial Partners Exchange Company, LLC
(“ CPEC” ) (acting as a qualified intermediary and exchange accommodation title holder for IRC
1031 exchanges, and which is the sole member of the Borrower), shall be exempt from any and all
liability for any representation, warranty, indemnity, term or condition in the Loan Documents, and
the Borrower and Lender agree not to assert any claim or commence any action against CPEC, or its
officers, members, employees, agents or affiliates regarding the Loan or Loan Documents;
provided, however, the Loan and all of the terms and conditions contained therein shall be fully
recourse as to the Borrower, any Guarantor, any co-signors or other participants under the Loan or
Loan Documents, and against Hart Lake (as later defined) as the member of the Borrower from and
after the Transfer (as later defined). The entire membership interest held by CPEC in Borrower
shall be transferred to Hart Lake Apartments LLC, Delaware limited liability company (“Hart
Lake”), at the end of the reverse exchange period only (the “Transfer”), with written notice
provided by Hart Lake to Lender at such time of the foregoing transfer of the membership interest
in Borrower takes place. At the time of the Transfer, the limitation and exemptions set forth in this
Section shall automatically become null and void.
Page 19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Borrower has caused this Assignment to be executed as of the
day and year first above written.
SHOREHAM APARTMENTS LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Jeffrey R. Peterson
Its: Chief Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
)
) ss.
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ____ day of November, 2015
liability company, on behalf of the limited liability company.
(Notary Public Seal)
______________________________________
3.Notary Public
This Assignment is acknowledged by and consented to by the undersigned as the anticipated
sole member of Borrower after completion of the Transfer.
HART LAKE APARTMENTS LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Printed Name:
Its:
Page 20
CONSENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF PAYMENTS UNDER
TAX INCREMENT REVENUE NOTE
The St. Louis Park Economic Development Authority (“Authority”), will issue its Tax
Increment Revenue Note, Series 2015 in the principal amount of $1,200,000.00 (the “Note”) upon
satisfaction of the terms for issuance of the Note required by that certain Contract for Private
Redevelopment between the Authority and Borrower (as later defined) dated August 17, 2015, as
amended. The Note will be issued to Shoreham Apartments LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company (“Borrower”), and is payable solely from “Available Tax Increment,” as that term is
defined in Section 3 of the Note. The Authority has received an Assignment of Payments under
Tax Increment Revenue Note (the “Assignment”), executed by Borrower which assigns all its
interests in the payment of Available Tax Increment under the Note to Bridgewater Bank, a
Minnesota banking corporation. The Authority has received an investment letter executed by
Bridgewater Bank and consents to such Assignment pursuant to Section 7 of the Note.
Until further notified, the Authority shall make all payments under the Note to Bridgewater
Bank at the following address:
Bridgewater Bank
Attn: Nicholas Place
ST. LOUIS PARK ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
By:
Its:
President
By:
Its:
Executive Director
Meeting: City Council
Presentation: 2a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Small Business Saturday Proclamation
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor is asked to read the Proclamation designating Saturday,
November 28, 2015 as Small Business Saturday.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Not applicable
SUMMARY: Small Business Saturday is an initiative to encourage area customers to patronize
local businesses. The Saturday falls on the weekend after Thanksgiving – between Black Friday
and Cyber Monday. It has become a nationwide effort to celebrate and support small businesses
and all they contribute to their communities. The day encourages people to shop at local small
businesses on the Saturday after Thanksgiving.
Small Business Saturday was launched in 2010 and involved 130 small businesses advocate
groups, 1.2 million Facebook users, public and private organizations and local governments. By
2014, it is estimated that over $14.3 billion was spent at small businesses on the day. By
spreading the word about Small Business Saturday, St. Louis Park can help raise awareness
about the critical roll small businesses play in the city.
This year, Small Business Saturday falls on November 28th. Staff is proposing that the City
Council approve a proclamation supporting the Small Business Saturday initiative to demonstrate
St. Louis Park’s support for the local businesses that create jobs, boost the economy and enhance
our neighborhoods.
Staff will also promote the initiative on Life in the Park and social media.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None
community.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Proclamation
Julie Grove, Economic Development Specialist
Michele Schnitker, Housing Supervisor/Deputy CD Director
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 2a)
Title: Small Business Saturday Proclamation
Page 2
PROCLAMATION
SMALL BUSINESS SATURDAY
NOVEMBER 28, 2015
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park celebrates our local small businesses and the
contribution they make to our local economy and community; and
WHEREAS, According to the U.S. Small Business Administration, there are
currently 28 million small businesses in the United States, representing over fifty percent
of the working population, and creating sixty-six percent of net new jobs since 1970; and
WHEREAS, Ninety-four percent of U.S. consumers agree doing business with
small businesses in their communities is important; and
WHEREAS, St. Louis Park supports our local businesses that create jobs, boost
our local economy and preserve our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, Advocacy groups and public and private organizations across the
county have endorsed the Saturday following Thanksgiving as Small Business Saturday;
NOW THEREFORE, let it be known that the Mayor and City Council of the
City of St. Louis Park do hereby proclaim November 28, 2015 to be Small Business
Saturday in St. Louis Park.
WHEREFORE, I set my hand and cause the Great
Seal of the City of St. Louis Park to be affixed this 2nd
day of November, 2015.
_______________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Minutes: 3a
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
SEPTEMBER 28, 2015
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Anne Mavity, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano (arrived at 6:38 p.m.).
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Councilmember Steve Hallfin.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Housing
Supervisor (Ms. Schnitker), Planning/Zoning Supervisor (Ms. McMonigal), Human Resources
Director (Ms. Deno), City Clerk (Ms. Kennedy), Administrative Services Intern (Ms. Murphy)
and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guest: Cathy Bennett, Urban Land Institute-Minnesota, and Kerri Pearce Ruch, Hennepin County
Southwest Community Works.
1.
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 5 and October 12, 2015
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed special study session agenda for October 5th and the
proposed study session agenda for October 12th. He noted the Polystyrene Food and Beverage
Containers listening session will take place on October 12 at 5:30 p.m.
2.
SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis Findings & Draft Southwest LRT Corridor-wide
Housing Strategy
Ms. Schnitker presented the staff report.
Kerri Pearce Ruch, Hennepin County Southwest Community Works, stated their vision is to
collaborate and partner so that the Southwest corridor becomes a premier destination that is
accessible, livable, and vibrant. She reviewed the housing goal to position Southwest LRT
communities as a place for all to live and a graph depicting opportunities to create connected
communities. The strategy was to conduct a housing inventory, complete a Gaps Analysis, and
draft a strategy. Cathy Bennett, Urban Land Institute MN, stated the value of a corridor-wide
collaboration is to help cities create and sustain healthy communities and provide lifecycle
housing for residents.
Councilmember Spano arrived at 6:38 p.m.
Ms. Bennett presented the SWLRT Housing Gaps Analysis, summary of key findings on a
corridor level, and expected growth in households without children. Ms. Bennett then presented
employment/job statistics, estimated earnings, and affordable housing costs within one-half mile
of the corridor. She noted the majority of the Gaps Analysis focused on the residential
development outlook including the market demand for new housing, market feasibility, and
existing gaps between current units and the number of households who will want to live along
Title: Study Session Minutes of September 28, 2015
Page 2
the corridor. There is need for a mix of rental housing by affordable range and home ownership
products. Ms. Bennett stated existing affordable housing is an asset in the corridor and presented
the corridor’s strengths and development challenges by station area.
Councilmember Mavity asked what information was used to determine housing numbers and if
they considered a walkshed. Councilmember Sanger also asked how they arrived at numbers for
each station area, percentage for rental or other types of housing, and if it considered tear down
of existing housing stock. Ms. Bennett stated they took into consideration all the factors
including the walkshed and talked with developers about their market analysis, which assumed
some of the land uses would change. The time frame for the Gaps Analysis findings was 2030.
Councilmember Sanger stated she understood the desire of developers to want everything
redeveloped, but that did not take current land uses into account. She requested more
information on the numbers used and how the allocation was done from station to station.
Councilmember Mavity noted this was not a mandate and it was to be used as a planning tool.
Ms. Bennett stated they made a conscious effort to have a corridor-wide strategy, based upon
market feasibility, but it is up to the community to consider the numbers from the Gaps Analysis.
They also looked at redevelopment and preservation possibilities through market demand and
reduced those numbers based on constraints around land and development.
Ms. Bennett stated the corridor-wide housing strategy objectives defined what a full range of
housing choices looked like based on the Gaps Analysis through construction of 11,200 new
units within one-half mile of the corridor. Out of the 11,200 new units, 3,520 would be
affordable to lower- and moderate-income households; and, 3,800 unsubsidized rental units
would be preserved by 2030. She reviewed the median income, median salary for a family of
four, and affordable monthly housing payment. Ms. Bennett then presented 11 implementation
strategies to move the identified housing goals forward.
Councilmember Mavity stated an example of maintaining affordability would be the 18 Section
8 housing units at Excelsior and Grand. Ms. Schnitker stated that the contract for those units
would expire in 2023.
Councilmember Sanger commented on the importance of having resources to extend the
affordability of those units. Ms. Bennett explained a lot of naturally occurring affordable
housing occurs because it is old and may not have the amenities expected in new housing. But,
they need to assure it is well maintained. One option is to create a TOD Housing Fund to bring
new financial resources to the table from private and philanthropic investments. Ms. Bennett
explained one criticism of the Gaps Analysis is that the amount of affordable housing called for
was not high enough to meet the demand in the corridor. Marquette, who conducted the Gaps
Analysis, considered what would be feasible with existing resources so there is a need to find
and infuse new financial contributions.
Ms. Bennett presented action steps for the implementation strategies, noting the Steering
Committee would be asked to adopt the draft strategy and send it to the cities for action. She
described their stakeholder outreach, reviewed the expected timetable, and requested feedback.
Councilmember Mavity complimented Ms. McMonigal on the presentation she made to the
Community Works Steering Committee relating to housing issues, noting well over 2,000 units
had been produced in ten years, far exceeding what was anticipated to be possible. She stated
Page 3
the City was able to accomplish this by being very aggressive with implementing policies and
taking risk to compile land to drive development.
Councilmember Mavity stated she had heard about the preservation of naturally occurring
affordable housing that was not deteriorating but did not understand what those tools were for
homeownership. Ms. Bennett explained the preservation relates to ownership-oriented housing
to help improve and keep complexes affordable. Councilmember Mavity suggested giving
bonuses if the affordable housing is located within transit corridors or areas feeling more
development pressure. Ms. Schnitker stated those programs can be targeted to geographic areas
or specific units.
Councilmember Mavity stated knowing that the homes closest to the corridor will have the most
development pressure and escalating prices, those may be ones to consider for incentive. Ms.
Schnitker stated the Land Trust was a model that had created 12 affordable homes in St. Louis
Park. In that program, the City provided more assistance if a foreclosed lender owned property
as there may be more rehab needs. She stated if the Council desires, it could create targeted
programs. She noted the Land Trust program had a limited equity sharing upon sale, but other
programs did not have such restrictions.
Councilmember Sanger stated she is a proponent of stabilizing and preserving existing housing.
She asked about incentives for rental properties and new tools the City can create to incent
landlords to maintain the quality of the buildings, noting that older housing was better built and
generally had more character than what is being constructed now. Councilmember Sanger stated
she had trouble visualizing this much housing around station areas unless a fair amount was also
torn down. She added she did not want to tear down commercial property or downzone it for
housing because it would minimize the City’s tax base and job creation.
Councilmember Sanger asked about plans for preserving green space around housing. Ms.
Bennett stated the Gaps Analysis included a map for each station that depicted the optimal areas
for housing and green spaces. These are suggestions with the understanding the City has its
master plan, zoning, and regulatory codes.
Councilmember Mavity stated most of the housing envisioned around a station area would be
mixed use that included commercial and residential. Also, the City is trying to figure out how to
better incent small businesses through zoning tools or other means, so if older commercial is torn
down the City can attract small businesses.
Councilmember Sanger stated she liked that theory, but opined that jobs provided by small
businesses were often lower paying, which creates a self-fulfilling prophecy for needing more
affordable housing. Ms. McMonigal stated the parcels being targeted were vacant or
underutilized, and noted staff is not looking at downzoning or devaluing properties.
Councilmember Spano stated he wants to make sure Meadowbrook Manor is preserved and
agreed those buildings were heartily constructed but do need some interior work. He asked for
more information on TOD funding programs, creating a TOD Housing Fund, and examples
where that had been done in other cities.
Councilmember Mavity stated there was a bit of skepticism at the Community Works Steering
Committee meeting, but Marquette presented it more as leveraging an equity business pool. Ms.
Page 4
Bennett stated there has been a lot of discussion about creating funding mechanisms for mixed
housing, which is aspirational in this strategy.
Councilmember Brausen stated creating affordable housing units was a fine and worthy goal, but
he felt it would be a big challenge. He noted the City will need to work on strategies to create
these housing units. He agreed with the importance of preserving Meadowbrook Manor in the
Louisiana station area, as well as others to assure they remain market rate affordable housing
units. He noted one option is to have additional mechanisms, like legislative authority, for area
wide TIF.
With regard to fiscal disparities sharing, Councilmember Brausen noted St. Louis Park is a net
contributor and asked about the City receiving a credit on its contribution and committing those
funds to the preservation or creation of affordable housing. Ms. Bennett stated those options
have been considered as a possible tool if there is the political will to do so. Mr. Harmening
noted all of the suburban communities along the Southwest LRT are net contributors to fiscal
disparities.
Councilmember Sanger noted a housing choice not mentioned is move-up housing, which is in
demand for family-sized housing. She expressed concern, from a transportation point of view, if
the City is focusing on affordable housing transit as it undermines the need to get the entire
community to use transit. She supported higher-income family housing within transit centers to
address what happens when the millennials have children and no longer want to live in a onebedroom apartment.
Councilmember Mavity stated move-up housing is a City policy that is being looked at in singlefamily neighborhoods where the usage of land is more appropriate, but that would not be
appropriate along the LRT where the City wants to build density. Councilmember Sanger
suggested there could be a mix of high density and larger single-family houses along the transit
corridor. Her goal is to make transit appealing to all and not stigmatize it to be only for low
income individuals. Councilmember Mavity agreed the City does not want the corridor to be all
affordable housing, but 15% was the aspirational goal. She noted luxury units were currently
being built, so unless there are more tools and more money, additional affordable housing would
not be created. Ms. Bennett explained the City will need to provide connecting links to transit
such as existing bus service and shuttle buses.
3.
Board & Commission Annual Meeting with Council Program
Ms. Murphy presented the staff report. Mr. Harmening added the current system was
cumbersome and the Council would prefer to devote one night to hear annual reports and future
plans from all Boards and Commissions. Ms. Deno suggested scheduling this meeting the first
quarter of 2016, noting it would need to be highly orchestrated to consider all of this information
in one night.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of the City Council to ask staff to obtain feedback on
the proposed change from each boards or commission. Because the written reports would be
provided to the Council for review well in advance, it was suggested that each board or
commission be given ten minutes to present their information and ten minutes for discussion
with the Council. The Council also suggested that an informal reception with refreshments be
scheduled prior to the start of the meeting as a way to thank and recognize volunteers on each
board or commission.
4.
Page 5
Board & Commission Rules and Procedures
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report and provided an overview of the proposed changes.
Councilmember Mavity stated her main goal was to ensure that the appointment process is
transparent and democratic. She supported making appointments once a year and to start at
‘zero’ for everyone making application. She suggested internally reviewing applicants, ranking
them, discussing them, and then deciding whom to interview. She noted this process worked
effectively with the Environmental Commission. She added this would allow for the creation of
a candidate pool that could be used to fill mid-term vacancies that occur.
Councilmember Sanger supported interviewing applicants and making appointments once a year.
For mid-term vacancies, she agreed it would be ideal to consider someone who had already been
evaluated and to not advertise mid-term vacancies. She opined if someone is functioning well on
a board or commission and wants to be reappointed it is a waste of time to make that individual
go through the application and interview process. She added it would give others false hope or
expectations if the position was advertised as open when an existing board or commission
member was seeking reappointment. She stated she did not agree with establishing term limits
because she valued expertise and history of service on a board or commission. She suggested
setting an attendance standard, and clearly defining that standard within the Rules and
Procedures. She suggested developing a procedure that could be followed whereby a disruptive
member of a board or commission would not be reappointed.
The Council discussed who would be responsible for evaluating the effectiveness of the
members of a board or commission, what format it would take, and what standards would be
measured to determine whether or not the member was effective.
Councilmember Brausen stated he appreciates the work of all the board and commission
members, as it is a thankless job and their desire to contribute to the management of the City is
commendable. He asked about the 2012 prohibitions that are in place relating to serving on two
bodies simultaneously and family members within the same household serving on the same
board or commission concurrently.
The Council discussed the appointment of a school board member to the Planning Commission.
It was noted the appointment of a School Board member is stated in the bylaws of the Planning
Commission and made by the School Board. Mr. Harmening stated it has worked well, there has
been great participation, and it allows the School Board member to act as a conduit between the
City and School Board.
Councilmember Brausen spoke in favor of establishing term limits to support the training and
development of the next generation of leaders and creating opportunities for others to serve,
which is not possible with an entrenched membership. He agreed with the importance of
institutional and historic knowledge, noting it is also brought by staff members.
Councilmember Spano felt that when a member’s term is up, they should be required to reapply
for appointment, similar to a Councilmember seeking re-election. He noted asking an existing
member to go through the application process did not mean someone who has served for a long
period of time would not get reappointed. He noted staggering terms ensured there is continuity
on boards and commissions. On the technical side, he supported a uniform application process,
and the creation of a list serve or candidate pool comprised of people who have expressed an
Page 6
interest in serving on a board or commission. He also supported conducting all interviews on
one night and offering a consistent on-line application along with a standard supplemental
application.
Councilmember Sanger spoke against term limits, stating the City was not running a job-training
program or leadership development program. She opined the purpose of a board or commission
is to provide the best advice and recommendations to the City Council. Councilmember Mavity
noted expertise is not measured by how old you are. It is about the vision of the community and
whom it represents.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated he had been hesitant to impose term limits and to require
existing members seeking reappointment to go through the application and interview process
because he wants to make sure such actions are justified. He added he would not be in favor of
imposing term limits. He explained he would support a ranking process for applicants to
determine who to interview, and having conversation amongst the Council regarding the
performance of existing board and commission members based on established standards. He
stated that would provide a set procedure whereby a councilmember could discuss an issue or
concern. He stated electronic applications would be fine and he supported creating an eligibility
list to use to fill mid-year vacancies. He noted making appointments at the same time annually
would give the City an opportunity to organize targeted and specific marketing campaigns about
the application and appointment process.
With regard to supplemental applications, Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated he did not want to
receive too much content, because it would make the process cumbersome. Councilmember
Brausen agreed. Councilmember Spano reiterated that the applications for each board or
commission should be consistent. Councilmember Sanger noted the supplemental application
for the Environmental Commission was related to specific environmental issues.
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to not consider term limits, and to make the
appointment of youth commissioners a separate process that would coincide with the start of
each school year. The City Council asked staff to create a standardized application and to refine
the annual appointment process to schedules interviews for one night. It was also suggested that
the term length for members of the Housing Authority be reduced from five years to three years
to keep them consistent with the terms on other boards and commissions.
5.
Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licensing
Ms. Deno presented the staff report, noting justifications for limiting the size of off-sale liquor
establishments needed to be based on the health, safety, and welfare of the community.
Councilmember Sanger expressed concern with trying to justify a size limit for only liquor stores
and not all retail establishments. However, if it is the consensus of the Council to support a size
limitation, she would not support a maximum less than the size of the City’s existing largest
liquor store.
Councilmember Spano stated he supported limiting size as it related to the lifestyle in St. Louis
Park. He suggested a maximum square footage of 6,000 (size of Byerley’s Wine and Spirits) as
it still had a neighborhood feel. He added that other small liquor retailers have indicated
anything beyond that size had more of a warehouse feel. He noted limiting the size would also
Page 7
indicate support for small, locally owned businesses that invest in St. Louis Park and pay more
taxes into the community.
Councilmember Mavity agreed it is better for the community to have small businesses that are
more likely to be locally owned, create community character, and unique flavor. She supported
staff’s recommendation of a 5,000 sq. ft. cap, provided existing businesses larger than that are
grandfathered in.
Councilmember Sanger agreed it helps the community to have small business; however, it is a
legal requirement that the City cannot restrict square footage unless it is linked to the health,
safety, and welfare of the City. Mr. Harmening stated the City Attorney has advised the City to
be sure to clearly identify a justification for any size limitation from a health, safety, and welfare
standpoint. Ms. Deno added the City Attorney also recommended any size limitation be tied to
the liquor license.
Councilmember Brausen did not support regulating square footage based on the health, safety,
and welfare of the community. He noted with the polystyrene consideration it was ‘why buy the
lawsuit’ so he does not understand the difference in this rationale. He believes small and local
character are preferred and asked about limiting franchise restaurants as that food is not as
healthy. He suggested the City Attorney determine whether that could withstand legal challenge.
Councilmember Sanger stated the moratorium, which expires at the end of the year, allowed the
Council to have this conversation but she does not find there is legal justification. In addition,
such a limitation would restrict existing small off-sale liquor stores from expanding and being
able to compete with similar business.
The Council asked questions of Mr. Walther relating to the location of C-2 zoning districts that
allow liquor stores as a permitted use.
Councilmember Mavity stated her concern is the length on the north side of Excelsior Boulevard
where a 10,000 sq. ft. liquor store would create a generic car culture at an entryway into St.
Louis Park where the City is trying to create a pedestrian friendly and neighborhood experience.
Councilmember Spano stated another concern with creating a large destination liquor store in
that area as it relates to left turns off Excelsior Boulevard.
Councilmember Mavity noted the top three largest sized liquor stores are in car driven locations,
unique to that experience.
Councilmember Sanger asked if it would be better to add a requirement to demonstrate no
significant traffic impact. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg asked how that differs from other
businesses that generate traffic. He opined a limitation lower than 10,560 sq. ft. essentially
created an unfair impact on current off-sale liquor license holders.
It was acknowledged that there were not four Council votes to support a size restriction for offsale liquor stores.
6.
Page 8
Microdistillery Licenses
Ms. Kennedy presented the staff report and explained a microdistillery is licensed by the State,
similar to a brewery. The City becomes involved when the establishment wants to sell their
product public in either an on-sale or off-sale capacity. She explained a microdistillery could
obtain either a cocktail room license, similar to the concept of a taproom license for a brewer, or
an off-sale license to sell the product produced at the distillery for consumption off-site.
Councilmember Spano described his experience of visiting a microdistillery, stating he found the
concept to be similar to that at Steeltoe.
Councilmember Sanger stated her concerns related to the impact on public safety because a
cocktail room would sell spirits with a higher alcohol content with no requirement to serve food.
She asked if the City can institute the same 50% food requirement as restaurants. Ms. Kennedy
state the City could require the sale of food that would be subject to the 50% ratio requirement,
but noted that the City Code currently prohibited a restaurant from being located at a taproom.
She suggested the Council may want to consider imposing consistent regulations for both
cocktail rooms and taprooms. She explained based on the research done by staff it did not
appear as though the business model for a cocktail room or taproom was conducive to being
open in a manner similar to a bar/restaurant with a full on-sale intoxicating liquor license. She
noted that a cocktail room was only licensed to serve what was produced on-site at the distillery.
Councilmember Sanger stated she would like to consider a food requirement and see research on
public safety implications and the extent to which patrons of cocktail rooms are stopped for DWI
violations as compared to patrons of other on-sale intoxicating establishments that also have food
(restaurants).
Chris Palmisano and Brian Idelkope, Hennepin Distilling, 6409 Cambridge Street, were in
attendance.
Councilmembers Mavity, Spano and Brausen indicated support to update the code to include
microdistilleries and cocktail rooms. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated he would like more
information related to fire safety and the potential impact on nearby residents and business
owners.
Mr. Palmisano noted that federal regulations require the actual bonded distillery area to be
separated from the public area.
Mr. Walther stated if this moves forward, he would like to provide suggestions on square footage
limitations as it impacts the parking requirement. Ms. Deno stated staff will provide the Council
with the information requested, where these uses would be allowed by zoning, and police and
fire inspection requirements.
Communications/Meeting Check-In (Verbal)
The Council discussed the upcoming recognition of Elliott Royce. Mr. Harmening updated the
Council on a recent ruling in New York related to polystyrene; Linda Trummer’s medical leave;
and consideration of strategies and action steps to address the five priorities and goals established
by the Council in January.
Page 9
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Written Reports provided and documented for recording purposes only:
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Highway 169 – W. 16th Street Access Closure (West Side)
CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Proposal
August 2015 Monthly Financial Report
2016 Fees
Update: Oppidan’s Application for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Assistance Related
to 4900 Excelsior
Hockey Association Contribution Agreement & Skate Park Relocation Update
2016 Employer Benefits Contribution
2016 Budget & Service Charges for Special Service District (SSD) Nos. 1-6 and
Extension of SSD 4 through 2025
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Melissa Kennedy, City Clerk
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Minutes: 3b
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL LISTENING SESSION
OCTOBER 12, 2015
The meeting convened at 5:34 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Susan
Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs and Anne Mavity.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Director of Operations and Recreation (Ms.
Walsh), Public Works Services Manager (Mr. Merkley), Environment and Sustainability
Coordinator (Ms. Pinc), Communications and Marketing Manager (Ms. Larson), Solid Waste
Program Coordinator (Ms. Fisher), Civic TV Coordinator (Mr. Dunlap), and Recording
Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guest: Bridget Gothberg, Environment and Sustainability Commissioners Terry Gips, Rachel
Harris, Nancy Rose, and Judy Voigt.
1.
LISTENING SESSION: Polystyrene Food &Beverage Containers
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg commented on the environmental leadership of St. Louis Park to
consider a Zero Waste Packaging Ordinance. He explained tonight is the opportunity for the
Council to hear comments from the public. Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg welcomed members of the
Environmental and Sustainability Commission and introduced resident facilitator Bridget
Gothberg. Ms. Gothberg described tonight’s process to make comment and opportunity to also
provide comment through the City’s website.
John Easter, American Chemistry Council, suggested the City also consider the option of
recycling polystyrene rather than only banning. He advised that Alpine Waste and Recycling
provides recycling of foam in the metro Denver area and will soon add polystyrene. Mr. Easter
stated Alpine Waste and Recycling in Commerce City is the first recipient of a North American
Funding Program designed to increase the collection, processing, and marketing of postconsumer polystyrene. Mr. Easter stated the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, has adopted a policy to
encourage recycling of polystyrene foam. Mr. Easter stated recycling is an option for
polystyrene foam and encouraged the City to add to the plastics under the recycling provision in
the proposed policy.
Anne Marie Treglia, Dart Container Corporation, stated one of the goals of the ordinance is to
increase recycling and encouraged that to be the case in St. Louis Park and not limiting it to just
the three plastics noted for recycling. She also supported alternative methods, including wasteto-energy for other materials. Ms. Treglia described the types of products manufactured from
recycled plastics. She encouraged the City, as already done by over 60 California cities, to offer
curbside collection for foam recycling. She noted that Highland Park decided not to take away
people’s choice or increase cost, but to recycle polystyrene and plastics by piggybacking with
other e-waste recycling options.
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 3b)
Title: Listening Session Minutes of October 12, 2015
Page 2
Tim Wilken, Minnesota Beverage Association, explained that beverage cold cups for fountain
drinks are lined with polyethylene (PE) to prevent seepage. His understanding is that other
alternatives fail sooner, creating quality issues with customers. Mr. Wilken stated the City of
Minneapolis took that into consideration and included it as an exemption. He noted the City will
need a solution to that material one way or another.
Margaret Rog, 2817 Zarthan Avenue S., stated her support for the ban of polystyrene as it is a
known carcinogen in animals and also affects human bodies; the carcinogen increases with
exposure to heat, fatty, or acidic foods; and, Clean Water Action indicates use of polystyrene
impacts low-income communities at a higher rate as they use fast food to-go containers more
often than higher income populations so it is also an issue of equity. Ms. Rog stated her concern
with the safety of workers who make this type of packaging and suggested that all humans have
polystyrene in their fatty tissue because of its pervasive use. Ms. Rog stated there are many
alternatives to polystyrene that are competitively priced and California cities (and elsewhere)
have made this change without negative impact.
Gayle Gaumer, Gael’s Gourmet, 8114 Minnetonka Boulevard, stated her take-out and delivery
business uses polystyrene containers for salads and ice cream as there is nothing else that keeps
those foods fresh, cold, and allows delivery. She commented on the federal court decision in the
District of New York City that found banning polystyrene and styrofoam was unconstitutional
and arbitrary as those materials are cheaper to recycle than paper. In addition, the court found
New York City would actually profit if it recycled polystyrene, as it was so inexpensive. Ms.
Gaumer described their large delivery area and expressed concern that her business would be
priced out of the market and no longer competitive if polystyrene containers are banned.
Dan McElroy, Minnesota Restaurant and Lodging Association, applauded the industry for
calling on St. Louis Park to take a leadership approach to recycle rather than prohibit
polystyrene. He commented on the federal court case and stated the City needs to think about a
practical approach for granting exemptions as the alternatives to polyethylene lined paper cups
are not as good and more expensive. He advised that Dairy Queens do not have a good
alternative for a treat cup and the same is true with other types of packaging. Mr. McElroy stated
if the ban is approved, they are concerned with the resulting additional costs for food and lodging
businesses. Mr. McElroy stated it was mentioned previously that Hennepin County is not
inclined to enforce such a ban through its Health Department and the State of Minnesota Health
Department is not enforcing anything like this throughout the State, so enforcement is an issue.
Mr. McElroy stated their concern is who will do enforcement and how it will be paid for.
Mike Levy, ACC Plastics Foodservice Packaging Group, stated he had previously submitted
information for the record. With regard to health impacts, he felt there may be some confusion
with styrene (a liquid) that is used to make products because polystyrene (a solid) has been
approved by the FDA for 50 years and no one, including workers, has ever gotten sick from
finished polystyrene products. Mr. Levy stated he would like to see the ordinance expanded to
include recycling of foam. With regard to the mentioned lawsuit, New York City’s ban of
polystyrene was overturned because the judge found polystyrene is recycled and recyclable and
there were plenty of markets for it. Mr. Levy commented on the challenges of establishing a
composting infrastructure for food service and support to include foam for recycling until that
type of composting program is available. Mr. Levy noted that at the July session, representatives
from the Minnesota PCA and Hennepin County Environment & Energy indicated they didn’t
Title: Listening Session Minutes of October 12, 2015
Page 3
take a position on polystyrene from a waste disposal standpoint because it is already recovering
this material.
Emily Barker, 3149 Kentucky Avenue S., stated her general support for the ordinance, noting it
bans more than foam. She encouraged emphasis on reusable and returnable containers. Ms.
Barker stated she shares the concern about the New York City lawsuit ruling because plastics are
all over the place and there is potential to see pushback from polystyrene manufacturers. She
suggested the Council could consider eliminating the specific list of plastics to allow staff more
flexibility. She also suggested the City define ‘recyclable’ every five years based on what waste
haulers are willing to collect. Ms. Barker stated she thinks requiring businesses to set up a
collection program is important as the City has an organics program that businesses can take
advantage of. She stated the challenge is to find reasonable alternatives for food containers and,
in general, the ordinance is a great start.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg thanked all those who provided comments and outlined future input
opportunities and next steps.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg adjourned the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
______________________________________
_____________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Minutes: 3c
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 12, 2015
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 6:33 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Anne Mavity.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), CIO (Mr. Pires), Finance Supervisor (Mr.
Heintz), Director of Operations & Recreation (Ms. Walsh), Human Resources Director (Ms.
Deno), Controller (Mr. Swanson), Police Chief (Mr. Luse), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser),
Fire Chief (Mr. Koering), Deputy Fire Chief (Mr. Wolff), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Wirth).
Guest: None
1.
Future Study Session Agenda Planning – October 19 and October 26, 2015
Mr. Harmening presented the proposed study session agenda for October 19th and the proposed
special study session agenda for October 26th. Councilmember Brausen asked that staff add the
topic of organics recycling to a future study session agenda.
2.
Review of Proposed 2016 Budget, Utility Rates, CIP, and LRFMP
Mr. Harmening reviewed the Council’s past budget considerations and stated the purpose of
tonight’s discussion is to provide feedback. He stated staff reduced expenditures and increased
revenues resulting in a proposed property tax levy, if accepted, of 5.5% versus 6.5%. Staff can
prepare options should the Council support deeper cuts; however, it may impact services and
programs.
Mr. Swanson presented the 2016 levy, proposed new staffing, revenue, and expenditure
adjustments. He stated staff finds these to be reasonably conservative figures.
Councilmember Spano asked if the approved fee adjustments were reflected in the calculations.
Mr. Swanson answered in the affirmative. Councilmember Brausen asked if funds could be
designated and set aside for future projects. Mr. Swanson stated that can be done.
Mr. Swanson presented the 2016 HRA levy, noting the recommendation is to set it at the
maximum. He then referenced the information related to utility rates, which will be considered
by the Council on October 19th.
Councilmember Sanger suggested building in the cost of organics recycling to the solid waste
payment. Ms. Deno stated staff is currently analyzing models and options for organics recycling.
It is expected this will be considered by the Council during the second half of 2016.
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 3c)
Title: Study Session Minutes of October 12, 2015
Page 2
Councilmember Spano asked if larger trash generators should be approached about taking
advantage of organics collection to lower their rate. Staff reviewed the rates charged for larger
container sizes and anticipated that this rate structure would entice reduced container size.
Councilmember Lindberg asked about the billing cycle. Mr. Swanson stated monthly billing will
be explored by the end of 2016, once the meter replacement project is completed.
Ms. Heiser presented the 2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for the engineering department,
projects planned within Area 5, public process that will be followed, MSA project, sidewalk
projects, locations of pushbutton pedestrian crossings and flashers, and time spent with planning
for the light rail transit (LRT).
Ms. Walsh advised of the four park playground structures planned for replacement in 2016,
reconstruction of trails, Rec Center refrigeration project, meter replacement, and updating of
park building locks and security cameras to reduce vandalism. She stated planning also
continues for water treatment plants and future road projects.
Mr. Pires stated capital projects in 2016 include replacing production cameras, which are 10
years old, as well as the purchase of high-end workstations. He described proposed technical
projects, extension of fiber and Wi-Fi to parks to support park security equipment, provide Wi-Fi
to the public at a small incremental cost, replace police and fire department’s portable and
mobile radios, replace police vehicle mobile computers, and provide Wi-Fi at the ice rink and
parking lot. They will also upgrade the City’s website with a more robust search engine and
streamline information. He noted that St. Louis Park offers two cable television providers and
there will be some changes if the CenturyLink franchise is approved.
Councilmember Sanger asked about the anticipated impact to residents and staff with the City
having cable television competitors. Mr. Pires stated why he thinks there will be little impact on
subscribership overall. He explained in the beginning, there will be an impact to staff time
related to unresolved customer complaints.
Mr. Pires stated staff has been meeting with the Southwest project office to find out what
technology will be offered on the Louisiana LRT. Since St. Louis Park has City-owned fiber
close to all three stations, staff has explored offering Wi-Fi service to the station parking lot and
platforms. Staff has also considered the options for providing police and fire with security
camera access and other opportunities to provide kiosk messaging and wayfinding.
Mr. Hoffman presented the 2016 Facilities Maintenance CIP, noting in 2017 it is slated to
remodel the Council chambers. He explained that from a safety standpoint, the layout of the
chambers is not ideal as people enter the front of the room. However, the cost to address that
orientation is estimated at $700,000 to $800,000 and not included in the CIP. Mr. Pires stated
funds have been allocated to upgrade cameras in the chambers.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is not concerned with the safety issue but asked staff to
address the camera angle. Mayor Jacobs stated he is also not concerned with the safety issue.
Councilmember Spano stated he would still like the safety issue explored.
Mr. Harmening stated staff was asked to conduct a safety audit of the Council chambers, noting
if something should occur, a Police response would be difficult and there is little ability for the
Page 3
Council to leave the chambers. Mr. Luse agreed a place of refuge should be identified if the
issue of safety is addressed. Mr. Harmening noted if seating is reoriented to the south end of the
building, there would be locations of refuge.
Councilmember Lindberg supported exploring the safety aspect and holding that conversation.
He believed there was good reason to consider a chambers update from a public access and
welcoming perspective. Mayor Jacobs noted some chambers have a large window to see into the
chambers. Councilmember Spano described a chambers that could be opened to accommodate a
large crowd. He stated if the chambers is updated, he would like everything considered.
