HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC PACKET 07082014H.R.A. meeting immediately
following City Council meeting
'*1ahCary
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
July 8, 2014
7:00 p.m.
Call to Order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call.
Consideration, discussion, and oossible action on all of the following items:
Approval of the July 8, 2014, City Council Meeting Agenda. (action requested.)
II. Proclamations and Recognitions.
III. Consent Agenda.
These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or
citizen so requests, in which the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda.
A. Approval of June 24, 2014, City Council meeting and June 30, 2014 Special City Council meeting minutes.
(pp. 1-10)
B. Licenses and Permits. (pp. 11-12)
C. Claims. (pp. 13-16)
D. Resolution 14-052; a resolution Approving Election Judges for the 2014 State Primary Election August 12,
2014. (pp. 17-20)
IV. Public Hearing. prone.
V. Reports from Commission and Staff. (Kelsey Johnson, City Planner will be presenting)
A. Ordinance 2014-02; an Ordinance Amending Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section 155.22
of the Zoning Code of the City of St. Anthony Village Pertaining to the Prohibited Signs. (Church of St.
Charles Borromeo, 2739 Stinson Boulevard) (pp. 21-38)
B. Ordinance 2014-03 (or 02); an Ordinance Amending Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section
155.22 of the Zoning Code of the City of St. Anthony Village Pertaining to the Prohibited Signs. (St.
Anthony Mobil, 2801 Kenzie Terrace) (pp. 39-56)
VI. General Business of Council.
A. Organized Collection. Mark Casey will be presenting. (pp. 57-76)
• Motion to Set Date for Public Hearing to Take Action on the Proposal and Draft Agreement as is;
OR • Motion to Direct staff to prepare a resolution appointing the Members to the Organized Collection
Options Committee.
VII. Reports from City Manager and Council members.
Vlll. Community Forum.
Individuals may address the City Council about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their
name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes. Generally,
the City Council will not take official action on items discussed at this time, but may typically refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the
matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda.
IX. Information and Announcements.
X. Adjournment.
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
1
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES
3 JUNE 24, 2014
4
5 CALL TO ORDER.
6
7 Mayor Faust called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
8
9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
10
1 I Mayor Faust invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
12
13 ROLL CALL.
14
15 Present: Mayor Faust; Councilmembers Jenson, Roth, and Stille.
16 Absent: Councilmember Gray.
17 Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey, Public Works Director Jay Hartman, and Finance Director
18 Shelly Rueckert.
19 Guests: James Strommen (Kennedy & Graven) and Peggy Moeller (HLB Tautges Redpath).
20
21 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
22 ITEMS.
23
24 1. APPROVAL OF JUNE 24, 2014, CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA.
25
26 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Stille, to approve the City
27 Council Meeting Agenda of June 24, 2014.
28
29 Motion carried 4-0.
30
31 II. PROCLAMATIONS AND RECOGNITIONS - NONE.
32
33 III. CONSENT AGENDA.
34
35 A. Consider June 10, 2014. Council meeting minutes;
36 B. Consider licenses and permits;
37 C. Consider payment of claims;
38 D. Consider Resolution 14-046; a Resolution Accepting Grants and Donations as Received
39 in the Second Ouarter of 2014; and
40 E. Consider Resolution 14-047; a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Joint
41 Cooperation Agreement between the City of St. Anthony Village and Hennepin County
42 for Participation in the Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
43 Program in Fiscal Years 2015-2017.
44
45 Motion by Councilmember Stille, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to approve the Consent
46 Agenda items.
47
48 Motion carried 4-0.
49
50 IV. PUBLIC HEARING - NONE.
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 24, 2014
Page 2
V. REPORTS FROM COMMISSION AND STAFF - NONE.
LIPA: 010 al I"" aC11M10BMT13WK111109)14
A. Resolution 14-048; a Resolution Approving a Request to Keep Five Female Chickens in
an R-1 Zoning District at 3100 Hilldale Avenue. Mark Casey, City Manager, presenting.
9 City Manager Casey presented the applicant's request to keep five female chickens and
10 introduced Ms. Renee Reed.
11
12 Ms. Reed stated she is requesting to house five female chickens and has made arrangements to
13 relocate the chicks if any of them are roosters. She advised she has purchased a 3'x3' coop and
14 attached run that is 4101. She stated everything would be encased in chicken wire and located
15 behind a playhouse and not visible by her neighbors. She added she has talked to all of her
16 neighbors and none of them indicated a concern about the chickens.
17
18 Motion by Councilmember Roth, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to adopt Resolution 14-
19 042; a Resolution to Approve a Request to Keep Five (5) Female Chickens in an R-1 Zoning
20 District at 3100 Hilldale Avenue.
21
22 Councilmember Stille noted that chickens are allowed under the current Ordinance but these
23 requests are currently dealt with on an individual basis because the City Council has not yet
24 studied the Ordinance.
25
26 Motion carried 4-0.
27
28 B. Resolution 14-049; a Resolution Authorizing Membership in the Suburban Rate
29 Authority, a Joint Powers Organization under Minnesota Statutes §471.59, Authorizing
30 Execution of the Amended Joint and Cooperative Agreement and Appointing Jav
31 Hartman and Mark Casey as Director and Alternate, resl2ectively, to the Suburban Rate
32 Authority Board. James Strommen, Kennedy & Graven, presenting.
33
34 Mayor Faust introduced Mr. James Strommen.
35
36 Mr. Strommen explained that the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) is an active joint powers
37 organization that serves as an active watchdog for suburbs and ratepayers and includes 28
38 suburban municipality members with a total population of approximately 900,000 and the SRA
39 provides an effective collective voice before the Public Utilities Commission on matters of
40 electricity, gas, and telephone, as well as right-of-way management for utility franchises and cell
41 towers. He stated the SRA meets four times per year and acts on policy issues and other
42 important matters that make a difference to the member cities and ratepayers.
43
44 Mayor Faust stated that the City has never been a member of the SRA and the cost to participate
45 is $800 per year.
46
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 24, 2014
Page 3
1 Mr. Strommen reported that the SRA was recently able to obtain outage credits for
2 municipalities with municipal pumping stations and the City will receive a credit this month
3 from Xcel in the amount of $2,520 for its pumping stations.
4
Councilmember Stille stated that the League's annual conference included a session on LED
lighting and negotiations with Xcel or other service providers to share in the cost of LED lighting
and this issue is important to the City as it works to satisfy its sustainability goals.
9 Mr. Strommen stated that the SRA completed a study six years ago on competition when cities
10 are not happy with the products that Xcel provides and Xcel is currently conducting a pilot
11 program in West St. Paul. He indicated there are other providers available to cities and this
12 makes a difference in terms of contracts that can be pursued and the SRA wants Xcel to move on
13 this by offering more LED lighting.
14
15 Motion by Councilmember Roth, seconded by Councilmember Stille, to adopt Resolution 14-
16 049; a Resolution Authorizing Membership in the Suburban Rate Authority, a Joint Powers
17 Organization under Minnesota Statutes §471.59, Authorizing Execution of the Amended Joint
18 and Cooperative Agreement and Appointing Jay Hartman and Mark Casey as Director and
19 Alternate, respectively, to the Suburban Rate Authority Board.
20
21 Motion carried 4-0.
22
23 C. 2013 Audit Presentation. Peggy Moeller, HLB Taut eg s Redpath, Ltd., presenting.
24
25 Ms. Moeller explained that five reports are issued as part of the 2013 audit, including the
26 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), State Legal Compliance Report, Report on
27 Internal Controls, Audit Management Report, and Communication with those Charged with
28 Governance and reported that the City has received an unmodified, or clean, opinion on its 2013
29 financial statements. She stated the State Legal Compliance Report is required by statute and
30 covers seven categories and they performed tests in all categories and there were no findings of
31 noncompliance. She explained that they do not audit the City's internal controls as part of the
32 Report on Internal Control; rather, they consider the City's internal controls as they plan and
33 perform the audit and there was one finding reported for 2013 related to lack of segregation of
34 duties. She explained that this is a function of the size of the City's staff and is the most
35 common finding they give. She stated the Management Letter shows that the General Fund
36 balance increased $173,202 during 2013 and 2013 revenues came in over budget by
37 approximately $430,000 and expenditures were over budget by approximately $247,000 and the
38 General Fund balance at the end of 2013 was $2,148,539. She explained the City's minimum
39 fund balance policy of 30-35% and indicated the fund balance at December 31, 2013, was
40 sufficient to meet the City's cash flow needs. She reviewed the Water and Sewer Enterprise
41 Fund indicating that operating income for water during 2013 was $139,939 and sewer expenses
42 exceeded revenue for a loss of $71,789. She also reviewed the Liquor Fund indicating 2013 net
43 income before transfers of $490,396 and noted the City was able to transfer approximately
44 $439,000 into the General Fund and Capital Equipment Fund. She reported that the auditors
45 encountered no difficulties in performing the audit and there were no disagreements with
46 management during the audit. She advised that the City was required to include GASB
47 Statement No. 65 during the 2013 audit related to reporting of unavailable revenue as well as
48 how the City treats issuance costs on debt, adding that issuance costs were previously amortized
3
4
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 24, 2014
Page 4
1 over the life of the bond and GASB No. 65 requires these costs to be expensed in the year of
2 issuance. She reported the City will be required to implement GASB Statement No. 68 for the
3 year ended December 31, 2015, that requires cities to report a liability for its proportionate share
4 of PERA liability and Fire Relief. She thanked all of the City staff that assisted during the audit.
6 Motion by Councilmember Stille, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to accept the 2013 Audit
7 Report as presented.
9 Motion carried 4-0.
10
11 VII. REPORTS FROM CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.
12
13 City Manager Casey reported on the ongoing discussions about the Comcast renewal including
14 discussions about the future governance structure of the North Suburban Cable Commission. He
15 stated that Councilmember Gray serves as chair of the strategic planning subcommittee of the
16 North Suburban Cable Commission and there was a meeting yesterday to discuss a proposed
17 governance model and further information will be presented to the City Council.
18
19 Councilmember Jenson reported on his attendance at the annual League conference held June
20 18-20 in St. Cloud.
21
22 Councilmember Roth reported on his attendance at the annual League conference last week.
23
24 Councilmember Stille reported on his attendance at the annual League conference last week. He
25 also reported on his attendance at the June 23`d Planning Commission meeting.
26
27 Mayor Faust reported on his attendance at the annual League conference last week and stated he
28 led a workshop that included a tour of the water treatment facility, waste water treatment plant,
29 hydro facility dam, and Munsinger Gardens. He stated he also presented information on the
30 City's annual goal setting and strategic planning. He thanked the City Councilmembers for
31 taking vacation time to attend the annual League conference.
32
33 VIII. COMMUNITY FORUM.
M
35 Mayor Faust invited residents to come forward at this time and address the Council on items that
36 are not on the regular agenda.
37
38 Mr. Kent Horsager, 3529 Edward Street, thanked the Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
39 Casey for their willingness to discuss the issue of beekeeping with him. He stated that bees have
40 been kept for a number of years in the City and for the last twenty years the same Code has been
41 in place regarding beekeeping and only recently has the Code been reinterpreted to disallow
42 beekeeping. He indicated it was his understanding there has only been one complaint about bee
43 hives and the beekeeper promptly removed the hives and this prompted a larger response from
44 the City to shut down or reinterpret the Code to not allow beekeeping. He expressed concern
45 about the current Code and urged the City Council to refocus the conversation regarding
46 beekeeping on the mission of the City and not add unnecessary code. He stated that nineteen
47 surrounding municipalities have no beekeeping code and use their nuisance code if there are
48 issues with beekeeping and he felt this represented a much better path moving forward. He
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
June 24, 2014
Page 5
suggested that the Planning Commission be tasked with evaluating the nuisance code as a way to
address beekeeping and provide guidance if there is an issue and added that beekeepers are
interested in being good stewards and felt the nuisance code could be used to resolve any issues.
5 Ms. Beth Horsager, 3529 Edward Street, presented a photo album of beekeeping activities and
6 stated they have been keeping bees and hosting an annual honey harvest for many years. She
7 stated they are an organic, sustainable activity that benefits community members and they do not
8 sell their honey or make any profit and their hobby is educational and brings the community
9 together in a positive way.
10
I 1 Mr. Dan Mathieu, 3536 Edward Street, expressed support for the Horsagers and stated the annual
12 honey harvest is a great community event.
13
14 Ms. Lona Donlan, 3511 Harding Street, stated she maintains the community garden at Nativity
15 Church and is a member of Citizens for Sustainability that seeks to promote sustainable living in
16 St. Anthony and feels fortunate to live in city where City officials have published a sustainability
17 plan. She agreed with Mr. Horsager's suggestion to rely on the nuisance code rather than
18 adopting new codes related to beekeeping and added she felt that City government should
19 provide more information to residents interested in implementing sustainability practices.
20
21 Mayor Faust clarified that the City has not reinterpreted the Code and stated that the City has to
22 address issues as they come up and cannot write a codebook that encompasses everything,
23 adding that the City does not want to write a codebook that is onerous and is not interested in
24 propagating more code. He stated the Planning Commission has beekeeping on its 2013 work
25 plan and will work to find standards that fit the entire community and the City Council is
26 committed to its sustainability goals and has to balance what is best for all by working through
27 these issues slowly and methodically for the overall betterment of the community. He thanked
28 everyone for attending this evening and reiterated the City Council's commitment to work
29 through this issue to get to a good result.
30
31 IX. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS.
32
33 Councilmember Stille noted that the City Council has scheduled a special meeting on Monday,
34 June 30, 2014.
35
36 X. ADJOURNMENT.
37
38 Mayor Faust adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
39
40 Respectfully submitted,
41 Barbara Hughes (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.)
42
43 ATTEST: Mayor
44 City Clerk
5
0
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
JUNE 30, 2014
4
5 CALL TO ORDER.
6
7 Mayor Faust called the special meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
9 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
10
11 Mayor Faust invited the Council and audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance.
12
13 ROLL CALL.
14
15 Present: Mayor Faust; Councilmembers Gray, Jenson, Roth and Stille.
16 Absent: None.
17 Also Present: City Manager Mark Casey.
18 Guest: Stacie Kvilvang (Ehlers & Associates).
19
20 CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ALL OF THE FOLLOWING
21 ITEMS.
22
23 I. APPROVAL OF JUNE 30, 2014, SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA.
24
25 Motion by Councilmember Jenson, seconded by Councilmember Gray, to approve the Special
26 City Council Meeting Agenda of June 30, 2014.
27
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 II. GENERAL BUSINESS OF COUNCIL.
31
32 A. Resolution 14-050: a Resolution Relating to $3,750,000 General Obligation Tax
33 Increment Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2014B: Awarding the Sale, Fixing the Form
34 and Details, and Providing for the Execution and Delivery Thereof and Security Therefor.
35 Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, presenting.
36
37 Mayor Faust noted that the revised amount of the refunding is $3,665,000 instead of $3,750,000.
38
39 Ms. Kvilvang advised that the City's AA stable rating is applicable to the City's strong
40 budgetary flexibility, adequate budgetary performance, very strong liquidity and cash flows, and
41 strong management with good financial practices. She stated the bond sale was held at 11:00
42 a.m. today with six bids received and the low bidder was Baird for 2.881%. She noted the City
43 received premium bids so the amount of the refunding was reduced from $3,750,000 to
44 $3,665,000, adding that the rates were 20 basis points higher than anticipated due to the current
45 market. She indicated that present value savings is $860,000 over the next 20 years, a savings
46 percent of 18%, or approximately $46,000 more than anticipated.
47
48 Motion by Councilmember Stille, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to adopt Resolution 14-
49 050; a Resolution Relating to $3,665,000 General Obligation Tax Increment Revenue Refunding
ri
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2014
Page 2
Bonds, Series 201413; Awarding the Sale, Fixing the Form and Details, and Providing for the
Execution and Delivery Thereof and Security Therefor.
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Resolution 14-051; a Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale. Prescribing the
Form and Details and Providing for the Payment of $1,330,000 General Obli >a� tion
Refunding Bonds, Series 2014C. Stacie Kvilvang, Ehlers & Associates, presenting.
10 Ms. Kvilvang stated that the refunding amount has been reduced to $1,305,000 and advised that
11 the bond sale was held at 11:00 a.m. today with five bids received and the low bidder was Baird.
12 She indicted this represents a true interest cost of 2.1% and is approximately 12 basis points
13 higher than expected, representing a present value savings of $75,000 or $7,000 per year over the
14 remaining term of the bond, a savings percentage of 5.3%. She noted that Councilmember Stille
15 inquired whether negative arbitrage exists and explained that because of the refunding in
16 advance of 90 days of the call date, the City typically issues more in bonds to cover the cost of
17 interest on the new bonds and this is inclusive with negative arbitrage and the cost of issuance.
18
19 Motion by Councilmember Gray, seconded by Councilmember Jenson, to adopt Resolution 14-
20 051; a Resolution Authorizing Issuance, Awarding Sale, Prescribing the Form and Details and
21 Providing for the Payment of $1,305,000 General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2014C.
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 C. City Council Receives Organized Collection Proposal. Mark Casey, City Manager,
26 presenting.
27
28 City Manager Casey advised the City has been operating under authority of Minn. Stat. §
29 115A.94 (Organized Collection Statute) in accordance with three main criteria, including the
30 proposal must include identified city priorities, must reflect existing haulers maintaining their
31 respective market share, and the initial organized collection agreement must be for a period of
32 three to seven years. He stated on April 30, 2014, the City provided public notice to the haulers
33 that the City was entering into a 60 -day exclusive negotiation period and representatives from
34 three haulers attended several meetings with City staff. He indicated the first meeting involved
35 providing general information as well as the City's priorities, specifications, and timeline, and
36 key to the City's expectations was that the negotiations would be conducted in good.faith while
37 maintaining the exclusivity contemplated by the Organized Collection Statute. He advised that
38 the haulers were in general agreement with the City's timeline; the haulers raised concerns over
39 the proprietary nature of the market share information and in order to protect this information, it
40 will be redacted from the public version; and the haulers addressed concerns over aspects of the
41 draft specifications, some of which related to the perceived and impractical nature of
42 specifications within a consortium -style system. He stated that the City responded to the
43 concerns and all parties are in agreement with the revised specifications as of June 10, 2014. He
44 stated that City staff will provide further analysis of the content of the proposal to be delivered to
45 the City Council prior to the July 8, 2014, City Council meeting and City staff recommends that
46 the City Council review the proposal, draft agreement, and staff analysis and undertake one of
47 four options: (1) set a date for the public hearing to take action on the contract on July 8, 2014,
48 (2) direct staff to continue exclusive negotiations with the haulers to address concerns, (3) reject
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Special City Council Meeting Minutes
June 30, 2014
Page 3
the proposal and contract as is and direct staff to prepare a Resolution appointing an Organized
Collection Options Committee pursuant to the Organized Collection Statute, or (4) reject the
proposal and terminate further organized collection efforts at this time.
Mayor Faust pointed out that the City Council is not taking action this evening and this matter
will come back to the City Council on July 8, 2014, at which time the City Council will make a
decision on one of the four options. He stated tonight's meeting is intended to announce that the
City has held proprietary meetings with the haulers and is following the Organized Collection
Statute as recently enacted. He added that St. Anthony is one of the first cities to follow the new
Organized Collection Statute and asked about any feedback received from the haulers.
City Manager Casey reported there has been positive dialogue in a collaborative environment
and overall, the meetings went very well.
III. ADJOURNMENT.
Mayor Faust adjourned the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara Hughes (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.)
24 ATTEST:
25
City Clerk
Mayor
0
10
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
Saint Anthony Village
DATE: July 8, 2014 Approved:
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: License Clerk
ITEM: License and Permits for Approval:
General Contractors License:
Cornerstone Construction Services, Eden Prairie, MN
Mechanical License:
Action Heating & A/C, Spring Lake Park, MN
Benjamin Franklin Plumbing, Minneapolis, MN
Pronto Heating & A/C, Eden Prairie, MN
Rental License:
Applicant: St Anthony Leased Housing Associates
Location: 2501 - 2551 38th Ave NE
Applicant: Scott & Julie Becker
Location: 24183 91h Ave NE
Applicant: Kathleen Kirkendall
Location: 3412 Coolidge St NE
Applicant: ASI Hennepin County
Location: 3512 Silver Lake Rd
Parks Special Event Beer Permit:
Applicant: Arlene Wischnewski
Date: July 20, 2014
Location: Central Park
12
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
3
City of St Anthony Village
Vendor Number
CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER
Check Issue Dates: 6/20/2014 - 7/9/2014
Page: 1
Jul 02, 2014 01:21 PM
Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
10176
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
23708
06/20/2014
58,529.50
11798
CENTRAL PENSION FUND LOCAL #49
23709
06/20/2014
2,764.80
11809
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY SUNSHINE FUND
23710
06/20/2014
230.00
10710
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST
23711
06/20/2014
2,575.45
11813
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INSURANCE
23712
06/20/2014
160.00
11808
SAPD ASSOCIATION
23713
06/20/2014
486.00
11799
THE HARTFORD
23714
06/27/2014
1,178.40
11554
THE HARTFORD -PRIORITY ACCOUNTS
23715
06/27/2014
569.70
11064
MOTOROLA INC
23716
07/01/2014
42,867.00
10054
ALLIANCE MECHANICAL
23717
07/09/2014
645.00
10072
AMERICAN PAYMENT CENTERS
23718
07/09/2014
78.00
10092
APACHE GROUP
23719
07/09/2014
1,523.39
10098
ARAMARK
23720
07/09/2014
192.76
1100
ARTISIAN BEER COMPANY
23721
07/09/2014
3,660.20
10139
B & F FASTENER SUPPLY
23722
07/09/2014
46.44
1013
BELLBOY CORPORATION
23723
07/09/2014
17,087.03
1014
BELLBOY CORPORATION
23724
07/09/2014
468.44
1035
BERNICK'S BEVERAGE & VENDING
23725
07/09/2014
1,724.25
10172
RIFFS, INC.
23726
07/09/2014
212.00
10185
BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC
23727
07/09/2014
105.32
10191
BRAZIL, KIM
23728
07/09/2014
50.81
10197
BRIAN NELSON INSPECTION SVCS
23729
07/09/2014
570.00
10206
BROCK WHITE COMPANY LLC
23730
07/09/2014
199.60
1017
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES
23731
07/09/2014
21,241.63
10246
CASEY, MARK
23732
07/09/2014
417.52
11986
CITIESDIGITAL
23733
07/09/2014
319.20
10306
CITY WIDE WINDOW SERVICE INC
23734
07/09/2014
69.63
1010
CLEAR RIVER BEVERAGE COMPANYMPANY
23735
07/09/2014
212.69
1021
COCA COLA REFRESHMENTS USA, INC.
23736
07/09/2014
270.54
1042
CRYSTAL SPRINGS ICE
23737
07/09/2014
778.09
10438
D ROCK CENTER & SMALL ENG
23738
07/09/2014
66.00
10402
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY
23739
07/09/2014
3,053.07
10426
DON HARSTAD CO., INC.
23740
07/09/2014
945.00
10432
DORSEY & WHITNEY
23741
07/09/2014
10,045.50
10437
DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVICES
23742
07/09/2014
20.75
10437
DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVICES
23743
07/09/2014
20.75
11978
ECM PUBLISHERS INC
23744
07/09/2014
600.00
1045
EXTREME BEVERAGE
23745
07/09/2014
235.50
11968
FASCOINC
23746
07/09/2014
22,887.60
10523
FISCHER/MERLE
23747
07/09/2014
46.00
10526
FLEETPRIDE
23748
07/09/2014
38.58
11757
FLINT TRADING INC
23749
07/09/2014
268.61
1097
FORESTEDGE WINERY
23750
07/09/2014
627.60
12006
FRANK'S DENT REPAIR, INC
23751
07/09/2014
100.00
10544
FREEWAYTOWING
23752
07/09/2014
184.26
10550
G & K SERVICES INC
23753
07/09/2014
1,840.32
1110
GENERAL INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO
23754
07/09/2014
27.30
10573
GOODIN COMPANY
23755
07/09/2014
353.89
1032
GRAPE BEGINNINGS, INC.
23756
07/09/2014
192.50
10589
GRAY/HAL
23757
07/09/2014
73.92
10607
HACH COMPANY
23758
07/09/2014
68.37
10617
HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS
23759
07/09/2014
15.98
10636
HEDBACK, ARENDT & CARLSON PLLC
23760
07/09/2014
3,500.00
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 6/20/2014 - 7/9/2014 Jul 02, 2014 01:21 PM
Vendor Number
Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
10642
HENN CNTY INFO TECH DEPT
23761
07/09/2014
744.83
1019
HOHENSTEIN'S, INC
23762
07/09/2014
11,474.11
10684
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
23763
07/09/2014
489.82
1027
INDEED BREWING COMPANY
23764
07/09/2014
2,076.00
10727
INLAND TRS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
23765
07/09/2014
2,559.29
11754
INTEGRATED LOSS CONTROL, INC.
23766
07/09/2014
579.00
10739
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
23767
07/09/2014
145.00
1016
JJ TAYLOR DISTRIBUTING
23768
07/09/2014
68,142.37
1004
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR CO.
23769
07/09/2014
11,207.87
1005
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.
23770
07/09/2014
19,605.97
1006
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.
23771
07/09/2014
13,052.90
1044
JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR COMPANY.
23772
07/09/2014
13,893.99
10785
KATH FUEL OIL SERVICE
23773
07/09/2014
322.92
11966
KDH SAFETY LLC
23774
07/09/2014
340.00
10821
LARSON/MICHAEL
23775
07/09/2014
266.96
10861
LOFFLER BUSINESS SYSTEMS
23776
07/09/2014
215.33
1022
M. AMUNDSON LLP
23777
07/09/2014
2,169.61
10874
MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT CO
23778
07/09/2014
49.92
10893
MARSHALL CONCRETE PROD
23779
07/09/2014
159.05
10931
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
23780
07/09/2014
51,705.85
10932
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
23781
07/09/2014
7,380.45
10939
MIDWAY FORD
23782
07/09/2014
22.39
10940
MIDWEST ASPHALT CORPORATION
23783
07/09/2014
98.40
11025
MINNESOTA CONWAY FIRE & SAFETY
23784
07/09/2014
60.50
11074
MTI DISTRIBUTING, INC
23785
07/09/2014
134.88
11085
MURPHY'S SERVICE CENTER
23786
07/09/2014
15.28
1051
NEW FRANCE WINE COMPANY
23787
07/09/2014
374.00
1033
NORTHGATE BREWING
23788
07/09/2014
84.00
11149
NORTHSTAR INSPECTION SERVICES
23789
07/09/2014
6,412.91
11163
OFFICE DEPOT
23790
07/09/2014
525.43
11186
PAETEC
23791
07/09/2014
215.53
1012
PAUSTIS & SONS
23792
07/09/2014
3,766.26
1001
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
23793
07/09/2014
5,156.95
1002
PHILLIPS WINE & SPIRITS
23794
07/09/2014
9,121.24
11240
POSTMASTER (ELECTIONS)
23795
07/09/2014
200.00
11246
PRAXAIR
23796
07/09/2014
354.90
12008
PREMIER LIGHTING
23797
07/09/2014
2,989.80
11319
RECREATION, SPORTS & PLAY, INC
23798
07/09/2014
119.00
12007
RICK, LUNDEEN
23799
07/09/2014
68.34
11408
SIGNATURE CONCEPTS, INC.