Mr. Heintz presented the Long Range Financial Management Plan (LRFMP) and projected level
of franchise fees out to 2020. Councilmember Sanger asked whether adding a second franchise
provider will impact the cable television fund. Mr. Harmening explained if the subscriber rate
goes down due to competition, revenue from franchise fees would also go down.
Councilmember Hallfin stated if the revenues are going down, he would ask how the
expenditures are staying the same. Mr. Pires stated staffing remains the same but they expect to
continue the trend of using volunteers more often.
Mr. Heintz and Mr. Swanson continued presentation of the 2016 LRFMP for police and fire
pension, housing rehabilitation, development fund, Housing & Redevelopment Authority (HRA)
levy, permanent improvement revolving fund, park improvement, and pavement management.
Mr. Harmening stated staff will be analyzing whether to increase franchise fees so the City can
be more aggressive on pavement replacement and repair than currently scheduled. That topic
will be considered by the Council at a future study session.
Mr. Heintz presented the 2016 LRFMP for sidewalk and trails fund (Connect the Park!) and
capital replacement fund.
Mr. Swanson stated staff was asked for $1.2-$1.3 million in cuts or revenue enhancements over
three years. That amount was exceeded with most coming from cuts or pushing projects to future
years. Ms. Deno acknowledged staff team leaders who did an excellent job to analyze the budget
and identify those reductions.
Mr. Heintz presented the 2016 LRFMP for the water utility fund and sewer utility fund.
Councilmember Hallfin asked about the increase in the water utility fund for Reilly. Ms. Walsh
explained the increases relate to additional legal costs to try and change Department of Health
testing standards, consultant charges, and hiring environmental experts to build data.
Councilmember Sanger stated this involves unfunded mandates and suggested that be
remembered when the Council next discusses help needed from the City’s legislators. Mr.
Harmening agreed and explained that Charlie Noonan is recommending at this time that the City
continue to address it with the State. He suggested inviting Mr. Noonan to a future meeting to
address this situation and whether a different approach is warranted. Mayor Jacobs stated his
doubt that the State will consider changing its rules or testing requirement.
Mr. Heintz presented the 2016 LRFMP for the solid waste utility fund, storm water utility fund,
uninsured loss fund, and benefits administration fund.
Page 4
Mr. Harmening asked staff which funds are on the watch list. Mr. Heintz stated it would be the
capital replacement fund, which is sustainable now; pavement management because some
changes are needed; and, utility funds as infrastructure is aging. Ms. Deno stated staff needs
Council guidance on the unknowns of which projects to do, such as the Southwest LRT. Mr.
Swanson stated they target fund balance or cash balance with different percentages and different
projections to attain sustainability.
Mr. Harmening stated overall the City is in a good financial position, as agreed by rating
agencies, but the challenges are in the area of capital. He commented on the importance of
addressing capital so resources are available when needed.
Councilmember Sanger asked whether staff runs through exercises to look at ‘what if’ scenarios
should a crisis occur. Mr. Koering stated staff is reopening that discussion with risk assessment
to conduct a hazard risk analysis. If conducted, it will position St. Louis Park with the County to
recognize these areas so if federal funds become available, the City would be eligible.
Ms. Heiser and Mr. Pires described the infrastructure inspections and modeling that are
conducted annually. Mr. Harmening stated that this results in the City being able to more
effectively use its resources.
Ms. Deno stated the Truth in Taxation is scheduled for December 7th with a 5.5% levy and, if
needed, another budget discussion could be held on November 9th. Mr. Swanson stated if there
are a lot of residents at the Truth in Taxation meeting, it could be continued to December 14th.
Councilmember Brausen expressed his thanks to staff for their work on the 2016 levy. He stated
he does not support a reduction below 5.5% but would consider an increase to 6% to accumulate
funds for the housing rehabilitation fund and CIP around the Southwest LRT. He felt this was
the best environment to consider a tax increase because the economy is doing well and the
impact on the average residential property owner will not be substantial. He supported putting
money aside now to facilitate where the Council wants St. Louis Park to be in 2025.
Councilmember Spano asked about the impact of a .5% increase on an average-valued home.
Mr. Swanson answered $3 per year and it would bring in about $185,000 for the City.
Councilmember Sanger stated she agrees with Councilmember Brausen, especially for
Southwest LRT infrastructure needs, as long as the money is set aside in some fashion. She
noted that 6% is still .5% lower than what was previously considered. Mr. Harmening stated
staff will prepare that analysis and how the funds could be designated, noting it could eliminate
the potential for a sharp rise in the future.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he was going to suggest incenting organics recycling and making
it an opt in or opt out and putting some funds toward that effort; however, staff has indicated that
is already under analysis. Ms. Deno explained that would not be an impact on the general levy
as it comes from the solid waste fund.
Mr. Swanson thanked the department heads for their work in preparing the 2016 levy.
Page 5
Ms. Deno stated the Truth in Taxation Statement will show a preliminary 6.5% levy and staff
will prepare a report on 5.5% and 6%, and with the 6% figure, a recommendation on how the
.5% can be designated for future use due to capital needs.
Mayor Jacobs thanked staff for their presentations.
Mr. Harmening stated staff hired an architect to design the outdoor rink project and retained a
third party cost estimator. Ms. Walsh explained the areas where cost estimates are higher than
anticipated including grading, site work, and upgraded roof design. She recommended still
going out for bids to see what the market is.
It was the consensus of the City Council to support staff’s recommendation to go out for bids.
Ms. Deno stated the consultant is suggesting an on-line future-focused goal setting as part of the
City Manager’s performance evaluation. Mr. Harmening stated he supported a different
evaluation format that helps him understand more clearly the Council’s goals and priorities and
what they want him to accomplish versus a numerical ranking on different aspects.
Councilmember Sanger suggested delaying the evaluation until after the January study session
when those Council goals are set. Ms. Deno noted if the evaluation is delayed, then direction
would be needed on how to deal with the salary.
The Council discussed whether to consider this topic tonight. Mayor Jacobs noted this item is
not on tonight’s agenda so he would prefer it be discussed at a future meeting.
Ms. Deno stated she will prepare a report on what the consultant is recommending.
With regard to 40th and France, Mr. Harmening stated Minneapolis has proposed that to simplify
things they retain ownership of the 125-foot by 125-foot piece, rather than having the City of St.
Louis Park granting an easement for the same space. Mr. Harmening also noted the price has
already been discounted for the easement. He advised that Edina concurs with the City’s
position in general on the language changes to the purchase agreement.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Business District Initiative Grant Application
Upcoming Grant Applications and Resolutions of Authorization
Sidewalk Management Policy Discussion
Westwood Hills Nature Center Master Plan Update
Capital Bonding Proposal to State of Minnesota
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Minutes: 3d
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 19, 2015
The meeting convened at 6:16 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Pro Tem Gregg Lindberg, Tim Brausen (arrived at 6:23 p.m.),
Steve Hallfin, Anne Mavity (arrived at 6:19 p.m.), Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: Mayor Jeff Jacobs.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), Engineering Director (Ms. Heiser), Senior
Planner (Mr. Walther), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple).
Guest: None
1.
Monterey Drive / Excelsior Boulevard Area Traffic Study
Mr. Harmening stated the discussion tonight would be regarding the traffic issues that the
Council had asked for further analysis on. He advised the analysis had been completed and was
presented at the Rec Center on September 29th.
Ms. Heiser explained concerns were raised regarding the existing traffic operations and volume
and the Council asked for additional study. She began reviewing the results of the study
completed on 36½ Street.
Councilmember Mavity arrived at 6:19 p.m.
Ms. Heiser reported the Traffic Committee meets monthly to consider requests from residents
regarding traffic controls and conditions. She stated that the Committee uses the criteria in the
policy to weigh requests against. She advised of additional steps that may be followed after a
request is heard which could include additional study and noted that many requests require
Council approval. She reviewed the current designation of 36½ Street, which is an urban two
lane undivided roadway which has a capacity of 8,000 to 10,000 average daily trips (ADT). She
stated in 2000, the ADT was 2,800 and in 2015, the ADT was 2,500, which shows that there is
not a significant traffic increase. She reported a speed study was completed on two portions of
36½ Street and the 85th percent speed was found to be 33 and 35 miles per hour (mph), for a
posted speed limit of 30 mph, staff recommendation would be additional police patrols and the
use of a speed trailer.
Councilmember Brausen arrived at 6:23 p.m.
Ms. Heiser continued to review the results of the 36½ Street study and stated that staff finds that
the all way stop criteria were not met at Kipling or at Lynn. She stated that if the criteria are not
met for the installation of traffic controls and if further action is still desired, there could be a
petition submitted by at least 70 percent of the property owners within a 600-foot radius of the
intersection to request the action. She noted that additional special studies and the installation of
traffic calming could be completed but would be at the cost of the benefitting property owners.
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 3d)
Title: Special Study Session Minutes of October 19, 2015
Page 2
She noted that staff did receive comments regarding a desire for a sidewalk and noted that the
segment of sidewalk is already included in the Connect the Park! CIP, proposed for construction
in 2018.
Councilmember Mavity stated this neighborhood is mostly composed of renters and therefore the
property owners would most likely be LLCs or other companies and asked how that would work.
Mr. Harmening stated he cannot recall a petition process initiated by renters in the recent past.
Councilmember Mavity stated that there are long-term renters in that area and wanted those
residents to have a voice in these matters.
Councilmember Spano asked for examples of other roadways that operate at that same capacity.
Ms. Heiser replied that higher density areas have higher traffic counts and provided examples of
other roadways that operate at this volume or higher.
Councilmember Mavity stated Bridgewater should also be considered as that development could
have an impact on the traffic as well. She asked staff to keep that item on the radar as additional
study may be needed in the future.
Ms. Heiser presented the additional analysis for the Monterey/Park Commons intersection,
including the data that was collected; the specific lengths of the queues; traffic volumes; crash
analysis; sight light distance issues; the level of service, which is measured in average seconds of
delay; and capacity, providing the different ratings. She stated that staff reviewed possible
alternatives for traffic control at that intersection that would have an impact on the queue length
and the length of time drivers are waiting.
Councilmember Hallfin referenced alternative five, the roundabout, and noted that if there is
sufficient space that would be a great alternative.
Ms. Heiser provided additional information on why a roundabout would not be the best solution
for this intersection noting the proximity to a major intersection. She highlighted additional
alternatives that staff did not further research, as they would not be viable for that intersection.
Councilmember Sanger asked for additional information on why some of those options would
not be reviewed simply because it would place the burden in another area. Mr. Walther explained
there is a hierarchy of roads and you would not want to give higher priority to a lesser ranking
road as you need to ensure that the roads with the highest traffic volumes are operating
efficiently.
Councilmember Mavity asked if the concern is that the driveway for the building would be
blocked. Ms. Heiser stated the concern would be at the Excelsior and Monterey intersection and
explained that the intersection would drop a level of service.
Councilmember Mavity stated that there are safety challenges with the right turn on red option at
Excelsior, noting that there are problems for bikers and pedestrians to safely cross in that area.
Councilmember Sanger stated that it does not appear that left turns in and out of Trader Joes and
traffic blocking Park Commons because it is waiting to enter or exit Trader Joe’s were
Page 3
considered in this study. She stated that the results of the study do not seem to match her real
life experience. She asked if some of the congestion problems would be addressed by widening
the Trader Joe’s driveway.
Ms. Heiser stated that she is not sure if that would help. She continued to review the possible
alternative options for the intersection. She stated there was a neighborhood meeting at which
some of the same concerns mentioned by the Council were also made by residents. She stated
there was not a clear consensus of the residents in regard to a preferred alternative.
Mr. Harmening stated the problem should remain a focus of the discussion, which he heard to be
the congestion and length of delay.
Councilmember Mavity stated she appreciates the in-depth analysis provided by staff that
provides a high level of detail and information as well as possible choices. She stated that she
attended the neighborhood meeting and it did not feel like there were grand conclusions made
from the meeting. She stated pedestrians and bikes are a key piece of information that was
missing from the study. She noted Bridgewater may or may not move forward and that could
then have an impact on the traffic as well. She referenced access B shown in the study and had
concern with safety challenges for pedestrians. She stated there has been discussion of adding a
bike lane to Monterey and noted that does not appear to be shown in conjunction with the plans.
Mr. Harmening provided additional information on the bike lane that is built into the sidewalk in
that area. Ms. Heiser noted that there is a bikeway connection proposed for the area.
Councilmember Mavity stated this should be a cohesive plan that integrates the bikeway as well.
She noted that her main concern is the pedestrian safety. She stated that there are problems with
sight lines and wanted to make sure that is addressed. She believed the stop light should be
installed at access B. She referenced the possible use of a flashing yellow turn for left turning
vehicles.
Ms. Heiser stated staff is looking into adding that in at the intersection of Quentin and Excelsior
and at the intersection of Monterey and Excelsior.
Councilmember Mavity stated she would like to see a stop light placed at the intersection of
Monterey and Park Commons.
Councilmember Sanger stated she agrees with the concern that the impacts on pedestrians and
cyclists were not taken into account during this study. She noted that she would not be able to
support banning left-hand turns from Park Commons onto Monterey. She stated part of the
reason for this discussion is the proposed Bridgewater development and believed that perhaps the
City should reconsider the type of development on the site and the type of access that would be
provided to the site. She stated while she appreciates the analysis that has been completed, she
did not believe what needs to be addressed has been addressed.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindberg stated he lacks clarity on what is trying to be solved for this
intersection.
Councilmember Mavity stated there is congestion at the intersection during certain times, which
could become increasingly congested with future development. She believed the other issue
Page 4
would be pedestrian safety, which could also increase with the Bridgewater discussion and
believed a pedestrian crossing should be provided in that area.
Councilmember Spano stated alternative three appears to be the most appropriate of the possible
solutions for the intersection. He asked if the reason Councilmember Mavity supports a traffic
light option is because of the pedestrian crossing that would be provided with that option.
Councilmember Mavity agreed the biggest component of her support for that option would be
the pedestrian crossing that would be provided.
Councilmember Spano asked and received confirmation that a traffic light would cause a delay
to northbound and southbound traffic.
Councilmember Brausen stated he would be supportive of not doing anything at the intersection
until the future development is better known. He stated the purpose of the intersection is to
allow the flow of north and south bound traffic and is not for easy access to Trader Joe’s. He
stated if there were an alternative chosen in the future he would support alternative two. He
agreed additional pedestrian crossing options should be discussed and studied.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he would also agree that the purpose of the roadway is to move
the traffic north and south and would not want to impact those flows of traffic. He stated while
he has concern for pedestrians he does not have the same point of view regarding the issue at this
intersection.
Councilmember Spano stated the focus should remain on the main reason this was being
discussed regarding the delays at Park Commons and Monterey. He stated a decision will need
to be made as to whether or not the City wants to change this situation. He stated originally he
supported alternative three but now he is unsure. He stated unauthorized pedestrian crossings
could be prevented with fencing.
Ms. Heiser thanked the Council for their input and noted that the discussion will need to continue
at another time.
2.
2015 City Manager Performance Evaluation Process
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Greg Lindberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Minutes: 3e
UNOFFICIAL MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 19, 2015
1.
Call to Order
Mayor Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:41 p.m.
Councilmembers present: Mayor Jeff Jacobs, Tim Brausen, Steve Hallfin, Gregg Lindberg,
Anne Mavity, Susan Sanger, and Jake Spano.
Councilmembers absent: None.
Staff present: City Manager (Mr. Harmening), City Attorney (Mr. Mattick), Deputy City
Manager/Human Resources Director (Ms. Deno), Senior Planner (Mr. Walther), Assistant
Zoning Administrator (Mr. Morrison), Communications Coordinator (Ms. Larson), Fire Chief
(Mr. Koering), and Recording Secretary (Ms. Staple).
1a.
1b.
2.
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Presentations
2a.
Outstanding Citizen Award – Elliott Royce
Mayor Jacobs read aloud the Outstanding Citizen Award recognizing Elliott Royce.
Sandie Kaster, Elliot’s daughter, stated that she had planned to say a few words but they
had already been read aloud by Mayor Jacobs. She thanked the City.
Elliott’s son, Jeff, stated that his dad had a lot to give and wanted to be with a community
that responded to him, which St. Louis Park did. He thanked the community for their
support of his dad.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he had the pleasure of attending the Shiva and spoke with
the children about their plans for Mr. Royce’s bike. He stated they have contacted the St.
Louis Park Historical Society and the group is interested in honoring his bike.
Mr. Koering stated he had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Royce and met his family at the
hospital, noting that he was able to share positive stories when he spoke at the funeral. He
stated Mr. Royce was a great man and he is thankful to have known him for a short time.
Councilmember Mavity stated she had the pleasure of representing Mr. Royce in her
position on the Council and shared a memory of her experiences.
Councilmember Sanger shared a memory she had of her experiences with Mr. Royce
when he was handing out samples at Byerly’s.
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 3e)
Title: City Council Meeting Minutes of October 19, 2015
Page 2
Mayor Jacobs also described a memory he and his son had with Mr. Royce at Byerly’s.
He thanked the family of Mr. Royce for attending and sharing him with St. Louis Park for
96 years.
2b.
STEP 40-Year Anniversary Recognition
Mayor Jacobs read aloud a certificate of recognition honoring STEP for its 40-year
anniversary in the community. He stated the measure of a community is how well it takes
care of those going through tough times and thanked STEP for their service to the
community.
Derek Burrows Reise, Executive Director of STEP, accepted the certificate on the behalf
of all those who have supported and/or benefited from the organization during the past 40
years, as this success is a collaboration of the community. He thanked the City and
invited the public to attend the STEP celebration this Thursday evening.
Councilmember Brausen stated he was overwhelmed by the way the community supports
each other to make this a better place to live.
2c.
Create MN – Economic Impact of Nonprofit Art & Culture in St. Louis Park
George Hagemann, liaison to the Friends of the Arts, provided background information
on the desire of the community to support arts and culture.
Sheila Smith presented the economic impact study of arts and culture in St. Louis Park.
She noted that the study is solely about nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their
audiences. She noted on a statewide basis, there were 1,269 organizations identified with
a total economic impact of $1,200,000,000, which is an increase of 43 percent from 2006
before the legacy act went into effect. She provided comparison information for other
states and their levels of arts and culture. She stated there are 33,381 full-time jobs
provided through the organizations and noted that is also an increase from 2006. She
stated for every $1 State investment there are about $5 invested from other sources. She
stated 19,000,000 are served annually from those organizations, which is also an increase
from the audience served in 2006. She stated 43 percent of attendees have annual
incomes of under $60,000 per year, which proves that the arts and culture organizations
serve people from all walks of life. She stated in St. Louis Park there were 15
participating organizations and provided information on the size and budget of those
organizations, which together serve over 27,000 attendees annually. She noted that those
15 organizations within St. Louis Park support 40 jobs within the City. She stated the
audience spending for St. Louis Park was found to be $27.58 per person, which includes
meals before and after, souvenirs, transportation, refreshments during the event,
overnight lodging, clothing, event related childcare and others. She noted that additional
information can be found at creativemn.org.
Councilmember Spano stated he has experience with working in the arts and noted that
being an artist is a real job and there are people that support their families by working in
the arts. He commented that there is sometimes a view that the arts are a luxury but
noted that the arts are a much more integral part of the community.
Page 3
Ms. Smith stated the next step of the study would be to study the economic impact of
individual artists.
Mayor Jacobs stated Mr. Royce’s grandson is the number one glass blower in the State
and has his own shop in Minneapolis.
Councilmember Mavity stated there is discussion regarding the development of artistic
elements and displays at the Wooddale study, which may have an impact on the results of
the next study. Ms. Smith stated the study is done on six-year cycles.
Mayor Jacobs recognized former Councilmember Brimeyer and his encouragement for
the support of the arts, which continues to have a great benefit to the community.
Mr. Hagemann welcomed the Council and public to the upcoming open house presentation.
2d.
Update on Kids Voting Initiative
Eilseen Knisley, League of Women Voters, stated Aquila Elementary and the St. Louis
Park Middle School are sites for the Kids Voting locations and provided an update on the
planning process for the setups that will be available at both schools. She stated that
additional volunteers are still welcome to join the program and noted that when the polls
are closed, the results will be tabulated and returned the next morning. She stated that
Kids Voting has been added to the fall curriculum, and notes have been sent home with
children regarding the voting process. She described the voting process for students as
well as those parents who wish to participate. She thanked the City Council for their support.
Councilmember Hallfin stated the candidate forums are available on the City’s YouTube
channel.
Councilmember Sanger asked how others can find the results of the Kids Voting. Ms.
Knisley stated the results will be published in the Sun Sailor and posted on the League of
Women Voters website. She noted that the results will also be shared with the students in
their classrooms.
2e.
Recognition of Donations
Mayor Jacobs expressed the City Council’s thanks and appreciation to the National Arbor
Day Foundation for its $350 donation which will be used to send the City’s Natural
Resources Coordinator, Jim Vaughan, to the Partners in Community Forestry Conference
in Denver, Colorado November 18-19th; Comcast Foundation for its $655.87 donation
for the purchase of materials for future parks clean-up events; Lisa Butman for her
$2,200 donation for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher Michael Bohlinger at
Westwood Hills Nature Center; and Cub Foods for its $115 donation of cookies given
away at the October 8th Minnetonka Boulevard Bridge ribbon cutting.
3.
Approval of Minutes
3a.
Closed Executive Session Minutes October 5, 2015
The minutes were approved as presented.
3b.
Page 4
Special Study Session Meeting Minutes October 5, 2015
3c.
City Council Meeting Minutes October 5, 2015
4.
Approval of Agenda and Items on Consent Calendar
NOTE: The Consent Calendar lists those items of business which are considered to be routine and/or which need
no discussion. Consent items are acted upon by one motion. If discussion is desired by either a Councilmember or a
member of the audience, that item may be moved to an appropriate section of the regular agenda for discussion.
4a.
Approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 2479-15 establishing fees for
2016 as outlined in Appendix A of the City Code of Ordinances; and to approve the
summary ordinance for publication.
4b.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-154 awarding Elliott Royce with the Outstanding Citizen
Award.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-155 authorizing the submission of the Hennepin County
Youth Sports Facility Grant Application to the Minnesota Amateur Sports Commission
in the amount of $300,000 for The Rec Center Outdoor Ice Arena Project.
4c.
4d.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-156 approving acceptance of a donation/scholarship from
the National Arbor Day Foundation in an amount not to exceed $350 for registration
cost for Jim Vaughan, Natural Resources Coordinator, to attend the Partners in
Community Forestry Conference in Denver, Colorado November 18 – 19, 2015.
4e.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-157 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from
Comcast Foundation in the amount of $655.87 to be used for the purchase of materials
for future parks clean-up events.
4f.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-158 approving acceptance of a monetary donation from Lisa
Butman in the amount of $2,200 for a memorial bench in memory of Christopher
Michael Bohlinger at Westwood Hills Nature Center.
4g.
Award bids for the 2015 Concrete Replacement– Project No. 4015-0003.
4h.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-159 setting the 2016 Utility Rates.
4i.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-166 Declaring the Official Intent of the City of St. Louis
Park to Reimburse Certain Expenditures from the Proceeds of Bonds to be Issued by
the City.
Adopt Resolution No. 15-160 approving acceptance of a donation from Cub Foods,
5370 W. 16th Street, to the City of St. Louis Park for the October 8, 2015, Minnetonka
Boulevard Bridge Ribbon Cutting (Value $115) for cookies given away at the event.
4j.
4k.
Approve for filing Parks & Recreation Advisory Commission Meeting Minutes May
13, 2015.
4l.
Approve for filing Environment & Sustainability Commission Meeting Minutes
September 9, 2015.
Page 5
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Hallfin, to
approve the Agenda as presented and items listed on the Consent Calendar; and to waive
reading of all resolutions and ordinances.
5.
Boards and Commissions - None
6.
Public Hearings
6a.
Public Hearing – Assessment of Delinquent Charges. Resolution No. 15-161
Mr. Heintz presented the staff report and noted that the Council enacted changes that
added a $15 fee to delinquent accounts. He advised that the City sent delinquent account
letters representing a total amount of approximately $900,000 and as of the close of
business, delinquent accounts totaled approximately $600,000. He stated the City will
continue to take payments until 4:30 p.m. on October 30, 2015, and delinquent accounts
will be assessed a $30 administrative fee and a $75 penalty for accounts being certified
for the second consecutive year.
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 Brausen, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-161, to assess delinquent water, sewer, storm
water, refuse, abating grass/weed cutting, tree removal/injection, false alarm fees and
other miscellaneous charges.
Councilmember Hallfin stated he received a call from a resident that was delinquent,
recognized that he was delinquent, and had no problem paying the $15 fee but was
concerned that other residents may have a hard time paying that additional fee. He
explained that the purpose of the fee is to offset the additional administrative services that
are needed to handle delinquent accounts.
7.
Requests, Petitions, and Communications from the Public – None
8.
Resolutions, Ordinances, Motions and Discussion Items
8a.
Arlington Row Apartments West – Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
Preliminary & Final Plat and Preliminary & Final Planned Unit
Development. Resolution No. 15-162 and Resolution No. 15-163
Mr. Kelley presented the staff report regarding Arlington Row Apartments West noting
that the presentation would cover the requests for a Comprehensive Plan amendment,
Preliminary and Final Plat and Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development. He
highlighted the area identified as future development and stated staff anticipates that area
will be developed in the future. He provided a history of the properties and the steps that
were followed, noting that the Council directive for the Texas Avenue site was towards
Page 6
multi-family residential housing, while the other parcel was directed for mixed use or
multi-family residential. He stated the properties were placed for bid in 2006 but no bids
were accepted. He noted that in the winter of 2013 the developer approached the City to
inquire about the properties and then presented a Project Concept. The property
acquisition was subsequently discussed at a City Council Study Session in February
2015. He reviewed the steps that have occurred since that time to reach this step in the
process.
Mr. Kelley described the site location and surrounding properties, noting that the
amendment proposed would change the land use designation from low density residential
to medium density residential. He stated the amendment request is driven by the specific
development proposal for Arlington Row Apartments West. He stated requests to amend
the Comprehensive Plan are weighed against the long-range vision and goals of the
community and noted that this request would match a number of the goals identified in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Kelley stated there have been concerns from the neighborhood regarding possible
traffic impacts, the development of vacant land, and that landscaping would be provided.
He reviewed the results of the traffic study that was completed and noted that the study
found that there would be no changes in the overall level of service for the studied
intersection and therefore no changes in traffic controls were recommended.
Mr. Kelley reviewed the improvements proposed as related to the Connect the Park! plan.
He stated the lot was currently not platted because it was right-of-way, and reviewed the
proposed plat, which would include the lot with right-of-way designations, required
drainage and utility easements, and a new sidewalk.
Mr. Kelley reviewed the existing zoning of the property and neighboring properties. He
stated the newly adopted Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance is a rezoning and
therefore the property would need to be rezoned. He reviewed details of the Site Plan as
well as first floor and second floor plans. He displayed a proposed sketch of the building
that included the elevation and building materials, noting that the proposal included 82
percent Class 1 materials on the front and side facades, which include brick, stucco and
glass. He reviewed the landscaping elements as proposed, which meet the City’s tree
replacement and landscaping requirements. He identified the areas that would be
designated for DORA and include garden plots and rain gardens. He noted that the
required bike and vehicle parking stalls are proposed to be provided and reviewed the
required and proposed setbacks, noting that the application met and/or exceeded those
requirements.
Mr. Kelley provided a summary of the public comments received through the public
meetings thus far. He stated staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of
the actions requested tonight, subject to the conditions noted in the staff report.
Alan Gibson, Skyehill resident, stated he moved to his home two years ago and is pleased
to represent the 34 homeowners in that association. He stated the townhomes are 100
percent owner occupied and are proud to be a part of the community. He stated while
they are not all in agreement, the association Board recognizes that the City needs to keep
the plans current. He stated while they would like to see the designation remain at R-1,
they do appreciate this use over the other possible uses that could be developed in that
Page 7
space. He stated the association had concerns and presented a letter from Mr.
Cunningham to the Planning Commission and feels comfortable that Mr. Cunningham
will work with the association regarding screening of the property. He stated the
association disagreed with the results of the traffic study, noting that the intersection is
already delayed and the delay would increase with the additional development. He noted
that the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council further study the
intersection and he did not see that matter included in the conditions or report.
Mr. Kelley noted the letter was included as part of the public record from the Planning
Commission meeting. He stated although the Planning Commission did recommend that
staff look more broadly at traffic patterns in this area, the approval for this item was not
made contingent upon that.
Mr. Gibson thanked the staff for the response regarding the Connect the Park! program
and the improvements that will occur as part of that program. He stated the association
would like the Council to review the onsite parking as they did not believe that one space
per bedroom would be sufficient as that would not allow for snow storage, parties, or
visitors. He stated the issue of parking will continue to migrate and encroach on other
areas. He noted that Mr. Cunningham has been a cooperative person and is willing to
work with the townhome association regarding their concerns.
Mark Pineda and Craig Ominski, 1406 Texas Avenue S, appreciated the comments of his
neighbor Mr. Gibson and the willingness of Mr. Cunningham to work with the townhome
development. Mr. Pineda stated they are new residents to the area and are concerned
with the potential impacts to traffic and parking. He stated they also had concerns
regarding the impact the rental units could have on adjacent property values.
Mayor Jacobs noted that there are three separate actions before the Council.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-162, amending the Comprehensive Plan Land
Use Map from RL – Low Density Residential to RM – Medium Density Residential for
property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue, authorize
summary publication.
Councilmember Brausen stated he is the Ward 4 representative and appreciates the input
of the residents. He noted that this property has been vacant for two decades and the only
other interest in the site had been commercial activity. He stated he supported this type
of development as it supports the goals for future growth, noting the opportunities for
transit and the lower levels of rent available. He stated the current development proposal
recognizes the current financial market and noted that the developer hopes that this will
be a model for future development. He appreciated the concerns of the neighborhood but
acknowledged that development and redevelopment will continue to occur in St. Louis
Park in order to make it a healthy and vibrant community rather than an aging and
deteriorating community. He noted that the Council will continue to monitor and address
the needs of the community.
Page 8
Councilmember Sanger stated she is not a fan of rental units but noted that this proposal
is a cut above in terms of quality and design. She noted a number of the units are also
two bedroom units, which she likes. She asked for the range of rents for the property.
Bob Cunningham, Melrose Company, replied the rental range would be 20 to 25 percent
below the range of luxury rentals. He stated they are going to get to that range by taking
out some of the items that residents do not use or may not desire while also providing
other amenities such as an indoor bicycle storage room and raised garden beds. He noted
that it seems that they are also going to be able to receive a grant for the innovative
features they are proposing.
Councilmember Sanger asked if the development is asking for financial assistance from
St. Louis Park. Mr. Cunningham stated they are not asking for any financial assistance
from the City and the only public funds they are proposing to use are the grant funds.
Councilmember Sanger referenced the proposed parking and also expressed concern
regarding additional parking that may be needed. She questioned if proof of parking
could be provided in another area should it be needed. Mr. Cunningham stated the design
was made with the minimum amount of parking in order to encourage the use of transit,
which is readily available and accessible at this location.
Councilmember Mavity referenced the concerns regarding parking and stated in her
experience with managing other developments, they have been able to use other tools,
such as permit parking. She stated that she does also support the minimum amount of
parking as she believes that transit is evolving in the same way telephones have evolved
from landlines to cell phones. She stated that she is very excited with this design as this
would provide additional choices in the community that are not currently available.
Mr. Cunningham stated they are very pleased with the outcome of the project and how it
fits into the neighborhood and community. He stated they are considering using the
tagline “live here and know your neighbor”, which you cannot get by living in a large
apartment building.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-163, approving the Preliminary and Final Plat
of Arlington Row Apartments West with conditions.
It was moved by Councilmember Brausen, seconded by Councilmember Mavity, to
approve First Reading of the Ordinance creating Section 36-268-PUD 3 and amending
the Zoning Map from R-1 Single-Family Residence to PUD 3 for property at the
southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue and to set the Second Reading
of the Ordinance for November 2, 2015.
8b.
Page 9
CUP - Sherwin Williams Retail Store, 4911 Excelsior Boulevard. Resolution
No. 15-164
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report regarding the potential redevelopment of the
property at 4911 Excelsior Boulevard through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He
stated the proposal would include demolition of the current property and the
reconstruction of a new building and parking lot. He noted that the building meets and/or
exceeds the required setbacks of the commercial district. He reviewed the proposed
vehicle and bicycle parking and noted that an access easement would also be provided for
the neighboring commercial properties while the parking spaces would remain for the
private use of this site. He reviewed the proposed landscaping, stormwater, and lighting
plans for the property. He reviewed the proposed building materials which exceeded the
required amount of Class 1 materials. He stated a public hearing was held on September
16th and a neighbor expressed concern that the visibility to his property would be
impacted. He noted a similar example that occurred in 2001, and that the city changed
the signage setbacks to improve the visibility for the impacted property. He stated the
Planning Commission recommended approval of the request.
Councilmember Sanger stated she understood that the applicant may say there would
only be one or two customers at a time for a paint store. She asked if that level of parking
would meet the requirements for any other kind of retail use that might go into the site if
the paint store were to leave and another retail use came into the site.
Mr. Morrison explained that the parking requirements are based on the ratio of retail and
storage proposed by the Sherwin Williams store. If Sherwin Williams leaves, then the
use that replaces it cannot have more required parking spaces than are provided at the
site. This evaluation is standard practice for all uses prior to occupying a building.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Spano, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-164, approving a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a total impervious surface
area exceeding 70% of the total lot area, subject to conditions recommended by staff.
Councilmember Mavity stated she attended the neighborhood meeting and is pleased to
welcome this use.
8c.
City of SLP/City of Hopkins Municipal Boundary Adjustment – Japs-Olson.
Resolution No. 15-168.
Mr. Morrison presented the staff report regarding the boundary adjustment requested by
Japs-Olson. He identified other properties in the area owned by Japs-Olson and provided
background information on the current CUP and the plans for the property. He displayed
the proposed boundary adjustment and identified the area, which is proposed to be
transferred to each city in order to accommodate the Japs-Olson expansion, noting that
after the adjustment is made the Japs-Olson property, with the expansion area, would be
entirely within St. Louis Park. He stated the discussion arose in January 2015 and both
the St. Louis Park and Hopkins City Councils directed staff to proceed with the
Page 10
adjustment. He noted that the item would go before the Hopkins City Council the
following night and, if approved by both City Councils, the request would move forward
to the State for a 60-day review and approval period.
Councilmember Mavity stated Japs-Olson has been a great contributor to St. Louis Park
and thanked the staff from both cities for their cooperative efforts.
It was moved by Councilmember Mavity, seconded by Councilmember Sanger, to waive
the reading and adopt Resolution No. 15-168, for concurrent detachment and annexation
of land to and from the Cities of St. Louis Park and Hopkins.
Councilmember Spano asked and received clarification that there is no financial element
in this transaction.
8d.
Second Reading of Ordinance Modifying Salaries for the Mayor and
Councilmembers. Ordinance No. 2480-15.
Ms. Deno presented the staff report regarding the second reading of an Ordinance
modifying salaries for the Mayor and Councilmembers.
Councilmember Brausen asked if, as a Charter City, the Council would be required to
vote on the potential increases. Ms. Deno replied that this was reviewed by the City
Attorney and, in the future, the changes would occur without Council action after each
election year and the Council would not be required to vote on the increases identified in
the Ordinance.
Councilmember Lindberg stated for the same reasons he previously expressed, he would
not be supporting this request.
Councilmember Spano noted he would also be voting consistent with his previous
opposing vote.
It was moved by Councilmember Sanger, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to
approve the Second Reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2480-15 modifying salaries for
the Mayor and Councilmembers and to authorize publication.
The motion passed 5-2 (Lindberg and Spano opposed)
8e.
2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year
Action Plan
Mr. Harmening presented the staff report regarding the 2015-2025 City Council
goal/priorities and related strategies/two year action plan. He stated the previously
discussed changes and updates had been made to the item since the previous review in
June. He noted that this is a living document and the direction had been to review the
document annually in order to remain appropriate.
Page 11
Councilmember Sanger stated she was concerned with the language of some of the items,
noting that they are written in a manner which makes it appear as though the decision had
already been made. She suggested that those sections be worded in a manner that made it
clear that the Council will consider whether or not to make that decision.
Councilmember Brausen stated he appreciated the two day planning session that had been
held to discuss and update this plan. He appreciated the hard work that staff put into the
document and into developing strategies for the goals identified by the Council to help
provide a guide for the future.
Councilmember Mavity stated she received a call from a commission member in regard
to the goals and their relation to the commissions themselves. She stated the Council
meets with boards and commissions annually to open the lines of communication. She
noted that this document was a summary that is meant to provide direction. She noted
that all the good work of the boards and commissions cannot be recognized in this
document and stated the Council looks forward to continuing to work with the boards and
commissions in the future.
It was moved by Councilmember Spano, seconded by Councilmember Brausen, to Adopt
the 2015 – 2025 City Council Goals/Priorities and Related Strategies/Two Year Action
Plan.
Councilmember Spano stated he looks forward to the Council considering these items in
more depth during future planning sessions. He referenced the item regarding top ranked
school and noted that item would require the participation of the schools as well. He
noted that the City has an annual meeting with the School district and asked if they have
been consulted.
Mr. Harmening stated these goals have been discussed with the School District and noted
that this could be further discussed at the meeting scheduled to take place in March at
Study Session.
9.
Communications
Mayor Jacobs advised of the upcoming event at STEP on Thursday from 5:00 to 7:00
p.m. at the STEP facility on Lake Street.
10.
Adjournment
______________________________________ ______________________________________
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Consent Agenda Item: 4a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Approval of City Disbursements
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to accept for filing City Disbursement Claims for the
period of September 26, 2015 through October 23, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council desire to approve City disbursements in
accordance with Section 6.11 – Disbursements – How Made, of the City’s Charter?
SUMMARY: The Accounting Division prepares this report on a monthly basis for the City
Council to review and approve. The attached reports show both City disbursements paid by
physical check and those by wire transfer or Automated Clearing House (ACH) when applicable.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Review and approval of the information
follows the City’s Charter and provides another layer of oversight to further ensure fiscal
stewardship.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: City Disbursements
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Connie Neubeck, Account Clerk
Title: Approval of City Disbursements
R55CKS2
Page 2
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
3SI SECURITY SYSTEMS INC
POLICE G & A
Amount
204.00
204.00
A-1 OUTDOOR POWER INC
STORM WATER UTILITY G&A
OTHER IMPROVEMENT SERVICE
TREE MAINTENANCE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
TREE MAINTENANCE
OTHER IMPROVEMENT SUPPLIES
1,715.25
428.30
820.80
2,964.35
ABLE HOSE & RUBBER INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
124.98
124.98
ACE SUPPLY CO
FACILITIES MCTE G & A
BLDG/STRUCTURE SUPPLIES
40.60
40.60
ACME TOOLS
DAMAGE REPAIR
SMALL TOOLS
20.99
20.99
ACTION BATTERY WHOLESALERS INC
TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
12,726.00
12,726.00
ADVANCED DISPOSAL SERVICES
SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS
YARD WASTE SERVICE
40,520.70
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
YARD WASTE SERVICE
15,409.16
55,929.86
AIZMAN, AARAH
GREEN REMODELING PROGRAM
75.00
75.00
ALAN HOMES, DAVE
ESCROWS
DEMO / BROOKSIDE TRAFFIC
2,500.00
2,500.00
ALL CITY ELEVATOR INC
468.00
468.00
ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION
ADMINISTRATION G & A
SUBSCRIPTIONS/MEMBERSHIPS
2,550.00
2,550.00
ALLIANCE MECH SRVCS INC
BUILDING MTCE SERVICE
2,046.00
MUNICIPAL BLDG
IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDI
1,526.50
PARK BUILDING MAINTENANCE
166.00
3,738.50
1
R55CKS2
Page 3
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
Object
AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTORS
GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET
INVENTORY
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
790.16
790.16
AMERICAN TRAFFIC SAFETY SERVICES ASSOC
PUBLIC WORKS OPS G & A
79.00
79.00
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
542.14
GENERAL CUSTODIAL DUTIES
173.84
715.98
ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION
ENVIRONMENTAL G & A
15.00
15.00
ARC
IT G & A
EQUIPMENT MTCE SERVICE
304.91
304.91
ARIMOND, TIMOTHY & ANNE
487.50
487.50
ARMCOM DISTRIBUTING CO
360.00
MUNICIPAL BLDG
206.88
566.88
ASET SUPPLY AND PAPER INC
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
SOLID WASTE G&A
OPERATIONAL SUPPLIES
814.60
5,117.84
5,932.44
ASTLEFORD INTERNATIONAL
INVENTORY
37.66
37.66
ATIR ELECTRIC CORPORATION
MUNICIPAL BLDG
15,693.92
15,693.92
AUTOMATIC SYSTEMS INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
1,178.15
1,178.15
AUTOMOBILE SERVICE
GENERAL REPAIR
313.79
313.79
AUTOWASH SYSTEMS INC
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
396.75
396.75
2
R55CKS2
Page 4
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
Object
AVEX LLC
HUMAN RESOURCES
RECOGNITION
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
35.00
35.00
BADGER STATE INSPECTION LLC
WATER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
GENERAL
14,555.00
14,555.00
BARR, EILEEN
175.00
175.00
BARTON SAND & GRAVEL CO
PATCHING-PERMANENT
WATER UTILITY G&A
2,000.00
100.00
2,100.00
BARTSCH, SCOTT
REFORESTATION FUND
132.08
132.08
BASSETT CREEK WATERSHED MGMT COMMISSION
STORM WATER UTILITY BAL SHEET
PREPAID EXPENSES
18,433.00
18,433.00
BATTERIES + BULBS
POLICE G & A
17.33
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
76.32
93.65
BECKER, SHEILA
FITNESS PROGRAMS
224.00
224.00
BERGERSON CASWELL INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
30,745.00
30,745.00
BERSCHEID, GARY
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION GRANT
320.66
320.66
BERTHIAUME, BRUCE
WATER UTILITY G&A
MILEAGE-PERSONAL CAR
186.30
186.30
BINDER LIFT LLC
OPERATIONS
1,138.00
1,138.00
BLUE TARP FINANCIAL INC
INVENTORY
91.30
91.30
3
R55CKS2
Page 5
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
BOBIER, HEIDI
INSTRUCTIONAL SKATING LESSONS
Amount
85.00
85.00
BOLLIG & SONS
ESCROWS
2,500.00
2,500.00
BOLTON & MENK INC
STREET CAPITAL PROJ G & A
GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1,399.50
1,399.50
BOYER TRUCK PARTS
INVENTORY
UNINSURED LOSS G&A
UNINSURED LOSS
457.54
4,537.41
4,994.95
BRACEY, CLIFFORD
REFORESTATION FUND
228.96
228.96
BRAHAM MONUMENT CO
GO BONDS-FIRE STATIONS G&A
BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES
4,243.36
4,243.36
BRAUN INTERTEC CORPORATION
2,485.00
2,485.00
BREDENBERG, JASON
INSPECTIONS G & A
LICENSES
50.00
50.00
BRIGGS, AMY
SOFTBALL
102.00
102.00
BRO TEX INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
384.00
GENERAL SUPPLIES
103.50
487.50
BRONX PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOC
869.53
869.53
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE DEPT
POLICE G & A
TRAINING
105.00
105.00
BROWN, JANIS
REFORESTATION FUND
87.44
87.44
4
R55CKS2
Page 6
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
BUDGET SIGN & GRAPHICS
POLICE G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Amount
20.00
20.00
BUREAU OF CRIM APPREHENSION
CELLPHONES, IPADS, ETC.
TELEPHONE
510.00
510.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON PROF ASSOC
LEGAL SERVICES
9,825.51
CABLE TV G & A
LEGAL SERVICES
330.00
SSD #4 G&A
LEGAL SERVICES
181.50
LEGAL SERVICES
5,601.75
SOLID WASTE G&A
LEGAL SERVICES
66.00
ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY
LEGAL SERVICES
1,039.50
17,044.26
CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL
ADULTS 18 - 54
GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.98
29.98
CARLSON, BRUCE
225.00
225.00
CARTEGRAPH SYSTEMS INC
PREPAID EXPENSES
13,666.67
SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
PREPAID EXPENSES
13,666.66
CAPITAL REPLACEMENT B/S
PREPAID EXPENSES
13,666.67
41,000.00
CASS INFORMATION SYSTEM
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
99.51
99.51
CBIZ FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS INC
EMPLOYEE FLEX SPEND G&A
429.76
429.76
CDW GOVERNMENT INC
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
282.78
282.78
CEDAR CREEK CAPITAL
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
5,000.00
5,000.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY
FACILITY OPERATIONS
HEATING GAS
704.65
WATER UTILITY G&A
HEATING GAS
1,144.95
REILLY G & A
HEATING GAS
61.06
5
R55CKS2
Page 7
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
10/23/201511:36:52
BU Description
Object
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
SEWER UTILITY G&A
ELECTRIC SERVICE
42.30
SEWER UTILITY G&A
HEATING GAS
80.41
PARK MAINTENANCE G & A
HEATING GAS
234.12
WESTWOOD G & A
HEATING GAS
21.37
NATURALIST PROGRAMMER
HEATING GAS
39.02
2,327.88
CENTERPOINT ENERGY SERVICES INC
FACILITY OPERATIONS
HEATING GAS
253.45
253.45
CENTRAL PENSION FUND
EMPLOYEE FLEXIBLE SPENDING B/S
OTHER RETIREMENT
10,391.56
10,391.56
CENTURY COLLEGE
OPERATIONS
TRAINING
2,650.00
2,650.00
CHAMPION PLUMBING
INSPECTIONS G & A
PLUMBING
50.00
50.00
CHRISTENSON, SEAN
250.00
250.00
CINTAS CORPORATION
417.72
64.09
437.39
919.20
CITIZENS INDEPENDENT BANK
CLEARING ACCOUNT
188.56
GENERAL FUND G&A
160.50
MEETING EXPENSE
104.19
HUMAN RESOURCES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
HUMAN RESOURCES
225.12
HUMAN RESOURCES
RECOGNITION
405.12
HUMAN RESOURCES
CITE
HUMAN RESOURCES
TRAINING
249.00
HUMAN RESOURCES
MEETING EXPENSE
135.80
HEALTH IN THE PARK INITIATIVE
SEMINARS/CONFERENCES/PRESENTAT
TRAVEL/MEETINGS
COMM & MARKETING G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
PRINTING & PUBLISHING
21.41
19.75
450.00
1,560.85
54.17
128.87
1,465.44
6
R55CKS2
Page 8
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
IT G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.35
IT G & A
TRAINING
40.01
ASSESSING G & A
LICENSES
199.00
FINANCE G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
FINANCE G & A
23.61
1,020.88
FINANCE G & A
MEETING EXPENSE
OTHER
POLICE G & A
70.15
POLICE G & A
COMPUTER SUPPLIES
96.47
POLICE G & A
POSTAGE
64.96
POLICE G & A
TRAINING
POLICE G & A
POLICE G & A
TRAVEL/MEETINGS
POLICE G & A
MEETING EXPENSE
ERU
TRAINING
OPERATIONS
FIRE PREVENTION SUPPLIES
OPERATIONS
72.69
1,371.31
920.36
35.00
1,145.00
350.91
8.99
480.48
13.94
198.28
OPERATIONS
SMALL TOOLS
OPERATIONS
84.02
INSPECTIONS G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
340.00
INSPECTIONS G & A
TRAINING
220.00
PUBLIC WORKS G & A
395.00
ENGINEERING G & A
245.00
TV PRODUCTION
GENERAL SUPPLIES
286.46
TV PRODUCTION
NON-CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
742.14
TV PRODUCTION
REPAIRS
161.94
TV PRODUCTION
299.00
WATER UTILITY G&A
TRAINING
280.00
SEWER UTILITY G&A
316.71
SEWER UTILITY G&A
961.96
SEWER UTILITY G&A
HEATING GAS
127.58
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
ORGANIZED REC G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
ORGANIZED REC G & A
TRAINING
1,520.72
24.00
21.51
2,001.20
KICKBALL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
94.63
SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
387.96
SUMMER PLAYGROUNDS
110.00
566.46
ENVIRONMENTAL G & A
TRAINING
1,525.60
WESTWOOD G & A
POSTAGE
19.60
7
R55CKS2
Page 9
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
FAMILY PROGRAMS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
SUMMER THEATER ARTS CAMP
CONCESSION SUPPLIES
REC CENTER BUILDING
REC CENTER BUILDING
MEETING EXPENSE
ARENA MAINTENANCE
LIFEGUARDING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
Amount
68.23
11.97
476.30
29.65
361.34
70.64
23,065.79
CIVIL DESIGN PROFESSIONALS
15,700.00
15,700.00
CLARKE, GEOFF
ARENA MAINTENANCE
188.72
188.72
COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
CONCESSIONS
CONCESSION SUPPLIES
1,527.06
1,527.06
COLICH & ASSOCIATES
LEGAL SERVICES
18,412.42
18,412.42
COMCAST
OPERATIONS
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS
36.22
WATER UTILITY G&A
278.55
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
63.25
8.19
386.21
COMMERCIAL ASPHALT COMPANY
SEALCOAT PREPARATION
2,885.60
PATCHING-PERMANENT
2,032.21
PARK IMPROVE CAPITAL PROJECT
WATER UTILITY G&A
399.66
254.77
5,572.24
COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION
98.48
98.48
COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP SUB HENN
EMERGENCY REPAIR GRANT
18,554.96
18,554.96
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT FUND
MOVE-UP PROGRAM
143.00
143.00
8
R55CKS2
Page 10
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
CONNEY SAFETY PRODUCTS
INSPECTIONS G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
Amount
195.80
195.80
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP
REC CENTER BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
641.87
641.87
COVERALL OF THE TWIN CITIES
GENERAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE
13,506.00
13,506.00
CREATIVE PRODUCT SOURCING INC - DARE
DARE PROGRAM
653.30
653.30
CROWN MARKING INC
OFFICE SUPPLIES
15.20
IT G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
85.95
101.15
CRUMP, RAY
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
6,000.00
6,000.00
CUB FOODS
POLICE G & A
SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
302.85
302.85
CURRAN-MOORE, KIM
SOFTBALL
637.50
637.50
CUSTOM PRODUCTS & SERVICES
SSD 1 G&A
1,848.50
SSD 2 G&A
2,266.00
SSD 3 G&A
534.50
SSD #4 G&A
1,496.75
SSD #5 G&A
830.00
SSD #6 G&A
2,168.75
9,144.50
DALCO ENTERPRISES INC
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SUPPLY
4,691.62
4,691.62
DEANS PROFESSIONAL PLUMBING
INSPECTIONS G & A
MECHANICAL
40.00
40.00
DELEGARD TOOL CO
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
255.45
255.45
9
R55CKS2
Page 11
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
INSPECTIONS G & A
DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
Amount
6,830.21
6,830.21
DESIGN 1 LTD
WATER UTILITY G&A
9,900.00
9,900.00
DEX MEDIA EAST LLC
ENTERPRISE G & A
ADVERTISING
293.25
293.25
DISCOUNT STEEL INC
PATCHING-PERMANENT
EQUIPMENT PARTS
162.28
162.28
DO-GOOD.BIZ INC
2,409.19
POSTAGE
4,232.40
6,641.59
DUCTWORKS HEATING & A/C
INSPECTIONS G & A
MECHANICAL
52.00
52.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
LEGAL NOTICES
374.21
550.00
CABLE TV G & A
LEGAL NOTICES
89.36
SSD 1 G&A
LEGAL NOTICES
480.76
SSD 2 G&A
LEGAL NOTICES
609.54
SSD 3 G&A
LEGAL NOTICES
412.09
SSD #4 G&A
LEGAL NOTICES
686.80
SSD #5 G&A
LEGAL NOTICES
403.50
SSD #6 G&A
LEGAL NOTICES
369.16
3,975.42
ECOVA INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
615.81
615.81
EDEN PRAIRIE WINLECTRIC
DAMAGE REPAIR
245.77
245.77
EDUCATION & TRAINING SERVICES
SEWER UTILITY G&A
499.00
499.00
EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC
ESCROWS
337.50
10
R55CKS2
Page 12
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
ESCROWS
Amount
16,125.00
16,462.50
EISOLD, JASON
REC CENTER BUILDING
63.25
63.25
ELECTRIC CITY
INSPECTIONS G & A
ELECTRICAL
40.00
40.00
ELECTRIC PUMP INC
SEWER UTILITY G&A
755.00
755.00
EMERGENCY APPARATUS MTNCE
INVENTORY
205.29
205.29
EMERGENCY AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES INC GENERAL FUND BALANCE SHEET
INVENTORY
20.00
20.00
EMPLOYEE STRATEGIES INC
1,541.25
1,541.25
ENGELHART, DAVID
IT G & A
TRAINING
412.00
412.00
EPIC SECURITY PROFESSIONALS INC
226.00
226.00
EQUIPMENT DISTRIBUTION MANAGEMENT INC
INVENTORY
256.80
256.80
ESCAPE FIRE PROTECTION LLC
5,950.00
5,950.00
EVIDENT INC
POLICE G & A
241.35
241.35
EXECUTIVE TITLE OF MN LLC
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
110.34
110.34
FACTORY MOTOR PARTS CO
INVENTORY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
1,532.73
349.00
11
R55CKS2
Page 13
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
BU Description
Object
GENERAL REPAIR
GENERAL SUPPLIES
Amount
17.28
1,899.01
FASTENAL COMPANY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
12.16
GENERAL REPAIR
GENERAL SUPPLIES
22.58
34.74
FEED THE DOG
OFFICE SUPPLIES
135.00
135.00
FEINBERG, FRANK
REFORESTATION FUND
91.72
91.72
FERGUSON WATERWORKS
RETAINED PERCENTAGE
WATER UTILITY G&A
WATER UTILITY G&A
1,792.17872.64
77,207.60
76,288.07
FERRELLGAS
ARENA MAINTENANCE
MOTOR FUELS
232.69
232.69
FISCHER MINING LLC
WATER UTILITY G&A
7,126.59
7,126.59
FISHER, JON
INVENTORY
10.00
10.00
FLEMING, ADRIENNE
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
54.40
54.40
FLEX COMPENSATION INC
400.00
400.00
FLIEGEL, TROY
250.00
250.00
FORCE AMERICA INC
INVENTORY
461.71
461.71
FOSTER, ALISON
ORGANIZED REC G & A
24.15
24.15
12
R55CKS2
Page 14
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
FRANCIS, ERICK
ENGINEERING G & A
Amount
43.70
43.70
FRATTALLONE'S HARDWARE
INVENTORY
3.99
GENERAL SUPPLIES
2.60
GENERAL REPAIR
GENERAL SUPPLIES
10.80
17.39
FRUEN, TODD
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
3,000.00
3,000.00
GALA HOMES
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
5,500.00
5,500.00
GARSKE, BETTE
29.55
29.55
GARTNER REFRIG & MFG INC
ARENA MAINTENANCE
760.00
760.00
GEHL, NATHAN
262.50
262.50
GHIZONI, DAVE
SOFTBALL
484.50
484.50
GL CONTRACTING INC
STREET CAPITAL PROJ BAL SHEET
RETAINED PERCENTAGE
CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL
20,720.22
5,742.90
26,463.12
GLTC PREMIUM PAYMENTS
LONG TERM CARE INSUR
3,936.26
3,936.26
GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
1,242.75
1,242.75
GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONFINANCE G & A
150.00
150.00
GRAGE, ANDREA
110.00
13
R55CKS2
Page 15
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
110.00
GRAINGER INC, WW
WATER UTILITY G&A
SMALL TOOLS
407.55
1,002.52
1,410.07
GRANICUS INC
700.00
700.00
GRANITE LEDGE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS
DAMAGE REPAIR
608.00
UNINSURED LOSS G&A
UNINSURED LOSS
950.00
1,558.00
GREAT LAKES WEATHER SERVICE
945.00
945.00
GREAT RIVER GREENING
3,500.00
7,000.00
10,500.00
GREEN HORIZONS
WEED CONTROL
276.00
276.00
GUARDIAN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
199.48
199.48
HAGSTROM, JUDSON
437.50
437.50
HALL, JAY
WATER UTILITY G&A
COMPUTER SUPPLIES
1,242.54
1,242.54
HAM, CAROL
400.00
400.00
HAMILTON, MIKE
SOFTBALL
204.00
204.00
HAWKINS INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
6,081.28
WATER UTILITY G&A
1,126.27
7,207.55
14
R55CKS2
Page 16
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
HCI CHEMTEC INC
PARK GROUNDS MAINTENANCE
Amount
1,100.82
1,100.82
HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD
WATER UTILITY G&A
OTHER
125.46
125.46
HECKLER & KOCH DEFENSE INC
POLICE G & A
POLICE EQUIPMENT
810.00
810.00
HEITZMAN, SUSAN
REFORESTATION FUND
109.93
109.93
HEMANN, COTY
FINANCE G & A
162.15
162.15
HENDERSON, TRACY
SOFTBALL
255.00
255.00
HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER
IT G & A
COMPUTER SERVICES
POLICE G & A
2,000.29
POLICE G & A
SUBSISTENCE SERVICE
2,189.56
OPERATIONS
RADIO COMMUNICATIONS
OPERATIONS
1,367.10
SYSTEM REPAIR
1,013.39
GARBAGE/REFUSE SERVICE
550.00
394.80
349.89
7,865.03
HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE
OPERATIONS
TRAINING
600.00
600.00
HENRICKSEN PSG
MUNICIPAL BLDG
1,382.01
1,382.01
HETH, ALICE
REFORESTATION FUND
94.17
94.17
HIGHVIEW PLUMBING INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
2,625.00
SEWER UTILITY G&A
2,395.00
5,020.00
15
R55CKS2
Page 17
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
Object
HIT RESULTS FITNESS LLC
OPERATIONS
TRAINING
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
655.00
655.00
HOLL-TEC
INSPECTIONS G & A
PLUMBING
240.00
240.00
HOLM, JAMIE
487.50
487.50
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
448.33
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
SMALL TOOLS
WATER UTILITY G&A
SOLID WASTE G&A
65.91
GENERAL SUPPLIES
52.16
GENERAL SUPPLIES
58.23
ENVIRONMENTAL G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
215.76
8.94
43.89
209.65
1,102.87
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SRVCS
HALLOWEEN PARTY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
25.25
25.25
HOPPE, MARK
ASSESSING G & A
144.90
144.90
HORDYK, EVAN
SOFTBALL
280.50
280.50
HOWES, JEFFREY
KICKBALL
300.00
300.00
HTPO INC
520.00
520.00
HU, MICHELE
REFORESTATION FUND
84.69
84.69
HUBER, JASON
IT G & A
TRAINING
342.08
342.08
I.U.O.E. LOCAL NO 49
UNION DUES
1,474.00
16
R55CKS2
Page 18
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
1,474.00
I/O SOLUTIONS INC
HUMAN RESOURCES
RECRUITMENT
8.00
8.00
IATN
19.00
19.00
IMPACT PROVEN SOLUTIONS
WATER UTILITY G&A
POSTAGE
1,134.46
SEWER UTILITY G&A
POSTAGE
1,134.46
SOLID WASTE COLLECTIONS
POSTAGE
1,134.47
POSTAGE
1,134.46
4,537.85
INDELCO
WATER UTILITY G&A
IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
851.23
45.32
896.55
INDEPENDENT BLACK DIRT CO
295.00
TREE MAINTENANCE
590.00
885.00
INTEGRA TELECOM
IT G & A
TELEPHONE
2,285.90
2,285.90
INTERSTATE POWER SYSTEMS INC
INVENTORY
GENERAL REPAIR
165.09
18,211.47
18,376.56
INVER GROVE FORD
INVENTORY
UNINSURED LOSS G&A
UNINSURED LOSS
UNINSURED LOSS G&A
BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
GENERAL REPAIR
416.09
1,083.78
65.74
278.09
1,843.70
ISD 283
ICE RENTAL NON-TAXABLE
RENT REVENUE
75.00
75.00
I-STATE TRUCK CENTER
INVENTORY
108.29
108.29
17
R55CKS2
Page 19
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
J & F REDDY RENTS
WATER UTILITY G&A
Amount
77.70
77.70
JDA DESIGN ARCHITECTS
MOVE-UP PROGRAM
225.00
225.00
JEFFERSON FIRE & SAFETY INC
OPERATIONS
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
UNINSURED LOSS G&A
UNINSURED LOSS
168.05
2,429.20
2,597.25
JERRY'S HARDWARE
POLICE G & A
38.80
RELAMPING
19.41
WATER UTILITY G&A
EQUIPMENT PARTS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
6.82
GENERAL SUPPLIES
19.67
135.02
219.72
JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES/LESCO
GENERAL SUPPLIES
463.40
463.40
JOHNSON, SUSAN
KICKBALL
325.00
325.00
KARCHER-RAMOS, AMBER
GENERAL SUPPLIES
452.23
452.23
KAUL, MICHAEL
487.50
487.50
KELLER, JASMINE Z
WAGE GARNISHMENTS
503.08
503.08
KELLEY, RYAN
COMM DEV PLANNING G & A
MEETING EXPENSE
13.50
115.86
129.36
KENNEDY & GRAVEN
1,535.50
ESCROWS
1,535.50
KEYSTONE COMPENSATION GROUP LLC
HUMAN RESOURCES
10,807.00
10,807.00
18
R55CKS2
Page 20
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
KILLMER ELECTRIC CO INC
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
DAMAGE REPAIR
WIRING REPAIR
1,726.75
392.00
UNINSURED LOSS G&A
UNINSURED LOSS
953.49
3,072.24
KIVEL, PHILIP
OPERATIONS
TRAINING
175.00
175.00
KOTHRADE SEWER WATER & EXCAVATING INC
ESCROWS
7,500.00
7,500.00
KRANZ CO INC, DJ
MUNICIPAL BLDG
26,464.90
26,464.90
LAKES GAS CO
PATCHING-PERMANENT
247.10
247.10
LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICES INC
UNION DUES
2,519.05
2,519.05
LAWGISTIC PARTNERS
COMMUNICATIONS/GV REIMBURSEABL
6,268.61
6,268.61
LAWSON PRODUCTS INC
REC CENTER BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
650.13
650.13
LEGACY CREATIVE IMAGES
HOLIDAY PROGRAMS
300.00
300.00
LENTNER, LAURA
85.00
85.00
LINA
LONG TERM DISABILITY
3,566.35
3,566.35
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
REILLY G & A
LEGAL SERVICES
6,345.59
6,345.59
LOFFLER COMPANIES
IT G & A
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
701.63
POLICE G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
207.00
19
R55CKS2
Page 21
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
908.63
LOGIS
IT G & A
COMPUTER SERVICES
31,730.72
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
12,450.75
44,181.47
M ASSOCIATES LLC
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
500.00
500.00
MACQUEEN EQUIP CO
INVENTORY
139.71
SEWER UTILITY G&A
754.95
894.66
MACTA
CABLE TV G & A
BANK CHARGES/CREDIT CD FEES
FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION
98.59
1,680.00
1,778.59
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY
INVENTORY
22,690.06
22,690.06
MARTENS, AFTON
JOINT COMM POLICE PARTNERSHIP
TRAINING
84.31
84.31
MARTIN, PAUL & BARB
400.00
400.00
MCMONIGAL, MEG
TRAINING
276.20
262.20
538.40
MENARDS
GRAFFITI CONTROL
GENERAL SUPPLIES
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
11.99
GENERAL SUPPLIES
107.64
WESTWOOD G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
60.74
HALLOWEEN PARTY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
154.53
109.85
89.70
534.45
MERKLEY, SCOTT
FITNESS PROGRAMS
PROGRAM REVENUE
38.87
38.87
20
R55CKS2
Page 22
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
METHODIST HOSPITAL
SEWER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
Amount
20,966.92
20,966.92
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
INSPECTIONS G & A
DUE TO OTHER GOVTS
SEWER UTILITY BALANCE SHEET
PREPAID EXPENSES
4,920.30
307,654.25
312,574.55
MHSRC/RANGE
POLICE G & A
TRAINING
1,024.00
1,024.00
MINNEAPOLIS FINANCE DEPT
PAWN FEES
608.40
608.40
MINNEAPOLIS WINDOW SHADE CO
63.00
63.00
MINNESOTA BENEFIT ASSOC
ACCRUED OTHER BENEFITS
271.61
271.61
MINNESOTA CHILD SUPPORT PYT CTR
WAGE GARNISHMENTS
147.66
147.66
MINNESOTA DEPT HEALTH
WATER UTILITY G&A
LICENSES
64.00
64.00
MINNESOTA INSULATION PLUS LLC
WATER UTILITY G&A
1,350.00
1,350.00
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
SEWER UTILITY G&A
1,065.00
1,065.00
MINNESOTA RURAL WATER ASSOC
WATER UTILITY G&A
450.00
450.00
MINNETONKA TITLE
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
52.67
52.67
MINUTEMAN PRESS
100.00
100.00
MINVALCO INC
23.86
21
R55CKS2
Page 23
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
23.86
MN DEPT LABOR & INDUSTRY
LICENSES
200.00
200.00
MNFIAM BOOK SALES
OPERATIONS
TRAINING
87.00
87.00
MOBIUS INC
1,250.00
1,250.00
MOSS & BARNETT
FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION
6,267.00
6,267.00
MOTOROLA
E-911 PROGRAM
MACHINERY & AUTO EQUIPMENT
15,212.80
15,212.80
MRPA
SOFTBALL
336.00
336.00
MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO.
GENERAL SUPPLIES
230.67
230.67
MTI DISTRIBUTING CO
INVENTORY
3,566.07
3,566.07
MULLEN, MARY JO
262.50
262.50
MVTL LABORATORIES
REILLY BUDGET
1,238.25
1,238.25
MYKLEBUST, JOHN
1,399.74
1,399.74
NAPA (GENUINE PARTS CO)
2,178.92
INVENTORY
DAMAGE REPAIR
9.99
INSTALLATION
36.98
WATER UTILITY G&A
EQUIPMENT PARTS
28.15
SEWER UTILITY G&A
76.48
ARENA MAINTENANCE
65.82
22
R55CKS2
Page 24
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL REPAIR
GENERAL SUPPLIES
Amount
291.68
19.87
2,707.89
ND CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION
WAGE GARNISHMENTS
379.40
379.40
NELSON, CORY
237.50
237.50
NEUMANN, NEAL
SOFTBALL
1,071.00
1,071.00
NGUYEN, ANH
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
4,000.00
4,000.00
NOKOMIS SHOE SHOP
INSPECTIONS G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
129.95
INSPECTIONS G & A
179.95
309.90
NORTH SUBURBAN TOWING
GENERAL REPAIR
312.50
312.50
NORTHLAND MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC
MUNICIPAL BLDG
657.13
1,698.99
2,356.12
NPELRA
HUMAN RESOURCES
400.00
400.00
NRPA
ORGANIZED REC G & A
165.00
165.00
NYSTROM PUBLISHING
POSTAGE
4,288.95
5,409.30
9,698.25
OAK KNOLL ANIMAL HOSPITAL
POLICE G & A
509.47
509.47
OFFICE DEPOT
GENERAL SUPPLIES
281.57
23
R55CKS2
Page 25
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
BU Description
Object
GENERAL SUPPLIES
174.26
FINANCE G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
340.43
GENERAL INFORMATION
OFFICE SUPPLIES
57.82
POLICE G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
280.24
POLICE G & A
OPERATIONS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
114.14
INSPECTIONS G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
281.45
PUBLIC WORKS G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
356.44
ORGANIZED REC G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
55.92
91.69
2,033.96
OFFICE TEAM
SALARIES - TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
2,233.22
2,233.22
OLSEN CHAIN & CABLE CO INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
212.70
212.70
OLSON, JEAN
185.15
HUMAN RESOURCES
174.41
TRAVEL/MEETINGS
39.10
398.66
OLSON, JEFFREY
475.00
475.00
OLSON, MARNEY
HOUSING REHAB G & A
247.25
247.25
OXYGEN SERVICE COMPANY INC
OPERATIONS
165.95
165.95
PACE ANALYTICAL SERVICES INC
REILLY BUDGET
1,462.50
1,462.50
PARK CONSTRUCTION CO
RETAINED PERCENTAGE
64,570.021,291,400.52
1,226,830.50
PARK JEEP
INVENTORY
362.74
362.74
24
R55CKS2
Page 26
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
PARTY UNIT
HOLIDAY PROGRAMS
Amount
150.00
150.00
PATRICK, MICHEAL
HALLOWEEN PARTY
GENERAL SUPPLIES
41.16
41.16
PBBS EQUIPMENT CORP
REC CENTER BUILDING
3,089.93
3,089.93
PEARSON BROTHERS INC
16,041.40
16,041.40
PERFETTI, JOHN
TREE INJECTION
TREE MAINTENANCE
510.45
510.45
PERNSTEINER CREATIVE GROUP INC
300.00
300.00
PERSPECTIVES INC.