23800
07/09/2014
942.10
11430
SOUTHMAMES
23801
07/09/2014
62.03
1036
SOUTHERN - WCW
23802
07/09/2014
195.45
1026
SOUTHERN LIQUOR
23803
07/09/2014
16,340.46
1024
SOUTHERN WINE & SPIRITS - LAKES DIVISION
23804
07/09/2014
10,563.62
1008
SOUTHERN WINE -SPIRITS -AMERICAN DIVISION
23805
07/09/2014
773.20
11457
ST ANTHONY VILLAGE CENTER, LLC
23806
07/09/2014
2,102.66
11502
STREICHER'S
23807
07/09/2014
3,491.30
11529
SWEEPER SERVICES
23808
07/09/2014
104.17
11595
TRI STATE BOBCAT, INC.
23809
07/09/2014
27.26
1040
TRUE FABRICATIONS, INC.
23810
07/09/2014
456.03
11612
TWIN CITY JANITOR SUPPLY
23811
07/09/2014
109.96
11637
UNITED ELECTRIC COMPANY
23812
07/09/2014
72.76
11674
VERIZON WIRELESS
23813
07/09/2014
1,189.88
City of St Anthony Village
Vendor Number
CITY OF ST ANTHONY CHECK REGISTER
Check Issue Dates: 6/20/2014 - 7/9/2014
Page: 3
Jul 02, 2014 01:21 PM
Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
11681
VIKING ELECTRIC SUPPLY
23814
07/09/2014
26.44
1025
VINOCOPIA
23815
07/09/2014
3,733.96
11711
WELLINGTON SECURITY SYSTEMS
23816
07/09/2014
11,506.38
11858
WESTERBERG, BRAD
23817
07/09/2014
1,500.00
1034
WINE COMPANY(fHE
23818
07/09/2014
1,301.08
1038
WINE MERCHANTS INC
23819
07/09/2014
2,326.98
1011
WIRTZ BEVERAGE - (GRIGGS)
23820
07/09/2014
22,511.55
1009
WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA
23821
07/09/2014
2,143.30
1018
WIRTZ BEVERAGE MINNESOTA
23822
07/09/2014
28,141.89
11740
XCEL ENERGY
23823
07/09/2014
9,705.61
Grand Totals:
560,074.01
5
16
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
17
RFQMFSTFOR OOkNOIL OONSIDFRfiTION
Report Date: June 24, 2014
Resolution 14-052; a resolution Appointing the Election Judges for the 2014 Primary Election
REVIEW:
For you approval is a resolution for the Election Judges that will be serving in the 2014
Primary Election which will be held on August 12, 2014.
U:\l Council Meetings\2014\07082014\Staffelections.docz - 1 -
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION 14-052
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE ELECTION JUDGES FOR THE
2014 PRIMARY ELECTION
WHEREAS, Minnesota §204B.21, subd. 2; APPOINTMENT OF ELECTION JUDGES;
Appointing authority, powers and duties; states that Election Judges for
precincts in a municipality shall be appointed by the governing body of the
municipality; and
WHEREAS, appointment of Election Judges must be made at least 25 days before the election
at which the election judges will serve; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota §204B.19, subd.1; ELECTION JUDGES; Qualifications; the
individuals on "Exhibit A" meet the specified qualifications to be an Election
Judge.
The members of city staff that will be assisting with absentee voting and serve as "emergency
judges" are Phuongmai Dang, Robin Hartfiel, and Sandy Simon. The absentee ballot board will
consist of individuals from Exhibit A and city staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of St. Anthony Village
hereby appoints the Election Judges for the 2014 Primary Election.
Adopted this 8th day of july 2014.
ATTEST:
Barbara J. Suciu, City Clerk
Reviewed for Administration:
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Mark Casey, City Manager
WE
20
EXHIBIT A
Patricia Andrews
Susan Bodurtha
Bonnie Brozak
Edward Brozak
Lona Doolan
Myrna Doran
Mary Ellen Gabel
Bonnita Johnson
Sue Ellen Johnson
Nancy Klucas
Donna Kripotos
Judith Madron
Candice Malone
Doris Mancino
Glenn Monson
Carol Panning
Sharon Poland
Dorothy Roman
Ann Schroeder
Andrea Stephens
Karen Theiler
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Mark Casey, City Manager
From: Kelsey Johnson, AICP, City Planner
Date: June 26, 2014
City Council Regular Meeting for July 8, 2014
WSB Project No. 02170-060
Request: Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Allow an Electronic
Message Sign at the St. Charles Borromeo Catholic School
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Church of St. Charles Borromeo
Location: 2739 Stinson Boulevard (PID 0702923220001)
Existing Land Use/ Institutional/ zoned R1 -Single Family Residential
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential / zoned R1 -Single Family Residential
Use / Zoning: East: Low Density Residential / zoned 131 -Single Family Residential
South: Low Density Residential / zoned RI -Single Family Residential
West: Low Density Residential (City of Minneapolis)
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 05-22-14
Action: 60 Days: 07-21-14
Letter Sent: N/A
120 Days: 09-19-14
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT
1. Background
The Applicant wishes to install a double sided electronic sign in front of the St. Charles Borromeo
Catholic School located at 2739 Stinson Boulevard (2420 St. Anthony Boulevard per Hennepin
County Recorder's Office) as shown in Exhibit B: Applicant's Application,
Chapter 155.22.B.20: Prohibited Signs of the Zoning Ordinance states that the following signs are
prohibited: "Electronic message signs. Electronic message or changeable copy signs except public
service signs in the Recreational Open Space District located on property that is owned by the city or
Independent School District No. 282."
Requests to modify this language in the Zoning Ordinance to allow electronic message signs have
been received and heard in the past, but have historically been denied by the City Council.
21
2 2 June 26, 2014
Page 2
2. Applicable Codes.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section §155.02 discusses the findings, purpose and
intent, and effects of the Sign Code.
The City Council in enacting a Sign Code found that:
1. Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character and quality of the environment;
2. Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of
messages;
3. Signs can create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and detriments to property values, thereby
threatening the public health, safety and welfare;
4. The city's code of ordinances have, since as early as 1983, established standards which would
permit businesses in the city a reasonable and equitable opportunity to identify themselves.
The regulation of signs is an effort to provide adequate means of expression and to promote
the economic viability of the business community;
5. To preserve and promote civic beauty and protect the city and its citizens from a proliferation
of signs of a type, size, location and character that would adversely impact upon the
aesthetics of the community and threaten the health, safety and welfare of the community;
and
6. To preserve and protect the value of land and buildings, and to preserve and protect
landscapes.
The purpose and intent is not to regulate the message displayed on any sign; nor to regulate any
building design or any display not defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed from
outside a building. The purpose is to:
1. Regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of
signs within the city in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare;
2. Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the city by preventing visual
clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community;
3. Improve the visual appearance of the city while providing for effective means of
communication, consistent with constitutional guarantees and the city's goals of public safety
and aesthetics;
4. Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set for herein under the
zoning authority of the city.
As a result, the effect of the city's Sign Code, was to allow signs to be erected, mounted, displayed or
maintained in the city if it is in conformance with the provisions of the Sign Code regulations. More
specifically, is to:
1. Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial zones, and more limited variety of signs in
other zoning districts subject to the standards set forth in this sign ordinance;
2. Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site in all zoning
districts when in compliance with the requirements of this sign ordinance;
3. Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination or other physical characteristics
negatively affect the environment and where the communication can be accomplished by
means having a lesser impact on the environment and the public health, safety and welfare;
and
4. Provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this sign ordinance.
June 26, 2014
Page 3
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section §155.03 defines an "Electronic Message Sign"
as "any sign that displays a message electronically through the use of pixel -based technology, such
as but not limited to light emitting diodes (LEDs), liquid crystal, etc.
CONCLUSIONS
Electronic message signs are only permitted in the ROS — Recreation Open Space Zoning District on
property that is owned by the city or Independent School District No. 282. Electronic message signs are
prohibited in all other locations. Currently there are three (3) electronic message signs located within
the City, including one at City Hall, one at Wilshire Park Elementary School, and one at St. Anthony High
School.
In 2008, the Sign Code was reviewed and updated based on the findings, purpose and intent and effects
as outline in the Chapter 155. Historically the City of St. Anthony Village has not approved text
amendments to allow electronic message signs on property that are outside of the ROS —
Recreation/Open Space Zoning District. In the past, the Planning Commission and City Council have
reviewed requests which included an analysis of the change in message (scrolling, flashing, blinking,
animations, etc.), colors allowed (monochromatic vs. array of colors), automatic shutoff and dimming
features, size limitations, message timing, placement and spacing between multiple electronic signs, etc.
The Applicant has expressed a desire to have an electronic message sign in front of their school only (as
opposed to in front of the school and the church buildings) on site. They have expressed a need to relay
information to the public as it relates to school activities and other ongoing announcements. Staff met
with and discussed with the Applicant on several occasions the fact that electronic message signs are
prohibited within the City of St. Anthony, and requests for text amendments to allow them have
historically been denied.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing at their regular meeting on June 23, 2014 on this
request. A motion to approve the requested text amendment was made, but failed with a 2-2 vote. A
motion to deny the requested text amendment was made, but also failed with a 2-2 vote.
POTENTIAL ACTIONS
1. Request Additional Information and Continue the Meeting. Should the City Council request
additional information from the Applicant, or desire to modify the proposed language in any
manner, the City Council should continue the meeting until a later time.
2. Approval of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. In the event of a decision for
approval (with or without modifications), the City Council may refer to Exhibit C and direct staff
to modify the draft ordinance to include any amendments that it deems necessary. The City
Council may also direct staff to bring the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Commission
for further discussion and study.
3. Denial of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. In the event the City Council
chooses denial of the requested zoning ordinance text amendment, it should clearly state its
reasons for the denial recommendation and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for
consideration at a future City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance
23
1:1 nthon�
C�r'illa cC
=�7
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418
Office: (612) 782-3301
Fax: (612) 782-3302
www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us
-For Office Use Only -
Planning File Number V , b�5
Project Number
Application Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
Planning Commission
Meeting Date
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
Address of Property Involved: J %) 7 -54"05011 0ll/d
Property ID Number: 67 - 0a4 _,2 3 a a 000
Legal Description:
Pnt O -t ottC -T- /OI
Applicant Information /�L / n
Applicant Name: Ckd rch1 an 5- L ./f�/7�S / &W,01W //
Applicant Address: a7N 1571/nSpA �&yd �. ),I/` 0,4V
Applicant Telephone Number:Other:
Applicant Fax Number 61d- 7b 7 - /170
Applicant Email Address: /n11121W _
Property Information
Property Owner (if different from above):
Owner Address:
Owner Telephone Number:
Owner Email Address:
Type of Repuest (Check All that Apply)
7 Appeal ($100 fee)
ElComprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500
escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if
commercial/industrial)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($200 fee+ $450 escrow if
residential; $850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
❑ Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
FjPreliminary Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
Final Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($250 fee + $1,250
escrow)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($750 fee +
$2,500 escrow)
Rezoning ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Site Plan ($250 fee + $450 escrow)
Variance ($200 fee + $450 escrow if residential;
$850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Our .Wildon A ro be a pri gretsnv crud Ifrable comOEHmr, a n'rdAahle rillage, ivhich AYrA'lainable %aJe mrd.serure.
25
26
Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project):
&2akSidcd Ple-o4
dr -o4 Sion id `raw/f enc lC?ltr
Filing and Information Requirements
The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process,
requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the
property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional requirements can be found at www.ci.saint-
anthony.mn.us.
Incomplete Applications and Submission Deadline
A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least 30 days prior to the
meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission of an
incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application approval time commences
and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and
determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be
made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be
"complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required
public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a
decision be issued within 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60 -day extension may be obtained if more time is
needed.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated
representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available
agenda.
Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule
Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the fourth Monday of every month at 7:00 p.m., while City Council
meetings are held typically the first and third Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. Meeting dates and times are subject
to change so please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St. Anthony
Community Center in the Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418, unless otherwise
stated. Applications are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary.
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and
fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If
additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require
additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may
include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals,
and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of
the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an
escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I understand that approval
from other agencies may be require efore commencement with the stated project.
VV
Property Owner Signature (Required) Date
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at 763-287-8521 or
planner@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this application.
May 2013
27
i
AL -.
-- -3� 1 - --j-4 ti.Z-
ca
OL
0
X
J
O
L3X
0=
m
EN
0..
t N
O
C Q
O N
'Y
E Q
O
N
CD
U
C
O
Y
Y
fO
0
,n Y
J U
Zm
1 J
O
YO
.0 =
L co
L=
_U
DQ
zg
>0
5�—
J UJ
1 U)
]Q
um
�Y
C
m
��(bfW O�C Np�y�SiN CYYWIi
l�3g_ £VaC191
_,
MI
2
:9
gni
29
Annette Perkins
PO Box 356
Platteville
St. Anthony Plan Commission and City Council
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699
Re: Zoning request to allow a double sided electronic sign on Stinson Blvd.
I am writing in opposition to the Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow a double
sided electronic message sign in from of St. Charles Borromeo Catholic School located at
2739 Stinson Boulevard. In August of 2013 1 purchased a home at 2401 St. Anthony
Blvd. Across the street from St Charles Borromeo Church. My daughter, Andrea
McNett presently lives in the house.
My objections to the zoning request are that a double sided electronic sign is not in
keeping with the area because;
1. Both sides of Stinson in that area are residential with single family homes, an
electronic sign is not in keeping with a residential area.
2. Your comprehensive plan identifies Stinson Blvd. in that area as a parkway, an
electronic sign is not it keeping with the character of a parkway.
3. Looking out our front window we would have an unobstructed view at all times of
the sign which I'm sure would lower our property value.
St. Anthony's city code states, "(3) Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination
or other physical characteristics negatively affect the environment and where the
communication can be accomplished by means having a lesser impact on the
environment and the public health, safety and welfare." There are less obtrusive ways
to communicate than with an electronic sign that could be lit up from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.,
example, church bulletin, internal digital signs, the internet. The church and school have
been going strong for over 70 years without a digital sign, why one now?
It is my hope that you will turn down the request for the digital sign and maintain the
inherent beauty of Stinson Blvd and St. Anthony Blvd.
Sincerely,
Annette Perkins
30
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 155 SIGN
CODE, SECTION 155.22 OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF ST.
ANTHONY VILLAGE PERTAINING TO PROHIBITED SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section One. Ordinance Amendment. Title XV, Chapter 155, Section 155.22 of
the City Code of the City of St. Anthony Village pertaining to prohibited signs is hereby
amended as follows. The underlined text shows the additions and the s`rikethreugh text
shows the deletions.
§155.22 PROHIBITED SIGNS
(20) Electronic message signs. Electronic message or changeable copy signs except public
service signs in the Recreational Open Space District and the RI District located on
property that is owned by the city or independefA Seheel Distriet Ne. 282 associated with
a school serving grades Pre -K through Grade 12;
Section Two. Findings. In amending the Title XV, Chapter 155, Section 155.22
of the City of St. Anthony Village City Code pertaining to prohibited signs, the City
Council has found that the amendment is required for the public good, is in the interest of
public health, safety, and, welfare, and is compatible with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
upon its publication as provided by law.
PASSED in regular session of the City Council on the day of , 2014.
Attested:
Barb Suciu, City Clerk
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Ordinance Amendment to Chapter
§155.22 Pertaining to Prohibited Signs
City Council Meeting
July 8, 2014
ain thonl%g KSe
i a
Text Amendment
Applicant/Owner: Church of St. Charles Borromeo
Location: 2739 Stinson Boulevard
Existing Land Use/ institutional/ zoned R1- Single Family Res.
Zoning:
ain n"r
WSW
6/27/201431
1
32
• Background
— Applicant wishes
to install a double
sided electronic
sign in front of St.
Charles Borromeo
Catholic School
A
m, thnn� -
1F o
Amendment
- �S1 CIuuti BawwW
_ unanksnina
W110 SCEHE MEET IS
%ED Il6 M. 5 E 4 SO
!Sx001 Cf 61i1x OICX IS q
ryJ0
WWI rromeo Text Amendment
• Background
— Chapter 155.22 prohibits the following:
• "Electronic message signs. Electronic message or
changeable copy signs except public services signs in
Recreational Open Space District located on property
that is owned by the city or Independent School District
No. 282"
WSB
ain tho�ry
6/27/2014
2
6/27/2014 3 3
Amendment
• Background
—Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code,
Section 155.02 discusses the findings, purpose
and intent, and effects of the Sign Code.
— "Electronic Message Sign" is defined as "any sign
that displays a message electronically through the
use of pixel -based technology, such as but not
limited to light emitting diodes (LEDs), liquid
crystal, etc.
am tho A
. 11 -Ti ! 11 ' 1
• The City Council in enacting the Sign Code found that:
— Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character
and quality of the environment;
— Signs provide an important medium through which
individuals may convey a variety of messages;
— Signs can create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and
detriments to property values, thereby threatening the
public health, safety and welfare;
— The city's code of ordinance have, since as early as 1983,
established standards which would permit businesses in
the city a reasonable and equitable opportunity to identify
themselves. The regulation of signs is an effort to provide
adequate means of expression and to promote the
economic viability of the business community;
a C 9W
34
Amendment
• The City Council in enacting the Sign Code
found that (cont.):
— To preserve and promote civic beauty and protect
the city and its citizens from a proliferation of sign
of a type, size, location and character that would
adversely impact upon the aesthetics of the
community and threaten the health, safety and
welfare of the community; and
— To preserve and protect the value of land and
buildings, and to preserve and protect landscapes.
a C
Text Amendment
• The purpose and intent is not to regulate the
message displayed on any sign; nor to regulate
any building design or any display not defined
as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed
from outside a building. The purpose is to:
Regulate the number, location, size, type,
illumination and other physical characteristics of
signs within the city in order to promote the
public health, safety and welfare;
am tho A
' KW
6/27/2014
0
Text Amendment
• The purpose is to (cont.):
— Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic
environment of the city by preventing visual clutter
that is harmful to the appearance of the community;
— Improve the visual appearance of the city while
providing for effective means of communication,
consistent with constitutional guarantees and the
city's goals of public safety and aesthetics; and
— Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign
regulations set for herein under the zoning authority
of the city.
ain tho�ry
Text Amendment
• As a result, the effect of the city's Sign Code,
was to allow signs to be erected, mounted,
displayed or maintained in the city if it is in
conformance with the provisions of the Sign
Code. More specifically, is to:
— Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial
zones, and more limited variety of signs in other
zoning districts subject to the standards set forth
in the sign ordinance;
ain thorty _.__WSB
a Cl
6/27/20143 5
5
36
Text Amendment
• Effect (cont.)
— Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to
the principal use of a site in all zoning districts when in
compliance with the requirements of this sign
ordinance;
— Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination
or other physical characteristics negatively affect the
environment and where the communication can be
accomplished by means having a lesser impact on the
environment and the public health, safety and
welfare; and
— Provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this
sign ordinance.
ain thonyWASS
i a C
Wo Text Amendment
Pe SPignsAllow• Signs Allowed
— Schools and publicly owned facilities, churches,
temples, synagogues, and city buildings are
permitted to install and maintain:
• One ground sign
• NTE 8 feet in height
• NTE 68 sgft
WSB
am
i a CJ
6/27/2014
9
ON'F eo Text Amendment
• Applicant's Request:
(20) Electronic message signs. Electronic message
or changeable copy signs except public service signs
in the Recreational Open Space District and the R1
District located on property that is owned by the
city or independent c,.h eel DiStF ..t NE) 282
associated with a school serving grades Pre -K
through Grade 12.
. N nI tho __ - __-
ci •
6/27/2014 3 7
7
o Text Amendment
•
MConclusiiom
— Electronic message signs are permitted in the ROS
District on property owned by the city of ISD 282
— Currently 3 electronic message signs in the City
• City Hall
• Wilshire Park Elementary School
• St. Anthony High School
— Requests for amendments have been received and
reviewed in the past
— Historically the City has not approved a text
amendment to allow electronic message signs.
Gain nthony - ___ _.__. _ _. A
C�
Ott
C w B
ONW-- eo Text Amendment
Questions??
i a ayse
6/27/2014
Ej
39
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Mark Casey, City Manager
From: Kelsey Johnson, AICP, City Planner
Date: June 24, 2014
City Council Regular Meeting for July 8, 2014
WSB Project No. 02170-060
Request: Request for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to Allow Gasoline
Stations to Use Electronic Message Signs to Display Gas Prices Only
GENERAL INFORMATION
Applicant/Owner: Roger Bona and Thomas Archambault
Location: 2801 Kenzie Terrace (PID 07-029-23-24-0030)
Existing Land Use/ Commercial/ zoned C- Commercial
Zoning:
Surrounding Land North: Low Density Residential / zoned 111 -Single Family Residential
Use / Zoning: East: Commercial/ zoned C- Commercial
South: Commercial/ zoned C- Commercial
West: Low Density Residential / zoned R1- Single Family Residential
Deadline for Agency Application Date: 05-27-14
Action: 60 Days: 07-26-14
Letter Sent: N/A
120 Days: 09-24-19
CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE TEM AMENDMENT
1. Background
The Applicant wishes to install a stationary electronic sign for the display of gas prices at the St.
Anthony Mobil store located at 2801 Kenzie Terrace as shown in Exhibit B: Applicant's Application.
Chapter 155.22.8.20: Prohibited Signs of the Zoning Ordinance states that the following signs are
prohibited: "Electronic message signs. Electronic message or changeable copy signs except public
service signs in the Recreational Open Space District located on property that is owned by the city or
Independent School District No. 282."
Requests to modify this language in the Zoning Ordinance to allow electronic message signs have
been received and heard in the past, but have historically been denied by the City Council.
40 June 24,2014
Page 2
Specifically, in 2006, the Applicant's presented the same request before the City Council which was
denied.
2. Applicable Codes.
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section §155.02 discusses the findings, purpose and
intent, and effects of the Sign Code.
The City Council in enacting a Sign Code found that:
1. Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character and quality of the environment;
2. Signs provide an important medium through which individuals may convey a variety of
messages;
3. Signs can create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and detriments to property values, thereby
threatening the public health, safety and welfare;
4. The city's code of ordinances have, since as early as 1983, established standards which would
permit businesses in the city a reasonable and equitable opportunity to identify themselves.
The regulation of signs is an effort to provide adequate means of expression and to promote
the economic viability of the business community;
5. To preserve and promote civic beauty and protect the city and its citizens from a proliferation
of signs of a type, size, location and character that would adversely impact upon the
aesthetics of the community and threaten the health, safety and welfare of the community;
and
6. To preserve and protect the value of land and buildings, and to preserve and protect
landscapes.
The purpose and intent is not to regulate the message displayed on any sign; nor to regulate any
building design or any display not defined as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed from
outside a building. The purpose is to:
1. Regulate the number, location, size, type, illumination and other physical characteristics of
signs within the city in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare;
2. Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic environment of the city by preventing visual
clutter that is harmful to the appearance of the community;
3. Improve the visual appearance of the city while providing for effective means of
communication, consistent with constitutional guarantees and the city's goals of public safety
and aesthetics;
4. Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set for herein under the
zoning authority of the city.
As a result, the effect of the city's Sign Code, was to allow signs to be erected, mounted, displayed or
maintained in the city if it is in conformance with the provisions of the Sign Code regulations. More
specifically, is to:
1. Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial zones, and more limited variety of signs in
other zoning districts subject to the standards set forth in this sign ordinance;
2. Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to the principal use of a site in all zoning
districts when in compliance with the requirements of this sign ordinance;
3. Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination or other physical characteristics
negatively affect the environment and where the communication can be accomplished by
means having a lesser impact on the environment and the public health, safety and welfare;
and
4. Provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this sign ordinance.
June 24, 2014
Page 3
Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code, Section §155.03 defines an "Electronic Message Sign"
as "any sign that displays a message electronically through the use of pixel -based technology, such
as but not limited to light emitting diodes (LEDs), liquid crystal, etc.
CONCLUSIONS
Electronic message signs are only permitted in the ROS — Recreation Open Space Zoning District on
property that is owned by the city or Independent School District No. 282. Electronic message signs are
prohibited in all other locations. Currently there are three (3) electronic message signs located within
the City, including one at City Hall, one at Wilshire Park Elementary School, and one at St. Anthony High
School.
In 2008, the Sign Code was reviewed and updated based on the findings, purpose and intent and effects
as outline in the Chapter 155. Historically the City of St. Anthony Village has not approved text
amendments to allow electronic message signs on property that are outside of the ROS —
Recreation/Open Space Zoning District. In the past, the Planning Commission and City Council have
reviewed requests which included an analysis of the change in message (scrolling, flashing, blinking,
animations, etc.), colors allowed (monochromatic vs. array of colors), automatic shutoff and dimming
features, size limitations, message timing, placement and spacing between multiple electronic signs, etc.
The Applicant has expressed a desire to install a stationary electronic sign for the display of gas prices
only at their business. Staff discussed with the Applicant the fact that electronic message signs are
prohibited within the City of St. Anthony, and requests for text amendment to allow them have
historically been denied, as they experienced through the same request in 2006.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Applicant's request at their regular meeting on
June 23, 2014. The Planning Commission recommended a modified version of the text to "limit the digit
size to a maximum of 18" vertical inches" and to "allow for a maximum of three rows of pricing per
side". This amendment motion was approved with a 4-0 vote.
POTENTIAL ACTIONS
1. Request Additional Information and Continue the Meeting. Should the City Council request
additional information from the Applicant, the City Council should continue the meeting until a
later time.
2. Approval of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. In the event of a decision for
approval (with or without modifications), the City Council may refer to Exhibit C and direct staff
to modify the draft ordinance to include any amendments that it deems necessary.. The City
Council may also direct staff to bring the proposed ordinance back to the Planning Commission
for further discussion and study.
3. Denial of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment. In the event the City Council
chooses denial of the requested zoning ordinance text amendment, it should clearly state its
reasons for the denial recommendation and direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for
consideration at a future City Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Location map
Exhibit B: Application and Supporting Material
Exhibit C: Draft Ordinance Amending the Zoning Ordinance
Vol
OfAs
• ! - �.
43
c5ainthoon
C hila eF
3301 Silver Lake Road
St, Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418
Office: (612) 782-3301
Fax: (612) 782-3302
www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us
Address of Property Involved: 2801 Kenzie
11
Property ID Number: 66
Legal Description: Gasminesiatwn:Automouve Repan Faceity
Applicant Information
Applicant Name: RW.,eppa6Thomas Amhambeml.
Applicant Address: 2801 Kenzie Tenace
0 r
-For Office Use Only -
Planning File Number OL4
Project Number J /��(„�1
Application Submittal Date
Application Completed Date
'\
Fee Paid
Receipt Number
Planning Commission
Meeting Date
Council Decision
Council Decision Date
Applicant Telephone Number: 6127695148 Other:
Applicant Fax Number612-789M5
Applicant Email Address: Nm®ctenth0nymob11.com
Property Information
Property Owner (if different from above): James(Ro0nr6onaueona Pmpemes
Owner Address: 1501 W ndemere Drive NE. Minneapooe. MN 55421
Owner Telephone Number: 612-789.5148
Owner Email Address: wA
Type of Request (Check All that Apply)
Appeal ($100 fee)
❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ($750 fee + $1,500
escrow if residential; $3,500 escrow if
commercial/industrial)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ($200 fee+ $450 escrow if
residential; $850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Easement Vacation ($200 fee + $500 escrow)
❑ Preliminary Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
Final Plat ($500 fee + $500 escrow)
Minor Subdivision/Lot Split ($250 fee + $1,250
escrow)
Planned Unit Development (PUD) ($750 fee +
$2,500 escrow)
Rezoning ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
Zoning Text Amendment ($500 fee + $750 escrow)
❑Site Plan ($250 fee + $450 escrow)
❑Variance ($200 fee + $450 escrow if residential;
$850 escrow if commercial/industrial)
Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable conununi(v, a yralknble village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
Description of the Request (OR a separate detailed narrative explaining the project):
We, the owner & management of St. Anthony Mobil Inc, are requesting an amendment and/or change
to subsectiont 55.22 line 20 of the City Code Land Use Section. Currently the code prohibits electronic
message signs, except those used by the city or ISD 282. We propose an amendment or change
to the code to allow gasoline stations to use electronic message signs to display gas prices, and gas prices only.