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
10,000.00
10,000.00
PETTERSON, CARL
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
182.37
182.37
PETTY CASH
INVENTORY
POLICE G & A
LICENSES
11.00
TRAINING
27.40
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
52.69
WATER UTILITY G&A
MEETING EXPENSE
26.23
SOLID WASTE G&A
MEETING EXPENSE
26.97
ENVIRONMENTAL G & A
30.54
LICENSES
10.72
86.50
272.05
PETTY CASH - WWNC
WESTWOOD G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
SCHOOL GROUPS
CONCESSION SUPPLIES
41.05
13.96
55.01
PHILIP'S TREE CARE INC
SKATING RINK MAINTENANCE
133.39
133.39
25
R55CKS2
Page 27
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
Object
PIONEER RIM & WHEEL CO
INVENTORY
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
19.24
19.24
PLANT & FLANGED EQUIPMENT
WATER UTILITY G&A
2,232.40
2,232.40
PLEAA
CLERICAL
TRAINING
55.00
55.00
POMP'S TIRE SERVICE INC
INVENTORY
448.82
448.82
POPP.COM INC
TELEPHONE
258.22
258.22
POSTMASTER
POSTAGE
1,000.00
1,000.00
POWERPLAN OIB
GENERAL REPAIR
1,475.89
1,475.89
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC
261.80
INVASIVE PLANT MGMT/RESTORATIO
442.05
703.85
PRECISE MRM LLC
TELEPHONE
WATER UTILITY G&A
152.67
SEWER UTILITY G&A
152.67
152.67
152.67
610.68
PRECISION LANDSCAPE & TREE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TREE DISEASE PUBLIC
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
255.00
1,241.00
1,496.00
PRIDE ELECTRIC
INSPECTIONS G & A
ELECTRICAL
46.47
46.47
PRINTERS SERVICE INC
ARENA MAINTENANCE
80.00
80.00
26
R55CKS2
Page 28
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
Object
PRO AUTO DETAILING
INVENTORY
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
470.00
470.00
Q3 CONTRACTING
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
2,485.00
997.30
3,482.30
QUICKSILVER EXPRESS COURIER
POSTAGE
44.02
44.02
R & R SPECIALTIES
ARENA MAINTENANCE
326.34
326.34
RAINBOW PARTY ARTS
HALLOWEEN PARTY
320.00
320.00
RAMIC, ALMIN
SOCCER
1,342.50
1,342.50
RANDY'S SANITATION INC
FACILITY OPERATIONS
REC CENTER BUILDING
2,512.19
545.15
1,440.58
4,497.92
REACH
POLICE EQUIPMENT
2,860.00
2,860.00
REACH FOR RESOURCES INC
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
5,500.75
5,500.75
REGENCY OFFICE PRODUCTS LLC
POLICE G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
POLICE G & A
161.59
50.32
211.91
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
TRAINING
70.00
70.00
REMAX CONSULTANTS
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
104.33
104.33
RICH, TED
WATER UTILITY G&A
200.10
27
R55CKS2
Page 29
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
200.10
RICOH USA INC
IT G & A
4,246.24
4,246.24
ROBARGE ENTERPRISES INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
895.00
895.00
ROBERTS, ABRAHAM
ESCROWS
PMC ESCROW
2,477.80
2,477.80
ROSS, LAUREN
INSPECTIONS G & A
BUILDING
136.50
136.50
ROTARY CLUB OF SLP
POLICE G & A
POLICE G & A
MEETING EXPENSE
267.00
90.00
177.00
534.00
RSP ARCHITECTS LTD
127,762.10
127,762.10
SAFELITE FULFILLMENT INC
GENERAL REPAIR
39.95
39.95
SAM'S CLUB
POLICE G & A
SUBSISTENCE SUPPLIES
51.68
POLICE G & A
MEETING EXPENSE
42.70
315.87
OPERATIONS
GENERAL SUPPLIES
GENERAL SUPPLIES
WESTWOOD G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
WESTWOOD G & A
SCHOOL GROUPS
CONCESSION SUPPLIES
53.599.78
53.64
157.28
577.36
SAVATREE
TREE DISEASE PRIVATE
CLEANING/WASTE REMOVAL SERVICE
8,265.00
8,265.00
SCHOEBEN'S WINDOW CLEANING SERVICE
460.00
460.00
SCHOMER, KELLEY
ASSESSING G & A
123.63
28
R55CKS2
Page 30
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
123.63
SCHWAAB INC
SEWER UTILITY G&A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
29.86
29.86
SEH
453.63
453.63
SHRED-IT USA MINNEAPOLIS
11.18
FINANCE G & A
10.70
POLICE G & A
55.91
WATER UTILITY G&A
11.18
WESTWOOD G & A
47.03
136.00
SIDEWALK SAVERS LLC
RETAINED PERCENTAGE
794.2515,885.00
15,090.75
SIGNATURE MECHANICAL INC
REC CENTER BUILDING
1,328.50
1,328.50
SILVERMERE AMERICA LLC
GENERAL SUPPLIES
275.00
275.00
SILVERS, STEVEN
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
150.00
150.00
SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABS INC
POLICE G & A
140.07
140.07
SKELLY, GABRIEL
58.59
58.59
SLOTREM, ALYSSA
115.00
115.00
SLP FF ASSOC IAFF LOCAL #993
UNION DUES
1,524.90
1,524.90
SMITH, LAURA
TRAVEL/MEETINGS
888.95
29
R55CKS2
Page 31
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
888.95
SMITH, PERRY
SOFTBALL
637.50
637.50
SNAP CONSTRUCTION
INSPECTIONS G & A
STATE SURCHARGE PAYABLE
INSPECTIONS G & A
BUILDING
1.00
140.00
141.00
SOURCE WATER SOLUTIONS LLC
WATER UTILITY G&A
3,600.00
3,600.00
SPOK INC
OPERATIONS
TELEPHONE
459.14
459.14
SPRINT
IT G & A
DATACOMMUNICATIONS
1,538.99
1,538.99
SPS COMPANIES INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
352.21
REC CENTER BUILDING
250.58
602.79
SQUARERIGGER SOFTWARE
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
5,736.00
5,736.00
SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC
ESCROWS
GENERAL
ENGINEERING G & A
ENGINEERING SERVICES
5,918.21
331.27
14,809.94
21,059.42
STAR TRIBUNE
SOLID WASTE G&A
38.87
38.87
STEPP MANUFACTURING CO INC
INVENTORY
21.31
21.31
STEVENS ENGINEERS INC
20,945.76
20,945.76
STONEBROOKE EQUIPMENT INC
UNINSURED LOSS G&A
UNINSURED LOSS
2,447.00
2,447.00
30
R55CKS2
Page 32
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
STREICHER'S
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
INVENTORY
143.94
POLICE G & A
137.96
ERU
299.25
581.15
STRINGER, BETSY
TRAVEL/MEETINGS
40.37
40.37
SUMMIT ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC
16,966.92
16,966.92
SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION
OPERATIONS
FIRE ALARM & SPRINKLER
55.25
55.25
SUN CONTROL OF MINNESOTA INC
MUNICIPAL BLDG
777.00
777.00
SUSA
WATER UTILITY G&A
TRAINING
350.00
350.00
SWANSON & YOUNGDALE INC
MUNICIPAL BLDG
44,000.00
44,000.00
SWISHER, SCOTT
REFORESTATION FUND
84.48
84.48
TAHO SPORTSWEAR
LIFEGUARDING
300.00
300.00
TALKPOINT TECHNOLOGIES INC
E-911 PROGRAM
288.60
288.60
TELELANGUAGE INC
81.27
81.27
TERMINIX INT
REC CENTER BUILDING
105.00
105.00
THOMAS, GERALD
REFORESTATION FUND
103.64
103.64
31
R55CKS2
Page 33
LOGIS400V
10/23/201511:36:52
9/26/2015 -
Page -
10/23/2015
Vendor
BU Description
Object
THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR
REC CENTER BUILDING
Amount
814.79
814.79
TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL
1,225.01
1,225.01
TITAN MACHINERY
INVENTORY
97.36
97.36
TKDA
WATER UTILITY G&A
2,643.45
2,643.45
T-MOBILE USA INC
POLICE G & A
200.00
200.00
TOTAL COMFORT
INSPECTIONS G & A
INSPECTIONS G & A
MECHANICAL
1.00
50.00
51.00
TOWMASTER
INVENTORY
1,104.34
1,104.34
TRAFFIC CONTROL CORP
RELAMPING
1,415.00
1,415.00
TRI STATE BOBCAT
INVENTORY
GENERAL REPAIR
1,288.15
479.81
1,767.96
TRUCK UTILITIES MFG CO
INVENTORY
11,240.00
11,240.00
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO
155.00
155.00
TWIN WEST CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
45.00
45.00
UNIFORMS UNLIMITED (PD)
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH
162.00
SUPPORT SERVICES
65.00
32
R55CKS2
Page 34
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
SUPERVISORY
731.31
PATROL
2,832.08
RESERVES
192.50
3,982.89
UNITED WAY OF MINNEAPOLIS AREA
UNITED WAY
316.00
316.00
UNO DOS TRES COMMUNICATIONS
POLICE G & A
140.00
140.00
UPS STORE
WATER UTILITY G&A
POSTAGE
9.78
185.76
195.54
UPTOWN PLUMBING HEATING & COOLING
INSPECTIONS G & A
INSPECTIONS G & A
ELECTRICAL
INSPECTIONS G & A
MECHANICAL
1.22
51.00
92.79
145.01
US IDENTIFICATION MANUAL
POLICE G & A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
82.50
82.50
USA BLUE BOOK
INVENTORY
299.90
299.90
VAIL, LORI
HUMAN RESOURCES
RECOGNITION
411.85
411.85
VAUGHAN, JIM
ENVIRONMENTAL G & A
112.13
112.13
VERIZON WIRELESS
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
TELEPHONE
11,149.27
74.64
11,223.91
VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
1,296.90
1,296.90
VIKING INDUSTRIAL CTR
ROUTINE MAINTENANCE
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
181.50
63.07-
33
R55CKS2
Page 35
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Object
Amount
118.43
VOICE AND DATA NETWORKS
OFFICE EQUIPMENT
400.19
400.19
WARNING LITES OF MN INC
INSTALLATION
425.00
425.00
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF WI-MN
SEWER UTILITY G&A
138.08
138.08
WATER CONSERVATION SERVICE INC
WATER UTILITY G&A
1,109.83
1,109.83
WEST END OFFICE MN LLC
ESCROWS
GENERAL
40.91
40.91
WHITE, PERRY
PUBLIC WORKS G & A
187.45
187.45
WOMEN IN LEISURE SERVICES
ORGANIZED REC G & A
25.00
25.00
WORRELL REO RESULTS GROUP, CLAUDE
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL CUSTOMERS
179.48
179.48
WPS ANTENNAS.COM
POLICE G & A
POLICE EQUIPMENT
214.25
214.25
WRAP CITY GRAPHICS
SCHOOL LIASON
30.00
30.00
WSB ASSOC INC
23,772.25
23,772.25
XCEL ENERGY
16,328.42
ELECTRIC SERVICE
OPERATIONS
ELECTRIC SERVICE
23,826.21
WATER UTILITY G&A
ELECTRIC SERVICE
31,331.74
REILLY BUDGET
ELECTRIC SERVICE
1,924.50
SEWER UTILITY G&A
3,660.92
22.65
34
R55CKS2
Page 36
LOGIS400V
9/26/2015 -
Vendor
BU Description
10/23/201511:36:52
Page -
10/23/2015
Amount
Object
SEWER UTILITY G&A
ELECTRIC SERVICE
ELECTRIC SERVICE
3,572.33
1,814.20
ELECTRIC SERVICE
5,733.38
BRICK HOUSE (1324)
ELECTRIC SERVICE
35.75
WW RENTAL HOUSE (1322)
ELECTRIC SERVICE
91.95
WESTWOOD G & A
ELECTRIC SERVICE
707.27
REC CENTER BUILDING
ELECTRIC SERVICE
19,179.84
108,229.16
YAHOO ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE
SUPPORT SERVICES
40.00
40.00
ZANDER, LOIS
227.70
227.70
ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
GENERAL SUPPLIES
29.12
WATER UTILITY G&A
GENERAL SUPPLIES
67.21
GENERAL SUPPLIES
35.66
REC CENTER BUILDING
GENERAL SUPPLIES
358.70
GENERAL SUPPLIES
38.71
529.40
ZIEBART OF MINNESOTA INC
INVENTORY
250.00
250.00
ZIEGLER INC
INVENTORY
1,653.85
1,653.85
ZIP PRINTING
ENVIRONMENTAL G & A
OFFICE SUPPLIES
123.94
123.94
ZUMWALDE, JOHN & AMELIA
487.50
487.50
Report Totals
2,952,226.37
35
Consent Agenda Item: 4b
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: 2nd Reading of Ordinance for the Arlington Row Apartments West Planned Unit
Development (PUD)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance
creating Section 36-268-PUD 3 of the Zoning Code and amending the Zoning Map from R-1
Single Family Residence to PUD 3 for property at the southwest corner of Wayzata Boulevard
and Texas Avenue, and approve the Summary Ordinance for publication.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the rezoning consistent with the Comprehensive Plan?
SUMMARY: Approval would allow construction of two, three story multi-family buildings that
include a total of 34 residential units, for a density of 24 units per acre. The site plan includes a
new sidewalk along Texas Avenue, on-site storm water management, outdoor recreation areas
and landscaping. The development also includes a surface parking lot.
The rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed use of the property.
The City Council approved the first reading of the Ordinance on October 19, 2015.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: No financial assistance is being provided
by the City to the developer.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Zoning Map of Area of Interest
Ryan Kelley, Planner
Sean Walther, Planning & Zoning Supervisor
Page 2
Title: 2nd Reading of Ordinance for the Arlington Row Apartments West Planned Unit Development (PUD)
ORDINANCE NO. ___-15
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ST. LOUIS PARK CITY CODE
RELATING TO ZONING BY CREATING SECTION 36-268-PUD 3
AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
WAYZATA BOULEVARD AND TEXAS AVENUE
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. 15-29-CP, 15-30-S and 15-31-PUD) for amending the Zoning Ordinance
to create a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zoning District.
Sec. 2. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as RM – Medium Density
Residential.
Sec. 3. The Zoning Map shall be amended by reclassifying the following described lands
from R-1 Single Family Residence to PUD 3:
Lot 1, Block 1, Arlington Row Apartments West; Hennepin County, Minnesota;
and to the center line of all adjacent right-of-way.
Sec. 4. The St. Louis Park Ordinance Code, Section 36-268 is hereby amended to add the
following Planned Unit Development Zoning District:
Section 36-268-PUD 3.
(a) Development Plan
The site shall be developed, used and maintained in conformance with the following
Final PUD signed Official Exhibits:
1. T1.1 – Title Sheet
2. AS1.2 – Architectural Site Plan
3. AS2.1 – Reference Images
4. C1-1 – Existing Conditions
5. C1-2 – Preliminary Plat
6. C1-3 – Preliminary Plat
7. C2-1 – Site Plan
8. C3-1 – Grading Plan
9. C3-2 – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
10. C4-1 – Sanitary & Watermain
11. C4-2 – Storm Sewer
12. C8-1 - Details
13. C8-2 – City Details
14. L1-1 – Landscape Plan
15. L2-1 – Tree Inventory Plan
16. Photometric Plan
Page 3
17. A1.1 – Floor Plan
20. A1.4 – Floor Plan (Roof)
21. A3.1 – Exterior Elevations
24. Final Plat
25. Zoning Map Amendment Exhibit
The site shall also conform to the following requirements:
1)
Parking will be provided off-street in a surface lot. A total of 52 spaces will be
provided for residential users including five (5) spaces for guest parking.
2)
The maximum building height shall be 37 feet.
3)
The development site shall include a minimum of 12 percent designed outdoor
recreation area based on private developable land area.
(b) Permitted Uses
(1)
Multiple-family dwelling.
(2)
Parks/open space.
(c) Accessory Uses
Accessory uses are as follows:
(1)
Private garages and parking lots.
(2)
Private swimming pool in conformance with section 36-73.
(3)
Service and retail facilities intended for use of residents not to exceed ten percent
of the gross floor area of the development.
(4)
Property management or rental office provided that it does not occupy more than
ten percent of the gross floor area.
(5)
Gardening and other horticultural uses.
(6)
Solar panels as regulated by this Chapter.
(7)
Decorative landscape features including but not limited to pools, arbors and
terraces.
(8)
No outdoor uses or storage allowed.
Page 4
(d) Special Performance Standards
(1)
All general zoning requirements not specifically addressed in this ordinance shall
be met, including but not limited to: outdoor lighting, architectural design,
landscaping, parking and screening requirements.
(2)
All trash handling and loading areas shall be screened from view by a masonry
wall no taller than six feet in height and constructed out of a material compatible
with the principal buildings.
(3)
Signs shall be allowed in conformance with the approved redevelopment plan or
final PUD site plan and development agreement in accordance with this Chapter
and the sign area and height regulations for the R-4 Multiple-Family Residence
zoning district.
Sec. 4. The contents of Planning Case File 15-29-CP, 15-30-S and 15-31-PUD are hereby
entered into and made part of the public hearing record and the record of decision for this case.
Sec. 5. This Ordinance shall take effect fifteen days after its publication.
Public Hearing
First Reading
Second Reading
Date of Publication
Date Ordinance takes effect
August 19, 2015
October 19, 2015
November 2, 2015
November 12, 2015
November 27, 2015
Adopted by the City Council November 2, 2015
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
Approved as to Form and Execution:
City Clerk
City Attorney
Page 5
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO.____-15
AN ORDINANCE CREATING A NEW
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT
Southwest Corner of Wayzata Boulevard and Texas Avenue
This ordinance states that the Zoning Map shall be amended from R-1 Single Family Residential
to PUD 3; and the Zoning Ordinance Code, Section-268 will be amended to add Section 36-268PUD 3.
This ordinance shall take effect 15 days after publication.
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 12, 2015
Page 6
ZONING MAP
Consent Agenda Item: 4c
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE:
Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3325 Gettysburg Avenue South
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the special assessment
for the repair of the sewer service line at 3325 Gettysburg Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 18-117-21-23-0044.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
established by the City Council.
SUMMARY: James and Julie Milligan, owners of the single family residence at 3325
Gettysburg Avenue South, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service
line for their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy.
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 owners 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 owners have 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 $7,900.00.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The City has funds in place to finance the
cost of this special assessment.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Resolution
Jay Hall, Utility Superintendent
Mark Hanson, Public Works Superintendent
Pat Sulander, Accountant
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations and Recreation
Title: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 3325 Gettysburg Avenue South
Page 2
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
3325 GETTYSBURG AVENUE SOUTH, ST LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 18-117-21-23-0044
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 3325 Gettysburg Avenue South, have 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 3325 Gettysburg 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 sewer service line.
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 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 $7,900.00.
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
4.00%.
6. The Property Owners have 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.
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Consent Agenda Item: 4d
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 8206 35th Street West
for the repair of the sewer service line at 8206 35th Street West, St. Louis Park, MN.
P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-0018.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with policy previously
SUMMARY: Sean Devillers and Samantha Carr, owners of the single family residence at 8206
35th Street West, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the sewer service line for their
home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special assessment
policy.
are unexpectedly required.
Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed, submitted, and approved by City
staff. The property owners 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 owners have 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 $6,395.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Resolution
Title: Special Assessment – Sewer Service Line Repair at 8206 35th Street West
Page 2
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE SEWER SERVICE LINE AT
8206 35TH STREET WEST, ST LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 18-117-21-41-0018
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 8206 35th Street West, have 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 8206 35th Street West; and
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the sewer service line.
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 and Inspections Departments is hereby accepted.
3. The total cost for the repair of the sewer service line is accepted at $6,395.
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
4%.
necessary to implement the repair of the sewer service line and the special assessment of all
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Consent Agenda Item: 4e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2850 Texas Avenue South
for the repair of the water service line at 2850 Texas Avenue South, St. Louis Park, MN
P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0012.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: The proposed action is consistent with the policy previously
SUMMARY: Richard and Kathleen Hamilton, owners of the single family residence at 2850
Texas Avenue South, have requested the City to authorize the repair of the water service line for
their home and assess the cost against the property in accordance with the City’s special
assessment policy.
This is a 2015 repair that was made between the home and the curb box and is not impacted by the
City’s new waterline ownership policy. Homeowners are still responsible for water lines repairs that
occur between their home and the curb box located in the right of way.
are unexpectedly required. Plans and permits for this service line repair work were completed,
submitted, and approved by City staff. The property owners hired a contractor and repaired the water
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 owners have petitioned the
City to authorize the water service line repair and special assess the cost of the repair. The total
eligible cost of the repair has been determined to be $3,581.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Resolution
Title: Special Assessment - Water Service Line Repair at 2850 Texas Avenue South
Page 2
FOR THE REPAIR OF THE WATER SERVICE LINE AT
2850 TEXAS AVENUE SOUTH, ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
P.I.D. 07-117-21-44-0012
WHEREAS, the Property Owners at 2850 Texas Avenue South, have petitioned the City
of St. Louis Park to authorize a special assessment for the repair of the water service line for the
single family residence located at 2850 Texas Avenue South; and
Utility Superintendent related to the repair of the water service line.
the water service line repair is hereby accepted.
2. The water 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 service line is accepted at $3,581.00.
5.
The Property Owners have agreed to pay the City for the total cost of the improvements
through a special assessment over a ten (10) year period at the interest rate of 4%.
necessary to implement the repair of the water service line and the special assessment of all
City Manager
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor
Consent Agenda Item: 4f
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Authorize Submittal of a Hennepin County ERF Grant Application for Clean-up of
Contaminated Soils
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing the submission of the
Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund (ERF) Soils Grant Application to the City of
St. Louis Park in the amount of $357,200 for soil excavation adjacent to The Rec Center (3700
Monterey Drive) for the outdoor ice rink project.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is the City Council supportive of applying for grant funding to
assist in the soil cleanup for the outdoor ice rink project?
SUMMARY: In July 2015 extensive soil testing was conducted to understand the makeup of the
soil conditions at the outdoor ice rink location. This was funded through a grant from the
Metropolitan Council. In that research, it was determined that there is debris and some areas of
hazardous contamination. Since the soil has contaminants, there will be added expense to remove
the soils. Because of this added expense, the City is applying for the Hennepin County ERF grant
to help subsidize these additional expenses. The timeline for the grant notification will take place
near the end of January, 2016. Because our recent estimates for the project are over budget, staff
is proposing that we hold off on the excavation until March 2016. This allows us time to bid the
entire project so that we have actual projects costs. It also allows time to find out whether we are
able to receive grant funding.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: The latest estimate for the soil corrections is
$684,800. If successful, grant funding will be used to reduce the excavation cost of the outdoor
ice arena project.
business.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Resolution
Jason West, Recreation Superintendent
Cindy Walsh, Director of Operations & Recreation
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 4f)
Page 2
Title: Authorize Submittal of a Hennepin County ERF Grant Application for Clean-up of Contaminated Soils
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE FUND (ERF)
FOR CLEAN-UP OF CONTAMINATED SOILS AT 3700 MONTERY DRIVE
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services provides
funds to assist local government units of Hennepin County for the development of an outdoor ice
rink, and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park desires to develop an outdoor ice rink; and
WHEREAS, the estimate of the total cost of developing the project is $684,400 dollars.
The City is requesting $357,200 from the Hennepin County Environmental Response Fund and
will assume remaining cost.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of St. Louis
Park, Minnesota that the city supports execution of a Fund Grant Application to be submitted to
the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services for the clean-up of contaminated
soils for the development of an outdoor ice rink to be located at 3700 Monterey Drive, St. Louis
Park.
Attest:
Jeff Jacobs, Mayor
Consent Agenda Item: 4g
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Authorize Fiscal Agent, Opening of Bank Account and Bank Signatories for Home
Remodeling Fair
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to Adopt Resolution authorizing fiscal agent, opening a
bank account, and authorizing bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Should the City of St. Louis Park serve as the fiscal agent to
allow the annual Home Remodeling Fair to continue?
SUMMARY: The City of St. Louis Park has participated in the Home Remodeling Fair for
many years along with the cities of Golden Valley, Hopkins and Minnetonka and St. Louis Park,
Hopkins and Minnetonka Community Education. The Fair provides residents with information
and resources for housing improvements from exhibitors including remodeling contractors,
architects, landscapers, and financial lenders, as well as city inspectors and other city
departments. The Fair will celebrate its 24th year on February 21, 2016.
The Home Remodeling Fair involves various financial transactions including the receipt of fees
paid by exhibitors and expenses to promote and undertake the event. It has now been determined
that there should be a more formal accounting process in place to insure proper procedures are
followed when revenues are received and expenses paid. The City of St. Louis Park staff
recognized the importance of this event and has offered to act as the fiscal agent for the Home
Remodeling Fair. As fiscal agent, the City will open a separate checking account at Citizens
Independent Bank with the City Manager and Controller as signatories, which is consistent with
other City financial institutional set ups. City staff will perform the necessary accounting
functions and provide periodic reporting on revenues and expenditures. It is important to note
that this action is not being undertaken due to any improprieties in the past by the partner cites or
community education departments.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Cost to the City of St. Louis Park for acting
as fiscal agent will be minimal consisting primarily of staff time. The actions recommended will
ensure that the Home Remodeling Fair is compliant with banking requirements.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Resolution
Darla Monson, Senior Accountant
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 4g)
Title: Authorize Fiscal Agent, Opening of Bank Account and Bank Signatories for Home Remodeling Fair
Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 15RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FISCAL AGENT,
OPENING A BANK ACCOUNT AND
AUTHORIZING BANK SIGNATORIES
FOR THE HOME REMODELING FAIR
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has participated with other local area
communities in the Home Remodeling Fair for several years; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the Home Remodeling Fair to have a fiscal agent; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the fiscal agent to open a bank account for the Home
Remodeling Fair; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary to authorize bank signatories for the Home Remodeling Fair
bank account;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the St. Louis Park City Council:
1. Approval is hereby given to authorize the City of St. Louis Park to act as the fiscal
agent for the Home Remodeling Fair.
2. Approval is hereby given to authorize opening of a checking account for the Home
Remodeling Fair at Citizens Independent Bank.
3. Approval is hereby given to authorize the following bank signatories on the checking
account for the Home Remodeling Fair.
Home Remodeling Fair Checking Account
Thomas Harmening
City Manager
Brian Swanson
Controller
City Manager
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 19, 2015
Consent Agenda Item: 4h
FIRE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MINUTES
June 23, 2015 – 8:30 a.m.
FIRE STATION 1 CONFERENCE ROOM
1. The meeting was called to order at 9:03 a.m. by President Williams.
2. In attendance were Commissioners Stuart Williams, Bill MacMillan and David Lee. Also
present were Nancy Deno, HR Director/Deputy City Manager; Steve Koering, Fire Chief;
John Wolff, Deputy Chief; Rodger Coppa, Assistant Chief; and William Ryan, Firefighter,
Andrew Willenbring, Firefighter; Cary Smith, Assistant Chief.
3. The commissioners approved the minutes of January 22, 2015.
4. The Commission discussed the career firefighter recruitment process. Deputy Chief Wolff
reviewed the Recruitment Process – Firefighter document dated June 23, 2015. Discussion
was on the changes to this process compared to the last process in areas of IV points for City
of St. Louis Park POC, VI structured group interview process for first round, VII scenario.
There was a question if there were any changes to this job description dated June 2015 as
compared to the last job description and process. The commission was informed that the job
description was reviewed by Fire Management and no changes were made, signature lines
were updated. Other questions were about how the first round interviews were planned to be
conducted. A motion was made by Commissioner Lee and seconded by Commissioner
MacMillan to approve the firefighter recruitment process as presented by Deputy Chief
Wolff. Motion carried unanimously.
5. President Williams discussed MN Statute 420. The discussion was about the statute and how
some of the language may need updating. The commissioners discussed a number of sections
of Chapter 420. Commission questioned the need or purpose of a Fire Civil Service with all
the regulations in place.
a. It was determined that President Williams will provide a red line copy with
information on suggestions for changes to Chief Koering.
b. It was the consensus of the commission to continue this discussion at another meeting
and the Chief is to discuss this with the City Manager and talk about next steps on
how to develop recommendations for City Council.
c. The Commission asked staff to provide them with a listing of cities that are currently
under MN Statute 420.
d. The Commission asked if there was a resolution passed related to 420.10, staff liaison
Deno stated she was not aware of any resolution related to this. Commission
requested that staff research to see if a resolution was ever passed by Council in
regard to this section.
e. It was the consensus of the Commission to hold official Civil Service meetings at City
Hall in accordance with 420.04
6. The Commission adjourned at 10:08 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager
City Staff Liaison
Consent Agenda Item: 4i
OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 16, 2015 – 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Lynne Carper, Claudia Johnston-Madison, Robert Kramer,
Lisa Peilen, Richard Person, Carl Robertson,
Joe Tatalovich, Ethan Rickert (youth member)
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF PRESENT:
Ryan Kelley, Gary Morrison, Sean Walther, Phil Elkin
1.
Call to Order – Roll Call
2.
Approval of Minutes of August 19, 2015
Commissioner Johnston-Madison moved approval of the minutes. Commissioner Carper
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1 (Kramer abstained).
3.
Public Hearings
A.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat,
Preliminary and Final Planned Unit Development
Arlington Row Apts. West
Location:
Southwest corner Wayzata Blvd. and Texas Ave.
Applicant:
Melrose Company
Case No.:
15-29-CP, 15-30-S and 15-31-PUD
Ryan Kelley, Planner, presented the staff report. He provided a history of the property.
Mr. Kelley discussed the Comprehensive Plan evaluation. He noted that concerns from
the neighborhood meeting of August 12, 2005 included increase in traffic, on-street
parking, addition of rental units to the area, development of currently vacant land, and
assurance of landscaping. He discussed the traffic study completed by SRF Consulting.
He said that study compared existing conditions with projected conditions. The study
concluded that with the projected developments there is no change in the overall or
individual segments to the letter grade of the intersection level of service. The impact
occurs at northbound Texas Ave. to Wayzata Blvd., where the average delay during the
p.m. peak period is projected to increase by 6 seconds. Neither the traffic study nor City
Engineering staff recommend any changes in traffic control in the area.
Mr. Kelley reviewed the preliminary and final plat analysis.
Mr. Kelley reviewed the Planned Unit Development analysis.
City Council Meeting of November 2, 2015 (Item No. 4i)
Title: Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 16, 2015
Page 2
Mr. Kelley introduced Phil Elkin, City Engineering staff; Robert Cunningham, Melrose
Companies; and Mike Engel, ESG Architects.
Commissioner Peilen asked about the proposal for surface parking only.
Mr. Kelley responded that underground or structured parking has significant cost impacts
and the developer is trying to control costs by providing surface parking.
Commissioner Carper asked about guest parking, after hours parking, or other parking
lots available.
Mr. Kelley spoke about some on-street parking available on Wayzata Blvd. He said City
Code requires 1 parking space/bedroom and within that 10% of those spaces are for guest
parking.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she understood that the proposal is for a small
number of units but having traveled through that area she’s seen how difficult it is to
make left hand turns from Texas onto the frontage road. She asked if there has been any
discussion for signalization.
Mr. Kelley spoke about city trip generation data collection done for an unrelated recent
stop sign request as well as for this recent study. Out of the city data and the recent study
neither a stop sign or traffic signal was warranted.
Mr. Elkin provided additional details on traffic counts and traffic study.
Commissioner Rickert asked about construction timing for the two buildings.
Robert Cunningham, Melrose Company, applicant, responded the buildings will be built
at the same time but with sequencing of construction stages. It is expected they will be
completed within a couple months of each other.
Mr. Cunningham said a lot of consideration was given to fit the project into the existing
neighborhood with a residential feel with gable roofs, façade articulation, and density.
He spoke about creating a different niche in the marketplace by creating a new Class A
product without structured parking, swimming pool, club room and rooftop decks. The
development will have more of a traditional living arrangement with two level units.
Commissioner Carper asked about charging ports for electric cars.
Mr. Cunningham said charging ports would be available, hopefully through solar power.
He added that the development will be built without any city assistance. He said he does
have a grant in to the Metropolitan Council for two additional environmental elements.
One is for solar powered LED lighting on all common areas. The other grant is for
ground source geo-thermal systems.
Chair Person opened the public hearing at 6:40 p.m.
Page 3
Alan Gibson, 1320 Westwood Hills Rd., representing Skyehill Townhome Association
and Board, said that townhome residents bought next to an R-1 exposure. He said many
residents are upset because the land was considered to be a green space. He said the
townhome development is 100% owner occupied. He said the association had existing
issues already. He said they have met numerous times on this topic as an association, as
a board, and as residents at the neighborhood meeting. They have also had meetings with
Mr. Cunningham.
Mr. Gibson said if the association had an option the property would remain R-1. He said
concerns with the proposal regard traffic and parking, on-street parking, and screening.
He said the association does not feel the current plan provides sufficient on-site parking.
He cited City Code regulations for multi-family residential parking. He spoke about
existing problems with on-street parking which creates an impossible site line turning
northbound on Texas. He spoke about taking a micro look at traffic for a very short
period of time. He said when you live there for a long period you experience long delays
in turning off of Westwood Hills on to Texas and another delay going north on Wayzata.
He said this happens all the time. He would like the city to consider some type of traffic
control to alleviate that. He added that there is no sequencing of traffic on Wayzata Blvd.
Mr. Gibson said in meetings with Mr. Cunningham they explained the screening on the
south is appropriate. He submitted a letter dated Sept. 16, 2015, from Mr. Cunningham
to the association regarding Melrose’s agreement to place screening materials on either
the Melrose parcel of the townhome parcel in a mutually agreed fashion at the southwest
corner of the Melrose property.
Mr. Gibson stated the following recommendations of the association: 1) traffic control at
Wayzata and Texas; 2) additional review of on-site parking (1 parking spot/apartment
plus 10%); 3) removal of parking on the west curb line of Texas from Wayzata to
Westwood Hills which needs to happen anyway for safety; and 4) recognition that
neighborhood parking is inadequate currently; and overflow apartment parking will end
up on Westwood Hills driveway. Mr. Gibson added the association would like the
Commission to request that staff communicate on the overall parking options such as no
parking, timed parking, or permitted parking to eliminate the impact. He added that part
of the PUD process is that every possible effort is made to address adverse impacts on
adjacent properties.
Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Ave. S., said the development does have an attractive
human scale which meets a lot of the Comprehensive Plan attributes. He remarked that
the lot could have been a lot of other uses such as gas station or commercial use. He said
his issue is that the proposal would go from low density as recommended in the
Comprehensive Plan. He said we shouldn’t take the Comprehensive Plan so lightly and
change the zoning regulations when a developer brings about a project. Mr. Miller
suggested it would be great to get together with a neighborhood and all the other
stakeholders well before a developer comes with a plan for a lot. He noted that affordable
single family homes are hard to come by in the city. He spoke about traffic being a large
concern to the neighborhood. He said he didn’t personally think the 34 units would make
a huge impact in a neighborhood of thousands of homes that use Texas Ave. He added
that the neighborhood feels there are lots of traffic and parking problems and he
suggested a more comprehensive traffic and parking study. Mr. Miller recommended that
Page 4
the Planning Commission not move forward on the request until further discussions with
all stakeholders happen.
Jerry Sheehan, 7728 W. 13 ½ Street, stated he was never notified about the neighborhood
meeting or public hearing. He stated that building this project will turn the whole area
into an Uptown with no businesses and all on-street parking. He stated that such a
development would be a traffic jam that will interfere with any projects and will impede
emergency vehicles.
Barry Rohweder, 1401 Texas Ave. S., said he purchased his home in 1992 and at that
time the south half of the subject parcel was zoned R-1 and the north half was
commercial space. He said after the DOT purchased it the parcel became R-1. He said
he was shocked that the proposal had come this far. He said the traffic at that intersection
is horrible. He said the bike lane will be a possible restriction from parking on one side
of Texas, which means cars will be parked on Texas Ave. for 5-6 blocks. He said another
proposed development to the east will add another 40 households so potentially there will
be 74 households within two blocks of his home. Mr. Rohweder said he doesn’t see how
that makes sense for the neighbors in that community. He said there will be adverse
effects for the neighborhood and adjacent properties. He said the Met Council grant
money that the developer mentioned is tax dollars. He said the proposal does not fit the
1992 long range plans, doesn’t fit the 1997 plan, and is not part of the 2012 long range
plan. Mr. Rohweder stated he hopes the Planning Commission will reject the plan as it is.
Karen Boole, 7711 13th Lane, said the area is currently congested. She stated that six
years ago the city was looking for community input. The neighborhood met with the city
at the Rec Center and areas of proposed development were displayed. She said at that
time she proposed a community garden in the subject property. She said the city paid lip
service to the neighborhood wanting input at that time. She said that input was ignored
and the city proceeded with accepting a proposal that is not friendly to the neighborhood.
Ms. Boole spoke about LED lighting used by the Halston Company across the highway.
She said the bright blue LED lighting blares into the windows of 13th Lane residents. She
said the developer has proposed LED lighting in a residential neighborhood. She said
green spaces are needed in neighborhoods for quality of life. She said that is being eroded
and she wanted the Commission to carefully consider leaving green spaces in St. Louis
Park.
Sarah Borgendale, 1821 Texas, said she understands the traffic concerns at the
intersection. She said another consideration is safety and the middle school location with
many students and their families walking, as well as other pedestrian traffic, and many
cars dropping off students. She said the traffic study was done during the summer and
traffic patterns change during the school year. She said there are implications for the rest
of the community just south of the development intersection.
Ted Johnson, 7737 W. 13 ½ St., asked the Planning Commission their proximity to the
proposed development. He spoke about current congestion. He said the development
will have a negative impact on the neighborhood, including property values, traffic
congestion and parking problems. He said he was concerned about the developer’s desire
to keep costs down and he asked if the development would be Section 8 residential. He
said he was concerned about rental and short-term residents and the lack of community
Page 5
investment. He said the construction done in 2000 on 14th St. of single family town home
construction seemed to fit in the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said he sees the proposal as
a bad decision.
Kim Opitz, 8001 W. Franklin Ave., spoke about the Texas/Franklin intersection. She
said any time of day cars roll through the intersection and speed up and down Texas.
She said at the neighborhood meeting they were told the traffic study indicated there
would be minimal impact from the development. She said from her corner it is very clear
that even a minimal increase in traffic is too much. She said she represents about five
families with 15 children at that corner.
As there was no one else present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson asked the total daily count at the intersection from the traffic
study.
Mr. Kelley responded the count on Texas Ave. was an average of 4500 vehicles/day.
Commissioner Robertson discussed the 1 parking space/bedroom criteria. He said the
city has worked on that for many years with many developments and developers. He said
that number is used because it works. He said he doesn’t see people parking on the street
from this proposal. He said he understands worries about extra parking. He said from
everything known about design and development the on-site parking works.
Commissioner Robertson said there are existing traffic issues but they aren’t germane to
the proposed project. He said he felt the project was well designed at a considerate scale.
He said the site has been studied by the city for years. There have been a lot of changes
since the early 90s. A higher density at a corner frontage road makes sense. It’s a buffer
between the freeway and single family residential. Low level site lighting will be used,
not advertising lighting. He said part of the site is vacant and part is green space. The
hillside will be maintained. He said millennials are less apt to purchase houses these days.
The city wants to provide diverse housing stock. Not everyone wants a single family
home or higher end all amenity type apartments. He said it is a nice, thoughtful use of
the land.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said the development fits a niche that is needed in St.
Louis Park. She said she thinks the on-site parking is resolved through the plan. She said
the Commission is hearing from residents over and over that they are sick of the amount
of traffic on our roads today. She said there is a difference between studies saying the
road can accommodate a certain number and the reality for those who live there. She
said as a city and Planning Commission we need to start looking at projects and asking is
this really what we want for the city. Commissioner Johnston-Madison said she would
like to see traffic worked on in general.
Commissioner Peilen said she agreed that the city probably does need to look at traffic.
She said with the Hwy. 100 construction congestion is happening in all areas of the city.
She stated that a lot of people now are renters by choice. She said there are a lot of great
renters out there and they are part of a mix of any community. She said she agrees with
Commissioner Robertson’s comments about the proposed development.
Page 6
Mr. Elkin spoke about the conditions the state requires for installation of a 4-way stop or
traffic control signals. He added that the intersection is heavily impacted by the Hwy.
100 reroute. He said that the traffic study which was done for the proposal was not a
snap shot. He said he believes they have a good indication of what the wait time is.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of preliminary and
final plat. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote
of 7-0.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion passed on
a vote of 7-0.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion recommending approval of the Arlington Row
Apartments West preliminary and final Planned Unit Development. Commissioner
Kramer added an amendment to the motion that the Commission can’t ignore the
consequences of the traffic there and acknowledge that something should be done.
Commissioner Robertson accepted the amendment. Commissioner Johnston-Madison
seconded the motion, and the motion passed on a vote 7-0.
Mr. Walther noted that the request is tentatively scheduled to go before the City Council
on October 19.
B.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Rezoning
Location:
3601 Huntington Ave. S.
Applicant:
Michael Edlavitch
Case No.:
15-36-CP and 15-37-Z
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report.
Mr. Morrison reviewed the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan and the land use map. He
spoke about the South Side of Excelsior Blvd. Guidelines accepted by the City Council in
April, 2015. He read from the introduction of the guidelines which outline the role and
intent. He stated that the applicant’s intent is to modify the existing home and convert it
to a coffee shop. The garage and porch would be removed, and a new parking lot
constructed behind the building.
Mr. Morrison stated that concerns expressed at the Sept. 9 neighborhood meeting
regarded traffic cutting through the neighborhood, commercial parking spilling over into
the neighborhood and pedestrian safety. Design Guidelines were also discussed at the
neighborhood meeting. Mr. Morrison said a number of letters expressing opposition to
the request were provided in the staff report to Commissioners. Additional letters of
opposition were distributed to Commissioners from: Stephanie and Peter Schmidt, 3601
Huntington; Betsy Tarnowski, 3901 Natchez; Kris Aaker, 3675 Huntington; Scott
Affeldt, 3651 Huntington; Neil and June Petrie; Wayne and Sherry McChesney, 3658
Huntington; Diane and Ed Enebo, 3615 Huntington; as well as a petition signed by 80
residents opposing the request.
Page 7
Mr. Morrison read a summary of some goals from the Comprehensive Plan that may
guide the City on whether or not to change the land use designation from RM Medium
Density Residential to COM Commercial. He read an excerpt from the Design Guidelines
which recommends that the two blocks located between Glenhurst Ave. and Inglewood
Ave. should remain residential. He noted that the Design Guidelines are not a mandate
but offer some direction for discussion.
Mr. Morrison stated that staff is recommending denial of the application. He reviewed
staff findings.
Commissioner Peilen asked about parking spaces, screening and hours of operation.
Commissioner Carper asked the distance of the property to the nearest residence.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said he was a participant and helped lead
the consultant and task force for the Design Guidelines. He said he wanted to state for
context that the land use and zoning of the properties along the corridor were not part of
the Design Guidelines scope of work. Any description in the Guidelines of land use
related to existing conditions and existing land use guidance and zoning. While several
resident members of the Task Force indicated an openness to potential zoning/use
changes on these two blocks, it was not discussed in any detail what zoning the Task
Force would consider appropriate.
Mr. Edlavitch asked Mr. Morrison to identify land uses of several adjacent properties.
He asked Mr. Morrison if it appeared the corner was strictly a single family corner.
Mr. Morrison responded that as it exists today it is a single family home and if it changes
that would be at the discretion of Planning Commission and City Council.
Mr. Edlavitch asked which of the adjacent Neighborhood Commercial properties needed
a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Morrison responded that in the C-1 Commercial District it often comes down to lot
coverage, hours of operation, or the intensity for which it was developed. It is possible to
develop a property without a Conditional Use Permit as long as it stays below those
thresholds.
Mr. Edlavitch asked if all those are possible without a Conditional Use Permit. He asked
if a Sexually Oriented Business would then be allowed next to his property without a City
Council vote.
Mr. Morrison said it would be allowed as permitted with conditions which means it is
administrative and wouldn’t go to Planning Commission or City Council.
Mr. Edlavitch said number of parking spaces would be 9 on-site, and two on the street.
He spoke about a previous plan which didn’t work with the Design Guidelines as it
proposed parking between a house and a street (Huntington Ave.). He said something
that came up as a big concern at the neighborhood meeting was perception of lack of
Page 8
parking. The parking requirement for the whole building was 6.6 and his understanding
from staff is that 7 would be sufficient for a coffee shop and he would provide 11.
Mr. Edlavitch presented two illustrations of the proposed coffee shop.
Mr. Edlavitch read from the Comprehensive Plan and Livable Community. He said
historic preservation was left out of the staff analysis. He said land use plan was also left
out of the staff analysis. He said land use plan would dictate the city’s feeling for
rezoning. He read from B.1. Land Use Plan from the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that
he wanted to read this as it includes things that came up at the neighborhood meeting. He
said the neighborhood needs to go more into this and it is part of the reason the
neighborhood needs a gathering space because there was a lot of miscommunication.
He read from B.5. Human Scale Development. He read from B.3. Higher Density Mixed
Use Development.
Mr. Edlavitch said he believes residents in the neighborhood go out for coffee a lot.
Some of the different locations require getting into the car and driving there.
Mr. Edlavitch spoke about community gathering places. He spoke about the former Kitty
Wampus site on Excelsior Blvd. which is now Bridgewater Bank. He noted that parks
are great community gathering places. He spoke about Minnesota winters and the lack of
places to gather with children.
Mr. Edlavitch read from B.8 Public Gathering Places. He read from Public Art and
Heritage. He stated he was on the Design Guidelines task force. He said he tried to
abstain from a lot of decisions such as where parking would be located. He said because
of the new guidelines he no longer can put parking between the house and street which
has affected his parking plans. He said he bought the house two years ago.
Mr. Edlavitch spoke about the zoning application and said the city over accommodates
parking. He said he believes there are too many parking spaces in St. Louis Park and the
parking lots are too big. He said for two years he has been canvassing the neighborhood
about a gathering space. No one takes a proposal seriously until site plans and
applications are made. As far as zoning he said he is providing 9 wide spaces.
Commissioner Carper asked if the home was occupied.
Mr. Edlavitch responded it is occupied by three renters.
Commissioner Robertson said he always steps back from the proposal to look at the big
picture with changes to Comprehensive Plan and zoning. He said the request doesn’t
stand on its own.
Commissioner Kramer said he wished to reaffirm Commissioner Robertson’s remarks
that the discussion is about changing from residential to commercial. It is not about a
coffee shop, screening, parking, or vision. It’s about the change and he said he sees no
merit to change it.
Page 9
Thom Miller, 2900 Yosemite Ave. S., said he attended the neighborhood meeting. He
said he respects Mr. Edlavitch’s proposal. He said it is a problem to make the change
from residential to commercial.
James Batchelor, 3642 Huntington Ave., said the neighborhood isn’t mad about the idea
or vision, but they oppose changing to commercial property. He submitted a petition
signed by 80 neighbors in opposition to the applications.
Dennis Gimmestad, 3638 Huntington Ave., stated he has lived there since 1988. In the
first two years when he lived there Excelsior & Grand was developed and Excelsior Blvd.
streetscape project was installed. He said both projects are so dependent on their location,
unlike a lot of projects built during that period that were out in a cornfield in an outer
suburb. The reason both Excelsior & Grand and the streetscape project have done so well
is that they integrate residential, commercial and recreational land uses. He said that is
what an inner ring suburb has as a treasure. He said the way the zoning supports the
integration of the land uses along Excelsior Blvd. is something that needs to be protected.
Kris Aaker, 3675 Huntington, said her letter of opposition is included in the Commission
packet. She said she supports the staff report, staff recommendation and the comments
of the Commission.
Jaye Thompson, 3707 Glenhurst, said she believes the applicants have a great intent and
outstanding vision for the neighborhood. She said Excelsior Blvd. is run amok with
commercial and she doesn’t understand the objection to this request. She said long term
what the applicant is proposing will last. He has such a historic presence and she is
excited for what could be the neighborhood. She would go to this gathering place with
her children. She said the neighborhood needs some bonding. She said other coffee
shops are difficult to get to for pedestrians with children, or the shops are too small. She
said she supports the request and supports the applicant. Ms. Thompson said she thought
the way the applicant’s presentation was handled was disrespectful and that timecrunching the applicant wasn’t good. She said she doesn’t like the process. She said all
applicants should get the time they need for presentation.
Mary Beth Steiner, 3641 Huntington, said she respects the applicant. She said there are
several different places to go as a neighborhood community. She said neighbors can walk
to Honey and Rye, Starbucks, Mill Valley, Caribou, Ben and Jerry’s, YogurtLab, and
Dairy Queen. She said there is no need for a coffee shop. She said the neighbors do get
together all the time. They walk places together. They have block parties. She said she
moved to this block because of community and she doesn’t want it to be disrupted by this
function on the corner.
Diane Enebo, 3615 Huntington, said she lives next door to the site. If a coffee shop was
permitted there she would look at a parking lot from her living room. She spoke about
exhaust. She said the drawings were lovely and she knows the yard well. She said there
isn’t room for the green space, trees and bushes. She said there isn’t room for a wall. She
mentioned problems with hours of operation. She spoke about the egress coming off of
Huntington Ave. She spoke about problems with vehicles using the alley and numbers of
small children who live on the block.
Page 10
Melissa Buss, 3545 Glenhurst Ave., lives directly across from the alley. She said the
neighborhood is very concerned about parking for 9 cars. She said on her block there are
17 children under the age of 10. She said on Huntington there are 20 children. Drivers
already use the alley to cut through. The concern is increased traffic down the alley and
safety in general for pedestrians and for children. Ms. Buss said the request is contrary to
the Design Guidelines. She said she was shocked to learn that a Sexually Oriented
Business could move in to this space if it was changed to commercial. She said as St.
Louis Park is generally going through a lot of development she would encourage the
Commission to make every effort to consider traffic and to reduce adverse effect on their
neighborhood and families.
Neil Petrie, 3536 Glenhurst Ave., stated he is opposed to the request. He said independent
of the number of parking spaces or how a commercial business ends up, he lives at the
other end of the alley that connects. He said the side of his house has an exit straight onto
the alley. He distributed a letter outlining his concerns to the Commission.
John Angier, 4014 Raleigh, said the best use for the building would be a community
meeting place/coffee shop. He said he didn’t think it would be a very good family home.
It is an historic building and would be a good place to leisurely meet with neighbors.
Sue Ainsworth, 3916 Kipling, said she understands concerns about what the site could
become. She said she was patient and didn’t complain when Dairy Queen was built. She
said she wanted to remind people that many of the businesses at Excelsior & Grand have
turned over and over. She said she prefers local and small businesses. She said she is a
small business owner and small businesses have a very difficult time in St. Louis Park.
She said she supports the proposal. She said if the applicant sells the house there is no
guarantee that it wouldn’t become a McMansion or a home the neighbors don’t like. Ms.
Ainsworth stated that commercial isn’t automatically bad.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Robertson said no disrespect was meant to the applicant during his
presentation. He added that the chair’s job is to keep the meeting moving along. He said
the job of the commission is to look at the big picture and he is not comfortable changing
the property to commercial.
Commissioner Carper said he supports the Comprehensive Plan, zoning map, and Design
Guidelines as they exist. He said if in the future it is going to be made commercial it
needs to be done as part of the next Comprehensive Plan. He said he is against changing
the property to commercial but encourages the applicant’s concept in some existing
commercial area.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison stated she agrees with the Commissioner’s remarks and
the staff assessment. She said she would recommend denial.
Commissioner Peilen said she is torn as the concept is lovely. She commented that the
Design Guidelines are new and why go through that process only to violate the
guidelines. She spoke about commercial including many uses. She said she can’t support
the request.
Page 11
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend denial of the amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and denial of an amendment to the Zoning Map.
Commissioner Tatalovich seconded the motion, and the motion to deny passed on a vote
of 7-0.
C.
Sherwin Williams Retail Store – Conditional Use Permit
Location:
Applicant:
TJL Development, LLC
Case No.:
15-38-CUP
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The request
for a conditional use permit is to construct a new retail building and parking lot with a
total impervious surface area of approximately 78%. A CUP is required when the total
impervious surface area of a development in the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial zoning
district exceeds 70% of the total lot area.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison asked how the landscaping and fence would look in the
back of the other building. She asked if the easement is granted can the applicant and the
other building owner take a look at screening.
Mr. Morrison said when discussing the easement it will be an opportunity to negotiate
screening.
Commissioner Carper asked about the current building on the lot.
Mr. Morrison said the building is vacant and was Reddy Rents and has been for a very
long time an antiquity store.
Commissioner Carper asked about the three trees in the neighboring lot that are
considered screening. He asked if the applicant would replace those trees if they were
ever removed.
Mr. Morrison stated that could be added as a condition of approval if the Commission
desired.
Jim Lavalle, TJL Development, LLC said the site plan was designed to meet the
recommendations of the South Side of Excelsior Blvd. Guidelines.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
Bill Quirk, 4907 Excelsior Blvd, said he is a co-owner of the adjacent building which is
occupied. He said his wife runs a home goods store at that location. He said they do
appreciate the new development. They are concerned about the Excelsior facing side of
the building which has a 5 ft. setback from the sidewalk. He said the new development
will impair the eastbound traffic view of his wife’s store which has been open for less
than one year. Line of sight traffic is very important to the store. They’ve had a lot of
positive feedback from residents about the store and he said he wants to stress the impact
of window shopping to a small business. He spoke about a safety issue and the easement
Page 12
with a car cutting through behind the building because the back door has a two foot drop
which would prohibit a vehicle from going back there. He said he recognizes the plan is
consistent with the Design Guidelines. But it would likely have a detrimental effect on
their small business.
As no one else was present wishing to speak, the Chair closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tatalovich asked if there are other situations where the setback shielded
the visibility of other businesses.
Staff reviewed past experiences along Excelsior Blvd., specifically the Judith McGrann
building (4615 Excelsior Blvd). This building had an addition constructed to the front
setback, thereby shielding the building to the east. The City amended the sign ordinance
shortly thereafter, to allow signs with a 5.0 foot setback in the C-1 and C-2 Commercial
Districts instead of the previously allowed 10.0 feet. The 5.0 foot sign setback is
consistent with the 5.0 foot front building setback.
Commissioner Robertson said he supported the project until he heard about the shielding
issue. Signage, though an expense for a small business, would help. He said the proposal
is a huge improvement for the corner and he supports it completely. He said in the
interim we have to make sure adjacent buildings don’t get hurt.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said the intention of the easement is for
longer term on what could happen on this block. He said the idea is that over time if
blocks change that this is an opportunity to have fewer driveways and fewer interruptions
for pedestrians on the sidewalk. The applicant has graciously been open to granting an
easement, this is seen as a long term issue.
Commissioner Peilen said it would be a great addition to the city but she doesn’t want it
to come at the expense of another small business. She said she hopes the applicant and
the adjacent property owner can work something out regarding visibility. She made a
motion recommending approval of the request.
Commissioner Carper seconded the motion with an amendment that the applicant will
provide adequate screening along the entire barrier if the existing tree screening is
removed. Commissioner Peilen accepted the amendment. The motion, as amended,
passed on a vote of 7-0.
D.
Elmwood West – Preliminary/Final Plat with Variances
Location:
9301 W. Franklin Avenue
Applicant:
Lake West Development Company
Case No.:
15-26-S and 15-27-VAR
Gary Morrison, Assistant Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. The plat
proposes to split one single family lot into three single family lots. One variance is
requested to allow a 79.5 ft. lot width instead of the required 85 ft. minimum required lot
width. The second variance is to allow the minimum lot width to occur for less than 1/3
of the lot depth. Approximately 5 feet of right-of-way dedication is proposed along Flag
Ave.
Page 13
Mr. Morrison provided the staff analysis of the requested variances. He stated that staff
recommends denial of the preliminary and final plat, and denial of the two variances. He
presented the findings supporting denial.
Commissioner Peilen asked for more details on proposed construction.
Sean Walther, Planning and Zoning Supervisor, said there is no house plan for the site.
The applicant has provided an envelope of where homes could be built. It was stated that
the homes would be developed by one developer. The grading plan is designed for full
walk-out basements. He said Planning Commission review is to determine if the lots
themselves are of a size that is adequate to meet ordinances and also to provide single
family homes. The applicant has demonstrated that the lots are large enough to provide
single family home. The corner lot requires a wider lot because it has two frontages.
John Fletcher, Lake West Development, said they are trying to balance the issues of the
neighborhood, community, and property owner. He provided the Commission with a
Compliance and Hardship Summary for Elmwood West Subdivision. He said that Lake
West and and staff respectfully disagree on certain interpretations of zoning code for the
variance requests. He reviewed Hardship #1 – Radii not Included in Lot Width, Hardship
#2 – Adjacent Property Setback (41 Feet), and Hardship #3 – Right of Way Dedication
and explained Lake West’s interpretation of code.
Mr. Fletcher said the applicant appreciates the open dialogue of staff, neighborhood and
Planning Commission. He said the applicant believes the property owner has a right to
request a variance that is reasonable or represents a practical difficulty based on factual
findings of actual hardship which have been presented. He said the applicant also
reserves the right to request a reasonable accommodation that preserves the enjoyment of
substantial property rights as owner and applicant.
Commissioner Kramer asked Mr. Fletcher if he was the owner.
Mr. Fletcher said he is not the owner and Lake West Development is a for hire developer.
Commissioner Robertson said the applicant’s argument was creative but it dismissed
where the ordinance measures the 1/3 depth. He stated there is no hardship. He said the
city has consistently not subdivided properties where the variance would allow that to
happen. He said the applicant is trying to over subdivide the lot.
The Chair opened the public hearing.
James Lockhart, 1821 Hillsboro, said he agrees with staff conclusions and with
Commissioner Robertson’s comments. He said he and his wife bought their home 17
years ago specifically because of the large lots that are relatively unique to St. Louis
Park. He said the neighborhood is a unique area that adds to the diversity of the city. He
spoke about State Statute 462.357 Subd.6 which governs the granting of variances.
Steve Feldman, 9401 W. Franklin, a 40-year resident, spoke about the character of the
Crestview neighborhood which residents would like to maintain. He said the homes have
Page 14
½ acre lots with 40-60 ft. between homes. The corner at Flag would be impacted by
having a home at an angle. He said from Cedar Lake Rd. to Franklin the setbacks have a
certain standard, except for the older homes at 14th and Flag. He spoke about the number
of driveways differing from what the applicant presented. Mr. Feldman said the property
currently has a fence to protect golf course lighting from coming into the yard. That
would become a driveway in the proposal. He said his biggest concern regards safety.
He said golf course guests sometimes drive faster than residents. He said by adding the
home and pushing it out to the minimum setback the range of vision will be affected.
Rick Lovelace, 9411 W. Franklin, said the neighborhood is strongly against the proposal.
The houses would not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. He said the owner
bought the property a few months ago to turn it for a large profit. He said he didn’t think
making less profit was an undue hardship. He spoke about setting a precedent with the
variances. He discussed multiple sewer back-ups along the south side of Franklin Ave.
and wondered if adding additional homes would increase that problem.
James Poulter, 1631 Fairway Lane, Chair of Crestview Neighborhood Association and
Steering Committee, said the association shares the same objections mentioned such as:
precedent setting for ½ acre lots, Comprehensive Plan 2030 did not recommend
redevelopment for the neighborhood, wetland damage, sewer problems/infrastructure
issues costing residents thousands of dollars, entrance/exit point of golf course and safety,
setback misalignment and safety, greenspace reduction and lack of a neighborhood park,
and the excellent condition of the existing home/move-up housing and the Green
Initiative of the city in the name of profit for a developer. Mr. Poulter said as an
association, they are to a person 100% opposed to the development as a three home site.
Vernice Deming, 1631 Independence Ave., said she has lived in her home since the 1972.
She said the home at 9301 W. Franklin is very well built. She said it is distressing to
have green initiatives and to tear down a beautiful, well-built house.
The Chair acknowledged letters of opposition received from Edward and Shirley
Christensen, 1830 Flag Ave.; Alfred Feldman, 9311 W. Franklin; John and Christine
Stephansen, 9421 W. Franklin; Robert and Opal Young, 2044 Flag; Mary and Hugh
Mattson, and the Crestview Neighborhood Steering Committee.
The Chair closed the public hearing as no one else was present wishing to speak.
Commissioner Johnston-Madison said after listening to the comments she doesn’t believe
even subdividing into two lots would be appropriate for the neighborhood. She said she
would recommend denial of the request.
Commissioner Carper said he agreed with the staff recommendation. He added that both
Lake Forest neighborhood and Crestview neighborhood have the largest lots in the city
and variances for subdivisions would be setting precedent.
Commissioner Tatalovich said he agreed with commissioners. He said he did not agree
with the applicant’s definition of hardship. He said he would recommend denial.
Page 15
Commissioner Robertson said it was an interesting discussion on codes and hardships but
hardships cannot be the making of the applicant. All the hardships quoted were basically
the making of the developer.
Commissioner Robertson made a motion to recommend denial of the Preliminary and
Final Plat with variances. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion, and the motion
passed on a vote of 7-0.
4.
Other Business
5.
Communications
6.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy Sells
Sr. Office Assistant
Public Hearing Agenda Item: 6a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Public Hearing and First Reading of CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Ordinance
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to close public hearing. Motion to approve first reading
of an Ordinance granting a non-exclusive cable franchise to CenturyLink and set second reading
of the ordinance for November 16, 2015.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Is Council supportive of granting a second Cable TV franchise,
which would allow many St. Louis Park residents to have a choice of two Cable TV providers?
Does a second Cable TV franchise assist in meeting certain goals established by the City
Council?
SUMMARY: The City franchise negotiation team and Telecommunications Advisory
Commission support the proposed franchise, which is as similar as possible to the existing
Comcast Cable TV franchise. City staff provided Council with a written report on September 28,
2015, with an update about the franchise negotiation process. City Charter requires a public
hearing on all franchise ordinances.
The proposed franchise supports the following recently approved City Council Goal and Priority:
“St. Louis Park is a technology connected community”. Indeed, the City of Minneapolis is
currently the only other Minnesota Local Franchising Authority to have approved a Cable TV
franchise with CenturyLink.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: Cable TV franchise fees are included in the
proposed franchise ordinance. They are similar to those paid by Comcast, largely based on gross
Cable TV revenues generated in St. Louis Park.
community.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Through:
Approved by:
Discussion
Franchise Ordinance
Ordinance Summary
Findings of Fact Resolution
(Action proposed for November 16, 2015.)
Moss & Barnett Memo re: Competition in Cable Franchising
Reg Dunlap, Civic TV Coordinator
Jacqueline Larson, Communications & Marketing Manager
Clint Pires, Chief Information Officer
Title: Public Hearing and First Reading of CenturyLink Cable TV Franchise Ordinance
Page 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: CenturyLink submitted an application for a cable television (TV) franchise
in St. Louis Park on June 8, 2015, and submitted a $10,000 franchise application fee.
As required by Minnesota statute, the St. Louis Park City Council held a public hearing July 6,
2015. CenturyLink attended and answered questions from the Council.
Over the summer, CenturyLink met multiple times with the city’s franchise negotiating team
including Telecommunications Advisory Commissioners Bruce Browning, Toby Keeler and
Maren Anderson; City staff members Jacqueline Larson, Reg Dunlap and John McHugh; and
Moss & Barnett Attorney Brian Grogan, who has been in regular contact with City Attorney Joel
Jamnik.
A key constraint on the Cable TV franchise negotiations is this section of Minnesota Statute
238.08:
(b) No municipality shall grant an additional franchise for cable service for an area
included in an existing franchise on terms and conditions more favorable or less
burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining to: (1) the area served; (2)
public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or (3) franchise fees.
Wherever possible, the city’s negotiating team has insisted on parity with the existing Comcast
franchise to avoid a legal challenge. CenturyLink can’t agree to meet some of the Comcast
commitments, so they have made other commitments that are not required of Comcast.
Sections of the franchise that address enforcement, the letter of credit or bond requirements are
all the same as what is required of Comcast.
Two key topic areas are different in the two franchises: build out requirements (area served) and
Public, Education and Government (PEG) access requirements.
Build out requirements:
CenturyLink has standard language in many of its franchises around the country describing its
market-based approach to offering service to a franchise area. Language in the St. Louis Park
franchise addresses the City team’s concerns about redlining and build out to the entire City:
1) Initial Build Out. No later than the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this
Franchise, Company shall be capable of serving a minimum of fifteen percent (15%)
of the City’s households with Cable Service, provided, however, Company will make
its best efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter period of time.
Company agrees that a significant portion of its investment will be targeted to areas
below the median income in the City. This initial minimum build-out commitment
shall include a significant number of households below the median income in the
City. City shall provide detailed maps of such areas. Nothing in this Franchise shall
restrict Company from serving additional households in the City with Cable service.
Page 3
2) Quarterly Meetings. In order to permit the City to monitor and enforce the provisions
of this section and other provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, the Company shall,
upon demand, promptly provide to the City maps and other documentation showing
exactly where within the City the Company is currently providing Cable Service
either through FTTN or FTTH.
3) Additional Build-Out Based on Market Success. If, at any quarterly meeting,
including any quarterly meeting prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date
of this Franchise as referenced in Section 28-5-1 (5) herein, Company is actually
serving twenty seven and one-half percent (27.5%) of the households capable of
receiving Cable Service, then Company agrees the minimum build-out commitment
shall increase to include all of the households then capable of receiving Cable Service
plus an additional fifteen (15%) of the total households in the City, which Company
agrees to serve within two (2) years from the quarterly meeting; provided, however,
the Company shall make its best efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter
period of time. For example, if, at a quarterly meeting with the City, Company shows
that it is capable of serving sixty percent (60%) of the households in the City with
Cable Service and is actually serving thirty percent (30%) of those households with
Cable Service, then Company will agree to serve an additional fifteen percent (15%)
of the total households in the City no later than two (2) years after that quarterly
meeting (a total of 75% of the total households). This additional build-out based on
market success shall continue until every household in the City is served.
That CenturyLink will have enough market success to build out to serve every household in St.
Louis Park is not guaranteed. However, CenturyLink has an important incentive for market
success, which is that the franchise term is five years from an effective date beginning about
December 16, 2015. If CenturyLink has market success and is in compliance with all franchise
terms, including build out, the city has the unilateral right to extend the franchise no less than
five years and no more than ten years. If CenturyLink has very little market success and few
customers, the franchise ends after five years. It’s important note that the initial term of the
proposed franchise with CenturyLink would end within about one month of the current franchise
with Comcast.
The City’s franchise negotiation team and attorney Brian Grogan have seen CenturyLink’s maps
that are color coded to show areas of the City that would be eligible for the Prism video service
immediately. Mr. Grogan told the Telecommunications Advisory Commission on September 23,
2015 that the St. Louis Park map is one of the most favorable ones he’s seen, which means a
higher number of households that can receive Prism TV right away after a franchise is granted.
City staff received more than one hundred Comcast complaint calls in 2014 and sixty-seven (67)
so far this year, and not having a second choice for cable TV service is frequently mentioned.
There is evidence that having competition keeps Cable TV prices from rising as quickly and can
result in better customer service. Hundreds of cities have more than one Cable TV company, and
if the franchise is approved, St. Louis Park will join them.
As far as the possible financial impact on the City, anecdotal evidence indicates that having a
second Cable TV company does not lower the franchise fees paid to the City. Staff posted this
question on the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors list service:
Page 4
what happens to franchise fees collected by a franchise authority when a second Cable company
begins service? Among the six responses, including several from consultants that serve more
than one city, and the consensus was that franchise fees usually increase because the new entrant
takes customers away from both the incumbent Cable company and the two satellite TV
companies.
Public, Education and Government (PEG) access requirements:
The PEG channels in St. Louis Park are collectively called Park TV and include channels 14, 15,
16, 17 and 96. Park TV is funded by Comcast franchise fees of 5% of the gross revenues from
Cable TV services in St. Louis Park, in exchange for use of the public right-of-way. In addition,
Comcast committed to a series of equipment grants over the life of its franchise: $800,000 in
2006; $200,000 in 2011; and $100,000 in 2016. Comcast has a 15-year franchise that ends in
January 2021.
The CenturyLink franchise requires a PEG fee of $1.12 per month for each subscriber which
would be forwarded to the City on a quarterly basis along with the 5% franchise fee. This is the
exact same amount Comcast charges customers each month to pay for their lump sum equipment
grants.
Another key difference is that CenturyLink uses what they call a “mosaic” channel for local PEG
channels. For example, if a viewer tuned to channel 22 on the CenturyLink system, they would
see a miniature version of all five Park TV channels. They would hear the sound for channel 22,
and could listen to, for example, a Council meeting while watching all five Park TV channels
simultaneously. When they decide to go to another Park TV channel they would use their
CenturyLink remote control to select that preview image and switch to that channel.
The actual channel assignments would be in the 8000 range, so direct tuning to the local
channels would not be as easy as on the Comcast Cable system. However, staff has
experimented with the CenturyLink equipment and believes Park TV users will quickly learn
how to use the “last channel” feature on the remote control to switch to the channel 22 mosaic
channel to preview all Park TV channels. In addition, while tuned to channel 8017, for example,
CenturyLink will have a program guide that will show the adjacent five channels.
CenturyLink customers will benefit in that almost 200 local PEG channels around the metro area
will be available. This means that when St. Louis Park High School plays at a Bloomington
school, or in Richfield, and the game is carried on CenturyLink Cable TV in those cities, the St.
Louis Park CenturyLink customer could watch it on that community’s PEG channel. Currently,
Park TV typically covers home games and as many regional playoff games as possible. Many
other events are covered around the metro area that St. Louis Park customers could watch, like
Edina or Minnetonka city council meetings, Hopkins Center for the Arts concerts, parades,
performances or weekly news programs. This multi-city PEG option is not offered by Comcast.
Another area where CenturyLink’s commitments exceed those of Comcast is in providing high
definition (HD) channels. Without negotiations, Comcast will not offer HD channels for Park
TV before the end of its franchise in 2021. CenturyLink will carry all Park TV channels in HD
as soon as the city offers their channels in HD. This is a real benefit, since virtually all new TV
production equipment is HD or Ultra HD so eventually all Park TV programs will be recorded in
Page 5
HD. Customers who have only SD TVs will be able to see the Park TV channels in SD, since
the CenturyLink system will automatically convert the HD channels to standard definition (SD).
Channels 16 and 17 could be fairly easily converted to be fully HD within one year, but channels
14, 15 and 96 will still have to show standard definition (SD) programming for several years.
Currently, all of the van productions are in HD and converted to SD to play on the Cable
channel, so channel 16 could convert to HD as soon as control room equipment is upgraded to
HD, which is budgeted for 2016. Camcorders and edit systems used by most Park TV staff have
been HD since 2009, with the programs converted to SD to play on the Cable channels
Currently, Comcast allows the City to provide up to 20 hours per month of SD video on demand
(VOD) programming on their system, or five hours of HD programming. CenturyLink would
allow up to 20 hours of HD programming on their VOD system.
Comcast does not allow access to the electronic program guide (EPG) to allow customers to see
the exact program listings for the Park TV channels. All Park TV channels are simply described
as “Pub17,” and the specific program listing is “community programming” in the Comcast guide.
In contrast, CenturyLink would:
· Use City branding information on channel descriptions, for example, Civic TV 8017.
· Allow the city to provide the generic description language seen in the program listing
area. For example: “Civic TV 8017: City topic programs, City Council and Planning
Commission meetings.”
· Supply contact information so the city could pursue the option of paying the third party
responsible for the detailed program listings. This is very important when many Cable
TV customers are using digital video recorders (DVRs) to record programs to watch
later.
Comcast’s obligations are greater than those of CenturyLink in two areas. One is Comcast
provides fiber connections to allow live programming from five locations:
· City Hall control room (for Council Chambers and eventually, Community Room
productions)
· School Board meeting room
· High School football field
· The Rec Center hockey arena
· Wolfe Park Veterans Amphitheater.
These sites are used for dozens of TV productions each year. CenturyLink will not duplicate
links to these sites. However if any of the sites were to become unavailable, CenturyLink would
then step in and provide the fiber, equipment and maintenance to those sites. Also, CenturyLink
would provide fiber, equipment and maintenance for any new live locations the city might decide
to add.
Comcast provides free Cable TV service and three digital adapters (DTAs) at 19 city or school
district buildings. This is a very significant benefit. CenturyLink will provide service to those
locations but only if they are not served by Comcast, with these exceptions: City Hall, so Park
TV staff can monitor the City channels on the CenturyLink system, and the Police Station and
Fire Station #1 Emergency Operations Centers for a redundant connection in case of emergency.
Page 6
Here’s a summary of the differences in the franchise obligations:
Comcast Obligations
CenturyLink Obligations
Up front capital equipment grants totaling
$1.1 million
Match the amount Comcast charges to each
customer per month: $1.12
Free Cable TV service to 19 city and school
district buildings
Free Cable TV service to any city or school
district building not served by Comcast,
including those the city chooses to switch to
CenturyLink’s Prism TV service.
20 hours of standard definition (SD) video
on demand (VOD) programs; or five hours
of high definition (HD) VOD programs.
20 hours of HD VOD
Five SD Cable TV channels. No HD Park
TV channels before the end of the franchise
(2021) unless negotiated.
Will carry Park TV channels in HD when the
City is prepared to deliver them. The city will
eventually convert all Park TV channels to HD,
but could be ready for two HD channels within
one year.
No City control over electronic program
guide (EPG)
City control over EPG channel descriptions and
generic program listing description
Live production from four remote sites
(high school football field, school board
meeting room, The Rec Center and Wolfe
Park Amphitheater) and City Hall control
room, for Council Chambers events.
Will provide fiber link from City Hall control
room. If the four remote sites are no longer
available for whatever reason, will provide
links to the sites. If any additional live remote
sites are needed to schools or other locations,
would provide the fiber, equipment and
maintenance to those sites.
Brian Grogan has said that this franchise negotiation is relatively straightforward because the
City’s franchise is shorter than most other franchises that he is working with because we are five
years away from renewal with Comcast. Other city’s franchises require a higher PEG fee, for
example, or have other Comcast commitments that St. Louis Park’s franchise doesn’t cover.
However, because of the possibility of legal challenge by Comcast, the franchise negotiation
team has attempted to keep the obligations for Comcast and CenturyLink as similar as possible
to comply with the State law requirement for a level playing field.
In case of a legal challenge, the proposed franchise includes an Indemnity Agreement as Exhibit
B, which means that CenturyLink would defend the City or reimburse for all legal costs.
PRESENT CONSIDERATIONS:
At a special meeting September 23, 2015, the Telecommunications Advisory Commission
reviewed these franchise proposal points and made a recommendation to the council. Brian
Grogan gave a PowerPoint presentation about the franchise’s key points, and CenturyLink’s
Director of State Regulatory and Legislative Affairs, Patrick Haggerty, answered Commission
questions.
Page 7
Commissioner Rolf Peterson made a motion, and Commissioner Maren Anderson seconded, to
direct staff to complete franchise negotiations with CenturyLink and to recommend that the City
Council adopt the proposed franchise ordinance to allow CenturyLink to offer Cable TV services
in St. Louis Park. The motion passed 6-0.
NEXT STEPS:
CenturyLink has been granted one franchise in Minnesota, with the City of Minneapolis in May
2015. St. Paul and other cities are in the process of approving franchises, but at this point no
others have been formally adopted.
November 2: City Council public hearing and first reading of proposed CenturyLink
franchise. Brian Grogan and CenturyLink representatives available.
November 16: City Council second reading and adoption of proposed franchise ordinance, and
approval of the findings of fact resolution regarding an ordinance granting a competitive cable
franchise for Quest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink. The findings of fact resolution
is provided herein for information only.
Page 8
ORDINANCE NO.____-15
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 28 OF THE
ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, ENACTING A COMPETITIVE CABLE TELEVISION
FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK ORDAINS:
Section 1.
Chapter 28 of the St. Louis Park Code of Ordinances is amended by
adding ARTICLE I., Sections 28-1-1 to 28-1-30 to read as follows:
ARTICLE I. QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC., D/B/A CENTURYLINK CABLE
FRANCHISE
Sec. 28-1-1. Granting Ordinance; Purposes.
The City has determined that it is desirable and advantageous to the citizens of St. Louis
Park to grant a competitive cable television franchise to Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a
CenturyLink (“Company” as defined herein). In accordance with state and federal law
requirements, the City has reviewed and found sufficient Company technical ability, financial
condition, and legal qualifications to operate in St. Louis Park and hereby determines that it is in
the public interest to grant to Company a full and complete, nonexclusive franchise for a period
of five (5) years for the operation and maintenance of a cable television in St. Louis Park;
provided, however, the franchise is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Franchise
Ordinance.
Sec. 28-1-2. Short Title.
This Competitive Franchise Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the
"CenturyLink Competitive Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance," hereinafter "Franchise
Ordinance", and it shall become a part of the ordinances and Legislative Code of the City of St.
Louis Park.
Sec. 28-1-3. Definitions.
In this Franchise Ordinance the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations
have the meanings given. When not inconsistent with the context, words used in the present
tense include the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in
the singular number include the plural number. The words "shall" and "will" are always
mandatory and "may" is permissive. Words not defined shall be given their common and
ordinary meaning.