Our previous request was denied as the council and mayor claimed the electronic sign would be hazardous to drivers on the road.
The code has changed since our last request, and now allows the city and ISD 282 the use of such signs. Manual, changeable copy signs
have become out -dated, even hazardous, to use at gas stations as prices can change multiple times in a week.
Our request is for stationary, gas price numbers that would not flash, or change at a constant pace,
unlike the signs on city property or property occupied by ISD 282 which change at constant pace.
Filing and Information Requirements
The City requests that you make a pre -application meeting with the City Planner to discuss the application process,
requirements, and deadlines. Unless waived by the City Planner or Planning Commission, a certified survey of the
property is required for all applications. A checklist with additional requirements can be found at www.ci.saint-
anthonv.mn.us.
Incomplete Applications and Submission Deadline
A complete land use application (including all required fees and escrows) must be received at least 30 days prior to the
meeting of the Planning Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard. Submission of an
incomplete application may delay the processing of your land use request. The application approval time commences
and an application is considered officially filed when the City Planner has received and examined the application and
determined that the application is complete. A decision on whether the application is complete or incomplete shall be
made within fifteen (15) working days following the submittal of the application. When the application is deemed to be
"complete" it shall be placed on the agenda of the first possible Planning Commission meeting provided that all required
public notices have been sent and published. Upon submission of a complete application, state statute requires that a
decision be issued within 60 days regarding each request; however, a 60 -day extension may be obtained if more time is
needed.
Notice of Meeting Attendance
In order for the Planning Commission and the City Council to consider any application, the applicant or a designated
representative must be present at the scheduled meeting. If not, the matter may be tabled until the next available
agenda.
Agenda Deadline and Meeting Schedule
Planning Commission meetings are typically held on the fourth Monday of every month at 7:00 p.m., while City Council
meetings are held typically the first and third Tuesday of every month at 7:00 p.m. Meeting dates and times are subject
to change so please contact City Hall to verify the meeting date and time. All meetings are held at the St. Anthony
Community Center in the Council Chambers, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418, unless otherwise
stated. Applications are advised that additional meetings and/or workshops are scheduled when necessary.
Acknowledgement and Signature
I acknowledge that I have read all of the information listed in the City of St. Anthony Village Land Use Application and
fully understand that I am responsible for all costs incurred by the City related to the processing of this application. If
additional fees are required to cover costs incurred from processing of the application, the City has the right to require
additional payment from one or more of the undersigned, who shall be jointly liable for such fees. Such expenses may
include (but are not limited to) direct city payroll and overhead costs, fees paid to consultants and other professionals,
and the cost of printing, mailing, and supplies. Applicants are advised that an escrow deposit is required at the time of
the submittal of the land use application to offset costs associated with the proposed project. Unused portions of an
escrow are returned to the applicant upon successful implementation of an approved plan. I understand that approval
from other agencies may be required before commencement with the stated project.
? _ 0-ylo"- 5/23/14
i roperty Owner Signature (Required) Date
5/23/14
Applicant Signature (If different than the property owner) Date
Please contact the City Planner at 763-287-8521 or
planner@ci.saint-anthony.mn.us if you have any questions regarding this application.
May 2013
45
St. Anthony Mobil
2801 Kenzie Terrace
St. Anthony, MN W18
72.14 sq ft
10,
4'4"
Red
LED
Digits
L
72.14 sq ft
Before After
to
21'4"
.OAH
Em
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that on June 23, 2014, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, the Saint
Anthony Village Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to solicit public response to a request
from Identi Graphics MN on behalf of the Property Owner Roger Bona and Store Manager Tom
Archambault for a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to allow digital LED pricing signage on the existing
St. Anthony Mobil sign located at 2801 Kenzie Terrace. The Planning Commission will make a
recommendation regarding the proposed request to the City Council for their meeting to be held on July
8, 2014, 7:00 p.m. at City Hall.
Those persons having an interest in said meetings are encouraged to attend. Oral testimony will be
accepted on the above subject at this meeting. Written comments may be taken at the St. Anthony
Village City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony Village, Minnesota 55418 until the date of the
hearing. Questions may be directed to the City Planner at 763-287-8521.
The application, related to this public hearing, can be viewed online at www.saint-anthonv.mn.us as part
of the current Planning Commission agenda.
Kelsey Johnson, AICP
City Planner
O
a
��. d�JN`� �`Jv `i/�S / (T
ilf
(Is
LI -1
47
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699 • www.ci.saint-anthony.mn,us •(612) 782-3301 Fax (612) 782-3302
Tumission is o be a pro a nd livable community, a walkable village which is sustainable, safe and secure.
7-�
MU
EXHIBIT C
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE XV LAND USAGE, CHAPTER 155 SIGN
CODE, SECTION 155.22 OF THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY OF ST.
ANTHONY VILLAGE PERTAINING TO PROHIBITED SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE ORDAINS
AS FOLLOWS:
Section One. Ordinance Amendment. Title XV, Chapter 155, Section 155.22 of
the City Code of the City of St. Anthony Village pertaining to prohibited signs is hereby
amended as follows. The underlined text shows the additions and the strikethfougn text
shows the deletions.
§155.22 PROHIBITED SIGNS
(20) Electronic message signs. Electronic message or changeable copy signs except public
service signs in the Recreational Open Space District located on property that is owned
by the city or Independent School District No. 282. Stationary electronic message signs
maximum of 18" in vertical lettering, and have a maximum of three rows of pricing per
side.
Section Two. Findings. In amending the Title XV, Chapter 155, Section 155.22
of the City of St. Anthony Village City Code pertaining to prohibited signs, the City
Council has found that the amendment is required for the public good, is in the interest of
public health, safety, and, welfare, and is compatible with the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
Section Three. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
upon its publication as provided by law.
PASSED in regular session of the City Council on the day of 2014.
Attested:
Barbara J. Suciu, City Clerk
Publication Date:
Jerome O. Faust, Mayor
Ordinance Amendment to Chapter
§155.22 Pertaining to Prohibited Signs
City Council Meeting
July 8, 2014
ain- thoiry - "B
i a l%
I Text Amendment
Applicant/Owner: Roger Bona and Thomas Archambault
Location: 2801 Kenzie Terrace
Existing Land Use/ Commercial / zoned C -Commercial
Zoning:
ain thoM
�B
6/27/20144 9
1
50
Amendment
• Background f~
— Applicant wishes to
install a stationary
electronic sign for the b6. ___ Z.
display of gas prices y H
1
ain thry �
V a 6 —
PPWWText Amendment
• Background
— Chapter 155.22 prohibits the following:
• "Electronic message signs. Electronic message or
changeable copy signs except public services signs in
Recreational Open Space District located on property
that is owned by the city or Independent School District
No. 282"
ain "O' - _ �
i la CJ
6/27/2014
2
6/27/2011
Amendment
• Background
— Title XV Land Usage, Chapter 155 Sign Code,
Section 155.02 discusses the findings, purpose
and intent, and effects of the Sign Code.
— "Electronic Message Sign" is defined as "any sign
that displays a message electronically through the
use of pixel -based technology, such as but not
limited to light emitting diodes (LEDs), liquid
crystal, etc.
ain thorry
*I a C
Amendment
• The City Council in enacting the Sign Code found that:
— Exterior signs have a substantial impact on the character
and quality of the environment;
— Signs provide an important medium through which
individuals may convey a variety of messages;
— Signs can create traffic hazards, aesthetic concerns and
detriments to property values, thereby threatening the
public health, safety and welfare;
— The city's code of ordinance have, since as early as 1983,
established standards which would permit businesses in
the city a reasonable and equitable opportunity to identify
themselves. The regulation of signs is an effort to provide
adequate means of expression and to promote the
economic viability of the business community;
am, nthon� I15B
Ck'i la C
52
'bil Text Amendment
• The City Council in enacting the Sign Code
found that (cont.):
— To preserve and promote civic beauty and protect
the city and its citizens from a proliferation of sign
of a type, size, location and character that would
adversely impact upon the aesthetics of the
community and threaten the health, safety and
welfare of the community; and
— To preserve and protect the value of land and
buildings, and to preserve and protect landscapes.
ain�Pt n112 ett
I Text Amendment
• The purpose and intent is not to regulate the
message displayed on any sign; nor to regulate
any building design or any display not defined
as a sign, or any sign which cannot be viewed
from outside a building. The purpose is to:
— Regulate the number, location, size, type,
illumination and other physical characteristics of
signs within the city in order to promote the
public health, safety and welfare;
a thorry A
i a Cly
6/27/2014
0
Text Amendment
• The purpose is to (cont.):
— Maintain, enhance and improve the aesthetic
environment of the city by preventing visual clutter
that is harmful to the appearance of the community;
— Improve the visual appearance of the city while
providing for effective means of communication,
consistent with constitutional guarantees and the
city's goals of public safety and aesthetics; and
— Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign
regulations set for herein under the zoning authority
of the city.
ain thgrryAB
to 8
Text Amendment
• As a result, the effect of the city's Sign Code,
was to allow signs to be erected, mounted,
displayed or maintained in the city if it is in
conformance with the provisions of the Sign
Code. More specifically, is to:
— Allow a wide variety of sign types in commercial
zones, and more limited variety of signs in other
zoning districts subject to the standards set forth
in the sign ordinance;
ain thong WSH
t a CJ
6/27/20145 3
L
W
Amendment
• Effect (cont.)
— Allow certain small, unobtrusive signs incidental to
the principal use of a site in all zoning districts when in
compliance with the requirements of this sign
ordinance;
— Prohibit signs whose location, size, type, illumination
or other physical characteristics negatively affect the
environment and where the communication can be
accomplished by means having a lesser impact on the
environment and the public health, safety and
welfare; and
— Provide for the enforcement of the provisions of this
sign ordinance.
amtthoA
i''ff_a eC rvSB
Evil Text Amendment
• Signs Allowed
— A gasoline station is allowed, in addition to all
other authorized signed (in the Zoning District), 1
pylon sign to identify the gasoline brand.
• 30 feet in height
• Minimum clearance of 8 feet from the basic grade level
• NTE 150 square feet in sign surface
• 1 price sign per each frontage having a curb
C�Ip • C wsa
6/27/2014
M
� Text Amendment
• Applicant's Request:
(20) Electronic message signs. Electronic message
or changeable copy signs except public service signs
in the Recreational Open Space District located on
property that is owned by the city or Independent
School District No. 282. Stationary electronic
message signs for the display of gas prices only are
also permitted at all gasoline station locations within
the Commercial District.
aintho�ry A
a
0 t wsB
6/27/20145 5
7
M.
Text Amendment
• Conclusions
— Electronic message signs are permitted in the ROS
District on property owned by the city of ISD 282
— Currently 3 electronic message signs in the City
• City Hall
• Wilshire Park Elementary School
• St. Anthony High School
— Requests for amendments have been received and
reviewed in the past
— Historically the City has not approved a text
amendment to allow electronic message signs.
ain thQrry A
Text Amendment
Questions??
A
6/27/2014
L,
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Mark Casey, City Manager
DATE: July 8, 2014
RE: Organized Collection of Solid Waste (Minn. Stat. § 115A.94):
City Staff Analysis of June 30, 2014 Proposal
On June 29, 2014, the City of Saint Anthony Village (the "City"), under the authority of
Minn. Stat. § 115A.94 ("Organized Collection Statute" or "Statute"), completed its 60 -day
negotiation period with the City's currently licensed collectors of solid waste—Allied Waste
Services of North America, LLC dba Allied Waste Services of the Twin Cities – Eden Prairie H
Republic Services of the Twin Cities – Eden Prairie; Walters Recycling and Refuse, Inc.; and
Waste Management of Minnesota, Inc. (collectively, "Haulers"). The Council received the
Haulers' proposal ("Proposal") and accompanying draft agreement ("Draft Agreement") at its
June 30, 2014 meeting, along with a memorandum by City Staff detailing the background and
process concerning the negotiation period and the Statute ("June 30 Memo").
This memorandum is an update to the June 30 Memo and analyzes the Proposal in
accord with the City's identified priorities ("Priorities') and the Statute itself to assist the Council
in making its decision.
I. RECOMMENDATION
City Staff recommends that the City Council review the Proposal, Draft Agreement, June
30 Memo, and City Staff analysis, and subsequently undertake one of the following four options:
1) Set date for public hearing to take action on the Proposal and Draft Agreement as is.
2) Direct City Staff to continue exclusive negotiations with Haulers to address particular
concerns with the Proposal and/or Draft Agreement.
3) Reject Proposal and contract as is, and direct City Staff to create a resolution
appointing an Organized Collection Options Committee pursuant to the Statute.
4) Reject Proposal and terminate further organized collection efforts at this time.
3301 Silver Lake Road, St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 • www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us • (612) 782-3301 • (612) 782-3302
Our mission is to be a progressive and livable community, a walkable village, which is sustainable, safe and secure.
57
Wn
It. ANALYSIS
A. Benefits of Organized Collection
The City is generally aware of the benefits of organized collection and has explored the
issue for some time, as discussed in the June 30 Memo. These benefits were validated, and a
number of other benefits became apparent, during the course of the 60 -day negotiation period.
The Organized Collection Statute is a consumer -driven statute. The 60 -day negotiation
period required by the Statute authorizes cities to negotiate with their licensed collectors of solid
waste to adopt practices that are in the best interests of individual city residents and the city as
a whole. It is well-established and well-documented that rates charged for the collection of solid
waste and related services in an "open hauling system," such as is the case for the City
currently, can vary from customer to customer. Moreover, licensed collectors have the ability to
raise rates over time and impose additional fees and surcharges beyond the base price for
services. Within an open hauling system, individual customers will likely have a difficult time
negotiating with their service provider because customers acting alone do not possess the
bargaining power that the City has, especially as authorized by the Statute. Moreover, many
individual customers likely do not have the time and energy to perform such negotiations, or
perhaps even the knowledge that the opportunity exists (assuming the opportunity actually
does). The Organized Collection Statute empowers a city and its licensed collectors to come to
the table and create a plan that not only addresses a city's identified priorities, but also helps
ensure equitable and competitive pricing, adequate delivery of service, accountability, and
general consumer protection.