Basic Service means the lowest priced tier of Cable Service that includes the retransmission of
local broadcast television signals; any public, educational, and governmental access
Page 9
programming required by this Franchise Ordinance to be provided to Subscribers; any regional
channel required by state law; and additional video programming signals or services added by
cable operator.
CATV System is synonymous with "Cable System" or “System” and means the Company’s
facility, consisting of a set of closed transmission paths and associated signal generation,
reception, and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service which includes video
programming and which is provided to multiple Subscribers within the Franchise Area. Unless
otherwise specified, CATV System in this document means the Cable System or System utilized
by the Company in the City.
Cable Service means (1) the one-way transmission to Subscribers of (a) video programming, or
(b) other programming service, and (2) Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the
selection or use of such video programming or other programming service.
City means the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota as it exists now and as its borders may from
time to time be changed; including, without limitation, its officers, boards, commissions, elected
officials, agents, attorneys, representatives, servants and employees.
Company means Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink, the grantee of rights and
obligations under this Franchise Ordinance, and all successors, transferees, assignees,
subcontractors, agents, employees and representatives of Company.
Company’s place of business means Company offices with financial records and maps, which
shall be located in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area.
Effective Date means
, 2015.
FCC means the Federal Communications Commission and any legally appointed, designated or
elected agent or successor.
Franchise Area means the present boundaries of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota, and shall
include any additions thereto by annexation or other legal means.
Franchise Ordinance means the incorporated terms of this Competitive Cable Television
Franchise Ordinance, governing the operation of a CATV System within and throughout the City
of St. Louis Park.
Gross revenues means all revenues earned directly or indirectly by the Company, arising from or
in connection with the provision of Cable Service in the City and consistent with local, state and
federal law, including Subscriber revenues (including pay TV), amounts collected as franchise
fees, advertising income, home shopping programs and rentals of Subscriber equipment,
recorded as earned, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, in the area
under jurisdiction of the City. The Company is not required to include revenues recorded as
earned but which are deemed uncollectable, but it must include recoveries previously deemed
uncollectable. This definition of Gross revenues also does not include sales, excise or other
taxes (other than franchise fees) collected by the Company on behalf of federal, state, county,
City or other governmental unit, including FCC user fees. Funds collected by the Company to
Page 10
recover amounts paid to support public, educational and governmental access programming are
also excluded from the definition of Gross revenues.
ISD 283 means Independent School District 283, located within the City of St. Louis Park.
Living Unit means a distinct address as tracked in the QC network inventory, used by
CenturyLink to identify existing or potential Subscribers. This includes, but is not limited to,
single family homes, multi-dwelling units (e.g., apartment buildings and condominiums) and
business locations.
Mosaic Channel means a channel which displays miniaturized media screens and related
information for a particular group of channels with common themes. The Mosaic Channel serves
as a navigation tool for Subscribers, which displays the group of access channels on a single
channel screen and also provides for easy navigation to a chosen access channel in the group.”
Multichannel Video Programming Distributor means a Person such as, but not limited to, a cable
operator, a multichannel multipoint distribution service, a direct broadcast satellite service, open
video system operators, telephone companies, utility companies or a television receive-only
satellite program distributor, who makes available for purchase, by Subscribers or customers,
multiple channels Cable Service or substantially equivalent video programming.
PEG means the public, educational and governmental access channels, equipment, programs or
facilities, as the context dictates.
Person means any person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, organization or
entity.
Public Property means any real property owned by the City other than a highway, sidewalk,
easement or dedication.
Public Way, Right of Way or ROW means the space on, over, above and below any public street,
highway, freeway, bridge, land path, alley, court, boulevard, sidewalk, parkway, way, lane,
public way, drive, circle, or other public Right of Way, including, but not limited to, public
utility easements, dedicated utility strips, or Rights of Way dedicated for compatible uses now or
hereafter held by the City in the Franchise Area which shall entitle the Company to the use
thereof for the purpose of installing, operating, repairing, and maintaining the CATV System.
QC means Qwest Corporation d/b/a CenturyLink (“QC”), an affiliate of Company.
Qualified Living Unit means a Living Unit which meets the minimum technical qualifications
defined by Company for the provision of Cable Service. A Living Unit receiving a minimum of
25Mbps downstream generally will be capable of receiving Cable Service subject to Company
performing certain network grooming and conditioning. For purposes of this definition of
Qualified Living Unit, “network grooming and conditioning” means evaluating existing QC
infrastructure and making improvements to allow greater data throughput.
State-of-the-Art means equipment or facilities that:
Page 11
(1)
Are readily available with reasonable delivery schedules from two or more
sources of supply;
(2)
Have the capability to perform the intended functions demonstrated within
communities with similar characteristic (including, but not necessarily limited to,
population, density, Subscriber penetration, etc.) under actual operating conditions for
purposes other than tests or experimentation; and
(3)
Are technically and economically feasible to implement. The term “State of the
Art” shall not include equipment or facilities associated with or dedicated to the general
public, educational or governmental access or telecommunication services.
Subscriber means any Person who lawfully receives Cable Service from the Company and does
not further distribute it.
Sec. 28-1-4. Application for a franchise.
Applications for a franchise, other than a franchise renewal pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §546,
shall be filed with the City Clerk in accordance with instructions promulgated by the City and
shall contain the following information and provisions:
(1)
The name and business address of the applicant(s), date of application and signature of
applicant(s) or appropriate corporate officer(s).
(2)
A description of the legal, technical and financial qualifications of the applicant(s).
(3)
Payment of the required filing fee.
(4)
Any applicant (including, specifically, the Company) shall reimburse City at the time the
applicant accepts a franchise for all reasonable costs of the City in connection with the granting
or renewal of a franchise, including costs for legal services and publication.
(5)
A general description of the applicant's proposed operation.
(6)
A statement of the applicant's proposed schedule of charges.
(7)
A statement detailing the corporate organization of the applicant, if any, including the
names and addresses of its officers and directors and the division of shares between shareholders.
(8)
A statement describing all intra-company relationships of the applicant including parent,
subsidiary or affiliated companies.
Sec. 28-1-5. Grant of franchise.
(1)
Grant. The Company shall have the nonexclusive right and privilege, subject to the
provisions of this Franchise Ordinance to construct, erect, and maintain, in, upon, along, across,
above, over and under the Rights of Way in the Franchise Area a CATV System and shall have
the right and privilege to provide Cable Service. The System constructed and maintained by
Company or its agents shall not interfere with other uses of the Rights of Way. Company shall
make use of existing poles and other above and below facilities available to Company to the
extent it is technically and economically feasible to do so. Nothing contained in this Franchise,
shall be construed to give Company the authority to enter upon or work on private property in
Page 12
areas not encumbered with public easements without the permission of the property owner.
Company promises and guarantees, as a condition of exercising the privileges granted by this
Franchise, that any affiliated entity of the Company involved in the offering of Cable Service in
the City, or directly involved in the ownership, management or operation of the CATV System in
the City, shall also comply with all obligations of this Franchise. However, the City and
Company acknowledge that QC will be primarily responsible for the construction and
installation of the facilities in the Rights-of-Way which will be utilized by Company to provide
Cable Services. So long as QC does not provide Cable Service to Subscribers in the City, QC
will not be subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Franchise. QC’s installation and
maintenance of facilities in the Rights-of-Way is governed by applicable local, state and federal
law. To the extent Company constructs and installs facilities in the Rights-of-Way, such
installation will be subject to the terms and conditions contained in this Franchise Ordinance.
Company is responsible for all provisions in this Franchise Ordinance related to: 1) its offering
of Cable Services in the City; and 2) the operation of the CATV System regardless of what entity
owns or constructs the facilities used to provide the Cable Service. The City and Company agree
that to the extent QC violates any applicable federal, state, or local laws, rules, and regulations,
the City shall first seek compliance directly from QC. In the event, the City cannot resolve these
violations or disputes with QC, then the City may look to Company to ensure such compliance.
Failure by Company to ensure QC’s or any other Affiliate’s compliance with applicable local,
state and federal laws, rules, and regulations shall be deemed a material breach of this Franchise
Ordinance by Company.
(2)
Other Ordinances. The Company agrees to comply with the terms of any generally
applicable local ordinance. In the event of a conflict between any generally applicable ordinance
and this Franchise Ordinance, the terms of this Franchise Ordinance shall control.
(3)
State and Federal Law. Notwithstanding anything in this Franchise Ordinance to the
contrary, the City and Company shall conform to state laws and rules regarding cable
communications and shall conform to federal laws and regulations regarding cable as they
become effective.
(4)
Franchise Area. The Company is hereby authorized to provide Cable Services over a
CATV System within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City, including any areas annexed by
the City during the term of this Franchise. The parties acknowledge that Company is the not the
first entrant into the wireline video market in the City. The Company acknowledges that the City
desires wireline competition throughout the entire City so all residents may receive the benefits
of competitive Cable Services. Company aspires to provide Cable Service to all households
within the City by the end of the five (5) year term of this Franchise Ordinance. Company
agrees that its deployment of Cable Service in the City will be geographically dispersed
throughout the City, and shall be made available to diverse residential neighborhoods of the City
without discrimination. This Franchise Ordinance governs any Cable Services provided by
Company to residential and commercial Subscribers.
(5)
Initial Build out. No later than the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this
Franchise Ordinance, Company shall be capable of serving a minimum of fifteen percent (15%)
of the City’s households with Cable Service, provided, however, Company will make its best
efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter period of time. Company agrees that a
significant portion of its investment will be targeted to areas below the median income in the
Page 13
City. This initial minimum build-out commitment shall include a significant number of
households below the median income in the City. City shall provide detailed maps of such areas.
Nothing in this Franchise Ordinance shall restrict Company from serving additional households
in the City with Cable Service.
(6)
Quarterly Meetings. In order to permit the City to monitor and enforce the provisions of
this section and other provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, the Company shall, upon demand,
promptly make available to the City maps and other documentation showing exactly where
within the City the Company is currently providing Cable Service either through FTTN or
FTTH. Company shall meet with the City, not less than once quarterly, to demonstrate
Company’s compliance with the provisions of this section concerning the deployment of Cable
Services in the City including, by way of example, the provision of this section in which
Company commits that a significant portion of its initial investment will be targeted to areas
below the median income within the City, and the provisions of this section that prohibit
discrimination in the deployment of Cable Services. In order to permit the City to monitor and
enforce the provisions of this section and other provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, the
Company shall, commencing January 1, 2016, and continuing throughout the term of this
Franchise Ordinance, meet quarterly with the City and make available the City the following
information:
The total number of Living Units throughout the City;
The geographic area within the City where the Company is capable of delivering Cable
Service through either a FTTH or FTTN method of service delivery which shall include
sufficient detail to allow the City to determine the availability of Cable Service at CommerciallyZoned Parcels;
The actual number of Living Units capable of receiving Cable Service from Company
through FTTH; and
A list of the public buildings and educational institutions capable of receiving Cable
Service from Company (see list attached hereto as Exhibit A).
(7)
Additional Build-Out Based on Market Success. If, at any quarterly meeting, including
any quarterly meeting prior to the second anniversary of the Effective Date of this Franchise as
referenced in Section 28-5-1 (5) herein, Company is actually serving twenty seven and one-half
percent (27.5%) of the households capable of receiving Cable Service, then Company agrees the
minimum build-out commitment shall increase to include all of the households then capable of
receiving Cable Service plus an additional fifteen (15%) of the total households in the City,
which Company agrees to serve within two (2) years from the quarterly meeting; provided,
however, the Company shall make its best efforts to complete such deployment within a shorter
period of time. For example, if, at a quarterly meeting with the City, Company shows that it is
capable of serving sixty percent (60%) of the households in the City with Cable Service and is
actually serving thirty percent (30%) of those households with Cable Service, then Company will
agree to serve an additional fifteen percent (15%) of the total households in the City no later than
two (2) years after that quarterly meeting (a total of 75% of the total households). This
additional build-out based on market success shall continue until every household in the City is
served.
Page 14
(8)
Nondiscrimination. Company shall provide Cable Service under non-discriminatory rates
and reasonable terms and conditions to all Subscribers who reside in Living Units in any location
where the Company is capable of providing Cable Service. Company shall not arbitrarily refuse
to provide Cable Services to any Person or in any location where the Company is capable of
proving Cable Service. Any Qualified Living Unit should also include Commercially-Zoned
Parcels. “Commercially-Zoned Parcels” mean any street address or municipally identified lot or
parcel of real estate with a building. Company shall not deny Cable Services to any group of
Subscribers or potential Residential Subscribers based upon the income level of residents of the
local area in which such group resides, nor shall Company base decisions about construction or
maintenance of its CATV System or facilities based upon the income level of residents of the
local area in which such group resides. Company shall provide such service at nondiscriminatory monthly rates for residential Subscribers, consistent with applicable law.
Company shall not discriminate between or among any individuals in the availability of Cable
Service based upon income in accordance and consistent with 47 U.S.C. Section 541(a)(3), or
based upon race or ethnicity.
(9)
Standard Installation. Company shall provide standard installation of Cable Service
within seven (7) days of a request by any Person in a Qualified Living Unit. A request shall be
deemed made on the date of signing a service agreement, receipt of funds by Company or receipt
by Company of a verified verbal or written request. Company shall promptly respond to all
requests for service, repair, installation and information from Subscribers. Company
acknowledges the City’s interest in the prompt resolution of all cable complaints and shall work
in close cooperation with the City to resolve complaints.
(10) Multiple Dwelling Units. The Company shall offer the individual units of a multiple
dwelling unit all Cable Services offered to other Dwelling Units in the City. Company shall,
upon request, individually wire units of the property owner or renter who has been given written
authorization by the owner. Such offering is conditioned upon the Company having legal access
to said unit and any payment (for Company’s reasonable costs of internal wiring) as applicable.
The City acknowledges that the Company cannot control the dissemination of particular Cable
Services beyond the point of demarcation at a multiple dwelling unit.
Sec. 28-1-6. Franchise required.
After the Effective Date of this Franchise Ordinance, to the extent required by Applicable
Law, no Person shall establish, operate or carry on the business of distributing to any Person in
the City any television signals, or radio signals or other intelligences, either analog or digital, by
means of the Public Ways unless a franchise has first been obtained pursuant to the provisions of
applicable City codes, this Franchise Ordinance, and unless such franchise is in full force and
effect. No Person shall construct, install or maintain within any public street in the City, or
within any other Public Property of the City, or within any privately owned area within the City
which has not yet become a public street on any tentative subdivision map approved by the City;
any equipment or facilities for distributing any television signals or radio signals or other
intelligences either analog or digital unless a franchise authorizing the use of the streets or
properties or areas has first been obtained pursuant to the provisions of any applicable City codes
and this Franchise Ordinance, and unless such franchise is in full force and effect.
Sec. 28-1-7. Privileges and obligations under the franchise.
Page 15
(1)
Privileges Subordinate. Any privilege claimed under a franchise in any street or other
Public Property shall be subordinate to any lawful occupancy of the street or other Public
Property by the City for City purposes or to any present or future improvements to the streets by
the City, including without limitation sidewalks and roadway widening.
(2)
Consent to Transfer.
The sale or transfer of the CATV System franchised under this Franchise Ordinance
requires the prior written approval of the City. The parties to the sale or transfer shall make a
written request to the City for its approval of the sale or transfer, and the request shall be
processed by the City as required by federal and state law.
A transfer of the Franchise Ordinance shall not include a transfer of ownership or other
interest in Company to the parent of Company or to another Affiliate of Company; transfer of an
interest in the Franchise Ordinance or the rights held by Company under the Franchise Ordinance
to the parent of Company or to another affiliate of Company; or any action which is the result of
a merger of another affiliate of Company. Nothing in this Section 28-1-7(2) (b) shall be read to
serve as a waiver of Company’s obligation to obtain the City’s advance written consent to any
proposed transfer that constitutes a change in the “controlling interest” of the Company as set
forth in Minn. Stat. Section 238.083.
(3)
Additional Franchises.
The Company acknowledges and agrees that the City reserves the right to grant one (1) or
more additional franchises or other similar lawful authorization to provide Cable Services or
video programming services within the City; provided, however, that no such franchise or
similar authorization shall contain material terms or conditions which are substantially more
favorable or less burdensome to the competitive entity than the material terms and conditions
herein.
Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, if a non-wireless Multichannel Video
Programming Distributor legally authorized by state or federal law, makes available for purchase
by Subscribers or customers, Cable Services or other video programming services within the
Franchise Area without a franchise or other similar lawful authorization granted by the City, then
Company or City shall have the right, upon one hundred eighty (180) days advance written
notice to the other party, to terminate this Franchise Ordinance. Nothing herein shall in any way
limit or reduce Company’s right to provide Cable Service in the City under applicable state or
federal law or the City’s right to regulate Company’s provision of Cable Services in the City.
(4)
Notices. All notices from Company to the City pursuant to this Franchise Ordinance
shall be filed with the City Clerk and with the City Manager. Company shall maintain with the
City, throughout the term of this Franchise Ordinance, an address for service of notices by mail.
Company shall also maintain with the City, a local office and telephone number for the conduct
of matters related to this Franchise Ordinance during normal business hours.
Sec. 28-1-8. Duration of franchise.
This Franchise Ordinance shall be in effect for a term of five (5) years from the date of
acceptance by Company, unless terminated sooner as hereinafter provided. Six (6) months prior
Page 16
to the expiration of the initial five (5) year term, if City determines that Company is in
compliance with all other material terms of this Franchise Ordinance including the build out
obligations set forth in this Franchise Ordinance as required by applicable law, the City shall
have the unilateral right to extend the Franchise Ordinance for an additional term of no less than
five (5) years and no more than ten (10) years.
Sec. 28-1-9. Franchise payment.
(1)
Payment to the City. The Company shall pay to the City an annual franchise fee in an
amount equal to five percent (5%) of the annual Gross revenues received by the Company for
Cable Services within the City. Payment will be made to the City with an itemization of the
Gross revenues. In no event shall Company be required to pay a higher franchise fee percentage
than any other franchised cable provider in the City.
(2)
Method of Computation; Interest. Local sales taxes or other local taxes levied directly on
a per-Subscriber basis and collected by the Company shall be deducted from the local Gross
revenues before computation of sums due the City is made. Payments due the City under the
terms of this Franchise Ordinance shall be computed and paid within forty-five (45) days of the
end of each calendar quarter. The City shall be furnished a statement with each payment,
certified as correct by the Company, reflecting the total amounts of Gross revenues, and the
above charges, deductions and computations, for the three (3) months' payment period covered
by the payment.
(3)
In the event that any franchise fee payment is not made on or before the applicable
date(s) specified, interest on the amount due (as determined from the gross operating receipts
computed by an independent certified public accountant), shall accrue from the required payment
date at the annual rate of twelve percent (12%).
(4)
Rights of Recomputation. No acceptance of any payment shall be construed as a release
or as an accord and satisfaction of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums
payable as a franchise fee under this Franchise Ordinance or for the performance of any other
obligation. The period of limitation for recovery by the City of any franchise fee payable
hereunder shall be three (3) years from the date on which payment by the Company is due to the
City or for any period covered by an audit conducted pursuant to and in accordance with Section
28-1-19(4).
(5)
Late Payments. The City's acceptance of a late payment by the Company shall not be
deemed a waiver of their right to enforce timely payments in the future.
(6)
In addition to Cable Service, the Company (either by itself or through one (1) or more
affiliates) may provide information and telecommunications services. For purposes of
calculating the franchise fee when the Company packages or “bundles” Cable Services with
other services not subject to franchise fees, the Company shall allocate revenues and compute the
franchise fee due pursuant to this Franchise Ordinance in accordance with EITF 00-21 or such
subsequently issued generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) which amend or
supersede EITF 00-21, or as otherwise required by applicable law. In the event EITF is amended
or superseded, the Company will notify the City of such change in its required franchise fee
report.
Page 17
Sec. 28-1-10. Security for performance.
(1)
Performance Bond.
Terms of Bond. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Franchise
Ordinance, the Company shall file with the City Clerk at its own expense, and at all times
thereafter maintain in full force and effect for the term of this Franchise Ordinance or any
renewal, running to the City, a faithful performance bond in the amount of Fifty Thousand
Dollars $50,000.00. The bond shall be retroactive to the Effective Date of this Franchise
Ordinance. The bond shall be issued by a responsible company licensed to do business in the
State of Minnesota, renewable annually and conditioned upon the faithful performance by the
Company of all the terms and conditions of this Franchise Ordinance. This performance bond
shall contain the further condition that in the event Company shall fail to comply with any law,
ordinance or regulation governing the Franchise Ordinance, any such failure be deemed material,
and the principal and surety of the bond shall be jointly and severally liable for any damages or
loss suffered by the City as a result, including the full amount of any compensation,
indemnification, or cost of removal or abandonment of any property of the Company up to the
full amount of the bond.
This condition shall be a continuing obligation for the duration of the
Ordinance and any renewal or extension and until the Company has liquidated
obligations with the City that may arise from the Company's acceptance of this
Ordinance or from Company's exercise of any privilege or right granted by this
Ordinance.
Franchise
all of its
Franchise
Franchise
Notwithstanding the above provisions of this subsection, the Council may in its sole
discretion waive the bond or reduce the required amount after five (5) years of operation of a
CATV System under the Franchise Ordinance by the Company if the operation, in the sole
opinion of the City, has been satisfactory.
The bond(s) should be subject to the approval of the City and shall contain the following
endorsement:
It is hereby understood and agreed that this bond may not be cancelled until sixty (60)
days after receipt by the City (by filing with the City Clerk), by registered mail return receipt
requested, of a written notice of intent to cancel, intent not to renew, or material change in the
bond.
Delays in Performance. The bond(s) required in this subsection shall provide that with
fifteen (15) days' prior written notice to the Company, the City may recover against the surety
the sums provided for failure to complete construction in accordance with Section 28-1-5 of this
Franchise Ordinance.
(2)
Letter of Credit.
Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Franchise Ordinance, Company
shall deposit with the City an effective irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution
acceptable to the City Attorney (and maintain at all times through the term of this Franchise
Page 18
Ordinance), in the amount of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00). The form, manner and
content of the letter of credit shall be subject to the approval by the City Manager, which
approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The letter of credit shall be used to insure the
faithful performance by Company of all the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance and
compliance with all orders, permits and directions of City lawfully imposed on Company and the
payment by Company of any claims, liens and taxes due City which arise by reason of the
construction, rebuild, upgrade, operation or maintenance of the CATV System. City reserves the
right, in its sole discretion, to reduce the required amount of the letter of credit.
If Company fails to pay to City any taxes due and unpaid or fails to repay to City, any
penalties, damages, costs or expenses for which the Company is required to indemnify the City
under this Franchise Ordinance or is deemed, pursuant to the procedures required under Section
28-1-21 hereof, to comply with any provision of the Franchise Ordinance which City reasonably
determines can be remedied by an expenditure of the security, City may immediately request and
receive payment of the amount due and owing (with interest and any penalties) from the
financial institution holding the letter of credit. Upon request for such payment, City shall notify
the Company of the amount and date of the payment.
Whenever the City shall receive payment of any amount against the letter of credit, the
Company shall pay to or deposit with the financial institution holding the letter of credit an
amount sufficient to replenish the letter of credit to its full value of Twenty Thousand Dollars
($20,000.00) within ten (10) days after the Company has been notified of the City's request for
payment. The City Manager shall be furnished with written proof of replenishment not later than
twenty-four (24) hours after it is accomplished.
The Letter of Credit shall contain the following endorsement:
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Letter of Credit may not be cancelled by the
financial institution nor the intention not to renew be stated until thirty (30) days after receipt by
the City, by registered mail, of a written notice of such intention to cancel or not to renew.
(3)
Rights Reserved to City. The rights reserved by the City with respect to the bond(s) and
letter of credit are in addition to all other rights and remedies the City may have under this
Franchise Ordinance or any other law.
Sec. 28-1-11. Liability insurance and indemnification.
(1)
Liability Insurance.
At all times during the term of the Franchise Ordinance, Company shall maintain and (by
its acceptance of a franchise under this Franchise Ordinance) specifically agrees that it will
maintain in full force and effect, and at its own cost and expense comprehensive general liability
insurance insuring the City and the Company from claims which may arise from Company’s
operations under this Franchise. The insurance must provide for at least Four Million Dollars
($4,000,000) in coverage for personal injury or death from any occurrence. The policy or
policies shall afford the same limits of liability as set out above for liability assumed under
contract. The policy or policies shall name the City as an additional insured and provide that no
other insurance maintained by the City will be called upon to contribute to a loss covered under
that policy.
Page 19
All insurance policies maintained pursuant to this Franchise Ordinance shall contain the
following endorsement:
It is understood and agreed that this insurance policy may not be cancelled nor the
intention not to renew be stated until sixty (60) days after receipt by the City, by registered mail,
of written notice of such intention to cancel or not to renew.
(2)
Indemnification.
The Company shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any suit, claim or demand
whatsoever which may be asserted or recovered against it based upon or arising out of
Company's construction, maintenance, or operation of the System or any part thereof; provided,
that such suit, claim, or demand is not based upon the City's own intentional or negligent
conduct. The City agrees to immediately notify Company, in writing and within forty-eight (48)
hours (unless notification within forty-eight (48) hours would be unreasonable due to
extraordinary circumstances) of any claim or suit against the City for which Company may be
required to indemnify the City. In the event Company is required to defend the City in
connection with this section, the City agrees to tender control of its defense to Company and
Company shall have the right to select defense counsel. The City agrees to cooperate in its own
defense. This section does not apply to claims brought against the City pertaining to the granting
of this Franchise Ordinance.
Reserved.
City reserves the right, at its own expense, to participate in the defense of any claim
identified above either through intervention or otherwise.
The City is in no manner or means waiving any governmental immunity or limitation of
liability it may enjoy or any immunity or limitation of liability for its agents, officials, servants,
attorneys, representatives and/or employees.
The Company shall make no settlement in any matter identified above without the City's
written consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Failure to inform the City of
settlement shall constitute a breach of this Franchise Ordinance and the City may seek any
redress available to it against the Company whether set forth in this Franchise Ordinance or
under any other municipal, state or federal laws.
Company shall contemporaneously with this Franchise execute an Indemnity Agreement
in a form acceptable to the City Attorney attached as Exhibit B, which shall indemnify, defend
and hold the City harmless for any claim for injury, damage, loss, liability, cost or expense,
including court and appeal costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees or reasonable expenses arising
out of the actions of the City in granting this Franchise Ordinance. This obligation includes any
claims by another franchised cable operator against the City that the terms and conditions of this
Franchise Ordinance are less burdensome than another franchise granted by the City or that this
Franchise Ordinance does not satisfy the requirements of applicable federal, state, or local
law(s).
The City's exercise of or failure to exercise any rights pursuant to any section of this
Franchise Ordinance shall not affect in any way the right of City subsequently to exercise any
Page 20
such rights or any other right of City under this Franchise Ordinance or any other ordinance, rule,
regulation or law.
Sec. 28-1-12. System facilities; capabilities.
(1)
Business Office. During the term of the Franchise the Company shall comply with one
(1) of the following requirements:
The Company shall maintain a full service office at a location convenient to the public, it
being understood and agreed that any location within ten (10) miles of the City shall be deemed
convenient to the public. At such time as Company ceases to maintain such an office in the City,
the Company shall provide for the convenience of its customers drop boxes for payments and
equipment at up to two (2) locations to be determined by mutual agreement of the parties;
provided, however, that the City agrees to provide locations on City-owned property at which
such drop boxes may be located. Equipment exchanges and other customer service needs may
also be addressed through Company’s direct service offerings.
Company shall maintain convenient local Subscriber service and bill payment locations
for the purpose of receiving Subscriber payments or equipment returns. Unless otherwise
requested by the Subscriber, Company shall deliver replacement equipment directly to the
Subscriber at no cost to the Subscriber. The Company shall maintain a business office or offices
for the purpose of receiving and resolving all complaints regarding the quality of service,
equipment malfunctions, billings disputes and similar matters. The office must be reachable by a
local, toll-free telephone call, and Company shall provide the City with the name, address and
telephone number of an office that will act as the Company’s agent to receive complaints,
regarding quality of service, equipment malfunctions, billings, and similar matters. At a
minimum Company shall also provide the following:
(1)
Subscribers can remit payments at multiple third party commercial
locations within the City (such as grocery stores or the Western Union).
(2)
Company will provide a service technician to any Qualified Living Unit in
the City, free of charge to the Subscriber, where necessary to install, replace or
troubleshoot equipment issues.
(3)
Subscribers shall be able to return and receive equipment, free of charge,
via national overnight courier service (such as Fed Ex or UPS) if a service technician is
not required to visit the Subscriber’s Qualified Living Unit.
(4)
In the event Company provides Cable Service to a minimum of thirty
percent (30%) of the total number of Cable Service Subscribers in the City served by
cable operators franchised by the City, the Company shall then be required to also
comply with the requirements of 28-1-13(1) (a) above.
(2)
Emergency Capability and Use. The City and the Company shall conform to federal laws
and regulations as they become effective, including 47 CFR Parts 11, 21, 63 and 76 regarding
emergency alert system requirements.
Sec. 28-1-13. Construction and technical standards.
Page 21
(1)
Compliance with Construction and Technical Standards. Company shall construct,
install, operate and maintain its System in a manner consistent with all applicable laws,
ordinances, construction standards, governmental requirements and FCC technical standards.
(2)
Performance Tests and Certification.
The Company shall be responsible for insuring that the CATV System is designed,
installed and operated in a manner which fully complies with the technical standards of this
Franchise Ordinance.
The Company shall conduct complete performance tests of the CATV System as required
by FCC regulations. The Company shall provide the City thirty (30) days advance notice of any
test and, upon request, with a written report of the results of such FCC technical tests.
rules.
Company shall bear all of the costs of technical standards testing required under FCC
Sec. 28-1-14. PEG programming and Leased Access channels.
(1)
Specially Designated Public, Educational, Governmental (“PEG”) and leased access
channels.
Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the Effective Date of this Franchise,
Company shall make available for access programming at least five (5) downstream video
channels on the Subscriber network for public, educational and governmental access. Two (2) of
the channels shall be specially designated for noncommercial public access; one (1) channel shall
be dedicated to local non-commercial municipally-produced community programming; one (1)
channel shall be specially designated for noncommercial access by local educational authorities;
and one (1) channel shall be specially designated for noncommercial access for local government
use. For the first one hundred eighty (180) days after the Effective Date of this Franchise, the
City may draft and provide to Company a written explanation regarding the PEG channels that
will soon be offered by the Company on the Company’s Cable Service offering. The City shall
email the content of this explanation, which shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) words, to
Company and Company shall, at its sole cost and free of charge to the City, print flyers
containing this explanation (“PEG Flyer”) that shall be distributed to Company’s field
technicians serving the City. The field technicians shall be instructed to include the PEG Flyer
in all Subscriber installation packets for the City of St. Louis Park until such time as the PEG
channels are available in the City.
(1)
Company shall use Channel 22 in its channel lineup as a means to provide
ease of access by Subscribers to the access channels placed on channel numbers
significantly higher than the access channels have historically been placed under other
Cable Services franchises in the City. This type of channel shall be referred to as a
“Mosaic Channel.” The Mosaic Channel shall serve as a navigation tool for Subscribers,
which shall display the group of access channels on a single channel screen and also
provide for easy navigation to a chosen access channel in the group.
(2)
Company shall use Channel 22 as a Mosaic Channel to display the access
channels required under this Franchise Ordinance. Company shall not include any other
Page 22
programming or channels on the Mosaic Channel unless the City provides advance
written consent. City shall provide audio content for Mosaic Channel from their point of
origin (City Hall control room).
(3)
The Mosaic Channel mechanism shall allow Subscribers to navigate
directly from Channel 22 to the requested access channel in a single operation without
any intermediate steps. When using the Mosaic Channel, Subscribers shall be directed to
the requested access channel in a high definition (HD) format if appropriate to the
Subscriber’s level of service; otherwise, the Subscriber shall be directed to the standard
definition (SD) access channel. The Mosaic Channel mechanism shall allow Subscribers
to navigate directly from Channel 22 to the requested Access Channels which shall be
located on Channel numbers 8114, 8115, 8116, 8117, and 8118 for the five (5) assigned
PEG Channels.
(4)
Company shall consult with the City to determine the access channels
information displayed on the Mosaic Channel. However, the information shall have
video and audio strength, signal quality, and functionality equivalent to the highest
quality broadcast and commercial cable/satellite channels carried by the Company on its
Cable System in Mosaic format.
At no time during the term of this Franchise Ordinance, shall the Company be required to
provide a greater number of PEG channels than the incumbent provider. The parties recognize
that under Minnesota State Law, Company is also required to provide one (1) channel for
regional PEG access, but Company is only required to provide this channel for so long as it is
required under State law, and the regional channel does not count against the channels described
above.
To the extent required by state law, the VHF spectrum shall be used for a least one (1) of
the specially designated noncommercial public access channels required in this section.
Company shall provide reception on these channels to each of the Subscribers who receive Basic
Service. Company shall ensure that its delivery and transmission of PEG channels and
programming shall be without material alteration or degradation of picture or sound content and
will be of a quality consistent with FCC technical standards. In the event the Company changes
the access channel designations (numbers), the Company shall, to the extent possible, provide
sixty (60) days prior written notice of such change(s) to the City. In addition, the Company shall
provide reasonable notice of such change(s) to Subscribers via, for example, bill stuffers or a
channel crawl.
(2)
PEG Carriage Requirements.
While the parties recognize that while the primary signals of local broadcast stations are
simulcast in standard definition (SD) and high definition (HD) formats, the Company’s
obligation with respect to carriage of PEG in HD and SD formats shall be as follows:
(1)
Company agrees to carry all access channels in HD provided the entity
originating the signal provides the Company an HD signal. Further, Company will
downconvert any such signal to an SD format so that Subscribers who choose not to
subscribe to an HD package may receive said signal in an undegraded SD format.
Page 23
(2)
Company is not required to convert a signal delivered in a lower quality
format to a higher quality format. The City shall have no obligation to provide a signal to
the Company in a HD format. Company shall obtain City PEG access channels at point
of origin (City Hall control room). Company shall include pass-through, any captioning
or text signals which are inserted by City or passed-through by City on its PEG access
channels.
(3)
All PEG access channels must be receivable by Subscribers without
special expense in addition to the expense paid to receive commercial services the
Subscriber receives. City acknowledges that HD programming may require the viewer to
have special viewer equipment (such as an HDTV and an HD-capable digital
device/receiver), but any Subscriber who can view an HD signal delivered via the CATV
System at a receiver shall also be able to view the HD PEG channels at that receiver,
without additional charges or equipment. By agreeing to make PEG available in HD
format, Company is not agreeing to provide free HD equipment to customers including
complimentary municipal and educational accounts, or to modify its equipment or pricing
policies in any manner. City acknowledges that not every customer may be able to view
HD PEG programming (for example, because they do not have an HDTV in their home
or have chosen not to take an HD-capable receiving device from Company or other
equipment provider) or on every television in the home.
The Company, upon request of the City, will promptly provide technical assistance or
diagnostic services to determine whether or not any audio, video or channel information problem
with the PEG signals is the result of matters for which the Company is responsible, and if so the
Company will take prompt corrective actions.
The Company will provide any PEG access channels on the Basic Service tier throughout
the life of the Franchise, or if there is no basic tier, shall provide the PEG access channels to any
Person who subscribes to any level of Cable Service, and otherwise in accordance with federal
and state law. To the extent technically feasible, Company shall, upon request from the City,
provide City with quarterly viewership numbers for each of the PEG access channels carried on
Company’s CATV System.
Company shall facilitate carriage of PEG access channels program listings on its
interactive programming guide, at no cost to the City, provided that the City shall hold Company
harmless should the City or PEG providers fail to provide correct or timely information to the
interactive guide programmers.
If channels are selected through menu systems, the PEG access channels shall be
displayed in the same manner as other channels, and with equivalent information regarding the
programming on the channel. To the extent that any menu system is controlled by a third party,
Company shall ensure that the Company will provide PEG listings on that menu system, if it is
provided with the programming information by the City.
(3)
Charges for Use of Public Access Channels. No charges shall be made for channel time
or playback of prerecorded programming on at least one (1) of the specially designated
noncommercial public access channels required by this section, provided, however, that
personnel, equipment, and production costs may be assessed for live studio presentations
exceeding five (5) minutes in length. Charges for such production costs and any fees or use of
Page 24
other public access channels shall be consistent with the goal of affording the public a low cost
means of television access.
(4)
Access Channel Rules. The governmental access channel, municipally operated channel,
and public access channels, shall be administered solely by the City. The local educational
channels shall be administered solely by ISD 283. The leased access channel(s) shall be
administered solely by the Company.
(5)
Reduction of Channel Capacity. If available channel capacity is reduced in the future or
where demand for use does not warrant activation of all of the specially designated access
channels required in this section; public, educational, governmental and leased access channel
programming may be combined on one or more cable channels. To the extent consistent with
the City's rules and where time is available, access channels may also be used for other broadcast
and non-broadcast services, provided that such services are subject to immediate displacement
and may be replaced by access channels if City determines, in its sole discretion, that there is
demand to use the channel for its specially designated access purpose. To the extent required by
State law, Company shall, in any case, provide at least one (1) full channel on the VHF spectrum
for shared access programming. Available channel capacity shall be reduced or a determination
that demand for use does not warrant activation of all the specially designated access channels
required by this section shall be made only pursuant to the following procedure:
Company will notify City of the proposed change;
City shall make a determination following a process of review which takes into account
such rules as may be established by City for this purpose and which affords notice and
opportunity to be heard to all interested parties.
(6)
Video on Demand. The Company shall provide HD/SD Video on Demand service
(VOD) for government and community programming. The VOD service to be provided herein
shall be limited to up to twenty (20) hours of HD or SD, as determined by the City, programming
per month and, in addition to City-provided content, may include ISD 283 programming. The
City will be solely responsible for determining programming priority and will be responsible for
providing Company with good quality masters in a format determined through mutual
agreement. A presentation form (stating program information, the City’s acceptance of
responsibility for content, “kill” dates, if applicable, and other matters) and content delivery
method will be determined through mutual agreement of the parties.
(7)
PEG Fee. The PEG fee, payable quarterly to the City, shall be One and 12/100 Dollars
($1.12) per Subscriber, per month commencing on the Effective Date and continuing for the
duration of this Franchise Ordinance (“PEG Fee”). Upon sixty (60) days’ notice to Company,
City may elect to unilaterally increase the monthly per Subscriber PEG Fee. In no event shall the
PEG Fee be assessed in an amount or manner different from that imposed upon the incumbent
cable provider. In the event the incumbent cable provider agrees to or imposes a higher, or
lower, PEG Fee, Company will increase or decrease its PEG Fee upon sixty (60) days written
notice from the City. The PEG Fee may be used for operational or capital support of PEG
programming as determined in the City’s discretion.
If any laws, rules, regulations or government authorizations would allow a provider of
multi-channel video programming or equivalent in the City’s Rights of Way to provide multi-
Page 25
channel video programming or equivalent under less burdensome regulations or regulatory
structure than Company is operating under, the obligations of this section shall be modified to
reflect such changes.
Company agrees that financial support for PEG arising from or relating to the obligations
set forth in this section shall in no way modify or otherwise affect Company’s obligations to pay
franchise fees to the City. Company agrees that although the sum of franchise fees plus the
payments set forth in this section may total more than five percent (5%) of Company’s Gross
revenues in any twelve (12) month period, the additional commitments shall not be offset or
otherwise credited in any way against any franchise fee payments under this Franchise
Ordinance.
Sec. 28-1-15. Interconnection/service to government and school buildings.
(1)
Programming Origination Sites. Company agrees to operate and maintain existing direct
connections and necessary equipment for the purposes of cablecasting programming on the
Subscriber network, as follows:
from ISD 283 High School headend to City Hall control room racks.
from ISD 283 football field grandstand to High School headend.
from City Hall control room racks to Company headend.
from Wolfe Park Veteran’s Memorial Amphitheatre to City Hall control room racks.
from designated equipment area in nearby Rec Center to City Hall control room racks.
Company shall not be liable or responsible for any costs or expenses resulting from any City or
High School loss of or damage to connections or equipment or any changes to the City or High
School’s wiring implemented by a party other than Company.
(2)
PEG Origination Connection. City agrees that Company shall be allowed to meet the
obligations of Section 28-1-15 (1) (a)–(d) by providing, free of charge and at no cost to the City,
a direct fiber connection and necessary equipment to transmit PEG programming from the City
Hall control room racks to the Company headend (“PEG Origination Connection”). In the event
Company is not able to obtain all of the PEG programming at the PEG Origination Connection,
the Company agrees to undertake construction of direct connections and necessary equipment to
each of the programming origination sites set forth in Section 28-1-15 (1) (a)–(e).
(3)
Future Programming Origination Sites. At such time that the City determines the need
for additional programming origination sites (such as a school, City facility, other government
facilities or other designated facilities), the City will give Grantee written notice detailing the
point of origination and the capability sought by the City (i.e. the need to have the PEG
programming feed back to the City Hall control room). Grantee agrees to install and maintain
such fiber connection to the designation origination site within a reasonable period of time taking
into consideration weather and related technical issues.
(4)
Free Service to City Buildings and Public Schools
Page 26
As part of its support for PEG use of the System, the Company shall provide, at no cost to
the City and to the affected institution, a free drop to the Subscriber network and free Basic
Service and Expanded Basic Service to each public and private school, public library branch,
police and fire station, community center and public building that requests a drop in writing, and
to such other public institutions as the City may reasonably request from time to time provided
such location is a Qualified Living Unit and not currently receiving service from another
provider. The initial list of such public buildings is attached hereto as Exhibit A. However, City
may determine to disconnect the other cable provider and require Company to meet the free
service obligation, as determined in City’s sole discretion. “Free” means no initial charges,
recurring charges or service charges.
The Company is only required to provide a single free drop to the Subscriber network, to
a single outlet at a point within the location selected by that location. However, the location may
extend the drop to multiple outlets and receive free Basic Service and Expanded Basic Service at
each outlet so long as such extension does not result in any violations of leakage standards which
the Company is obligated to meet by the FCC. A location that wishes to install multiple outlets
may do so itself, or may contract with the Company to do so. Company shall provide up to three
(3) devices to each location free of charge so that the Services can be received and individually
tuned by each receiver connected to the drop at a location. If an institution physically moves
locations, such institution may move existing devices to the new locations with a free drop, and
the moved device will not count against the three additional devices. Company will replace and
maintain devices it provides or that it had provided as necessary so that locations may continue
to view the free services Company is required to provide. Provided such location is a Qualified
Living Unit and not currently receiving service from another provider. However, City may
determine to disconnect the other cable provider and require Company to meet the free service
obligation, as determined in City’s sole discretion.
City may arrange a standard monthly fee for a DVR device, provided by Company, to
enable recording of PEG access channels to monitor signal quality.
Company shall maintain the City Hall and the City Emergency Operations Center located
at the Police Station, 3015 Raleigh Avenue (“EOC”) and Fire Station 1 Emergency Operations
Center, 3750 Wooddale Avenue South as Qualified Living Units for the duration of the
Franchise. Company shall at all times provide and maintain, free of charge, a drop to the
Subscriber network, required set-top box and free Basic Cable and Expanded Basic Cable to the
City Hall and both EOC’s to allow the PEG access master control room at City Hall and the
EOC’s the ability to view (live) the Company’s downstream PEG programming channels on
Company’s Cable System so the City can monitor the PEG signals and make certain that PEG
programming is being properly received (picture and sound) by Subscribers.
Company agrees that if any broadband service is required in order to receive the free
service obligation set forth in this section, Company will provide such broadband service free of
charge for the sole purpose of facilitating the provision free Cable Service required by this
section. Company agrees that it will not offset, deduct or reduce its payment of past, present or
future franchise fees required as a result of its obligation to providing devices or connections or
services to public facilities.
Page 27
Sec. 28-1-16. System construction requirements.
(1)
Permit Application. Company shall be responsible for application costs and approval of
all necessary permits required under the City’s generally applicable ordinances pertaining to its
work in Public Ways.
(2)
Line Extension Policy. Company shall not have a line extension obligation until the first
date by which Company is providing Cable Service to more than fifty percent (50%) of all
Subscribers receiving facilities based Cable Service from both the Company and any other
provider(s) of Cable Service within the City. At that time, the City, in its reasonable discretion
and after meeting with Company, shall determine the timeframe to complete deployment to the
remaining households in the City, including a density requirement that is the same or similar to
the requirement of the incumbent franchised cable operator.
(3)
City's Reservation of Rights. Neither the review of plans by the City nor the granting by
City of any licenses, permits, certificates, authorizations, approvals, etc., shall be construed as a
guarantee or warranty by the City of Company's CATV System. The Company shall not assert
the fact that the City has performed any prior review of its plans or exercised any ministerial
function in granting licenses, permits, certificates, authorizations, approvals, etc., as a defense
against its obligations to indemnify and hold the City harmless pursuant to Section 9-711(3).
Sec. 28-1-17. Fees, rates and charges.
(1)
To the extent authorized by law, the City reserves its rights to regulate rates and charges
imposed by the Company (City received FCC Certification of Franchising Authority to Regulate
Basic Cable rates on 10-26-93).
(2)
Notice of Rate Change. Company shall notify the City and Subscribers of changes in
rates as and to the extent required by 47 C.F.R. §76.1603.
Sec. 28-1-18. Conditions of public property occupancy.
(1)
Approval of Proposed Construction. The Company shall first obtain the approval of the
Director of Engineering before any construction is commenced on streets, alleys, sidewalks,
driveways, Public Property or places of the City. Application for approval of construction shall
be in a form specified by the Director of Engineering. The Company shall give the City
reasonable written notice of proposed construction to allow coordination of all work between the
City and the Company.
(2)
Excavation Permits. Company shall not open or disturb the surface of a Public Way for
any purpose without first having obtained a permit to do so in the manner provided by ordinance.
Company may apply for a single permit for all excavation. The amount charged by City to
Company for such permit shall be fair and reasonable.
(3)
Changes Required by Public Improvements. Whenever the City undertakes any public
improvement which affects CATV System facilities, it shall direct the Company to remove or
relocate such equipment from the area of public improvement, at Company's expense.
Specifically, Company shall, at its expense, protect, support, temporarily disconnect, relocate in
or remove from a street, alley, sidewalk, driveway, or Public Property or place any property of
Page 28
the Company when required by the Director of Engineering by reason of traffic conditions,
public safety, street vacation, street construction, change or establishment of street grade,
installation or improvement of sewers, drains, water pipes, power lines, signal lines, tracks or
any other type of structure, improvement or alteration of Public Property. If this public
improvement also requires public utilities to remove or relocate their equipment and the City
reimburses the utilities for their expenses incurred in the removal or relocation, the City shall
reimburse the Company on the same terms and conditions it reimburses the utilities. If the
utilities are reimbursed by some source other than the City, then City shall not be required to
reimburse the Company for its expenses but will provide the Company with reasonable
assistance in obtaining such reimbursement.
(4)
Interference With or Hazard to Persons and Improvements. The Company's CATV
System, including all wires, conduits, cables and other property and facilities, shall be located,
constructed, installed and maintained so as not to endanger or unnecessarily interfere with the
lives of Persons or with the usual and customary trade, traffic and travel upon the streets, alleys,
sidewalks, driveways or Public Property and places of the City. The Company shall keep and
maintain all of its property in good condition, order and repair and make it available for
inspection at any reasonable time and upon reasonable notice. The City shall have the right to
inspect and examine property located in the Public Way that is owned or used, in part or in
whole, by the Company. Company shall not place poles or other equipment where they will
interfere with the rights or reasonable convenience of adjoining property owners, or with any
gas, electric, or telephone fixtures or with any water hydrants or mains. All poles or other
fixtures placed in a street shall be placed in the Right of- Way between the roadway and private
property as specified by the Director of Engineering.
(5)
Method of Installation. All wires, cables, amplifiers and other property shall be
constructed and installed in an orderly and workmanlike manner. All cables and wires shall be
installed parallel with existing telephone and electric wires whenever possible. Multiple cable
configurations shall be arranged in parallel and bundled, in compliance with engineering and
safety considerations and standards. Any portion of a CATV System that is installed by
Company in a park or publicly owned open space area shall be installed underground in a
manner approved by the City. All installations shall be underground in those areas of the City
where public utilities providing telephone, cable, or electric utility facilities are underground at
the time of installation. In areas where either telephone and electric utility facilities are above
ground at the time of installation, the Company may install its facilities above ground provided
that at such time as all those facilities are required to be placed underground, the Company shall
likewise place its facilities underground without additional cost to the residents of the City
except as provided under City ordinance.
(6)
Protection of Facilities. Nothing contained in this Franchise Ordinance shall relieve any
Person, company or corporation from liability arising out of the failure to exercise reasonable
care to avoid injuring Company's facilities while performing any work connected with grading,
regrading, or changing the line of any street or public place or with the construction or
reconstruction of any utility facility, sewer or water system.
(7)
Notice of City Improvements. The City shall give the Company reasonable notice of
plans for street improvements where paving or resurfacing of a permanent nature is involved.
The notice shall contain the nature and character of the improvements, the streets upon which the
Page 29
improvements are to be made, the extent of the improvements and the date of commencement of
work. Notice shall be given a sufficient length of time in advance to permit Company to make
any additions, alterations, or repairs to its facilities deemed necessary, considering seasonal
working conditions in advance of the actual commencement of work.
(8)
Compliance with Codes. All construction, installation, maintenance and operation of
CATV Systems or facilities shall comply with the provisions of the National Electrical Safety
Code as prepared by the National Bureau of Standards, the National Electrical Code of the
National Board of Fire Underwriters, the Bell Telephone System Code of Pole Line construction,
standards issued by the FCC or other federal or state regulatory agencies, and local zoning
regulations. Every CATV System installed, constructed, maintained or operated in the City shall
be designed, constructed, installed, maintained and operated as not to endanger or interfere with
the safety of Persons or property in the City.
(9)
Moving Wires. Upon request made at least five (5) days in advance by a holder of a
building moving permit for the purpose of moving buildings, the Company shall temporarily
raise, lower, or remove its wires. The holder of the building moving permit shall pay the
reasonable cost of the requested service and may be required to pay that amount in advance.
(10) Trimming Trees. All trimming shall be done under the supervision and direction of the
City and at the expense of the Company. The Company shall not remove any tree within any
public place without the prior consent of the City. The Company shall be allowed to trim trees
upon and overhanging streets, alleys, sidewalks, driveways and public grounds and places of the
City to prevent the branches of the trees from coming in contact with the wires and cables of
Company. Regardless of who performs the work, the Company shall be responsible and shall
defend and hold City harmless for any and all damages to any tree or surrounding land as a result
of the trimming or removal.
(11) Restoration to Prior Condition. In case of any disturbance of a Public Way, the Company
shall, at its own cost and expense and in a manner approved by the City, replace and restore all
paving, sidewalk, driveway, foundation or surface of any street or alley disturbed, in as good
condition as before the work was commenced and in accordance with standards for such work
set by the City. If, upon reasonable written notice, the Company fails promptly to restore any
street or public place in accordance with this provision, the City shall have the right to put such
street or public place back into good condition at the expense of the Company and the Company
shall, upon demand, pay to the City and the cost of such work done or performed by the City.
(12) Interference With Reception. Company shall not allow its cable or other operations to
interfere with the broadcast reception of Persons not served by Company.
(13) Record of Equipment and Facilities to be Maintained. The Company shall at all times
make and keep at its business office complete and accurate plans and records showing the exact
location of all CATV System equipment and facilities installed or in use in the City and make
available such maps and records for the City's inspection promptly upon the City’s reasonable
request.
Page 30
Sec. 28-1-19. Operation of the franchise/consumer service.
(1)
Consumer Service Policies. The Company shall comply with applicable customer service
standards set forth at 47 C.F.R. 76.309, or other applicable state or federal requirements.
Nothing in the foregoing shall be construed as a waiver by the City of any rights it may have to
adopt additional or modified consumer protection requirements to the extent authorized by
federal or state law.
(2)
Consumer Complaints. The Company shall designate a local contact Person for City
representatives to contact in case complaints about the Company, its practices or services are
received by City staff. The Company is expected to normally resolve customer’s complaints
without City involvement, but when customer complaints are received by City staff and
forwarded to the Company contact, the Company shall resolve the customer complaint and notify
City staff of the outcome.
The Company shall provide a copy of pertinent Company customer service policies to the
City upon request, for verification that Company policies have been followed in complaints
received by the City.
(3)
Repairs and Maintenance.
Maintenance of the Cable System. The Company shall install and maintain the CATV
System so as to avoid unreasonable or repetitive interruptions in service to Subscribers.
Interruption of Service. Whenever it is necessary to interrupt service to make tests,
repairs, adjustments or installations, the Company shall do so during a period of minimum
Subscriber use. Unless an interruption is unforeseen and immediately necessary, the Company
shall give reasonable notice to the Subscribers affected. All costs incurred in effecting such
tests, repairs, adjustments or installations shall be borne by the Company unless otherwise
provided by law, ordinance or regulation, or it is the result of Subscriber negligence.
(4)
Reports, Books and Records of Company.
City's Right to Audit. Upon request, not more than once every three (3) years, the City
shall have reasonable access at mutually agreed-upon times to audit Company's accounting and
financial records at Company’s place of business upon reasonable notice as reasonably necessary
to verify Company’s compliance with its monetary obligations to the City under this Franchise
Ordinance. Company shall have the right to observe any such audit proceedings. Such audit
may not review records extending back further than three (3) years from the commencement of
such audit.
Report on Operations. Upon request, the Company shall prepare and furnish to the City
at the time and in the form prescribed by the City Manager, such reports with respect to its
CATV System operations, affairs, transactions or property in the City, as may be determined
reasonably necessary to the City’s regulation of the CATV System pursuant to this Franchise
Ordinance.
(5)
Filing Communications with Regulatory Agencies. As required by applicable law and
otherwise upon request, Company shall provide to City a copy of any petition, application or
Page 31
similar communication that is submitted by the Company to the FCC, or other federal or state
regulatory commission or agency having jurisdiction in respect to any matter affecting CATV
System operations within the City.
(6)
Reserved.
(7)
Rules of the Company. The Company may promulgate such rules, regulations, terms and
conditions governing the conduct of its business as may be reasonably necessary to enable it to
exercise its rights and perform its obligations under the Franchise Ordinance and to assure an
uninterrupted service to any and all of its customers; except that such rules, regulations, terms
and conditions shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance, other
ordinances of the City, or the laws of the State of Minnesota or the United States. Upon request,
a current copy of any such rules, regulations or terms and conditions shall be provided to the
City.
(8)
Service Contract. If a written service contract is used by a Company in its dealings with
Subscribers, the Company shall provide a copy of such form contract to the City upon request.
(9)
Reserved.
(10)
Reserved.
(11)
Preferential or Discriminatory Practices Prohibited.
The Company shall establish and maintain an Equal Employment and Affirmative Action
Program providing that no individual shall be discriminated against with respect to
compensation, terms, conditions or other privileges or employment because of race, color, creed,
religion, sex, national or ethnic origin, physical condition, age, affectional preference or marital
status. The Company's Equal Employment and Affirmative Action Program shall, upon request,
be provided to the City Manager and shall be in compliance with current and future policies
established in the City's Affirmative Action Program, as well as with Section 635 of the Cable
Act of 1984. The Company shall strictly adhere to the Equal Employment and Affirmative
Action Program it files.
The Company shall comply with or exceed all federal, state and local laws and
regulations relating to equal employment opportunity and non-discrimination.
(12) Subscriber Privacy. At all times, Company shall abide by the Subscriber privacy
provisions in applicable federal and state laws including 47 U.S.C. §551.
(13) Surveys. Company shall provide the City with the results of any non-confidential, nonprivileged survey of Subscribers in the City regarding Cable Service or the operation of the
CATV System.
(14) Periodic Review. The City may request a State-of-the-Art review of not more than once
during the initial five (5) year term of this Franchise Ordinance. In conducting a State-of-the-Art
review, the City shall undertake the following process:
Page 32
The City and the Company shall undertake a review of the then existing CATV System.
This review shall, at a minimum, take into account the following:
(1)
Characteristics of the existing System;
(2)
The State-of-the-Art;
(3)
Additional benefits provided to customers by the State-of-the-Art;
(4)
The market place demand for the State-of-the-Art;
(5)
The use of a need for additional PEG access channels; and
(6)
The financial feasibility of the State-of-the-Art taking into account
associated rate increases, and the premature retirement of assets.
(7)
Other technologies present in the market place.
The City shall hold a public hearing to enable the general public and Company to
comment and to present evidence.
As a result of any review based on this section, the City and Company may enter into
good faith negotiations to amend this Franchise as necessary to provide system improvements on
a schedule that takes into account the impact on rates, recovery of costs, benefit to Subscribers,
and other factors agreed upon.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, City may not undertake a State of the Art
review at any time the Company is deemed subject to effective competition pursuant to then
applicable state or federal law.
Sec. 28-1-20. Rights reserved; resolution of disputes.
(1)
No Impairment of Eminent Domain. Nothing herein shall be construed to contract away,
modify or abridge, either for a term or in perpetuity, the City’s rights to eminent domain,
including any right of the City to acquire the property of the Company through the exercise of
the right of eminent domain.
(2)
Administration of Franchise Ordinance. Subject to the control and direction of the
Council, the City Manager of City, or City Manager’s designee, shall be the designated
administrator responsible for the continuing administration of the Franchise Ordinance.
(3)
Resolution of Disputes and Appeal Procedures. Prior to taking any enforcement action
authorized by Section 28-1-21, the City shall contact the Company’s designated representative
and attempt to resolve the dispute.
(4)
City’s Transfer of Functions. Any right or power conferred, or duly imposed upon any
elected official, officer, employee, department, or board of the City shall be subject to transfer by
the City to any other elected official, officer, employee, department or board to the extent
permitted by applicable law.
Page 33
Sec. 28-1-21. Enforcement.
(1)
Failure to Enforce Provisions. The Company shall not be excused from complying with
any of the terms and conditions of the Franchise Ordinance by any failure of the City upon one
or more occasions to insist upon or to seek compliance with any such terms or conditions.
(2)
Penalties. In addition to any other remedies provided in this Franchise Ordinance,
penalties for violations of this Franchise Ordinance are set forth below. As a result of any acts or
omissions by Company pursuant to the Franchise Ordinance, City may charge to and collect
from the Company, by drawing on the Letter of Credit set forth in Section 28-1-10, or otherwise
the following penalties:
For failure to provide, after ten (10) days’ notice, data, documents, reports or information
or to cooperate with the City during a renewal process or CATV System evaluation or in the
conduct of City’s Franchise Ordinance enforcement and administration functions, the penalty
shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
For failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance after ten
(10) days’ notice, for which a penalty is not otherwise specifically provided, the penalty shall be
Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
For failure to test, analyze and report on the performance of the CATV System following
a request by the City as set forth in this Franchise Ordinance and after ten (10) days’ notice, the
penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
For failure of Company to comply with the construction, operation or maintenance
standards thirty (30) days following notice from the City, the penalty shall be Two Hundred
Dollars ($200.00) per day.
For failure to comply with all conditions of City permits to disturb streets, fix streets, or
other terms or conditions of City, the penalty shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day.
Nothing herein shall prevent the parties from mutually agreeing to extend the ten (10) day
periods referenced above.
(3)
Notice of Violation. In the event that the City believes that the Company has not
complied with any material term of the Franchise Ordinance, the City shall informally discuss
the matter with Company. If these discussions do not lead to resolution of the problem, the City
shall notify the Company in writing of the exact nature of such alleged noncompliance.
(4)
The Company’s Right to Cure or Respond. The Company shall have thirty (30) days
from receipt of the notice described in subsection (2) to: (a) respond to the City, contesting the
assertion of such noncompliance, or (b) cure such default, or (c) in the event that, by the nature
of such default, it cannot be cured within the thirty (30) day period, initiate reasonable steps to
remedy such default and notify the City of the steps being taken and the projected date that they
will be completed.
(5)
Public Hearing. In the event that the Company fails to respond to the notice described in
subsection (3) pursuant to the procedures set forth in subsection (4), or in the event that the
Page 34
alleged default is not remedied within thirty (30) days or the date projected pursuant to (3)(c)
above, if it intends to continue its investigation into the default, then the City shall schedule a
public hearing. The City shall provide the Company at least ten (10) days prior written notice of
such hearing, which specifies the time, place and purpose of such hearing, and provide the
Company the opportunity to be heard. Within thirty (30) days of the end of such hearing, the
City shall issue a written decision regarding whether a material default of the Franchise
Ordinance has been established by clear and convincing evidence in the record.
(6)
Enforcement. Subject to applicable federal and state law, in the event the City, after the
hearing set forth in subsection (5), determines that the Company is in material default of any
provision of the Franchise Ordinance, the City may:
Impose the penalties specified above and if prompt payment of the penalties is not made
by the Company, the City may draw on the letter of credit.
Commence an action at law for monetary damages or seek other equitable relief; or
In the case of repeated or ongoing substantial non-compliance with a material term or
terms of the Franchise Ordinance, seek to revoke the grant of the Franchise Ordinance pursuant
to this Franchise Ordinance in accordance with subsection (7).
(7)
Revocation. Should the City seek to revoke the grant of the Franchise Ordinance after
following the procedures set forth in subsections (3) through (6) above, the City shall give
written notice to the Company of its intent. The notice shall set forth the exact nature of the
repeated or ongoing substantial noncompliance with a material term or terms of the Franchise
Ordinance. The Company shall have ninety (90) days from such notice to object in writing and
to state its reasons for such objection. In the event the City has not received a satisfactory
response from the Company, it may then seek termination of the franchise Ordinance at a public
hearing before the City Council. The City shall cause to be served upon the Company, at least
thirty (30) days prior to such public hearing, a written notice specifying the time and place of
such hearing and stating its intent to revoke the Franchise Ordinance.
At the designated hearing, Company shall be provided a fair opportunity for full
participation, including the right to be represented by legal counsel, to introduce relevant
evidence, to require the production of evidence, to compel the relevant testimony of the officials,
agents, employees or consultants of the City, to compel the testimony of other Persons as
permitted by law, and to question witnesses. A complete verbatim record and transcript shall be
made of such hearing.
Following the hearing, the City Council shall determine whether or not the Franchise
Ordinance shall be revoked. If the City Council determines that the Franchise Ordinance shall be
revoked, the City Council shall promptly provide Company with its decision in writing. The
Company may appeal such determination of the City Council to an appropriate court which shall
have the power to review the decision of the City Council de novo. Company shall be entitled to
such relief as the court finds appropriate.
(8)
Force Majeure. The Company shall not be held in default under, or in noncompliance
with, the provisions of the Franchise Ordinance, nor suffer any enforcement or penalty relating to
noncompliance or default, where such noncompliance or alleged defaults occurred or were
Page 35
caused by circumstances reasonably beyond the ability of the Company to anticipate and control
including, acts of God, insurrection, war, riot, vandalism, strikes, sabotage, or any other event
beyond the reasonable control of Company. This provision includes work delays caused by
waiting for utility providers to service or monitor their utility poles to which the Company’s
CATV System is attached, as well as unavailability of materials and/or qualified labor to perform
the work necessary.
Furthermore, the parties hereby agree that it is not the City’s intention to subject the
Company to penalties, fines, forfeitures or revocation of the Franchise Ordinance for violations
of the Franchise Ordinance where the violation was a good faith error that resulted in no or
minimal negative impact on the Subscribers within the Franchise Area.
Sec. 28-1-22. Renewal.
The process for renewing this Franchise Ordinance shall be as provided under 47 U.S.C.§
546 and other applicable federal and state law.
Sec. 28-1-23. Removal after termination or revocation.
(1)
At the expiration of the term for which this Franchise Ordinance is granted, or upon its
revocation or termination, as provided for herein, and final determination of non-renewal, City
shall have the right to require Company to remove, at Company’s expense, all or any portion of
the CATV System used exclusively for the provision of Cable Service from all streets and Public
Property within City. In so removing the CATV System, Company shall refill and compact at its
own expense any excavation that shall be made by it and shall leave all streets and Public
Property in as good a condition as that prevailing prior to Company’s removal of the CATV
System, and without affecting, altering or disturbing in any way electric telephone or other utility
cable, wires or attachments. City shall have the right to inspect and approve the condition of
such streets and Public Property after removal. The letter of credit, bonds, insurance, indemnity
and penalty provisions of the Franchise Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect during the
entire term of removal.
(2)
If Company has failed to commence removal of System as set forth in Section 28-123(1), or such part thereof as was designated by City, within thirty (30) days after written notice
of City’s demand for removal is given, or if Company has failed to complete such removal
within one year after written notice of City’s demand for removal is given, City shall have the
right to exercise any of the following options:
Declare all right, title and interest to the CATV System to be in City with all rights of
ownership including, but not limited to, the right to operate the CATV System or to transfer the
CATV System to another for operation.
Declare the CATV System abandoned and cause the CATV System or such part thereof,
as City shall designate, to be removed at the expense of the Company. The cost of said removal
shall be recoverable from the letter of credit, bonds, insurance, indemnification and penalties
provided for in this Franchise Ordinance or from Company directly as liquidated damages.
Page 36
Sec. 28-1-24. Expiration or revocation of franchise.
(1)
Expiration; Extended Operation. Upon the expiration of a Franchise Ordinance, the City
may by resolution direct the Company to operate the Franchise Ordinance for an extended period
of not to exceed six (6) months after the date of expiration. The Company agrees to comply with
such a direction. All provisions of the Franchise Ordinance shall continue to apply to operations
during an extension period. The City shall serve written notice at the Company’s business office
of intent to extend under this section at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration. Nothing in the
foregoing affects Company’s rights to a franchise renewal under 47 U.SC. §546.
(2)
Injunctive Relief. Pending final disposition of proceedings to revoke a Franchise
Ordinance or during a period of extension of a Franchise Ordinance after expiration, the City
may obtain injunctive relief to obtain compliance with the provisions of the Franchise Ordinance
and maintain the continuity of service to Subscribers. Such relief shall be in addition to and not
in lieu of other remedies available to the City. If the City prevails, the costs shall be borne by
Company including reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and disbursements.
(3)
Right of City to Purchase; Disposition of Facilities. Upon expiration of the terms of the
Franchise Ordinance, or upon a revocation or termination of this Franchise Ordinance, or if
renewal of this Franchise Ordinance is denied, the City shall have the right to acquire the
facilities used exclusively for CATV System. Any such acquisition shall be at fair market value,
determined on the basis of the CATV System as a going concern but with no value allocated to
the Franchise Ordinance itself. If the Franchise Ordinance held by Company is revoked or
terminated for cause and the City determines to acquire ownership of the CATV System or
effects a transfer of ownership of the CATV System to another Person, any such acquisition or
transfer shall be at an equitable price.
(4)
Restoration of Property Upon Removal. In removing its plants, structures and
equipment, the Company shall refill at its own expense, any excavation that shall be made by it
and shall leave all public ways and places in as good condition as that prevailing prior to the
Company’s removal of its equipment and appliances, without affecting the electric or telephone
cables, wires or attachments. The Director of Engineering shall inspect and approve the
condition of the public ways and public places and cables, wires, attachments and poles after
removal. Liability insurance, indemnification and the security for performance required by this
Franchise Ordinance shall continue in full force and effect during the period of removal.
The City shall have a right to all available remedies, including drawing on Company’s
letter of credit required by Section 28-1-10 of this Franchise Ordinance, in order to enforce the
requirements of this section.
Sec. 28-1-25. Abandonment.
Company shall not abandon the CATV System or any portion thereof without having first
given three (3) months’ written notice to City. Abandonment shall not occur unless first
approved by the City after reasonable opportunity to review. Upon showing by Company of
need for abandonment and an opportunity for the City to determine other areas for the continuity
of service, the City shall evaluate any damage, claim or loss that may be applicable as a
consequence of such abandonment. In order to accomplish this, the City shall conduct a public
hearing after providing reasonable notice to all affected Persons as to the date, time and place of
Page 37
the hearing. Thereafter, before abandonment occurs, the City shall notify the Company of its
determination and any Person, including City, entitled to damages and the amount and basis
therefore. Company shall not abandon the CATV System or any portion thereof without
compensating City for damages resulting to it from the abandonment.
Sec. 28-1-26. Unauthorized connections.
It shall be unlawful for any Person to make an unauthorized connection, whether
physically, electrically, acoustically, inductively or otherwise, with any part of the franchised
CATV System within the City for the purpose of taking or receiving television signals, radio
signals, pictures, programs, sound, or any other service provided by the Company.
Sec. 28-1-27. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, paragraph, term, or provision of this Franchise
Ordinance is determined to be illegal, invalid, or unconstitutional, by any court of competent
jurisdiction or by any state or federal regulatory authority having jurisdiction thereof, such
determination shall have no effect on the validity of any other section, subsection, sentence,
paragraph, term or provision hereof, all of which will remain in full force and effect for the term
of this Franchise Ordinance.
Sec. 28-1-28. Work performed by others.
(1)
Upon request, Company shall promptly give notice to City specifying the names and
addresses of any other entity, other than Company, which performs services pursuant to this
Franchise Ordinance, provided, however, that all provisions of this Franchise Ordinance remain
the responsibility of Company.
(2)
All provisions of this Franchise Ordinance shall apply to any subcontractor or others
performing any work or services pursuant to the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance.
Sec. 28-1-29. Administration and advisory body.
(1)
Administrator. The City Manager or the City Manager’s designee shall be responsible
for the continuing administration of this Franchise Ordinance. The administrator may be
changed by City from time to time by written notice given to Company.
(2)
Advisory Body. City may appoint an advisory body to monitor the performance of
Company in executing the provisions of this Franchise Ordinance. The advisory body shall
perform all functions required of it by the Council and applicable laws, ordinances, rules and
regulations.
(3)
Delegation of Authority by City.
City reserves the right to delegate and re-delegate from time to time any of its rights or
obligations under this Franchise Ordinance to anybody or organization.
Any delegation by City shall be effective upon written notice by City or Company of
such delegation.
Page 38
Upon receipt of notice by Company of City’s delegation, Company shall be bound by all
terms and conditions of the delegation not in conflict with this Franchise Ordinance.
Any such delegation, revocation or re-delegation, no matter how often made, shall not be
deemed an amendment to this Franchise Ordinance or require any consent of Company.
Sec. 28-1-30. Time of acceptance; exhibits.
(1)
Company shall have thirty (30) days from the last date of adoption of this Franchise
Ordinance to accept this Franchise Ordinance in form and substance acceptable to City, unless
the time for acceptance is extended by City. If this Franchise Ordinance is not accepted by
Company in accordance with the terms of this section, this Franchise Ordinance shall be null and
void and without effect. The City’s “Notice of Intent to Consider an Application for a
Franchise” (“Notice”) provided, consistent with Minn. Stat. 238.081 subd. 8, that applicants
would be required to reimburse the City for all necessary costs of processing a cable
communications franchise. Company submitted an application fee with its application to the
City. The Notice further provided that any unused portion of the application fee would be
returned and any additional fees required to process the application and franchise, beyond the
application fee, would be assessed to the successful applicant. The Company shall therefore
submit to the City at the time of acceptance of this Franchise, a check made payable to the City
of St. Louis Park, Minnesota for all additional fees and costs incurred by the City. Within thirty
(30) days of City Council approval, the City shall provide Company with a letter specifying such
additional costs. The City shall provide Company with a letter specifying such additional costs
following approval of this Franchise by the City Council.
(2)
Upon acceptance of this Franchise Ordinance, Company and City shall be bound by all
the terms and conditions contained herein. This Franchise Ordinance constitutes the entire
agreement between the Company and the City and supersedes all other prior understandings and
agreements oral or written. Any amendments to this Franchise Ordinance shall be mutually
agreed to in writing by the parties.
(3)
All of the attached exhibits are a part of this Franchise Ordinance and each is specifically
incorporated herein by reference. The exhibits are as follows:
Exhibit A: List of City and school district buildings at which Company is capable of
providing free service as set forth in Section 28-1-15(2)(a).
Exhibit B: Indemnity Agreement.
Section 2.
Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective fifteen (15) days after its
passage and publication and after acceptance by the Company pursuant to Section 28-1-30.
ADOPTED this
day of
Council of the City of St. Louis Park.
, 2015, by the City
Page 39
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MN
By:___________________________
Jeffrey W. Jacobs, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
REVIEWED FOR ADMINISTRATION
________________________________
City Attorney
________________________________
City Manager
ACCEPTED: This Franchise Ordinance is accepted, and we agree to be bound by its terms and
conditions.
QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES,
INC. D/B/A CENTURYLINK
Date:
SWORN TO BEFORE ME this
day of
NOTARY PUBLIC
, 2015
By:
Its:
, 2015.