More generally, organized collection allows cities and their licensed collectors to work
together to accomplish priorities that are directly aligned with the best interests of a city's
residents and a city as a whole. City Staff continues to agree that organized collection provides
a positive opportunity for the City to work in harmony with its Haulers to fulfill objectives in a
number of important areas.
B. City Priorities
A primary goal of the Proposal, as required by the Statute, is to include identified City
priorities. The City provided a list of 16 Priorities to the Haulers at the start of the 60 -day
negotiation period, and the Haulers were asked to devise a proposal that meets each of these.
The Priorities reflect long-standing City objectives and encompass a variety of areas of concern.
Any one Priority is not intended to have weight over another, although as a practical matter,
individual residents may have stronger interests in certain Priorities.
The City additionally provided draft specifications to the Haulers at the time it distributed
the Priorities. The draft specifications themselves addressed the Priorities to a certain degree,
although some specifications were revised or deleted from the final Draft Agreement submitted
on June 30. The Haulers specifically requested deletion of provisions concerning services
provided for city -owned buildings and special events. The Haulers stated that these items were
too difficult practically to work under a consortium system and were better suited for a
competitive procurement process.
The Haulers did not add anything new to the specifications in comparison to what the
City initially provided, other than adding provisions detailing responsibilities associated with
billing, and making minor clarifications to service methods. The Haulers' revisions to the
2
59
specifications were helpful in the sense that they provided what appears to be a practical scope
of services in accordance with actual operations. In other words, City Staff believes that what
has resulted from the 60 -day negotiation process is a Proposal and Draft Agreement that
attempts, through good faith negotiation, to balance the interests of the City and the Haulers.
As stated on page 3 of the Proposal, the Haulers believe that their Proposal meets 14 of
the 16 Priorities. Several of these Priorities are inherently met through the organized collection
process itself, including Priorities such as assuring all residents have adequate trash and
recycling services (#2), improving hauler reporting systems (#5), and reducing road wear
impacts (#16). Likewise, the Proposal meets Priority #12 (Minimize Disruption to Residents)
through the Statute's requirement that the Proposal reflect the Haulers' existing market share,
and through the general spirit of good faith within the 60 -day negotiation period. The
negotiations resulted in resident -focused provisions in the Draft Agreement that meet Priority
#12, as well as practical considerations that meet Priority #13 (Minimize Impacts on Licensed
Solid Waste Collectors).
City Staff has chosen to comment more specifically on certain other Priorities. In
particular, City Staff believes that the Proposal meets Priorities related to public education and
safety particularly well, but does not meet Priorities related to value and administrative efficiency
as sufficiently. An analysis of selected Priorities in conjunction with the Proposal follows:
Priority #4: Enhance Public Education and Awareness
• Haulers state that they will meet this Priority because they will provide an
education packet to increase awareness on recyclables, generally collaborate
with the City on a coordinated public education campaign, and assist the City
in developing and providing educational materials to the public.
• Analysis
o The City believes public education is an essential strategy to achieve
waste reduction and recycling. The Haulers' Proposal and Draft
Agreement state that the Haulers will cooperate with the City in a variety
of public education efforts. With respect to public education, the Proposal
and Draft Agreement reflect a collaborative effort between the Haulers
and the City, which appears to meet the goals of organized collection
overall, but may add administrative costs to the City. Overall, the
Proposal meets this Priority.
Priority #6: Improve Recycling, Composting and Waste Reduction
• Haulers state that they will meet this Priority through their cooperation with
public education efforts (see discussion above) and by promoting and adding
compost and organics.
• Analysis
o The Proposal noticeably highlights recycling and sustainability efforts. In
particular, the Proposal offers a detailed "Organic Waste Collection Plan,"
which purports to align with the state mandate for organics recycling by
2016. The Haulers offer to submit an organic waste collection plan by the
3
M
end of 2015. Although City Staff supports this goal in general, City Staff
understands that the Haulers intend organic waste collection to be an
added cost to the proposed price in the Proposal. It is therefore unclear
what efforts in the areas of recycling, composting, and waste reduction
are being improved, as the Priority requires, without added cost.
Priority #7: Improve Safety
• Haulers include a detailed "Safety Plan," which focuses solely on driver
qualifications and training. The Haulers also state that reducing truck traffic
on the streets will increase safety.
• Analysis
o The "safety" Priority encompasses, among other things, safe driving of
large trucks in residential neighborhoods, as well as the amount of truck
miles driven in the City. City Staff agrees with the Haulers that the
Proposal's zone -based system will naturally improve safety, as well as
reduce road wear impacts (Priority #16). The Haulers appear to have
well-established safety procedures for their drivers, and City Staff
believes the Proposal and Draft Agreement meet this Priority.
Priority #8: Improve Standardization of Service Options
• Haulers state that uniform services and pricing will ensure all residents are
able to get the same service offerings.
• Analysis
o City Staff agrees that uniform services and pricing, which are positive
attributes, naturally arise from an organized collection system. The
Priority, however, spans beyond this aspect of standardization and
additionally strives for service options that best fit individual household
needs. The Proposal does include several service options, including
varying trash service levels, yard waste, walk-up service, and bulky item
collection. Yard waste and bulky item collection, however, are additional
costs beyond the Proposal's quoted base price. One somewhat
perplexing choice by the Haulers is to charge residents the same price for
small trash cart (every other week) service and small trash cart (weekly)
service. City Staff understands that typically other cities have a
significant price discount for the bi-weekly service compared with the
weekly service. The fact that these two options have the same price
effectively eliminates the option to choose bi-weekly service, because a
customer would likely just take the larger (small) cart at the same price.
Priority #9: Improve Value of Services
• Haulers state that most residents should see a decrease in price, while
receiving an increase in the standard of service. Haulers have imposed a
longer-term contract to ensure beneficial price scenarios.
4
• Analysis
61
o To properly and adequately assess issues of value and price, the City
engaged a reputable consultant, Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC,
("Foth") to compare the Proposal's prices with the current prices paid by
City residents, as well to compare the value of services with other cities in
the Twin Cities Metro Area that have moved from an open hauling system
to a contract system. Attached to this Memorandum is a July 1, 2014
memorandum submitted by Foth providing these comparisons ("Foth
Memo"). City Staff reiterates that "value" reflects merely one of the
Priorities that the Council should consider. The increased amount of
analysis devoted to this issue, in comparison to other Priorities, is a result
of the inherent difficulty in performing truly accurate price comparisons in
general and the City's lack of easy access to information regarding other
cities' prices. City Staff encourages the Council to review and consider
the Foth Memo, with the understanding that "city to city comparisons are
an imperfect art" (Foth Memo, p. 7). With all of this in mind, City Staff
reinforces the following points:
City Staff does believe that many residents' bills will see a
decrease from current rates, although it is difficult to determine
exactly how much of a decrease because of the variance in
customer rates in the current open hauling system and the unclear
base price standards from which to determine any savings (Foth
Memo, pp. 5-7).
The Haulers have used as a standard their purported "current
market price" (Foth Memo, p. 6). The Haulers represented to City
Staff that this is derived from an average price currently charged
to customers, among all three haulers, factoring in market share.
The actual source of, or support for, this data was not provided to
City Staff.
The "current market price" conflicts with the rates represented to
the City in the Haulers' respective Garbage Hauler/Recycling
license application forms (Foth Memo, pp. 1-3, 5-7). City Staff
believes it is justified, however, to use as a standard of
comparison these reported numbers because they reflect total
rates charged (e.g., prices added to collector -imposed
surcharges) as required by City Code § 111.216(D), and no
further indication of a rate change has been submitted to the City.
City Code § 111.216(D): When the application is submitted,
the applicant must file with the City Manager a schedule of
proposed rates to be charged during the licensed period.
Every licensee must provide 14 -days' prior written
notification to the city and the licensee's customers of any
change in rates to be implemented during the licensed
period.
5
62
• In comparing the Haulers' proposed prices with the Haulers'
reported prices on their license application forms, it appears that
there is a decrease in price for small (-7%) and medium (4%)
service levels, and an increase in price (+3%) for the large service
level (Foth Memo, pp. 5-6, Table 2).
The Proposal eliminates the Haulers' ability to compound
additional fees, such as administrative fees, environmental fees,
and fuel surcharges. In other words, under the current open
hauling system, residents must pay not only the base price for
services, but also a Hauler -imposed fee of varying amounts—both
of which are taxed. The elimination of these fees should result in
a noticeable decrease in residents' total bills.
The City will incur a number of additional administrative costs as a
result of the Proposal and Draft Agreement (Foth Memo, pp. 4-5).
The City will likely have to pass through these costs to residents
as an addition to their bills, although they should remain relatively
low, especially in comparison to prior Hauler -imposed fees. The
Foth Memo provides "very rough, preliminary estimates" that
these pass through amounts will be approximately $1.74 per
household served per month.
• The Foth Memo estimates that the prices under the Proposal are
considerably higher than the prices in other cities that have
established a contract (opposed to open hauling) system (Foth
Memo, pp. 7-8).
Priority #11: Lessen Environmental Impacts
• Haulers state that the use of clean -burning compressed natural gas and
biofuel trucks, along with the zone -oriented collection system, will result in
positive impacts to the environment.
• Analysis
o City Staff believes the Proposal meets the City's sustainability and
environmental -oriented goals particularly well. Moreover, the Proposal
suggests that the Haulers will continue to work with the City on improving
their efforts in these areas.
Priority #14: Optimize Administrative Efficiency
Haulers state that they have not met this Priority in their Proposal and believe
these are efforts the City will need to focus on. The Haulers, however, are
ready to assist the City in any way they can.
• Analysis
City Staff agrees that administrative efficiency (as well as Allocating
Adequate Staff Resources (#1)) are Priorities that are more City -focused.
2
63
City Staff also agrees with the Haulers that they did not meet this Priority.
Conversely, the addition of a number of City duties in the Proposal as
discussed above creates challenges to administrative efficiency and adds
costs to both the City and its residents. Nevertheless, as a whole, the
Proposal and Draft Agreement attempt to find an ongoing collaborative
balance, in light of the changes inherent to organized collection and the
City's desire to manage billing.
C. Statutory Criteria
Throughout the City's exploration of organized collection, including within the 60 -day
negotiation period and in the creation of the Proposal and Draft Agreement, the City has
intended to follow the requirements of the Organized Collection Statute. With respect to the
Proposal, the Statute requires the following:
✓ The proposal must include identified city priorities.
✓ The proposal must reflect existing haulers maintaining their respective market
share of business.
✓ The initial organized collection agreement must be for a period of three to
seven years.
Requirement #1 (city priorities): City Priorities were discussed in Section II(B) of this
Memorandum.
Requirement #2 (market share): The Haulers collaborated with each other to determine
market share and have represented to City Staff and in the Draft Agreement that the zoned
collection routes reflect the Haulers' current market share as required by the Statute.
Requirement #3 (term): Pursuant to the Proposal and Section 10 of the Draft
Agreement, the Haulers have proposed a six-year initial term, with three additional, optional
one-year extensions. Solely with respect to the Statute's requirements, City Staff believes this
arrangement is appropriate. Of course, the Council should assess whether this term is
appropriate overall.
D. Other Considerations
Term of Agreement. As stated above, the Proposal and Draft Agreement call for a six-year
initial term, with three additional, optional one-year extensions. The Haulers state that this
arrangement is "consistent with other Municipal contracts [they] have worked on" and that "a
slightly longer contract" is necessary "in order to develop a price scenario that truly benefits the
residents of the City." The Council should consider the Foth Memo and City Staff analysis to
determine whether the proposed prices are, in fact, truly beneficial to the City and its residents.
The Council should also consider the implications of a longer contract term and whether the
Council desires to bind future Councils to the contract.
M
Sincerely,
Xa (-/, AY
Mark Casey
City Manager
CC: Kurt Whitman, City Attorney
Jay Lindgren, City Attorney
H
65
*Foth
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC
Eagle Point 11 • 8550 Hudson Blvd. North, Suite 105
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 288-8550 • Fax: (651) 288-8551
vmv.foth.com
July 1, 2014
TO: Mark Casey (Saint Anthony Village)
Memorandum,f
CC: Kurt Whitman (Dorsey & Whitney LLP)
Warren Shuros (Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC (Foth)
FR: Dan Krivit, Foth
RE: Price Analysis of the Saint Anthony Village Solid Waste Collectors' Proposal for
Comprehensive Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Services:
Comparisons of Current Rates vs. Proposed vs. Other Cities' Prices
The existing residential collectors in Saint Anthony Village ("City") submitted a proposal,
"Comprehensive Residential Solid Waste and Recycling Services". This proposal is for a new
organized residential collection system under a single City contract. The three collectors in the
proposed consortium are: Walters Recycling and Refuse, Inc.; Republic Services; and Waste
Management of Minnesota, Inc. This memo describes the current rates as paid by residents under the
existing open hauling system, summarizes price elements of the collectors' proposal, and provides
comparisons to contract prices in other cities in the Twin Cities Metro Area. We understand that
fifteen other City priorities related to review of the collectors' proposal are also under consideration,
but this analysis is limited to review of prices only.
Summary of Current Rates Under the Existing Oven Hauling System
The current open hauling system allows collectors to set their own rates for trash, recyclables, yard
waste and other collection services. All residents do not pay the same price. The amount of these
rates is affected by current costs of operations and the influence of competition in the open
marketplace. Residents with the same level of collection service may not pay the same rate,
sometimes even if the services are provided by the same hauler.
Collectors are required to report their current rates on the City's annual "Garbage Hauler/Recycling
License" application forms. County and state taxes prescribe the amount (percent) of the tax and
define the taxable costs, but do not regulate the amount of the collectors' base fees.
A small sample of collector invoices were provided by Saint Anthony Village residents. These
invoices show all base collection fees, surcharges, taxes and recycling fees as currently charged.
X:\MSVE\2014\14S025-00\10000 Reports\M- Price comparisons --Proposed vs Current vs Other cities rr 7-1-14.docx
MR
The following line item costs may be included within a resident's solid waste services
invoice depending in part on the individual collector's business policies and billing
procedures:
♦ Base trash collection fee
(Varies depending on size of trash cart: small, medium or large, etc.)
♦ Collector -imposed fuel surcharge
♦ Collector -imposed environmental surcharge
(This is not a govemment-required item)
♦ Other collector -imposed administrative fees or surcharges
"Taxable subtotal"
(The above items are taxable)
♦ Recyclables collection fee
(Service is required, but collectors can decide the amount of the fee.
Not taxable)
♦ Hennepin County tax
("Solid Waste Management Fee" of 9%) or
Ramsey County tax
("County Environmental Charge" of 28%)
♦ Minnesota tax
("State Solid Waste Management Tax" of 9.75%
Total Monthly "Rate"
Trash "collection" as used within this analysis includes both collection and disposal services.
The base collection fee, therefore, also includes the collector's disposal (or "tipping fee")
charges at a solid waste disposal facility (e.g., resource recovery plant or landfill). Similarly,
the recycling collection fee includes the cost and revenue for recyclables processing services.
Saint Anthony Village residents are charged the appropriate county tax depending on which
county they live in. The state and counties have exempt recycling fees from taxes as a means
to encourage increased recycling. There is compounding effect of the collector -imposed
surcharges as these are taxable.
Additional optional collection services beyond trash and recyclables collection can be
ordered by customers. These optional services include (but are not limited to) yard waste and
bulky item collections. Yard waste service can be ordered for the full season or "on-call" on
a pay -per -bag unit fee basis. Bulky items include large appliances, furniture and other
household goods that are not collected as part of the regular trash or recycling routes. The
costs of these optional services were reviewed but are a minor part of the overall rates for
residents today. The costs of these optional services are not analyzed further within this
memo.
67
The data from six Saint Anthony Village invoices, all within Hennepin County, indicated a
range of total monthly rates for trash/recycling services from $24.50 to $29.22 per household
per month with an average of $26.69 (after taxes). This is a very limited sample size,
however, and it can be expected that additional invoices would reveal total monthly rates that
are both lower and higher than this range. Also, the Ramsey County tax is higher so City
residents living in Ramsey County will pay a higher total monthly rate.
It is clear from the sample invoices and other data that rates, in general, continuously
increase from year to year.
Summary of the Collectors' Proposed Contract Prices
Upon request of the City, the Saint Anthony Village collectors submitted a proposal for a
new organized collection system. They proposed uniform base trash and recyclables
collection fees as are outlined in Table 1. Without the small trash cart, every other week
trash service level, the simple average of the trash (only) weekly service levels is $14.38 per
household per month (before taxes). The trash + recycling subtotal is $18.00 per household
per month (before taxes).
Table 1
Proposed Base Trash and Recycling Collection Fees- Before Taxes
(Units: $ per household per month proposed to be paid by the City to the contractor)
Trash Service Level
Trash
Recycling
Subtotal
Small trash cart (every other week)
$12.35
$3.62
$15.97
Small trash cart (weekly)
$12.35
$3.62
$15.97
Medium trash cart (weekly)
$14.26
$3.62
$17.88
Large trash cart (weekly)
$16.52
$3.62
$20.14
Average (weekly levels only)
$14.38
$3.62
$18.00
Source: Collectors' proposal submitted to the City
The City provided a price worksheet as a form for the collectors to clearly itemize proposed
prices. This form specified the definitions of the cost line items and made it explicit that
taxes were not to be included. Separate collector -imposed fuel surcharges and other
administrative fees were also explicitly prohibited:
"There shall be not additional fees added for such as charges as: administrative fees,
environmental fees, fuel surcharge, etc... "
"County charges and State taxes will be billed to residents by the City. Prices are for
collection services only without such taxes. "
Under the proposed new system, all City residents would pay uniform base trash collection
and recycling fees. The base trash collection fee would vary by level, except that the
M
collectors proposed that the "small every other week" service would be the same fee amount
as the "small every week" service.
Table 1 is for the base trash collection, trash disposal and recycling services only before
taxes. The City proposed to do the billing. The City would pay required taxes to the state
and counties, but pass these taxes on to residents within the total trash/recycling rates
charged as a part of the City utility bill. The base prices in Table 1 do not include any
government taxes on the trash services. Additional prices for yard waste and other optional
collection services were proposed but are not included in this price analysis memo.
The recycling service proposed calls for a standard, every other week single -stream
collection system. The collectors proposed for the collectors to own the carts for all service
types: trash, recycling and optional yard waste. The collectors proposed that their prices
would increase annually proportional only to the U.S. Consumer Price Index (CPI). The
proposed prices do not include any form of annual fuel cost adjustment or surcharge. The
collectors' proposal does not include any collections from City buildings, parks or special
events.
Preliminary Estimates of City Administrative Costs
The negotiated proposal was the result of several meetings between the City staff team and
the residential collectors. A set of collection service specifications was developed. These
service specifications outline the various responsibilities proposed for the collectors vs. the
City. In general terms, the City would likely provide the following administrative services to
support the new system:
♦ Contract management, including executing and monitoring a new collection services
agreement with the collectors.
♦ Establish a new, dedicated solid waste management fund.
♦ Set up the trash/recycling rates to be incorporated into the City's existing utility
billing system.
♦ Manage and operate the new trash/recycling billing system, including (but not limited
to):
o Receiving residents' orders for level of service (including any optional
services such as yard waste collection);
o Itemizing various unit base collection fees;
o Calculating appropriate state and county taxes (depending on the location of
the residence);
o Receiving and accounting for residents' payments; and
o Identifying and managing delinquent accounts.
City public education, awareness and outreach activities (e.g., providing clear
guidance for residents about the new system, including materials handling, storage
and set -out instructions).
M
♦ Provide customer service to residents via telephone and other electronic
communications (e.g., email, etc.).
♦ Provide feedback to the collection contractor as needed including service level
change orders, complaints and other service related issues.
♦ Planning and coordination with county staff related to other new programs and
services (e.g., food waste/organics collection).
The new residential collection services would be for "single-family" households up through
fourplexes (approximately 2,400 households). Above fourplexes are defined as commercial
properties and would continue to be served by private, licensed haulers as they are now in an
open hauling system.
These City billing, public education and other administrative activities will include one-time
set-up costs and ongoing operating costs. The new system would go through an initial
transition period to establish new policies, programs and procedures. But once the new
program has been in place for a while, the ongoing City administrative costs would likely
settle down to a manageable level of effort. There is likely not enough ongoing work to
justify a full new position. The additional, collective effort of staff on the City's solid waste
team could add up to as much as one-half of a full time equivalent (FTE). Out-of-pocket
public education expenses could be up to $10,000. Therefore, the City's total ongoing
administrative costs could be up to about $50,000 per year. This is the equivalent of about
$1.74 per household served per month. These are very rough, preliminary estimates that
need further review and verification by the City.
Comparison of Proposed Contract Prices to Current Rates
Table 2 summarizes the current, weighted -average trash collection fees reported to the City
per the annual "Garbage Hauler/Recycling License" application forms. These fees are
averages of rates as reported by the three residential collectors, weighted by market share.
The City's license application forms state "What fees will be charged?" But the forms do
not explicitly define the fees as "base" fees (before other taxes and charges) or "totals" (e.g.,
after all collector -imposed surcharges, before taxes). Table 2 may or may not include fuel
surcharges and other collector -imposed administrative fees. Also, Table 2 may or may not
include recycling as these recycling fees are not explicitly itemized on the City's license
application forms. There is some uncertainty about the accuracy of these license application
— reported fees compared to actual residential rates as charged to residents.
70
Table 2
Residential Collectors' Reported Fees vs. Proposed Fees - Before Taxes
(Units: $ per household per month)
Sources:
(a) Residential Collectors' Annual "Garbage Hauler/Recycling License" applications
as submitted to the City (average of three collectors' reported rates, weighted by market share);
(b) Table l "Subtotal " of collector proposed fees (trash + recycling)
The reported fees as summarized in Table 2 provide one means of comparing proposed
contract prices for base trash collection fees in Table 1 (both tables are before taxes). The
weighted -average from Table 2 of reported prices is $18.45 per household per week. The
average proposed fees (trash + recycling) from Table 1 is $18.00, or about 2% lower than the
current reported prices weighted average.
Another means of comparison was offered by the collectors. They estimated the "current
market prices" for trash + recycling (before taxes). The collectors' estimates of "current
market prices" for weekly trash service were: $19.12 for a small trash cart; $20.60 for a
medium trash cart; and $21.92 for a large trash cart. This results in a simple (i.e.,
unweighted), average of $20.55 from the collector's "current market prices" (weekly trash
cart service only). The difference between this "current market price" average and the
proposed (Table 1) average contract prices for weekly trash + recycling service is $2.55 per
household per month ($20.55 - $18.00) or 12% of the collectors' estimate for "current market
prices."
Our understanding is that the three companies compiled an average of selected trash rates
currently charged to City residents for purposes of comparing "current market prices" to their
proposed contract prices. The source/raw data were not provided to the City, only a
"Summary of Current Monthly Market Price Savings." We understand that `current market
prices" include collection and disposal costs but not taxes.
It is important to note the collectors are comparing current "open hauling" rates as paid by
customers to the proposed prices for the City contract. What residents pay may not be the
same as what the City could pay its contractor within a potential future contract. The City
will have additional administrative costs (see discussion and estimates above) that are not yet
Proposed
Percent
Current
Trash +
Change ('/.of
Reported
Recycling
Current
Trash Service Level
Prices (a)
Subtotal (b)
Re -ported)
Small trash cart (weekly)
$17.26
$15.97
-7%
Medium trash cart (weekly)
$18.61
$17.88
4%
Large trash cart (weekly)
$19.50
1 $20.14
1 3%
Average (weekly levels only)
$18.45
1 $18.00
1 -2%
Sources:
(a) Residential Collectors' Annual "Garbage Hauler/Recycling License" applications
as submitted to the City (average of three collectors' reported rates, weighted by market share);
(b) Table l "Subtotal " of collector proposed fees (trash + recycling)
The reported fees as summarized in Table 2 provide one means of comparing proposed
contract prices for base trash collection fees in Table 1 (both tables are before taxes). The
weighted -average from Table 2 of reported prices is $18.45 per household per week. The
average proposed fees (trash + recycling) from Table 1 is $18.00, or about 2% lower than the
current reported prices weighted average.
Another means of comparison was offered by the collectors. They estimated the "current
market prices" for trash + recycling (before taxes). The collectors' estimates of "current
market prices" for weekly trash service were: $19.12 for a small trash cart; $20.60 for a
medium trash cart; and $21.92 for a large trash cart. This results in a simple (i.e.,
unweighted), average of $20.55 from the collector's "current market prices" (weekly trash
cart service only). The difference between this "current market price" average and the
proposed (Table 1) average contract prices for weekly trash + recycling service is $2.55 per
household per month ($20.55 - $18.00) or 12% of the collectors' estimate for "current market
prices."
Our understanding is that the three companies compiled an average of selected trash rates
currently charged to City residents for purposes of comparing "current market prices" to their
proposed contract prices. The source/raw data were not provided to the City, only a
"Summary of Current Monthly Market Price Savings." We understand that `current market
prices" include collection and disposal costs but not taxes.
It is important to note the collectors are comparing current "open hauling" rates as paid by
customers to the proposed prices for the City contract. What residents pay may not be the
same as what the City could pay its contractor within a potential future contract. The City
will have additional administrative costs (see discussion and estimates above) that are not yet
71
added together with the collectors' proposed contract prices to calculate estimates of total
rates that may be charged to residents under the proposed new organized system.
Other Cities with Contracts for Trash/Recycling Services
Contract prices for trash and recycling services from 10 other Metro Area cities were
reviewed as a means to compare to the Saint Anthony Village collectors' proposed prices.
Table 3 (see next page) is a summary comparing the proposed prices (before taxes) from
Table 1 compared to the average of prices from the other 10 cities.
Table 3
Comparison of Proposed Trash and Recycling Prices vs.
Contract Prices from Other Cities
(Units: $ per household per month. Before Taxes)
Trash Service Level
Pro osed (a)
Contract
Prices from 10
Other Cities N
Percent
Higher than
Comparables
Trash Only (Collection + Disposal):
Small (weekly)
$12.35
$8.49
45%
Medium (weekly)
$14.26
$10.05
42%
Large (weekly)
$16.52
$12.62
31%
"Average of Trash Only" (weekly only)
$14.38
$10.39
38%
TOTAL OF TRASH + RECYCLING:
Small (weekly)
$15.97
$11.68
37%
Medium (weekly)
$17.88
$13.24
35%
Large (weekly)
$20.14
$15.81
27%
"Average Total" (weekly only)
$18.00
$13.58
33%
Sources:
(a) Collectors' proposal submitted to the City (See Table 1, page 1).
(b) Review of 10 other cities with trash/recycling contracts (See Attachment ],page II for details)
These types of city to city comparisons are an imperfect art. There are many variables that
affect these contract prices:
• City billing vs. contractor billing.
• City -owned carts vs. contractor -owned carts.
• Trash disposal costs itemized separately vs. lumped unspecified with collection
service.
0 City pays disposal directly vs. contractor pays disposal.
72
• Trash disposal costs (i.e., tipping fees at resource recovery facilities) vary by county.
• Relative amount of the recycling price vs. trash price. How much of the trash costs
are shifted into the recycling price to avoid the government taxes?
• City buildings and other facilities included in base price (without additional charge)
vs. excluded as a separate pay item.