EXHIBIT A
Free Cable Service to Schools and Public Buildings
City of St. Louis Park:
City Hall
5005 Minnetonka Boulevard
St. Louis Park Recreation Center and Wolfe Park Pavilion
3700 Monterey Drive
Municipal Service Center
7305 Oxford Street
Fire Station One
3750 Wooddale Avenue
Fire Station Two
2262 Louisiana Avenue
West End Community Police Station
1623 West End Blvd.
Westwood Hills Nature Center
8300 West Franklin Avenue
Police Station
3015 Raleigh Avenue
Meadowbrook Community Police Station
4072 Meadowbrook Lane
Excelsior/Grand Community Police Station
4717 Park Commons Drive
Texatonka Community Police Station
8038 Minnetonka Blvd
Page 40
Page 41
ISD 283:
Lenox Community Center
Central Community Center
6300 Walker Street
Park Spanish Immersion School
6300 Walker Street
Aquila Elementary School
8500 West 31st Street
Peter Hobart Elementary School
6500 West 26th Street
Susan Lindgren Elementary School
4801 West 41st Street
Cedar Manor Intermediate Center
9400 Cedar Lake Road
St. Louis Park Middle School
2025 Texas Avenue South
St. Louis Park High School
6425 West 33rd Street
District Maintenance Shop
6400 Walker Street
Cable TV connection to Non-Public Schools is by arrangement between the system operator and
each school.
Certain school buildings are currently being provided service through school-owned transmission
facilities. The City agrees that free service to such schools shall be contingent upon continued
availability of such school-owned transmission facilities, technical feasibility or some other
mutually acceptable arrangement.
Page 42
EXHIBIT B
Indemnity Agreement
INDEMNITY AGREEMENT made this ____ day of _____________________, 2015,
by and between Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, party of the first part,
hereinafter called “CenturyLink,” and the City of St. Louis Park, a Minnesota Municipal
Corporation, party of the second part, hereinafter called “City.”
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park has awarded to Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. a
franchise for the operation of a cable communications system in the City of St. Louis Park; and
WHEREAS, the City has required, as a condition of its award of a cable communications
franchise, that it be indemnified with respect to all claims and actions arising from the award of
said franchise,
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing promises and the mutual
promises contained in this agreement and in consideration of entering into a cable television
franchise agreement and other good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, CenturyLink hereby agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to fully indemnify,
defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, boards, commissions, employees and agents
against any and all claims, suits, actions, liabilities and judgments for damages, cost or expense
(including, but not limited to, court and appeal costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and
disbursements assumed or incurred by the City in connection therewith) arising out of the actions
of the City in granting a franchise to CenturyLink. This includes any claims by another
franchised cable operator against the City that the terms and conditions of the CenturyLink
franchise are less burdensome than another franchise granted by the City or that the CenturyLink
Franchise does not satisfy the requirements of applicable federal, state, or local law(s). The
indemnification provided for herein shall not extend or apply to any acts of the City constituting
a violation or breach by the City of the contractual provisions of the franchise ordinance, unless
such acts are the result of a change in applicable law, the order of a court or administrative
agency, or are caused by the acts of CenturyLink.
The City shall give CenturyLink reasonable notice of the making of any claim or the
commencement of any action, suit or other proceeding covered by this agreement. The City shall
cooperate with CenturyLink in the defense of any such action, suit or other proceeding at the
request of CenturyLink. The City may participate in the defense of a claim, but if CenturyLink
provides a defense at CenturyLink’s expense then CenturyLink shall not be liable for any
attorneys’ fees, expenses or other costs that City may incur if it chooses to participate in the
defense of a claim, unless and until separate representation is required. If separate representation
to fully protect the interests of both parties is or becomes necessary, such as a conflict of interest,
in accordance with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct, between the City and the
counsel selected by CenturyLink to represent the City, CenturyLink shall pay, from the date such
separate representation is required forward, all reasonable expenses incurred by the City in
defending itself with regard to any action, suit or proceeding indemnified by CenturyLink.
Provided, however, that in the event that such separate representation is or becomes necessary,
and City desires to hire counsel or any other outside experts or consultants and desires
Page 43
CenturyLink to pay those expenses, then City shall be required to obtain CenturyLink’s consent
to the engagement of such counsel, experts or consultants, such consent not to be unreasonably
withheld. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that the City may utilize at any time,
at its own cost and expense, its own City Attorney or outside counsel with respect to any claim
brought by another franchised cable operator as described in this agreement.
The provisions of this agreement shall not be construed to constitute an amendment of the
cable communications franchise ordinance or any portion thereof, but shall be in addition to and
independent of any other similar provisions contained in the cable communications franchise
ordinance or any other agreement of the parties hereto. The provisions of this agreement shall not
be dependent or conditioned upon the validity of the cable communications franchise ordinance
or the validity of any of the procedures or agreements involved in the award or acceptance of the
franchise, but shall be and remain a binding obligation of the parties hereto even if the cable
communications franchise ordinance or the grant of the franchise is declared null and void in a
legal or administrative proceeding.
It is the purpose of this agreement to provide maximum indemnification to City under the
terms set out herein and, in the event of a dispute as to the meaning of this Indemnity Agreement,
it shall be construed, to the greatest extent permitted by law, to provide for the indemnification of
the City by CenturyLink. This agreement shall be a binding obligation of and shall inure to the
benefit of, the parties hereto and their successor's and assigns, if any.
QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC.
Dated: _______________, 2015
By: ______________________________________
Its: ______________________________________
STATE OF LOUISIANA
)
) SS
)
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of 2015, by
________________________, the _____________________ of Qwest Broadband Services, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation, on behalf of the corporation.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Commission Expires___________________
Page 44
SUMMARY FOR PUBLICATION
ORDINANCE NO. ____-15
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 28
OF THE ST. LOUIS PARK CODE OF ORDINANCES
RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
ENACTING A COMPETITIVE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE ORDINANCE
This ordinance states that Chapter 28 of the Ordinance Code relating to Telecommunications
shall be amended relative to enacting a Competitive Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance
by adding Article I. Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink Franchise, Sections 281-1 to 28-1-30.
The ordinance grants a franchise to CenturyLink for five (5) years. The terms and conditions of
the Franchise Ordinance include financial payments by CenturyLink to the City to help provide
public, educational and government programming. Other provisions include an office in the
area, equipment drop-off and payment boxes within the City, and insurance and security
requirements. A staff report providing a more detailed description of the business terms of the
Franchise Ordinance is available at City Hall or upon request to City staff (952-924-2517).
The ordinance shall take effect fifteen (15) days after publication.
Adopted by the City Council
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 12, 2015
, 2015
Page 45
RESOLUTION REGARDING AN ORDINANCE
GRANTING A COMPETITIVE CABLE FRANCHISE
FOR QWEST BROADBAND SERVICES, INC., D/B/A CENTURYLINK
FACT:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota makes the following FINDINGS OF
1. In December 2014, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc. (“CenturyLink”)
requested that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) initiate proceedings to consider
awarding it a franchise to provide cable communications services in the City (“Service
Territory”).
2. Comcast of Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/Mississippi/Tennessee, Inc. (“Comcast”)
holds a non-exclusive cable communications franchise for the Service Territory (“Comcast
Franchise”).
3. The Comcast Franchise, which the City last renewed in January, 2006, is currently the only cable
communications franchise for the Service Territory.
4. The monopoly held by a sole cable communication provider in a particular market is a barrier to
entry for additional providers, which does not have a captive market but must instead “win”
every subscriber.1
5. The presence of a second cable operator in a market improves the quality of service offerings and
drives down prices by approximately 15%.2
6. On May 14 and 21, 2015, the City published a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable
Communications System (“Notice”) in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor, a newspaper of general
circulation in the Service Territory.
7. The Notice indicated that the City was soliciting franchise applications and provided information
regarding the application process, including that applications were required to be submitted on or
before June 8, 2015 and that a public hearing to hear proposals from applicants would be held
July 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM.
8. The City also mailed copies of the Notice and application materials to CenturyLink and
Comcast.3
9. On June 8, 2015, the City received an application from CenturyLink (the “CenturyLink
Application”). The City did not receive any other applications.
1
In the Matter of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 05-311, at ¶ 138 (Rel. Mar. 5, 2007) (“621 Order”).
2
Id. at ¶¶ 2, 50.
3
Notice by the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota of Its Intent to Consider An Application for a Franchise and
Request for Proposals - Official Application Form
Page 46
10. As provided by the Notice, on July 6, 2015 the City held a public hearing during the City
Council’s regularly scheduled meeting to consider CenturyLink’s application and qualifications.
11. On July 1, 2015, Comcast submitted a letter to the City setting forth its position regarding the
CenturyLink Application (“Comcast Letter”).4
12. The Comcast Letter expresses concern about how CenturyLink’s proposal compared to particular
provisions of the existing Comcast Franchise.5
13. The Comcast Letter also summarizes Comcast’s position regarding build-out requirements and
other proposed terms related to competition in the cable industry.6
14. During the hearing, CenturyLink presented its proposal and all other interested parties were
provided an opportunity to speak and present information to the City Council regarding the
CenturyLink Application.
15. The law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association prepared a report, dated June 24,
2015 (“Franchise Report”), reviewing and analyzing the City’s franchising procedures, the
CenturyLink Application and other information provided by CenturyLink in connection with the
scheduled July 6, 2015 public hearing.7
16. The Franchise Report identifies and discusses federal and state legal requirements relevant to the
City’s consideration of the CenturyLink Application, including laws pertaining to franchising
procedures and competition between providers.8
17. The Franchise Report also analyzes information provided by CenturyLink to establish its
qualifications to operate a cable communications franchise in the Service Territory.9
18. At its meeting on July 6, 2015, the City Council considered the Franchise Report, along with the
information and documentation it had received regarding the CenturyLink Application, and
adopted Resolution 15-092 finding and concluding that the CenturyLink Application complied
with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 238.081 and that CenturyLink is legally, technically, and
financially qualified to operate a cable communications system within the Service Territory.
19. As a result of its determination that CenturyLink complied with all application requirements and
is a qualified applicant, the City Council authorized City staff to negotiate with CenturyLink to
attempt to reach mutually acceptable terms for such a franchise.
20. In Minnesota, both State and federal law govern the terms and conditions of an additional cable
communications franchise in an already-franchised service area.10
4
See, July 1, 2015 letter from Emmett Coleman to Reg Dunlap regarding CenturyLink Video Franchise Application.
Id. at 2.
6
Id. at 1-3.
7
Report to the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Regarding Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a/ CenturyLink –
Proposal for a Cable Communication Franchise, June 24, 2015.
8
Franchise Report at 2-9.
9
Id. at 11-12.
10
See 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); Minn. Stat. §§ 238.08, .084; see also Franchise Report at 2-8.
5
Page 47
21. The franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise or unreasonably refuse to award
an additional competitive franchise.11
22. The franchising authority must allow an applicant reasonable time to become capable of
providing cable service to all households in the service area.12
23. The franchising authority may grant an additional franchise in an already-franchised service area
if the terms and conditions of the additional franchise are not “more favorable or less
burdensome than those in the existing franchise” regarding the area served, the PEG access
requirements, and franchise fees.13
24. The additional franchise must also include, among other things, “a schedule showing . . . that the
construction throughout the authorized franchise area must be substantially completed within
five years of the granting of the franchise.”14
25. In order to ensure that any additional franchise granted to CenturyLink would contain
substantially similar service area, PEG access requirement, and franchise fees to the Comcast
Franchise, the City used the Comcast Franchise as the base document for its negotiations.
26. On September 23, 2015, the City’s Telecommunications Advisory Commission (“Commission”)
held a special meeting to review progress toward a CenturyLink cable communications franchise
ordinance (CenturyLink Franchise”). Staff presented an overview of the CenturyLink Franchise
and interested parties were provided an opportunity to comment. CenturyLink answered
questions posed by the Commission and City staff. The Commission unanimously passed a
motion directing City staff to finalize the CenturyLink Franchise and recommended that the City
Council adopt the CenturyLink Franchise.
27. On October 8, 2015, the City Council gave notice that it intended to introduce an ordinance
granting a cable communications franchise to CenturyLink.
28. On November 2, 2015, the City Council will introduce Ordinance No. ___, An Ordinance of the
City of St. Louis Park Granting a Cable Communications Franchise to Qwest Broadband
Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink (“CenturyLink Franchise”).
29. Copies of the CenturyLink Franchise were made available to the public, including Comcast, on
Friday, October 30, 2105.
30. The CenturyLink Franchise encompasses the same Service Territory encompassed by the
Comcast Franchise.15
31. The franchise fees required by the CenturyLink Franchise are identical to those required by the
11
47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4).
13
Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. 1(b).
14
Minn. Stat. § 238.84, subd. 1(m).
15
CenturyLink Franchise § 28-1-5; Comcast Franchise § 28-1-5.
16
12
Page 48
32. The PEG access requirements in the CenturyLink Franchise mandate certain obligations, such as
HD channel capacity for all PEG channels that go beyond the commitments made in the Comcast
franchise.17
33. The City recognizes that CenturyLink, which currently offers no cable communications services
in the Service Territory, cannot justify a large initial deployment because it “realistically cannot
count on acquiring a share of the market similar to Comcast’s share . . . [and] must begin
offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on
its investment before expanding.”18
34. The CenturyLink Franchise therefore requires CenturyLink’s initial deployment to be capable of
serving at least 15% of the living units in the Service Territory within two years.
35. The CenturyLink Franchise permits the City to monitor CenturyLink’s progress and compliance
with build-out requirements via quarterly meeting and accelerates the build-out schedule if
CenturyLink has market success, with the goal and expectation that build-out will be
substantially complete before the CenturyLink Franchise’s five-year term expires.19
36. During its regularly scheduled meeting on November 2, 2015, the City Council will hold a public
hearing at which all interested parties are provided an opportunity to speak and present
information regarding the proposed CenturyLink Franchise.
WHEREAS, the City has considered these facts and the cable-related needs and interests
of the community:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK AS FOLLOWS:
1.
The foregoing findings are adopted as the official findings of the City Council and made
a part of the official record.
2.
The City has authority to adopt an ordinance granting a cable communications franchise
to CenturyLink for the Service Territory.
3.
The City may not unreasonably refuse to award a competitive cable communications
franchise to CenturyLink.
4.
The City and its residents will benefit from adoption of the CenturyLink Franchise, which
will introduce facilities-based competition into the cable communications market in the Service
Territory and thereby reduce costs to consumers and increase the quality and availability of
services.
5.
CenturyLink is legally, technically, and financially qualified to operate a cable
communications system in the Service Territory and has complied with all application
requirements.
17
621 Order at ¶ 35.
19
CenturyLink Franchise §§ 28-1-5 and 28-1-8.
18
Page 49
6.
The City has complied with all franchise application requirements imposed by State and
federal law, including those identified herein or in the Franchise Report.
7.
The terms and conditions of the CenturyLink Franchise pertaining to service area, a PEG
access requirement, and franchise fees are not more favorable or less burdensome than the
corollary terms of the Comcast Franchise.
8.
The CenturyLink Franchise’s initial deployment requirement of 15% within two years
and 5-year timeline for substantially completing build-out provides a reasonable period of time
for CenturyLink to become capable of reaching full deployment and is therefore consistent with
both State and federal law.
9.
The Ordinance Granting a Cable Communications Franchise for Qwest Broadband
Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink is formally and finally adopted.
10.
The City finds and concludes that its actions are appropriate, reasonable, and consistent
in all respects with the mandates set forth in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and applicable
provisions of federal law, including 47 U.S.C. § 541(a).
Approved this 16th day of November, 2015, by the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota.
City Manager
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor
Page 50
MEMORANDUM
To:
City Council of the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota
From:
Brian Grogan
Date:
October 27, 2015
Re:
Competition in Cable Communications Franchising
Executive Summary
The City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) is considering granting a competitive cable
franchise to Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink (“CenturyLink”) in a service area
for which Comcast holds an existing franchise. This memorandum is intended to assist the City
Council (“Council”) in its consideration of the proposed Ordinance Granting a Competitive Cable
Franchise for Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink (“CenturyLink Franchise”) by
summarizing the legal issues surrounding its terms that relate to competition in the cable
communications industry.
Details
The Council has previously adopted a resolution finding CenturyLink to be legally,
technically, and financially qualified to provide cable communications services to residents of the
City.
In connection with that finding, the Council authorized City staff to negotiate with
CenturyLink to determine if mutually agreeable terms for such a franchise could be reached.
Those negotiations are now complete and have resulted in the proposed CenturyLink Franchise.
City staff has also prepared for the Council’s review and consideration, written “findings of fact,”
enclosed as Exhibit 1, setting forth the factual and legal basis for the grant of the CenturyLink
150 South Fifth Street | Suite 1200 Minneapolis, MN 55402
P:612-877-5000 F:612-877-5999 W:LawMoss.com
Page 51
October 27, 2015
Page 2
Franchise and the impact of relevant State and federal competitive cable franchise laws and
regulations.
Build-out
To help promote competition in and minimize unnecessary regulatory burdens on the
cable communications industry, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by
the Cable Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 and Telecommunications Act of 1996
(the “Cable Act”) prohibits local franchising authorities from granting exclusive cable
communications franchises or unreasonably refusing to award an additional franchise to a
qualified applicant.1 The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”), which administers the
Cable Act, addressed competitive cable franchising in its 2007 Report and Order and Further
Notice of Rulemaking (generally referred to as the “621 Order” after its subject, Section 621 of
the legislation that became the Cable Act). The 621 Order explained that an unreasonable refusal
in contravention of the Cable Act could occur not only by outright denial of a franchise application,
but also by creating conditions that operate as de facto denials.
One variety of de facto denial addressed by the 621 Order is the imposition of
unreasonable build out requirements that act as a barrier for an additional cable provider to enter
a market with an existing franchise:
Build-out requirements deter market entry because a new entrant generally must
take customers from the incumbent cable operator . . . . Because the second
provider realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to the
incumbent’s share, the second entrant cannot justify a large initial deployment.
Rather, a new entrant must begin offering service within a smaller area to
determine whether it can reasonably ensure a return on its investment before
expanding.2
1
2
47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
621 Order at ¶ 35.
Page 52
October 27, 2015
Page 3
The 621 Order did not prohibit all build out requirements, but instead provided examples of
unreasonable build out requirements—and of reasonable ones, such as a small initial deployment
and required expansion triggered by market success.3
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 238, which establishes statewide cable communications
requirements, also addresses build out by requiring “a provision in initial franchises identifying
. . . a schedule showing: . . . that construction throughout the authorized franchise area must be
substantially completed within five years of the granting of the franchise.”4 CenturyLink takes
the position that Minnesota’s five-year build out requirement is unreasonable under the 621 Order
and is therefore preempted by the federal law. Comcast disagrees and points to the FCC’s recent
reaffirmation that the 621 Order’s rulings “were intended to apply only to the local franchising
process and not to franchising laws and decisions at the state level.”5
The CenturyLink Franchise addresses this issue by requiring a modest initial deployment
(at least 15% of the service area within two years) and linking build out requirements to marketsuccess benchmarks that CenturyLink must use its best efforts to meet, but granting the City sole
discretion to determine, at the end of five years, whether CenturyLink has fulfilled its build out
obligations to qualify for renewal of the franchise.6
Competitive Equity
The Minnesota cable communications statutes also contain a general level-playing-field
(i.e., “competitive equity”) provision that requires that an additional franchise include no terms
or conditions “more favorable or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise pertaining
to: (1) the area served; (2) public, educational, or governmental access requirements; or
3
4
5
6
Id. at ¶ 89-90.
Minn. Stat. § 238.084, subd. 1(m).
621 Order at ¶ 7, cited in Letter, dated July 1, 2015
Page 53
October 27, 2015
Page 4
(3) franchise fees.”7 Minnesota courts have interpreted this provision as requiring “substantially
similar”—rather than identical—terms.8 Several attempts have been made to ensure that the
CenturyLink Franchise is substantially similar to Comcast’s existing franchise: first, the Comcast
franchise served as the base document for negotiation of the CenturyLink Franchise; second, the
franchise fees required by the CenturyLink Franchise are identical to those required by Comcast’s
franchise; third, the geographic area (after complete build-out) of the CenturyLink Franchise
matches the area specified in Comcast’s franchise; and fourth, the CenturyLink Franchise requires
CenturyLink to require substantially similar—if not greater—public, educational, and governmental
access.
Findings of Fact
As previously indicated, whether the Council ultimately grants or denies the proposed
CenturyLink Franchise, it must examine all of the evidence presented to it, weigh the facts, and
apply the correct legal standards. Enclosed as Exhibit 1 are draft findings of fact generally
supporting a decision to approve the CenturyLink Franchise. With the caveat that best practices
dictate that the final findings of fact should respond to any evidence or argument against
approval, the attached findings of fact may serve as a useful starting point if the Council elects
to grant CenturyLink the franchise it seeks.
2987004v1
7
8
Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. 1(b).
See WH Link, LLC v. City of Otsego, 664 N.W.2d 390, 396 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
EXHIBIT 1
Findings of Fact/Resolution
Exhibit 1
Page 54
Page 55
CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION NO. _______
Regarding an Ordinance Granting a Competitive Cable Franchise
for Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink
RECITALS:
FACT:
WHEREAS, the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota makes the following FINDINGS OF
1.
In December 2014, Qwest Broadband Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink, Inc.
(“CenturyLink”) requested that the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota (“City”) initiate
proceedings to consider awarding it a franchise to provide cable communications services
in the City (“Service Territory”).
2.
Comcast
of
Arkansas/Florida/Louisiana/Minnesota/Mississippi/Tennessee,
Inc.
(“Comcast”) holds a non-exclusive cable communications franchise for the Service
Territory (“Comcast Franchise”).
3.
The Comcast Franchise, which the City last renewed in January, 2006, is currently the only
cable communications franchise for the Service Territory.
4.
The monopoly held by a sole cable communication provider in a particular market is a
barrier to entry for additional providers, which does not have a captive market but must
instead “win” every subscriber.1
5.
The presence of a second cable operator in a market improves the quality of service
offerings and drives down prices by approximately 15%.2
6.
On May 14 and 21, 2015, the City published a Notice of Intent to Franchise a Cable
Communications System (“Notice”) in the St. Louis Park Sun Sailor, a newspaper of
general circulation in the Service Territory.
7.
The Notice indicated that the City was soliciting franchise applications and provided
information regarding the application process, including that applications were required to
be submitted on or before June 8, 2015 and that a public hearing to hear proposals from
applicants would be held July 6, 2015 at 7:30 PM.
8.
The City also mailed copies of the Notice and application materials to CenturyLink and
Comcast.3
1
In the Matter of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 05-311, at ¶ 138 (Rel. Mar. 5, 2007) (“621 Order”).
2
Id. at ¶¶ 2, 50.
3
Notice by the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota of Its Intent to Consider An Application for a Franchise and Request
for Proposals - Official Application Form
1
Page 56
9.
On June 8, 2015, the City received an application from CenturyLink (the “CenturyLink
Application”). The City did not receive any other applications.
10.
As provided by the Notice, on July 6, 2015 the City held a public hearing during the City
Council’s regularly scheduled meeting to consider CenturyLink’s application and
qualifications.
11.
On July 1, 2015, Comcast submitted a letter to the City setting forth its position regarding
the CenturyLink Application (“Comcast Letter”).4
12.
The Comcast Letter expresses concern about how CenturyLink’s proposal compared to
particular provisions of the existing Comcast Franchise.5
13.
The Comcast Letter also summarizes Comcast’s position regarding build-out requirements
and other proposed terms related to competition in the cable industry.6
14.
During the hearing, CenturyLink presented its proposal and all other interested parties were
provided an opportunity to speak and present information to the City Council regarding the
CenturyLink Application.
15.
The law firm of Moss & Barnett, a Professional Association prepared a report, dated June
24, 2015 (“Franchise Report”), reviewing and analyzing the City’s franchising procedures,
the CenturyLink Application and other information provided by CenturyLink in connection
with the scheduled July 6, 2015 public hearing.7
16.
The Franchise Report identifies and discusses federal and state legal requirements relevant
to the City’s consideration of the CenturyLink Application, including laws pertaining to
franchising procedures and competition between providers.8
17.
The Franchise Report also analyzes information provided by CenturyLink to establish its
qualifications to operate a cable communications franchise in the Service Territory.9
18.
At its meeting on July 6, 2015, the City Council considered the Franchise Report, along
with the information and documentation it had received regarding the CenturyLink
Application, and adopted Resolution 15-092 finding and concluding that the CenturyLink
Application complied with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 238.081 and that CenturyLink
is legally, technically, and financially qualified to operate a cable communications system
within the Service Territory.
See, July 1, 2015 letter from Emmett Coleman to Reg Dunlap regarding CenturyLink Video Franchise Application.
Id. at 2.
6
Id. at 1-3.
7
Report to the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota Regarding Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a/ CenturyLink –
Proposal for a Cable Communication Franchise, June 24, 2015.
8
Franchise Report at 2-9.
9
Id. at 11-12.
4
5
2
Page 57
19.
As a result of its determination that CenturyLink complied with all application
requirements and is a qualified applicant, the City Council authorized City staff to negotiate
with CenturyLink to attempt to reach mutually acceptable terms for such a franchise.
20.
In Minnesota, both State and federal law govern the terms and conditions of an additional
cable communications franchise in an already-franchised service area.10
21.
The franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise or unreasonably refuse to
award an additional competitive franchise.11
22.
The franchising authority must allow an applicant reasonable time to become capable of
providing cable service to all households in the service area.12
23.
The franchising authority may grant an additional franchise in an already-franchised
service area if the terms and conditions of the additional franchise are not “more favorable
or less burdensome than those in the existing franchise” regarding the area served, the PEG
access requirements, and franchise fees.13
24.
The additional franchise must also include, among other things, “a schedule showing . . .
that the construction throughout the authorized franchise area must be substantially
completed within five years of the granting of the franchise.”14
25.
In order to ensure that any additional franchise granted to CenturyLink would contain
substantially similar service area, PEG access requirement, and franchise fees to the
Comcast Franchise, the City used the Comcast Franchise as the base document for its
negotiations.
26.
On September 23, 2015, the City’s Telecommunications Advisory Commission
(“Commission”) held a special meeting to review progress toward a CenturyLink cable
communications franchise ordinance (CenturyLink Franchise”). Staff presented an
overview of the CenturyLink Franchise and interested parties were provided an opportunity
to comment. CenturyLink answered questions posed by the Commission and City staff.
The Commission unanimously passed a motion directing City staff to finalize the
CenturyLink Franchise and recommended that the City Council adopt the CenturyLink
Franchise.
27.
On October 8, 2015, the City Council gave notice that it intended to introduce an ordinance
granting a cable communications franchise to CenturyLink.
28.
On November 2, 2015, the City Council will introduce Ordinance No. ___, An Ordinance
of the City of St. Louis Park Granting a Cable Communications Franchise to Qwest
Broadband Services, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink (“CenturyLink Franchise”).
See 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1); Minn. Stat. §§ 238.08, .084; see also Franchise Report at 2-8.
47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
12
47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4).
13
Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. 1(b).
14
Minn. Stat. § 238.84, subd. 1(m).
10
11
3
Page 58
29.
Copies of the CenturyLink Franchise were made available to the public, including
Comcast, on October 30, 2015.
30.
The CenturyLink Franchise encompasses the same Service Territory encompassed by the
31.
The franchise fees required by the CenturyLink Franchise are identical to those required
by the Comcast Franchise.16
32.
The PEG access requirements in the CenturyLink Franchise mandate certain obligations,
such as HD channel capacity for all PEG channels that go beyond the commitments made
in the Comcast franchise.17
33.
The City recognizes that CenturyLink, which currently offers no cable communications
services in the Service Territory, cannot justify a large initial deployment because it
“realistically cannot count on acquiring a share of the market similar to Comcast’s share .
. . [and] must begin offering service within a smaller area to determine whether it can
reasonably ensure a return on its investment before expanding.”18
34.
The CenturyLink Franchise therefore requires CenturyLink’s initial deployment to be
capable of serving at least 15% of the living units in the Service Territory within two years.
35.
The CenturyLink Franchise permits the City to monitor CenturyLink’s progress and
compliance with build-out requirements via quarterly meeting and accelerates the buildout schedule if CenturyLink has market success, with the goal and expectation that buildout will be substantially complete before the CenturyLink Franchise’s five-year term
expires.19
36.
During its regularly scheduled meeting on November 2, 2015, the City Council will hold a
public hearing at which all interested parties are provided an opportunity to speak and
present information regarding the proposed CenturyLink Franchise.
WHEREAS, the City has considered these facts and the cable-related needs and interests
of the community:
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council for the City of St. Louis Park, Minnesota hereby
resolves as follows:
1.
The foregoing findings are adopted as the official findings of the City Council and made a
part of the official record.
17
18
621 Order at ¶ 35.
19
15
16
4
Page 59
2.
The City has authority to adopt an ordinance granting a cable communications franchise to
CenturyLink for the Service Territory.
3.
The City may not unreasonably refuse to award a competitive cable communications
franchise to CenturyLink.
4.
The City and its residents will benefit from adoption of the CenturyLink Franchise, which
will introduce facilities-based competition into the cable communications market in the
Service Territory and thereby reduce costs to consumers and increase the quality and
availability of services.
5.
CenturyLink is legally, technically, and financially qualified to operate a cable
communications system in the Service Territory and has complied with all application
requirements.
6.
The City has complied with all franchise application requirements imposed by State and
federal law, including those identified herein or in the Franchise Report.
7.
The terms and conditions of the CenturyLink Franchise pertaining to service area, a PEG
access requirement, and franchise fees are not more favorable or less burdensome than the
corollary terms of the Comcast Franchise.
8.
The CenturyLink Franchise’s initial deployment requirement of 15% within two years and
5-year timeline for substantially completing build-out provides a reasonable period of time
for CenturyLink to become capable of reaching full deployment and is therefore consistent
with both State and federal law.
9.
The Ordinance Granting a Cable Communications Franchise for Qwest Broadband
Services, Inc., d/b/a CenturyLink is formally and finally adopted.
10.
The City finds and concludes that its actions are appropriate, reasonable, and consistent in
all respects with the mandates set forth in Chapter 238 of Minnesota Statutes and applicable
provisions of federal law, including 47 U.S.C. § 541(a).
PASSED AND ADOPTED in regular session of the City Council of the City of St. Louis Park,
Minnesota this
day of
, 201 .
Mayor of the City of St. Louis Park
ATTEST:
City Clerk
5
Action Agenda Item: 8a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TITLE: Kerasotes Showplace ICON Theatre Liquor License Premises Amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Motion to approve the request of Kerasotes Showplace ICON
Theatre to amend the existing licensed premises by expanding the liquor service area to include
all auditoriums on the premises and permitting the sale of alcohol from multiple service points
on the premises.
POLICY CONSIDERATION: Does the City Council approve expanding Showplace ICON
Theatre’s liquor service area to include all auditoriums on the premises and permit the sale of
alcohol from multiple service points on the premises?
SUMMARY: Kerasotes Theatres approached the City to propose an amendment to the liquor
license for the Showplace ICON Theatre located at the West End. The proposed amendment
would expand the licensed premises to allow guests to purchase alcohol at multiple service
points and to consume alcohol in any of the auditoriums on the premises.
Kerasotes currently holds an On-Sale Intoxicating liquor license with Sunday sales for the
premises located at 1625 West End Blvd. They also hold a special 2 am license from the
State. This license was first approved by the City Council in 2009. Currently, alcohol is sold
exclusively at the in-house bar/restaurant called the “LoBBY LOUNGE”. This is a separate area
within the theatre, located upstairs, that is limited to guests over the age of 21. Guests (21 and
over) have the option to take alcoholic beverages (purchased at the LoBBY Lounge) into either
of the two (2) reserved VIP premium auditoriums for which a special ticket must be purchased.
The primary reason for the request is a desire on the part of Kerasotes Theatres to keep the
Showplace ICON Theatre competitive within the Twin Cities market. Several other theatres in
the metro area have recently been approved for liquor licenses that allow guests to purchase
alcohol on-site for consumption throughout the licensed premises, in any auditorium.
The proposal was reviewed by both staff and the City Attorney and it was determined that the
appropriate course of action would be for Kerasotes to apply for a premises amendment to the
existing liquor license.
FINANCIAL OR BUDGET CONSIDERATION: None at this time.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Approved by:
Discussion
Nancy Deno, Deputy City Manager/HR Director
Title: Kerasotes Showplace ICON Theatre Liquor License Premises Amendment
Page 2
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND: The On-Sale Intoxicating and Sunday liquor licenses for the Showplace
ICON Theatre located at the West End were originally granted in 2009. After reviewing the staff
report and the minutes from the meeting at which the licenses were originally approved, it is
clear the intent was to only allow alcohol to be sold out of the restaurant area upstairs (LoBBY
LOUNGE) and to limit the areas in which alcohol could be carried or consumed to the LoBBY
LOUNGE and either of the two (2) designated VIP Premium Reserved auditoriums.
Given the proposal to change the original parameters outlined for the sale and consumption of
alcohol on the licensed premises, staff directed the applicant to apply for a premises amendment.
City Code Sec. 3-106 states that amendments to a liquor license must be approved by the City
Council.
Where is alcohol currently sold on the premises?
• Alcohol is currently sold at the LoBBY LOUNGE, a separate restaurant/bar area located
upstairs. No alcohol is currently sold at the main level concession area. All party
members must be 21 years of age or older to enter areas where alcohol is served.
Where can alcohol currently be consumed on the premises?
• Alcohol can be consumed in the LoBBY LOUNGE or in either of the two (2) VIP
Premium Reserved auditoriums by guests 21 years of age and older (with valid ID). This
equates to approximately 9% of the seating in the entire premises.
Under the new proposal, where would alcohol be sold on the premises?
• Alcohol would continue to be sold in the LoBBY LOUNGE to guests 21 years of age and
older (with valid ID).
•
Additionally, alcohol would be available for purchase by guests 21 years of age and older
(with valid ID) at a dedicated service area out of the main level concession stand.
•
Initially, the main level concession stand sales would be limited to bottled beer (12 oz.)
and dispenser wine (5 oz. pour) only.
Under the new proposal, where could alcohol be consumed on the premises?
• Alcoholic beverages could be consumed within any of the auditoriums on the premises.
How is the sale and consumption of alcohol currently regulated or controlled on the
licensed premises?
• Only guests 21 years of age and older are allowed to enter areas where alcohol is served.
•
A valid photo ID is required in order to purchase alcohol.
•
All employees serving alcohol must complete a training course related to the responsible
service of alcohol, including learning to recognize the signs of over-intoxication.
What internal control procedures would the applicant implement to control the expanded
sale and consumption of alcohol on the licensed premises?
• Only guests 21 years of age and older will be served, with a valid photo ID required to
purchase alcohol.
Title: Kerasotes Showplace ICON Theatre Liquor License Premises Amendment
Page 3
•
All employees serving alcohol must complete a training course related to the responsible
service of alcohol, including learning to recognize the signs of over-intoxication.
•
Alcohol will be served one drink at a time per customer, with a limit of three drinks per
customer per visit to the theatre.
•
Alcoholic beverages will be served in designated containers that are different from the
containers used for non-alcoholic beverages.
•
Alcohol will not be discounted to boost sales at any time. Kerasotes Showplace ICON
will not have a “happy hour” or other designated window of time during which the sale of
alcoholic beverages will be discounted.
•
All auditoriums will be under surveillance – both via cameras and periodic monitoring by
staff and managers.
Are there other movie theatres in the Twin Cities area are licensed to sell alcohol for
consumption throughout the entire licensed premises?
Theatre
Marcus Theatre
AMC Theatre
Landmark Uptown Theatre
Marcus Parkwood Cinema
New Hope Cinema Grill
City
Oakdale
Inver Grove
Heights
Minneapolis
Waite Park
New Hope
AMC Theatres also have plans to add expanded alcohol service to two (2) Twin Cities’
locations in 2016.
Does the Police Department have any safety or enforcement concerns related to the
request?
• The Police Department was consulted and did not have any immediate concerns
regarding the proposed amendment. Regular compliance checks would continue to be
performed and the expanded service would be monitored.
Have there been any liquor violations or compliance check failures on the licensed
premises?
• Since obtaining the liquor license in 2009, there have been no liquor license violations or
compliance check failures at the licensed premises.
Is the Showplace ICON Theatre currently subject to the 50% Food/Beverage Ratio?
• Yes, because the theatre currently holds an on-sale intoxicating liquor license there is a
continuing obligation to have at least 50% of the gross receipts attributable to the sale of
food. In discussions with staff, the applicant indicated that the proposed changes would
not prevent the business from continuing to meet the required food/beverage ratio.
NEXT STEPS: If approved, Kerasotes Theatres would begin the process of implementing the
proposed changes for the upcoming holiday season.

Council Meeting - St. Louis Park

Transcription

Similar documents

FRANCHISE APPLICATION FORM - Frankfinn Institute of Air

success story

AIRSOFT minefield game copy

flyer

Brochure - Lizotte

CITY OF UCON AUGUST 2015 NEWSLETTER

File

STEP 1 - Souper!Salad!

fourwin franchise - Treo Engineering

Souper Salad