• Special events collections included in the base price (without additional charge) vs.
excluded or as a separate pay item.
Attachment I at the end of this memo (see page 8) shows the details of contract prices
(before taxes) from the other 10 selected cities. In general, these are "bundled" contracts that
include both trash and recycling.
Some of these cities in this list in Attachment 1 have a consortium of collectors serving under
one contract (e.g., Little Canada, Champlin). Each city with a consortium has a unique
history of how the consortium was developed. In general, the collection service contract
procurement process has involved some element of negotiation for cities that have a
consortium. All other cities used a more standard request for proposals (RFP) procurement
process for selecting their contractor and establishing the contract prices.
Other Studies
Several other studies have found while price related issues are complex, residents in
organized collection systems can and do pay less than residents of open collection systems.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) commissioned a study in 2009 on various
solid waste and recycling collection systems.' The MPCA study also found that rates vary
considerably within a single open hauling city and even vary by hauler providing the same
level of service. One explanation is that it is a common practice in open hauling
communities for collectors to offer introductory rates (e.g., starter price for the first three
months) and other discounts. Many other variables also impact the price of service in open
hauling communities.
Cost issues were covered from a number of approaches in the MPCA study including the
literature review, municipal surveys of 50 Minnesota cities, and the in-depth analysis of 10
Minnesota cities. MPCA summarized the rates analysis comTaring solid waste prices for
organized (contract) collection versus open hauling systems. See Table 4 on the next page
for the MPCA summary of prices. Cities with a population over 10,000 were selected for a
survey about trash and recycling rates. The data in Table 4 represents results from 20
organized contracts and 67 different hauler bills from open hauling cities. The prices
' Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), "Analysis of Waste Collection Service Arrangements" by
Foth Infrastructure & Environment, LLC (lune 2009):
hit://www.pca. state. mn. us/index. php/waste/waste-and-cleanup/waste-management/solid-waste/i ntegrated-
so lid-waste-managemenUwaste-col lection-service-arran gements. htm I
z MPCA fact sheet, "The Benefits of Organized Collection: Waste Collection Service Arrangements
(February2013): htty://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.pho/view-document.html?gid=17347
73
displayed include both trash and recycling, but not taxes. In open hauling cities, if the hauler
includes extra charges (e.g., fuel surcharge and/or other administrative fees) these hauler -
imposed surcharges are included.
Since the MPCA study was published, one city, Maplewood, in the Metro Area has
converted from open hauling to organized/contract collection. The City of Maplewood
reports their residents are now saving about $1.5 million per year compared to the previous
open hauling system that existed prior to 2012 when the new organized collection structure
was implemented.
Table 4
Summary of Contract Prices vs.
Rates in Open Hauling Structures
(Units: Average $ per household per month. Before taxes.
Includes recycling and hauler -imposed surcharges.)
30 Gallon 60 Gallon 90 Gallon
Open $19.25 $20.94 $21.99
Organized $11.72 $13.22 $16.70
Difference $7.53 $7.72 $5.29
Percent decrease 39% 37% 24%
Source: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 2009
Findings and Conclusions:
1. The current open hauling system allows collectors to set their own fees for trash,
recyclables, yard waste and other collection services. All residents do not pay the same
price, even for the same service level by the same hauler.
2. The total monthly rates currently charged to City residents include base trash
collection/disposal fees, collector -imposed fuel surcharges, and other collector -imposed
administrative fees (e.g., "environmental" fees); These line items are all taxable. Total
rates also include recycling charges (tax exempt), county taxes and state taxes.
3. Table 1 indicates the collector—proposed contract prices. Without the every other
week trash services level, the average proposed contract prices of the trash (only)
weekly service levels is $14.38 per household per month. The average trash +
recycling contract prices subtotal is $18.00 per household per month (before taxes).
4. Collectors are required to report their current rates on the City's annual "Garbage
Hauler/Recycling License" application forms. Averages of these reported rates were
calculated and weighted by market share. The weighted -average of weekly service
levels from these license application forms is $18.45 per household per month (see
Table 2). There is some uncertainty about cost items that are included and the accuracy
74
of this reported license application data compared to actual rates. Table 2 shows the
difference between the weighted -average reported fees vs. average proposed fees (trash
+ recycling) is 2% lower (($18.45 - $18.00)/$18.445).
5. Limited data from six Saint Anthony Village invoices, all within Hennepin County,
indicated a range of total monthly rates for trash/recycling services from $24.50 to
$29.22 per household per month with a simple average of $26.69 (after taxes). This is
a very limited sample size, however, and it can be expected that additional invoices
would reveal total monthly rates that are both lower and higher than this range.
6. To calculate an estimated savings, the collectors compared current market rates as paid
by their residential customers within the current open hauling system to the proposed
prices for the City contract (Table 1). These rates paid by residents vs, proposed
contract prices are not directly comparable. The City will have some additional costs
that also will need to be added into the rates to be charged to residents under the
proposed system.
7. The City's total ongoing administrative costs could be up to about $50,000 per year
under one scenario (e.g., at an additional 0.5 FTE). This is the equivalent of about
$1.74 per household served per month.
8. The proposed price schedule (Table 1) has the same rate of $12.35 per household per
month for the small cart, every other week (EOW) trash service level as the small trash
cart collected weekly. EOW trash service means 26 collections per year instead of the
normal weekly service which is 52 collections per year. The proposed EOW trash price
should reflect this savings in cost of operations. Other cities have seen a 23% to 39%
contract price discount for EOW trash service compared to the same size trash cart
collected weekly.
9. The following tentative conclusions can be developed by comparing the collector -
proposed prices for Saint Anthony Village vs. other cities' contract prices (Table 4):
The collector -proposed trash (only) prices are an average of 38% higher than the
other contract cities analyzed. The proposed total (trash + recycling) prices are an
average of 33% higher than the other cities' contract prices. (These comparisons
are all from prices before taxes. The differences will be greater when taxes are
included.)
♦ These results are similar to data from other studies that have compared open
hauling vs. contract prices for trash/recycling services.
♦ The City may be able to obtain lower contract prices through an alternative
method of organized collection, especially if a competitive procurement process is
used.
75
Crl
�
N
O
69
69
f19
69
69
69
CC
h
00
O
pp
O
m
Z uj
69
b9
69
66
69
d
Vl
h
Q
N
h
V'1
cq
�O
r
=
N2
ON
•7 U
69
Vi
69
69
69
b9
m
h
�
N
E s
oNo
c
0o
M
c
O �
O
.N.
.M.M
646e
69
69
b9
e
M
N
N
N
N
d
M
C,
B
O
N
7
V
O
M
L
ffi
69
69
69
b9
59
U
�
Fsi
6a
F»
�
6s
vs
vs
N
0.b�9
c
4�9
6o9
bN9
609
69
69
7
N
r
N
N
a o
N
a,
O+
FT
a,
0
0
3
s6s
6-1
z�s
61)
GI)
619
6s
"
Y
N
W
V
N
0�0
W
14,
06
Oi rl
69
by
69
6<f
.-�
69
fA
69
Y d
m
Q:
w
b
Iz
n
Q;
=
ON
r
0�,,
MFA
.
�
O
slq
�s
669
'.
6�9
,
Els
V)
a� hkn
N
b
N
r
r
a0
`7
w0. y u
M
M
N
kn
Rn
E a
9
s
9615
ds
uNs
O
QI
U
X
N^
3
�
C7
3
sa`u
o
�
i
u
�
o
+
�'
..
>
°'
3
u
m
`0
3
3
v
F
2
a
u
w
O
F
75
76
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
FUTURE COUNCIL AGENDA
Date Type Items/Issues Staff Present
2014
Proclamation Night to Unite, August 5th
Presentation from VillageFest Representative
City Council
July 22
Regular
Quarterly Goals Update
City Manager
Adoption of Safe Routes to School Plan
Police Contracts with Falcon Heights & Lauderdale
City Council
August
Special
Work Session
City Manager
City Council
August
Special
Night to Unite
City Manager
City Council
August 12
Regular
Planning Commission items from July
City Manager
8:00 pm
Liquor Operations Mid -Year Report
Liquor Operations Mgr
2015 Street Project Receive Feasibility Report, Order Plans & Specifications
City Council
August 26
Regular
SANB School District Update
City Manager
2015 Budget Presentation
Finance Director
City Council
September 9
Regular
Planning Commission items from August
City Manager
Approval of Election Judges for General Election on November 4, 2014
City Council
Certification of Outstanding Utility Bills
City Manager
September 23
Regular
Upcoming Fire Prevention Month
Fire Chief
Proclamation - Kiwanis Peanut Day
Finance Director
Approval of the 2015 Preliminary Levy
September 30
Special
Joint Meeting with School Board
City Council
5:30 p.m.
City Manager
October 14
Regular
Planning Commission items from September
City Council
City Manager
City Council
October 28
Regular
Quarterly Goals Update
City Manager
Electronic Pollbooks Update
City Clerk
Planning Commission items from October
City Council
November 10
Regular
Ordinance to Set Fees for 2015 (Public Hearing; 1st reading)
City Manager
Score Grant Funding Application Approval - Consent
City Council
November 25
Regular
Ordinance to Set Fees for 2015 - second reading
City Manager
Approval of fees set by Resolution for 2015
Planning Commission items from November
Appointments to the Planning & Parks Commission
City Council
December 9
Regular
Public Hearing on Final Levy
City Manager
Ordinance to Set Fees for 2015 -final reading
City Council
December 23
Regular
City Manager
2015
Housekeeping Issues Planning Commission Items from December
City Council
January 13
Regular
Quarterly Goals Update
City Manager
City Council
January 22-23
Goal Setting
City Manager
Dept. Heads
Items Pending:
Worksessions
Prepared by Kum 7/2/2014 Page 2
FUTURE D. ITEMS
Date
Type
Items/Issues
Staff Present
2015 Street Proiect
Call for Hearing on Improvements
City Council
January 27
Regular
` Call for Hearing onAssessments
City Manager
- Order Preparation of Assessments
Annual Report -Administration
February 10
Regular
Planning Commission Items from January
City Council
City Manager
2015 Street Project
Public Hearing - Ordering Improvements
City Council
February 24
Regular
- Award Bid to Contractor
City Manager
- Call for Sale of GO Bonds
March 9
Special
Joint Meeting with Parks Commission
City Council
5:30 p.m.
City Manager
March 10
Regular
Planning Commission items from February
City Council
City Manager
March 23
Special
Joint Meeting with Planning Commission
City Council
5:30 p.m.
City Manager
2015 Street Project
March 24
Regular
- Accept offers for Bonds
City Council
-Approve Bond Sale
City Manager
April 14
Regular
Planning Commission items from March
City Council
City Manager
April 28
Regular
Public Hearing on the 2016 Budget
City Council
City Manager
May 12
Regular
Planning Commission items from April
City Council
Recognition of Chamber's Villager and Business of the Year
City Manager
May 26
Regular
Salo Park Concert Series
City Council
Insurance Renewal - Consent
City Manager
June 9
Regular
Feasibility Report for 2016 Street Project
City Council
Planning Commisison items from May
City Manager
June 23
Regular
City Council
City Manager
July 14
Regular
Planning Commission items from June
City Council
City Manager
Items Pending:
Worksessions
Prepared by Kum 7/2/2014 Page 2
01a (.%
HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AGENDA
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
July 8, 2014
Call to Order.
Roll Call.
I. Approval of July 8, 2014, H.R.A. Agenda.
II. Consent Agenda.
These items are considered routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent
Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda.
A. Approve June 10, 2014, H.R.A. Minutes. (pp. 1-2)
B. Claims. (pp. 3-4)
III. Public Hearings. (None.)
IV. General Policy of Business of the H.R.A. (None.)
V. Staff Reports.
VI. H.R.A. Commissioner Comments.
VII. Information and Announcements.
VIII. Adjournment.
New Businesses: None.
1
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
3 JUNE 10, 2014
4
5 CALL TO ORDER.
6
7 Chair Faust called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m.
8
9 ROLL CALL.
10
11 Commissioners present: Chair Faust; Commissioners Gray, Jenson, Roth, and Stille.
12 Commissioners absent: None.
13 Also present: Executive Director Mark Casey.
14
15 I. APPROVAL OF JUNE 10, 2014, H.R.A. AGENDA.
16
17 Motion by Commissioner Gray, seconded by Commissioner Jenson, to approve the June 10,
18 2014, Housing and Redevelopment Authority Agenda as presented.
19
20 Motion carried unanimously.
21 II. CONSENT AGENDA.
22
23 Motion by Commissioner Roth, seconded by Commissioner Gray, to approve the Consent
24 Agenda, which consisted of:
25
26 A. H.R.A. Meeting Minutes of May 13, 2014; and
27 B. Claims.
28 Motion carried unanimously.
29
30 II1. PUBLIC HEARINGS — NONE.
31
32 IV. GENERAL POLICY BUSINESS OF THE H.R.A. — NONE.
33
34 V. STAFF REPORTS — NONE.
35
36 VI. H.R.A. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS — NONE.
37
38 VII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS — NONE.
39
40 VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
41
42 Chair Faust adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m.
43
44 Respectfully submitted,
45 Barbara Hughes (TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.)
46
z
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK
City of St Anthony Village CITY OF ST ANTHONY HRA CHECK REGISTER
Check Issue Dates: 7/9/2014 - 7/9/2014
Vendor Number
Page: 1
Jul 02, 2014 01:05PM
Payee Check Number Check Issue Date Amount
10180
BOND TRUST SERVICES CORPORATION
23829
07/09/2014
650.00
10461
EHLERS 8 ASSOCIATES, INC.
23830
07/09/2014
615.00
10726
INLAND REAL ESTATE CORPORATION
23831
07/09/2014
2,969.17
11715
WELLS FARGO BANK MACN9303-121
23832
07/09/2014
400.00
12009
MINNESOTA UTILITIES AND EXCAVATING
23833
07/09/2014
355,233.29
Grand Totals: 359,867.46
THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK